I dont think anyone is arguing for classes to be worse overall then eachother. I certainly think the goal should be to make each class equally powerful and equally enticing with respect to the game. (I do however think classes should be allowed to be better/worse in different areas in the game)
Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game
- Thread starter Crazy Jerome
- Start date
I dont think anyone is arguing for classes to be worse overall then eachother. I certainly think the goal should be to make each class equally powerful and equally enticing with respect to the game. (I do however think classes should be allowed to be better/worse in different areas in the game)
Crazy Jerome
First Post
It's ironic to me, that 4E, with its generally more competent 1st level characters, has more room than most versions to support some modest combat imbalance at low levels. This would be even more true if it were expected, and thus the starting monsters were toned down to match.
This is kind of the reverse of the 3E wizard and prestige class problem, where the prestige classes had trouble functioning properly, because the wizard didn't have anything much to give up but his spells. In contrast, the 1st level 4E wizard has enough combat ability that he could (if a particular wizard player desired it) give up some of it for exploration or interaction abilities, and still be able to function better in combat than wizards in many earlier editions.
This is kind of the reverse of the 3E wizard and prestige class problem, where the prestige classes had trouble functioning properly, because the wizard didn't have anything much to give up but his spells. In contrast, the 1st level 4E wizard has enough combat ability that he could (if a particular wizard player desired it) give up some of it for exploration or interaction abilities, and still be able to function better in combat than wizards in many earlier editions.
Neonchameleon
Legend
It was also the case that pre-3e, wizards (a) needed to find their spells, (b) couldn't necessarily learn them from any book and (c) had a limited number they could know at any given level. Which would restrict although not come close to eliminating the impacts of bloat.
Ah. A lot of the problems perceived in 4e are down to the PHB1 honestly not being that good a book (and neither is the MM1). The classes are generic rather than inspiring (with the exception of the Warlock) which has the advantage that they cover much more territory than more narrowly defined ones would. They even screwed up the flavour of the wizard - who the hell cares whether you're a staff, a wand, or an orb wizard? This has been corrected in Essentials which has almost exactly the same rules but Essentials mages get to choose a school of magic - so you get Evokers, Enchanters, Illusionists, Pyromancers, Necromancers, and Nethermancers. They've done something similar to the Paladin in making the Cavalier version in Essentials; Paladins are now defined by their virtue. There are two published virtues - Cavaliers of Valour (may not be evil) and Cavaliers of Sacrifice (must be Lawful Good). (Blackguards are defined by their vice, with there being Blackguards of Tyranny and Blackguards of Wrath)
It was the PHB 2 classes that got me into 4e. Much more flavoursome than the PHB 1 - and you're being unfair enough to compare 4e with just the PHB to 3.X with many years of splatbooks. My first ever 4e character was the 3 level preview of the Bard before the PHB2 was even out - the Vicious Mockery at will being on its own enough to sell me on the class.
You picked the Barbarian as an example. 4e Barbarian rages rock - they are the Barbarian's power, but how Barbarians rage differs from Barbarian to Barbarian. Some simply get stronger and faster. Others are so metal that they call to the heavens, and the heavens answer with thunder and lightning, and physically drive people back with the force of their battlecries. Or they summon the spirits of mighty beasts to empower them - which can be just strength, or you can summon the spirit of something like the phoenix. Compared to the 4e Barbarian, the 3.X one feels bland and narrow.
No it isn't. It's simply a class by class comparison shows this to be incredibly dubious. If you compare the 4e PHB to the 3e PHB, the 3e PHB appears to have one high-flavour class; the Paladin. The 4e PHB one can't match this - but in reply the 4e PHB has the Warlock. I'll match ranger to ranger, rogue to rogue, cleric to cleric, wizard to wizard and sorceror, warlord to 3e bard, fighter to fighter, and 4e paladin to 3e barbarian. At this point, PHB to PHB I think 4e has a significant edge on flavour by class - but it's close when you throw in the overlap caused by having the druid, the monk, the bard, and the separate wizard and sorceror classes. However you don't have seven years of splatbooks supporting the 4e PHB in the way you do the 3e PHB. (The 2e PHB from what I recall doesn't even have extra classes - 1e has the monk, the assassin, and the fighting to level up approach).
Then we throw in the PHB 2. Invoker. Shaman. Avenger. Bard. Barbarian. Sorceror. Druid (shapeshifter/caster - there are currently three 4e druids because the 3.X one was so wide - the shapeshifter/caster, the caster/summoner, and the healer with an animal companion). Warden. The first five of these classes absolutely drip with flavour - which they can afford to because we've got the generics out of the way in the PHB 1 (the generics being necessary for the game's breadth).
