Is DnD well-balanced?

[Argyle King]

Nah, not really. The feat cost for multiclassing is very heavy, close to 50% of the feats in heroic, and if going into paragon, the loss of real prestige path abilities is hard also. Add in implement problems and ability score requirements and it is just a pain.

As for hybrid, some classes are not bad, true, but you only pulled out maybe 3 of hundreds of combinations. It is not hard for a few to be good. But when so many are just unworkable, it is a problem and a poor system.

Go ahead and rolls the dice for two random classes and hybridize them. Not likely to work well. Take a random class and roll dice to select powers and you are pretty good, not probably not great.

But overall 4E is pretty well balanced, especially if one stays within the class powers and roles.

I imagine that randomly selecting two classes to hybrid works out about as well as randomly assigning your stats for a single classed character.

The feat cost for multiclassing is 1 feat, and that one feat is equal to two feats -you get training in a skill (skill training) plus whatever other benefit comes with MCing in that class. So, you're actually one feat ahead at this point. For a lot of multiclass combos, this is all you need to be good because it opens up options which are otherwise not available to you.

If you want to paragon multiclass, you need to pick up three more feats, so, yes, you end up being down 2 feats overall. Yes, I agree that not all combinations are good. However, some powers become very good in the hands of other classes. Missing out on the paragon path action point feature does somewhat suck, and I would never suggest paragon multiclassing was optimized, but I've found that I don't miss the AP feature as much as I thought I would.

This is very simply revisionist history. The single most unbalanced source for PCs is the PHB1. And right now there is nothing that measures up to a Ranger with pre-errata Blade Cascade or a classic stunlocking Orb Wizard/Bloodmage. A Warlock made using only PHB1 is right at the bottom of the power curve - which is also a function of it coming from the single most unbalanced book. That said, with more feats it's a lot easier to specialise and dump all your resources into the same thing. And Expertise and Themes are examples of creep.

I was assuming errata in my answer. If I don't consider errata, then my answer of no becomes no.

 

[TheUltramark]

I feel silly for asking this [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] :

what is "the power curve" and where can it be found? is it some list or graph or chart somewhere? Is there a service that I could submit my character into and it could "slot" me on the curve where applicable?

Here is the next, and arguably most important question...is it not possible to have fun with a character that isnt all "roided out" ???

 

[nightwyrm]

I feel silly for asking this @Neonchameleon :

what is "the power curve" and where can it be found? is it some list or graph or chart somewhere? Is there a service that I could submit my character into and it could "slot" me on the curve where applicable?

Here is the next, and arguably most important question...is it not possible to have fun with a character that isnt all "roided out" ???

For PCs, the sorta expected to hit and defenses are:

Atk vs AC: Lv+6
Atk vs NAD: Lv+4
AC: Lv+15
AC (defender): Lv+17
NAD: Lv+13

Being a point or so behind isn't that big a deal but if you're 3 or more points behind you'll have problems. If you seriously optimize you can get 2 or 3 points above.

That's about it for power curve.

 

[Gortle]

For PCs, the sorta expected to hit and defenses are:

Atk vs AC: Lv+6
Atk vs NAD: Lv+4
AC: Lv+15
AC (defender): Lv+17
NAD: Lv+13

Being a point or so behind isn't that big a deal but if you're 3 or more points behind you'll have problems. If you seriously optimize you can get 2 or 3 points above.

That's about it for power curve.

But that is only a loose approximation. For example my current character is a level 11 Thief

Atk vs AC: is 20 not 16
Atk vs NAD: is 20 not 14
AC: is 26 tick
NAD: 20,26,18 that is -4,+2 -6

The attack numbers are way over and that is not counting combat advantage. The NADs are a fair bit worse, he'll have to find the space for improved defenses....

 

[TheUltramark]

But that is only a loose approximation. For example my current character is a level 11 Thief

Atk vs AC: is 20 not 16
Atk vs NAD: is 20 not 14
AC: is 26 tick
NAD: 20,26,18 that is -4,+2 -6

The attack numbers are way over and that is not counting combat advantage. The NADs are a fair bit worse, he'll have to find the space for improved defenses....

but the only question that matters is ... is your 11th level thief fun for you to play?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

But that is only a loose approximation. For example my current character is a level 11 Thief

Atk vs AC: is 20 not 16
Atk vs NAD: is 20 not 14
AC: is 26 tick
NAD: 20,26,18 that is -4,+2 -6

The attack numbers are way over and that is not counting combat advantage. The NADs are a fair bit worse, he'll have to find the space for improved defenses....

Those expected scores are very similar to what monsters get and assume certain ability scores. Rogues generally crank Dex (a starting Dex of 20, the max you can get at 1st-level, is common) which means they're not taking care of Str/Con and Wis/Cha. So you get higher-than-expected AC and Ref but lower-than-expected Fort and Will. It means rogues are glass cannons.

