D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[triqui]

No, LFQW (linear fighters, quadratic wizards) specifically refers to the fact that in 3e (and maybe earlier editions to a lesser degree), wizards got more spells AND their existing spells got more powerful whenever they leveled up: thus, their power increased at a "quadratic" (geometric, exponential) rate. Fighters, on the other hand, got more powerful too, but at a linear rate. So a level 20 fighter might be 20x as powerful as a level 1 fighter, but a level 20 wizard was 20^2=400 times as powerful as a level 1 wizard. (Or so goes the argument; obviously the math for "class power" isn't that simple.)

That's bassically it, yes.
Let's suppose 2 classes, Mage and Thief.
At first level, the Thief can do several things:
1) acrobaticly jump around the battlefield
2) stealth and sneak
3) killing people with sneak attack of 1d6
4) skipping the HP with some sort of Knock-Out or Stun "trick"

On the other hand, the wizard can:
1) move around the battlefield with a spell (Jump, expeditious retreat, Spider Climb)
2) ignore HP with some spell (sleep, charm)
3) do damage (1d6 with shocking grasp)
4) do some utility stuff for the group (indentify magic items)

But, given levels, a linear Thief do the same things, only better. His Acrobatic skill goes through the roof, doing things that he couldn't do at lvl1. His damage increase with his sneak attack. His stealth stuff also increase, being able to surpass stronger sentinels (But as the high level sentinels are also better, it's kind of a treadmill), and his stunning ability becomes better.

On the other hand, the mage does not only get more damage, better divination spells, and stronger SoD spells. He also learn Invisibility, stepping on the Rogues toes. And he learn levitate, then fly, then dimiensional door, teleport and plane shift. He learn to summon monsters, Area of Effect Spells, protection stuff like Mirror Image, he learn to animate skeletons, summon walls, become ethereal....
So while the Thief gets, more or less, the same abilites, just they are more powerful, the Mage gets an increase in the power of his low level abilities, but also morea and more and more abilities. So assuming they were balanced at first level, they CAN'T be balanced at higher levels. Just like any two functions, one of them quadratic and the other being linear, can´t have the same values except in the point where they cross.

As long as some classes are quadratic, and some others are linear, they can't be balanced. The solution to this is either "nerf" the quadratic class, so it's linear, or "buff" the linear class, so it's also quadratic (for example, allowing the rogue to learn how to use traps, smoke bombs and caltrops, to *shadowstep*, to charm with his personality, to ignore hits through a "dodge" mechanics, to be able to recognize and dispell illusions, etc)

This will cause disgust in some people, no matter of what. If you nerf wizards, some people will dislike Mages being "dumbed down". If you buff Thieves, some people will dislke rogues being "too anime". And if you don't do anything, some people will dislke Mage being quadratic while thiefs are linear.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Given that roles are a 4e invention, pre-4e wizards, fighters, etc. also did not fill the same role.

Roles solidified what classes are supposed to do. Prior to 4e, wizards were trying to blast things to death, fighters were trying to chop things to death, and rogues were trying to stab things to death. Could you get all three classes to be as good at that role? No. (And in 3.x, wizards tended to avoid blasting and went for control instead, but they could blast pretty effectively too.)

The cleric was in 3.x (and even earlier!) an example of what happens when you don't codify roles. The cleric covered almost every role under the sun (fighting, blasting [Flame Strike], tanking, controlling, healing)... and in 3.x it ended up being OP. In 4e, beyond healing, the cleric's role is pretty set. Mini-buffs mostly, with some control (if you're a laser cleric) or some bashing (if you're not). You can't have one 4e cleric doing everything.

So they're balanced because neither of them can do their job effectively?

I think the ability to completely shut down an opponent would be overpowered. No one likes getting their character stunned, locked in a magic box or having their head instantly removed.

I don't see this at all. I mean, all editions of D&D are generally considered to be balanced.

LOADS of people say 3.x isn't balanced, due to LFQW and other factors.

 

[Garthanos]

Did somebody just say all editions of D&D are considered balanced.. until 4e Balanced D&D was damn near a pipe dream. There were obviously ideas about balance in the game but the more assumptions about play style you make the more fragile your balance becomes and boy did Gary make huge assumptions.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the ability to completely shut down an opponent would be overpowered. No one likes getting their character stunned, locked in a magic box or having their head instantly removed.

So because a player would not like to have their character instantly disabled without having his hit points slowly whittled away, the ability to do so is overpowered? I don't see what that has to do with game balance. I don't think that too many players complain about that (though the ones that do sure can make a lot of noise), but even if they did, that has no bearing on whether such an ability is overpowered.

If your point is that an ability can be overpowered even if every character gets it, that point is valid, but there are plenty of better examples of that.

LOADS of people say 3.x isn't balanced, due to LFQW and other factors.

