Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[Neonchameleon]

That is not an argument either of us can win. I agree that 4e presents choice to your group. To me, it does not. The idea that everyone has the same amount of powers, has powers at all, can use the powers at the same rate, and gains powers at the same rate, is the opposite of choice to me.

To me that's framework, not choice. The choice is about the conceptually different options that work effectively. But agreed no one is going to win.

I have a guy who comes to my session and always plays a dwarven fighter. He never updates his sheet so I do it for him. He plays a simple, fun character and he mostly just describes what he wants to do without knowing the rules, hes an awesome player to have. 4e took AWAY his choice to run a character without lists of powers.

And this is one reason I'm very glad Essentials was produced. For all I'm not touching a Slayer with a ten foot bargepole for myself, I'm very glad it's there. Just as long as you don't take away my Come-And-Get-It tactical wizard fighters.

 

[hanez]

And this is one reason I'm very glad Essentials was produced. For all I'm not touching a Slayer with a ten foot bargepole for myself, I'm very glad it's there. Just as long as you don't take away my Come-And-Get-It tactical wizard fighters.

And I am glad that essentials was produced also. The fact that classes like that were not in the core said something about what they thought the nature of D&D was, and what they thought D&Ds fans wanted from the game. I also see the the fact that essentials type classes were not in the core was essentially a balance decision. I remember reading an article quoting specifically the difficulty in balancing an at will type class with a daily type class, and it was presented with the argument that that imbalance is why it is no longer a part of D&D. I see essentials as a reverse in direction, even if it was too little too late for my group.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

By working together I meant to create a fun story where everyone is the hero and has a good night, preferably with nachos and popcorn, not lets all craft codzilla so we can help to make a better "team". If you had house games where everyone played "a caster of some type or a really power gamed fighting class", then they were really different then mine.

Oh, my players want a fun story. But to them, a fun story is one that they win. And preferably win in such an extravagant way that they can laugh about it afterwards. Like the time there were a bunch of bad guys out looking for them and they needed to gather some information. So the Wizard dominated a random person on the street and forced him to gather the information for them so that the bad guys couldn't find them.

They were super happy because it was obvious the DM didn't think about the fact that they could do that and planned a bunch of combats around the fact that they'd have to walk into a building and get ambushed.

Whether or not they represent the majority, I am tring to say that something that is imbalanced in one type of play, may be a feature in another. And an edition that caters to one style, may be unacceptable for another.

I disagree that imbalance is ever a good thing. If you have a system that says:

Pick Any One of these options:
1. 60% chance of 10 damage to a single target at-will, 35% chance of doing 10 to another one
2. 40% chance of 5 damage to a single target at-will, 10 more damage if you are behind someone
3. 20% chance of doing 5 damage 3 times
4. Your choice of any 20 of this list of 200 abilities: Some examples are "100% chance of 20 damage to everyone within a 30 foot radius", "Turn invisible for 10 hours", "Stop all enemies within a 40 foot radius from moving more than 5 feet every 6 seconds while doing 5 damage each 6 seconds they stay in the area", "Turn into any of the 500 monsters listed in this book", and "The ability to make someone do anything you want for the next 24 hours"
5. Your choice of any 20 of this list of 200 abilities: Some examples are "Restore someone to full health", "Bring someone back to life", "Make a weapon +5 to hit and damage for a whole day", "Give yourself the ability to have a 75% chance to do 15 damage to a single target at will, and 50% chance of doing 15 to another one every round for 15 rounds", and "100% chance to do 15 damage to all enemies in a 20 foot radius"

Most people with any sense don't pick the first 3. And it isn't good in any game to give that out as a choice. I can't imagine a playstyle where giving 3 really bad options and 2 really good ones makes the game better.

Which is why I try really hard to imagine a game where people purposefully pick those options AND think that it's balanced.

 

[billd91]

Pick Any One of these options:
1. 60% chance of 10 damage to a single target at-will, 35% chance of doing 10 to another one
2. 40% chance of 5 damage to a single target at-will, 10 more damage if you are behind someone
3. 20% chance of doing 5 damage 3 times
4. Your choice of any 20 of this list of 200 abilities: Some examples are "100% chance of 20 damage to everyone within a 30 foot radius", "Turn invisible for 10 hours", "Stop all enemies within a 40 foot radius from moving more than 5 feet every 6 seconds while doing 5 damage each 6 seconds they stay in the area", "Turn into any of the 500 monsters listed in this book", and "The ability to make someone do anything you want for the next 24 hours"
5. Your choice of any 20 of this list of 200 abilities: Some examples are "Restore someone to full health", "Bring someone back to life", "Make a weapon +5 to hit and damage for a whole day", "Give yourself the ability to have a 75% chance to do 15 damage to a single target at will, and 50% chance of doing 15 to another one every round for 15 rounds", and "100% chance to do 15 damage to all enemies in a 20 foot radius"

Most people with any sense don't pick the first 3. And it isn't good in any game to give that out as a choice. I can't imagine a playstyle where giving 3 really bad options and 2 really good ones makes the game better.

Actually, a lot of people with a lot of sense do pick those first three because it's the character they want to play. If this were a game just of tabletop miniature mechanics, then those first three can be pretty easily dominated by judicious selection from the later ones. But it's not. People play fighters because they want to play fighters, not just because they can tweak the DPS really high. People play wizards because they want to play wizards, not just because they can pump their save DCs high enough to drive some encounter-ending spells. And, believe it or not, people actually play bards and monks. Shocking, I know, to certain viewpoints that choose not to see past the numbers, past the worst-case scenarios, and past the optimization guides.

