# Why do all classes have to be balanced?



## Derren (Apr 30, 2012)

Many people complained about unbalanced classes in previous editions and expressed the hope that all classes will finally be balanced against each other.

But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 30, 2012)

They don't.


----------



## herrozerro (Apr 30, 2012)

The point is that no class should be able to fully do its job and be able to replace another class.


----------



## avin (Apr 30, 2012)

They don't.

But we also can't go back to a game where one spellcaster do better than a melee in all areas (fly, read mind, go invisible and do more damage) in a way there's no point playing some class. 

Like high level 3.5 Fighters compared do Wizards or CODzilla.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Apr 30, 2012)

The simple answer is because a fair segment of players has more fun when classes are balanced. 

As to why not just let those individual groups balance classes in their games, that's because it's much easier to unbalance classes than to balance them. Take two perfectly identical (and therefore balanced) classes and give one the ability to cast Wish an unlimited number of times per day. Easy.

Now, no one's suggesting that classes should actually be the same to achieve balance. A balance needs to be struck between class balance and other priorities. That said, there are methods to achieve such balance without engendering homogenization (just look at the Essentials classes).


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 30, 2012)

They don't have to do everything as well as each other. Classes need niches (which means spells like _Knock _aren't awesome.) But a player should be able to have roughly the same amount of fun and effectiveness in combat with any class.


----------



## marelion (Apr 30, 2012)

I second that! No class should be able to entitrely replace another. Which is exactly why some people tend to enjoy to play systems where a melee character can still be more than a caster`s meatshield at higher levels.

Take the rogue for example: He is stealthy, he can sneak up on pepole in combat and deal significant damage and finally, he is the only class in editions prior to 4E who can fid and disable traps. 

At second level the wizard gets Invisibility and later on, he gets Improved Invsibilty. Add fly and you know why even somethig like tremorsense does not stop him from sneaking past.

He can deal significant damage but he has to spend time setting up for that while the wizards deals the same damage to multiple enemies and all the preparation that he needs to pull this off is Line Of Sight.

And finally, the only one who can disarm traps is the rogue so one might expect te rogue to really shine here. "Summon Monster X" is the answer to all your trapfinding problems. You do not have to disarm traps if you can set them off without any real opportunity cost.

Issues like this make people womder about class balance and issues like these explain why some people contemplate about such idealistic concepts as "balance".


----------



## billd91 (Apr 30, 2012)

I don't agree that classes shouldn't be able to partially replace each other or that there should be ironclad niche protection. But I do believe that classes shouldn't be able to replace each other *without trade-offs from their own core competencies* or without cooperation of the other PCs. Thus, I have no problem with a knock spell that displaces another wizardly choice if the party is looking for a way to sub for roguelessness.

Too much niche protection and you just end up with the same problem that people used to complain about - must have a cleric, must have a wizard, must have a fighter, must have a rogue. If all you're swapping for is roles like healer, artillerist/controller, meat shield, and skill guy/face/trapfinder/whatever, then you're not really really doing any better than just having the 4 classes. You might as well just have the 4 and leave any variation to reskinning the flavor. Some people don't want a party to be crippled without a cleric/healer, but I sure as hell don't want them crippled without a fighter, wizard, or rogue either despite each one bringing important exploration, interpersonal, or combat abilities to the group.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 30, 2012)

Derren said:


> But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?




This is not what balance means. Balance does not mean that everyone is the same. There can be wild differences between classes, that are well balanced.

Ultimately, the important thing is that there be balance between _players_. And that can be summed up as: each player should have equal right to claim that they are playing the protagonist of the story.

In narrative games, this is enforced directly, by providing balanced mechanics for distributing narrative control. But in games like DnD, the mechanics are highly oriented towards how effective a character is within the world, and that effectiveness is the prime determination of which characters can truly claim to be "protagonists".

For example, when the casters massively overshadow the non-casters in 3.X, it becomes laughable to think that the non-casters are in any way the equals of the casters. The casters are clearly the stars of the show. Which ends up meaning that the players of those characters aren't being treated as equals. And people tend to not have as much fun if they are being treated as less than the equals of their peers.

In addition, balance doesn't just have to mean combat, but if that is the mechanical focus of the game (as has traditionally been the case in DnD), then those mechanics need to be balanced. In a game with a more even mechanical focus on combat, and non-combat, it's OK for characters to be balanced overall, not just in combat.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 30, 2012)

Piratecat said:


> They don't have to do everything as well as each other. Classes need niches (which means spells like _Knock _aren't awesome.) But a player should be able to have roughly the same amount of fun *and effectiveness in combat* with any class.




I don't agree with the bolded part. Combat is one part of the game and some people enjoy excelling at other parts. All classes should have great competence in some part of the game, and that doesn't have to be combat. 



marelion said:


> I second that! No class should be able to entitrely replace another. Which is exactly why some people tend to enjoy to play systems where a melee character can still be more than a caster`s meatshield at higher levels.
> 
> Take the rogue for example: He is stealthy, he can sneak up on pepole in combat and deal significant damage and finally, he is the only class in editions prior to 4E who can fid and disable traps.
> 
> ...




The wizard gets this, the wizard gets that, my character has been replaced! 

_Before_ 3E with its nigh-uninterruptible casting, cheap plentiful magic items, and bonus spells for wizards there was an opportunity cost for everything. 

Spell slots were important before they could be circumvented with scrolls and wands. Sure your wizard could memorize knock and invisibility and fly along with a host of other utility spells. It meant that they were trading off potential offensive or defensive power for a while. 

At 5th level you had ONE memorized 3rd level spell and TWO second level. You decide to outshine your thief by choosing _invisibility, knock, and fly. _

So now you can fly around for a while, be invisible for a little while, and open a locked door. Because of your choices, you cannot cast _rope trick, strength, _or _fireball._ 

If you want to summon a monster and use it to find a trap then you won't have it for a fight to protect you and it uses a spell slot you could have used for something else while letting the thief do his thing. 

There was balance for magic users at one time but it was discarded as being unfun.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2012)

My view is that a player who follows the character build rules, and who doesn't make any obviously sub-optimal choices (in D&D, this would be something like ignoring all the hints that a fighter should start with the best armour s/he can afford), should produce a PC that is as meaningfully able to participate in the game as any other PC.

How that actually cashes out is going to depend pretty heavily on what is meant by "the game".

If "the game" means overcoming challenges - especially combat challenges, but also perhaps social and exploratory challenges - then that is your measure of balance.

I recognise that, in some (many?) RPGs, "screen time" can be as significant to balance as ingame success - and hence mechanically weaker PCs can still be balanced in the relevant sense. But D&D has never really supported this idea, because at least historically it has had pretty narrow and brutal success conditions (kill and loot, or be killed and looted).


----------



## Derren (Apr 30, 2012)

Piratecat said:


> They don't have to do everything as well as each other. Classes need niches (which means spells like _Knock _aren't awesome.) But a player should be able to have roughly the same amount of fun and effectiveness in combat with any class.




Why treat combat different than non-combat here?
Instead of making everyone the same in combat, why not extend the "niche" system to include combat?

Fighter are good vs archers, strikers are good vs leaders, etc.

That way you don't have the problem of homogenization of combat powers where everyone does 3d6 + effect and its even more easy to tailor encounters to your group.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 30, 2012)

Derren said:


> Many people complained about unbalanced classes in previous editions and expressed the hope that all classes will finally be balanced against each other.
> 
> But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?




Everyone should be the best there is at what they do.  Balance means that the druid won't outfight the fighter.  ("I have class features more powerful than your entire class").  And it means that the information presented about classes is accurate.  Which means everyone gets to shine when they would expect to.

Balance is information.



ExploderWizard said:


> I don't agree with the bolded part. Combat is one part of the game and some people enjoy excelling at other parts. All classes should have great competence in some part of the game, and that doesn't have to be combat.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




If you replace the thief at 5th level it takes most of your ability.

Now when you hit _9th_ level you replace the thief with those same three spells.  And then you both have other spells and have 4th and 5th level spells.  The thief is sitting in the corner fuming because not only have you replaced him, you still have some third level spells left over - and your fourth and fifth level spells with which to be a wizard.  Yes you have less to cast rope trick or strength.  But it's better than nothing and you've replaced the thief.  Worse than that even if you don't, the thief knows you could - while still remaining an effective wizard.

And you use your first level spells for summon monster 1.  Not much use in combat by that point - but still work as polish mine detectors every bit as effectively as higher level spells.

There was _more_ balance in older editions.  But Gygax has gone on record agreeing that the purpose of the Unearthed Arcana's seemingly overpowered fighter types was to attempt to improve balance between casters and non-casters.  AD&D was not balanced.  It just wasn't as screamingly badly balanced as 3.x (+2 spells each spell level and more control over your spells) with craft scroll as a freebie (for those little used spells), and craft wand.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 30, 2012)

Derren said:


> But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?




That's not balance.

Lets say that a class being fully capable is 100%.

What you describe is all classes being 33.3/33.3/33.3.

That's not what we want when we say "balance".

What we want is for all classes to reach ~100%.  In previous editions, many classes only got to 70, or 80%.  Some went to 125%.  

If in the new edition, balance is ~100% +/-3 that's not bad, and even in some of the best games, that's a a very functional level of balance.  However, if some classes are only getting to 75% and others are getting to 150%, that's not balance.  

Sure, some classes might be better at certain things, they might be 70/20/10, or they might be 50/25/25.  That's fine, both of these classes still reach that 100%, that "full potential" mark.  That's balance, all classes reaching their full design potential when compared on the whole scope of the game.  Rogues are more skilly and less combatty, wizards are more bursty, fighters are more steady, bards are very social, ect...  There's noone running around 100/100/100, or 70/90/50.    

Not everyone should be able to do everything, and that was exactly why some classes in previous editions were broken.  Because some classes could do everything better than anyone else.


----------



## triqui (Apr 30, 2012)

Derren said:


> Many people complained about unbalanced classes in previous editions and expressed the hope that all classes will finally be balanced against each other.
> 
> But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?



First, you have a poor definition of balance. "doing everything as well as the others" is not balance, is homogenity. And classes do not need to be homogeneus.

Now, to answer your question: Because players shouldn't be punished for the trope they like or the kind of hero they want to represent. If someone preffer to be "like" Conan, or The Grey Mouse, or Lancelot, or Frodo, he should not be punished for it with an inferior (ie: unbalanced) character than some other who likes to be a "clone" of Raistlin or Gandalf. He should do things better, and things worse. But they should not be "inferior"


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 30, 2012)

First, this thread was opened and lasted 50 or something pages.  You may want to search and see the answers everyone gave last time.

Second, it's a matter of feeling important.  Everyone likes to feel important in the game.  It makes it feel like a team game.

Combat balance is important mostly because a large part of the game takes place there in the majority of tables.  The idea is to make combat not look like this:

Fighter: "I attack the Orc and...miss."
Wizard: "I Fireball 30 Orcs.  They can make a saving throw to take half damage of....39.  They only have 18 hp?  Well, they all die then regardless of their saving throw."
DM: "Alright, you got 30 of them, but the other 40 fire back in a huge volley of arrows equally spread out amongst the party.  Each of you takes 10 attacks.  They do 40 damage each."
Fighter: "Umm...that drops me."
Wizard: "I'm immune to arrows that are non-magical, I don't take damage."
Cleric: "I have a spell up to absorb the next 50 points of damage I take, it has 10 points left."
Druid: "Do they hit my AC in Half-Elemental Half-Golem Dragon form?  It's 50."
DM: "Umm, sorry, no, none of them hit 50."
Druid: "Then I don't take damage either."

You especially don't want combat to look like this when you are running a dungeon crawl that mostly consists of "Open the door, fight a battle".  Because 90% of the game is going to be in combat and during that time, each of the players should feel useful.


----------



## the Jester (Apr 30, 2012)

Derren said:


> Many people complained about unbalanced classes in previous editions and expressed the hope that all classes will finally be balanced against each other.
> 
> But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?




As others have said, that's a profound misunderstanding of what 'balance' means.


----------



## Kannik (Apr 30, 2012)

dkyle said:


> Ultimately, the important thing is that there be balance between _players_. And that can be summed up as: each player should have equal right to claim that they are playing the protagonist of the story.




Must spread XP around and all that.  This I think is a good way to put it -- so long as the players, _on the whole and overall_  (ie not necessarily moment by moment), all feel excited, involved, engaged and useful throughout the adventure and a campaign's life then that is the "balance" I would aim for.

peace,

Kannik


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 30, 2012)

There's an art and a craft to getting sufficient balance of character options without sacrificing too much other stuff in the process.  Any fool can write a bunch of unbalanced classes ... and often has.   If I pay money for something, I generally prefer that it be better done than what I could do myself--even in my more foolish moments.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Apr 30, 2012)

Piratecat said:


> They don't have to do everything as well as each other. Classes need niches (which means spells like _Knock _aren't awesome.) But a player should be able to have roughly the same amount of fun and effectiveness in combat with any class.




I want to hit on this for a moment. I really get tired of hearing the old "because of Knock my rogue is useless" excuse. 

3rd edition and before actually had the crazy notion that player's would actually work together and DM's would actually have a backbone and keep their games in check.

Worried about your Wizard, how about remove the hundreds of magic shops in your games to limit the ease of spell gain, limit splat books to your approval etc...?

I don't know about you but when there was a rogue in the party I didn't bother taking Knock. I was happy to use that slot for something else, also since spells weren't around every corner I chose my 2 spells per level very carefully. 

4th edition removed that freedom and made it seem like they didn't trust players to work together and DM's to keep their games in control.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 30, 2012)

There is a few issues to consider when "balance" is addressed...

1.) Niche protection. 

Quite simply; fighters are the best at fighting, thieves at sneaking, clerics and healing, wizards at nuking and stuff. If the proper spell selection or feat combo makes a wizard into a better thief or a cleric into a better fighter, you've got issues. 

2.) "Subclasses" shouldn't strictly be better, just different.

A paladin shouldn't be "fighter + X". Nor should an assassin be a "thief + X". If the core classes are done well, then a ranger, barbarian, warlord, etc should be on par, not better, than the default four. 

3.) Everyone needs something to do. 

Boredom sets in when a character can't do something for an extended period of time. Fighters should be able to be keen observants and survivalists along with fighting. Rogues need to be able to hit in combat so they don't sit around useless through long fights. Just because your awesome at one thing doesn't mean you need to be useless elsewhere.

4.) Equality is worse than inequality. 

4e failed IMHO by giving everyone roughly similar to-hit numbers, roughly the same amount of powers per day, roughly equal AC and Defenses, and roughly equal advancement. It made the classes roughly equal, and thus roughly forgettable. Classes need some inequality to create interest, and in a choice between samey and balance and unbalanced but fun, I'll take the latter.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 30, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I want to hit on this for a moment. I really get tired of hearing the old "because of Knock my rogue is useless" excuse.



I didn't say (or at least mean) "useless." Certainly not useless - there are lots of other things that rogues can do superbly, including stealth, disarming traps and focused damage. That said, I will confirm that because of _knock_, in a 2e->3e->3.5e 16 year long campaign where I played a rogue and we had a second rogue NPC, we used the Open Locks skill fewer than 5 times once the PCs topped 4th level. It was useless because _Knock _was faster and safer. That spell is pretty much the poster child for niche infiltration, in the same way that 3e's _divine power_ makes the cleric a better fighter than the fighter is.


----------



## herrozerro (Apr 30, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I want to hit on this for a moment. I really get tired of hearing the old "because of Knock my rogue is useless" excuse.
> 
> 3rd edition and before actually had the crazy notion that player's would actually work together and DM's would actually have a backbone and keep their games in check.
> 
> ...




Imo the issue isnt that a dm could limit a caster.  Its that casters were pretty much the only ones that ever needed it.  I dont recall many "how do i limit my party fighter" threads.  

Someone above mentioned the percentages some classes always falling around the 50% while others consistantly over the 100% mark.  This is the issue.  The mentality that because its magic it must be inheriently better then mundane.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 30, 2012)

Piratecat said:


> I didn't say (or at least mean) "useless." Certainly not useless - there are lots of other things that rogues can do superbly, including stealth, disarming traps and focused damage. That said, I will confirm that because of _knock_, in a 2e->3e->3.5e 16 year long campaign where I played a rogue and we had a second rogue NPC, we used the Open Locks skill fewer than 5 times once the PCs topped 4th level. It was useless because _Knock _was faster and safer. That spell is pretty much the poster child for niche infiltration, in the same way that 3e's _divine power_ makes the cleric a better fighter than the fighter is.




Wands of Knock were a taboo discussion at our table. We kinda agreed that even though it made perfect sense for our wizard to make one, he didn't do it to give the rogue some face time. 

That should not be. No class should be forced to tie one hand behind its back to give the "kid brother" class time to shine. Sure, when older D&D forced mages to use one of 4 possible 2nd level slots on knock, there was some trade off. When 3e's wands and scrolls aplenty happened, the limitation was gone. I never want to go back to thieves being "given a chance to shine" by the wizard, knowing full well that if he failed the mage could've solved it all along. No thank you.


----------



## Anselyn (Apr 30, 2012)

Derren said:


> But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?




See Ars Magica - Magi, Companions and Grogs in order of decreasing power or ability. (1987, Jonathan Tweet, Mark Rein-Hagen)

While D&D is "a RPG", it can't, or shouldn't, be used to represent all RPGs.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 30, 2012)

There's perceptual balance and mathematical balance.

For most people, balance seems to mean "each class has a niche" and "no class completely replaces another class". This is perceptual balance. Classes can be _very_ unbalanced mathematically and still meet these goals.

When you're looking at balance mathematically, there is a strong tendency to overshoot perceptual balance. You underestimate the tolerance people have to a lack of balance, as long as it's fun.

It's like spending 10 minutes hanging a picture with a leveler. It doesn't matter. Unfortunately the DDN design team seems to be spending too much time noodling with levelers.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 30, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> That should not be. No class should be forced to tie one hand behind its back to give the "kid brother" class time to shine. Sure, when older D&D forced mages to use one of 4 possible 2nd level slots on knock, there was some trade off. When 3e's wands and scrolls aplenty happened, the limitation was gone. I never want to go back to thieves being "given a chance to shine" by the wizard, knowing full well that if he failed the mage could've solved it all along. No thank you.




Exactly. It's just plain degrading to know that another player _could_ be playing more effectively (and more true to their character), but is deciding not to, to try to make you feel useful.

This is why, as one who enjoys powergaming and optimization, I like 4E much more than 3.5, even though 3.5 might seem like a powergamer's heaven. I could optimize 4E to my hearts content, and rarely feel like I was really impinging on the fun of anyone else at the table. Having tons and tons of options (as in 3.5) is only meaningful if they are _balanced_ options.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 30, 2012)

dkyle said:


> Ultimately, the important thing is that there be balance between _players_. And that can be summed up as: each player should have equal right to claim that they are playing the protagonist of the story.



If by equal you mean that NO player has the right to claim they're playing the protagonist, OK. You shouldn't be automatically guaranteed to be the protagonist just for showing up, in D&D.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 30, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> If by equal you mean that NO player has the right to claim they're playing the protagonist, OK. You shouldn't be automatically guaranteed to be the protagonist just for showing up, in D&D.




OK, fine.  Equal opportunity, through the mechanics of the game, to impact the story in ways that give them reasonable claim to being the protagonists of that story.

Obviously, if someone shows up, and does nothing, they have no right to claim anything. I'm talking about good-faith efforts at engaging in the game. I didn't think that needed specification.


----------



## Kynn (Apr 30, 2012)

Because it's a game, and games are generally better when they're fair.

A game isn't fair if it presents, say, 6 options to players and half of them are really bad choices.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Apr 30, 2012)

Piratecat said:


> I didn't say (or at least mean) "useless." Certainly not useless - there are lots of other things that rogues can do superbly, including stealth, disarming traps and focused damage. That said, I will confirm that because of _knock_, in a 2e->3e->3.5e 16 year long campaign where I played a rogue and we had a second rogue NPC, we used the Open Locks skill fewer than 5 times once the PCs topped 4th level. It was useless because _Knock _was faster and safer. That spell is pretty much the poster child for niche infiltration, in the same way that 3e's _divine power_ makes the cleric a better fighter than the fighter is.




PC: I can't agree with you here about the safe part. Knock never ever disarmed trapped doors, chests etc... Knock only unlocks and we have learned many many times to just let the rogue handle it.

Cleric being a better fighter is subjective and remains that to this day. There are arguments on both sides but nobody has walked away with the victory. 

The cleric thing is another example of DM's actually taking the initiative. Nightsticks were something in Libris Mortis and since 3rd edition didn't carry the "everything is core" title then it didn't have to be allowed. Divine Metamagic had gotten the nerf so it would take pretty much every feat you had to do the Persistent Rightous Might, etc.... Which a simple dispel magic would take care of and leave the cleric back to normal and missing a lot Turn Undead attempts.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Apr 30, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Wands of Knock were a taboo discussion at our table. We kinda agreed that even though it made perfect sense for our wizard to make one, he didn't do it to give the rogue some face time.
> 
> That should not be. No class should be forced to tie one hand behind its back to give the "kid brother" class time to shine. Sure, when older D&D forced mages to use one of 4 possible 2nd level slots on knock, there was some trade off. When 3e's wands and scrolls aplenty happened, the limitation was gone. I never want to go back to thieves being "given a chance to shine" by the wizard, knowing full well that if he failed the mage could've solved it all along. No thank you.




Why not? That was never the intention to start with. The intention was to give rogueless parties a chance to at least open doors but like I told Pirate, Knock doesn't disarm traps.


----------



## Serendipity (Apr 30, 2012)

Eh, balance isn't really that important for me, at least not in the way it's obsessed about nowadays.  No, I don't want any of my players to be standing around feeling useless....but that doesn't happen in games I run.  If it happens to characters I'm playing, then there's generally something at fault other than "the game system is unbalanced" and I can only recall this occurring once in recent memory. 
So...no, it isn't necessary.  Not for me.


----------



## dagger (Apr 30, 2012)

avin said:


> They don't.
> 
> But we also can't go back to a game where one spellcaster do better than a melee in all areas (fly, read mind, go invisible and do more damage) in a way there's no point playing some class.
> 
> Like high level 3.5 Fighters compared do Wizards or CODzilla.




Yea thats why I prefer 1e...


----------



## JasonZZ (May 1, 2012)

Derren said:


> Many people complained about unbalanced classes in previous editions and expressed the hope that all classes will finally be balanced against each other.
> 
> But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?




Homework time: I want you to go to YouTube, search for a short comedy sketch called "The Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit", watch it, and come back.

More seriously, you've badly misunderstood the meaning and intention of balance. It was never about every class having the same performance--they *don't*. Balance is about nobody being eclipsed by any other--it's about having your opportunity to shine, and not just be the comic relief.


----------



## Mercule (May 1, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> 2.) "Subclasses" shouldn't strictly be better, just different.
> 
> A paladin shouldn't be "fighter + X". Nor should an assassin be a "thief + X". If the core classes are done well, then a ranger, barbarian, warlord, etc should be on par, not better, than the default four.



This is an interesting point -- and one with which I agree. IMO, this is where the uneven level advancement in AD&D was important, as well as the "unfun" roleplaying restrictions. 

Sure, when you compare a starting 1e fighter and paladin, the paladin is immune to disease (not a huge deal at 1st level) and can cure diseases in others, can _detect evil_ at will, has a +2 to saves, and can heal 2 hp/day. Those are nice, but not really a huge deal. In exchange, the paladin has to take 10% of all treasure off the top, then give away most of the rest, after expenses. The magic item restriction is probably not relevant at 1st level.

The paladin requires more XP to advance than the fighter, which means that, assuming even XP totals, the fighter will tend to be a level ahead of the paladin roughly half the time by 5th level. Additionally, because the paladin had to dump at least a 17 in charisma and has to have both a high strength and wisdom, the fighter is pretty likely to be gaining 10% more XP than the paladin, which can add up. This is also where the XP gained from treasure really helps the fighter, since the DMG says that treasure either needs to be made portable or stored in the PC's stronghold to grant XP, implying that only treasure kept is counted and the paladin has to give most of his away. Even if you only count the tithe against him, that's still another 10% additional XP that the fighter gains over the paladin. That puts our theoretic adventuring buddies about 200k XP apart by the time the paladin gets spells. At name level, the fighter will be gaining 3 levels for every 2 the paladin gains, without factoring in that 20% bonus. The ranger also has the high stat requirements, slower progression, and treasure restrictions, though not as pronounced.

Based on the above, the "balanced" solution for 5e fighters, who have the same advancement as their subclasses, would be to ensure the fighters always have a better BAB progression. Who would balk at giving the 3e fighter a 1.25 BAB progression? If 5e flattens BAB progression, maybe the 5e fighter just gets a flat +2 throughout his career. I'd also work bonus damage in there, but the fighter would be a bit more attractive, with just the BAB change.


----------



## Remathilis (May 1, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Why not? That was never the intention to start with. The intention was to give rogueless parties a chance to at least open doors but like I told Pirate, Knock doesn't disarm traps.




No, but wands of summon monster I trigger them! 

I played enough 2e and 3e to see what a well-prepped wizard (or group of wizards) can do. They dominate the game, and while I don't want to go 4e and give everyone the same stuff, I would like to see rogues have less competition from one-and-done spells...


----------



## Shadeydm (May 1, 2012)

Yes all classes must be balanced because the alternative is wrongbadfun


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 1, 2012)

PCs being balanced against each other is a personal choice. I think the game should start a campaign off that way, generally speaking*, but it should not be forced to remain that way. Players are in the overall situation of sharing their stuff. That can mean casting a spell on someone, interposing yourself between an ally and an enemy, or giving your last healing potion to a friend. It also means handing over valuable information like getting new players up to speed on what's happening in the game. Not to mention handing down other treasure to bring up the viability of lower level PCs in the party.  

There's never going to be a perfect balance between the PCs. Not unless everyone rolls the same stats, same HPs, picks the same class and race, buy the same equipment, and so on. The choices matter, but being a little bit weaker in this situation rather than another isn't such a bad thing.

What I think is the issue is the All-or-Nothing game. I can NEVER hit what you can hit. I can NEVER find a way to beat a challenge that's 50/50 for you. My odds can be lower, but the game is improving them without requiring equal XP & equal powers for players. 


*Perfect balance is like saying a blink spell should be absolutely balanced with invisibility. It's up to the situations the players choose to place themselves in.


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 1, 2012)

Because of this...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw]Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## mkill (May 1, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Cleric being a better fighter is subjective and remains that to this day. There are arguments on both sides but nobody has walked away with the victory.



In 3.5? Are you kidding? The general consensus is that the Cleric is tier 1, the Fighter is tier 5. Note that tier 6 is the Commoner.
Tier System for Classes
And really, this discussion was finished around 2007, nothing I can add here. Ignore it at your own peril.



ForeverSlayer said:


> The cleric thing is another example of DM's actually taking the initiative. Nightsticks were something in Libris Mortis and since 3rd edition didn't carry the "everything is core" title then it didn't have to be allowed.



Meh. As DM, I want to run a game, not fix game designer screwups. An item that allows you to use a flexible but limited class feature without limit should have never made it past editing. At the very least, they should have been limit to actual undead turning, not any divine channeling ability.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 1, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I want to hit on this for a moment. I really get tired of hearing the old "because of Knock my rogue is useless" excuse.
> 
> 3rd edition and before actually had the crazy notion that player's would actually work together and DM's would actually have a backbone and keep their games in check.




What does players working together even mean? What end are people working together towards?

In character, the _characters_ are normally working together to do something important like save the world. Yet you are saying that a part of the game includes deliberately not trying your hardest to save the world so you can worry about the rogue's pwecious feelings. You are quite literally endangering the fate of the world to not have issues with one person's justified feelings of inadequacy.

As for the idea that DMs would have a backbone, I have this idea that when I pay money for a professionally produced product the work will actually be professional. I bought that product _to take the heavy lifting off my shoulders_. If mistakes are made they are made. Errata helps. But there is a level of using things for their intended purpose in any system that if it fails, the whole product should be considered not fit for purpose.

And the correct response to a product being not fit for purpose that you've paid good money for is to take it back and demand your money back.



ForeverSlayer said:


> Cleric being a better fighter is subjective and remains that to this day. There are arguments on both sides but nobody has walked away with the victory.




I'm sorry, there might be arguments on both sides - but that's like saying there are arguments on both sides about who's the better painter between a random college undergrad and Pablo Picasso. _One_ cure minor wounds and the cleric's carrying as many HP as the fighter. The cleric has the same AC as the fighter. The cleric has better defences than the fighter. In your quest to prove balance you need to demonstrate that two feats (one for a good weapon), plus one feat every two levels, plus a point of BaB every two levels is a match for full primary spellcasting. And... um... no. No it isn't.

Nightsticks aren't actually that bad. They were intended for _turning undead_ which is a marginal use in most settings - it gets bad only when you combo them. Someone didn't spot the combo. I'd therefore be happy to allow them under the condition that their turn attempts could only be spent on turning undead and call that the RAI. (And then blame WoTC for not putting out errata).


----------



## BobTheNob (May 1, 2012)

I dont know how anyone can call a comparison between a 3.5 Cleric and Fighter "subjective". I can compare a beat up wreck to a Ferrari and call em both cars, doesnt mean the comparison counts for the anything.

The very fact that a Meme exists to describe clerics and druids should be indicative enough. As far as the fighter goes, I have never heard anyone key a term for a "F-Zilla".


----------



## Hussar (May 1, 2012)

Derren said:


> Many people complained about unbalanced classes in previous editions and expressed the hope that all classes will finally be balanced against each other.
> 
> But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?




As has been already stated, your definition of balance is sorely lacking.  Perhaps you could clarify your position on what you believe to be balance between classes and we could move forward.  As it stands, you seem to be equating balance with homogeneity.  



ForeverSlayer said:


> Why not? That was never the intention to start with. The intention was to give rogueless parties a chance to at least open doors but like I told Pirate, Knock doesn't disarm traps.




Mage hand is a 0 level spell.  Unseen servant lasts an hour per level.  Either one will handle every trapped door/chest you care to name.



Mercule said:


> This is an interesting point -- and one with which I agree. IMO, this is where the uneven level advancement in AD&D was important, as well as the "unfun" roleplaying restrictions.
> 
> Sure, when you compare a starting 1e fighter and paladin, the paladin is immune to disease (not a huge deal at 1st level) and can cure diseases in others, can _detect evil_ at will, has a +2 to saves, and can heal 2 hp/day. Those are nice, but not really a huge deal. In exchange, the paladin has to take 10% of all treasure off the top, then give away most of the rest, after expenses. The magic item restriction is probably not relevant at 1st level.
> 
> ...




Just as a point, the paladin gains his xp for tithe cash before he has to tithe.  Just because he uses the money, doesn't mean he doesn't get xp for it, any more than a fighter would lose xp for blowing his cash on ale and whores.

Also note, a ranger's restrictions are much more egregious in 1e.  A ranger can only keep what he can carry on his horse.  A paladin can keep his cash anywhere he likes, so long as he tithes the 10% and there is no requirement to tithe more than that.

So, no, the paladin isn't actually all that far behind.  1 level, sometimes, but, not always, since he'll level up long before the fighter hits the next level.  At least before name level.  After name level, you are probably right.  But, I don't think balancing two classes that way really works all that well.  It presumes a length of campaign that is perhaps a bit too ambitious.

And, let's be honest here.  No one really worries too much about balancing the fighter types anyway.  A fighter isn't much weaker than a paladin, particularly if you use Specialization rules.  That's never really the issue.  The issue is that the caster classes just get too damn much power.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 1, 2012)

To everyone that responded to my posts:

  First of all, D&D used to be a voluntary team game. 4th edition made it into a forced team game because it doesn’t trust everyone to work together. 
  If a player is using another class to mimic you is fine because there is nothing wrong with having two classes that are similar trying to work together. If someone is just trying their best to out do you then there is a problem with that player and not the system.  If you design your wizard to be a rogue type then there is nothing wrong with that but for the people that think a wizard can replace a rogue, you really need to think back to what a rogue can do and a wizard can’t do. Rogues can disarm traps, use “any” magic item in the game thanks to UMD, Sneak Attack, Evasion(As a class ability), Uncanny Dodge(As a class ability), Long list of skills, better BAB etc… 
  Well you say there are a few things the Wizard can do as well and one of them I hear is Invisibility. Well that’s true but Stealth is a hell of a lot better that Invisibility because See Invisibility doesn’t detect stealth because it’s not magical hiding. Detect Magic could give you an idea as well as to where someone is hiding due to Invisibility or even Superior Invis. 
  Also I keep hearing about wands of Summon Monster I being used to set off traps. That’s great and all but those are used for only a few types of traps. I don’t know of anything that you can summon that can open a door because it doesn’t have hands.  Oh and the big kicker!  What’s wrong with a rogue having these things as well? The rogue has UMD so he can have and use “any” type of Scroll, Wand, Item etc… The rogue is actually more of a utility monkey than the wizard. 
  Let’s use RAW for a moment here. According to RAW, the only guarantee that a Wizard has of gaining new spells is his 2 per level. Finding that spellbook, finding that other mage to copy from, finding those magic shops are all optional and up to the DM, they are not guaranteed. Sure there are rules for buying and copying but you have to get to that point and getting there is purely up to your DM. So if you aren’t trying to mimic another class, are you going to sit there and waste your spell choices on those types of spells? 
  With regards to the cleric: So the consensus consists of a few internet forums that don’t even make up close to half the total gaming population? Careful when putting all your eggs in one basket. To make a long story short, the cleric and fighter debate remains subjective.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Mage hand is a 0 level spell.  Unseen servant lasts an hour per level.  Either one will handle every trapped door/chest you care to name.




Mage Hand doesn't work that way. Your DM may have allowed you to do somethings that you can't normally do but Mage Hand allows you to lift non magical objects. If doesn't say anything about opening doors. 

Someone mentioned Unseen Servant. It opens unlocked doors so it does nothing for doors that are locked. You can't use Mage Hand to float a wand of Knock to a door and use it that way. Traps are triggered by actually unlocking the door so the moment you use your wand of knock the trap goes off.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 1, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> First of all, D&D used to be a voluntary team game. 4th edition made it into a forced team game because it doesn’t trust everyone to work together.




Where, pray tell, is this force? Absolutely nowhere in the rules I'm aware of - indeed, 4e characters are actually _more_ self-sufficent than most 3.X characters that aren't tier 1 and being played as such.



> If a player is using another class to mimic you is fine because there is nothing wrong with having two classes that are similar trying to work together. If someone is just trying their best to out do you then there is a problem with that player and not the system.




And if someone _isn't_ trying their best to outdo you - they are just trying to do something and they are still better than you at what you are trying to do then there is a problem with the system. This is where 3.X stands.



> Well you say there are a few things the Wizard can do as well and one of them I hear is Invisibility. Well that’s true but Stealth is a hell of a lot better that Invisibility because See Invisibility doesn’t detect stealth because it’s not magical hiding. Detect Magic could give you an idea as well as to where someone is hiding due to Invisibility or even Superior Invis.




"Stealth is a hell of a lot better than invisibility because there is one single possible countermeasure to invisibility that only appears on teh wizard and bard spell lists." With _Invisibility_ you can stand right in the middle of a whitewashed room and no one will see you. With _Stealth, _(or http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm]Hide[/url])anyone with eyes is going to see you. As for _Detect Magic_, you need to actually concentrate. And invisibility shows up as a faint aura - just like a +1 dagger. You can see the auras of the magical weapons a hidden foe is carrying.

So no. Hide is not better than invisibility.



> I don’t know of anything that you can summon that can open a door because it doesn’t have hands.




That doesn't stop one of my host's cats when we play! And an octopus can open a door. As can an ape.



> Oh and the big kicker! What’s wrong with a rogue having these things as well? The rogue has UMD so he can have and use “any” type of Scroll, Wand, Item etc… The rogue is actually more of a utility monkey than the wizard.




1: The wizard can make the wands at mid level. And scrolls from level 1. The rogue never can.
2: The rogue can not use the wands _reliably_ until high level. The wizard can use wizard wands with no failure chance. So the wizard is better with the wizard wands than the rogue is.



> Let’s use RAW for a moment here. According to RAW, the only guarantee that a Wizard has of gaining new spells is his 2 per level. Finding that spellbook, finding that other mage to copy from, finding those magic shops are all optional and up to the DM, they are not guaranteed. Sure there are rules for buying and copying but you have to get to that point and getting there is purely up to your DM. So if you aren’t trying to mimic another class, are you going to sit there and waste your spell choices on those types of spells?




So. If you throw the worldbuilding guidance out and consider the work done by the designers in setting the default world setting to be actively worse than useless, you can partially limit the wizard. And at four spells per spell level there's certainly room for invisibility - it's just that useful. Possibly not for _knock_. Depends how often locks appear. If I want a trickster or a utility mage I might well be using knock as my fourth second level spell (glitterdust, alter self, invisibility all being no brainers - with web and rope trick being normally ahead of knock). And yes, alter self and invisibility are both that good. If you want to be a blaster... but then blasters bore me.


----------



## Bluenose (May 1, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> First of all, D&D used to be a voluntary team game. 4th edition made it into a forced team game because it doesn’t trust everyone to work together./QUOTE]
> 
> By your own words, before 4e D&D didn't have to be a team game at all. Team play was voluntary. It's hardly great support for the idea that D&D is a team game.
> 
> ...


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 1, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> You could I am sure argue that moving something at will doesn't let you open a door, but it's hardly unreasonable for a GM to say that you can push a door open with it, or open the lid of a chest. It might even be considered creative use of an ability, though I know that's the sort of thing D&D GMs are supposed to frown on.




Creative interpretation is fine home games but you can't use it when discussing the credibility of RAW game rules.


----------



## Dausuul (May 1, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Creative interpretation is fine home games but you can't use it when discussing the credibility of RAW game rules.




A smart rules lawyer could certainly find a way to use _mage hand_ to get a door open. But you don't even need to do that, because there is another cantrip called _open/close_, whose entire function is to manipulate doors, chests, and other such trappable things from a safe distance.


----------



## Derren (May 1, 2012)

Hussar said:


> As has been already stated, your definition of balance is sorely lacking.  Perhaps you could clarify your position on what you believe to be balance between classes and we could move forward.  As it stands, you seem to be equating balance with homogeneity.




And yet that was how 4E was balanced and what many people seems to want/like.
That in combat no class is better than the other.


----------



## hanez (May 2, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> A smart rules lawyer could certainly find a way to use _mage hand_ to get a door open. But you don't even need to do that, because there is another cantrip called _open/close_, whose entire function is to manipulate doors, chests, and other such trappable things from a safe distance.




Mage hand has never been able to open anything but the simplest of doors in any campaign I have ever run.  Your "rules laywer" can argue however he likes, but after he makes his case and a competent DM says "you attempt that.... and fail" life goes on.  

Speaking of the rules, the second sentence of "open/close" specifically says that it cant open anything with a lock



> You can open or close (your choice) a door, chest, box, window, bag,  pouch, bottle, barrel, or other container. If anything resists this  activity (such as a bar on a door or a lock on a chest), the spell  fails.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 2, 2012)

Mage Hand
Transmutation
Level: Brd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One nonmagical, unattended
object weighing up to 5 lb.
Duration: Concentration
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

You point your finger at an object and can
lift it and move it at will from a distance.
As a move action, you can propel the object
as far as 15 feet in any direction,
though the spell ends if the distance
between you and the object ever exceeds
the spell’s range.

I see nothing here about opening or closing anything. All I see is moving objects.


----------



## Serendipity (May 2, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I see nothing here about opening or closing anything. All I see is moving objects.




That's because he's talking about Open/Close.   Different spell.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 2, 2012)

Serendipity said:


> That's because he's talking about Open/Close.   Different spell.




Ahhh...Well I can guarantee you that most wooden doors weigh more than 30 pounds. I don't even know why they mention doors that are enormous. 

My brother-in-law has doors in his house that weigh 65 to 70 pounds each. They are wooden trimmed in metal.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 2, 2012)

hanez said:


> Mage hand has never been able to open anything but the simplest of doors in any campaign I have ever run.  Your "rules laywer" can argue however he likes, but after he makes his case and a competent DM says "you attempt that.... and fail" life goes on.
> 
> Speaking of the rules, the second sentence of "open/close" specifically says that it cant open anything with a lock
> 
> You can open or close (your choice) a door, chest, box, window, bag,   pouch, bottle, barrel, or other container. If anything resists this   activity (such as a bar on a door or a lock on a chest), the spell   fails.​




​The way I read it it says it can't open anything that _is_ locked or fastened.  If it has a lock but is unlocked then it can.  Or you can mage hand the door handle then open/close the door for simple shut doors.


----------



## JasonZZ (May 2, 2012)

Derren said:


> And yet that was how 4E was balanced and what many people seems to want/like.
> That in combat no class is better than the other.




I notice you say nothing about whether classes are *identical* to one another in a 4e combat, because they are not. Not even between classes with the same role. In some cases, not even between different builds of the same class--an archer ranger is very different from a two-weapon ranger, and neither plays like a rogue or warlock, to make one example.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 2, 2012)

Derren said:


> And yet that was how 4E was balanced and what many people seems to want/like.
> That in combat no class is better than the other.




No, it really wasn't.  The only way in which "powers" were homogeneous was that they all came in flavors of at will, encounter and daily.  [XW] damage made weapon choice more personal and meaningful.  A lot of powers had riders, but there is a huge diversity of riders.  A lot of powers had conditions, but there were at least a dozen different conditions and those were paired up in unique ways with the powers.  

Sure, if you look at each power as x[W], rider, yeah, they all seem pretty much the same, but that's really cutting things down to a level of simplicity that gives no credit to the creativity of many powers.

Yes, they got rid of stuff scaling with faster level, but that was hardly unique.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 2, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> [/INDENT]The way I read it it says it can't open anything that _is_ locked or fastened.  If it has a lock but is unlocked then it can.  Or you can mage hand the door handle then open/close the door for simple shut doors.




Your DM may allow you to Mage Hand a door open but the description of the spell tells what it can do. The spell can lift and move objects that weighs a certain amount. It says nothing about opening doors.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 2, 2012)

Derren said:


> > Originally Posted by Hussar
> > Perhaps you could clarify your position on what you believe to be balance between classes and we could move forward. As it stands, you seem to be equating balance with homogeneity.
> 
> 
> ...



4e initially used an underlying structure that helped balance classes.  It's often called 'AEDU,' but it's really a little more than that.  It's a single experience progression that all classes use.  That's not even unique to 4e.  3e used a single experience progression, and all classes got, for instance, a hit die and skill points at every level.  

That's the about the limit of the 'homogeneity.'   While a common structure does make balance much easier - you need only balance encounters against encounters, dailies against dailies, class features against class features - it is not, in itself an example of balance.  In a sense, it's more a matter of sacrificing one source of balance to enable another.

To explain that, I have to get into a definition of balance.  One of the best I've heard is that, in a game, balance is greater the more meaningful and viable choices that are available.  Lack of choices is not balance.  Presence of choices is not balance.  Choices have to be real choices to attain some balance.


Now, 4e is very nicely balanced for a version of D&D.  Take the number of classes for instance.  There are over 20 classes, more if you include sub-classes.  Of those, a few are noticeably lacking, and could be judged (rather harshly) as non-viable or meaningless choices.  If you were to be equally harsh with 3.x core classes, you could reasonably assert that the 3 top-optimization-tier classes - the Cleric, Druid and Wizard - were the only really viable and meaningful choices of class in the game (ironically, the top-tier classes are all 'vancian' full casters, so use prettymuch the same underlying structure - class features plus spell slots, new spell levels at odd caster levels - so they're about as homogeneous as 4e classes in that sense). 

Not to pile-on 3e balance, but two of the top-tier classes were 'vancian' with their entire spell lists effectively 'known,' meaning the actual differences between any two characters of one of those classes could be pretty minimal: given the same expectations for the day, two vancian casters with the same spells known are likely to prepare very similar slates of spells. 


Now, as to combat balance, yes, 4e classes are probably best-balanced around combat.  There are some, like the fighter, with a distinct lack of out-of-combat options.  In combat each class is quite different, even within a given role, but each is viable - of comparable overall effectiveness and consistency of contribution to the party.  So, that is a good example of balance.  

The alternative is not 'more choice but less balance,' but 'less balance, and consequently fewer real choices.'


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 2, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Your DM may allow you to Mage Hand a door open but the description of the spell tells what it can do. The spell can lift and move objects that weighs a certain amount. It says nothing about opening doors.




If my DM allows me to Mage Hand a door when I am casting Open/Close at it and quoting the relevant part of the Open/Close text, I wonder why he's looking at the wrong spell.  And if my DM doesn't allow me to open a door with the Open/Close spell I wonder what the point of that spell existing is.

And this is a serious problem with wizards.  There is an entire kitchen sink full of spells and what one spell can't do another probably can.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 2, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Creative interpretation is fine home games but you can't use it when discussing the credibility of RAW game rules.



But I thought combat-as-war was a positive feature of previous editions!!?


----------



## Hussar (May 2, 2012)

Derren said:


> And yet that was how 4E was balanced and what many people seems to want/like.
> That in combat no class is better than the other.




I disagree.

This is how you interpret 4e balance.  That's pretty obvious.  But, could you please clarify how YOU define class balance so that we can move this conversation forward.  What do you consider to be the elements that are required for two classes to be balanced in play?


----------



## Hussar (May 2, 2012)

I'd also point out on the door tangent, that if your doors require more than thirty or so pounds of pressure to open, that's a seriously stuck door.

Look, even without going all splat book, you can pretty much eliminate the rogue fairly easily.  A 5th level wizard needs 5000 xp to go to 6th level.  Lets say he takes craft wand (a bonus feat) and gives up 10% of his xp for the level - 500 xp.  500 xp worth of crafting is 25000 gp worth of crafted wands (50k gp at full market price).  IOW, it's enough to make about 20 1st and 2nd level wands.  It will take him about three weeks to do this.  Not exactly a huge time expenditure.  Most campaigns do allow you to take a couple of weeks between adventures.

