Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[Neonchameleon]

Sure, I could have created a combat turkey in 4e if I really concentrated, but with 4e's focus on combat, that just made for a crap character. Thats not fun. What Im talking about is a way that I can create a character which is flavorful and doesnt get marginalized for it. For that to happen, the game needs to support you.

My current 4e character has 5 feats and 2 utility powers. These include Ritual Caster, Bard of All Trades, and Mounted Combat with the utility powers making streetwise cover all knowledge skills, and 1/day giving me superb knowledge.

Both our Slayer (with feats Heavy Blade Expertise, SWP: Fullblade, Weapon Focus: Fullblade, and a Barbarian multiclass) and our Dwarf Knight (with Dwarven Weapon Training, Axe Expertise, the Barbarian multiclass that doesn't give rage, and toughness) can beat him up with almost no trouble. But he is far more skillful out of combat than they are and not even slightly marginal.

This thing you want? It exists.

This sentence is so far from reality it makes me wonder if you ever played the game or if you had a rock for a DM. Do you mean a wizard could specialize to be the master in one or two of those areas, or could be the best in all the areas simultaneously?

The problem you miss is that the wizard could swap specialisations with a single night's rest. He can be the best in a couple of areas - then a few more the next day.

Removing player choices and marginalizing roleplaying focused characters

"roleplaying focused characters"

Apparently you don't roleplay in combat. And the ability to have higher numbers and special powers when you sling dice outside combat makes you "roleplaying focused".

Right. This appears to say more about your play than the beautifully played terrible saga writing barbarian who thought she could sing we had at my table.

Cookie cutter pcs which play and feel the same often results in players roleplaying the same.

Then I suggest you stop building your PCs to be cookie cutter PCs. No two 4e PCs I've built have been cookie cutter. Or 3e. 1e, yes. There isn't much mechanical difference between fighters. Or thieves. 2e, less so than 1e. But I see no reason at all to end up with cookie cutter PCs in WoTC D&D (either edition).

Some players also signifigant differentiantion between the rest of the party and they also need weaknesses as well as strengths to bring out RP.

And what do you consider a weakness? I can't think of any edition of D&D that inflicted serious weaknesses on the PCs.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think they should make purposely weak options for all you folks who don't like playing balanced games, so you can suck in combat as much as you like.

Then we'd all be happy!

The sad part is that there already *are* options in the game that you can select to make your character purposely weak. But heaven forbid anyone actually choose those options.

The problem here is entirely one of ego.

Players are afraid of looking like idiots.

Any player right now can EASILY make a roleplay-heavy character that is not focused on combat. Simple. Put your high ability scores in those that modify the skills you want to focus on instead of your attack mod, and use all your feat slots to take those "roleplaying" feats that help define your character.

But you know why most players don't do that? Because they are afraid other players are going to look at them funny because they are purposely gimping themselves. I mean come on... how many times do we hear people go on and on about they now HAVE to take all the "feat tax" feats, like Expertise and the defense feats, yadda yadda yadda? The fact that these feats are now in the game means that they are FORCED to take them, because otherwise they look like a noob player who can't build a character out of a paper bag.

Instead... these players would rather have the GAME ITSELF restrict everything so that they can build their PC as best as the game allows the character in the sub-optimal build to be... and have the personal satisfaction of running a "roleplaying-centric" character, but be the gosh-darned best roleplaying-centric character possible. If they can choose to play a sub-optimal concept but build it as optimally as possible... they get the best of both worlds. The "roleplay-centric" character that isn't just a combat-junkie cookie cutter... and the ego-massage of knowing that they took a bad concept and made it the best. After all... what does that say of their skills of playing the game if they can take a really bad option that the game system gives them, and make it actually somewhat functional? It means they're GREAT at this!

But when you make all options fairly balanced and good across-the-board... they can't do that anymore. They now have to choose to take less optimal options even when better ones exist, and deal with mental blow of knowing that other players might internally tsk-tsk them when the PC fails in a fight.

It's the same story all the time for some people. Just like the 'errata' issue. Better for it to not exist at all, then for it to be there and force the player to choose not use it (and thus look kind of foolish to other people in the process.)

