Balance Meter - allowing flavorful imbalance in a balanced game

[KidSnide]

Something that I learned from 2e and this was reinforced by 3e: you cannot balance combat with non-combat elements. It doesn't work. Why would they? You cannot control how much of either you will experience in a given campaign as a player.

Sure, the DM could step up and say, "Ok, the campaign will have this much combat and that much non-combat" but, that's typically pretty broad and often not too accurate in the small scale. Sure, you might have two sessions of no-combat, but, then you have three sessions which are combat heavy.

Which means that the guys that are balanced with combat vs non-combat elements are bored half the time. The combat wombat can contribute virtually nothing mechanically (although through free-forming he might do better) to the non-combat scenarios, and the Peasant with a Spork is sitting in the back playing with his Iphone during combat because he can't do anything.

The biggest issue I have when you try to balance combat with non-combat is that you wind up with players playing different games at the same table. The gnome illusionist is simply not playing the same game as the human fighter. I don't think that's a very good idea.

Balance like with like. Thus, combat effectiveness is balanced across class and siloed away from the non-combat stuff. The one hit wonder character where you are really good at one thing, be it combat or non-combat, is a bug, not a feature.

I agree with this 80%, but the remaining 20% is also important.

Balancing combat with non-combat is tricky, as you say, because (1) different campaigns allocate time very differently between combat and non-combat, (2) different campaigns allocate time very differently between types of non-combat (wilderness exploration, infiltration, engineering, politics, NPC persuasion) and (3) even within a campaign, different sessions will focus on different types of activity. Because of all these factors, what's balanced for one campaign could be very imbalanced for another. As such, I agree with the siloing philosophy where characters should all have some combat capabilities (because some combat is important to 90+% of D&D) and some non-combat capabilities.

That's the 80%.

Players shouldn't be playing different games at the same table, but they don't need to be equally good at all phases of the game. It's OK if the barbarian shines more in combat than the illusionist, so long as the illusionist has something to do during combat and contributes meaningfully to the party's efforts. Similarly, its OK if the illusionist shines more in social gameplay, so long as the barbarian has a way (perhaps a limited way) to contribute so roleplaying with NPCs in a positive way.

-KS

 

[DEFCON 1]

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"

Uh... because I know full well that there ARE worse choices to make?

I can make a good character *or* bad character in 4E quite easily. That's what having a fairly balanced game can get you. And if I do so... it's because I chose to do so, not because the game rules were designed to make it a certainty.

 

[hanez]

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.
...
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.

1- I don't want it to be the only choice. Just a choice of some classes. Just like the fighter can't cast spells, I dont believe the illusionist should be able to be better at damage then an invoker, and a bard shouldnt be a better swordsman then the fighter. Classes shouldnt all have to be equally focussed and flexible, its ok if a class it better at social, whats wrong with that. Dont like what a class focuses on? Fine, choose another class, theres a ton of em. I am not removing choice, I am arguing for archetype classes and against generic classes that can do anything.

2 - I dont know that thats actually possible, or presented as a viable option in 4e (from my experience with it), to the degree that it has traditionally been possible. I will look up the bard and the illusionist and see if I can choose mostly social powers in exchange for combat powers next time i get a chance. But my understanding of the power system is that they are meant to be used in combat, so I'm not sure how I'm going to choose non combat powers in exchange for combat ones.

EDIT - Ok quick look up. Bards not in my core book, guess it didnt fit in the core, wonder why. Wizard has a couple illusion spells, but they arent exchangeable for regular powers because they are specifically labeled UTILITY and only available in levels where there are other, non combat UTILITY powers. Seems like theres some definite handholding to stop my choice of being better at non combat and utility at the expense of combat. Illusion didn't really make it into the PHB did it, again seems to me the only choices presented are combat characters. Also looking at two random power levels for the wizard, levels 3 and 5, doesnt seem like I have the choice in powers that arent combat focussed. I thought you said I could make this choice? Is this where you tell me I have to buy a splat book to play the type of character I want in D&D?

