Class Balance - why?

[pemerton]

I fully understand that we all want to be special flowers at the table with our characters, but should that not be more about character development and roleplaying than stat blocks? You can make your 1st level rouge just as interesting and fun as a 20th level sorceress with the power to level mountains.

How? Only by engaging action resolution systems that do not depend upon PC stats - what we might call "free roleplaying", or, more pejoratively, "mother may I".

There are things to be said for and against free roleplaying and GM adjudication, but a game in which that is the main source of agency for a player is, in my view, well-positioned to head in one of two directions: (i) overwhelming GM force with the players mostly along for the ride; or, (ii) balance of power issues as the players - particularly those without good stats on their sheets - fight with one another, and with the GM, about the direction of the game.

Class balance is imperative in a tactical war game (which I felt 4E developed into) played on a battle mat or in an MMO, but does not need to be so ingrained in a roleplaying game. There are narrative aspects that cannot be achieved with true class balance.

The issue has nothing to do with "tactical wargaming". It is about the balance of power over the game among the players, and between the players and the GM.

For example, reaction rolls in AD&D aren't "tactical wargaming", but depending how a particular GM uses them, and how that GM adjudicates attempts by players to "free roleplay" around them, putting a high score in CHA may be worthwhile, or a complete waste of time.

Stop the game from rushing from one combat to the next, make combats fast and furious, and class balance matters a whole lot less.

Again, I think focusing on combat is a red herring. An RPG can have mechanical action resolution systems, and thereby give rise to issue of mechanical balance, outside of the combat arena. Consider the numerous debates about invisibility vs hide/move silently, for example.

class balance is looked at by the majority of players from a purely combat and mechanical perspective. It seems a lot of people have lost the narrative roots of roleplaying. A good DM an allow a 1st level thief to be a bad ass if that is what the story requires. And make it a lot of fun for the player as well.

I agree with the second part of the first sentence - the issue here is not about combat, but about action resolution mechanics. It only looks to be about combat because, as a purely contingent historical matter, D&D has had more robust combat resolution mechanics than other sorts of action resolution mechanics.

Your third sentence also, for me, perfectly frames the issue - if the GM is allowed to wield a lot of power, and the players accept this, then free roleplaying can compensate for mechanical weakness. But many groups do not want to play with the GM having that sort of power - and, as I said above, a game based around overwhelming GM power is frought with the potential for conflicts over that power.

Class balance is important because no one wants to suck night after night while another player steals the show, just because you chose to play a rogue and he chose to play a wizard.

This is true, but I think is just a prelude to the real issue, which is "can free roleplaying compensate for, or override, differences in player agency created by the distribution of purely mechanical power".

is this a responsibility of the rules or of the DM? I think thats where the major difference of opinions arises from. Some want the balance forced through the rules, others think it should be more of a DM / party / story component.

I agree that this is the issue, except that "party/story" component have a narrow meaning here, because they relate back to the DM using his/her power to meld the party together and drive the story. Whereas some groups like to play in such a way that the players meld the party together and drive the story. Which requires player agency that is, to some extent at least, independent of the GM - not necessarily independent of GM adjudication, but consisting in more than just the power to ask the GM for a favour.

I think in D&D there is a dungeon master, and that dungeon master is tasked with making the game fun for everyone.

In D&D the DM DOES set the parameters, and he IS supposed to set the parameters to make the game fun right? That's the purpose of the DM.

That is one possibility, but not the only one, and for many players not their preferred one.

As a GM, for example, I like my power to be clearly demarcated and constrained. I don't want to be responsible for making the game fun in the way you describe. I want to play a game that will take care of that itself, so I can concentrate on what I like doing as a GM, which is setting up situations for the players to engage via their PCs, and adjudicating the resolution of those engagments.

The DM is in charge of making sure things don't get broken.

Again, this is one way to play the game. It's not the only way.

