Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[Tony Vargas]

I think his use of the word primary objective is fair. After all its a reaction to the last edition which can had balance as a primary objective at the expense of other large swaths of the enterprise.

Balance as 'primary objective' is both exagerating it, and overlooking it's importance. Balance isn't something that makes a game great when present, it's something that makes a game aweful when absent. Balanced games can still have boring settings, uninspired concepts, and generally suck. Balance is necessary to making a good game, but not sufficient.

It's like safety in an automobile. It's hard to sell a car on safety, alone (this care doesn't move, it's /reeeeallly/ safe!), but producing a death trap will get you sued.

You can't make balance a primary, let alone sole, objective. But you can't compromise on it, either.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And I am a fan of the rotating spotlight. In the end all I am arguing for is a couple classes to maintain that non combat focus to remind DMs and the company of an aspect of the game that it seems only Paizo cares to remember. Plus the trickery needed to redefine an illusionist into an equivalent combat character is not something I particularly want to see, I'd much prefer just telling the player who wants to be better in combat to choose some other spells next level then reworking an entire school into soemthing that doesnt feel right (or deleting it).

And as I have mentioned, there is a wide range in how combat focussed characters are. My current bard can just about fight. And does something useful each round. But he has about half the damage output of the slayer, and about two thirds of the damage output of the knight - even before the knight's battle guardian is taken into account. He also has only about three quarters of their hit points. His AC is the lowest in the whole party. Yes he contributes - but in combat he is far and away the weakest of the four PCs in the party.

On the flipside, out of combat he rocks. He has an incredibly broad range of effective skills, and is both a social manipulator and loremaster (and the party's second best sneak).

Also for out of combat ability, a 4e thief can kick the arse of a pathfinder rogue. 8+Int skill points per level to spend on Pathfinder skills is not a match for seven 4e skills. At level 10 a 4e thief has more feats than a pathfinder one (and yes, not all 4e feats are combat feats). And as for rogue talents, they are competing with utility powers. Most 10th level 4e thieves have a climb speed - worth at least a trick (the nearest PF trick is "Wall Scramble" which merely allows them to roll twice for climbs). They all have three utility powers - again worth a trick each at the very least. (And that's not taking combat tricks into account - for instance 4e thieves get the equivalent of surprise attacks for free).

Also for out of combat ability, try comparing fighters. 2+Int skill points/level vs 3 trained skills. Doesn't look that one sided until you realise that climb, jump, and swim are all under the same skill in 4e. Fighters, too, get utility powers.

Out of combat, 4e non-casters almost invariably have more utility and flexibility than remotely equivalent Pathfinder non-casters.

The idea that 4e ignores non-combat is simple misinformation. Please stop repeating it.

i have a problem with a system that doesnt allow me to make the choice of what I'd rather have. (4e does this by only allowing you to take utility spells at certain levels, not to mention rituals) I see the addition of the powers you reference as a good thing, but not in a way that it totally removes the non combat options as well.

What are you objecting to about rituals? And yes, 4e doesn't allow you to dump everything into non-combat.

Balance as 'primary objective' is both exagerating it, and overlooking it's importance. Balance isn't something that makes a game great when present, it's something that makes a game aweful when absent.
...
You can't make balance a primary, let alone sole, objective. But you can't compromise on it, either.

QFT. Balance is information. A balanced game is one that does what it says it does on the tin. If you want casters to dominate the game, pitch yourself like Ars Magica. That casters are more powerful and lay that out clearly, explicitely, and repeatedly.

 

[hanez]

I have watched the tables swing about what we are arguing about in this discussion over and over. One minute I can swap out wizard combat powers for non combat powers, next I can ask my DM, and finally it doesnt matter just because you can't dump EVERYTHING into non-combat, (as if control over a wizards spells/powers is a lot to ask in D&D.)

I mention a bards/rogues having the ability to CHOOSE to focus on noncombat at the expense of combat (as was a traditional choice), but all of a sudden I have to compare ability to pathfinder, as if that has anything to do with the discussion.

The designers made an intentional choice to silo off the areas in the game, this was new, this was intended, this was advertised as great design, this helped bring more balance the game, and of course it effected choice. You might like it, I didn't, I am not alone.

And as to this comment

The idea that 4e ignores non-combat is simple misinformation. Please stop repeating it.

After I play and DM a game for a couple years I can choose to make any statement I like about it, thank you.


