# Class Balance - why?



## Dellamon (Jan 16, 2012)

I've primarily just lurked on the forums the past few years, but now that the new edition has been officially announced I wanted to discuss something that bothered me with 4E (and to some extent 3.5).  What is the obsession with class balance?  Why should a magic-user and fighter or rouge and cleric all be comparable in power at the same levels?  Isn't balance a subjective quality that can shift based on play conditions? 

I think one of the things that did the most damage to class balance was putting all classes on the same xp progression table (I think this occurred in 3E).  Granted, the XP progression in AD&D was a bit wonky, but I think they were on the right track in some regards.  It makes sense that a fighter or rouge class would progress more quickly than a magic using class.  If you make the progression ratio 1.25:1 (or something like that), you have suddenly balanced out the tables a bit, especially when you consider the challenges most magic-using classes face with survivability in the early levels.  True, once a magic using class reaches higher levels, they are very powerful.  But should they not be?  The god-like wizard, sorceress, or priest that is a force in the world for good or evil is a staple of classic fantasy.  I think 4E magic using classes lost that mystique by trying to force balance through the rule set rather than putting that in the hands of the DM. 

And if you think about it, there was additional balance built into AD&D that a lot of people just chose to ignore (it was too hard to use, slowed game play, etc.).  That balance was in the form of weapon speed factors and dynamic initiative.  It was completely plausible that a 5th level fighter could defeat a 10th level magic-user if they got the jump on them and had a little luck with the dice (and the 10th level magic-user is not a Monty Haulizard).  Could you say the same for a 5th level magic-user taking out a 10th level fighter, even if they got a jump on them?  I think the later is a lot less likely.  

I fully understand that we all want to be special flowers at the table with our characters, but should that not be more about character development and roleplaying than stat blocks?  You can make your 1st level rouge just as interesting and fun as a 20th level sorceress with the power to level mountains. The rules should not try to force that, but rather compliment play to make sure you have fun regardless which class you try to play instead of sit around comparing die sizes all evening.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 16, 2012)

Class balance is a good way to allow everyone to take the spotlight and feel contributing to the game. If one class is weak at an aspect that comes up very often in your game, the player in question can easily feel left out and not enjoy the game much. 



> But should they not be?  The god-like wizard, sorceress, or priest  that is a force in the world for good or evil is a staple of classic  fantasy.



Is it really? Lord of the Rings, maybe. But then... I didn't find Gandalf all that powerful,he didn't seem to slay people left and right or even throw fireballs. 
And I definitely know that one fantasy archetype is that of the guy that only goes by his wits and his martial skill - even against those wizards and priests. Isn't Conan regularly fighting priests and wizards?

I think the archetypes do not per se set a "maximum reasonable power level". It sets more their style, but the rest is a matter of experience, training and pure devotion. Most people just don't have the opportunity to devote all their time to studying spellbook or mastering their fighting styles. They have "normal" lifes.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 16, 2012)

My take?  Class balance is important because no one wants to suck night after night while another player steals the show, just because you chose to play a rogue and he chose to play a wizard.  Every character should be able to provide a fair contribution, all else being equal.  That's not to say the same contribution -- fair is not equal, fair is fair.

I'd like to think we learned from the bad old days of 2 hp magic-users with one light spell, who could do nothing but hide at the back of the party for most of the adventure, hoping to eventually gain enough levels to really be important ... and by the time they got there they rendered their fighter and thief counterparts irrelevant.

As to XP ... they are a metagame concept.  Design rule #0 for game designers in my opinion should be not to balance in-game concepts by metagame systems.  One XP should have equal value for all players, just as in-game one GP has equal value for all characters.  If you want a class to be "easier to learn" and gain in power faster, bake that into the class design; don't do that by varying the value of XP for every player at the table.  Similarly, if you have magic item creation, don't try to balance it by having an XP component requirement ... again it's using a metagame concept to try and solve an in-game balance dilemma.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 16, 2012)

I'll ignore the basic question of "why" and instead focus on "why does this need to be designed into the game":

If you want a balanced game and the system is inherently unbalanced, it can be darn near impossible to modify the game in the right way to find balance.  But if you want an unbalanced game and the system is inherently balanced (or close to it), it is extremely easy to modify the game as you wish.  Change the xp levels, add extra abilities, cap levels, whatever; those are all easy mods to make.

Thus, if some people want a balanced system and some don't, it is easiest to make both sides happy by having the base system be balanced and allow it to be modified.


----------



## hanez (Jan 16, 2012)

Thanks for making this post!  I completely agree.  I have been wanting to post something like this for a while but have been looking for a way to word it.  (and may still do that)


I was happy to have different levels for classes go in 3rd editon, that was just something I was happy to let go.  But every class being soooo similar in 4e was really the dealbreaker for me and my play group.

 I believe that a lot of the discussion on these forums miss the point.  Mainly that a large part of the problem with 4e was that it was OVERLY focussed on combat balance.   In fact I remember the designers arguing that there was no way to balance vancian magic with at will fighter-type powers  (e.g. attack).

I would argue that this largely misses the point of D&D.   The point is to play archetype characters that we see in fantasy, to have an amazing time playing those characters together as part of a team roleplaying through interesting encounters and kicking the bad guys butt.


I respect the drive for balance and believe that previous editions needed work to balance play, but I also believe the cost that 4e incurred was not worth it.  Everyone needs a spot to shine, but those spots dont all have to be "cause x damange and move the enemy one space".  



Let the fighter be an unbeatable brute that people are truly scared of and regularly run from.
Let the rogue have adventures where he says "well I just killed everyone in the keep before they knew we were even here, guess we can just walk to the treasure",
Let the wizard rain fire down from the sky raising an army.
AND let all classes have different areas to shine in noncombat too!  If the bard bypasses a whole adventure or convinces an army to join the party because of his charm it is JUST AS SATISFYIN as "causing x damage".   I played an illusionist not because I wanted to do as much damage as everyone else, but because I occasionally want to bypass battles because of my whit.

It's ok if during one adventure, someone shines more then the other, thats what makes D&D characters so darnd interesting.  Work to balances forces together, but dont throw the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## avin (Jan 16, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> True, once a magic using class reaches higher levels, they are very powerful.  But should they not be?




They should be equal to the powerful level Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, etc.



Dellamon said:


> The god-like wizard, sorceress, or priest that is a force in the world for good or evil is a staple of classic fantasy.




In the way you describe Conan would knee down to Thulsa Doom and beg for his life.

There's only ONE thing that can make me turn back to 5E and never return: a edition that keep the pre-4E notion that Fighters are sidekicks for high level casters.

Boo!


----------



## hanez (Jan 16, 2012)

Deset Gled said:


> Thus, if some people want a balanced system and some don't, it is easiest to make both sides happy by having the base system be balanced and allow it to be modified.




Sure.... but if that was sufficient 4e would have captured those players who could have just used unbalanced "house rules" or expansions.  Instead, I believe they played the game as described in the first 3 books, found its strict balance to be comparably boring to what they were used to, and abandoned the game for something else.  That may happen again if 5e leaves what we like for a Mod.





> There's only ONE thing that can make me turn back to 5E and never return: a edition that keep the pre-4E notion that Fighters are sidekicks for high level casters.



I highly disagree with your assessment of that being the case pre-4e.  I have had many fighter players that would disagree, Taku:lightbringer (my brothers half orc barbarian), and Babo Gutwrencher (my friends dwarven fighter) often laughed at the weakling wizard (who, granted, would one day amaze them too).

But I agree that 5e should aim for closer balance between the two.  Maybe the fighter is unbeatable in one-on-one fights with big baddies, and the wizard is unbeatable on one to many fights with their minions?  

As long as it isn't balanced because they have the same amount of powers, and that there powers do roughly the same thing (as in 4e), I will at least give the system a try.


----------



## Dellamon (Jan 16, 2012)

Amen to that!  Class balance is imperative in a tactical war game (which I felt 4E developed into) played on a battle mat or in an MMO, but does not need to be so ingrained in a roleplaying game.  There are narrative aspects that cannot be achieved with true class balance.


----------



## avin (Jan 16, 2012)

hanez said:


> Let the fighter be an unbeatable brute that people are truly scared of and regularly run from.
> Let the rogue have adventures where he says "well I just killed everyone in the keep before they knew we were even here, guess we can just walk to the treasure",
> Let the wizard rain fire down from the sky raising an army.




You like playing casters, don't you? 

I agree that the 4E model where every single power look similar to another isn't fun, but back to a place where casters rule the game and Fighters watch it's a deal breaker to me.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 16, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> My take?  Class balance is important because no one wants to suck night after night while another *player* steals the show



A very telling choice of words. Would that we could balance players, but the best we can do is try to balance the mechanics for their characters.


Class balance is important inasmuch as all the available options should be at least minimally viable, and none should be clearly dominant over the rest. That said, even early versions of D&D easily achieved this is most cases.

A lot of the modern "balance" emphasis is more about the designers trying to win a battle with an obnoxious group of players whose goal is to abuse the rules. This is a battle the designers are doomed to lose, and frankly, the rest of us can end up being casualties.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 16, 2012)

hanez said:


> Sure.... but if that was sufficient 4e would have captured those players who could have just used unbalanced "house rules" or expansions.  Instead, I believe they played the game as described in the first 3 books, found it to be found strict balance to be comparably boring to what they were used to and abandoned the game for something else.  That may happen again if 5e leaves what we like for a Mod.



Who is to say they got it all right in D&D 4. The balance was there, but their approach isn't the only possible one. That is what Essentials showed us.

I am almost certain that if the first core rulebook had looked like Essentials, D&D 4 would have caused much less fracture. But it would be just as balanced. But it took probably a year or so of understanding the D&D 4 system and all its implications to get to that.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 16, 2012)

The reason people want class balance is because feeling like the 3rd wheel in a group sucks.  Most D&D games spend 50-80% of the game in combat.  There are some people who play with a lower percentage than that, but that appears to be the average.

So, in a 5 hour long session, knowing that at least 2 and a half hours of that time will be spent fighting things, most people want to know that they are doing something useful during that time.  There's only so many times when it becomes your turn in combat that you can say "I continue hiding under the table until the wizard goes and kills all the enemies with his fireball" before you get sick of it.



> Could you say the same for a 5th level magic-user taking out a 10th level fighter, even if they got a jump on them? I think the later is a lot less likely.



Yes, I could.  They have a number of spells by the the time they get to 5th level that is a near guaranteed win in they were fighting a 10th level fighter: Hold Person is likely to win a battle if the magic-user goes first.  So are a number of other spells.  Depending on how high the fighter rolled for hitpoints a fireball could take him out.  Stoneskin, I think, is probably 4th level, but I can't remember.  It has the ability to make the wizard immune to nearly all attacks from the fighter for a couple of rounds.  My knowledge of spells from 2e and 1e has dwindled in the years since I last played it.  Charm Person pretty much ends combat and lets you control the fighter for a while.



> I fully understand that we all want to be special flowers at the table with our characters, but should that not be more about character development and roleplaying than stat blocks? You can make your 1st level rouge just as interesting and fun as a 20th level sorceress with the power to level mountains. The rules should not try to force that, but rather compliment play to make sure you have fun regardless which class you try to play instead of sit around comparing die sizes all evening.



But what if your idea of fun is being the cool rogue who leaps over people's heads, trips the enemy and stabs them in the back, killing them outright and you aren't satisfied with doing 1d4+3 points of damage to one enemy while your wizard friend hits 10 enemies doing 10d6 points of damage to each of them?

You can roleplay the bad-ass rogue all you want, but when the rubber meets the road, the rules determine what you can actually DO instead of what you SAY you can do.  And when those rules have the wizard waving his hands over locks you tried 10 times to pick and failed, only to have them open immediately....or those rules have you search a door for traps, not find any and then have your wizard wave his hands and discover all the traps in the room...or you try to sneak past some guards only to have them hear you(but not your friend the wizard, who has a silence spell up)...well, you begin to feel like it might be better to just be a wizard.

Sure, you can roleplay just as well as that wizard.  But over half the time, you aren't roleplaying, you are fighting.  People just want to be as good in both halves of the game.


----------



## Dellamon (Jan 16, 2012)

Extremes - thats what I think hurts the discussion of class balance.  The whole concept of "Well, if my fighter cannot cause as much damage in a round as a wizard who casts a meteor swarm, then I am done!".  This is a tactical wargame balance argument, not a roleplaying argument.  Why can the fighter not contribute just as much by sneaking around the flanks and hitting the big bad while the big bad wizards duke it out.  They could turnt he tide of the battle.  Or the priest who provides the critical heal at just the right moment.  Or is it all just about damage?


----------



## hanez (Jan 16, 2012)

avin said:


> You like playing casters, don't you?
> 
> I agree that the 4E model where every single power look similar to another isn't fun, but back to a place where casters rule the game and Fighters watch it's a deal breaker to me.




Not really.  I have mostly DM'd in my play sessions.  In 2e I liked casters because I liked complicated characters.  But what I really like to play is archers/rangers and on occasion classes that are very weak in combat (illusionists, charmers etc).

I also LOVE rogues, but have less experience in playing them.  I know in my campaigns they get serious attention time, because its often the rogue that says ok, Im going to sneak around and try and find some stuff out while you guys sit here and wait.  Granted the party often gets restless and does other stuff, but theres just something cool about him sneaking around and slitting throats.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Jan 16, 2012)

I wonder what the overall "I think casters should be overpowered"/"I prefer to play casters" Venn diagram looks like. a poll?

I do think there is a place for a game where someone chooses to be Superman and someone chooses to be Jimmy Olsen. However, these should be labeled clearly up front. A newbie player who decides to play a fighter shouldn't have to discover after a few levels that he has Jimmy Olsened himself.


----------



## Belphanior (Jan 16, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> Amen to that!  Class balance is imperative in a tactical war game (which I felt 4E developed into) played on a battle mat or in an MMO, but does not need to be so ingrained in a roleplaying game.  There are narrative aspects that cannot be achieved with true class balance.




It's certainly correct that "true" balance can never be achieved through the mechanical aspects of the game alone, but so what? Even if the balance is not perfect it can still be good. Saying that class balance can't be achieved is like saying that world peace can't be achieved - probably true, but that doesn't mean it's a bad goal to strive for.


On the other hand is also the issue that class balance can sometimes be the same as the narrative aspects you mentioned. Spellcasters can choose to bypass encounters entirely by teleporting the party to the end destination of their journey. Spellcasters can gain obscure knowledge simply through casting a spell. Spellcasters can instantly force an NPC to become a friend. Spellcasters can raise the dead. Spellcasters can summon so many allies that they literally get multiple turns per round to play with.

And so on.

The Fighter, as a class, is very hard-pressed to keep up in 3e. Sure he can maybe convince an NPC of something with some good words. Sure he can tip the scales of a fight by being in the right place at the right time. But those aren't class features; the wizard can _also_ do all that, and so much more besides.


----------



## Dellamon (Jan 16, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> You can roleplay the bad-ass rogue all you want, but when the rubber meets the road, the rules determine what you can actually DO instead of what you SAY you can do.  And when those rules have the wizard waving his hands over locks you tried 10 times to pick and failed, only to have them open immediately....or those rules have you search a door for traps, not find any and then have your wizard wave his hands and discover all the traps in the room...or you try to sneak past some guards only to have them hear you(but not your friend the wizard, who has a silence spell up)...well, you begin to feel like it might be better to just be a wizard.
> 
> Sure, you can roleplay just as well as that wizard.  But over half the time, you aren't roleplaying, you are fighting.  People just want to be as good in both halves of the game.




I was using that example as a roleplaying / fun example, not a literal power example.  And I think that is the crux of the issue - class balance is looked at by the majority of players from a purely combat and mechanical perspective.  It seems a lot of people have lost the narrative roots of roleplaying. A good DM an allow a 1st level thief to be a bad ass if that is what the story requires.  And make it a lot of fun for the player as well.


----------



## hanez (Jan 16, 2012)

double post


----------



## hanez (Jan 16, 2012)

Rex Blunder said:


> I wonder what the overall "I think casters should be overpowered"/"I prefer to play casters" Venn diagram looks like. a poll?




I think this is a strawman and is somewhat frustrating.  We got that attitude in 4th, "oh you just want that because you want to be better then everyone else" ... no, I have never heard of codzilla except in forums, and neither have the 10-12 players I regularly play with.

I think in D&D there is a dungeon master, and that dungeon master is tasked with making the game fun for everyone.  He does this buy managing time slicing, droppping the perfect item for the fighter a couple adventures before he needs it, making an enemy somehow magic resistant the adventure after Gandalf "shined a lil too much" and buy calling people out when they are min maxing and not roleplaying.

I think the more D&D caters to "professional players" who debate on what the mathematical best class is, the less it can be relevant to 4 guys sitting around a table because they just want to play some cool characters that ARE DIFFERENT from eachother.

I also think no one wants them to be OVERPOWERED.  No one said that.  What we want is them to be sufficiently different, vary in strengths at different levels and in different situations, and remain true to D&Ds traditional archetype.  Make them as balanced as you can, just not like 4e did because that just made them all the same class IMHO.  Feel free to buff the hell out of the fighter if the system needs it, I believe Iron Heroes and even 4e had a lot of ways to make the fighter more interesting.  Just don't reduce the classes to the same exact same framework in your attempt to balance the game.




> Extremes - thats what I think hurts the discussion of class balance.   The whole concept of "Well, if my fighter cannot cause as much damage in  a round as a wizard who casts a meteor swarm, then I am done!".  This  is a tactical wargame balance argument, not a roleplaying argument.  Why  can the fighter not contribute just as much by sneaking around the  flanks and hitting the big bad while the big bad wizards duke it out.   They could turnt he tide of the battle.  Or the priest who provides the  critical heal at just the right moment.  Or is it all just about damage?



I think this is soooooo right.  Maybe now and then the big baddy needs to be immune to fireballs and the like and you better hope you brought your raging fighter/barbarian to smack him over the head.  Or maybe he's got hostages that your going to fry (I always thought fireballs did a bad job of not reminding the DM that they burn even the good people)


----------



## Belphanior (Jan 16, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> I was using that example as a roleplaying / fun example, not a literal power example.  And I think that is the crux of the issue - class balance is looked at by the majority of players from a purely combat and mechanical perspective.  It seems a lot of people have lost the narrative roots of roleplaying. A good DM an allow a 1st level thief to be a bad ass if that is what the story requires.  And make it a lot of fun for the player as well.




1. People can disagree/have different preferences without having "lost their roots". 

2. A good DM can do anything. How about an average one? Or a sub-average one? If a product can only be properly used by an above-average user, then it's not a good product.

3. I think you'll find that not everybody uses a "story". I for one simply construct a scenario and let the PCs react to it. I have no ending in mind. I have no story. Story is what happens _after_ the events, not before them. So for people like me, we can't let the 1st level thief become badass this way. It feels repugnant to me too - if I'm allowed to be badass because the DM wants me to be at that moment, it's not truly badass. It's being patronized. I want to be badass because I legitimately _am_ a badass.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Jan 16, 2012)

hanez said:


> I think this is a strawman and is somewhat frustrating.  We got that attitude in 4th, "oh you just want that because you want to be better then everyone else"




Yeah, after I posted that, I regretted lowering the tone of discourse. Apologies!


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 16, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> This is a tactical wargame balance argument, not a roleplaying argument.




D&D is a tactical wargame on top of a role playing game.  Or vice versa.  Chainmail that eventually became D&D was an attempt to ask the question "What would it be like if the Wizard and the Fighter from my tactical war game decided to go into a dungeon and kill a dragon?"

And immediately after that thought came the "And I wonder what their personalities would be like and how they'd react to the quests people gave them?" and thus roleplaying was born.

But balance isn't about being a tactical wargame.  In fact, in a tactical war game, it's perfectly ok for the Wizard to be the better unit in your army, because they are all pieces that are being played by the same person anyway.




Dellamon said:


> Extremes - thats what I think hurts the discussion of class balance.  The whole concept of "Well, if my fighter cannot cause as much damage in a round as a wizard who casts a meteor swarm, then I am done!"



It also isn't about damage.  It's about feeling like what you can do matters as much as other people.  In the D&D system that uses hitpoints, mathematically the only thing that matters is damage or the ability to eliminate opponents out of a combat.  The reverse of damage, healing also matters in that it causes you to win by having more hitpoints than your enemies.



Dellamon said:


> Why can the fighter not contribute just as much by sneaking around the flanks and hitting the big bad while the big bad wizards duke it out.  They could turnt he tide of the battle.  Or the priest who provides the critical heal at just the right moment.  Or is it all just about damage?



Because math doesn't work that way.  If wizards are that much more powerful than fighters, than taking out the big bad guy won't matter if your wizard loses.  Because the enemy wizard is powerful enough to take the rest of you out once he's done with your wizard.  Not being able to take out the big bad guy doesn't matter because your wizard is powerful enough to take him out once he's done with the enemy wizard.  The end result is, it doesn't matter what you do.  You might as well not have come on the adventure.  The only answer to this is specially constructed scenarios that purposefully lure off the wizard to fight his own battle but something else needs to be done at the EXACT same time, so you have to complete it.

But those aren't the average scenarios people run into.  The average scenarios is: Party walks down a corridor, ends up in a room with 20 orcs, roll for initiative.  The fighter kills one orc.  The wizard kills them all."

Also, I question how someone can be the "big bad guy" if he's less powerful than the wizard under his command.  That makes the wizard the BBG and him just a mook.


----------



## Gronin (Jan 16, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> ....... True, once a magic using class reaches higher levels, they are very powerful.  But should they not be?  The god-like wizard, sorceress, or priest that is a force in the world for good or evil is a staple of classic fantasy. .........




While the all-powerful wizard etc. can make for a great story it does not necessarily make for a great game.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 16, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> I was using that example as a roleplaying / fun example, not a literal power example.  And I think that is the crux of the issue - class balance is looked at by the majority of players from a purely combat and mechanical perspective.  It seems a lot of people have lost the narrative roots of roleplaying. A good DM an allow a 1st level thief to be a bad ass if that is what the story requires.  And make it a lot of fun for the player as well.




I haven't lost track of the narrative roots of roleplaying.  I think you might be reading too much into them, mind you.  Sure, we roleplay.  I play a Halfling Rogue in 4e who is a swashbuckler.  He over exaggerates his importance and his adventures, he lies even when he doesn't have to, he steals just to prove he can.  In combat he is able to sword fight better than most people.  He specializes in using parrying abilities that increase his AC dramatically and jumping and leaping between the enemies to find the best tactical position while attacking people's vital spots with great precision.  I'm the one in the party who is really good at hiding and opening locks.

I could play the same character in 1e, however you'd have to cut out the entire section about how good I am in combat and hiding and opening locks.  In other words, I'd be the same character, but less fun.  Because every time one of my skills was needed, the wizard could do it better than me.

My fun comes from the FULL experience of playing the game...the combat portions, the non-combat mechanical portions, AND the roleplaying portions.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 16, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Also, I question how someone can be the "big bad guy" if he's less powerful than the wizard under his command.  That makes the wizard the BBG and him just a mook.




I agree with the point of your message, but this is just wrong. There are plenty of BBEG's who have stronger underlings. A smart bad guy will just have found a way to control them.

Similarly, a party might have a leader (not 4e role) even if that character is two levels behind the rest. No problem.


----------



## Gronin (Jan 16, 2012)

hanez said:


> I think in D&D there is a dungeon master, and that dungeon master is tasked with making the game fun for everyone.  He does this buy managing time slicing, droppping the perfect item for the fighter a couple adventures before he needs it, making an enemy somehow magic resistant the adventure after Gandalf "shined a lil too much" and buy calling people out when they are min maxing and not roleplaying.




_Min/maxing_ and good roleplaying are not mutually exclusive concepts -- you can put together a well built character and still be a roleplayer.  I think it is important to remember that everyone has different styles and likes.


----------



## hanez (Jan 16, 2012)

Rex Blunder said:


> Yeah, after I posted that, I regretted lowering the tone of discourse. Apologies!




NP.  I think this will be the absolute hardest thing for designers of 5e.   

I love the arguments that inevivitably occur now and then at my table about who is stronger.  The fighters always argue that they are the strongest. (they aren't the forum frequenter types), but the wizards just say I fly, and the fighter argues, ok, Ill wait for you to come down, or laugh as you run from me.  I like this argument, it strikes me we never had it in 4e cause there wasnt much to argue about, they were all the same in most ways.

So much of this depends on the DM.  My wizards know that someone may occasionally steal there spell book, my clerics know they better be damnd strict with their chosen gods teachings or theyll wake up spellless, and everyone knows that I am working overtime to make the game fun FOR EVERYONE and that they are supposed to help me in the en devour.

It shouldnt completely depend on the DM though, maybe the designers can find a way to make this argument moot.  Maybe the classes can be soo different and so geared to helping the party in different situations that no one really knows what class is best.




> I haven't lost track of the narrative roots of roleplaying.  I think you  might be reading too much into them, mind you.  Sure, we roleplay.  I  play a Halfling Rogue in 4e  who is a swashbuckler.  He over exaggerates his importance and his  adventures, he lies even when he doesn't have to, he steals just to  prove he can.  In combat he is able to sword fight better than most  people.  He specializes in using parrying abilities that increase his AC  dramatically and jumping and leaping between the enemies to find the  best tactical position while attacking people's vital spots with great  precision.  I'm the one in the party who is really good at hiding and  opening locks.
> 
> I could play the same character in 1e, however you'd have to cut out the  entire section about how good I am in combat and hiding and opening  locks.  In other words, I'd be the same character, but less fun.   Because every time one of my skills was needed, the wizard could do it  better than me.



So maybe the wizards rogue spells need to be cut down?  I agree with that.  Maybe on a door with 4 locks, knock only opens one, or maybe make the spell is a higher level or remove it completely.  All acceptable solutions.  I would also agree that any spells that turn a caster into a fighter must not make them a better fighter then the fighter, it should be a much WORSE fighter.  

I think its a question of degree.  What I describe above could be balanced, but NEVER as balanced as "all classes have powers, same amount of powers, same type of powers".   So my personal opinion is that I will accept some loss of balance in exchange for having different types of classes.




> _Min/maxing_ and good roleplaying are not mutually exclusive  concepts -- you can put together a well built character and still be a  roleplayer.  I think it is important to remember that everyone has  different styles and likes.




Kind of agree, kind of disagree. I think if the ONLY reason your choosing a power is because its the best mathematically, and not because it fits the character you are tyring to roleplay... then you have lessened your committment to roleplay in exchange for damage.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 16, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> I agree with the point of your message, but this is just wrong. There are plenty of BBEG's who have stronger underlings. A smart bad guy will just have found a way to control them..




Yeah, I was being kind of coy.  I'm sure he can be the "bad guy"...but he probably isn't the BIG bad guy.  

My point was that he's probably not the one your group is worried about defeating except for some role playing reason...like "The enemy army will stop attacking as soon as their leader dies" or something.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Jan 16, 2012)

I don't think it was fun to have classes whose weights were completely different at different levels (see 1st - 3rd Editions), but I think 4th Edition went too far to balance the classes by homogenising them.

Perhaps wizards should have the most powerful single actions available in the game - but perhaps they should be vulnerable whilst casting and require fighter protection. Perhaps rogues should be able to get away with extraordinary tricks to gain the party advantages in combat, but be in trouble if it goes wrong. Maybe fighters ought to be necessary against those pesky magic-immune types and enemy wizards that need taking down fast.

I suppose it's the difference between sports where one's role is quite general (basketball? water polo? maybe I'm reaching) vs. those where role is quite important (american football, perhaps soccer).


----------



## Rex Blunder (Jan 16, 2012)

"The DM can fix it" is an argument that cuts both ways. In 4e, if the wizard is too balanced, the DM can drop the Robe of the Archmage, not give the fighter a magic weapon that matches his Expertise feat, and introduce a lot of flying enemies that the wizard can shoot but that the fighter can only attack with his crappy javelins.

In general I don't like "the DM can fix it" arguments because they are a universal argument that can be used to dismiss any rules issue. If you accept it as a valid argument for one issue, you're practically giving up the right to examine the rules with a critical eye.


----------



## Dellamon (Jan 16, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> D&D is a tactical wargame on top of a role playing game.  Or vice versa.  Chainmail that eventually became D&D was an attempt to ask the question "What would it be like if the Wizard and the Fighter from my tactical war game decided to go into a dungeon and kill a dragon?"




I agree 100% that this is what D&D was derived from.  However, just because it was derived from a tactical wargame did not mean it did not evolve *from* being a tactical wargame.



> But balance isn't about being a tactical wargame.  In fact, in a tactical war game, it's perfectly ok for the Wizard to be the better unit in your army, because they are all pieces that are being played by the same person anyway.




Also, 100% agree.  The same can be said with a roleplaying game.  If a player wizard is inherently more powerful, the DM needs to make sure the NPC / enemy wizard is just as powerful to balance things out.  The same could be said with clerics, fighters and rouges.  



> Because math doesn't work that way.  If wizards are that much more powerful than fighters, than taking out the big bad guy won't matter if your wizard loses.  Because the enemy wizard is powerful enough to take the rest of you out once he's done with your wizard.  Not being able to take out the big bad guy doesn't matter because your wizard is powerful enough to take him out once he's done with the enemy wizard.  The end result is, it doesn't matter what you do.  You might as well not have come on the adventure.




I disagree 100% on this.  Why is the wizard always more powerful?  The fighter could take the wizard out within one round when considering the low hit points.  The wizard and fighter are both powerful, just each in their own way.  The wizard has a lot of negatives that the fighter does not suffer from - vancian spell limitations, low hit point, crap armor, limited weapons, poor physical saves, etc.  I enjoy playing fighters, especially when playing with a good DM.  A single good throw of a rock could ruin a mega arch-mage's spell of instant party doom and end a big-boss battle.  I think when you get too involved in the math of the game (which is fairly broken, even in 4E), it takes away from the game.



> But those aren't the average scenarios people run into.  The average scenarios is: Party walks down a corridor, ends up in a room with 20 orcs, roll for initiative.  The fighter kills one orc.  The wizard kills them all."




Never seen it happen this way, especially at the levels where you are encountering orcs.  Fighters and rouges *shine* at those levels.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 16, 2012)

hanez said:


> Thanks for making this post!  I completely agree.  I have been wanting to post something like this for a while but have been looking for a way to word it.  (and may still do that)
> 
> 
> I was happy to have different levels for classes go in 3rd editon, that was just something I was happy to let go.  But every class being soooo similar in 4e was really the dealbreaker for me and my play group.
> ...



I absolutely disagree that you can't balance powers.  The problem is the system design, now the actual classes.  Thus, if 5e is designed with balance first, you can have classes at each level with abilities that are similar in power level.  

I applaud everyone who can remember playing and 2nd edition and 1st edition, but if you want other people to play the game, things need to work in an understandable way. The way i level a cleric should be the way i level a fighter. It doesnt mean the character works differently, but it does mean they are built structurally similar enough where there's an understanding in their progression and a confirmation that they are balanced at that level.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 16, 2012)

You don't need perfect balance, you need everyone to feel like they are contributing and having fun. That was harder to do in the earliest editions, imo.


----------



## Dellamon (Jan 16, 2012)

Zaukrie said:


> You don't need perfect balance, you need everyone to feel like they are contributing and having fun.




Agreed, but is this a responsibility of the rules or of the DM? I think thats where the major difference of opinions arises from.  Some want the balance forced through the rules, others think it should be more of a DM / party / story component.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 16, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> Agreed, but is this a responsibility of the rules or of the DM? I think thats where the major difference of opinions arises from.




I believe it should be the *default* setting, following the assumption that it is generally easier to break something than create it.