I think you'll find that not everybody uses a "story". I for one simply construct a scenario and let the PCs react to it. I have no ending in mind. I have no story. Story is what happens after the events, not before them. So for people like me, we can't let the 1st level thief become badass this way. It feels repugnant to me too - if I'm allowed to be badass because the DM wants me to be at that moment, it's not truly badass. It's being patronized. I want to be badass because I legitimately am a badass.

This isn't quite how I would describe my own approach to GMing, but it sets out one good reason as to why "more GM power, invoked and applied via free roleplaying" is not a universally viable solution to problems of mechanical imbalance.

My favorite thing to do as a DM is sling an encounter at a group of PCs while thinking, "I can't WAIT to see how they get out of this one." It's way harder to do that if I also have to figure out ways to neuter the Wizard and coddle the fighter.

The DM is under restrictions as well. I refuse to metagame up a solution to the 15 minute work day. Each time I have the NPCs come up with a brilliant idea that they would never have simply because I want to get back at the players...I sacrifice a little bit of my integrity.

These are both closer to my approach to GMing, and further illustrate why the "GM power" approach to action resolution isn't universally applicable.

But the dM needs to accept that players will find ways around carefully crafted encounters.

This is another claim that is not universally true. In some playstyles - those in which the GM has strong authority over framing scenes/situations - the GM does not need to accept that the players will find ways around carefully crafted encounters. (Of course, in engaging those encounters things may turn out very differently from what the GM, or anyone else, expected. Situational authority is quite different from plot authority and railroading. But now we're not talking about bypassing an encounter but resolving it.)

I personally like using a fairly strong degree of situational authority as a GM, and don't want the game to assume unreflectively, and as a default, that the players will in fact enjoy such authority to an equal or greater extent.

That first line right there that they won't find ways around the encounter unless you let them is imo a form of railroading.

I think that you are running together situational authority and plot authority. It's not as if a sandbox is the only alternative to a railroad. Instead you let the players direct the story, based on the situations that the GM frames. Some games have fancy mechanics that oblige the GM to frame situations in such a way as to incorporate player theamtic/story concerns etc, but even absent such mechanics a GM can be pretty confident that if they frame crappy scenes, one way or another their players will let them know.

This is what we call the Oberoni Fallacy. It essentially means that "You cannot make the argument that the rules don't have to be correct/balanced/work as written because the DM can fix it by doing X because that argument is invalid."

You can't state "The rules work fine, you just have to change things so they work fine." It's an illogical argument.

Mostly I agreed with your post, but I don't think this is fair. [MENTION=6675987]Dellamon[/MENTION] is not saying that a good GM can fix the rules. S/he is saying (i) that the action resolution system has (potentially) two components: the mechanics, and the exercise of mechanically unmediated narrative power ("free roleplaying"); and (ii) that when this mechanically unmediated narrative power is in the hands of the GM, it can compensate for or override the imbalances one sees when looking purely at the mechanical elements of action resolution.

I'm not a big fan of that sort of system, for the reasons I've given - it is in my view a recipe for dysfunction, either in the form of dictatorial GMing or balance-of-power conflicts (and I've seen both in AD&D games, especially 2nd ed ones). But to advocate it is not to commit a fallacy.

It always bugs me when players search splat books for that perfect +2 race. They end up playing a race they could care less about just for the stat mod. Thats when they find out the world has a sect looking to destroy this race

Feeling useless till the DM-imposed plot device is turned off is not a fun game experience.

I see these posts as evidence - from both player and GM perspective - of how a "GM power" approach has an inherent (but not inevitable) tendency to push in the direction of balance-of-power problems.

The entire point of class balance is so that a player doesn't have to worry about whether or not the character they want to play will be effective or not. In a well-balanced game, players are free to focus on creating a character that fits the archetype and story they have in mind without worrying too much about mechanics. In a poorly balanced game, a player might be forced to learn how to min-max a character in order to play the character they want to play, and even then might have to make some significant compromises.

