Balance vs. Diversity

[hong]

Ok. Now, it would suit me better if there would be some ties between those two, you know. But I guess our preference is different, so that's ok.

It should be said that if you really want diversity of power in a level-based game, there's a ready-made way to do it. Have people play characters of different levels. That way, those who _deliberately_ (as opposed to inadvertently) want to play a less powerful character can do so, while the rest of the system remains balanced.

 

[Umbran]

While I am very pro-4E, the argument presented that there is no 'wrong' race to play for a certain class is incorrect when considered from a crunch perspective.

I think the basic idea is that while there are sub-optimal choices, few choices are so sub-optimal as to be a deal-breaker. Even the sub-optimal will be effective enough that the party will like having you around. Or, conversely, the optimal choice isn't going to be so much better that taking something else will appear stupid.

Also, the first glance suggests to me that the case of optimal builds may be far less clear than it was before. In 3e, you could fairly clearly do the calculation of average damage for a fighter in combat, and thus build to optimize that. But, it kind of assumed the fighter got to stand there toe-to-toe slugging it out with the opponent. I am not sure that assumption holds in 4e, making the old ways of determining the optimum may not apply anymore.

 

[Alnag]

Hong: Yeah. I currently suppose I will need to make some house-rules to the system to make it work for my needs better (all skills optional, maybe some tweaking to the marking/action points...). This might very well be one of those house-rules... Well, I hard to tell exactly, till the rules finaly arrive.

 

[dm4hire]

I think the biggest problem with balance comes from all the additional books brought into the game. The problem is they start inundating the market with source material and it gets easy to lose sight of what each class is capable of doing. The proper way to maintain balance would be to stop adding things to the game to modify existing classes and races, instead introduce new classes and races only with each new book, providing diversity while maintaining said balance. Another method of balance and I believe WotC is trying this approach is to set a specific degree of ability for each level so no matter which class or race you play you will only be able to do x amount of damage or effect. This latter one definitely creates balance but causes us to lose the diversity mentioned as only the flavor text is what is different. Since there are so many classes which could be recreated as well as playable races, I would rather WotC focus on providing all of that instead of expanding the core classes. If all PCs adheres to the same damage threshold as well as overall effects then the diversity should come from how they accomplish it via their class and race.

 

[RigaMortus2]

While I am very pro-4E, the argument presented that there is no 'wrong' race to play for a certain class is incorrect when considered from a crunch perspective. Consider, if you will, the following two races for consideration when doing a Str-based class.

Race 1: +2 Str, +2 Con
Race 2: +2 Dex, +2 Con
(everything else is equal, to make this the simplest comparison possible)

Which is the better race for playing the Str-based class?

But is there such a thing as a Str-based class? Can you give an example of one?

I see different classes, and which ever ability you want to revolve around them is up to you. So if you want X Class, and you want to concentrate on Str for that class, that is up to you, and you would naturally gravitate toward a race that compliments that build (one with a plus to Str). But if another player wants to play X Class too, but wants to concentrate on Dex, then he will choose a race that compliments that too.

I don't think that classes are stuck with one ability score to concentrate on. It would seem to me (at least, IHOPE) that a Dex based Fighter would be as viable as a Str based one.

 

[outsider]

You are weak? Nevermind, you still strike hard. You are clumsy - never mind, still you are pretty fast reacting. And so on.

2) Is player's decision reflected in the outcome? Especially if he decides to create sub-optimal character. So far it seems (to me) that whatever you do, you will end with optimal and capable character. Which is fine for most games, but not for all. I know that many of my players liked time to time to create intentionally incompetent characters. If I choose my fighter will be weak, clumsy and with bad health will I see the expected outcome (poor fighter) or is the role of abilities so small that the effect of my character design will be overruled by system?

I don't think I'll ever be able to understand this mindset. Why would you want to deliberately build an incompetent character?

