# I hate game balance!



## LordDamax (Jun 25, 2008)

So, I bought the 4E books. I read them. I read a lot of posts here on enworld, reading about others opinions and helping to solidify my own.

And heres the deal.

I HATE GAME BALANCE!

I have always abhorred game balance. It made no sense. I loved the fact a fighter could kick the snot out of a mage at melee, and a mage could destroy a fighter with a spell, and a ranger could kill both of them from 100 yards away.

And the reason I hate 4E is game balance. It is SO balanced, they spent so much time ensuring that everything is equal, no one class has any leg up on any other class, or even a perceived leg up, so that everyone would be equal.

Know what happens when EVERYONE is special? Yeah, you got it.

I have a 4 year old who will soon be wanting to play soccer or little leauge, and it sickens me that theres not a single league around here for him to play in where at the end of the season EVERYONE gets a trophy. You're all winners! No one is a loser! YOU are special!

Oh, wait, I am digressing, we're talking about a game...

When everyone's special, what makes you so damn special? Everyone wants to feel needed. Everyone wants to be special. How awesome is it for the rogue to be able to disarm the trap that's a party roadblock? How awesome is it to be the fighter and you're the only one that can hit the dragon? What about the mage who's capable of teleporting the party across the chasm? The priest who can raise the dead?

Now, in 4E, you're all special! Everyone can cast spells, um, rituals! Everyone gets a XXX power at YYY level! And they all pretty much do the same thing... damage this guy and get this effect! Rangers dont track anymore, mages cannot phantasmal killer anything anymore, and bards, well, bards ARENT anymore 

I dunno. I've always been a fan of defined class roles. I've also been a fan of being able to blur and bend those roles if need be. And above all else, I've been a fan of a character being able to do somethign NO ONE else can. If that means the mage is all-powerful at 18th level, then so be it.

I'm a network admin and I make decent money. I'm not a millionaire, and I wish I were. I'm sure the poor schlub mopping the floor at the hoagie shack near me wishes he made my kind of money. We're not all equal. I cannot drive a race car, play a guitar, or do quantum physics. Maybe you cannot reprogram a router like I can.

Its that DIFFERENCE in things that make it great.

Something about how all the classes feel so damn similar to me... it irks me. Everyone is special. Everyone can kick ass.

And mechanically, what you're capable of accomplishing in the game, is pretty much the same as what I can.

I now invite the 4E lovers here to tell me that my opinion is wrong. Show me why game balance is necessary, because, as you know better than I do, my opinion is not correct!


----------



## Propagandroid (Jun 25, 2008)

I blogged about this before 4e was released, and was saddened to see the problem only get worse.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 25, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> I have always abhorred game balance. It made no sense. I loved the fact a fighter could kick the snot out of a mage at melee, and a mage could destroy a fighter with a spell, and a ranger could kill both of them from 100 yards away.



This is still the case.

That's... about all the refutation your post requires.

But I can go beyond that.  You seem to view the above quote as an example of a system which hasn't got balance.  Actually, its an example of a system which DOES have balance.  Each character has areas in which they excel, and areas in which they fall behind.  Fortunately, its even the method of balance chosen by 4th edition!  How convenient for you!  Now you can embrace the game and be happy, instead of repeating lines from _The Incredibles_ which, in the movie, made even less sense than your use of them did.


----------



## Storminator (Jun 25, 2008)

I recently played in a one shot game where everyone had radically different skills. Some players were forensics specialists. Some were computer experts. I played the guy with the gun. None of the PCs could touch the others at their specialty.

The scenario was designed so that every player got some spot light time. Everyone got to use their skills.

I spent the first hour of the four hour game sitting and waiting for my skills to be relevant. During hour 3, everyone else got to sit around and watch me kill things. Oh someone else took a shot, but please, they didn't help me kill things faster any more than I helped them solve the mystery.

Now some people may like a game where everyone spends most of the time doing nothing, but I'd rather have my PC be relevant at least half the time.

PS


----------



## redcard (Jun 25, 2008)

Why do people think everyone can cast rituals? 

The section on Rituals says outright that you MUST have the ritual caster feat to cast it.. and if you don't, you must have the scroll/etc.  It also says some rituals are not available in some worlds.  And more rituals will be published which you might not choose to use.

For example, it's highly doubtful my GM will allow Raise Dead to be in any form.. or if he does, it'll just be in scroll form.


----------



## Wormwood (Jun 25, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> I have always abhorred game balance. It made no sense. I loved the fact a fighter could kick the snot out of a mage at melee, and a mage could destroy a fighter with a spell, and a ranger could kill both of them from 100 yards away.



In other words, you  . . . love . . . game balance?


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 25, 2008)

redcard said:
			
		

> Why do people think everyone can cast rituals?



Its called "willful exaggeration."


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 25, 2008)

I want to agree, but I can't.

In 3E, I loathed attempts at balance, because to my mind, balance and simulationism don't mix, and 3E was clearly trying to mix them. The only "balance" you can find in a simulationist game is be assigning everything points costs, imho.

In 4E, however, the paradigm is quite different. It's a pure gamist game, the simulationism almost completely banished. So I can see how balance is necessary.

Still, I wouldn't BLAME balance. Balance happened because the decision was to put gameplay elements before all else. Blame the designers for that if you like, but it's not balance's fault. If they'd put gameplay elements first and neglected balanced, we'd be in an even bigger mess.


----------



## rowport (Jun 25, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> ...I have always abhorred game balance. It made no sense. I loved the fact a fighter could kick the snot out of a mage at melee, and a mage could destroy a fighter with a spell, and a ranger could kill both of them from 100 yards away.
> ...



I am confused by your post.  AFAIK, your examples here *are* about game balance!  You posit the classic rock/paper/scissors scenerio, where under the right conditions a certain class excels, so all are balanced as a whole.

Personally, I think this is a good thing, 4e or other game.  Otherwise, players would all gravitate towards the most powerful option.


----------



## buzz (Jun 25, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> So, I bought the 4E books. I read them. I read a lot of posts here on enworld, reading about others opinions and helping to solidify my own.



Did you ever consider actually playing the game?


----------



## rowport (Jun 25, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> This is still the case.
> 
> That's... about all the refutation your post requires.
> 
> But I can go beyond that.  You seem to view the above quote as an example of a system which hasn't got balance.  Actually, its an example of a system which DOES have balance.  Each character has areas in which they excel, and areas in which they fall behind.  Fortunately, its even the method of balance chosen by 4th edition!  How convenient for you!  Now you can embrace the game and be happy, instead of repeating lines from _The Incredibles_ which, in the movie, made even less sense than your use of them did.



LOL  Pretty funny.  Not only did Cadfan beat my post, but even used the "excel" wording.


----------



## rowport (Jun 25, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Did you ever consider actually playing the game?



GET BACK TO WORK, BUZZ!  YOUR FIENDISH-PACT MASTER HAS SPOKEN!


----------



## buzz (Jun 25, 2008)

rowport said:
			
		

> GET BACK TO WORK, BUZZ!  YOUR FIENDISH-PACT MASTER HAS SPOKEN!



I'll fiendish your pact-master, pal.


----------



## Ethalias (Jun 25, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> *SNIP*
> In 4E, however, the paradigm is quite different. It's a pure gamist game, the simulationism almost completely banished. So I can see how balance is necessary.
> *SNIP*




I agree with you here, except..

I haven't read SNG (is that it?) theory, but I'd say though it's predominantly Gamist, it sits quite well with a Narrativist approach, though perhaps that's not particularly relevant/pertinent here. Am I right?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 25, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> This is still the case.




Don't have my PHB with me, but isn't the maximum range on a longbow 40 squares, i.e. 200feet, i.e. a little less than 70 yards? So y'know, maybe it's not _all _ still the case 

Or maybe I'm forgetting a rule that lets you fire further than that.

Btw I see your point I'm just being difficult


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 25, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Its called "willful exaggeration."




Not too much, though.  The barrier to entry is pretty low, and once you're in, you're in.  Humans and Eladrin can do it from first level. One or two feats when you get one every other level isn't much of a sacrifice, especially given that feats aren't the nice cookie they were in 3.x.

(Hmmm...is the plural of 'Eladrin' 'Eladrin' or 'Eladrins'?)


----------



## RabidBob (Jun 25, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> I HATE GAME BALANCE!




I'm not convinced you do actually!



			
				LordDamax said:
			
		

> I have always abhorred game balance. It made no sense. I loved the fact a fighter could kick the snot out of a mage at melee, and a mage could destroy a fighter with a spell, and a ranger could kill both of them from 100 yards away.




Actually I think it goes more like: if wizard has right spells he ranger and fighter, end of game.



			
				LordDamax said:
			
		

> Rangers dont track anymore,




No tracking rules sucks.  I expect DMs will tie this in with "Nature".  Shrinking the skill set was a sensible move in my opinion, others will disagree (I understand why and agree to a point).



			
				LordDamax said:
			
		

> mages cannot phantasmal killer anything anymore,




Eh, that's not a bad thing.



			
				LordDamax said:
			
		

> and bards, well, bards ARENT anymore




They will be again, but their omission has not done WoTC any favours.



			
				LordDamax said:
			
		

> Its that DIFFERENCE in things that make it great.




Abso-bloody-lutely!



			
				LordDamax said:
			
		

> Something about how all the classes feel so damn similar to me... it irks me. Everyone is special. Everyone can kick ass.




The issue is, in my opinion, that the game shouldn't be boring for the fighter at level 18 nor should it be boring for the mage at level 18.  Yes, everyone can kick arse now in their specialty area.  As D&D is a game and we play for fun I just don't see this as a problem.  If you do, that's cool, I expect you'll enjoy another edition or game more than 4E.  



			
				LordDamax said:
			
		

> I now invite the 4E lovers here to tell me that my opinion is wrong. Show me why game balance is necessary, because, as you know better than I do, my opinion is not correct!




Hmmm.  Being an opinion it's neither inherently correct or not correct.  Or it's inherently correct along with everyone elses.  Or something.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 25, 2008)

Ethalias said:
			
		

> I agree with you here, except..
> 
> I haven't read SNG (is that it?) theory, but I'd say though it's predominantly Gamist, it sits quite well with a Narrativist approach, though perhaps that's not particularly relevant/pertinent here. Am I right?




I don't think 4E includes anything I'd call narrativist. Whilst the DM is encouraged to work with the players on "what they want to see" repeatedly in the DMG, this is basically just an encouragement. The players, as far as I can tell, don't have any rules-based tools for controlling or influencing the story whatsoever, which is atypical of games concerned with narrativism. I think people used to games with a more strongly narrativist approach might be disappointed if they expected much of that from D&D.


----------



## buzz (Jun 25, 2008)

Ethalias said:
			
		

> Am I right?



Not really, but no sweat.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 25, 2008)

Here here!

I love being the rogue and being overshadowed by the mage from level 5 on. Climb Walls? Nah, I can just _fly_ up there. Oh, you need that lock opened? _Knock_. Going to scout on the ogres? I'll cast _invisibility_ and_ silence _to join you. Oh, archaic language? _Comprehend Language_ here we come! All that, and I can STILL do more damage in one fireball than you can with a backstab without the needless hassle of flanking or getting surprise.

And oh, the fun we had when fighters had no skills beyond climb and jump. But he was the MASTER of melee combat, until the cleric cast _divine power, righteous might_, and _greater magic weapon_ to dominate the foe. Then he'd heal himself and the fighter (who provided a wonderful distraction until the cleric was buffed) and it was off for our 8 hour nap (because the cleric was out of spells from buffing and the wizard blew his on being a rogue exploration and attack magic)

And how about that love for half-orcs? Or half-elves? Or bards? Or monks with flurry of misses? and didn't we LOVE the fact humans before 3e had the best racial trait ever: they could be 20th level paladins! Can elves be either 20th OR paladins? NO! But humans, they could be BOTH!

I guess that wasn't fair. My half-elf bard had a use too. He had max ranks in diplomacy, synergy bonuses, racial bonuses, feat bonuses, and other stacking +'s. So he did ALL the negotiating with NPCs while the rest of the players zoned out because they had 8-10 charisma's. My mighty +18 to diplomacy at 2nd level (+5 ranks, +3 cha, +2 half-elf, +2 negotiator, +6 synergy from bluff, know: nobility, and sense motive) made putting any ranks in it for anyone else pointless. (oh, he also had _charm person_ in case he DID roll poorly...)

So viva la broken! Long live the CoDzilla! Bow to the majesty all of the all-encompassing Swiss-army wizard! Huzzah for cherry picking and bonus stacking! D&D wouldn't be D&D without them.

_(Sorry, that much sarcasm made me throw up in my mouth a little)_


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 25, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Not too much, though.  The barrier to entry is pretty low, and once you're in, you're in.  Humans and Eladrin can do it from first level. One or two feats when you get one every other level isn't much of a sacrifice, especially given that feats aren't the nice cookie they were in 3.x.
> 
> (Hmmm...is the plural of 'Eladrin' 'Eladrin' or 'Eladrins'?)



Nah, there's a pretty huge difference between "anyone can do it" and "anyone who invests feats, has the appropriate ability scores, and who goes out of their way to find and learn individual rituals can do it."

Its like arguing that anyone in 3e can cast spells because you can multiclass into Wizard at level 2.  Maybe true to a logician, but not true in the way the speaker intended.


----------



## Wormwood (Jun 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> So viva la broken! Long live the CoDzilla! Bow to the majesty all of the all-encompassing Swiss-army wizard! Huzzah for cherry picking and bonus stacking! D&D wouldn't be D&D without them.



I worked so hard repressing those memories, and you bring them crashing back.

I have to have a lie down now.


----------



## Keth009 (Jun 25, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> I'm sure the poor schlub mopping the floor at the hoagie shack near me wishes he made my kind of money. We're not all equal. I cannot drive a race car, play a guitar, or do quantum physics. Maybe you cannot reprogram a router like I can.
> 
> Its that DIFFERENCE in things that make it great.




The fact that other people are poorer than you and suffer for it makes you feel great?

Well, I'm disinclined to discuss anything with you, even gaming. Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## Psion (Jun 25, 2008)

RabidBob said:
			
		

> I'm not convinced you do actually!



(hate game balance)

I can understand that.

I don't hate game balance. Game balance makes the GMs job easier, and helps deal with human issues of jealousy.

I think perhaps the OP hates game balance _run amok_. I know I do.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Jun 25, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't hate game balance. Game balance makes the GMs job easier, and helps deal with human issues of jealousy.
> 
> I think perhaps the OP hates game balance _run amok_. I know I do.



Are you sure it's not a case of hatiing game balance that prevents you from making an overpowering character?  One that dominates the game at everyone else's expense?  Because I got the feeling that's what the OP wanted.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 25, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think perhaps the OP hates game balance _run amok_. I know I do.



I agree there is a point where game balance becomes stifling.  The object is to operate in that middle ground where things aren't completely unbalanced yet the balance isn't so strict it reduces the options.

With 4e it feels like they turned game balance into a straight-jacket and got rid of many of my favorite character concepts in the name of _game balance my precious_.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 25, 2008)

Eric Tolle said:
			
		

> Are you sure it's not a case of hatiing game balance that prevents you from making an overpowering character?  One that dominates the game at everyone else's expense?  Because I got the feeling that's what the OP wanted.




I have noticed a number of arguments about game balance (esp regarding 4e) come down to "wizards got nerfed because they cannot effectively break the game anymore" (followed closely behind is "clerics are no longer worth playing because they don't break the game AND fight well while doing it")


----------



## Psion (Jun 25, 2008)

Eric Tolle said:
			
		

> Are you sure it's not a case of hatiing game balance that prevents you from making an overpowering character?  One that dominates the game at everyone else's expense?  Because I got the feeling that's what the OP wanted.




I dunno. I can see how one paragraph in the OP can be taken that way, but when you put it that way, it does sound a bit hostile and I'm not so sure and wonder if you are strawmanning.

I don't take it that way. Because, well, I understand it from a different angle that the poster may or may not agree with. I'll let the OP declare that for himself. But as for me, I don't think the game should feature characters that are blatantly unbalanced, but I do find that the way 4e achieved balance is not to my liking. But that's an except for a rant I have stewing right now and I'm not sure I want to bring that rant forth until it's fully formed.


----------



## Clavis (Jun 25, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> So, I bought the 4E books. I read them. I read a lot of posts here on enworld, reading about others opinions and helping to solidify my own.
> 
> And heres the deal.
> 
> ...




Speak the words, brother! Amen!


----------



## Shining Dragon (Jun 25, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> I HATE GAME BALANCE!




If you hate game balance that much just play a 1st level character in a game where everyone else is playing a 10th level character. Surely you would love the experience...?


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 25, 2008)

The new balance of 4e is what makes it leaps and bounds above 3.x.  While the OP's argument is rational in the sense of the real world, in the context of a game played for fun, it's NOT FUN to sit out because another PC can do everything you can, and then some.  Would it be more realistic?  Probably.  However, I would gladly sacrifice realism for enjoyment.   I don't know about you, but everything the OP said he hated about 4e, I *like*, and I was a powergamer in 3.5.


----------



## Ethalias (Jun 25, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Not really, but no sweat.




Heheh  Tactfully and succinctly put!  Could you/anyone attempt a v brief potted definition of narrativist, how it relates to Simulationist and Gamist, and/or point me in the direction of one?


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Jun 25, 2008)

Is this discussion really about "balance", or is it actually about niche protection?


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jun 25, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Nah, there's a pretty huge difference between "anyone can do it" and "anyone who invests feats, has the appropriate ability scores, and who goes out of their way to find and learn individual rituals can do it."
> 
> Its like arguing that anyone in 3e can cast spells because you can multiclass into Wizard at level 2.  Maybe true to a logician, but not true in the way the speaker intended.




I disagree.  There's no stat requirement, just skill checks.  Most of those are either 'arcane' which is a pre-req for casting the ritual in the first place, and with 4e's skill system, have a skill requirement isn't the burden it was in 3e for non-skillmonkeys. Plus, the skill check is usually not pass/fail, it adds to the presumed success.  Acquiring the ritual itself isn't much of a burden, especially if there is already a wizard in the party to bogart spells from.  GM fiat to prevent a ritual isn't a rules issue.

In 3e, you had to multiclass, incurring XP penalties where applicable, and delay/lose benefits to the primary class, have the relevant stat, high enough class level (as opposed to character level in 4e), and still had to acquire the spell.  You did gain combat spells, but the effetive lag in caster level hurt that in many cases.


----------



## buzz (Jun 25, 2008)

Ethalias said:
			
		

> Heheh  Tactfully and succinctly put!  Could you/anyone attempt a v brief potted definition of narrativist, how it relates to Simulationist and Gamist, and/or point me in the direction of one?





So as not to derail (further) this thread, I'd recommend:

http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html (especially "Aside: GNS")
http://swingpad.com/dustyboots/wordpress/?cat=11


----------



## Ethalias (Jun 25, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> So as not to derail (further) this thread, I'd recommend:
> 
> http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html (especially "Aside: GNS")
> http://swingpad.com/dustyboots/wordpress/?cat=11




You, sir, are an officer and a gentleman.

I am in your debt.


----------



## buzz (Jun 25, 2008)

Ethalias said:
			
		

> You, sir, are an officer and a gentleman.



Sweet, a promotion!


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 25, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> I disagree.  There's no stat requirement, just skill checks.



