Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5897965" data-attributes="member: 996">4e initially used an underlying structure that helped balance classes.  It's often called 'AEDU,' but it's really a little more than that.  It's a single experience progression that all classes use.  That's not even unique to 4e.  3e used a single experience progression, and all classes got, for instance, a hit die and skill points at every level.  That's the about the limit of the 'homogeneity.'   While a common structure does make balance much easier - you need only balance encounters against encounters, dailies against dailies, class features against class features - it is not, in itself an example of balance.  In a sense, it's more a matter of sacrificing one source of balance to enable another.To explain that, I have to get into a definition of balance.  One of the best I've heard is that, in a game, balance is greater the more meaningful and viable choices that are available.  Lack of choices is not balance.  Presence of choices is not balance.  Choices have to be real choices to attain some balance.Now, 4e is very nicely balanced for a version of D&D.  Take the number of classes for instance.  There are over 20 classes, more if you include sub-classes.  Of those, a few are noticeably lacking, and could be judged (rather harshly) as non-viable or meaningless choices.  If you were to be equally harsh with 3.x core classes, you could reasonably assert that the 3 top-optimization-tier classes - the Cleric, Druid and Wizard - were the only really viable and meaningful choices of class in the game (ironically, the top-tier classes are all 'vancian' full casters, so use prettymuch the same underlying structure - class features plus spell slots, new spell levels at odd caster levels - so they're about as homogeneous as 4e classes in that sense). Not to pile-on 3e balance, but two of the top-tier classes were 'vancian' with their entire spell lists effectively 'known,' meaning the actual differences between any two characters of one of those classes could be pretty minimal: given the same expectations for the day, two vancian casters with the same spells known are likely to prepare very similar slates of spells. Now, as to combat balance, yes, 4e classes are probably best-balanced around combat.  There are some, like the fighter, with a distinct lack of out-of-combat options.  In combat each class is quite different, even within a given role, but each is viable - of comparable overall effectiveness and consistency of contribution to the party.  So, that is a good example of balance.  The alternative is not 'more choice but less balance,' but 'less balance, and consequently fewer real choices.'</blockquote>

Verification