Pathfinder and 4e....and BALANCE.

[Dannager]

Only if the other players are jealously looking for who has the most powerful character and upset if it's not them. That's not a thought that ever crosses my mind at the gaming table, so I'm not sure how common it really is.

No. You know, I see this attitude a lot. Someone identifies a very real problem with the game, and it never fails that someone will dismiss the problem as merely being symptomatic of a dysfunctional group of players - and it certainly would never show up at their table.

The problem with imbalance between players (and thecasualoblivion knows this well) is that if one player is tremendously more powerful than all other players, it then becomes impossible for the DM to develop challenging encounters with a reasonable devotion of effort - create the encounter to challenge the weaker party members, and the more powerful individual is never challenged (or worse, single-handedly blows through all the encounters); design encounters to challenge the stronger party members, and not only are the weaker ones unable to contribute, but they're also in danger of being overwhelmed by the challenge.

Balance disparities between players is a problem, whether or not you've personally experienced it. 4e all but eliminates this as a problem; while it's certainly possible to make a character that is more or less powerful than the average, it's almost impossible to create a character that cannot meaningfully and significantly contribute (and be fun to play all the while!), or that can handle all the party's encounters by itself.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

For me, personally, Pathfinder is "balanced enough," where as 4e is "too balanced" or "overly balanced."

That said, 4e isn't perfectly balanced either. Some classes are still simply better then others. Or worse then others.

IMO, a system being too balanced is like a line being too straight (in the geometric sense) or a circle being too round.

I guess I never saw 3.X as being unbalanced. As someone who commonly played a wizard, my day was generally spent casting a few spells at low level then hiding until I got to higher levels, meanwhile the fighter and paladin were cleaning house. I never experienced the CoDZilla phenomenon in play nor have I ever met someone in person that has ever used the concept, in fact, it wasn't until 3.5E was dead did I ever hear about the concept.

4E made my wizard able to be an effective combatant at early levels, now I don't have to hide after a few short rounds. However, now I don't get to wield the awesome power my 3.5E wizard could. My boss-killer spells don't exist anymore. I can't be the one-man wrecking crew anymore. I guess that is okay. In 3.5E, omnipotence was the reward for sucking for the better half of my career while my compatriots were able to shine.

 

[Dannager]

IMO, a system being too balanced is like a line being too straight (in the geometric sense) or a circle being too round.

I guess I never saw 3.X as being unbalanced. As someone who commonly played a wizard, my day was generally spent casting a few spells at low level then hiding until I got to higher levels, meanwhile the fighter and paladin were cleaning house. I never experienced the CoDZilla phenomenon in play nor have I ever met someone in person that has ever used the concept, in fact, it wasn't until 3.5E was dead did I ever hear about the concept.

4E made my wizard able to be an effective combatant at early levels, now I don't have to hide after a few short rounds. However, now I don't get to wield the awesome power my 3.5E wizard could. My boss-killer spells don't exist anymore. I can't be the one-man wrecking crew anymore. I guess that is okay. In 3.5E, omnipotence was the reward for sucking for the better half of my career while my compatriots were able to shine.

I considered exactly what you describe above as an issue, though. See, for the first half of the game, you were moderately useful and your companions did most of the work. For the second half of the game (a stage you rightly describe as "omnipotence" for spellcasters), the rest of your party takes a back seat while you steamroll encounters. I much prefer a game where everyone gets to enjoy the things their character is capable of at every stage of the game.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

I considered exactly what you describe above as an issue, though. See, for the first half of the game, you were moderately useful and your companions did most of the work. For the second half of the game (a stage you rightly describe as "omnipotence" for spellcasters), the rest of your party takes a back seat while you steamroll encounters. I much prefer a game where everyone gets to enjoy the things their character is capable of at every stage of the game.

I am in total agreement with you, actually. This is why I prefer 4E now. My wizard is useful at all levels rather than if you average all the levels. My fighter or paladin doesn't LOSE effectiveness as I level up (seriously, it was the strangest phenomenon of 3E if you ask me). That is the main reason I never played those classes.

 

[Dannager]

I am in total agreement with you, actually. This is why I prefer 4E now. My wizard is useful at all levels rather than if you average all the levels. My fighter or paladin doesn't LOSE effectiveness as I level up (seriously, it was the strangest phenomenon of 3E if you ask me). That is the main reason I never played those classes.

Yeah, once I began to experience the caster/non-caster divide in my own games, the non-caster classes lost a great deal of appeal to me. Many of them were attractive, flavor-wise, but I had to temper that attraction with the idea that I'd spend a lot of the game feeling less than useful. In the end, having an engaging play experience often won out, especially when I could still make compelling characters out of spellcasting classes.

 

[Jhaelen]

IMO, a system being too balanced is like a line being too straight (in the geometric sense) or a circle being too round.

It depends on what a system has to sacrifice for the amount of balance it achieves.

If you want a system that can model all kinds of curves rather than just a particular subset, you won't be happy if the system turns every curve into a line or a circular arc.

And that's a common criticism of 4e: that classes are too similar. Note that I don't agree. However, it might well seem so to someone who only looked at the system superficially.

I have no idea if Pathfinder is as balanced (or even more balanced) than 4e. All I can definitely say is that both Pathfinder and 4e are better balanced than 3e.

 

[Mark Chance]

There are many types of balance to choose from. Pick the balance you like, and avoid fetishizing balance in ways that destroy the fun. If you pull off these two things, I don't imagine much else would matter.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

It depends on what a system has to sacrifice for the amount of balance it achieves.

If you want a system that can model all kinds of curves rather than just a particular subset, you won't be happy if the system turns every curve into a line or a circular arc.

And that's a common criticism of 4e: that classes are too similar. Note that I don't agree. However, it might well seem so to someone who only looked at the system superficially.

I have no idea if Pathfinder is as balanced (or even more balanced) than 4e. All I can definitely say is that both Pathfinder and 4e are better balanced than 3e.

I really didn't mean that to be a serious comment. I probably should have used a smiley or something (stupid lack of being able to express sarcasm over the internet!). I guess I have never ran into the problem of classes being too similar (though I have heard that about the Psionic classes recently).

 

[The_Gneech]

There are many types of balance to choose from. Pick the balance you like, and avoid fetishizing balance in ways that destroy the fun. If you pull off these two things, I don't imagine much else would matter.

Just on a tangent -- that's a very interesting blog you linked to! Thanks!

-The Gneech

 

[haakon1]

if one player is tremendously more powerful than all other players, it then becomes impossible for the DM to develop challenging encounters . . .

No rule set is going to solve for some players being more skilled than others. And I don't think see a problem there -- the newer players can learn, or ignore, as they desire.

As for characters, different classes in D&D are optimized for different opponents. Is really that hard to think of challenges that are more challenging for a wizard, cleric, rogue, or fighter, but let other classes shine?

Balance disparities between players is a problem, whether or not you've personally experienced it. 4e all but eliminates this as a problem

4e means all players are equally good at the game? Really?