With 20 wands, the group now has 2 cure light wands per PC and 10 or 12 more wands to cover all the more common utility spells.  That means that the whole Vancian limits goes straight out the window.

At 6th level, he gives up 500 more xp and crafts scrolls.  Yup, he'll be lagging a bit behind, but, never a full level - only a bit.  He'll certainly level up before anyone else levels another level.  This gives him about 100 scrolls of 1st -3rd level.  Again, enough scrolls that any spell he could possibly want to cast (including any cleric spell since we'd obviously have the characters work together) is readily available.

From that point on, he adds a bit here and there, higher level scrolls and whatnot and replacing used scrolls.

This doesn't require anything from any splat book.  It doesn't require a single magic mart.  It only requires a single feat from the PHB.

So all the verbiage about magic marts, and limiting splats, and the DM "reining things in" is ludicrous.  It's a single feat.  It is a minor expense.  And it makes the caster characters into pretty much At Will casters with none of the limitations of Vancian casting.


----------



## Hussar (May 2, 2012)

EW said:
			
		

> ExploderWizard:
> 
> Yup. 1E doesn't have this problem. 3E is boned at the core.




Well, 1e has a barrel full of its own issues.  Class balance is a joke.  The high level casters still completely crush the low level casters.  Heck, if you need proof, you only have to look at the high level AD&D modules.  In high level AD&D modules, the fighter types typically lose 2 "plusses" from their items.  The casters have a three page list of nerfs stripping their spell lists.

Never mind the other side where the wizard player is sitting in the corner twiddling his thumbs for three levels before he actually gets to contribute to the game regularly.

Yes, 3e has issues, but, 1e has issues equally as serious and pernicious.


----------



## billd91 (May 2, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Never mind the other side where the wizard player is sitting in the corner twiddling his thumbs for three levels before he actually gets to contribute to the game regularly.
> 
> Yes, 3e has issues, but, 1e has issues equally as serious and pernicious.




Back in 1e, wizards may have blown their magic fast, but that was a far cry from being unable to contribute in the game regularly. If that was your experience, then I feel sorry for you but you *chose* to be useless.


----------



## Bluenose (May 2, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Back in 1e, wizards may have blown their magic fast, but that was a far cry from being unable to contribute in the game regularly. If that was your experience, then I feel sorry for you but you *chose* to be useless.




This is interesting, because there are people in the "Fighter Design" thread saying that if the Wizard blows all their spells and the Fighter can just shrug them off, that's bad design and not what they want. Are they choosing to be useless?


----------



## billd91 (May 2, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> This is interesting, because there are people in the "Fighter Design" thread saying that if the Wizard blows all their spells and the Fighter can just shrug them off, that's bad design and not what they want. Are they choosing to be useless?




Clearly not since they don't want their spells to simply be shrugged off. Based on that, I don't think the question you're asking is really the question you want to be asking.

That said, even if the fighter was ultimately shrugging the spells off, presumably he's not completely unhampered (which would be bad design). So even in that sense they aren't being useless. Again, this makes me wonder if you're really asking the question you want to be asking in the passage above.


----------



## Bluenose (May 2, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Clearly not since they don't want their spells to simply be shrugged off. Based on that, I don't think the question you're asking is really the question you want to be asking.
> 
> That said, even if the fighter was ultimately shrugging the spells off, presumably he's not completely unhampered (which would be bad design). So even in that sense they aren't being useless. Again, this makes me wonder if you're really asking the question you want to be asking in the passage above.




If the wizard is unable to achieve, with their spells, the things they want to achieve, can people complain about this or will they be told that they're choosing to be useless? In the 1e case, where this is true for a 1st-level wizard who only has one spell each day, once they've used it you claim quite explicitly that if they feel they can't contribute then that is their own fault. In the D&DN case, people are saying that if a wizard throws all their spells at a fighter and seen them shrugged off leaves them ineffective. Are they in fact also choosing to be useless? Does having a mechanical means to contribute to a situation matter at all? This divide is going to be one of the fundamental philosophical aspects of D&DN design, and how the designers approach it is going to say a lot about what the edition will play as.


----------



## billd91 (May 2, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> If the wizard is unable to achieve, with their spells, the things they want to achieve, can people complain about this or will they be told that they're choosing to be useless? In the 1e case, where this is true for a 1st-level wizard who only has one spell each day, once they've used it you claim quite explicitly that if they feel they can't contribute then that is their own fault. In the D&DN case, people are saying that if a wizard throws all their spells at a fighter and seen them shrugged off leaves them ineffective. Are they in fact also choosing to be useless? Does having a mechanical means to contribute to a situation matter at all? This divide is going to be one of the fundamental philosophical aspects of D&DN design, and how the designers approach it is going to say a lot about what the edition will play as.




I think there's a question of whether or not the wizard's spells are actually ineffective because they can't be effective, partially effective but not decisive, or could be effective but via bad luck didn't happen to be effective. If the wizard knew he was going to be utterly ineffective by those castings and chose to cast them anyway, then yes, he's choosing to be fairly useless... at least, unless there's another end he's pursuing. 

That said, I'm not sure there always needs to be an obvious or direct mechanical means to contribute to a situation or that a character's primary abilities need to always be an effective option. In fact, I think the game's better if the primary abilities have to get side-lined from time to time and force the players to approach challenges in alternate ways beyond their primary methods and *find* ways to contribute.


----------



## eamon (May 2, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Look, even without going all splat book, you can pretty much eliminate the rogue fairly easily.  A 5th level wizard needs 5000 xp to go to 6th level.  Lets say he takes craft wand (a bonus feat) and gives up 10% of his xp for the level - 500 xp_[...]_



In my experience, people are quite reluctant to pay XP costs.  Also, that's just one level; you'll want to do it more often eventually.

Not that I'm really disagreeing that wands are a good idea - but usually people would rather pay the extra factor 2 in gold rather than the XP cost.  Not to mention the fact that that much gold is huge at those levels.  25k in gold?  That's a little more than the full wealth-by-level loot a 12th level character can expect to find.

Also, if you want to find traps+disable them+open locks+sneak/scout, you're looking at quite a few spells, and not just from one class.  You'll be paying a lot to really replace the rogue's skills.

I think the problem here isn't the caster so much as the rogue.  Just like most people don't want to play "just" a healer, a rogue-as-gizmo-engineer isn't that exciting in play.  And it's a little tricky at the table  anyhow because it's often not a group activity.  Basically, the rogue is screwed because he forces the DM to choose between making only him happy or making everyone else happy.  And so naturally the kind of stories that emerge from D&D's traditional cooperative storytelling don't favor the rogue.

In 5e, I'd hope that skills are a recognizable feature of the rogue, but not an exclusively defining one. It just doesn't work well.  And if skill advantages are broad enough and flexible enough, then a duplicating ritual or spell isn't so bad; particularly not if there are some downsides like duration, cost and (for _knock_) the noise.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2012)

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], I think you are misunderstanding [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION].

You (billd91) said that a player who feels his/her low-level wizard PC can do nothing when out of spells is choosing to be useless.

Bluenose is saying: OK, by that standard a player who feels that his/her high level wizard will be able to contribute nothing if the fighter is just able to shrug of his/her spells is _also_ presumably choosing to be useless.

Or, to put it another way: if your "choosing to be useless" claim is true, it follows that utility, for a wizard, is not a function of being able to use spells to achieve things. And Bluenose is pointing out that many players feel otherwise - not just Hussar, but all those complaining about a design in which high level fighters can shrug off a high level wizard's magic.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> That was never the intention to start with. The intention was to give rogueless parties a chance to at least open doors



And how does a party without a wizard fly? Or deploy artillery? How does a party without a cleric heal?

I've never understood why thieves and fighters should be substitutable by spellcasters, but not vice versa. Or to flip it around - if spell casters are essential, why not non-spell casters also?


----------



## WarlockLord (May 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> And how does a party without a wizard fly? Or deploy artillery? How does a party without a cleric heal?
> 
> I've never understood why thieves and fighters should be substitutable by spellcasters, but not vice versa. Or to flip it around - if spell casters are essential, why not non-spell casters also?




The fighter jumps super high like a final fantasy dragoon.  And the warlord inspires everyone.  Any more questions?


----------



## MichaelSomething (May 3, 2012)

billd91 said:


> In fact, I think the game's better if the primary abilities have to get side-lined from time to time and force the players to approach challenges in alternate ways beyond their primary methods and *find* ways to contribute.




True, but if primary abilities are rendered constantly side-lined by the rules, the game is unbalanced.


----------



## Shemeska (May 3, 2012)

They don't. As long as a class is fun to play and isn't rendered useless by another class, I don't see what the obsessive fuss is about that makes "balance" a central design goal to the point that it hurts other aspects of the game.

There's a certain amount of balance fetishism that suddenly appeared circa 2008 that I didn't see before and that I really don't understand.


----------



## ren1999 (May 3, 2012)

Derren said:


> But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to +do everything as well as all the others?




Every class needs to have something that another class doesn't have.

A wizard type can't have as many hit points as a fighter type or nobody would play a fighter. But because a wizard type doesn't have many hit points, you've got to give the wizard type something, that's where burst damage comes in.

That's why we shouldn't allow wizards to have healing spells, so that people will see the benefits of having a cleric type. Clerics can wear armor but they shouldn't be able to wear the heaviest armor just like a fighter. 

Only a rogue type should be allowed to try to pick locks. 

This is why I oppose allowing each class to have a balanced number of skills in addition to their spells. Why have a rogue class at all if a wizard was once a thief and can pick locks just as well. Now if the wizard wants to give up studying some spells, then perhaps multi-class would be o.k.

All of these balancing ideas were with the game from the beginning. They got kind of muddled with feats and skills in later editions. Feats and skills are fine but they should be grouped with martial, spells and prayers and characters should have to expend some level-up intelligence+modifier+2 or more points to get them or increase ranks. 

My Dungeons & Dragons Hybrid Game for Firefox and Chrome kira3696.tripod.com/CombatTracker.rar


----------



## Bluenose (May 3, 2012)

Shemeska said:


> They don't. As long as a class is fun to play and isn't rendered useless by another class, I don't see what the obsessive fuss is about that makes "balance" a central design goal to the point that it hurts other aspects of the game.
> 
> There's a certain amount of balance fetishism that suddenly appeared circa 2008 that I didn't see before and that I really don't understand.




The problem being, that if you want to make sure that a class isn't "rendered useless" by another class, then you have to give some consideration to balance. I'd go further, and suggest that if a class can be replaced by a different class, and the group would then be more effective at overcoming almost all challenges over a normal array of the activities that D&D groups get involved in, then that is a sign that something is wrong with the design of one of those classes. 

Please note, E Gary Gygax quite explicitly calls this out in the AD&D 1st edition PHB and DMG, saying that classes have been modified so they should not overshadow each other. You could also read some Dragon magazine editorials or examine the letters pages for further examples from the 1970s and 1980s. You could even look back at some of the comments about 3rd edition that appeared in 2000, where you will find a significant number of complaints about the new system and how some classes are too powerful. So the idea that balance fetishism was a new idea in 2008 is one that is not supported by the history of D&D. People have been talking about blanace longer than I have been playing the game, and I started before any AD&D books came out.


----------



## eamon (May 3, 2012)

ren1999 said:


> Every class needs to have something that another class doesn't have.



No - every class should be _useful_ to a party.  He doesn't need an exclusive shtick (which incidentally would be almost impossible with so many classes).



ren1999 said:


> Only a rogue type should be allowed to try to pick locks.



Lockpicking is a poor class focus because it's not party friendly; so even if you succeed in keeping it exclusive (unlikely), you'll either end up with campaigns without locks or with less inclusive gameplay whereby players essentially solo different bits of the game.  

The problem here is the rogue, not the caster: it was never good design to have a class that works best _without_ a party.  Being a skill-monkey is a good start as a rogue, but there needs to be more to the class because any individual skill _will_ be duplicated by some other PC if necessary.  And as soon as the class is generally useful enough, you'll find that "replacing" iconic abilities like lockpicking via spellcasting becomes less attractive simply because it comes at significant opportunity cost - and if a rogue is generally strong enough, you might as well let him do the lockpicking.

Take 4e as an example: there the rogue is a very effective skirmisher too.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2012)

WarlockLord said:


> The fighter jumps super high like a final fantasy dragoon.  And the warlord inspires everyone.  Any more questions?



My impression is that most of those who are defending the Knock spell as a rogue subsitute are not big fans of superheroic martial abilities, nor of martial healing. Nor of turning the rogue into a "striker" whose functional contribution is defined not in terms of skills-first but skirmisher-first.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2012)

Shemeska said:


> They don't. As long as a class is fun to play and isn't rendered useless by another class, I don't see what the obsessive fuss is about that makes "balance" a central design goal to the point that it hurts other aspects of the game.
> 
> There's a certain amount of balance fetishism that suddenly appeared circa 2008 that I didn't see before and that I really don't understand.



As [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] said, there is extensive reference to balance by Gygax in the AD&D books. It is also called out as an important consideration in the Moldvay Basic rulebook.

My own view is that balance - conceived of as comparable mechanical effectiveness across the classes in contributing to typical scenarios and situations - was seen to be less important in a certain sort of 2nd ed play which downplayed the action resolution mechanics altogether for a mixture instead of freeforming and GM fiat.

Another feature of 2nd ed, and one sees it coming up also in this thread, is that the GM is said to have a special job to do in maintaining balance, by telling players how they may and may not build their PCs. In my view that sort of GM approach is not really viable in a game which expectes PC building to be a signficant element in the game - whether because part of the skill of playing the game is building an effective PC (this is a part of 4e, and I gather quite a _big_ part of 3E for many people), or because part of the point of playing the game is for the player to control the PC and the PC's development (this player protagonism is a big part of 4e, and presumably a part of 3E too).


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> My own view is that balance - conceived of as comparable mechanical effectiveness across the classes in contributing to typical scenarios and situations - was seen to be less important in a certain sort of 2nd ed play which downplayed the action resolution mechanics altogether for a mixture instead of freeforming and GM fiat.



Yes, I think game balance has been a high priority throughout most of D&D's history, but was at its lowest ebb during 2e. Funnily enough, I think the word 'fetishism' applies better to the attitude towards wizards and elves in 2e, particularly in Forgotten Realms-related material.


----------



## Drowbane (May 3, 2012)

Derren said:


> Many people complained about unbalanced classes in previous editions and expressed the hope that all classes will finally be balanced against each other.
> 
> But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?




In short, they don't.

I played 2e for almost a decade and despite the fact that my players and I knew that casters were total badasses past a certain level, we never lacked for fighters and thieves (or fighter/thieves). And I kid you not, I once had half of one of my 2e groups whine at me because my fighter was showing up thier characters. A Bard, Wizard, and Druid. Yay for splat books (elf and fighter handbook was all that took ).

I have also played 3e off and on since 2000. My first 3e character was a dwarven barbarian / fighter. I have played 10* of of the 11 PHB classes at great length. I enjoy casters the most, but I am cool with rolling up a fighter or whatever if thats what the party needs. 

*I do not play Bards.

edit: Gygaxian D&D was not "balanced" the way 4e fans explain "balance". Magic Users of a certain level were strictly better in nearly every way compared to their meat-shield companions... but those fighting men were still necessary and my groups never saw a lack of people who liked playing warriors.


----------



## billd91 (May 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> And how does a party without a wizard fly? Or deploy artillery? How does a party without a cleric heal?
> 
> I've never understood why thieves and fighters should be substitutable by spellcasters, but not vice versa. Or to flip it around - if spell casters are essential, why not non-spell casters also?




How do they do it? With magical equipment on one hand. Boots of flying, flying carpets, rings of flying, winged cape, and a variety of other materials.

Also, don't forget the choices the PCs make. A party with no clerics and wizards should choose to engage in things suited for their abilities so substitution is less likely to be necessary in the first place. Alternatively, they can hire a cohort or henchman.


----------



## billd91 (May 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], I think you are misunderstanding [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION].
> 
> You (billd91) said that a player who feels his/her low-level wizard PC can do nothing when out of spells is choosing to be useless.
> 
> ...




I don't see how those situations track as being a similar standard at all. The wizard in D&D, with one spell, has other options in combat and exploration. They may not be as suited for them as other types of PCs are, but that won't stop the wizard from making valuable contributions.

I'm going to reiterate that we need to know more about the situation of the fighter shrugging off the wizard's spells. Are they having any effect at all, just not an encounter-ending one? Could they but are failing to do so because the fighter's rolling hot on his saving throws? Or is this like casting charm person at a brick wall - something the wizard knows *can't* work yet he does it anyway?

If it's the last one, then he is pretty much choosing to be as useless as the wizard who hangs back and laments he can't do anything other than cast sleep once a day. But if it's either of the two previous options, then no he isn't choosing to be useless even if he isn't being particularly successful at stopping the fighter.

But again, this has nothing to do with looking at your single spell and concluding that there's nothing else you can do for the rest of the day.


----------



## Drowbane (May 3, 2012)

Piratecat said:


> They don't have to do everything as well as each other. Classes need niches (which means spells like _Knock _aren't awesome.) But a player should be able to have roughly the same amount of fun and effectiveness in combat with any class.




Knock (and other "niche replacing" spells) *is* awesome. However, it does not exist to replace the thief, it exists so that the mage can fill in when the thief doesn't show up. Mages who uses knock when the party has a locksmaster is just a jerk. 

I always learn knock, but I rarely memorize it unless the group lacks a thief.


----------



## Hussar (May 3, 2012)

billd91 said:


> How do they do it? With magical equipment on one hand. Boots of flying, flying carpets, rings of flying, winged cape, and a variety of other materials.
> 
> Also, don't forget the choices the PCs make. A party with no clerics and wizards should choose to engage in things suited for their abilities so substitution is less likely to be necessary in the first place. Alternatively, they can hire a cohort or henchman.




So, the solution to not having a given class is to bring in an NPC of that class?  Well, that's one solution sure.  But, it doesn't really address the idea that a given class is a necessity.  

Balance, at least how I understand it, means that no given choice is inherently better than all other choices.  Yes, in some circumstances, one choice might be better than another (in a ranged combat, having a ranged attack of some sort is an obviously better choice, but hardly unbalanced) but, overall, there should not be one choice that is just better.

2e two weapon fighting is my poster child for this.  TWF in 2e was just flat out better than all other melee fighting styles.  You doubled your attacks, which likely did more than double your average damage, at the cost of 1 point of AC and a couple of proficiencies.  There was no other choice that could come close.  

So, IME, in 2e, every character that could, took two weapon fighting.  Why wouldn't you?  Not doing it was deliberately playing with a handicap.

How does this apply to classes?  Well, that's pretty obvious.  If one class is just better (or worse) than other classes, then it becomes pretty obvious that chosing that class is a better idea.  That's the whole point of the idea of the Tiered classes analysis.  The casters are on top with everyone following.

Yes, in your group, you might have seen lots of fighters.  Not everyone worries about it.  True.  But, it's still bad game design.  

Let me put it this way.  If I came to you and said that humans gain no bonuses.  None.  And, all other classes gain nothing but bonuses, would that be good game design?  Why or why not?  If balance doesn't matter, then you'd still see lots of humans being played wouldn't you?  

Or, reverse it.  All non-humans are now limited to 5th level.  Humans can advance unlimited levels.  Good design?  Not likely.  You're not likely to see a non-human PC.  If you want everyone to be human, I suppose this is a good way to do it.  But, generally, if you want a given option to be taken, it has to be at least in the same ballpark as other options.


----------



## Hussar (May 3, 2012)

billd91 said:


> /snip
> 
> If it's the last one, then he is pretty much choosing to be as useless as the wizard who hangs back and laments he can't do anything other than cast sleep once a day. But if it's either of the two previous options, then no he isn't choosing to be useless even if he isn't being particularly successful at stopping the fighter.
> 
> But again, this has nothing to do with looking at your single spell and concluding that there's nothing else you can do for the rest of the day.




What can my wizard do after he has cast his one spell a day that no other character can do?  I'm a 3rd level wizard, say.  I've got 10 HP, a 8 AC and a bunch of darts and a THAC0 of 20.  What am I actually contributing to the session after I've spent my three spells for the day?  I can't hit anything.  When I do hit, my damage is minimal.  I have no talent that allows me to detect traps or anything like that.  I can't meat shield.  

So, what am I contributing that I couldn't be contributing with any other character?


----------



## billd91 (May 3, 2012)

Hussar said:


> So, the solution to not having a given class is to bring in an NPC of that class?  Well, that's one solution sure.  But, it doesn't really address the idea that a given class is a necessity.




The thing is, I'm not sure that's a real problem. It's a role playing game in which PCs have a lot of freedom to choose the lives they want to lead - or more accurately, the players have a lot of freedom to choose the way they want their PCs to live and make a living. Ultimately, I'm not sure it matters whether or not the healing duties are carried out by a PC or by a hired cohort, whether you hire a thief to pick your locks for you and otherwise bear your torches or those things are done by PCs.

My take on these sorts of things is play the characters you want to play. Choose to do the things you want to do. And if you're finding gaps in coverage while doing so, figure out how you want to fill them, avoid them, or endure them. If your style of play requires those duties to be filled by a PC, then realize that it's your style preference that puts that requirement on your and constrains your choices.


----------



## Hussar (May 3, 2012)

billd91 said:


> The thing is, I'm not sure that's a real problem. It's a role playing game in which PCs have a lot of freedom to choose the lives they want to lead - or more accurately, the players have a lot of freedom to choose the way they want their PCs to live and make a living. Ultimately, I'm not sure it matters whether or not the healing duties are carried out by a PC or by a hired cohort, whether you hire a thief to pick your locks for you and otherwise bear your torches or those things are done by PCs.
> 
> My take on these sorts of things is play the characters you want to play. Choose to do the things you want to do. And if you're finding gaps in coverage while doing so, figure out how you want to fill them, avoid them, or endure them. If your style of play requires those duties to be filled by a PC, then realize that it's your style preference that puts that requirement on your and constrains your choices.




Or, conversely, play the characters you want to play, and don't penalize groups for not adhering to the single mode of play dictated by the mechanics.  Allow enough flexibility to have your cake and eat it too.  

IOW, why use the stick approach?  If the group wants to be all rogues (for example), why shouldn't the mechanics support that instead of burying the group?


----------



## billd91 (May 3, 2012)

Hussar said:


> What can my wizard do after he has cast his one spell a day that no other character can do?  I'm a 3rd level wizard, say.  I've got 10 HP, a 8 AC and a bunch of darts and a THAC0 of 20.  What am I actually contributing to the session after I've spent my three spells for the day?  I can't hit anything.  When I do hit, my damage is minimal.  I have no talent that allows me to detect traps or anything like that.  I can't meat shield.
> 
> So, what am I contributing that I couldn't be contributing with any other character?




Why does your contribution, after that sleep spell, have to be unique?


----------



## Hussar (May 3, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Why does your contribution, after that sleep spell, have to be unique?




Well, there's a couple of points here.  

1.  Sorry to answer a question with a question, but, how do you explain every subsequent edition of D&D giving casters more spells up front if it's not a recognition that spending the first three levels sitting on your hands is boring?  2e gives us specialist wizards with significant more spells per day and 3e gives us even more spells per day with options for taking it through the roof.  Why?

2.  I have a choice of class when I create a character.  Partially I choose a class because I want to play that class.  I play a fighter to hit things with lumpy metal bits.  I play a thief/rogue to sneak around and find traps.  And, I think rather unsurprisingly, I play a wizard to cast spells.  I don't play classes to be a commoner 90% of the time for the first several weeks of play.  

When I did play AD&D (either 1e or 2e), if I played a wizard, I almost never played a single classed character because it was boring.  Cleric?  No problem.  Heck, other than cure light wounds, I'm probably not casting any spells at all for the first three levels.  But a wizard?  Nope.  Played tons of wizard/clerics or wizard/thief, but straight wizard?  Snore.  No thanks.  I'd rather play a class that lets me contribute to the game as that class most of the time.


----------



## Trance-Zg (May 3, 2012)

If we have classes that are equally balanced around the 3 pillars and have more ore less equal amount of spell/powers and feats and same inpact on combat then we have character that are:

1st one: blue circle that fires out blue square that deals blue triangle amount of damage.

2nd one: red circle that fires out red square that deals red triangle amount of damage.

3rd one: green circle that fires out green square that deals green triangle amount of damage.

...

feel free to add more colors if you like.



If you want to say it differently: BOOOOORING!

*Admin here. This post isn't a problem, but it seems like a fantastic opportunity to mention that edition warring in XP comments is still edition warring, and will be dealt with accordingly. Don't use it for such, please.  - Piratecat*


----------



## billd91 (May 3, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Well, there's a couple of points here.
> 
> 1.  Sorry to answer a question with a question, but, how do you explain every subsequent edition of D&D giving casters more spells up front if it's not a recognition that spending the first three levels sitting on your hands is boring?  2e gives us specialist wizards with significant more spells per day and 3e gives us even more spells per day with options for taking it through the roof.  Why?




But none of those spell resources are infinite either. The 1st level specialist in 2e has, what?, one more spell before being in the same "useless" state. 3e's wizard may have a bonus spell by intelligence and a few cantrips. Again, still not infinite and still only useless if the player puts *himself* in that category.

So why increase spellcasting resources? Because the market seems to demand it, which still doesn't indicate that the spellcaster is useless without the spells.



Hussar said:


> 2.  I have a choice of class when I create a character.  Partially I choose a class because I want to play that class.  I play a fighter to hit things with lumpy metal bits.  I play a thief/rogue to sneak around and find traps.  And, I think rather unsurprisingly, I play a wizard to cast spells.  I don't play classes to be a commoner 90% of the time for the first several weeks of play.
> 
> When I did play AD&D (either 1e or 2e), if I played a wizard, I almost never played a single classed character because it was boring.  Cleric?  No problem.  Heck, other than cure light wounds, I'm probably not casting any spells at all for the first three levels.  But a wizard?  Nope.  Played tons of wizard/clerics or wizard/thief, but straight wizard?  Snore.  No thanks.  I'd rather play a class that lets me contribute to the game as that class most of the time.




So why should *your* preferences be an indictment of the system rather than an indictment of your tendency to keep playing a system that doesn't work for you?


----------



## Herschel (May 3, 2012)

billd91 said:


> But none of those spell resources are infinite either. The 1st level specialist in 2e has, what?, one more spell before being in the same "useless" state. 3e's wizard may have a bonus spell by intelligence and a few cantrips. Again, still not infinite and still only useless if the player puts *himself* in that category.



 The point is, no character should be useless for a large chunk of the game. If you're just tossing darts and saving your spell, that's still useless, just useless with potential to serve a purpose at some point.  And when you get to the powerful levels, then non-casters become useless most of the time. 



> So why increase spellcasting resources? Because the market seems to demand it, which still doesn't indicate that the spellcaster is useless without the spells.




This is illogical. The market demands more spellcasting resources because low-level casters are not fun without them. If they were, there would be no demand for more. Cause & Effect.


----------



## Remathilis (May 3, 2012)

Hussar said:


> When I did play AD&D (either 1e or 2e), if I played a wizard, I almost never played a single classed character because it was boring.  Cleric?  No problem.  Heck, other than cure light wounds, I'm probably not casting any spells at all for the first three levels.  But a wizard?  Nope.  Played tons of wizard/clerics or wizard/thief, but straight wizard?  Snore.  No thanks.  I'd rather play a class that lets me contribute to the game as that class most of the time.




Funny, I learned the same lesson with 2e thieves. Since there was rarely a point to playing one beyond 9th level, I found pairing them with mage or fighter made a lot of sense. In fact, I enjoyed my mage/thief more than I did my longstanding single class thief.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2012)

billd91 said:


> A party with no clerics and wizards should choose to engage in things suited for their abilities so substitution is less likely to be necessary in the first place. Alternatively, they can hire a cohort or henchman.



So why shouldn't this apply in reverse, then? If the party has no PC thief, why should they not just be avoiding locked doors and trapped rooms, or alternatively sucking up the traps and having the cleric heal, or alternatively hiring a thief henchman? Why the need for a Knock or Find Traps spell?



billd91 said:


> How do they do it? With magical equipment on one hand. Boots of flying, flying carpets, rings of flying, winged cape, and a variety of other materials.



And isn't this where the balance issue lies? If the answer is "do it with magic", then PC classes who can use magic (ie wizards and clerics) will always have an advantage. No doubt such a game is viable, but as Ars Magica recognises, it shouldn't be presented as one in which non-magic-users are equally viable PCs.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 4, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Well, 1e has a barrel full of its own issues. Class balance is a joke. The high level casters still completely crush the low level casters. Heck, if you need proof, you only have to look at the high level AD&D modules. In high level AD&D modules, the fighter types typically lose 2 "plusses" from their items. The casters have a three page list of nerfs stripping their spell lists.
> 
> Never mind the other side where the wizard player is sitting in the corner twiddling his thumbs for three levels before he actually gets to contribute to the game regularly.
> 
> Yes, 3e has issues, but, 1e has issues equally as serious and pernicious.




If pushing buttons from a character sheet are the limitations of your definition of contributing to the game then I think you are missing something. It is a common misconception that goes hand in hand with equating the game to the RAW. 

I have played 1E fighters and contributed to the game while not fighting, played clerics that contributed to the game while not fighting, casting spells, or turning undead, played thieves that contributed while not fighting, or trapfinding, or sneaking, and played wizards who contributed without fighting or casting. 

All these codified things that characters do as outlined in the rules are just that, mechanically codified activities. If that were the entire experience of play I don't believe OD&D would have gotten off the ground. 

Some feel the need to be constantly manipulating some mechanic or rolling dice to feel as if their contribution to a session is meaningful. Only through rules interaction do they feel important. I am sad for them.


----------



## DracoDruid (May 4, 2012)

Hello and greetings from germany.

While I like Pathfinder and understand that combat is an essential part of D&D (bin there since AD&D), I REALLY don't like this ongoing trend that every class get's reduced to its combat value/abilities.

Take a look at the PF Universalist Wizard: 1st level ability "Flying Weapon"?! WTF?
That's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever seen. Really.

Or the Bard, who's pinacle ability is to *drum-roll*... RIGHT! Kill someone.
It's a bard for Tyr's sake! So let him be a bard swaying the masses not some doofus guy SINGING(!) in combat! 
(That last part goes to all D&D)

Okay, after rampaging over PF, I'll get back to my point:

"Don't reduce all classes to their combat role!"

If you talk about balance, don't reduce it to combat balance. If you want to be great in combat play a fighter, if you want to be GREAT in manipulating people, play a bard!

A thief/rogue is a thief, not a battle-assassin (well, maybe not at first). The bard is a master of the word/story, not a battle-chanter, the cleric/priest should inflame the masses, not be a walking band-aid, the wizard should delve deep into the mysteries of the universe, not flung empowered fireballs around...

The exception to this are of course the warrior classes: namely fighter and  barbarian. But in case of the fighter, they (D&D3) just messed up.  Some additional feats and that's it?
(PF did some good here, but still not enough)

The fighter should be the one who REALLY controls the battlefield. Using tactics to spoil the attempts of their enemies, pinpointing weaknesses, holding ground against overwhelming numbers...
(Mechanic hints: changing his feats in combat, uncanny dodge, delaying action but acting before the triggering action, identifying monster types and vulnerabilities...)

So. Balance? Yes!
But please balance in an overall game sense, and not just combat balance.


----------



## Sadras (May 4, 2012)

From the last few posts I think the main problem of this class-balancing stems mostly from bad bad DMing. Lets face it, we all have difference experiences - and the main reason for this is the DM, not the player's handbooks.
Sure combat generally plays a major role in D&D and it overshadows a lot of the roleplaying and exploration aspect a lot of the time, especially when we were in our youth playing the older editions - but as we grow older, more roleplaying savvy, we explore the other aspects of the game.

If your roleplaying group is all about combat - then sure class balance and a wizard with more spells is probably best for you - hence you push for class-balancing during combat, which is understandable. BUT the game was not meant to be only/mostly combat. That is a style of play, not the only style of play.

Perhaps the new iteration will cater to those that wish to have a combat orientated group verses a mix. Not everyone wants class-balancing during combat. I believe it should be addressed in a large way within the DMG - defining the different styles of play and how it would affect the classes and if adjustments to the classes would be required to ensure enjoyment for all.

Summary - this class-balancing need/issue stems from style of play from the group/DM not from necessarily from poor class design as there are plenty of ppl playing older editions without any problems.


----------



## DracoDruid (May 4, 2012)

Well. Guess you are right.
My group always tries to make roleplaying more than just combat. But that's just us, and ignoring the fact, that many groups out there just love to dash from combat to combat would be wrong.
At least when it comes to game design.

So the game should be that much customizable, that both/all playing styles work well.

The question is: Is this goal even possible?


----------



## Minigiant (May 4, 2012)

Sadras said:


> From the last few posts I think the main problem of this class-balancing stems mostly from bad bad DMing. Lets face it, we all have difference experiences - and the main reason for this is the DM, not the player's handbooks.
> Sure combat generally plays a major role in D&D and it overshadows a lot of the roleplaying and exploration aspect a lot of the time, especially when we were in our youth playing the older editions - but as we grow older, more roleplaying savvy, we explore the other aspects of the game.
> 
> If your roleplaying group is all about combat - then sure class balance and a wizard with more spells is probably best for you - hence you push for class-balancing during combat, which is understandable. BUT the game was not meant to be only/mostly combat. That is a style of play, not the only style of play.
> ...





I disagree. I think the issue is that WOTC doesn't know how everyone plays, cannot force players to play a certain way, and thus cannot ignore a part of the game.

  Players, by default, want to be involved in the major aspects of the game. But  the part of the game that takes of the most time varies from group to  group. Some groups are heavy combat. Others are exploration and  interaction. Others are combat and interaction. 

The designers don't know how you play. Nor should they conform to your  group as the model of play if they ever find out how you play. So they  have to balance ever character within ever pillar. So the group that  spends 2 hours fighting and 10 minutes talking has every character  involve. So the group that is 2 hours of social and exploration each has  every character involved. So the ⅓ each group has every character  involved. Unless they use pillars, they either have to force a certain  time of gameplay or suggest banlists for character types/classes that  can't fit in some campaigns.    				_

Basically if you have three D&D groups with four PCs that play 3 hours a session:

Group 1 is a hack and slash of 90% combat.
Group 2 is a do a bank heist and is doing 2 hours Exploration and 3 hours Interaction
Groups 3 is during a complete campaign with 1/3 of each pillar. 

Now if there is a character that brings no combat ability and someone in Group 1 tries to play it, you will be doing nothing much of the time. Or an All combat character in Group 2. Now if the player wanted to be ineffective, kudos to them. But if the game is designed where whole groups of characters can't play in common game type...or is incapable out being useful for long periods of time... well it's not good.


----------



## DracoDruid (May 4, 2012)

Solution:
a) give every class abilities in every "pillar" aka situation.
Though, this might blurr the class concept

OR 

b) Make clear from the beginning, that certain classes are good/designed for certain roles/playstyles and avoid them in your group if they don't really fit.


I don't know which one might be the better solution.

In the end, I am pro point-buy. This is the only logical solution for real character flexibility and customization.
And I know, this wouldn't feel like D&D anymore.
But maybe this is the point...


----------



## Sadras (May 4, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> I disagree.



Ok. After reading your post I do not think you have understood mine.



Minigiant said:


> I think the issue is that WOTC doesn't know how everyone plays, cannot force players to play a certain way, and thus cannot ignore a part of the game.



I did not say players were to be forced to play any specific way or ignoring parts of the game. 



Minigiant said:


> Players, by default, want to be involved in the major aspects of the game. But the part of the game that takes of the most time varies from group to group. Some groups are heavy combat. Others are exploration and interaction. Others are combat and interaction.




This is repetition of everything I said just using different words.



> The designers don't know how you play. Nor should they conform to your group as the model of play if they ever find out how you play. So they have to balance ever character within ever pillar. So the group that spends 2 hours fighting and 10 minutes talking has every character involve. So the group that is 2 hours of social and exploration each has every character involved. So the ⅓ each group has every character involved. Unless they use pillars, they either have to force a certain time of gameplay or suggest banlists for character types/classes that can't fit in some campaigns.



The basis does not have to go by my style of play. The class basis in the PHB should be balanced classes, but not necesarily balanced combat design.

However the DMG should offer advice for all styles of play, including a combat orientated approach -which will be followed for the group. I did not declare that any types/classes should be banned. I said favourable ADJUSTMENTS could be added to classes/character types to promote a certain style of play that the group enjoys. 
For instance: Many groups added additional feats to classes in 3.5 (to speed up progression, to superceed the feat tax or to buff up a classes for combat..etc). 
We added proficiency skills in 2E. Similar thing.
That is a modification to an existing class. Adjustments like those and others could be used to balance classes in combat for combat-preferred groups/campaigns. 

You could do the same with skills take away - add-on, reduced or enchance spells...etc to suit the style of play for a group or campaign that wont break the system. It will be in the form of advice and a few options within the DMG to suit the style of play the group wants to run, everyone in the group, not one player or class.

Therefore mods to enchance one pillar or the other would be in the DMG to satisfy a certain style. Of course say in the *combat-mod* the wizard gains a spell every spell level, he/she would lose something in the explorative or roleplaying aspect of the base class - to keep the balance. The mod is to balance the characters in combat specifically (because of the style of the campaign being run).

Hope this makes more sense now and remember I only suggested this because we have a disparity in roleplaying styles/experiences across the board and that mostly due to DMs (refer to my previous post).


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 4, 2012)

Trance-Zg said:


> If we have classes that are equally balanced around the 3 pillars and have more ore less equal amount of spell/powers and feats and same inpact on combat then we have character that are:
> 
> 1st one: blue circle that fires out blue square that deals blue triangle amount of damage.
> 
> ...




What a fascinating surrealist world that game would be in. Inspired by Flatland and the new(ish) [ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shades-Grey-Jasper-Fforde/dp/0340963050/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1336129379&sr=8-5]series from Jasper Fforde[/ame] I assume. As a game about exploration and the meaning of the self, and the impact of the colour pallette on art. Possibly also about freedom in a number of guises - are single coloured entities looked up to or thought to be inferior and lesser? And how does reproduction work - are offspring of two different primary coloured entities secondary colours? I'm interested in the design decision to fire the same colour squares as the originating entity and yet use the three primary light colours rather than the three primary paint colours.

If you want to say it differently: Boring is what you make it. And ideas are easy enough to come by that the execution is what matters.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 4, 2012)

Every class gains an advantage over other classes in certain situations, that is a part of the game design. It's not broken and it's not bad game design, it is what it is. 

There is no difference in saying "The rogue overshadows my Wizard in this situation" and "In this situation, my rogue has it's chance to shine". 

It's all about the context. We come up with scenario's where class X looks bad and scenario's where class X is awesome. This can be done with each and every class so it's not a proper argument as to the design of a system.


----------



## Bluenose (May 4, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Every class gains an advantage over other classes in certain situations, that is a part of the game design. It's not broken and it's not bad game design, it is what it is.
> 
> There is no difference in saying "The rogue overshadows my Wizard in this situation" and "In this situation, my rogue has it's chance to shine".
> 
> It's all about the context. We come up with scenario's where class X looks bad and scenario's where class X is awesome. This can be done with each and every class so it's not a proper argument as to the design of a system.




Yes. The game can be designed with that sort of balance in mind. On the other hand, if it's designed so that one class gets to shine on the 29th of every month with an "F" in it, and another gets to shine when there's a "y" in the day, then it's possible that some people might feel their chance to shine doesn't come up quite as often as they'd like, _n'est ce pas_.


----------



## Campbell (May 4, 2012)

Let's face it. Higher level wizards simply have too many spell slots. From a functional standpoint the repertoire of a level 7+ wizard is too much of a burden to ask of the average player and with 30+ spells at your finger tips each individual spell feels less important. It also leads to our issue with spells like knock. Knock is awesome when you're using a precious limited resource to solve a problem and possibly hinder your ability to defeat the McBad at the end of the dungeon. Knock is not so awesome when you throw it into a bunch of lower level slots that aren't useful in tactical combat.

Here's what I'd like to see: Give all spell casters a reasonable number of spell slots (~15 at the high end), but make each spell count. Don't give spells levels. Learning a spell might have prerequisites including class level, and work on scaling spells so they stay relevant for longer. Plus make wizards more competent beyond casting so its okay for a spell caster not to Always Be Casting.


----------



## billd91 (May 4, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> Yes. The game can be designed with that sort of balance in mind. On the other hand, if it's designed so that one class gets to shine on the 29th of every month with an "F" in it, and another gets to shine when there's a "y" in the day, then it's possible that some people might feel their chance to shine doesn't come up quite as often as they'd like, _n'est ce pas_.




Fortunately, D&D has never been like that. Oh, wait, you're using hyperbole to artificially inflate an argument. Carry on.


----------



## steeldragons (May 4, 2012)

Campbell said:


> Let's face it. Higher level wizards simply have too many spell slots. From a functional standpoint the repertoire of a level 7+ wizard is too much of a burden to ask of the average player and with 30+ spells at your finger tips each individual spell feels less important.




In the game I play, a 7th level wizard has 10 spells for the day.

If that is "too much of a burden to ask of the average player"[] then I might suggest the "average player" not play a spellcaster.

Not really relevant to the conversation, sorry. Carry on.
--SD


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 4, 2012)

steeldragons said:


> In the game I play, a 7th level wizard has 10 spells for the day.
> 
> If that is "too much of a burden to ask of the average player"[] then I might suggest the "average player" not play a spellcaster.
> 
> ...



You play 1e I think?

Using just PHB material a 3.5 level 7 wizard with Int 18 (which isn't too hard by that point) gets three L4 spells, four L3, five L2, and six L1. Oh, and four cantrips. At level 9 with an Int of 20 (again this isn't really a challenge) it becomes 3 L5, 4 L4, 5 L3, 6 L2, and 7L1, and four cantrips - or 29 spells. Thirty isn't much of an exaggeration. (Admittedly you're probably a diviner or have just dropped evocation and enchantment, but there's nothing unmissable there).

If using the Focussed Specialist from Complete Mage, your total goes up by a further one spell slot/level but you're fairly tightly tied to your school. Still, the ability to throw four spells of your highest level per day is scary.

30 spells at your fingertips might be a challenge by level 7, but isn't an exaggeration by level 9.


----------



## Herschel (May 4, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Funny, I learned the same lesson with 2e thieves. Since there was rarely a point to playing one beyond 9th level, I found pairing them with mage or fighter made a lot of sense. In fact, I enjoyed my mage/thief more than I did my longstanding single class thief.




Another good example, just reversing low-levels vs. high levels. 

When characters have such large "unfun" space, that's an issue in game design. You shouldn't have to multiclass to alleviate a long period of suck.


----------



## Herschel (May 4, 2012)

Campbell said:


> Let's face it. Higher level wizards simply have too many spell slots. From a functional standpoint the repertoire of a level 7+ wizard is too much of a burden to ask of the average player and with 30+ spells at your finger tips each individual spell feels less important....
> 
> 
> Here's what I'd like to see: Give all spell casters a reasonable number of spell slots (~15 at the high end), but make each spell count. Don't give spells levels. Learning a spell might have prerequisites including class level, and work on scaling spells so they stay relevant for longer. Plus make wizards more competent beyond casting so its okay for a spell caster not to Always Be Casting.




This is what the AEDU system did. At first level you got your cantrips, basic attack spells, one decent (Encounter) attack spell and one "big knocker" (Daily) as well as the ability to perform basic rituals. You gain attack spells as you level up (3,5,7,9) until you have three of each but after that, you swap out a lower-level spell because you learned something "better" now. 

You get a couple of "signature spells" eventually through your paragon path and one via your epic destiny.

Using the same power structure for other classes gave them balance throughout as well where they were no longer boss at low-levels and useless at high levels as well as having cool things to do throughout. 

It really is a great system.


----------



## Remathilis (May 4, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Every class gains an advantage over other classes in certain situations, that is a part of the game design. It's not broken and it's not bad game design, it is what it is.
> 
> There is no difference in saying "The rogue overshadows my Wizard in this situation" and "In this situation, my rogue has it's chance to shine".
> 
> It's all about the context. We come up with scenario's where class X looks bad and scenario's where class X is awesome. This can be done with each and every class so it's not a proper argument as to the design of a system.




I think few people will argue this. The problem isn't "the wizard overshadowed the rogue when it came to deciphering that magical puzzle or even getting us all onto that ledge" but when "the wizard overshadowed my rogue which had max ranks in Open Lock by using a charge from his wand."


----------



## Hussar (May 5, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> If pushing buttons from a character sheet are the limitations of your definition of contributing to the game then I think you are missing something. It is a common misconception that goes hand in hand with equating the game to the RAW.
> 
> I have played 1E fighters and contributed to the game while not fighting, played clerics that contributed to the game while not fighting, casting spells, or turning undead, played thieves that contributed while not fighting, or trapfinding, or sneaking, and played wizards who contributed without fighting or casting.
> 
> ...




How is your 1e fighter contributing to the game outside of combat that has anything to do with his class?  In what way is he contributing that you could not do in exactly the same way with any other character?

/edit to add You're also missing the point.  It's not that you can't do things outside of your character's schtick.  It's when your schtick only exists because one (or more) of the players at the table allows your schtick to exist.  No, the wizard with a wand of knock isn't being a dick player when he overshadows the rogue.  The rogue has a chance of failure.  The wizard doesn't.  Why wouldn't the wizard take over opening locks?  He's the best at it.  No, the wizard with Unseen Servant isn't being a dick for triggering every trap.  He's defeating the traps in the safest manner possible.  He's the best at it.  Why wouldn't he do it?  No the cleric burning a Divine Might spell isn't being a dick when he makes the fighter look like an amateur.  He's playing his character.  On and on and on.