----------



## avin (Jan 16, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> Extremes - thats what I think hurts the discussion of class balance.  The whole concept of "Well, if my fighter cannot cause as much damage in a round as a wizard who casts a meteor swarm, then I am done!".  This is a tactical wargame balance argument, not a roleplaying argument.  Why can the fighter not contribute just as much by sneaking around the flanks and hitting the big bad while the big bad wizards duke it out.  They could turnt he tide of the battle.  Or the priest who provides the critical heal at just the right moment.  Or is it all just about damage?




You describe a scene where the Fighter is the sidekick of a Wizard nuking the bad guy.

You described what I should call tactical combat, not roleplaying (fighter flanking, wizard duking is not RP in my book). 

I can't agree with the notion roleplaying is "Wizards at high level are demigods and fighters must flank", because it was like worked on Lord of the Rings. I want Conan. I want 300. I want steampunk. I want Planescape. I want psionics. I want everybody being useful at table.



hanez said:


> I think this is a strawman and is somewhat frustrating.  We got that attitude in 4th, "oh you just want that because you want to be better then everyone else" ... no, I have never heard of codzilla except in forums, and neither have the 10-12 players I regularly play with.




I have no clue about what it's a CODzilla (really) 

I wanna tell you what happened around here.

When 3E launched two friends of mine drop the game because their one-trick-wizards weren't as powerful as in 2E. They hate it. They hated Sorcereres being on PHB (go figure out that...). They drop the game.

When 4E launched no friend of mine who played a Wizard like it, because they couldn't be the utility guy and best damage dealers in party, at the same time.

They flat out told me that.

I don't like the way 4E Wizards turned out, really, but the balance among classes is welcome at my table.



hanez said:


> I think in D&D there is a dungeon master, and that dungeon master is tasked with making the game fun for everyone.  He does this buy managing time slicing, droppping the perfect item for the fighter a couple adventures before he needs it, making an enemy somehow magic resistant the adventure after Gandalf "shined a lil too much" and buy calling people out when they are min maxing and not roleplaying.




See? A Dungeon Master is forced to create a monster immune to magic in order the Wizard don't play alone.

Problem is: at high levels Gandalf don't shine "a lil too much". He owns enemies while others watch. I understand that some people are very fond of LOTR, Gandalf being "the guy" (he sure is) but there's more fantasy styles around, and D&DN isn't going to cater them all?



hanez said:


> I think the more D&D caters to "professional players" who debate on what the mathematical best class is, the less it can be relevant to 4 guys sitting around a table because they just want to play some cool characters that ARE DIFFERENT from eachother.




No, this was not my point here.

I will be glad if they play different.

My point is: quadratic Wizards and linear Fighters is something I don't like it. 

I don't want to be the best, I want to be competitive. WIzards have all sorts of tricks, must they do the best damage dealers from a mile or Fighters can come just a little behind?

And, please, *damage*? Tell me how many spells a Wizard or a Cleric have that emulate things Rogues and Fighters can do, better than them.

And, by the way, I'm far from a D&D pro. I never did a min/max char, except for a STR 18 for a FTR or a CHA 18 for a Bard. One of my most known fighters was a cook 

I'm looking for roleplaying in first place. If I'd want to min max I would run and grab a Wizard on 2E or maybe a monk in 3E, not a Fighter.



hanez said:


> I also think no one wants them to be OVERPOWERED.  No one said that.  What we want is them to be sufficiently different, vary in strengths at different levels and in different situations, and remain true to D&Ds traditional archetype.  Make them as balanced as you can, just not like 4e did because that just made them all the same class IMHO.  Feel free to buff the hell out of the fighter if the system needs it, I believe Iron Heroes and even 4e had a lot of ways to make the fighter more interesting.  Just don't reduce the classes to the same exact same framework in your attempt to balance the game.




I'm fine with different, heck, where do I sign? 

Let's just get rid of 2E and 3E level of power where casters solve everything alone at higher levels and don't push every effort to balance in DM's hands.

But, let's get straight, IMO Wizards were overpowered on 2E and 3E, and a lot of people just don't wanna drop that bone.


----------



## WarlockLord (Jan 16, 2012)

Alright.  I am currently laboring under the impression that the OP (and several other posters) have absolutely no idea what the hell a properly played caster in 3.5 can do.  Let's just take a straight up wizard for now, if you'd like.

The common example is fireball.  This is widely regarded as a crap spell for many reasons, mainly because it does less damage than a properly built fighter.  However, the common response is "well if we make it immune to fire/immune to magic, we can balance it so we need the fighter".  There are several problems with this approach.

1) _Too much crap in 3.5 ignored spell resistance_.  I can use telekinesis to (at the level I get it) throw 9 large greatswords for 27d6 damage a shot.  This ignores spell resistance.  I can also use animate dead or planar binding to acquire minions which are straight up better than the fighter.  I don't actually care that Sir Bob the Knight thinks he's the boss, my zombie hydra probably has more hit points and attacks.  And I can ride it, so there.

2) _Too many attack vectors for casters, too few for melee_ Casters get it pretty good.  They've got attacks which attack all three saves, ignore armor, and straight-up no save or be removed from combat..  You can force people to grapple with Evard's black tentacles, or snare them in webs while your skeleton archers whittle them down.  You can magic jar the target's bff and stab them at the dinner party, or mind control a loved one into assassinating them from afar.  The fighter is... a moron with a stick.

3)_In 3.5, fighters are actually really bad at their jobs_.  Fighters have bad saves, AC doesn't matter at high levels, they can't see through illusions (without whining at spellcasters or getting magic items) and they can't close to melee with high level enemies.  They don't have defenses against common status afflictions (guess what casters get?) and go down pretty quickly.  By contrast, casters are stacking up miss chances, damage reduction, and flight to ensure that they don't get hit.

So the "wizard-fighter imbalance" is not so much a "this character is slightly more powerful than the others" as "this wizard is tall enough to ride, and you are actively hurting your team by playing a fighter".  Being in the latter category because you wanted to play Sun Tzu (or someone else cool) and have him be competitive is a terrible thing for a game system to support.


----------



## Dellamon (Jan 16, 2012)

Why don't we shift the discussions away from wizards for a moment?  This has been an argument for a long while and it will never be resolved (IMO).  Lets look at it from a fighter / rouge perspective.  For those who are wanting the Conan, 300, etc. what do you think about a rouge being able to backstab and perform all of their talents?  A rouge (usually) will outdamage a fighter (and mages except in short bursts) in combat.  They will also be more useful outside of combat with negotiations, pilfering, etc.  Should the fighter and mages just give up since the rouge outshines them in those regards?  And what about the poor clerics?  

I like that 4E really emphasized roles in the party, but why do all roles have to be balanced all the time?  Just because a wizard or rouge can perform "shock and awe" type actions in and out of combat, does that make the fighter's role all that less important?  Tanks are needed, and believe it or not some people actually enjoy that aspect. And when the cleric and wizard are out of spells and the rouge is almost dead from 2 moderate hits, who is going to be left standing to save the day?


----------



## Gronin (Jan 16, 2012)

Rex Blunder said:


> "The DM can fix it" is an argument that cuts both ways. In 4e, if the wizard is too balanced, the DM can drop the Robe of the Archmage, not give the fighter a magic weapon that matches his Expertise feat, and introduce a lot of flying enemies that the wizard can shoot but that the fighter can only attack with his crappy javelins.
> 
> In general I don't like "the DM can fix it" arguments because they are a universal argument that can be used to dismiss any rules issue. If you accept it as a valid argument for one issue, you're practically giving up the right to examine the rules with a critical eye.




I agree completely with this --- if the DM can fix it then it is broken.  I am not interested in buying broken games (I have plenty of those that I have fixed -- don't need another one).


----------



## Dellamon (Jan 16, 2012)

WarlockLord said:


> Alright.  I am currently laboring under the impression that the OP (and several other posters) have absolutely no idea what the hell a properly played caster in 3.5 can do.  Let's just take a straight up wizard for now, if you'd like.




I was never referring to 3.5.  1E / 2E.


----------



## WarlockLord (Jan 16, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> I was never referring to 3.5.  1E / 2E.




But it IS the root of the problem and why when 4e promised "class balance", a lot of people listened.


----------



## Jiggawatts (Jan 16, 2012)

I think one thing everyone forgets about pre 3E wizards is that if you were hit by anything before your initiative came up in the round, even 1 point of damage, you lost your spell, no saving throw, no concentration checks, no nothing, fizzle fizzle. This was the balance.

The other balancing factor is that in AD&D wizard hit points are utter crap, the absolute most a single classed mage could have at 20th level is 70 HP, and that is if he had a 16 or higher Con and rolled max on his HP rolls every level from 1-10. So a 10th level mage will have on average about 30 HP. You let a specialized Fighter get close to him with his damage bonuses and extra attacks, that mage is toast...oh and lets also not forget that in AD&D, warrior classes get the best saving throws across the board.


----------



## Dellamon (Jan 16, 2012)

WarlockLord said:


> Alright.  I am currently laboring under the impression that the OP (and several other posters) have absolutely no idea what the hell a properly played caster in 3.5 can do.  Let's just take a straight up wizard for now, if you'd like.
> 
> The common example is fireball.  This is widely regarded as a crap spell for many reasons, mainly because it does less damage than a properly built fighter.  However, the common response is "well if we make it immune to fire/immune to magic, we can balance it so we need the fighter".  There are several problems with this approach.
> 
> ...




Dynamic initiative and a higher challenge level to concentration checks would solve the majority of these problems.  Pretty easy fix IMO.  But then, you would have all the wizards up in arms screaming about how they are dead before they can get their spells off and how fighters with a bow or ranged weapon are gods in combat.


----------



## avin (Jan 16, 2012)

Jiggawatts said:


> I think one thing everyone forgets about pre 3E wizards is that if you were hit by anything before your initiative came up in the round, even 1 point of damage, you lost your spell, no saving throw, no concentration checks, no nothing, fizzle fizzle. This was the balance.




Mirror Image wasn't made for dealing with this?



Jiggawatts said:


> The other balancing factor is that in AD&D wizard hit points are utter crap, the absolute most a single classed mage could have at 20th level is 70 HP, and that is if he had a 16 or higher Con and rolled max on his HP rolls every level from 1-10. So a 10th level mage will have on average about 30 HP. You let a specialized Fighter get close to him with his damage bonuses and extra attacks, that mage is toast...oh and lets also not forget that in AD&D, warrior classes get the best saving throws across the board.




And Wizards went to Wotc boards, with all reason, complaining cats could kill them... so Wotc listened and, tah-dah, we had 3.5 overpowered casters... then everybody else complained and, tah-dah, nerfed Wizards.

So, IMO, it's time to fix Wizards back to what they used to be in therms of utility, but not in therms of overpowering...


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Jan 16, 2012)

WarlockLord said:


> 1) _Too much crap in 3.5 ignored spell resistance_.  I can use telekinesis to (at the level I get it) throw 9 large greatswords for 27d6 damage a shot.  This ignores spell resistance.  I can also use animate dead or planar binding to acquire minions which are straight up better than the fighter.  I don't actually care that Sir Bob the Knight thinks he's the boss, my zombie hydra probably has more hit points and attacks.  And I can ride it, so there.




The trouble with SR was that it was all or nothing. Swingy. I don't know why they didn't make it read like Empower Spell (X% of ALL NUMERICAL EFFECTS and so on). You resist by taking less fire damage, not making the fireball wink out.



> 2) _Too many attack vectors for casters, too few for melee_ Casters get it pretty good.  They've got attacks which attack all three saves, ignore armor, and straight-up no save or be removed from combat..  You can force people to grapple with Evard's black tentacles, or snare them in webs while your skeleton archers whittle them down.  You can magic jar the target's bff and stab them at the dinner party, or mind control a loved one into assassinating them from afar.  The fighter is... a moron with a stick.




I also don't know why more non-magic powers didn't target these defenses (I suppose poison did). Otherwise why not have 'melee defense' and 'magic defense'?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 16, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> I agree 100% that this is what D&D was derived from.  However, just because it was derived from a tactical wargame did not mean it did not evolve *from* being a tactical wargame.



It's still both.  You talk to people, you get quests, you explore, and then you fight monsters in a tactical war game.



Dellamon said:


> Also, 100% agree.  The same can be said with a roleplaying game.  If a player wizard is inherently more powerful, the DM needs to make sure the NPC / enemy wizard is just as powerful to balance things out.  The same could be said with clerics, fighters and rouges.



This is what we call the Oberoni Fallacy.  It essentially means that "You cannot make the argument that the rules don't have to be correct/balanced/work as written because the DM can fix it by doing X because that argument is invalid."

You can't state "The rules work fine, you just have to change things so they work fine."  It's an illogical argument.

The enemy should be able to be whatever you want them to be.  There's no way to guarantee that the enemy even has a wizard or a cleric or anything else.  There's no way to guarantee that the enemy wizard attacks the PCs' wizard or vice versa.

It isn't going to help the fighter one bit if the enemy wizard has the ability to paralyze all of the PCs at once, but the PC wizard is unaffected because he has his Protection from Paralysis spell up or his Resistance to Magic spell up.



Dellamon said:


> The wizard and fighter are both powerful, just each in their own way.  The wizard has a lot of negatives that the fighter does not suffer from - vancian spell limitations, low hit point, crap armor, limited weapons, poor physical saves, etc.  I enjoy playing fighters, especially when playing with a good DM.  A single good throw of a rock could ruin a mega arch-mage's spell of instant party doom and end a big-boss battle.



The answers to this depend on which edition of D&D you were playing in.  Wizards in 1e/2e WERE actually weak enough that their immense power was balanced...up until about 5th or 6th level.  Then they had enough hitpoints to survive an attack or two by most enemies.  Plus, they began to have the spells that allowed them to ignore attacks.  In 1e, spells were fairly easily disrupted(you still had to go first).

In 2e, it was very difficult, since you had to act in the small window between when the spell started and ended, had to be ready to disrupt the spell, be in range, etc.  Most of the time the first spell a wizard cast was something like Mirror Image or Stoneskin that made it nearly impossible to hit them and do damage...therefore making the rest of their spells undisruptable.

This got even worse in 3e/3.5e.  Most Wizards in 3.5e had better AC than the fighters, since they could stack 2 or 3 protection spells on themselves.  Most of the time they were nearly immune to attacks from the enemy while able to fly, teleport, and use any other number of means to never get hit.



Dellamon said:


> I think when you get too involved in the math of the game (which is fairly broken, even in 4E), it takes away from the game.



4e math isn't broken.  There are a couple of feats and powers that when combined together in ways they weren't meant to break the math.  Those need to be corrected, I admit.  But the whole system itself is based on very accurate math.  If you can give me an example of what is broken in 4e math, I would like to know.

As



Dellamon said:


> Never seen it happen this way, especially at the levels where you are encountering orcs.  Fighters and rouges *shine* at those levels.



At 5th level, wizards got fireball.  Back in 1e/2e, it was the be all end all of 3rd level spells.  It had a HUGE radius that could be made even bigger if you were in an enclosed space.  It did 5d6 points of damage at the level you got it.  Most of the enemies you were fighting were 1-4 hitdice creatures at that time, which meant you killed most enemies you were fighting on an average roll of a fireball.  If not, they were so low in hitpoints at that point that you could sit back and watch the fighters pick off the last couple of points of damage.

Thieves in 1e/2e weren't good at combat at any level.  Being limited to daggers for damage and encouraged not to have a high strength meant they were often doing 1d4+1 points of damage at early levels.  Which averages 3.5 damage or about 1/5th that of the wizard's fireball.  Backstabs could only be used if the enemy didn't know you were there...which meant you couldn't use it most combats that you started by walking in a door.

And it isn't about concentrating too much on the math.  It doesn't require concentrating on the math for longer than a couple of seconds and a simple understanding of numbers to say "I have a THAC0 or 15, so I need a 15 to hit this enemy for 1d8+3 points of damage to one enemy.  You have an 70% chance of doing 5d6 points of damage and a 30% change of doing half that to all 20 enemies we are fighting(for a total of 350 points of damage if no one saves and 175 points of damage if everyone saves) ....how is that fair?"

I actually think it's the DMs JOB to understand the math behind the system and to correct for it when possible.  Perhaps you aren't thinking enough about the math.


----------



## hanez (Jan 16, 2012)

I am happy to see that for my main points it seems we are actually ALL AGREEING.  

I agree with many people who have been on the other side of the argument.

I agree that a critical eye should look at the spells and remove or lessen spells that creep on other classes main roles.  I also agree that the damage a wizard can do shouldn't make Conan the wizards sidekick.  Perhaps the wizard can just be better at AoE and Conan should be better at one on one damage.

I also agree that it should not be left to the DM to fix imbalance problems, the rules should strive to fix it.   Perhaps part of this can be a part of "making magical items magical again".   I always thought that items for martial classes were to tame.  They should do powerful and amazing things to allow martial classes to feel powerful and magical now and then too.

I agree that maybe the wizard needs some weaknesses (e.g. rules for making the spell fizzle if hit, longer castimes).  I agree with this on all classes, tinker em to be about the same usefelness!


What I am glad that I am not seeing very much is people arguing for "all classes have the same amount of powers, gain the same amount of powers at every level, and all powers are roughly equal in combat".  I kind of see 4e as having gone that way and it will be a dealbreaker for a lot of people if its in 5e.


----------



## Deadboy (Jan 16, 2012)

hanez said:


> Let the fighter be an unbeatable brute that people are truly scared of and regularly run from.
> Let the rogue have adventures where he says "well I just killed everyone in the keep before they knew we were even here, guess we can just walk to the treasure",
> Let the wizard rain fire down from the sky raising an army.
> AND let all classes have different areas to shine in noncombat too!  If the bard bypasses a whole adventure or convinces an army to join the party because of his charm it is JUST AS SATISFYIN as "causing x damage".   I played an illusionist not because I wanted to do as much damage as everyone else, but because I occasionally want to bypass battles because of my whit.





 But the thing is, what you're describing is 4e and balanced classes, not earlier editions. In earlier editions (particularly 3.x as the problems with balance in 1e/2e only really crop up at highest levels, it's:

Let the Wizard cast Tenser's Transformation, Enlarge, Stoneskin and/or various other buffs and be an unstoppable brute everyone runs from.

Let the Wizard cast Improved Invisibility and have adventures where he says "well I just killed everyone in the keep  before they knew we were even here, guess we can just walk to the  treasure."

Let the Wizard rain fire from the skies and raise armies.

AND let Wizards have different areas to shine in noncombat too with their big spellbook full of "I Win" buttons!

The problem is 3.x turned Wizards into Gods who can do everything cause magic, and everyone else into mundane schlubs who can't keep up. There's enough different myth (CuCulain, Beowulf) and modern pop references (God of War) to suggest that choosing Fighter or Rogue as your class shouldn't necessarily mean "can never do anything beyond what a medieval soldier could do." In 1e/2e, high level spells eventually made Wizards the most powerful but it wasn't THAT bad, because fighters had better saves, better non-weapon proficiences and more attacks. 3.x took ALL of that away and gave the fighters feats. It wasn't a fair trade.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jan 16, 2012)

Balance, at least intended as balance between players characters of the same experience*, is a good idea because it strives to make none of the character _types_ inferior in the game.

*note that same level does not equate to same experience in early editions, I personally prefer the 3e way that level progressions are identical but ultimately it doesn't have to be for the classes to be balanced

Actual characters can still be unbalanced with each other because of lucky/unlucky rolls in characters creation, but this has a much different magnitude of effects across the editions, and goes away if you don't use any rolls at all in the process.

But indeed "balance obsession" doesn't sound good at all to me. If you don't stop at some point and accept that this balance is enough, ultimately the only fully_balanced game is the game where everyone plays the same character.

I suppose everyone has a different "enough balance" threshold... but generally speaking balance works against character differentiation.

Here's a quote from 1ed AD&D PHB by Gygax: 



> "Classes have restrictions in order to give a varied and unique approach to each class when they play, as well as to provide play balance"




Trying to balance everything at any cost may give you a game where there is not much varied approach to different characters.

This is especially evident when different classes traditionally had their "spotlight" in different moments of the game: exploration, combat or even downtime.

One of my favourite features of D&D 3.0 was that it _felt different_ whenever I played a Wizard rather than a Fighter rather than a Rogue... playing each archetype almost felt like having different games to play! I had only short experiences at low levels with even older editions, but I suspect the differences were even greater. 

I really prefer to risk a _moderately _unbalanced game rather than give up diversity for comfortable balance.


----------



## avin (Jan 16, 2012)

Deadboy said:


> The problem is 3.x turned Wizards into Gods who can do everything cause magic, and everyone else into mundane schlubs who can't keep up. There's enough different myth (CuCulain, Beowulf) and modern pop references (God of War) to suggest that choosing Fighter or Rogue as your class shouldn't necessarily mean "can never do anything beyond what a medieval soldier could do."




My XP jar is empty... but you hit the nail.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 16, 2012)

Yes, consciously chosen imbalance is better than accidental imbalance any day of the week. If it was consciously chosen, there was some competing factor that needed to be addressed--and presumably was. You can even think of this as "balance" in the larger sense, of balancing the game across competing interests.

Accidental imbalance is just trouble. You get all the problems, with nothing in return. If you don't pay attention to balance, you'll get a lot of the accidental imbalance. That doesn't mean the attention should be kneejerk in its application.


----------



## Dellamon (Jan 16, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I
> This is what we call the Oberoni Fallacy.  It essentially means that "You cannot make the argument that the rules don't have to be correct/balanced/work as written because the DM can fix it by doing X because that argument is invalid."
> 
> You can't state "The rules work fine, you just have to change things so they work fine."  It's an illogical argument.
> ...




I do not understand your argument here - perhaps you are speaking of something else?  What I was implying was encounter balance and maybe I did not phrase it well.  It *is* the DMs responsibility to ensure the encounters are balanced to properly challenge the party.  If the enemy wizard has the capability to do those things to the party, does the party wizard not have the same ability against the encounter? 



> The answers to this depend on which edition of D&D you were playing in.  Wizards in 1e/2e WERE actually weak enough that their immense power was balanced...up until about 5th or 6th level.  Then they had enough hitpoints to survive an attack or two by most enemies.  Plus, they began to have the spells that allowed them to ignore attacks.  In 1e, spells were fairly easily disrupted(you still had to go first).
> 
> In 2e, it was very difficult, since you had to act in the small window between when the spell started and ended, had to be ready to disrupt the spell, be in range, etc.  Most of the time the first spell a wizard cast was something like Mirror Image or Stoneskin that made it nearly impossible to hit them and do damage...therefore making the rest of their spells undisruptable.
> 
> This got even worse in 3e/3.5e.  Most Wizards in 3.5e had better AC than the fighters, since they could stack 2 or 3 protection spells on themselves.  Most of the time they were nearly immune to attacks from the enemy while able to fly, teleport, and use any other number of means to never get hit.




I don't argue that things got more imbalanced over time.  But this is not a discussion of how imbalanced things had gotten, its more about the necessity of roles needing to be balanced in a new edition.  Clearly, if one class is a "god" among classes, it needs to be fixed.  But does that mean that all classes need to have the same levels of powers?  Do we need to dumb it down in the rules so everything is equal and every class feels special in every encounter? 



> 4e math isn't broken.  There are a couple of feats and powers that when combined together in ways they weren't meant to break the math.  Those need to be corrected, I admit.  But the whole system itself is based on very accurate math.  If you can give me an example of what is broken in 4e math, I would like to know.




I cannot cite a specific instance since I do not play a lot of 4E but I recall reading several forum posts about things being broken.  Maybe that was early on and fixed int he errata?




> At 5th level, wizards got fireball.  Back in 1e/2e, it was the be all end all of 3rd level spells.  It had a HUGE radius that could be made even bigger if you were in an enclosed space.  It did 5d6 points of damage at the level you got it.  Most of the enemies you were fighting were 1-4 hitdice creatures at that time, which meant you killed most enemies you were fighting on an average roll of a fireball.  If not, they were so low in hitpoints at that point that you could sit back and watch the fighters pick off the last couple of points of damage.
> 
> Thieves in 1e/2e weren't good at combat at any level.  Being limited to daggers for damage and encouraged not to have a high strength meant they were often doing 1d4+1 points of damage at early levels.  Which averages 3.5 damage or about 1/5th that of the wizard's fireball.  Backstabs could only be used if the enemy didn't know you were there...which meant you couldn't use it most combats that you started by walking in a door.
> 
> ...




Your example of the 5th level wizard is fine.  But he is a one and done with that fireball.  If you play by the RAW, it will slow things way down for him to re-memorize that to be used again.  So he just cleared out a room with 20 orcs using his most powerful spell (and hopefully not frying everyone in the party at the same time).  There are 20 more rooms to go.  I guess he will be a god in all of those as well?  Your damage calculations will more than average out over the course of those additional room, I think (and probably fall vastly in favor of the melee types).

It is well and good to talk basic math, but are we playing the game to crunch numbers or have fun?


----------



## nightwyrm (Jan 16, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> I do not understand your argument here - perhaps you are speaking of something else?  What I was implying was encounter balance and maybe I did not phrase it well.  It *is* the DMs responsibility to ensure the encounters are balanced to properly challenge the party.  If the enemy wizard has the capability to do those things to the party, does the _*party wizard*_ not have the same ability against the encounter?




I've highlighted the main problem here.  The PC wizard have the ability to deal with the encounter but the rest of the party who have mundane classes are left behind.  

As a DM, what kind of enemy do you throw up against a party consisting of Superman and Jimmy Olsen?  Anything Jimmy could fight would be trivial for Superman and anything that can challenge Supes would flatten Jimmy without a thought.  Of course you can throw a mixed enemy party against the PCs where some enemies are for Superman and some for Jimmy, but then you're basically saying the main characters can fight each other and the sidekicks do their own thing.  This gets pretty close to "the designated chick fight" phenomenon.


----------



## hanez (Jan 16, 2012)

I also think that some of the Oberoni Fallacy arguments are a bit illogical.  You are saying there is only one situation, and we are pointing out other possible situations that make all classes shine.  

I say "the dm should give magic items to if the fighter is feeling week" you say "Why should he have to?"

I say "the DM should have a varitey of situations to make all classes powerful" you say  "Oberon Fallacy!  You have to make a situation for the fighter to shine!"

and on, and on...

But In D&D the DM DOES set the parameters, and he IS supposed to set the parameters to make the game fun right?  That's the purpose of the DM.  So perhaps if in your game a class was running around being god, maybe it was the DMs fault in not puttin up situations where other classes could shine.   

And if the only thing you found unbalaned in D&D was the situation "walk into a room, roll initiative", then again perhaps the DM was doin it wrong because there are supposed to be a variety of situations in D&D (right?).

In 3e, I didnt notice the problem as much, but if it was really that bad  then sure, the rules need to be fixed so that classes are balanced.  Maybe I was just an amazing DM (haha).  So if a lot of people noticed it and they were playing with nonhorrible DMs then I agree, lets make some tweaks.  But its possible that there was also a DM problem too or even an adventure problem, WOTC has been known to make one sided adventures.

But I stress that any ruleset you make will still depend on the DM.  If the DM repeatedly only throws one type of situation at you, then the class that shines in that situation will be seen as stronger.  And it is perfectly logical and NOT a fallacy for me to say "well if the DM did this .... then you wouldnt have the problem"

I also see a little bit of puttin words in peoples mouths, like arguing against a false case.  The superman/jimmy olsen thing.  I don't believe that metaphor was true in ANY edition of D&D.  (Superman was a superhero, jimmy is a weak regular human).  So if your using that as a construct for your argument, your on weak ground.  Unless you can somehow show that the difference between any two classes was equal to the difference between superman and jimmy olsen.  Maybe instead you mean Superman/Batman?


I still maintain my previous posts position that we are mostly all agreeing.  Sometimes arguing is fun for its own sake though (lol)


----------



## nightwyrm (Jan 16, 2012)

hanez said:


> But In D&D the DM DOES set the parameters, and he IS supposed to set the parameters to make the game fun right?  That's the purpose of the DM.  So perhaps if in your game a class was running around being god, maybe it was the DMs fault in not puttin up situations where other classes could shine.




The problem with 3.x is that there is no situations where the wizard couldn't shine due to the huge variety and quantity of spells he have access to.  

_Telemarketer voice: You have a problem with X, there's a spell for that._


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 16, 2012)

I agree to some extent. Inter-class balance isn't something that's ever going to happen and since your objective isn't to kill your friends (usually) it isn't so much of a concern.

I think it has more to do with how the DM designs around stuff to make magic users less overpowering in every situation they encounter. 

However there is a limit. You want your less magical classes to also be powerful and able to do extremely awesome/ridiculous things. like tracking a mouse's path through a blizzard. I think the real issue is that magic at a certain point sometimes destroys all the cool special stuff different classes can do. when you can suddenly just teleport everyone or fly or whatever, the ranger's survival skills don't mean a whole lot.

So there should be some kind of limit there but ultimately it's in the DM's hands to make sure everyone has something to contribute to the adventure.


----------



## hanez (Jan 16, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> The problem with 3.x is that there is no situations where the wizard couldn't shine due to the huge variety and quantity of spells he have access to.
> 
> _Telemarketer voice: You have a problem with X, there's a spell for that._




are you saying THE wizard or A wizard?   Theres a difference right?  Are we constructing a wizard for a specific situation, and then memorizing the particular spell to be perfect for that situation?  Or are we making a class from the ground up, that gains spells as he finds them and levels, that chooses spells based on what he thinks he MIGHT encounter that day?  In a campaign where he encounters a variety of situations?

I don't think that if you go through the above realistically you will find that the wizard "is better in all situations".  If they chose utility, they lost damage, if they knocked the door, they lost invisibiltty.

Memorizing spells is frustrating.  I ran into lots of situations where  there WAS a perfect spell for that.  But often I just didn't memorize  it, or never even had access to it.  Mages don't have access to every spell eh?  Maybe I was just bad at picking spells, and maybe the wizard in your experience was really good at picking spells.  Or maybe my DM was varied, and yours was well predictable.  Or maybe this is an academic discussion where people look at the class and say "hey look what it can do!" I got fireball, and spider climb, and phantom steed, and lightning bolt, and hold person, and fly, without remembering that they were all the same spell level and you couldnt have them all?  Picking one or two from that list is pretty tough and certainly doesnt make you superman when superman is slicing and dicing you 3 times a round with his sword that he gets to use over and over again.

You do remember wizards using there pesky staffs and crossbows cause they were all out and just had a couple utility spells right?  That happened in 3e to many many people which kind of counters your "god" argument.

Still I grant you that you may find the wizard is too strong and should be tweaked, I agree with that statement completely.  But I think if you found that he is better in every single situation, then there is definitely a problem in the way YOUR game was run.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Jan 16, 2012)

*In 2E*, wizards have no bonus spell slots for high intelligence. This seemed to make the priest classes unfair, but those spell slots were exactly the place were they should be preparing healing spells (which benefit the whole party).

A wizard with 18 Int would only know a maximum of 18 spells of a given level. Gnomes could learn all of them, with 19 Int, but they had their own limits (illusionist only).

Spells took time to learn and a lot of pages in a spellbook (many of them were necessary for a single wizard, and he would probably be adventuring with a traveling spellbook containing only his best, signature spells).

Preparing them was time-consuming as well (30 min for a fireball). Throwing a fireball at the room full of orcs instead of allowing your warriors to take care meant that your party would be waiting 30 more minutes in the next morning. It was actually worth your time to have spells still prepared by the end of the day.

As someone pointed earlier, taking damage while casting was game over. No concentration check, no combat casting, no 5-foot step.

*Enters 3E:*

Clerics don't need to prepare their healing anymore. They will be better just preparing a bunch of spells to find the traps for the rogue, deal area damage for the wizard and fight for the fighter.

Wizards have bonus spells for high intelligence. Contrary to the cleric, though, the system doesn't expect him to spend some of them just keeping the party alive.

All those details regarding spellbooks and spell preparation? Drop them! Maximum number of spells known? This is sorcerer stuff! Limited spellbooks? How about a _blessed book_ with 1000 pages?

