Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've only got the first round of 4e's core three, along with some 4e adventures - I thought that would be enough to give me a fair idea of how the game is intended to work; particularly seeing as for the first year or so that *was* the game. So yes, my opinions of 4e as a system are also based on the first round of releases; much as my thoughts on 3e as a system (and 2e, for that matter) also ignore a lot of the bloat that came after the initial release.

I think this is an important point, for the 4e aspects of this discussion.

It's fair to say that 4e did not present the full array of options with just the initial three books. And, if you feel you should not have to buy a ton of books, or subscribe to the DDI in the alternative, to get the full array of options, then that's a fair reason to be critical of the options 4e offers.

However, 4e has changed a LOT since those first three books, and I think a lot of critics of the options available in 4e are simply unaware of those changes. The expansion of not just races and classes, but actual mechanics (like a class that doesn't even have encounter powers, for example), is pretty massive as the books progressed.

<snip good points>

Besides the Core 3, I'm now the owner of the Player's Guide to Eberron and
Forgotten Realms, and plan to get the Dark Sun version when it becomes available.

And, to my eye, these books propigate same types of problems inherent in the initial release. The massive, brutish races are still just +2Str, for instance, and the Goliath, for one, lost a very iconic and flavorful ability- Powerful Build.

Borrowing a page from Humans, why not just have races like Goliaths, Minotaurs, etc.- the BIG, hulking brutes- have a +4Str and no other stat mod?

I also mentioned before that unusual stat mods- including negatives- would be very appropriate for certain species, especially those with traditionally unusual racial attributes that lie outside the norm for most PCs. Someone responded that negative mods would be horrible because that would mean that a race would be worse at...well, whatever that stat modifies. That would penalize players for wanting to play a PC of a certain race and class combo.

The response would be that the problem isn't the stat mods, but the class rules. A fighter fights- that is his reason for existing. But there is more to fighting than brute force. Strength helps, to be sure, but there should also be viable builds for Dex based warriors. There is no reason for a Goliath to fights the same way as a Halfling. A Halfling should be able to use his superior Dex to be a hard target and an effective ranged combatant...and be just as effective as the lumbering Goliath.

In addition, as has been pointed out by 4Ed proponents, the way 4Ed gets around oddball "legacy" builds from previous editions is to find the class with the desired abilities and call the PC whatever you want. The same goes for oddball builds within 4ED itself. IOW, there is nothing stopping the player from taking a PC with a race with a unusually high Dex mod balanced with a negative Str mod (if one existed) and playing some kind of Dex-based Striker and calling him a Fighter.

Or, quite simply, that same PC could, with the DM's permission, be allowed to use Dex as the defining characteristic for his Fighter powers instead of Str.


To sum up, there's more than one way to achieve balance with race designs while retaining the iconic capabilities of legacy races...and it doesn't seem to me as if the WotC designers have sussed that out yet.

And to get back to the original question: I don't think there's much bias against game *balance*, but there certainly is a bias against game *blandness*; and as well documented elsewhere this thread the two seem to somewhat go hand in hand.

Agreed, 100%.

And on the flipside, a game virtually devoid of balance may have lots of flavor, but may be unmanageable for the DM...or even other players.

 

[MichaelSomething]

And on the flipside, a game virtually devoid of balance may have lots of flavor, but may be unmanageable for the DM...or even other players.

Rifts would most likely the poster child for this type of game. I can also imagine some point buy systems like GURPS or maybe Mutants and Masterminds can turn out this way as well (under certain groups). I imagine that's how some people feel about older editions of D&D.

 

[Garthanos]

"Feel the same" and "Carry the same amount of risk" are two different things.

The level of every encounter is not identical nor should it be or is it recommended to be its just "controllable" and it keeps things somewhat predictable for the DM (the only one who knows what the encounter level is).

Even if it were perfect... levels are a tool to help the DM design and predict characters abilities to cope with encounters..

and is far from perfect.

Your example Goblins versus Undead is an especially good example of this imperfection.

Encounter composition number of minions (and pcs ability to cope with numbers) and strategic use or not strategic use can make a huge difference. I can make the goblins more strategic as a dm and much higher risk

Note undead and the number who are vulnerable to radiant or for which there are special powers which target "undead" ... specifically are an example where level might not work as that good of measure of risk . .. undead are lower risk for many groups than the encounter level would indicate.

Another example... Ranged high speed adversaries can be unnapproachable unless you use the right tactics.

Whoo hoo level went from a p-poor tool to measure capability
and is now a reasonably accurate tool ... used with supervision.

 

[Garthanos]

If characters of equal level are not roughly of the same power level, then there is no point in having levels in that system.

Levels as primarily combative effectiveness at least have a chance of being meaningful. I would further argue there is no way to measure that out of combat effectiveness in some sort of coherent way. (Out of combat lacks a focused goal).

I can build a character in say Gurps that is incredibly out of combat effective but only for a very very narrow area of "out of combat" and the points are more meaningless... than anything else. HERO has point cost based closer to a things combative usefulness if you are ageless it has a low cost in HERO (because few attacks induce aging) and an arbitrary high cost in GURPS because of assumptions about the setting. In 4e if a character is ageless it is rather like HERO more a question of fluff than anything else.

 

[Lanefan]

I think this is an important point, for the 4e aspects of this discussion.

It's fair to say that 4e did not present the full array of options with just the initial three books. And, if you feel you should not have to buy a ton of books, or subscribe to the DDI in the alternative, to get the full array of options, then that's a fair reason to be critical of the options 4e offers.