I can understand the idea of building a character with flaws. Or building a character to specific RP parameters. 4e actually encourages this it seems, as a low attribute no longer has the crippling effect it once did. It allows you to create a flawed character that can still be reasonably expected to succeed in the game. Why would an incompetent character continue venturing into dungeons? How is he even surviving? Why do his party members keep bringing him along? This type of character should be extremely rare, and I don't see why D&D should go out of it's way to support it. If the cost of having flawed characters be competent adventurers is that you can't create an incompetent adventurer anymore, I'm eager to pay that price.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If the cost of having flawed characters be competent adventurers is that you can't create an incompetent adventurer anymore, I'm eager to pay that price.

I agree. This is one of my main problems with 3.x edition. It encourages flawed characters to be also bad mechanically. It almost required it actually.

I think it is possible to play a character who may not be the best at his class but it competent enough to get by.

D&D is essentially 2 games. There is a role playing portion where you interact with the story, with NPCs, you explore, etc. Then there is a combat game where you figure out tactics on how to defeat the enemies, you roll attack rolls, do damage, worry about placement and the like.

It's been said before...but just because you are good at one of the two games does not mean you should have to be bad at the other one. Just because you decide to play the Halfling who is small and unimposing doesn't mean he can't be a good fighter as well.

 

[Alnag]

I don't think I'll ever be able to understand this mindset. Why would you want to deliberately build an incompetent character?

Because such character offers interesting story and role opportunities. Take Rincewind from novels by Terry Pratchett. It is absolutely incompetent wizard, yet he is main hero there. So if for whatever reason player want to play Rincewind, should I say... no this game can not offer you this, you know... because some people were unable to understand your mindset?

I can understand the idea of building a character with flaws. Or building a character to specific RP parameters. 4e actually encourages this it seems, as a low attribute no longer has the crippling effect it once did.

So you can create character with flaws, those flaws will just have no impact on the game. What are they good for than? I mean if I deliberately create character who has a flaw, I would expect that this flaw would have game impact wouldn't I?

Why would an incompetent character continue venturing into dungeons?

OK. Here I don't understand this mindset. Why is D&D reduced to venturing into dungeons. Can't hero prove himself in some other fashion. In urban adventure for example. Or experience ancounter along his travel with merchant caravan? Or whatever. I haven't played dungeon crawl for years...

How is he even surviving?

The true heroic act come sometime from very unexpected direction. Despite overwhelming odds if you wish.

Why do his party members keep bringing him along?

Maybe they are friends. Maybe he is important for them in different manner. Might have vital information or something. That's up to a player to come with.

This type of character should be extremely rare, and I don't see why D&D should go out of it's way to support it.

Now, 3e does support this type well. So I see now reason why 4e shouldn't do the same job. Just because this approach is not applied by majority doesn't mean it is inferior. One of the measures of game quality is its ability to cover wide variety of options and offer players possibilities in any way imaginable.

If the cost of having flawed characters be competent adventurers is that you can't create an incompetent adventurer anymore, I'm eager to pay that price.

You are willing to pay the price even if there is no need to pay it. Well, good for you. Not so good for people who like it in other way. Good to here somebody likes the game the way it is. Now you know, there are also other opinions as well. Thank you, that you respect this diversity.

 

[Stalker0]

As far as the ability scores go, I think the diversity is still there.

If we compare strength to con, other than the fact they can both add to fort defense, they are still very different. Con adds to hitpoints and healing surges, strength adds to damage and strength based skills.

Charisma vs Wisdom, while both could add to will defense, charisma adds to social skills and wisdom to perception skills. Personally I would like a larger difference between the stats, but the skills these two effect tend to come up very often in a game so the difference is an important one.

Dexterity vs Intelligence, the big factor in this one right now is it doesn't seem like there's any good reason to pick int unless your an int based class. Dexterity adds to reflex defense, initiative, ranged attack and damage, and a number of dex based skills. Int adds to some knowledges....

At this point, I'm ready to see more, for the system to prove to me there is something for int to do. Else I will be very disappointed. But assuming their is, I think there's enough diversity there that 6 stats is still the way to go.

 

[Alnag]

Stalker0 I agree fully. See my edit in the first post. The crucial point is how cruical skills prove to be. If skills are important enough the variety will be big. If they turn out to be inferior as well... well, that would be bad.