 

[Danzauker]

I'd like they keep a lot of balance in classes in the next edition, in the sense tat I'd like EVERY class to be able to be on par in combat, if well built.

With that I mean by min-maxing feats, ability scores, themes, powers or whatever mechanic they decide to implement.

Similarly, I'd like they allow ANY class to be great in other areas of the game (social, exploration...).

I don't like the concept of "illusionist must suck in combat but be great outside that". I want to be able to buitd a combat effective illusionist or a socially effective fighter if I want, and I don't want to be forced to be a bard or an illusionist to be the diplomat of the party.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The idea that "roleplaying is what you do when you aren't in combat" is yet another reason that balance is elusive but still important. The failure to understand why this idea does not apply to all games is a severe disadvantage to discussing balance intelligently.

But I think the problem more generally is that plenty of people still tend to be resistant to any idea or even discussion that does not boil down to "balance for me, as I like it, but not for thee, as you play in some pedestrian manner not worthy of the trouble helping you might cause." Every argument of, "we don't need that thing because of X," has tended strongly in that direction.

So maybe we could stop for a moment and discard such reasoning, assume peoples' wide experiences as reported are more or less true, if only for sake of argument, and then discuss the usefulness of techniques to help the full range? My particular suggestions along those lines may stink. Feel free to critique them and/or suggest replacements. But if you feel the need to dismiss them, kindly start your own topic, as it is off-topic here. Thanks.

 

[BobTheNob]

My current 4e character has 5 feats and 2 utility powers. These include Ritual Caster, Bard of All Trades, and Mounted Combat with the utility powers making streetwise cover all knowledge skills, and 1/day giving me superb knowledge.

Both our Slayer (with feats Heavy Blade Expertise, SWP: Fullblade, Weapon Focus: Fullblade, and a Barbarian multiclass) and our Dwarf Knight (with Dwarven Weapon Training, Axe Expertise, the Barbarian multiclass that doesn't give rage, and toughness) can beat him up with almost no trouble. But he is far more skillful out of combat than they are and not even slightly marginal.

This thing you want? It exists.

Yes, it exists, I agree. In fact, this has already been pointed out in this thread. Yes we can make combat crap characters that excel in the RP areas. It can be done, its there.

Thats not the issue I have. The issue was that in a game where combat is the vast majority of play time, its just painful. Some are ok with it (and if you are, more power to you) but in terms of the games overall policy being ineffectual for the majority of play time is a really hard pill for most to have to swallow.

The thing I want designers to consider going into 5e as a lesson from 4e is to find a way that the game time isnt 1/2 - 3/4 of the time taken up with combat. Where making an RP player is a bit more rewarding because your not sitting there face-palming for the vast majority of time.

Combat is an aspect of the game, a certain degree of combat feasibility (i.e. balance) comes with that. I guess I just dont want to see 4e's obsession with it again.

 

[Mattachine]

Again, every edition of the game, perhaps with the exception of the higher level BECMI games, had the obsession with combat.

Going away from the combat focus will be a major departure from earlier editions . . . which is against the stated design goal of consolidating/uniting editions.

 

[hanez]

The sad part is that there already *are* options in the game that you can select to make your character purposely weak. But heaven forbid anyone actually choose those options.

The problem here is entirely one of ego.

Players are afraid of looking like idiots.

Any player right now can EASILY make a roleplay-heavy character that is not focused on combat

...

Instead... these players would rather have the GAME ITSELF restrict everything so that they can build their PC as best as the game allows the character in the sub-optimal build to be... and have the personal satisfaction of running a "roleplaying-centric" character, but be the gosh-darned best roleplaying-centric character possible. If they can choose to play a sub-optimal concept but build it as optimally as possible... they get the best of both worlds. The "roleplay-centric" character that isn't just a combat-junkie cookie cutter... and the ego-massage of knowing that they took a bad concept and made it the best. After all... what does that say of their skills of playing the game if they can take a really bad option that the game system gives them, and make it actually somewhat functional? It means they're GREAT at this!

Much of what you say has some truth to it. Of course being able to make your character worse at combat is still possible, but the way you phrase your reply has some misunderstandings.

First - D&D has always (until 4e) had, classes that were balanced more towards exploration or social interaction then combat. This isnt something that anyone is arguing for because it is a part of D&D, instead it is what you are arguing against.