WotC must have an odd playtesting process. Berserkers, I find, end up with much higher than expected AC scores. I think they were playtested "to suit flavor" (and so usually had high Con) but players optimize them to have high Dex (so their AC scores go from lame to better-than-expected; Con isn't worth much by itself except for the # of healing surges you get). I wonder if rogues and thieves were playtested with a more "balanced" stat build.

(The worst example of that was in Enemies & Allies, a 3.0 product. It had builds for 5th/10th/15th level PCs of all the core base classes. The rogue, Lidda, never took Weapon Finesse, causing me to wonder if WotC never playtested a properly built rogue!

 

[Gortle]

Those expected scores are very similar to what monsters get and assume certain ability scores. Rogues generally crank Dex (a starting Dex of 20, the max you can get at 1st-level, is common) which means they're not taking care of Str/Con and Wis/Cha. So you get higher-than-expected AC and Ref but lower-than-expected Fort and Will. It means rogues are glass cannons.

.... causing me to wonder if WotC never playtested a properly built rogue!

They probably didn't. I could have built the character with a lower Dex but it would have meant -1AC -1 hit -1 damage -1 ref for +1 fort and +1 will. It just doesn't make any sense, for rogues dex is just too important.

My experience is that the non AC defenses always seem to fall behind what is expected. Even for the characters that have more balanaced stats. So for monsters non AC attacks do become very strong after a while.

Getting back to the point of the thread. What I like about 4th ed is that it is finally possible to build a reasonable rogue, that isn't completely overshadowed by other classes. It is a major part of the genre and it just didn't work in 3.5. I think the only class that is so bad it is unplayable is the Seeker.

4th ed is well balanced for a role playing game. By far the best of all the D&D editions for balance.

There is still more to do. I'd like to see more variety in builds. More options and variety in paragon paths. There is good support in the game for cold, and radiant builds, charging, polearms. It would be nice if there was a bit more for fire, thunder, psychic have some support but there is almost none for acid, flails, necrotic, shields. Yeah I know I'm mixing concepts.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes but all that damage they are doing is not using at wills. It is only basic attacks.

A Basic Attack is an At Will. It's just one that can be used on opportunity attacks (rare IME), charges (but then so can Howling Strike), and certain attacks granted by other classes (mostly leaders). Now I don't think anyone argues against the claim that the presence of a Slayer makes the Warlord more powerful. But for the Slayer himself, the difference is trivial.

I was assuming errata in my answer. If I don't consider errata, then my answer of no becomes no.

And that is exactly why your history is revisionist. The errata took time to appear. The game as it stands in mid 2011 is less unbalanced than the PHB only 4e of 2008. You do not get to add the errata to the game back then because the errata did not exist back then (hell, they're still continuing with nerfs and tweaks to the PHB). Adding the errata is happening at the same time as adding the new options.

I feel silly for asking this @Neonchameleon :

what is "the power curve" and where can it be found? is it some list or graph or chart somewhere? Is there a service that I could submit my character into and it could "slot" me on the curve where applicable?

See nightwyrm's answer. And yes, it is a loose approximation.

Here is the next, and arguably most important question...is it not possible to have fun with a character that isnt all "roided out" ???

Of course it is.

 

[Kerranin]

My experience is that the non AC defenses always seem to fall behind what is expected. Even for the characters that have more balanaced stats. So for monsters non AC attacks do become very strong after a while.

I have to agree. I am playing a paragon tier Half-Elf Bard with fairly spread stats(Started CHA18 including racial) and with superior fortitude & reflex feats, I just about reach the NAD values expected. (Level 11, Fort 23, Reflex 24, Will 23)

Anyone who optimizes for a 20 starting stat is almost guaranteed to have one or possibly two weak NAD defenses, I don't regard that as a massive problem, you made a choice to be wonderful at one thing and rubbish at most others.

 

[Holy Bovine]

This is the subject that puts the real question to your participation. Many kinds of works have to follow certain rules to be comprehended.

I'm pretty sure whomever wrote the story play tested it first. A beta-test to work out loose-ends.

I'm also unsure as to what conclusion I'd like to draw. Maybe I stated it already. But this is a question to ask yourself and other people about before playing the game.

I don't know what you think. Do you invent too much or too little about certain situations?

You should know:

Objective: The game has certain dimensions/possibilities based on the way it is written of the author's intent. It can be pixel on line and/or physical requiring a sheet to draw maps. You can even name people who play.

Subjective: How you feel about it. All you can do is feel mad, happy, indifferent or whatever. That may be true to you in some sense but there's no way to prove this action as fact. You can act and react based on how you feel. The most it physically accomplishes is getting people to play or not.

I know there might be more but that should sum it up. I did DM twice and some of the personalities baffled me. The game is right there in front of them and they weren't forced to play as far as I know.

Oh, well. There's other games in case one fails I guess.

Is it just me or do neither of these posts make any sense whatsoever? I am really trying to understand what they are saying but I just can't figure it out.