Doing Wrong Part 2: Fighters, Wizards and Balance Oh My!

[Meatboy]

Ideally, there should indeed be an "easy mode" and a "hard mode". But, ideally this would be divorced from archetype - there should be an "easy fighter", a "hard fighter", an "easy wizard" and a "hard wizard".

Bear in mind that groups will most commonly be made up of players of similar skill, and yet will need all the roles covered. So, how do you decide which novice player gets stuck with the "hard mode" wizard? How do you decide which expert player gets stuck with the "easy mode" fighter?

I don't deny that there's some truth in what you're saying, especially with regard to earlier editions. But that doesn't stop it being bad design.

No it really doesn't stop it from being poor design. It might be better to think in terms of mechanically simple vs mechanically complex rather than "easy" or "hard". I'd actually make a case for the fighter and warlock being the mechanically simple classes while warlord and wizard would take on the roll of mechanically complex classes.

Choosing an "advanced" class should absolutely not be "rewarded" with more power; certainly not intentionally. Getting to play the specific character you want to play in the way you want to play it is completely reward enough. Wanting to not deal with a bunch of rules is not synonymous with wanting to be less effective, and thus have less agency as a player.

Imbalance between PC classes is bad, always, and never justified. It should only ever happen due to designer mistakes, never intention.

Differing amounts of complexity is potentially good, if done right. Which would include having both "basic" and "advanced" classes (or sub-classes) available for each major archetype.

All very true but as was said up post I think its very tough to balance swords vs sorcery. Magic is by its very nature magical and thus allows a character to bend reality. Swords regardless of the wielder just cut things. That is just really tough to balance over 20 levels.

 

[S'mon]

I think in pre-4e D&D especially there are a lot of advantages to "everyone starts at level 1". For one thing it makes dropping in new players & PCs very easy, the GM can keep a stack of pregens to hand, and they are easy to play. I do this in my Pathfinder Beginner Box game.

The big problem is that pre-4e 1st level PCs are excessively fragile. I suspect the best solution is a hit point kicker, maybe CON score. Alternatively start at 2nd level with max hp.

 

[howandwhy99]

As I understand earlier editions of D&D, Experience Points were a rating of difficulty for player challenges and these were then defined per class. Different classes were more and less capable in regards to different challenges. Also, different classes received XP for different accomplishments. This is why each class had its own XP total rather than a cumulative one like in later editions.

I do believe different classes were more or less difficult to play, but each was nowhere near as disparate as difficulty due to advanced levels. Higher levels were simply harder to play. They were simply made easier as players improved at the game. Sort of like how some videogames increase in eye-hand coordination challenges as the games progress.

I think the different XP requirements for the different classes had more to due with their scope. Magic Users simply had more opportunities to get their class related XP because "magic" pervaded and was highly exploratory in just about everything, if not the perspective of mastering magic. However, to a lesser degree the whole of the world could be seen as relative to combat, but it wasn't built as deeply in the game design. Same with clericism or basically what we call culture now. Not everything in the universe is about the interaction of intelligent creatures, but everything could be considered relatively so. The game just defined this scope even smaller than combat or magic.

I don't think the designers are designing a game where the world / challenges are what characters are balanced in regards to, but it is possible they could vary the difficulty of the characters by class still. As to Levels, higher levels certainly do appear more difficult to play, if only because of increases in baked in abilities which are kind of falling into option menus. The learning curve of the game is much higher at high levels I must say - at least if that's where a new player starts out.

 

[Obryn]

As for why the fighter as default? I'd say because in a game where hitting something with a sword (the fighter's main task) is just 2 rolls, that is intrinsically quite simple. Even in 4e most powers only add some conditions or extra attacks. Compared to what magic might be able to do, even something like burning hands has lots of applications simply because it can light things on fire. Just a little thing like that makes magic users more complex than fighters.

Why should hitting something with a sword be two rolls?

Why should it have intrinsically fewer options than spells?