As of today, I still believe there's nothing wrong with a vancian system where wizards are supposed to fly, teleport, fireball and even stoneskin. The 3E take on that system, though, is completely broken.

Cheers,


----------



## nightwyrm (Jan 16, 2012)

hanez said:


> are you saying THE wizard or A wizard?   Theres a difference right?  Are we constructing a wizard for a specific situation, and then memorizing the particular spell to be perfect for that situation?  Or are we making a class from the ground up, that gains spells as he finds them and levels, that chooses spells based on what he thinks he MIGHT encounter that day?  In a campaign where he encounters a variety of situations?
> 
> I don't think that if you go through the above realistically you will find that the wizard "is better in all situations".  If they chose utility, they lost damage, if they knocked the door, they lost invisibiltty.
> 
> Still I grant you that you may find the wizard is too strong and should be tweaked.  But I think if you found that he is better in every single situation, then there is definitely a problem in the way the game was run.




Wizards also have scribe scroll for rarely used utility spells.

Of course, the DM can restrict access to new spells so the wizard doesn't know every spell in the book.  But the wizard can still pick 2 free spells per level and he can pick spells that are useful in a variety of situations (polymorph) or spells like limited wish or shadow evocation which actually mimic other spells.  Also, DM restricting spells is functionally similar to the tier 3 restricted list caster like beguilers and warmages which is actually one solution I support for further editions - split the wizard up into thematic subclasses.


----------



## hanez (Jan 16, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> Wizards also have scribe scroll for rarely used utility spells.




Scribe Scroll!!!! Yeah your right.  That was unbalanced.  You have your spells why should you be able to make a hundred more.  Lets remove it. 

PS we had a house rule to remove it early on.  Actually it wasnt a house rule, you could do it..I don't know we just didn't seem right.  So yeah, maybe that house rule went along way to changing my experience with 3e


----------



## Deadboy (Jan 16, 2012)

hanez said:


> I also think that some of the Oberoni Fallacy arguments are a bit illogical.  You are saying there is only one situation, and we are pointing out other possible situations that make all classes shine.
> 
> I say "the dm should give magic items to if the fighter is feeling week" you say "Why should he have to?"
> 
> ...




But isn't it a problem if a DM has to DESIGN AROUND a particular  character to keep them from shining too much or another character to  keep them from shining too little? Shouldn't each class have the  capability to shine ON THEIR OWN without being coddled by the DM? That's  the heart of the Oberoni fallacy. A DM shouldn't have to design  adventures around poor character class design, he should be able to  design adventures as he chooses and still know that the characters can  find ways to conquer them while each shining in their own way.

My favorite thing to do as a DM is sling an encounter at a group of PCs while thinking, "I can't WAIT to see how they get out of this one." It's way harder to do that if I also have to figure out ways to neuter the Wizard and coddle the fighter.

I must also point out another reason why I think balance is so important - my time playing a 3.5 Fighter was literally the only time I've ever been outright bored playing an RPG. By 8th level, my low intelligence, low skill points and limited skill list meant I had little to offer the party out-of-combat besides climbing walls; and in combat, if I didn't get lucky and roll a high initiative, one of the parties two casters would either outright win or at least marginalize the entire combat before I could go. Even if I won initiative and charged a monster, I was usually doing the party a disservice because now I was just in the casters' way.

[MENTION=36874]Giltonio_Santos[/MENTION]: I pretty much told my game group that if we weren't going to play 4e I would play 2e or even 1e before I would consider playing 3.5/Pathfinder.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jan 16, 2012)

Over sixty posts in a class balance debate and no one posted this yet?

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


The massive imbalance exists more in 3rd Edition then in any other.  In 2E and before, it was balanced but in ways that would be strange today.  Wizards sucked at low levels but ruled in high levels, had difference exp rates, spells had strange drawbacks, etc.


----------



## Jiggawatts (Jan 16, 2012)

The only thing from AD&D that I completely cant defend is Thieves. A single classed thief in AD&D is gimped in so many ways it hurts. Yes he has those nice thieving abilities, that a wizard CAN emulate if he chooses (although he is giving up resources for the day that could be allocated elsewhere in doing so), but that is it, he is a weaker fighter, does less damage, has worse saving throws, everything. The fact that the thief leveled the fastest was supposed to compensate for this, but it never did, and it was almost always better to play a fighter/thief or mage/thief than a single classed thief (certain exceptions may exist, such as the swashbuckler kit).

However this is easily fixed in two ways, the first being 3E style sneak attack instead of (Im lucky if I get it off once a fight) backstab. Now this would need to be at a much lower rate, 10d6 on a dual wielding thief in AD&D would be disgustingly OP, maxing it out at 5d6 would be much better, although I would say he shouldnt be able to do this all the time, so keep the rule that the victims back has to be facing the thief, but the ability to sneak attack isnt gone after your initial one if he is stupid enough to keep his back towards you (still immencely better than backstab). The second simply being a better attack bonus, gives thieves the same THAC0 rate as a cleric, problem solved.


----------



## Gronin (Jan 16, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> It is well and good to talk basic math, but are we playing the game to crunch numbers or have fun?




For some crunching numbers is part of the fun.


----------



## SKyOdin (Jan 16, 2012)

The entire point of class balance is so that a player doesn't have to worry about whether or not the character they want to play will be effective or not. In a well-balanced game, players are free to focus on creating a character that fits the archetype and story they have in mind without worrying too much about mechanics. In a poorly balanced game, a player might be forced to learn how to min-max a character in order to play the character they want to play, and even then might have to make some significant compromises.

While a perfectly balanced game is probably never going to happen, it is an ideal that any game designer needs to strive towards.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 16, 2012)

I think striving for balance is a good thing. But balance does not mean to me that classes are equal in ever situation. There are times that someone gets to shine and others are just supporting them.

The game is about team work. A wizard by themselves can't survive they don't have enough hit points, if they don't get enough sleep they run out of spells, without the ability to cast magic they have lousy ACs.

Every time I read one of these threads it becomes all about how over powered the wizard is. I read things that make me want to bang my head. 

Someone said who wants to play a character who hides under the table while the wizard does his thing. That was a big WTF for me. In my experience the only class I ever saw hide was the wizard. I have never seen a cleric, fighter or rogue need to hide but I have seen wizards out of spells need to hide because otherwise they would be killed. 

People talk about fireball and how the wizard can just open the door and take out all the orcs with it. Again I have to wonder about the DMs in these situations they make every room so big that there is no chance for that fireball to also hit the party?

I am playing a wizard and there have been plenty of times the more mundane characters have shone. We fought a group of rogue doppelgangers I threw a fireball at them and every last one of them make their evasion roles and took no damage. Then  two of them got on top of me and I had to combat cast and I only made it once I lost two spells and then they took me down. The rogue and the cleric were the ones that shown that day with a little help from the warlock who channel his eldritch blast through his rapier.  

In another session we were attacked all night long so our sleep was interrupted my wizard spent the next day throwing a few cantrips and my crossbow became my weapon of choice. The rogue lack of sleep didn't hurt him and while the cleric lost spells it didn't effect him wading in with his sword and lopping off limbs. 

My point is that a good DM should be able to plan encounters that play to the characters strength and weakness. If the wizard is the only one who ever shines then that is a DM issue and the sign of a poorly planned encounter. 


Whenever I play a magic user I never feel like the rest are my henchmen I am very aware that they can make it without me but I can't without them. 

We are playing Age of Worms which has a lot of dungeons in it. I can't tell you how many sessions I have just doodled on my notes because the rogue is in the spotlight checking for traps, picking locks , scouting ahead. It is sometimes boring for me and for the rest of the players but we know this is the rogue place to shine.

I play high level fighters in 3E and I never felt that I was not as good as the magic users. I was swinging my sword 4 times and because of the feats I had a crit was a 15 and 90% of the time I confirmed it. I would wade through the battlefield leaving destruction in my wake it was really awesome. Sure the magic users may have been taking care of the enemy casters  but if it wasn't for me taking care of the BBEG men they would have swarmed the wizard and killed him. 

Yes there should be balance in the game but the DM also needs to be able to balance encounters if he doesn't then it realy won't matter how balanced the classes are it will not be fun for someone.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 17, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> Agreed, but is this a responsibility of the rules or of the DM? I think thats where the major difference of opinions arises from.  Some want the balance forced through the rules, others think it should be more of a DM / party / story component.



It's easier to create approximate balance through the rules than it is to rely on a particular DM/party/story to have the proper component. It's like expecting everyone to be a software engineer who can patch the problem on their own when they buy a bugged piece of software. When you ship out a product, you try to reduce the number of bugs, glitches, and problems to a minimum. 

I wonder how many people who don't mind the imbalanced classes would feel playing in a system wherein the fighters and other mundanes repeatedly trumped second-class wizards who were designed to be more like Orko of He-Man than Raistlin of Dragonlance.


----------



## Mircoles (Jan 17, 2012)

Because everyone playing should be having fun, not just the ones playing the "Uber" classes.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 17, 2012)

the only class balance I worry about is that all classes are equally fun to play.  Combat balance doesn't matter.  Hell, the AD&D thief is pathetic in combat, in Basic, he was even worse.  But I never saw a lack of people playing thieves.  The thief was balanced because he had lots of cool stuff to do outside of combat.  Stop the game from rushing from one combat to the next, make combats fast and furious,  and class balance matters a whole lot less.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 17, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> I do not understand your argument here - perhaps you are speaking of something else?  What I was implying was encounter balance and maybe I did not phrase it well.  It *is* the DMs responsibility to ensure the encounters are balanced to properly challenge the party.  If the enemy wizard has the capability to do those things to the party, does the party wizard not have the same ability against the encounter?



What I'm saying is that I build encounters often before I even know what PCs will be in the group.  I come up with the plot and idea for an adventure before the first session even starts.  So, I'll write down "Orcs attacking nearby village.  PCs will be hired to hunt them down, the town knows where they live, in a cave.  In the first room, there will be 10 Orcs who are eating dinner when the PCs arrive.  In the second room is where their 2 wizards live.  It is too far away for them to assist quickly into the first room but they will arrive after 10 rounds if the battle isn't over.  The last room has the Chieftan and his 2 Shamans.  They are so far away they can't even hear battles occurring in the first two rooms."

Then, I find out what classes and races the PCs are afterward.  I don't plan for "The PCs have a wizard, so I have to put one enemy wizard into each battle as a counter to him."



Dellamon said:


> I don't argue that things got more imbalanced over time.  But this is not a discussion of how imbalanced things had gotten, its more about the necessity of roles needing to be balanced in a new edition.  Clearly, if one class is a "god" among classes, it needs to be fixed.  But does that mean that all classes need to have the same levels of powers?  Do we need to dumb it down in the rules so everything is equal and every class feels special in every encounter?



It started out imbalanced.  Just most groups didn't notice it at first.  I certainly didn't.  When I first started playing D&D, I just thought it was so cool that I got to pretend to be a half-elf fighter/thief and that I could pick locks and beat people up with a sword.  It wasn't until about 6 months or a year of playing before I started noticing how weak I was compared to our wizard.  And how often I felt like I could just do nothing on my action in combat since the Wizard had the proper spell to take care of the enemy and was acting right after me.  Given...my first game was one where we were already 12th level.  And our DM allowed a Netbook of Spells that was floating around the internet, filled with even more overpowered spells.  Which made it even worse.  But it WAS imbalanced.  And it took a while, but it did start to get no fun.  So much so, that the rest of my characters were pretty much Wizards after that.

I don't think all classes need to be at the exact same level.  But similar, yes.  I have to feel that the attack I made with my sword is at least similar in power to whatever the wizard did.  I have to feel that if we replaced our wizard with a different class that we could still beat the encounter.  I'd be ok with doing 10 damage with my sword if the wizard had to use up a daily resource to do 20.  I'd be ok with the same wizard doing 5 damage in an area of effect.  But I'm not ok with the power discrepancy being as high as it is(sometimes the wizard is doing over 300 times more damage than the fighter).



Dellamon said:


> Your example of the 5th level wizard is fine.  But he is a one and done with that fireball.  If you play by the RAW, it will slow things way down for him to re-memorize that to be used again.  So he just cleared out a room with 20 orcs using his most powerful spell (and hopefully not frying everyone in the party at the same time).  There are 20 more rooms to go.  I guess he will be a god in all of those as well?  Your damage calculations will more than average out over the course of those additional room, I think (and probably fall vastly in favor of the melee types).



This was less of an issue in 1e/2e, I agree.  However, most wizards tended to collect scrolls, wands, and other magic items to supplement their spells since there were so few of them.

You are right, in that most of the time, after that one spell, the wizard sat in a corner for the next 2 or 3 fights doing nothing and waiting for the rest of the party to defeat the encounter, since he had no spells left.

But many times, the group would simply stop and rest for the night to have the fireball available next combat.  It might slow things down, but most of the time, there was no problem with slowing things down.

Sometimes that room was the only difficult fight all day.  Sometimes those 20 rooms would be empty.  It really depended on the DMs adventure design.  If he decided to throw 20 more rooms of monsters at you...well, you might as well pull out your gameboy and start playing games, because you weren't going to contribute meaningfully to the rest of the session.

I don't think it'll ever balance in favor of the melee types.  But it will get closer.  5th is a bad level, because it is only the beginning of where the wizard gets powerful.  Take a 11th level wizard who can cast a 10d6 fireball a number of times per day, and probably a delayed blast fireball, and a number of other spells.  But even the 5th level wizard still has a number of magic missiles to take care of the lesser threats.  In practice, there was rarely more than 6 fights a day, so you didn't have to save too many spells.



Dellamon said:


> It is well and good to talk basic math, but are we playing the game to crunch numbers or have fun?



I do have fun crunching numbers.  Sometimes.  I'd prefer not to pay attention to them.  That's what I like about 4e.  For the most part, I don't have to concentrate on them.  I know that no matter what striker class I pick, I will be doing an appropriate amount of damage.  I know that no matter what leader class I pick, I should be able to keep the party alive.  When I pick my powers, I know that all of them are roughly equal(not exactly equal, that would be no fun...but roughly).

I never had fun choosing spells in 2e, because I always looked at the list of spells and thought "Why would anyone use any of these spells except these 3.  The rest are downright poor in comparison."  It always felt that if I didn't pay close attention to the numbers, I'd end up as dead weight in the party.


----------



## Deadboy (Jan 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I think striving for balance is a good thing. But balance does not mean to me that classes are equal in ever situation. There are times that someone gets to shine and others are just supporting them.
> 
> Whenever I play a magic user I never feel like the rest are my henchmen I am very aware that they can make it without me but I can't without them.
> 
> ...




First, no one is saying all characters should be equal in all situations. That's just silly. What we are saying is that they should be able to contribute equally - something the 3.5 Fighter just can't do.

Also, it sounds to me like you and the players in your group aren't playing Wizards to their full capability - it sounds like you're not even particularly using all the tools they have available to them in the PHB, nevermind all 3.5's splatbooks. Do the Wizards in your group utilize Scribe Scroll and Craft Wondrous Item to break past their spells per day limitations? Do they utilize Save-or-Die or Save-or-Suck spells which can effectively end combats before they've started? Do they utilize utility spells that allow them to steal other players' niches?

If not, then you're very lucky to have such a well-behaved group to not play the Wizard class as its written. Though you have to realize that its not really fair to argue about the Wizard class as your group has specifically neutered it (whether intentionally or not) rather than as it is in all its horrific, unbalanced, as-written glory.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 17, 2012)

JRRNeiklot said:


> the only class balance I worry about is that all classes are equally fun to play.  Combat balance doesn't matter.  Hell, the AD&D thief is pathetic in combat, in Basic, he was even worse.  But I never saw a lack of people playing thieves.  The thief was balanced because he had lots of cool stuff to do outside of combat.  Stop the game from rushing from one combat to the next, make combats fast and furious,  and class balance matters a whole lot less.



No one in our group would play a single class thief.  It was no fun at all.  You NEEDED a thief because there were traps in every dungeon.  Deadly ones that would kill the whole party if they weren't found and disarmed.  But playing a single classed thief meant you were more a tool that got taken out of the backpack long enough to search the door and disarm, then put back in.  During combat, you had to watch other people have fun.  Unless you multiclassed with something that could fight.

I also don't think that "If you fight less, the problem becomes less important" is a solution.  It's very similar to the Oberoni Fallacy.  The idea is that if combat is no fun for some of those classes, it should be fixed so that even if you spend 100% of your time doing combat, the game is still fun.


----------



## Phaezen (Jan 17, 2012)

My thoughts on why game balance is important are fairly close to this blog post by Mike Mearls: The Keep on the Gaming Lands: The Issue of Game Balance



			
				Mike Mearls said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, though, if you balance the game just right  everyone's happy. The guys who don't care about balance get lots of  options and toys to play with, because you picked the right lines and  didn't take away stuff they liked. People who like the challenge of  breaking the game work harder to bust the game's math. They have a  steeper mountain to climb! The players in the middle get to have fun  picking options based on what looks fun, interesting, or that fits a  character concept. You're not stuck with a lame character because you  think it would be fun to play a samurai. DMs get to run engaging  campaigns without taking on too much work that the designer left for  him.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Jan 17, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> I fully understand that we all want to be special flowers at the table with our characters, but should that not be more about character development and roleplaying than stat blocks?  You can make your 1st level rouge just as interesting and fun as a 20th level sorceress with the power to level mountains. The rules should not try to force that, but rather compliment play to make sure you have fun regardless which class you try to play instead of sit around comparing die sizes all evening.




D&D is a very combat heavy game, and there are some serious drawbacks to having characters with a big difference of combat effectiveness in the same group.  Running combat takes up a massive amount of time in the game, so a players ability to effectively participate is going to dramatically affect their ability to enjoy the game.

Factoring out class, if you have a 4th level adventurer in the same party as a 7th or 8th level fighter, the DM is going to have a very difficult time creating worthwhile combat encounters.

 - If you balance the encounter towards allowing the 4th level character to be effective, than the 8th level character will dominate the encounter.  Maybe that character will blast out most of the targets with a single spell.  Maybe the monsters will be too weak to damage the high level character at enough to make attacking him worth while.

 - If you balance the encounter towards challenging the 8th level player, the 4th level player is not going to have much fun.  The 4th level character will miss most of the time.  For 3rd edition games, the best spells may still matter, but there wont be enough of them, especially if you run more than one fight.  On top of that, the monsters can probably drop that character without trying too hard.

The emphasis on mechanical balance of 4th edition may have put off many players due to immersiveness issues.  But it made the DM's job a hell of alot easier.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Someone (Jan 17, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> Clearly, if one class is a "god" among classes, it needs to be fixed.  But does that mean that all classes need to have the same levels of powers?  Do we need to dumb it down in the rules so everything is equal and every class feels special in every encounter?




Even after reading the whole thread I still can't understand well why do you think this is a bad thing. I know it's not your intention, but you really sound that you're not able to have fun unless someone else _isn't_. This combat, the wizard shines and everyone else feel superfluous, the rest of the day the wizard shoots his crossbow and the fighter shines.


----------



## stevelabny (Jan 17, 2012)

Too many of these wizards-do-it-all posts ignore the stupidity of the 5 minute workday. If the DM and the other party-members allow the 5-minute workday, then YES the wizard is overpowered.  In reality, there should be no chance this happens. The DM should do everything in his power to prevent this from happening, and the other players should absolutely leave the wizard behind if he wants a nap after one room/battle  in the dungeon/cavern/forest/etc. 

Have I seen 3.x wizards use scribe scroll or craft wondrous items? yes. More often than not, those items are given to other party members to provide party balance and versatility.  And once again, time is a factor. If the wizard has become a stay-at-home crafter who wants months off between adventures...he has to miss some adventures. Campaigns MUST have certain elements on a timeline. 

Most wizards I've played or played with haven't taken the replace-other-class spells, because they were a waste of resources if you already had a friend you traveled with who could perform the same function.  As a matter of fact, it would be perfectly in character for a thief PC to watch a wizard cast Knock for the 3rd time in a week and shiv him in his sleep.   Or at the very least, to go find a different adventuring party. What kind of tool wizard selects spells that kill team morale?

Most wizards I've seen have had to contend with one or more of anti-magic doohickeys, silence, lack of spellbook/spell component pouch,  magic-is-evil cultures, lack of sleep, super-long workdays, decoy targets to draw out spells, surprise encounters that haven't been prepared for, and a ton of other things that can EASILY "balance" them well through 12-15th level at the very least.  

And this isn't "the DM fixing things" as all of these things are specifically spelled out in the rulebooks.  You CANNOT have a D&D game without a DM. Even if you're playing a videogame, the developer is the "invisible DM".  The encounters do not exist without a DM and therefore asking the DM to balance them is a perfectly valid requirement. 

And if the wizard thinks he is being "picked on" with all these balances, he needs to only look at the rogue whenever there is a roomful of undead, Or a fighter when there's a locked stone door.  The difference is, no rogue ever whined when he encountered plants or undead because they are expected to be a semi-common occurrence. And the one time or two times per campaign a wizard has his spellbook stolen, the wizard says its because the DM sucks.

Class drawbacks are a part of the balance. And the nebulous idea that drawbacks aren't fun and that we should never not have have fun is one of the things that is killing gaming. (See various save-or-die threads or videogame threads for further details)


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2012)

Deadboy said:


> First, no one is saying all characters should be equal in all situations. That's just silly. What we are saying is that they should be able to contribute equally - something the 3.5 Fighter just can't do.
> 
> Also, it sounds to me like you and the players in your group aren't playing Wizards to their full capability - it sounds like you're not even particularly using all the tools they have available to them in the PHB, nevermind all 3.5's splatbooks. Do the Wizards in your group utilize Scribe Scroll and Craft Wondrous Item to break past their spells per day limitations? Do they utilize Save-or-Die or Save-or-Suck spells which can effectively end combats before they've started? Do they utilize utility spells that allow them to steal other players' niches?
> 
> If not, then you're very lucky to have such a well-behaved group to not play the Wizard class as its written. Though you have to realize that its not really fair to argue about the Wizard class as your group has specifically neutered it (whether intentionally or not) rather than as it is in all its horrific, unbalanced, as-written glory.





I was speaking about how I look at balance not commenting on how anyone else looks at it. And I would like point out  that not everyone agrees that the 3.5 fighter cannot contribute equally. I play fighters and have never felt that I could not contribute equally to any other class and I have players in my game that play fighters all the time and don't feel this way.

I use all resources available to my caster when I played one and my players do the same.  I scribe scrolls and make magic items for my self and the party. As a matter of fact most of the items my latest wizards has made was for the rogue. 

But since we are on a mission to stop the evil churches from ending the world as we know it I have not had a ton of down time to make a lot of items and to scribe scrolls. I have to wonder how much downtime most DMs give in other games because I keep hearing about all these scrolls and magic items the party wizard is taking the time to make. Not to mention all the gold and XP costs.

And yes we use save vs death and save vs effect spells all the time and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't always work because you see they are not automatic success. And when they do go off everybody at the table is cheering and high fiving each other.

The DMs I play with and the way I DM plan encounters that give everyone a chance to contribute so the wizard fingers of death someone that is just one less baddie to deal with because there are always more. 

As for stealing other players niches well lets look at that my wizard made an item that allows the rogue to use knock twice a day now that he has that I don't memorize it any longer because I don't need it as a back up if he can't get a lock open I now can put something else there. I memorize an improved invisibility but I usually cast it on the rogue so he can move around the combat area and do massive damage with his sneak attack Also it comes in handy when he scouts. Yes I try to keep a scroll of invisibility handy in case things go bad for me and I can get out of combat before I die.

I carry potions of fly that I made for the entire party in case we need to become airborne. Most of the other scrolls I have done are buffs not just for me but for the entire party to make them stronger when we need it.

When I play a wizard and when others play a wizard we don't just play it as someone who is there to outshine everyone else as a matter of fact we don't try to make any character that is going to outshine anyone else. 

We play as a team so since we are a team we all look at ways to make the entire team more effective. We are friends who play to have a good time and we believe that everyone at the table is responsible for making the game fun for everybody not just themselves.  

We are also blessed with DMs who know how to run games so that no one is going to be the star. 

And since I do not neuter my wizards I can argue very much that imo the biggest problem with wizards being seen as OP in earlier editions before 4 is because of DMs not knowing how to properly craft encounters that let all classes shine and players not playing as a team and having the mentality that it is all about them.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 17, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> I've primarily just lurked on the forums the past few years, but now that the new edition has been officially announced I wanted to discuss something that bothered me with 4E (and to some extent 3.5).  What is the obsession with class balance?  Why should a magic-user and fighter or rouge and cleric all be comparable in power at the same levels?  Isn't balance a subjective quality that can shift based on play conditions?
> 
> I think one of the things that did the most damage to class balance was putting all classes on the same xp progression table (I think this occurred in 3E).  Granted, the XP progression in AD&D was a bit wonky, but I think they were on the right track in some regards.  It makes sense that a fighter or rouge class would progress more quickly than a magic using class.  If you make the progression ratio 1.25:1 (or something like that), you have suddenly balanced out the tables a bit, especially when you consider the challenges most magic-using classes face with survivability in the early levels.  True, once a magic using class reaches higher levels, they are very powerful.  But should they not be?  The god-like wizard, sorceress, or priest that is a force in the world for good or evil is a staple of classic fantasy.  I think 4E magic using classes lost that mystique by trying to force balance through the rule set rather than putting that in the hands of the DM.
> 
> And if you think about it, there was additional balance built into AD&D that a lot of people just chose to ignore (it was too hard to use, slowed game play, etc.).  That balance was in the form of weapon speed factors and dynamic initiative.  It was completely plausible that a 5th level fighter could defeat a 10th level magic-user if they got the jump on them and had a little luck with the dice (and the 10th level magic-user is not a Monty Haulizard).  Could you say the same for a 5th level magic-user taking out a 10th level fighter, even if they got a jump on them?  I think the later is a lot less likely.



Wait - you wonder why there seems to be an obsession with class balance and then argue that magic-using classes should be balanced by requiring more XP, lower survivability, and rules such as weapon speed factors and dynamic initiative? This would suggest that you are arguing more about the _means_ of class balance while acknowledging that there is nothing wrong with the _end_ of class balance in itself.

Now, with respect to the means of class balancing, different XP tables in themselves are actually quite meaningless. If a magic-using class requires 25% more XP, but each level grants it 25% more power, then you might as well just scale back both the power and the XP required and have a unified XP table. If a fighter with 50,000 xp is supposed to be on par (however that is defined) with a wizard with 50,000 xp, does it matter whether the fighter is 8th level and the wizard is 6th, or both are 7th level?

Lower survivability can be a balancing factor in a game that features high character turnover or multiple characters per player, but it does not suit games in which the players are limited to one character each, and the same characters are expected to progress through a campaign. Hence, it is not suitable for all styles of play.

Frankly, I don't see how balanced classes could make it harder for the DM to ensure that every character gets a share of the limelight, or make it more difficult for the players to co-operate. So really, neither of the above are reasons to favor more class balance over less.

That said, the initial 4e classes have been criticised for having similar power structures and similar powers and abilities, which have caused some players to feel that the character do not play differently enough. However, that to me is an indication that classes and powers should be made more distinct, and not an argument against class balance per se.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> And yes we use save vs death and save vs effect spells all the time and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't always work because you see they are not automatic success. And when they do go off everybody at the table is cheering and high fiving each other.




It sounds like your character isn't nearly as optimized as the game lets you be.  The Wizards I've seen started with a 20 in their Int, then they put every point into it.  They've gotten a +6 Int item as soon as possible, crafting it so they can get it cheaply.  That increases the save DCs to the maximum on all their spells and gives them more spells per day.  Then they've taken feats to increase their spell DCs, preferably 2 or 3 feats to do so.  Then taken a PrC to increase it again.

That way, when you cast a Save or Die spell, the average enemy fails on less than a 16.  That way, it isn't a special event when it happens, it's the majority of the time.  And in order to make sure they die, you should prepare one of the Save or Die spells Quickened so you can cast 2 of them in the same round.

I remember one encounter we played where the DM pulled out this big nasty creature, who was CR 16.  It was the first time he had ever run a monster that powerful before.  He looked at its abilities and thought "This is insane, I've never DMed a monster this powerful before, but I think it's going to kill all of them."  We were all around 13-14th level.  Our 14th level Wizard cast a Quickened True Strike followed by a Disintegrate.  It died on round one.

Most encounters in D&D take place against 1 or 2 big monsters.  It sounds like your DM doesn't do that.  Which favors the other characters until you switch spells.  If he is sticking with the proper EL rules, then a number of enemies mean they are all lower CR, which means a lot less hitpoints and saves.  In this sort of game it's best to switch to area of effect spells, to kill more than one at a time.  Spells like Cloudkill, Fireball, and Glitterdust become your best friends.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 17, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I remember one encounter we played where the DM pulled out this big nasty creature, who was CR 16.  It was the first time he had ever run a monster that powerful before.  He looked at its abilities and thought "This is insane, I've never DMed a monster this powerful before, but I think it's going to kill all of them."  We were all around 13-14th level.  Our 14th level Wizard cast a Quickened True Strike followed by a Disintegrate.  It died on round one.




Assuming it had spell resistance, that was four chances for the disintegrate not to work: attack roll (1 fails), Fort. save, CL check and damage roll. A barbarian or rogue might have scored a critical and killed it in one due to massive damage.

Yes, 3.5 wizards are powerful, but the combat is also just swingy, which isn't inherently a bad thing - you may like it or not.


----------



## jbear (Jan 17, 2012)

Class Balance: Why?

Why not? Classes can be distinct, flavorsome and totally different from each other. That doesn't mean they need to be unbalanced. Unbalanced would imply that one was better than the other.

The design goal that everyone at the table should be having fun and able to participate/contribute as meaningfully as any other player should be at the heart of any game system.

Its difficult to achieve without losing the flavor, but I'd bet my right foot that this design goal will not disappear from the core of 5e. Actually, I think the core is going to be so simple, imbalance will be nigh impossible.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It sounds like your character isn't nearly as optimized as the game lets you be.  The Wizards I've seen started with a 20 in their Int, then they put every point into it.  They've gotten a +6 Int item as soon as possible, crafting it so they can get it cheaply.  That increases the save DCs to the maximum on all their spells and gives them more spells per day.  Then they've taken feats to increase their spell DCs, preferably 2 or 3 feats to do so.  Then taken a PrC to increase it again.
> 
> That way, when you cast a Save or Die spell, the average enemy fails on less than a 16.  That way, it isn't a special event when it happens, it's the majority of the time.  And in order to make sure they die, you should prepare one of the Save or Die spells Quickened so you can cast 2 of them in the same round.
> 
> ...




How did they start with a 20 in intelligence from the very beginning? Even if you roll the highest you can get is an 18 an if you use point buy the highest you can buy is an 18. 

My wizard I am playing now was made on a 32 point buy and at 12 level her intelligence just hit 20 and that is because I have an item that is +2 and I built her taking three levels of human paragon, If you have characters starting 1 level with 20s in their primary stat then right there is an issue that needs to be addressed. I won't allow it in my games my rule is no scores over 18 even with racial bonuses. 

I am aware how metamagic works and I do use it and sometimes it is very effective and sometime the NPCs make their saves. That is one of the balancing factors of the game the ability to make saves and avoid spell damage. 

Maybe my DMs are rare in the fact that they throw more than 1 or 2 NPCs at us and they also use terrain and climate conditions against us. 

As for +6 items I rarely seen them in game except maybe for one or two at the highest levels.

I don't care if a +6 item can be made at lower levels it is not happening in my game I am the DM and I will not allow something that game breaking in that early. DMs need to be using a little common sense just because something is in the RAW does not mean it is in the RAI.

Any DM who is allowing characters in at first level with high stats and +6 items in so early are going to have an issue challenging the party following the CR as it is written. 