Second - When classes were changed to be equal in combat, it added to the MANY reasons people felt 4e created cookie cutter characters. This is a common complaint against this version of the game.

Third - no one wants to restrict YOUR options, I am fine with the Slayer and the Warlord and Invoker, and the Avenger and whatever class continuing with its strengths as defined when it was created. BUT, the illusionist, and the rogue, and the bard were always classes that focused on other things. You are the one arguing that a class doesn't fit into your game, not me.

Fourth - Its not only the feeling of playing a difficult class well that is rewarding (as you snidely pointed out), but ALSO the fact that this is based in realism. If a player wants to roleplay someone in my world whos defining trait is playing the banjo and not his sword (e.g. the bard), thats fine, but it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE to assume that he will be worse in combat and better at charming kings and bartenders. If a wizard wants to concentrate on fireworks and figments of illusion instead of fireball, thats fine, but he should know that fireballs roast undead better then illusions. Not every single choice has to be equal in every venue, just like in real life. These arent restrictions as you argue, its just a fact of life and a fact of D&D before it was redefined into a glorified board game (which I may add was a failure).

These classes were NEVER the mainstream. They were NEVER meant to be default options for players. They exist for players who wanted other things, or had some experience and wanted to try something else. Its not until recently that they had to be refluffed, redefined, or removed completely. So its my argument that of course they need to stay as options because it adds more variety to the game.

You say we want " the best of both worlds, The "roleplay-centric" character that isn't just a combat-junkie cookie cutter... and the ego-massage of knowing that they took a bad concept and made it the best.", you know what I AGREE. But how is that less offensive then me saying you want WOTC to hold your hand when your make your character and say "dont worry lil defcon you can choose any power you want, theres no worse choices cause we made them all the same, yeah thats right defcon, everyone is always a winner in this version of D&D, we took all the challenging aspects out just for you"

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Fourth - Its not only the feeling of a playing a difficult class well that is rewarding ... but ALSO the fact that it is based in realism.

I disagree with this part entirely. Realism has nothing to do with it, not even the highly subjective, idiosyncratic form of verismilitude that underlays such discussions, frequently thought by the writer to be more universally shared than is the case.

You don't get more balance -- or even flavorful and enjoyable imbalance -- by pretending that there is some kind of objective criteria here. And if you want to appeal to tradition, you would, I think, be better served to do that straight.

The only thing worse than forced balance is forced imbalance. That pretty much sums up why 4E is an improvement to 3E in one respect, but still lacking.

Optional, situational imbalance that you choose yourself is fine. I agree, though, that ideally you would get something in return. (If you then choose not to take this something, that's another subject.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

If a player wants to roleplay someone in my world whos defining trait is playing the banjo and not his sword (e.g. the bard), thats fine, but it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE to assume that he will be worse in combat and better at charming kings and bartenders. If a wizard wants to concentrate on fireworks and figments of illusion instead of fireball, thats fine, but he should know that fireballs roast undead better then illusions. Not every single choice has to be equal in every venue, just like in real life. These arent restrictions as you argue, its just a fact of life and a fact of D&D before it was redefined into a glorified board game (which I may add was a failure).

You can do all you suggest right here within 4E. You can make a bard whose defining trait is a banjo and not a weapon and who is worse in combat but better at charming kings and bartenders. If that's the kind of "realism" you want... you can have it.

The question still remains though... why does the system providing additional options for this bard that you could take if you so choose, automatically a bad thing? So that you could make a bard who is as good with a sword as he is with a banjo, and who could be good in combat along with being great at charming kings and bartenders.

If you don't want to be... that's your choice. But just don't expect the system to be built so that's the ONLY choice. Because the whole point of D&DN is to make more choices available to more players.

 

[hanez]

Optional, situational imbalance that you choose yourself is fine. I agree, though, that ideally you would get something in return. (If you then choose not to take this something, that's another subject.)

I agree, I want somethin in return for each choice. Classes should be equal in the game. But they dont have to be forced to be equal in every situation. If hes a lot better in social and a lot better at exploring, then he can be worse in combat. If you want someone equally powerful in all areas, that should be available to, but not better then a specialist.