But Dellamon is advocating a different approach - one in which the players are free to focus on archetype etc because the GM will ensure that their PC is effective. I'm not myself arguing for that playstyle, but given it's historical importance in RPGing (including D&D, and especially I would say from the mid-80s through to at least the early 90s) I think it's important to be clear about it.

It's easier to create approximate balance through the rules than it is to rely on a particular DM/party/story to have the proper component.

Maybe. But if a group are happy to cede the GM the necessary power, and are not particularly mathematically inclined, than maybe not. I think it's hard to generalise about this.

A lot of the modern "balance" emphasis is more about the designers trying to win a battle with an obnoxious group of players whose goal is to abuse the rules. This is a battle the designers are doomed to lose, and frankly, the rest of us can end up being casualties.

I don't agree with this. The issue of the way in which the mechanics should distribute power among the players is not just an issue for "an obnoxious group of players". It is relevant to any game in which player agency is at the forefront, because players exercise that agency by wielding their power. [MENTION=12401]Belphanior[/MENTION] gives a nice example, and I have no reason to think that s/he is obnoxious as either a player or a GM.

 

[Elf Witch]

Can you prove this assertion? This is fairly terrible reasoning unless you can provide a direct causal relationship between the success of PF and the balance of the magic system. This reasoning also fails to take into account all the other issues of 4E's release, the 4E system, 3E players, etc. that are not magic-system related at all. People may be happier to play a more familiar Vancian system than 4E's regardless of PF's balance. Ever thought of that?

One of the biggest reason I have read of why people like 4E is because it balances the magic classes with the mundane classes. The term wizards and muggles is used by 4E players to describe 3E.

I have read so many threads on how to nerf the magic system in 3E by people who don't like it. I have read how a lot of 4E players feel that this was accomplished by the 4E rule set.

Now Pathfinder did not make major changes to the way magic works I have heard may 4E players say that Pathfinder did nothing to fix what they perceive as a broken magic system.

On the Pathfinder forums I rarely read threads about how to nerf the magic system so that leads me to conclude that most Pathfinder players don't feel that the magic system is broken.

Are there people who play Pathfinder who play it for other reasons and may think that the magic system is broken sure. They may like other things. The same as 4E players who say that yes they find the classes bland but they like a lot of other things.

 

[Aldarc]

One of the biggest reason I have read of why people like 4E is because it balances the magic classes with the mundane classes. The term wizards and muggles is used by 4E players to describe 3E.

I have read so many threads on how to nerf the magic system in 3E by people who don't like it. I have read how a lot of 4E players feel that this was accomplished by the 4E rule set.

Now Pathfinder did not make major changes to the way magic works I have heard may 4E players say that Pathfinder did nothing to fix what they perceive as a broken magic system.

On the Pathfinder forums I rarely read threads about how to nerf the magic system so that leads me to conclude that most Pathfinder players don't feel that the magic system is broken.

Are there people who play Pathfinder who play it for other reasons and may think that the magic system is broken sure. They may like other things. The same as 4E players who say that yes they find the classes bland but they like a lot of other things.

You are still not explaining the logical leap between Pathfinder's success and "unbroken" wizards. As I said earlier: "People may be happier to play a more familiar Vancian system than 4E's regardless of PF's balance. Ever thought of that?" Where is this possibility factored into it? Where is the possibility of people having other issues with 4E that they were more than willing to deal with PF's magic imbalance? Where are the different business models betwen Paizo and WotC factored into this? That's why it's absolutely absurd to suggest that "wizard isn't broke because Pathfinder is successful." It's like saying that Windows must not have bugs or performance issues, or even the Blue Screen of Death, because it outsells Linux and Macs.