13 Int or you can't have the feat in the first place.



			
				Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> In 3e, you had to multiclass, incurring XP penalties where applicable, and delay/lose benefits to the primary class, have the relevant stat, high enough class level (as opposed to character level in 4e), and still had to acquire the spell.  You did gain combat spells, but the effetive lag in caster level hurt that in many cases.



Right.  Like I said, its technically a true statement that anyone in 3e can cast spells (because they could multiclass into wizard), but it doesn't tell you very much because the real world practicalities of the situation mean that only some characters actually DO cast spells.  

Likewise, in 4e, sure, all it costs to use rituals (assuming you don't mind doing so badly) is training in either Religion or Arcana, 13 Intelligence, the Ritual Caster feat, and some gold expense in buying rituals and learning them.  But as a practical matter, there are lots of reasons why not everyone actually WILL be casting rituals.  A 13 Int isn't a trivial investment for many character classes.  It costs several feats, which they might want to spend elsewhere.  And it isn't all that useful if you've got a wizard in the party who can cast the same rituals better, since most rituals provide group benefits instead of individual benefits.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 25, 2008)

I only hate balance when it runs amok and  results in wtf moments that requrire turning a blind eye or hand waving to  explain.   3e may have had some of these moment, but 4e has gone too far in this direction with per encounter/daily abilities, healing potions and healing surges, daily magic items, bugbear stranglers when PC have no such exploit, +1/2 level to ability checks, etc.

With regards to spellcasting, spellcasters needed to be toned down. However, balance and verisimilitude don't need to exclusive. EN Publishing showed it was possible to accomplish this while retaining flexability and simulation/verisimilitude.

Similarly, Book of Iron Might made martial combat interesting without declaring abilities only useable per encounter or daily.  It simply relied on deciding if the risk of attempting  a specific maneuver was worth the payoff.   And, imo, Mearl's providing a system for building maneuvers is another demonstration of better design as it provides the DM with tools and examples of maneuver building rather than giving a monster a maneuver any person can attempt and then requring DMs to either wait for a future supplement or blindly recreate the maneuver for a pc.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Jun 25, 2008)

I've got some questions for those who hate game balance:

—How do you keep all classes relevant at every level?
—How do you keep all the characters relevant at any time?
—How do you deal with the uselessness of low-level abilities aquired at high levels?
—What about new DMs who probably can't make everyone shine effectively?


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 25, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> I dunno. I've always been a fan of defined class roles. I've also been a fan of being able to blur and bend those roles if need be.




You like blurring the lines, or you want niche protection. Which is it, because you can't have both.



			
				LordDamax said:
			
		

> And above all else, I've been a fan of a character being able to do somethign NO ONE else can.




As has been pointed out to you, that doesn't exist in D&D. After a certain level in 1/2/3E, the mage or cleric can do everything the other classes can do, plus their own stuff, especially if you don't put some limits on downtime (which governs making scrolls and potions) or the '15-minute adventuring day' (which lets them start every series of encounters with their full complement of spells). The higher level you go, the less niche protection there is especially when secondary books keep providing the spellcasters with cool toys while the others, sometimes, get an equipment upgrade or a superior feat.



			
				LordDamax said:
			
		

> If that means the mage is all-powerful at 18th level, then so be it.




That's a lot of fun if you're the mage. If you're anyone but the mage, it gets damned boring to sit there while he solves all the problems. 

I've left games where, basically, we all sat around and watched one character do everyones job for them. In a balanced game, we all have a role to play and play it well.



			
				LordDamax said:
			
		

> I'm a network admin and I make decent money. I'm not a millionaire, and I wish I were. I'm sure the poor schlub mopping the floor at the hoagie shack near me wishes he made my kind of money. We're not all equal. I cannot drive a race car, play a guitar, or do quantum physics. Maybe you cannot reprogram a router like I can.




Certainly this is the case in the real world. It's _always _ better to be a member of the aristocracy, regardless of time period.

If we really wanted a game that reflected this aspect of it, we'd be back playing a game where everything was more or less randomized, including our level. There have been games like that and they're not around anymore because most people won't put up with that crap. 

(Rolemaster is a good example of this; if you roll super-well in three or four primary attributes you will forever-more dominate that game, to the point that no matter what items or classes anyone else chooses, they'll quickly realize that in actuality they're just along for the ride, so to speak).


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 25, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> So, I bought the 4E books. I read them. I read a lot of posts here on enworld, reading about others opinions and helping to solidify my own.
> 
> And heres the deal.
> 
> ...




If you really feel that bad about 4E, just ask for a refund or do the ebay mambo.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I have noticed a number of arguments about game balance (esp regarding 4e) come down to "wizards got nerfed because they cannot effectively break the game anymore" (followed closely behind is "clerics are no longer worth playing because they don't break the game AND fight well while doing it")



Nice strawman there.

Maybe it's that many people don't mind that some classes are more powerful than others, especially at high levels?  Some people don't want flavor and style sacrificed for pure mathematical equality between classes.

High level wizards should be nigh-godlike terrors on the battlefield who can devastate armies in seconds and rewrite reality in seconds out-of-combat, their only real weakness is physical frailty that means that unless they have prep magic up, a fighter of far lower level can come and whack them down quickly, but if they are prepared even a far higher level fighter has no chance against him.  That 4e has nerfed the wizard down to a pigeonholed predetermined combat niche and handed all the reality-rewriting into rituals anybody can do with just a feat (and that means less in 4e than 3e with getting more feats and feats being weaker).


----------



## apoptosis (Jun 25, 2008)

I think a better approach would be how do you allow potentially extreme differences in scope of a characters ability to affect the world and allow all the PLAYERS to enjoy the game and have spotlight time.

Balance in D&D has always been about magic. How do you deal with the fact that the idea of magic and sorcery has a certain meaning to many people that it can do stuff that mundane means cannot equal.

How do you balance a character that can do that with other characters.

1. Limit use of magic (older versions)
2. Make magic and 'mundane' actions equivalent (4E) (or allow anyone access to magic..rituals)

The problem with older versions for some groups (strangely not mine) was that the limit to use had to be pretty extreme to balance the acutal scope and versatility. When the upped the uses per day in 3E it got more difficult. They tried to harness it by limiting straight hp damage of magic but they didnt really help.

Many people (or some peoples whatever) have issues that it takes away their version of the wizard trope and that classes all seem similar.

There were other ways that balance could have been obtained.

1. make magic dangerous to use or costly
2. make magic time consuming
3. limit number of uses more dramatically (say only can cast a handful of spells per day even at high levels either by slots or by ability drain etc.)
4. make magic unreliable
5. make magic take a long time to regenerate (takes a week or month to get all your power back) 
5. give mundane characters access to some narrative power like action points or drama points etc.

Probably many more ways of doing it. 4E took one tact, that for me was one of the less ideal ways of doing for a general fantasy RPG but i think was a very good way of doing it for the focus and style of play that 4E is trying to provide.


----------



## Canaan (Jun 25, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> This is still the case.
> 
> That's... about all the refutation your post requires.
> 
> But I can go beyond that.  You seem to view the above quote as an example of a system which hasn't got balance.  Actually, its an example of a system which DOES have balance.  Each character has areas in which they excel, and areas in which they fall behind.  Fortunately, its even the method of balance chosen by 4th edition!  How convenient for you!  Now you can embrace the game and be happy, instead of repeating lines from _The Incredibles_ which, in the movie, made even less sense than your use of them did.




I dare say, sir, that _you_ are offensive.


----------



## Canaan (Jun 25, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> In other words, you  . . . love . . . game balance?




This is an example of horrible, results-driven logic.


----------



## Jack99 (Jun 25, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I agree there is a point where game balance becomes stifling.  The object is to operate in that middle ground where things aren't completely unbalanced yet the balance isn't so strict it reduces the options.
> 
> With 4e it feels like they turned game balance into a straight-jacket and got rid of many of my favorite character concepts in the name of _game balance my precious_.




Wild guess. You are a player more often than a DM?


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 25, 2008)

Canaan said:
			
		

> I dare say, sir, that _you_ are offensive.



What?

I feel like something very witty has been said, and I didn't understand it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 25, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> High level wizards should be nigh-godlike




Suggesting that one character type should be more powerful than all other character types at the same level is just poor game design. If level isn't an accurate indicator of power level comparison between two characters, then it is a worthless concept.


----------



## Canaan (Jun 25, 2008)

rowport said:
			
		

> I am confused by your post.  AFAIK, your examples here *are* about game balance!  You posit the classic rock/paper/scissors scenerio, where under the right conditions a certain class excels, so all are balanced as a whole.
> 
> Personally, I think this is a good thing, 4e or other game.  Otherwise, players would all gravitate towards the most powerful option.





Again, the OP's point--which is clear form his original post--is that everyone excelled in their own way.  This may be a poor example of what he is calling the "lack of game balance" (that he likes), but it is not his "point."


----------



## der_kluge (Jun 25, 2008)

4th edition's "Balance" doesn't bug me so much, but I think what the OP is driving at it's 4th edition's attempts at giving player's new toys to play with every level. Like, the game itself can't hold people's attention spans anymore, they've got to now have new shiny toys every level.

But what bugs me about 4th edition, primarily, is that I can't make a truly "worthless" character.  You know, we've all had those - the bard/cloistered cleric who takes ranks in all kinds of skills and excels at nothing in particular.  That kind of character is really hard to make in 4th edition. They're all souped-up superheros right from the start.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 25, 2008)

Canaan said:
			
		

> Again, the OP's point--which is clear form his original post--is that everyone excelled in their own way.




And the point people made to him is that 4e does exactly that, by making the Fighter a melee force to be reckoned with, the Wizard a destroyer of armies on the battlefield with area spells, and the Ranger a brutal striker from long ranges (40 squares is further than spells reach). Everyone excels in their own way.

He is complaining that they "took away" exactly what they reinforced with the system: each class is distinct and competent at it's role, and other classes do not overshadow it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 25, 2008)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> But what bugs me about 4th edition, primarily, is that I can't make a truly "worthless" character.




Yes, you can. You just have to do it intentionally, with that purpose in mind, rather than falling into "system mastery" traps like the Use Rope skill or the 3.X Toughness feat.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 25, 2008)

Well, I agree with the OP, broadly speaking.

I'm also _really_ sick of the "CODzilla" hyperbole, and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth of people who apparently got beaten up by Wizards in grade school and had their milk money stolen.

In all the time I've played D&D, I ran _one_ long-term character that was a caster. I played lots of Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers and Rogues (or combinations thereof), though, and the only time I can think of that I ended up feeling my character was irrelevant was because of pretty specific campaign design issues, not Clerics and Wizards.   

I've never played in games where the 15-minute adventuring day was the norm, where the fact spells are a limited resource didn't matter, or where you had unlimited amounts of time to buff your character, either.

Of course, I'm sure it's just a matter of time before someone tells me I'm wrong, because it's actually _impossible_ to have a fun 3.5 game.


----------



## Canaan (Jun 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Here here!
> 
> I love being the rogue and being overshadowed by the mage from level 5 on. Climb Walls? Nah, I can just _fly_ up there. Oh, you need that lock opened? _Knock_. Going to scout on the ogres? I'll cast _invisibility_ and_ silence _to join you. Oh, archaic language? _Comprehend Language_ here we come! All that, and I can STILL do more damage in one fireball than you can with a backstab without the needless hassle of flanking or getting surprise.
> 
> ...




Well, thanks for the apology, as I was about to smack you.  As to your argument that the mage used to be able to overshadow all other characters, I agree that in 3.5 that was the case.  I would also say that in 3.0 it was the priest that was the uber-class.

But 2d edition had it right.  Yes, a mage became very powerful at upper levels, but his mighty magical power was for naught in a melee fight.  And spells?  Well, he never got them automatically and had to search and adventure to find even the least powerful of spells.  The DM was able to control the power level of the wizard simply by restricting access to spells.  And what about "spells per day?"  I seem to recall that a wizard had very few spells each day in his arsenal.  Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, isn't this a "roleplaying" game?  Why are we talking about "game balance" for such a creature?


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 25, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> What?
> 
> I feel like something very witty has been said, and I didn't understand it.




No, he's just saying you're offensive. And you are.


----------



## Canaan (Jun 25, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And the point people made to him is that 4e does exactly that, by making the Fighter a melee force to be reckoned with, the Wizard a destroyer of armies on the battlefield with area spells, and the Ranger a brutal striker from long ranges (40 squares is further than spells reach). Everyone excels in their own way.
> 
> He is complaining that they "took away" exactly what they reinforced with the system: each class is distinct and competent at it's role, and other classes do not overshadow it.




Eventually, people tried to make that point, yes.  I agree with you on that.  But I don't agree with the argument they make.  What damage does fireball do again?  a base 1d6?  Destroyer of armies, indeed.


----------



## buzz (Jun 25, 2008)

:takes a sip of his coffee:



			
				Canaan said:
			
		

> But 2d edition had it right.



:spits coffee all over the place:



			
				Canaan said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, isn't this a "roleplaying" game?  Why are we talking about "game balance" for such a creature?



Seriously?


----------



## Canaan (Jun 25, 2008)

Keth009 said:
			
		

> The fact that other people are poorer than you and suffer for it makes you feel great?
> 
> Well, I'm disinclined to discuss anything with you, even gaming. Welcome to my ignore list.




That wasn't his point, Keth.  He was bringing real life examples of the differences of people--in this case socioeconomic differences--to enforce his point about people being special in their own ways.  How you read it the way you did, I do not know.  But be at ease knowing that he did not intend to offend.


----------



## TwoSix (Jun 25, 2008)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Don't have my PHB with me, but isn't the maximum range on a longbow 40 squares, i.e. 200feet, i.e. a little less than 70 yards? So y'know, maybe it's not _all _ still the case
> 
> Or maybe I'm forgetting a rule that lets you fire further than that.




Fire 40 squares diagonally.


----------



## Canaan (Jun 25, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> :takes a sip of his coffee:
> 
> 
> :spits coffee all over the place:
> ...




lol! yes, seriously.   I'm not saying that 2ed didn't have its flaws.  it clearly did.  But these were not among them in my opinion.


----------



## GSHamster (Jun 25, 2008)

Balanced does not mean identical.

In videogames, Starcraft is often held up as having the finest balance of any RTS.  Yet it is composed of 3 different factions, which are _very_ different from each other.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 25, 2008)

Canaan said:
			
		

> Eventually, people tried to make that point, yes.  I agree with you on that.  But I don't agree with the argument they make.  What damage does fireball do again?  a base 1d6?  Destroyer of armies, indeed.



Armies = minions.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Jun 25, 2008)

I still don't understand: if you don't have balance among the characters then how do you ensure that everyone is useful?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 25, 2008)

Canaan said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, isn't this a "roleplaying" game?  Why are we talking about "game balance" for such a creature?



Because it's a roleplaying "game", and "games" require "rules" that, in general, should be "balanced".

Otherwise it's just sitting around a table, telling stories and acting. No mechanics required there.

Ultimately, a roleplaying game is cops and robbers that lets you avoid the "Hey I shot you" "No you didn't" by requiring some sort of conflict-resolution mechanic. That mechanic can be as simple as rock/paper/scissor, but it's still a device that answers the question "Did that happen or not?"


----------



## rkwoodard (Jun 25, 2008)

*minions*



			
				Canaan said:
			
		

> Eventually, people tried to make that point, yes.  I agree with you on that.  But I don't agree with the argument they make.  What damage does fireball do again?  a base 1d6?  Destroyer of armies, indeed.





Assuming that footsoldiers are minions.  Yes, an area effect base 1d6 is a destroyer of armies.

RK


edited Ninja'ed by 5 minutes


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 25, 2008)

Canaan said:
			
		

> Well, thanks for the apology, as I was about to smack you.  As to your argument that the mage used to be able to overshadow all other characters, I agree that in 3.5 that was the case.  I would also say that in 3.0 it was the priest that was the uber-class.
> 
> But 2d edition had it right.  Yes, a mage became very powerful at upper levels, but his mighty magical power was for naught in a melee fight.  And spells?  Well, he never got them automatically and had to search and adventure to find even the least powerful of spells.  The DM was able to control the power level of the wizard simply by restricting access to spells.  And what about "spells per day?"  I seem to recall that a wizard had very few spells each day in his arsenal.  Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, isn't this a "roleplaying" game?  Why are we talking about "game balance" for such a creature?




Wow, I must applaud you for this.

You're one of the few people I've seen *CORRECTLY* identify why the 3.x spellcasters made out like bandits.

1e/2e had all the same spells that 3E did, but spellcasters never were as game-breaking powerful as before.

You forgot three other things.

1. Magic item creation was HARD. Even making a simply scroll was something of an adventure (anyone remember that excerpt about how to create a philter of love from PO:S&M)? When 3E opened the doors on magic item creation, it made an absolute hash of the limited spell slot idea for spellcasters.

2. The treasure table in 1e/2e were slanted towards magic weapons and armour. Compare the equivalent in 3.x which were scrolls and potions and you can see where the wizard gets stronger.

3. THe save system. Even if a spellcaster could get through the SR of a creature, the saves on most creatures meant Save or Die was sb-optimal. Better to depend on good ole fireball. Contrast with 3E.

Yet people were surprised that spellcasters could trump everyone so easily in 3.x? Knock makes sense in 1E/2e since the opportunity cost in using it was ridiculously high whereas that self same spell becomes "too-good" in 3.x

Like I've said before, Mialee may be the UGLIEST elf ever, but she has to be the best damn charmer ever given all the love that WOTC gave to wizards.

This is the reason why I think the "4E" blaster mage is a MUCH closer match to the 1e/2e wizard than the 3E wizard is even though the 3E wizard uses the same mechanics.

The ritual system makes "non-combat" magic more like how it was treated back in 1e/2e. Not something that a wizard breaks out wily-nily.


----------



## buzz (Jun 25, 2008)

The conundrum in all this is that "balance" is often a nebulous term w/r/t RPGs.

For me, in terms of RPGs, "balance" is about fun being as equally distributed as possible amongst all the players. I.e., if any one option is too effective, you're removing fun from any player who doesn't take advantage of that option.

(This is one of the main things I am not going to miss about 3e.)

Ergo, I have a hard time getting behind any argument that prioritizes verisimilitude or setting fidelity over fun (as exemplified by the Heinsoo quote in my .sig). The whole point of play, IMO, is getting together with people in order to create fun for each other. If Larry's 18th-level wizard can consistently contribute more meaningfully to the fun than my 18th-level rogue, that makes my participation pretty meaningless. No amount of "But it makes sense!" arguments are going to make me any more inclined to keep playing that rogue, much less keep playing that particular game with those people.

The case would be exactly the same in a Narrativist, GM-less, shared-narration RPG (i.e., the polar opposite of D&D). If there's an option that consistently allows Larry to shut down my ability to add narration, I am not going to be inclined to keep playing.

Thus, "balance" is more important than anything else. "But it's a roleplaying game" is not an excuse. It's the worst possible excuse, honestly.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 25, 2008)

Canaan said:
			
		

> Eventually, people tried to make that point, yes.




If by "eventually," you mean "the second response to the OP," then yes, they eventually did.



> What damage does fireball do again?  a base 1d6?  Destroyer of armies, indeed.




Y'know, if you're going to try to engage in discussion about something, it helps to actually have some knowledge of the subject at hand.