You're artificially limiting melee combat. When Aragorn is killing Orcs, you could look at it as, "hack aimlessly," or you could look at it as specific tactics which have as much place in RPGs as complex spellcasting.

-O

 

[Sunseeker]

We should not have "beginner" classes. All classes should have an easy level of introduction. Playing a fighter teaches you jack squat about how to play a Wizard, so why should a class that has nothing in common with another class, teach you how to play that class? Classes should naturally gain some complexity as they advance in level, but no class should need to be "more complex" by nature. More complex classes should not reward greater power, they should reward the player with the same thing a simple class does: being able to play the way you want. A more "complex" build may pull off more interesting effects in ways that seem much cooler than hitting something with a big metal stick, but there's no need to reward complication with mechanically superior effects.

People shouldn't be playing Fighters or Wizards because they want a complex or simple game experience. People should be playing Fighters or Wizards because that's the type of character they enjoy playing. No player, no matter how noobish, should be told "You can't play that." because people who cast spells are considered "advanced" and require high system mastery, and people who swing swords are considered "simple" and only require two dice rolls(hit and damage) per turn. We do NOT want to design game systems that actively discourage people from playing. All classes should teach how THAT class runs.

Relying on playing a Fighter to teach someone how to play a Wizard is completely backwards. Especially when the Wizard includes mechanics that the Fighter never ever even dreams about. Low-level Wizards should be as easy to get into as low-level fighters. If Wizards gain more complexity over the levels by nature as opposed to the fighter who must choose to take on such complexity, that's fine. But Wizards should not be so horridly complex that a level 1 Wizard cannot be played by a new player, and Fighters should not be so simple that a 15th-level Fighter cannot be enjoyed by an experienced player.

 

[Hussar]

I do disagree actually that magic is somehow more difficult to balance against the mundane. For one, 4e shows that it can be done pretty well. But, even if that's not the route you want to go, there are others. The Basic/Expert route works too - have about ten spells per spell level and don't allow any more into the game.

Done.

The reason magic gets out of hand is because, while the mundane characters have changed relatively little from one edition to the next, the casters have gained dozens and dozens of new options every level.

Strip back the magic system to about six or ten spells per spell level and you've got casters that are no more difficult than non-casters. Three offensive spells, one defensive spell, one "cantrip" style spell that is intentionally vague and allows greater effects as the level increases, and four or five specific spells that do specific effects. Done.

 

[Remathilis]

RE: easy and hard mode.

In an ideal world, each of the four classes (and perhaps many of the supplemental ones) would be able to run in a less complex yet equally powerful mode as complex versions of the same classes. Thus, players of varying skill, interest, and ability could play together and still contribute meaningfully.

I rank that up there with "perfect length boss fights" and "interesting yet balanced magic items" in the not-gonna-happen category.

Ignore the difference in classes for a moment. What does a "simple" wizard or cleric look like? What does a "simple" rogue do? How are the complex "hard mode" ones meaningfully different? Take the wizard for an example. The easiest way to build an "easy mode" wizard is to use the 3.5 sorcerer model: small pool of spells, lots of chances to use it. Avoid the complex or esoteric spells (polymorph, summons, illusion) and focus on the iconic subset (direct damage, defense, utility). You'd get a wizard that's fairly simple to play, but realistically is he equal to the complex mage who can change shapes, conjure fiends, and fool enemies into believing a door exists where it shouldn't? In easy mode, the wizard is crippled by his small selection of mostly attack spells and can't possibly hold his own against a wizard decked out in full customized glory and the complete complement of spells. You'd get the 3.5 wizard vs sorcerer problem again; if not worse (since sorcerers could learn any spell in 3.5 and wasn't barred from complex summons, illusions, and such).