 

[Elf Witch]

You are still not explaining the logical leap between Pathfinder's success and "unbroken" wizards. As I said earlier: "People may be happier to play a more familiar Vancian system than 4E's regardless of PF's balance. Ever thought of that?" Where is this possibility factored into it? Where is the possibility of people having other issues with 4E that they were more than willing to deal with PF's magic imbalance? Where are the different business models betwen Paizo and WotC factored into this? That's why it's absolutely absurd to suggest that "wizard isn't broke because Pathfinder is successful." It's like saying that Windows must not have bugs or performance issues, or even the Blue Screen of Death, because it outsells Linux and Macs.

All I can go on is what I read online and over the years one big issue is are wizards over powered some say yes some say no.


Pathfinder kept it the same. And as I said you don't tend to see these kind of threads on Pathfinder forums about how broken the system is. There is no way for me to prove that that I think a good many players of Pathfinder don't think the magic system is broken all I have to go on is that fact that magic plays a huge part of the game and people are still willing to buy and play a system with this type of magic in it.

My point is that that there are a lot of people who feel that wizards are not broken and there is an in print game that supports that. Pathfinder was playtested I would think that if a lot of people didn't like the magic system Pathfinder would have changed it.

And yes I have thought that some people may think the wizard is broken and still choose to play because they like the Vancian system or they live everything else but that about the game.

But again if it was the huge issue some people make it out to be I would think you would find more people complaining about it on the forums and they would have brought it up in the play test stage.

I am just tired of people tossing around wizards are broken as a hard fact not as an opinion. I think a lot comes down to playstyle and taste in playstyles.

 

[Aldarc]

All I can go on is what I read online and over the years one big issue is are wizards over powered some say yes some say no.

And therefore they're not broken because half of D&D fanbase buys Pathfinder, while another half buys 4E?

Pathfinder kept it the same. And as I said you don't tend to see these kind of threads on Pathfinder forums about how broken the system is. There is no way for me to prove that that I think a good many players of Pathfinder don't think the magic system is broken all I have to go on is that fact that magic plays a huge part of the game and people are still willing to buy and play a system with this type of magic in it.

Didn't they also boost the power levels of fighters, rework spells, and other issues surrounding the debate? It's not as if they left 3.5 wholesale in tact.

My point is that that there are a lot of people who feel that wizards are not broken and there is an in print game that supports that. Pathfinder was playtested I would think that if a lot of people didn't like the magic system Pathfinder would have changed it.

It proves that there are a lot of people who buy Pathfinder products, but it says nothing about the particular attitudes towards wizards.

But again if it was the huge issue some people make it out to be I would think you would find more people complaining about it on the forums and they would have brought it up in the play test stage.

Those threads are actually not hard to find at all. And from what I gather, there were a number of things that people wanted in Pathfinder that weren't implemented via play testing. After all, you cannot deviate too much from the OGL cash cow and deal with backwards compatibility.

I am just tired of people tossing around wizards are broken as a hard fact not as an opinion. I think a lot comes down to playstyle and taste in playstyles.

You're right. It's people who enjoying playing wizards and those who don't enjoy being their torchbearers.

 

[Elf Witch]

And therefore they're not broken because half of D&D fanbase buys Pathfinder, while another half buys 4E?

Didn't they also boost the power levels of fighters, rework spells, and other issues surrounding the debate? It's not as if they left 3.5 wholesale in tact.

It proves that there are a lot of people who buy Pathfinder products, but it says nothing about the particular attitudes towards wizards.

Those threads are actually not hard to find at all. And from what I gather, there were a number of things that people wanted in Pathfinder that weren't implemented via play testing. After all, you cannot deviate too much from the OGL cash cow and deal with backwards compatibility.

You're right. It's people who enjoying playing wizards and those who don't enjoy being their torchbearers.

There are plenty of gamers who don't agree that wizards are broken are you saying that we are just to stupid to realize that we are wrong?

There are plenty of Pathfinder players I have talked to who have said they like the magic system which is why they choose Pathfinder they hated what 4E did to it.