Balance means that no single option is clearly better than all other options.  Knock is better than Open Locks.  It's balanced by being a much more limited resource.  Only, that limitation can be very easily removed at very low levels.  So, it's not balanced.

Oh, and, a bit of a rant.

I'm getting really tired of people doing the passive/agressive schtick of "Oh, you poor poor gamer, if you only knew how to play better, you'd be ok."  Gimme a break.  It's condescending and ridiculous.  Sorry, you have zero idea what happens at my table and please, for the love of little fishes, stop projecting your own inadequacies on others.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 5, 2012)

Hussar said:


> How is your 1e fighter contributing to the game outside of combat that has anything to do with his class? In what way is he contributing that you could not do in exactly the same way with any other character?




He isn't. But then any other character wouldn't be him. Are your characters _exactly _the same if someone else played them? I certainly hope not because that would be admitting yourself as a useless meatbag that just rolls dice. A _player adds _quality to a character that you can't find recorded on the sheet. 



Hussar said:


> /edit to add You're also missing the point. It's not that you can't do things outside of your character's schtick. It's when your schtick only exists because one (or more) of the players at the table allows your schtick to exist. No, the wizard with a wand of knock isn't being a dick player when he overshadows the rogue. The rogue has a chance of failure. The wizard doesn't. Why wouldn't the wizard take over opening locks? He's the best at it. No, the wizard with Unseen Servant isn't being a dick for triggering every trap. He's defeating the traps in the safest manner possible. He's the best at it. Why wouldn't he do it? No the cleric burning a Divine Might spell isn't being a dick when he makes the fighter look like an amateur. He's playing his character. On and on and on.




Nothing new here. 3E thought it knew better than all the old editions about how to balance for optimal fun. The results of this assertion can now be reflected upon and judged. 



Hussar said:


> Balance means that no single option is clearly better than all other options. Knock is better than Open Locks. It's balanced by being a much more limited resource. Only, that limitation can be very easily removed at very low levels. So, it's not balanced.




Once again, 3E breaks at the most base of levels. Film at 11.




Hussar said:


> Oh, and, a bit of a rant.
> 
> I'm getting really tired of people doing the passive/agressive schtick of "Oh, you poor poor gamer, if you only knew how to play better, you'd be ok." Gimme a break. It's condescending and ridiculous. Sorry, you have zero idea what happens at my table and please, for the love of little fishes, stop projecting your own inadequacies on others.




Rant noted.


----------



## Hussar (May 5, 2012)

The problem is EW, 1e is no better here.  The fighter still gets owned by the higher level caster.  The cleric is simply better than the fighter - his attacks are on par, he can use virtually the same weapons and armor, and with his spells, he can be a better combatant than the fighter.  A single pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, a Girdle of Giant Strength or even a Manual of Gainful Exercise (to name a few) makes my cleric every bit as effective in combat as a fighter and he's still several times better out of combat (information gathering spells, movement spells, etc).  

The wizard spends his first three or four levels warming the pines most of the time in combat since he cannot actually contribute to combat outside of a couple of rounds.  Now, if your DM was nice, and let you pick spells, you got that all powerful Sleep spell, so you got to end a combat once or twice a day, but, again, in combat, you were down to chucking darts the rest of the time and missing more often than not.

Since 1e has very little in the way of conflict resolution outside of combat, you're more or less free-forming and class doesn't particularly matter.  Want to bluff the guard?  Talk it out ... aka freeforming.  However, even here, the casters get an edge with various spells (charms being an obvious choice) that bypass the system.

I mean, isn't the whole point of 1e casters that you go from zero to fantastic cosmic power?  If that's true, then what I'm saying has to be true - you spend a significant amount of time as a zero and then, on the other end, you've got fantastic cosmic power.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 5, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Fortunately, D&D has never been like that. Oh, wait, you're using hyperbole to artificially inflate an argument. Carry on.




I don't know about you, but without some incredible houserules or running Pathfinder, this was the basic experience in 3.x.  The caster could literally do everything anyone in the party could do, better, faster and more often.


----------



## billd91 (May 5, 2012)

shidaku said:


> I don't know about you, but without some incredible houserules or running Pathfinder, this was the basic experience in 3.x.  The caster could literally do everything anyone in the party could do, better, faster and more often.




No. He couldn't. Really.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 5, 2012)

Hussar said:


> The problem is EW, 1e is no better here. The fighter still gets owned by the higher level caster. The cleric is simply better than the fighter - his attacks are on par, he can use virtually the same weapons and armor, and with his spells, he can be a better combatant than the fighter. A single pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, a Girdle of Giant Strength or even a Manual of Gainful Exercise (to name a few) makes my cleric every bit as effective in combat as a fighter and he's still several times better out of combat (information gathering spells, movement spells, etc).
> 
> The wizard spends his first three or four levels warming the pines most of the time in combat since he cannot actually contribute to combat outside of a couple of rounds. Now, if your DM was nice, and let you pick spells, you got that all powerful Sleep spell, so you got to end a combat once or twice a day, but, again, in combat, you were down to chucking darts the rest of the time and missing more often than not.
> 
> ...




Atacks on par? A level 9 fighter hits AC 0 on a 12 sans bonus. A level 9 cleric hits AC 0 on a 16.  Sure we could assume the cleric has magic items to make this up that the fighter for some reason _doesn't _have access to but the cleric is still behind the fighter on the combat tables everything else being equal. 

High level casters are very powerful but not without limitations. A level 9 magic user has 4 1st, 3 2nd, 3 3rd, 2 4th, and 1 5th level spell per day. These need to be carefully chosen to balance offensive, defensive, and misc. needs. If the MU decides to allot all spells to doing one thing for the day then he/she will be very weak in other areas. 

Want to use _charm_ to avoid negotiating with that NPC? Go for it but its a resource you won't have later. 

Also certain magic items cannot be _assumed _to be freely available just because a character is at level X or has a certain amount of gold. Spells are also much easier to disrupt since a caster must declare them prior to initiative, cannot move, or even use a DEX bonus to boost his/her pitiful AC. 


Oh but the caster has _shield, protection from normal missiles, mirror image, etc. _

Well yes, but these take valuable spell slots and don't last forever. If the rules are actually used then casters are not the unstoppable monstrocities that they are made out to be.


----------



## Bluenose (May 5, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> Atacks on par? A level 9 fighter hits AC 0 on a 12 sans bonus. A level 9 cleric hits AC 0 on a 16. Sure we could assume the cleric has magic items to make this up that the fighter for some reason _doesn't _have access to but the cleric is still behind the fighter on the combat tables everything else being equal.
> 
> High level casters are very powerful but not without limitations. A level 9 magic user has 4 1st, 3 2nd, 3 3rd, 2 4th, and 1 5th level spell per day. These need to be carefully chosen to balance offensive, defensive, and misc. needs. If the MU decides to allot all spells to doing one thing for the day then he/she will be very weak in other areas.
> 
> ...




The Fighter has also got his 1/2 extra attack, by 9th level. At lower levels they aren't as far ahead of the cleric, but certainly in AD&D/BD&D the Fighter is much better than the Cleric at combat. I have things I don't like about the Fighter in those games, but that is not one of them. 

On the other hand, that isn't remotely as true of 3rd edition. A lot of people don't want it to be true of 5th. I have some hope that Mearls is enough of an AD&D fan to make sure this happens, but there are also people extremely insistent that a game that isn't like 3e won't satisfy them, and this is supposed to be the one edition to unify them all. And we've already seen signs, in the cleric article, that gaining abilities similar to those of a ranger will be perfectly practical for a cleric of Apollo (who should be a cleric of Artemis, of course) and unless they're going to be bad at those things, then they're going to have to give up an awful lot of cleric-stuff to not end up being strictly better than the ranger. 

Whether it's a good thing to have more than one way to make a character concept is a separate question. But if you allow someone to make a character concept one way, and then you give them another way to make that concept which also gives them other things on top, that's going to lead to some interesting results.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 5, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Combat balance is important mostly because a large part of the game takes place there in the majority of tables.  The idea is to make combat not look like this:
> 
> Fighter: "I attack the Orc and...miss."
> Wizard: "I Fireball 30 Orcs.  They can make a saving throw to take half damage of....39.  They only have 18 hp?  Well, they all die then regardless of their saving throw."
> ...




That has nothing to do with any pre-existing version of D&D, so it shouldn't be a concern for the creators of D&D 5. If you're implying that's like D&D 3, let me note that a fireball does a d6 per level, so that would be a lucky roll even cast from a 10th level wizard; a 10th level fighter is not likely with a +10 BAB and some ST and magic bonuses to miss anything with 18 HP; a 10th level fighter has 10d10 hit points + 10 * Con modifier, which is likely to be much more than 40, 10th level Druids can turn into large animals, not elemental golem dragons, and creatures with 18 hp are unlikely to be able to hit a 19 AC (easily accessible by a 10th level fighter) all that easily.

Are there cases where the wizard and cleric overshadow the fighter in D&D 3? Certainly. At the same time, when I can burn one of my highest-level spell and do 40 points a piece to 8 creatures (if I caught them early enough that they were all bunched up), and the fighter can do the 120 points to kill an unharmed one in one round, (both actual numbers from last night) I don't think either of us particularly felt overshadowed. I think the difference between a wizard and a fighter in combat in 3.x is a lot less then the portrait you're painting, especially if you have wizards and clerics who buff the fighter instead of themselves.


----------



## Hussar (May 5, 2012)

I just love how people pick and choose their examples to "prove" their point.  For example, Exploder Wizard makes a great deal about the fact that a 9th level fighter has a THAC0 of 12 and a 9th level cleric is 16.  That's absolutely true.  But, a 10th level fighter has a THAC0 of 12 and the 10th level cleric is 14.  Suddenly the difference is not so pronounced.  Yup, the fighter has 2 better to hit.  Yup, the fighter has 1 extra attack every other round, but the cleric, at this point, has more spells than he knows what to do with.

I mean, this two point spread doesn't just hit at 10th level either.  At 7th level and at 8th, there's also a two point spread.  Wow, for one level out of four, the fighter gets to pull ahead significantly.  Yeah, that's worth seven or eight levels of casting.

It would be far more constructive in these conversations if people would be a lot more honest in their choice of how they prove their point.  Cherry picking elements and ignoring the rest is just arguing in bad faith.  It only shows just how weak a point actually is.  If the point was actually strong, it wouldn't be necessary to play silly buggers games.

There is absolutely no reason that the cleric isn't just as effective as the fighter in combat and he still has all sorts of goodies to fall back on.

-----------

Profislaes - of that 120 points of damage in a single round, how much of that was because of buffs from the casters?  How much of that came directly from the character himself and not his magic items and various other gew gaws.

Because a 10th level caster doing 40 points of damage is about as weak as he can get.  Let's not forget, he's got two levels higher for magic he can dish out.  This isn't his big attack, this is his minor, afterthought attack.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 5, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Profislaes - of that 120 points of damage in a single round, how much of that was because of buffs from the casters?  How much of that came directly from the character himself and not his magic items and various other gew gaws.




None of it was from buffs. I tend to do see the casters buffing the fighters as a good thing; in my experience it tends to make them both feel like they're involved in the ultimate defeat of the enemy, instead of making one feel like they're overshadowing the other.

Quite a bit of that was probably from magical items. I don't really see that as a problem; it's not true that anybody could use them. A lot of them are large weapons, and even if he were medium size and the weapons similarly sized, he'd still be the one getting them. For him, the dragonlance is part of his character's identity.

The CoDzilla is a different matter; in this campaign, the cleric has wrapped herself in vows of non-violence, the druid doesn't have an animal companion (as the DM doesn't like secondary PCs and will kill them), and the druid's player doesn't strike me as terribly skilled. Heck, for all the claimed power of the wizard, I frequently feel like I must be playing it poorly because it doesn't feel that way to me.

In any case, I don't think anyone feels overshadowed in our party, caster or no.



> Because a 10th level caster doing 40 points of damage is about as weak as he can get.




I'm not sure that's a productive discussion line. I think I proved my point, that the given example wasn't a realistic example, and it's very hard to work from an underdetailed and proved inaccurate example. 

I don't debate that a cleric or druid can be a better fighter then a fighter; I don't really see a wizard being terribly overpowering in battle, but I can see that their versatility outside of battle can be a real problem.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 5, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> That has nothing to do with any pre-existing version of D&D, so it shouldn't be a concern for the creators of D&D 5.



It was meant as an example of the worst parts of all editions with a bit of exaggeration for effect.  But if you want to go over the details, lets.


prosfilaes said:


> a fireball does a d6 per level, so that would be a lucky roll even cast from a 10th level wizard;



The average on 10d6 is 35, 39 is a whole 4 points above that.  I'm fairly certain that falls squarely in the "average" of rolls on 10d6.  It would be a moderately lucky roll for someone with an 8d6 fireball, which is more what I was going for.  But even if you assume the caster had 10d6, it still proves my point.  The spell when it affects a large number of creatures does easily 10 times more damage than a fighter could ever output.  And in 3e, this spell is considered to be one of the WORST spells for Wizards.

My example was more meant as a 2e example, however.  Where you are often fighting against hordes of smaller hitdice creatures.  This happens in some 3e games and applies equally in those games.


prosfilaes said:


> a 10th level fighter is not likely with a +10 BAB and some ST and magic bonuses to miss anything with 18 HP;



Depends, in 1e and 2e things with 18hp could be missed by fighters all the time.  It's likely the only bonus you had was from stat and your THAC0 was small enough that you had a chance to miss them, maybe it was only a 30% chance, but my point is the Wizard has a 0% chance to miss.  Also, a 0% chance to do anything but kill every enemy in the area of effect.  This is often the case.  Spells with no saving throw exist in all editions(even a couple in 4e), people will find the spells with the most likely chance to hit and use them.  In 3e, people tended to use the Orb spells because there was no save for half and since they were touch attacks, they often hit on a 2.  Which meant there was a 95% chance of hitting and doing full damage.  The fighter often had to worry about having a 30%+ chance of hitting and had to deal with damage resistance and a number of special abilities(immunity to non-magic weapons, immunity to less than +3 weapons, etc).

Force Orb in particular didn't allow Magic Resistance, so it was guaranteed damage.


prosfilaes said:


> a 10th level fighter has 10d10 hit points + 10 * Con modifier, which is likely to be much more than 40



True, we don't know how many hitpoints the fighter started at or what edition this took place in.  I was thinking of an 8th level fighter from 2e who rolled poorly on his Con.  Average hitpoints for that character are 44.  If they rolled even slightly poorly, 40 damage would kill them outright.  If this was a 8th level fighter from 3.5 edition who also had a 10 con, then they've have 50 hitpoints.  If this wasn't the first round of combat, it could have dropped them as well.  Heck, if this wasn't the first round of combat, it could have dropped a fighter with 100 hitpoints.


prosfilaes said:


> 10th level Druids can turn into large animals, not elemental golem dragons, and creatures with 18 hp are unlikely to be able to hit a 19 AC (easily accessible by a 10th level fighter) all that easily.



They can change into such things with the right paragon paths and feats(and a certain reading of the rules).  I know, I've played a game with the guy who was in ooze form for the entire adventure.  It was a slight exaggeration and that particular combination is likely impossible.  It was meant to be kind of funny.

However, they can change into all sorts of forms that increase their AC to much, much higher than the fighter.  The point was supposed to illustrate this without having to come up with a new monster.  If you've ever been in the group with a Druid who has a Ape animal companion who wears magic armor and wields a magic weapon who had more hitpoints, bonuses to hit, and AC than the fighter, you'll know what I'm talking about.


prosfilaes said:


> Are there cases where the wizard and cleric overshadow the fighter in D&D 3? Certainly. At the same time, when I can burn one of my highest-level spell and do 40 points a piece to 8 creatures (if I caught them early enough that they were all bunched up), and the fighter can do the 120 points to kill an unharmed one in one round, (both actual numbers from last night) I don't think either of us particularly felt overshadowed.



I should note that 40 damage to 8 creatures is a total of 320 points of damage.  Nearly 3 times the damage the fighter did in the round.  You may not have felt overshadowed....but I certainly would.

Also, if both of these things are happening in the same game and the same level, then something is really wrong.  By the time our fighter was doing 120 damage in a round, our Wizard was throwing around much worse than that.

In 3e, our average encounter was against 1 or 2 opponents.  Area of effect spells suck in those situations.  So, instead the ability to hit an enemy with a spell that prevented them from fighting back or killed them outright in one round was the best.  Also, when fighting against 1 opponent, they tend to have way more AC than enemies you fight 40 at a time.  It reduced the damage of the fighter dramatically while leaving the Wizard's unchanged.


prosfilaes said:


> I think the difference between a wizard and a fighter in combat in 3.x is a lot less then the portrait you're painting, especially if you have wizards and clerics who buff the fighter instead of themselves.



I've seen this argument before, and I disagree.  Even if they buff the Fighter, the Fighter is only doing well because of them.  Balance shouldn't depend on the group composition as much as it does.  If classes are balanced, then a group of 3 Fighters should be able to take on just as difficult enemies as a group of a Fighter, a Wizard, and a Cleric.  That just isn't the case at all.

All buffing the fighter does is change perception, not actual power.  I played a cleric for years in 3.5e.  I'd buff every Fighter and melee based class at the table(it was Living Greyhawk, so I never knew what my party composition would be like from game to game).  We kicked butt.  However, I knew the entire time we kicked butt mostly because of my buffs.  It made the fighters feel better about themselves though to think they did it all.  So, I'd rarely say anything about it.

A couple times when we had a really poor Fighter who was extremely unoptimized at a table, I'd use all my buffs on me instead, and I'd shine so badly that almost everyone at the table agreed that Clerics were horribly broken.  I remember this one time a group of 5 people from another city visited who played together all the time.  Their group had no cleric or healer of any kind and they were almost all Sorcerers and Wizards to make up for the lack of healing.  In fact, they had almost never seen a Cleric, certainly not a high level one.  They played one game with me where my buffs made it so they didn't take damage for an entire 5 hour session.  They were extremely surprised at how much better their group did with a cleric.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 5, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> Quite a bit of that was probably from magical items. I don't really see that as a problem; it's not true that anybody could use them. A lot of them are large weapons, and even if he were medium size and the weapons similarly sized, he'd still be the one getting them. For him, the dragonlance is part of his character's identity.



But it means that a large amount of his power is based on things he can't control.  Have a DM who hates magic items and refuses to give them out?  Sucks to be the Fighter.  Have a DM who makes a choice to play in a "low magic world"?  Sucks to be the Fighter.  Find yourself captured and all your items taken away but the Wizard has a full compliment of spells prepared?  Sucks to be the Fighter.


prosfilaes said:


> The CoDzilla is a different matter; in this campaign, the cleric has wrapped herself in vows of non-violence, the druid doesn't have an animal companion (as the DM doesn't like secondary PCs and will kill them), and the druid's player doesn't strike me as terribly skilled. Heck, for all the claimed power of the wizard, I frequently feel like I must be playing it poorly because it doesn't feel that way to me.



It sounds it.  You have your poor players playing the over powered classes so the other classes seem balanced in comparison.  I've seen this happen fairly often.  In most threads about balance someone shows up and says "My Wizard casts a Magic Missile for 20 damage in a round while our 30 Strength Fighter/Barbarian/Frenzied Berzerker with the Large sized +1 Frost/Flaming/Acidic/Sonic/Shock Greatsword with the Greater Magic Weapon on hit cast by the Cleric makes it a +5 weapon does 150 damage in a round.  Wizards/Clerics/Druids aren't overpowered!"

As opposed to the Wizards who are using temporary caster level increases to animate way more powerful undead than the spell should allow or casters who are scrying and teleporting the whole party to the location of the BBEG when he goes to the washroom.  Or the one who casts a maximized, empowered disintegrate on the BBEG killed him with one spell.


prosfilaes said:


> In any case, I don't think anyone feels overshadowed in our party, caster or no.



I'm not saying this isn't the case.  Not every Wizard is horribly broken.  In fact, most people don't have the head for optimization that would allow them to create a truly broken Wizard.  I know I certainly don't.  Which is partially why my examples are so vague.  I've DMed games where these broken Wizards played in.  But I didn't often have time to examine every inch of their character sheet to see how they did it.

Most people play Wizards underpowered.  And I'll admit that Clerics and Druids are even more powerful than Wizards.  But Fighters are so much worse than any of them it hurts.  Not just in combat.  In combat they are only overshadowed a little bit by Wizards, start factoring in everything else Wizards can do outside of combat and it becomes absurdly overpowered.

Plus, it sounds like your Fighter is extremely optimized.  The situation is quite a bit different when your 8th level Fighter has a 16 str and 10 con because he wanted to have a 14 int, wis, and char.  He only has a +1 weapon because the DM hasn't given him anything better yet, he was restricted to the races in the PHB so he is using a normal sized longsword(for roleplaying reasons, his character doesn't like two handed weapons).  Then replace your Fighter with that one and see how underpowered he feels compared to your Wizard.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 5, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It would be a moderately lucky roll for  someone with an 8d6 fireball, which is more what I was going for.




A 39 is about 1 in 50 times. 



> I should note that 40 damage to 8 creatures is a total of 320 points of  damage.  Nearly 3 times the damage the fighter did in the round.




And didn't drop a single creature.



> By the time our fighter was doing 120 damage in a round, our Wizard was throwing around much worse than that.




They're 14d6 damage area effect spells.



> If classes are balanced, then a group of 3 Fighters should be able to  take on just as difficult enemies as a group of a Fighter, a Wizard, and  a Cleric.




That doesn't follow at all. It's a good thing for mixed parties to be more effective then mono-classed parties, and the fact that that is true says nothing about relative balance.



> All buffing the fighter does is change perception, not actual power.




But the problem is the perception, not the actual power. Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit is only a problem because the BMX Bandit doesn't feel effective. If everyone could have fun, one person playing a first level kobold fighter and the other playing 20th level Wizard / 20th level Cleric, then everything would be fine.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> But it means that a large amount of his power is based on things he can't control.  Have a DM who hates magic items and refuses to give them out?  Sucks to be the Fighter.  Have a DM who makes a choice to play in a "low magic world"?  Sucks to be the Fighter.  Find yourself captured and all your items taken away but the Wizard has a full compliment of spells prepared?  Sucks to be the Fighter.




Find yourself in an antimagic zone? Sucks to be the wizard. Find yourself captured after a long battle where most of your spells have been cast and them actually take all your items away, including your spellbook? Sucks to be the wizard. The DM pushes you to complete an endless series of battles before sleeping, possibly with the help of NPC healing? Sucks to be the wizard.

Personally I miss the first round of most combats, because they usually start with a spot check (a cross-class skill for wizards) and those who fail don't get to act the first turn.

Nothing in D&D is under the player's control. It means that DMs need to think about magic items as part of class balance. Don't be the guy who doesn't like magic items and play D&D like it supports that style well.


----------



## GreyICE (May 5, 2012)

I think the problem for party balance is that a group with a Fighter, a Cleric, a Rogue, and a Wizard should be more effective than a group of:

A Cleric, a Druid, a Wizard, an Artificer

And yet they really, really weren't.  Despite having four classes that are all theoretically quite similar, the former group is just completely overshadowed and crushed by the latter group.  The druid is simply a more effective melee combatant than a fighter - harder to hit, hits harder and more frequently (thanks iterative attacks on monsters).  The Artificer is a thousand times more versatile than the rogue, easily handling every single rogue task, and becoming a true monster in combat.  

So by replacing the fighter with a druid, and the rogue with an artificer, the group has been strictly upgraded, to the point where the DM would be hard pressed to challenge that group without literally just throwing multiple monsters at +5 CR for the group.  

Now what if we go the other way?  Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Barbarian?  

Heh.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 6, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> A 39 is about 1 in 50 times.
> 
> And didn't drop a single creature.
> 
> They're 14d6 damage area effect spells.




Honestly, the example was a bad one.  The first thing any newbie playing a wizard should do if he wants to be poweful is specialise.  I don't care what in - or whether he gets no damage at all.  The only spell worth taking in the entire Evocation domain in the SRD is Contingency and a caster who's a focussed specialist in Evocation having dropped Conjuration, Transmutation, and something else, he probably isn't any more powerful than a fighter.

I exaggerate for effect.  But not _very_ much.

To illustrate, let's take the humble fireball spell.  It's great for clearing out chaff.  And dead is the best control condition there is.  But if all 8 targets survived, all 8 get to hit back at the fighter.  Say instead that the wizard had cast Stinking Cloud.  Anyone who fails their save against that is out of the fight for an average of four and a half rounds (one round to leave and a further three and a half afterwards) and a minimum of three.  That's a minimum of three rounds the party is either able to ignore them or treat them like pinatas.  More on average or if you can trap the poor suckers in there.  Even if you assume the cloud had only 75% of the effectiveness of the evocation as fortitude is normally higher than reflex (i.e. two saved against the stinking cloud) that's still six out of the eight that are out of the fight rather than hitting back until someone gets round to putting the boot in.

After the stinking cloud goes down the rest becomes a mopping up excercise.  Which the fighter can be pretty good at.  But it's still mopping up.



> That doesn't follow at all. It's a good thing for mixed parties to be more effective then mono-classed parties, and the fact that that is true says nothing about relative balance.




It's not about being monoclassed. 

Fighter, Wizard, Cleric > Fighter, Fighter, Fighter
Cleric, Cleric, Cleric > Fighter, Wizard, Cleric
Druid, Wizard, Cleric > Fighter, Wizard, Cleric
Cleric, Wizard, Cleric > Cleric, Cleric, Cleric, > Fighter, Wizard, Cleric > Fighter, Fighter, Fighter

If we want to be insulting,
Bard, Wizard, Druid > Fighter, Wizard, Druid

The core problem is that when it comes to absorbing damage (the only serious method of tanking 3.X has), the ability to cast Cure Light Wounds on yourself is enough to make you more resilient than a figher.  And especially so is a druid level animal companion.  And polymorph or serious cleric buffs mean you can challenge the fighter at what he does.



> Find yourself in an antimagic zone? Sucks to be the wizard. Find yourself captured after a long battle where most of your spells have been cast and them actually take all your items away, including your spellbook? Sucks to be the wizard.




And CoDzilla is still at full strength in that last case.  And kicking ass in the antimagic zone.



> The DM pushes you to complete an endless series of battles before sleeping, possibly with the help of NPC healing? Sucks to be the wizard.




If you're running the right save-or-suck spells, the wizard can last a looooong time.  See my Solid Fog example.

If I'm playing an 11th level specialist conjurer with effective Int 22 (or more), I have:

Three 6th level spells
Four 5th level spells
Five 4th level spells,
Six 3rd level spells,
Seven 2nd level spells, and
Seven 1st level spells.

AoE fight winners start at second level (Glitterdust).  And even Colour Spray might be relevant if there's chaff around of less than four hit dice.  So let's ignore the first level spells for now.  I have twenty five spells of second level or above.  Assume I kept five back for buffs and utility.

This leaves me with twenty spells.  I think I can get by on casting and average of two spells that turn groups of enemies into pinatas per fight, and still pull my weight.  Or combine Stinking Cloud with something like Web to keep them in the cloud until we can be bothered to deal with them.  (And before you mention spell resistance/immunity, most conjurations including Glitterdust, Solid Fog, and Evard's Black Tentacles ignore SR and Spell Immunity). 

So twenty spells at two chances to turn a mass of people into pinatas per fight gives me ten back go back fights in a day.  If I need more than that I'm going to be very bored of combat and wonder what the DM is playing at.

(If using Complete Mage I can be a focussed specialist in conjuration for an extra spell per level making me last even longer)



> Personally I miss the first round of most combats, because they usually start with a spot check (a cross-class skill for wizards) and those who fail don't get to act the first turn.  Nothing in D&D is under the player's control.




And what exactly was your party scout doing?  Why let yourselves be surprised?  The precautions you take _are_ under your control.



> It means that DMs need to think about magic items as part of class balance. Don't be the guy who doesn't like magic items and play D&D like it supports that style well.




Or if you do try 4e.  We don't need magic items for clas balance.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 6, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Honestly, the example was a bad one.  The first thing any newbie playing a wizard should do if he wants to be poweful is specialise.  I don't care what in - or whether he gets no damage at all.  The only spell worth taking in the entire Evocation domain in the SRD is Contingency and a caster who's a focussed specialist in Evocation having dropped Conjuration, Transmutation, and something else, he probably isn't any more powerful than a fighter.




Great. So perhaps the problem isn't the wizard, it's certain specialized ways to play the wizard? I mean, you're sitting here talking about how it's in the nature of the wizard to overwhelm other players, and my real-life example gets dismissed as how I should play it better. (And no, it wasn't evocation; it was a conjuration spell.)



> Why let yourselves be surprised?




Thank you, Mr. Back Seat Driver. I'm glad your experience with my DM lets you instantly divine the nature and solution of the problem.


----------



## GreyICE (May 6, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> Great. So perhaps the problem isn't the wizard, it's certain specialized ways to play the wizard? I mean, you're sitting here talking about how it's in the nature of the wizard to overwhelm other players, and my real-life example gets dismissed as how I should play it better. (And no, it wasn't evocation; it was a conjuration spell.)




In combat, it is obvious that a shotgun is a superior weapon to a sword.

That doesn't mean you can't blow your own foot off.

If you choose not to take a specialist (an option presented in the PHB), choose to take blaster spells over far superior Save or Suck spells, and generally make a series of bad decisions, sure, a Wizard can suck.  Every blaster wizard does it with regularity.  The fact of the matter is though, just because you can fill every slot in your spell book with some silly spell that does damage to enemies doesn't mean that's the smart way to play.

As for what a Druid does to a fighter... heh.


----------



## prosfilaes (May 6, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> If you choose not to take a specialist (an option presented in the PHB), choose to take blaster spells over far superior Save or Suck spells, and generally make a series of bad decisions, sure, a Wizard can suck.  Every blaster wizard does it with regularity.  The fact of the matter is though, just because you can fill every slot in your spell book with some silly spell that does damage to enemies doesn't mean that's the smart way to play.




So basically you're telling me that WotC totally changed the foundations of the game, instead of nerfing a few spells? I'm not sure why you think people will be happy that the entire game had to be changed to fix a problem that didn't affect them, and that the response to that is that you were playing the game stupidly.


----------



## GreyICE (May 6, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> So basically you're telling me that WotC totally changed the foundations of the game, instead of nerfing a few spells? I'm not sure why you think people will be happy that the entire game had to be changed to fix a problem that didn't affect them, and that the response to that is that you were playing the game stupidly.




No, I'm not telling you that in the least.  I'm telling you that the average wizard could replace any class outside of the cleric or druid by using his spell book, and the features that let him do that were integral to the versatility and power that define a 3E wizard.  I am also telling you that the Druid and Cleric were a much, much bigger problem, in that they both totally obliterated any role the fighter had in the party, and that was simply unfixable in the 3E system (the Druid was more powerful than the fighter IF YOU REMOVED HIS SPELLCASTING ABILITY).  

The 3E system was broken, and it was quite easy to realize for most of the player base.  Just poll the players who have several years of experience with the game, and ask how many build a pure fighter (taking nothing but fighter levels).  I have yet to meet one who builds one for a long-term campaign.  They will build a variety of interesting classes, but they never touch the fighter with a 10 ft. pole.

4E's changes were for far more than mere balance purposes.  They gave everyone (fighters and wizards alike) interesting options to use every round of combat, from level 1 on forward (rather than 'I attack' or 'I miss them with my sling' (god low level casters).  They encouraged teamwork, and made a healing model that works and works well.  They allowed players to actually defend their party, and stop monsters from attacking their friends outright, by means other than killing them.  They encouraged tactical thinking and teamwork that allowed well coordinated players to execute all sorts of maneuvers, and made combat more than 'stand and swing' or 'stand and cast.'  They made a fluid, dynamic combat model which involved plenty of motion.  They nerfed out-of-combat spells that replaced clever usage of skills, and centralized the 'situational' spells that were kept on wands and scrolls into rituals that could do all sorts of nifty things, but did not unbalance combat.  

So no, 4E changes weren't done solely because the entire basis of 3E was broken.  That was just one of the things they fixed.


----------



## Bluenose (May 6, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> So basically you're telling me that WotC totally changed the foundations of the game, instead of nerfing a few spells? I'm not sure why you think people will be happy that the entire game had to be changed to fix a problem that didn't affect them, and that the response to that is that you were playing the game stupidly.




High-level Fighters and their sub-classes are the only class in the game to attack more than once in a round. They have the highest hit points, so can last minutes in combat with powerful monsters. Their saving throws are so good that they'll shake off most things thrown at them, with the only likely effects being things that happen even if the save is made. They have a pretty good number of skills useable out of combat. They have the widest range of magical gear available to them.

You might not like being reminded of it, but 3rd edition made drastic changes to how the game worked too.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 6, 2012)

shidaku said:


> I don't know about you, but without some incredible houserules or running Pathfinder, this was the basic experience in 3.x.  The caster could literally do everything anyone in the party could do, better, faster and more often.




So, old, please stop it.

it's become so passe, this whole _fighters held the wizard's jockstrap_ thing...never happened, once, in any campaign I've been in.

This weird urban myth, to me, has really taken off with some.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 6, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> Great. So perhaps the problem isn't the wizard, it's certain specialized ways to play the wizard? I mean, you're sitting here talking about how it's in the nature of the wizard to overwhelm other players, and my real-life example gets dismissed as how I should play it better. (And no, it wasn't evocation; it was a conjuration spell.)




No.  The problem is people not using certain specialist ways to play the wizard.  The wizard playstyle that's the problem is what I consider the default one.  There are two basic wizard playstyles: Blast Mage and Problem Solver.  If you play as a blast mage there is no problem.  If you play a wizard thinking "I'm smart.  I have magic.  How can I make this challenge easy or this enemy almost irrelevant." Then you have problems.  And to me the Problem Solver style is the default.



prosfilaes said:


> So basically you're telling me that WotC totally changed the foundations of the game, instead of nerfing a few spells? I'm not sure why you think people will be happy that the entire game had to be changed to fix a problem that didn't affect them, and that the response to that is that you were playing the game stupidly.




The problem goes waaaay beyond a few spells. And involves both legacy D&D problems and a whole lot of problems from 3.X.  It's not just a few spells that need nerfing.  It's an entire conceptual overhaul, and undoing about half the changes made turning 2e into 3.0.



*Classic D&D Problems

*_Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard._
A high level wizard was known to be more powerful than a high level fighter and a low level fighter more than a low level wizard.  This was a problem in itself but one that was accepted and understood.  The fundamental problem levelling is that the fighter basically gets better with a pointy piece of metal, whereas the wizard gets both more spells and more powerful spells.  And a lot of those spells are about ways to make people waving pointy pieces of metal irrelevant.

_Adventurer/Conquerer/King_At about level 10 (depending on class) the published game entered the endgame.  Your hit points stopped rising and you gained either a tower for a wizard or land and an army for a fighter.  This was about the point where the wizard left the fighter in the dust anyway.  Note that 3.X removed this cap.


_1e wasn't balanced._ 

Which is why Gygax added Specialisation and  the two commonly thought to be overpowered fighter variants in Unearthed  Arcana - I can dig up a link where he agrees with this if you need it.  2e kept the fighter specialisation fix - but added specialist wizards, who gain massive power (at least 25% to the number of spells they can cast per day, and 50-100% to the most powerful spells) for a little versatility.









*Problems added by 3.X*
Note that this list is not exclusive to wizards - almost every problem I'm listing for wizards also applies to clerics and druids.


_Hit point inflation._

The way Con is used has changed.  Whereas a wizard would start with 1d4hp in 1e they probably start with about 6 in 3e. And monsters have many more hit points.  To illustrate, a 2e Ogre gets 4+1 HD or 19hp.  A 3.X Ogre gets 29 hp or more than 50% more.  So it takes half as much damage again to kill an ogre in 3e as 2e.  But Fireball is doing the same 1d6/level damage it was in 2e so does comparatively much less damage.  In playtesting this probably offset the spell count inflation.  (Note: Ogres are simply the first monster that came to mind).  Fighters of course have to go straight through the inflated HP.  



And a wall of  stone is a wall of stone.  It doesn't care much about hit point inflation.  Likewise any other spell to bypass or entirely render irrelevant the monsters.



_Caster Versatility 1: Spell count inflation._ 

 A decent spellcasting stat adds a spell per level.  So a 1e 5th level wizard would have _one_ third level spell per day.  A 3.X 5th level specialist wizard gets _three_.


_Caster Versatility 2: Free Spells for Wizards
_
In 3.X a wizard gets two free spells of his choice per level and starts off with about half a dozen L1.  This is new and means that the wizard isn't dependent on the DM for spell selection.  And can pick an entire pile of good spells.


_Castger Versatility 3: Scribe Scroll (free for Wizards)
_
All wizards get Scribe Scroll for free - and scribing almost any scroll takes only a day - if you aren't getting the odd day off from adventuring you're likely to be suffering from PTSD.  This means that you don't have to prepare spells like _Knock - _a smart wizard can wander around with all the advantages of having a couple of knock spells prepared for the one day in thirty when the rogue taps out without it costing him any actual daily spell slots.  (Of which he has far more)



_Caster Versatility 4: Prep time_
In 3.X a caster is prepared in an hour.  Period.  In older editions it took longer at higher levels.  Much longer.



_Caster Versatility 5: No Drawbacks_
Haste used to age you by a year per casting.  Hellloooo System Shock roll.  No one cast that.  Teleport used to go offtrack and potentially kill you.  I could go on.  3.X took away almost all those backlashes.  (Mordaniken's Disjunction being the only one to come to mind).



_Saving Throw Changes 1: Homogenisation of difficulty by effect
_
If you convert AD&D saving throws into 3.X saving throws, The save vs spell DC is about 17.  But save or suck, being more powerful, is normally a save vs death magic or poison of DC14, or a save vs polymorph or petrification of DC15.  This is a fairly significant relative boost to the effectiveness of non-damaging spells over damaging ones.



_Saving Throw Changes 2:_ _Inflation of DC by Wizards_
A DC of 17 looks about right when converting the fireball save at L5.  Level 3 spell, Int 16, +2 Int Item.  Now.  Let's say that we've got a conjurer who started at Int 17 and focusses in Conjuration.  He's now Int 18 + 2 (or even +4).  He's taken Greater Spell Focus (Conjuration) - if you're going to specialise in it anyway, why not?  We're at DC20 and it's only going to rise with his level and with the spell level.  A three point swing is a lot.  And then the spell level goes up over time, so does Int, so does the stat boosting item.



_Saving Throw Changes 3: Choice of targets_
The wizard is once again confronted with our ogre.  Who is big and burly.  Turns out an Ogre has saves of Fort +6, Ref + 0, and Will +1.  (The 2e Ogre had effective saves of +1 in all categories).  With a save of +6 in Fort, the ogre saves against the stinking cloud from the specialist caster on a 14 - in 2e he'd be saving on 13.  Here things have balanced out even with the optimisation.  But this is a worst case scenario.  Our wizard is going to remember that Stinking Cloud isn't the only spell on his list and instead go for Glitterdust.  It's one spell level lower.  So DC 19.  But that means the ogre needs a _18_ or he's out for the next five rounds, swinging wildly.  A five point swing by using a lower level spell.  Pretty hard to do in 2e.


_Saving throw changes 4: The Fighter Nerf_
In AD&D, at high level, the fighter had the best saves.  Especially against death or suck effects.  All between +11 and +13 - and he got there at level 17 which was four levels before anyone else capped out.  In 3.X the fighter has arguably the worst saves in the game - only one high save out of the three (at +12), and the Rogue gets Evasion to boost his whereas the Wizard gets defensive spells.  And with one stat being boosted as the character levels, the offensive stat is the obvious choice - meaning that the fighter's saving throws aren't going to get this boost when offensive spells are.


_Non-Wizard spellcaster changes: The Cleric
_The cleric gets nine levels of spells with Miracle at level 9.  Previously the cleric got 7 and started casting later - also needing to prepare heals rather than convert to them.  And can prepare from anything on the entire cleric list.



_Non-Wizard spellcaster changes: The Druid
_This class needs to die in a fire - or rather to be broken up for parts.  D&D 4e broke it into three classes - all viable.  There's the nature-priest healer with an animal companion and a little magic.  There's the shapeshifter.  And there's the spellcaster.  The Druid was probably the worst case as it required almost no work to be broken.  The animal companion wasn't as good a fighter as the fighter, granted.  It didn't need to be - because if it was a brown bear and close to the fighter's combat potential, the druid could be a _second_ brown bear.  And then the druid had a decent spell list, able to cast 9th level spells and with the Polymorph Chain.








So that's where the overhaul 3.X needed came from.  A vast set of changes that stacked.
​


----------



## GreyICE (May 6, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> So, old, please stop it.
> 
> it's become so passe, this whole _fighters held the wizard's jockstrap_ thing...never happened, once, in any campaign I've been in.
> 
> This weird urban myth, to me, has really taken off with some.




Lemme offer you a simple contest then.

We design 5 encounters, balanced for a 6th level character, together.  A 6th level barbarian, a group of orks, some sort of golem, a good mix.

Then I make a 6th level Druid.  You make a 6th level Fighter.  We throw them at the encounters, one after the other.  No time for rests to replenish spells (though we'll let them both replenish HP for free, that's pretty much what wands of CLW do).  

I'll even be nice and eschew venomfire and greenbound summoning.

So what do you say?  Since it's an Urban Legend that a caster can do anything a fighter can do, your brilliant fighter should be able to show himself in combat, at low levels, better than a Druid can (since certainly that same fighter has practically zero out-of-combat utility, which is not the case at all for a Druid).


----------



## Grimmjow (May 6, 2012)

idk to me it sounds like they are not going to balance them, they are just going to make the stronger classes more difficult to play.


----------



## Bobbum Man (May 6, 2012)

Because it's a class based game, and that's the whole POINT.

I honestly don't know what people find so difficult about this concept.


----------



## hanez (May 6, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Lemme offer you a simple contest then.
> 
> We design 5 encounters, balanced for a 6th level character, together.  A 6th level barbarian, a group of orks, some sort of golem, a good mix.
> 
> ...




I would be up for this, I think the results might be revealing.  

Although I would have thought we'd used the wizard, thats traditionally the class thats bemoaned about.  I suspect you picked the druid because there are problems with the druid in 3.x, which recieved so much needed attention in pathfinder.

What I find a problem is when people argue that the magic/vancian system is incompatible with the at will fighter.    A better therefore would be either a 3.x wizard vs fighter, or a druid vs fighter from pathfinder.


----------



## GreyICE (May 6, 2012)

hanez said:


> I would be up for this, I think the results might be revealing.
> 
> Although I would have thought we'd used the wizard, thats traditionally the class thats bemoaned about.  I suspect you picked the druid because there are problems with the druid in 3.x, which recieved so much needed attention in pathfinder.
> 
> What I find a problem is when people argue that the magic/vancian system is incompatible with the at will fighter.    A better therefore would be either a 3.x wizard vs fighter, or a druid vs fighter from pathfinder.




I picked the Druid because the statement was 'the 3.X fighter was not invalidated by the other classes.'  Not the Wizard.  The Wizard breaks the game in amazing and fascinating ways, but as a solo party member these ways become less apparent.  For instance, Stinking Cloud can disable an entire group of enemies, to be picked off at whim.  But... how does the Wizard pick them off?  He either expends precious spells, or asks someone else to do it.  In this manner a Wizard and a Fighter together can kill 4 fighters with ease, and do it all day long.  But a Wizard alone would have to expend most of his spells to just do the volume of damage needed to kill the fighters.  

The Druid, on the other hand, not only can disable all 4 fighters with ease, he can then kill them with ease.  

Spellcaster versus fighter - the best PHB class versus the... well... not the worst (MONK SAY HI) but pretty bad.  

Also, I love Druids, and know them like the back of my hand.  I played Druids in AD&D and 3E, and when 3.5 came out it was like... say what?  You took a class that was powerful and flexible and removed every limitation on the power and flexibility.  It makes it very easy for me to design a character for this test, whereas I would have to look through a bunch of stuff for the wizard (thematically, I don't really like Wizards.  Irritating bookworms with superiority complexes).  

P.S.  I don't really care for Pathfinder.  I played it once, it didn't really do much for me.  So I'm not really going to try to do anything with their rules, I don't know jack about them.


----------



## hanez (May 6, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> I picked the Druid because the statement was 'the 3.X fighter was not invalidated by the other classes.'  Not the Wizard.  The Wizard breaks the game in amazing and fascinating ways, but as a solo party member these ways become less apparent.  For instance, Stinking Cloud can disable an entire group of enemies, to be picked off at whim.  But... how does the Wizard pick them off?  He either expends precious spells, or asks someone else to do it.  In this manner a Wizard and a Fighter together can kill 4 fighters with ease, and do it all day long.  But a Wizard alone would have to expend most of his spells to just do the volume of damage needed to kill the fighters.
> 
> The Druid, on the other hand, not only can disable all 4 fighters with ease, he can then kill them with ease.
> 
> ...




Fighter vs wizard, I think the wizard would probably fair worse in 3e, although I could be proven wrong depending on the build.

Druid would win hands down, which shows a number of the flaws in the druid design in 3e.  3e in general seems to give extra carrots to the healing classes to encourage ppl to play them.

I dont play pathfinder much either, I was simply trying to say that the problems are fixable with tweaks and arent some inherent flaw.  The druid and cleric in particular are  ripe for fixing., but the minor kind, spell pruning, shapeshift ability modification, etc.

With specifically the wizard vs the fighter matchup I think they would be close enough to contrast the "fighter holding the wizards candle" trope we often hear.   Especially at 6th level with multiple variable encounters and healing, I would be shocked to see the fighter do significantly worse after a few battles.  (Then again I've never seen an "optimized build" that ppl refer to, so maybe there are things Im missing.)


----------



## GreyICE (May 6, 2012)

Why are we restricting this challenge all of a sudden?

