Class Balance - why?

[Hassassin]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, Hassassin - Tony Vargas is saying a very D&D mechanic (class) is important, not that something from another game is... Unless you're saying mechanical balance is a feature of other games that D&D doesn't necessarily need. Is that what you're getting at?

The argument was basically: 1) class is important in D&D + 2) important things in games should be balanced => 3) classes should be balanced in D&D.

I disagree with #2, because of the examples I gave.

That doesn't mean I oppose balancing classes (as long as done in a way that doesn't sacrifice other things I like), but I don't find the argument convincing.

 

[Siberys]

In that case, I'm not sure most of your examples follow through. In chess, each side as as whole is balanced, because they have the same pieces; each soccer team is balanced because they have the same number of players in the same positions; et cetera. Player skill is not at question here; of course someone skilled at chess will beat someone that isn't. That's not a balance question, that's a skill question.

Let's use that soccer example; you seem to be coming from the POV that a D&D character would be presented as an individual soccer player. I would rather think of the character as being the whole team; individual players on a team are not going to be balanced, but each team as a whole has access to the same positions in the same numbers. No one would think it fair if one team had twice the number of players on the field as the other.

As to the point about RPGs not being like most games, yes, that's true. But the point of balance in D&D is different from its point in other games. In other games, it's there so that opposing players or groups of players have a roughly equal chance of success, barring skill level differences. In RPGs, it's there so that the player's choices are meaningful. If the classes are unblalanced, at some point one player's choices could become functionally meaningless because another player's choices override theirs. That's the problem people had with pre-4e casters - some players felt worthless by comparison if they were playing anything different.

TL;DR - The argument isn't "important things should be balanced", it's "balance is important", in the context of a game.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think that the designers of 5E need to learn from that history, but also think about why it is that a large group of D&D players seem to want this sort of strong GM, and see if they can create modules/options to support forceful GMing without leaving the rest of us stuck with crappy mechanics.

I certainly don't want to be the "strong DM". I like planning adventures in terms of "I control the world, the world works as I expect it to work. The players play their characters, I simply have the world react to them."

So, when I plan an adventure, I plan it in terms of "The bad guy wants to take over the world. He lives in a castle near a town. He has a spy in town working for him feeding him information. There is a large pit around his castle that only has one working bridge. That'll provide the PCs an interesting obstacle to pass when they try to get to the castle."

Then I just let what happens in game happen as it may. If we follow that the DM is required to balance the party forcibly, no matter what the rules say...then it is now my job to insert NPCs who want to steal the Wizards spellbook, creating the need to run another adventure where the PCs try to track down the spellbook. Then I have to create an NPC Wizard with the spells to counter most of what the PC Wizard tries. Probably 2 NPC Wizards as I'll need one to stay near the BBEG and another to stay near the spy, constantly refreshing protection spells to prevent the spy from being found out and the BBEG from being scryed on.

That's a lot of work that I feel shouldn't be put on the DMs head.

 

[Mallus]

Not if the GM is harsher on the player of the sorcerer than the player of the rogue in adjudicating free-roleplayed action resolution.

Now *this* is what Harrison Bergeron-style D&D would look like!

Or if the GM designs encounters that the sorcerer will feel obliged to engage mechanically, while creating space in the same encounter where the player of the rogue can free roleplay.

This is a variation on the common practice in superhero game encounter design, where the goal is to engage each PC with the challenge most appropriate to them, or at least to make the appropriate match-ups obvious to the players ie, send the hero with the ultra-sharp claws and instant healing against the giant, mutant-killing robot, not the hero who's an exceptional linguist (unless he's wearing his alien friend like a suit of powered armor -- sometimes I deeply regret knowing these kinds of thing...).

In other words, the X-Men school of encounter design.

This is not how I particularly like to run or play the game, but I think it is what the OP has in mind, and I think it is a fairly widespread way of playing D&D (I would say it became widespread in the mid-80s and would associate it mostly with a certain type of 2nd ed AD&D approach).

Actually, I'm running this kind of game right now, more-or-less. Fairly by-the-book AD&D with a thief in the party. "Going easy on the thief" has been a guiding adjudicating principle (but not the reverse, "make it harder for the casters/specialized fighter").

Doing this sort of ad-hoc, on-the-fly balancing has been fairly easy so far, but it inevitably makes more work for the DM. And system really matters here; balancing AD&D, especially at lower levels isn't difficult, but I would want to do it under 3e, which neatly undoes a lot of 1e/2e balancing mechanisms w/r/t casting classes (in order to open up new avenues of play).

My advice for balancing 3e/Pathfinder is simple: play a class with access to spells and rely on NPCs for the rest! (I kid... barely).

I honestly believe that the structural changes brought about in the later editions marginalized the role of the DM.

