Game Balance

[Nathal]

Ok I'll go with you more on that line but there is still alot more to it. I have played games where the one who made the kill was the one who got the experience, heck i think D&D might of been that way at one time, but I cannot remember if it was the rules or a house rule in the first group I played with (I sold my first edition books in college for food money).

I believe xp was always split up among party members. I'm sure it's been played otherwise through house rules. Heck, I made up my own XP system and dumped theirs entirely (not uncommon I'd gather).

I also think that it is real easy to get characters who have no business in combat. Yes they all get stronger every level, but they really don't stay all that equal there is alot of diversity designed in.

Do you feel that is a flaw in the game design? I'm not asking rhetorically, I really want to get opinions on that.

Yes survival is built into leveling up to a certain extent but fighting skills, physical or magical, just vary too much. I think how much combat based the game is relies more on who is running and who is playing than on the general rules.

Have you played any games where basic survival was not built into leveling up? I think point-systems are like that and I am wondering if anybody has had a bitch of a time balancing encounters in such systems. Yet you say that easy-to-kill characters are not difficult to stumble across in 3rd Edition, which surprises me. I admit I ran the 3rd Edition for only 5 months before switching to Lejendary Adventure, and so may not have gotten the same impression. The designers claimed that the classes should remain fairly equal to each other in power at all levels. That isn't true?

D&D characters all can fight but it is up to the person making the character on how well they can, and that goes for just about every game out there.

I don't disagree with what you've stated above in how it relates to player choices. But as a related question, does anybody here think that a game system which does not assure some amount of "guaranteed survivability" by increase of hit points---or other combat related improvements---are flawed? Have I created a straw man argument?

I'm not sure myself at the moment...

 

[Redleg06]

As long as there are challenges for the party that don't leave them a heart monitor away from death every encounter, each player can contribute, no one player dominates, and the "bad guys" / opposition are not push overs, I think you have what ammounts to as "balanced" a game as possible.


Oh yeah, and Good Drow are kept to an absolute minimum! (Like zero!) hee-hee, cackle...cackle...

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Redleg06,

That's a mighty good summation in my book.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[mkletch]

As long as there are challenges for the party that don't leave them a heart monitor away from death every encounter, each player can contribute, no one player dominates, and the "bad guys" / opposition are not push overs, I think you have what ammounts to as "balanced" a game as possible.

Simple but profound. I'll sleep well tonight.

-Fletch!

 

[jdavis]

Have you played any games where basic survival was not built into leveling up? I think point-systems are like that and I am wondering if anybody has had a bitch of a time balancing encounters in such systems. Yet you say that easy-to-kill characters are not difficult to stumble across in 3rd Edition, which surprises me. I admit I ran the 3rd Edition for only 5 months before switching to Lejendary Adventure, and so may not have gotten the same impression. The designers claimed that the classes should remain fairly equal to each other in power at all levels. That isn't true?

I find it is quite easy to build a character who doesn't need to be in combat. We have a Halfling rogue in our party right now who has no business ever being in combat. He spends the first 5 to 6 rounds adjusting and sneaking to get that one good backstab attack and then he is pretty much just a moving target, most of the time his sneak attack isn't all that good, he does about the same amount of damage as the fighters average attacks. The character is designed to be sneaky, he doesn't fight well at all but he can get into places unseen and he adds tons of character to the group. For that matter a good half of our party is not really combat oriented. We rarely miss a spot or search role, and we always find the trap doors but combat is normally very ugly. Are characters are all equal in importance because we all have a role in the group.

I am not sure that survival is built into leveling up in D&D, the characters get stronger and the chalenges get greater, (thus the balance is maintained). Alot of other games don't have the characters get stronger but most of these games combat is so deadly it doesn't matter, Chaosium COC is a good example, a shot gun blast will kill you just as fast regardless of how experienced the characters are.

I think all the classes are basically equal as the levels go up, just not in combat ability, once again I'll go back to the rogue, he might not fight as well as the fighter but the fighter can't disarm a spear trap in a door, thus the balance in their roles. Which character is more useful? Well that depends on the situation.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I used to play Rolemaster a bit when I was in college but not enough to tell whether survival wasn't based on levelling up. (It seemed to me like good stats played a much bigger part in survival. . . .)