If the existence of a Druid completely invalidates the entire article labeled 'fighter' in the PHB, doesn't that prove the point that everyone is saying?  That Fighters are a terrible choice for a character from a power level perspective, and that they will feel marginalized and useless very quickly, which is a bad thing from a personal satisfaction perspective (and from a corporate marketing perspective, since unhappy customers rarely buy things).  

I assure you, the existence of a Druid does NOT invalidate the Wizard.  In point of fact Druids love having Wizards along.

It's simply that Wizards are far more of a party animal than Druids.  Because they are so very bad at inflicting damage repeatedly, they love having other party members along.  

As an example, the Wizard glitterdusts the Ogre, which blinds it.  The ogre now can barely hit anything, and gets massive penalties to defense which guarantee it will shortly be dead.  But the Wizard still has to, well... kill it.  And that consumes spells.  And therefore, without a way to constantly damage things with a renewable resource, they are forced to consume spells rapidly and enter the '5 minute workday' paradigm.

The Druid can just Blinding Spittle the Ogre to shut it down, then beat it to death with their claws.  Same with the Cleric, except slightly less so until they find Divine Metamagic, then slightly moreso (it kinda varies).  Anyway, Cleric, Druid, Wizard x 2, fairly invincible party.  The Wizards shut everything down, the Cleric and Druid beat it to death in short order, and if the Wizards are shut down for a bit, the Cleric and Druid have so much backup power it's insane.  Also the Druid can immediately become an army whenever, and the Cleric can probably beat an army in single combat if he needs to.


----------



## CroBob (May 6, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> He isn't. But then any other character wouldn't be him. Are your characters _exactly _the same if someone else played them? I certainly hope not because that would be admitting yourself as a useless meatbag that just rolls dice. A _player adds _quality to a character that you can't find recorded on the sheet.




I was trying to read the whole thread before adding my few cents, but this one really has me going. Are you listening to yourself? You're arguing against people who think classes should be mechanically balanced, and your argument is "It doesn't matter what your class can do mechanically, because you can define your character in ways totally unrelated to the mechanics of the game."

So then why are we discussing a game, which is defined by it's mechanics, at all? Let's all just do theater, or something!

This is a discussion about balancing classes based on the mechanics of the game. The personality traits and actions your character does which are not defined by those mechanics are _totally irrelevant_!


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 6, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> The 3E system was broken



The problem, one that the last few dozen posts in this thread have revealed very well imo, is that in 3e the gulf between a well played, well optimised PC and one that isn't is absolutely vast.

When 3e was first playtested, the playtesters didn't know how to optimise. How could they, in a system with so many options? In fact in the early days of 3e a significant number of people thought the monk was OP. Although the designers did intend for the cleric and druid to be stronger than the rest, in order to incentivise players to pick the unattractive 'healer classes', their full power wasn't understood. We have reports of playtest druids attacking with a scimitar for 1d6 damage. Optimisation 'tech' simply wasn't advanced back then.

If players never learn that tech, then 3e is a lot more balanced. Sometimes ignorance is a virtue.


----------



## CroBob (May 6, 2012)

You know what? I think this contest would be best if the wizard would be used. Sure, the wizard may not be as super-beast as the druid in solo play, but I think it's unfair to say the wizard would be totally unready or unable. The only real power is that this is a sixth level thing, and the wizard simply hasn't acquired those cosmic powers, yet. It is, on the other hand, a perfect opportunity to display how a druid can totally invalidate any fighter. How about you each get two classes to run through this? Not as a group, but one at a time, in whichever order the player controlling the characters prefers? Hell, take all three tier one PHB classes through the gauntlet, and the other take any three of the others PHB classes? How about that?


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 6, 2012)

There's a huge question with gauntlet scenarios - what counts as winning?  Do you have to kill the enemy or just bypass or even convert them.  And a smaller question - how long between rounds. 

To illustrate, Fly is one minute/level.  If one of the challenges is an Indiana Jones style trapped corridor and the wizard simply flies across in about 30 seconds, never once worrying about the pressure plates, how to spell the safeword, or even bothering to find the invisible bridge, how much fly does he have left for the next four encounters.  Four and a half minutes?

Also if the goal of the next encounter is to make it past the orc patrol, the fighter can smash his way through - is the wizard simply allowed to fly invisibly over them?  Because almost any time there's a solution that doesn't involve hitting things until they are dead the wizard has a _massive_ advantage.

That said, to be truly effective the wizard would need an equivalent to an animal companion.  Stinking Cloud may take most of the enemies out for four and a half rounds - but you then need someone strong enough to finish them off.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 7, 2012)

If you want classes that are balanced by the numbers then go play 4th edition, simple. 

4th edition had it's chance and it blew it. Like the 4vengers of yesteryear used to tell us "The WoTc ninja's didn't come in and take your 3rd edition books", well now is the time to take your own advice. 

There are other ways to balance a system than what 4th edition did. 

5th edition needs to be it's own thing with the classes being different mechanically.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 7, 2012)

The problem I'm seeing is scenarios that are built to always favor the argument. 

There are so many factors that come into play during a game that you can't really get a solid opinion. I see that Stinking Cloud is mentioned, well what happens if you memorize Stinking Cloud and you come up against a lot of undead, well that spell is useless. Fly is cool, but enemies can fly, cast spells, and have ranged attacks. 

To be perfectly honest, the scenarios are useless as an argument. Some people have troubled with classes in their games while others don't. I have seen a lot of complaints come down to the rules not being used correctly, and while this is not always the case, a good bit of it does. 

5th edition doesn't need to be like 3rd edition because Pathfinder has that market locked tight and it doesn't need to be like 4th edition because that market sunk.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 7, 2012)

CroBob said:


> I was trying to read the whole thread before adding my few cents, but this one really has me going. Are you listening to yourself? You're arguing against people who think classes should be mechanically balanced, and your argument is "It doesn't matter what your class can do mechanically, because you can define your character in ways totally unrelated to the mechanics of the game."
> 
> So then why are we discussing a game, which is defined by it's mechanics, at all? Let's all just do theater, or something!
> 
> This is a discussion about balancing classes based on the mechanics of the game. The personality traits and actions your character does which are not defined by those mechanics are _totally irrelevant_!




You are the one sitting down to play a game. You are the one that has a good time or doesn't. These are the facts and whats on a character sheet doesn't change them. Call me a loon if you like but I find the input of the person at the table to be very relevant to the play of the game.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 7, 2012)

Hmm... if the challenge wants to go into Pathfinder, I'm looking at  throwing a  Summoner  into the mix.

 I'm even wondering how the summoner would do _without the Eidolon_  given that the summoner's first move every fight would then be to summon  D3+1 augmented  Mud  Elementals (attacking at +7 and inflicting a DC14 entrap attack  with every hit - second entrap makes the victim helpless, a good reason  to carry a longspear), or D3+1  Lemures  because Damage Resistance is good (even if the Lemure isn't). Or using  water or air elementals if appropriate...  Or even  Hyenas.

And ExploderWizard, the input of the person at the table is very relevant at the table.  It is also _not the responsibility of the game designers_.   It's not a balancing factor - especially when IME smart, creative, and  detail focussed people gravitate to classes that reward intelligence,  creativity, and attention to detail.



ForeverSlayer said:


> The problem I'm seeing is scenarios that are built to always favor the argument.
> 
> There are so many factors that come into play during a game that you can't really get a solid opinion. I see that Stinking Cloud is mentioned, well what happens if you memorize Stinking Cloud and you come up against a lot of undead, well that spell is useless. Fly is cool, but enemies can fly, cast spells, and have ranged attacks.




If the enemies can fly and have ranged attacks, the fighter is simply a target.  This isn't helping your case.  And if you're expecting undead _don't prepare Stinking Cloud_.  If it's a mix of living and undead, use Stinking Cloud on the living.    If the DM isn't giving ou any thematic consistency or forewarning then your DM is very different to mine.


----------



## CroBob (May 7, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> You are the one sitting down to play a game. You are the one that has a good time or doesn't. These are the facts and whats on a character sheet doesn't change them. Call me a loon if you like but I find the input of the person at the table to be very relevant to the play of the game.




It has plenty to do with how much fun you have and how interesting your character is, but when discussing mechanical balance, things unrelated to the mechanics of the game is irrelevant. I could have fun playing a 3.5 commoner, but to claim he's mechanically balanced to the party's Druid, or that the imbalance does not matter, simply because he's a fun character is outright silly.


----------



## B.T. (May 7, 2012)

I'm not going to slog through this thread.  Too many pages and posts for me to care.  Instead, I'm going to answer the question posed in the thread title: "Why do these crazy new school players obsess over balance?"  (A slight exaggeration, but sometimes I feel the same way about it even though I started playing with 3.5 and tend to obsess over balance.)

The reason is simple.  Many of us come from the post-2e world of feats and classes and trap options.  In 3e, you could easily make a character who sucked by taking the wrong feat or class or spell.  Given that 3.0 was a huge push toward D&D's focus on the combat encounter, combat effectiveness was king.  If you weren't at a certain power level, you were dead weight (or, worse, just dead).  And some of us witnessed this power imbalance and were troubled by it.

I'm big on fairness in games.  To me, balance is about fairness.  It's about giving everyone an opportunity to shine.  When the wizard can turn into a dragon and teleport and cast spells completely invalidate the fighter (or eliminate him on a failed Will save), the game isn't fair.  It's not right.  And nerds tend to obsess over things.  Thus, we started obsessing over balance.

To answer your question directly--"Why should classes be balanced?"--it's about fairness.

*1. I don't want to play in a game where my character is awful because I made a wrong decision at chargen.*  I don't want to play in a game where others are punished for making a wrong decision at chargen.  Some exceptions to this exist, but wrong decisions (like Int 9 wizard or 4 Str fighter) in this vein should be glaringly, obviously wrong.

*2. I don't want to play in a game where new players are "punished" for not knowing the game.*  This goes with #1.  I don't want to have to look over my players' shoulders to ensure they're not gimping themselves by writing "fighter" on their character sheet instead of "cleric."

*3. I want relatively balanced encounters.*  It's not fun trying to design an encounter for characters with wildly divergent power levels.  Not every encounter needs to be perfectly balanced--some should be an easy victory and others should be very difficult--but if I'm planning an encounter, I'd like to have a roughly even power level for all players.  When one player curbstomps the encounter, it's less fun for me (and the other players, I suspect).

*4. I don't want to have to ban or nerf material.*  Write me a solid product.  The less makework I have to do, the more time I can devote to playing the game.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 7, 2012)

B.T. said:


> In 3e, you could easily make a character who sucked by taking the wrong feat or class or spell.  Given that 3.0 was a huge push toward D&D's focus on the combat encounter, combat effectiveness was king.  If you weren't at a certain power level, you were dead weight (or, worse, just dead).  And some of us witnessed this power imbalance and were troubled by it.
> 
> I'm big on fairness in games.  To me, balance is about fairness.  It's about giving everyone an opportunity to shine.  When the wizard can turn into a dragon and teleport and cast spells completely invalidate the fighter (or eliminate him on a failed Will save), the game isn't fair.  It's not right.  And nerds tend to obsess over things.  Thus, we started obsessing over balance.




This is something that should not be implemented in rules because it is highly highly subjective. Nobody is ever dead weight in 3rd edition. Everyone has a way to contribute to the party whether it's through combat or out of combat. Everyone views party contribution differently. 3rd edition gives you the freedom to mechanically build almost any type of character that you want, just saying it isn't goo enough for a good many people. 

4th edition made the mistake of trying to tell people how to play and they tried to focus on telling people that if their PC didn't contribute enough in combat then they were pretty much playing it wrong. While the designers didn't directly say this, the rules of the game made this clear. 

Balance has nothing to do with party contributions and having characters "shine". This concept is different for everyone so rules for it are not a good idea.


----------



## billd91 (May 7, 2012)

CroBob said:


> It has plenty to do with how much fun you have and how interesting your character is, but when discussing mechanical balance, things unrelated to the mechanics of the game is irrelevant. I could have fun playing a 3.5 commoner, but to claim he's mechanically balanced to the party's Druid, or that the imbalance does not matter, simply because he's a fun character is outright silly.




This all assumes that making the classes mechanically balanced is really what's important. While I find some general balance to be a worthwhile goal, it's not so important that I'm willing to give up too much D&Dishness. That's why I don't consider 4e a well designed D&D game. 
Too much focus on mechanical balance between classes leads to an unbalanced game.


----------



## hanez (May 7, 2012)

GreyICE said:


> Why are we restricting this challenge all of a sudden?
> 
> If the existence of a Druid completely invalidates the entire article labeled 'fighter' in the PHB, doesn't that prove the point that everyone is saying?  That Fighters are a terrible choice for a character from a power level perspective, and that they will feel marginalized and useless very quickly, which is a bad thing from a personal satisfaction perspective (and from a corporate marketing perspective, since unhappy customers rarely buy things).
> 
> ...




Well theres a few reasons I am putting in restrictions and it depends exactly on what we are testing.

First off, I commonly see on these boards that the fighter is the  servant of the wizard, so the wizard is a good test case to prove whether or not thats true. You happened to mention 6th level, which I believe the fighter would dominate at in most circumstances, the wizard would probably start gaining an edge at higher levels > 12 or so.   But if we tested it as you said, with multiple at level encounters, with healing in between encounters but NO resource replinishment I believe the fighter would be on par or have the advantage (itd be close over 20 levels).   

Secondly, we often see on these boards is that the fighter is the servant to magic users, as if ALL the magic users are better then the fighter.  As if the at will fighter and any Vancian/daily magic user could never be balanced (we heard this specifically with the launch of 4e).  So to test whether thats true or not, we need to find just one vancian class that would be balanced, not every class has to be balanced to test this assertion.

For me the question ISNT "is the fighter equal to the druid in 3.x?".    The question I am most concerned with  is "*can we make a game with atwill type martial types and vancian style magic users that preserves most of D&Ds sacred cows and is relatively balanced?"  *  I believe the answer is yes because I have DMd that game, sure with some houserules but nothing major.The 3rd edition druid shapechange had holes in it.  It needed to be patched (and was in pathfinder but I don't know how well), so its not a good test case.  This fault can be fixed in two ways:

1 - the problems can be fixed, patched, refined, updated etc. Plenty of minor and some major modifications to make classes closer to balanced

2 - we can ditch the entire system and make a whole new game with classes that are much closer in similarity to eachother and slap the D&D name on it.

4e took option 2 and I as well as many others believe it was the wrong choice.  My argument here is that option 1 is doable, sure there were imbalances in 3e, but they werent that bad, they werent on the level of the fighter being a candle holder for the average player.  Sure this happened sometimes, it might of happened in your experience, but I would argue it was either with specific optimized builds that can be fixed, or the game was run by bad DMs.  And most importantly the problems are easily FIXABLE.  They were fixable in 3e by competent DMs, and players that werent jerks, fixable with simple houserules, encounters that challenge ALL classes and the occasional directed magic item to bump up a player lagging behind and I have no doubt that they can and will be fixed in 5e.


----------



## CroBob (May 7, 2012)

billd91 said:


> This all assumes that making the classes mechanically balanced is really what's important. While I find some general balance to be a worthwhile goal, it's not so important that I'm willing to give up too much D&Dishness. That's why I don't consider 4e a well designed D&D game.
> Too much focus on mechanical balance between classes leads to an unbalanced game.



Exactly what aspect of the game got removed such that it's no longer like older editions? Vancian casting? Fighters having more to do that hit things with sharp stuff? What is it, exactly?


----------



## hanez (May 7, 2012)

CroBob said:


> Exactly what aspect of the game got removed such that it's no longer like older editions? Vancian casting? Fighters having more to do that hit things with sharp stuff? What is it, exactly?




3e had Tome of Battle that gave fighters similar options, the presence of that choice for martial types was a welcome addition in 3e AND 4e.  But the removal of the choice to be a simple traditional D&D fighter  in 4e WAS a problem.  I can think of  two players in  my campaigns (one always plays a dwarven fighter, the other always plays a half orc barbarian) that had problems with 4e forcing them to use a complicated "spell list".   So I might ammend your quote to be "Fighters being forced to do more then hit things with sharp stuff and now manage "fight- spells" was a problem.   

Nevertheless I think core D&D NEEDS a fighter with choices/spell lists similar to the 4e version, call him the warlord or the ritualfighter or something, make him a choice for the player who wants to play a more complicated martial type, there are plenty of players who want that choice.  But DONT take away the simple 5 attacks a round fighter either because there are plenty of players who consider that a staple of D&D.


Oh and removing the option at playing vancian, a staple of D&D, that too.


----------



## pemerton (May 7, 2012)

prosfilaes said:


> Nothing in D&D is under the player's control.



I don't think this is true at all.

In Gygaxian AD&D the players control their party composition, their equipment and their mapping (see the discussion in the concluding pages of Gygax's PHB).

In 4e the players control their PC builds (see the PHB, plus the wishlist guidelines for magic items in the DMG).

Maybe there are no elements of 3E D&D that are not under the players' control - I don't know the game well enough.


----------



## Akaiku (May 7, 2012)

hanez said:


> But the removal of the choice to be a simple traditional D&D fighter  in 4e WAS a problem.  I can think of  two players in  my campaigns (one always plays a dwarven fighter, the other always plays a half orc barbarian) that had problems with 4e forcing them to use a complicated "spell list".   So I might ammend your quote to be "Fighters being forced to do more then hit things with sharp stuff and now manage "fight- spells" was a problem.




Essentials slayer says hi.

There power list is hit with sword and hit with sword harder. Occasionally utilitys that do something else.

Also, one can argue that a fighter could have simply not used any powers. You would just suck compared to one that did. Is that a problem?


----------



## Sadras (May 7, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> If the DM isn't giving ou any thematic consistency or forewarning then your DM is very different to mine.




Which is my main point about 3-4 pages ago. Some people have problems with classes some dont. The game has always been flexible and is never produced perfect - hence our house rules, which has always been encouraged.
But one major factor in all of this is the DM and open communication with the players. If the DM is creating encounters that consistently highlight a classes innefectiveness or shortcomings if you will, then the fault will lie with the DM. We all have the same PHB, that much we can agree on, but we all dont have the same DM/s. 
Refer to my post upthread for details - how this could be resolved quite easily and effectively in the DMG. Adjusting class design for them to be balanced during combat encounters - which is 95% of the problem that has arisen in this thread.


----------



## CroBob (May 7, 2012)

hanez said:


> 3e had Tome of Battle that gave fighters similar options, the presence of that choice for martial types was a welcome addition in 3e AND 4e.  But the removal of the choice to be a simple traditional D&D fighter  in 4e WAS a problem.  I can think of  two players in  my campaigns (one always plays a dwarven fighter, the other always plays a half orc barbarian) that had problems with 4e forcing them to use a complicated "spell list".   So I might ammend your quote to be "Fighters being forced to do more then hit things with sharp stuff and now manage "fight- spells" was a problem.
> 
> Nevertheless I think core D&D NEEDS a fighter with choices/spell lists similar to the 4e version, call him the warlord or the ritualfighter or something, make him a choice for the player who wants to play a more complicated martial type, there are plenty of players who want that choice.  But DONT take away the simple 5 attacks a round fighter either because there are plenty of players who consider that a staple of D&D.
> 
> ...



I don't know how managing a few extra abilities makes any class difficult to manage. At least, not in the heroic tier. I simply cannot empathize with the this. Two at wills, a single Encounter, a single daily, that's it at first level, and they're all optional. You don't have to use any of those. Either way, I couldn't claim I think this is complicated enough to make anyone confused or anything.

I can't empathize with the desire to play Vancian casting, either. "Well, boys, I done cast my three spells. I'm done contributing in meaningful ways for a while. Let me know when we get to sleep for the night. In the mean time, I'll be googling up crap over here." I don't like wizards who are done wizarding after a few spells, even if they get a bunch more when they grow up. Daily limits on anything do nothing more than force players to rest in order to continue moving if those daily abilities are important. I would prefer a system of basic attacks and encounter powers exclusively, but hey, you like things that bother me. Okay. This the end of the discussion.


----------



## Hussar (May 7, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> This is something that should not be implemented in rules because it is highly highly subjective. Nobody is ever dead weight in 3rd edition.




Ballocks.  This is outright untrue.  I had a player playing a halfling monk/paladin/Pious Templar in my World's Largest Dungeon campaign.  Now, he could barely ever fail a saving throw and any save he made meant that he ignored the effects.  That's true.  However, the cost for this was he couldn't hit anything, and, when the stars aligned and he actually did hit, he did about as much damage as a commoner with a stick.  He was so far outclassed by everything else at the table, INCLUDING the kobold bard (!), that he was essentially dead weight in combat. 



> Everyone has a way to contribute to the party whether it's through combat or out of combat. Everyone views party contribution differently. 3rd edition gives you the freedom to mechanically build almost any type of character that you want, just saying it isn't goo enough for a good many people.




Yup, you could create anything you wanted.  Unfortunately, you could also create anything you wanted and the game gave you virtually no guidance on whether what you were creating was actually a viable character or not.  



> 4th edition made the mistake of trying to tell people how to play and they tried to focus on telling people that if their PC didn't contribute enough in combat then they were pretty much playing it wrong. While the designers didn't directly say this, the rules of the game made this clear.




This is wrong.  What the game does actually say is that all classes, regardless of other considerations, will be in roughly the same ballpark in combat.  You will not create a dead weight character unless you do so very deliberately.  It says nothing about playing it wrong or anything like that.



> Balance has nothing to do with party contributions and having characters "shine". This concept is different for everyone so rules for it are not a good idea.




This is outright wrong.  And easily proven.  Create a party of 15th level characters.  Now, add a 1st level character to the party.  How much is that 1st level character contributing to the game?  Some freeform roleplay and that's about it.  Certainly a HELL of a lot less than the other 15th level characters.  If balance had nothing to do with characters shining, then my 1st level character should be able to contribute equally with in the 15th level party.

But, I'm pretty willing to bet that he can't.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 7, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Ballocks.  This is outright untrue.  I had a player playing a halfling monk/paladin/Pious Templar in my World's Largest Dungeon campaign.  Now, he could barely ever fail a saving throw and any save he made meant that he ignored the effects.  That's true.  However, the cost for this was he couldn't hit anything, and, when the stars aligned and he actually did hit, he did about as much damage as a commoner with a stick.  He was so far outclassed by everything else at the table, INCLUDING the kobold bard (!), that he was essentially dead weight in combat.



This reminds me of a character in one of our games, he was a halfling Rogue/Cleric/Scout/something else if I remember correctly.  He ended up trying to "powergame" a character with really high AC and saves.  He was nearly impossible to hit, but had about 8 less bonuses to hit than everyone else in the group.  He'd spend most combats "roleplaying" his character as afraid of enemies and running away from them and trying not to be hit.  When he did attack because someone in the group told him when we were fighting for our lives we had no desire to have someone along for the ride who didn't even TRY to beat the enemies....he'd make an attack roll and miss.  When he did hit, we found out he was doing something like 1d6+1 points of damage while other people in the group were hitting for 40 and 50.  In an average combat, if he wasn't actually in the group, nothing would have changed.  The monsters wasted about 1 attack roll on him before changing targets.  Since our DM knew his AC, often the monsters wouldn't even waste 1 attack roll on him, they'd just ignore him.

We asked him to at least fix his character so he could contribute.  He refused.  Since he was our friend, we put up with it.  But none of us were happy about it.


Hussar said:


> This is outright wrong.  And easily proven.  Create a party of 15th level characters.  Now, add a 1st level character to the party.  How much is that 1st level character contributing to the game?  Some freeform roleplay and that's about it.



To be fair, from reading his previous posts, it appears that he is a proponent of balancing low combat strength with out of combat benefits.  So, if this was a 1e game where there were no social skills and the player in question was really charismatic(player, not character), then I could see a 1st level character contributing to freeform roleplaying a lot.

And that seems to be his point.  He believes the game doesn't need to encourage balance because that 1st level character will hold his own in "other" portions of the game.

However, given that the average game I've played in has had about 10 minutes of freeform roleplaying for every hour of combat, it's not a balanced tradeoff by any means.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 8, 2012)

Sadras said:


> Which is my main point about 3-4 pages ago. Some people have problems with classes some dont. The game has always been flexible and is never produced perfect - hence our house rules, which has always been encouraged.



There are good houserules, and there are bad houserules.  Now, I don't mean to call anyone out for having badwrongfun, but my point is this:  Modifying the game to work in ways that are preferable to the table in question are good.  They adjust various parts of the game in ways that make everyone happy either by adding ability, utility, or flavor.
But then there are houserules that are made to fix poor design.  They exist because the designers left such glaring flaws that _every_ table needed to create the same rules at every table to rectify the same flaws.

Think of it as the difference between houseruling that you can play a large character, no bonuses, no penalties and creating Pathfinder.  The first alters the game to suit certain tastes.  The latter alters the game to fix various design errors.

The game should encourage creative houserules which modify the game in ways to more closely tailor it to the wants and needs of the table.  The game shouldn't require tables to create hourserules because the designers made a broken game.



> But one major factor in all of this is the DM and open communication with the players. If the DM is creating encounters that consistently highlight a classes innefectiveness or shortcomings if you will, then the fault will lie with the DM. We all have the same PHB, that much we can agree on, but we all dont have the same DM/s.
> Refer to my post upthread for details - how this could be resolved quite easily and effectively in the DMG. Adjusting class design for them to be balanced during combat encounters - which is 95% of the problem that has arisen in this thread.



This is why, at the very least, all characters should be able to bring _something_ to each pillar of the game.  But yes, in a home-game if there are consistently one type of encounter far more often than another, the DM either didn't make that clear, or isn't very good at encounter design.  Of course if it's the latter, there's also the possibility that the game favors a specific kind of encounter over another.


----------



## hanez (May 8, 2012)

Akaiku said:


> Essentials slayer says hi.
> 
> There power list is hit with sword and hit with sword harder. Occasionally utilitys that do something else.
> 
> Also, one can argue that a fighter could have simply not used any powers. You would just suck compared to one that did. Is that a problem?





Quit about a year and a half into 4e.  Slayer doesnt have the same amount of powers as the other classes I take it?


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 8, 2012)

shidaku said:


> les that are made to fix poor design.  They exist because the designers left such glaring flaws that _every_ table needed to create the same rules at every table to rectify the same flaws.



Well, not the same rules.  People are more creative and less consistent than that.  There may be many different variants to cope with the same shortcoming of flawed game.  Among the most common house-rules back in the day were:  individual initiative, 'mana' point alternatives to vancian casting, higher hit points at first level, reduced or eliminated training time/cost to level, expanded or eliminated class/level limits by race, and various attempts at grafting on some sort of skill system.  Among many others, of course.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 8, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, not the same rules.  People are more creative and less consistent than that.  There may be many different variants to cope with the same shortcoming of flawed game.  Among the most common house-rules back in the day were:  individual initiative, 'mana' point alternatives to vancian casting, higher hit points at first level, reduced or eliminated training time/cost to level, expanded or eliminated class/level limits by race, and various attempts at grafting on some sort of skill system.  Among many others, of course.




True, not everyone sees the same solution to the same problem, and in some regards, that works.  A lot of those things you mention however are still a bit of table opinion.  

Lets say there was a problem with attack bonuses and defenses, and the only way the game fixed it is by forcing players to take boring, uncreative "math feats", so players figured that instead, they'd just adjust the bonuses up or down at certain levels, making the problem and the designer's solution irrelevent.

That's the sort of flaws I'm talking about.  The game should encourage and provide tools for creative creation that adds things that _improve_ the game.  Players shouldn't be required to create solutions to problems that designers should be addressing.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 8, 2012)

shidaku said:


> em with attack bonuses and defenses, and the only way the game fixed it is by forcing players to take boring, uncreative "math feats", so players figured that instead, they'd just adjust the bonuses up or down at certain levels, making the problem and the designer's solution irrelevent.



Even such a simple flaw has multiple possible fixes, though.  Some tables give a feat for free, but let you spend feats on others. Some gave a 'tier bonus' at certain levels.  Some banned the feats and countered the issue with in-game player options (like leaning heavily on bonus granting leaders) or DM fiat (adjusting monster level or numbers slightly).



> Players shouldn't be required to create solutions to problems that designers should be addressing.



That's the important point.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 8, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Even such a simple flaw has multiple possible fixes, though.  Some tables give a feat for free, but let you spend feats on others. Some gave a 'tier bonus' at certain levels.  Some banned the feats and countered the issue with in-game player options (like leaning heavily on bonus granting leaders) or DM fiat (adjusting monster level or numbers slightly).



Sure, but the end result is still moving the numbers on one end or the other up or down respectively. 

Personally, I do the latter.  My monsters are exactly as tough or as weak as the players are capable of handing and the situation requires.  Realistically, this solution should exist regardless of broken math or not, 4e monster building is pretty darn ideal all around.



> That's the important point.



mmhmm, while some math fixes are inevitable as new material is released, problems should not be so....glaring.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (May 8, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> To be fair, from reading his previous posts, it appears that he is a proponent of balancing low combat strength with out of combat benefits.  So, if this was a 1e game where there were no social skills and the player in question was really charismatic(player, not character), then I could see a 1st level character contributing to freeform roleplaying a lot.
> 
> And that seems to be his point.  He believes the game doesn't need to encourage balance because that 1st level character will hold his own in "other" portions of the game.
> 
> However, given that the average game I've played in has had about 10 minutes of freeform roleplaying for every hour of combat, it's not a balanced tradeoff by any means.




Very early RPG designers could play the "if only you played the game correctly (the way I do after 900 hours of practice), then you wouldn't have these problems" card.  It is not 1985 any more.

Now I would say that certain assumptions on the part of the designers are simply not what I should bother to pay good money for.  In a game of D&D, guessing that out of combat prowess can compensate for in combat weakness does not make much sense.  There are games in which that completely does make sense (e.g. Mouse Guard) but those birds are very unlike D&D from top to bottom.


----------



## pemerton (May 8, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I had a player playing a halfling monk/paladin/Pious Templar in my World's Largest Dungeon campaign.  Now, he could barely ever fail a saving throw and any save he made meant that he ignored the effects.  That's true.  However, the cost for this was he couldn't hit anything, and, when the stars aligned and he actually did hit, he did about as much damage as a commoner with a stick.  He was so far outclassed by everything else at the table, INCLUDING the kobold bard (!), that he was essentially dead weight in combat.





Majoru Oakheart said:


> This reminds me of a character in one of our games, he was a halfling Rogue/Cleric/Scout/something else if I remember correctly.  He ended up trying to "powergame" a character with really high AC and saves.  He was nearly impossible to hit, but had about 8 less bonuses to hit than everyone else in the group.  He'd spend most combats "roleplaying" his character as afraid of enemies and running away from them and trying not to be hit.  When he did attack because someone in the group told him when we were fighting for our lives we had no desire to have someone along for the ride who didn't even TRY to beat the enemies....he'd make an attack roll and miss.  When he did hit, we found out he was doing something like 1d6+1 points of damage while other people in the group were hitting for 40 and 50.



I've never encountered quite this phenomenon.

I have a player who is a little notorious for building underpowered PCs. His wizard uses a Tome of Readiness, is an Invoker multi-class/paragon path despite starting with a 20/14 INT/WIS split, and has among his feats Skill Training (Dungeoneering) and Deep Sage. On the other hand, this PC also has Wall of Fire, Arcane Gate and use to have Flaming Sphere until he recently levelled up to a 15th level daily Domination attack from Heroes of the Feywild. And he also has Action Surge and Superior Will as feats.

In our previous (Rolemaster) campaign the same player had a samurai artisan - he spent quite a bit of PC building resources on weapon and armour smithing skills that rarely came into play. But he also had very strong melee combat capabilities that definitely did not go unnoticed in a fight, even though there were 2 or 3 other PCs who were overall stronger in melee.

That is definitely how I prefer my quirky PCs - still able to pull their weight sufficiently that they are not just irrelevant anytime the mechanics are turned to for resolution purposes.

In the same RM campaign there was a PC shaman/druid type who was on the cusp of uselessness, but not quite over it. Rolemaster puts enough weight on non-combat sites of conflict that his abilities as a diviner, spirit summoner/speaker and nature guru came into play, and at higher levels he could create walls of stone and summon elephants or rhinoceroses into combat, which from time to time made a real difference. Rolemaster also has much less steep scaling that 3E or 4e: I've never GMed a game with the sorts of functional disparities between attack and defence that you two describe in these posts (I've GMed RM wizards who will be dropped by any hit, but they've always had strong active/aggressive abilities, as well as a range of defences to prevent that hit being taken).

I guess in the end I want to GM players who are interested in engaging the game via the mechanics, rather than building a PC whom the mechanics can't touch, but who can't actually do anything him-/herself. What does it even mean to talk about "playing" that PC (except perhaps in a purely freeform context)?


----------



## Sadras (May 8, 2012)

[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION]
Well I dont disagree with anything you've stated or elaborated upon. So I think we are pretty much in agreement here.


----------



## haakon1 (May 8, 2012)

Oh nevermind


----------



## CroBob (May 8, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> To be fair, from reading his previous  posts, it appears that he is a proponent of balancing low combat  strength with out of combat benefits.  So, if this was a 1e game where  there were no social skills and the player in question was really  charismatic(player, not character), then I could see a 1st level  character contributing to freeform roleplaying a lot.
> 
> And that seems to be his point.  He believes the game doesn't need to  encourage balance because that 1st level character will hold his own in  "other" portions of the game.
> 
> However, given that the average game I've played in has had about 10  minutes of freeform roleplaying for every hour of combat, it's not a  balanced tradeoff by any means.




Even if the game was entirely free form role playing, the point is utterly moot. Yes, in the parts where the rules don't cover, then what the player decides and acts like and all that determine the character's utility. The problem is that this solves the problems in areas not covered by the rules, which means it's totally independent of the game mechanics and therefore totally irrelevant in determining fair game mechanics!


----------



## Hussar (May 8, 2012)

Pemerton said:
			
		

> I guess in the end I want to GM players who are interested in engaging the game via the mechanics, rather than building a PC whom the mechanics can't touch, but who can't actually do anything him-/herself. What does it even mean to talk about "playing" that PC (except perhaps in a purely freeform context)?




I think we're on the same page here.  I can build two characters.  Give both identical personalities and archetypes.  Make one really good at one thing and terrible at another, and make the other good at one thing and comparable to everyone else at the table at other things.  For me, I prefer the latter and I do expect the players to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of that.

I loathe any mechanic that tells the player, sorry, you are not tall enough for this ride, not because you did anything wrong, but because your character will NEVER be tall enough for this ride.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 8, 2012)

Hussar said:


> ForeverSlayer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He said "nobody is ever dead weight", not "everyone always contributes meaningfully to combat". Though in my experience, people usually contribute to both.



Hussar said:


> ForeverSlayer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I'll disagree here. It depends on the 1st level character. He probably won't contribute much to combat (though he'll contribute a tiny amount, via flanking, another guy the bad guys have to account for, etc.), but he can certainly contribute to other things. Gathering food quickly, navigating, or dealing with animals/plants (like gathering herbs) if nobody has any survival skills. Knowledges about any number of topics (cities, nations, religion, undead, other planes, weather, and on and on). Social aspects (including leadership, negotiation, intimidation, lying, detecting the truth, etc.). Patching wounds, treating diseases, poisons, or infections, discovering what was used to kill a creature, removing status effects, lessening penalties (from fatigue, etc.), etc. Scouting ahead, keeping an eye out for things, or an extra guy on shift during the night. Crafting goods for the PCs, or making money for them on the side by selling it. And that's not talking about one more guy to lug around heavy stuff.

I could easily add a hit die 1 NPC that would help my players out, and the game assumes that hit die 4 is "the average settled adult". They might find him in danger in some of the combats they jump into, but against local bandits and the like (hit die 3-5), the NPC could definitely contribute (if he's a warrior or magician).

Now, can the NPC beat a PC in any area the PC has covered? Nope, not really at all. He'll get trounced. But, he can definitely make a difference, and he can definitely still get his time to "shine". So, yeah, I can pretty much say your "outright wrong" and "easily proven" statements are way, _way_ too broad for me to accept at face value. I have absolutely no problem envisioning PCs of wildly variable levels getting a lot of screen time, as I've seen it (in 3.5, a level 8 PC getting a ton of screen time when the rest of the party was level 23).

Yeah, you're more or less correct when it comes to combat. I just feel that there's a lot more to the game than combat. But, when it comes to D&D, I remember your view (unless it's changed since the "Is D&D About Combat" thread), so I expect our disagreement is somewhat fundamental, rather than superficial. As always, play what you like


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 8, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Ballocks.  This is outright untrue.  I had a player playing a halfling monk/paladin/Pious Templar in my World's Largest Dungeon campaign.
> 
> _Just so we are clear, this is not bullocks and you saying it's untrue is a load of  to be honest. Your priorities are on combat, which does not make up 100% of the game. Let's use your Monk there as an example. If he is hard as hell to hit with great saves why isn't he running around taking blows for everyone else? Why isn't he drawing OA's from creatures or anything else of that nature? _
> 
> ...




Read the above


----------



## pemerton (May 8, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> It depends on the 1st level character. He probably won't contribute much to combat (though he'll contribute a tiny amount, via flanking, another guy the bad guys have to account for, etc.), but he can certainly contribute to other things. Gathering food quickly, navigating, or dealing with animals/plants (like gathering herbs) if nobody has any survival skills. Knowledges about any number of topics (cities, nations, religion, undead, other planes, weather, and on and on). Social aspects (including leadership, negotiation, intimidation, lying, detecting the truth, etc.). Patching wounds, treating diseases, poisons, or infections, discovering what was used to kill a creature, removing status effects, lessening penalties (from fatigue, etc.), etc. Scouting ahead, keeping an eye out for things, or an extra guy on shift during the night. Crafting goods for the PCs, or making money for them on the side by selling it.



This seems to assume not only (i) that the 1st level character contributes in a niche that the PCs don't already cover, but also (ii) that non-combat skills are in some significant way not level-dependent.

Rolemaster is a game in which (ii) is false - ie all skills are level dependent. And I've never played a Rolemaster game in which 15th level PCs have a "niche gap" that might noticeably be filled by a 1st level character - by 15th level, they have worked out to adequately fill whatever niches they care about. I mean, there might be a bit of extra colour in saying "Hey, my PC gets an extra hour of sleep because newbie here can fill a shift on watch", but if missing out on that extra hour for the previous 14 levels caused any mechanical penalty (eg fatigue), I'm fairly confident the 15th level PCs will have found a way to cope.

I can't really envisage 3E being that much different in this respect, and 4e certainly is not given the level-dependent nature of non-combat abilities.

But in a game in which (ii) is true, what does it even mean to talk about 1st vs 15th level characters?


----------



## billd91 (May 8, 2012)

pemerton said:


> This seems to assume not only (i) that the 1st level character contributes in a niche that the PCs don't already cover, but also (ii) that non-combat skills are in some significant way not level-dependent.
> 
> Rolemaster is a game in which (ii) is false - ie all skills are level dependent. And I've never played a Rolemaster game in which 15th level PCs have a "niche gap" that might noticeably be filled by a 1st level character - by 15th level, they have worked out to adequately fill whatever niches they care about. I mean, there might be a bit of extra colour in saying "Hey, my PC gets an extra hour of sleep because newbie here can fill a shift on watch", but if missing out on that extra hour for the previous 14 levels caused any mechanical penalty (eg fatigue), I'm fairly confident the 15th level PCs will have found a way to cope.
> 
> ...




In 1e and 2e, non-combat skills were largely level independent. Characters taking a non-weapon proficiency had a success chance based on the stat that the skill was based on. Characters *could* invest further as they went up in levels, but the main improvement was by taking the skill in the first place.

But even with a level-based skill system, as long as the DCs aren't based on the average party level (which they shouldn't be - they should be based on the task at hand) the low level character may still be a contributor. Sure, he's less likely to have a unique contribution simply because he hasn't got the accumulation of level-raising benefits to invest, but I don't see that as a flaw or as meaning the low level character can't find ways to contribute. Nor do I think it matters that the high level PCs would find ways to cope if the low level character is gone. He doesn't have to be necessary to contribute.


----------



## pemerton (May 8, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Nor do I think it matters that the high level PCs would find ways to cope if the low level character is gone. He doesn't have to be necessary to contribute.



It depends on what we mean by "cope".

If we mean "cope" in the way that my players would cope if they lost the player of the ranger-cleric PC, and that PC with him, well that's one thing. The game would go on, but play would be noticeably different.

If we mean "cope" in the way that the players would cope if their porter died - they'd just redestribute the gear on the character sheets and retotal their encumbrances - we're talking about something else.

I guess from the point of view of the fictional characters, it is pleasant enough to have your load lightened by a porter. But from the point of view of the players of the game, all that "lightening the load" involves is changing a few numbers on an equipment list. I personally don't regard this as contributing to the game. It's the merest of mere colour.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 8, 2012)

Why in the world are we talking about the contribution levels of a 1st level PC in a group of 15th level PC's?

Let's talk about the contribution levels of equal level pc classes.


----------



## pemerton (May 8, 2012)

billd91 said:


> In 1e and 2e, non-combat skills were largely level independent. Characters taking a non-weapon proficiency had a success chance based on the stat that the skill was based on.



And I'm someone who always found this strange - that in a level-based game, level doesn't matter. It also interacts strangely with thief abilities.



billd91 said:


> as long as the DCs aren't based on the average party level (which they shouldn't be - they should be based on the task at hand



I don't think there is any blanket "should" here. In Burning Wheel DCs are "objective" - and play an important role in building up the shared conception of the gameworld through play. In HeroQuest revised DCs are "relative" - and play a crucial role in relation to pacing and the realisation of the pass/fail cycle. The shared conception of the gameworld is built up through other means, including a wider range of augments than comes into play in Burning Wheel.

4e uses a mix of objective and relative DCs, but inclines towards the relative. It relies on a very long list of detailed story elements (that WotC presumably makes a lot of its money from selling!) to build up the shared conception of the gameworld.

There are many viable techniques here, depending on what you want to prioritise in your game, and what other techniques you're prepared to bring to bear.


----------



## Arlough (May 8, 2012)

billd91 said:


> In 1e and 2e, non-combat skills were largely level independent. Characters taking a non-weapon proficiency had a success chance based on the stat that the skill was based on. Characters *could* invest further as they went up in levels, but the main improvement was by taking the skill in the first place.
> 
> But even with a level-based skill system, as long as the DCs aren't based on the average party level (which they shouldn't be - they should be based on the task at hand) the low level character may still be a contributor. Sure, he's less likely to have a unique contribution simply because he hasn't got the accumulation of level-raising benefits to invest, but I don't see that as a flaw or as meaning the low level character can't find ways to contribute. Nor do I think it matters that the high level PCs would find ways to cope if the low level character is gone. He doesn't have to be necessary to contribute.




In 1e & 2e, skills were level independent, but number of skills were not.  So that lvl 1  character would be able to fill in about 3 skills (assuming that nobody else had seen them to be valuable enough to take) and could stand watch.  But they could only do this in safe areas, because lvl 15 characters will be taking on conflicts in places too dangerous for a lvl 1 character to even contemplate.

Also, filling in a few skills is not really meaningful contribution. Especially if the rest of the party is expected to _*spend*_ resources to keep you alive in all the other situations.  Quite frankly, I would rather have an NPC in my party that I had to protect than a PC with a disengaged player.
As for the flanking in combat, the lvl 1 would die immediately after pulling adjacent to the enemy, and now you have a body to haul around.

I agree that he doesn't have to be absolutely necessarily to contribute, but his contribution must be _meaningful_ or it is just a waste of time.
If you are given a penny, you don't immediately revalue your assets to account for that additional penny, because it is not a meaningful amount.  A lvl 1's contribution to a lvl 15 party is that penny.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 8, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Why in the world are we talking about the contribution levels of a 1st level PC in a group of 15th level PC's?
> 
> Let's talk about the contribution levels of equal level pc classes.




And that's just it.  The argument is that in a party with a wizard, a druid, and an artificer (or a wizard, a summoner, and a cleric in PF) the fighter is contributing little more than the 1st level PC would.  

The argument is that the difference in power between a tier 1 class and a tier 5 class by 15th level is enough to render the concept of "equal level" a joke.

If you accept the premise that if someone is seriously outpowered (hence the level 1 character) they aren't contributing significantly to the party.  If not you are claiming that the level 1 doesn't matter.  If you accept that a level 1 character doesn't contribute much to the party, common consensus is that the fighter is seriously outclassed.  Not as much as a level 1 character would be - but still seriously outclassed.  Which means they aren't worth a 15th level character.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 8, 2012)

Don't 15th level parties do everything with magic? Their scout is flying and invisible or a _wizard eye_. Research is done by means of _legend lore_, _commune with nature_, or _contact other plane_. _Unseen servant_ does the fetching and carrying. Etc.

And wouldn't a 1st level character just die whenever a _fireball_ or _cloudkill_ goes off, or a dragon breathes on the party?

That 1st leveller better be hella entertaining, or a VIP, cause he ain't contributing jack otherwise and requires extensive resources to protect. And, if I've learned anything from playing videogames, it's that escort missions suck!


----------



## Hussar (May 9, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> He said "nobody is ever dead weight", not "everyone always contributes meaningfully to combat". Though in my experience, people usually contribute to both.
> 
> 
> Well, I'll disagree here. It depends on the 1st level character. He probably won't contribute much to combat (though he'll contribute a tiny amount, via flanking, another guy the bad guys have to account for, etc.), but he can certainly contribute to other things. Gathering food quickly, navigating, or dealing with animals/plants (like gathering herbs) if nobody has any survival skills. Knowledges about any number of topics (cities, nations, religion, undead, other planes, weather, and on and on). Social aspects (including leadership, negotiation, intimidation, lying, detecting the truth, etc.). Patching wounds, treating diseases, poisons, or infections, discovering what was used to kill a creature, removing status effects, lessening penalties (from fatigue, etc.), etc. Scouting ahead, keeping an eye out for things, or an extra guy on shift during the night. Crafting goods for the PCs, or making money for them on the side by selling it. And that's not talking about one more guy to lug around heavy stuff.
> ...