In order to make them equally powerful, the 3.X CoDzilla and wizard need seriously cutting back - and wizards shouldn't be able to do anything because "It's magic". And people are arguing against this.
Last edited:
I wont respond to most of your part of the statement because I havent gotten past the first couple of years of 4e, so I dont have much to refer to. But I would disagree that looking at both PHs the classes compare well for 4e. Its all from my point of view but in 3e the separate mechanics, the different ways things work from class to clas, the alignments, the different focuses on strengths, the fluff IN the text, all serve to make it something I would MUCH rather give to my players to create deeper PCs with. Thats just my opinion though.
As for CODzilla and the balance of 3e I would agree they were some problems, most of them are in my mind easy fixes without changing the structure of the class.
First I would remove scroll writing, and magic item creation, leave this up to a splat book or a DM. Or find some other way to do it so that a mage doesn't wander around with a chest of scrolls. This was beggin for a houserule in 3e.
Second any spell that makes a wizard a better fighter then a fighter needs to be removed or toned down, that include summoning and any type of transformations (I think Pathfinder did some work with this).
Third, I really like save or dies, they are an awesome part in an adventures, where the character tries something, and sometimes they work, but sometimes they dont. But I know there were builds that maximized your DC so that they always works. This needs to be fixed. I would think against a foe at equal level, a save or die, or save or blind type thing, the absolute MAX chance for success should be 50%. If the foe is lower level, it might go up but there needs to be some hard math work in making sure this isnt abused.
I'm less concerned about the fighter being a better rogue then a rogue, because the spells had to be memorized for this, and the wizard lost other power for it... but still it does encroach on the rogues area which could ruin some fun for a rogue player. In my campaign I solve this with magic being semi available, so the rogues dont worry about invisibility spell because they have a scroll if they wanted one. Still I could see some work toning this down a bit.
Other things I would include is:
-Spells fizling when they are hit, the concentration skill etc
-Spell book reliance, I like this traditional weakness of the class. Great story hooks and gives the fighter something to laugh at the wizard about while they search for his spellbook, (or while the wizard rebuilds his list). -Perhaps there can be some middle ground where the wizard remembers one per level or something, so that even if a spellbook is destroyed the wizard may still carry on. This may make the weakness useable in campaigns.
-memorizing spells. if you dont memorize the right spell you dont have it. and you must memorize all spells at rest
-adding the at will power (as an option) from 4e.
-Im of two minds of rituals. I like the intent, but I dont like the seperation in the book or in the game mechanics. I dont like them being accessible to every class, or how they are not really related to class spells/powers. I prefer all wizard spells being "spells". I would much prefer a mechanic for casting a "non combat spell in casting" E.g. this takes 3 rounds to cast, and your going to be vulnerable doing it. Having a way of saying that in the spell so that a wizard can still try it if they need to.
I also think some changes and options need to be brought to martial classes. 4e did well in this regard in many ways.
Last edited:
Neonchameleon
Legend
And mine is that good and evil by the definitions made little sense, and I don't see separate subsystems in 3.X, merely separate classes. There is only one serious separate subsystem - spellcasting. And that's not a separate subsystem - it's a subsystem that belongs to half the classes in the game meaning that the effect is "You must be this tall to ride". If you choose to pick a non-caster, you're locked out of about half the PHB.
If you want different mechanics for different things, it can work well - as in Feng Shui - but not as a class by class thing as it pretty much is in 3.X. In Feng Shui you have two types of special ability - Chi and "Gun Fu" - Chi's on a power point spell system and Gun Fu is more or less a feat system. But the thing about the separate specialties here is that everyone can use both. It's just very distinctive which you are using. And there's none of the "You need to be this tall to use this subsystem". An Old Master can spend XP on a gun schtick (and some of them work without guns) and Rambo can spend his XP on fu schticks (but doesn't have much chi to spend so should choose them wisely). It's class based, and has separate mechanics - but isn't confining.
(And yes, I only mentioned combat. That's because Feng Shui is a game about combat - it's an RPG for Hong Kong Martial Arts Movies.)
Agreed.
But what defines "Better fighter than a fighter"?
That wasn't the major problem. The major problem was that scaling was broken sideways so you really had to try at higher levels if you wanted a chance at resisting. Save or Die is for another time (I dislike it). But a wizard's attack against will scaled at close to a cleric's will defence as they both leveled up. The fighter's will defence started as poor and then got left in the dust.
You mean the wizard, not the fighter. But the problem was that the wizard didn't lose other power. He lost other power that day. And this is another problem with the wizard. Give him time and he's incredibly scary.