I've seen a small minority of internet posters say that (mostly after the 4e release; that marketing is pretty clearly the source of a lot of it), and never with any coherent explanation. Everyone I've ever talked to in person thinks that's a joke. Is your observation wrong? Maybe not. Maybe it fits your experience, the crowd you hang with (however many constitutes a load in all caps), your definition of "balance". But to extend beyond that and call it "generally agreed"...well that's just wrong.

Roles solidified what classes are supposed to do.

They invented notions what classes are "supposed" to do; there wasn't really anything to solidify.

The cleric was in 3.x (and even earlier!) an example of what happens when you don't codify roles.

I think it's just bad design. Most clerics aren't played as warriors, but they all get the proficiencies and attack bonus to suggest that they should be, just in case they want to, because of legacy issues. A cleric can fill virtually any role, depending on the type of deity he follows, but it's a headache writing rules that allow that much customizability, so the design went in the direction of giving the class every mechanic it could need and just expecting players to use only the spells and other abilities that make sense for their faith.

In general, this works, but it's not a great solution. 4e roles are not at issue here; we just better rules for domains/spheres/etc. 5e is doing a (relatively) decent job of this thusfar.

 

[Garthanos]

I think hit points include luck and complete disablement that utterly bypasses ones luck is fricken insanely powerful. Even just from a flavor text point of view.

 

[Garthanos]

Gygax heavily pushed the fighting man as the protector of his squishier allies.. but never got around to actually giving him any decent ability to do so.. .. maybe if all you did was tunnel fight.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think hit points include luck and complete disablement that utterly bypasses ones luck is fricken insanely powerful. Even just from a flavor text point of view.

I think that attack rolls and saving throw include luck, because they involve dice rolls. Abilities that bypass those are pretty powerful, but there aren't that many.

 

[Sunseeker]

So because a player would not like to have their character instantly disabled without having his hit points slowly whittled away, the ability to do so is overpowered? I don't see what that has to do with game balance. I don't think that too many players complain about that (though the ones that do sure can make a lot of noise), but even if they did, that has no bearing on whether such an ability is overpowered.

If your point is that an ability can be overpowered even if every character gets it, that point is valid, but there are plenty of better examples of that.

From video-game design when it comes to "crowd control" powers there are generally several factors than contribute to if a power is balanced.

First is: how often can it be done? Can you be put in a bubble by anyone, anytime, all the time?
Second: How long does it last? Can you be put in a bubble once, and be effectivly removed from the game for the rest of the night?
Third: What is the opportunity cost? Are the resources expended to put you in a bubble worth putting you in a bubble over alternate actions?
Fourth: how easy is it to get out of the bubble? Do you need a magic? A special move? Or just a check?

If it's easy to break out of, it's usually able to be recast often, and has a short duration, and requires few resources.
When it's hard to break out of, it usually has high resource costs, long durations, and cannot be done often.

In this way, abilities are "balanced". On of 3.X's problems with magic is that this type of math was not done. CC abilities often came at low resource cost, they were difficult to get out of, could be recast often, and lasted for a long duration.

The LFQW argument is quite simple.
The Wizard gains both the ability to cast more often, and cast more things as his level increases.
The Fighter only gains the ability to hit more often(which was a kinda system besides).

The 3.X math doesn't account well for that fact with wizards, which is why you get a lot of nice CC at low levels, and at those levels they're fairly balanced. But because of it's duration/level mechanics, these simple spells became incredibly powerful tools that could lock down games.

The ability to lock down the game for a player or an NPC is something that should be limited.

 

[Ahnehnois]

From video-game design

I'm going to stop you right there. D&D isn't a video game. Balance in D&D is not the same thing as balance in a video game, board game, athletic competition, or any of various other types of games.

The LFQW argument is quite simple.

Simple, and accurate in its own right. And yet deeply flawed.
Spellcasters (in D&D in general and perhaps slightly more so in 3e) do gain more spell slots and better spells while fighters gain only attack bonus and some feats. But while they are advancing at different rates, they're also advancing at different things. The fighter is becoming a better fighter, and the wizard is becoming a better wizard. It's an apples to oranges comparison; characters that are different don't need to advance in the same way.

The ability to lock down the game for a player or an NPC is something that should be limited.

Limited? Maybe. Banned or restricted? No.

 

[Garthanos]

I think that attack rolls and saving throw include luck, because they involve dice rolls. Abilities that bypass those are pretty powerful, but there aren't that many.

They dont represent the ongoing last ditch defensive luck which eventually runs out... hit points do.
Gygax had a wierd rant he made about the characters being heros like Conan and so not being subject to a fluke of the dice. and it taking many errors on the players part for a character to go down.

I am calling it a wierd rant because the man invented the save or die... or the just die to heck with a save effect, he wasnt very consistant.