I agree that there is more to the game than combat.  However, anything that the 15th level party is engaged in is so far beyond the scope of a 1st level character that he cannot actually contribute.  

You mention scouting ahead.  Sure.  But, we're talking about 15th level opponents here, which means that they will pretty much automatically spot the 1st level scout and eat him.  Navigating?  Really?  He's a 1st level character with score of maybe +8 (and that's generous) to any sort of navigations skills.  He gets lost as soon as he leaves the sight of obvious landmarks.  On and on and on.  

Please stop with the canard of "the game is all about combat".  For one, you are completely misrepresenting my point, and two, it's really annoying to see someone continually drag in the same argument over and over again.



ForeverSlayer said:


> Why in the world are we talking about the contribution levels of a 1st level PC in a group of 15th level PC's?
> 
> Let's talk about the contribution levels of equal level pc classes.




Because you are the one claiming that character power has no implications for balance in play.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 9, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I agree that there is more to the game than combat.  However, anything that the 15th level party is engaged in is so far beyond the scope of a 1st level character that he cannot actually contribute.



Yeah... still disagree as a universal statement.



Hussar said:


> You mention scouting ahead.  Sure.  But, we're talking about 15th level opponents here, which means that they will pretty much automatically spot the 1st level scout and eat him.



Maybe it's me, but not all scouting missions include bad guys (this goes back to the game isn't all combat), and when there is bad guys, not all of them have amazing senses (if it doesn't scale at ½ level, for example).



Hussar said:


> Navigating?  Really?  He's a 1st level character with score of maybe +8 (and that's generous) to any sort of navigations skills.  He gets lost as soon as he leaves the sight of obvious landmarks.  On and on and on.



Whoa, your DCs are pretty rough. How do the common people get along? Are they all high level? That bonus (+4 in my game) is more than enough to get by in my game, and +8 was not a bad bonus in 3.X. This applies to Knowledge checks, healing, conjuring food, and so on.



Hussar said:


> Please stop with the canard of "the game is all about combat".  For one, you are completely misrepresenting my point, and two, it's really annoying to see someone continually drag in the same argument over and over again.



Hey, didn't mean to offend. Honestly. Sorry if I did. (And I won't try to clarify or anything without you asking, since I feel that'll make me come off as trying to justify rather than clarify.)



pemerton said:


> This seems to assume not only (i) that the 1st level character contributes in a niche that the PCs don't already cover, but also (ii) that non-combat skills are in some significant way not level-dependent.



Yes, I did say that if the high level characters had the same skill they'd trounce the level 1 guy (though certain things, like having an extra guy on watch, would still help). As far as level-dependent skills, it makes a much bigger difference when you don't automatically add ½ your level to everything. Suddenly that level 1 character's +8 to Knowledge, Survival, and Heal seem much better than the +4 that the next best guy has at level 15.



pemerton said:


> Rolemaster is a game in which (ii) is false - ie all skills are level dependent. And I've never played a Rolemaster game in which 15th level PCs have a "niche gap" that might noticeably be filled by a 1st level character - by 15th level, they have worked out to adequately fill whatever niches they care about.



Well, I'd say this is much different than what I addressed (in spirit, at least). While a level 1 character _can_ meaningfully contribute to the party, I purposefully quoted Hussar with ForeverSlayer's original quote in the text, and mentioned an important word that ForeverSlayer used - "shine". The level 1 character can most certainly "shine" in a party of level 15 PCs, and it doesn't have much to do with what niches they care about.



pemerton said:


> I mean, there might be a bit of extra colour in saying "Hey, my PC gets an extra hour of sleep because newbie here can fill a shift on watch", but if missing out on that extra hour for the previous 14 levels caused any mechanical penalty (eg fatigue), I'm fairly confident the 15th level PCs will have found a way to cope.



Sometimes through hiring other NPCs or the like, sure. Or just not taking watch for an hour or two per night. But, as I said, there are quite a few other ways for someone to contribute meaningfully other than taking a watch. Go reread the list, if you want the examples again.



pemerton said:


> I can't really envisage 3E being that much different in this respect, and 4e certainly is not given the level-dependent nature of non-combat abilities.



Well, in 3.X, you don't automatically add ½ your level to all skills, like you do in 4e. So, a 15th level character in 4e is getting anywhere from +6 (on the lowest end) to +11 or so (on the high end) to untrained skills (like navigating, etc.). This isn't true in 3.X, where that 15th level character is getting anywhere from -1 to +4 or so.



pemerton said:


> But in a game in which (ii) is true, what does it even mean to talk about 1st vs 15th level characters?



In my RPG, skills are level-dependent in the sense that the higher hit die you are, the more ranks you can put into the skill (or more character points to boost the skill), netting you a bigger bonus.

On skills you don't invest in, though, you can easily be outpaced by much lower hit die creatures. Hit die 1 hunter, medic, sage, etc. trainees will still likely be a decent amount better than hit die 15 characters who aren't invested. They can probably take a 10 even if they're threatened or distracted, and might have as much as a +5 bonus (if they're very invested in the skill) (DC 15 is "competent professional" level) to an untrained hit die 15 character's +0 to +2 bonus (DC 10 is "everyday task" level).

All in all, I really disagree with the sentiment seemingly expressed that a low level character can't significantly contribute to the party, or shine in a party of high level characters. Is there the possibility that the party has the guy completely covered, and there's no need for him on watch, carrying things, or in his field? Sure. But, that wasn't my point. My point was that a level 1 _can_ regularly contribute meaningfully, and that he _can_ shine while fulfilling his niche. Not that he _always_ will. As always, play what you like


----------



## Bluenose (May 9, 2012)

Hussar said:


> You mention scouting ahead.  Sure.  But, we're talking about 15th level opponents here, which means that they will pretty much automatically spot the 1st level scout and eat him.  Navigating?  Really?  He's a 1st level character with score of maybe +8 (and that's generous) to any sort of navigations skills.  He gets lost as soon as he leaves the sight of obvious landmarks.  On and on and on.




That implies a system similar to the one in 3e, though. A 2e character with NWPs doesn't really improve them much as they level up. You can, but it's more likely that you'll instead spend the proficiency points to gain more and increase your versatility. That way, it wouldn't really matter whether the character with "Scouting" proficiency was 1st or 15th level, instead the governing stat would be most significant. I suspect that a lot of people would complain that their character "isn't getting better" if the rules went that way, but it's a possible way that a low-level character could contribute in a high-level party. 

Of course, more often the 1st level character is going to be as useful to the high level party as  on a jellyfish. In any situation where magic is required for survival, a net drain when you need another spell just to keep one more warm body around.


----------



## Drowbane (May 9, 2012)

Do characters need to be equals? No. Characters do need a chance to shine, however. Casters can switch-hit when needed, but shouldn't be doing it when it steps on the toes of other characters. 

The Avengers movie is a great example of 6 wildly different power leveled "PCs" shining in an awesome session. 

Hulk & Thor > Iron Man > Cap > Black Widow & Hawk Eye... but it doesn't matter. They all get to do their thing, and its as a team that they kick the most tail.


----------



## hanez (May 9, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> The argument is that in a party with a wizard, a druid, and an artificer (or a wizard, a summoner, and a cleric in PF) the fighter is contributing little more than the 1st level PC would.




Wow, people exist that actually believe this?  This sentence is preposterous and defies every experience I've ever had with D&D.


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2012)

In many level-based point buy systems (eg 3E's skills, Rolemaster, HARP, JC's (home?) system, etc) it is possible for a low-level PC to have a better bonus than many or most high level PCs.

It is ubiquitous in Rolemaster, for example, for high level characters to have negative skill bonuses (because, depending on edition, skils with 0 ranks are -25 or -30, and very few PCs will have (i) ranks in every skill, or (ii) stat bonuses of +20 or better to compensate for all those skills with zero ranks). And a fairly optimised first level character can have a bonus of up to +80. (To contrast, at 20th level, bonuses of up to +120, or even above +150 for weapon skills, where bonus items are easier to come by, are not uncommon.) 

But that 1st level PC will probably have only one +80. Maybe two, if they are related skills and so able to share some bonus sources. And if they are in spheres of actitivty the other PCs care about, then they will be eclipsed by those PCs multiple bonuses of +90 and above. Whereas if they are in spheres of activity that the other PCs don't care about (wahoo!, I have +80 in seaborne navitagion and piloting through rocky shoals - too bad that the party is all living it up in a landlocked palace!) then how is that PC going to shine? Where is the opportunity going to come from.



JamesonCourage said:


> Go reread the list, if you want the examples again.





JamesonCourage said:


> Gathering food quickly, navigating, or dealing with animals/plants (like gathering herbs) if nobody has any survival skills. Knowledges about any number of topics (cities, nations, religion, undead, other planes, weather, and on and on). Social aspects (including leadership, negotiation, intimidation, lying, detecting the truth, etc.). Patching wounds, treating diseases, poisons, or infections, discovering what was used to kill a creature, removing status effects, lessening penalties (from fatigue, etc.), etc. Scouting ahead, keeping an eye out for things, or an extra guy on shift during the night. Crafting goods for the PCs, or making money for them on the side by selling it. And that's not talking about one more guy to lug around heavy stuff.



This list looks like its a list of tasks from a bundle of skill descriptions - maybe those tasks with DCs that a 1st level PC in the system in question can be expected to meet.

But anyway, let's go through it:

*_Gathering food quickly _- I've never had a 15th level party need food to be gathered quickly - they buy it, create it, pull it out of Handy Haversacks, whatever;

*_Navigating_ - I've never had a 15th level party get lost in natural environs (if in doubt they just fly up to get the lie of the land, or speak to a local nature spirit or the god of travel);

*_Dealing with animals/plants (like gathering herbs)_ - I could perhaps see this coming into play, but would not really think of it as _shining_ - if the 15th level PCs can't do this already, they probably don't care much about animals or plants;

*_Knowledge about any number of topics (cities, nations, religion, undead, other planes, weather, and on and on)_ - in my experience, 15th level PCs tend to be very good at learning what they need to know (via research, past explorations, spells, skills, interrogations, etc), and if there is a secret they need that they haven't uncovered yet, it's not going to be something that a 1st level scholar would know;

*_Social aspects (including leadership, negotiation, intimidation, lying, detecting the truth, etc.)_ - again in my experience, the social encounters that pose a challenge to 15th level PCs are not ones that a 1st level bard can handle - in my current game one of the PCs has an NPC herald who is a 10th level minion (so in some sense low level), but that NPC doesn't _shine_ - he provides +2 bonuses to appropriate social checks, adds colour, and is the butt of jokes;

*_Patching wounds, treating diseases, poisons, or infections, removing status effects, lessening penalties (from fatigue, etc.), etc_ - normally I think 15th level PCs handle this via magic rather than relying on a 1st level Heal skill check;

*_Discovering what was used to kill a creature, scouting ahead _- these are potentially useful, and could save the need to deploy diviniation magic, but again I am not sure I would call discovering what was used to kill a creature "shining" (in my experience, it is a question that is relevant no more than once every 6 or more session), and as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] noted upthread the 1st level scout who is scouting Mordor or the Elemental Chaos may not last long;

*_Keeping an eye out for things, an extra guy on shift during the night_ - as I said above, I don't think this adds very much, and it is hardly _shining_;

*_Crafting goods for the PCs, or making money for them on the side by selling it_ - I don't think being the labour in the other PCs' factory is _shining_, and in at least some assumed fantasy economies (at least any typical D&D one) is not going to contribute any signficant income;

*_Lugging around heavy stuff_ - I've never found this to be an issue for 15th level PCs, and in any event being a porter is not shining, in my view.​
I don't think it's just coincidence that the useful things I've identified that a 1st level PC might do are dealing with animals, plants, dead bodies and scouting. These are all exploration activities which a traditional party may not be good at, or at least not optimised for, and might benefit from having even a low level character perform. As I've said, though, I don't think this is going to involve _shining_.

The problem with the other stuff on the list is that it's either operational (foraging, healing, navigating, crafting, lugging), and 15th level PC parties have almost always _already solved the operational aspects of the game_ - that's part of what being high level means, at least in D&D and similar games - or it's central to the conflicts that matter in play (secret knowledge, social) and a 1st level PC isn't going to be up to the job, anymore than the rest of the party was when they were 1st level.


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> A 2e character with NWPs doesn't really improve them much as they level up.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it wouldn't really matter whether the character with "Scouting" proficiency was 1st or 15th level, instead the governing stat would be most significant.



I think that what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] had in mind that the 15th level party is likely to be adventuring in Mordor, the Elemental Chaos, or some similarly inhospitable location, and that the 1st level PC will not last very long in such a place.



Drowbane said:


> The Avengers movie is a great example of 6 wildly different power leveled "PCs" shining in an awesome session.
> 
> Hulk & Thor > Iron Man > Cap > Black Widow & Hawk Eye... but it doesn't matter. They all get to do their thing, and its as a team that they kick the most tail.



Here is an RPG design comment on Hawkeye:

I can't think of a single coherent Narrativist game text in which balance as a term is invoked as a design or play feature, nor any particular instance of play I've been involved in which brought the issue up. But I'm pretty sure that it's a protagonism issue.

"Balance" might be relevant as a measure of character screen time, or perhaps weight of screen time rather than absolute length. This is not solely the effectiveness-issue which confuses everyone. Comics fans will recognize that Hawkeye is just as significant as Thor, as a member of the Avengers, or even more so. In game terms, this is a Character Components issue: Hawkeye would have a high Metagame component whereas Thor would have a higher Effectiveness component.​
Question: is that metagame component able to be achieved simply via social contract and gentlemen's agreement, or does it have to be reduced to mechanics? I understand that the Buffy game takes the "reduce to mechanics" approach to make sure it's a lock. In my view, 4e martial powers should also be seen as a "reduce to mechanics" way of locking in martial PCs metagame weight-of-screentime.

According to the recent Legends and Lore columns, it seems that WotC aren't going metagame with martial, but instead tackling effectiveness head on - high-level fighters and rogues will have mythic levels of effectiveness comparable to those of high level wizards.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 9, 2012)

I can see how a high level party could benefit significantly by the addition of a much lower level character, if the newcomer has important skills or abilities that the party doesn't possess.

A party of 15th level combat-oriented types such as a fighter, barbarian and monk could benefit from a 1st level bard as the 'party face', researcher, and to operate wands of cure light wounds, assuming it was 3e.

Three 23rd level fighters could be helped a lot by an 8th level cleric, druid or wizard.

However I feel that these examples speak more to the weaknesses of non-casters compared to casters, and, in fact, highlight the need for balance. A 1st level fighter would be useless to a 15th level party composed of the 'big three' casters.

Replicating the superhero trope of teams with wildly divergent power levels - Green Lantern and Green Arrow, Superman and Batman, (and Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit!) is something I've considered attempting as a GM but never actually tried. One could take advantage of the important weaknesses of the high power characters - Green Lantern can't affect anything coloured yellow (yes, really) and Superman is weakened by kryptonite or red sun radiation. You could do something like this in D&D with antimagic zones and magic resistance.


----------



## Bluenose (May 9, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Replicating the superhero trope of teams with wildly divergent power levels - Green Lantern and Green Arrow, Superman and Batman, (and Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit!) is something I've considered attempting as a GM but never actually tried. One could take advantage of the important weaknesses of the high power characters - Green Lantern can't affect anything coloured yellow (yes, really) and Superman is weakened by kryptonite or red sun radiation. You could do something like this in D&D with antimagic zones and magic resistance.




Can you do that *all the time*? Can every episode of the comic/skit/story/game be set in that one particular situation where the powerhouse isn't going to be effective? And keep it plausible, rather than being an obvious plot device to make one person feel useful? I'd suggest that doing so would be hard, and incidentally ends up shifting the burden of uselessness rather than alleviating it. 

Of course there have been games that attempted this. Ars Magica, of course, being specifically written around this, acknowledging it, and encouraging torupe play. Buffy/Angel using Unisystem, with explicit metagame resources granted to the less powerful characters to compensate for their other weaknesses. I suspect that a game that's as conservative in it's design principles as D&DN seems intended to be is unlikely to implement many innovations along these lines.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 9, 2012)

hanez said:


> Wow, people exist that actually believe this?  This sentence is preposterous and defies every experience I've ever had with D&D.



Fine.  If you think it's preposterous, show how it's preposterous.  Show how, with just the abilities from his class (which are, after all, what separates him from a commoner) a level 15 Fighter is more useful than a choice of D3+1 Celestial (or fiendish) Dire Tigers, D4+2 Anklyosauri, or D4+2 Bralani Azata.  What do you think he's actually contributing to the party?  Damage?  He's not doing the damage of three pouncing Celestial Dire Tigers, all at +14 damage for smite.  Soak?  He doesn't have the area coverage or total hit points of a herd of bison, never mind a herd of anklyosauri.  Even the Dire Tigers _each_ have 133 HP (allowing for Augment Summons).

And do so without reference to spells cast on him please.  Those are resources granted to him by other party members in order to make him relevant.  Also magic items - most of them will be the proceeds from adventuring, which could be split with the commoner instead - or just go to the more useful people.  Ignore them please.


----------



## Hussar (May 9, 2012)

JC said:
			
		

> Whoa, your DCs are pretty rough. How do the common people get along? Are they all high level? That bonus (+4 in my game) is more than enough to get by in my game, and +8 was not a bad bonus in 3.X. This applies to Knowledge checks, healing, conjuring food, and so on.




What kind of commoners are they that are operating in a region where 15th level parties are required to deal with whatever issue is coming up.

As Pemerton points out, a 15th level party is adventuring in Llolth's demi-plane, they're invading the Abyss, they're assaulting the City of Brass.  They are not poncing about the English countryside.



Drowbane said:


> Do characters need to be equals? No. Characters do need a chance to shine, however. Casters can switch-hit when needed, but shouldn't be doing it when it steps on the toes of other characters.
> 
> The Avengers movie is a great example of 6 wildly different power leveled "PCs" shining in an awesome session.
> 
> Hulk & Thor > Iron Man > Cap > Black Widow & Hawk Eye... but it doesn't matter. They all get to do their thing, and its as a team that they kick the most tail.




This can work.  However, the way to make it work tends to make people really, really antsy.  You balance Black Widow against Thor by giving Black Widow's player all sorts of meta-game authority and power.  The Buffy The Vampire Slayer RPG works exactly like this.  The Slayer has all sorts of direct, in game power.  The Scoobies don't.  But, the Scoobies have metagame power controlled by their player to tell the DM, "No, sorry, the vampire didn't actually just pull my arm off, he just knocked me out, regardless of what the dice just told you".  

It works great.  But, it's a VERY different game.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 9, 2012)

Everyone's definition of "Shine" is different and I don't think a few posters here quite understand that. 

Personally, I don't always expect or want to be in the spotlight. As long as I'm having fun then I don't care. A concept I have for my character maybe one in which the PC is rarely seen and rarely takes the stage. 

In every edition of D&D a PC has always had something that they can do. Unless you, the player, purposely stand there and do nothing you will always contribute to the group. 

Now if there is a certain amount of things that I need to do in order to be considered useful then I would like those to be listed right now.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 9, 2012)

Drowbane said:


> Do characters need to be equals? No. Characters do need a chance to shine, however. Casters can switch-hit when needed, but shouldn't be doing it when it steps on the toes of other characters.
> 
> The Avengers movie is a great example of 6 wildly different power leveled "PCs" shining in an awesome session.
> 
> Hulk & Thor > Iron Man > Cap > Black Widow & Hawk Eye... but it doesn't matter. They all get to do their thing, and its as a team that they kick the most tail.




I'd argue the case there on two counts.

First, Iron Man's a flying tankmage.  He might not be able to take Hulk or Thor in a beatdown but he has the mobility of tactical flight and a far more flexible powerset than "Hit really hard" or "Hit pretty hard with some lightning".  I'd definitely put him in the tier with Hulk and Thor.

Second there's the Widow.  Yes, she's no use in a straight up fight by comparison.  But she's a rogue rather than a fighter.  I'd certainly put her power level as up there with Cap - she's the stealthy one, and the one with the face skills.  And in a modern game the one spending useful plot points.  Hawkeye I'd put at Hireling/Companion Character level rather than full blown PC.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 9, 2012)

I just want to post a little something that I feel the designers of 3rd edition/Pathfinder had intended for the games to turn out.

DM: "Okay guys I am going to run X campaign," "Sound Good?"

Bobby: "That's cool with me!" "I think I would like to play a cleric." "Everyone fine with me playing a Cleric?"

Tommy: "Sure Bobby, that would be great!" "I think I will play a rogue so the the roguish type stuff will be covered." "Everyone okay with that?"

Sammy: "Not a bother Tommy." "I think I am going to play a Wizard so our spellcaster will be covered." "Everyone okay with that?" 

Etc...Etc....Etc....

This is how we handle games in our group. If a DM is going to propose a game then we talk amongst ourselves about who is going to play what class. Now there is nothing wrong with having two of the same class in the party at all and at times it does happen but nobody tries to out do anyone else. We work as a team and we try and pick classes that would work great together and sometimes each of us may have a concept that we are interested in playing so the classes kind of turn out all funky but that's okay because it's about the fun and not the win.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 9, 2012)

Hussar said:


> What kind of commoners are they that are operating in a region where 15th level parties are required to deal with whatever issue is coming up.
> 
> As Pemerton points out, a 15th level party is adventuring in Llolth's demi-plane, they're invading the Abyss, they're assaulting the City of Brass.  They are not poncing about the English countryside.



My hit die 15s (current party) are walking around a continent mostly inhabited by hit die 4s. They're trying to deal with big threats, whether that be political intrigue, trying to prevent war while nations build up armies, stop events from spiraling out of control on the millennial turn (when events will really go bad unless stopped), stop large groups of bandits, rescuing slaves from working in mines, obtaining artifacts from people who would use them for ill ends, and the like.

There is plenty for them to do when they're surrounded by people of much lower hit die. They frequently stop in cities. They are not in a demi-plane, or invading hell, or the like. And there's still plenty for them to do. As always, play what you like 



pemerton said:


> But that 1st level PC will probably have only one +80. Maybe two, if they are related skills and so able to share some bonus sources.



I just made a quick hit die 1 character in my RPG system (he's gone through character creation, with no points into the next hit die). Something to keep in mind: I created him largely with the intent of contributing to a higher hit die party, though he'd definitely be useful to a party his own hit die.

The character can consistently get +5 to the following skills: Appraise, Comprehension, Forgery, Heal, Knowledge (Geography), Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Nature), Knowledge (Nobility), and Survival. He can always take a 10, even when threatened or distracted, giving him a 15. Getting a 15 on a skill is considered "competent professional" level in the field (10 is "everyday task" and 20 is "skilled professional"). This means that the character can do the following:

1) Appraise:

Can make a living as an appraiser
find out if there's any work in a variety of fields in a city/town
assess the price of an object
identify properties of an object
learn the history of an object
and see through forgeries.
2) Comprehension:

Can perform complex math or assist skill checks if math is heavily involved
decipher codes or magical scripts
determine the intent of what someone is trying to communicate (via pantomiming, etc.)
write especially eloquently to give a bonus on other skill checks
alter words on paper to change its meaning
and gain bonuses to solving riddles or puzzles (and the character has an 18 in Intelligence and Wisdom to help with that).
3) Forgery:

Can create fake documents to get achieve a variety of effects
see if documents are real or fake
or create fake versions of simple objects (DC 12 or less)
4) Heal: 

Make a living as a healer
determine the cause of what killed a creature (what kind of weapon was used, what disease, etc.)
check creatures to see if they're alive or dead
determine if someone will get better or worse with their current sickness
stabilize someone without rolling
determine properties about a wound (weapon used or damage type, Knowledge check for species that caused it; damage bonus of the attacker; attacker's relevant attribute score (Strength, Dexterity, etc.) or base attack; the attacker's size, and whether it was a quadruped or bipedal and its position relative to the victim; if a natural special attack was used (poison or disease) or a supernatural attack was used (spell-like ability, acid, etc.)
can perform long-term care to heal patients faster
as a move action, may negate penalties to attack, attribute damage, blinded, deafened, entangled, exhausted, fatigued, flat-footed, prone, or shaken
as a standard action, can give another saving throw (even if there isn't one normally) with a bonus against action loss, emotional disturbance, fascination, fatigue, fear, flat-footed, paralysis, prone, sense deprivation, sickness, or speed loss
can bring a creature back to life if it died one round ago and it did not die to a weapon blow
restore temporary hit points
identify the effect of a blow on the hit chart
treat diseases, poisons, infections, and the like
and wake a creature up, including from unconsciousness (such as a knockout blow)
5) Knowledge (geography/history/nature/nobility):

without having to roll, can know information up to competent professional level about lands, terrain, climate, people
without having to roll, can know information up to competent professional level about royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities
without having to roll, can know information up to competent professional level about animals, plants, seasons and cycles, weather
without having to roll, can know information up to competent professional level about lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities
may research things to give a bonus to related fields (geography can give a bonus to Assess, Balance, Climb, Comprehension, Empathy, Forgery, Hide, Jump, Land, Listen, Move Silently, Negotiation, Perform, Profession, Sense Motive, or Survival, and it's one of four uses)
6) Survival:

Can get along in the wild at full speed unless conditions are bad or can feed himself and others at full speed if conditions are good
predict the weather up to 24 hours out
gain a bonus on Constitution checks against weather
gain a sense of where you are in a city, or how to get around in it if you're slightly familiar with it
may try to confuse people following via trails by leading them to a different area
may cover tracks so it's harder to follow you
may gather a natural antidote to give a bonus to Fortitude saves against poison
may survive on the streets of a city without needing to roll
may gather alchemical components, antitoxins, cooking ingredients, healing herbs, and nourishing plants that take up little space but provide great nourishment

Side note: The character gets +3 to Assess, Concentration, Empathy, Knowledge (architecture), and Knowledge (local), but can't take a 10 when threatened or distracted. So he might help on these fronts, but there's no guarantee.



pemerton said:


> This list looks like its a list of tasks from a bundle of skill descriptions - maybe those tasks with DCs that a 1st level PC in the system in question can be expected to meet.



I did indeed name things that a hit die 1 creature could conceivably do well.



pemerton said:


> *_Gathering food quickly _- I've never had a 15th level party need food to be gathered quickly - they buy it, create it, pull it out of Handy Haversacks, whatever;​



I have. I've had parties slow down to half speed to travel to gather their own food, and when a new PC or NPC is introduced that bypasses this (survivalist, magician, etc.), they like the speed boost. Definitely appreciated.



pemerton said:


> *_Navigating_ - I've never had a 15th level party get lost in natural environs (if in doubt they just fly up to get the lie of the land, or speak to a local nature spirit or the god of travel);​



I've yet to see it happen, but it can. I've seen them arrive late, or fatigued, though. Those can be avoided with good navigation. Oh, and I have seen them without maps and nobody in the relevant skill to direct them.



pemerton said:


> *_Dealing with animals/plants (like gathering herbs)_ - I could perhaps see this coming into play, but would not really think of it as _shining_ - if the 15th level PCs can't do this already, they probably don't care much about animals or plants;​



"Shining" is not defined by what the other individual PCs care about. If none of the PCs are invested in Perform or social skills, but a PC goes out and gathers a group of people for drinks later that night where he then puts on a great performance before chatting up the locals, he can most certainly shine still. If a PC has stealth skills where nobody else does, he can shine by sneaking around, listening in, etc. The same holds true for dealing with plants/animals and gathering herbs.



pemerton said:


> *_Knowledge about any number of topics (cities, nations, religion, undead, other planes, weather, and on and on)_ - in my experience, 15th level PCs tend to be very good at learning what they need to know (via research, past explorations, spells, skills, interrogations, etc), and if there is a secret they need that they haven't uncovered yet, it's not going to be something that a 1st level scholar would know;​



Our worlds are very, very different, then. My PCs frequently visit sages, which might take days (if they need to travel to a city with a sage), and also lowers the chance of whatever they're doing be kept quiet (if that applies to this task). Having the information on-hand with someone you trust has been very valuable, in my opinion.



pemerton said:


> *_Social aspects (including leadership, negotiation, intimidation, lying, detecting the truth, etc.)_ - again in my experience, the social encounters that pose a challenge to 15th level PCs are not ones that a 1st level bard can handle - in my current game one of the PCs has an NPC herald who is a 10th level minion (so in some sense low level), but that NPC doesn't _shine_ - he provides +2 bonuses to appropriate social checks, adds colour, and is the butt of jokes;​



Sounds like he's just aiding, rather than talking. A +5 on social skills is good enough to pick up some decent stuff, or lie your way past some thugs or enforcers, for example. It's definitely not going to get you past the royal guard (unless you roll well), but if no other PC has social skills, this skill set is extremely valuable.



pemerton said:


> *_Patching wounds, treating diseases, poisons, or infections, removing status effects, lessening penalties (from fatigue, etc.), etc_ - normally I think 15th level PCs handle this via magic rather than relying on a 1st level Heal skill check;​



This depends on what magic can cover, admittedly. Magic in my RPG doesn't really handle things like status effects or temporary hit points, and it only augments the skill use of treating poisons/diseases/infections and the like. It does not lessen penalties, you can't diagnose wounds with it (to see which wound to heal first), and it's shaky on whether or not you'll be able to divine what killed someone, etc.



pemerton said:


> *_Discovering what was used to kill a creature, scouting ahead _- these are potentially useful, and could save the need to deploy diviniation magic, but again I am not sure I would call discovering what was used to kill a creature "shining" (in my experience, it is a question that is relevant no more than once every 6 or more session), and as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] noted upthread the 1st level scout who is scouting Mordor or the Elemental Chaos may not last long;​



Yes, it depends on what you're scouting, but if the party needs a scout and has nobody with the relevant skills, they can most definitely shine. Scouting, discovering what was used to kill a creature, etc. are useful tools in investigation prior to planning.



pemerton said:


> *_Keeping an eye out for things, an extra guy on shift during the night_ - as I said above, I don't think this adds very much, and it is hardly _shining_;​



True, but this speaks to the "meaningfully contribute" aspect as well. Admittedly less useful than other uses named above.



pemerton said:


> *_Crafting goods for the PCs, or making money for them on the side by selling it_ - I don't think being the labour in the other PCs' factory is _shining_, and in at least some assumed fantasy economies (at least any typical D&D one) is not going to contribute any signficant income;​



This really depends. I could make a hit die 1 character who could make mastercraft goods (+3 mundane bonus to things) in the time and money it'd take to make regular goods, though he'd be limited to a couple crafts and would have nothing else really going for him. But, crafting mastercraft goods can definitely lead to shining in my system (as it's about the best you can do), and can make good money (especially if he's reduced the cost/time).



pemerton said:


> *_Lugging around heavy stuff_ - I've never found this to be an issue for 15th level PCs, and in any event being a porter is not shining, in my view.​



I've seen it an issue for my PCs, and it's not shining. It's hardly meaningfully contributing. Thus my "And that's not talking about" preface.



pemerton said:


> I don't think it's just coincidence that the useful things I've identified that a 1st level PC might do are dealing with animals, plants, dead bodies and scouting. These are all exploration activities which a traditional party may not be good at, or at least not optimised for, and might benefit from having even a low level character perform. As I've said, though, I don't think this is going to involve _shining_.



My experience (or my terminology) is just different from yours. I've seen characters like the one at the top of this post shine. And, with how broad the character's skill set is, he can often shine much more often than someone who purely invests in combat (with a few physical side skills).



pemerton said:


> The problem with the other stuff on the list is that it's either operational (foraging, healing, navigating, crafting, lugging), and 15th level PC parties have almost always _already solved the operational aspects of the game_ - that's part of what being high level means, at least in D&D and similar games - or it's central to the conflicts that matter in play (secret knowledge, social) and a 1st level PC isn't going to be up to the job, anymore than the rest of the party was when they were 1st level.



Depends on the system, because it's sure not true in my system. That group of 15th hit die PCs may be able to get along in the wild, as long as the season isn't bad, the terrain isn't bad, and they're willing to go half-speed. Bring in a guy who can fix those things and they appreciate his contribute immensely.

Does D&D do these things? Well, in some small ways in 3.X, and probably not in 4e (with the ½ level bonus). I'm not sure about pre-3.X, but I'd suspect that they'd bring mostly superficial things mechanically (another guy to think at the table and help problem solve, someone to die to a trap, maybe someone to use a single spell). In my RPG, however, a hit die 1 can meaningfully contribute, and can most certainly shine in a party of hit die 15s.

And, the players I asked last night about it (without giving them the context of this thread or even this site) agreed with me (my question was "do you think a hit die 1 can meaningfully contribute or shine in a party of hit die 15s?" When I got a "yes" from both of them [one considered longer than the other], I asked "how?" and got some answers, like socially, heal, survival, appraise, etc.). As far as D&D has gone historically? Maybe not tons (though I disagree with the "always dead weight" comment).

But, theoretically, can a level 1 regularly meaningfully contribute mechanically or shine in a level 15 party? Oh, most certainly. Certainly. As always, play what you like


----------



## Arlough (May 9, 2012)

Drowbane said:


> Do characters need to be equals? No. Characters do need a chance to shine, however. Casters can switch-hit when needed, but shouldn't be doing it when it steps on the toes of other characters.
> 
> The Avengers movie is a great example of 6 wildly different power leveled "PCs" shining in an awesome session.
> 
> Hulk & Thor > Iron Man > Cap > Black Widow & Hawk Eye... but it doesn't matter. They all get to do their thing, and its as a team that they kick the most tail.



More than anything, that is the author's narrative control that makes them all shine.  Realistically, Captain America and Black Widow should, together, be able to engage and hold off one moderate threat, Iron Man another, while the Hulk engages many moderate threats and Thor manages the BBEG.

Edit: I forgot Hawkeye, like most people will.
Hawkeye can either engage with one moderate threat that isn't focused on fast or ranged, or possibly up to 10 low end threats (minions), given his ranged abilities. Still, I don't think he would be able to nullify these threats and go help the others, he could only engage them preventing the small frys from mucking up the important battle.


Doug McCrae said:


> I can see how a high level party could benefit significantly by the addition of a much lower level character, if the newcomer has important skills or abilities that the party doesn't possess.
> 
> A party of 15th level combat-oriented types such as a fighter, barbarian and monk could benefit from a 1st level bard as the 'party face', researcher, and to operate wands of cure light wounds, assuming it was 3e.
> 
> ...



Green Lantern also has the weakness of being not that imaginative or bright.
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]
Imagine if the Batman had that ring. Oh wait...
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]
Green Arrow really is just a trick shot.
Batman has the weakness of being quite literally mad, as well as operating outside of his power class frequently.
And Superman's weakness is having ever escalating enemies because he is as much a god as Thor.
That and a rare element from a _single planet_ light years away that blew up *less than a century ago* is somehow available to every criminal on the planet with the wherewithal to buy shoulder fired RPGs.  You'd think Krypton was actually a blown up by a shaped charge designed to send it through a wormhole directly to earth given how common it is on the planet and how quickly the rocks got here.



Bluenose said:


> Can you do that *all the time*? Can every episode of the comic/skit/story/game be set in that one particular situation where the powerhouse isn't going to be effective? And keep it plausible, rather than being an obvious plot device to make one person feel useful? I'd suggest that doing so would be hard, and incidentally ends up shifting the burden of uselessness rather than alleviating it.
> 
> Of course there have been games that attempted this. Ars Magica, of course, being specifically written around this, acknowledging it, and encouraging torupe play. Buffy/Angel using Unisystem, with explicit metagame resources granted to the less powerful characters to compensate for their other weaknesses. I suspect that a game that's as conservative in it's design principles as D&DN seems intended to be is unlikely to implement many innovations along these lines.




Of course every episode can, because they must.  Plot armor equalizes everybody.  Also, it should be noted that each of these characters has their own comic where they operate at levels more closely tied to their abilities.  Even the Batman rarely engages beings of a higher tier outside of crossover comics.

I would say that the only way you can have this large of a power gap and give everybody a reason to shine is by contrived circumstance where the more powerful characters are _disabled_ for whatever reason and it is left up to the (comparative) plebs to take care of things.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 9, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Now if there is a certain amount of things that I need to do in order to be considered useful then I would like those to be listed right now.



Where the line is, I'm not sure, but I can give an example of an overpowered character in 3.5 D&D.

We were a three player 9th level party - wizard (me), cleric and multiclassed rogue/fighter/barbarian half-demon. A particular monster from MM3, a ragewalker, CR14, had given us a lot of trouble, beating us in two encounters, so I decided to make sure of it in our third meeting.

Ragewalkers possess many nasty abilities. Any being within 10 feet must make a DC28 will save or fly into a berserk rage, unable to cast spells or distinguish friend from foe. All projectiles such as arrows and sling stones are repelled, striking the attacker. They also have spell resistance 26.

I learned the fly spell, something I'd previously eschewed as I felt it was too powerful, to avoid the berserker effect. The cleric buffed us with protection from energy (to avoid its fire magic), and after that I just killed the ragewalker on my own using _web_, _Evard's black tentacles_, _cloudkill _and the orb spells from Complete Arcane. All of these are conjurations, so avoid spell resistance. The other party members would probably just have been a hindrance as they would've been overcome by the berserker rage and may have attacked one another.

That, to me, is too much power. A 9th level wizard shouldn't be able to basically solo a CR14 monster. Certainly not one with spell resistance 26.


----------



## Crispy Critter (May 9, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Where the line is, I'm not sure, but I can give an example of an overpowered character in 3.5 D&D.
> 
> We were a three player 9th level party - wizard (me), cleric and multiclassed rogue/fighter/barbarian half-demon. A particular monster from MM3, a ragewalker, CR14, had given us a lot of trouble, beating us in two encounters, so I decided to make sure of it in our third meeting.
> 
> ...




So you had full knowledge of the creatures capabilities, were able to lure it out to the best advantage for you (I'm assuming outdoors where you could fly), you were buffed by the cleric to almost perfectly counter its energy effect and then prepared the best combination of spells to defeat the creature. I'm sorry but this corner case does not sound like a being overpowered issue to me.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 9, 2012)

Crispy Critter said:


> So you had full knowledge of the creatures capabilities, were able to lure it out to the best advantage for you (I'm assuming outdoors where you could fly), you were buffed by the cleric to almost perfectly counter its energy effect and then prepared the best combination of spells to defeat the creature. I'm sorry but this corner case does not sound like a being overpowered issue to me.




Exactly!

Sounds to me like it was a matter of being the right person at just the right time with the right amount of good dice rolls.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 9, 2012)

Crispy Critter said:


> I'm sorry but this corner case does not sound like a being overpowered issue to me.



Yes, it was a corner case, I chose it because it was so clearly one-sided. Ryan's rog/fgtr/bar contributed absolutely nothing to the encounter, and John's cleric only one spell, though admittedly an important one.

However I don't think there was a single encounter in that whole campaign where Ryan's character dominated in the way my PC did versus the ragewalker. His PC felt significantly underpowered, imo, compared to the two casters. All of us were good tacticians I'd say, and decent powergamers, but Ryan was gimped from the beginning by choosing to play a non-caster.

There was an early encounter against a golem, where all my PC did was cast haste. But after that I learned and started to use conjurations. (It was the first time I'd really played 3e.) That I take as further evidence of the tremendous power of casters in 3e D&D. Many problems can be solved by changing one's spell loadout. A non-caster otoh is stuck with their feat and skill selection.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 9, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Sounds to me like it was a matter of being the right person at just the right time with the right amount of good dice rolls.



The question is, does everyone get to be that right person a reasonable amount of the time, or is it casters only?

And I don't think the problem is confined to D&D. In most rpgs I've played, magic and other superhuman powers always beat muscle and skill, even if the characters are built on the same number of points. Exceptions are 4e, and Call of Cthulhu where magic has serious drawbacks.


----------



## Libramarian (May 9, 2012)

Crispy Critter said:


> So you had full knowledge of the creatures capabilities, were able to lure it out to the best advantage for you (I'm assuming outdoors where you could fly), you were buffed by the cleric to almost perfectly counter its energy effect and then prepared the best combination of spells to defeat the creature. I'm sorry but this corner case does not sound like a being overpowered issue to me.



It does sound pretty overpowered, but it also sounds hella fun.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 9, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> His PC felt significantly underpowered, imo, compared to the two casters. All of us were good tacticians I'd say, and decent powergamers, but Ryan was gimped from the beginning by choosing to play a non-caster.




We didn't have that problem, the party composition at 13th level (3.5 campaign) was a fighter, psion, rogue and spirit shaman, the fighter and rogue never felt underpowered, both used to deal out some serious smack-down (high damage), aside from all the other ways to contribute to a campaign.


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Everyone's definition of "Shine" is different and I don't think a few posters here quite understand that.
> 
> Personally, I don't always expect or want to be in the spotlight. As long as I'm having fun then I don't care. A concept I have for my character maybe one in which the PC is rarely seen and rarely takes the stage.



OK. But this is a bit like saying "my PC concept is that s/he is weaker than all the rest". Maybe that's a viable concept, but perhaps it could be realised just by playing a lower level or lower stat PC.

Or, in 4e, it can be realised by playing a lazy warlord. The PC is weak, but the _player_ has resources that s/he can still deploy at the table. The PC rarely takes the stage, but the player is still fully mechanically engaged with the game.



ForeverSlayer said:


> In every edition of D&D a PC has always had something that they can do. Unless you, the player, purposely stand there and do nothing you will always contribute to the group.
> 
> Now if there is a certain amount of things that I need to do in order to be considered useful then I would like those to be listed right now.



I have two young children - 3 and 6. Sometimes when I'm doing something around the house - cooking, say - they want to join in and help. And when they stir the batter for pancakes, or help dry the dishes, or whatever their contribution might be, it is a genuine contribution in the sense that it takes things forward.

But there is almost nothing they contribute that I couldn't do myself, more easily, more quickly, and with less effort than what it takes to make sure that they do it properly. (I have it on good information that about the time they get to an age where they can _usefully_ contribute is also about the time they'll stop wanting to.)

To apply this to classes like the fighter or the rogue - it's not that there aren't things they genuinely can do. The rogue can genuinely open locks, for example. It's just that there is someone else - the wizard with a couple of scrolls of Knock and an Unseen Servant - who can do the same thing better, quicker, more reliably - and can do a lot of other stuff too!



ForeverSlayer said:


> I just want to post a little something that I feel the designers of 3rd edition/Pathfinder had intended for the games to turn out.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This is how we handle games in our group. If a DM is going to propose a game then we talk amongst ourselves about who is going to play what class.



Maybe I'm missing something - but how is this an argument against the desirability of class balance? And how is it at all special to 3E? A 4e group, or AD&D group, or Rolemaster group, could build their party together in just the same way.



Doug McCrae said:


> The question is, does everyone get to be that right person a reasonable amount of the time, or is it casters only?



Another way to phrase it is - who controls the space of options for right person, right time? In most fanatsy RPGs, that is the spellcasters, because they control the buffs that make you into the right person, and the operational effects (invis, fly, teleport etc) that make it into the right time.

This can work provided that it is always the fighter or rogue who needs to be buffed - so the spellcaster is the brains, the martial PC the brawn - but once you get to the point where self-buff is fully viable (as in Doug's example) the martial PCs have been crowded out. Both brain and brawn roles have become dominated by the spell using PCs.


----------



## pemerton (May 9, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> This depends on what magic can cover, admittedly. Magic in my RPG doesn't really handle things like status effects or temporary hit points, and it only augments the skill use of treating poisons/diseases/infections and the like.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Depends on the system, because it's sure not true in my system.



Unless I've misunderstood, your system is functionally a version of E6. (But with escalating hit points?)

15th level PCs in D&D have Teleport Without Error, Limited Wish, Legend Lore, Commune, Vision (the old Illusionist spell), flying carpets, flying mounts, Plane Shift, Create Food and Water, Heroes' Feast, Control Weather, etc. When they need mundane gear they don't have they cast Fabricate or a Creation spell. They can cast Heal, Restoration and Regeneration when they get hurt.

Whereas the PCs in your game walk from place to place, are troubled by inclement weather, learn new things by talking to 1st level sages, and need Appraise skill to learn if there is work in a town. And can't magically neutralise poisons.

That's not a criticism of your game. (Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like it would play a little like Runequest.) But it is an expression of doubt that it tells us much about the balance between classes in 15th level D&D.


----------



## B.T. (May 9, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Fine. If you think it's preposterous, show how it's preposterous. Show how, with just the abilities from his class (which are, after all, what separates him from a commoner) a level 15 Fighter is more useful than a choice of D3+1 Celestial (or fiendish) Dire Tigers, D4+2 Anklyosauri, or D4+2 Bralani Azata. What do you think he's actually contributing to the party? Damage? He's not doing the damage of three pouncing Celestial Dire Tigers, all at +14 damage for smite. Soak? He doesn't have the area coverage or total hit points of a herd of bison, never mind a herd of anklyosauri. Even the Dire Tigers _each_ have 133 HP (allowing for Augment Summons).
> 
> And do so without reference to spells cast on him please. Those are resources granted to him by other party members in order to make him relevant. Also magic items - most of them will be the proceeds from adventuring, which could be split with the commoner instead - or just go to the more useful people. Ignore them please.



Well, let's talk through this.  First of all, calm down.  I myself have a tendency to get over-excited when discussing issues of balance within D&D because I have seen firsthand what happens when a druid with Natural Spell and a bear animal companion is in a campaign.  I completely agree with you that fighters are underpowered in 3e/Pathfinder, but there's no need to be so aggressive about it.

Second of all, let's look at the weaknesses of summoned monsters.

*1. One-round casting time.*  When the fighter enters a fight, he can immediately act (and if he's smart, he'll have spent one of his feats on Improved Initiative, giving him a good chance of going first).  Meanwhile, the wizard needs to spend a turn casting his summoning spell.  The only time he will avoid this is the scenario that he knows ahead of time that he will be entering a fight and he casts the spell with precision timing.  (1/round level just doesn't last that long.)