And yes they did raise other classes power levels because those classes needed the boast. I have always said that 3E fighters needed some fixes made to it. Pathfinder fixed the fighter the way I think should be done which is raise and fix the broken class but not by nerfing another class to do it.

And you realize that in the 30 years of playing DnD plenty of people have played the game and never felt they were playing wizards and their henchmen but maybe we are just to dumb to figure out that we are playing the game wrong.

I know I am getting cranky here but I acknowledge that there are different ways to play the game and different tastes and that a lot of this is just opinions but when it comes to this issue a lot of the people on the side of the wizard is broken feel that their opinion is a fact not just an opinion.

 

[Aldarc]

There are plenty of gamers who don't agree that wizards are broken are you saying that we are just to stupid to realize that we are wrong?

No, but I guess you want the many wizard critics to admit that "we are just to stupid to realize that we are wrong" and that we are completely baseless with our assertions instead. Am I, right?

There are plenty of Pathfinder players I have talked to who have said they like the magic system which is why they choose Pathfinder they hated what 4E did to it.

So there may be other reasons outside of simply issues of class balance that may have led to Pathfinder's success?

And yes they did raise other classes power levels because those classes needed the boast. I have always said that 3E fighters needed some fixes made to it. Pathfinder fixed the fighter the way I think should be done which is raise and fix the broken class but not by nerfing another class to do it.

Didn't they also nerf some of the spells and rearrange some of the spells in the wizard's spell list?

And you realize that in the 30 years of playing DnD plenty of people have played the game and never felt they were playing wizards and their henchmen but maybe we are just to dumb to figure out that we are playing the game wrong.

Ah, I see. So the detractors are dumb, since this has not been an issue "in the 30 years of playing DnD."

 

[Elf Witch]

No, but I guess you want the many wizard critics to admit that "we are just to stupid to realize that we are wrong" and that we are completely baseless with our assertions instead. Am I, right?

So there may be other reasons outside of simply issues of class balance that may have led to Pathfinder's success?

Didn't they also nerf some of the spells and rearrange some of the spells in the wizard's spell list?

Ah, I see. So the detractors are dumb, since this has not been an issue "in the 30 years of playing DnD."

I think it is broken to you and the style which you want to play that is totally different than saying it is broken no matter what style you play.

I never claimed that Pathfinder was successful just because of its magic system I am saying that one of its many appeals to certain gamers is that it kept the magic system we enjoy and don't find broken which is why a lot of bought it. It was the main reason the 15 people I know bought it. Are there other reasons sure there are.

I have friends who play 4E and love it and they didn't switch because they found wizards broken they switched to 4E because of other reasons.

Yes they did so what over the years spells have been changed. I nerfed polymoprh a long time ago. Just because you nerf and change some spells does not mean the entire class is broken.

I am saying that for over 30 years plenty of people played the game and enjoyed and didn''t feel that the magic system was broken. Those who did often house ruled or played something else.

I am not saying that if you don't like the system you are wrong to hold that opinion you are the ones who feel the ned to be dismissive with comments like wizards and muggles and wizards and torchbearers.

Can you not see that and see how it is insulting?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

There are plenty of gamers who don't agree that wizards are broken are you saying that we are just to stupid to realize that we are wrong?

Here's the deal. They are wrong but they aren't wrong at the same time. 3e lets you make a character however you want. However, it allows you to make a character that has a power level anywhere between 1 and 100. Fighters and non-magical characters are capped at a relative power of 10. Wizards and other casters are capped at 100.

So, when a person makes a character, they can make a Wizard of power level 10. They can purposefully choose poor spells and make character decisions to limit their power("I won't cast my big spell this combat, I'll let the rest of the party have their fun this time" or "I could prepare a spell that gives +1 to hit to the fighter and rogue or one that gives me +7 to hit and +5 damage, 2 extra attacks per round, and temporarily 40 more hitpoints...I'll take the first one"). And if they make these poor decisions, you won't notice how overpowered they are. Because on an average round, they aren't doing anything extravagant. And the one or two rounds a day where they outperform everyone else, people shrug and say "They are a wizard, they are supposed to be better than us."