Fireball (the 5th-level spell) deals 3d6 + Int damage to creatures in a Burst 2. That's 3d6 + Int damage to up to 25 creatures. If we're talking about armies (which are primarily comprised of minions), that's 25 dead soldiers in a single blast from a 5th-level spell.

Hell, one Flaming Sphere rolling around through an army can wreak some havoc, and that's only a level 1 spell.


----------



## CountPopeula (Jun 25, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Nice strawman there.
> 
> Maybe it's that many people don't mind that some classes are more powerful than others, especially at high levels?  Some people don't want flavor and style sacrificed for pure mathematical equality between classes.
> 
> High level wizards should be nigh-godlike terrors on the battlefield who can devastate armies in seconds and rewrite reality in seconds out-of-combat, their only real weakness is physical frailty that means that unless they have prep magic up, a fighter of far lower level can come and whack them down quickly, but if they are prepared even a far higher level fighter has no chance against him.  That 4e has nerfed the wizard down to a pigeonholed predetermined combat niche and handed all the reality-rewriting into rituals anybody can do with just a feat (and that means less in 4e than 3e with getting more feats and feats being weaker).




And yet, I too have yet to see someone complain that they dislike the boost in power and ability to the fighter. Well, i take that back, I've seen complaints that it's "too complicated" for new gamers, and that fighter should be dull and boring and have no options, because that's what's going to hook new gamers.

But I haven't heard anyone who likes fighters and wants to play a fighter complain that they'd rather just have the basic attack and let the wizard and cleric have all the abilities.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 25, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> I've never played in games where the 15-minute adventuring day was the norm, where the fact spells are a limited resource didn't matter, or where you had unlimited amounts of time to buff your character, either.




Then I'll say that you've had a good GM who knows when to say 'no' and played with players who don't seek to abuse the system, then. Not everyone is so fortunate.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 25, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> I HATE GAME BALANCE!




  I don't know about 4E, but ...

  I have never subscribed to the idea of balance, in D&D.
  I believe in and have always used the balance of imbalances concept.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 25, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Nice strawman there.
> 
> Maybe it's that many people don't mind that some classes are more powerful than others, especially at high levels?  Some people don't want flavor and style sacrificed for pure mathematical equality between classes.
> 
> High level wizards should be nigh-godlike terrors on the battlefield who can devastate armies in seconds and rewrite reality in seconds out-of-combat, their only real weakness is physical frailty that means that unless they have prep magic up, a fighter of far lower level can come and whack them down quickly, but if they are prepared even a far higher level fighter has no chance against him.  That 4e has nerfed the wizard down to a pigeonholed predetermined combat niche and handed all the reality-rewriting into rituals anybody can do with just a feat (and that means less in 4e than 3e with getting more feats and feats being weaker).




And that's WONDERFUL if your the DM. Or the guy playing the wizard. What about everyone else? I've played in (2nd edition) games where the wizard(s) overruled everything. One wizard is strong, 2-3 of them makes everyone else superfluous. At the end of the day, everyone ended up a mage (via new pcs, dual classing, or character rewriting) because, well, there was no reason to stay a fighter, thief, or even cleric. 

I guess the game is balanced if EVERYONE is playing the wizard. Or the Jedi. or whatever. You get the point.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 25, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Then I'll say that you've had a good GM who knows when to say 'no' and played with players who don't seek to abuse the system, then. Not everyone is so fortunate.




Couldn't that have been achieved by the  PHB telling players not to be asshats by abusing the system and for the DMG to teach DMs how and when to say no to players?


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 25, 2008)

Canaan said:
			
		

> But 2d edition had it right.  Yes, a mage became very powerful at upper levels, but his mighty magical power was for naught in a melee fight.  And spells?  Well, he never got them automatically and had to search and adventure to find even the least powerful of spells.




Mages sucked in melee right up until they introduced the _stoneskin _ spell. If they ever get that spell or one or two similar things, their fear of fighters is gone because by the time the fighter can beat down their defenses they've already killed him.



			
				Canaan said:
			
		

> The DM was able to control the power level of the wizard simply by restricting access to spells.




Up until the first time you have a mage as an opponent for the party. Unless things go horribly wrong, when you defeat that mage then the party mages are going to take his spellbook, hole up for a week and use _write _ to write all his spells into their books. You gave him _disintergration_, _lightning bolt _ and _passwall_? Well, now the PC's have it, too.

This is one reason that virtually all magical opponents in early 3E adventures were sorcerers, because they didn't have a ready-made store of mage-power-up on hand.



			
				Canaan said:
			
		

> And what about "spells per day?"  I seem to recall that a wizard had very few spells each day in his arsenal.




That's true until he hits about 8th level. 

And there is the '15-minute adventuring day' phenomenon that still existed to a lesser extent in 1E; once the mage or (especially) cleric was out of spells, play stopped unless the GM was able to arrange things otherwise. Thus, it didn't really matter how many spells per day he had; he'd effectively have them all for every major encounter area.

This is before he finds things like a ring of wizardry, pearl of power or scrolls.



			
				Canaan said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, isn't this a "roleplaying" game?  Why are we talking about "game balance" for such a creature?




No matter how much immersion and roleplaying you're doing, it's still a game and constructed like a game. It still sucks when someone is so vastly superior to you that your PC might as well be a pack mule.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 25, 2008)

I am once again reminded of the scene from Peter Jackson's ROTK.
  Gandalf, behind the crumbling gates of Minas Tirith:  'Remember that you are soldiers of Gondor!  No matter what comes through that gate, you will stand your ground!'

  The Morgul Host is not interested in balance, or in granting rests to characters with low hit points and exhausted spell repetoires.

  As DM, I'm not going to be anymore interested, and my players understand this at the beginning of the campaign.

  Character Rule 1:  It is up to the characters to find the way to survive and succeed.  Period.  Finis.  Life is not fair.  Death is even more unfair.  Deal with it.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 25, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Couldn't that have been achieved by the  PHB telling players not to be asshats by abusing the system and for the DMG to teach DMs how and when to say no to players?




It does. Every edition of the DMG has had words to that effect. 

The people who are going to be asshats never listen to that advice, for some reason. And there have been tons of articles written on how to be a good GM, almost all of them reinterating the same advice. I have not seen an appreciable effect on the GM population.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 25, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> I loved the fact a fighter could kick the snot out of a mage at melee, and a mage could destroy a fighter with a spell, and a ranger could kill both of them from 100 yards away.



Sadly, the situation you describe has never been the case in D&D. 

The wizard can do anything. In particular he stamps all over the thief's niche*. His weaknesses can be completely circumvented with defensive spells and the 15 min day. A 3e fighter can be just as good an archer as the ranger, arguably better. A wizard's fireball has longer range than a longbow. And CoDzilla stamps all over everyone.

Multiclassing, which is very easy in 3e and, imo, too easy in 1e and 2e, also goes completely against niche protection.

Even if class niche protection was sacrosanct in D&D, and it wasn't, this would have led to the 'Decker' problem, where each PC is off playing his own mini-game and there's no interaction.

4e's much stricter rules on multiclassing actually do a better job of supporting the game you prefer.

It is true that everyone can do anything now, just not equally well. But those differences in ability - such as the defender's higher AC and the striker's higher damage output - result in classes that play very differently on the battlegrid.


* Which makes sense when you consider the wizard, or magic-user, predated the thief. There was no room for the thief when he arrived in '75, the magic user already occupied his niche. A similar problem occurs with the cleric/paladin, they were too much alike. D&D classes - broken from 1975 to 2008.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 25, 2008)

Whether it is a good game or not, 4th Edition will not make players behave reasonably.  
  The players must police themselves.  In my experience, this is the only way that has ever worked.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jun 25, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Wild guess. You are a player more often than a DM?



No a DM far more than a player, and I'll say up front that I think 4e is garbage and am not impartial by any means.  I never had a bit of problem running 3e all the way into epic levels or the types of abilities removed from 4e.  As a DM I liked the that I could use summoning, illusions, enchantment, necromancy, and shapeshifting for all sort of unique effects to throw at the PCs.  Now those are gone in favor of bland mechanically near-identical pap.  As a player I always ran wizards and focused on unusual sets of spells, never once a howitzer mage, and now that's impossible.  They've removed all the interesting effects from the game.  I let my players use COBoard builds at the table and it was a riot for all involved including me as a DM.  So do not presume to hit me with a CODzilla argument, I've seen the worst out there and had no problem with it.

Balance is over-rated.  I would far rather have an interesting but not very well balanced game than a game balanced so well it sucked the life and ingenuity out of play in favor of versimilitude breaking mechanical equality and thoughtless gamism.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 25, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> It does. Every edition of the DMG has had words to that effect.
> 
> The people who are going to be asshats never listen to that advice, for some reason. And there have been tons of articles written on how to be a good GM, almost all of them reinterating the same advice. I have not seen an appreciable effect on the GM population.




In that case, you could very well argue that since the people never change, any attempts to impose "balance" from on high aren't going to do much to solve this problem.

The obvious solution, regardless of system, is to find people you're happy playing with. Frankly, I can't imagine gaming long-term with anyone whose play I could tolerate only because he was being held in check by the rules...


----------



## Greg K (Jun 25, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> It does. Every edition of the DMG has had words to that effect.
> 
> The people who are going to be asshats never listen to that advice, for some reason. And there have been tons of articles written on how to be a good GM, almost all of them reinterating the same advice. I have not seen an appreciable effect on the GM population.




Then the other piece of advice would be, " Don't play with asshats!"  Anyone that ignores  that advice deserves what they get.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 25, 2008)

Canaan said:
			
		

> Well, thanks for the apology, as I was about to smack you.  As to your argument that the mage used to be able to overshadow all other characters, I agree that in 3.5 that was the case.  I would also say that in 3.0 it was the priest that was the uber-class.
> 
> But 2d edition had it right.  Yes, a mage became very powerful at upper levels, but his mighty magical power was for naught in a melee fight.  And spells?  Well, he never got them automatically and had to search and adventure to find even the least powerful of spells.  The DM was able to control the power level of the wizard simply by restricting access to spells.  And what about "spells per day?"  I seem to recall that a wizard had very few spells each day in his arsenal.  Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, isn't this a "roleplaying" game?  Why are we talking about "game balance" for such a creature?




I guess our experiences differed. 2nd edition was worse than 3rd!

Unless your DM severely hamstringed the mage by keeping his spell access minimal, most mages got the spells they needed to dominate. Disintegrate. Finger of Death. Improved Invisibility. Telekinesis. Fly. Teleport. Stoneskin. A wizard with access to most if not all of these spells was no longer a puny acranist any fighter could put to the sword. He was flying 60 ft in air, invisible, with immunity to 1d4+1 2/caster levels worth of non-magic (including vorpral) weapons, hurling lighting bolts, green-rays of doom, and the omnipotent magic "always hits" missile. What, exactly, was the guy in plate mail with a longsword and shield (even +5 magical ones) going to do against that?

And if the fighter was screwed, least he had that 18/% str and extra attacks to rely on. What did our 2e thief get? Oh, 8 skills with % chance of failure, 5dX damage if he could sneak up on a foe (not merely flank) and a 15% chance to kill the party with an arcane scroll. Right...

And the only reason 2e priests didn't rule the day was sphere access and the typical need to devote 2 out every 3 spell slots to cure X wounds or something similar. Sure, 3.0 went overboard on clerics, but it was probably a reaction to the 2e syndrome of clerics being walking medicine chests or holy-spinning-wheels-of-death (when faiths and avatars "fixed" them)


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 25, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Sadly, the situation you describe has never been the case in D&D.




Ah, the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from having seen the impossible with my own two eyes.

Truly, I have been blessed. I've seen 3E NPCs created in under 2 hours, high-level combats that didn't lead to any suicides, miscarriages or divorces, skill point allocation that didn't cause anyone to bleed from the eyes, and games in which the classes were different and "unbalanced" and everyone had fun.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 25, 2008)

The biggest problem I had with "game balance" is the ease in which one could make an utterly _useless_ character.

Too many people I have known who have made the Bard2/Cleric1/Rog3 with an Underwater Basketweaving feat because "that's just the character" - and then they end up feeling utterly ineffective in any situation where they're rolling a polyhedrian. These are the players that would be happy without having a character sheet in front of them at all. 

When 95% of the rules are written for combat, and you suck at combat, any time combat happens, you're not going to have fun. And that's a _lot_ of not-fun when it comes to combat-intensive games like D&D.  

When I DMed with two of these people in my group, I had to work hard at accommodating them because otherwise they would've been bored and frustrated to no end. 

And before I hear another "Well just don't play with them", look. Maybe you live in a gamer mecca, but in some areas of the country, gamers are _rare_. You play with who you have, or you don't play.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 25, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Well, I agree with the OP, broadly speaking.
> 
> I'm also _really_ sick of the "CODzilla" hyperbole, and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth of people who apparently got beaten up by Wizards in grade school and had their milk money stolen.
> 
> ...




Actually, I had fun in 3.5, 2e, and BECMI. Until level 9. Then the game stopped being fun for anyone other than the wizard and/or cleric. I was then that the martial/mundane classes fell off the map and the spellcasters dominated. If you were the wizard and/or cleric (and the cleric ifandonlyif you weren't the walking medicine chest) the game was great fun. If you were the fighter or the thief/rogue, you watched your role get squished into a pulp and you simply became the wizards groupies keeping the hordes off him until he could unleash the Terror From Above spell and end the encounter. Weee!


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 25, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Character Rule 1:  It is up to the characters to find the way to survive and succeed.  Period.  Finis.  Life is not fair.  Death is even more unfair.  Deal with it.




Rule 2: I stay home. I win.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 25, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> And before I hear another "Well just don't play with them", look. Maybe you live in a gamer mecca, but in some areas of the country, gamers are _rare_. You play with who you have, or you don't play.




...well, sorry, I just don't see D&D as special or important enough that I'd want to tolerate people I actually disliked for the sake of playing it.

(I really, really like D&D, but the only place I'll tolerate spending a lot of time with people who piss me off is one where I get paid for it - not the other way around.)


----------



## redcard (Jun 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Actually, I had fun in 3.5, 2e, and BECMI. Until level 9. Then the game stopped being fun for anyone other than the wizard and/or cleric. I was then that the martial/mundane classes fell off the map and the spellcasters dominated. If you were the wizard and/or cleric (and the cleric ifandonlyif you weren't the walking medicine chest) the game was great fun. If you were the fighter or the thief/rogue, you watched your role get squished into a pulp and you simply became the wizards groupies keeping the hordes off him until he could unleash the Terror From Above spell and end the encounter. Weee!




I hated playing a Rouge for what you describe.  It was like, nope, no real use for you.  The wizard can actually turn COMPLETELY invisible.  The best you can do is hide.   

*sighs*  

It's like your job getting sent overseas.  

And then being asked to protect the guy who took it.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 25, 2008)

Sidenote:

I find the topic of "Wizards rule" really funny. The only time I ever really played a wizard in a game was waaay back in 3.0, under a friend in HS. Who did not follow the rules closely. Who heavily catered to the melee people in the group (who was everyone but me). I actually quit because I felt, well, ignored.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 25, 2008)

redcard said:
			
		

> I hated playing a Rogue for what you describe.  It was like, nope, no real use for you.  The wizard can actually turn COMPLETELY invisible.  The best you can do is hide.
> 
> *sighs*
> 
> ...




Truth, man.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 25, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> In that case, you could very well argue that since the people never change, any attempts to impose "balance" from on high aren't going to do much to solve this problem.




Except that if the mechanics are changed so that the wizard no longer gets an "I WIN!" button at the expense of others, you don't have to worry about the asshat wizard players who stomp all over other people's roles, because he can no longer do so without cheating.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 25, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> \
> When 95% of the rules are written for combat, and you suck at combat, any time combat happens, you're not going to have fun. And that's a _lot_ of not-fun when it comes to combat-intensive games like D&D.  .




There was a poll done here and a decent percentage of people played in games where combat was not that important- less than 30% of the game time with many sessions having no combat what so ever.  So, maybe, the key is communicating the style of game to be run before character generation to place everyone on the same page.



> And before I hear another "Well just don't play with them", look. Maybe you live in a gamer mecca, but in some areas of the country, gamers are _rare_. You play with who you have, or you don't play.




Hey, I say no gaming is better than bad gaming (defined however one chooses), ymmv.


----------



## aurance (Jun 25, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Character Rule 1:  It is up to the characters to find the way to survive and succeed.  Period.  Finis.  Life is not fair.  Death is even more unfair.  Deal with it.




But most of life is pretty damn boring, when simulated as a game. Do you also check for things like random accidents and diseases striking the PCs? Your character is headed to a tavern, and slips and breaks his neck / run over by a cart / struck by lightning in a storm? Catches dysentary and dies of fluid loss through diarrhea? All of that happens in life too.

There are many aspects of life which are modified or glossed over for good gameplay, and balancing player character power can clearly be one of those aspects.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Actually, I had fun in 3.5, 2e, and BECMI. Until level 9. Then the game stopped being fun for anyone other than the wizard and/or cleric. I was then that the martial/mundane classes fell off the map and the spellcasters dominated. If you were the wizard and/or cleric (and the cleric ifandonlyif you weren't the walking medicine chest) the game was great fun. If you were the fighter or the thief/rogue, you watched your role get squished into a pulp and you simply became the wizards groupies keeping the hordes off him until he could unleash the Terror From Above spell and end the encounter. Weee!




Meh. Back _before_ 4E was announced, it was quite common to see threads complaining about how - because of monsters' SR and high saves - a Wizard could hardly do any damage at high levels, and it all came down to someone beating the beastie down with a sword.

Which doesn't really match my experiences, either - in the better games I played in, high-level combat usually involved both enemies that the wizard could blast, and ones pretty resistant to magic that needed to be killed the old-fashioned way.


----------



## Psion (Jun 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Sadly, the situation you describe has never been the case in D&D.




It most certainly has.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 25, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Except that if the mechanics are changed so that the wizard no longer gets an "I WIN!" button at the expense of others, you don't have to worry about the asshat wizard players who stomp all over other people's roles, because he can no longer do so without cheating.




Like I said in the part of my post you didn't quote, this is meaningless unless you're actually ok playing with asshats.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 25, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> So, maybe, the key is communicating the style of game to be run before character generation to place everyone on the same page.



True, but what happens when you have the "I don't really care for combat" roleplayer in a group with two people who want to hit the dungeon? 

The situation is very similar to someone earlier in the thread who described a party consisting of "One dude who does combat, one who does computers, one who does investigations - which means 1 hour per character doing their thing". Being able to have fun the majority of the time is better than a portion.



> Hey, I say no gaming is better than bad gaming



Eh. I'm not suggesting "Bad" gaming, so much as "less fun" gaming. I'm not gritting my teeth, shaking my fist saying "Damn you, roleplaying player, how dare you make me make NPCs talk to you!" But, the presence of that situation means that you have to adjust things in ways that don't necessarily suit your needs, or your mood, or effect the game in a different way.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 25, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Like I said in the part of my post you didn't quote, this is meaningless unless you're actually ok playing with asshats.



Which ignores the fact that _the system reinforces it_ in the first place.

WHY have a system that is lopsidedly balanced when the only counter-measure is "If someone exploits our broken system, just don't play with them"?


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 25, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Balance is over-rated.  I would far rather have an interesting but not very well balanced game than a game balanced so well it sucked the life and ingenuity out of play in favor of versimilitude breaking mechanical equality and thoughtless gamism.



