Fighter, Rogue, Blaster, Healer . . . Balanced?

[delericho]

If they'd failed they would be almost as out of the fight as someone who was dead.

Yes, but it's that key word "almost" that is of critical importance.

I think both is, but I agree to one thing. The 600d6 is impractical and boring. It would take months to create or would burn trough your higher level spellslots like firestorm, and every day there's a chance it goes off. I would let them do it, but it doesn't say much about the players.

The problem is that every time I come across one of these 'optimiser' arguments, I find at the heart of it either a reliance on some broken game element from an obscure sourcebook or on a faulty rules interpretation, or frequently both.

That has nothing to do with Optimizer 'attitude'. I have a policy to let my players do whatever they want. I know they aren't going to brake my game lest I throw them out, and everything else can be countered by me, since I have access to everything they do. And if I fail, cudos to them.

The way I see it, I have two choices:

- Trust my players not to try to break my game by 'optimising'

- Engage my players (and the CharOp boards they will inevitably consult) in an arms race over controlling the thousands of combinations they can muster

The latter will entail a huge amount of additional preparation that I have neither time nor inclination to do, will leave me thoroughly disillusioned with the game I enjoy, and result in a game that everyone except the optimiser enjoys considerably less.

 

[delericho]

Not sure why you'd leave the array - it's just a possible 29 point buy

That one is mostly for the benefit of novice players - it gives them a quick and easy array with which to build characters that are decent, but not absolutely optimal. They get that 1 extra point in raw power as a trade-off for not being able to optimise perfectly.

(As mentioned up-thread, the by-the-book rolled method is approximately equal to 30.5 points, but allows for even less by way of specific optimisation. Thus the three methods are more or less balanced - point buy gives control but less raw power, random rolls less control but more power on average, and the array a mid-point between the two.)

 

[Dozen]

The problem is that every time I come across one of these 'optimiser' arguments, I find at the heart of it either a reliance on some broken game element from an obscure sourcebook or on a faulty rules interpretation, or frequently both.

At the very least, we have found a common ground. I also find these welcome only in a certain kind of campaign myself. The 'messing about' category, to be precise.

The latter will entail a huge amount of additional preparation that I have neither time nor inclination to do, will leave me thoroughly disillusioned with the game I enjoy, and result in a game that everyone except the optimiser enjoys considerably less.

Yes, that can be painful for DMs and new players alike. If I can't deal with something I usually still ask them to knock it off after a while. I let them have a laugh, but not at the other's expense.

 

[the Jester]

How often do we see a 4d6, drop the lowest character whose stats are sub-par? No, we throw that sheet away and roll again. Has anyone ever seen a 4d6, drop the lowest character with a "3"?

I've played two that I can think of off the top of my head. They are two of the most memorable pcs I've had the pleasure of playing, too!

I see it with players in my game, too; in my long-running 3e halfling campaign, one pc was the clan dog (a kobold). He rolled a 3 for Str... and with his racial adjustments, he was a pc with a 1 Strength. He remained the low-level-spell-wonder for a long, long time- he multiclassed bard and sorcerer, then added a "have my own spell list" prestige class before he ever got 2nd level spells- never carried equipment beyond the lightest, often asked other pcs to carry him up the stairs, shivered like a chihuahua, and was generally awesome.

Also, he was one of the only original pcs who was still alive when the campaign finished up.

 

[delericho]

At the very least, we have found a common ground.

Aye. It's been a hard-fought road, but I do think we've managed to make it to an agreement.

Sorry I can't XP you again so soon.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't think so, I would rather think that the game is more balanced when the Wizard knows plenty of utility spells and a small selection of combat spells, and then even only some of the combat spells are damage-dealers.

... so the game is most balanced when everyone is playing a Batman Wizard. Right.

If, however, you have a bunch of players who aren't obsessed with optimising, explicitly don't want to break your game, and just want to play... you'll have a pretty balanced game. And that applies whether you restrict the casters or not.