The Fighter is a similar case: an "easy fighter" hits and does damage; lather rinse repeat. A complex fighter's trips, disarms, and pushes and reaping strikes is a lot more versatile and thus stronger than one whose only means of contribution is damage. I mean, a fighter who can choose to raise his AC and tank automatically has the advantage over one who can't. Again, the fighter who can do nothing but hit suffers against the more versatile complex fighter, who can STILL go "all damage" if he needs to as well. You can do the same for clerics, rogues, and any other class which depends on having elements of customization or tactical choices.

Personally, I can't see having "easy" or "hard" modes that can work together. You really can't have "easy" and "hard" fighters expected to fill the same role. Either the game wants to be complex, rich, and option-full (but hard to get into) or it wants to be light, simple, and quick (but not very detailed/fiddily). In other words, you need a "Basic" and "Advanced" versions of the game. Basic needs few moving parts (not just parts stuck in one mode, but less over system clutter) to teach the basics, while Advanced should have lots of options and settings that the DM/players can use at his choice. But like basic and advanced, you shouldn't expect you can drop a B/X fighter (d8 HD and all) into your AD&D game and run as is and expect to fill the role of an AD&D fighter with weapon specialization and exceptional strength.

Which all leads us back to complexity between classes. Assuming we're not going to build two versions of D&DN and that "easy mode" classes can't fill the role of their complex brethren, we need to look at how can a new player get involved in the game. What classes are "easier" to play than others. Tradition dictates fighters are easiest to start with due to having few choices and high durability (thieves would be next difficult, but lack durability. Clerics are durable, but have more choices, wizards are squishy and complex). And thus, it was a step-up system of game mastery that meant newer players avoided casters in lieu of martial PCs at first until the ropes were learned. There are ways to fix this, but it requires either removing choices from the complex characters (limiting spells, for example) or increasing choices in simple characters (such as adding maneuvers, feats, or such to fighters). Which brings us back to a "easy" and "hard" game again.

Thus, one of three things will happen: D&DN will abandon "easy" mode altogether in order to fix perceived imbalance between classes; D&DN will attempt to make "easy mode" classes that can't compete against "hard mode" versions of themselves and thus force the player to graduate (quickly) to hard mode to be viable; or the game splits into two similar-yer-different games; one running all classes in easy mode and one running all classes in hard. (Basic vs. Advanced, Beginner Box vs. Core Rules, etc). There is no other way to fix the linear fighters vs. quadratic wizards issue (other than ignore it, as D&D did up to 3.5).

The question for D&D Next will be which wins out: a light game that eschews perfect balance or a complex game that is balanced but hard to learn. It started out simple, but its quickly becoming the latter.

 

[Obryn]

If a simple wizard can't keep up with a complex one, and a simple fighter can't keep up with a complex one, then I fail to see how it follows that having a simple fighter and a complex wizard is anything other than a failure in good game design.

-O

 

[Meatboy]

Why should hitting something with a sword be two rolls?

Why should it have intrinsically fewer options than spells?

You're artificially limiting melee combat. When Aragorn is killing Orcs, you could look at it as, "hack aimlessly," or you could look at it as specific tactics which have as much place in RPGs as complex spellcasting.

-O

Why should hitting be two rolls? Well it certainly doesn't have to be, but I think at this point it will be very hard to get away from the "roll a d20 add modifiers check results against target number" thing that has been rather central to the game as a whole up to this point. We could probably change it up to make it more granular or active but we would probably end up with something that people would say "isn't DnD anymore".

As for should combat have fewer options? No. Its great that newer editions give mundane classes more to do. They are my favorite classes to play and I am happy to have more choice. But I don't think I will ever be able to have a fighter use one of their powers outside of combat. I said up thread that a fire spell simply by being fire makes it more versital than any sword technique could be and unfortunately I don't think this can change as long as we want to keep mundane classes mundane.

As for me artificially limiting melee combat. I think I am not doing anything actually, not that way at least. I am trying to point out things which I see as already exsisting throughout the editions and stating some of my opinions on them.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ignore the difference in classes for a moment. What does a "simple" wizard or cleric look like?