 

[DEFCON 1]

1- I don't want it to be the only choice. Just a choice of some classes. Just like the fighter can't cast spells, I dont believe the illusionist should be able to be better at damage then an invoker, and a bard shouldnt be a better swordsman then the fighter. Classes shouldnt all have to be equally focussed and flexible, its ok if a class it better at social, whats wrgong with that. Dont like what a class focuses on? Fine, choose another class, theres a ton of em. I am not removing choice, I am arguing for archetype classes and against generic classes that can do anything.

2 - I dont know that thats actually possible, or presented as a viable option in 4e (from my experience with it), to the degree that it has traditionally been possible. I will look up the bard and the illusionist and see if I can choose mostly social powers in exchange for combat powers next time i get a chance. But my understanding of the power system is that they are meant to be used in combat, so I'm not sure how I'm going to choose non combat powers in exchange for combat ones.

The bard and illusionist will have combat powers. That is true. You are given many combat-related abilities just like all the other characters are. Now whether having the same number of combat powers as any other character means that they are equal in combat strength is another question entirely. And in that regard, the baseline bard (a leader) is certainly not equal to the fighter (a defender), but would be about equal to the other leaders in the game (since they are balanced to be that way).

That being said... once you start taking feats... the separation between the combat abilities of even the leader classes (cleric, warlord, bard, artificer, shaman, ardent) will grow bigger and bigger. So depending on how you spend your feats... although your bard may have the same number of attack powers as the cleric or warlord, the strength of those attacks could easily fall behind if that's how you chose to build your character.

But it is not necessary for the game system itself to weigh the bard down in mechanics so that he has to lag behind. Let the players choose. Because if they want to create a bad combat character, they most certainly can.

 

[Tallifer]

I don't get it. If you're aware of imbalance in your game, why not simply give the lower-powered classes more stuff per level until they're balanced again? If it's as simple as going "a fighter is 0.5 as good as a wizard", you can just give the fighter double HP, likelihood to succeed on a given saving throw, and damage - suddenly he is balanced with the wizard again in that the wizard has a lot of versatility through his magic, but the fighter is an unstoppable doom juggernaut.

Add me to the number of people who do not get the original post. Why not redress the imbalance of the weaker classes by giving them more stuff? If wizards can cast Wish, then perhaps Fighters gain magic resistance because their exposure to magical effects toughens them, but their avoidance of the powers of magic means they are untainted by the unholy powers from beyond.

 

[hanez]

Add me to the number of people who do not get the original post. Why not redress the imbalance of the weaker classes by giving them more stuff? If wizards can cast Wish, then perhaps Fighters gain magic resistance because their exposure to magical effects toughens them, but their avoidance of the powers of magic means they are untainted by the unholy powers from beyond.

I agree. With that. Give them something to make up for Wish (not that I remember anyone ever casting it in the last 10 years, but shrug sounds good to me).

And as to my previous arguer, you won. You made me dig out this horrible book. Theres like 3 heroic feats that are non combat, I guess I just keep buying skill focus in your argument? I was looking for more like the utility powers. Anyways, Im eager to buy 5e as long as its not like this book, it can be like any other one though and even allow people who want to play like this to continue, just dont tell me my way is wrong like this book obviously does.

 

[Tallifer]

2 - I dont know that thats actually possible, or presented as a viable option in 4e (from my experience with it), to the degree that it has traditionally been possible. I will look up the bard and the illusionist and see if I can choose mostly social powers in exchange for combat powers next time i get a chance. But my understanding of the power system is that they are meant to be used in combat, so I'm not sure how I'm going to choose non combat powers in exchange for combat ones.

EDIT - Ok quick look up. Bards not in my core book, guess it didnt fit in the core, wonder why. Wizard has a couple illusion spells, but they arent exchangeable for regular powers because they are specifically labeled UTILITY and only available in levels where there are other, non combat UTILITY powers. Seems like theres some definite handholding to stop my choice of being better at non combat and utility at the expense of combat. Illusion didn't really make it into the PHB did it, again seems to me the only choices presented are combat characters. Also looking at two random power levels for the wizard, levels 3 and 5, doesnt seem like I have the choice in powers that arent combat focussed. I thought you said I could make this choice? Is this where you tell me I have to buy a splat book to play the type of character I want in D&D?

You can easily play the Bard you want in the Fourth Edition. There are pages and pages of Rituals, which are the old out-of-combat spells now in a different mechanical format, but still as useful for roleplaying and exploring situations.