Surely you jape. But I suppose this makes sense, because as a DM you are able to use all of the spells that you want. Perhaps if you played as the classes which were at the low end of the balance bracket in a combat oriented game. Now, I'm sure you're going to say that you have and you loved being underpowered and still do, but what about magic, an undefinable force, makes it defined as more powerful than constant dedication to martial practice?

After all, that's what this argument hinges on. You say that if broken casters don't exist then the game doesn't appear real. Perhaps it's better to imagine not a low magic world, but a world in which magic is not easily harnessed in the heat of battle. This is why spells are perhaps no more powerful than the steel of a highly dedicated melee fighter. Perhaps you're asking, 'why should I bother having to imagine things in a different way?' and the answer is you don't have to. But, just because magic is different between the new editions doesn't mean one is simply more believable than the other. This would be different if we were talking about something that's supposed to model physics, like one edition saying that an object takes 5 seconds to fall a meter, and the other saying it takes less than a second. But this magic, something that's completely fictional in the first place.

That said, I would suggest playing the game before saying the game lacks ingenuity. If you have, what about the play lacked this feeling? I will say now that from first level there are enough choices and combinations with the rest of the group in combat that our group has used more ingenuity than ever before at low levels, which is all I can speak for in 4th edition.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 25, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> monsters' DR




I would assume you mean resistances, since DR doesn't affect spells.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jun 25, 2008)

The problem with the 3E Wizard:
(I saw this posted in another thread.)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5NTAAvJIGrs


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 25, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> WHY have a system that is lopsidedly balanced when the only counter-measure is "If someone exploits our broken system, just don't play with them"?




Indeed. Behavior modification guidelines are not a substitute for good game design.


----------



## Byronic (Jun 25, 2008)

I agree with the OP in theory, because it's correct, in theory.

And no, the OP had nothing to do with Wizards being super powerful. I have the same thoughts and I've never played a Wizard in my life (will change though). 

However in practice I believe that 4.0, despite its many flaws (oh there are so many things I wish they kept in.. or went the whole 9 yards instead of quitting half way) CAN be adapted to make up for its flaws. The following is an example.

In practice I believe people will have their specialities.

The best at rituals (in general) will be the Wizard, why? Because he'll have the most rituals and most likely have the right abilities and skills to use the best of them (with some exceptions).

Everyone can heal themselves, and some (like the Warlord) can heal others. But NO ONE can heal better then a Cleric. Not only does the Cleric have healers lore but he's the best one for curing diseases and healing ailments. He has the Ritual feat and he can most likely cast it better then the Wizard.

Everyone can disarm traps simply by taking thievery, however, how many party members are willing to burn a feat to get it? The best person of the whole party at disarming traps will most likely be someone who has thievery and has invested a lot in dexterity.

In practice people specialise or they fail a lot of skill challenges.  

Even in combat different classes will be much better suited at certain goals. In theory it all sucks, in practice it can work out quite fine.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 25, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I would assume you mean resistances, since DR doesn't affect spells.




I meant SR, obviosuly.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 25, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Which ignores the fact that _the system reinforces it_ in the first place.
> 
> WHY have a system that is lopsidedly balanced when the only counter-measure is "If someone exploits our broken system, just don't play with them"?




Because the "lopsidedly balanced" system has certain _positive_ features that actually appeal to certain people? Like me, even though, as I said, I rarely play casters.

Also, because "don't play with them" is _not_ the only countermeasure to flaws in the system. (it's the only countermeasure to playing with _asshats_)


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 25, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> It most certainly has.




When was the ranger a better archer than the fighter?
When did bows have a longer range than most combat spells?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Because the "lopsidedly balanced" system has certain _positive_ features that actually appeal to certain people? Like me, even though, as I said, I rarely play casters.



Then go and play the lopsided system, and stop complaining about one that is for people who like a level playing field at all levels?



> Also, because "don't play with them" is _not_ the only countermeasure to flaws in the system. (it's the only countermeasure to playing with _asshats_)



Then apparently you and I have a different definition of what an asshat is.

I don't see someone who takes a cleric or wizard and uses the spells to be effective an _asshat_. A melee-based cleric who uses divine power and all those spells isn't looking at the fighter going "HA HA I'M BETTER THAN YOU"; he just wants to _play the game_ and he's no different than the fighter picking up Imp Crit and vorpal weapons.

The problem comes with the fact that the some classes have more options. That the melee-focused cleric can do his thing _in addition_ to the normal cleric-healbot/undead nuke.

Here's a great example: The Druid with the feat "Nature Spell". Now, the Druid can fight like a fighter _and_ gets to use all his spells in his combat form. Is the player being an asshat? No, because any druid in their right mind would take that feat because it's _simply the best feat for a druid_. But it still allows him to do most of what the fighter can do _AND_ cast all his spells!

At higher levels, you're stupid _not_ to abuse the system. Seriously, who _wouldn't_ use Fly or Improved Invisibility? Who _wouldn't_ use Stoneskin? Who _wouldn't_ use save or dies? It's too good _not_ to use your spells while you're a melee monster. They're _effective_. 

The problem is that effectiveness = kills fun or overshadows other people.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 26, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> [Remathilis] Sadly, the situation you describe has never been the case in D&D.




Hey Psion, I think you got me mixed up with Doug McCrae in this post...

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4333047&postcount=78

Honest mistake (I hope)


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

Ultimately I think this is the crux of the thread:

It's not an issue of "Game balance vs. not game balance". It's an issue of "Good balance vs. bad balance". 

Bad balance: The afore-mentioned 4 man group, all with specialized skills, all with no skill overlap, all getting an hour to do their thing and three hours to sit on their ass. Yes, everyone gets 1 hour, everyone has their specialty, that is _balanced_, but it's not _fun_. 

Another example is the various "situational benefits" of 3e. Rogues get sneak attack... unless they're fighting oozes/undead/constructs/elementals. Rangers get their benefits... when they're fighting their favored enemy. Rogues are great... out of combat, fighters are... useless outside of it. 

4e is balanced so _all classes, all levels_ are equal to one another. 

Now if you think that's good or bad balance is up to you. I do not think that's a bad design.


----------



## Zil (Jun 26, 2008)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> If you hate game balance that much just play a 1st level character in a game where everyone else is playing a 10th level character. Surely you would love the experience...?



I think what the original poster really hates is the blandness in how the game balance was achieved.   There ought to have been a way to balance things levels 1-30 for all classes without making the classes almost identical mechanically.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> There ought to have been a way to balance things levels 1-30 for all classes without making the classes almost identical mechanically.



"Identical mechanically" is subject to opinion.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Then apparently you and I have a different definition of what an asshat is.




Probably. I'd say in the situation you describe, the people who decide to play the fighter even though they resent the ones playing the Cleric or the Wizard are the asshats.

As for "stop complaining"... Sorry, I don't particularly feel like letting people get shouted down in the _General_ forum for trying to have a discussion about the flaws of 4E.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 26, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:
			
		

> I've got some questions for those who hate game balance:
> 
> —How do you keep all classes relevant at every level?
> —How do you keep all the characters relevant at any time?
> ...




  Answer:

  - Demand the best out of your players.  (If they do not give their best, kill their characters.)
  - Demand the best out of your players.  (If they do not give their best, kill their characters.)
  - Grant high-level abilities at high level.
  - Give the DM a chance, since it takes time and effort to become a good DM.

  When everyone is caught in a desperate struggle for survival, they have no time or energy to bitch, whine, moan, complain, or be jealous of each other's powers, abilities, and items.
  If they refuse to struggle for survival, to earn victory, to achieve success through effort, then I will not DM for them.

  'Balance' is not a substitute for Good Play.  The only substitute for Good Play is Even Better Play.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jun 26, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> I now invite the 4E lovers here to tell me that my opinion is wrong. Show me why game balance is necessary, because, as you know better than I do, my opinion is not correct!




Your opinions are only that:  yours.  Sorry you don't like the game, but I don't feel compelled to correct you.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> the people who decide to play the fighter even though they resent the ones playing the Cleric or the Wizard are the asshats.



... What? 

So feeling outshined is asshat behavior?



> As for "stop complaining"... Sorry, I don't particularly feel like letting people get shouted down in the _General_ forum for trying to have a discussion about the flaws of 4E.



Because saying "If you like aspect x, here is a system that provides you with X" is shouting you down.


----------



## Zil (Jun 26, 2008)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:
			
		

> I've got some questions for those who hate game balance:



I don't hate game balance, but I'll answer anyway!


> —How do you keep all classes relevant at every level?



With work!  Or just stay away from very high level stuff.  I assume we're talking about 3.x D&D?


> —How do you keep all the characters relevant at any time?



With difficulty.  Pay attention to who is getting a chance to shine and who is not in your games and try and introduce more elements for those who are not shining as brightly.


> —How do you deal with the uselessness of low-level abilities aquired at high levels?



What does this have to do with balance?


> —What about new DMs who probably can't make everyone shine effectively?



Well, for that hopefully there are some good introductory adventures out there that show how to achieve this so that the new DM can learn to be a good DM.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> ... What?
> So feeling outshined is asshat behavior?




Doing something you knew you weren't going to like and then pouting about it _is_.



> Because saying "If you like aspect x, here is a system that provides you with X" is shouting you down.




No, it's not, but plenty of the posts in the first couple of the pages of the thread are.

Besides, maybe I already know what system I like, and just want to have a discussion.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 26, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> I think what the original poster really hates is the blandness in how the game balance was achieved.   There ought to have been a way to balance things levels 1-30 for all classes without making the classes almost identical mechanically.




I'm sure there are. I'm not sure what they would be. 

The problem really comes down to options and effectiveness. Spellcasters have more options to solve problems than non-spellcasters do. A brief example.

In one adventure, you find your going to a dank, dark dungeon. You prep the typical spells: light, fireball, knock, etc. Once you get there, you find the dungeon is mostly natural cavern (no doors) and the foes are mostly azers and fire giants (immune to fire). What do you do? Swap out fireball for some other damage dealing spell, swap knock for levitate, and 24 hours later your are ultra-effective at your job. 

The rogue? He's less flexible. He can't rest 24 hours and swap his ranks in Open Lock for ranks in Climb now that he knows he's climbing natural cave walls rather than picking locks. The ranger can't swap his FE: Goblinoids for FE: Giants now that he knows he's facing the critters. The fighter can't swap out Improved Trip for Mobility now that he knows he's fighting huge monsters with reach?

Similarly, there is no fighter ability that can kill a 294 hp dragon in one single die roll. I can count several wizard spells that can do so. Nor can a fighter do 150 damage in a single (touch) attack, but a cleric can. Whose the better combatant now?

So perhaps a bit of sacrifice on behalf of the casters was needed to level the play field for noncasters. I say good to them. The more the fun gets spread around, the more fun we all have...


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Doing something you knew you weren't going to like and then pouting about it _is_.



How does the fighter player know they're going to not like it until they're twelve levels in the game and realize they're sitting back seat to the cleric or wizard? 

If the system is made for CoDzilla to beat fighter ass, then what, "Sorry Bill, but you're going to have to play the fighter so the wizard doesn't get squished before he can nuke the troll"?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 26, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Demand the best out of your players.  (If they do not give their best, kill their characters.)
> - Demand the best out of your players.  (If they do not give their best, kill their characters.)
> - Grant high-level abilities at high level.
> - Give the DM a chance, since it takes time and effort to become a good DM.




So, you answer game design questions with "Make the DM fix it, because we designers can't be bothered to."


----------



## wally (Jun 26, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> If Larry's 18th-level wizard can consistently contribute more meaningfully to the fun than my 18th-level rogue, that makes my participation pretty meaningless. No amount of "But it makes sense!" arguments are going to make me any more inclined to keep playing that rogue, much less keep playing that particular game with those people.




Did you really play in a game where that happened?

I keep seeing that argument.  'Well a wizard can cast spells to do what a rogue does.'  Have there been that many games where people saw that happen?  

When I saw wizards get to that high of a level, they felt that they wanted to spend their spell slots on things other than what other characters in the party can do for free.

Sure a high level wizard can kill a lot of foes in combat, but what does he do when he ran out of spells?  Did all your DMs (those that make this argument) really ignore all the other players and say, 'sure you can rest again only three hours after waking up.  Who cares about the rest of you, let the wizard get his spells back,' as I think in that case it isn't about the rules letting the wizards be too powerful, it is more about the DM letting it happen.?!

-wally


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

wally said:
			
		

> Did all your DMs (those that make this argument) really ignore all the other players and say, 'sure you can rest again only three hours after waking up.  Who cares about the rest of you, let the wizard get his spells back,' as I think in that case it isn't about the rules letting the wizards be too powerful, it is more about the DM letting it happen.?!



I was in a game where the party literally kicked in the door, had a single fight (with two guards!), and then said "Well, we used three spells, we better rest for the night." 

And everyone agreed. Then _slept in the guard post_.

I wanted to eat my dice, I was so livid. I wanted the DM to kick the door in and jump us for it. But no! We went in, got our asses kicked and retreated, then went back, slept in there, left to haul out treasure, went back a third time!

I was so utterly disgusted.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 26, 2008)

I would consider the person who picks a Fighter when he knows that Fighters are weak and that the party Cleric/Druid can overshadow him, and then _complaining_ about it after the fact, is the asshat.  Same with someone who chooses to only use the PHB when all WotC books are allowed, and then complaining when a Warblade from Tome of Battle is more powerful.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> I would consider the person who picks a Fighter *when he knows that Fighters are weak* and that the party Cleric/Druid can overshadow him, and then _complaining_ about it after the fact, is the asshat.



And what about the people who play fighters and _don't know_ until level 12 when they start getting overshadowed?


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 26, 2008)

wally said:
			
		

> Did you really play in a game where that happened?




I have. Dozens of them. That said, the issue that we ran into more often than not was the magic user usurping the role of the fighter, not the thief.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 26, 2008)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> I would consider the person who picks a Fighter when he knows that Fighters are weak and that the party Cleric/Druid can overshadow him, and then _complaining_ about it after the fact, is the asshat.  Same with someone who chooses to only use the PHB when all WotC books are allowed, and then complaining when a Warblade from Tome of Battle is more powerful.




But that relies on the idea that you should just deal with being suck just because you want to make an idea into a character.

Why shopuld I be penalized by a game that says I can make and play any character I imagined?

It's a game where you get to play exciting adventures as warriors and wizards...

Niot a game that says I cn play exciting adventures as a wizard... unless I don't care that I suck.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 26, 2008)

wally said:
			
		

> Did you really play in a game where that happened?




Yes. This is one key reason why, for a while, I stopped playing non-spellcasters (I was sick of saying "Hey, I'll schmooze the guy," only to have the wizard mention "I've got a charm spell," and others agreeing that his outrageous save DC was a safer bet than my Diplomacy roll; the same applied whenever I brought up picking locks, since he carried a wand of knock) and eventually stopped playing D&D altogether.



> When I saw wizards get to that high of a level, they felt that they wanted to spend their spell slots on things other than what other characters in the party can do for free.




Most of the "step on another's toes" spells are low level, and thus are common for high level wizards to take, since they will fill the higher level slots with far more useful combat spells. Knock, for example, being a perfect lock opener is much more sensible for a 14th-level wizard than a 2nd-level combat spell.



> Did all your DMs (those that make this argument) really ignore all the other players and say, 'sure you can rest again only three hours after waking up.  Who cares about the rest of you, let the wizard get his spells back,' as I think in that case it isn't about the rules letting the wizards be too powerful, it is more about the DM letting it happen.?!




No, it was more of a case of "Our heaviest hitter/utility guy is spent, and we're almost certain to face a TPK without him, so we should rest.

The problem isn't necessarily the fault of wizard players or DMs, but rather the way the class was designed.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 26, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> But that relies on the idea that you should just deal with being suck just because you want to make an idea into a character.
> 
> Why shopuld I be penalized by a game that says I can make and play any character I imagined?
> 
> ...




Which is why that was one of the major drawbacks of 3.x - if you picked something you wanted to play, then it might suck mechanically and there's nothing you can do about it.  In my opinion 4E took this away.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 26, 2008)

I LOVE GAME BALANCE!

Well, it's true.

Why? _Because it makes for a better game_. It means the makers have bothered to give a damn on that level (and have managed to do the thing, what's more), as opposed to not knowing how, trying but failing to do it, or just not caring enough to even try. Many designers and suchlike seem to have fallen into one of those three unfortunate categories. Oh joy of joys, rampant inescapable imbalance for maximum flavour. 

Seriously though. . . Try actually _playing_ a truly badly unbalanced game, so the reasons for the above assertion become unavoidably clear, then come back with that hat of balance intact. Please, try? 

I don't know whether it's been said here already (I haven't read all the posts I could still see anyhow, whatever ratio is at work there ) but well, it might bear repeating even if so: Game balance and game fun are not mutually exclusive. Not whatsoever. Yes, _you can have both, and in abundance_. It simply requires good designers (etc.), doing their stuff well.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> And what about the people who play fighters and _don't know_ until level 12 when they start getting overshadowed?




They've had 12 levels of fun and can roll a new character?

I mean, it's hardly the end of the world.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 26, 2008)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> I would consider the person who picks a Fighter when he knows that Fighters are weak and that the party Cleric/Druid can overshadow him, and then _complaining_ about it after the fact, is the asshat.




I would consider the person to design a Fighter to be weak and overshadowed by the party Cleric/Druid to be a poor game designer, since none of the objective metrics for comparison (such as level) function properly.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

> When I saw wizards get to that high of a level, they felt that they wanted to spend their spell slots on things other than what other characters in the party can do for free.






> Most of the "step on another's toes" spells are low level, and thus are common for high level wizards to take, since they will fill the higher level slots with far more useful combat spells. Knock, for example, being a perfect lock opener is much more sensible for a 14th-level wizard than a 2nd-level combat spell.



Don't forget scrolls and wands. 

A wand of Invisibility or Knock is a great investment. A scroll of _Silence_ and _Invisibility Sphere_ beats the pants off "Let the rogue scout ahead". In later levels, Scry + Teleport beats infiltration.

Hell, I never understood why people didn't resort to just an _Open/Close_ cantrip on doors that you think are trapped, instead of the rogue risking his ass.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> They've had 12 levels of fun and can roll a new character?



That's it. I'm no longer taking you seriously.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 26, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> They've had 12 levels of fun and can roll a new character?




I see the problem with this situation: an asshat DM defending poor game design.

"Sorry, Jerry, but what you want is stupid, since you didn't want to be a spellcaster."


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 26, 2008)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> I would consider the person who picks a Fighter when he knows that Fighters are weak and that the party Cleric/Druid can overshadow him, and then _complaining_ about it after the fact, is the asshat.  Same with someone who chooses to only use the PHB when all WotC books are allowed, and then complaining when a Warblade from Tome of Battle is more powerful.




Best way to test that theory is to see if they're still complaining when they try to pick a fighter when all classes are balanced. If they are, then yeah, they're probably an asshat by nature. If their complaints go away, then perhaps their grievance was legitimate while it lasted.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 26, 2008)

wally said:
			
		

> Did you really play in a game where that happened?




