Class Balance - why?

[Crazy Jerome]

This Thread and the others dealing with Balance over the past few years have been absolutely fascinating for me to read. I have a much better appreciation for what the WOTC designers were going for as they developed 4th Edition. I also have a much better appreciation for what the 4e fans found so wonderful about 4th Edition.

However, I haven't been converted to the position of Balance Before All.

To me, D&D is still primarily about having Fun ... of course, Fun for the whole group. Other considerations, including Balance, are and will likely remain secondary for me.

That's where I draw the line. In all the 3E and related games that I ran, the "killer classes" where played by people who didn't play as much (and thus fell behind in level), or by the people who were acutely sensitive to not stepping on toes. In the former case, it worked great. They were a few levels behind, but still felt effective. In the latter case, it did "work". Between the wizard and cleric player being careful to not dominate the action, and me carefully crafting the game so that had a harder time doing so.

After awhile, though, all that "work" wasn't fun for either them or me, and it became harder and harder to juggle. It got absolutely painful to see them work through the situation in their head and decide to gimp their choices in play in order to leave something for the other characters. Then the rest of the players caught on, and we still couldn't make it work all the time.

When friends of over 20 years feel the need to go to that much trouble, then it is out of control. 4E may be too far, but if it was, it was probably because it was an over-correction to something as off the other way.

 

[SKyOdin]

Because there are two camps. There are people who don't have a problem with balance and there are people who do. What 4th edition did was kill the fun factor in sake of the balance and this upset a lot of people. People want so desperately to blame marketing and other factors as being the cause of 4th edition's downfall. While a lot of people did like the game, there are also a lot of people who did not and apparently there was enough people in the "no" crowd. If they can design a balanced game that gives most people what they want then that's great for everyone but they failed to do that with 4th edition.

There has to be a side chosen to be perfectly honest unless they find a way to have balanced fun.

I don't think this is a matter of two opposing sides. I for one think that balance is essential to a fun RPG experience, but I also think 4E did go way too far unnecessarily in the name of balance. When various people call out for balance, they are not asking for constrained uniform design.

Balance and a healthy diversity of options and game mechanics among classes are not mutually exclusive goals. Both are essential to a good RPG. It is perfectly possible to have both at the same time. For example, while the original 3E classes were generally unbalanced, late-era 3E classes were generally very well balanced, despite the fact that they used hugely varying mechanics and subsystems, from maneuvers, to psionics, and even the original "can eldritch blast all day" warlock.

Balance is important, but so is fun and diversity. I think that 5E really needs to aim for having both.

 

[Fanaelialae]

First of all my comment about tweaking 4 was to someone who said that they could only play 3E with a lot of tweaking and it took a lot of work and I was pointing out that I understood because I had the same issue.

And I never said that anyone was forcing me to play 4E so I have no clue where that is coming from and I have said that my hope for 5E is a way to include several different play styles so that would include people who play 4E as well as those of us who play older editions.

I didn't claim that there was only one reason why people didn't switch just that liking the current magic system was one reason to switch to Pathfinder.

And I never said that you are anyone else should have to play my play style not sure why you are saying that. Again for the umpteenth time I have said that I hope the new system allows a variety of ways to play and to dial the magic system up and down.

OKay so your group felt that they were playing with their hands tied behind their back mine does not. People do play the game differently and have different experiences.

I didn't say that I find the game imbalanced so I didn't say that the DM and players need to work to fix the imbalance. What I said was everyone at the table has a responsibility to make the game fun for everyone. Which means making choices not to step all over someone else character. And that goes for any class not just wizard.

Well I am sorry that your early games were terrible mine were not even though I got stuck playing a character whose highest stat was an 11.

Again your opinion is that wizards should not be able to do it as effectively in 3E I think they should be able to. And right now there are several editions of DnD that let us choose what and how we want to play.

You think that wizards should not have the best emergency and that is fine I don't agree. The only way the rogue is going to get through the door is by picking a lock if he fails then the dragon gets to the party. Magic gets around this. That does not mean that the wizard is the one doing it. In my experiences most rogues get an item that lets them have knock.

This is why knock is in the game not to only allow a party to function without a rogue but to also be able to make items that allow the rogue to function in a variety of situations.

Anyway I think the balance comes from the fact that spells are limited and can't be used all the time they run out they won't work in anti magic areas if a wizard does not get enough sleep loses his spellbook he can't function. Rogues can pick locks until the cows come home they can hide and use their class abilities to the cows come home they can go without sleep and still function they can function in an anti magic zone.