 

[Mattachine]

Actually, a lot of people with a lot of sense do pick those first three because it's the character they want to play. If this were a game just of tabletop miniature mechanics, then those first three can be pretty easily dominated by judicious selection from the later ones. But it's not. People play fighters because they want to play fighters, not just because they can tweak the DPS really high. People play wizards because they want to play wizards, not just because they can pump their save DCs high enough to drive some encounter-ending spells. And, believe it or not, people actually play bards and monks. Shocking, I know, to certain viewpoints that choose not to see past the numbers, past the worst-case scenarios, and past the optimization guides.

We understand that, Bill D--actually, we already assume that.

The problem is that when someone wants to play the heroic fighter, wuxia monk, or crazy skill monkey gets completely outshone and shown up by the wizard, cleric, or druid.

If the game is going to have some classes that are pretty limited, and others that are not, and classes that are good at combat, and others that are amazing, the rules need to state those facts. Be up front.

At least AD&D made no secret of the fact that wizards attain the highest level of power (compared to other classes). In other editions* that was still true, but left unsaid.


*BECMI allowed everyone to become a god, in the end, and in 3e one could argue that cleric got more powerful (because of miracle or even the druid (because of wild shape and animal companion).

 

[MichaelSomething]

And, believe it or not, people actually play bards and monks. Shocking, I know, to certain viewpoints that choose not to see past the numbers, past the worst-case scenarios, and past the optimization guides.

You know you can make a very powerful Bard with enough splat. By level 3, you can have the Bard's Inspire Courage ability give +4 to hit and damage!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Shocking, I know, to certain viewpoints that choose not to see past the numbers, past the worst-case scenarios, and past the optimization guides.

That would be ok if you have to work to break it and get to those worst-case scenarios, while normal people are just picking what sounds good and knowing that it will be roughly ok. But when you have to work hard, to avoid the risk of accidently breaking it, it is royally screwed up. And saying that, "the DM can deal with all your royally screwed up characters if he really wants to," isn't an answer either.

My players can work hard to have such characters. I can work hard to deal with them so they don't need to do that. Thing is, all of us want to play. That others find some of this necessary work sufficiently fruitful or outright entertaining in its own right, is great. I'm happy for them.

We had a player that had a 3E bard for awhile (at launch, well prior to the 3.5 cleanup on aisle 12). She liked the concept just fine, thank you, and wasn't interested in optimizing. Keeping the character worth a flip wasn't worth the hassle it took to keep it that way, for her or me.

Shocking, I know, to certain viewpoints that choose to just fudge out the inconsistencies and pretend the system works as advertised.

 

[billd91]

That would be ok if you have to work to break it and get to those worst-case scenarios, while normal people are just picking what sounds good and knowing that it will be roughly ok. But when you have to work hard, to avoid the risk of accidently breaking it, it is royally screwed up. And saying that, "the DM can deal with all your royally screwed up characters if he really wants to," isn't an answer either.

My players can work hard to have such characters. I can work hard to deal with them so they don't need to do that. Thing is, all of us want to play. That others find some of this necessary work sufficiently fruitful or outright entertaining in its own right, is great. I'm happy for them.

This is a totally backward perspective in my experience. People work at optimizing the hell out of characters, they pour over DPS calculations, they scour sourcebooks for advantages, they spend time digging through spell lists, writing up levels' worth of fussy builds, and calculating stacking modifiers through standard buff strategies. None of that comes easy or without effort.

It takes work to break the 3e branch of D&D.

 

[TwinBahamut]

This is a totally backward perspective in my experience. People work at optimizing the hell out of characters, they pour over DPS calculations, they scour sourcebooks for advantages, they spend time digging through spell lists, writing up levels' worth of fussy builds, and calculating stacking modifiers through standard buff strategies. None of that comes easy or without effort.

It takes work to break the 3e branch of D&D.

Err... If you work at breaking 3E, you get madness like Pun-Pun, the kobold with infinite stats at some absurdly low level (3-7). You get builds that deal enough damage to destroy every particle in the universe. You get builds that allow a character to take an infinite number of actions. You builds that let a character move at nearly the speed of light. You get crazy stuff like the Nano-Bots aid another gimmick. In others words, if you actually put effort into breaking 3E, you REALLY break it. This goes beyond just the normal level of broken imbalance into comedy and insanity.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This is a totally backward perspective in my experience. People work at optimizing the hell out of characters, they pour over DPS calculations, they scour sourcebooks for advantages, they spend time digging through spell lists, writing up levels' worth of fussy builds, and calculating stacking modifiers through standard buff strategies. None of that comes easy or without effort.

It takes work to break the 3e branch of D&D.

So wait. Let me get this straight. My experience is heavily of people who just want to make a character roughly fit their concept, not overshadowing someone else in the party, because we are all just friends having a good time. Your experience is of people that work hard to break it, which they then post on the internet so that other people can use the broken results without doing the work.

Yet, not having seen people just play 3E without doing this, you are sure that it doesn't accidently break. Your so sure, that you saw fit to imply that people like me looking into this on behalf of their groups could only be doing so because they weren't interested in real roleplaying.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a gap in your experience, that makes your guesses of why some other people do certain things, not terribly accurate.