::raises hand::

I was the thief in a game that consisted of three mages, a fighter, and a rogue (clerics? we don't need no stinkin' clerics!). For a while, was really useful. However, as the three mages realized there were only so many fireballs needed, they began to branch out. One of them got the clever idea to branch out into "utility" magic; he had all the blaster power he needed from a wand of fireballs and a couple prepped attack spells (+ whatever the other wizards had). He began to research, learn, and memorize spells like fly, imp. invisibility, knock, true-seeing, charm person, tenser's floating disc, several teleports and (of course) polymorph self. 

Between the other mages downing everything typically in 2-3 rounds thanks to save-or-dies or high damage output spells and utility mage being able to most mundane things with 100% success, the fighter and I became useless. The fighter took to fighting with a dagger (he was a high str fighter spec in bastard sword) since he knew he didn't need to do damage, just take a few blows until the mages were done. They would ask me to perform my "thiefly duties" just to see if it could save them a spell slot, but there was no REAL price for failure, other than an expended spell slot. In order to balance against the wizard-brigade, the DM resorted to more and more powerful monsters, meaning the fighter and I made more trips to-and-from the afterlife guarding the mages while they did their thing.

I enjoyed the game for the story it told, but to be honest I wanted to be something more than a "Staff of Trapfinding" on the wizards' belt. 

I lived through it in 2nd and 3rd edition. I liked the group, and I liked the DM, but I generally was disappointed with the fact that no matter how hard we tried, the wizards-three dominated the game and (even when we traded a wizard for a cleric and gained a ranger) the casters (now two wiz + clr) were the only important element of combat. The ranger, fighter(now fighter/wizard, can't beat em...) and rogue just running interference. I was sad to see the game end, but I was relieved to be done with it and play something useful in the next one (I called the cleric)


----------



## wally (Jun 26, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> No, it was more of a case of "Our heaviest hitter/utility guy is spent, and we're almost certain to face a TPK without him, so we should rest.
> 
> The problem isn't necessarily the fault of wizard players or DMs, but rather the way the class was designed.




I don't mean to sound to critical, but that doesn't sound like the fault of the way the class was designed.  If you guys relied so much on the one wizard, and you let him blow all of his spells right away, before you reached the TPK fight, then it sounds more like it was because that was the way you guys played rather than the way the class was designed.

-wally


----------



## drothgery (Jun 26, 2008)

wally said:
			
		

> Did you really play in a game where that happened?




In both of the extended 2e campaigns I played in, I ended up abandoning a thief for a wizard because my PC was essentially useless at mid levels (and we're talking 7th or so here).


----------



## Scribble (Jun 26, 2008)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> Which is why that was one of the major drawbacks of 3.x - if you picked something you wanted to play, then it might suck mechanically and there's nothing you can do about it.  In my opinion 4E took this away.




So we agree? 

Yeah thats what I'm saying... 4e is designed so you can come up witha  concept and play it without worrying so much about not getting it perfect gamewise...


----------



## LordDamax (Jun 26, 2008)

Ok, I've been away all day since my OP.

First off, thank you all for reinforcing my last paragraph og the OP so strongly and effectively. I KNEW my opinion must be wrong, and I thank you for showing me the error of my ways. The acerbic and sarcastic replies really drove the point home how I'm an idiot for feeling the way I do. Thank you.

I think I misspoke a bit in my OP however. The fighter beating the snot out of the mage etc etc was a poor example - thats not an example of how I hate game balance run amok, its an example of the DIFFERENCE in characters. In 4E everyone's the same darn thing. They all have 4 at-will powers to choose from that deal damage. They all get the same types of powers at the same levels, and they are all equally powerful. Hell, wizards being tired of fighters who got to use fancy +4 longswords now get +4 "orbs" to increase the hitroll and damage of their spells.

Really?

Everyone is the samn darn thing. A fighter uses a sword, a rogue uses a light blade, a wizard uses a spell, and a ranger uses a bow. But they all do damage in the same way. Sure, the wizard uses a "magic missile" while a ranger uses a "longbow" but its the same damn thing. Rogues get a sneak attack or whatever its called, and a ranger gets a hunters quarry whatnot.

In the attempt to balance, they made everyone the same. Everyone's special!

Yeah, I'm sorry, but an 18th level wizard should be able to destroy an army, with a few 20th level fighters in said army. HES A FREAKING WIZARD! I'm sorry a wizard came by and peed in your sandbox when you were a fledgeling fighter, but its a FREAKING WIZARD! To say a fighter has no advantage over a wizard and a wizard has none over a fighter is game balance, and its stupid. I'm sorry wizard, you can no longer fly and hurl hellfire, because thats NOT FAIR to the guy with the sword!

And since it happens in every game everywhere, everyone becomes wizards. Because to read it here, thats what ALWAYS happens.

So then, everyone's a wizard? Good. You get to fight armies of golems on your way to the plane of anti-magic. Theres an effective freaking party. Have fun with that.

Oh, wait, personal responsibility? No, we cant have that!

If your crappy DM lets you rest every 15 minutes to get your spells back, you should roll a wizard, and play an all wizard group. You hate that horrible idea? GET A BETTER DM! ANy game system can be abused and ruined by a crappy DM. It's this diapering that 4E does that pisses me off. You are obviously stupid, and a twink, and a munchkin, and your spineless mushbrain DM allows it to happen, so we'll make a game system that prevents that with the rules. Lets make everyone special!

Know how mages arent god-like beings that make every other class worthless in MY game? I'm not a crappy DM! I dont give out the game breaking spells like candy! When they HAVE the spells, they dont want to memorie crap like knock and all the other rogue abusing spells because they are busy using the slots for spells THEY need. Thats intelligent playing, lets give up some artillery so that I can waste a slot on a spell that completely duplicates this here rogue's ability, just so I can steal his spotlight, then be useless in the coming fight.

If you play with that asshat, and continue to do so, and enjoy it, dont petition WotC to change MY game to put a diaper on your moron friend.

Yes, a wizard CAN break things if the player is a jackass, the DM is an idiot, and you're too stupid or desperate to play with them.

In my games, I'm chock full of fighters, barbarians, rogues and clerics, and rarely does anyone want to play the mage, because they routinely get their asses kicked by the archers and mages on the bad guys side who say "Holy crap, a mage, kill it, it's powerful!"

Of course, that makes me a crappy GM for picking on the mage, right?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 26, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, you answer game design questions with "Make the DM fix it, because we designers can't be bothered to."




  You can't design a D&D game that auto-happys everyone who plays it with no effort on anyone's part.  
  D&D doesn't work like that.  D&D is dependent on interpersonal communication, interaction, group work.  D&D is not a video game, nor is it a take-it-as-is-or-leave-it situation like a formal chess tournament.

  D&D works because the DM and the players work to make it work.
  If the DM and players refuse to work to make it work, it will *not* work.  And that reality is not something that can be 'ruled' away, 'balanced' away, or otherwise 'fixed.'

  There are no easy answers.  And we D&Ders know, from painful and bitter experience, that there are no easy answers in D&D.

  So yeah, the DM is stuck with a heavy burden.  'Fixing' the game with a new edition doesn't fix his or her problem at all.  
  Is this fair to the DM?  No.  
  In the 1E DMG, you will see the writing:  'welcome to the ranks of the overworked and underappreciated.'  Those words of wisdom applied then, apply now, and will always apply.

  DMing was, is, and will always be hard, challenging, too much work, and underappreciated.  But I do not think people will stop DMing because of this.  People who DM, find ways to share in the fun despite these realities.


----------



## wally (Jun 26, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Don't forget scrolls and wands.
> 
> A wand of Invisibility or Knock is a great investment. A scroll of _Silence_ and _Invisibility Sphere_ beats the pants off "The rogue infiltrating the place". In later levels, Scry + Teleport beats infiltration.
> 
> Hell, I never understood why people didn't resort to just an _Open/Close_ cantrip on doors that you think are trapped, instead of the rogue risking his ass.




The open close idea is not a bad one, and I can see it being used, if someone would think of it.  Most spellcasters didn't take it for the daily though.

If you are spending money on buying or building wands of invisibility or knock, that is your choice, but you aren't spending it on other things.  If I was a rogue in a game where the mage was specifically trying to do these things, I would probably build up ranks in pick pocket and use magic device and take all his stuff and use it myself.    

It would still be the rogue shining then.

-wally


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 26, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> OFirst off, thank you all for reinforcing my last paragraph og the OP so strongly and effectively. I KNEW my opinion must be wrong, and I thank you for showing me the error of my ways. The acerbic and sarcastic replies really drove the point home how I'm an idiot for feeling the way I do. Thank you.




Just a suggestion, but if you don't really like "acerbic and sarcastic," then...


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 26, 2008)

wally said:
			
		

> I don't mean to sound to critical, but that doesn't sound like the fault of the way the class was designed.




When a good deal of the wizard spell list says "You're like a thief, only better," that's a problem with design. When, at higher levels, it's more effective to have a wizard to cover both the caster role AND the thief role, there is a huge problem.



> If you guys relied so much on the one wizard, and you let him blow all of his spells right away, before you reached the TPK fight, then it sounds more like it was because that was the way you guys played rather than the way the class was designed.




The problem is that the game is hugely balanced around the wizard and cleric's spellcasting, so that you have to rely on them in order to get things done. Higher level fights are especially suicidal without a caster that is at least at 40% effectiveness.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> The problem is that the game is hugely balanced around the wizard and cleric's spellcasting, so that you have to rely on them in order to get things done. Higher level fights are especially suicidal without a caster that is at least at 40% effectiveness.




There's got to be a better way to address that than to make everyone the same, though.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 26, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> You can't design a D&D game that auto-happys everyone who plays it with no effort on anyone's part.




No, but you can design one that doesn't favor one character type (spellcasters) to the almost total exclusion of all others. When people are saying "Well, at high level, stop playing <class X> and make a spellcaster," that is a problem which can be solved. Suggesting that serious mechanical and utility imbalances are the DM's problem to deal with is just lazy game design philosophy.



> D&D is dependent on interpersonal communication, interaction, group work.




Yes, it is. Which is why "wizard uber alles" is bad game design for this type of game. You can't really work as a group when you're overshadowing the group *within their own roles*.



> D&D works because the DM and the players work to make it work.




And it should work because it's designed well, not putting the onus of balance considerations on the DM.



> If the DM and players refuse to work to make it work, it will *not* work.  And that reality is not something that can be 'ruled' away, 'balanced' away, or otherwise 'fixed.'




This is false. By removing all of the "I WIN!" capabilities from the wizard, you make it a class that plays WITH the group, rather than ABOVE the group.



> In the 1E DMG, you will see the writing:  'welcome to the ranks of the overworked and underappreciated.'  Those words of wisdom applied then, apply now, and will always apply.




Quoting the 1e DMG at me doesn't mean much. I'm notorious for not having much respect for Gygax's game design philosophy (especially if that recurring story about all his players being spellcasters and the non-spellcasters being all henchmen is true).



> DMing was, is, and will always be hard, challenging, too much work, and underappreciated.  But I do not think people will stop DMing because of this.  People who DM, find ways to share in the fun despite these realities.




I agree DMing is challenging and rewarding. However, making the DM take up the slack of game design because a designer either can't be bothered to do it or simply favors one character type over others (which is the rumor) is just lazy on the designers' part.


----------



## wally (Jun 26, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> The problem is that the game is hugely balanced around the wizard and cleric's spellcasting, so that you have to rely on them in order to get things done. Higher level fights are especially suicidal without a caster that is at least at 40% effectiveness.




I think that is what I was getting at.  If you let your spellcasters blow all their spells in one combat, and I don't mean the big one where it is absolutely needed, then it isn't the fault of the game design.  Magi are supposed to have a level of intelligence, and they should know that it isn't in their best interest to shoot off all their magic at once, just in case you might need something later.

That's what I meant in that it seemed that it was your playstyle that led to this, not the game design itself.

-wally


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> There's got to be a better way to address that than to make everyone the same, though.




And that is?


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> There's got to be a better way to address that than to make everyone the same, though.



The same _what_? 

How is everyone the same? Everyone has different hit points, defenses, different abilities, different builds that key off different abilities, and those powers fulfill different functions.

Do you mean that the formula to compute bonuses is the same? Or everyone gains the same amount of feats or abilities at the same time?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> There's got to be a better way to address that than to make everyone the same, though.




Classes are definitely not the same, unless you're trying to tell me that fighters are great at ranged attacks, or area of effect spells, or that wizards are masters of melee weaponry and heavy armor.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

wally said:
			
		

> I think that is what I was getting at.  If you let your spellcasters blow all their spells in one combat, and I don't mean the big one where it is absolutely needed, then it isn't the fault of the game design.  Magi are supposed to have a level of intelligence, and they should know that it isn't in their best interest to shoot off all their magic at once, just in case you might need something later.



Actually no. It _is_ in their best interest to shoot their load early and rest.

Because that's the best option. 

Seriously, unless things are time sensitive, why would you _not_ use all your spells every fight if you could?


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 26, 2008)

wally said:
			
		

> I think that is what I was getting at.  If you let your spellcasters blow all their spells in one combat, and I don't mean the big one where it is absolutely needed, then it isn't the fault of the game design.  Magi are supposed to have a level of intelligence, and they should know that it isn't in their best interest to shoot off all their magic at once, just in case you might need something later.
> 
> That's what I meant in that it seemed that it was your playstyle that led to this, not the game design itself.
> 
> -wally




My wizard has an 18 intelligence. I'm not nearly as smart as him. I want to survive. To Win. If going to my big guns and retreating is the best method to survive and win, that THAT's the way to do it.

As someone eles in this thread said: "Life's not fair". Might as well exploit it.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> There's got to be a better way to address that than to make everyone the same, though.




Indeed there is. 

At least as far as I am concerned.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Ack! Dogpile!



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> And that is?




Heck if I know, man. I'm working on figuring that out, but my homebrew system is - at this point - worlds away from 3.5 or 4e, so any answer I come up with isn't going to translate well.



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> The same _what_?




Everybody just feels the same. Every power (for the most part) deals damage; most have a side-effect. Your turn is pretty much always going to be "use power, maybe move, maybe sustain something."

I haven't played much of 4e, so take my "everybody feels the same" with a grain of salt; just reading the books, that's the impression I get. I hear it plays better than it reads, and while I have my doubts, I'm willing to give it a shot.

I like mechanical differentiation. I like subsystems, and 4e didn't go down that road, so I'm a bit disappointed, so that particular bias of mine is probably contributing to my opinion that 4e characters feel rather similar.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 26, 2008)

wally said:
			
		

> If you let your spellcasters blow all their spells in one combat, and I don't mean the big one where it is absolutely needed, then it isn't the fault of the game design.




You say "let" as if you have some kind of choice in the matter. Sometimes you need to win a fight so you don't die, and that requires your healer to spend all his spells healing, or requires your wizard to unload his glass cannon.



> Magi are supposed to have a level of intelligence, and they should know that it isn't in their best interest to shoot off all their magic at once, just in case you might need something later.




And a smart player knows that you won't have a later if you save your spells and let the party die. Suggesting that you can easily opt not to use spells and have no negative impact on your party's success in encounters is giving the player's far more control of the plot and encounters than actually exists.



> That's what I meant in that it seemed that it was your playstyle that led to this, not the game design itself.




Running out of spells entirely is what fuels the 15-minute adventuring day. However, my primary complaint (which you haven't addressed) isn't the 15-minute adventuring day, but rather the "wizard uber alles" design philosophy that finally got the axe in 4th Edition.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Classes are definitely not the same, unless you're trying to tell me that fighters are great at ranged attacks, or area of effect spells, or that wizards are masters of melee weaponry and heavy armor.




You're not looking at them at the same level I am.

The mechanics are all the same. It just seems dull.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 26, 2008)

(regards the posts above)

  Ah, the wizard.
  She is the weakest character in the game at low levels, and the strongest character in the game at high levels (in OD&D, 1E, 2E, and 3.0E)

  The wizard was never meant to be balanced.  Gary Gygax was explicit on that.  Not balanced.
  Instead, that immense high level power was the payoff for surviving those low levels.  (A kind of balance all in it's own ...)

  (cold look)

  The player of the fighter and others have no right to complain.
  The fighter was a strong character at low levels.  He could do all sorts of things, survive all sorts of things, when the wizard could not.
  The fighter eschewed the immense power that a wizard obtains at high level IN RETURN for great power at the lower levels.  He made that decision, and he has to LIVE with that decision.  He wasn't willing to take the immense risk of being a low level wizard (with it's high mortality rate) and so he doesn't get the payoff.

  If he wishes to complain about this, he had better complain to someone other than me.

  -

  So, someone played an elven fighter/wizard in the game, got all the benefits of low level AND got the benefits of the immense power of a high level wizard?
  Didn't Gary Gygax put something called *level limits* on elves for just this occasion?  Level 7 for fighter, and Level 9 for wizard.

  Oh, the Level Limit got raised?  And then eliminated?  Because it was funner?  And now you have a problem with the powerful fighter/archmage?

  Sadder but wiser.  If an elf can have everything, then ... he has everything.  Who was it, who allowed him to have it all for free?  (Hint:  It wasn't the player.)

  But what about 3E?   Everyone can multiclass.
  Multiclassing in 3E isn't like multiclassing in 1E and 2E.  You are levels 5/5, but are considered 10th level for the purpose of gaining experience and what challenges to face.  In 1E and 2E, you'd be considered 6th level.  Big difference.

  Gestalt?  That's for special situations only.  And if one character can be gestalt, all the characters can be gestalt.  (And, all the monsters can be gestalt too.  Funtime ...)


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Indeed there is.
> 
> At least as far as I am concerned.




If you've got some good ideas, I'm all ears, man.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Every power (for the most part) deals damage; most have a side-effect. Your turn is pretty much always going to be "use power, maybe move, maybe sustain something."




If that's the basis for saying they're the same, then a basic melee attack and Magic Missile are the same in 1e/2e/3e, since they both merely deal damage. The wizard and fighter's turns are identical, since they both would be saying "I perform <action; Magic Missile or melee attack> on <target X> and maybe move."

When you generalize things to that point, everything looks the same, because you're ignoring the fundamental details that make them different.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Ah, the wizard.
> She is the weakest character in the game at low levels, and the strongest character in the game at high levels (in OD&D, 1E, 2E, and 3.0E)
> 
> Instead, that immense high level power was the payoff for surviving those low levels.  (A kind of balance all in it's own ...)




No. 

That kind of balance is stupid. Always has been, always will be.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Everybody just feels the same. Every power (for the most part) deals damage; most have a side-effect. Your turn is pretty much always going to be "use power, maybe move, maybe sustain something."



This was different in 3e how?

3e: "I move, I take a standard action to attack (attack being cast a spell or use a weapon)." Combat spells did damage, non combat (read: Utility or ritual spells) spells were used out of combat, or before combat to buff.

You're right, there's no subsystems. All classes _follow the same general rules_. But they are not mechanically the same, they can do _different_ things. Rogues are far, far more mobile than Fighters or Paladins, and do more damage than wizards. Warlords move people around or grant them extra attacks, and can heal and attack in the same round. Wizards attack a lot of people in an area, and are the king of status effects. 

I don't understand how that _isn't_ different. If it's merely a matter that "Well, there's no complexity and subsystems", well I don't know what to tell you. I personally feel that's a _boon_ because now you don't have people using three different subsystems in the same party, and the DM doesn't have to juggle three mini-rulesets. 