*2. Magical vulnerability.* _Dispel magic_ will take a summoned monster out of the fight, completely wasting the spellcaster's actions and a spell slot.  There are other spells that explicitly counter summoned monsters, such as _protection from evil_, _dismissal_, and _banishment_.

*3. Options.* A dire tiger doesn't have much in the way of options for fighting.  It can charge and full attack, and that's it.  On the other hand, any fighter worth his salt is going to have a ranged weapon, and he'll be decent with it even if he hasn't invested feats into it.

Now, all in all, the fighter is overwhelmingly weak compared to the options available to the other classes.  On this, I agree.  However, saying the fighter is useless because he is less good than a group of tigers is premature.

Even though he's not particularly strong, he has the following:

• High attack bonus + decent damage.  Full BAB, his Weapon Training, and Power Attack give him a decent damage output.  If you're feeling masochistic, you can do the Weapon Focus line.

• Decent defenses.  d10 HD and a good Con score will give him some staying power.  Armor Training also boosts his AC.

• Feats.  Who doesn't want more bonus feats?  Just look at what you can spend them on: junk, junk, junk, junk, and something that is occasionally useful.  On the plus side, the fighter has enough bonus feats that he can be mediocre at both melee and ranged combat.

Overall, still terrible.  But not useless.


----------



## Crispy Critter (May 9, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Yes, it was a corner case, I chose it because it was so clearly one-sided. Ryan's rog/fgtr/bar contributed absolutely nothing to the encounter, and John's cleric only one spell, though admittedly an important one.
> 
> However I don't think there was a single encounter in that whole campaign where Ryan's character dominated in the way my PC did versus the ragewalker. His PC felt significantly underpowered, imo, compared to the two casters. All of us were good tacticians I'd say, and decent powergamers, but Ryan was gimped from the beginning by choosing to play a non-caster.




But was there any single encounter in the whole campaign where your party had this much information on an opponent coupled with the opportunity to pick the perfect place to pull off a plan  like that against an opponent? I think flight gives any one character, including non-casters, a large advantage in an area where there's no ceiling preventing movement and the opponent is at the whim of gravity.


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I just want to post a little something that I feel the designers of 3rd edition/Pathfinder had intended for the games to turn out.
> 
> DM: "Okay guys I am going to run X campaign," "Sound Good?"
> 
> ...




You say this as if this doesn't happen at every gaming table since day one.



Steely_Dan said:


> We didn't have that problem, the party composition at 13th level (3.5 campaign) was a fighter, psion, rogue and spirit shaman, the fighter and rogue never felt underpowered, both used to deal out some serious smack-down (high damage), aside from all the other ways to contribute to a campaign.




Yup, when you don't have a cleric, a druid or a wizard in the party, the fighter and the rogue get to do okay.  No disagreements here.


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2012)

B.T. said:


> /snip
> 
> Second of all, let's look at the weaknesses of summoned monsters.
> 
> *1. One-round casting time.*  When the fighter enters a fight, he can immediately act (and if he's smart, he'll have spent one of his feats on Improved Initiative, giving him a good chance of going first).  Meanwhile, the wizard needs to spend a turn casting his summoning spell.  The only time he will avoid this is the scenario that he knows ahead of time that he will be entering a fight and he casts the spell with precision timing.  (1/round level just doesn't last that long.)




Yes, but, in that first round, the fighter can use a bow or charge.  Probably charge since most fighters are melee based.  So, he gets his one attack.  The summoned monsters appear on round two and immediately full attack.  The fighter has basically gotten an edge of one attack.  



> *2. Magical vulnerability.* _Dispel magic_ will take a summoned monster out of the fight, completely wasting the spellcaster's actions and a spell slot.  There are other spells that explicitly counter summoned monsters, such as _protection from evil_, _dismissal_, and _banishment_.




Firstly, how common are those to opponents.  Very, very few straight up Monster Manual creatures have anything which counters summonings and, if you start adding class levels to every encounter just to counter the wizard, that's a bit limiting to adventure design.



> *3. Options.* A dire tiger doesn't have much in the way of options for fighting.  It can charge and full attack, and that's it.  On the other hand, any fighter worth his salt is going to have a ranged weapon, and he'll be decent with it even if he hasn't invested feats into it.




Well, assuming we're not talking about flying opponents (in which case the wizard just summons flying creatures), a bow is likely a one round weapon.  And, given the Tiger's movement rate, and the fact that they can move their full speed and still make full attacks, makes them effectively bows in their own right. 



> Now, all in all, the fighter is overwhelmingly weak compared to the options available to the other classes.  On this, I agree.  However, saying the fighter is useless because he is less good than a group of tigers is premature.
> 
> Even though he's not particularly strong, he has the following:
> 
> • High attack bonus + decent damage.  Full BAB, his Weapon Training, and Power Attack give him a decent damage output.  If you're feeling masochistic, you can do the Weapon Focus line.




Power attack pretty much only works if you buff the heck out of the fighter.  Otherwise, he's whiffing pretty often.  But, yes, his damage is likely similar to the summoned dire Tigers.



> • Decent defenses.  d10 HD and a good Con score will give him some staying power.  Armor Training also boosts his AC.




Yup.  He'll take a beating.  Granted, I don't care if my summonings die because I can replace them in the next round.  And the round after that.  While the fighter might have more hit points than one or two dire tigers, he doesn't have more hit points than NINE of them.



> • Feats.  Who doesn't want more bonus feats?  Just look at what you can spend them on: junk, junk, junk, junk, and something that is occasionally useful.  On the plus side, the fighter has enough bonus feats that he can be mediocre at both melee and ranged combat.
> 
> Overall, still terrible.  But not useless.




I think you're splitting hairs here.  The difference between terrible and useless is semantic more than substantial.  The whole point is that we totally agree on how bad the fighter has it.


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2012)

Sorry for the multiple replies, but, a further thought occurs.

ForeverSlayer (and I'm just picking on you because you happen to the be the latest, but certainly not the only one) is essentially arguing that this is a social contract issue.  If everyone at the table agrees not to step on each other's toes, then all these balance issues go away.  

And, to some degree, I'd agree with that.  If you can get everyone on board with the idea, then sure, the problems don't come up and if they do, everyone will work together to resolve that problem - generally the caster classes simply agree not to take certain options.

However, that being said, while it does work as a solution, I do find it to be a very poor solution.  For one, it presumes that everyone at the table recognizes the issue.  I'll admit that I don't play weak characters.  I don't think that I powergame particularly much, but, when I play a character, that character will be good at what it does.  Not great, not fantastic, but, certainly competent.

Which means if I can recognize that a particular option is a good option (Craft Wands being a good option IMO), then I will naturally want to take that option.  Which means I might step on other people's toes because, if I make a competent spell caster, that's generally going to overshadow anything but the most skillfully built non-caster.

The second reason I don't like the social contract solution is that it treats the symptoms but not the disease.  By making it a social contract issue, you recognize that the problem exists, but, instead of fixing the problem, you agree, as a table, to work around the problem.  I'd much, much rather simply fix the problem.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 10, 2012)

B.T. said:


> Second of all, let's look at the weaknesses of summoned monsters.




I picked the example I did because I was thinking of the Summoner class.  And for a Summoner, Summon Monster X isn't normally their main means of fighting.  It's what they do after their Eidolon is dead.  I also quite deliberately picked a L13 summoner to compare to the L15 fighter - spotting the fighter two levels before we'd started.

So let's see what I'm handicapping the summoner by by not taking into account or deliberately surrendering


The Eidolon
A powerful spell list
Two character levels
Four feats
That's quite a lot to give up.  And even surrendering those I can still challenge the fighter for more than half a dozen fights per day.




> *1. One-round casting time.*




Ahem.  Summoner.  One stanard action casting time.



> *2. Magical vulnerability.* _Dispel magic_ will take a summoned monster out of the fight, completely wasting the spellcaster's actions and a spell slot.




Correction: Dispel Magic needs to win a caster level check to take a summoned monster out of the fight, completely wasting the _dispeller's _actions and a spell slot.  If the dispelling caster loses then he's wasted his action entirely.  If the dispelling caster _wins_ and was using Greater Dispel Magic then he's exchanged a sixth level spell slot for a daily use of something I wasn't going to run out of anyway - and I still get a round of savaging the dispeller with the summoned tigers or lightning bolts.  And can just do it again next turn.  (If he was silly enough to use standard Dispel Magic then he'll just banish a single creature out of the pack I've summoned.  I simply laugh at this point).


> _protection from evil_,




Doesn't do a lot.  "Summoned creatures that are not evil are immune to this effect. The  protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded  creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against  the blocked creature."



> _dismissal_, and _banishment_.




I do hope that the caster tries either of those.  Using his standard action to banish some of my summons with no chance of banishing them all (at least unless he either has 21HD or I only managed two tigers).

Dispelling and Banishing are defensive options that mean that the caster who uses them on summons is automatically losing the action duel.  



> *3. Options.* A dire tiger doesn't have much in the way of options for fighting.




You're claiming that _Summon Monster_ doesn't have much in the way of options?  If I don't want charge-and-destroy, I'll summon D4+2 Bralani Azatas.  Flying, lightning bolting, Wind Walling, healing.  Talk to me about options again?



> Now, all in all, the fighter is overwhelmingly weak compared to the options available to the other classes.  On this, I agree.  However, saying the fighter is useless because he is less good than a group of tigers is premature.




Less good than the _reserve_ option for a Summoner two levels below him, accessible only without the Eidolon.



> • High attack bonus + decent damage.  Full BAB, his Weapon Training, and Power Attack give him a decent damage output.




But the tigers come at night.  With their voices, soft as thunder...



> • Decent defenses.  d10 HD and a good Con score will give him some staying power.  Armor Training also boosts his AC.




Pity about that will save...



> Overall, still terrible.  But not useless.




Less useful than a crippled summoner two levels below his level.  Just to establish an upper bound on his usefulness.  Given that a summoner isn't considered the strongest class in PF (that would be the Wizard or Cleric, although the Summoner is probably number 3), we can cap the effective level equivalent of the fighter as significantly less than 13.  For an estimate I'm going to say level 10 due to the versatility issue - and that at least means 4th level spells even if it takes away the meatshield and stun potential of the anklyosaurus herd (95 hp * D3+1 at L11) and the repeating multiple lightning bolts of the Bralani Azatas.

At an effective power level five levels behind the other PCs, and with no basic capabilities they can't cover (unlike a mage in a party of non-mages) how useful are you?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2012)

Hussar said:


> The second reason I don't like the social contract solution is that it treats the symptoms but not the disease.  By making it a social contract issue, you recognize that the problem exists, but, instead of fixing the problem, you agree, as a table, to work around the problem.  I'd much, much rather simply fix the problem.



Agreed - it's basically the "it's not a problem because you can house rule it" response.


----------



## pemerton (May 10, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> Agreed - it's basically the "it's not a problem because you can house rule it" response.



I agree with you and Hussar that social contract as a solution can have problems.

I don't know if I quite agree that it's just the "house rule it away" response, though. There are games where social contracts to maintain balance, or to work around imbalance, can work.

The problem with the social contract solution in D&D is that _the rules don't tell you you'll need to think about it_, nor offer any advice on how to handle it. This contrasts with Burning Wheel, for example, which frequently talks about its lack of mechanical balance in certain respects, and has both rules and advice that respond to this feature of the game.

*TL;DR* - The problem with the social contract solution in D&D is that it involves perpeutating a type of wilful denial in the rules of the game.


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2012)

THinking about it, yeah, I'd agree with that Pemerton.  There are games where the social contract is the balance.  I'm just not sure D&D has ever been one of them.


----------



## pemerton (May 10, 2012)

Hussar said:


> There are games where the social contract is the balance.  I'm just not sure D&D has ever been one of them.



Agreed.

And it's not just about D&D traditions or culture, in my view. It's about the mechanics. For example, in D&D "screen time" is almost always about overcoming some challenge, and D&D has no mechanics for overcoming challenges other than "do you best and hope you make it" - there is almost never an incentive not to bring your very highest numbers to bear, and the penalty for failure within the fction is typically failure at the metagame level also.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 10, 2012)

Hussar said:


> You say this as if this doesn't happen at every gaming table since day one.




Apparently not according to a few people here on these boards. They seem to be playing with people who make it their life's dream to try and make characters that step on the toes of other characters. 

Every PC steps on the toes of another in way or another but no PC can do everything that another PC can do. 

Some PC's out DPR other PC's all the time but we don't hear any complaints about that.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 10, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Unless I've misunderstood, your system is functionally a version of E6. (But with escalating hit points?)



I'd say that this isn't an unfair comparison (can't XP yet). But there are certainly powerful effects that people can perform or achieve (probably significantly more powerful than E6 allows).



pemerton said:


> 15th level PCs in D&D have Teleport Without Error, Limited Wish, Legend Lore, Commune, Vision (the old Illusionist spell), flying carpets, flying mounts, Plane Shift, Create Food and Water, Heroes' Feast, Control Weather, etc. When they need mundane gear they don't have they cast Fabricate or a Creation spell. They can cast Heal, Restoration and Regeneration when they get hurt.
> 
> Whereas the PCs in your game walk from place to place, are troubled by inclement weather, learn new things by talking to 1st level sages, and need Appraise skill to learn if there is work in a town. And can't magically neutralise poisons.
> 
> That's not a criticism of your game. (Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like it would play a little like Runequest.) But it is an expression of doubt that it tells us much about the balance between classes in 15th level D&D.



I did address this. This may not hold true for D&D historically, but it most certainly can be true for a level-based system, even with escalating level-dependent skills. Which was, really, my point. The universal statement of level 1's not being able to consistently meaningfully contribute to a party of level 15 PCs seems demonstrably untrue, to me, even if I have to cite my own RPG. And, I think that says something about game theory, especially considering how 5e seems to want to flatten the math (like I did in my game to some degree [attack bonuses of +19 around hit die 20]).

Has D&D been different? Yes. Does a system with levels necessitate this? Not at all. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (May 10, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> This may not hold true for D&D historically, but it most certainly can be true for a level-based system, even with escalating level-dependent skills.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Does a system with levels necessitate this? Not at all.



I think, to be fair to Hussar et al, they had D&D in mind, where 15th level doesn't just mean more skill points, but more magic and general story oomph.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 10, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Apparently not according to a few people here on these boards. They seem to be playing with people who make it their life's dream to try and make characters that step on the toes of other characters.




No. I'm a person who often wants to play a wizard. And to me, my conception of a wizard fits one of several archetypes (battlefield artillery/evoker is not one of them).

The first and most obvious one is a trickster. Very illusion heavy, with some enchantment and shapeshifting thrown in for good measure. If this concept steps on the rogue's toes then I'm doing it right. It is basically a rogue backed with magic. There's nothing wrong with this concept - the fundamental problem arises that _I make a better rogue than the rogue_. I shouldn't - we should be complementary. It sucks that I do, for either the rogue, for me, or for us both.

The second, and possibly more obvious one, is the loremaster. An old wizard who knows about things, or even a young research wizard interested in learning about the world. Possibly specialises in divination magic (and if not certainly uses it). But ultimately what he specialises in is being prepared and knowing and having the right tool for the job. And this, to me, is the only excuse for "Vancian" casting - that it allows you and encourages you to prepare for the eventualities you are likely to meet that day. And it's called "playing a wizard to its best advantage" (which when you have a starting Int of 18 should be permissable). But it's spectacularly overpowered.

The third is the summoner. A classic form of magic - in some mythologies the _only_ form of magic. Summoning creatures and bargaining with them to do your bidding. In 3.X, this is represented by the binder class - but in PF it's the Summoner. And as I've shown on this thread, the PF summoner when used even vaguely competently _smashes_ the fighter of the same level. This should not be.

Now in 3.X, all these are overpowered concepts. They aren't chosen to be overpowered. Tricksters are fun. Loremasters are how I see wizards, and Summoners as I've described them are a fairly classic type of magic - and one who deservedly get a class of their own in Pathfinder. And all of them are meant to be intelligent (hell, it's the primary stat of wizards). But if I don't give them an in character lobotomy or an intentional large set of handicaps (both of which subtract from my enjoyment of the game and make me feel like I'm patronising everyone else at the table - because I am)

Because of the sheer unbalance of 3.X if I want to play a wizard using the wizard class I have two basic choices. Play a moron or be a jerk. I complain about how overpowered the wizard is and how useless the fighter is on message boards because I don't want to have this problem at the table itself.

Which do you want me to do? Not play some of my favourite fantasy archetypes despite the game encouraging me to? Lobotomise a character that's meant to be based on wits? Or be a jerk?

And if that is the choice you and the game designers are forcing on me, why do you consider this acceptable?

Edit: [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION], I don't know about [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].  But I certainly see your list of things to do as more or less irrelevant by 15th in classic D&D level or things you hire people to do and certainly don't have them join the party.  To illustrate the difference, you say "My PCs frequently visit sages, which might take days (if they need to travel to a city with a sage),"  Now I have no problem with the PCs visiting sages.  But taking days to get there?  A 9th level party in 3.X/PF can travel 900 miles in the blink of an eye.  And a 13th level party has no chance of failing to get there.  If it's on another plane, it only needs two spells - plane shift before teleport. Your party might have 15HD but this doesn't make them the equivalent of a 3.X party.  (And as for foraging, not a problem if you're just teleporting).


----------



## Leatherhead (May 10, 2012)

What is going on in this thread? 

If a wizard cast knock, invisibility, or charm person, or an illusion they are trivializing anyone who uses skill points like bards or rogues.
If a wizard summons a monster or casts a damage spell like fireball, they are trivializing the fighter or any other defender/striker person.
If the wizard casts fly, they trivialize melee characters.

So what, dare I ask, is a wizard supposed to cast? Furthermore, what is a wizard supposed to actually do for their party?

Why is everyone so hung up over niche protection now? I thought 4e killed the trends of spotlight balance, and with it the potential of "The Decker Problem."


----------



## Grimmjow (May 10, 2012)

Leatherhead said:


> If a wizard summons a monster or casts a damage spell like fireball, they are trivializing the fighter or any other defender/striker person.




But they as wizards won't be able to stand in the front line as well as a fighter, and the monsters they summon will all have different problems within itself


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 10, 2012)

Leatherhead said:


> What is going on in this thread?
> 
> If a wizard cast knock, invisibility, or charm person, or an illusion they are trivializing anyone who uses skill points like bards or rogues.
> If a wizard summons a monster or casts a damage spell like fireball, they are trivializing the fighter or any other defender/striker person.
> If the wizard casts fly, they trivialize melee characters.




I don't know of _anyone_ who is saying that a 3.X caster casting direct damage evocations is trivialising the fighter.  This is because a fighter is better at doing damage most of the time than a simple fireball - single target damage to drop foes is normally more effective than shared damage.  And the fighter can do things in combat the evoker can't - like survive.

The problem with classic _knock_ is that it makes the wizard _better_ at one of the rogue's primary purposes than the rogue is.  The rogue who decides to focus on lockpicking should always be better at lockpicking than the wizard who just decides to prepare a spell that morning.  If the _knock_ spell, instead of being automatic were to give an effective lockpicking skill equal to the caster level, with tools, then no one would complain.  Spells like that would make the wizard into a jack of all trades, master of none (or master of a few things that only a wizard could do).  It would still open locked doors.  But you'd use it either because you didn't have a rogue or on the offchance you rolled better.  No one is saying that Jack of All Trades is bad.  The problem is the wizard being Master of Other Peoples' Trades. 

And summoning wouldn't be a problem if the summons were significantly less powerful than the fighter.  The problem is that they aren't.  D3+1 Celestial Dire Tigers have more hit points than the fighter, do more damage, and cover a wider area.  If instead of D3+1 Celestial Dire Tigers you were to get D3+1 Celestial Wolverines, you'd have the meatshield.  Things underfoot that either do a little damage and clog up the enemy's mobility or force the enemy to divert attacks to destroy.  But you wouldn't have summoned D3+1 creatures, each of which does a potential 140 points of damage per round to an evil foe without crits, assuming all attacks hit for average damage.  Once again it's not about being a Jack of All Trades.  The problem here is that the Summoner (and to a lesser extent the Wizard here) is Master of Other Peoples' Trades.

Does that help show you what's going on?


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Apparently not according to a few people here on these boards. They seem to be playing with people who make it their life's dream to try and make characters that step on the toes of other characters.
> 
> Every PC steps on the toes of another in way or another but no PC can do everything that another PC can do.
> 
> Some PC's out DPR other PC's all the time but we don't hear any complaints about that.




See, this is just not true.  My wizard can do everything your rogue can do, can do it better and can do it more often.  Not by being a dick or by abusing the rules, but by using the baseline mechanics in the PHB.

Now, do I do this?  Nope, at least, not intentionally.  I have stepped on the group's toes from time to time, simply by picking options that are easily available without realizing quite how powerful they can be and I've completely bypassed entire challenges the same way, but, not intentionally.

The problem is, the casters are SO powerful at higher levels that it's virtually impossible NOT to do it.  

Again, it's not a case of players being dicks here.  It's a major flaw in the system that is very easily exploitable.  Sure, we could return to the days when a caster actually got to do something related to his class about 10% of the time, but, considering how much people complain about the nerfing of casters in 4e, I'm thinking that returning to AD&D levels isn't going to work either.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 10, 2012)

Leatherhead said:


> Furthermore, what is a wizard supposed to actually do for their party?



A class system must work as a whole, so it's impossible to answer that question without knowing what the other classes do. 3e classes are very flexible, for a class-based system, though caster flexibility is far greater due to the ability to switch spell loadout on a daily basis. But even rogues and fighters can vary quite a bit dependent on skill and feat selection.

In a tight class-based system with a high degree of niche protection, the wizard would not have anything like the range of spells they do in 1e to 3e. Even OD&D probably has too many. I can't say what a wizard would be. An AoE specialist? A sage? A diviner? Whatever it is, it should be what other classes are not.

Another method would be to allow any of these options and more for the wizard, but determined during character generation, so the wizard would be more like the sorcerer, or 3e fighter, or rogue.

There are many other possibilities. One could vary the number of areas in which each class can contribute and the degree to which they can contribute. If one put a value from 1-10, then a fighter might be combat 10; a bard social 5, information gathering 5; a rogue stealth 5, combat 5 and so forth. The problem is if you then introduce a wizard who can be combat 20 one day and information gathering 20 the next.

Or the wizard could be 'spiky', a nova class, contributing a high value in one encounter, and virtually nothing in another. This is, traditionally, what D&D has tried to do.

All approaches are problematic. In a game with high niche protection, what happens if the class that fills a niche is unpopular or unavailable for any reason? World of Warcraft suffers from this problem, with tanks and healers both essential for group PvE play, but far rarer than damage-dealers.

The 'valued niche' approach can fail if it puts the wrong value on a niche. Maybe combat is a rare occurrence in a particular campaign, making the fighter worth a lot less than anticipated.

The 15-minute day, the necessity of the traditional D&D dungeon, and player boredom, are obvious problems with the spiky wizard.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 10, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> A class system must work as a whole, so it's impossible to answer that question without knowing what the other classes do. 3e classes are very flexible, for a class-based system, though caster flexibility is far greater due to the ability to switch spell loadout on a daily basis. But even rogues and fighters can vary quite a bit dependent on skill and feat selection.
> 
> In a tight class-based system with a high degree of niche protection, the wizard would not have anything like the range of spells they do in 1e to 3e. Even OD&D probably has too many. I can't say what a wizard would be. An AoE specialist? A sage? A diviner? Whatever it is, it should be what other classes are not.
> 
> ...




In some games, the solution to utility was the Hybrid Tax.  The more things you were capable of doing in a given moment, the lower the quality at which u did those things.  So a Wizard who could only blast was very effective at it, while a wizard who could buff, blast, unlock, and sneak was less effective.  Problematically D&D has always presented the Wizard as the utility man who could do anything, at any time, and be great at it.  So, with a Vancian system on the way for DDN, WOTC will either have to scale down spells per day or establish some sort of system to restrict non-specialization.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 10, 2012)

shidaku said:


> So, with a Vancian system on the way for DDN, WOTC will either have to scale down spells per day or establish some sort of system to restrict non-specialization.



I think, post-1974 OD&D, D&D went in totally the wrong direction with caster spell lists. They got bigger and bigger when they really should've gotten smaller. The OD&D spell lists for the magic-user and cleric work reasonably well for a game with three classes, and set primarily in the mega-dungeon environment. As soon as the game started adding more and more classes, niches had to be given more protection, not less.


----------



## Bluenose (May 10, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> I think, post-1974 OD&D, D&D went in totally the wrong direction with caster spell lists. They got bigger and bigger when they really should've gotten smaller. The OD&D spell lists for the magic-user and cleric work reasonably well for a game with three classes, and set primarily in the mega-dungeon environment. As soon as the game started adding more and more classes, niches had to be given more protection, not less.




I think it would have been effective if they'd kept the magic-user/illusionist split from 1e and emphasised it, so there simply wouldn't have been a generalist wizard class able to learn any spells. Create a Mage class with a few "general" spells, including some divination and ways to protect yourself and your allies from magic (note, I mean magic, not weapons) as well as some way to break hostile spells. Then, require they go down a specialised path, such as illusion, enchantment, evocation, necromancy, whatever. That last would be where the bulk of the spells were. And with clerics, emphasise the specialist priest rather than the generic cleric.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 10, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> Create a Mage class with a few "general" spells



That was part of Gary Gygax's plan for 2e AD&D wasn't it? I like your ideas, sort of '2e done right' with much tighter niches for casters.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 10, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I think, to be fair to Hussar et al, they had D&D in mind, where 15th level doesn't just mean more skill points, but more magic and general story oomph.



Without snark, I think it's unfair to imply that skill points can't mechanically drive quite a bit of story weight. They sure do in my game, as you can see by that list of things that hit die 1 character could do. By players used skills to great effect last session, including one PC who did use Heal to diagnose the wounds that killed someone, amongst many other skill uses that drove the story forward (Negotiation, Survival, Appraise, etc.). Combat did occur last session, too, and the warriors/spellcasters contributed there as well (though the warriors did _far_ more than the spellcasters).

But, once again, you can drive quite a bit of story forward if skills give you the tools to do so. Level 1 or otherwise. As always, play what you like 



Neonchameleon said:


> Edit: [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION], I don't know about [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].  But I certainly see your list of things to do as more or less irrelevant by 15th in classic D&D level or things you hire people to do and certainly don't have them join the party.



Oh, sure, you can hire someone to do this for you. Or get an ally to help. No questions. If you are, though, then you're getting someone to do something for you that is contributing to the party. I was addressing whether or not it's possible for a level 1 PC to meaningfully contribute to a level 15 party, or if the level 1 is capable of "shining" in such an environment. Since we both seem to agree that those skills can be useful to that level 15 party, I think it's fair to say that the level 1 can meaningfully contribute, and even shine.

Because, if necessary, you can hire a high level Wizard to cast a spell for your Wizard-less party. That doesn't mean he doesn't contribute if he's a PC. Additionally, most of the time you don't have a level 1 in a level 15 party, so you probably would just hire someone to fulfill that role, and not have them join the party. However, in this hypothetical, it's "can they meaningfully contribute, and can they shine?" And to me, all signs point to "yes".



Neonchameleon said:


> To illustrate the difference, you say "My PCs frequently visit sages, which might take days (if they need to travel to a city with a sage),"  Now I have no problem with the PCs visiting sages.  But taking days to get there?  A 9th level party in 3.X/PF can travel 900 miles in the blink of an eye.  And a 13th level party has no chance of failing to get there.  If it's on another plane, it only needs two spells - plane shift before teleport. Your party might have 15HD but this doesn't make them the equivalent of a 3.X party.  (And as for foraging, not a problem if you're just teleporting).



Whoa, when did this turn into me competing with a 3.X party? I loved 3.X, but I left it because it had a few problems I wanted to fix (including teleportation). I'm not trying to compete with the power of a 3.X party. I _am_ saying that a level 1 can meaningfully contribute to a level 15 party, in game theory exercise, and that I'd even be able to do so in 3.X in many games. In all games? No. If it's too combat focused, I won't help at all. If they PCs are exceptionally broadly skilled, I won't really help at all.

But, from my personal experience, most PCs _aren't_ playing Persistent-DDM Clerics, or Time-Stopping Shapechanging Wizards. Much of this has to do with level, and much of it has to do with levels of optimization in groups. However, most of the time, a party can always use an extra guy, even if he's that low level Bard who gives them that bardic knowledge that they'd have to go to lengths to learn about.

Is it possible for a level 1 to not contribute to a level 15? Oh, certainly. Easily. Is that always the case? No. No, not at all. I think I'd be able to meaningfully contribute to most parties as a level 1, but system does play into this. I think using 3.X is a mixed benchmark, as it had the most power out of the editions, as far as I can tell. It did have skills, though, and I often wielded those to great effect. Maybe it's just my group's style, I don't know.

I do know that -as I told pemerton- from a game theory perspective, level 1's consistently meaningfully contributing can be true for a level-based system, even with escalating level-dependent skills. Was it historically true in D&D? Probably not as much. Does that need to hold true for 5e? Definitely not. And thus my point. As always, play what you like


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 10, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Yup, when you don't have a cleric, a druid or a wizard in the party, the fighter and the rogue get to do okay.




Well there was still a Spirit Shaman in the party (in a campaign with a heavy fey theme); and I don't mean okay, some sick damage, the fighter had some prestige classes, sometimes it was shocking.

This everyone carried the cleric/druid/wizard's jockstrap in pre-4th Ed urban myth has gone on for too long, change the record.


----------



## hanez (May 10, 2012)

Change the record indeed.  Lots of moaning and groaning. 

Talk about 15th level is odd considering thats just when most campaigns usually peter out anyways.  I think D&D should get a lil wacky in the last few levels anyways.  The fighters are commanding armys and the wizards are jumping planes, it seems like some people are just complaining that all the epicness isnt exactly the same from character to character.   Last time I looked at a poll (source?) almost no one played level 15 and up anyways.

I agree with increasing balance, I think many people are raising legitimate issues that can and should be changed.  But the sheer force of their argument (fighter equaling a commoner for example) is on a level that I can not agree with. 

Lets not pretend that everyone played wizards and no one played fighters, lets not pretend that the wizard was killing all the npcs, picking all the doors, always flying and being invisible sneaking around to counter the rogue while he's summoning his own armies every encounter while the fighter watched.  By and large this didn't and wasn't happening, although it makes for a good history rewrite on forums.  Sure your l33t build was pretty overpowered, sure it was arguably more powerful then other characters.  But it was largely remedied in most situations, by good dms, varied adventure designs, treasure,  players who thinkin your a j-rk for using it and the existence of social conventions in a social game.  Which is to say its not as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.


----------



## hanez (May 10, 2012)

> Originally Posted by *Neonchameleon*
> 
> 
> _Fine.  If you think it's preposterous, show how it's preposterous. Show how,  with just the abilities from his class (which are, after all, what  separates him from a commoner) a level 15 Fighter is more useful than a choice of D3+1 Celestial (or fiendish) Dire Tigers, D4+2 Anklyosauri, or D4+2 Bralani Azata.  What do you think he's actually contributing to the party? Damage? He's  not doing the damage of three pouncing Celestial Dire Tigers, all at  +14 damage for smite. Soak? He doesn't have the area coverage or total  hit points of a herd of bison, never mind a herd of anklyosauri. Even  the Dire Tigers each have 133 HP (allowing for Augment Summons)._



_

Uh... thats quite a switch.  You were the one comparing the 15th level fighter to a 1st level PC, so why should I have to compare him to another 15th level character (summoner).  Want to compare the 15th level fighter to a 1st level PC instead?    Don't remember saying that?




			Originally Posted by *Neonchameleon* 

 
The  argument is that in a party with a wizard, a druid, and an artificer  (or a wizard, a summoner, and a cleric in PF) the fighter is  contributing little more than the 1st level PC would.  

Click to expand...







			And do so without reference to spells cast on him please. Those are  resources granted to him by other party members in order to make him  relevant. Also magic items - most of them will be the proceeds from  adventuring, which could be split with the commoner instead - or just go  to the more useful people. Ignore them please.
		
Click to expand...



I dont think thats a fair argument.   Many magic items are useable only (or are best used by) by martial classes therefore they often go to the martial classes.  The reason they use them best is because as you say it's an "ability of their class".   As for the spells cast on him, we would have to compare casting the spells (haste, invisibility, fly etc) on a 15th level fighter VS a 1st level PC.   That is the quote I was responding to.




_


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 10, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> By players used skills to great effect last session, including one PC who did use Heal to diagnose the wounds that killed someone,




Oh, you mean by DM Fiat.  Heal has specific uses.  Now using heal for forensic pathology is something I'd allow as DM.  And allowing it was a good thing.  But it's not the skills themselves driving the game forward.



> Whoa, when did this turn into me competing with a 3.X party?




When you answered Hussar's challenge in this post.  Hussar's challenge was:
Create a party of 15th level characters.  Now, add a 1st level character  to the party.  How much is that 1st level character contributing to the  game?"​It was therefore very specifically a 15th level party that you were saying could be helped by:
Gathering food quickly, navigating, or dealing with animals/plants (like gathering herbs) if nobody has any survival skills.​And so on.  



hanez said:


> Change the record indeed.  Lots of moaning and groaning.
> 
> Talk about 15th level is odd considering thats just when most campaigns usually peter out anyways.




I wasn't the one who brought it up.



> The fighters are commanding armys and the wizards are jumping planes, it seems like some people are just complaining that all the epicness isnt exactly the same from character to character.




Why are the fighters commanding armies?  How are they?  If it's 3.X, I see no abilities that even slightly help fighters command armies.  A bard would make a better general than a fighter.  And that's the problem in 3.X/PF.  The fighters get no epicness.  It all goes to the casters.



> Sure your l33t build was pretty overpowered, sure it was arguably more powerful then other characters.  But it was largely remedied in most situations, by good dms, varied adventure designs, treasure,  players who thinkin your a j-rk for using it and the existence of social conventions in a social game.  Which is to say its not as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.




And that's another problem.  When I've not even tried to min-max - just taken a simple class out of the box like Wizard, Druid, or Summoner, and people think I'm a j-rk for using it then the fault is that of the game designer.

If they object to my Bard 4/Barbarian 1/Ur-priest 4/Nar Demonbinder 1/Mystic Theurge 5 with his 9th level divine spells, 8th level arcane spells, and caster levels probably in the 40s (I really can't be bothered to solve the simultaneous equations for that build's caster levels) then they have every right to call me a jerk.  But if my build is Druid 15 Summoner 15 and I'm using summons from core and no real monkey business then the problem is that the designer messed up.



hanez said:


> Uh... thats quite a switch.  You were the one comparing the 15th level fighter to a 1st level PC, so why should I have to compare him to another 15th level character (summoner).  Want to compare the 15th level fighter to a 1st level PC instead?    Don't remember saying that?




Oh, I remember saying it - and it is slight hyperbole.  I just need several steps to demonstrate quite how much of a supernumerary the fighter is.

1: Compare the combat ability of the level 15 fighter to that of a crippled level _13_ summoner.  Showing that even when we take away the biggest class features of a relatively strong class (probably the third strongest PF class - but behind wizard and cleric) and dock a few levels from the summoner, the fighter is way out of his league _at the things he is supposed to be good at_.

2: Try to baseline the combat ability of the level 15 fighter against an ordinary summoner who leads with summon monster.  I then suggested that 10th level was fair as being able to drop almost 300 hp of anklysauri and follow up with spells would be as useful as the fighter, so you couldn't match a L11 summoner even without an Eidolon.

3: Realise that this makes the fighter in combat, the place where he is supposed to shine, the equivalent of five threat levels lower than the other PCs.  In other words not a significant threat.

 4: Add in to the mix that the fighter is not only not a threat in combat, he has almost no skill outside combat.

5: Trivial in combat and almost a zero outside combat makes the fighter a supernumerary.  Sure he's got 28 skill points more than the commoner, and a whole lot of hp.  But it's still a supernumerary.



> Many magic items are useable only (or are best used by) by martial classes




Name three fighter specific items.



> As for the spells cast on him, we would have to compare casting the spells (haste, invisibility, fly etc) on a 15th level fighter VS a 1st level PC.   That is the quote I was responding to.




No.  Because no one in their senses would waste the spells on the commoner.  You tell the commoner to stay home.


----------



## pemerton (May 11, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Without snark, I think it's unfair to imply that skill points can't mechanically drive quite a bit of story weight.



I'm not meaning to imply that don't.

What I'm trying to say is that in a game with E6/Runequest-style play - skills are more important than spells, travel is by foot or horseback rather than teleport even for powerful PCs, etc - we are not talking about a D&D-ish game at all. We are not talking about a game in which the playes, by using their PCs' magical abilities (teleport, rope trick, healing etc), can exercise a very high degree of control over scene-framing, the passage of time, the mitigation of consequences from past encounters, etc. And, therefore (in my view) are not really answering the question posed by Hussar, which was (I think) fairly obviously talking about a 15th level D&D-style party.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 11, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Why are the fighters commanding armies?  How are they?  If it's 3.X, I see no abilities that even slightly help fighters command armies.  A bard would make a better general than a fighter.  And that's the problem in 3.X/PF.  The fighters get no epicness.  It all goes to the casters.




I guess you forgot about the Leadership feat.


----------



## Hussar (May 11, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I guess you forgot about the Leadership feat.




How is that a fighter feat?  Anyone can take leadership and get the exact same benefit.  Actually, a cleric makes a much better choice anyway since he actually gets some benefit from the high Cha.  The fighter?  None of his class skills benefit from Cha (IIRC) and none of his class skills do.  It's generally a dump stat.  Taking Leadership is a fairly poor choice for a fighter.

And, leadership does not allow you to lead armies.  At best, you get a 150 1st to 6th level followers and a cohort (and that's the max you will ever get).  So, how exactly does Leadership help me command armies?



			
				Hanez said:
			
		

> Talk about 15th level is odd considering thats just when most campaigns usually peter out anyways. I think D&D should get a lil wacky in the last few levels anyways. The fighters are commanding armys and the wizards are jumping planes, it seems like some people are just complaining that all the epicness isnt exactly the same from character to character. Last time I looked at a poll (source?) almost no one played level 15 and up anyways.




Campaigns peter out here because play here is virtually impossible.  You spend a year getting to this point and now your muggle classes are "carrying the wizard's jockstrap".  That's not a bug, that's a deliberate feature of the whole "zero to fantastic cosmic power" concept behind casters.  If the wizard is wielding fantastic cosmic power, then the fighter is the BMX Bandit.

Simply brushing away the problem by saying, "well, it's not a problem, no one ever does that anyway" doesn't resolve the underlying issues.  There's a reason E6 works like it does - it's to counter the caster issues of D&D.  There's a reason the "sweet spot" ends at 12th level.

And that reason is the D&D magic system.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> How is that a fighter feat?  Anyone can take leadership and get the exact same benefit.




Oh right I forgot, classes have to have something that only they can take for it to be acknowledged . You said a fighter couldn't have an army and I proved you wrong, also there is no size requirement for an army. 163 is the max amount of troops you could get.


----------



## Arlough (May 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> How is that a fighter feat?  Anyone can take leadership and get the exact same benefit.  Actually, a cleric makes a much better choice anyway since he actually gets some benefit from the high Cha.  The fighter?  None of his class skills benefit from Cha (IIRC) and none of his class skills do.  It's generally a dump stat.  Taking Leadership is a fairly poor choice for a fighter.
> 
> And, leadership does not allow you to lead armies.  At best, you get a 150 1st to 6th level followers and a cohort (and that's the max you will ever get).  So, how exactly does Leadership help me command armies?




That can be enough of an army. My 12th level sorcerer was able to get 48 followers to follow him.  He used them to pull a Macross Missile Massacre with lvl 5 Wands of Magic Missile to do murder the BBEG as he stood before the city gates demanding our surrender.  Did about 540 or so damage (144d4 + 144 damage, thank god for die rolling software) outright, followed by attacks every round thereafter.  He died in about 5 rounds, as there was no total cover out there.  Then the rest of his army kinda disintegrated under the fire.


----------



## Hussar (May 11, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Oh right I forgot, classes have to have something that only they can take for it to be acknowledged . You said a fighter couldn't have an army and I proved you wrong, also there is no size requirement for an army. 163 is the max amount of troops you could get.




What kind of army has 163 troops?  That's an oversized company.  And, that required your fighter to be about 15th or so, level.

But, again, how does this actually help him lead an army?

Arlough - thank you for proving my point.  Even your army can't be fighters to be effective, they have to all be wizards.


----------



## pemerton (May 11, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Oh right I forgot, classes have to have something that only they can take for it to be acknowledged



The topic of discussion was whether a 15th level fighter PC adds anything significant to a 15th level group of PCs, relative to the other optiosn available to a player at that level.

In this context, it was said that:



hanez said:


> Talk about 15th level is odd considering thats just when most campaigns usually peter out anyways.  I think D&D should get a lil wacky in the last few levels anyways.  The fighters are commanding armys and the wizards are jumping planes




Now this is true in AD&D and B/X. But in 3E there is no special mechanic that makes fighters be able to command armies. (Whereas there is a special mechanic that permits clerics and wizards to jump planes - the Plane Shift spell.)



ForeverSlayer said:


> You said a fighter couldn't have an army and I proved you wrong



The point is that the wizard or cleric _could also have that army_. And to the extent that CHA is a factor, a sorcerer or cleric would probably do a better job of it than a fighter.

Hence, talking about armies is not identifying anything distinctive that the fighter brings to the table.


----------



## Bluenose (May 11, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I'm not meaning to imply that don't.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that in a game with E6/Runequest-style play - skills are more important than spells, travel is by foot or horseback rather than teleport even for powerful PCs, etc - we are not talking about a D&D-ish game at all. We are not talking about a game in which the playes, by using their PCs' magical abilities (teleport, rope trick, healing etc), can exercise a very high degree of control over scene-framing, the passage of time, the mitigation of consequences from past encounters, etc. And, therefore (in my view) are not really answering the question posed by Hussar, which was (I think) fairly obviously talking about a 15th level D&D-style party.




You could add The One Ring to that list of examples. Travel, even when it goes well, causes fatigue. Fatigue is a significant factor in fights. The whole "feel" in games lake TOR, RQ can be of a struggle to survive, which with D&D spellcasters around stops being the case in situations other than combat past 6th-8th level.



Hussar said:


> What kind of army has 163 troops?  That's an oversized company.  And, that required your fighter to be about 15th or so, level.




That actually depends rather on the type of campaign you're playing in. I can find an Anglo-Saxon law code where an army is defined as fifty men or more. In my home campaign, 163 warriors is a significant force in most areas. Even the larger kingdoms struggle to put armies of more than the low thousands into the field, and that tends to bankrupt them.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 11, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I guess you forgot about the Leadership feat.




The feat that _everyone_ should take if it's legal - but is so overpowered it normally isn't?  And that all but ensures that the fighter has one of the smallest groups of followers going as the fighter wants decent stats in St, Dex, and Con, probably an Int of 13 for Expertise, and some Wis for will?  That feat?

Right.  So even what they are supposedly good at when they supposedly turn epic, fighters are worse at than most other classes?  Gotcha.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (May 11, 2012)

Derren said:


> But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?



That's not at all what balance advocates want. Even if it were, no edition has ever done this and I don't see why 5e would be the first.


----------



## hanez (May 11, 2012)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> That's not at all what balance advocates want. Even if it were, no edition has ever done this and I don't see why 5e would be the first.




Is it not true that "balance advocates"want to be able to do the 3 pillars equally well?  Is it not true that they want a fixed effectiveness, inside each pillar (e.g. 50% effective at combat, 25% effective at exploration, and 25% effective at social) and for this "ratio" of effectiveness to be equal for every class?   

While the quote "why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?"  may be in simple terms, I would argue that if effectiveness within each of the main aspects of the game (3 pillars) is set like I have heard some advocate, then all classes are doing "everything as well as all the others"

Sure maybe 1 class can push 2 squares and cause condition x, while another class can pull 2 squares and cause condition y, and maybe one has 5 of these skills, and the other has 5 of those skills, but they are much closer to being identical, we will hear complaints that classes are identical and the problem will be rightly simplified that its due to classes being able to do  "everything as well as all the others".


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 11, 2012)

hanez said:


> Is it not true that "balance advocates"want to be able to do the 3 pillars equally well?



I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd be happy with unbalanced pillars. Like the "fighter combat 10; bard social 5, information gathering 5; rogue stealth 5, combat 5" example I gave upthread.

The problem with that approach however is that it's harder to balance than the 4e method, where all pillars are equal for all classes. If a particular campaign has a lot more, or a lot less, of one pillar than the game designers expect, then classes become unbalanced and that wouldn't be the case with 4e. 4e has a more robust, more bulletproof, approach though I can totally understand people finding 4e classes to be too same-y.


----------



## Hussar (May 11, 2012)

hanez said:


> Is it not true that "balance advocates"want to be able to do the 3 pillars equally well?  Is it not true that they want a fixed effectiveness, inside each pillar (e.g. 50% effective at combat, 25% effective at exploration, and 25% effective at social) and for this "ratio" of effectiveness to be equal for every class?




Well, not to speak for anyone else, but, I've never once, not once, seen anyone who favours game balance try to claim this.  Now, it's quite possible that someone has claimed to want this, but, that's an outlier.  

It's the complete misreading of what balance actually means that completely derails these types of conversations and makes them so frustrating.



> While the quote "why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?"  may be in simple terms, I would argue that if effectiveness within each of the main aspects of the game (3 pillars) is set like I have heard some advocate, then all classes are doing "everything as well as all the others"




Can you give some specific examples from this or other threads?  Because, again, I've completely missed anyone actually arguing in favour of this and I'd like to get the opportunity to set them straight about why this is such a bad idea.