This is not a balance issue it is a DM issue.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> How did they start with a 20 in intelligence from the very beginning? Even if you roll the highest you can get is an 18 an if you use point buy the highest you can buy is an 18. [...] I won't allow it in my games my rule is no scores over 18 even with racial bonuses.




By the rules a 1st level grey/high/gold elf can have Int 20.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 17, 2012)

stevelabny said:


> Too many of these wizards-do-it-all posts ignore the stupidity of the 5 minute workday. If the DM and the other party-members allow the 5-minute workday, then YES the wizard is overpowered.  In reality, there should be no chance this happens. The DM should do everything in his power to prevent this from happening, and the other players should absolutely leave the wizard behind if he wants a nap after one room/battle  in the dungeon/cavern/forest/etc.



This cannot be stopped.  Not every adventure has some sort of time limit.  In fact, most don't.  I ran 3 or 4 different published adventures in a row in 3.5e, and not a single one of them had any sort of balancing factor for the 5 minute workday.

Well, one of them said that the dungeon should get reinforcements if the PCs leave them alone for a day.  Which I had them get.  But they could only hire 1 or 2 people a day, no where near enough to act as more than a road bump to the PCs.  Even at 8th level.  The adventure was written specifically so that no matter how much time the PCs get, the villains plans wouldn't be finished until they got to the end.  Mainly because the villains plans involved the end of the world...and telling the PCs randomly on day 100 of their adventure that the world ended...little did they know wouldn't have been fulfilling for anyone.

One of the other ones was an exploration adventure into a dungeon populated by undead creatures who were there for 300 years, hiding away from the world and plotting things.  But their plans would take another 5 or 10 years.  They were hoping to go unnoticed.  Still, there were few enough enemies in the dungeon that the PCs could teleport in, fight one encounter, then teleport out and rest over and over again without a problem.

Why should the player's leave the Wizard behind?  They've seen how powerful his spells are.  The last thing any group I've been in wants to do is leave their most powerful weapon behind.  He's their star player.  If he wants to rest after one combat...he gets his wish.  Especially if he can pull out his big guns during the next combat.  In fact, most of the groups I've been have encouraged the party to rest so that the Wizard could recover spells, even when the WIZARD didn't want to.



stevelabny said:


> Most wizards I've played or played with haven't taken the replace-other-class spells, because they were a waste of resources if you already had a friend you traveled with who could perform the same function.  As a matter of fact, it would be perfectly in character for a thief PC to watch a wizard cast Knock for the 3rd time in a week and shiv him in his sleep.   Or at the very least, to go find a different adventuring party. What kind of tool wizard selects spells that kill team morale?



It's not about killing team morale.  Most of the time when I prepared knock, silence and invisibility it was because I either knew we were going on a stealth mission...and the Rogue may be stealthy, but generally no one else is.  Or I took it as a backup in case we ran into anything the Rogue couldn't succeed on.  OR I took it because we didn't have a Rogue and we could simply replace one with spells instead.



stevelabny said:


> Most wizards I've seen have had to contend with one or more of anti-magic doohickeys, silence, lack of spellbook/spell component pouch,  magic-is-evil cultures, lack of sleep, super-long workdays, decoy targets to draw out spells, surprise encounters that haven't been prepared for, and a ton of other things that can EASILY "balance" them well through 12-15th level at the very least.



It doesn't really balance them, however.  Most Wizards have enough spells at high levels with a 30 Int to easily handle surprise encounters and at least 3 or 4 encounters before running out of spells.  Most wizards carefully consider their targets before wasting their biggest spell.  Silence isn't an issue for most Wizards as there are a number of spells with no verbal components whose purpose it is to get them out of silence.  Plus, they have good saves so the spell doesn't work directly on them.  You need to cast it on some object and bring it close.

Either way, the rest are roleplaying disadvantages.  You CANNOT balance combat power with roleplaying disadvantages.  It doesn't work.  It was tried in 2e.  That was one of the major guiding principles of 3e.  A DM can not and should not be expected to shove role playing disadvantages down the Wizards throat simply to keep them balanced with the rest of the party.

I ran a game in Greyhawk.  For the most part the world is friendly to Wizards, there are very few anti-magic zones or items.  I'm not going to suddenly change that because it's needed to keep a Wizard from overwhelming my campaign.



stevelabny said:


> And this isn't "the DM fixing things" as all of these things are specifically spelled out in the rulebooks.  You CANNOT have a D&D game without a DM. Even if you're playing a videogame, the developer is the "invisible DM".  The encounters do not exist without a DM and therefore asking the DM to balance them is a perfectly valid requirement.



I'd like you to point out to me in the book where it says the DM is required to throw out decoy encounters and steal the Wizard's spellbook and spell components.  This isn't spelled out in the book at all.  You have a DM, but a DM can't predict everything, nor should be be expected to.  Nor do I want to, as the DM spend extra effort to make an encounter simply because there is a Wizard in the group.  I want to be able to plan out an encounter without knowing what characters are playing at all.  I want to be able to look at the book and say "This adventure takes place near a volcano, I bet a battle against 4 Fire Elementals would be fun" without then later finding out that the Wizard has the ability to make the entire party immune to fire and therefore immune to all the damage in the encounter.

I shouldn't have to think "Wait...Wizards can make people immune to these things.  I'll give them all wands of Dispel Magic so they can take down their defenses.  The monsters should be able to threaten ANY party of their CR or lower.

If they can't, then the system needs to be fixed so they can.



stevelabny said:


> ...no rogue ever whined when he encountered plants or undead because they are expected to be a semi-common occurrence.



You do realize that so many people complained that the Rogue's sneak attack didn't work against undead and plants so that any campaign where a DM chose those as the primary monster was no fun to play in that they changed it in 4e so that you could sneak attack plants and undead just fine.

I have a friend who after 3 sessions in a row of fighting undead immediately retired his character because he was tired of feeling useless and switched to a Wizard instead.



stevelabny said:


> Class drawbacks are a part of the balance. And the nebulous idea that drawbacks aren't fun and that we should never not have have fun is one of the things that is killing gaming. (See various save-or-die threads or videogame threads for further details)



Drawbacks are fun when they add an interesting complication.  They aren't fun when they are crippling.  For instance, having your +2 sword stolen and having to rely on a non magical sword for a session can be an interesting diversion.  In that the total change in your character is a +2 bonus to hit.

Having your wife kidnapped in the game and having to go rescue her is a fun roleplaying draw back.  Removing your ability to use all spells and reducing you to a fighter with a bad BAB and only the ability to wield a dagger is downright insulting and mean.

This goes full circle back to balancing a class with role playing disadvantages.  In 2e, there was a Swashbuckler kit for Thieves.  It gave you the THAC0 of a fighter of your level.  In exchange, the DM was encouraged to make "trouble find the character".  Things like husbands of the swashbucklers lovers, people looking for a challenge, etc.

The ability was an advantage with basically no disadvantage.  Because there was no guarantee your DM would be able to fit the prescribed "trouble" into an adventure.  When your party goes underground into the Vault of the Drow for 2 or 3 weeks straight without ever returning to the surface and that takes a year of real time to play out....well, sometimes the "trouble" never finds you for an entire campaign.  And even when it does....the DM is unlikely to throw a threat big enough to kill you off.  So, you beat the threat, have fun with the roleplaying and move on.  Probably with some extra XP.

It's a win-win situation.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> By the rules a 1st level grey/high/gold elf can have Int 20.




So I guess every wizard the other guy was talking about was an grey/high/gold elf?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2012)

The adventures may not have it written in them specifically to stop the five minute adventure day but the DM has resources to make it hard for players to get away with this.

One way is to make it urgent that the players keep moving to stop something horrible from happening. They can take all the rest they want but the big bad is on a schedule and the end of the world as the characters know it is going to happen when they take their time.

If they are in a dungeon there is always the chance someone will notice that the PCs have been there and they will make preparations to make things harder for them in the future. 

Unless the players are real smart about where they rest they will find themselves being attacked. 

DMs have all the power here to control this.  

My players have learned that if they try and pull this they will end up regretting it because some how it will come back and bite them in the butt.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I won't allow it in my games my rule is no scores over 18 even with racial bonuses.



Well, the rules say to point buy your stats and then apply racial bonuses on top.  You can certainly fix that in your game, but it isn't the rules.  Every wizard I ever played with started with a 20 Int, since it makes nearly no sense not to.



Elf Witch said:


> Maybe my DMs are rare in the fact that they throw more than 1 or 2 NPCs at us and they also use terrain and climate conditions against us.



It IS odd.  The problem is that the CR and EL system breaks down the more enemies you use.  For instance, if your party is level 12, then you want to throw an EL 15 encounter to challenge most parties.  That means either 1 CR15 monster, 2 CR13 monsters, 4 CR11 monsters, or 8 CR9 monsters.

CR9 monsters generally have such low hitpoints, AC, saving throws and attack bonuses, that they can barely hit a proper level 12 party and die in 1 or two hits from parties of that level.  So, if you follow the EL guidelines on how to make encounters, you are using extremely weak monsters if you use 8 of them in the same encounter.  These are the encounters that is isn't worth wasting spells in.



Elf Witch said:


> I don't care if a +6 item can be made at lower levels it is not happening in my game I am the DM and I will not allow something that game breaking in that early. DMs need to be using a little common sense just because something is in the RAW does not mean it is in the RAI.



They cost 36,000 gp.  If your DM is following the wealth by level guidelines that means that a level 9 character can buy one with ALL of his/her gold.  However, the requirements to craft one are to be level 8 and 18,000 gp.  Which you should be able to have with money to spare once you are level 11+.  +4 items should be able to be crafted without a problem at level 8.

I'm normally in agreement that DMs should follow the RAI whenever possible.  However, I don't see anything that even points to this not being RAI.  It's a magic item in the DMG.  It explains how to craft them.  It isn't some magical abuse of the rules.  And it was perfectly allowed and done in Living Greyhawk, the official campaign of WOTC.

By the time level 18+ came along, our characters had upgraded to magic items that gave +6 to all stats.



Elf Witch said:


> Any DM who is allowing characters in at first level with high stats and +6 items in so early are going to have an issue challenging the party following the CR as it is written.
> 
> This is not a balance issue it is a DM issue.



So...if a DM follows the rules in the book, then there is an issue with the DM?  The CR system is designed to be used with the rules in the book.  That includes all the stat items when you can afford them.

It's that the system allows people to become unbalanced.  Which is a problem.  I think the real issue is that a DM needs to work AROUND the rules in order to fix the system.


----------



## Belphanior (Jan 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> How did they start with a 20 in intelligence from the very beginning? Even if you roll the highest you can get is an 18 an if you use point buy the highest you can buy is an 18.
> 
> My wizard I am playing now was made on a 32 point buy and at 12 level her intelligence just hit 20 and that is because I have an item that is +2 and I built her taking three levels of human paragon, If you have characters starting 1 level with 20s in their primary stat then right there is an issue that needs to be addressed. I won't allow it in my games my rule is no scores over 18 even with racial bonuses.
> 
> ...




So there is "not a balance issue" because you houseruled away "something that game breaking"?

Isn't this the textbook definition of the Oberoni Fallacy?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> So I guess every wizard the other guy was talking about was an grey/high/gold elf?



Yes.  They were the best race for Wizard.  So all the Wizards were that race.  Even the couple who decided to be another race for roleplaying reasons still started at 18.  It doesn't hinder the power of the character that badly to lose 2 Int.  It's a bonus spell or 2 and 1 point of DC on your spells.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> The adventures may not have it written in them specifically to stop the five minute adventure day but the DM has resources to make it hard for players to get away with this.



True, but I shouldn't have to work extra hard simply because the rules create a situation that the players logically take advantage of.  To me, it's the same as saying "Every time you rest, your DM has to pay you $10."  Then, when the players rest over and over again, you can't blame them or threaten them to stop them.  They won't care about the repercussions when they are rich.



Elf Witch said:


> One way is to make it urgent that the players keep moving to stop something horrible from happening. They can take all the rest they want but the big bad is on a schedule and the end of the world as the characters know it is going to happen when they take their time.



True.  This is an idea that might work.  However, I tried it once.  I set a timeline of 1 month before the end of the world.  I didn't tell the players exactly what the date was.  I just had NPCs drop hints that the end of the world was coming and it could be any day now.  Today...tomorrow...next week, who could tell?

I hoped that the players would at least keep moving.  So, this caused them to fight 2...sometimes 3 battles a day.  After all, they were in a rush, and that's triple the amount of encounters they would have done if they weren't in a rush.  This adventure was huge.  It reached the month deadline in game...and I had a choice.  Either tell the players that the world ended and it was all their fault for taking too long.  Torn up all the character sheets and told someone else to DM for a while(since all I had been doing was prepping the rest of this adventure, which was supposed to take another 6 months of real time)....or, I could simply let the date pass and pretend like it had taken longer due to complications.  And therefore allow them to complete the adventure.

I chose the latter.  Which let them get off without any real disadvantage for resting after only a couple of fights each day.  But it was better than ending the game.



Elf Witch said:


> Unless the players are real smart about where they rest they will find themselves being attacked.



That's why they always teleported to a city as far away as possible from the enemies...to make sure nothing happened to them.  Even then, I had someone steal their extra stuff from their inn room.  They tracked them down and killed them, getting everything back.  Their Wizard used spells to scry on their stuff.

A couple of times, they used spells like Rope Trick to hide themselves in the middle of the dungeon without any real trace.



Elf Witch said:


> DMs have all the power here to control this.



This is only half true.  The DM is under restrictions as well.  I refuse to metagame up a solution to the 15 minute work day.  Each time I have the NPCs come up with a brilliant idea that they would never have simply because I want to get back at the players...I sacrifice a little bit of my integrity.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2012)

Belphanior said:


> So there is "not a balance issue" because you houseruled away "something that game breaking"?
> 
> Isn't this the textbook definition of the Oberoni Fallacy?




You realize that for most characters using the point buys recommended in the DMG 32 is consider high powered to get an 18 you have to spend 16 points. That leaves you 16 points for all your other stats. I have played with a 22 point buy which is considered a  challenging campaign if try and start with a 18 you will only have 6 points left. 

Now since we only use core races non of them get a +2 to intelligence. 

So there is no way to start with a 20 in intelligence which is what some are saying all the wizards are doing.

The reason I house rule the cap on 18 is not because of the wizards but to stop elves from having an 20 in dex or dwarves having a 20 in con.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yes.  They were the best race for Wizard.  So all the Wizards were that race.  Even the couple who decided to be another race for roleplaying reasons still started at 18.  It doesn't hinder the power of the character that badly to lose 2 Int.  It's a bonus spell or 2 and 1 point of DC on your spells.




This is what drives me crazy people complaining about wizards being over powered in 3.5 then using examples that are not in the core books. I am going to be the first one to admit that once you start adding stuff from splat books and non core races it can change the balance quite a bit. 

But using core races only you are not starting with a 20 in intelligence. And if you want an 18 you can have it but if you are using point buy at 32 then the rest of your stats are going to be great. 

99% of the time the only races we have available to us is from the core books. I don't think I have ever seen a grey/high/gold elf as a choice outside of a Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign I played in.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Well, the rules say to point buy your stats and then apply racial bonuses on top.  You can certainly fix that in your game, but it isn't the rules.  Every wizard I ever played with started with a 20 Int, since it makes nearly no sense not to.
> 
> 
> It IS odd.  The problem is that the CR and EL system breaks down the more enemies you use.  For instance, if your party is level 12, then you want to throw an EL 15 encounter to challenge most parties.  That means either 1 CR15 monster, 2 CR13 monsters, 4 CR11 monsters, or 8 CR9 monsters.
> ...




As I said in my other post if you use the core races you can't get an 20 in intelligence. If a DM is going to allow races in that are not core then he needs to realize that he may have a balance issue. 

You know you can throw lower level creatures at them as well basically minions. I have never played where we just faced one bad guy unless it was something major like a dragon. And it takes a team to take down a dragon. Sure you may get very very lucky and take it out with a save VS death spell but their saves tend to be to good for that. They roll a 1 goodbye. And yes at that instant the wizard shines.  But in 30 years of playing I saw this happen once. I was playing a cleric and I was so glad the wizard pulled it off because we were the last ones still alive and I had 2 hit points left.  

Also we rarely reach the BBEG at full strength we have had to fight our way to him. I can't think of any big encounter that we took on fully rested usually you have several layers of his hirelings to get through first. 

That is the way I design my encounters and it seems to be the way Pazio designs their adventure paths.

As for a +6 at 9 level first of all 9 level is not what I consider low. Secondly that is  all their wealth so if they want a +6 they can't have anything else without going over their wealth level. Even if it costs only 18 000 to make it still counts as 36 000 for determining wealth levels.

So if you stick with the RAW it will be unusual to see any character with a +6 item as early as 9 level. You do count their weapons, armor, potions , scrolls, wands as well as gems and gold as wealth.


----------



## Belphanior (Jan 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> You realize that for most characters using the point buys recommended in the DMG 32 is consider high powered to get an 18 you have to spend 16 points. That leaves you 16 points for all your other stats. I have played with a 22 point buy which is considered a  challenging campaign if try and start with a 18 you will only have 6 points left.
> 
> Now since we only use core races non of them get a +2 to intelligence.
> 
> ...




I was referring to the way you handle +6 stat items. 

You said: "I don't care if a +6 item can be made at lower levels it is not happening in my game I am the DM and I will not allow something that game breaking in that early."

This is what the "that game breaking" came from. So, you clearly know and admit that this is game breaking. And your solution is to houserule it. Which is not unreasonable per se, but I don't understand how you can end the very same post with saying there's no balance issue. Yes there is an issue, why else did you need to houserule it?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2012)

Belphanior said:


> I was referring to the way you handle +6 stat items.
> 
> You said: "I don't care if a +6 item can be made at lower levels it is not happening in my game I am the DM and I will not allow something that game breaking in that early."
> 
> This is what the "that game breaking" came from. So, you clearly know and admit that this is game breaking. And your solution is to houserule it. Which is not unreasonable per se, but I don't understand how you can end the very same post with saying there's no balance issue. Yes there is an issue, why else did you need to houserule it?




It was a miscommunication when he was saying they were getting +6 as soon as possible which I took to be before at least 10. I will admit I am not familiar with every rule out of every splat book so when I said I would not allow it even if it was in the RAW I thougt they had figured out a way to bring a +6 in at an earlier level. 

I don't think a +6 is game breaking once you get into the teens of levels.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Jan 17, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Well, the rules say to point buy your stats and then apply racial bonuses on top.  You can certainly fix that in your game, but it isn't the rules.  Every wizard I ever played with started with a 20 Int, since it makes nearly no sense not to.




Do you mean it makes no sense to make a human wizard? Cool...


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Now since we only use core races non of them get a +2 to intelligence.




The gray elf is in the monster manual as an elven subrace. (Isn't that core?) Similar subraces exist by other names in at least FR and Dragonlance campaign settings.

In any case any one such +2 isn't going to break the game by itself. When you hunt the splatbooks for many such bonuses (including wishlist or crafted magic items) that stack and select the right spells, they will alter the game.

I think 5e should mostly remove ability score increases, and not use 3e-like complex stacking rules.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> The gray elf is in the monster manual as an elven subrace. (Isn't that core?) Similar subraces exist by other names in at least FR and Dragonlance campaign settings.
> 
> In any case any one such +2 isn't going to break the game by itself. When you hunt the splatbooks for many such bonuses (including wishlist or crafted magic items) that stack and select the right spells, they will alter the game.
> 
> I think 5e should mostly remove ability score increases, and not use 3e-like complex stacking rules.




I don't consider it core it is a DM approval thing not something players should just be able to bring into the game. I consider the core races for players the ones in the players handbook.

l I guess we play differently because when we play with a 32 point buy none of us start with an 18 unless it is because of a race adjustment to get up to that. By wizard I am playing started at a 16. 


I have to agree I would like to see a lot of that toned down.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 17, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I don't consider it core it is a DM approval thing not something players should just be able to bring into the game. I consider the core races for players the ones in the players handbook.
> 
> l I guess we play differently because when we play with a 32 point buy none of us start with an 18 unless it is because of a race adjustment to get up to that. By wizard I am playing started at a 16.
> 
> ...



I 100 percent agree with you.  If you can't support your argument with core books, the argument is broken. 

But that's also why I like a system with multiple methods of rolling abilities and whereas i hope 5e has a point buy or an array system as default and the rolling system as an option.   

If you allow every book, anything and everything can and will be broken.  Heck, with just a core book and a few splats (and a lingient DM) we erased time once.


----------



## hanez (Jan 17, 2012)

It always bugs me when players search splat books for that perfect +2 race.  They end up playing a race they could care less about just for the stat mod.  Thats when they find out the world has a sect looking to destroy this race   Hahahah jk... sort of.

I agree this kind of thing should be toned down.  Races should be interesting and fun, they should grant cool powers, cantrips, effects and have culture added to them, not stat bonuses as they add very lil to the game.  (See Arcana Evolved for a mostly awesome way to make Races cool and interesting)


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2012)

DonTadow said:


> I 100 percent agree with you.  If you can't support your argument with core books, the argument is broken.
> 
> But that's also why I like a system with multiple methods of rolling abilities and whereas i hope 5e has a point buy or an array system as default and the rolling system as an option.
> 
> If you allow every book, anything and everything can and will be broken.  Heck, with just a core book and a few splats (and a lingient DM) we erased time once.




I really prefer rolling my stats when I DM I give people a choice roll or 32 point buy. But most of the DMs I play with are hung up on point buy. I would like to see several ways to generate characters incorporated in 5E.

One of my houserules is core only anything else needs my permission. I don't allow spells from the compendium in my game without my permission either. I find that it lets me control things better.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jan 17, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I chose the latter.  Which let them get off without any real disadvantage for resting after only a couple of fights each day.  But it was better than ending the game.




I think you missed the third option here. Have the world end, and the game continue in the now ended world. Demons wondering around, cities are unsafe, and extraplanar spaces now try and eat you


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 17, 2012)

I have to agree with those who say that magic was broken (or at the very least, eminently breakable) prior to 4e, with 3e being the worst offender. There were plenty of save or suck spells that didn't even really allow a save (such as Web, which was a death sentence for most creatures). The easy availability of scroll and wand crafting also contributed heavily (why bother instituting daily limits if you're going to allow them to be so easily circumvented). Gold and xp were not real limits, as gold was plentiful if you follow RAW/RAI and XP costs were quite marginal.

That isn't to say that you couldn't play a group friendly wizard, or one who fought with one hand tied behind his back so as not to upset other group members, but it's a bit silly to expect everyone to do this. 

Which is why the system should be balanced. That isn't to say that classes can't be different from each other. Just that they should contribute fairly equally.

Take the following for example. It's a very bare bones concept, so please don't try poking holes in it as that isn't what it's intended for. It isn't something I'm advocating, just an illustration to explain how classes might play differently from each other. (In one respect, it almost reverses the old fighter / wizard roles.)

This fighter relies primarily on at-will abilities. He has a special attribute, which we'll call Stamina, that begins each encounter at maximum. He can use Stamina to boost his abilities, but once it's used it doesn't return until after a short rest. Thus, the fighter begins the fight at his strongest, but ends at his weakest.

The wizard relies primarily on daily abilities. These are individually somewhat stronger than the fighter's at-wills. Additionally, the wizard can gather mana from the surrounding environment to enhance his spells even more. However, because mana is dangerous and can only be held for a short time, wizards start encounters with zero mana and gain a measured amount each round. As such, the wizard starts the encounter at his weakest and ends at his strongest.

With some careful math and playtesting, both of these classes could be balanced, as you could measure out their impact on an expected adventure and make that roughly equal. The classes should also feel quite different. One is at-will, while the other is daily (the traditional fighter / wizard divide). One starts strong while the other finishes strong. The wizard's unmodified powers are more powerful than the fighter's, though the fact that the fighter gets Stamina at the beginning of the encounter makes it less of a clear issue as to who is actually stronger (IMO, the answer will vary from round to round and situation to situation).

Would anyone be opposed to _mechanically differentiated_ yet balanced classes? Again, please don't take issue with the fact that you don't like the idea of mana or some such, as again this is just for illustrative purposes. I'm not saying this is how I think the D&DN fighter and wizard should look, just that they could easily be equal yet different. If you do take issue with the idea of equal yet distinct, I would ask, on what basis do you do so?


----------



## kitsune9 (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm not a fan of class balance. I can also swing either way with a uniformed XP system or different XP systems for different classes. Either works for me.


----------



## Dellamon (Jan 17, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Wait - you wonder why there seems to be an obsession with class balance and then argue that magic-using classes should be balanced by requiring more XP, lower survivability, and rules such as weapon speed factors and dynamic initiative? This would suggest that you are arguing more about the _means_ of class balance while acknowledging that there is nothing wrong with the _end_ of class balance in itself.




You are reading a lot into that statement.  I never said anything about ending class balance or that there was never class balance.  I was wondering what the issues were with the classes balanced as is.  Some classes are going to be more powerful than others in certain situations.  I am approaching this from a 1E /2E perspective in which all of those factors were there and provided balance from the beginning.  3E and 4E was where they were left behind.  



> Now, with respect to the means of class balancing, different XP tables in themselves are actually quite meaningless. If a magic-using class requires 25% more XP, but each level grants it 25% more power, then you might as well just scale back both the power and the XP required and have a unified XP table. If a fighter with 50,000 xp is supposed to be on par (however that is defined) with a wizard with 50,000 xp, does it matter whether the fighter is 8th level and the wizard is 6th, or both are 7th level?




I do not agree that XP is meaningless. While a unit of XP may be the same amount of experience, this experience amount will impact advancement differently for different classes.  

If class X advances at a 25% greater rate than class Y, since class Y in inherently more powerful and difficult to master, then there is definitely balance.  Why limit a class advancement framework for the sake of keeping levels even?  For example, if I choose to play a magic-user or cleric I am fully aware that when I am 8th level the fighter and thief, who started their characters at the same time, may be 10th level (provided a 25% delta).  Its a limitation that balances the game while still allowing for differentiation.  Hit points and saves for a few levels can make a big difference.

I guess the point I am trying to make is - classes are different and should be able to advance at different rates!  If you think of them as professions, maybe that will make it a little easier to understand.  Take for example an auto mechanic versus a rocket scientist.  If both of these people spend a year working in their prospective field, who will be more accomplished in that field?  I would dare say the auto mechanic, since the field is more narrow in terms of knowledge requirements.  Both professions are needed and good, and both excel under different situations, but the auto mechanic will learn their profession at a faster rate due to the nature of the work.  Does that make the rocket scientist intrinsically better?  No, it just means they are in a more demanding profession that takes a lot longer to master - and there are a hell of lot less rocket scientists than auto mechanics. 



> Lower survivability can be a balancing factor in a game that features high character turnover or multiple characters per player, but it does not suit games in which the players are limited to one character each, and the same characters are expected to progress through a campaign. Hence, it is not suitable for all styles of play.




I think this is a concept really brought about with MMOs and 4E.  The idea that your character should progress throughout the campaign with little fear of needing to re-roll, an expectation even.  In the 4E games I have played in, I almost had to go out of my way to put my character in danger of dying (granted, this could have been a DM issue).  That was one of the elements of excitement with earlier editions - you never knew if you were going to be able to survive the next battle.  Someone who made it to 8th or 9th level had really accomplished something.  It was hard to do that, unless you started at a higher level to begin with.  



> That said, the initial 4e classes have been criticised for having similar power structures and similar powers and abilities, which have caused some players to feel that the character do not play differently enough. However, that to me is an indication that classes and powers should be made more distinct, and not an argument against class balance per se.




I agree with you here.  If you can balance the classes while differentiating the powers and making each class unique that would be great.  I am just very doubtful that this is possible since one player will always feel left out since their character cannot cast a mega-death-bomb-of-doom even though they just used their really-awesome-cleave-of-deathly-might to take out a quarter of the enemies.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 17, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> What is the obsession with class balance?  Why should a magic-user and fighter or rouge and cleric all be comparable in power at the same levels?  Isn't balance a subjective quality that can shift based on play conditions?



Certainly balance _shifts_ based on play conditions, but that doesn't mean there's no central tendency.

You should probably ask, what does _level_ even mean?  If we were designing a pure simulation, we might ask, how much does a fighter learn about fighting by overcoming a dozen foes in a dungeon?  And how much does a magic-user learn about magic by doing the same?  And _that_ would determine their skill and power progression from level to level.

Not only is that difficult to assess, but it makes for a lackluster game.  What we really want is for the _players_ of the game to all feel _engaged_ while playing the game, and that means playing characters who can _contribute_ meaningfully in the game.

So, we define similarly useful characters of different types as characters of the same _level_, but of different _classes_, and we try to keep the party composed of characters of the same level, so everyone can contribute.

There are other ways to keep everyone engaged, of course, but making everyone similarly powerful and thus similarly useful is one tried and tested method.  Other options might include boosting the usefulness of less powerful characters, by giving them more intangible _fate points_ (or whatever), giving the less powerful characters more powerful equipment (like a low-level halfling rogue with a _ring of invisibility_), giving the less powerful characters a more central role in the story (heir to the throne, target of the Dark Lord, love interest of someone important), or having players control a portfolio of characters.


----------



## Gronin (Jan 17, 2012)

<Begin Rant>

I am really not trying to be an ass here but I think this thread has (in some cases) slipped away from the original post and the original question.  We have begun to discuss and comment on whether or not the previous editions were balanced.  This is not relevant to the forum we are in.  The heading of this thread is "Class Balance - Why?" and we are supposed to be discussing this and how it is relevant to the "upcoming new iteration of D & D".

I am very interested in reading a discussion that deals with how people feel regarding class balance in 5th (or whatever it ends up being called) but I am already well aware of the strong feelings that can be generated when it comes to pointing out perceived shotcomings in a persons edition of choice.

</End Rant>

Now on to discussion of Class Balance - Why?

For myself class balance is one of the make or break issues for 5th edition.  I think that (within reason) the various classes should be balanced.  This makes for a greater likelyhood that people might move away from their favourite class(es) and try out others that may have been previously perceived as weaker.  Also (and more importantly) as a player everybody wants to have a chance to contribute in a meaningful way in most (if not all) situations.  

Balanced classes also makes the job of the DM much easier.  As a DM (which is the position at the table in which I usually find myself) I do not want to have to throw away a good encounter because someone in the group has an uber-character.  It is also important to me that _everyone_ at the table have fun and sitting and watching others repeatedly take the spotlight is nto fun for most people.

Finally and here I am simply repeating what Mike Mearls mentioned in his article that was mentioned (and linked to) earlier in this forum --and I paraphrase here ---  Balanced classes will make those want balanced classes happy and should not really bother those to whom it is not an issue of importance.

It should also be mentioned that it is not necessary for balanced classes to be the same as one another.  Fighters can still be fighters with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with that class, Mages can still be mages and so on.  Classes can be (and should be) very different from one another and still be relatively balanced.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 17, 2012)

Gronin said:


> It should also be mentioned that it is not necessary for balanced classes to be the same as one another.  Fighters can still be fighters with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with that class, Mages can still be mages and so on.  Classes can be (and should be) very different from one another and still be relatively balanced.




Totally agreed on the post. I just want to highlight one word above: *disadvantages*.

Flawless heroes are boring. Some people seem to take "balanced" to imply that classes can have no disadvantages. That certainly isn't true.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 17, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It sounds like your character isn't nearly as optimized as the game lets you be.  The Wizards I've seen started with a 20 in their Int, then they put every point into it.  They've gotten a +6 Int item as soon as possible, crafting it so they can get it cheaply.  That increases the save DCs to the maximum on all their spells and gives them more spells per day.  Then they've taken feats to increase their spell DCs, preferably 2 or 3 feats to do so.  Then taken a PrC to increase it again.




