Balancing flexibility

[Blue]

Say you are designing a D&D-like RPG. There are two builds that you are trying to balance focusing on combat. (Assume there will be other passes about balance for other pillars of play.)

Both exercise their combat prowess as shapeshifters.

Alpha can assume a potent combat form that great at doing damage.

Beta can assume a variety of potent combat forms, including ones focusing on damage, on survivability, on flight, and other aspects as the immediate situation requires.

These are their primary combat abilities, so assume they need to be available for most/all combats. (Though we don't have to assume all forms are available every combat for Beta.)

How would you balance these? Preferably several suggestions.

A few to get started, but I'm looking for your input, not just a discussion of what I've already thought of:

• Alpha is better at their focus then any of Beta's are. (Power vs. variety.)
• Alpha is more well rounded then any of Beta's forms without losing any focus. (Well rounded all situations vs. tailored for specific aspect but weaker in the other aspects)
• Beta has limited access to the forms so they have to pick and choose wisely each battle (flexibility with limitations).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

For the sake of having numbers, let's rank every form in terms of Attack / Defense / Mobility on a scale from 1-10.

The first option is that Alpha's one fixed form is stronger than any individual form that Beta has. If Alpha is 9/3/6 or 6/6/6, then Beta can have forms that are 9/2/4 or 4/8/3 or 5/1/9 or 5/5/5. That is exactly how I would do it, if I was the one designing this mechanic. From a design perspective, I would strongly consider the merits of keeping these things more straightforward, as complex solutions tend to have unforeseen consequences.

I'm not really sure which other parameters could be varied here, though, under the premise that both will be able to use their abilities as much as they want. (Otherwise, you could balance a more powerful form by giving it restricted usage.)

I suppose you could give Beta less control over which form they take. If it takes an action to assume a form, then making Beta assume a random form whenever they shift would put them in a situation, where they have to weigh the consequences of acting while in the less-optimal form against spending another action to get a more-optimal form for the situation at hand. It might be frustrating for the player, though. You could also apply other drawbacks to Beta, such as making them take longer to transform in the first place, or applying a constant HP-loss effect whenever they're shifted.

 

[Celebrim]

In general, I tend to find that the following to things are equivalent:

a) Having the answer for every problem.
b) Having a hammer so big that every problem becomes a nail.

In WoD this was referred to as, "Potence/Celerity is every Discipline."

Perfect balance is probably not attainable. What you should be going for is making sure that no build has an answer for every problem, either by breadth or depth of power, and you yourself would be content to run either character (and preferably, have done so).

Incidentally, this is precisely why most "Jack of All Trade" builds end up (and arguably must end up) as "Masters of None". If you really do have an answer to every problem, then it can't be a very effective answer, otherwise, what do you need a party for? Whereas, a character with a narrow power can be quite powerful indeed, if they still need to depend at least some of the time on some other specialist.

In general, Beta is going to be balanced with Alpha...

...if assuming a new form is costly in and of itself, thereby limiting the flexibility. For example, if assuming a new form consumes at the least time, during which you lose actions or are otherwise handicapped, then that in and of it self would go a long way to balance many forms versus one. You can implement this as a delay, or you can implement this as only a certain number of transforms in a period. Other than time, you could do this with pretty much any valuable resource. If transforming consumes 10% of some otherwise valuable resource, not having to transform becomes a big deal.
...if none of Beta's forms are so potent than a PC running a Beta tends to stay in a single form most of the time (suggesting that form tends to make it an Alpha in disguise, plus other powers in other situations).
...if the Alpha form is relatively weak against situations that are not unusual. However, beware that you aren't making hard constraints on encounter design that are going to be burdensome to GMs.
...if Beta can't defeat Alpha in the area that Alpha supposedly excels in.
...if two Beta's working together isn't better than a Beta and an Alpha in practically all situations. Think Alpha is worth 1 in its key situation, and .2 in all others, whereas the Beta is worth .8 in all situations. Then it's almost certainly better as a group to be all Betas and have no weak link and no forced upon the group strategy. In most groups, party loyalty means that certain strategies tend to be deprecated even if available, because player's won't leave a man behind (as it were). But a true power gaming group will build synergy by dropping the party weak links, and if you can build a party so that every player has the right answer for every situation that can get out of hand in a hurry.

Keep in mind that at best, a character that is just really good in combat is going to be like tier 3 - especially if there exists some sort of trump to the combat ability. A melee brute that can't deal with invisibility, flight, walls of force, or any number of other issues is ultimately not that potent even if it is a very capable melee brute. You have to be reliably able to overcome physical obstacles and reliably deal damage in all situations before you have that hammer that is big enough to treat everything like a nail. A good example of this in D&D history is the Tarrasque, which in most variants actually lacks the flexibility to be truly potent against parties that you might otherwise try to threaten it with. Built to be an ultimate monster, it's actually not flexible enough to achieve that (slow moving, can't fly, no ranged attacks) because it can't find any answers to a typical PC parties tactical flexibility. It's only strong against a party that is only strong in the same areas it is strong and so must go toe to toe with it.

I personally feel that nothing but playtesting can expose balance. Experience will get you close, but you never know until you play it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Both exercise their combat prowess as shapeshifters.
Alpha can assume a potent combat form that great at doing damage.
Beta can assume a variety of potent combat forms, including ones focusing on damage, on survivability, on flight, and other aspects as the immediate situation requires.
How would you balance these? Preferably several suggestions.

Assuming the old D&D standby of n/day:
Alpha & Beta both get the same number of daily uses.

Alpha can thus do his one bad-ass damage form, not so great at everything else form for n combats/day.
Beta gets to choose n combat forms (none quite as good as Alpha's at damage, though one better at damage than all the others, and each better than Alpha's at one other thing), and can use each of them 1/day, for the durration of one combat.

That'd be as balanced as most comparisons among classes or sub-classes in 5e.