You want complexity? Get on the battlemap and apply tactics. What works with those orcs isn't going to work with those kobolds, who can make 5' steps twice, which won't work against the next group of monsters.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> If that's the basis for saying they're the same, then a basic melee attack and Magic Missile are the same in 1e/2e/3e, since they both merely deal damage. The wizard and fighter's turns are identical, since they both would be saying "I perform <action; Magic Missile or melee attack> on <target X> and maybe move."




Resources!

Magic missile is a resource. Use it, it's gone. You can swing your swordarm all day long.

That is what made them different, in past editions. But in 4e? You, sir, are totally correct - there is no difference between the two.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 26, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> The wizard was never meant to be balanced.  Gary Gygax was explicit on that.  Not balanced.




And as I've said, I think Gygax was a horrible game designer, so saying he intentionally put bad design in his game doesn't do anything for me.



> Instead, that immense high level power was the payoff for surviving those low levels.  (A kind of balance all in it's own ...)




Ahh, the "do stuff now which is balanced by a future that may never occur" design philosophy which is fully dependent on the type of long-term campaigns which the majority of D&D players don't play.



> The player of the fighter and others have no right to complain.




Anybody playing a poorly designed class has a right to complain.



> If he wishes to complain about this, he had better complain to someone other than me.




You like bad game design. That's cool.

However (and here's the surprise), a lot of other people *don't*. We like our game designers to actually put work into the design, rather than tell us we need to figure it out for ourselves.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> That kind of balance is stupid. Always has been, always will be.




  Gary Gygax made it that way, and that's how it has been, in OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3.0E, and even in 3.5E.

  Now, in 4E, it is not that way, so you may have found a D&D that is more to your liking.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> That kind of balance is stupid. Always has been, always will be.




Well, there are some things about which we can agree 100%. Good show, old man.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> You're not looking at them at the same level I am.
> 
> The mechanics are all the same. It just seems dull.



That's like saying "You're not looking at languages at the same level I am; you stand five feet from the book, and they all look alike!"


----------



## apoptosis (Jun 26, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> And that is?




Really depends on what the game is trying to do.

If you want all players to have significant actions every round of and encounter and all actions are of comparable scope with identical number of  actions available

Then the 4E design is probably the best design for this (and this is why people consider the classes abilities very similar).

They are different in that some of the fiddly bits are different which is either significant or not based on your focus and perspective. I dont find them highly different but i am not looking for an encounter-based game.

If you are looking for an encounter-based game then the design is very good and you can see how the differences play out.

In my other post I mentioned several different ways of handling this. Of course they all have their weaknesses.

1. limited uses based on slots or ability drain (really limited not 3.5 limited; say 5-10 spells total a day) - problem is the casters will not do magic stuff every round and will be a bit all or nothing

2. dangerous magic or  costly magic (say you get -1 to your next roll that is cumulative for the next week or somethign..just making stuff up) - many players prefer magic as a tool and not dangerous

3. unpredicatable magic (might work might not) - see #2

4. Long regeneration time - might take week or even month to get magic back to full - same issues as #1 and if a player blows their entire wad and cant do magic for the next week/month they might not like that

5. non-magic characters have access to more narrative powers like action points or drama points - if you are trying to balance by characters it wont go over well and some people hate narrativist mechanics.

I think there are many ways to balance things. 4E is one of my least favorite ways of doing this (based on the style i play and how I want magic to feel in a game) but at the same time for the style they are going for it was probably the best way to do it.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 26, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> The player of the fighter and others have no right to complain.
> The fighter was a strong character at low levels.  He could do all sorts of things, survive all sorts of things, when the wizard could not.
> The fighter eschewed the immense power that a wizard obtains at high level IN RETURN for great power at the lower levels.  He made that decision, and he has to LIVE with that decision.  He wasn't willing to take the immense risk of being a low level wizard (with it's high mortality rate) and so he doesn't get the payoff.
> 
> If he wishes to complain about this, he had better complain to someone other than me.




I see. Players are stupid for playing the kind of character they WANT to play, rather than focusing ahead in the long term. 

_"I know you wanted to play a dashing scoundrel with a quick wit and quicker blade, or a powerful muscular barbarian with strong arms who can cleave skulls, but we're 12th level now and you made a bad choice months/years ago. You're no longer useful. Tough luck. Try again next campaign."_

If that's your idea of game balance, I welcome our new 4e overlords. Thank you for making me NOT waste my time.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 26, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> The wizard was never meant to be balanced.  Gary Gygax was explicit on that.  Not balanced.
> Instead, that immense high level power was the payoff for surviving those low levels.  (A kind of balance all in it's own ...)




This breaks down immediately if you ever start a game at higher levels, or if you let someone roll up a character of a different class to replace a fallen hero at something other than 1st level. And again, saying "well, 'proper' DMs make sure everyone always starts at 1st level" does not excuse the system: it just paints over another flaw and mandates just one more "proper" play style in order to compensate.  

Having spent many a year in the game design business, I can't in good faith support the idea that there are no such thing as weaknesses in any given system. There always are, and it's not heresy for a designer to try addressing them — it's his job. A game designer who stops asking "Is there a way that this could work better?" about a game they work on is not a game designer any more. They're just creating by rote.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> That kind of balance is stupid. Always has been, always will be.




I actually agree. Sort of.

I think what did happen in 3e, and worked if the DM did it correctly, was shifting the means of balance over levels.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Resources!
> 
> Magic missile is a resource. Use it, it's gone. You can swing your swordarm all day long.
> 
> That is what made them different, in past editions. But in 4e? You, sir, are totally correct - there is no difference between the two.




Weapons!

Tide of Iron is a melee attack that requires a shield. No shield, you can't use it.

Magic Missile is a ranged attack that benefits from an implement, but does not require one.

Nimble Strike is a ranged attack that requires a ranged weapon, which requires ammunition (aka a resource).

If those abilities have no differences, despite having very different requirements, then there's no difference between melee attack and Magic Missile in 3e.

When you pull back so far as to lose all the details, your view has begun vague to the point of uselessness.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 26, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> Everyone is the samn darn thing. A fighter uses a sword, a rogue uses a light blade, a wizard uses a spell, and a ranger uses a bow. But they all do damage in the same way. Sure, the wizard uses a "magic missile" while a ranger uses a "longbow" but its the same damn thing. Rogues get a sneak attack or whatever its called, and a ranger gets a hunters quarry whatnot.




Honestly, you really, really, really need to play some 4e, and for more than just one or two sessions. The classes play quite differently, and more and more once you get to the higher levels.

In AD&D, the cleric and fighter are nearly identical at 1st level. They're both primarily melee combatants. Sure, the fighter probably does a point or two more damage and the cleric can cast a couple of cure light wounds spells, but that's about all the difference they have.

By 10th level, they're acting quite a bit differently.

It's the same in 4e, although even at 1st level there's differentiation. Our combat last Sunday saw the Fighter, Paladin and Warlord in melee with a bunch of kobolds whilst the Wizard was blowing them up with his blast ability and the Warlock was striking from the rear. Then the tide turned and the Wizard and Warlock found themselves in melee... it wasn't good for those two characters.

At 20th level, what are all those characters going to be doing?

The Fighter is hitting everyone adjacent to him quite hard.

The Cleric is calling down the wrath of his god, affecting all creatures near him, or buffing his allies.

The Rogue is darting in and out, hitting one opponent for lots of damage (either in melee or ranged).

The Wizard is raining down death from afar, affecting many enemies at once.

All of their styles are quite distinct - the number of opponents they affect, the range at which they work, the secondary conditions they create, and even the damage they do.

The big difference is that the Wizard isn't useless after using his big spells, and that the non-spellcasters have utility abilities that aren't overwhelmed by the spellcasters.

_Play D&D 4E_. You really need to see it in play for a few sessions until you understand what its strengths are, and what its weaknesses are.

Cheers!


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Gary Gygax made it that way, and that's how it has been, in OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3.0E, and even in 3.5E.




Honestly - who cares? Sure, Gygax did it that way. Doesn't mean it's good design.



> Now, in 4E, it is not that way, so you may have found a D&D that is more to your liking.




Wrong again, Edena. Just because I don't like how it was done back in the day doesn't mean I like how it's being done now.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Well, there are some things about which we can agree 100%. Good show, old man.




Man, I can legally drink here in the States as of around four weeks ago. I don't think I qualify as "old." 



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> That's like saying "You're not looking at languages at the same level I am; you stand five feet from the book, and they all look alike!"




Clarifications abound elsewhere, yo. But thanks for playing!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 26, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And as I've said, I think Gygax was a horrible game designer, so saying he intentionally put bad design in his game doesn't do anything for me.




  I happen to think he was a very good game designer.  Just my opinion.
  And Monte Cook, and the others ... are really good designers.  Again, my opinion.



> Ahh, the "do stuff now which is balanced by a future that may never occur" design philosophy which is fully dependent on the type of long-term campaigns which the majority of D&D players don't play.




  Do you expect perfection out of Gary Gygax?  Out of others?  You won't get it.
  Modify your game outside of Gygax's concepts to suit your needs!  



> Anybody playing a poorly designed class has a right to complain.




  Then redesign it the way you want.  Gary Gygax made it clear you could do that.  That was a part of the framework of the rules.  If you didn't like it, you could change it.
  But don't just sit there and complain.  DO something about the situation.



> You like bad game design. That's cool.




  Bad game design?  That is your opinion.
  I happen to think it was very GOOD game design.



> However (and here's the surprise), a lot of other people *don't*. We like our game designers to actually put work into the design, rather than tell us we need to figure it out for ourselves.




  (blinks)

  Gary Gygax put an immense amount of effort into the game.  A lot of other people put immense amounts of effort into the game.  The list of these people is legion, and their efforts are epic.
  But they cannot create perfection, and they cannot please everyone, all the time.  Who could hope to do that?

  I'll say it again:  D&D is not an auto-happy game.  You know that.  If you are a DM, you *really* know that.  You must work for the fun, work for the reward, be you a player or a DM.  You get back, what you put into the game.
  The designers cannot grant you satisfaction (although it isn't for lack of trying ... they have tried very hard.)  YOU must make the effort to find the satisfaction and reward you seek out of the game.

  As for the wizard, Gygax's wizard is an ultimate example of this philosophy, In Game.
  The wizard must work incredibly hard, incredibly long, without reward, without recompense, in extreme danger of dying, for level after level after level.  Without cleverness, wit, luck, and work, her life expectancy is measured in 1 round increments.
  But the big payback comes, and she is eventually the strongest of all the characters, and she can hurl mighty magics.  A very fine case of Perseverence Pays.  Great rewards go to those who make great effort.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I actually agree. Sort of.
> 
> I think what did happen in 3e, and worked if the DM did it correctly, was shifting the means of balance over levels.




Anything that touchy is way too easy to screw up. I've got no interest in dealing with a system in which a player goes from worst to best, no matter how big the timeframe is. It's just not worth it.



> Nimble Strike is a ranged attack that requires a ranged weapon, which requires ammunition (aka a resource).




...you have *got* to be kidding.

You are seriously citing ammunition as a comparable resource to 3.5 spell slots?

Ammunition can be bought, sold, found, traded. Spell slots are pretty much set by the game and can't really be modified (let's assume core, since it's useless to argue beyond that).



> If those abilities have no differences, despite having very different requirements, then there's no difference between melee attack and Magic Missile in 3e.




Weapons != expendable resources. But nice try!



> When you pull back so far as to lose all the details, your view has begun vague to the point of uselessness.




Yep, thanks for the witty dialogue!


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 26, 2008)

LordDamax said:
			
		

> Ok, I've been away all day since my OP.
> 
> First off, thank you all for reinforcing my last paragraph og the OP so strongly and effectively. I KNEW my opinion must be wrong, and I thank you for showing me the error of my ways. The acerbic and sarcastic replies really drove the point home how I'm an idiot for feeling the way I do. Thank you.



You criticize others for using sarcasm but then use it yourself. What?



> In the attempt to balance, they made everyone the same. Everyone's special!



Your use of hyperbole makes it clear you are not in the least impartial. The reason is because while all attacks are able to do damage, they all have different effects. You ignored this completely, saying every ability is the "same." If you want to have a convincing post on the proposed vanilla flavor of D&D, you'll have to take all of its parts in consideration, including but not limited to: slowing, knocking prone, pushing, pulling, sliding, weakening, knocking unconscious, varying effects based on ability scores not used in the attack roll itself, attacks versus different defenses, bonuses applied with attacks, penalties assigned with attacks, et cetera.



> Yeah, I'm sorry, but an 18th level wizard should be able to destroy an army, with a few 20th level fighters in said army. HES A FREAKING WIZARD!



What are you talking about? Why should wizards allow the decimation of an entire army and a few 20th level adventurers? "FREAKING WIZARD" means nothing outside of the context of the spells in previous editions which allowed wizards to decimate an army. In other words, there is no law of the universe that rules a wizard must be more powerful than everyone else in the end, and be weaker than everyone else in the beginning.

In a previous post I talked about how Wizard's perhaps aren't able to handle magical energy as well in the heat of combat, and so aren't any more powerful than the steel of a dedicated melee combatant. If you believe that certain players at the table should be more powerful than other players at the table, then so be it, nothing will change your mind. But inside the context of the world, anything can happen.



> It's this diapering that 4E does that pisses me off. You are obviously stupid, and a twink, and a munchkin, and your spineless mushbrain DM allows it to happen, so we'll make a game system that prevents that with the rules. Lets make everyone special!



What are you talking about? You can say buzzwords like a professional, but what does balancing the classes have anything to do with diapering? In 3.5, you simply were worse off choosing a martial class instead of a caster in the end. It was, as far as anyone can tell, a design goal. So, by leaving bad choices in the game, that's how you separate the 'men from the boys' or the 'babies from the men' in order to satisfy your metaphor?

How is each class being equally powerful a, truly, general, all around, bad thing? Your complaints are with the classes being vanilla, but that has nothing to do with the overall power, that has to do with the uniqueness of the abilities of each class.



> In my games, I'm chock full of fighters, barbarians, rogues and clerics, and rarely does anyone want to play the mage, because they routinely get their asses kicked by the archers and mages on the bad guys side who say "Holy crap, a mage, kill it, it's powerful!"



So, instead of everyone wanting to play the mage, no one wants to play the mage. Wouldn't it be better if it was in the middle ground, where a mage was just as good of an option as the fighter and the cleric? Remember now, magic doesn't have to be more powerful than steel, there is no law, so why shouldn't the classes have at least similar power levels?


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Do you expect perfection out of Gary Gygax?  Out of others?  You won't get it.




This is an unfair argument. I've got little interest in speaking ill of the dead, and we're going to wind up going there, if this part of this conversation continues much further.



> The wizard must work incredibly hard, incredibly long, without reward, without recompense, in extreme danger of dying, for level after level after level.  Without cleverness, wit, luck, and work, her life expectancy is measured in 1 round increments.
> 
> But the big payback comes, and she is eventually the strongest of all the characters, and she can hurl mighty magics.  A very fine case of Perseverence Pays.  Great rewards go to those who make great effort.




No, Edena. Seriously. This is *Bad Design*.

Say you start a game at 1st, and it ends at 3rd. Oh, sorry, M-U, you just got screwed for nothin'.

Say you start a game at 20th. Oh, hey, M-U, you get phenomenal cosmic powers, at absolutely no cost! Aren't you cool!

I don't know how you cannot see that that can cause issues. Balancing a class "over level progression" is just a really, really, really bad idea. I don't care who's doing it, or what the philosophy behind it is. It just plain out sucks.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 26, 2008)

Barastrondo said:
			
		

> This breaks down immediately if you ever start a game at higher levels, or if you let someone roll up a character of a different class to replace a fallen hero at something other than 1st level. And again, saying "well, 'proper' DMs make sure everyone always starts at 1st level" does not excuse the system: it just paints over another flaw and mandates just one more "proper" play style in order to compensate.
> 
> Having spent many a year in the game design business, I can't in good faith support the idea that there are no such thing as weaknesses in any given system. There always are, and it's not heresy for a designer to try addressing them — it's his job. A game designer who stops asking "Is there a way that this could work better?" about a game they work on is not a game designer any more. They're just creating by rote.




  I was subjected to a 'proper' DM demanding we play 1st level characters in I6 Ravenloft, and said 'properness' led to a very unfun adventure and a TPK (Ravenloft was meant for levels 6 and up:  I do not know what the DM was thinking.)
  So yeah, you are right.  A 'proper' DM doing things 'properly' can lead to absurd situations.  
  I do not advocate that there is one, 'proper' way to play D&D.

  You are a Game Designer for White Wolf?  Cheers to you, sir.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> How is each class being equally powerful a, truly, general, all around, bad thing? Your complaints are with the classes being vanilla, but that has nothing to do with the overall power, that has to do with the uniqueness of the abilities of each class.




I was just scanning your post, fuzzlewump, and this line caught my attention.

This is the problem. It's not that each class is of equal power - that's something I'm not too sure of, in general, but it sounds like enough of a good idea that I'm willing to run with it until I can think of a good reason that it's not a good idea.

It's that the class abilities seem to be rather similar in nature. Again, I haven't played it extensively, so maybe that's totally wrong, and they just look that way on paper (I'd blame the formatting); but just looking at them, and having toyed with them a bit, none of the classes really stands out from each other. They do, a bit, but not really significantly.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 26, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Honestly, you really, really, really need to play some 4e, and for more than just one or two sessions. The classes play quite differently, and more and more once you get to the higher levels.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> ...




  Will do, Merric.  

  I'm definitely not throwing flames at 4E.
  Merely reminiscing, really.  Honoring older concepts that I liked, in older versions of D&D.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Anything that touchy is way too easy to screw up. I've got no interest in dealing with a system in which a player goes from worst to best, no matter how big the timeframe is. It's just not worth it.




You go from arguing with something I said to something I didn't say between your first and second sentence. I never approved a "player going from worst to best"; that's Edena.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> You go from arguing with something I said to something I didn't say between your first and second sentence. I never approved a "player going from worst to best"; that's Edena.




Hmm... I think I just misinterpreted what you said, then. The "shifting the means of balance over levels" bit got me thinking that you were saying the same kind of thing as Edena.

Mind clarifying what you meant?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> This is an unfair argument. I've got little interest in speaking ill of the dead, and we're going to wind up going there, if this part of this conversation continues much further.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





  Hey there, GnomeWorks.  Long time no see!  

  You are quite right.  I have said, and will say again, that the game doesn't work by itself.  The DM and players must work to make it work.
  And hey, if that means modifying the wizard conception because they don't like it, that is what it means.

  Me?  I think the wizard is fine as she is.  But that's just me.

  The thread is about balance, and the wizard was the most unbalanced, as it were, of the old classes.  I happen to dislike balance in general, and to like the old wizard class.  But again, that's just me.

  Each to their own.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> I was just scanning your post, fuzzlewump, and this line caught my attention.
> 
> This is the problem. It's not that each class is of equal power - that's something I'm not too sure of, in general, but it sounds like enough of a good idea that I'm willing to run with it until I can think of a good reason that it's not a good idea.
> 
> It's that the class abilities seem to be rather similar in nature. Again, I haven't played it extensively, so maybe that's totally wrong, and they just look that way on paper (I'd blame the formatting); but just looking at them, and having toyed with them a bit, none of the classes really stands out from each other. They do, a bit, but not really significantly.