And none of this is broken, save or dies are?  Seems to me the problem is the infinite scaling of stats and dcs.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 17, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Well, the rules say to point buy your stats and then apply racial bonuses on top.  You can certainly fix that in your game, but it isn't the rules.  Every wizard I ever played with started with a 20 Int, since it makes nearly no sense not to.




This is why I don't like point buy.  Every wizard has the same stats.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 17, 2012)

Gronin said:


> Balanced classes will make those want balanced classes happy and should not really bother those to whom it is not an issue of importance.
> 
> It should also be mentioned that it is not necessary for balanced classes to be the same as one another.  Fighters can still be fighters with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with that class, Mages can still be mages and so on.  Classes can be (and should be) very different from one another and still be relatively balanced.



While I agree that balanced classes shouldn't upset people who don't care about balance, the issue is that _designing_ balanced classes isn't always easy, and sometimes efforts to balance classes (or monster powers, or whatever) ruin the feel.

For instance, 4E's Fighters do (arguably) feel like Wizards, with their daily martial exploits that feel (at least a bit) like Vancian spells, and medusas that don't actually petrify with their gaze don't feel like the Medusa of myth, etc.

Good game balance doesn't come free, so going for balance can cost you something in other parts of the game.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 17, 2012)

A different kind of balance might be thought of for a sandbox campaign, that of class balance by content.

If you look at all your PC classes, let's say there are 11, then you include all 11 pieces in the sandbox of the game world equally. If you add in more content for Fighters to engage with, then you need to add more for the other 10 classes too. (I think this was a bit easier when it was only about 4 classes and then subclasses with additional niches.) The key is to include all 11 classes on average everywhere even if none of the players are playing one. The reason is they may seek one out or opt into one for awhile without warning.

Since all of the players already have an equal opportunity to engage with the game, based upon its design of taking turns or sharing a turn together, the balance of spotlight time is already accounted for. Balancing content equality is more difficult, but I think it can be done if desired.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 17, 2012)

As long as they can balance the classes within reason. Sure. However, not in the way 4E did. Which was so methodical and obvious it took any and all character away from the classes. 

When the difference between characters of the same 'role' becomes basically "do you like shiny armor or silky robes?" something is terribly wrong. That's what 4E did. Functionally they're all so similar there's no real interest to any class.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jan 17, 2012)

I can see that a lot of this conversation comes from personal experiences, which of course makes sense.

So, my take.  I hate the concept of balance by skills because it makes the DM look like a complete moron.  In the past it was always up to the DM to ensure that everyone at the table, including him/herself was having a good time.  If not, the problem began and ended behind the screen, not the rules.  As time progressed I saw that the rules took the "power" (for lack of a better term) from the DM and put it in the rules.  While this did take out a lot of the "You can't do that because I'm the DM and I said so", arguments (which I think we can all agree was a good thing) it also took away some of that ability for a DM to do stuff outside of the scope of the rules which obviously broke some of the accepted guidelines and let a sense of "fantasy" stay in the game.

I don't think there is a simple solution to this.  If M&M (Mike and Monte) can figure a way to do it, great, I think the peace caused by that one action should have them splitting the Nobel Peace Prize, but I don't feel all that hopeful.  I like both systems, balanced and unbalanced for what they bring to the table and hate both of them for what they don't.  My preference is unbalanced and flexible rather than the balanced and inflexible, but I am far from a fan boy for any system.

The problem as I see it is where you find your inspirational reading material.  As many have said Conan eats wizards and priests for lunch and picks his teeth with their wands.  While Rand Al'Thor can change the world with a passing thought and waste armies with a pass of his hand (or stump).  Neither is wrong, just different.  I guess that's why I'm partial to the works of Fritz Lieber, his heroes don't always win, they just try to survive.


----------



## hanez (Jan 17, 2012)

Gronin said:


> <Begin Rant>
> For myself class balance is one of the make or break issues for 5th edition.  I think that (within reason) the various classes should be balanced.  This makes for a greater likelyhood that people might move away from their favourite class(es) and try out others that may have been previously perceived as weaker.  Also (and more importantly) as a player everybody wants to have a chance to contribute in a meaningful way in most (if not all) situations.
> 
> ... snip ...
> ...




Well......

There are a lot of reasons why we should bring up previous editions, especially in a proposed unity edition.  I also believe that balance is important, but it is the COST and TYPE of balance that many of us are discussing.

I believe that classes should be balanced.  But not strictly ONLY balanced with combat. I believe that the skill needed to sneak into a castle, and the skill needed to sweet talk a king is just as useful as the skill needed to fry an orc.  As a DM I have seen characters with strong non combat skills bypass whole dungeons and have awarded them the XP for bypassing that encounter (following RAW and RAI as I see it).  

I believe a D&D that gives the players a variety of abilities makes for more fun and engaging adventures.  I also believe balancing across a range of features allows for truly different class options and not just a tacked on skill and non combat system that doesnt feel a part of the "one true combat system".  I believe that 2e, 3e, and 4e had illustrative examples on why with this was so and we should take the best elements of the past to form a better DND-Next.

So I believe when you say "It should also be mentioned that it is not necessary for balanced classes to be the same as one another" you need to be more specific.  If all classes follow the exact same progression, use the same amount of powers, gain powers at the same time, and have relatively simple, mostly combat powers then the game will be very balanced.  But I personally believe that the classes will "be the same".   

What degree of balance do you mean exactly?  The kind where its *somewhat* balanced in a VARIETY of situations but of course there are exceptions and errors that should to be revised and errated on occasion (a la 2e and 3e?).  Or the kind where the classes are *very very* balanced but some people think the classes are too similar and the balance is at the cost of focusin only on combat (a la 4e)?  It's easy to say your for balance and different classes, but its a lot harder when you start taking into account the different ways classes progress, act mechanically, gain powers, and act in a variety of situations.


----------



## Gronin (Jan 17, 2012)

mmadsen said:


> While I agree that balanced classes shouldn't upset people who don't care about balance, the issue is that _designing_ balanced classes isn't always easy, and sometimes efforts to balance classes (or monster powers, or whatever) ruin the feel.
> 
> For instance, 4E's Fighters do (arguably) feel like Wizards, with their daily martial exploits that feel (at least a bit) like Vancian spells, and medusas that don't actually petrify with their gaze don't feel like the Medusa of myth, etc.
> 
> Good game balance doesn't come free, so going for balance can cost you something in other parts of the game.




I won't argue that there is a cost associated with game balance and I also agree that it is not easy to create balanced classes that have a suffiently different feel.  I don't currently have all the answers as to how this can be done, however the people designing these games do this for a living, they are a talented group with a great deal of experience in this field and they want me to contribute to their livlihood, so they can and should spend a great deal of time on the classes.  There should be a way to accomplish this in a way that will satisfy the large majority of people and it should be built into the game at the core of the rules.  The classes are what makes D & D what it is and without a doubt (at least in my mind) this is where the vast majority of the time and effort should be spent.  

If people want to play a game that has uber-mages (insert class of choice if mages don't float your boat) then there could be an optional ruleset that would allow for this type of thing.  In fact this would be very useful if you were playing in a small group of only 1 or 2 players or if you wanted to use this rule set to design the Big Bad.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 17, 2012)

mmadsen said:


> While I agree that balanced classes shouldn't upset people who don't care about balance, the issue is that _designing_ balanced classes isn't always easy, and sometimes efforts to balance classes (or monster powers, or whatever) ruin the feel.
> 
> For instance, 4E's Fighters do (arguably) feel like Wizards, with their daily martial exploits that feel (at least a bit) like Vancian spells, and medusas that don't actually petrify with their gaze don't feel like the Medusa of myth, etc.
> 
> Good game balance doesn't come free, so going for balance can cost you something in other parts of the game.



I still maintain that FIghers and Wizard look similar on paper, but they play very different in game. But it appears that even people that played 4E don't always feel that way, so I figure it is just a particular frame of mind I and other 4E fans have and others don't. But for those that find the Core 4E Fighter and Wizard "samey", they created Essentials. 

I was really skeptical about Essentials, because I couldn't quite believe it was balanced. But in play, it turned out well. Except that I still found the more "classic" Fighter classes boring in the long run.
But then, I did play a lot of 3E Fighters, and I always had them take feats that would give them complexity and many options, and thus 4E meant heaven to me. Not only could my Fighter be more complex, I also could play the type of Fighter that as not possible before - the charismatic and/or tactical leader (=Warlord). 
But in the end, that's really a personal preference thing - some people don't need the complexity, some do, and it's nice if a system can actually accommodate both.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 17, 2012)

Thunderfoot said:


> I can see that a lot of this conversation comes from personal experiences, which of course makes sense.
> 
> So, my take.  I hate the concept of balance by skills because it makes the DM look like a complete moron.  In the past it was always up to the DM to ensure that everyone at the table, including him/herself was having a good time.  If not, the problem began and ended behind the screen, not the rules.  As time progressed I saw that the rules took the "power" (for lack of a better term) from the DM and put it in the rules.  While this did take out a lot of the "You can't do that because I'm the DM and I said so", arguments (which I think we can all agree was a good thing) it also took away some of that ability for a DM to do stuff outside of the scope of the rules which obviously broke some of the accepted guidelines and let a sense of "fantasy" stay in the game.
> 
> ...





Cool post.

That's what my problem with 4E can be boiled down to. It's so well balanced and tuned and all that it's too rigid. There's no room to make things wiggle and flow. Your plumbing has to be completely mapped out ahead of time, you can't fnagle as easily and that kills a lot of the enjoyment for me as a DM personally. 

Adventures are easy to do in 4E because they basically write themselves when it comes to encounters. But because of that they're also too rigid to really expand properly and have them feel right. I mean that's why monsters had to be reworked entirely. Because everything was too exact. 

Definitely do not need a return to that.


----------



## hanez (Jan 17, 2012)

I also had fighters in 4e who hated the powers.  These were guys who never came with the char updated and just wanted to have fun and say "I jump on the dragons head and stab him in the eye!!".

I think when we compare 3e fighter vs 3e wizard, we largely ask "how does a complicated (daily) class, mesh with a simple (at will) class."
  Once you find that answer, theres nothing stopping you from making a mage based on the 3e fighter and a fighter based on the 3e wizard.   (As for 4e, to continue this analogy, it seems that all classes were "sort of" based on the 3e wizard).


----------



## Kingreaper (Jan 17, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> Cool post.
> 
> That's what my problem with 4E can be boiled down to. It's so well balanced and tuned and all that it's too rigid. There's no room to make things wiggle and flow. Your plumbing has to be completely mapped out ahead of time, you can't fnagle as easily and that kills a lot of the enjoyment for me as a DM personally.




I disagree.

I think the problem is you're looking at 4e and going "if I fidget with it I'll damage the balance"; and in 3e there's no balance to damage.

But even if you fiddle with 4e, the result will probably be more balanced than 3.x, so why not go ahead and fiddle? It's not a work of art, it's a game


----------



## Gronin (Jan 17, 2012)

hanez said:


> Well......
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why we should bring up previous editions, especially in a proposed unity edition.  I also believe that balance is important, not at the cost 4e incurred which was to me, classes playing relatively the same.  Others disagree, hence the talk about editions.
> 
> ...




Okay fair enough -- you make a valid point regarding there being a need for some reference to earlier editions.  

Now as to a balance -- I am in complete agreement that balance doesn't only have to be a combat thing and that balance can come in the form of skill benefits or other areas.  That being said, combat is a big part of the majority of campaigns and as such all classes should be able to contribute in meaningful ways to the fight. 

To be completely honest I don't have the answer I am simply stating what I would like to see in an ideal game.  I do understand that there are certain sacrifices that need to be made in order to get a balanced set of characters.  

As a side note and yes a reference to earlier editions and complaints of a lack of balance --- I have never been all that unhappy with how balanced any particular class was in any edition. Nor have I felt that all the classes were the same in 4th Ed.  Although I generally DM when I play I have never been interested in playing Wizards and rarely interested in Clerics.  I usually play a fighter or rogue and I have never felt like I wasn't contributing.  That being said I am a min/max type of player (I also love to role play) and I have a fairly large personality at the table so I really don't ever feel left out.

Finally I am not a game designer (although like most of us I do tinker) and I cannot spend all day trying to work through this problem.  I am going to put my trust in a very talented group of people and hope that they can come up with a solution that I find satisfactory.  If they don't then my solution is simple -- I do not need to buy.

Finally I would like to say that I hope nobody was offended by what I said earlier and that I always enjoy reading posts on ENWorld -- I may not always agree but it is nice to see such an active group of people all of whom a trying to make the game we all love better.  I would encourage everyone to throw their two cents worth in any time they have something to say --- it's kind of like voting if you don't participate in the process you have no right to complain about the results.


----------



## Aenghus (Jan 17, 2012)

I want classes to be balanced, but a certain sort of balance. It's ok for particular classes to have specialities, but I never want classes to be useless. 

All or nothing drawbacks don't produce balance, they produce frustration. at best, train wrecks at worst.

Anti magic fields, sneak attack not working at all on certain monsters, monsters being totally immune to weapons, burning or stealing spellbooks -  these all can be used to hose particular PCs in various D&D editions. And I hate them all. Feeling useless till the DM-imposed plot device is turned off is not a fun game experience. 

I am not saying bad stuff can't happen to PCs. But  the only fun I see in depriving players of the game experience  wanted by selecting a  particular class is of the "Sucks to be you" sort, and I think thats badwrongfun.

I could live with some sort of situational penalty to class abilites, but just arbitrarily turning them all off is a bad mechanic.


----------



## Siberys (Jan 17, 2012)

(A note; I skimmed the thread, sorry. If this has been said already... well, consider this a +1, then)

IMV, class balance is important because D&D is a game. Given a particular level, any character of any class should be on roughly equal footing, because otherwise gameplay will suffer. If you really want to replicate the 'super powerful magic user' there is a way to do that without shifting the balance to be heavily in favor of the casters - you have casters be a higher level than noncasters. It's built right into the system. Level is, after all, a measure of power, no? No need to confuse the game mechanics to do something you can easily do by handing the casters a few extra levels.

Not that I'd do that. It seems counterproductive to my sensibilities. YMMV, though.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 17, 2012)

These debates are always a little like watching a train wreck, in part, because so many people sling around so many extreme and ultimately goofy arguments.

Is anybody saying all forms of class balance are bad? No. But how far is too far? What methods will people accept? I'd argue that 4e took things too far or used the wrong method given that WotC is already turning around on playtesting an edition that is intended to appeal to non-4e players as well as 4e players. So we should look at the 4e solution to healing the rift as suspect.


On extreme cases
These tend to crop up in these discussions a lot. You're going to get them in rule systems in which you have choices. Take a look at GURPS and Champions. Characters are perfectly balanced right? They all start with exactly the same number of points. But characters are all built with lots of choices before the players, including the choice to build characters in completely opposite directions leaving them incredible unbalanced with each other. Why should we expect any edition of D&D that involves any meaningful choices in character building be any different? And yeah, you see it in 4e too despite efforts to blunt the effect. Differences may not be as pronounced as in 3e, I suppose, but you still see them.

Extreme cases, the kinds you see with hard-nosed optimizers red line the system like drag racers red line engines. An engine that works perfectly fine for most applications won't work well for a drag racer. D&D is not a drag racing engine. It never has been and it probably shouldn't be one in its most common form. Let 3rd party publishers handle that sort of thing with alternative sub-systems published under an OGL. 


On the topic of the sensibility of starting a wizard with anything lower than a 20: you realize that the default method in 3x (and every edition prior to that, I believe) was to roll dice to get your scores. *You didn't get to choose to have a 20 in your Intelligence.* You had to get pretty lucky. Alternative methods of generating stats are house rules - they may be options listed in a DMG somewhere, but choosing to use them instead of the default assumption is in house-rule territory. Make that choice and your balance-favoring house rule starts to cause imbalance by making that 20 in Intelligence a common occurrence instead of a statistical rarity. Fortunately, point buy isn't even 4e's default stat generation method. That's a standard array. Admittedly, it's designed to give the optimizer an 18, but that's still lower than 20.


On the Oberroni fallacy
Man, if I had a nickel every time someone bandied that about. Using good DM judgment and advocating same isn't a use of the Oberroni fallacy. Making sure PCs don't get unbalancing gear before it's no longer unbalancing used to be part of the art of good DMing. That +6 stat booster? Most PCs won't be able to afford it, if using the published guidelines, until they're over 10th level anyway. So, is following the published guidelines using the Oberroni fallacy? I'm confused.

If advocating good DMing and game management is somehow now a logical fallacy, D&D has come a long way and not in a good direction.


Game Balance - or meta balance
Whether or not an edition of D&D is balanced depends an awful lot on how you expect an RPG to be balanced and not just mechanically. How should the game balance between being a simulation of a fantasy world and a game of manipulated pieces within a rule structure. How much should the game's rules define what can be done or how much help should they offer a DM trying to operationalize the actions his players want to take? 

There's always been some gamism in D&D rules, there has to be. But the balance has been shifting, particularly over the life of 3e, away from simulationism and toward gamism. And the effect has been a mixed bag. 3.5 nerfed a number of magical effects to promote a certain view of combat gamism that has reached its ultimate expression so far in 4e. 3.0's streamlining of spellcasting and initiative, gamist moves to be sure, reduced spellcaster vulnerability compared to martial classes. Taking all of a character's iterative attacks at one, also a gamist move, pushes the game into swingier combat resolution territory. The shift in the gamist direction have, as far as I can tell, only led to more and more of it in an attempt to fix the problems it has caused. Yet the gamist shift seems to include a limit to its appeal. If it didn't, I don't think we would be talking about 5e this early.

With a more simulationist approach, it's OK for game balance to be a lot fuzzier. Magic *should* be magical and be functionally unlimited, not nerfed so it doesn't leave the fighter behind. Let the limitations fall on the caster attempting to wield it by making it harder on him even if means having mechanics that aren't as smooth or easy to use from a gamist perspective. It's OK for a fighter to not have the same bizarre things he can do that the wizard has, compared to fantasy literature, the D&D fighter is still holding his own with pretty awesome feats that you'll rarely even see Conan do.

Personally, I come down on the side of simulationism way more than I come down on the gamist side. I'm OK with more imbalance between characters than people on the gamist side. I look at D&D as having evolved from wargames and aspiring to much more as a result. 4e, to me, is an evolutionary throwback in focus even if its mechanics have advanced further than earlier editions of D&D. In an RPG, the rules serve to provide a basis for the genre simulation in a reasonably fair manner. That's all I care for them to do and, as a result, don't mind a certain amount of imbalance that helps reinforce the genre.


----------



## stevelabny (Jan 17, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> This cannot be stopped.  Not every adventure has some sort of time limit.  In fact, most don't.




DMG says its the DM's job to make the game fun for everyone and stop spotlight hogging. Adding a time limit isn't hard.  I see in your response elsehwere you added a ONE MONTH time limit to one of your adventures, your party blew the deadline and rather than have any negative consequences at all you just let them get away with it. That is an epic failure of DMing.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Why should the player's leave the Wizard behind?




Because the players know its cheesing the rules? Or more importantly because the CHARACTERS see it as as boring, dishonorable, and cowardly?   Because if anyone ever lives to tell the tale of these victories, the next set of enemies will do everything they can to mess with a teleport in, one fight, teleport out strategy?  (Like: re-arrange the furniture!) 




Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's not about killing team morale.  Most of the time when I prepared knock, silence and invisibility it was because I either knew we were going on a stealth mission...and the Rogue may be stealthy, but generally no one else is.  Or I took it as a backup in case we ran into anything the Rogue couldn't succeed on.  OR I took it because we didn't have a Rogue and we could simply replace one with spells instead.





If you don't have a rogue, replacing rogue skills is not a problem. If you know in advance that you are going on a stealth mission and bring stealth spells to help the non-rogues in the party, this is not a problem.  If the wizard always have utility spells memorized 'just in case' or carry along an unlimited amount of utility scrolls (miraculously at the ready and not requiring a  rummage-through-the-backpack-round) he is just not being a people-person. Maybe he has a 6 charisma to balance his 20 int and he's just playing it up. 




Majoru Oakheart said:


> It doesn't really balance them, however.  Most Wizards have enough spells at high levels with a 30 Int





Now its up to 30? Let's powergame the system till it breaks and then call it broken.  



Majoru Oakheart said:


> to easily handle surprise encounters and at least 3 or 4 encounters before running out of spells.





Not with the kind of encounter-wiping power you've been describing. They may be able to dominate 1 or 2 encounters, but by 3 and 4 they're just helping out. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Silence isn't an issue for most Wizards as there are a number of spells with no verbal components whose purpose it is to get them out of silence.





There are. But are those the ones you prepared today? Or is your intel so good that you knew to expect silence today and prepared only spells with no verbal component. You poo-poo this but it is a pretty serious limiter.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Plus, they have good saves so the spell doesn't work directly on them.  You need to cast it on some object and bring it close.





Not usually that hard, unless this supreme wizards also fly every combat?



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'd like you to point out to me in the book where it says the DM is required to throw out decoy encounters and steal the Wizard's spellbook and spell components.  This isn't spelled out in the book at all.





Sure it is. It specifically says a wizard must have his spellbook to memorize spells and provides lists of spell components.  I think rules are also provided for saving throws for spellbooks?  Anyone who knows anything about magic will know about these requirements and therefore targeting these two items is just as viable a strategy as casting silence. It is not required anymore than any other good strategy from the bad guys is required. If a DM just moves his monsters 30 feet forward every round and uses their most powerful available ability without any strategy, that is another epic failure. And another great example of why the DM is necessary and two different DMs can still run completely different "perfectly balanced" encounters. 




Majoru Oakheart said:


> You have a DM, but a DM can't predict everything, nor should be be expected to.  Nor do I want to, as the DM spend extra effort to make an encounter simply because there is a Wizard in the group.





Can't predict everything sure is a a far leap from there's a wizard. And as a DM, you should know what spells your wizard has learned.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I want to be able to plan out an encounter without knowing what characters are playing at all.





So, for example, rangers in a campaign you run might never see their favored enemy?  You might want this, but this is a horrible thing to want.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I want to be able to look at the book and say "This adventure takes place near a volcano, I bet a battle against 4 Fire Elementals would be fun" without then later finding out that the Wizard has the ability to make the entire party immune to fire and therefore immune to all the damage in the encounter.





But just from knowing that Protection from Fire spells exist, you should know this is a possibility even if you are running an adventure for strangers.  



Majoru Oakheart said:


> The monsters should be able to threaten ANY party of their CR or lower.





No, no, no. Sometimes there are favorable and unfavorable "matchups"  Especially so if the party is 4 wizards or 4 rogues or 4 fighters or 4 clerics.  A roomful of undead should be easier for 4 undead-hating clerics than 4 anything else.  



Majoru Oakheart said:


> You do realize that so many people complained that the Rogue's sneak attack didn't work against undead and plants so that any campaign where a DM chose those as the primary monster was no fun to play in that they changed it in 4e so that you could sneak attack plants and undead just fine.





Yes, I do realize that 4e continued the trend of catering to whiny brats. That's why 4e failed and I'm posting in a 5e thread!

*Mod Note: Name calling is grounds for expulsion from a thread, folks.  Don't do this.  ~Umbran*



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I have a friend who after 3 sessions in a row of fighting undead immediately retired his character because he was tired of feeling useless and switched to a Wizard instead.





You have a friend with another HORRIBLE DM. Why would he have 3 entire sessions of fighting undead without giving the thief something to do? 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> Drawbacks are fun when they add an interesting complication.  They aren't fun when they are crippling.  For instance, having your +2 sword stolen and having to rely on a non magical sword for a session can be an interesting diversion.  In that the total change in your character is a +2 bonus to hit.
> 
> Having your wife kidnapped in the game and having to go rescue her is a fun roleplaying draw back.  Removing your ability to use all spells and reducing you to a fighter with a bad BAB and only the ability to wield a dagger is downright insulting and mean.





Um, wait. If your spell components were lost, what happened to all those magic items and scrolls you were telling me about?  If your spell book was stolen, you might still have stuff memorized from this morning.  Temporarily reducing your ability to cast spells is not insulting or mean.
Also, see how the fighter in your example has a backup sword, or at least a dagger in his boot? Why is your wizard so one-dimensional? Wouldn't it have been nice to spend a few stat-points or feats for versatility rather than min-max the game to death? 


The power gamer mindset of "I can make PunPun, so therefore the system is broken" is incorrect.   PunPun is cute as  a thought experiment but anyone who actually brings him to the table should be beaten repeatedly around the face with a mackerel.

Class balance needs to be "If 4 normal people who arent trying to cheese everything they do play 4 different classes, and the DM is semi-competent at understanding table dynamics are they all getting to do interesting things every session"   and not  "If 4 bored power gamers exploit every loophole in the rules and the DM let's them get away with it to protect 'his story'  then clearly the rules need to be more rigid to balance everything out.   That way lies MADNESS. Or, in a best case scenario, sameness. Which also stinks.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 17, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> Why should a magic-user and fighter or rouge and cleric all be comparable in power at the same levels?



Because they're all being played by real, live people that are engaged in a friendly, cooperative, and fun gaming experience.

It doesn't mean that all classes need to be exactly the same. I think that ideally, each player should have the capability to contribute equally to any facet of the game that is going to take up a lot of playing time. Whether a player chooses to exercise that capability or not is up the player, and not determined for them by hidden assumptions of the rules.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> I have to agree with those who say that magic was broken (or at the very least, eminently breakable) prior to 4e, with 3e being the worst offender. There were plenty of save or suck spells that didn't even really allow a save (such as Web, which was a death sentence for most creatures). The easy availability of scroll and wand crafting also contributed heavily (why bother instituting daily limits if you're going to allow them to be so easily circumvented). Gold and xp were not real limits, as gold was plentiful if you follow RAW/RAI and XP costs were quite marginal.
> 
> That isn't to say that you couldn't play a group friendly wizard, or one who fought with one hand tied behind his back so as not to upset other group members, but it's a bit silly to expect everyone to do this.




Web does have a save if you make it you move through the web slowly. if you tangled you can spend a round using strength or escape artist to break free. I have never seen web as an death sentence all that often usually it just slowed down the other guys to give you a chance to get away. I have never seen a PC die in a web Evards Black Tentacles yes web no. 

Yes the rules for scribing scrolls and making magic items are relatively cheap in 3E an Issue I have with it but and this is a big but unless you are allowing your party huge amounts of downtime there is a limit of how many you can make. And that is not just the DM being a meanie it is way of managing the flow of the game. 

It is my opinion everyone should play a friendly wizard. fighter , rogue fill in the blank as a player you have a responsibility not to be a jerk at the table which means doing things that impact another player's character and stepping all over their toes.

I play party friendly wizards all the time and I don't play with one hand tied behind my back.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Jan 17, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Most D&D games spend 50-80% of the game in combat. .




Whoa. Keep me away from those games.


----------



## Belphanior (Jan 17, 2012)

billd91 said:


> On the Oberroni fallacy
> Man, if I had a nickel every time someone bandied that about. Using good DM judgment and advocating same isn't a use of the Oberroni fallacy. Making sure PCs don't get unbalancing gear before it's no longer unbalancing used to be part of the art of good DMing. That +6 stat booster? Most PCs won't be able to afford it, if using the published guidelines, until they're over 10th level anyway. So, is following the published guidelines using the Oberroni fallacy? I'm confused.
> 
> If advocating good DMing and game management is somehow now a logical fallacy, D&D has come a long way and not in a good direction.




Respectfully, but you may need to read that particular conversation a bit better. That line of conversation entirely hinged on a miscommunication between Majoru Oakheart and Elf Witch.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 17, 2012)

I was just talking with my roommate who DMs our Age of Worms campaign and she told me that DMing the rogue is the most challenging for her. He has built his character very well so he is doing major damage in most combat he does more damage then out frontline fighter who is a cleric. His AC is so high she can't hit him that often 

She admits letting him take certain PRCs and commission certain magical items has made him to powerful. She is always worried that by trying to challenge him she is going to kill the rest of us. 

She said that if she didn't have years of playing under her belt (this is her second time behind the screen) she would assume that rogues are the most OP of all the classes and that needed to be nerfed. 

I think that she has a very valid point our experiences at the table shape how we view balance and what is OP. 

One of my biggest issues with 4E is how they tried to balance classes and made the game a snoozefest for some of us. The classes are all the same and therefore bland. It is one reason I dislike point buy so much because all fighters start to look the same the same with wizards and other classes. 

I know the argument for it that it is more fair because then everyone is equal and you don't get a range of stats. 

I guess because my experience has never seen an issue with this because the person with the highest stats didn't rule the game. The only possible issue I could see is if two people were trying to play identical characters then it could make the person with the lower stats feel that they are not as good as the higher stated character. 

For me I have no desire to play in a game where balance is derived from making everyone equal on everything. That is not balance to me. Balance comes from allowing each character a chance to contribute to the game just because the fighter may only be taking down one enemy at a time and the wizard can take out more does not mean that they are unbalanced. 

Fighters fight with a weapon they stand there and go toe to toe with the monsters and if there is a way to build a fighter that can cleave through his enemies they can kill more than one thing a round. That is what an iconic fighter does in fantasy he is the brave one risking life and limb   to go toe to toe with the bad guys. 

Wizards can't go toe to toe and expect to live very long they can throw magic and try and take out more creatures in one round and if you get in close quarters fighting he won't be able to use his area spells as effectively. In close quarters fighting it is the fighters, rogues and monks who really get to shine. The magic users are moving around trying not to get hit and having to combat cast spells or concentrate to get spells off after taking damage.


----------



## GSHamster (Jan 17, 2012)

I think that a lot of the people who arguing against class balance are really arguing against _homogenization_. That is balancing the classes by making them play in a similar fashion.

In my view, we need class balance. But we also need each class to feel like a different experience at all levels of the game, both thematically and mechanically.

And resolving those two tensions is hard. They pull in opposite directions.


----------



## Belphanior (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> For me I have no desire to play in a game where balance is derived from making everyone equal on everything. That is not balance to me. Balance comes from allowing each character a chance to contribute to the game just because the fighter may only be taking down one enemy at a time and the wizard can take out more does not mean that they are unbalanced.




OK. But I don't believe this is what the (pre-4e) complaints about wizards are about, though. 

Preciously few people think that blasting spells were the problem. A fighter might kill a guy every round. Sure. And the wizard can spend a limited resource to kill, say, two guys a round. Still no problem.

Unfortunately, the wizard can also spend a limited resource to _bypass the entire encounter_. Troll under a bridge wants toll? No problem, wizard can teleport and bypass the journey. Adventure requires you to seek out a forgotten library for ancient knowledge? Haha, no, just cast a spell and gain the knowledge directly. Adventure requires us to undertake a task to prove our worth to someone? Yeah... no, how about a nice Charm/Suggestion instead? Venture through a maze? Passwall/Stoneshape/Etherealness/god-knows-what-else can shortcut you to the end.

This is what the balance problem is.

Did 4e solve this?
Yes!

Did 4e take this too far?
Up to individual taste, but clearly there's enough people who feel that it did. So it warrants another look.

But...

But!

Don't ever think that the cries of "imbalance!" came from the amount of damage dealt or people killed per round. That was never the problem.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Web does have a save if you make it you move through the web slowly. if you tangled you can spend a round using strength or escape artist to break free. I have never seen web as an death sentence all that often usually it just slowed down the other guys to give you a chance to get away. I have never seen a PC die in a web Evards Black Tentacles yes web no.




Yeah, it grants you a save. If you fail it, you have to make a DC 20 Strength check as a full round action to be able to move at all. Either way you're suffering entangled penalties. Even if you make the save, you have to make a Strength check of at least DC 15 to move 1 square as a _full round action_. 

At 3rd level, when a wizard can first cast Web, creatures are hardly guaranteed to be able to make that check at all. Even if they make their save, and their check, it's a DC 30 check to exit the web in one round if you're caught at the center. More than likely, a creature will spend 4 or 5 rounds doing nothing but trying to escape the web.