For the record, I never felt marginalized by 3e or 4e. I had the same amount of authority/freedom as I did running older editions -- which was exactly equal to the amount the players gave me. Which was a lot. But I admit I may be quite lucky when it comes to players.

While not as refined as 3.5 or 4E, I feel the framework of 1E (and retro clones and hybrids like C&C, etc.), allows for more narrative freedom for the DM and more creativity for the players.

I agree there's a certain pressure to operate within the constraints of the (admittedly complicated) rules framework present in the later editions. But that pressure came from me, not my players.

Had I learned to relax a bit more, my 3e campaign would have been easier to DM!

Plus, combat and encounter resolution is soooo much faster (and usually deadlier!).

Here I agree completely. Resolving... well everything except unarmed attacks is much, much faster using pre-3e rules.

Ultimately, from my experiences at the game table, I think the abundance of rules and powers have stifled player creativity.

There's a link to the Story Hour about my 3e campaign in my .sig, ie The Chronicles of Burne. *That's* my experience of player creativity under 3e. It's wildly creative. Also, funny (no really). Check it out if you get a chance.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Mallus that sounds about right. In my case since I began with 3E, it was a lot to take in at once.

Because of that, from the beginning there was a level of leniency. We knew the game was complex and had many parts that weren't clear but we simply wanted to get to the playing. Over time I kept reading so we could fill in spots we had improved with some guiding rules (if everyone thought they made sense).

So yes, I think it is almost being able to relax in 3E. I think the people who are really bugged by 3E saw it as kind of taking D&D off in a different direction and making it more about rules and less about RP. I understand how people see that but it's really just a matter of being comfortable and having the players on your side. Since I grew up with 3E D&D I am comfortable with all the issues it has and through overall system knowledge am able to simply roll with things (which is what I think should always be the case).

I think when presented with so many rules for so many specific things some people feel the need to know everything. Maybe they feel a duty to their players, or just a compulsion, I don't know. But as has been stated many times here, it really can be boiled down to trust between DM and players, and players to players. If everyone knows they're all there to enjoy the game which means not stepping on toes constantly and everything being in good fun then really anything works.

Majoru Oakheart,

As for designing the world and such. If you're designing things without knowing your PCs potential don't blame the system. The system gives you a bunch of tools to make things with and gives you rough estimations of power by level. If you know the wizard can do x y z then it's in part your job to give the wizard a challenge. Maybe those spies have simple magical stones that block scrying or teleporting within a certain range. That's not absurd, it's logical if the person controlling the spies lives in the same world as the PCs. If they don't have anything of the sort than your players would be smart to take advantage where they can.

That's not an arms race, it's just intelligent creation. If the world itself doesn't recognize the PCs as part of the world, it's silly. Why wouldn't the big bad guy know that wizards are powerful foes and can turn invisible, shoot fireballs, teleport, etc? Yes you're designing around the wizard, just like by having guards you're designing around the rogue or the fighter. By having traps you're designing around the rogue. This is all completely normal. A good world combines everything so nothing seems made for anyone specifically, it seems like a natural creation to living in a magical setting.

If all you're saying ultimately is that it just takes a bit more time, that's totally understandable. But really it's just a level of consideration. Wizards are insane but if you assume the world also knows that, it isn't so weird to have elements designed to hinder them sometimes. Just like sometimes the rogue has no trap to disable or lock to pick, because instead it's magical. It's really no different.

Sorry for the essay and sorry if something sounded snarky or harsh, it wasn't meant to be. You make a lot of great posts that clearly illustrate things and I respect that.

 

[underfoot007ct]

For some crunching numbers is part of the fun.

1. Fun is exactly the point, fun for everyone. Not the wizard who kills most of the baddies in the first round, then ever one just stands protect the wizard. Unless the Thief goes in at night & kills everyone if their sleep.

 

[Herschel]

So I myself appreciate the early snips of information that promise easy chars and I do not expect them to be balanced power wise.

Argh! Simple is not a synonym for imbalanced! Imbalanced Synonyms, Imbalanced Antonyms | Thesaurus.com Nor is complicated a synonym for balanced! That's like saying all left-handed people must have brown hair. I see this all over these threads like somehow they've come to mean the same thing! It's especially funny when the same people try to claim the more complex 4E characters are part of a dumbed-down game.

 

[pemerton]

I'm running this kind of game right now, more-or-less. Fairly by-the-book AD&D with a thief in the party. "Going easy on the thief" has been a guiding adjudicating principle (but not the reverse, "make it harder for the casters/specialized fighter").

Doing this sort of ad-hoc, on-the-fly balancing has been fairly easy so far, but it inevitably makes more work for the DM. And system really matters here; balancing AD&D, especially at lower levels isn't difficult, but I would want to do it under 3e, which neatly undoes a lot of 1e/2e balancing mechanisms w/r/t casting classes (in order to open up new avenues of play).