As far as easy to kill characters in 3e, you bet it's easy. The core classes are all fairly balanced against each other if they're well constructed but that's a big if.

A non-durable PC I actually DMed through five levels--human fighter 4/wizard 3. Str 14, dex 18, con 8, Int 16, wis 10, cha 10. Weapon focus, specialization: longsword, combat casting, dodge, mobility, something or other else. He was a decent character and benefitted from some really good loot I handed out in the first adventure but he was a dead man walking the whole time. As a front line character with the 8 con and three wizard hit dice, it was only a matter of time before something got lucky. Well, one round toe to toe with a fiendish Girallon did him in.

Another one I've seen: Rog/Clr/Wiz/Ftr 1. A 4th level melee character with a +3 attack bonus (total), substandard hit points, and very limited advancement capabilities. Using scrolls, he could be useful as well but as the character levels up, he'll just be a speed bump to delay a dire bear/etc for one round without sufficient capabilities to be useful in any particular area.

One I haven't seen, but which could easily happen:
Halfling Monk/Sorceror/Wizard/Rogue. Low dex, high strength. His plan is to use sorceror levels for shield and true strike, and wizard levels for buffs. He relies on the rogue levels for sneak attack (where he gets his damage from). Being even more foolish, the player decides to maximize the character's "survivability" by taking Dodge and Iron Will and picks Mantis Leap (the most famously worthless splatbook feat--it does nothing except sound cool). The character's saves will be great and his AC will be decent but that'll be it. With his worthwhile benefits spread out over every single stat (str=damage, dex=AC, saves, Con=HP, saves, Int=spells, Wis=AC, DCs, saves, Cha=spells), the character will require phenomenal stats to even be viable. (Don't try this on a point buy system). And the mutliclassing nerfs the characters BAB and hit points (and since monks are usually melee combatants, they can't afford to lose much of either) without giving the character high level spells (because of xp penalties, the character won't get 2nd level spells until clvl 8 at the earliest).

And then there are characters who are deliberately useless--usually created by people who think that roleplaying=being a non-combatant. Sor/Ari/Brd focussed on "background skills" (the daughter of a haughty nobleman, she learned knitting and needlework as well as geography but fed up with the stiltifying life she fled to join a group of minstrels--although she had no talent), with spells like "Unseen Servant" ("A proper lady doesn't go anywhere without a servant") and "Alarm" ("Somehow she always seemed to know when someone was going to interrupt her idling"), and with no ranks in perform (remember that bit about no talent).

PCs like those are certainly not equal to a single classed and/or efficiently-constructed PC of the same level in either usefulness or survival value--they're not even close.

Have you played any games where basic survival was not built into leveling up? I think point-systems are like that and I am wondering if anybody has had a bitch of a time balancing encounters in such systems. Yet you say that easy-to-kill characters are not difficult to stumble across in 3rd Edition, which surprises me. I admit I ran the 3rd Edition for only 5 months before switching to Lejendary Adventure, and so may not have gotten the same impression. The designers claimed that the classes should remain fairly equal to each other in power at all levels. That isn't true?

 

[maddman75]

In most D&D campaigns the characters tend to be become rather cocky and brazen in their dealings with NPCS as their power grows. DMs are then forced to come up with house rules to deal with situations like the capture a 13th level character by a band of 1st level warriors who have him cornered with crossbows aimed and ready to fire at his throat if he so much as twitches. I don't care what class that high level character is, chances are he could take a full round of every one of those warriors firing on him at point blank range and still kill several of them (if not all) in return before running of to safety. In a gritty, realistic game that character would be dead if he was corned with soldiers with crossbows. D&D is about heroic fantasy and supports that sort of game best. Campaigns that deal less with battle, valor, monsters, and traps may do better with a different rule set.

You don't seem to properly understand hit points (the reason the 13th level fighter can take a dozen crossbow bolts and just keep going).

He has the skill based on his experience in combat to turn serious blows into less serious ones. That is, when the crossbows fire, he twists a bit, steps to the side, and the bolt that was heading for his heart hits his shoulder. The one headed for his throat grazes his ear. This is instinctual and happens even when he is suprised.

If he is helpless and a weapon is thrust directly in his chest, that is what we call a coup de grace.

