Idea on keeping Vancian casters from novaing

[Elf Witch]

Two distinct things I feel the need to address here:

1) (more on-topic) Balance as an attribute of the system vs balance as a goal of the DM. The DM has enough to do in any game - he's imagining, statting out, making decisions for, and portraying everyone & everything in the world /except/ the PCs. Also taking on the burden of balancing the PC's against eachother by tailoring every story or encounter or 'day' to showcase each of their disparate talents, failings, and strength so that they take turns shining and sucking in some equal proportion, can only take away from his already substantial responsitibilities.


2) (tangent) The whole my-style-as-serious/your-style-as-pointless thing. No metaphor or terminology is going to make that sort dismissive personal attack a helpful thing. We could talk about the commonalities of different styles and how a game could emphasize what they have in common an minimize hammering on differences to create something that could apeal to both - like 5e supposedly wants to try to do. IMHO, solid overall game balance is key to that, because it gives the players and DMs the tools to create the characters and scenarios they want - whether those are symetric contests of skill and chance, or asymetric challenges of cunning and desperation.

You are entitled to your opinion but as a DM I want the freedom to tailor the game to my players because WOTC does not sit at my table. I do not find it difficult at all to balance the game for my players. I don't find extra work. To me it is part of the whole encounter design. If I run a module and it is full of undead but I know my group has a favored soul not a cleric and they don't have a way to turn undead then I am going to take that into consideration.

I think you are being over sensitive if I say we take the game very seriously we want gritty and a chance to get gangrene and want role playing reasons for the party to do the things it does that is not a cut at people who say I want to kick in the doors kill things take their stuff and I want easy rules that allow me to do this.

 

[Herschel]

I think you are being over sensitive if I say we take the game very seriously we want gritty and a chance to get gangrene and want role playing reasons for the party to do the things it does that is not a cut at people who say I want to kick in the doors kill things take their stuff and I want easy rules that allow me to do this.

The issue is though that in order for "everyone" to run the style of game they want, everyone has to have the same, base resources to manage, re: crapcanning daily and encounter resources and let each group add to taste.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You are entitled to your opinion but as a DM I want the freedom to tailor the game to my players because WOTC does not sit at my table.

And you have that freedom with any and every game - no company or designer is going to send game police to your table to force you to run things their way.

What's so bad about exercising that freedom upon a game that's already balanced & playable?

I do not find it difficult at all to balance the game for my players.

OK. There could be a number of reasons for that. Care to elaborate?

I think you are being over sensitive if I say we take the game very seriously we want gritty and a chance to get gangrene and want role playing reasons for the party to do the things it does that is not a cut at people who say I want to kick in the doors kill things take their stuff and I want easy rules that allow me to do this.

For one thing, those aren't the only two ways to play the game, for another, the second is /not/ the way the other side is characterized.

 

[TwoSix]

If the wizard is the only one who gets center staging then that is because the DM failed to their job and design an encounter that lets everybody shine.

I don't feel it SHOULD be my job to design the encounter around the players. I want to design encounters, and trust that the party will have the resources to deal with it.

 

[Elf Witch]

And you have that freedom with any and every game - no company or designer is going to send game police to your table to force you to run things their way.

What's so bad about exercising that freedom upon a game that's already balanced & playable?

OK. There could be a number of reasons for that. Care to elaborate?

For one thing, those aren't the only two ways to play the game, for another, the second is /not/ the way the other side is characterized.

There is nothing wrong with balance in a game the issue comes in with trying to define what that balance is. Everyone talks about how wonderfully balanced 4E is yet for a lot of us they balanced it in a way to make the game unfun for us.

There is no way you will ever completely balance a game unless you make every class exactly the same. There will always be time that one class outshines another. A bard will never rock the battlefield the way a barbarian does and a barbarian will never rock the social aspect the way a bard does.


When I plan encounters for a session I make different type of encounters that will allow everyone at the table a chance to play and be the one in the spotlight.

There are plenty of chances for the bard to use his diplomacy to solve issues, the cleric/meat shield of the party gets plenty of opportunities to show his prowess n the filed of combat. The wizard likes to use his knowledge skills and be an expert on certain things so I make sure he has the chance. And finally the monk is the sneaky one who does most of the scouting.

Knowing what my players like and what they are capable of doing helps me plan a game that everyone has fun at it.

There are a lot of ways to play the game and I like I said before I think you were reading to much in the one poster comments he even went on the explain that was not what he meant.

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't feel it SHOULD be my job to design the encounter around the players. I want to design encounters, and trust that the party will have the resources to deal with it.

But it is your job. If your party has no cleric and no ability to turn undead and you design an encounter that does not take that into consideration you have just made an encounter that is most likely going to end in a TPK.

If you design an encounters with a lot of traps and locked doors and the party does not have a rogue nor magical items to overcome this then the odds are stacked against them.

Unless you are saying that every class should be able to do everything needed in the game.

 

[TwoSix]

But it is your job. If your party has no cleric and no ability to turn undead and you design an encounter that does not take that into consideration you have just made an encounter that is most likely going to end in a TPK.

If you design an encounters with a lot of traps and locked doors and the party does not have a rogue nor magical items to overcome this then the odds are stacked against them.

Unless you are saying that every class should be able to do everything needed in the game.

