Testing a theory

[KidSnide]

I usually DM, and I worry about caster balance. In my experience, the presence/absence of the caster player makes a *massive* difference whether my adventure is viable. If the caster isn't there, suddenly whole swaths of challenges become impossible. If she is there, another huge set of challenges become trivial.

In my experience, non-casters don't display this swing. Rogue isn't there, well, a bit less sneaking and bit more bashing. Fighter isn't there, a little less bashing, and a little more sneaking/evading.

That was my experience for 3.x. In earlier versions of the game (post-UA 1e or 2e), rogues were still disposable, but fighters were essential to adequate damage output. I've noticed in my D&DN playtests that the presence of absence of the front-line fighter once again makes a huge difference in party effectiveness.

-KS

 

[MatthewJHanson]

While I am concerned about balance, and I am more concerned about the story and roleplaying implications. I don't like it when a very effective game strategy (15mad) is so narratively unfulfilling.

I also do not like that the only solution offered at this point is to make sure that the PCs fight a specific XP value worth of monsters per day.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I usually DM, and I worry about caster balance. In my experience, the presence/absence of the caster player makes a *massive* difference whether my adventure is viable. If the caster isn't there, suddenly whole swaths of challenges become impossible. If she is there, another huge set of challenges become trivial.

In my experience, non-casters don't display this swing. Rogue isn't there, well, a bit less sneaking and bit more bashing. Fighter isn't there, a little less bashing, and a little more sneaking/evading.

I find this an utterly alien perspective. Do I conclude that you create or put together an "adventure" that is for a party of a specific size, with characters of a specific level, but don't take into account what those characters actually are?

I do everything specifically for the characters and that the players that make them; there really isn't a "swing" depending on what those characters are. I am rather baffled by this concept. I am really baffled at the notion that casters and noncasters would be different in that regard, as I find the party is shaped dramatically by every choice, not just some choices.

 

[Nagol]

I find this an utterly alien perspective. Do I conclude that you create or put together an "adventure" that is for a party of a specific size, with characters of a specific level, but don't take into account what those characters actually are?

I do everything specifically for the characters and that the players that make them; there really isn't a "swing" depending on what those characters are. I am rather baffled by this concept. I am really baffled at the notion that casters and noncasters would be different in that regard, as I find the party is shaped dramatically by every choice, not just some choices.

I generally take this approach. I create situations (though I don't plan for a party of specific size or level) and let the players figure out how (and sometimes if) they are going to engage with it.

Successful groups take advantage of their strengths and minimise their weaknesses -- whatever they may be. That can mean the party of all-thieves decides to pass on the Halls of Festering Undead and concentrate on the local crime syndicates at least until the group gets additional anti-undead/disease capability. It can mean the party of all-clerics breeze through the same adventure, but can't crack the crime syndicate at all.

 

[Neonchameleon]

AS/BMXB arose in my groups in 2E/3E as a product of system mastery. It did not always involve caster-types. The issue I had was the gap in power between the best system masters and the most casual players. I don't mind rewarding a player for knowing the system, but the gap was too large to challenge both ends of the spectrum.

I'll second this. Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit turns up not when one class is more flexible than another so much as when one PC is stronger than a second at the things that second PC is meant to be good at. If in one party one fighter is twice as good a fighter as the other this is a problem.

D&D, being a class based game, has an obvious way of preventing this. If one player is playing a fighter and the second is playing a cleric, there is no way the fighter is going to be a better cleric than the cleric. But equally if the classes have any balance the cleric is never going to be as good at fighting as the fighter. Because he would be able to do that stuff and cleric stuff too.

 

[GSHamster]

I find this an utterly alien perspective. Do I conclude that you create or put together an "adventure" that is for a party of a specific size, with characters of a specific level, but don't take into account what those characters actually are?

I do everything specifically for the characters and that the players that make them; there really isn't a "swing" depending on what those characters are. I am rather baffled by this concept. I am really baffled at the notion that casters and noncasters would be different in that regard, as I find the party is shaped dramatically by every choice, not just some choices.

It's more for the situation when a player cannot make the session that night. And it's more non-combat than combat. High-level casters can compress distance greatly. Like if I build an adventure around scrying, or something which requires magic travel, then if the player who can scry/magic travel isn't there, then the party is stuck.

But if you don't build around those abilities, I find that they get used as trump cards, and easily overpower "mundane" ways of solving problems.