Imagine that everyone only gets the HP they have at first level. Then they get a damage reduction (something commonly bandied about by "gritty" game fans) that reduces all his damage by a certain percentage. Our thirteenth level fighter is so good he reduces his damage to 1/10 the original value. So even a critical hit for 20 only does 2 points to this veteran.

This is mathematically equal to a character having 100 hit points (chosen to keep the math easy ) only you don't have to do long division every time you get hit.

For the question at hand, I'm of the opinion that viability of the character is most important. Everyone should have something that they are really good at. This depends on the campaign. In a H&S dungeon crawl, the influence focused bard is going to feel pretty useless. In an urban political campaign, the barbarian with the greataxe is going to feel pretty ineffectual.

 

[Spatula]

Originally posted by maddman75

DMs are then forced to come up with house rules to deal with situations like the capture a 13th level character by a band of 1st level warriors who have him cornered with crossbows aimed and ready to fire at his throat if he so much as twitches. I don't care what class that high level character is, chances are he could take a full round of every one of those warriors firing on him at point blank range and still kill several of them (if not all) in return before running of to safety. In a gritty, realistic game that character would be dead if he was corned with soldiers with crossbows.

You don't seem to properly understand hit points (the reason the 13th level fighter can take a dozen crossbow bolts and just keep going).

If he is helpless and a weapon is thrust directly in his chest, that is what we call a coup de grace.

Of course in this case, a 13th level fighter could probably still take a few coup de grace shots from crossbows and survive.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Kahuna,

Player agreement is always needed. This is specifically concerning game balance which the DM will always have to determine even if the players agree to a campaign of a different nature. The players will have some input as to how the game should be balanced, but ultimately the DM will control the adventure and how game balance is affected. For example, if someone is playing the sycophant, you really can't expect them to enjoy the role if he does nothing. The DM has to throw him into situations where his character role is interesting such as attempted coups where he must judge whether or not his current leader will be able to win or not.

I am basically saying the game balance is determined by the DM and what encounters the DM determines will make the situation interesting for the PC's. That is why I don't see the mechanics as the primary determinant of game balance. A player can have a mechanically balanced character, but be nigh on useless during the campaign.

For example, you could have a party of 6 people. Let's say three of them are fighters, two are clerics and one is a rogue. Lets say the DM uses a module designed for four people exactly as it is written. What are the odds that those characters are going to have a good time? I would say not very good.

The fighters are redundant and will probably be banking on rolling a good initiative just to get the chance to swing their swords. The clerics will probably get bored because they don't have to heal or fight much. The rogue might be entertained because he will still get to scout and deal with traps.

Whereas you could take a group consisting of a halfling rogue, a Chosen of Mystra wizard, a half-celestial Paladin, and a human commoner on an adventure where each character had an interesting role if the DM takes the time to design encounters that challenge and interest the PC's. If the DM designs a pure combat adventure, then most likely the halfling rogue and the human commoner are going to get very bored.

If the DM is running an interesting storyline, then things will be fun. For example, let's say the halfling rogue is the best friend of the human commoner who is an orphan. The Half-celestial shows up with the Chosen of Mystra, who tells the human commoner that he is only remaining child of a fallen kingdom. Then the Chosen of Mystra informs the human commoner that he must travel with him to reclaim his kingdom.

This would be a very fun campaign to play for many roleplayers, but it is definitely not balanced powerwise or even character viability. The balance is entirely in the hands of the DM who must ensure the adventure is interesting to the players.

Of course, the players must be willing to roleplay this scenario. I say to worry too much about game balance in terms of combat or equal abilities is to lose the opportunity to run people through a good story. This is the primary reason I chose option 4.

You can create a very good story and not have the characters balanced in the slightest. I bet a great many players would still enjoy running in an "imbalanced" campaign with a great story and DM capable of making the adventure fun for all.

 

[Nathal]

You don't seem to properly understand hit points (the reason the 13th level fighter can take a dozen crossbow bolts and just keep going).

.

I know that hit points represents more than endurance. My example was a man in a corner with crossbows trained on him at point-blank range, totally surrounded! I don't care how many hit points that character has...if he moves he's going down! Sometimes hit-points can be abused in a situation where it would make no sense for the character to dodge attacks. If he wasn't cornered it may be different but...