A simple wizard: An elementalist. They have easy control over one element or one force and can do more or less whatever the hell they want with it but lack flexibility. They'd get e.g. Affect Normal Fires and a firebolt as cantrips, and have a few other spells like summoning a fire elemental from an existing fire, and fireball. But only a few. A simple cleric: A Warpriest. They heal, they occasionally throw down a spell like zone of truth. But mostly they hit things and rely on insight.

What does a "simple" rogue do?

1: Turn invisible.
2: Pick locks.
3: Pick pockets.
4: Disarm traps.
5: Stab people.
6: Confuse people.

Alternatively they pick one or two things and specialise in them.

How are the complex "hard mode" ones meaningfully different?

Less power, more options. Affect normal fires for a wizard certainly wouldn't be At Will.

Take the wizard for an example. The easiest way to build an "easy mode" wizard is to use the 3.5 sorcerer model: small pool of spells, lots of chances to use it.

That's the worst of both worlds.

You'd get a wizard that's fairly simple to play, but realistically is he equal to the complex mage who can change shapes, conjure fiends, and fool enemies into believing a door exists where it shouldn't?

Of course not. This is because a specialist should be significantly better at the things they specialise in than a generalist. If the fire specialist got 50% more damage from fire spells (and evocations were worth casting anyway) would they be as strong as the generalist? Possibly. But versatility is a strength. Taking away versatility and giving nothing back is hamstringing a class. To point out a class you have hamstrung is hamstrung is obvious.

Let's try a different simple wizard. One who can only cast spells of the fire type - but counts all fire spells as if they were one spell level lower. So he can cast Burning Hands and Affect Normal Fires At Will. Scorching Ray as a first level spell. Fireball as a second level spell. Wall of fire as a third level spell. And so on. Realistically is he equal to the complex mage who can change shape, conjure fiends, and fool enemies into believing a door exists where it shouldn't? I don't think so. But if it's a thunderdome situation, our fire mage is going to win. And if it's taking on an army, the ability to fling fireballs at third level and walls of fire at fifth is really going to help. Is this discount on spells enough? Probably not by 11th level. But I think the specialist will be highly effective until about 7th level - rather than (as for the sorceror) looking silly by third level.

In easy mode, the wizard is crippled by his small selection of mostly attack spells

In easy mode the wizard isn't crippled by that. He's crippled by having a small selection of spells at which he is no better than our generalist wizard. If he really got a boost in his specialist area he might be able to keep up (until the 3.5 wizard became ludicrous).

Again, the fighter who can do nothing but hit suffers against the more versatile complex fighter, who can STILL go "all damage" if he needs to as well.

And there you have the problem. The fighter who can do nothing but hit must be better at hitting than the complex fighter. Your solution is implicit in your problem.

Personally, I can't see having "easy" or "hard" modes that can work together.

It works in 4e. You have the weaponmaster fighter (complex and tactical) and the Slayer with a two handed weapon who just hits stuff incredibly hard. About half as hard again as a weaponmaster. Which is more useful? Pass. Both have their place.

You really can't have "easy" and "hard" fighters expected to fill the same role.

Again, you've just described the solution. A specialist does not fill the same role as a generalist. A generalist should be a jack of all trades and master of none. (This is where the 3.X wizard fails utterly - they are masters of all trades eventually).

Either the game wants to be complex, rich, and option-full (but hard to get into) or it wants to be light, simple, and quick (but not very detailed/fiddily).

Who says?

But like basic and advanced, you shouldn't expect you can drop a B/X fighter (d8 HD and all) into your AD&D game and run as is and expect to fill the role of an AD&D fighter with weapon specialization and exceptional strength.

Yet you can drop a 4e slayer straight into a 4e game. They are strikers not defenders but can certainly fill the role of a 4e PC. And a 4e slayer is almost as simple as a B/X fighter - and certainly simpler than a 2e Weapon Specialist with Non Weapon Proficiencies - or a 3e fighter.

And a single counterexample is enough to disprove your case.