I reserve the right to see what it feels like over a few levels (not merely a demo game) but I can see some of this sentiment and agree with it: there is a bit of "power overlap" especially in the martial classes. I still maintain if that is the cost of a game that feels good over multiple levels and allows my rogue to shine equally (but not at the same things) as the wizards or clerics, or fighters, I'm a happy clam.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 26, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I was subjected to a 'proper' DM demanding we play 1st level characters in I6 Ravenloft, and said 'properness' led to a very unfun adventure and a TPK (Ravenloft was meant for levels 6 and up:  I do not know what the DM was thinking.)
> So yeah, you are right.  A 'proper' DM doing things 'properly' can lead to absurd situations.
> I do not advocate that there is one, 'proper' way to play D&D.




Right. Now, consider if you had been allowed pregenerated characters of a reasonable level 8 or so. If anybody were playing a wizard, he would not have had to endure levels 1-7. Therefore, he suffered no real tradeoff for the powers of level 8+. If you played that game with the requisite characters without spending a year building a party up to that, the "characters are unequal at every level but balanced over time" approach has failed you.

Is the answer not to play fun and exciting adventures for higher-level characters if you haven't "earned" the right? I say hell no. Ravenloft is a classic, and not letting people experience it because they haven't slogged through the prerequisite levels is being miserly. People should have the opportunity to play it. 

I therefore think it's good design to have characters balanced with one another at all levels, so that everyone is having fun at 1st level, everyone is having fun with the pickup Ravenloft module at 8th level, and everyone is having fun at 20th level. I think it's too early to say just how successful 4e is at that, but at the moment I'd say it's very admirable that they even looked at that problem and tried to address it.



> You are a Game Designer for White Wolf?  Cheers to you, sir.




(tips imaginary hat)


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Hey there, GnomeWorks.  Long time no see!




Hey, yeah, it's been awhile.



> The thread is about balance, and the wizard was the most unbalanced, as it were, of the old classes.  I happen to dislike balance in general, and to like the old wizard class.  But again, that's just me.




There can be such a thing as too much balance, and I think that 4e has erred perhaps a touch too much on that side.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Hmm... I think I just misinterpreted what you said, then. The "shifting the means of balance over levels" bit got me thinking that you were saying the same kind of thing as Edena.
> 
> Mind clarifying what you meant?




I didn't say shifting balance. I said shifting _means_ of balance. In 3e, I see characters as more equivalent at lower levels, and there is less reliance on special immunities and other countermeasures in creatures they will face.

At higher levels, the sorts of resources different classes have differ, and defenses and other strategies become more important in ensuring that all PCs have means to contribute to the progress of the game.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 26, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> You go from arguing with something I said to something I didn't say between your first and second sentence. I never approved a "player going from worst to best"; that's Edena.




  (chuckles)

  Yeah, that's me.  The wizard.  Worst to best.

  Yet you know what?  I happen to believe that this is the core spirit of D&D, period.  Worst to best.  From rags to riches.  From ashes to glory.  From nothing to greatness.
  It doesn't take a wizard for that.  That applies to all the classes.  It's just that the wizard so epitomized this spirit, that she caught my attention.

  (wry look)

  It's sort of a moot point.  Nobody ever played a single class wizard.  Or, practically ever.  Not in the games I was in.
  So there were no single classes wizards around me, in the group, to obtain the massive rewards of high level.

  There were some exceptions, all of them extremely unfortunate because they circumvented the spirit of the rules.

  The most infamous exception was the elven fighter/wizard.

  Had they not allowed this class, I think the wizard would have been much rarer and much more appreciated today.

  EDIT:  (Eyestrain here.  Have to go offline.  Not dissing anyone here, and nice to meet a White Wolf Designer!  Nice to see you again, Gnomeworks!  When I come back, I'll try to answer posts.)


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I didn't say shifting balance. I said shifting _means_ of balance. In 3e, I see characters as more equivalent at lower levels, and there is less reliance on special immunities and other countermeasures in creatures they will face.
> 
> At higher levels, the sorts of resources different classes have differ, and defenses and other strategies become more important in ensuring that all PCs have means to contribute to the progress of the game.




Oh! Okay. I see now. Sorry, I've been having a hard time parsing things all day.

That... is an interesting observation. I think that the argument to that would be that the casters were the primary source of dealing with those new things that cropped up at higher levels, which only contributes more to casters overshadowing the rest of the group.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 26, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Will do, Merric.
> 
> I'm definitely not throwing flames at 4E.
> Merely reminiscing, really.  Honoring older concepts that I liked, in older versions of D&D.




Oh, I like older editions of D&D myself. I think the balance used in AD&D is quite special - although I really, really wish Gary had employed a better Rules Editor. Tim Kask, you failed utterly to make Gary's text in the DMG regarding initiative in combat be understandable or even work.

The magic-user in AD&D 1e is also quite limited when you take all of the spell effects into consideration. Fireball? Best way of toasting your own party I've ever seen. Amusingly so, at times.

There are also a bunch of assumptions about AD&D play that are foreign to the modern mindset. (Or even the old mindset, if you weren't actually experiencing Play With Gary). I'm pretty sure that Gary would run more than one PC at once... when you control the entire party, it doesn't really matter if the 12th level fighter is somewhat overshadowed by the 12th level magic-user.

Oh, and AD&D was basically balanced for 1st-12th level play, after which you retired. (See demihuman multilclass level limitations).

However, I also don't think you should keep the old assumptions about how people will play the game when that's no longer the case for everyone. 

Cheers!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 26, 2008)

Before I go, I would also say:  An honor to meet you, Merric.  Cheers to yourself, sir.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 26, 2008)

The early fighter/fighting man and magic user are balanced, in a way, but in order to achieve that balance you have to start at 1st level, continue playing until around name level and then stop. If you start higher than 1st level, the system breaks. If you keep going beyond name level the system breaks. If you play oneoffs, or short campaigns, the system breaks. If you only have one encounter per day, the system breaks.

That's a pretty broken system you made there, Gary.


----------



## wally (Jun 26, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Actually no. It _is_ in their best interest to shoot their load early and rest.
> 
> Because that's the best option.
> 
> Seriously, unless things are time sensitive, why would you _not_ use all your spells every fight if you could?




That is where I was refering to play style.  If you know your DM is only going to give you one encounter a day, then sure, go ahead and use up all of your spells.

If you don't know or you have a DM who has previously given you two or more combats in a given day than it isn't in your best interest to use up all your spells in the first combat, as you are stuck hiding and trying to stay out of next combats to live.

Or you could use all your resources to build wands and scrolls to cover your using up all your spells, but then you wouldn't be able to spend money or time on building other things.

Do you mean to tell me that if you know that you are going to have two or three combats within a game day, that you will still use up all your spells and then argue that you should be allowed to sleep to get your spells back before the next combat?

-wally


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Oh! Okay. I see now. Sorry, I've been having a hard time parsing things all day.
> 
> That... is an interesting observation. I think that the argument to that would be that the casters were the primary source of dealing with those new things that cropped up at higher levels, which only contributes more to casters overshadowing the rest of the group.




I consider that accurate (that casters counter casters), except for the overshadowing bit.

Indeed, that "mighty magic" feel is central to a fun high level 3.x game AFAIAC. That doesn't mean the fighters and thieves are rendered irrelevant. Against a properly constructed challenge, a wizard would be foolhardy to operate alone.

I do believe CoDzilla is an authentic problem in this vein that resists treating with simple careful selection of challenges. This is because, especially in 3.5, the means for the cleric to overtake the fighter's niche were too many. Violating niche protection makes environment driven balancing untenable because you can't effectively target one class (the cleric) without also targeting the impaced class (the fighter).

I'd also say that casters aren't the only route to counter casters. There are a flurry of creatures that counter casters, so much so that in my last 3.x campaign, I felt that I had to search harder to find creatures to counter the fighter types than the casters. You'd think that every designer out there had campaign wrecking wizards in their games, there are so many creatures out there designed to mess with wizards.

Some of them really cool.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 26, 2008)

wally said:
			
		

> That is where I was refering to play style.  If you know your DM is only going to give you one encounter a day, then sure, go ahead and use up all of your spells.
> 
> If you don't know or you have a DM who has previously given you two or more combats in a given day than it isn't in your best interest to use up all your spells in the first combat, as you are stuck hiding and trying to stay out of next combats to live.
> 
> ...




Considering how long it took to play a high level combat, I'd say 2-3 combats a session (with a rest at the end of the game) would be about right. (Obviously not counting fights well below your CR. Those fights that don't provide challenge rarely do more than slow them down a bit and waste little of their resources. 2-3 good CR or higher fights thought, then its nappy time).


----------



## Rechan (Jun 26, 2008)

wally said:
			
		

> If you don't know or you have a DM who has previously given you two or more combats in a given day than it isn't in your best interest to use up all your spells in the first combat, as you are stuck hiding and trying to stay out of next combats to live.



I don't understand "Your DM giving you" encounters.

Does your DM not let you move where you want? 

If you have a combat encounter, and then retire to an inn... he's going to attack you in your sleep? Well, he can't quite send assassins after you every evening, now can he? 

Rope trick: it's a beautiful thing. You cast it, crawl in, rest. BAM, done. Bring on the encounter the DM gives you.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I consider that accurate (that casters counter casters), except for the overshadowing bit.




Sure, you can tailor encounters to deal with the party, and to ensure that everyone gets their chance to shine.

...doesn't that strike you as a little weird, though? I personally, as a character (say a fighter) in such a world, find it very strange that all the encounters we run into seem to foil the casters in such a way as to make me useful.

I have this same sort of issue with how crafting BBEG's was approached, in high-level play in 3.5. In order to avoid the scry/buff/teleport trick, as well as myriad other caster tricks, the BBEG needed to have a place that was protected against all that. For a caster-type, that makes total sense - but for any other, does it really? Doesn't that start to feel trite, after awhile, how every villain in existence seems to have exactly the tools to foil you?

I like having encounters that make sense in the world, not necessarily tailored to the characters. "Here there be dragons," and such. That doesn't jive well with tailoring encounters specifically to fix the imbalance between casters and non-casters, and that irks me a bit.


----------



## wally (Jun 26, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I don't understand "Your DM giving you" encounters.
> 
> Does your DM not let you move where you want?
> 
> ...




The DM giving you encounters refers to the fact that he has to come up with whatever you run in to in the world.

If you are leaving town, having a fight, going back to town to spend the rest of the day doing nothing so you can sleep. Then waking up the next day, leaving town having a fight and so on, then you aren't getting anywhere. 

The idea that many people have posited is that arcane casters at high levels were much more powerful than the rest, but as I said, it depends upon your playstyle.  If your characters can rest at will, then yes you are making casters more powerful.  If you are traveling through the wilderness and could encounter many different things before you can rest, you shouldn't be casting all your spells at once, or everyone outshines the caster in the second, third and consecutive combats.

-wally


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Sure, you can tailor encounters to deal with the party, and to ensure that everyone gets their chance to shine.
> 
> ...doesn't that strike you as a little weird, though? I personally, as a character (say a fighter) in such a world, find it very strange that all the encounters we run into seem to foil the casters in such a way as to make me useful.




I didn't say all the encounters. Casters have to have their moment, too. And I believe the inherent balance of limited high level spell slots keep wizards from dominating in a way that numerous critics in this thread suggest.



> I have this same sort of issue with how crafting BBEG's was approached, in high-level play in 3.5. In order to avoid the scry/buff/teleport trick, as well as myriad other caster tricks, the BBEG needed to have a place that was protected against all that. For a caster-type, that makes total sense - but for any other, does it really?




As I mention in one of the spin off threads, my guiding principle in setting design is that no power remains in power without possession or aid of magic. So in my setting, this is not a problem. There is no marauding orc warlord without a shaman or a wizard or demon manipulating him from behind the throne.



> Doesn't that start to feel trite, after awhile, how every villain in existence seems to have exactly the tools to foil you?




Again, use selectively. This is a trick that Cordell and Cook stressed many times in their tenure. Design adventures to REQUIRE special capabilities, not to foil them. Above you alude to the classic scry/buff/teleport. I wouldn't let that always work, but when it does, is the wizard going to go alone? I hope not. Let's not pretend this is just the wizard's game.



> I like having encounters that make sense in the world, not necessarily tailored to the characters.




As mentioned above, having encounters make sense is a guiding design principle to me. You aren't violating this principle if you let opposition leaders use magic. You are violating it if you _are not_.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 26, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I didn't say all the encounters. Casters have to have their moment, too. And I believe the inherent balance of limited high level spell slots keep wizards from dominating in a way that numerous critics in this thread suggest.




Fair enough.



> As I mention in one of the spin off threads, my guiding principle in setting design is that no power remains in power without possession or aid of magic. So in my setting, this is not a problem. There is no marauding orc warlord without a shaman or a wizard or demon manipulating him from behind the throne.




Ah, see, here, you and I disagree. I don't like heavy magic like that. Some places, sure, but it shouldn't need to be everywhere.

I really liked _Iron Heroes_ for this very reason.



> Again, use selectively. This is a trick that Cordell and Cook stressed many times in their tenure. Design adventures to REQUIRE special capabilities, not to foil them. Above you alude to the classic scry/buff/teleport. I wouldn't let that always work, but when it does, is the wizard going to go alone? I hope not. Let's not pretend this is just the wizard's game.




Perhaps I just haven't designed enough encounters to know that this is a good idea, but it sounds like a good one.



> As mentioned above, having encounters make sense is a guiding design principle to me. You aren't violating this principle if you let opposition leaders use magic. You are violating it if you _are not_.




Going with your assumption, sure. But again, I don't like a whole lot of magic flying around. Doing that is a good way to cheapen the feel of magic.


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:
			
		

> Ah, see, here, you and I disagree. I don't like heavy magic like that. Some places, sure, but it shouldn't need to be everywhere.
> 
> I really liked _Iron Heroes_ for this very reason.




If that's your preference, I feel you are right on target with Iron Heroes. I think if you aren't practicing environment based balancing in high level D&D 3.x, you do have to do something else (e.g., lots of house ruling) to keep an even keel in the game. But as IH is already there, it seems to me you should be using that.

Or 4e, really. Though other things about it disturb me other than the way it treats magic.


----------



## hong (Jun 26, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> environment based balancing




Oh, is that what you call it?


----------



## Psion (Jun 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Oh, is that what you call it?




Tell you what hong, you don't like the way I game, feel free not to play in it.


----------



## Imp (Jun 27, 2008)

GnomeWorks said:


> Sure, you can tailor encounters to deal with the party, and to ensure that everyone gets their chance to shine.
> 
> ...doesn't that strike you as a little weird, though? I personally, as a character (say a fighter) in such a world, find it very strange that all the encounters we run into seem to foil the casters in such a way as to make me useful.



I... completely don't see the difference between this and the way 4e encounters are built. "Boy, we'd have been screwed if four of those orcs weren't minions, eh?" In any case this is finessable. The bad guys foil the casters because dealing with casters is something they've done before (or is generally known). Or whatever, it can be nice and specific.


----------



## Graf (Jun 27, 2008)

You're not special at all, lots of other people have said it.

That make you feel better?

The classes are not the same, or particularly equal. But you have to actually play the game before you can tell that.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jun 27, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> Then I'll say that you've had a good GM who knows when to say 'no' and played with players who don't seek to abuse the system, then. Not everyone is so fortunate.




So you're saying the rules of the game itself have to paternalistically (I may have invented a word) protect us from these abusive gamers/DMs?  Even though the 4E DMG says right inside of it (and several seem to like putting in their sigs) that everyone at the table is responsible for the fun of the game?  Is that about right?

Look, I've played in my share of BAD games.  Like one of my first 3E games.  DM knew almost nothing, and liked saying yes.  We used 3.5 rules, but 3.0 items (since they were cheaper and more powerful).  He thought gauntlets of strength +2 added +2 to your *strength bonus*.  He allowed one guy to make a half dragon / half celestial / half troll, which only took real damage from fire and acid, which he was conveniently immune to.  He used his starting wealth to get a ring of three wishes.  His first wish was Half-Dragon without the LA cost (granted), his second wish was for a type IV bag of holding completely loaded with platinum pieces (granted).  I think his other wish was for wings, cause the templates didn't qualify him for it or something (granted).  He then allowed him to spend all his gold as if towns were magic supermarkets, with no caps on bonuses.  The guy was a sorcerer with a strength in the high 30's. It was his dump stat.  My archer had a cha of 18, and the DM claimed that with a score that "low," he was ugly.  The troll guy's brother went on to also make a caster, and upon hitting epic, created a spell to transmute anything to platinum, and reverse it.  He made a fortune flooding the market with platinum, then turning it back to the (now depleted) material he had used to create it all, wildly swaying the economy back and forth till it broke completely.  Again, the DM allowed this, no problems.  The troll player, meanwhile, went for some nice templates like Monster of Legend and became an Abomination. These epic level hi-jinks I only heard about, cause I died at level 17, before even acting, on the surprise round.  See, our party was so strong, the DM was already tossing epic monsters at us, and I unfortunately failed a save against one of the monster's Implosion SLA's (there was a swarm of them, in hiding).  I quit the game, heard how the DM got frustrated and tried to have the entire pantheon attack the party (and the gods lost), and just declared the entire universe as destroyed, ending the game.  I decided, "yeah...this isn't the game for me."

Why did I post that overly long story?  Because it took me almost a year away from the game after those horrors to realize the simple truth.  The game itself was fine, it was the people abusing and/or breaking the rules that make games go awful.  The game may allow you to do some crazy, powerful things.  But it's still a world.  There's still authorities to answer to.  People who want to live and will band together against you if they feel forced to.  Gods watching from other planes, who'd rather kill a potential threat before it grows to serious than leave it alone.  And above all else, a DM who's supposed to have the rationality to maintain the game.  Some groups might like a whacky, rules-loose game, others might want a very harsh, gritty, roll-as-it-falls style, but in any case, the system doesn't (or at least shouldn't) tell you where in those options the style should fall.  It's up to the group to decide, and the DM to steward.

Hence, I can't help but shake my head at all the people complaining about Clerics who "kick arse" after 5 rounds of pre-combat buffing, or the 15 minute workday.  Nowhere in the 3E rules does it tell the DM he has to allow the players to pull that crap.  And it also never states he's obligated to never let them pull such things off.  Sometimes a one combat day, where the casters can just spell dump as they please can be fun.  If it isn't for your group...don't allow it?  It's pretty sad when people need the books to DM for them.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 28, 2008)

Back.  Cheers to the new ENWorld.  

  I wanted to make a comment related to my previous posts, which is relevant to the balance topic of this thread.

  Remember Drizzt Do'Urden?  You know him, right?  I think we all do.  He is a very famous character.  A drow, made legendary by a very fine writer by the name of Salvatore.

  But what made drow - *drow* - famous in the first place?

  What made drow famous is that they were able to multiclass AND in some cases they DID NOT HAVE level limits.
  Drow females could advance to Unlimited Levels as clerics, and very high as wizards.
  Drow males could advance to Unlimited Levels as wizards.
  Both could advance very high as fighters.

  This - along with their innate powers (especially Magic Resistance) and there fearsome disposition - made them the threat that they were.
  Or, to paraphrase Gary Gygax:

  The drow had obtained the might to achieve their dream:  to reconquer the surface, and to utterly destroy the elves.  The only thing (the *only* thing) stopping them, seemed to be the fact that they were simply no longer interested in doing so.  They had become content with their world in the Underdark.
  Of course, that could change at any time, and when it did, may the Elven Gods help everyone, because against the drow nobody could hope to stand.

