Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[Mattachine]

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)

Though we disagree on much, this I agree with. One of the things that makes D&D "feel" like D&D is strong archetypes. As someone who runs an RPG club at a school, strong archetypes attract new players and make it easier for them to begin to roleplay.

Still, strong archetypes do not have to enforce classes that are only good in one or two of three areas.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Agree completely. I dislike the breadth of the 3e wizard, cleric and druid's spell selection, and it gets even worse when splatbooks are added. There are three problems:
1) Magic becomes too powerful.
2) The omni-casters are flavourless.
3) Choosing spells for the day slows the game down.

Replace wizards with sorcerers and give druids and clerics a sorcerer-style spontaneous casting system, say I.

It should be noted that in 1974 OD&D this problem didn't arise because the magic-user/cleric spell selection was much more limited. It's the need to publish more and more material, increasing the spell list, that has broken these classes.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Though we disagree on much, this I agree with. One of the things that makes D&D "feel" like D&D is strong archetypes. As someone who runs an RPG club at a school, strong archetypes attract new players and make it easier for them to begin to roleplay.

Still, strong archetypes do not have to enforce classes that are only good in one or two of three areas.

I agree that strong archetypes need to be there. I disagree strenuously with any suggestion that they need to be hardwired primarily into classes.

Your class(es) should heavily inform the archetype, but it should not determine it. For example, if you start out picking "wizard", you are going to be much more interested in casting spells and staying out of melee than a fighter (a bit of understatement there ). The trouble starts when we lean too heavily on the particular archetypes embodied in early D&D (or selective literature) as the archetypes. This is where we get wizards that can't swing a sword or sneak worth a darn or even swim very well.

Ideally, you'd have other bits that also inform but not determine archetype like, oh I don't know, themes. Then the combination of these elements pretty much would determine your archetype. If you picked a more traditional, bookish theme and other such elements, your wizard will fit the early D&D archetype.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As a DM, I know the characters my players envision: the most powerful fighter, the most powerful wizard, the most powerful cleric.

Then I'm glad that I don't play with the same players you do.

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.

You know, this is the first time I've heard that the 4e fighter who gets up in your face and keeps you off everyone else is more generic than the 3e fighter, let alone the 2e fighter. The 4e warlock is dripping with flavour. There's a world of difference between the 4e Invoker and the 4e Cleric - and because of this both have far more flavour than the 3e cleric.

 

[hanez]

Still, strong archetypes do not have to enforce classes that are only good in one or two of three areas.

Correct.

But differentiation in competence in social settings, exploration and combat was something that differentiated classes by default. Fighters were by defualt bad at charming the king, then a bard would be.

Alignment also helped differentiate classes, Paladins had to follow their dieties faith, Druids used to have to be true neutral or they'd lose their abilities, rogues could act anyway they wanted.

Weird/interesting restrictions or bonusses used to also define classes. Druids and used to have to fight other druids, fighter used to get followers by default, wizards used to get familiars by default.

Spells used to be the domain of spellcasters, now rituals can be accessed by any class. (the powers arguably don't differentiate any class as they are all in the same format and frequency).

The strength of an Archetype falls on a spectrum. But if characters are balanced equally in combat, exploration and social settings. If many of the things that used to differentiate classes become options available to any class. If combat is very balanced number wise, and the only difference in characters is there "combat role". Then I would argue that you are moving towards weak archetypes or a classless system.

Dont get me wrong theres nothing wrong with choice. I like the possibility that in 5e, classes will be "pre customized" and there may be mods to re customize them yourself, I would be a fan of that. I also would like many classes so your choice might be to choose another class that is closer to what your looking for. What I am opposed to is flavourless classes, as I seen the effect that that has on my game.

 

[hanez]

You know, this is the first time I've heard that the 4e fighter who gets up in your face and keeps you off everyone else is more generic than the 3e fighter, let alone the 2e fighter. The 4e warlock is dripping with flavour. There's a world of difference between the 4e Invoker and the 4e Cleric - and because of this both have far more flavour than the 3e cleric.

Fighter was always a very generic class. I would argue that it should be broken up into multiple classes. At the very least a simple, at will type fighter, a more complex "stunts based" 4e style fighter, along with the barbarian as well"/

I have never played with the invoker as it wasnt in the first PH. I agree with the warlock though, was one of my favorite 3e classes (in splat), and I liked it in 4e.

Also differentiation based on combat role may be less relevant to my less combat focussed game.

If this is the first time you've heard that 4e classes felt generic to some, then I just don't know how to respond to that, we can just leave that issue be.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Let me try a different angle: If the way you show that a given class is good at X is by making sure that most everyone else sucks at it, then there is something fundamentally wrong with your design.

Of course, D&D has never been quite that bad, in any version. It has been known to define "good at X" in such a way that it didn't leave much room between "not quite that good" and "merely decent" and "stinks to high heaven".

It's almost as if someone said, "We can't let the fighter have good things, because then we'd have to give everyone else good things too. Oh well, let's give everyone one good thing, and they can make do with that." Then they level, and you hand them another piece. I picture Oliver asking for another bowl of gruel.

A key element of design that game designers seem to miss over and over again is that if you define a scale ranging from, say, 1 to 10, define "good" as "2"--then you aren't leaving much room for difference. This seems particular endemic in class/level games, because they can gloss over it with levels.

 

[Rhenny]

In my opinion, "balance" should attempt to eliminate (or diminish) player obsession with min/max to create the uber PC. With many players there really are very few choices in previous editions if all the player wants is "the most powerful" PC.

Balance should include an attempt to mix it up so that there really is no way to min/max. I don't know how to do that, but professional game designers should no how.

Balance should make it so that each PC is heroic, yet flawed, and equally able to contribute in some way (even if it is small) whether it's in combat, exploration or a social situation.

If Abilities in 5e will be the basis for most actions/skill checks, this may help. If classes and backgrounds add to ability focus, the Bard will be better at social situations, but in a party without a Bard, a fighter may still be "ok" at a social interaction. That's balance. Balance should not mandate that a party has to be optimized to be able to do well in combat, exploration and social situations.

 

[Hussar]

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.

However, how is it better to enforce someone to be the party gimp by virtue of the class he takes? That's what happened in 3e with it's strongly tiered classes. You had the casters on top, the fighter types in the middle, and the rogue, monk and bard sucking hind mammary.

Why should archetype dictate that?

Why should the fact that I'm good with a sword mean that I can never be the party face? Why should being able to find traps mean that I'm not a whole lot better than a commoner in melee? This is what I'm talking about when I talk about balancing apples with oranges.

I should be able to make a decent pirate captain or knight with a fighter. I could do so in AD&D simply because so much of the non-combat stuff was just free form. I can do so in 4e because classes are not balanced between combat and non-combat. 3e? Not so much. We recently had a thread about making a pirate captain with a fighter. By 7th level, he still couldn't sail out of sight of land without getting lost regularly.

That's not right.

 

[hanez]

Of course, D&D has never been quite that bad, in any version. It has been known to define "good at X" in such a way that it didn't leave much room between "not quite that good" and "merely decent" and "stinks to high heaven"..

Good point. The range of usefulness in different areas can be expanded without making cookie cutter same characters. Its not an either or thing.