Different mechanics are necessary to create deeper PCs. That's an argument I've never been able to understand. Why are Runequest characters, Traveller characters, Dragon Age characters, GURPS/Hero/Heroquest/<insert any of a vast host of games> characters shallow because the mechanics don't work differently from one to another?
Different mechanics help differentiate players who. It gives them cues that they are different. Wizards need to memorize things and anticipate, so they need to act smart and thoughtful, fighters dont, so they can be cavalier and cocky. Wizards have to memorize the right spell or they are out of luck, fighters don't. This effects the way players play with the game piece and think about the game piece.
I don't think the mechanics are necessary to make deeper PCs, but it does help differentiate them. I listed some other things (alignment, restrictions bonuses etc) that give players hesitant to roleplay, cues to start with.
Rhenny
Adventurer
I agree with hanez about the differentiation of classes. D&D classes must be given unique mechanics to make them interesting. I think that's one reason why some people argue that 4e classes play too similarly (each class using "powers" pretty much the same way). The classes and races to some extent) in 4e that people like to play most seem to be the ones with unique mechanics or at least powers that give the PC a way to do something differently.
Looking back to original and basic D&D, each class had charts that defined specific actions for the class (i.e., spells per day, turning undead, thieving abilities, etc.). There was clear differentiation because each PC was a master in one specific field - without skill checks and skills this was even more apparent.
I'm not arguing that we should have charts to determine actions. That would be too cumbersome, and it would slow down play. Nor am I arguing against skill checks and cross-class skills. But I do see how the clearly differentiated mechanics make each class seem so different. Different mechanics do help players imagine and play the class with more gusto.
For that matter, different hit points, different armor/ac, and different to hit scores also helps to make each class play uniquely. (This may be too obvious, but I had to write it).
I wish I knew how to make sure that this unique feeling is a part of every class in 5e, but I'm not sure how. It may just begin with making sure that weapon combat is different from spell casting.
Looking back to original and basic D&D, each class had charts that defined specific actions for the class (i.e., spells per day, turning undead, thieving abilities, etc.). There was clear differentiation because each PC was a master in one specific field - without skill checks and skills this was even more apparent.
I'm not arguing that we should have charts to determine actions. That would be too cumbersome, and it would slow down play. Nor am I arguing against skill checks and cross-class skills. But I do see how the clearly differentiated mechanics make each class seem so different. Different mechanics do help players imagine and play the class with more gusto.
For that matter, different hit points, different armor/ac, and different to hit scores also helps to make each class play uniquely. (This may be too obvious, but I had to write it).
I wish I knew how to make sure that this unique feeling is a part of every class in 5e, but I'm not sure how. It may just begin with making sure that weapon combat is different from spell casting.
I must admit Im not sure how to interpret this. I said that a system needs to support players in creating unique characters and you opened with the response
"However, how is it better to enforce someone to be the party gimp by virtue of the class he takes?"...I never said that, I said it sux when the system makes you the gimp because you dared to be different.
I absolutely agree with everything you said, go create a fighter who is a pirate captain, please. Thats exactly what I want players to be able to do, and I want the system to support them doing it.
That was my point, a system that DOESNT punish people for stepping outside of the box, where characters can shine even if they don't conform to a cooky cutter design.
I might have to go back and read my post again, just to check I didnt give the opposite impression of what I intended to say.
Neonchameleon
Legend
This I literally do not understand.
The first tabletop roleplaying game I got into was GURPS. Classless.
I played Cyberpunk 2020 long before I played D&D - and each class in Cyberpunk has one single specialist skill that makes it different. That is all. And that was more than enough to differentiate a Rocker from a Corp or a Solo from a Techie.
In Leverage, there are five classes - Grifter, Hitter, Hacker, Mastermind, Thief. And literally the only mechanical difference between them is that the Hitter puts d10 into Hitter and then allocates d8, d6, d4, and d4 one each to the other four roles - while the Thief puts d10 into Thief and allocates the other dice to the other four roles.
Spirit of the Century is again classless. But the PCs really stand out. And my current WFRP game you can easily tell who's who despite careers rather than classes.
What is it about Dungeons and Dragons that needs completely different mechanics for different classes?
Human is the most popular race. And fighter the most popular class. WoTC released that much from their stats on the online character builder. Which would both tend to challenge your thesis. The ones talked about most are those that are inherently interesting rather than inherently flexible - but that is IME a reactive issue due to people erroneously claiming that all characters are the same.
To me a thief rolling percentile dice when a fighter rolls a stat check to climb a wall or a fighter rolling to hit when a wizard's target rolls to save is a distinction without a difference. On the other hand a wizard being able to create a small fireball with the ease a fighter swings his sword is a significant difference. And I just don't see the reverse point of view.