Edit - since you asked my objection to rituals is simple, it further silos the game. It says here this combat thing is pefectly balanced, so dont touch it, but you have all these rituals. That seems like great design, for a new game. But for D&D, its less choice. I liked as a player finding ways to use a utility spell in combat, and I liked finding ways to use combat spells out of combat, I see no need to seperate them, unless of course I am playing a war game, Im not. I'm not a fan of combat as a seperate game as written, the encounter powers etc, it just feels like a cue to break out the minis in a way that I've never experienced. And most if not all the changes, seem to me like they were made to achieve combat balance (as well as simpler rules for new players)

 

[Starfox]

I dislike the idea.

I recall back in 1E times, a DM sets a campaign and says "you are all 5th level". So, I want to play a Thief and start at only 50% of the xp of the fighter while we are both 5th level (proportions taken out of memory, but they were BAD).

 

[hanez]

I dislike the idea.

I recall back in 1E times, a DM sets a campaign and says "you are all 5th level". So, I want to play a Thief and start at only 50% of the xp of the fighter while we are both 5th level (proportions taken out of memory, but they were BAD).

I dislike it too. Seperate leveling was a bother. And your DM should have given you XP under that system, not level.... Still I much prefer common experience totals.

Lately when I DM, I level the group as a whole instead of giving out XP, at the end of the adventure, they all gain a level or something. Just started to get annoying when someone was 1000 xp away from a level and wanted to go kill a few more orcs before we left. Only con to this is that its harder to give story awards, but now I just have NPCs do that with GP/items and we have one less thing to track.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have watched the tables swing about what we are arguing about in this discussion over and over. One minute I can swap out wizard combat powers for non combat powers, next I can ask my DM, and finally it doesnt matter just because you can't dump EVERYTHING into non-combat, (as if control over a wizards spells/powers is a lot to ask in D&D.)

You can choose to put a lot into non-combat. Or into combat. You can't do it for everything. This is a case of creep from your side. My bard isn't a great combatant. And lazy warlords are ... interesting things.

But IMO one of the biggest flaws in any pre-4e version of D&D is quite how much control they have over their spells. That one day they can be 75% combat evoker, and the next day they can have no evocation or combat spells prepared at all. I think that historic D&D is the only magic system that allows you to almost entirely refit your character's options on the fly like this.

I mention a bards/rogues having the ability to CHOOSE to focus on noncombat at the expense of combat (as was a traditional choice),

As they do. As I have demonstrated they do. What they don't have is exclusive focus.

but all of a sudden I have to compare ability to pathfinder, as if that has anything to do with the discussion.

No. Pathfinder came up because you made the mendacious edition war claim that "non combat focus ... an aspect of the game that it seems only Paizo cares to remember". Unless you had some other meaning to Paizo than Pathfinder then it was you making the claim here.

You brought Paizo up. You made the comparison. To then claim that it was brought up all of a sudden is true. But it was brought up by you - and with a claim that isn't true.

Now I'll accept that PF has more non-combat spells than 4e. But that's magic. And 3.X has more magic in general than 4e.

After I play and DM a game for a couple years I can choose to make any statement I like about it, thank you.

And as I have demonstrated, 4e non-casters whether fighters or rogues have more non-combat utility than their 3.X equivalents if they choose to. If you play 4e as if it was Encounters then yes you get that. But that is strictly a matter of DMing style. If you DMd as if it was about combat then it is.

Edit - since you asked my objection to rituals is simple, it further silos the game. It says here this combat thing is pefectly balanced, so dont touch it, but you have all these rituals. That seems like great design, for a new game. But for D&D, its less choice. I liked as a player finding ways to use a utility spell in combat, and I liked finding ways to use combat spells out of combat, I see no need to seperate them, unless of course I am playing a war game, Im not.

The problem it was reacting to was that 3.X is the casters edition of D&D. Casters walk all over non-casters and do whatever they want to the game. And there's a reason that the whole of the tier 1 and 2 classes in 3.X are casters - and the only one of these that doesn't get 9th level spells is the Artificer. Wizards and druids can break the game in half with no material other than the PHB (and MM1).

I'm not a fan of combat as a seperate game as written, the encounter powers etc, it just feels like a cue to break out the minis in a way that I've never experienced. And most if not all the changes, seem to me like they were made to achieve combat balance (as well as simpler rules for new players)

The disconnect there is a valid criticism. As for the changes, lots of them were made to rein in the monstrous things you can do with spellcasters in 3.X.