I find that it works pretty well for the style of games I play and run.

You seem to have taken many of my responses out of context; perhaps I simply wasn't clear enough. If that wasn't the case, we appear to be talking past each other, as (in all honesty) I wasn't making a personal attack but I get the impression that you may have taken it as such.

For the record, I wasn't stating that my early games were terrible because I wanted you to feel sorry. I was attempting to elaborate on my own point of view.

I was perhaps seven years old, a self-taught DM, and I was the one teaching the game to my players (Basic D&D at first, later replaced by 2nd edition). I didn't have the safety net of an experienced player to show me the ropes. I had to figure things out on my own and mistakes were made, which I eventually learned from.

Imbalance is bad for that type of group. Yes, I still loved the game, but it would have been nice to have something that didn't make it quite so easy to play the "wrong way".

As for the rogue, I don't think it's acceptable that he needs a magic item to achieve his archetype. Also, considering that the best item for opening locks is a wand of knock (which requires UMD) it would be unwise to give it to the rogue instead of the wizard. The wizard gets auto-success, while the rogue replaces an Open Locks check with a UMD check. So I don't think it likely at all that the rogue would possess the item, and even if he did it's effectively no change.

Who cares if the rogue can pop every unimportant chest and door along the way, only to be stymied during an actual crisis because the wizard with a scroll is a better choice than he is? That's like saying that it's cool for the wizard to handle the duel with the black knight instead of the fighter, because the fighter got to beat up a bunch of kobolds on the way there. It's hardly equitable.

I get that you have your play style and that that works for you, but the above is my personal take on the matter.

I agree that it would be nice if everyone received systems perfect for them in D&DN.

 

[Deadboy]

Because there are two camps. There are people who don't have a problem with balance and there are people who do. What 4th edition did was kill the fun factor in sake of the balance and this upset a lot of people. People want so desperately to blame marketing and other factors as being the cause of 4th edition's downfall. While a lot of people did like the game, there are also a lot of people who did not and apparently there was enough people in the "no" crowd. If they can design a balanced game that gives most people what they want then that's great for everyone but they failed to do that with 4th edition.

There has to be a side chosen to be perfectly honest unless they find a way to have balanced fun.

I happen to find 4e to be the most fun version of D&D... So let's call it something more like those who like balance and those who like unrestrained diversity. That way we're not accusing each other of badwrongfun.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I happen to find 4e to be the most fun version of D&D... So let's call it something more like those who like balance and those who like unrestrained diversity. That way we're not accusing each other of badwrongfun.

Call it whatever you like but the fact of the matter is not enough people are in the same boat as you, hence the abrupt edition change. It's not about badwrongfun, but particular cases aren't what's looked at. If we looked at individual cases instead of the overall picture then D&D would have never gotten past it's first edition.

 

[Deadboy]

Call it whatever you like but the fact of the matter is not enough people are in the same boat as you, hence the abrupt edition change. It's not about badwrongfun, but particular cases aren't what's looked at. If we looked at individual cases instead of the overall picture then D&D would have never gotten past it's first edition.

"Not enough people" being in the same boat as me to sustain WotC's corporate bottom line is a LOT different than "not a substantial or important part of the audience." Keep in mind 4e still sold more than Pathfinder over most of the past few years and Pathfinder only pulled ahead when WotC slowed its release schedule. Ryan Dancey has a very informative post about why this is happening somewhere around EnWorld - it basically comes down to the fact that D&D needs to be a $50 million business to survive and D&D NEVER really has been, even during 3.5. In all likelihood, if WotC released Pathfinder and sold exactly the same amount of books as Paizo has, WotC would consider that a failure even though a small company like Paizo considers that level of sales to be wildly successful.

Please don't try to diminish the position of 4e fans just because WotC decided that half a divided audience isn't as good as the whole audience.

 

[SlyDoubt]

First off apologies if you feel insulted by my words, it was not my intention but I was mildy irritated by the notion that if one felt 3.x was imbalanced one had bad players or was a poor DM and I know that was not you, or at at I don't reall you writing that.

However, I feel that casters as done in D&D cannot but be more powerful because they have more flexibility. It is intrinsic in the design and equated to more powerfull when the number of available slots risrs to a level where they have options to cast spells throughout the adventuring day. It s not really particular spells it is the structure of the caster classes.