But in campaigns where players look at the rules and take the absolute best thing they are allowed....you have clerics, wizards, and druids who are performing at the near the 100 level.

I'm not saying that you are stupid. I'm saying that people in a certain mindset don't even consider better options. They don't think in terms of numbers. So when looking at a choice between the above +1 to hit to 2 of their allies and much bigger bonuses for themselves, they think "I want to be a team player, I'll take the bonus to my allies."

Other players look at the spells and thing "Wait, if I give them a +1 to hit, that's only a 5% chance of having any effect each round...maybe more if they get 5 attacks per round. If they don't roll exactly 1 number below what they need to hit, my spell does nothing. On the other hand +7 to hit is a 35% greater chance to hit, which, due to my poor bonus to hit in the first place has more effect statistically than giving it to someone who already had a better bonus. And with the 2 extra attacks per round, it comes into effect 4 times, since I already had 2 attacks. If I hit 4 times with the extra damage, I do way more damage than the Rogue would do if I gave the bonus to him. I'll add the bonus to myself, because it is MUCH more effective. And anything that is much for effective for me is better for the party."

Not everyone thinks in the way that causes them to come to the second conclusion. Some people are happy playing a 10 out of 100 Wizard, either because it never occurred to them to try for more or out of a sense of fairness for their DM or the other players.

But my point is that if you have a game that everyone plays, you cannot expect all of the players to limit themselves to 1/10th of the power they are capable of simply out of a sense of fairness. Not everyone has that sense.

And the problem gets bigger when you consider the Fighters who aren't that concerned with power gaming their Fighters. Then you get the fighters who are power level 3 or 4 out of 100. And then the difference is seen to be even bigger. As a quick example: A 11th level fighter who started with a 14 strength for roleplaying reasons and didn't add any points to his strength and whose DM never gave him more than a +1 weapon and who took roleplaying oriented feats and gear will have +14 to hit for 1d12+3 points of damage. A 10th level fighter who started with a 20 str, added all his points in it, got a hold of a +6 stat enhancer and a +3 weapon and took feats to make himself better has +25 to hit for 1d12+16. That means the first one has an average damage of 28.5 damage if they hit with all their attacks. The second one has an average damage of 77.5....nearly 3 times as much. And hits 55% more often. Although, compare that to the 375 points of damage the Wizard does in the same round.

Best to make the game force the casters to have a power of 10 out of 10 and then, when the rest of your group consists of people who are 4s or 5s out of 10, they don't feel nearly as left behind.

 

[Hassassin]

Or, let the rogue do it quickly, quietly and cheaply, and every other character's options lose one or more of the advantages.

A big hammer is cheap, but it won't be quick or quiet.

A knock spell/ritual is (relatively) quiet, but if it's cheap, it should not be quick, and if it's quick, it should not be cheap.

Of course, if there are no time constraints, quick is less of an issue, and if there is no danger of detection, quiet is not an issue, either.

The other variable you can play with is chance of success. Maybe the rogue's chance to pick locks is better than whatever the wizard can do with a quick spell (as opposed to an expensive, time-consuming ritual). Or perhaps, to encourage teamwork, the wizard is better off using his spell to help the rogue than using it to try and pick the lock himself.

Yes, this here is precisely how it should in my opinion be. Different disadvantages to other methods of doing the rogue's job. Arguably, knock should take longer or cost more. That's a small change, but maybe needed.

--

However, really guys: if you want to make it impossible for new players (or those who don't always think about others) to step on each others toes you also have to ban playing the same class.

Maybe these things should be spelled out in the book, but when you have two rogues you can still coordinate so that they specialize in different things. Or they can take turns.