However, 4e has changed a LOT since those first three books, and I think a lot of critics of the options available in 4e are simply unaware of those changes. The expansion of not just races and classes, but actual mechanics (like a class that doesn't even have encounter powers, for example), is pretty massive as the books progressed.

We've now gotten to the point where you can make a skill focused character, [etc.]

We've now gotten hybrid rules, many additional classes and races, and more multiclassing options, and paragon paths, [etc.]

OK, fair enough; though it sounds from what you wrote (which I snipped for brevity) like it's gotten pretty complicated over that time as well.

So yes, the game has changed to allow for a lot more flexibility in character concepts, and out of combat adventuring, since the first three books came out. It's fair to be bothered that you had to wait for supplements before your desired level of flexibility could be fully achieved with the rules.

Just for clarity, I was never looking for a "desired level of flexibility"; that's someone else's beef. I'd given up on the system long before getting to that level of examination, based on a bunch of other things I'd determined I didn't want as part of a game I ran.

With a single month of DDI access (which is cheap) you could get all the info you needed for whatever kind of character you want to play, with whatever level of focus the DM/Players want on combat vs. out of combat play.

A single month for you, maybe. It'd take me half a year just to find what's where, given my usual lack of skill at web navigation.

Lanefan

 

[Garthanos]

A single month for you, maybe. It'd take me half a year just to find what's where, given my usual lack of skill at web navigation.

Lanefan

I am pretty sure the Character Builder and Monster Builder are an easy find rather big page 1 buttons (and after you have those you can absorb over the next 6 months to your hearts content they dont stop working just because you are no longer "subscribed" you just dont get additional updates).
Of course if you are a MacAholic there is no joy.

 

[Garthanos]

The response would be that the problem isn't the stat mods, but the class rules. A fighter fights- that is his reason for existing. But there is more to fighting than brute force. Strength helps, to be sure, but there should also be viable builds for Dex based warriors.

There sure are and they are mechanically called "rogues"... note they are not defenders and so are not about absorbing attackers or about pulling enemies to themselves sort of anathema techniques for a spritely agile halfling/gnome anyway in my opinion.

A "Fighter" is not the only fighter. A duelist build rogue (like Zorro) is an in your face combatant...who dances away periodically to keep from being overwhelmed and exploits agility in all his moves.

I actually have to assume strength is not raw brute muscle but rather the ability to use that physique and apply leverage etc. (because even 4 points of variation wouldnt feel enough to describe the difference just between a 200 pound human and 75 pound halfling)

If an action requires pure strength maybe like can this weight be lifted I would be inclined to give small races a higher DC and larger races a smaller DC ...as different as a whole grade in either direction. There done.

 

[Bluenose]

There sure are and they are mechanically called "rangers" and "rogues"... note neither are martial defenders and so are not about absorbing attackers or about pulling enemies to themselves sort of anathema techniques for a spritely agile halfling/gnome anyway in my opinion.

A "Fighter" is not the only fighter. A duelist build rogue (like Zorro) is an in your face combatant...who dances away periodically to keep from being overwhelmed and exploits agility in all his moves.

Rangers are not even wedded to having a nature skill... they are very dex agile move and hit fighters... The default flavoring of many of there powers are nature like but that is not required. A beastmaster build could just be a Soldier who fights in tandem with a war dog or a fighting tiger from baltazar.

Melee Rangers use Strength, actually. Though the Rogue is a perfectly good Dex-based warrior type, if that's what you want them to be. There's at least as good a case for wanting a warrior type that depends on Constitution, wearing someone down through stamina and persistence; or the mental stats, which all have something to contribute to possible success. All stats may contribute to fighting, but Strength is most important for the particular style of warrior the Fighter class represents.

 

[Garthanos]

Melee Rangers use Strength, actually.

Right ... arggh... I usually do the prefer the archer type myself... and I am going to blame sleep deprivation and edit the aforementioned post ;-)

Though the Rogue is a perfectly good Dex-based warrior type, if that's what you want them to be. There's at least as good a case for wanting a warrior type that depends on Constitution, wearing someone down through stamina and persistence; or the mental stats, which all have something to contribute to possible success. All stats may contribute to fighting, but Strength is most important for the particular style of warrior the Fighter class represents.

Right I actively like the Melee Training Feat.But a basic attack isnt used that much it needs to be/affect the at-wills. Although maybe more martial fighting styles in the classes are needed. I can even see the stamina con build being a ranger variant.... that has always been the survivalist outdoorsy stat in my mind.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Can somebody explain the bias against game balance?

What really is the big issue here? On its most basic level, people who are ill served by a balanced game are people who want to be more powerful than the other players, and those who want to be free to make a weaker character that is a burden to the other players. I don't really have any sympathy for either of those.

I'm sure there's some other explanation, and I'd love to here them.

First, as always, play the game you and your friends want to play.

I think on the game balance thing, I think it is just a playstyle and design goal thing. It depends on what sort of experience you are looking for from the game. Balanced can mean lots of things, but here I take it to mean, there are no methods for making characters with the same amount more or less powerful than one another. I would say there is nothing wrong with this style of play. I think balanced play is a lot of fun.

On the other hand, I don't think there is anything wrong with a game that allows for power disparity. The most common argument I hear for this is it is important for choices during character creation and development to matter. I think if you are going for a more competitive style of play, or looking for more texture in party composition, this is also a great method.

Personally I play both ways. Sometimes I want to play a game with builds, weak characters, and super strong ones. Other times, I don't want to fall ten paces behind everyone else, or have to worry about my party picking the slack of a weaker comrade.

So I don't have a problem with some games going more for balance, some games worrying less about it, and others embracing the gray in between. This just means I have more options to draw from as a player and GM.