 

[haakon1]

Fighter types have always been ultimately boring unless the only thing you care is about tons of damage, which they were capable to do no doubt, but paled in comparison to the number of fun tricks the spellcasters were able to do. I like the concept of playing a fighter, but I also like having mechanical options for many reasons – that’s why I enjoyed the psychic warrior in 3.5 and the love the 4e fighter.

Thanks for explaining your POV. Your point is the sort of comment that led to my theory.

I'm saying some people (like myself) really liked playing Fighters, under the traditional rules where basically you decided whether to walk or charge to the enemy, and what weapon to use, but not a lot more elaborate than that.

I can't speak for everyone who liked traditional Fighters, but the role/archetype was part of it for me (soldier is a more interesting archetype to me than the others), and frankly I liked the mechanics of having better hit points, better AC, and being in the frontlines of combat.

Whereas I think people who love to play Arcane Casters were looking on the Fighters and saying "poor little dumbies, their characters aren't as cool, we need balance to fix it and make them like casters".

To put it in a sports context, when I was a kid, I like the Fighter role in American football -- running into people hard and trying to get past them and sack the quarterback, or trying the hold the line against people doing that when your team has the ball.

Similarly in soccer, I liked fullback -- the last defensive position before the goalie. I liked playing zone defense or man-on-man, trying to take the ball, trying to intimidate people into missing a shot by going to quick, etc.

I really honestly like that kind of role, even though most kids and most fans probably think they are boring -- the people who play them aren't the stars.

If you put in rules that said "linemen get a turn to toss the football", it would not make American football more fun for me. I'd much prefer to run into people.

 

[haakon1]

Can't give you more XP, but I have 110% the same attitude and issues. Not sure why Rogues don't work for us!

Voted as player of Fighters, Clerics, and Arcanists - don't worry about balance in any case. (for some reason I've never been able to run a successful Thief)

The fun comes from playing the role of the character, and if it isn't mechanically "effective" then so what: I'll find a way for it to make its mark regardless; if not in combat then elsewhere. And a Fighter standing in and clubbing things until they die is very effective; I don't need all sorts of odd powers or feats or abilities that are just different variants on clubbing things harder.

Besides, powerful characters are somewhat wasted on me - I tend to forget what they can do.

The only balance I ever worry about is making sure my h.p. vaguely keep up with the party, so area-effect stuff that merely hurts others doesn't kill me off...

Lan-"just give me a beer and a fighter, the rest will take care of itself"-efan

 

[haakon1]

FWIW worth, I just downloaded the fixed and non-DRM version of "Temple of Elemental Evil" from gog.com. It's 3.5e rules, turn-based, and very close to real tabletop 3.5e D&D combat, IMHO.

You can develop a party of up to 5 PC's. I did Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue. If it allowed 6 PC's, I'd have rolled up a Monk too -- another frontline Fighter-ish type, but with some weird fun abilities and fun flavor.

In fact, most parties I've seen in real life were like that (I've played mostly AD&D and 3e) -- more Fighter-types than anything else.

Is Fighter-centricity unusual?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

To put it in a sports context, when I was a kid, I like the Fighter role in American football -- running into people hard and trying to get past them and sack the quarterback, or trying the hold the line against people doing that when your team has the ball.

Well there you go, and it's a good analogy. Where is a big fuss in football, that varies at different levels? How do you solve the issue of keeping the quarterback and wide receivers safe, but without changing it to much. You don't want the lineman throwing the ball, but other people are worried because the linebacker can't hit the quarterback unless he bunny hops on one leg and counts to 10 first.

But now you've inflicted this vision of D&D with on-the-field referees on me, so I'm going to "share":

Fighter: I swing my longsword at the rival NPC wizard!
Wizard: Foul! I was in the motion of completing my spell.
Goblin Ref: Fighter loses 5 hit point as a foul and must retreat 10 feet.
Fighter: What in the name of Thor ... ?
(crowd goes wild)
DM: But now the party leader is challenging. We are going to instant replay. Be back in a moment folks.
(play Pepsi commercial, then insurance commerical)
Goblin Head Ref: (spouts seeming nonsense)
DM: And there you have it folks, but the Fighter has got murder in his eye now.

(much later at post game interview)
Interviewer: Do you Mr. Fighter anticipate any punishment from the goblin dungeon commish for your flagrant attempt at a head shot?
Fighter: No comment.
Interviewer: The last time this happened, the fighter had to pay 1,000 gp to the goblin head office.

And so it goes.