> Sure maybe 1 class can push 2 squares and cause condition x, while another class can pull 2 squares and cause condition y, and maybe one has 5 of these skills, and the other has 5 of those skills, but they are much closer to being identical, we will hear complaints that classes are identical and the problem will be rightly simplified that its due to classes being able to do  "everything as well as all the others".




Again, where do we actually see this?  Even 4e isn't anywhere NEAR that homogenous between the classes, even between classes of the same role.  

Look, balance means that no single option is clearly superior to other options.  That's all it means.  That's all it ever means when people advocate balanced classes.  The problem with the casters is that they are, at certian levels, clearly better in all measurable ways than non-casters.  

Now, there are numerous ways of resolving this.  AD&D did so by making high level play darn near unreachable because of the XP requirements.  Some tables resolve this with a social contract.  And, yes, some tables resolve this by delving into the problematic mechanics and fixing them.  Each solution has its good and bad points.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 11, 2012)

hanez said:


> Is it not true that "balance advocates"want to be able to do the 3 pillars equally well?




[Citation Needed]



> Is it not true that they want a fixed effectiveness, inside each pillar (e.g. 50% effective at combat, 25% effective at exploration, and 25% effective at social) and for this "ratio" of effectiveness to be equal for every class?




[Citation Needed]

In other words, no I don't think it is.  And I'm a balance advocate.  What's needed is for everyone to have abilities to contribute to each pillar, and no one class to be able to overshadow other classes.

If for example the fighter is 80 combat/10 exploration/10 social, I don't think anyone is saying that it's wrong for the rogue to be 40 combat/30 exploration/30 social.  What's wrong is for the cleric to be _75_ combat/45 exploration/25 social - or for mister -Dzilla when combined with "Mr Huggy", his pet brown bear, to be 110 Combat/50 exploration/10 social.

And the other problem is the wizard.  If on day 1 he's 75 combat/5 exploration/5 social, and on day 2 he's 5 combat/75 exploration/5 social, and on day 3 he's 5 combat/5 exploration/75 social then, unless you have a continually ticking clock on a short fuse, he's an absolute monster.


----------



## hanez (May 11, 2012)

3 people corrected me, so I'll happily take the correction.   In truth I've read it a couple times on this forum, but I am glad that its not regarded as the standard desired when speakin of balance. (honestly thought it was).  I could look for them but honestly don't need to, if its not a majority view then don't need the distraction.

I agree that classes should be (as much as possible) balanced within the game.




> If for example the fighter is 80 combat/10 exploration/10 social, I  don't think anyone is saying that it's wrong for the rogue to be 40  combat/30 exploration/30 social.  What's wrong is for the cleric to be _75_  combat/45 exploration/25 social - or for mister -Dzilla when combined  with "Mr Huggy", his pet brown bear, to be 110 Combat/50 exploration/10  social.



I see this as a problem too, and agree that it was sometimes the case.





> And the other problem is the wizard.  If on day 1 he's 75 combat/5  exploration/5 social, and on day 2 he's 5 combat/75 exploration/5  social, and on day 3 he's 5 combat/5 exploration/75 social then, unless  you have a continually ticking clock on a short fuse, he's an absolute  monster.



This I see as less of a problem because I believe the challenge of "predicting" what is going to be the challenge of the day, and succeeding or failing in that prediction as central to D&D (especially with the wizard class).   I know I personally had a lot of failures in picking the right spells but perhaps my DMs/campaigns were harder to read than typical ones.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 11, 2012)

hanez said:


> 3 people corrected me, so I'll happily take the correction. In truth I've read it a couple times on this forum, but I am glad that its not regarded as the standard desired when speakin of balance. (honestly thought it was). I could look for them but honestly don't need to, if its not a majority view then don't need the distraction.




Thank you 



> This I see as less of a problem because I believe the challenge of "predicting" what is going to be the challenge of the day, and succeeding or failing in that prediction as central to D&D (especially with the wizard class). I know I personally had a lot of failures in picking the right spells but perhaps my DMs/campaigns were harder to read than typical ones.




Ultimately it boils down to a playstyle issue, and the question of who is deciding the rate at which things progress.  If the BBEG is on the offensive, and the PCs are running around trying to stop plots at the pace of the BBEG then things work close to the way you indicate.  On the other hand in a sandbox setting or with a commando team style game where the PCs are forcing the bad guys to react then you can plan out "Today we travel to an hour's walk from the keep.  Tomorrow we assault it at dawn, out of the sun.  Exploration today, combat tomorrow."


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 11, 2012)

Just to clarify on balance, what balance is is information. It's about the game telling the truth rather than lying. When the game says PCs are of equal level and measures the difficulty of monsters and of adventures in terms of level _PCs of equal level should be of approximately equal power_. It shouldn't be the case that CoDzilla can run over the fighter by doing what the fighter is supposed to be good at.

As far as I know, no one who cares about balance worries that in Ars Magica wizards are more powerful than the rest. That's because Ars Magica tells you that they are meant to be. What matters is that the game doesn't lie and you get to play what you signed up to. People who care about balance care you haven't accidently crippled your character by writing "Monk" at the top of your character sheet. (If you want to cripple it by writing "commoner", go ahead - that's what you are signing up to do deliberately). And that no one is going to accidently be playing Angel Summoner or have to find in character reasons to restrict their decisions whenever they play a wizard unless they want to make other people feel bad.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 11, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh, you mean by DM Fiat.  Heal has specific uses.  Now using heal for forensic pathology is something I'd allow as DM.  And allowing it was a good thing.  But it's not the skills themselves driving the game forward.



No, I have quite specific rules for it in my RPG. No GM fiat involved. The skill itself was definitely driving the game forward.



Neonchameleon said:


> When you answered Hussar's challenge in this post.  Hussar's challenge was:
> Create a party of 15th level characters.  Now, add a 1st level character  to the party.  How much is that 1st level character contributing to the  game?"​It was therefore very specifically a 15th level party that you were saying could be helped by:
> Gathering food quickly, navigating, or dealing with animals/plants (like gathering herbs) if nobody has any survival skills.​And so on.



Where was 3.X mentioned in that? I created a hit die 1 character in my game, meant for a hit die 15 party. That character definitely contributed to that party. I'm saying that a system can most certainly be built to make this possible, as I (and all of my players when I polled them) think my RPG accomplishes. Which, again, is why I said this in my last post:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I do know that -as I told pemerton- from a game theory perspective, level 1's consistently meaningfully contributing can be true for a level-based system, even with escalating level-dependent skills. Was it historically true in D&D? Probably not as much. Does that need to hold true for 5e? Definitely not. And thus my point.



As always, play what you like 



pemerton said:


> I'm not meaning to imply that don't.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that in a game with E6/Runequest-style play - skills are more important than spells, travel is by foot or horseback rather than teleport even for powerful PCs, etc - we are not talking about a D&D-ish game at all. We are not talking about a game in which the playes, by using their PCs' magical abilities (teleport, rope trick, healing etc), can exercise a very high degree of control over scene-framing, the passage of time, the mitigation of consequences from past encounters, etc. And, therefore (in my view) are not really answering the question posed by Hussar, which was (I think) fairly obviously talking about a 15th level D&D-style party.



In my RPG, at 15th hit die, you can teleport long distances, albeit at a cost. You can divine answers about things, though it's either difficult to do or it's hazy. You can heal damage and give bonuses against poisons. And that's not addressing everything else you can do with magic in my system, which is not built on specific spells, but rather on individual "threads" that you can combine for new effects each and every time you cast a spell.

Do PCs walk everywhere at this hit die? Probably, yes. The cost to teleport is high. Do they divine everything? No, because it takes weeks before they can do so again, and it's not guaranteed to work. Do they heal everything? Well, probably, actually (though the Heal skill does help with things other than damage).

And, yes, while Hussar and you may be addressing how D&D has been historically, I've explicitly stated that it doesn't need to stay that way. It can change, and you can most certainly have a system where a level 1 can consistently meaningfully contribute to a 15th level party, and even shine while in it. And that's what I was responding to. As always, play what you like


----------



## Eric Tolle (May 12, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> As far as I know, no one who cares about balance worries that in Ars Magica wizards are more powerful than the rest. That's because Ars Magica tells you that they are meant to be. What matters is that the game doesn't lie and you get to play what you signed up to.




Another factor in Ars Magica is that every player makes up a wizard, companions and grogs, so even though there may be a mix of power in a given session, with some players playing magi, and others companions, every player gets a chance to play their wizard. So there isn't even close to a balance issue.

If something like that were to be enacted in D&D, where each player makes three characters, say a Tier 1-2, a 3, and a 4-5, and rotates who plays what, that would solve the balance problem. It would be weird, but it might work.


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2012)

JamesonCourage - first off, it should have been very obvious in context that I was discussing D&D.  Sorry for not being perfectly crystal clear.  So, in D&D a 1st level character cannot contribute much of anything to a 15th level party.  Which, of course, was in response to the comment that power level is unimportant in D&D for determining whether or not a character can meaningfully contribute.

Now, that aside, I have a question.  What's the point of having levels in your game?  If the 15th level party (presuming a 20 level spread such as in 3e and earlier games) is essentially the same as a 3rd level party, why bother with levels in the first place?  What purpose do they serve?

In D&D, levels denote changes in the campaign.  A low level party is dealing with very different things than a high level party.  It's always been thus.  The 1st level party is roaming through the upper levels of the dungeon while the 12th level party is capable of plumbing the depths.  The low level party is dealing with the Caves of Chaos while the high level party is invading the Abyss to slay Llolth.  

In a game where there are no really signficant differences between levels, why bother having levels at all?  If my high level character still dies from the same threats as my low level character and my low level character has enough skills to deal with any issues that my high level character could face, what is the difference between a low and high level character?


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> What's the point of having levels in your game?  If the 15th level party (presuming a 20 level spread such as in 3e and earlier games) is essentially the same as a 3rd level party, why bother with levels in the first place?




I thinking more stuff (HP, ability score increases, damage output, feats etc).


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> JamesonCourage - first off, it should have been very obvious in context that I was discussing D&D.  Sorry for not being perfectly crystal clear.  So, in D&D a 1st level character cannot contribute much of anything to a 15th level party.  Which, of course, was in response to the comment that power level is unimportant in D&D for determining whether or not a character can meaningfully contribute.



I think your implied context was clear enough to me, which is why I said this (and quoted it again already once):







			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I do know that -as I told pemerton- from a game theory perspective, level 1's consistently meaningfully contributing can be true for a level-based system, even with escalating level-dependent skills. Was it historically true in D&D? Probably not as much. Does that need to hold true for 5e? Definitely not. And thus my point.



It may have been more as you've described in the past with D&D. It doesn't need to stay that way for 5e. And I think my point is much more important to the overall discussion of 5e than trying to bicker about how past editions work, which I'm hoping to avoid.



Hussar said:


> Now, that aside, I have a question.  What's the point of having levels in your game?  If the 15th level party (presuming a 20 level spread such as in 3e and earlier games) is essentially the same as a 3rd level party, why bother with levels in the first place?  What purpose do they serve?



That's a good question. [MENTION=6689033]Steely_Dan[/MENTION] has a chunk of it, in that as you go up, you have higher damage output, better feats, etc. As there are prerequisites for some feats, this plays in. But, hit die plays an important part in just exactly _what_ abilities you can have. Most abilities are capped at hit die +1. Base attack, defense bonus, skill ranks, trait ranks, base save, etc. are all capped at your hit die +1. So, a level 15 can have +16 base attack, while a level 3 can only have +4. Things like spell levels available to you are capped by hit die, too. Level makes a big difference in that regard.

By hit die 15, I can have a character with a much higher bonus to things than a hit die 3. I have a lot more breadth in abilities, if that's what I wanted, too. But, a hit die 3 could still be built in such a way that he could mechanically contribute to a party of hit die 15s, if he picks up skills that they've neglected.



Hussar said:


> In D&D, levels denote changes in the campaign.  A low level party is dealing with very different things than a high level party.  It's always been thus.  The 1st level party is roaming through the upper levels of the dungeon while the 12th level party is capable of plumbing the depths.  The low level party is dealing with the Caves of Chaos while the high level party is invading the Abyss to slay Llolth.
> 
> In a game where there are no really signficant differences between levels, why bother having levels at all?  If my high level character still dies from the same threats as my low level character and my low level character has enough skills to deal with any issues that my high level character could face, what is the difference between a low and high level character?



Well, I thought from our past discussions about threats against high hit die creatures that it'd be clear that they don't die to the same threats (if they're built for combat). Last Wednesday, the party (four hit die 15s, with one hit die 14) was surprised attacked by a few dozen men. They reacted fast enough (even though surprised) that they were able to teleport a few hundred feet out of the enemies encircling them, and while a couple dozen arrows flew in, only one NPC dropped and one party member hit 0 hit points. They then teleported away altogether. A hit die 3 party wouldn't been cut down. There may have been a survivor or two for _possibly_ up to three rounds depending on build, but it's very unlikely.

While the hit die 15s had to retreat from the (originally six dozen, but by the second round eight dozen) enemies, they were able to escape, plan an ambush themselves, and get the job done that they needed to. A party of hit die 3's would stand little to no chance of succeeding in that same tactic. They might be able to talk them into a trade, but they'd need to be really good at it and roll high (which _is_ possible, but very unlikely without a very devoted build).

So, yes, you can continue to move the threat level up just fine in the system. I wasn't commenting on that when I said how someone can contribute. I mentioned skills. Now, someone _could_ mechanically contribute in combat (giving someone a +6 to a combat roll) at hit die 1, but they'd need to be very, very focused on it, and they're risking making themselves a target, and they're lacking hit die 15 saves, AC, and hit points. But as far as skills go? They can definitely drive the game forward, and a hit die 1 can definitely contribute with them if the PCs are lacking them. And, really, that's why I listed skill uses, and mentioned that it'd be _harder_ to contribute in combat.

That's just what I'm trying to say. In 5e, you can make a game where a level 1 _can_ consistently meaningfully contribute to a level 15 party. It may not be in combat as well, but you can certainly design a system that helps with it. This is _especially_ true in a system that has even flatter math than mine (which caps at about +19 natural bonus to attack rolls at hit die 20, with incredible focus on attacking). So, again, I'm commenting about game theory and how this could end up in 5e. I have little interest in arguing over how badly D&D has done this historically. As always, play what you like


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 12, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> That's a good question. [MENTION=6689033]Steely_Dan[/MENTION] has a chunk of it, in that as you go up, you have higher damage output, better feats, etc. As there are prerequisites for some feats, this plays in. But, hit die plays an important part in just exactly _what_ abilities you can have. Most abilities are capped at hit die +1. Base attack, defense bonus, skill ranks, trait ranks, base save, etc. are all capped at your hit die +1.




I find the 4th Ed system works much better if you take out the unnecessary 1/2 level bonus to all character's and monster's attacks, defences, and skills. 

I have applied it now to all editions (taking away THACO/BAB etc), _so_ much better.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 12, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> I find the 4th Ed system works much better if you take out the unnecessary 1/2 level bonus to all character's and monster's attacks, defences, and skills.
> 
> I have applied it now to all editions (taking away THACO/BAB etc), _so_ much better.



That's interesting. Never really tried that before. I like the difference caused by base attack (and similar mechanics), personally, from a certain genre perspective. You have that swordsman who is so much better than the regular soldiers, and it shows from his high attack bonus. If you take away base attack, I imagine that AC is also lower, and so the issue becomes one of ablative HP. That is, the swordsman is "getting hit" more often and losing hit points (even if in the fiction he dodges), and his "stay up" resource dwindles. Then, later that day (if his HP remains low), even a single soldier can drop him, and it doesn't need to be a lucky or surprise hit.

That wouldn't quite fit the feel of what I want as well, but I can see the appeal. A certain type of fiction emerging from game mechanics is important to me, and I have the benefit of being able to design mechanics that help produce that fiction. But, nonetheless, that type of mechanic does have a certain appeal. As always, play what you like


----------



## Bluenose (May 12, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> I thinking more stuff (HP, ability score increases, damage output, feats etc).




The 1st level guy in a 15th level party doesn't have those things.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 12, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> The 1st level guy in a 15th level party doesn't have those things.



I think that was his point. He said:


			
				Steely_Dan said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hussar asked what the point of levels was in my game. Steely_Dan said that a level 15 would have more hit points, ability score increases, damage output, feats, etc. A level 1 wouldn't. So, no, a level 1 doesn't have as much HP, attack bonus, damage, high ability scores, etc. as a level 15. And that's kind of the point of the levels, and Steely_Dan's answer to Hussar's question (I think). As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (May 13, 2012)

So, in your example JC, how would a 1st level character have contributed to that ambush?  What could I do with a 1st level character in that scenario?

See, when I say contribute to the game, I'm not talking about once in a while when everything lines up just so.  I mean that I can contribute to the game ALL THE TIME.  I want everyone at the table contributing as often as humanly possible.  I never, ever want to go back to the days of 20 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours.

My 1st level character in your example has zero things to contribute.  He cannot teleport, he cannot fight - he dies pretty much instantly and outside of freeforming with planning (something I can do with any character), my 1st level character is supernumerary.

So, again, what is my 1st level character contributing to your scenario?


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 13, 2012)

Hussar said:


> So, in your example JC, how would a 1st level character have contributed to that ambush?  What could I do with a 1st level character in that scenario?



Best bet is pre-combat. Making Knowledge checks to find out what you can about the foes, the fortress they were in, the magic item you're trying to steal, the mindset and history of the powerful members you're going to have to best, and the like.

If you're asking about in-combat, then he'd probably want to use aid another (with a special ability to improve it to +2) along with a Leadership check (with a special ability to improve it to +3), to give someone a +5 bonus to attacks or AC (or potentially Will saves, Reflex saves, THP, or the like). So, that +5 bonus could go to the hit die 15 bodyguard (who gets +15 to ACvM), giving him quite a significant increase to AC (which could then be applied to protecting the hit die 1, if absolutely necessary). If he tacks on a spell (with another special ability, just about tapping his character points out), he'll add another +2 bonus (or +7 to someone who only gets +15 passively).



Hussar said:


> See, when I say contribute to the game, I'm not talking about once in a while when everything lines up just so.  I mean that I can contribute to the game ALL THE TIME.  I want everyone at the table contributing as often as humanly possible.  I never, ever want to go back to the days of 20 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours.
> 
> My 1st level character in your example has zero things to contribute.  He cannot teleport, he cannot fight - he dies pretty much instantly and outside of freeforming with planning (something I can do with any character), my 1st level character is supernumerary.



/Disagree



Hussar said:


> So, again, what is my 1st level character contributing to your scenario?



Look up. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (May 13, 2012)

So, precombat I get to make two, maybe three knowledge checks and in combat, I get to add plusses to someone else's attack.

How is this not supernumerary?  Presuming your scenario takes an hour from start to finish, I actually get to actively participate maybe 10% of the time.  At best.  And my active participation comes in the form of giving some plusses to someone else.

Yay, I'm a Bless spell!  

Let's turn it around a bit then.  What does "contribute meaningfully" mean to you?  To me, it means that my character is actively doing something most of the time (particularly in scenarios which involve the entire group) and not just holding someone else's jockstrap.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 13, 2012)

Hussar said:


> So, precombat I get to make two, maybe three knowledge checks and in combat, I get to add plusses to someone else's attack.
> 
> How is this not supernumerary?  Presuming your scenario takes an hour from start to finish, I actually get to actively participate maybe 10% of the time.  At best.  And my active participation comes in the form of giving some plusses to someone else.
> 
> Yay, I'm a Bless spell!



Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. You said you can't meaningfully contribute. Did you mean that you can't kick as much ass as a level 15? Because hey, that's true. But, each round, you can give a bonus to whoever needs it, and even do it a second time per round reactively if someone is attacked. Giving everyone +2 to rolls, and two other people (one reactively for maximum effect) a +3 bonus to attacks, AC, Reflex or Will saves, THP, or etc. is pretty significant when we're working with the numbers we are.

So, please, don't go changing this from "you can't meaningfully contribute" to "you can't do so in a way I like!" I have a pretty big problem with that, because I have a player who had a hit die 14 character who was _based_ around that kind of support (Leadership for +5 bonuses to up to 6 people per round, aura of +2 to everything for up to 13 people around him, etc.), and he loved that style of play. He proactively went after that support style of play. You may not like it, but don't call it invalid because of it.



Hussar said:


> Let's turn it around a bit then.  What does "contribute meaningfully" mean to you?  To me, it means that my character is actively doing something most of the time (particularly in scenarios which involve the entire group) and not just holding someone else's jockstrap.



It means adding to the group's success in a meaningful way. It means more than carrying goods around (unless that becomes a big issue), or taking a watch (unless the party really sucks at it, and watches are necessary).

To me, giving a +7 bonus to someone who only gets +15 is meaningfully contributing, because you've upped his effectiveness by about 50%.

If your Knowledge checks tell you that the guy you're about to attack doesn't care about his own life and it comes down to honor, you have powerful information on how to plan your attack.

If you can identify what caused someone to die, and that he was left-handed, just shy of six feet tall, and fairly strong (but not exceptionally strong), that's useful when looking for suspects.

If you can gather herbs and food that take up little space or weight so that the party isn't moving at half speed, that means a lot when you're moving about a continent when time matters (like it does now to my PCs).

If you can get rid of status effects or give people rerolls on saves (or a roll if one isn't normally allowed), even mid-combat, I'd say that's meaningfully contributing.

There are plenty of ways to drive the game forward based on nothing but your own skill. In combat, this is harder to do with the number disparity, but you can definitely increase the effectiveness of the party significantly (which is your best bet for helping a higher level party in combat), increasing your odds of success significantly. That's meaningful contribution. You are responsible for driving the story forward at parts of the session (you "shine"), and you are significantly increasing your odds of success (meaningful contribution).

Ask my players if they want a guy who can reactively give someone who needs it a +3 to AC or a Reflex or Will save. You can bet what their answer is going to be. That's not counting any magic, or aid another, or flanking, or giving penalties to creatures for being attacked more than once in a round, or what have you. If that hit die 1 gave someone +2 to attacks with magic, then +3 with Leadership, then aided him for another +2 (with a -1 penalty on the bad guy now), then helped him flank for +1, it'd be a net swing of 9 (+8 good guy, -1 bad guy). When your passive attack bonus at hit die 15 is +15, that 9 swing is significant. To me, at least.

Are you "shining" in combat? Well, you're not the one landing the blow, but you're sure as heck contributing to your group's success. No, you're not as good as the hit die 15. Yes, a hit die 15 with your abilities is better at it. But, as I originally said, a hit die 1 can most _certainly_ meaningfully contribute, if not "shine" himself. He can even do so in-combat, if necessary, but out of combat is where his chances go up.

I feel like you're really _against_ the idea that you can meaningfully contribute as a hit die 1, for some reason. You don't seem to accept that it can be the case, or that if it is the case, that you aren't significantly more powerful at hit die 15. I'm trying to show that you _can_ meaningfully contribute mechanically at hit die 1, not even convince you that it's necessarily better (that's just a matter of taste). Why you still doubt it is beyond me. As always, play what you like


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 13, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> The 1st level guy in a 15th level party doesn't have those things.




A 1st level character has HP, damage output, and a feat.


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 13, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> That's interesting. Never really tried that before. I like the difference caused by base attack (and similar mechanics), personally, from a certain genre perspective. You have that swordsman who is so much better than the regular soldiers, and it shows from his high attack bonus. If you take away base attack, I imagine that AC is also lower, and so the issue becomes one of ablative HP. That is, the swordsman is "getting hit" more often and losing hit points (even if in the fiction he dodges), and his "stay up" resource dwindles. Then, later that day (if his HP remains low), even a single soldier can drop him, and it doesn't need to be a lucky or surprise hit.




I've also replaced +X items with an Inherent bonus of +1 per 5 character levels to character's attacks, damage, and defences.

So the high level swordsman would have a greater attack bonus due to ability score increases and inherent bonus.

So a 1st level swordsman with an 18 in their primary ability score would have a +5 attack bonus (+4 from the 18, and +1 from the Inherent Bonus).

Whereas the 17th level swordsman would have a +10 attack bonus (assuming he increased his Str at levels 4, 8, and 14; and the Inherent bonus of +4).

Sounds like they are flattening the scaling in 5th Ed, which makes me immensely happy.


----------



## Bluenose (May 13, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. You said you can't meaningfully contribute. Did you mean that you can't kick as much ass as a level 15? Because hey, that's true. But, each round, you can give a bonus to whoever needs it, and even do it a second time per round reactively if someone is attacked. Giving everyone +2 to rolls, and two other people (one reactively for maximum effect) a +3 bonus to attacks, AC, Reflex or Will saves, THP, or etc. is pretty significant when we're working with the numbers we are.




Well, each round until something that's a meaningful threat to a level 15 character decides to get you out of the way, you may be able to give that level 15 character a bonus to something they want to do. The first AoE spell, and suddenly you're a component in a 5000gp Raise Dead spell. Unless there isn't that much of your body left.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 13, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> A 1st level character has HP, damage output, and a feat.



A hit die 1 warrior in my RPG might look like: HP 15, +10 damage, and around four-six feats (though they play a much bigger factor in my game).

A hit die 15 warrior in my RPG might look like: HP 74, +16 damage, and many feats (perhaps fifteen to twenty).



Steely_Dan said:


> I've also replaced +X items with an Inherent bonus of +1 per 5 character levels to character's attacks, damage, and defences.
> 
> So the high level swordsman would have a greater attack bonus due to ability score increases and inherent bonus.
> 
> ...



My RPG doesn't assume magical items either, so I'm totally with you there. The +25% chance to hit (while a +100% increase over the level 1) isn't enough for me, personally, for someone who is supposed to be at the genre level I want them. Not judging your system or anything, just stating my preference.

I am looking forward to flatter math in 5e, though I have expressed concern that it might be too flat. If a Cleric gets +0 to stealth-based activity (because he's got a 10 Dexterity) and a Rogue gets +6 (Dexterity 18, +2 skill bonus on sneaky stuff), the Rogue is only 30% more likely to succeed at sneaky stuff. That's not really wide enough for me, especially if you consider that it might not widen much over the levels (no skill ranks). Now, they did mention the Rogue being reliably better (maybe can "take 10" better than most, or in 5e, "take attribute" but with +2 or something?). So, I won't judge it yet, but I am concerned. As always, play what you like 



Bluenose said:


> Well, each round until something that's a meaningful threat to a level 15 character decides to get you out of the way, you may be able to give that level 15 character a bonus to something they want to do. The first AoE spell, and suddenly you're a component in a 5000gp Raise Dead spell. Unless there isn't that much of your body left.



In the situation Hussar asked me about, that hit die 1 would be next to the bodyguard, giving him the bonus (which I mentioned for a reason). He'd step into the hit die 1's square and shield the hit die 1. The same goes for targeted Reflex spells aimed at him. And that's if the magician's magic item doesn't counterspell it (it gets one shot for free once per round) or he doesn't reactively throw up a protective ward on the guy (which he can overchannel, which is essentially casting for free).

When my RPG doesn't have resurrection spells handy, it's important to have alternatives to death. Bodyguard feats, THP, the Heal skill (which the bodyguard guy rocks at, and might be able to use to revive the character even if he dies), reactive wards with spells to prevent damage, and the like all play a factor in survival. And at hit die 15 with a pretty combat-heavy party, they've got one guy with bodyguard feats, THP (especially the bodyguard), the Heal skill (bodyguard) and Rejuvenation magic with the magician (healing magic), reactive wards to prevent damage before it lands (magician), the ability to burrow if they need to escape (martial PC and necromancer PC and one NPC), the ability to fly (the same martial PC), and the like.

One area spell later (if it's not countered), the hit die 1 is likely alive, after reactively giving the bodyguard +3 to his Reflex save (and +2 from his magic earlier), who then steps in to save him (and almost certainly makes his save, since he has the highest saves in the party). (I almost feel like I need to post full builds with the PCs, because I have to keep going into more and more detail; the mechanics would look slightly recognizable, but terms like ACvM, ACvR, THP, and the like that are unique to my game deter me.)

I'm really sorry that you and Hussar can't accept that the hit die 1 might be able to meaningfully contribute to the hit die 15 party, but he can. Not nearly as much or as well as a hit die 15, but he can contribute, and he can shine. It just depends on the makeup of the game, the mechanics, the setting, the core assumptions, etc. And in my game, he gets to contribute, and he gets to shine. As always, play what you like


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 13, 2012)

What I want to know is where is this supposed level of contribution that keeps being brought up. Some people keep claiming that class X isn't contributing to the party enough. Okay well then show me what you are comparing class X's contribution to. 

What is your definition of contribution?


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 13, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> What is your definition of contribution?



It's different for everyone. I like a very high degree of PC equality.

JamesonCourage was saying his players of 15th level PCs would be happy to have a level 1 along. I wouldn't! I'd feel bad for the poor guy playing the level 1. I'd be all, "Why can't he have a level 15 PC like the rest of us??!"


----------



## Incenjucar (May 13, 2012)

I think that, for many people, contribution also includes agency and the significance of the character's composition. As in, "Does my being THIS character contribute meaningfully?"


----------



## Minigiant (May 13, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> What I want to know is where is this supposed level of contribution that keeps being brought up. Some people keep claiming that class X isn't contributing to the party enough. Okay well then show me what you are comparing class X's contribution to.
> 
> What is your definition of contribution?




Minigiant's Definition of RPG Contribution: The ability to greatly affect the success rate of the current victory condition without being a heavy strain on future advancement, efficiency, costs or successes.

AKA: Being needed to win, Being need to not lose, or Not Being a burden

Basically if your removal or replacement does not hurt your party greatly, you aren't really contributing.

I've been in a game before where 2 guys dropped and we did better since we didn't have to protect them nor share XP/gold. Their PCs were not bad either. But they were easily replaced by fanatically monkeys and intimidated kobolds which only cost crates of bananas.


----------



## hanez (May 13, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> I think that, for many people, contribution also includes agency and the significance of the character's composition. As in, "Does my being THIS character contribute meaningfully?"




I cant think of a single game in a variety of systems I've played (AD&D, 3.x, Pathfinder, Iron Heroes, AE, 4e) where that wasn't true for every character in the party.

I know as a DM I considered it my job to make sure it was true every single session.  I'm not a fan of bards...  but you can be sure if someone in one of my campaigns chooses a bard theres going to be a whole lot of Enemy kings, maidens and other NPCs vulnerable to musical suggestion.  Isn't that what a DM is supposed to do?   Choose a monk, I bet you I can find a few adventures we're going to need you for too.  I can come up with a hook for an unarmed Champions tournament the party needs to explore in seconds while doing the same thing for the wizard and the fighter as welll.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 13, 2012)

hanez said:


> I cant think of a single game in a variety of systems I've played (AD&D, 3.x, Pathfinder, Iron Heroes, AE, 4e) where that wasn't true for every character in the party.



Rifts, Stormbringer, and Champions are, I think, the three I've played with the biggest gulf in character effectiveness. Rifts because choice of class determines power level, and you can choose anything from a vagabond to a dragon. Stormbringer because race is determined by random roll, and some races, such as Melniboneans, are much better than others. Champions because it's very vulnerable to min-maxing.

D&D is a very well balanced system as it goes. 2e was probably the only edition that didn't care about it much.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 13, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Rifts




I want to discuss RIFTS for a moment seeing as I am a long time player. 

RIFTS is a game about choice, it's not about who can piss the farthest. If you want to play a Glitterboy who can blow things away from a mile out then you can, if you want to play a Vagabond who lives by his wits it's there as well. 

You know well in advance the various power levels of OCCs and RCCs. It's not like you choose a Vagabond while someone chooses a Holy Terror and you become jealous because you aren't a giant suit of armor with cool abilities. If that is the character you want to play then then play it. The same goes for any game really. If power was all that matter then wouldn't almost all games be comprised of the same classes?


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 13, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> You know well in advance the various power levels of OCCs and RCCs. It's not like you choose a Vagabond while someone chooses a Holy Terror and you become jealous because you aren't a giant suit of armor with cool abilities.



Yes, you're right, it's pretty obvious.



ForeverSlayer said:


> If power was all that matter then wouldn't almost all games be comprised of the same classes?



That's been a problem in many rpgs I've played, a lot of the less powerful options never get picked, which severely restricts the amount of usable content in the books. When we played Rifts, for example, no one ever chose any of the 'Scholars and Adventurers' OCCs, such as the Vagabond.

It depends on how much a group plays rpgs 'to win'.


----------



## Arlough (May 13, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I want to discuss RIFTS for a moment seeing as I am a long time player.
> 
> RIFTS is a game about choice, it's not about who can piss the farthest. If you want to play a Glitterboy who can blow things away from a mile out then you can, if you want to play a Vagabond who lives by his wits it's there as well.
> 
> You know well in advance the various power levels of OCCs and RCCs. It's not like you choose a Vagabond while someone chooses a Holy Terror and you become jealous because you aren't a giant suit of armor with cool abilities. If that is the character you want to play then then play it. The same goes for any game really. If power was all that matter then wouldn't almost all games be comprised of the same classes?




But, as has been explained before, those games make no guff about letting the player know that the pleb is the weaker choice.  That, if you are playing a pleb, your contribution will be in the freeforming and the such, kinda like .
Also, the better books will state outright that thee type of game being played, in those circumstances, should be discussed  upfront so if it is a combat heavy campaign I, the guy who chose the pleb for roleplay reasons isn't left out in the cold when there is very little roleplay.

Traditionally, D&D has been called a roleplaying game, but has been more of a fantasy combat and trial game.  The classic dungeon crawl does not have much in the way of rollplaying, but it dies have combats as well as trials (usually in the form of traps and riddles.)  Thus, traditionally, pleb classes have been a trap as there is predominantly conflict resolution.
Also, traditionally, D&D has not expressed that X class is better and X class is worse. It was always up to the players to discover that, usually painfully.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 13, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Yes, you're right, it's pretty obvious.



And that's one of the biggest issues with D&D class balance, its not obvious that X class is weaker than Y class, especially when a wizard may start out weaker and end up stronger.  Without a high level of system mastery, there's no way for most players to know this.  Su



> It depends on how much a group plays rpgs 'to win'.



I never liked this expression, because it sounds like the reverse is that people play the game to lose.  Which simply doesn't make sense.  I think most players play Amy game with the intent to succeed.  I think most DMs would rather see their party succeed than see them fail.  Failure can create interesting outcomes as much as success can, but is often handled very poorly compared to success.  

I would wager that most players want to play a character who succeeds.  Succeeds at what they want their character troped to be, succeeds at challenges before them, and succeeds at being fun to play.  A character who is 1st level (either in terms of power or literally 1st level), in a 15th level party is unlikely to reach those goals.  And that's a problem.  If two classes are off by 10-15% power at the same level, this is workable, variance in the game will likely make this difference unnoticable.  But if one class is 200x better than another, or one class is 1000x worse, then this will lead to the latter being a non-viable character.

All games should strive to avoid non-viable choices.  Significantly different levels of power can be viable, but it is a much more careful thing to balance.


----------



## Hussar (May 14, 2012)

JC - It's not so much that I'm against the idea of a 1st level character contributing meaningfully, I've just never played a leveless level based game.  Which, looking at what you're talking about here, is what you play.

If your 15th level party is doing pretty much the exact same things that they would be doing at 5th level, again, what's the point of levels?  Steal the MacGuffin from the mundane castle isn't something I would expect a 15th level party to be doing.  After all, if the 1st level character is capable of realistically providing vital information, can reliably provide bonuses through aid another (since you did mention that rolls are required) and whatnot, what exactly does a 15th level party need to do?

To me, a 15th level party is assaulting the abyss, not some mundane castle guarded by mundane, regular soldiers.

Like I said, you've basically created a leveless, leveled fantasy game.  There is no signficant difference between high and low level.

Which is great, but, I'm not quite sure how this relates to D&D.


----------



## Hussar (May 14, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I want to discuss RIFTS for a moment seeing as I am a long time player.
> 
> RIFTS is a game about choice, it's not about who can piss the farthest. If you want to play a Glitterboy who can blow things away from a mile out then you can, if you want to play a Vagabond who lives by his wits it's there as well.
> 
> You know well in advance the various power levels of OCCs and RCCs. It's not like you choose a Vagabond while someone chooses a Holy Terror and you become jealous because you aren't a giant suit of armor with cool abilities. If that is the character you want to play then then play it. The same goes for any game really. If power was all that matter then wouldn't almost all games be comprised of the same classes?




And what is one of the biggest criticisms of RIFTS?  Class balance being so far out of whack that it's ludicrous.  Holding up RIFTS as an example of good game design (as opposed to FANTASTIC flavour) is kinda like holding up a DeLorian as good car design.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 14, 2012)

Hussar said:


> And what is one of the biggest criticisms of RIFTS?  Class balance being so far out of whack that it's ludicrous.  Holding up RIFTS as an example of good game design (as opposed to FANTASTIC flavour) is kinda like holding up a DeLorian as good car design.




The game was never intended for balance, it was intended, and succeeded, at being fun.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 14, 2012)

Hussar said:


> JC - It's not so much that I'm against the idea of a 1st level character contributing meaningfully, I've just never played a leveless level based game.  Which, looking at what you're talking about here, is what you play.



It's got levels, they're just called "hit die" instead. It is classless, if that's what you meant (not trying to be snippy or anything, just trying to clarify if that's what you meant, or if you meant something else by "leveless level based game").



Hussar said:


> If your 15th level party is doing pretty much the exact same things that they would be doing at 5th level, again, what's the point of levels?  Steal the MacGuffin from the mundane castle isn't something I would expect a 15th level party to be doing.  After all, if the 1st level character is capable of realistically providing vital information, can reliably provide bonuses through aid another (since you did mention that rolls are required) and whatnot, what exactly does a 15th level party need to do?



Well, I wouldn't expect a 5th level party to plan an ambush against a group of warriors, especially ones with powerful creatures guarding magical items. Perhaps arrange for some sort of trade, or bluffing their way in, or _maybe_ trying to sneak their way in. The level 15 party, however, just decided to jump the group, take the leader hostage, grab the item, and run before they could be found. I wouldn't expect a 5th level party in my game to accomplish that against the foes they did it to.

You may not want "15th level characters" to be storming a mundane castle, but "15th level character" is just a metagame term that's being used. To you, that's in the middle of the Paragon Tier. In my RPG, first level is not the beginning of you being a Hero (Heroic Tier), nor is it assumed to be the case. The core assumptions of my RPG and 4e (or 3.X, or 2e, etc.) are pretty different. My RPG is generally less powerful. It can peak higher, but it's not assumed that you'll become mythic just based on "level" or anything.

You want a system where the metagame phrase "15th level character" also has the connotations of surpassing mundane castles. I don't want any hit die capable of just bypassing that sort of challenge inherently. Perhaps certain builds, maybe around hit die 20, but they'd be lacking in other areas.

But, while it's just a preference difference, it seems to be the root cause of our impasse. To you, it must seem weird to have a level 1 (just starting out as a Hero) be able to help level 15s (well into Paragon, far and above "mundane" obstacles like castles). But, your "level 15 character" assumption is not mine.

And, perhaps, that's what I'm saying can change in 5e. The default assumption that you become mythic and level 1 characters can't contribute doesn't need to occur (this goes for both magicians and warriors, not to mention other common concepts). Will it turn out this way? It looks mixed. On the one hand you have flatter math, which can certainly help a level 1 stay relevant. On the other hand, you have design goals that include Fighters gaining "mythic" levels of power (a "mundane but not mundane" situation going on). So, we'll have to wait and see.



Hussar said:


> To me, a 15th level party is assaulting the abyss, not some mundane castle guarded by mundane, regular soldiers.
> 
> Like I said, you've basically created a leveless, leveled fantasy game.  There is no signficant difference between high and low level.



I think I see what you're getting at, here. It's mistaken, but that's probably more due to unfamiliarity with my system than any sort of insult. At hit die 5, you're just about a normal soldier. You go up against _two_ professional soldiers, you're in a very bad situation. You go up against ten, and you're almost certainly dead. At hit die 15, you're very far above a normal soldier. You can take on two professional soldiers with little risk, or go up against ten with the odds well on your side (if you're built to take on groups of men, through Whirling Movement combat maneuvers, the Adaptive Style feat, Improved Deflect Arrows, and the like).

The bodyguard and the warrior in my hit die 15 party could probably take on ten professional soldiers each with little worry (both capable of taking on groups), where a hit die 5 warrior would get overwhelmed and be bested. A hit die 5 magician is capable of some nice things (conjuring food and water, and the like), but the hit die 15 magician is capable of instantaneously conjuring a 5-room stone house.

Capabilities are going to vary, obviously, but to say that everyone at low hit die is capable of doing what everyone else at higher hit die is able to do is just showing a certain blatant ignorance of my RPG (and understandably so). The higher hit die you are, the more you can invest in the _depth_ of your concept. A hit die 5 warrior is good (he'd stomp most people in the street), but he's about on par with any other professional soldier who has seen some action; a hit die 15 warrior, on the other hand, can reliably walk into a barracks and cleave down five men, grab another guy to use as a shield and hostage once he's surrounded, and then continue his mayhem.

It's a matter of _depth_, and that's what being higher level brings. Hit die 5 is "I can fight better than most people"; hit die 15 is "I can fight better than all but the champions of nations and the best wandering swordsmen". Hit die 5 is "I'm a capable and helpful magician"; hit die 15 is "I can perform feats of magical prowess that are rarely seen, and can only be duplicated by archmages."

The same, of course, is true for skills, too. I can help out with Knowledge at hit die 1, but a hit die 15 sage is a fountain of useful and relevant information. A hit die 1 hunter can provide food for people and navigate the wilderness, but a hit die 15 can gather food and herbs in a desert in the summer for a group of people without slowing down. And so on, and so on.

I really hope that clears up what part levels play in my RPG.

(As a side note, I think you're also talking about what threats you go up against. Sure, you can take on 10 guys now, but they're still mundane soldiers, right? Yes, that's true. Well, you can also create creatures in a way that pretty much negate lower level creatures, if they're built to do so. Add high damage reduction, spell resistance, and the like, and boom! Balor, dragon, or some other monster than low hit die creatures can't deal with, but high hit die creatures can. If you want to move to new realms as you level up, then introduce magic items like "gate stones" or something to allow that movement, and have the party encounter bigger threats. You're describing a style of play that has more to do with preference than mechanics in my game, since it can cater to mundane threats or "big threats only powerful creatures can deal with" at higher level. As far as other mechanical differences, see above.)



Hussar said:


> Which is great, but, I'm not quite sure how this relates to D&D.



It relates to game theory and what's in store for 5e. People claiming "a level 1 cannot meaningfully contribute to a level 15" are mistaken, in my mind. They _can_ contribute, and it doesn't even need to be how I handled things (by toning down power, more or less; though to be fair, there was that PC in my game recently who was capable of wrestling dragons...).

That is, you can make a game where a level 1 character can make checks even on a gonzo scale (closer to 4e's default tiers) from level 1, allowing them to drive the story forward, _especially_ if the math if flatter (as they've said they intend 5e to be) and the gap between a skill roll at level 1 and level 15 isn't vast.

So, how do my posts relate to D&D? I'm making a point about level 1s contributing (disagreement that level 1s can't contribute) based on game theory backed up by actual play experiences (references to my RPG), and how that might play into 5e based on what the designers have said (flatter math). In essence, like I've said before (and re-quoted a few times in this thread):







			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I do know that -as I told pemerton- from a game theory perspective, level 1's consistently meaningfully contributing can be true for a level-based system, even with escalating level-dependent skills. Was it historically true in D&D? Probably not as much. Does that need to hold true for 5e? Definitely not. And thus my point.



So, there you are. That's how it's relevant, and what "my point" is. As always, play what you like


----------



## B.T. (May 14, 2012)

Saying that a 1HD character can contribute meaningfully to combat by using Aid Another is somewhat...disingenuous. Okay, you've applied a whopping p) +5 bonus to an attack roll or damage roll. That's very, ahem, well, you've contributed in some way that wasn't totally laughable.

Now it's time for the bad guys to act. What's your AC? 15? 20? Even the most min-maxed builds are going to top the scales at around 25 at first level (unless you're wielding a bunch of magical equipment). At which point, you're going to get hit by a stray arrow or spell or sword and die instantly. Best case scenario, the bad guy rolls low and you survive two rounds rather than one.

Not really contributing meaningfully, as I see it.  We can pretend that the level one character is going to be really important, but let's be completely honest here: that 1 HD would-be commoner only matters in the way that Dawn mattered on Buffy, and that was because Joss Whedon wrote the plot around her.  And I'll be honest, I feel a little dirty and ultranerdy for making a Buffy reference.


----------



## Hussar (May 14, 2012)

And we're right back where we were with the "Falling Damage" thread.  You want a flatter game where high level characters are still essentially just better than low level characters.  Your idea of a high level character can take on ten soldiers and win.

My idea of a high level character is one that can take on ten thousand soldiers and win.  Ok, that's hyperbole.  But certainly a heck of a lot more than ten.  I want high level characters that are truly mythic.  A fifteenth level party facing a largely mundane castle guarded by low level soldiers blows open the front door, rips the heads off of anything that stands in their way and kicks the dog on the way out.

Because, to me, a high level party is challenging gods.  Or, if not gods, then certainly powerful unique beings that are close enough to gods to see divinity on a clear day.  It's Queen of the Demonweb Pits, it's Isle of the Ape (where in the first encounter, you're intended to wade through a couple of hundred axe wielding 1e Barbarians), it's the last three or four modules of any Paizo (3e D&D anyway) Adventure Path.

And, like we went through the last time with this, if you flatten the math to the point where it resembles your game, I'm left out in the cold.  It takes a massive rewrite of D&D to get to the point of what you have.  To the point where I'd pretty much say that whatever you're playing, it's not D&D (classless would be the first clue).  It might be level based, but, just barely.  It's closer to something like E6, where levels really don't matter a whole lot and the game is predicated on a campaign not radically changing from beginning to end.