Actually, I'd be saying that no class should have an ability that makes it required to defeat that encounter. Particularly in a game where the number of classes is in the dozens and the variations possible on those classes through build options is orders of magnitude higher.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is nothing wrong with balance in a game the issue comes in with trying to define what that balance is. Everyone talks about how wonderfully balanced 4E is yet for a lot of us they balanced it in a way to make the game unfun for us.

'Fun' is ultimately a subjective experience, and can be the result of many factors beyond the mechanics of the game (nerdrage over an early rev-roll, for instance). Balanced mechanics don't make a game fun (or un-fun) they simply make it less likely that the game will be ruined by having most of the choices it presents obviated.

Really, that's what it comes down to. A fair 'definition' of a balanced game is one that presents choices, and most (all if it's perfectly balanced) of them are meaningful and viable compared to eachother. An imbalanced game presents choices, and many of them are worthless 'traps' that are inferior, while a few are overpowered 'must-haves.'

4e, for instance, had good class balance, with only a few under-supported classes, and no clearly overpowered ones - but, it had terrible balance among its feat choices, which consisted of legions of low-value feats, a few 'must-have' feat-taxes, a few abuseable combos involving feats, and many strictly-inferior 'trap' choices.

Whether you agree with that definition of balance or not, is there anything wrong with a game trying to minimize the number of inferior and/or overpowered choices while maximizing the number of meaningful choices overall?

There is no way you will ever completely balance a game unless you make every class exactly the same.

Removing options doesn't create balance. If it did, then a badly imbalanced game where one class were utterly superior to all others, and thus was the only class anyone ever played would be functionally identical to a 'balanced' one.

When I plan encounters for a session I make different type of encounters that will allow everyone at the table a chance to play and be the one in the spotlight.

Nod. A good approach to compensate for an imbalanced game, one that I recommended a lot in the 3.x days. So, it sounds like you are putting effort into it, and to some extent subordinating the story or 'verisimilitude' of you world to maintaining some rough serial balance for your players.

There are a lot of ways to play the game.

Very few of which are actively hampered by a well-designed game. (There might be theoretical exceptions - such players who set out to 'win' the game by getting the most powerful character and ruining the play experience for everyone else at the table - but I've never heard anyone claim that sort of style, so I think we can discount the 'need' for imbalance.)

 

[Elf Witch]

Actually, I'd be saying that no class should have an ability that makes it required to defeat that encounter. Particularly in a game where the number of classes is in the dozens and the variations possible on those classes through build options is orders of magnitude higher.

There may be dozens of classes but they all fall into the categories of fighter, mage, divine healer, skill monkey.

If you have a party that is made up of all fighters and one cleric then you have a party with no access to arcane magic and that needs to be taken into consideration with planning encounters.

Modules and adventure path are written for a party of four with the basic fighter, healer/divine/, arcane caster and skill monkey. If your party is bigger, smaller or not made up with all the bases you need to tweak the module or adventure path.

 

[Elf Witch]

'Fun' is ultimately a subjective experience, and can be the result of many factors beyond the mechanics of the game (nerdrage over an early rev-roll, for instance). Balanced mechanics don't make a game fun (or un-fun) they simply make it less likely that the game will be ruined by having most of the choices it presents obviated.

Really, that's what it comes down to. A fair 'definition' of a balanced game is one that presents choices, and most (all if it's perfectly balanced) of them are meaningful and viable compared to eachother. An imbalanced game presents choices, and many of them are worthless 'traps' that are inferior, while a few are overpowered 'must-haves.'

4e, for instance, had good class balance, with only a few under-supported classes, and no clearly overpowered ones - but, it had terrible balance among its feat choices, which consisted of legions of low-value feats, a few 'must-have' feat-taxes, a few abuseable combos involving feats, and many strictly-inferior 'trap' choices.

Whether you agree with that definition of balance or not, is there anything wrong with a game trying to minimize the number of inferior and/or overpowered choices while maximizing the number of meaningful choices overall?

Removing options doesn't create balance. If it did, then a badly imbalanced game where one class were utterly superior to all others, and thus was the only class anyone ever played would be functionally identical to a 'balanced' one.


Nod. A good approach to compensate for an imbalanced game, one that I recommended a lot in the 3.x days. So, it sounds like you are putting effort into it, and to some extent subordinating the story or 'verisimilitude' of you world to maintaining some rough serial balance for your players.

Very few of which are actively hampered by a well-designed game. (There might be theoretical exceptions - such players who set out to 'win' the game by getting the most powerful character and ruining the play experience for everyone else at the table - but I've never heard anyone claim that sort of style, so I think we can discount the 'need' for imbalance.)

I am not saying that balance is a bad thing and that it is something that should be strives for.

The point I am making is that different ways of balancing the game make different people happier. Personally I like the balance of wizards starting out weak and getting stronger as they level. I also think that part of balancing them means making it possible for the to run out of spells or have a spell disrupted.

I would rather as DM and player have to choice of going nova and then facing the consequences than have some game mechanic that prevents me fro doing it.

I am a great believer in options the more the better. In my games I use the prestige paladin instead of he core paladin in some games I have swapped out the sorcerer for a witch class.

I house ruled out the five foot step and we have a critical fumble chart for rolling a 1 in combat and skill checks a 20 is a +10 a 1 is a -10.