4e balances by severly rrestricting hte number of available slots, the spells known that can be available in those slots. Simply removing the most problematic of the spells, and severly nerfying many others and placing htem in another sub system, namely rituals.
Finally they give all other classes powers to allow a similar flexibility previously only enjoyed by casters.

So, no I do not believe one can have 3.x casters and not have them overpowered relative to non casters unless one removes pretty much all non blasting spells and gives the non casters some powers or very severly reduce the slots avialable to the casters at whicjh point they simply might not ba viable anyway.

No offense taken man. What bothered me was the idea that people like to turn 3.x into a decision of "Do you like super powerful wizards or not?"

Because that simply isn't the main difference between 3.x and 4e. It isn't even the main difference between those editions when you're solely focused on classes. The differences and the results of those differences are drastic in so many ways that to try to label everyone who likes 3.x as supporting of super wizards is kind of ridiculous.

I don't like them, but I don't think the changed made in 4E in order to bring things in line were worth everything else that was sacrificed along the way. I still think 4E is a good system with many merits, just not in the actual way they chose to pursue class balance. Tons of excellent ideas in 4E but the end product isn't for me personally.

So yeah, no offense taken, and I didn't mean any either. Just know there are tons of people who play 3.X/PF and 4E and find both styles of game to have worthwhile qualities. Even if they prefer one or the other.

 

[pemerton]

By choosing to take the long way around the pit they are avoiding dealing with your NPC so what is the difference between that and using magic to avoid it?

There is a big difference between the following two scenarios:

(1) The PCs, cresting a hill, see a river 150' wide, spanned by a single bridge, with a giant snoozing at the foot of the bridge on their side of the river. Before they get close enough to stir the giant, they retreat back to the other side of the hill to discuss their options. They decide to have the wizard cast a teleport to get all the party over the river and too their intended destination.

(2) The PCs, cresting a hill, see a wide river, with a single bridge, with a giant snoozing at the foot of the bridge on their side of the river. Before they get close enough to stir the giant, they retreat backt to the other side of the hill. They decide that the wizard will cast teleport to get them across the river, so they do not have to either pay off the giant, or fight it while crossing. But to do this requires giving the wizard a round to get into the middle of the bridge! [In 4e, the 10th level spell Arcane Gate can connect to points, each no more than 100' from the caster. A double run let's the wizard move 80' and still have a minor action left to cast the spell.] So the plan they come up with is . . . . [fill in the details yourself].
​

4e, by removing, watering down or raising the cost of various "encounter bypassing" effects, increases the GM's situational authority. This is one aspect of the game's well-known focus on "the encounter". It is why the DMG has the notorious "guards at the gate" quote - the idea, as I see it, is not that the gameworld will contain no fantasy colour, but rather there is no need for "mere colour" encounters because the meaty encounters will provide that colour. And part of the way they will do that is because the system requires the players to engage with them - even when, as in scenario (2) above, the relevant mode of engagement is to try to avoid a conflict.

 

[Elf Witch]

You seem to have taken many of my responses out of context; perhaps I simply wasn't clear enough. If that wasn't the case, we appear to be talking past each other, as (in all honesty) I wasn't making a personal attack but I get the impression that you may have taken it as such.

For the record, I wasn't stating that my early games were terrible because I wanted you to feel sorry. I was attempting to elaborate on my own point of view.

I was perhaps seven years old, a self-taught DM, and I was the one teaching the game to my players (Basic D&D at first, later replaced by 2nd edition). I didn't have the safety net of an experienced player to show me the ropes. I had to figure things out on my own and mistakes were made, which I eventually learned from.

Imbalance is bad for that type of group. Yes, I still loved the game, but it would have been nice to have something that didn't make it quite so easy to play the "wrong way".

As for the rogue, I don't think it's acceptable that he needs a magic item to achieve his archetype. Also, considering that the best item for opening locks is a wand of knock (which requires UMD) it would be unwise to give it to the rogue instead of the wizard. The wizard gets auto-success, while the rogue replaces an Open Locks check with a UMD check. So I don't think it likely at all that the rogue would possess the item, and even if he did it's effectively no change.

Who cares if the rogue can pop every unimportant chest and door along the way, only to be stymied during an actual crisis because the wizard with a scroll is a better choice than he is? That's like saying that it's cool for the wizard to handle the duel with the black knight instead of the fighter, because the fighter got to beat up a bunch of kobolds on the way there. It's hardly equitable.

I get that you have your play style and that that works for you, but the above is my personal take on the matter.

I agree that it would be nice if everyone received systems perfect for them in D&DN.