Spell resistance doesn't help either, nor does magic immunity. Even at high levels, against creatures with enormous strength who are guaranteed to make their save, the creatures have to spend a full round extracting themselves, which is almost as good as an AoE stun, at the paltry price of a level 2 spell slot. 

At that point, they're easy pickins for even a lowly wizard with a crossbow, let alone a fighter or the rogue. Sure, the rest of the party contributes, but only by mopping up after the wizard has won the fight for them. Web is one of the best spells to trivialize a fight. In fact, I can't think of a single time that Web was cast that it didn't trivialize combat (and I've seen a lot of Web spells cast).



> Yes the rules for scribing scrolls and making magic items are relatively cheap in 3E an Issue I have with it but and this is a big but unless you are allowing your party huge amounts of downtime there is a limit of how many you can make. And that is not just the DM being a meanie it is way of managing the flow of the game.




Not every game jumps nonstop from adventure to adventure at breakneck speed. I don't think the game should break just because the DM decides that going from level 1 to 20 is more reasonable over a span of 20 years of game time, as opposed to two months.



> It is my opinion everyone should play a friendly wizard. fighter , rogue fill in the blank as a player you have a responsibility not to be a jerk at the table which means doing things that impact another player's character and stepping all over their toes.
> 
> I play party friendly wizards all the time and I don't play with one hand tied behind my back.




I don't think balance should require someone to be a team player. There is plenty of basis in fantasy for the loner who grudgingly tags along with the party, but isn't a team player. The game shouldn't break just because Joe decides he wants to play a Raistlin-esque wizard instead of a member of the Scooby-gang.

That's why balance is important.


----------



## Soramain (Jan 18, 2012)

Spatula said:


> It doesn't mean that all classes need to be exactly the same. I think that ideally, each player should have the capability to contribute equally to any facet of the game that is going to take up a lot of playing time.




I respectfully disagree.  If any player playing any character can contribute equally to any facet of the game (i.e. any _situation_), then there may be some feelings that the choices they make are not meaningful.  For example, if I choose to play a rogue and I can contribute equally in a fight against undead as a player who built an undead-hunter priest type character, his character concept is cheapened.  He *should* be better than me in that scenario.  That's just the tip of the iceberg with encounter design - some encounters will favor certain class/race/ability combinations and _that is okay._


----------



## Belphanior (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> I don't think balance should require someone to be a team player. There is plenty of basis in fantasy for the loner who grudgingly tags along with the party, but isn't a team player. The game shouldn't break just because Joe decides he wants to play a Raistlin-esque wizard instead of a member of the Scooby-gang.
> 
> That's why balance is important.




First, I would like to say that no player should ever be a jerk. And games don't need to go out of their way to prevent jerks from happening. You can't prevent that, and it's better handled outside of the game rules.

But with that said, here's a thought:
If using a spell to hijack the rogue's role is being a jerk... then why is that spell there to begin with?

It's all good to say that you "shouldn't step all over the toes" of the rogue, but then why are there spells with practically no other function than to do that? In what way is it good game design to provide 10 spells to the wizard as options, but if he chooses any of _those_ four he's a jerk? How would a new player even tell the difference?


----------



## Soramain (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> I don't think balance should require someone to be a team player. There is plenty of basis in fantasy for the loner who grudgingly tags along with the party, but isn't a team player. The game shouldn't break just because Joe decides he wants to play a Raistlin-esque wizard instead of a member of the Scooby-gang.




I don't think that's what he meant by team player.  You can play a spellcaster with a personality of a loner who isn't a team player tactically, but as a player you select spells that still allow your fellow players to have spotlight time.  Though your character is standoffish and maybe less than tactically ideal in combat, he conveniently doesn't know the _knock_ spell, so as to let the party rogue shine.  Maybe he lays off the divination spells so that the bard can still be the party face and acquire information.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 18, 2012)

Belphanior said:


> If using a spell to hijack the rogue's role is being a jerk... then why is that spell there to begin with?




So you can play without a rogue.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Yeah, it grants you a save. If you fail it, you have to make a DC 20 Strength check as a full round action to be able to move at all. Either way you're suffering entangled penalties. Even if you make the save, you have to make a Strength check of at least DC 15 to move 1 square as a _full round action_.
> 
> At 3rd level, when a wizard can first cast Web, creatures are hardly guaranteed to be able to make that check at all. Even if they make their save, and their check, it's a DC 30 check to exit the web in one round if you're caught at the center. More than likely, a creature will spend 4 or 5 rounds doing nothing but trying to escape the web.



I played DND in an age where players thought of creative ways to get out of things if they didnt make a save.  Tossing acid on the web, burning it away and i've had cases where people made simple machines to get out of similar situations.  I understand some players want to hit the Tee ball everytime, buti think that dms should adjust for this type of group, but not the system adjust for these minority of players. .  
Spell resistance doesn't help either, nor does magic immunity. Even at high levels, against creatures with enormous strength who are guaranteed to make their save, the creatures have to spend a full round extracting themselves, which is almost as good as an AoE stun, at the paltry price of a level 2 spell slot. 




> Not every game jumps nonstop from adventure to adventure at breakneck speed. I don't think the game should break just because the DM decides that going from level 1 to 20 is more reasonable over a span of 20 years of game time, as opposed to two months.



I get it, but this is a game. I tell players ths all the time.  The DM is in charge of making sure things don't get broken. So if the crafting rules mean that there's so much downtime that you can break the game, we still can't break the game.  This means that regardless of the downtime, you still only get so much of something. Chalk it up to living expenses, chalk it up to a downturn in the market chalk it up to social security, but you only get enoguh where the game does not break.  


> I don't think balance should require someone to be a team player. There is plenty of basis in fantasy for the loner who grudgingly tags along with the party, but isn't a team player. The game shouldn't break just because Joe decides he wants to play a Raistlin-esque wizard instead of a member of the Scooby-gang.



If you enjoy DMining with Dritzt and Batman, that's your thing, but the game is not designed for :gruff voice: batman to not cooperate.  It is a cooperative game.  

I have a player who makes useless characters in every game.  This is his thing, I understand that. I don't expect the system to accomodate this kind of player.  The player doesnt expect it. Asa DM i design encounters as if only 4 players will participate, because that's my responsiblities, not the system.


----------



## Soramain (Jan 18, 2012)

Belphanior said:


> But with that said, here's a thought:
> If using a spell to hijack the rogue's role is being a jerk... then why is that spell there to begin with?




In case there is no rogue?  In case the guy playing a rogue is an acrobat/swashbuckler type instead of a dungeon crawler?  After all, if one of your four or so doesn't want to play that type of rogue, doors may still need to be unlocked.

As an aside, a party that relies on wizard knock spells instead of skills may be in a world of hurt if locks are sufficiently common in the campaign or if the DM is a fan of nasty traps.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 18, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> So you can play without a rogue.




Why is it considered reasonable for the wizard to replace any other class, but not the other way around?

The bard has traditionally been a versatile class, but he pays for that flexibility by being arguably less powerful than other classes. I've certainly never heard of a bard being accused of being a power house, and it's one of my favorite classes.

If the wizard is the ultimate skeleton key class, he should have less power. Pre-4e, casters were both more powerful and more flexible. Something's gotta give.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm so late to this party, it pains me.



Deset Gled said:


> I'll ignore the basic question of "why" and instead focus on "why does this need to be designed into the game":
> 
> If you want a balanced game and the system is inherently unbalanced, it can be darn near impossible to modify the game in the right way to find balance.  But if you want an unbalanced game and the system is inherently balanced (or close to it), it is extremely easy to modify the game as you wish.  Change the xp levels, add extra abilities, cap levels, whatever; those are all easy mods to make.
> 
> Thus, if some people want a balanced system and some don't, it is easiest to make both sides happy by having the base system be balanced and allow it to be modified.




I haven't had the chance to read every post, but I wanted to respond to this one.    In theory, what you say is true.  Oddly enough, it was this thought process that caused Ben Franklin to argue that we have AC voltage instead of DC coming out of our wall circuits.

However, there is a big problem with this perspective:

How do we know when the game is balanced?

We don't.  There's no way to prove it.  What may feel balanced in one setting may feel completely unbalanced in another.   Two rational people may completely disagree on what is balanced and even worse, they may disagree on whether that "balance" is good or bad. 

Balance is the wrong word.  Why?  Because it has no meaning in a PnP game like D&D.   Balance implies you can put two things on a scale and determine if they reach an equilibrium.   You can't do that with an RPG...it's nonsensical.   

The real word word you want is "fairness."   People want things to be fair.  But what happens when we use that word?  Everyone instinctively knows that fairness is subject.  We know we can't argue something isn't fair because we sound like we're whining or crying.  But if we say things aren't "balanced" then  it sounds like we're making an objective assessment....when nothing could be further from the truth.  

Balance is irrelevant.  The what an RPG must address are two separate but equally important issues that obviate the need to talk about balance:

1)  Classes  must have a nontrivial purpose.  The game must provide/allow for meaningful challenges that require the use of one class or another.   If a party has a Rogue, the DM can use locks and traps.  If the party has a Fighter, the DM can use fights and physical obsticals.  If the party has  Ranger, then the DM can require someone to track something.

Where the problem arises is when a class is overlapped by the presence of another class.  If a Wizard can overcome all the obstacles without the help of a Fighter, then the game has a problem.  If a Factotum results in the Bard, Rogue, and Ranger being useless in a party, the game has a problem.


2)  Playability.  I made this word up.  It essentially means the game must be manageable for the players and the DM.   If one character has a has an AC of 30 and everyone else has an AC of 15, then the game becomes unwieldy.  Any threat that posses moderate risk to one group, will be completely trivial to the other.  Any threat challenges the AC 30, will be lethal to the AC 15 group.   So an RPG has to keep everyone in the same power band.  You can't have one character destroying planets while the others can't chop down a tree.

This word essentially addresses the Risk vs Reward concept in all games. 

So "balance" is a false god.  It doesn't exist.  It's a notion that is incorrectly applied to RPG's and results in a lot of bad decisions and misconceptions about the game.   Purpose and Playability are, imo, the things that should be addressed.

my .02.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> If the wizard is the ultimate skeleton key class, he should have less power. Pre-4e, casters were both more powerful and more flexible. Something's gotta give.




Exactly. All other considerations aside, role-playing is a group activity. Sucking for a few weeks and then dominating the game is untenable in 2012.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> So you can play without a rogue.



But why do you need to play with a rogue? Or a wizard? Or a fighter? Or a cleric?


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Why is it considered reasonable for the wizard to replace any other class, but not the other way around.?




The other way around is also reasonable. For example, we have had rogues with scrolls and Use Magic Device when there were no wizards.

Neither can replace the other perfectly, but that is as it should be.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> But why do you need to play with a rogue? Or a wizard? Or a fighter? Or a cleric?




Umm... You don't? That's the point.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jan 18, 2012)

I think something that people really need to look at it is where are you talking about when it comes to balance, in combat or out of combat. 

Also, how one feels useful varies from person to person. I think what 4th edition was stuck on was "their" idea of being useful was in combat. I have friends who loved to build PC's in 3rd edition that weren't really made for combat and were made for other things, mainly outside of combat. 

Party contribution doesn't just exist on the battle grid.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 18, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Party contribution doesn't just exist on the battle grid.




Reminds me of our Hexblade who has focused on social skills---to the detriment of his combat utilty. He can hold his own during fights (4e tends to prevent utter incompetence), but he is a master of the honeyed word during roleplaying encounters. 

There is a tribe of orcs outside of their keep who worships him as an avatar of Gruumsh, for example. That particular parcel of lies took three weeks of planning to enact, and it is a great D&D memory for me.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 18, 2012)

Soramain said:


> I respectfully disagree.  If any player playing any character can contribute equally to any facet of the game (i.e. any _situation_), then there may be some feelings that the choices they make are not meaningful.  For example, if I choose to play a rogue and I can contribute equally in a fight against undead as a player who built an undead-hunter priest type character, his character concept is cheapened.  He *should* be better than me in that scenario.  That's just the tip of the iceberg with encounter design - some encounters will favor certain class/race/ability combinations and _that is okay._



Granted, contributing equally all the time, as you pointed out, makes certain player choices irrelevant. However, only being able to contribute marginally to certain encounters is (IMO) also a problem. Maybe I should add a "frequently" qualifier to that last statement: _occasionally_ not being able to contribute much to an encounter can be a refreshing change of pace. Not being able to contribute much on a regular basis probably should be avoided, though.

And while this can result in "whiny brat" behavior when taken to extremes, I would venture that most of the time, it's not. Certainly, someone who whines if he can't contribute in just one encounter is not someone I would want to game with, either. However, at what point does it become a legitimate complaint? Not being useful (and I don't mean "aid another", "hold a torch", "throw a dart at it" useful) in 70% of the challenges? 50%? My threshold is probably around 30%. What's yours?

EDIT to add: I do agree that someone who specializes in handling undead should do better than the others in an undead encounter. However it is again a matter of degree. 50% better than the rest should be okay. Similarly, if a character is particularly weak against undead, maybe he can do 50% worse than the others. Significant dominance or marginalization, except on infrequent occasions (as noted above), should be avoided.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 18, 2012)

DonTadow said:


> I played DND in an age where players thought of creative ways to get out of things if they didnt make a save.  Tossing acid on the web, burning it away and i've had cases where people made simple machines to get out of similar situations.  I understand some players want to hit the Tee ball everytime, buti think that dms should adjust for this type of group, but not the system adjust for these minority of players. .




Players can get as creative as they want. They typically do have counters for Web. Unless the DM is metagaming though, your average monster won't. There are spells that are more effective against players than monsters (save or die), but Web is the reverse. I'd be very surprised to discover a Rust Monster carrying a torch or vial of acid in its back pocket, for example.

If I have to give all of my monsters a common counter to a specific spell, chances are that spell is broken.



> I get it, but this is a game. I tell players ths all the time.  The DM is in charge of making sure things don't get broken. So if the crafting rules mean that there's so much downtime that you can break the game, we still can't break the game.  This means that regardless of the downtime, you still only get so much of something. Chalk it up to living expenses, chalk it up to a downturn in the market chalk it up to social security, but you only get enoguh where the game does not break.




So your argument for why the crafting feats are balanced is that the DM contrive to prevent players from using them under reasonable circumstances? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as unreasonable. 

It's like saying that a monster that's vastly overpowered for its CR is okay because the DM should know never to use it, except in the most unique circumstances. Well, no, any inexperienced DM is going to have to find that out the hard way because there's nothing in any of the books to even suggest that.



> If you enjoy DMining with Dritzt and Batman, that's your thing, but the game is not designed for :gruff voice: batman to not cooperate.  It is a cooperative game.
> 
> I have a player who makes useless characters in every game.  This is his thing, I understand that. I don't expect the system to accomodate this kind of player.  The player doesnt expect it. Asa DM i design encounters as if only 4 players will participate, because that's my responsiblities, not the system.




3e, in particular, was designed to be flexible. NPCs are often designed with class levels. Are NPCs similarly going to hold back because they want to uphold this spirit of cooperation? I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of killer DMs out there who would object to that idea.

A party of martial characters going against a party of casters would get creamed in 3e (after the first few levels, and maybe even then). Sure, they might get one or two of the casters, but it only takes one caster to destroy the entire team of martial characters. You can't say the same about the martial characters.

I really don't understand why people are against the idea of balance. It is not synonymous with homogeneity, which I could understand taking issue with. I'm not saying that things need to be balanced to the point where two classes are indistinguishable. I am saying that it should be balanced to a higher standard than 3e was.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Jan 18, 2012)

Contrary to popular belief, in 1e the magic-user isn't all-powerful at high levels and the fighter still has a major role in the party.

At high levels, 1e M-U's have _very _few hit points.  They are very fragile.  At 20th level they have 37 on average and 75 with max Con and max rolls.  On top of that, magic resistance and good saving throws mean that many of their attacks either fail completely or do reduced damage.

Fighters at 20th level, on the other hand, have great hit points, heavy armor, great saving throws, and can dish out huge, reliable damage with a combination of multiple attacks, magic weapons, and a great natural to-hit chance that makes missing very rare.  There is no weapon resistance % or saving throw vs. longsword.

I don't know how many people here actually played 1e at high levels, but the idea that fighters are useless and M-U's are all-powerful is largely a myth.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 18, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> The other way around is also reasonable. For example, we have had rogues with scrolls and Use Magic Device when there were no wizards.
> 
> Neither can replace the other perfectly, but that is as it should be.




It's not anywhere near equivalent.

The wizard has a limited ability to do the rogue's job better than the rogue can. Knock and Invisibility, for example, are low level and essentially guaranteed success.

On the other hand, the rogue has to spend skill points to have UMD, has a more limited resource (magic items, which cost gold and he can't craft himself) and has a greater chance of failure (unless you build a UMD rogue, those UMD checks aren't automatic until higher levels).

That's not remotely close.


----------



## Belphanior (Jan 18, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> So you can play without a rogue.






Soramain said:


> In case there is no rogue?  In case the guy playing a rogue is an acrobat/swashbuckler type instead of a dungeon crawler?  After all, if one of your four or so doesn't want to play that type of rogue, doors may still need to be unlocked.
> 
> As an aside, a party that relies on wizard knock spells instead of skills may be in a world of hurt if locks are sufficiently common in the campaign or if the DM is a fan of nasty traps.




That doesn't explain why the wizard gets all these options. Why not the fighter? Or the barbarian? Or, more reasonably, the ranger or bard? A wizard/cleric/druid who puts his mind to it can more or less replace any other class (with some exceptions, like wizards and healing) after a certain point. But the reverse is not true. Why can't the fighter replace the druid? Why can't the monk replace the cleric? Why is the wizard a better generalist than the bard?

And again, how will a new player identify these issues? It's all well and good to say that Knock and Invisibility and whatnot shouldn't be used if there's a rogue in the party, but why don't the books says so? Why is every option and ability given to the wizard without any word of warning? This is not how you make a good game.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Players can get as creative as they want. They typically do have counters for Web. Unless the DM is metagaming though, your average monster won't. There are spells that are more effective against players than monsters (save or die), but Web is the reverse. I'd be very surprised to discover a Rust Monster carrying a torch or vial of acid in its back pocket, for example.
> 
> If I have to give all of my monsters a common counter to a specific spell, chances are that spell is broken.
> 
> ...



I"m actually all for balance, just not those arguments.I actually support your argument, just not there. I don't think any game should be balanced for some one who wants to play against the nature of the game. 

Balance is Imperative in this next phase of the game.  A group of mages should be equal in power to a group of fighters in every faccet of the game (or at least be able to build a character that can be).  Crafting just shouldn't be in the game unless a future supplement. I really don't see any reason to it.  It's a mini game where players try to save money buy making random chance rolls and sacraficing skills and feats.  

I support a class system that is pretty stripped down.  Then you have a set of feats/special abilities in archetypes and yo ucan choose one each level.  It's much easier to balance abilities and powers when the level distribution is equal and you can plainly see what someone can do at a particular level.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> It's not anywhere near equivalent.
> 
> The wizard has a limited ability to do the rogue's job better than the rogue can. Knock and Invisibility, for example, are low level and essentially guaranteed success.
> 
> ...




A wizard uses a limited resource to do something the rogue can do for free. The rogue can take 20 at Open Lock; the Wizard isn't silent with Invisibility. The wizard isn't better here.

The rogue can't replace the wizard anywhere near perfectly, but properly equipped he can do the things a party would otherwise "need" a wizard for. Like _identify_, _dispel magic_ or something.

It's not equivalent in any sense, but both are useful things for a party with no member of the other class, and shouldn't come into play much otherwise.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> Umm... You don't? That's the point.



But the fact that wizards have spells so you can play without a rogue inherently suggests that you do need "rogues" to make the party function. Neither rogues or wizards with rogue-substitute spells should be necessary for parties. That's my point.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> But the fact that wizards have spells so you can play without a rogue inherently suggests that you do need "rogues" to make the party function. Neither rogues or wizards with rogue-substitute spells should be necessary for parties. That's my point.




There are certain things a party is expected to be able to do. Opening locked stuff is one. For most of those it's nice to have options, like a rogue, _knock_ and a hammer, for example.

What would your fix be? Remove locks from the game? Give everyone the chance to open them? In either case aren't you robbing the rogue something?


----------



## nightwyrm (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> But the fact that wizards have spells so you can play without a rogue inherently suggests that you do need "rogues" to make the party function. Neither rogues or wizards with rogue-substitute spells should be necessary for parties. That's my point.




As long as you have abilities restricted by class, you're gonna need a certain combination of classes or builds of classes in order to have access to all those abilities.


----------



## jbear (Jan 18, 2012)

mmadsen said:


> While I agree that balanced classes shouldn't upset people who don't care about balance, the issue is that _designing_ balanced classes isn't always easy, and sometimes efforts to balance classes (or monster powers, or whatever) ruin the feel.
> 
> For instance, 4E's Fighters do (arguably) feel like Wizards, with their daily martial exploits that feel (at least a bit) like Vancian spells, and medusas that don't actually petrify with their gaze don't feel like the Medusa of myth, etc.
> 
> Good game balance doesn't come free, so going for balance can cost you something in other parts of the game.



4e fighters feel like wizards? How are you getting that exactly? 

This comment is completely off base. Having played 4e extensively, including having played both fighters and wizards, I can assure you I didn't feel like I was playing a wizard when playing my fighter character, nor did I feel like a fighter when playing my wizard.

When I played a wizard I could summon spheres of burning flame and cause explosions of freezing cold at a distance. I could even turn my enemies into frogs.

When I played a fighter I got in the face of my enemies, smashed their faces with my big massive sword, forced them to face me or be smashed in the face again. He laughed when his enemies pummeled his body as the reserves of his energy ran deeper than a mountain stream.

My fighter was every bit as cool as my fighter. Is that what you are talking about? Or just because fighters get a daily power?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Belphanior said:


> OK. But I don't believe this is what the (pre-4e) complaints about wizards are about, though.
> 
> Preciously few people think that blasting spells were the problem. A fighter might kill a guy every round. Sure. And the wizard can spend a limited resource to kill, say, two guys a round. Still no problem.
> 
> ...




I guess I just don't understand this part of the issue at all. Okay so a wizard can teleport when they are able to do fifth level spells which is not until 9 level and even then they can't teleport the entire party. So I don't see how the wizard is just getting around the encounter with the troll under the bridge.

And just who has an issue with this the other players or the DM? If it is the other players well since they have to be willing to be teleported they can simply refuse. If the DM is the one with the issue he can accept that it can happen and plan for he can take it out of his game. But the dM needs to accept that players will find ways around carefully crafted encounters. 

As for all your other examples bards can use bardic knowledge to find that ancient library clerics can use spells to make the maze easier. 

You brought up using etherealness which both clerics and wizards get. Wizards can get it at 16 level but they can only change themselves and one other person then at 19 level they can take two and epic level of 22 can take three. That is hardly over powered or game breaking at that level.

Most of these things that people claim make very little sense to me what the wizard is going to cast these spells and leave most of the party behind?

Also in my groups no just does things we say I can do this and the entire party decides if they want to do it.  So a simple balancing thing is the party says no we don't want to bypass this using magic. If the wizards goes ahead fine they are now separated from the party. If that happened in my game I would give the rest of the party the most attention leaving the player playing the wizard with little to do. 

I have found that players in my games want the wizard to have the ability to do spells like web and other spells that help the party with encounters. Teleport was used recently in our game to so the wizard could teleport back the warlock who had been level drained by a vampire to a temple to get help we were to far from any help otherwise. Without he would have suffered permanent level drain.

All these example people give me are usually things that take place at higher levels and really don't allow the wizard to just run roughshod over the party.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 18, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> There are certain things a party is expected to be able to do. Opening locked stuff is one. For most of those it's nice to have options, like a rogue, _knock_ and a hammer, for example.
> 
> What would your fix be? Remove locks from the game? Give everyone the chance to open them? In either case aren't you robbing the rogue something?



Or, let the rogue do it quickly, quietly and cheaply, and every other character's options lose one or more of the advantages.

A big hammer is cheap, but it won't be quick or quiet.

A _knock_ spell/ritual is (relatively) quiet, but if it's cheap, it should not be quick, and if it's quick, it should not be cheap.

Of course, if there are no time constraints, quick is less of an issue, and if there is no danger of detection, quiet is not an issue, either.

The other variable you can play with is chance of success. Maybe the rogue's chance to pick locks is better than whatever the wizard can do with a quick spell (as opposed to an expensive, time-consuming ritual). Or perhaps, to encourage teamwork, the wizard is better off using his spell to help the rogue than using it to try and pick the lock himself.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Yeah, it grants you a save. If you fail it, you have to make a DC 20 Strength check as a full round action to be able to move at all. Either way you're suffering entangled penalties. Even if you make the save, you have to make a Strength check of at least DC 15 to move 1 square as a _full round action_.
> 
> At 3rd level, when a wizard can first cast Web, creatures are hardly guaranteed to be able to make that check at all. Even if they make their save, and their check, it's a DC 30 check to exit the web in one round if you're caught at the center. More than likely, a creature will spend 4 or 5 rounds doing nothing but trying to escape the web.
> 
> ...




It is your opinion that web trivializes fights, my groups opinion is that web can make a combat more manageable and I am often asked my other members of the group to cast it and I have asked wizards to cast it when I am the fighter. It can be a very effective tactic to help the entire party deal with a lot of numbers of enemy combatants.

If your group does not like it then simply don't use it ask the wizard not to cast it. DMs can take out any spell they want which I prefer far more than what they did in 4E which gave people who don't agree that they want magic to mirror the way it is to either accept , do major house rules to fix it or the easier thing stay with 3.5 or go to another system that works the way we prefer our magic.

I said before that I think the item creation is to easy in 3E and needs to be reined in. I think the fact that you can so easily make items that get you around the limitations imposed on casters is the reason that some people find 3E magic to be over powered. Take those away and you will find a lot less issue with it. 

Most of the DMs I game with have house rules for handling this. 

There is a big difference in playing a loner type character who tags along with the party and taking spells just to screw over another player's character. One is role playing the other is being a jerk.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Belphanior said:


> First, I would like to say that no player should ever be a jerk. And games don't need to go out of their way to prevent jerks from happening. You can't prevent that, and it's better handled outside of the game rules.
> 
> But with that said, here's a thought:
> If using a spell to hijack the rogue's role is being a jerk... then why is that spell there to begin with?
> ...




The spell is not there to allow someone to be a jerk it is there to allow a party to function without a rogue. And as I keep saying in 30 years of playing the game I have never played in where someone was memorizing knock just to screw with the rogue. 

Getting rid of a spell that can aide a party because it might be used by a jerk is ludicrous to me. The rules don't protect you from jerks what protects you from jerks is kicking them out of your game.

Now if you want to make it work worse then what a rogue does fine but it should be in reason ten minutes in my book is way to long so much can happen in that time period. I kind of like the idea that it makes the sound of a knock.

That way it is not better then the rogue who can do it silently and is halfway there between the rogue making no noise and the fighter breaking the door down with a weapon.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> But why do you need to play with a rogue? Or a wizard? Or a fighter? Or a cleric?




You don't have other classes can fill in for the missing one and you need a good DM who recognizes that different party make ups have different levels of ability when it comes to over coming challenges. 


You can have a bard or a druid instead of a cleric. You can have a bard and magic user with the right spells to take the up the slack from not having a rogue. A cleric, barbarian, paladin , druid , ranger can all make front line
fighters.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Why is it considered reasonable for the wizard to replace any other class, but not the other way around?
> 
> The bard has traditionally been a versatile class, but he pays for that flexibility by being arguably less powerful than other classes. I've certainly never heard of a bard being accused of being a power house, and it's one of my favorite classes.
> 
> If the wizard is the ultimate skeleton key class, he should have less power. Pre-4e, casters were both more powerful and more flexible. Something's gotta give.




Just because the wizard can use knock to replace the rogue does not mean it can do everything a rogue can do as effectively. They can't find traps so the party cleric has to take the job on of course he can't disable it unless he has used his meager skill points to put them in a cross class skill.

Neither the wizard nor the cleric can do sneak attack damage nor or they the best ones to gather information.

Wizards can't take the place of clerics they can't heal  nor do they make good front line fighters. So they are not the skeleton keys you are imagining. 

And my memorizing knock they are giving up another spell so if the memorize a bunch of knocks they are going to have less spells to use later.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jan 18, 2012)

I think a lot of the issues with wizards being more powerful than the rest of the party is because the DM sometimes doesn't know how to properly challenge a powerful wizard, whereas you can just throw more & bigger monsters at the party fighter and/or paladin in order to challenge them more.  (not always, but sometimes)

I finished up a long running 3.5E campaign a few years back now (geez, was it really two years ago now?) that went from level 1 to 18.  It was a huge party of PCs: human cleric, human wizard, halfling psion for "magic" support and also a dwarf fighter, an elf paladin of freedom, a human rogue/spellthief, human fighter and a goliath barbarian.  Plus, they had a very effective human cleric/paladin NPC as an ally, as well as an elf scout NPC who was a follower of the cleric.

In no way did the cleric or wizard outshine the party.  There were a few areas in the mid level range where the psion was a bit overpowered (Dispel Magic/Psionics), but that ended up smoothing out later on in the campaign.  There were a few instances where the wizard or cleric had shining moments (the first time the cleric cast Firestorm almost single-handedly won an encounter I had planned on the PCs losing), but the other PCs had their shining moments as well: the goliath barbarian getting a 4x crit on a major baddie and doing like 130 points of damage (or, the time she got out of a Maze spell by rolling a natural 20 on her INT check)... the dwarf fighter getting a full attack on a balor and landing 5 hits on it, critting it twice, and doing over 200 points of damage and killing it, etc, etc.

That said, I know older editions had more balance issues that were sometimes offset by the different XP curves, but not always.  And, once you got up to name level, the DM would have to go out of his or her way to challenge a party wizard as opposed to the others in the party.

I guess I should qualify my earlier statement as well.  Sometimes a DM does not know how to challenge all of the party, but it can also be more difficult to challenge a wizard than it is to challenge a fighter (as I said, just send bigger & badder monsters after the fighter).


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 18, 2012)

NewJeffCT said:


> I guess I should qualify my earlier statement as well.  Sometimes a DM does not know how to challenge all of the party, but it can also be more difficult to challenge a wizard than it is to challenge a fighter (as I said, just send bigger & badder monsters after the fighter).




It's okay by me if the fighter is challenged by artillery (who are skilled at staying out of reach), while the wizard is challenged by skirmishers (who are good at getting in his face).

I don't think it's reasonable, however, if it is "more difficult to challenge a wizard than it is to challenge a fighter". Once you're reached that point, I think it's indicative that something is broken.

I wouldn't ever want to have to tell a player that he can't player a wizard because I don't have the time to prepare challenges especially for him.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> *There are certain things a party is expected to be able to do.* Opening locked stuff is one. For most of those it's nice to have options, like a rogue, _knock_ and a hammer, for example.
> 
> What would your fix be? *Remove locks from the game?* Give everyone the chance to open them? In either case aren't you robbing the rogue something?



Not at all. It shouldn't be a case of Problem X that requires Skill Y is easily solvable by Spell Z. Why is the existence of Knock necessary? Others say because there's no rogue, but Knock perfectly performs the function of a rogue. Why can't the wizard use one of their other damage spells to simply "hammer" the lock/door like the fighter would? In both of these cases, it's not as if they are outperforming the rogue because they are essentially using their mismatched abilities for "hammering in screws," which may work, but it is not as elegant as someone equipped with a screwdriver. But there should be no corresponding spell that perfectly mimics the ability, though there should be creative ways around the problem. 