You could ask your dungeon master to allow you to swap out your attack Powers for Rituals. But actually Rituals do not count against your number of Powers: you can have as many as you can learn, buy or find. Now if your objection is that you are still not helpless enough in combat, just refuse to use your attack powers and play your lute: that will emulate a weak Bard perfectly.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

We are almost to agreement, I think. Let me see if the next step for me is acceptable to you: My contention is that in order to set things so they work as you have stated above, two things must happen:

1. There must be roughly equal things in one sphere to take, in lieu of whatever you didn't take in another sphere. If you choose to be worse in combat in return for better exploration abilities, there has to be something in exploration roughly balanced with that combat ability.

2. If you don't want to allow this swap in a given class, and you don't want to force it to a particular point, then there needs to be adjustment mechanisms or at least balance communication mechanism. Whether this is forced balance or forced imbalance across combat, exploration, or interaction is here irrelevant; it's the "force" part that is the issue.

Think about it like this. With a bard character, you have the option to swap, say, crossbow capabilities for banjo capabilities. If you don't make the swap, you'll be roughly 3/3/4 on my made up combat/exploration/interactive scale. If you do make it, you'll be more like 2/3/5. Of if you prefer, the banjo capabilities are the default and you can swap them for crossbow stuff. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that you've got an even swap, and this is communicated to you. You can do that with nothing but swappable class abilities.

Now assume the possibility of different playstyes and environments. The DM says this is going to be a 90% interaction game. That swap isn't balanced anymore (most likely). The DM might tell you, "Keep the banjo stuff, and take the crossbow stuff for free. The latter won't come up enough to matter." Or the game is 80% combat. You get a similar offer, with reverse reasoning. Or you get something to compensate. Or maybe you don't. But you really wanted that banjo. So you decide to build an underpowered character by dropping the crossbow. At least you know what you signed up for. Or it's a 75% exploration game, and it really doesn't matter that much how you do it, because crossbow and banjo use are equally niche.

For that discussion to have any meaning, however, there has to be a roughly balanced baseline from which to measure. In fact, you can more readily diverge from that baseline knowing it is there. As long as you aren't forced into balance or imbalance.

 

[hanez]

You can easily play the Bard you want in the Fourth Edition. There are pages and pages of Rituals, which are the old out-of-combat spells now in a different mechanical format, but still as useful for roleplaying and exploring situations.

You could ask your dungeon master to allow you to swap out your attack Powers for Rituals. But actually Rituals do not count against your number of Powers: you can have as many as you can learn, buy or find. Now if your objection is that you are still not helpless enough in combat, just refuse to use your attack powers and play your lute: that will emulate a weak Bard perfectly.

Huh? I have to ask my DM? If I have to do that why not just put it in the rules? Isn't that what we always hear, just because a DM can fix it doesnt mean its not broke.

And by the way Im not usually a player I usually DM. And I DM in a system where players can choose a variety of types of chaacters, where players can focus on the area of their choice (and its usually combat). I am just arguing for a system that lets THEM CHOOSE. That system was always D&D, right now its pathfinder/arcana evolved, but Im rooting for D&D.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Add me to the number of people who do not get the original post. Why not redress the imbalance of the weaker classes by giving them more stuff? If wizards can cast Wish, then perhaps Fighters gain magic resistance because their exposure to magical effects toughens them, but their avoidance of the powers of magic means they are untainted by the unholy powers from beyond.

You've got Michael Jordan and Bob Hope and Steven Jobs, amongst other people you want to model in the system. You want them to at least be able to contribute in a variety of situations, some athletic, some social, some academic, and some not directly related to either (e.g. auto repair). Quick, give them some abilities that will roughly even it out. I especially want to see the ones that let them do an "Amazing Race" kind of scenario across the Sahara. But don't let any of those abiltiies over power them in other contexts. Because not everyone wants to race across the Sahara.

I don't how far you can get with it, but there are limits, and there are definitely points of diminishing returns. Fortunately, D&D classes aren't quite that difficult to manage. But the limits and diminishing returns to balance are still there. Balance as well as you can ... then what happens? If you are telling me you can square it all, show me that--because I don't believe it.