  And why would nobody be able to hope to stand against the drow?
  Because the drow could be FIGHTERS AND WIZARDS AND CLERICS, have all the benefits of these classes simultaneously, WITHOUT LEVEL LIMITS or with high level limits.
  And since drow lived to over 1,000 years of age, they could achieve levels in cleric and wizard undreamed of by human clerics and wizards, since humans were short lived.
  Back in those days, we were talking 40th, 50th, 100th level.  With a thousand years to work on the subject, the drow could achieve titanic power!

  If a few humans could, in their short lifetimes, obtain 30th level, there was no question what the drow - with a thousand years and an ultimate attitude problem - could accomplish.

  And all this, because of one change in one basic rule:  the removal of level limits from some classes accessable by the drow.  Changing that one rule, made them stronger than everyone else.

  EDIT:  Of course, the GDQ modules helped make the drow famous, too.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 28, 2008)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> So you're saying the rules of the game itself have to paternalistically (I may have invented a word) protect us from these abusive gamers/DMs?  ....  And it also never states he's obligated to never let them pull such things off.  Sometimes a one combat day, where the casters can just spell dump as they please can be fun.  If it isn't for your group...don't allow it?  It's pretty sad when people need the books to DM for them.




The game - any game - should come with more instruction on how to deal with particular exploits like these, or should be constructed in such a way that creating such loopholes is harder than it currently is. It should not assume that everyone has had the experience of playing in a well-run game with players who were all actively engaged in having a good time and making sure that they were not ruining the fun of the other players. 

I'm mainly thinking about new GMs who get victimized by people whose idea of having fun is to squeeze every bit of advantage they can out of a situation. I strongly suspect that more people would play and more people would GM but for situations like that; they come away thinking 'well, D&D just must be meant to be played like that, and I didn't have much fun; I'll take up photography as a hobby instead'.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jun 28, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> The game - any game - should come with more instruction on how to deal with particular exploits like these, or should be constructed in such a way that creating such loopholes is harder than it currently is. It should not assume that everyone has had the experience of playing in a well-run game with players who were all actively engaged in having a good time and making sure that they were not ruining the fun of the other players.




I agree, it certainly doesn't hurt to provide more advice in the DMG and maybe even the PH about how ot deal with such issues and to make it clear the point is to have fun, and that often times, trampling all over the rules with some clever loophole that makes your character ridiculuously overpowered compared to everyone else is almost always not fun for the rest of the group.  Just cause something's an option doesn't make it a good idea to take it.  And while it'd be nice if there were a system with no openings for abuse, this will just never happen.  D&D is a very intricate game, with so many different variables going on at once (which is awesome!) that it's impossible for the designers to forsee every potential broken combo.  Even 4E, with its focus on balance at any expense, had been broken before it even officially went on sale, thanks to Cascade of blades.  Frankly, comparing the core 3E books to the core 4E, I'm not sure which edition even has the most potential abuses.  3E once high level spells come into play, but for the levels most often played at, it's not much worse in that regard, IMHO.  Ultimately, it's up to the DM to take charge in these situations, and for the group to agree on what to do, rather than bicker over it, when a player's new power / feat / item / whatever becomes too much.  I don't see why the rules themselves should be turning the dungeon into a padded cell, if you will, when such measures barely help.



WayneLigon said:


> I'm mainly thinking about new GMs who get victimized by people whose idea of having fun is to squeeze every bit of advantage they can out of a situation. I strongly suspect that more people would play and more people would GM but for situations like that; they come away thinking 'well, D&D just must be meant to be played like that, and I didn't have much fun; I'll take up photography as a hobby instead'.




It is rather unfortunate, and I know not all who are new will want to come back after a bad experience, but even so.  IME, rotten players will be rotten no matter what system you use, and they'll find a way to ruin the game anyway.  In some ways, it might be better in the "wild west" of 3E where such players tend to stick out rather quickly than in 4E, where they can't do too much damage to the game at any one point (due to the wholesale slaughter of any potentially overpowered options in the interest of balance), and so instead slowly degrade it over time.  I'd rather just weed such people out early, drop them from the group, and move on, instead of realizing the problem deep into a campaign and things getting messier.  I don't know if that makes any sense to you, it's hard for me to explain.


----------



## Henry (Jun 28, 2008)

rowport said:


> I am confused by your post.  AFAIK, your examples here *are* about game balance!  You posit the classic rock/paper/scissors scenerio, where under the right conditions a certain class excels, so all are balanced as a whole.




What's more, my experience held that this balance almost never happened in 3e, compared to earlier editions. A fighter would never get close enough to a competent mage to kill him, and the ranger wouldn't be able to kill either of them at range. A wizard would frequently have the best AC on the field, even when resting, and usually had spells prepped to avoid the fighter altogether while he was making him save or die. The one time I did see a mage killed by the fighter, it was because the DM played him as having no defenses.

3e did have balance, but the balance was not as good as people claim, IMO.


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 28, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> As for the wizard, Gygax's wizard is an ultimate example of this philosophy, In Game.
> The wizard must work incredibly hard, incredibly long, without reward, without recompense, in extreme danger of dying, for level after level after level.  Without cleverness, wit, luck, and work, her life expectancy is measured in 1 round increments.
> But the big payback comes, and she is eventually the strongest of all the characters, and she can hurl mighty magics.  A very fine case of Perseverence Pays.  Great rewards go to those who make great effort.




And, when you're a game designer and you and all your buddies happen to *love* magic users, why not design the game to where the other classes are just support to the class you love the most and therefore obviously make it superior to everything else?

But, if a designer is going to make the game that way, it should be expressly explained up front that such is so (like in Ars Magica, a game where, again, magic users outshine everyone else).  To foment the illusion that all classes are going to be equally viable at all levels *is* bad game design.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 28, 2008)

On balance leading to every class being equal: 
Let's compare two powers:

Tide of Iron - Fighter Attack 1
At-Will - Martial, Weapon
Standard Action; Melee  weapon
Requirement: You must be using a shield.
Target: One creature
Attack: Str vs AC
Hit: 1 [W] + STR damage and you push the target 1 square if it is your size or smaller then you.

Thunderweave - Wizard Attak 1
At-Will - Arcane, Implement, Thunder
Standard Action; Close blast 3
Target: Each creature in blast
Attack: INT vs Fort
Hit: 1d6+INT damage, and you push the target WIS squares. 

These powers alone are not balanced. If I was aiming for power-gamig and could get Thunderweave instead of Tide of Iron, I'd do so. 
The powers have two common aspects: They deal damage, and they push their targets.
But the differences in play are strong - Tide of Iron targets only one creature, Thunderweave all creates in an adjacent 3x3 square area (including allies). Aside from the possibility of "friendly fire" accidents, Thunderweave is clearly stronger then Tide of Iron.

The balance is not achieved by these powers being very similar, or even equally powerful. They are achieved because the Fighter will always be in melee, has more hit points and more healing surges and a better AC then the Wizard, while the Wizard rarely wants to get this close to his enemies, and has a low AC and fewer hit points.

The balance is achieved because combined with all other class abilties and powers, the Wizard and the Fighter will play very differently and have different goals on the battlefield. The balance is achieved because the classes are so different.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 28, 2008)

I oI personally don't understand why 3E actually took off the magic limiters like wizards not automatically knowing spells.hn


----------



## Barastrondo (Jun 28, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> But what made drow - *drow* - famous in the first place?




_I_ would guess "exoticism," but I'm kind of cynical.


----------



## Psion (Jun 28, 2008)

Henry said:


> What's more, my experience held that this balance almost never happened in 3e, compared to earlier editions. A fighter would never get close enough to a competent mage to kill him, and the ranger wouldn't be able to kill either of them at range. A wizard would frequently have the best AC on the field, even when resting, and usually had spells prepped to avoid the fighter altogether while he was making him save or die. The one time I did see a mage killed by the fighter, it was because the DM played him as having no defenses.
> 
> 3e did have balance, but the balance was not as good as people claim, IMO.




All I can say, Henry, is our experiences differ.

My NPC mages got the smack laid on them.

My NPC fighters/monsters laid the smack on PC mages. Protective magic helped, but never quite proved a panacea.

I could make the players miserable if I designed NPCs as if they would only be around for that one fight. But that's bad design, and not really an option for players.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 28, 2008)

Jhulae said:


> (like in Ars Magica, a game where, again, magic users outshine everyone else).




There's a good point to remember when Ars Magica is brought up in a discussion of D&D game balance: the wizards in Ars Magica - who are the primary PCs - are balanced against each other.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 28, 2008)

Let me attempt to tackle the subject of wizards from one angle here. 

  In 30 years of gaming, I have seen *very few* single classed human wizards played (in any edition, be it OD&D, 1E, 2E, 3.0E, or 3.5E.  I can't speak for 4E yet.)
  Of those *very few* that I saw played, most were either killed or abandoned as characters before they made 9th level.
  Of the *extremely few* I saw that made it beyond 9th level, some of these were the result of an overly easy DM ('My monsters attack the fighters only, and leave the wizard alone' or 'Here is 50,000 experience points, for these orcs and their treasure! and YES, you can go up 3 levels at once!')

  Pre-generated characters were an exception to this rule, but then again they were an exception to the You-Must-Survive-To-This-Level rule.
  RPGA games were an exception to this rule, since Tournament Conditions existed there (and still do.)

  In short, few players were willing to take Gary Gygax's conception, and try to make it work ... for the good reason that it was SO INCREDIBLY HARD to make it work, if the DM did his job properly.

  Had it just been that, the Wizard Controversy would never, in my opinion, have come about.

  -

  Enter the elven fighter/wizard.
  He gets all the advantages of a fighter.
  He gets all the advantages of a wizard.
  When he gets elven chain (it was always when, not if) he has just as good an armor class as anyone else.
  He has all the special abilities of elves, on top of all the abilities of fighters and wizards.

  Why do you think there are so many kinds of elves in D&D?  Tolkien?  No.  The fighter/wizard (and variants?)  Yes.
  We have:

  Grey elves, high elves, wood elves, wild elves, olvenfolk, highfolk, grugach, valley elves ...
  Silvanesti, Qualinesti, Kargonesti, Dargonesti, Dimernesti ...
  Gold elves, Silver elves (moon elves), Green Elves, Star Elves ...
  Athan elves, Spelljammer elves, Birthright elves, AL-QADIM elves, Spiritfolk ...
  Snow elves, Ice elves, Sky elves, Shadow elves ...

  (ready to scream yet?)

  We have drow, half drow, good drow, crinti (nasty ones, those), half-elves (half-elf / half-human, half-elf / half-drow, half-elf / half-elf, quarter-elf / half-elf / one-eighth elf - one quarter elf / one-sixteenth elf - one eighth elf ...)
  Now, what did I miss?
  I'm sure I've missed out on a lot of kinds of elves.

  Well, ok, we have lots of different kinds of elves.  Elves are popular.  They are popular for a lot of reasons.  And one of those reasons is that elves can be fighter/wizards.

  Now, Gary Gygax wrote that elves were limited to levels 7 as fighters, and level 9 as wizards (or, levels 9 and 12, with extraordinary stats.)
  But these got ignored, or overruled, and effectively there were no level limitations.

  The elf got all the fun and advantages of being a fighter at lower level, then became massively powerful as a wizard at high levels (plus the benefits of being a high level fighter.)
  And if that wasn't nice enough, elves could be a bunch of other combinations.  A common houserule was the famous fighter/wizard/cleric.  This class got EVERYTHING, and didn't have to give anything back.  You could have it all.
  Be an elf.  He's an elf, you're an elf, I'm an elf, want to be an elf too?

  Enter the drow.  They didn't have such level limits to start with.  And what limits they had, became very high indeed even in the core rules.  That quickly went the way of the dodo.
  Now, enter the GOOD drow.  And exit any semblance of game balance.
  But, but ... good drow are hated by everyone, right?  Especially elves!  They wouldn't allow a drow in the party!  (chuckles ... sure they wouldn't ... we know just how well that went.)

  So, now, instead of high level wizards being a once in a blue moon type of thing - as Gary Gygax envisioned - you have high level elven and drow wizards running amok.
  This is what produced the glut of high level wizards with all those game breaking spells people talked about.  This is where the prejudice against wizards really started.

  If *I* am stuck playing a fighter OR a wizard, because he's human, and *you* are playing an elf and you have ALL the advantages of BOTH classes AND the abilities of elves on top of that, AND you advance almost as fast as I do (in 1E and 2E), AND you have no level limits, then of course my human character is going to be jealous.  I'm not going to be real happy as a player, either, because the system grants you more opportunity and fun than me ... because I chose a human character.

  And so, IN ADDITION, you can level up as a wizard - WITHOUT the hazards a single class wizard must go through because you have the advantages of a fighter also, with good armor class and hit points and attacks and elven goodness - and so you reach high level as a wizard and gain all that power without having to pay any of the price a single classed wizard would have had to pay.
  You've gotten around the system.  You've beaten the system.  You've been handed it all on a golden platter.  It's breakfast in bed.  

  We all did this, I fear.  We all loved those elven multiclass characters.  Who can say they haven't played a fighter/magic-user?  It's really a lot of fun to do so, because you reap all the benefits the game offers (if you can be a fighter/magic-user/cleric, you've really got it all.)

  In 3E, the equivalent would be that only elves (and other demihumans) could be gestalt, and basically only ELVES (and drow) could have arcane classes and PrCs as gestalt.
  Humans?  No gestalt.
  But we'll put level limits on the elves to balance things out.  Oh, but ... that's not fair to the elves ... we'll raise the level limits.  But ... that's not fair either ... we'll just eliminate the level limits.

  So, in 3E/3.5E, imagine a game where humans must abide by the normal rules, but *elves* can be Gestalt, they are the only demihuman race allowed to be Arcane Casters, and they have no level limits.
  While your human character struggles along as a fighter, that elf is a fighter/wizard gestalt, gaining all the benefits of both classes but only needing the same number of experience points.

  This was roughly the situation in 1E and 2E.

  So, you get a glut of high level wizards who have not earned such power - not, at least, as a single classed human wizard would have to earn her way to high level - and now they are throwing around great power (or, better yet, Elven High Magic) and they have it all.

  -

  You wouldn't allow a 3E game where demihumans could be gestalt and humans couldn't, where only elves could be Arcane Casters (besides humans) and they could have all the benefits of being elves + the benefits of gestalt + the benefits of being wizards, without any penalty at all.

  But that's how it worked in 1E and 2E, that's where you got all those high level wizards, that's a great part of the reason why wizards became resented, and that's how the system got broken.

  Had the system been maintained as Gary Gygax wanted, elves would NEVER have gone above 12th level as wizards (very weak indeed, compared to an 18th level archmage), single classed wizards (humans) would have been rare (due to the incredible difficulty of playing them) and none of the uproar over the Broken Wizard would have happened.
  As for the drow, they were meant as NPCs.  As PCs, they weren't viable because *everyone* tried to kill them on sight (with very good reason!)  And if the party might tolerate a drow, the NPCs around them would not.  So long as the DM maintained the game in that mode, a drow PC was very difficult indeed to play.

  And there's your answer to the problem of balance and the wizard.
  Elves wrecked it.  (Perhaps, it is time to wreak some serious harm on said elves?)


----------



## Andor (Jun 28, 2008)

redcard said:


> Why do people think everyone can cast rituals?
> 
> The section on Rituals says outright that you MUST have the ritual caster feat to cast it.. and if you don't, you must have the scroll/etc.  It also says some rituals are not available in some worlds.  And more rituals will be published which you might not choose to use.
> 
> For example, it's highly doubtful my GM will allow Raise Dead to be in any form.. or if he does, it'll just be in scroll form.




Because anyone who wants to cast rituals can do it by 2nd level? 1st if you're human.

All it takes is 2 feats, regardless of class. Less if arcana or religeon are on your class skill lists.

Personallly I like that, but some people think it's a bug, not a feature.


----------



## Psion (Jun 28, 2008)

Andor said:


> Because anyone who wants to cast rituals can do it by 2nd level? 1st if you're human.
> 
> All it takes is 2 feats, regardless of class. Less if arcana or religeon are on your class skill lists.




There's also a stat requirement. But yeah.



> Personallly I like that, but some people think it's a bug, not a feature.




It's certainly a very different assumption than any D&D before.

I was tinkering with my own campaign setting for which this assumption works very well for, loosely based on a recent popular motion picture... but it's very much NOT a D&D setting.


----------



## Jhulae (Jun 30, 2008)

WayneLigon said:


> There's a good point to remember when Ars Magica is brought up in a discussion of D&D game balance: the wizards in Ars Magica - who are the primary PCs - are balanced against each other.




And, if everybody played Wizards in D&D, they'd be balanced against each other too.

The point is that Ars Magica tells you right off that "Wizards wield more power than anyone else and if you're not a wizard, you're going to be noticeably weaker".   

The same is true about wizards in D&D, but the game *implies* that any character class is going to be of equal power and use at any given level, when such is not the case at all.


----------



## Fenes (Jun 30, 2008)

Peple would be much less crying about the fighter being as powerful as a wizard of equivalent level if they'd stop seeing fighters as gate guards with more hitpoints, and high-level rogues as some sort of pickpocket threat for city encounters

A high level fighter is not a minion, not a henchman in all but name, not some brute without a chance against magic. It's a hero, like Hercules, Achilles, Hector, King Arthur, Lancelot, etc. Capable of superhuman feats of endurance and bravery, laying waste to armies. It may be a martial artist master on a par with the best of the Wuxia movies.

Not some high-school bully with a sword.

A high-level rogue is a legendary trickster, someone capable to sneak into and out of the king's or even gods treasure chamber. Some able to charm a town, and sweet-talk gods, and dupe cities. Odysseus comes close.

Not some sleazy teenager trying to break into your locker.

If people bemoaning the loss of the wizards "unique position" or "speciality" would show a bit more imagination, and think of the Arthur to their Merlin, to think of the epic heroes of legend when they think of high-level non-casters, we'd not have this discussion.

We'd have had the discussion about how older editions failed to give those martial and rogue heroes their due long ago - at least until Bo9S.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 30, 2008)

Isn't that the old "Conan is only a level 6 character" argument we always get into.

Personally, I also think that while Edena_of_Neith hits some of the reason (Complete Book of elves I still consider the greatest munchkin book ever produced by TSR/WOTC), 3E itself actually got rid of some of the limiters.

Wizards were no longer limited by DM fiat and the lack of spell slots. In 1e/2e, wizard spell were totally under the control of the DM, thus, the Scry-Buff-Teleport combo was simply not valid as few DMs would give you access to ALL parts of the combo.

Furthermore, with magic item creation being relatively easy (at least for scrolls/wands), the wizard would actually have a greater likelihood of having JUST the right spell


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2008)

Reading about the "Wizard über alles"-stuff, I wonder if this wouldn't be an interesting approach to games.

You start as a mundane hero without magic, and gradually, you add supernatural abilities. Tiers would be more like "Mundane", "Arcane", "Divine" or something like that... 
Advancing levels would be a more transformative experience - you turn from a sword & board fighter into a powerful magician. That would certainly not be everyones cup of tea, but it has a certain appeal to me.

(In a way, 4E is already doing this - the powers of paragon and epic characters are far from mundane. But the transition is not as profound as proposed above...)


----------