This applies if and only if the casters aren't being smart or creative with their spells. If you give the most creative and adept players in the group the non-casters you'll probably have a balanced game.

(Or, possibly, if he's bought a scroll or wand. The problem there is that that eats into his limited budget for buying gear - are you sure you wouldn't rather put the money to a better headband of intellect instead?)

The problem with this armchair critique is that there is so much less a caster wants to spend money on than a non-caster, and they get much more bang for their buck when they do.

A wizard needs a Headband of Intellect - the only other items that help the wizard cast in the SRD are metamagic rods, pearls of power, Rings of Wizardry, and the Blessed Book. A fighter on the other hand needs a magic weapon, magic armour, possibly a magic shield, boosters to strength, dex, and possibly con and wis. And that's just getting started.

It's also a very common assumption that the casters get to 'nova' in every encounter. But that's a gamestyle assumption - in a game where casters can't be sure they won't have to fight again, they don't get to just blow through all their spells safely. And that makes a big difference to relative power levels.

Only to some playstyles. The Batman approach is to win the fight with as few spells as possible then sit back and relax watching the mopping up operation.

I think you'd find the game is much easier to balance just by removing scribe scroll and craft wand feats.

That won't fix the problems. But it's a damn good start.

Because, sans your most important stat, most characters look exactly the same. A 28 point buy melee fighter will generally look like:
S16 D14 C15 I10 W10 Ch8 Sure, the odd player will throw a higher int or charisma in there, but generally speaking, most melee fighters will look something like the above. A wizard will most likely be: S8 D16 C14 I16 W10 Ch8.

And this is a specific problem with 3.X (and to a lesser edition 2e). In older editions stats didn't matter much so you could spread them around freely.

With the split save stats 4e has much freer stat placement than 3.X - and has synergy with stats. There are decent builds for the wizard using literally any stat other than Int as your secondary stat. There are decent builds for a Paragon Thief using Str, Dex, Int, Con, or Cha as your primary stat. (OK, so you have to be a half elf or revenant for those last two). The Lazy Warlord doesn't even have a primary stat. The Barbarian has official builds with Dex, Con, and Cha as secondary stats - and my last one was strong enough despite his secondary stat being Int (and he was a Ritual Caster). And there is no class without at least two viable secondary stats.

This is what balance means - almost all concepts are viable unless obviously not.

There's never a strong charismatic fighter or a strong wizard or any variation.

I've seen both those in 4e.

 

[Elf Witch]

Who wants those unorthodox characters? If the players want them, they can roll and adjust to point buy limits. So you could end up with that 16 STR, 16 INT fighter or wizard. But you don't get that 16 in the usual "off stat" for free - your wizard can't have the same stat array as the guy who optimized, plus bump your STR to 16 with all the advantages that carries.

If you want, sure, you can have less stats than the point buy would allow - but you have chosen to have a less powerful character than the other players.

Now, if the GM wants these unorthodox characters, it's certainly his campaign, but recognize that you are imposing your playstyle on your players. Will you enforce it - sit there, roll 4d6, drop the lowest, six times and no matter what you roll, that's the character you play? Will the players accept that? Most importantly, will that approach make the game more fun for all involved?

That is how we have been playing for many years and enjoy it. As a player and DM I really dislike point buy. I would like the chance once in awhile to just have an awesome character which you will never get with 28 or 32 point buy and I am willing to play a lot of characters who are not awesome.

I like the way you get a more organic feel with rolling and it usually helps me decide which of the many concepts I have rolling around in my brain. I very rarely go into a new game with a definite idea of what I want to play.

As a DM I hate the cookie cutter characters point buy gives I have rarely been surprised when I see the stats for a point buy they tend to always be the most optimal way to build te character and if a player decides he would like a little variety he has to deal with the other players moaning about it. Or putting subtle pressure on why it was not the most optimal choice. ( a word I have come to hate when discussing characters)

Now when I DM you have a choice upfront you can roll and accept what you got unless you roll so badly that the character is totally subpar the DMs guide has a guide for that I can't remember off the top of my head what it is. Or you can just go with a 32 point buy.