But the bold is the problem. Work on removing certain assumptions that are laced regarding party composition. For example, there is the assumption that parties must have healers (or at least access to a lot of healing potions/wands). But such assumptions lead to the idea of "there must always be a class to fill the role of the X." The idea of the "balanced party" needs to die. 



nightwyrm said:


> As long as you have abilities restricted by class, you're gonna need a certain combination of classes or builds of classes in order to have access to all those abilities.



But why is it assumed that you _need_ access to all of those abilities? See the problem yet? 

And I think that Rodney Thompson touched upon this idea in his Rule-of-Three article last week: 
The reduction of a need for a cleric is one of the things I enjoy most about 4th Edition, not because I don't like clerics (actually, I love clerics) but rather because it gives the party a lot more flexibility in building their characters. The advent of the leader role allowed players to fulfill the function of the healer without requiring them to adhere to the story elements that come with being a cleric. Furthermore, when working on Dark Sun the advantages became even clearer, as we could cut out the divine power source without worrying about creating a bad play experience. As a designer, that's very liberating; as a player, a large amount of social and game pressure falls away when no one class is "required" for success.

That said, it raises some interesting questions about the concept of healers, and roles in general. Should the game even ask you to have a leader or healer? For that matter, a defender? A controller? Should any role be necessary, given how liberating the step from cleric to leader felt?

I don't think "requiring someone to be a healer" is a sacred cow, but having healers in the game is. I wouldn't want to see D&D do away with healing, but I don't think there's anything keeping us from exploring a version of D&D where players can simply play anything they want, ignoring concepts like role and function when putting together their party. To do so, we would need to take a serious look at the way player resources are allocated in D&D, and make some adjustments to the assumptions behind the design of everything from adventures to encounters to monsters.​


----------



## Number48 (Jan 18, 2012)

TL;DR

I got through page 4 and never saw what I was thinking expressed:

#1) Before we can discuss balance, we must first decide what IS balance. To decided what balance is we must discuss what D&D is. I think the best description for D&D that would suit most people is that it is a story and a game at the same time. However, when we compare a D&D game to works of fiction, there is a critical difference. Nearly all fiction has a single protagonist, or rotates narration of protagonists. In D&D, all the characters are equally-important protagonists. Would you play in a game if you had to play Pippin? It's great to be the main guy, but can you convince people to come every week to play somebody useless. So, the characters must all be equivalent in terms of importance of the story. We'll come back to the story later.

#2) We discussed story, but it's also a game. This is pretty easy. If the horse in monopoly was better than the shoe, then the choice between them is not a choice at all. Likewise D&D. Do all the pieces of the game have to work exactly the same? No. Do they have to be able to do the as other pieces? No. If each person plays a single piece in a game, each piece has to be equivalent in the mechanics of the game. More on that later as well.

#3) Let's talk about the rules and marry together what we discussed about story and game. If the game has problems, the DM has the capability of addressing them, whether these are global or campaign-specific problems. The real question is, is it worth it? There is an arbitrary line where a DM will give up wrestling with the rules and play a different game instead. This addresses the need for at least a starting point for balance. So what comprises a D&D game? I think that the broad definition would be that most reasonable people run a D&D game as a combination of mostly-story events combined with the mostly-mechanical combats. Too far one way, and you are just imrov acting. Too far the other way and it's a boardgame.

#4) A small conversation about characters being equivalent. Say I cut 2 pieces of a cake and 2 people get to choose them. The optimum solution is when they both think they got the better piece of cake. This is possible because there is no single way to objectively quantify which piece is better if they start out similarly. The way that both people can think they got the better piece is that the pieces are initially similar but each offer a slight difference more appealing to one of the choosers. I choose the one with more frosting, you want the one with more candy bits. This is what needs to be strived for. The fallacy of 4E is that the designers determined to make all pieces equal to all people always. What they got was a limited, kinda boring game. Instead, we need to have a game that starts us all in a similar position but with many nuances that make each character seem the best to the person playing it.

So, the challenge. 5E should be a game that lets every player participate in way that makes them FEEL an equal member in both story and combat, no matter if the game is 80/20 or 20/80 balance. It needs to avoid the pitfalls of designing in an intended limiting factor that an average group will not do, even though it would be the correct choice from a story-enjoyment point of view. The case in point would be a 3E wizard. The idea being that the wizard would have to carefully balance using the best spells with using less-useful spells in order to complete out the dungeon with the party, and thus achieve balance over the course of the adventure rather than per-encounter. What actually happened is that, if the DM didn't contrive limiting factors, is the party would walk in, shoot all the biggest guns then go rest, come back and shoot all their biggest guns again. Even if wizards cannot rest more than once a day, the party will often choose to simply waste the time because it makes mathematical sense to them. You cannot expect the group to have the forethought to do what best pleases everybody in the long-run. Each person will only play his own character. Limitations for balance that are easily sidestepped are not limitations at all.

So, it all comes to marrying game theory with a little behavioral psychology.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Just because the wizard can use knock to replace the rogue does not mean it can do everything a rogue can do as effectively. They can't find traps so the party cleric has to take the job on of course he can't disable it unless he has used his meager skill points to put them in a cross class skill.
> 
> Neither the wizard nor the cleric can do sneak attack damage nor or they the best ones to gather information.
> 
> ...




Casters, wizards in particular, are amazing skeleton keys. Non-casters, not so much (unless you make them pseudo-casters using UMD).

A wizard has tenser's transformation, polymorph, stoneskin, and iron body to be a better fighter than the fighter

A wizard has improved invisibility, disintegrate (which makes sneak attack look meaningless by comparison), and knock to be a better rogue than the rogue. He doesn't need Disable Device for most traps when a simple Unseen Servant can set them off, or they can be bypassed with Levitation / Flight.

A wizard can't out-cleric the cleric, because the cleric is a caster too.

The cleric is arguably better than the wizard at out-fightering the fighter, with spells like Divine Power and Righteous Might, but casters can dominate.

Invisibility should not be a better stealth option than the rogue has at 3rd level. Knock should not be an automatic one round effect when the rogue can potentially fail while trying the same thing. And no caster should be able to stack buffs so as to out fight the fighter.

No one's saying the wizard shouldn't have a niche. That niche, however, should never include even potentially doing the job of another class as well or better than that class. Worse may be acceptable, but under no circumstances better.

It's nice that you have a gentleman's agreement at your table. I don't think anyone should need to be hobbled by such an agreement in order to play the game. Sure, the game should encourage people to play cooperatively (while still allowing for playstyles outside that norm). However, if folks aren't complaining about the fighter's ability to step on the wizard's toes, the wizard shouldn't possess the capability to step on the fighter's toes either.


----------



## nightwyrm (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> But why is it assumed that you _need_ access to all of those abilities? See the problem yet?




Honestly? It's so you can deal with whatever the DM throws at you. Sure, some DMs would look at your party and avoid throwing stuff at you that your party can't deal with, but some DMs won't. Now, you might go about solving some of those problems with "creative" solutions that doesn't rely on hardcoded game rules, but then you're hoping your DM would share your vision of how your creative solution would work and now you're back to the old school method of bargaining and arguing with the DM. 

Using an example of wizards fireballing a door to open it. Maybe your DM just doesn't think that's a viable way of opening the door and now you're boned.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 18, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> Honestly? It's so you can deal with whatever the DM throws at you.....Using an example of wizards fireballing a door to open it. Maybe your DM just doesn't think that's a viable way of opening the door and now you're boned.



And so is your DM.  If your DM throws things at you that he knows you can't pass...or discovers in the middle of play that you can't pass.  And then when you come up with a solution to it, denies it.....

Well, at that point, either whatever is behind that door isn't important and you shrug and go a different way or you come up with a different way to open the door that your DM will allow.

If the rest of the DMs adventure is behind that door...trust me, he'll come up with a way for you to get past it.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> Honestly? It's so you can deal with whatever the DM throws at you. Sure, some DMs would look at your party and avoid throwing stuff at you that your party can't deal with, but some DMs won't. Now, you might go about solving some of those problems with "creative" solutions that doesn't rely on hardcoded game rules, but then you're hoping your DM would share your vision of how your creative solution would work and now you're back to the old school method of bargaining and arguing with the DM.



You should be able to deal with whatever the DM throws at you without requiring certain roles or particular abilities to get through them. A particular spell is not a "hardcoded game rule," so much as it is a band-aid to fix a larger problem of the game's role assumptions. 



> Using an example of wizards fireballing a door to open it. Maybe your DM just doesn't think that's a viable way of opening the door and now you're boned.



So basically there should just be spell for every situation and possible permutation that ever arises? But if your DM does not think that the players do not have a viable way of dealing with opening the door, then I have to wonder why the DM put such a door there in the first place.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> And just who has an issue with this the other players or the DM? If it is the other players well since they have to be willing to be teleported they can simply refuse. If the DM is the one with the issue he can accept that it can happen and plan for he can take it out of his game. But the dM needs to accept that players will find ways around carefully crafted encounters.



But that's the thing.  The player's won't find ways around my carefully crafted encounters if I don't let them.  There is nothing left in 4e that allows a party to completely break anything I have planned.

Whereas the entire time I ran high level 3.5e it felt like a constant metagaming arms war.  If I want them to have to talk to the bridgekeeper and convince him to let him pass...I needed:

The bridgekeeper to know magic enough to be able to ward the area against teleportation, flying, charm spells, the ability to shape the earth into a new bridge, the ability to create a bridge of force, and probably a number of other things I'm not even thinking of right now.

Why does the bridgekeeper know all these spells?  Also, how did you either make them all permanent or make sure they were all active when the PCs show up?  How can he cast that many spells in a day?  Or do I just metagame and create a brand new spell called "Ward against players" that is a protection spell against all of them at the same time?  If I make him a wizard in addition to whatever race and abilities I've already given him, it means that he now has more hitpoints, better saves, and a better CR, so if they PCs fight him, they'll lose.  Maybe I wanted them to be able to win in a fight.  Well, then he can't have any other abilities other than being a Wizard.  And therefore, all the enemies end up being Wizards or friends with Wizards.

On the other hand, that exact same situation in 4e means I have to plan for...nothing.  The PCs have no way across unless the bridgekeeper lets him(as long as the gap is wider than 50 feet).  It's really nice to feel in control of a campaign.

Also, if you remove the Wizard and Cleric out of the party in 3.5e....then you don't really have to worry about them finding a way over either.  It's the casters that are the problem.

And this scenario comes up with almost every hazard you use to try to hinder the party.

The first time a party realizes that if they have a basic description of the BBEG, they can scrye on him, find his location and teleport directly to him past any defenses he has set up and take him out directly.  Then teleport out again is the first time you want to strangle someone and ban half the spells in the game to make it easier to run.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> It is your opinion that web trivializes fights, my groups opinion is that web can make a combat more manageable and I am often asked my other members of the group to cast it and I have asked wizards to cast it when I am the fighter. It can be a very effective tactic to help the entire party deal with a lot of numbers of enemy combatants.
> 
> If your group does not like it then simply don't use it ask the wizard not to cast it. DMs can take out any spell they want which I prefer far more than what they did in 4E which gave people who don't agree that they want magic to mirror the way it is to either accept , do major house rules to fix it or the easier thing stay with 3.5 or go to another system that works the way we prefer our magic.
> 
> ...




You say manageable, I say trivialize. Two sides of the same coin.

If I were to ban / nerf every spell in 3e that I thought was problematic, it would involve a very significant percentage of the PHB. More work than I'm really willing to put into it in all honesty, which is a big part of the reason that we no longer play 3e. If it were one or two spells, I certainly wouldn't say that all casters are broken. The problem lies with a lot of spells, which is why it's a systemic problem rather than a simple matter of errata.

It's not about playing a character who goes out of his way to screw other characters over. It's about the inexperienced player, or the guy who simply doesn't care one way or the other, who is drawn to spells (like Invisibility) because they're very effective and end up doing so without outright intending to.

It's nice that you have an experienced group, however, that's no reason that inexperienced groups should have to blunder through trial and error. The system should have eliminated the worst of such offenders, have advice for the rest, and then groups only need to deal with issues that are unique to their own table.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 18, 2012)

Kingreaper said:


> I think you missed the third option here. Have the world end, and the game continue in the now ended world. Demons wondering around, cities are unsafe, and extraplanar spaces now try and eat you




Well, because I don't really like that kind of game.  It wouldn't have been fun for me to run.  And the god in question wanted to unmake reality.  Not demons wandering around the world...but there being no more world.  And he was powerful enough to do it.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 18, 2012)

WheresMyD20 said:


> Contrary to popular belief, in 1e the magic-user isn't all-powerful at high levels and the fighter still has a major role in the party.
> 
> At high levels, 1e M-U's have _very _few hit points. They are very fragile. At 20th level they have 37 on average and 75 with max Con and max rolls. On top of that, magic resistance and good saving throws mean that many of their attacks either fail completely or do reduced damage.
> 
> ...



I haven't played 1e at high levels, but I have played 2e and that's not a lot different. And there are certainly ways -- and somewhat trivial ways at that -- for a wizard to be almost immune to mundane attacks at that point. Spells can take the wizard beyond any effective attack range (_fly_ and related spells), make it impossible for mundane characters to target the wizard (_invisibility_ and related spells), make physical attacks ineffective (_stoneskin_, _protection from normal missiles_, etc.).

One of the great improvements from 2e to 3.x was that it made high-level play merely time-consuming for the DM and somewhat unbalanced (in favor of full casters, especially druids, wizards who weren't blasters, and clerics who weren't healers) instead of nearly completely unplayable.


----------



## hanez (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Why is it considered reasonable for the wizard to replace any other class, but not the other way around?
> 
> The bard has traditionally been a versatile class, but he pays for that flexibility by being arguably less powerful than other classes. I've certainly never heard of a bard being accused of being a power house, and it's one of my favorite classes.
> 
> If the wizard is the ultimate skeleton key class, he should have less power. Pre-4e, casters were both more powerful and more flexible. Something's gotta give.




he ultimate key  class?  Really?  Knock unlocks two mechanisms in the door at most.  If it has 3 locks on it (a bolt, a chain, and a bar on the other side) it doesnt even open the door.  

How many knocks does you wizard really have memorized anyways?  Max 4 knocks at 20th level? The rogue can pick locks at will all day.

I agree that no class should replace anothers main area completely but lets try and keep a grip on reality.  If your wizard is bent on replacing the rogues functionality with spiderclimb, lock and invisibilty and all the utilty spells, Such a wizard sure isn't going to  have ANY damage spells or ANY protection spells,  hes going to be a peon who can easily die, cause no damage, and is usless after about 10 actions (aka spells).  The wizard is a lot more powerful in nostalgia, by people who dont realize you have to PICK THE RIGHT SPELL, or in very bad DMs campaigns.

Cant believe we are still pretending the wiz was broken.  If I'm going to memorize knocks and stuff like that for the party, Id better be appreciated because I dont wanna be all alone when Conan comes to get me with my measly dagger and d4 hitpoints.  (or are monsters targeting wizards the oberoni fallacy?)  Think Conan would quickly remind Gandalf how awesome it was to have a d12 hit dice, multiple attacks per rounds and psycho rage.  (remember I can't fly away or cast a fireball because for some reason Im hellbent on replacing the rogue, not that a fireball would slow raging Conan down anyways)


----------



## Deadboy (Jan 18, 2012)

hanez said:


> he ultimate key class? Really? Knock unlocks two mechanisms in the door at most. If it has 3 locks on it (a bolt, a chain, and a bar on the other side) it doesnt even open the door.
> 
> How many knocks does you wizard really have memorized anyways? Max 4 knocks at 20th level? The rogue can pick locks at will all day.
> 
> ...




Why would the Wizard use any of his spell slots for Knock? Utility spells like that are what Scribe Scroll is for. Scroll scribing and item creation allow Wizards to trivialize their spells per day limitations.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 18, 2012)

hanez said:


> he ultimate key  class?  Really?  Knock unlocks two mechanisms in the door at most.  If it has 3 locks on it (a bolt, a chain, and a magical seal) it doesnt even open the door.
> 
> How many knocks does you wizard really have memorized anyways?  Max 4 knocks at 20th level? The rogue can pick locks at will all day.
> 
> ...




Yes, really. How many locks is a DM realistically going to throw into a single adventure before it starts to get a tad ridiculous? 

The rogue has to roll for success, unless he takes 20 (requiring 2 minutes) and even then he fails if the DC is higher than his skill + 20.

The wizard, on the other hand, succeeds automatically requiring only one action. It doesn't matter is the DC is over 9,000, or Arcane Locked, he still succeeds. 

Also, you forgot about bonus spells. By 9th level the wizard can likely memorize around 6 Knock spells. That doesn't even take into account that the wizard could pretty easily craft a wand of Knock and thereby cast Knock nonstop.

Is the wizard better than the rogue in every scenario? Not necessarily. Is he better in some / many scenarios. Yes, and that shouldn't be allowed to happen. A party shouldn't ever have to wonder whether they're screwing themselves because they let the rogue (who might potentially fail) pick the lock on the death trap rather than just letting the wizard cast Knock, and getting the heck out of there.

Now if you want to argue that the wizard should be allowed to be a sub-par rogue, I'm certainly open to the idea. Never a superior rogue though, which due to auto-success abilities like Knock and Spider Climb, he can be. The rogue should be the best rogue there is.

That doesn't even consider how he can replace the fighter, which he can. Casters are all, to one degree or another, skeleton keys but the wizard is arguably the best at it. If anything, that really ought to be the bard.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Casters, wizards in particular, are amazing skeleton keys. Non-casters, not so much (unless you make them pseudo-casters using UMD).
> 
> A wizard has tenser's transformation, polymorph, stoneskin, and iron body to be a better fighter than the fighter
> 
> ...




Yes those spells let him raise his AC for as long as the spell lasts but it does not give him a lot of choices for martial weapon choices or the feats, hit points and BAB that fighters get. A wizard playing a front line fighter is doing so out of desperation not because they are good at it.

There is no way a wizard will ever match a martial character when it comes to going toe to toe or swing a weapon. 

As for using unseen servant he has to memorize it and then he uses it once then he has to cast it again a rogue can disarm traps all day long and not have to worry about running out and since an unseen servant only has a force of 20 pounds that is often not enough to set off pressure plate traps. Again it is a nice tool if the party does not have a rogue so know to accomplish what a rogue can do it takes two wizard spells and one cleric spell.

As for disintegrate lets look at that a wizard can cast it at 11 level he again has to memorize it he does not just get it free as a class ability. He has to hit and there is a save involved. Rogues get sneak attack at first level they can do as often as they are in a place to do it. They never run out of sneak attacks and by 11 level a rogue hit with a disintegrate who makes his save and takes no damage and this goes for every spell that has a save so basically as long he makes his save the wizard has a hard time hurting him with magic and when he fails a save he only takes half the damage. 

As for niche protection I agree with that but so far nothing you have said has made the wizard better at things then the rogue.

Take invisibility yep pretty powerful which is why most rogues I know want the ability to on a magic item. Sure the wizard is the one who gets to cast it but the rogue is the one who can use it more effectively because move silently is class for them and a cross class for wizards. Just because you are invisible does not mean that you don't make any noise and that opponents don't get a listen check.

Again I don't see it as a gentleman agreement it is playing as a team member with the other players and making sure you are not doing anything to ruin their fun. What kind of people do you play with that you view not being a jerk is some kind of agreement that is not found at many gaming tables?


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Jan 18, 2012)

drothgery said:


> I haven't played 1e at high levels, but I have played 2e and that's not a lot different. And there are certainly ways -- and somewhat trivial ways at that -- for a wizard to be almost immune to mundane attacks at that point. Spells can take the wizard beyond any effective attack range (_fly_ and related spells), make it impossible for mundane characters to target the wizard (_invisibility_ and related spells), make physical attacks ineffective (_stoneskin_, _protection from normal missiles_, etc.).




At 20th level, both fighters and M-Us have ways of dealing with mundane attacks.  Fighters are so well armored and have so many hit points at that level that the vast majority of mundane attacks miss and those that hit have to chip away at a large hit point pool.  A M-U needs powerful defensive magic to protect his 37 hit points (on average) and bad AC.

Invisibility is of limited usefulness in high-level 1e.  There's a % chance based on level and Int that anyone can - without magical help - effectively see through invisibility (DMG p.60).

Stoneskin (which actually isn't part of base 1e - it's in Unearthed Arcana) is certainly useful, but not usually to the same degree as a fighter's armor and hit points.  Protection from normal missiles is not very useful at 20th level - normal arrows and sling stones aren't commonly encountered at that level and usually don't pose much threat.

Fly is definitely useful - if the magic-user is outdoors.  The rate of flying is only 12", which is the same as unencumbered ground speed - and half that if ascending, so it's not a particularly rapid escape or evasion.

Remember that a single area of effect attack like a fireball, lightning bolt, dragon's breath, etc. can often times kill a high level M-U even if he makes his saving throw.  Fighters can usually weather a few of those.

All of this isn't to say that fighters are more powerful than M-U's at high levels in 1e or that they're even equal.  The point is that fighters are still quite useful at high levels in 1e and M-U's aren't all-powerful.  In 1e, there is room for both fighters and M-U's in a party and a party that is lacking either fighters or M-U's is usually in for a rough time. (Let's not even get into clerics who are quite vital too - you need a good mix of classes)



drothgery said:


> One of the great improvements from 2e to 3.x was that it made high-level play merely time-consuming for the DM and somewhat unbalanced (in favor of full casters, especially druids, wizards who weren't blasters, and clerics who weren't healers) instead of nearly completely unplayable.




There's where I'd have to disagree strongly.  I played 1e and 3e at high levels and found 1e to be quite playable (we played at levels 20+ for literally years) and 3e to be terrible at those levels (the saving throw system in particular is a mess at high levels).


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> But that's the thing.  The player's won't find ways around my carefully crafted encounters if I don't let them.  There is nothing left in 4e that allows a party to completely break anything I have planned.
> 
> Whereas the entire time I ran high level 3.5e it felt like a constant metagaming arms war.  If I want them to have to talk to the bridgekeeper and convince him to let him pass...I needed:
> 
> ...




That first line right there that they won't find ways around the encounter unless you let them is imo a form of railroading.

As a player I don't want the DM to tell me I have to talk to the bridgekeeper if I don't want to, you know with that attitude the players can simply say we turn around and head back to town.

As a DM I deal with what happens when my players turn my perfectly planned and crafted encounters on their ear by not doing what I expected. 

If 4E truly allows the DM that much power to railroad the players and take their free will away then there is another reason why I hope they get rid of that rule set. 

If the party is high enough to scry the BBEG should have the resources to block the scying also a wizard needs to be rather high level to teleport the entire party to teleport a party of four they have to be 18 level which is almost epic level at that level wizards should be able to do awesome stuff like that. At that level the BBEG can have things that block teleporting into his lair. 

Most games don't usually go that high level Pazio Adventure Path for example stop at 15 level so if you use them a wizard is never going to be powerful enough to teleport the entire party.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Yes those spells let him raise his AC for as long as the spell lasts but it does not give him a lot of choices for martial weapon choices or the feats, hit points and BAB that fighters get. A wizard playing a front line fighter is doing so out of desperation not because they are good at it.
> 
> There is no way a wizard will ever match a martial character when it comes to going toe to toe or swing a weapon.




Actually, Tenser's Transformation does exactly that. But it's not really the strongest of the spells. That would probably be something like Shapechange: Elder Red Dragon. Who care about proficiencies and BAB when you have the Strength and natural weaponry to give the Tarrasque a run for his money?



> As for using unseen servant he has to memorize it and then he uses it once then he has to cast it again a rogue can disarm traps all day long and not have to worry about running out and since an unseen servant only has a force of 20 pounds that is often not enough to set off pressure plate traps. Again it is a nice tool if the party does not have a rogue so know to accomplish what a rogue can do it takes two wizard spells and one cleric spell.
> 
> As for disintegrate lets look at that a wizard can cast it at 11 level he again has to memorize it he does not just get it free as a class ability. He has to hit and there is a save involved. Rogues get sneak attack at first level they can do as often as they are in a place to do it. They never run out of sneak attacks and by 11 level a rogue hit with a disintegrate who makes his save and takes no damage and this goes for every spell that has a save so basically as long he makes his save the wizard has a hard time hurting him with magic and when he fails a save he only takes half the damage.
> 
> ...




Knock is automatic while pick locks is not. That by itself makes the wizard a better rogue under plenty circumstances (such as when trying to make a hasty exit through a locked door). The wizard should never be a better rogue than the rogue.

My group is plenty polite. However, we've invited other players to our table, and joined plenty of other games where that did not turn out to be so, whether due to inexperience or plain old-fashioned competitiveness. It does happen, I have seen it. You can claim it's a player/DM problem, but considering I saw it happen multiple times in 3e, and never in 4e, I'm thinking that balance probably has a lot to do with it.

That isn't to say that they need to homogenize things as much as the initial 4e PHB did. I can see why some felt that was going too far. However, I firmly believe that you can have balanced, yet mechanically differentiated classes. I even postulated a rough sketch regarding how it might be done in an earlier post, but no one responded to that section of the post.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 18, 2012)

Don't a lot of these issues actually have to do with pacing?

This all reminds me of the discussion surrounding doing sandbox with 4E and how it's not at all designed that way. Likewise if you run 3E like a 4E adventure the wizard would be basically limitless at all times.

I think in some cases, depending on how the game is run, things start to equalize. When the more mundane classes like rogue and fighter and simply keep on truckin' no matter if they've had a full nights rest and time to memorize, things aren't as simple.

I'm by no means saying that's some kind of solution because it'd be absurd if it was. I'm just saying pacing is an important part of the discussion. Not just 1:1 power.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> You say manageable, I say trivialize. Two sides of the same coin.
> 
> If I were to ban / nerf every spell in 3e that I thought was problematic, it would involve a very significant percentage of the PHB. More work than I'm really willing to put into it in all honesty, which is a big part of the reason that we no longer play 3e. If it were one or two spells, I certainly wouldn't say that all casters are broken. The problem lies with a lot of spells, which is why it's a systemic problem rather than a simple matter of errata.
> 
> ...




The opposite is also true for me if I had to change everything I find that makes 4 unplayable for my group I  would find it more work then I want do.

You realize that if it was a fact that most people find 3E magic to be over powered and unplayable Pathfinder would not be doing so well.

The argument about the newbie and inexperienced player does not hold any water we were all inexperienced and new to the game at one time. And all the old editions have these kind of spells in them and so for 30 yeas we managed to play with them. 

Over the years my group has had plenty of newbies in it our current game as a person who had never played before not RPGs or video games she is playing a sorcerer and she has not had an issue with any of this. She did take improved invisibility as one of her spells known and sometimes she cast it on herself but she but more often she cats it on the rest of us when we need to all be sneaky. 

Sure she looked at knocked and we explained to her why for a sorcerer with a rogue in the party is really is a waste of a slot. 

DMs need to guide new players no matter what class they play and that means pointing out spell choices and other choices. 


Here is what I have gotten from this thread wizards should not be allowed to have any spells that might infringe on another class so no buffs, or spells to raise their ACs because that puts them in competition with the fighter.

They should not be allowed to have knock or spider climb or invisibility because that infringes on the rogue.

They should not have the ability to kill someone outright with a spell even if that spell has a save because that is not fair to the martial characters.

They should not have any spell that circumvents what a DM has planned even if that requires the wizard to be almost epic level.

They shouldn't have charm person because that takes away from the classes that have diplomacy. I guess using that logic they should not have domination either. 

I am not sure what wizards should be allowed to do. Though I have often read that they should be bards because that is closer to Gandalf.

I really hope that WOTC realizes that not all people want such a neutered wizard that we want magic to be basically the way it has always been before 4E. Not saying that some tweaks are not needed magic item creation comes to mind.  

And while I have no issue with a dial to turn magic down to 4E levels they need a dial to turn it up to older editions. If they don't have that I am not sure how many of us who didn't make the switch are going to be interest it is not like we don't have an in print game we can play.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 18, 2012)

WheresMyD20 said:


> Remember that a single area of effect attack like a fireball, lightning bolt, dragon's breath, etc. can often times kill a high level M-U even if he makes his saving throw.  Fighters can usually weather a few of those.




Remember also, that fireballs, lightning bolts, et al aren't capped at 10 hd in 1e.  A 20 die fireball will get the wizard out of the air pretty quickly.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Actually, Tenser's Transformation does exactly that. But it's not really the strongest of the spells. That would probably be something like Shapechange: Elder Red Dragon. Who care about proficiencies and BAB when you have the Strength and natural weaponry to give the Tarrasque a run for his money?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Shapechange s a druid spell not a wizard spell. And I find druids have the potential to be far more game breaking then any wizard.

Like I said a simple fix for knock is make a noisy spell or give it a longer casting time. 

But I wonder how many players would answer this if being chased by a red dragon about to eat you would you rather the rogue pick the lock of the door between you and safety or would you rather the wizard pull out their emergency scroll of knock and use it ? 

HMM death but at least this one time the rogue feet were not stepped on or a chance to live. I just texted the player playing our party rogue and his answer was are you crazy get that door open now. 

I would rather have the freedom to deal with rude players by out of game methods then have things nerfed because it might be abused by rude players. 

I want to make one thing clear that I don't think that you liking 4E and its playstyle is in any way wrong. 

But can you also understand how annoying it gets to hear over and over the 3E magic is broken? 4E players don't like hearing it called a WOW clone well 3E players don't realy like hearing it called wizards and muggles. 

I think a lot of this comes down to how you like magic in your game. I like powerful magic and spells that allow casters to do things that make the adventure easier for the rest of the party. I want spells like knock and find traps in my game because it gives me away to deal with not having a rogue other then just unlocking all the doors and having no traps. Or having to run a NPC rogue. 

I sometimes want wizards to scry and I like having teleport in the game because it speeds up the ability of the party to get someplace in a hurry. 

I don't think 3E is perfect I don't like item creation rules or metamagic. I don't like that fighters have nothing fun to do outside of combat. I hate the grapple rules and the turn rules I have been playing 3 since it came out and I can't keep them straight.

I think evasion should never get powerful enough not to take any damage from a spell unless it is available  for all classes to take as a feat.

I think paladin should be a prestige class.

So there are imo lots of room for improvement unfortunately 4E didn't improve most of what my issues were except a big one it made DMing easier and made prep time go faster.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> You realize that if it was a fact that most people find 3E magic to be over powered and unplayable Pathfinder would not be doing so well.



Can you prove this assertion? This is fairly terrible reasoning unless you can provide a direct causal relationship between the success of PF and the balance of the magic system. This reasoning also fails to take into account all the other issues of 4E's release, the 4E system, 3E players, etc. that are not magic-system related at all. People may be happier to play a more familiar Vancian system than 4E's regardless of PF's balance. Ever thought of that?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Shapechange s a druid spell not a wizard spell.



It's a 9th level wizard spell in AD&D, and I'm pretty sure is there at the same level in 3E.



WheresMyD20 said:


> At high levels, 1e M-U's have _very _few hit points.  They are very fragile.  At 20th level they have 37 on average and 75 with max Con and max rolls.  On top of that, magic resistance and good saving throws mean that many of their attacks either fail completely or do reduced damage.



For a 20th level 1st ed AD&D magic-user, all magic resistance values are reduced by 45% (+/1 5% per level below/above 11th - see the MM's definition of MR). So in fact a 20th level MU won't see that many of their attacks fail due to magic resistance.

But I agree with your broader point, that high level 1st ed AD&D is not as unbalanced as 3E at those levels.



Belphanior said:


> And again, how will a new player identify these issues? It's all well and good to say that Knock and Invisibility and whatnot shouldn't be used if there's a rogue in the party, but why don't the books says so? Why is every option and ability given to the wizard without any word of warning? This is not how you make a good game.



I think this is an artefact of RPG books (or, at least, player's books) being written in a type of simulationist mode, in which metagame discussion - other than the minimum necessary to explain the mechanics - is to be kept out.