And I like rituals - they are much more like Appendix N than so-called "Vancian" casting, they allow entire character concepts that were very difficult to do in previous editions and can be used creatively without being snap of fingers stuff.

 

[Hussar]

I mention a bards/rogues having the ability to CHOOSE to focus on noncombat at the expense of combat (as was a traditional choice), but all of a sudden I have to compare ability to pathfinder, as if that has anything to do with the discussion.

You did not argue for choice. You emphatically stated that illusionist should not be able to deal as much damage as other classes. You specifically stated that certainly classes should be weaker in combat from baseline design and that the player who wants to play that class must choose to be weaker in combat.

The counter point to this is, if you design a class that is capable of doing both, the player can then choose on his own which he wants to focus on. Or possibly both if he so chooses.

I'm not a big fan of the game designers telling me that my rogue gets to ride the pines just because they don't feel that my character should be able to contribute in combat because he's just so good at finding traps.

That's the kind of balance that we had in AD&D. 3e went a long way to get rid of that kind of balance and 4e pretty much rejected it entirely. I really hope it stays ejected.

It is not up to the game designers to make my character unique. That's my job as a player.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It is not up to the game designers to make my character unique. That's my job as a player.

I'd qualify that slightly back towards hanez' view as, "It's the job of the game designers to give you good tools so that you can make your character unique."

"Good" is the operative word there, implying that the tools are flexible enough to get any reasonable person what they want, but focused enough to work simply without leading you into some kind of trap. Not that making such tools is easy, which is why they get paid the big bucks.

 

[hanez]

Originally Posted by Hussar
It is not up to the game designers to make my character unique. That's my job as a player.

I actually have to disagree with this statement even though it seems to be obvious at first glance, I don't believe that attitude will lead to a high success of engaging new and casual players in D&D.

As a DM, I know the characters my players envision: the most powerful fighter, the most powerful wizard, the most powerful cleric. Rarely do they go beyond that. Of the ten or so people I play with in groups, only 2 or so put a lot of thought into making interesting, different characters. Most just concentrate of the damage they make. But, lots of them take cues from the rules. So we've had druids in 2e whose mission was to defeat the Arch druid (as was a rule in 2e), in 3e we've had noble unbending paladins because the rules threatened to turn them into fighters if not, we've had frail wizards (combination of raistlin, and the weakness of losing spell books), and we've had maniacal barbarians (cued from the rage power).

As a DM I know, that when a class is presented with interesting rules, mechanics, and specific drawbacks that the players often take those cues and run with them because they have little else to run with besides the occasional cliche.

Conversely, I know what happened to my players with the more generic classes in 4e, it lead to more generic characters.


I would say providing classes with strong archetypes has been long been one of the central draws of D&D, its also one of the things that engages new players the most. New players know what a fighter, or a mage is and can understand there place in the game MUCH more then in classless roleplaying systems that allow players a high degree of customization (like GURPS or even Rolemaster). These systems have been around for a long time, but the archetype class system has been very successful (e.g. its present in most online rpgs)

For experienced roleplayers, who roleplay frequently and visit forums I would agree, its your job to make interesting and unique characters. But to expect that from new, and casual players, will just lead to mini battles without motivation, or even the knowledge that there SHOULD be motivation.

So in my view, to make MY game better, it is the D&D game designers job to make classes that lead to interesting characters. Strong archetypes, with strong weaknesses, and defining strengths, with interesting cues (like a druid having to defeat an arch druid, or a paladins code). If the player wants to take those interesting cues and change them, or expand them, the rules should encourage that (and not restrict that). But absent anything like that, we just have a stale mini combat game for most new and casual players. Whether the stale mini combat game will be successful, I don't clain to know, but my belief is that it is not D&D.

 

[BobTheNob]

It is not up to the game designers to make my character unique. That's my job as a player.

Yes, but its not a conclusive statement. The system still needs to support you in the endevour. When a system rewards you for NOT being unique, then forcing a unique character inevitably results in a sub par character.

Its like the whole "in 4e you could make the character whatever you want, nothings stopping you". Yea, nothings stopping you except you end up in the inglorious position of being the party gimp.

Yes, the definition of a characters uniqueness comes from the player, but its up to the system to allow him to revel in that rather than punishing him for it.