Testing a theory

[JasonZZ]

4e-preferring player here. I prefer arcane casters and fighters, and I (used to) worry about balance in both cases--I don't want to short other players, and I don't like being shorted myself.

 

[Pickles JG]

I prefer martial characters & characters with a degree of mechanical complexity so in 3e Gishes or Arcane casters (Bard Sorcerer Wizard) . In 4e anything that takes my fancy but martial & Arcane seem to dominate my choices.

I worry about balance but it's not just caster. My 3e rogue was far weaker then the fighters (& never really got to do his skill stuff unless the rest of the party wanted a 20 minute time out). When he retired & was replaced by a buffing/debuffing sorcerer it was very dominant in a way that fighters in the party appreciated as they did all the hitting but more often (haste) harder (enlarged) & safer (blinded opponents) plus they could fly!

I stop enjoying 3e between 9th & 12th level which is probably a function of casters being OTT. In the sweet spot of 4th to 8th level they are not too dominant or too weak. Shame it's only 5 levels.

 

[Lanefan]

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

 

[El Mahdi]

As a player, I prefer Fighter type characters (especially Rangers), and I don't worry about spellcaster balance. Spellcaster abilities have nothing to do with the fun I have playing my characters, and I most certainly do not find an adverse effect on my play experience if they are in the same group.

As a DM however, I do worry about the 15-minute adventuring day. I don't believe that the correlation the OP is looking for as far as this, exists.

I worry about the 15-minute adventuring day solely because it affects the type of game I like to run (episodic and cinematic), and the 15-minute adventuring day is a problem that puts a crimp in that (for me, in my games). It has nothing to do for me, with relative class balance.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I worry about the 15-minute adventuring day solely because it affects the type of game I like to run (episodic and cinematic), and the 15-minute adventuring day is a problem that puts a crimp in that (for me, in my games). It has nothing to do for me, with relative class balance.

But you can see that the balance implications of 15 minute adventuring day could be a problem for some players (maybe even in your group) - 12 hour adventuring day - Fighters may outshine Wizards, because the Wizards run out of spells. 15 minute adventuring day: Wizards outshine Fighters as they can do more in that time with spells than the fighter can hope to achieve with regular attacks.

For you, there is of course a problem besides that - 15 minute adventuring days are benefitial to the party, because it's safest when they are fully loaded with spells. But in some groups, fixing the balance problem may be more improtant, because people simply want to see their characters achieve things in game, including in mechanical terms, and wizards truely get that wtih 15 minute adventure days (thus will try to rest often and early), and Fighters if they can move (thus trying to avoid rests), leading to group conflicts. A conflict that the Wizard usually has the easiest to dicate the outcome of, since he has a bunch of tools to facilitate early rests (Rope Trick, Teleport etc.).
If the Wizard and Fighter are balanced equally over 15 minute or 12 hour adventure days, then you remove one source of tension. Now you only need to discuss with the party whether they are willing to take some risks and avoid the 15 minute adventuring day. I think that may be easier than trying to achieve the same when one class becomes favored and another disfavored in such a situation.
And if discussion fails (or maybe they agree, but find it just too hard to ignore the opportunities to rest magic allows them), you can use house rules to remove rest-enabling spells. ALl without worrying about balance implications (or having one of your players worrying about it.)

 

[El Mahdi]

But you can see that the balance implications of 15 minute adventuring day could be a problem for some players (maybe even in your group)...

Oh Yeah, I see that. And those opinions would be just as valid to me as mine are.

My opinion however, is it isn't a balance issue, but simply a lack of Spellcaster Class design that takes cinematic and episodic focus into consideration. 5E Spellcasters currently don't have the resource mechanic(s) that supports this type of play the way I would like it to. But their balance or lack of balance in comparison to other classes has very little to do with it IMO.

But perhaps we're talking about different things. When I hear class balance, I think "balancing classes to eachother". And I don't believe that classes being balanced to eachother or not, affect the 15-minute adventuring day issue.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

My theory is, people who worry about 15 minute adventuring day and Angel Summoner + BMX Bandit issues aren't actually people who LIKE playing Fighter types.

My theory comes from Fighter types being my favorite, and never having felt they were "broken" or weak.

Let's test it, shall we?