But, rolling this back around to the OP and why do classes have to be balanced.  I think this nicely encapsulates it.  If you flatten the math to the point where 1st and 15th level are not significantly different, then you've balanced it one way - the campaign will not radically change through the entire campaign.  OTOH, if you go the more traditional D&D route where play does radically change from one end of the scale to the other, then you have to make sure that balance is achieved at all points or it doesn't work.


----------



## pemerton (May 14, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> The default assumption that you become mythic and level 1 characters can't contribute doesn't need to occur (this goes for both magicians and warriors, not to mention other common concepts).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> At hit die 5, you're just about a normal soldier. You go up against _two_ professional soldiers, you're in a very bad situation. You go up against ten, and you're almost certainly dead. At hit die 15, you're very far above a normal soldier. You can take on two professional soldiers with little risk, or go up against ten with the odds well on your side





Hussar said:


> My idea of a high level character is one that can take on ten thousand soldiers and win.  Ok, that's hyperbole.  But certainly a heck of a lot more than ten.



I GMed a 4e session yesterday for a party of 5 15th level PCs. The party was mostly out of dailies, having used them all (i) sneaking into a temple, and then (ii) having a big fight in said temple. Two of the PCs were suffering from mummy rot (healing restores only half hp), including the paladin (one of the two defenders in the party).

The PCs decided to leave the temple through the front door (where the hobgoblin army outside was trying to break into the temple in pursuit of them).

I had statted up the army as 4 17th level gargantuan hobgoblin phalanxes (each around 40 hobgoblins) plus 10 minion skirmishers and 30 minion rabble. At one stage, a 15th level Bane-ite angel of battle also turned up.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, at one stage the dwarven fighter was engaging two hobgoblin phalanxes (ie approx 80 skilled hobgoblin soldiers) on his own. At another stage the party sorcerer was dropping the rabble 3 at a time (CHA-based melee basic attack with dagger (from some sorcerer power I can't remember the name of), triggering his Flurry of Blows from his monk multi-class). The PC wizard was killed, but only because (i) he was knocked off his flying carpet by a flurry of spears from one phalanx, (ii) was cut down by more spears when he tried to cast a spell to escape the phalanx, and (iii) was then caught inside the angel's storm of blades.

I think this is closer to the sort of thing that Hussar has in mind as typical of 15th level D&D. And it is closer to my personal conception also - it's part of what distinguishes D&D from other fantasy RPGs (especially grittier ones like Rolemaster, or even moreso Runequest - and on this scale, I suspect Chivalry and Sorcery is closer to Runequest).

I will also add - count me in as one of those who doesn't regard "aid another" as signficant contribution. And no iteration of D&D has had a skill system robust enough in its action resolution mechanics to make a 1st level "skill guy" meaningful (by my standards) in what they contribute via their sage-iness, scouting etc. (Contrast eg Burning Wheel, which has a standard "linked test" mechanic for making those earlier skill checks matter significantly to the resolution of combat.)

As I've been saying in a few thread recently, I'll eat my hat if D&Dnext changes this significantly, given that it would require increasing the sophistication of skill-challenge style mechanics, rather than dropping them as has been suggested to be likely.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 14, 2012)

B.T. said:


> Saying that a 1HD character can contribute meaningfully to combat by using Aid Another is somewhat...disingenuous. Okay, you've applied a whopping p) +5 bonus to an attack roll or damage roll. That's very, ahem, well, you've contributed in some way that wasn't totally laughable.
> 
> Now it's time for the bad guys to act. What's your AC? 15? 20? Even the most min-maxed builds are going to top the scales at around 25 at first level (unless you're wielding a bunch of magical equipment). At which point, you're going to get hit by a stray arrow or spell or sword and die instantly. Best case scenario, the bad guy rolls low and you survive two rounds rather than one.
> 
> Not really contributing meaningfully, as I see it.



I addressed this:


JamesonCourage said:


> If that hit die 1 gave someone +2 to attacks with magic, then +3 with Leadership, then aided him for another +2 (with a -1 penalty on the bad guy now), then helped him flank for +1, it'd be a net swing of 9 (+8 good guy, -1 bad guy). When your passive attack bonus at hit die 15 is +15, that 9 swing is significant. To me, at least.





JamesonCourage said:


> In the situation Hussar asked me about, that hit die 1 would be next to the bodyguard, giving him the bonus (which I mentioned for a reason). He'd step into the hit die 1's square and shield the hit die 1. The same goes for targeted Reflex spells aimed at him. And that's if the magician's magic item doesn't counterspell it (it gets one shot for free once per round) or he doesn't reactively throw up a protective ward on the guy (which he can overchannel, which is essentially casting for free).



So, no, I don't think I was being disingenuous. As always, play what you like 



Hussar said:


> And we're right back where we were with the "Falling Damage" thread.  You want a flatter game where high level characters are still essentially just better than low level characters.  Your idea of a high level character can take on ten soldiers and win.



Funny how that happens. But, again, my system _can_ handle what you want as well.



Hussar said:


> My idea of a high level character is one that can take on ten thousand soldiers and win.  Ok, that's hyperbole.  But certainly a heck of a lot more than ten.  I want high level characters that are truly mythic.  A fifteenth level party facing a largely mundane castle guarded by low level soldiers blows open the front door, rips the heads off of anything that stands in their way and kicks the dog on the way out.
> 
> Because, to me, a high level party is challenging gods.  Or, if not gods, then certainly powerful unique beings that are close enough to gods to see divinity on a clear day.  It's Queen of the Demonweb Pits, it's Isle of the Ape (where in the first encounter, you're intended to wade through a couple of hundred axe wielding 1e Barbarians), it's the last three or four modules of any Paizo (3e D&D anyway) Adventure Path.



This depends on how you model gods. But, again, I was talking game theory, not method. You're stuck on my method, and I explicitly said that you didn't need to use my methods:


JamesonCourage said:


> It relates to game theory and what's in store for 5e. People claiming "a level 1 cannot meaningfully contribute to a level 15" are mistaken, in my mind. They _can_ contribute, and it doesn't even need to be how I handled things (by toning down power, more or less; though to be fair, there was that PC in my game recently who was capable of wrestling dragons...).
> 
> That is, you can make a game where a level 1 character can make checks even on a gonzo scale (closer to 4e's default tiers) from level 1, allowing them to drive the story forward, _especially_ if the math if flatter (as they've said they intend 5e to be) and the gap between a skill roll at level 1 and level 15 isn't vast.



I explicitly mentioned that you don't need to follow my methods in order to make a level 1 be able to meaningfully contribute to a level 15 party. I was just saying that it's possible, and that it maybe it should be something 5e could accomplish. I am not advocating toning down power level of 5e (though I think make for an easier to balance system).



Hussar said:


> And, like we went through the last time with this, if you flatten the math to the point where it resembles your game, I'm left out in the cold.  It takes a massive rewrite of D&D to get to the point of what you have.  To the point where I'd pretty much say that whatever you're playing, it's not D&D (classless would be the first clue).  It might be level based, but, just barely.  It's closer to something like E6, where levels really don't matter a whole lot and the game is predicated on a campaign not radically changing from beginning to end.



Well, my flattened math is probably a lot less flat than 5e seems to be aimed towards, but we'll see, since they admittedly haven't spoken much about it yet. Flattened math doesn't have to leave you out in the cold at all, because you can have tremendously flat math and still have epic progression. It'd be harder to work, but it'd be workable. You'd just need to show what you're capable of at different levels (you can't be hurt by creatures 2 levels less than you unless they roll a natural 20, and the like), but again, that's just game theory.

(Besides, it's trivially easy to make hit die 15s immensely more survivable than hit die 5s: no more progressive penalties for being attacked more than once in a round. So, 100 arrows before would likely pincushion you, but now they just miss you, or you deflect them, or dodge them, or whatever. It's about as easy as adjusting the rate at which you recover healing surges, and would be exceptionally easy to include as an optional rule. But, this is a sidetrack, and really tangential to my point.)

Another side note: as I said, what you're describing, about going to other planes to fight gods and the like, can be addressed, as I did in my last post to you:


JamesonCourage said:


> (As a side note, I think you're also talking about what threats you go up against. Sure, you can take on 10 guys now, but they're still mundane soldiers, right? Yes, that's true. Well, you can also create creatures in a way that pretty much negate lower level creatures, if they're built to do so. Add high damage reduction, spell resistance, and the like, and boom! Balor, dragon, or some other monster than low hit die creatures can't deal with, but high hit die creatures can. If you want to move to new realms as you level up, then introduce magic items like "gate stones" or something to allow that movement, and have the party encounter bigger threats. You're describing a style of play that has more to do with preference than mechanics in my game, since it can cater to mundane threats or "big threats only powerful creatures can deal with" at higher level. As far as other mechanical differences, see above.)



So, again, if you want to have big threats that only high level creatures can deal with, go for it. It's simply a play style issue, and it's entirely achievable in my system (which means other systems, with other means, could undoubtedly achieve that goal, too).

I've seen such a creature in action in my RPG: the two-headed dragon that needed a specific poison to bypass its defenses. It passively healed some 36 damage per round, had 34 damage reduction, and had a spell resistance of 37. And that's when the two highest damage dealers passively dealt 1d10+21 and 3d10+22 damage. Just remove that weakness to poison, and it's impervious to damage and spells of low or even mid-level creatures. Put it on another "plane", start plane-hopping, and there you go. Heck, call it a demon lord.



Hussar said:


> But, rolling this back around to the OP and why do classes have to be balanced.  I think this nicely encapsulates it.  If you flatten the math to the point where 1st and 15th level are not significantly different, then you've balanced it one way - the campaign will not radically change through the entire campaign.  OTOH, if you go the more traditional D&D route where play does radically change from one end of the scale to the other, then you have to make sure that balance is achieved at all points or it doesn't work.



This is a matter of play style, and a single game can be designed in such a way that it supports a similar style of play (fighting 10 guys instead of 1) or radically different (plane-hopping while fighting demon lords). It's not reliant on level 1 characters contributing to level 15s.

However, I do think balance is important. I think it'll be tricky with their three pillar approach, so we'll see what happens. But yes, balance is very, very important, to me. As always, play what you like 



pemerton said:


> I GMed a 4e session yesterday for a party of 5 15th level PCs. [SNIP]
> 
> Anyway, to cut a long story short, at one stage the dwarven fighter was engaging two hobgoblin phalanxes (ie approx 80 skilled hobgoblin soldiers) on his own. [SNIP]
> 
> I think this is closer to the sort of thing that Hussar has in mind as typical of 15th level D&D.



Perhaps, and I'm okay with that. Like I said, it's pretty easy to get this to be the case with a variety of rules, even with flatter math. Math is a simple way to differentiate "tiers" of play since it does so naturally, by forcing a slow transition on the players.

Personally, I like a little more control over it, so that my one system can address whatever I need at the time. Am I playing a more gritty-style game? I'll use the optional rule where I take progressive penalties for more than one attack in a round (I'll assume that the more gonzo-leaning rule of no penalties is the default). If 5e is capable of giving that style of control, then I can have a game that allows for mundane soldiers to best me (Game of Thrones style), or something more highly fantastic (Wheel of Time, perhaps?).

But, I still hold that flatter math is one necessary component of that style of game. That, and control over how your character's resources are placed. This means potentially no gaining HP every level for people who want to trade it for something else, because part of their concept is being frail. Or, perhaps no bonus to attack (mandatory base attack bonus or +½ level) for those people who don't want to be good at attacking.

Will we see the flatter math? Maybe. Will we see that much control over your character's resources? Almost certainly not, since it's class-based. But, we'll see. There may be some sort of "fair swap" system. I do highly doubt it, but you never know.



pemerton said:


> I will also add - count me in as one of those who doesn't regard "aid another" as signficant contribution.



My player who had the hit die 14 support character (bonuses via skill checks, aid another, magical aura, etc.) told me to tell Hussar something on this front. Let's just say that he... vehemently disagrees with your assessment (he told me to communicate that as politely as necessary for the boards). To diminish his contribution to the party is something that deeply irritates him, especially when it was so tangible in play.

Additionally, if you look at my reply to B.T. in this post, as well as my reply to others in this thread, you can see just how meaningful that contribution is (especially considering the requote to B.T. was with a hit die 1, and his hit die 14 was remarkably more effective).



pemerton said:


> And no iteration of D&D has had a skill system robust enough in its action resolution mechanics to make a 1st level "skill guy" meaningful (by my standards) in what they contribute via their sage-iness, scouting etc. (Contrast eg Burning Wheel, which has a standard "linked test" mechanic for making those earlier skill checks matter significantly to the resolution of combat.)
> 
> As I've been saying in a few thread recently, I'll eat my hat if D&Dnext changes this significantly, given that it would require increasing the sophistication of skill-challenge style mechanics, rather than dropping them as has been suggested to be likely.



Sigh. I'll go back to the same quote from myself again:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I do know that -as I told pemerton- from a game theory perspective, level 1's consistently meaningfully contributing can be true for a level-based system, even with escalating level-dependent skills. Was it historically true in D&D? Probably not as much. *Does that need to hold true for 5e? Definitely not. And thus my point.*



Has D&D done this? Not to a satisfying degree, I'll agree. Does that mean it needs to be the case in 5e? No, _and that's my point_. I'm talking about the future of 5e; I have little interest in bickering about the past editions.

If you disagree with me that it might happen in 5e, then sure, that's the first sign of progression in the discussion on my point so far. I stepped in to say "it doesn't need to be that way" and got called by four or five people on it. Well, I stick to "it doesn't need to be that way." If you think "it probably will be that way" then that's a much more on-point reply than the four or five "but it's always been that way!" that I've gotten.

Again, I'd much rather talk about the direction of 5e, and how it might achieve those goals, than how past editions have failed and thus the new edition stands no chance. Because, _it doesn't need to be that way_. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (May 14, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> My player who had the hit die 14 support character (bonuses via skill checks, aid another, magical aura, etc.) told me to tell Hussar something on this front. Let's just say that he... vehemently disagrees with your assessment (he told me to communicate that as politely as necessary for the boards). To diminish his contribution to the party is something that deeply irritates him, especially when it was so tangible in play.



There's nothing wrong with that. Different players have different criteria for meaningfulness.

But I think you also have to consider the context of this discussion. It concerend a 1st level PC, not a 14th level one. And if the buffs (via aid another or whatever other route) that a 1st level PC is bestowing are as strong as the buffs that a 14th or 15th level PC is bestowing, we are once again talking about a game very different from D&D.

Of the games that I'm familiar with, the one that makes helping others most meaningful is Burning Wheel. But it has sophisticated helping mechancis that tie in, in a variety of ways, to the advancement mechancis (for both helper and helped) and to the action resolution mechanics (most action resolution is conflict rather than task-focused, and the helping colours the scene and hence the resolution).



JamesonCourage said:


> Has D&D done this? Not to a satisfying degree, I'll agree. Does that mean it needs to be the case in 5e? No, _and that's my point_. I'm talking about the future of 5e; I have little interest in bickering about the past editions.
> 
> If you disagree with me that it might happen in 5e, then sure, that's the first sign of progression in the discussion on my point so far.



I'm reading threads around here that say things like "instead of fighting the guards at the door, the rogue might poison their lunch". In my view, there is a near enough to zero likelihood that, in the D&Dnext era, we will see parties with rogues waiting for the rogue to poison the lunches of the guards before trying to go through the door. The rogue will help contribute stealth to the attack, but (in my view) that is as far as it will go.

And there is a reason for this. To make poisoning the lunch as viable as just bumping them off in an ambush, you need an action resolution system that makes both approaches equally viable, in terms of (i) time at the table, (ii) simplicity of resolution, (iii) grippingness of resolution, (iv) likelihood of success relative to a default amount of effort in character building and action declaration, and (v) maybe some other things I can't think of at the moment.

D&D has never had this. And I seriously doubt that D&Dnext will. Because one fairly clear feature of D&Dnext will be it's difference from significant metagame-y aspects of 4e. And you can't tick my boxes (i) to (iv) without having a metagame aspect to your action resolution (I think it has to be scene-based, to start with).

D&Dnext _could_ be many things. But I doubt that it will be radically different from D&D traditions when it comes to expectations about how scenes are framed and resolved.



JamesonCourage said:


> I stepped in to say "it doesn't need to be that way" and got called by four or five people on it. Well, I stick to "it doesn't need to be that way."



I can build 1st level HARP or RM PCs who can make a meaningful contribution in partnership with a 15th level HARP or RM wizard. The wizard will have pox defences, limited hit points, and little ability to cast spells while being attacked. The 1st level PC, with maximum melee skills and heavy armour wearing skill, can play a vital defensive role (some call it the "meatshield").  And when the pair are waylaid by 5 ruffians in an alleway, the 1st level PC might even do a better job of things than the wizard, if the wizard is not a multi-target combat specialist but (say) a diviner and single-target enchanter. And against an AoE attack, the 1st level PC might be just as robust (I've GMed high level RM wizards with less resilience to physical damage than 1st level RM warriors).

I don't think anyone is saying that these sorts of PC builds, and scenarios, are impossible a priori. They're saying that they are not a singificant part of D&D. And are very unlikely to be on the radar for D&Dnext.

The flatter maths seems to be focused primarily on action resolution bonuses (including attack bonuses) and DCs (including defence bonuses). I doubt that it will affect hit points (otherwise D&D won't support it's traditional gonzo play). I doubt tht it will affect damage (otherwise orcs won't turn into de facto minions against higher level PCs). I would expect a 1st level PC in D&Dnext to be unlikely to survive more than a round or two mixing it up with 15th levels, because (like the orcs) s/he will be a minion who gest squashed in one hit.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 14, 2012)

pemerton said:


> There's nothing wrong with that. Different players have different criteria for meaningfulness.
> 
> But I think you also have to consider the context of this discussion. It concerend a 1st level PC, not a 14th level one. And if the buffs (via aid another or whatever other route) that a 1st level PC is bestowing are as strong as the buffs that a 14th or 15th level PC is bestowing, we are once again talking about a game very different from D&D.



_But they aren't as strong._ I went into this with my reply to Hussar about depth. A combat-aid focused hit die 1 PC can give a +9 swing in combat to a hit die 15 combat-focused PC who only gets +15 passively, giving him a sizable bonus to his attack roll.

The hit die 14 PC, however, was giving higher bonuses, more often, and to more people. He wouldn't affect one person, plus one person reactively; no, he'd give out four bonuses, plus two reactively (or three times as many bonuses). He also had a passive magical aura to give to allies, rather than having to spend time buffing mid-combat. His total bonuses were also higher than the hit die 1. His skills were more capable (he could lead men well, had his own ship with a crew, and was a very good negotiator, which is something the hit die 1 would be respectable at, but not amazing at yet).

Hit die denotes _depth_ of ability. To say that a hit die 1's buff is as strong as a hit die 15's buff is to misunderstand my system (or even the point of hit die in my system) on a rather fundamental level.



pemerton said:


> D&Dnext _could_ be many things. But I doubt that it will be radically different from D&D traditions when it comes to expectations about how scenes are framed and resolved.



Well, that could very well be true. It'll be interesting, since they just released an article about Wizards, and mentioned making sure he doesn't overpower the party and steal too much spotlight or step on too many toes. And, with the mention of the Fighter surpassing our version of "mundane" and hitting something closer to "mythic mundane" or the like, it'll be interesting to see what action resolution mechanics they'll employ. It seems like they won't heavily employ metagame action resolution mechanics, and instead rely on "it makes sense, it's mythic" at high levels.

For lower levels, though? No idea. And poisoning guards should definitely be viable at lower levels, I'd imagine. They could definitely make an extended skill resolution system. I like them. I have nothing against skill challenges, as long as they "make sense" to me. That is, you dump what Justin Alexander says about them, dump "these skills work, these skills don't, these skills have this result", and just resolve checks like skills, I think they're fine. I even like the X successes before 3 failures rule.



pemerton said:


> I can build 1st level HARP or RM PCs who can make a meaningful contribution in partnership with a 15th level HARP or RM wizard. The wizard will have pox defences, limited hit points, and little ability to cast spells while being attacked. The 1st level PC, with maximum melee skills and heavy armour wearing skill, can play a vital defensive role (some call it the "meatshield").  And when the pair are waylaid by 5 ruffians in an alleway, the 1st level PC might even do a better job of things than the wizard, if the wizard is not a multi-target combat specialist but (say) a diviner and single-target enchanter. And against an AoE attack, the 1st level PC might be just as robust (I've GMed high level RM wizards with less resilience to physical damage than 1st level RM warriors).
> 
> I don't think anyone is saying that these sorts of PC builds, and scenarios, are impossible a priori. They're saying that they are not a singificant part of D&D. And are very unlikely to be on the radar for D&Dnext.



I doubt it's an explicit design goal. I think the flatter math will make this an issue, though, whether they intend it to or not.



pemerton said:


> The flatter maths seems to be focused primarily on action resolution bonuses (including attack bonuses) and DCs (including defence bonuses). I doubt that it will affect hit points (otherwise D&D won't support it's traditional gonzo play). I doubt tht it will affect damage (otherwise orcs won't turn into de facto minions against higher level PCs). I would expect a 1st level PC in D&Dnext to be unlikely to survive more than a round or two mixing it up with 15th levels, because (like the orcs) s/he will be a minion who gest squashed in one hit.



Right, but if you're correct, then the orc has a decent chance of hitting that level 15's AC (since it didn't scale as high). This means that a bunch of orcs, rolling individual attacks against the AC of the level 15, will likely land a decent number of hits. Even with HP continuing to go up significantly, the level 15 will eventually be dropped by enough mundane, regular orc warriors.

This is what I mean by the flatter math contributing to this type of thing. This is what Hussar seems to have explicitly said he doesn't want. In 3.X (and I believe 4e), if your AC is 25, and the orc only gets +5 to attack, he can only hit you on a natural 20. You feel pretty safe wading into them and cleaving through groups while they occasionally knock a few hit points off. On the other hand, if they all get +3, and your AC at level 15 is only AC 20, you're getting hit enough that you might worry about wading in.

The flatter math (attack bonus and AC) but not flatter HP means that mundane orcs, in a group, are still dangerous. Many people like this. Just as many (if not more) dislike this. I'm the former, and I think Hussar is the latter. But flatter math will make a difference in such a way that a level 1 might just be able to contribute. If the DC to do something is DC 16 at level 1 or level 15, and I get +6 at level 1 and +9 at level 15, I can contribute pretty well on that check.

Yes, the flatter math is affecting action resolution (including attack bonuses, AC, DCs, etc.), and that will certainly affect how the game is played. And, even if it's not an explicit design goal, it might allow a level 1 to contribute to a level 15. What is that worth? I don't know. It's not like most groups run that style of game anyways. But, it's something to keep in mind for how 5e mind turn out, even if it's not a design goal (since people like me will like it, and I think people like Hussar will dislike it). As always, play what you like


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 14, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> For lower levels, though? No idea. And poisoning guards should definitely be viable at lower levels, I'd imagine.



They certainly could do that.  However, the point he appeared to be making is that in a group filled with a guy who calls himself a "Fighter" whose abilities revolve around stabbing sharp things through enemies in the same group as a Rogue who really wants to poison the guards dinner....you'll find that most groups don't find the poisoning method to be as interesting or as tension building.

A lot of the thrill of D&D is the tension you get from combat:  "Will I die this round?  I don't know, hopefully he rolls low!  Darn...he hit me, but I still have 3 hp left.  Will the cleric heal me before I get hit again?  Let's find out!"

That sort of tension is lacking from a "Can the Rogue make a Stealth check?  Yes?  Perfect, now we wait here for the next 30 minutes while they eat dinner" situation.

That it's likely that most groups will choose the method of defeating the guards that involves the entire group at once, involves more of the abilities on their characters sheet(people like to use cool abilities), and is more "glorious".

Although, its possible for a low level Rogue to sneak in and poison the guards meals and therefore have "contributed"....it's much more likely that the rest of the group says "We COULD have you sneak in and poison them...but let's just attack them instead."


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 14, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> The game was never intended for balance, it was intended, and succeeded, at being fun.



It really depends on the players and the situation.  I can tell you that when I ran it, it was not fun for half the group who felt so underpowered compared to everyone else, they didn't really want to be in the game.  Which was fine, because they died to the first attack, since it was meant to actually harm the powerful people in the group and was an area of effect.

Like ALL roleplaying games, you can ignore the rules and the mechanics and simply freeform roleplay.  And if you do it carefully, you can even have fun doing it with completely different power levels of people in your group.  However, when and if combat ever happens, someone will certainly have less fun than everyone else.

After all, there's only so many public speaking and dog walking contests Joe the Plumber and Superman can enter before a Super Villain eventually attacks.  Then Joe hides under a table and hopes like heck that no one spots him while Superman punches the villain across the city.


----------



## pemerton (May 14, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> the point he appeared to be making is that in a group filled with a guy who calls himself a "Fighter" whose abilities revolve around stabbing sharp things through enemies in the same group as a Rogue who really wants to poison the guards dinner....you'll find that most groups don't find the poisoning method to be as interesting or as tension building.
> 
> A lot of the thrill of D&D is the tension you get from combat
> 
> ...



Yes.

There are systems that can make the "poisoning" scenario as dramatic as at least some versions of the combat scenario - between the way they support PC builds, the way they resolve skill checks (conflict resolution, "Let It Ride" etc), the way they factor in various sorts of augmenting checks (thus giving all PCs a meaningful way to affect the scene even if it is the rogue who actually delivers the poison), and even (I'm thinkining Burnng Wheel here) the way reduce the imperative towards "failure is not an option".

But I'm not expecting D&Dnext to be such a system. If it is, I'll be pleasantly surprised! (And obliged to eat my hat!)


----------



## ForeverSlayer (May 14, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It really depends on the players and the situation.  I can tell you that when I ran it, it was not fun for half the group who felt so underpowered compared to everyone else, they didn't really want to be in the game.  Which was fine, because they died to the first attack, since it was meant to actually harm the powerful people in the group and was an area of effect.
> 
> Like ALL roleplaying games, you can ignore the rules and the mechanics and simply freeform roleplay.  And if you do it carefully, you can even have fun doing it with completely different power levels of people in your group.  However, when and if combat ever happens, someone will certainly have less fun than everyone else.
> 
> After all, there's only so many public speaking and dog walking contests Joe the Plumber and Superman can enter before a Super Villain eventually attacks.  Then Joe hides under a table and hopes like heck that no one spots him while Superman punches the villain across the city.




Question? The people that felt undepowered, why didn't they play a more powerful OCC or RCC? It's not like the power levels between OCC and RCC's sneak up on you.


----------



## Arlough (May 14, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Question? The people that felt undepowered, why didn't they play a more powerful OCC or RCC? It's not like the power levels between OCC and RCC's sneak up on you.




Maybe they really liked the idea of the Operator or Ley Line Walker, but discovered that was a mistake when they encountered a dragon off in the wilderness and the Glitterboy was the only thing that could accomplish anything.  Also, all the people I know who played Rifts eventually came to the same conclusion.  The game, while a fascinating concept, was fun to play despite the system, not because of it.*  The whole thing was unbalanced, over complicated, and full of holes.
But perhaps this has changed in the last 15 years (I hope so.)

*: I must admit, I did have tremendous fun when I finally decided to just flat out abuse the rules.  I fashioned a glitter boy and only fired his railgun while in the air (for radical maneuvering), or while standing on the enemy.  I killed a dragon by standing on its head and firing off in the distance.  As soon as the railgun activated, laser pitons that could, according to the description, *penetrate anything* shot down from my heels into his skull to anchor me and the recoil ripped me, and the dragon's skull, clean from its neck (and sent me flying about a mile into and through the side of a mountain and I landed in a warren of something I couldn't see that did lots of megadamage, but I think that is more because the GM was irritated that I killed his dragon)


----------



## Sunseeker (May 14, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Question? The people that felt undepowered, why didn't they play a more powerful OCC or RCC? It's not like the power levels between OCC and RCC's sneak up on you.




Probably be size they were playing some theme or concept character.  

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Well if they're playing their ideal character, they shouldn't care about power levels!"

I'm sure at character creation, they probably didn't.  But the AOE example is a good point in this respect.  If a game attempts to challenge the Superman, its going to obliterate the Joe Blow.  If the game aims to make Joe Blow feel worthwhile, Superman will tear it to shreds with his left pinky.

The power scale that min-max characters live on is so above and beyond that even typical gaming expectations cannot reach them.  Flattening the math helps, but only to the extent that a min-maxed character is only twice as powerful, not 10000x.  It's unrealistic to eliminate the ability to min-max, its surprisingly popular and quite fun for many.  It's equally unrealistic to expect math to be so flat as to be able to put high level characters and low level ones together and expect the latter to be meaningful.

The best option is to make all, or as many as is realistically possible, options viable and equitable(equitable does not mean equal).  That way even two highly divergent characters can meaningfully contribute to the same game, even if not in the same areas.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 14, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> They certainly could do that.  However, the point he appeared to be making is that in a group filled with a guy who calls himself a "Fighter" whose abilities revolve around stabbing sharp things through enemies in the same group as a Rogue who really wants to poison the guards dinner....you'll find that most groups don't find the poisoning method to be as interesting or as tension building.



Oh. I missed that point, then, because it runs counter to most of my experience. Not that I don't believe you, just that's it's not intuitive to me. If someone in my group of players has a skill that makes them more likely to succeed (while fitting within whatever moral code they've chosen), they're very likely to use that skill set to achieve their goals. If that means the Fighter skips head to head combat this time, so be it.

It's interesting that "most" other groups will play in such a way that accommodates the Fighter but not the Rogue. Is it because they can both "contribute" by "stabbing sharp things through enemies" whereas the Fighter can't poison the guards? Is it more a focus on "everyone contributes now" than "everyone shines in their area"? Honest questions.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> A lot of the thrill of D&D is the tension you get from combat:  "Will I die this round?  I don't know, hopefully he rolls low!  Darn...he hit me, but I still have 3 hp left.  Will the cleric heal me before I get hit again?  Let's find out!"
> 
> That sort of tension is lacking from a "Can the Rogue make a Stealth check?  Yes?  Perfect, now we wait here for the next 30 minutes while they eat dinner" situation.



Well, I use an extended skill resolution system, that has a frame similar to that of skill challenges. Many times it has come down to "one more success and you achieve your goal, but one more failure and you fail at it." I've found _plenty_ of tension in those moments. Especially if they've maxed out on failures early (2/3), and they start getting successes. In such a scenario, each success brings a little more hope, then a little more, then a lot more, and the tension builds.

Combat is also tense, mind you. My group does enjoy what you've described, so I see the appeal to choosing combat over poisoning if you're going for full blown tension for everyone rather than tension with the rogue. In my experience, the players can get especially tense when only one or two members participate in that type of extended skill resolution, though, because they're essentially helpless. When everything is resting on someone else and you can't contribute yourself but you need them to succeed in order for you to succeed, that's quite tension building. It's like if there's only one guy left in combat, and he's facing down that last bloodied orc, and they're trading blows, and he downs the orc while in single digit HP. Cheers from the table, because of the tension that arose.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> That it's likely that most groups will choose the method of defeating the guards that involves the entire group at once, involves more of the abilities on their characters sheet(people like to use cool abilities), and is more "glorious".



Well, I don't see how things like Hide, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, Bluff, Disguise, and the like would be great to use off the character sheet. My RPG has quite specific rules on sneaking around, lying to people, disguising yourself, slipping something into something else without it being seen, and the like. It is true that 4e basically cut these down to Bluff, Stealth, and Thievery (as far as I know), but that's still three skills that you can use to resolve action. Although I do see your point about involving the entire group, and that answers one of my earlier questions.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Although, its possible for a low level Rogue to sneak in and poison the guards meals and therefore have "contributed"....it's much more likely that the rest of the group says "We COULD have you sneak in and poison them...but let's just attack them instead."



Yes, this is very different from my group. If they're considering poison, it's because they want stealth (something likely lost via a frontal assault). If they want speed, they'll choose to ambush instead. But, they'll pick their goal (stealth, speed, etc.) and then choose a course of action that best fits that goal, utilizing only one party member if necessary. So, the idea of "we'll just attack, because everyone gets to do that" isn't intuitive to me, but I do understand what you're saying. Thanks for the reply. As always, play what you like


----------



## Steely_Dan (May 15, 2012)

shidaku said:


> It's equally unrealistic to expect math to be so flat as to be able to put high level characters and low level ones together and expect the latter to be meaningful.




Not if you run a 4th Ed campaign without the 1/2 level shenanigans (you can expect), a lower level PC can join a party and not feel worthless at all (totally contribute), and lower level monsters can still challenge the party.


----------



## Hussar (May 15, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Not if you run a 4th Ed campaign without the 1/2 level shenanigans (you can expect), a lower level PC can join a party and not feel worthless at all (totally contribute), and lower level monsters can still challenge the party.




But how do you stop the higher level monsters from totally crushing the party?  Without that 1/2 level bonus to hit, any equal level soldier monster will be virtually unhittable by the party.

Sure, if you use nothing but much lower level monsters, this would work, but, what's the point then?  Why not just cap everyone's level and be done with it?


----------



## RobertLie (May 15, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But how do you stop the higher level monsters from totally crushing the party?  Without that 1/2 level bonus to hit, any equal level soldier monster will be virtually unhittable by the party.
> 
> Sure, if you use nothing but much lower level monsters, this would work, but, what's the point then?  Why not just cap everyone's level and be done with it?



That 1/2 level bonus is more then to just a player's attack bonus.  Its also in the Monster defenses, Monster attack bonus, player's defenses, skill checks, skill check DCs, ability checks, and ability check DCs.  So you remove it from everything.
-I've played in that fashion before.  It allows monsters older monsters to still stay a threat longer, as they can still hit you as you out level them.  It also allows newer monsters to be easier to despite being higher levels.  Though it is theoretical that a level 30 monster with average AC (46 AC turned 31 AC after removal of half-level) could be hit on a 19 by a level 1 Fighter with a +3 prof sword, expertise, and CA after the removal of half-level bonuses.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 15, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But how do you stop the higher level monsters from totally crushing the party?  Without that 1/2 level bonus to hit, any equal level soldier monster will be virtually unhittable by the party.
> 
> Sure, if you use nothing but much lower level monsters, this would work, but, what's the point then?  Why not just cap everyone's level and be done with it?




My solution is the sale as always.  Do the monster math yourself.  All the enemies in my game are adjusted to the output of the party.  So an optimized party is just as challenged as an unoptimized one.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 22, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> It's interesting that "most" other groups will play in such a way that accommodates the Fighter but not the Rogue. Is it because they can both "contribute" by "stabbing sharp things through enemies" whereas the Fighter can't poison the guards? Is it more a focus on "everyone contributes now" than "everyone shines in their area"? Honest questions.



Yes.  We used to play every week for about 20 hours a week.  Given, we played more than the average players so we saw the problem more than others.  However, every player in our group was tired of sitting there waiting for other players to finish their portion of the game.

Too many times the Thief decided to "scout ahead...just for a minute" and ended up 6 rooms ahead trying to figure out a puzzle by himself without coming back and informing the rest of the party.  If we tried to contribute the DM would remind us that we weren't in the room and didn't know about the puzzle and should shut up.

Sometimes it was out of the player's control.  They just wanted to open the door, see who was inside and then come back to the party...but the enemies ended up seeing them and starting a battle with them that was too far away for us to hear...so we waited for him to fight them solo.

Often this involved everyone getting so bored that they wandered into the other room to watch a movie or go for food rather than wait for the solo adventure to complete.

After about a year of constantly enduring these solo adventures, it became our unwritten rule that NO one wanders off by themselves.  If it's the choice between the Thief/Rogue sneaking in and poisoning them and possibly running into complications that take hours to resolve and opening the door and having the whole group charge in...we take the option that involves the whole group.


JamesonCourage said:


> Well, I use an extended skill resolution system, that has a frame similar to that of skill challenges. Many times it has come down to "one more success and you achieve your goal, but one more failure and you fail at it." I've found _plenty_ of tension in those moments. Especially if they've maxed out on failures early (2/3), and they start getting successes. In such a scenario, each success brings a little more hope, then a little more, then a lot more, and the tension builds.



There's some, certainly.  That type of extended skill resolution wasn't part of any of the earlier editions of D&D, however.  We used as many skill checks as the DM deemed necessary to complete something...so in a way it was an extended skill check.  But often the penalty for failing these types of challenges is something like "They spot you and a battle starts".  So, there's no REAL penalty for failing since the option you had to begin with was to start a battle OR to sneak in.  Failing just means you go back to the other option.


JamesonCourage said:


> Well, I don't see how things like Hide, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, Bluff, Disguise, and the like would be great to use off the character sheet. My RPG has quite specific rules on sneaking around, lying to people, disguising yourself, slipping something into something else without it being seen, and the like. It is true that 4e basically cut these down to Bluff, Stealth, and Thievery (as far as I know), but that's still three skills that you can use to resolve action. Although I do see your point about involving the entire group, and that answers one of my earlier questions.



Those things can be fun to do as well.  But depending on the edition and what powers you get...it can often seem a lot less....I still have to use the word "glorious" to use a Sneak check followed by a Thievery check to put poison into someone food than to leap over their head, stab them in the back, tumble to the other side of the room and cut off someone's head while blinding another person with the vial of poison only to stab them through the heart.

If you want people dead...one seems like it takes a lot more skill and is more genuinely exciting.  Plus it seems less underhanded and sneaky.  Good aligned characters may already have issues with doing it the "sneaky" way, because it isn't fair to your enemies.

I know most of our groups would argue based entirely on "I don't want to watch him poison a bunch of people, that's boring as crap for me." and when that didn't sway the Rogue they'd argue their character objected to poisoning people on moral grounds and they should just face them head on.

But it all (mostly) comes from a desire to not split the party.


----------



## Hussar (May 23, 2012)

Essentially, rogues are D&D's version of the Decker Problem.  The rogues abilities don't play nicely with anyone else.  The casters, at the very least, can buff the heck out of the mundane classes and everyone gets to play.  The rogue is actually more effective if he's off by himself.

In a game that focuses on group interaction, having one solo player at the table is a bad thing.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 23, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Essentially, rogues are D&D's version of the Decker Problem.  The rogues abilities don't play nicely with anyone else.  The casters, at the very least, can buff the heck out of the mundane classes and everyone gets to play.  The rogue is actually more effective if he's off by himself.
> 
> In a game that focuses on group interaction, having one solo player at the table is a bad thing.




I don't think so, I really think it depends on what type of rogue you play.  I believe thieves present that problem, as their very name implies that they are breaking the rules that other players are likely trying to uphold.  The hunter-killer assassin, yeah he's got that problem too.  But the live-by your wits, born on the street kinda rogue is less inclined, in fact he may have joined up with your party to make a better life for himself.  

There's a lot of stuff in the rogue class that's very poorly detailed.


----------



## Hussar (May 23, 2012)

Fair enough.  But, Shidaku, most of the Rogue abilities are based around the rogue going off and doing his own thing.  Sneaking, for example, doesn't work when you have the fighter and the cleric ten feet behind you sounding like a sack full of teakettles being shaken.  Find and remove traps is entirely a solo endevour.  Listening and Spotting, not team efforts.

The main schtick of the rogue is generally not very well integrated into the group dynamic.


----------



## pemerton (May 23, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Too many times the Thief decided to "scout ahead...just for a minute" and ended up 6 rooms ahead trying to figure out a puzzle by himself without coming back and informing the rest of the party.  If we tried to contribute the DM would remind us that we weren't in the room and didn't know about the puzzle and should shut up.
> 
> Sometimes it was out of the player's control.  They just wanted to open the door, see who was inside and then come back to the party...but the enemies ended up seeing them and starting a battle with them that was too far away for us to hear...so we waited for him to fight them solo.
> 
> ...



This is why I'm a little sceptical about D&Dnext's "three pillars" strategy. It seems to me that to make all the pillars equally viable, and in particular to make non-combat approaches viable in actual play at real world gaming tables, we need action resolution mechanics that won't create the headaches described here. Those sorts of mechanics exist in other RPGs. But part of what gives D&D its feel is the absence of them. 4e's attempt to go a little way down that path - skill challenges - doesn't seem to have been warmly embraced!


----------



## Nikmal (May 23, 2012)

Actually if you want class balance then why design several classes? It is simple one class with several abilities. Balance is achieved. 

The above is a system I would HATE playing. Each class fills a vital role in a party for D&D. When one is balanced with another it makes the party mentality redundant and obsolete. To me the party comes first and the roles for each member in it is vital to fantasy role playing games. There is the Rogue for detecting and disabling traps and maneuvering through tricky situations. The fighter to protect the more fragile of the members of the group. The sorcerer and wizard are there to deal with the magic, buffing, dispelling, and fighting magic with magic. The cleric is about healing and mostly buffing... with some attack abilities that are good in both melee and ranged. Paladin, Rangers and so on like the Bard are a bit more specific in roles but none the less vital. Yet... some people feel that this should all be taken away and make it balance.

Balancing is for video games... where it is NEEDED because of PvP... this is NOT PvP but a pen and paper game. If you make it balanced then it is and should be in a video game... anything else... keep it so that each role fills a niche in the party!!


----------



## Bluenose (May 23, 2012)

Nikmal said:


> The above is a system I would HATE playing. Each class fills a vital role in a party for D&D. When one is balanced with another it makes the party mentality redundant and obsolete. To me the party comes first and the roles for each member in it is vital to fantasy role playing games. There is the Rogue for detecting and disabling traps and maneuvering through tricky situations. The fighter to protect the more fragile of the members of the group. The sorcerer and wizard are there to deal with the magic, buffing, dispelling, and fighting magic with magic. The cleric is about healing and mostly buffing... with some attack abilities that are good in both melee and ranged. Paladin, Rangers and so on like the Bard are a bit more specific in roles but none the less vital. Yet... some people feel that this should all be taken away and make it balance.




The thing is, the caster classes can do all the things the rogue and the fighter do, and generally do them better. In particular, in 3e the Fighter is one of the fragile members of the group, far more vulnerable to magic than the cleric or druid, requiring a significant expenditure of someone else's magic to resist magical attacks and for healing afterwards. And it's also worth noting that while a 3e Fighter's hit points are significantly inflated compared to AD&D Fighters, the damage output of monsters increased at a greater rate, again leaving them more vulnerable. It's hard to accept that each character class plays a vital role, when some of those classes are perfectly capable of performing the role of another class *and *still performing perfectly adequately at their own role.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 23, 2012)

Nikmal said:


> Actually if you want class balance then why design several classes? It is simple one class with several abilities. Balance is achieved.
> 
> The above is a system I would HATE playing. Each class fills a vital role in a party for D&D. When one is balanced with another it makes the party mentality redundant and obsolete. To me the party comes first and the roles for each member in it is vital to fantasy role playing games. There is the Rogue for detecting and disabling traps and maneuvering through tricky situations. The fighter to protect the more fragile of the members of the group. The sorcerer and wizard are there to deal with the magic, buffing, dispelling, and fighting magic with magic. The cleric is about healing and mostly buffing... with some attack abilities that are good in both melee and ranged. Paladin, Rangers and so on like the Bard are a bit more specific in roles but none the less vital. Yet... some people feel that this should all be taken away and make it balance.
> 
> Balancing is for video games... where it is NEEDED because of PvP... this is NOT PvP but a pen and paper game. If you make it balanced then it is and should be in a video game... anything else... keep it so that each role fills a niche in the party!!




Balance is _needed_ to ensure that each role fills a niche in the party.  Without balance this doesn't happen.  The 1e and 3e monks don't fill _any_ roles.  The pre-UA 1e cleric and the 3.5 cleric on the other hand just about fill the fighter role _and_ their own (especially with divine metamagic and nightsticks).  And the 3.5 druid fills the cleric role _and_ the fighter role while eating into wizard and occasionally rogue role.  (Mid-high level 3.5 wizards eat the rogue role wtih second and third level spells while being wizards with their high level ones).

Without balance you don't have niche protection.  Without niche protection you end up with classes without niches.  With classes without niches you have classes that don't fill a vital role or even a terribly useful one for the party.

Pro-balance people don't think that roles should be taken away to promote balance.  We think that with bad balance your intended role means diddly squat as a more powerful class can cover it and their own.  And with bad _enough_ balance they can do it without intending to.


----------



## Hussar (May 24, 2012)

Nikmal said:


> Actually if you want class balance then why design several classes? It is simple one class with several abilities. Balance is achieved.
> 
> The above is a system I would HATE playing. Each class fills a vital role in a party for D&D. When one is balanced with another it makes the party mentality redundant and obsolete. To me the party comes first and the roles for each member in it is vital to fantasy role playing games. There is the Rogue for detecting and disabling traps and maneuvering through tricky situations. The fighter to protect the more fragile of the members of the group. The sorcerer and wizard are there to deal with the magic, buffing, dispelling, and fighting magic with magic. The cleric is about healing and mostly buffing... with some attack abilities that are good in both melee and ranged. Paladin, Rangers and so on like the Bard are a bit more specific in roles but none the less vital. Yet... some people feel that this should all be taken away and make it balance.
> 
> Balancing is for video games... where it is NEEDED because of PvP... this is NOT PvP but a pen and paper game. If you make it balanced then it is and should be in a video game... anything else... keep it so that each role fills a niche in the party!!




This is a misunderstanding of what balance means.  This has been dealt with several times in this thread and others, but, in the interests of saving time and not just point to the above rather lengthy thread, let me sum up:

1.  Balanced systems do not mean lack of diversity - after all, chess is a perfectly balanced game, but, we don't play with all pawns do we?
2.  Balanced systems do not require exact equality.  It's okay for one class to be a bit better at something and a bit worse at another.  There's more than enough room for flexiblity.
3.  Balanced systems mean that no single option is clearly better than other options.  It's okay for one options to be better than another option from time to time, in certain situations.  But if one option is clearly better than other options, then you have an imbalanced system.


----------