I do this with hit die you can take your changes and roll or take half but the decision is made before the roll.

As for the balance issue the biggest problem is the sheer amount of easy access magic users get to items. House rule out easy scribe scroll and wands and a lot of the balance issues go away.

 

[Li Shenron]

... so the game is most balanced when everyone is playing a Batman Wizard. Right.

No, only one i.e. the Wizard.

At very high level it may not work anymoe, but I have other reasons not to go that high up in level, so it doesn't bother me.

Now, if the GM wants these unorthodox characters, it's certainly his campaign, but recognize that you are imposing your playstyle on your players. Will you enforce it - sit there, roll 4d6, drop the lowest, six times and no matter what you roll, that's the character you play? Will the players accept that? Most importantly, will that approach make the game more fun for all involved?

I try to play with people who like the same playstyle as mine, in which case yes, it makes the game more fun for all of us.

I've actually played the opposite style as well, and I don't dislike it at all. If everyone wants to play that, I'll play that too. What do you do when that happens to you?

As a DM I hate the cookie cutter characters point buy gives I have rarely been surprised when I see the stats for a point buy they tend to always be the most optimal way to build te character and if a player decides he would like a little variety he has to deal with the other players moaning about it. Or putting subtle pressure on why it was not the most optimal choice. ( a word I have come to hate when discussing characters)

Agree on everything you say. What I was trying to say in my previous post, is that however I don't think "point buy" is the cause of problems but rather the effect. The cause is that those players like "combat as sport" so they have already decided that efficiency, optimality and equality among characters are a necessity, and stats-rolling gets in the way of those while point-buy creates a better ground to achieve those.

These players hate everything random in character creation with a passion, but there are other reasons for other players too to prefer point-buy: maybe someone is just afraid not to be good enough to play in case the rolls are poor, maybe another one just had a string of bad luck in games and is looking for a safe start this time... OTOH if your gaming group does not want point-buy and asks you to use stat-rolling, that tells me they are very probably the other "combat as war" type of gamers.

 

[pemerton]

the "combat as sport" player will always, invariably try to design a "standard" character, optimized as much as possible (tho different players have different ideas on how an optimized result will be)

<snip>

For a "combat as sport" player, "efficiency" is paramount, and he'll never ever design a character that has something less than he or everyone else can

<snip>

This kind of player will generally hate rolling for stats, but if he has to, he'll still end up making the most obvious stat choices, whether he generally rolled high or low.

I think you might be overgeneralising a bit here.

And on the broader optimisation issue, my preference is for a game that won't break when the players and/or GM push its mechanical limits. A game which requires mechanical "holding back" (except perhaps on the mostly irrelevant margins) is always going to be inferior, in my view, because the players are now motivated by something other than playing their PC - they also have to worry about not breaking the game - and the GM is now motivated by something other than pouring pressure onto the players via their PCs - s/he also has to worry about not breaking the game. The game degenerates from what I think of as an RPG into something more like a conch-passing, shared storytelling exercise.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For instance, the "combat as sport" player will always, invariably try to design a "standard" character, optimized as much as possible (tho different players have different ideas on how an optimized result will be), unless there exists more than one standards for a class that he believes strong enough, such as having a high Con rather than a high Dex for defense.

I'd say you have this completely backwards.

A Combat as War player is trying to win. They are therefore almost invariably going to be picking the best equipment and tools for the job - the same spells for a wizard, the same equipment for a fighter.

A Combat as Sport player knows they can take whatever the hell they like and so are less likely to make standard choices. They have no need to optimise.

For Combat as War effectiveness is the only standard by which you measure - it's be effective or die. If you aren't making almost razor-optimised choices in character when playing Combat as War you aren't roleplaying or are intentionally roleplaying someone with suicidal tendencies. (This goes right to the level that before weapon damage rules were introduced the most common PC weapon was iron spikes as they were the cheapest weapon possible). For Combat as Sport you are released from this constraint; your PC is going to be powerful however you approach it.