I find a basic flaw in your presumptions. IMO, the 15MAD & Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit problems stem from two different sources. FWIW I voted that I prefer Fighter-types and Other types of characters and that I am concerned. But not for the limited reasons you present. My concern for both problems arise from behind the DM screen.

The 15MAD hasn't been as much of a problem for my group, but at times with certain people being in the group at that particular point in time the issue usually rears its ugly head this way.

15MAD Players: We used all our spells on that small group of gnolls, time to rest!
Me: Let's check for wandering monsters...
15MAD Players: Sorry, saved a rope trick!
Me: [Describes the new situation after the initial assault and how the other gnolls have reacted.]
15MAD Players: You're always trying to screw us over!

Not fun.

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.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oh Yeah, I see that. And those opinions would be just as valid to me as mine are.

My opinion however, is it isn't a balance issue, but simply a lack of Spellcaster Class design that takes cinematic and episodic focus into consideration. 5E Spellcasters currently don't have the resource mechanic(s) that supports this type of play the way I would like it to. But their balance or lack of balance in comparison to other classes has very little to do with it IMO.

But perhaps we're talking about different things. When I hear class balance, I think "balancing classes to eachother". And I don't believe that classes being balanced to eachother or not, affect the 15-minute adventuring day issue.

The common ground in both cases is that the 15 minute adventuring day is a problem.

One, because it really doesn't work for a believable story in many cases. For balance, it leads to imbalance in favor of casters.

I definitely think it's important to split these - there are some forms of 15 minute adventuring days that are problematic to story concerns, and some that are only problematic for balance concerns.

For example, at one extreme end - if everyone plays a class with nova-capable resources that benefit from a 15 minute day, the 15 minute day is not a balance problem.
At the other end, you may have a session where the players are busy most of the day talking with NPCs, traveling or researching stuff, and eventually it leads to a violent conflict. Here, the balance problem arises, because that single combat is perfect for "novaing", but the problem for your story probably doesn't - it's not a literally a 15 minute adventuring day for you, since adventuring ismore than just combat and the party didn't hole up and do nothing.

By the way, this is also one way of dealing with the 15 minute adventuring day that is less sick and more carot - have the players spend the time not in the dungeon research stuff, talk with NPCs and all that. If there is a settlement near the dungeon that allows this, you may have less story problems with the 15 minute adventuring day. But you still have all the balance problems.

So to deal with the 15 minute adventuring day, we have to identify which is our concern and what measures will address which concern. Personally, I am primarily intererested in solving the balance problem - I feel confident enough that I can, if the story demands it, I can usually encourage (with sticks or carots) to motivate a full adventuring day, but I also know that I will have scenarios where there is only a single combat in a day, and that will be an issue.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't particularly have a favorite class.

I am concerned about 15MAD and AS/BMXB problems. They're legit problems that legit happen and legit need to be solved, even if I personally don't experience them much (and I don't).

I don't think the solution to these problems is "BURN VANCIAN MAGIC IT IS EVIL ARGHABARAGABLE!" Or "Well, make EVERYONE Vancian! Ha ha!"

Those are both baby-and-bathwater scenarios. They're unnecessary and binary and cause their own problems and might work fine for some but suck for others and then you're back where you started just with a different group of people with a different set of problems than before. It's not BETTER, it's just DIFFERENT.

The thing is, these problems are not problems for everyone. They are very real problems for some folks, and those folks need solutions, but they are not problems for everyone, so solutions that make everyone play differently are not gonna fly. Generally, I'm not willing to change my game that works fine to accommodate Steve Anybody in Kansas who feels cheated when the goblins run away with the MacGuffin. And I don't imagine Steve Anybody who loves fighter dailies and has no problem explaining it in his head is going to be willing to change his came to accommodate me, who thinks they're silly and unncessary. Me and Steve don't play together. We shouldn't have to adapt our games to each other.

I think 5e can parse this difference without breaking much of a sweat, letting each person play in their own preferred way. So no one has to really CHANGE what they believe or how they perform. Steve can have Vancian fighters and I can have week-long adventuring days and we might even play at each others' (very different) tables and have fun in our own unique ways at each one. And neither of us will have 15MADS or AS/BMXB problems, or Martial Dailies or Artificial Class Symmetry because those who DO have those problems will each be able to play in a style wherein those things are excluded.

I think this is how you might get that kind of game.

 

[Mattachine]

Results seem pretty split/inconclusive.