I will admit to feeling defensive over this. I get the feeling that some of them are saying well just because your experiences are different you don't see what is right in front of your face on how broken magic is.

Some people feel that magic should not be better than what the archetype can do like knock so for them that makes it broken. And if you feel that way I will agree that it is broken for your needs. Also if you don't like characters having to depend on magic items it can also be broken.

But there are people who don't feel or look at it the same way so we don't find the magic broken. That does not mean that I don't think there are spells that need to be looked at. I find the magic creation rules for 3E to be broken and I dislike metamagic.

I was older when I started playing so maybe that was the difference and yes I do think a simple basic game is the best way for new players and DMs to get into the game.

When I DM newbies who want to play a magic class I usually recommend warlock because it is much easier then even sorcerer to play.

While a wand of knock is one of the best ways to go it was not what I was thinking of. Our rogue has a ring of lock picking with knock in it. He also just got a earring of improved invisibility.

Magic items have the ability to even out the playing field for mundane vs magical characters. And I know that there are people who dislike this and say it should be about the character not his items. That is one POV not mine. I don't see the difference between a magical item and a sword both are tools to allow the character to adventure.

Now there are things I have done to allow mundane characters easier access to magical things for example ranks in heal allow you on a successful heal check to give back permanent hit points. Taking profession herbalist allows you to heal diseases, give antidotes for poison.

Alchemy which I house rule any one can take can allow you to make cures for magical effects like paralyzation and petrification.

Any class can take use magic device as class skill.

Just because I don't agree that magic is broken does not mean that I don't think balance is not needed. As I said pages and pages ago balance to me is when every class gets a chance to contribute and shine. Not they all have contribute equally at the same time.

 

[pemerton]

For a simulationist, magic should be pretty magical and be largely open ended in what effects it can produce. It's magic after all. Put too much effort into balance and the magic gets watered down.

This is a fairly common view point, but it still surprises me.

I haven't got my Moldvay Basic book ready-to-hand, but it's description of fireball is along the following lines: a 20'R ball of fire explodes, doing 1d6 per level damage to creatures in the radius.

That is almost identical to the 4e spell description - yet people talk as if Basic D&D, and other forms of classic D&D, were these fonts of creativity, and 4e the greatest anchor on creativity yet devised! And this despite page 42, and the discussion of the use of powers in skill challenges in DMG2, and the discussion of damaging objects in the DMG, all of which not only take for granted, but offer guidelines for the GM to adjudicate, creative and open-ended uses of magic (and other abilities) by a PC.

I value class balance because as a DM is makes combat encounters easier to construct.

<snip>

I don have the same issues in non-combat encounters as the resolution falls naturally out of the rp.

I'm generally sympathetic to your posts in this (and other) threads, but I don't agree with your equation, here, of "mechanically governed resolution" with "combat".

I mean, 4e has a mechanical system for resolving out-of-combat encounters - namely, skill challenges - and some of the major changes between 3E and 4e (like the skill training and progression rules, the DC by level chart, etc) are all about making those non-combat encounters mechancially balanced, so a GM doesn't need to regulate the roleplaying and its outcomes in the sort of way the OP is advocating.

I think people talking about fighters being "servants" for wizards and the like have either not played the system in the while, exaggerating, didn't follow the rules of the game, or were subject to a very bad DMs game.

I'll add a fifth possibility - they were following the rules of the game, in a style of play in which the main responsibility for regulating player agency lies with the players rather than the GM, and in doing this discovered that the mechanics are at odds with player self-regulation. Hence the description of "playing with one hand tied behind one's back".

Reading through some of the posts, its very obvious that there is a lot of angst with the 3.5 fighter / wizard comparison. And that no two D&D games are alike. Some want a strong DM, others just want a ancillary player pushing monsters around for them to kill and speaking in funny voices for NPCs while reading from adventure text boxes.

This is a completely unreasonable description of games in which GM force is not a significant component of action resolution.

Consider this quote from Paul Czege:

Let me say that I think your "Point A to Point B" way of thinking about scene framing is pretty damn incisive. . .

There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning). . .​

My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. . . I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. . . I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.​

This has been a more useful guide for me, in GMing 4e, than most of the hundreds of pages of GMing advice produced by WotC for the edition. It has nothing to do with "pushing monsters around and speaking in funny voices". It is about framing situations, and maintainig the pressure, while the players try to resolve those situations via their PCs without GM force hindering or governing that resolution.