My advice for balancing 3e/Pathfinder is simple: play a class with access to spells and rely on NPCs for the rest! (I kid... barely).

Is there a deep difference between going easy on X and going harder on not-X? What's the baseline for easier vs harder?

But I agree that system matters to this. Which I think is also part of the OP's point (although perhaps not self-consciously so).

I certainly don't want to be the "strong DM".

<snip>

If we follow that the DM is required to balance the party forcibly, no matter what the rules say...then it is now my job to insert NPCs who want to steal the Wizards spellbook, creating the need to run another adventure where the PCs try to track down the spellbook. Then I have to create an NPC Wizard with the spells to counter most of what the PC Wizard tries. Probably 2 NPC Wizards as I'll need one to stay near the BBEG and another to stay near the spy, constantly refreshing protection spells to prevent the spy from being found out and the BBEG from being scryed on.

That's a lot of work that I feel shouldn't be put on the DMs head.

Agreed, especially if the system makes it hard.

But I think some do want to play this way. Which is why I think the 5e designers have to think about it, and try to find a system (or at least a range of modules for a core system) that can support both approaches.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think when presented with so many rules for so many specific things some people feel the need to know everything. Maybe they feel a duty to their players, or just a compulsion, I don't know. But as has been stated many times here, it really can be boiled down to trust between DM and players, and players to players. If everyone knows they're all there to enjoy the game which means not stepping on toes constantly and everything being in good fun then really anything works.

Something to that, though I look at the effect from a slightly different angle. Not infrequently we hear the statement, "Look at what a game spends time on to see what the game is about." At its most literal (and thus most useless), this comes out as saying that a game is proportionally about whatever its page count is dedicated to. In contrast, I see what a game spends time on (including dedicating page count to) as a sign of what the authors think they have handled.

Is 3.* D&D about making your rogue3/fighter2/super-prestige6 guy? No. Do the 3.* authors think they have mostly handled letting you make the guy you want to make? Sure. Is 4E about tactical combat? No. Do the 4E authors think they have mostly handled tactical combat. No doubt.

Of course, what a game handles well will become what the game is about, or at least a pleasant sideline, for some people. You had people in 1E days that would spend more time making characters than they did playing (though often due to lack of a group). And you also had people that made characters and used the game as a mini-wargame (even though it wasn't the best option for that). That was more about them than the game, though. Given them a game that satisfied their itch didn't say as much about the game as it did their preferences.

Which is a long way around to get back to that quote, in that I think people feel obligated to use those specific rules because having the specific rules creates the impression that the game authors have handled what those rules are about. When the rules are extensive but lacking, there will be a natural resistance to change them, and to make the changes as small as possible. You have to get really fed up (often from prior experience with rules) to simply chunk the whole section altogether. After all, you paid for those rules, right? Might as well use them.

This is why the oft-cited "1E was such a hodge-podge of screwed up rules that people had to house rule" effect is even stronger than usually stated. It wasn't so much that everything in 1E was screwed up (it wasn't), or that none of it had subtle effects that could be lost (there were). Rather, it was that some of it was so blatantly and obviously not handled, that you got that resistance out of your system fairly rapidly.

 

[Phaezen]

Reposting my thoughts on balance from another thread:

I think there is enough evidence that there are people who have had issues with the imbalance between casters and non-casters at mid to high level, just as there is enough evidence that a DM or group can mitigate this problem through social pacts and game management.

Given that not all DMs are strong enough to be able to manage a table like this, or don't have enough time to customize opponents and scenarios so that all the class power levels can participate meaningfully I feel a system which balances the classes is preferable for the following reasons:

1. It puts less pressure on the DM to have complete system mastery and have to balance various competing rules elements so that everyone can participate in the majority of scenes, whether they are combat, social or other. The DM can instead spend more time on preparing plot and story.

2. Min-maxers can still ply their trade without being overwhelmingly powerful at the table.

3. There is no expectation for players to play their class suboptimaly to allow other players a chance to shine at the table. If it is cost effective for casters to create and carry wands and scrolls for utility spells, then there is no reason for casters not to do this, unless they want to allow other players a chance to do there thing. One player should not have this amount of control over the other players at the table.

4. There is no pressure on players to min-max, they can choose class elements for story and plot reasons and not have to worry about their effectiveness at the table.

5. Instead of relying on rules loopholes and weak spots to overpower encounters, it should encourage players to look for in game resources to gain advantages - leaning on allies, using terrain and such.

At the end of the day, a balanced system should cater for all play styles without letting one player dominate because of his class or causing another player to unintentionally hamstring himself due to the character concept he would like to play.