You see the same thing in the 4e MM: all the discussion of the creatures is from an ingame perspective, with no discussion from the metagame point of view of how a GM should make use of these story elements.

I'm hoping that D&Dnext will be a bit more modern and sophisticated in this respect, but I'm not holding my breath!


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2012)

DonTadow said:


> I have a player who makes useless characters in every game.  This is his thing, I understand that. I don't expect the system to accomodate this kind of player.



But 4e does! via the lazy warlord.



Dellamon said:


> I like that 4E really emphasized roles in the party, but why do all roles have to be balanced all the time?  Just because a wizard or rouge can perform "shock and awe" type actions in and out of combat, does that make the fighter's role all that less important?  Tanks are needed, and believe it or not some people actually enjoy that aspect. And when the cleric and wizard are out of spells and the rouge is almost dead from 2 moderate hits, who is going to be left standing to save the day?



I don't follow this. Classes in 4e do different things. The fighter in my game doesn't do signficant damage, for example - he is a melee polearm controller. He stops things in their tracks and drops them prone. (He's actually a better controller than the wizard most of the time! The wizard in my game is built as a scholar, with not much more than the bare minimum of combat ability.)



SlyDoubt said:


> When the difference between characters of the same 'role' becomes basically "do you like shiny armor or silky robes?" something is terribly wrong. That's what 4E did. Functionally they're all so similar there's no real interest to any class.



I'm curious as to what play experience this is based on. Even at first level, Flaming Sphere plays pretty differently from Brute Strike, Icy Terrain plays pretty differently from Passing Attack, and Thunderwave plays noticeably differently from Tide of Iron.

In other words, this:



jbear said:


> When I played a wizard I could summon spheres of burning flame and cause explosions of freezing cold at a distance. I could even turn my enemies into frogs.
> 
> When I played a fighter I got in the face of my enemies, smashed their faces with my big massive sword, forced them to face me or be smashed in the face again.



Not to mention that the two classes have different skill lists, and wizards have cantrips and rituals.



hanez said:


> These were guys who never came with the char updated and just wanted to have fun and say "I jump on the dragons head and stab him in the eye!!".



How would you resolve this is in AD&D? 2nd ed AD&D? 3E? 4e?

I have no idea how to handle it in either edition of AD&D. And I don't know 3E well enough (either the jump rules or the "occupying another creature's space" rules). In 4e I would treat it as an Athletics or Acrobatics check to gain combat advantage at the risk of taking damage from falling/being squashed (DCs and damage based on the page 42 charts, as errata-ed).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> I fully understand that we all want to be special flowers at the table with our characters, but should that not be more about character development and roleplaying than stat blocks?  You can make your 1st level rouge just as interesting and fun as a 20th level sorceress with the power to level mountains.



How? Only by engaging action resolution systems that do not depend upon PC stats - what we might call "free roleplaying", or, more pejoratively, "mother may I".

There are things to be said for and against free roleplaying and GM adjudication, but a game in which that is the _main_ source of agency for a player is, in my view, well-positioned to head in one of two directions: (i) overwhelming GM force with the players mostly along for the ride; or, (ii) balance of power issues as the players - particularly those without good stats on their sheets - fight with one another, and with the GM, about the direction of the game.



Dellamon said:


> Class balance is imperative in a tactical war game (which I felt 4E developed into) played on a battle mat or in an MMO, but does not need to be so ingrained in a roleplaying game.  There are narrative aspects that cannot be achieved with true class balance.



The issue has nothing to do with "tactical wargaming". It is about the balance of power over the game among the players, and between the players and the GM.

For example, reaction rolls in AD&D aren't "tactical wargaming", but depending how a particular GM uses them, and how that GM adjudicates attempts by players to "free roleplay" around them, putting a high score in CHA may be worthwhile, or a complete waste of time.



JRRNeiklot said:


> Stop the game from rushing from one combat to the next, make combats fast and furious,  and class balance matters a whole lot less.



Again, I think focusing on combat is a red herring. An RPG can have mechanical action resolution systems, and thereby give rise to issue of mechanical balance, outside of the combat arena. Consider the numerous debates about invisibility vs hide/move silently, for example. 



Dellamon said:


> class balance is looked at by the majority of players from a purely combat and mechanical perspective.  It seems a lot of people have lost the narrative roots of roleplaying. A good DM an allow a 1st level thief to be a bad ass if that is what the story requires.  And make it a lot of fun for the player as well.



I agree with the second part of the first sentence - the issue here is not about combat, but about action resolution mechanics. It only _looks_ to be about combat because, as a purely contingent historical matter, D&D has had more robust combat resolution mechanics than other sorts of action resolution mechanics.

Your third sentence also, for me, perfectly frames the issue - if the GM is allowed to wield a lot of power, and the players accept this, then free roleplaying can compensate for mechanical weakness. But many groups do not want to play with the GM having that sort of power - and, as I said above, a game based around overwhelming GM power is frought with the potential for conflicts over that power.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Class balance is important because no one wants to suck night after night while another player steals the show, just because you chose to play a rogue and he chose to play a wizard.



This is true, but I think is just a prelude to the real issue, which is "can free roleplaying compensate for, or override, differences in player agency created by the distribution of purely mechanical power".



Dellamon said:


> is this a responsibility of the rules or of the DM? I think thats where the major difference of opinions arises from.  Some want the balance forced through the rules, others think it should be more of a DM / party / story component.



I agree that this is the issue, except that "party/story" component have a narrow meaning here, because they relate back to the DM using his/her power to meld the party together and drive the story. Whereas some groups like to play in such a way that the _players_ meld the party together and drive the story. Which requires player agency that is, to some extent at least, independent of the GM - not necessarily independent of GM adjudication, but consisting in more than just the power to ask the GM for a favour.



hanez said:


> I think in D&D there is a dungeon master, and that dungeon master is tasked with making the game fun for everyone.





hanez said:


> In D&D the DM DOES set the parameters, and he IS supposed to set the parameters to make the game fun right?  That's the purpose of the DM.



That is one possibility, but not the only one, and for many players not their preferred one.

As a GM, for example, I like my power to be clearly demarcated and constrained. I don't _want_ to be responsible for making the game fun in the way you describe. I want to play a game that will take care of that itself, so I can concentrate on what I like doing as a GM, which is setting up situations for the players to engage via their PCs, and adjudicating the resolution of those engagments.



DonTadow said:


> The DM is in charge of making sure things don't get broken.



Again, this is one way to play the game. It's not the only way.



Belphanior said:


> I think you'll find that not everybody uses a "story". I for one simply construct a scenario and let the PCs react to it. I have no ending in mind. I have no story. Story is what happens _after_ the events, not before them. So for people like me, we can't let the 1st level thief become badass this way. It feels repugnant to me too - if I'm allowed to be badass because the DM wants me to be at that moment, it's not truly badass. It's being patronized. I want to be badass because I legitimately _am_ a badass.



This isn't quite how I would describe my own approach to GMing, but it sets out one good reason as to why "more GM power, invoked and applied via free roleplaying" is not a universally viable solution to problems of mechanical imbalance.



Deadboy said:


> My favorite thing to do as a DM is sling an encounter at a group of PCs while thinking, "I can't WAIT to see how they get out of this one." It's way harder to do that if I also have to figure out ways to neuter the Wizard and coddle the fighter.





Majoru Oakheart said:


> The DM is under restrictions as well.  I refuse to metagame up a solution to the 15 minute work day.  Each time I have the NPCs come up with a brilliant idea that they would never have simply because I want to get back at the players...I sacrifice a little bit of my integrity.



These are both closer to my approach to GMing, and further illustrate why the "GM power" approach to action resolution isn't universally applicable.



Elf Witch said:


> But the dM needs to accept that players will find ways around carefully crafted encounters.



This is another claim that is not universally true. In some playstyles - those in which the GM has strong authority over framing scenes/situations - the GM _does not_ need to accept that the players will find ways around carefully crafted encounters. (Of course, in engaging those encounters things may turn out very differently from what the GM, or anyone else, expected. Situational authority is quite different from plot authority and railroading. But now we're not talking about bypassing an encounter but resolving it.)

I personally like using a fairly strong degree of situational authority as a GM, and don't want the game to assume unreflectively, and as a default, that the players will in fact enjoy such authority to an equal or greater extent.



Elf Witch said:


> That first line right there that they won't find ways around the encounter unless you let them is imo a form of railroading.



I think that you are running together situational authority and plot authority. It's not as if a sandbox is the only alternative to a railroad. Instead you let the players direct the story, based on the situations that the GM frames. Some games have fancy mechanics that _oblige_ the GM to frame situations in such a way as to incorporate player theamtic/story concerns etc, but even absent such mechanics a GM can be pretty confident that if they frame crappy scenes, one way or another their players will let them know.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> This is what we call the Oberoni Fallacy.  It essentially means that "You cannot make the argument that the rules don't have to be correct/balanced/work as written because the DM can fix it by doing X because that argument is invalid."
> 
> You can't state "The rules work fine, you just have to change things so they work fine."  It's an illogical argument.



Mostly I agreed with your post, but I don't think this is fair. [MENTION=6675987]Dellamon[/MENTION] is not saying that a good GM can fix the rules. S/he is saying (i) that the action resolution system has (potentially) two components: the mechanics, and the exercise of mechanically unmediated narrative power ("free roleplaying"); and (ii) that when this mechanically unmediated narrative power is in the hands of the GM, it can compensate for or override the imbalances one sees when looking purely at the mechanical elements of action resolution.

I'm not a big fan of that sort of system, for the reasons I've given - it is in my view a recipe for dysfunction, either in the form of dictatorial GMing or balance-of-power conflicts (and I've seen both in AD&D games, especially 2nd ed ones). But to advocate it is not to commit a fallacy.



hanez said:


> It always bugs me when players search splat books for that perfect +2 race.  They end up playing a race they could care less about just for the stat mod.  Thats when they find out the world has a sect looking to destroy this race





Aenghus said:


> Feeling useless till the DM-imposed plot device is turned off is not a fun game experience.



I see these posts as evidence - from both player and GM perspective - of how a "GM power" approach has an inherent (but not inevitable) tendency to push in the direction of balance-of-power problems.



SKyOdin said:


> The entire point of class balance is so that a player doesn't have to worry about whether or not the character they want to play will be effective or not. In a well-balanced game, players are free to focus on creating a character that fits the archetype and story they have in mind without worrying too much about mechanics. In a poorly balanced game, a player might be forced to learn how to min-max a character in order to play the character they want to play, and even then might have to make some significant compromises.



But Dellamon is advocating a different approach - one in which the players are free to focus on archetype etc because _the GM_ will ensure that their PC is effective. I'm not myself arguing for that playstyle, but given it's historical importance in RPGing (including D&D, and especially I would say from the mid-80s through to at least the early 90s) I think it's important to be clear about it.



Aldarc said:


> It's easier to create approximate balance through the rules than it is to rely on a particular DM/party/story to have the proper component.



Maybe. But if a group are happy to cede the GM the necessary power, and are not particularly mathematically inclined, than maybe not. I think it's hard to generalise about this.



Ahnehnois said:


> A lot of the modern "balance" emphasis is more about the designers trying to win a battle with an obnoxious group of players whose goal is to abuse the rules. This is a battle the designers are doomed to lose, and frankly, the rest of us can end up being casualties.



I don't agree with this. The issue of the way in which the mechanics should distribute power among the players is not just an issue for "an obnoxious group of players". It is relevant to any game in which player agency is at the forefront, because players exercise that agency by wielding their power. [MENTION=12401]Belphanior[/MENTION] gives a nice example, and I have no reason to think that s/he is obnoxious as either a player or a GM.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> Can you prove this assertion? This is fairly terrible reasoning unless you can provide a direct causal relationship between the success of PF and the balance of the magic system. This reasoning also fails to take into account all the other issues of 4E's release, the 4E system, 3E players, etc. that are not magic-system related at all. People may be happier to play a more familiar Vancian system than 4E's regardless of PF's balance. Ever thought of that?




One of the biggest reason I have read of why people like 4E is because it balances the magic classes with the mundane classes. The term wizards and muggles is used by 4E players to describe 3E.

I have read so many threads on how to nerf the magic system in 3E by people who don't like it. I have read how a lot of 4E players feel that this was accomplished by the 4E rule set.

Now Pathfinder did not make major changes to the way magic works I have heard may 4E players say that Pathfinder did nothing to fix what they perceive as a broken magic system. 

On the Pathfinder forums I rarely read threads about how to nerf the magic system so that leads me to conclude that most Pathfinder players don't feel that the magic system is broken. 

Are there people who play Pathfinder who play it for other reasons and may think that the magic system is broken sure. They may like other things. The same as 4E players who say that yes they find the classes bland but they like a lot of other things.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> One of the biggest reason I have read of why people like 4E is because it balances the magic classes with the mundane classes. The term wizards and muggles is used by 4E players to describe 3E.
> 
> I have read so many threads on how to nerf the magic system in 3E by people who don't like it. I have read how a lot of 4E players feel that this was accomplished by the 4E rule set.
> 
> ...



You are still not explaining the logical leap between Pathfinder's success and "unbroken" wizards. As I said earlier: "People may be happier to play a more familiar Vancian system than 4E's regardless of PF's balance. Ever thought of that?" Where is this possibility factored into it? Where is the possibility of people having other issues with 4E that they were more than willing to deal with PF's magic imbalance? Where are the different business models betwen Paizo and WotC factored into this? That's why it's absolutely absurd to suggest that "wizard isn't broke because Pathfinder is successful." It's like saying that Windows must not have bugs or performance issues, or even the Blue Screen of Death, because it outsells Linux and Macs.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> You are still not explaining the logical leap between Pathfinder's success and "unbroken" wizards. As I said earlier: "People may be happier to play a more familiar Vancian system than 4E's regardless of PF's balance. Ever thought of that?" Where is this possibility factored into it? Where is the possibility of people having other issues with 4E that they were more than willing to deal with PF's magic imbalance? Where are the different business models betwen Paizo and WotC factored into this? That's why it's absolutely absurd to suggest that "wizard isn't broke because Pathfinder is successful." It's like saying that Windows must not have bugs or performance issues, or even the Blue Screen of Death, because it outsells Linux and Macs.




All I can go on is what I read online and over the years one big issue is are wizards over powered some say yes some say no. 


Pathfinder kept it the same. And as I said you don't tend to see these kind of threads on Pathfinder forums about how broken the system is. There is no way for me to prove that that I think a good many players of Pathfinder don't think the magic system is broken all I have to go on is that fact that magic plays a huge part of the game and people are still willing to buy and play a system with this type of magic in it. 

My point is that that there are a lot of people who feel that wizards are not broken and there is an in print game that supports that. Pathfinder was playtested I would think that if a lot of people didn't like the magic system Pathfinder would have changed it.

And yes I have thought that some people may think the wizard is broken and still choose to play because they like the Vancian system or they live everything else but that about the game. 

But again if it was the huge issue some people make it out to be I would think you would find more people complaining about it on the forums and they would have brought it up in the play test stage. 

I am just tired of people tossing around wizards are broken as a hard fact not as an opinion. I think a lot comes down to playstyle and taste in playstyles.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> All I can go on is what I read online and over the years one big issue is are wizards over powered some say yes some say no.



And therefore they're not broken because half of D&D fanbase buys Pathfinder, while another half buys 4E? 



> Pathfinder kept it the same. And as I said you don't tend to see these kind of threads on Pathfinder forums about how broken the system is. There is no way for me to prove that that I think a good many players of Pathfinder don't think the magic system is broken all I have to go on is that fact that magic plays a huge part of the game and people are still willing to buy and play a system with this type of magic in it.



Didn't they also boost the power levels of fighters, rework spells, and other issues surrounding the debate? It's not as if they left 3.5 wholesale in tact.  



> My point is that that there are a lot of people who feel that wizards are not broken and there is an in print game that supports that. Pathfinder was playtested I would think that if a lot of people didn't like the magic system Pathfinder would have changed it.



It proves that there are a lot of people who buy Pathfinder products, but it says nothing about the particular attitudes towards wizards. 



> But again if it was the huge issue some people make it out to be I would think you would find more people complaining about it on the forums and they would have brought it up in the play test stage.



Those threads are actually not hard to find at all. And from what I gather, there were a number of things that people wanted in Pathfinder that weren't implemented via play testing. After all, you cannot deviate too much from the OGL cash cow and deal with backwards compatibility. 



> I am just tired of people tossing around wizards are broken as a hard fact not as an opinion. *I think a lot comes down to playstyle and taste in playstyles.*



You're right. It's people who enjoying playing wizards and those who don't enjoy being their torchbearers.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> And therefore they're not broken because half of D&D fanbase buys Pathfinder, while another half buys 4E?
> 
> Didn't they also boost the power levels of fighters, rework spells, and other issues surrounding the debate? It's not as if they left 3.5 wholesale in tact.
> 
> ...




There are plenty of gamers who don't agree that wizards are broken are you saying that we are just to stupid to  realize that we are wrong? 

There are plenty of Pathfinder players I have talked to who have said they like the magic system which is why they choose Pathfinder they hated what 4E did to it. 

And yes they did raise other classes power levels because those classes needed the boast. I have always said that 3E fighters needed some fixes made to it. Pathfinder fixed the fighter the way I think should be done which is raise and fix the broken class but not by nerfing another class to do it.

And you realize that in the 30 years of playing DnD plenty of people have played the game and never felt they were playing wizards and their henchmen but maybe we are just to dumb to figure out that we are playing the game wrong.

I know I am getting cranky here but I acknowledge that there are different ways to play the game and different tastes and that a lot of this is just opinions but when it comes to this issue a lot of the people on the side of the wizard is broken feel that their opinion is a fact not just an opinion.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> There are plenty of gamers who don't agree that wizards are broken are you saying that we are just to stupid to realize that we are wrong?



No, but I guess you want the many wizard critics to admit that "we are just to stupid to realize that we are wrong" and that we are completely baseless with our assertions instead. Am I, right?  



> There are plenty of Pathfinder players I have talked to who have said they like the magic system which is why they choose Pathfinder they hated what 4E did to it.



So there may be other reasons outside of simply issues of class balance that may have led to Pathfinder's success? 



> And yes they did raise other classes power levels because those classes needed the boast. I have always said that 3E fighters needed some fixes made to it. Pathfinder fixed the fighter the way I think should be done which is raise and fix the broken class but not by nerfing another class to do it.



Didn't they also nerf some of the spells and rearrange some of the spells in the wizard's spell list? 



> *And you realize that in the 30 years of playing DnD plenty of people have played the game and never felt they were playing wizards and their henchmen* but maybe we are just to dumb to figure out that we are playing the game wrong.



Ah, I see. So the detractors are dumb, since this has not been an issue "in the 30 years of playing DnD."


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> No, but I guess you want the many wizard critics to admit that "we are just to stupid to realize that we are wrong" and that we are completely baseless with our assertions instead. Am I, right?
> 
> So there may be other reasons outside of simply issues of class balance that may have led to Pathfinder's success?
> 
> ...




I think it is broken to you and the style which you want to play that is totally different than saying it is broken no matter what style you play.

I never claimed that Pathfinder was successful just because of its magic system I am saying that one of its many appeals to certain gamers is that it kept the magic system we enjoy and don't find broken which is why a lot of bought it. It was the main reason the 15 people I know bought it. Are there other reasons sure there are.

I have friends who play 4E and love it and they didn't switch because they found wizards broken they switched to 4E because of other reasons. 

Yes they did so what over the years spells have been changed. I nerfed polymoprh a long time ago. Just because you nerf and change some spells does not mean the entire class is broken.  

I am saying that for over 30 years plenty of people played the game and enjoyed and didn''t feel that the magic system was broken. Those who did often house ruled or played something else. 

I am not saying that if you don't like the system you are wrong to hold that opinion you are the ones who feel the ned to be dismissive with comments like wizards and muggles and wizards and torchbearers. 

Can you not see that and see how it is insulting?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> There are plenty of gamers who don't agree that wizards are broken are you saying that we are just to stupid to  realize that we are wrong?




Here's the deal.  They are wrong but they aren't wrong at the same time.  3e lets you make a character however you want.  However, it allows you to make a character that has a power level anywhere between 1 and 100.  Fighters and non-magical characters are capped at a relative power of 10.  Wizards and other casters are capped at 100.

So, when a person makes a character, they can make a Wizard of power level 10.  They can purposefully choose poor spells and make character decisions to limit their power("I won't cast my big spell this combat, I'll let the rest of the party have their fun this time" or "I could prepare a spell that gives +1 to hit to the fighter and rogue or one that gives me +7 to hit and +5 damage, 2 extra attacks per round, and temporarily 40 more hitpoints...I'll take the first one").  And if they make these poor decisions, you won't notice how overpowered they are.  Because on an average round, they aren't doing anything extravagant.  And the one or two rounds a day where they outperform everyone else, people shrug and say "They are a wizard, they are supposed to be better than us."

But in campaigns where players look at the rules and take the absolute best thing they are allowed....you have clerics, wizards, and druids who are performing at the near the 100 level.  

I'm not saying that you are stupid.  I'm saying that people in a certain mindset don't even consider better options.  They don't think in terms of numbers.  So when looking at a choice between the above +1 to hit to 2 of their allies and much bigger bonuses for themselves, they think "I want to be a team player, I'll take the bonus to my allies."

Other players look at the spells and thing "Wait, if I give them a +1 to hit, that's only a 5% chance of having any effect each round...maybe more if they get 5 attacks per round.  If they don't roll exactly 1 number below what they need to hit, my spell does nothing.  On the other hand +7 to hit is a 35% greater chance to hit, which, due to my poor bonus to hit in the first place has more effect statistically than giving it to someone who already had a better bonus.  And with the 2 extra attacks per round, it comes into effect 4 times, since I already had 2 attacks.  If I hit 4 times with the extra damage, I do way more damage than the Rogue would do if I gave the bonus to him.  I'll add the bonus to myself, because it is MUCH more effective.  And anything that is much for effective for me is better for the party."

Not everyone thinks in the way that causes them to come to the second conclusion.  Some people are happy playing a 10 out of 100 Wizard, either because it never occurred to them to try for more or out of a sense of fairness for their DM or the other players.

But my point is that if you have a game that everyone plays, you cannot expect all of the players to limit themselves to 1/10th of the power they are capable of simply out of a sense of fairness.  Not everyone has that sense.

And the problem gets bigger when you consider the Fighters who aren't that concerned with power gaming their Fighters.  Then you get the fighters who are power level 3 or 4 out of 100.  And then the difference is seen to be even bigger.  As a quick example: A 11th level fighter who started with a 14 strength for roleplaying reasons and didn't add any points to his strength and whose DM never gave him more than a +1 weapon and who took roleplaying oriented feats and gear will have +14 to hit for 1d12+3 points of damage.  A 10th level fighter who started with a 20 str, added all his points in it, got a hold of a +6 stat enhancer and a +3 weapon and took feats to make himself better has +25 to hit for 1d12+16.  That means the first one has an average damage of 28.5 damage if they hit with all their attacks.  The second one has an average damage of 77.5....nearly 3 times as much.  And hits 55% more often.  Although, compare that to the 375 points of damage the Wizard does in the same round.

Best to make the game force the casters to have a power of 10 out of 10 and then, when the rest of your group consists of people who are 4s or 5s out of 10, they don't feel nearly as left behind.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 18, 2012)

FireLance said:


> Or, let the rogue do it quickly, quietly and cheaply, and every other character's options lose one or more of the advantages.
> 
> A big hammer is cheap, but it won't be quick or quiet.
> 
> ...




Yes, this here is precisely how it should in my opinion be. Different disadvantages to other methods of doing the rogue's job. Arguably, knock should take longer or cost more. That's a small change, but maybe needed.

--

However, really guys: if you want to make it impossible for new players (or those who don't always think about others) to step on each others toes you also have to ban playing the same class.

Maybe these things should be spelled out in the book, but when you have two rogues you can still coordinate so that they specialize in different things. Or they can take turns.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I think it is broken to you and the style which you want to play that is totally different than saying it is broken no matter what style you play.



But shouldn't it be the goal of the system to work fine no matter what style of game you play?  Shouldn't the designers sit down and say "If someone picks the absolutely best options in this game and the DM is running a pre-written adventure without room to use a roleplaying balance to the character, and he's a new DM who doesn't know the rules well enough to pick and choose which spells he is banning from his game or changing just to fix the system, plus he doesn't have enough time or the inclination to analyze which spells even need changing...if someone picks the best options in this game, they won't outshine the rest of the group that badly."

I absolutely think it's the job of the system to not even allow a player to create Angel Summoner in a game where the BMX Bandit is a character.

I never claimed that Pathfinder was successful just because of its magic system I am saying that one of its many appeals to certain gamers is that it kept the magic system we enjoy and don't find broken which is why a lot of bought it. It was the main reason the 15 people I know bought it. Are there other reasons sure there are.

I have friends who play 4E and love it and they didn't switch because they found wizards broken they switched to 4E because of other reasons. 



Elf Witch said:


> Yes they did so what over the years spells have been changed. I nerfed polymoprh a long time ago. Just because you nerf and change some spells does not mean the entire class is broken.



That's correct.  I've nerfed 1 or 2 powers in 4e that got overpowered in 4e.  But in order to nerf wizards to the point they are balanced, you'd have to overhaul them much more than a spell or two.  There are entire categories of spells that need to be removed.  Actually, pretty much all of them.  And you can't have a Wizard with no spells left.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 18, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Mostly I agreed with your post, but I don't think this is fair. [MENTION=6675987]Dellamon[/MENTION] is not saying that a good GM can fix the rules. S/he is saying (i) that the action resolution system has (potentially) two components: the mechanics, and the exercise of mechanically unmediated narrative power ("free roleplaying"); and (ii) that when this mechanically unmediated narrative power is in the hands of the GM, it can compensate for or override the imbalances one sees when looking purely at the mechanical elements of action resolution.



To me, "free roleplaying" should not have any bearing on the mechanics.

It says "Sure, the Wizard has extremely powerful abilities, but I have the absolute authority as the DM to take them away whenever I want or whenever the player uses those powers in ways I don't like.  I have the option to put in countermeasures specifically designed to decrease his/her power whenever I feel like it."

Which is all true, as the DM, if you want a player dead or powerless, there is nothing they can do to stop you.  But it is identical to the Fallacy: "There is no problem with the Wizard, because I as the DM can use my powers to change the mechanics of the Wizard(using "free roleplaying") to a point where they aren't a problem anymore."

Thus, "There is no problem except the one that exists."  But just because you have the ability, through any means you have of changing the power of a Wizard doesn't excuse it from being overpowered in the first place.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jan 18, 2012)

Number48 said:


> TL;DR
> 
> I got through page 4 and never saw what I was thinking expressed:
> 
> ...




See above.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> That first line right there that they won't find ways around the encounter unless you let them is imo a form of railroading.



I don't want to get into the railroading debate again.  Suffice to say, I don't believe railroading is bad.  Also, nearly every thing a DM does is "railroading" by at least one definition of railroading.

I don't believe the situation is railroading, it doesn't force the PCs to do anything. It only limits their options.  They have the option to talk to the bridge keeper or they have the option to turn around and go back.  They have the option to trick the bridge keeper into letting them past or bribing him or negotiating or threatening him or complimenting him until he agrees.  They can take the long way around the pit, finding a way that doesn't involve crossing the bridge.  They can kill him and walk over the bridge.

All I want to do is limit their ability to bypass my NPC entirely.


Elf Witch said:


> As a DM I deal with what happens when my players turn my perfectly planned and crafted encounters on their ear by not doing what I expected.



This is all fine and dandy until your players find the loophole in your campaign that you didn't notice that allows them to skip 6 months of storyline you were planning for your campaign.  Especially, if you wrote up extensive notes and maps, along with made NPCs and planned out monster encounters for that time.

I've had it happen 3 or 4 times now.  Each and every time I had to resort to an Out of Character discussion with the party about how I didn't foresee them having that ability or trying that tactic and that it will cause too much damage to the whole campaign if they take that action.  So much so that the storyline will be no fun for me, as the DM.  And I refuse to run a game that isn't fun for me in addition to the players.  So, I gave them 2 options...the only ones I could come up with: Take their action back or have someone else come up with a campaign and spend the effort to run it.

They took it back.

Luckily, I haven't had to have that conversation with anyone since 4e came out.


Elf Witch said:


> If 4E truly allows the DM that much power to railroad the players and take their free will away then there is another reason why I hope they get rid of that rule set.



It's not about taking away free will, as I mention above.  It's the difference between running a cop game in modern day earth...and an equivalent game where one of the characters is superman.

In the first game you can decide in advance that the villain killed the victim and is hiding out in a house on the south part of town.  You can anticipate that the group will track down clues, talk to witnesses, eventually track the perp to his house, and have a shootout as the perp has a gun.  But that the perp had an accomplice who there is no evidence of in the house or alley..so he'll be around as a villain for next time.  You can then safely draw a map for the shootout, create stats for the perp and his accomplice, create the personalities of the witnesses as well as the gang member who knows what the perps name is and even start thinking about what kind of crimes the accomplice will do in the next adventure.

In the 2nd game, superman simply flies around the early until he reverses time to the point where the murder happens.  Then stops the murder from ever occurring and catches the perp and his accomplice at the same time.  You then have to throw out everything you had planned to do.

Saying "I don't want superman in my game, and I'm not going to allow it" isn't railroading anyone or taking away their choice.  It's saying "I'd like to play a game that doesn't have to deal with the abilities of superman.  I don't want every villain to have to carry kryptonite in their pockets just to have a game that I can keep some control over."

And that's what you have to do with a Wizard around.  Every villain has to have the resources to block scrying, teleporting, death magic, invisibility, flying, dimensional traveling magic, and so one and so forth.  Put it all together and it might as well be Kryptonite with how rare it SHOULD be, but how common it turns out to be, simply so that the Wizard doesn't have to be any less powerful.



Elf Witch said:


> a wizard needs to be rather high level to teleport the entire party to teleport a party of four they have to be 18 level



Also, not sure where you're getting this one.  The pathfinder version of teleport AND the 3.5e version are exactly the same in this case: You can teleport yourself and one extra person per 3 caster levels.  A party of 4 can be teleported at 9th level(12th for a 5 person group).  And by the time you are 12th level, with the bonus spell from a high stat, you can cast 4 of them a day, so you can go back and get another 4 people if your group is larger than that.  I'm not talking about Epic games.  I'm talking about 12-18th level games.

We had a wizard who was 14th level who used to teleport back to his house each night from the dungeon just so that his butler could make him a home cooked meal in the morning.  We had 6 players in our group, so he regretted that he couldn't bring us all back.  But he assured us that he'd bring us some scones.



Elf Witch said:


> Most games don't usually go that high level Pazio Adventure Path for example stop at 15 level so if you use them a wizard is never going to be powerful enough to teleport the entire party.



Yeah, the reason they stop at that level is because the system doesn't handle high levels well.  Mainly because of spellcasters and their ability to ruin any adventure you come up with.


----------



## Belphanior (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm out of this discussion, btw. I don't think anybody is going to convince anybody else here, everything we say seems to be a repetition of the same steps over and over.

I do want to leave one final thought though:

There are people who don't see a balance problem. They've never come across it. Ok, that's fair enough. But why should the game cater only to them? If there's also a bunch of people who claim they _do_ have problems, why shouldn't the game address this? Why is, "I have never had problems with this", considered a retort against the people who did have problems with this? People, your own experiences are not the only yardstick against which to measure out there. If a lot of people make complaints, something ain't right. Even if you don't see it.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 18, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> To me, "free roleplaying" should not have any bearing on the mechanics.



I feel a bit silly replying because our outlook is very similar, but I did feel moved by some sympathy for the OP to say: I tend to agree with you, but the other view - that free roleplaying _can_ bear on the mechanics in various ways - is very strongly entrenched among some D&D players, and a whole version of the game (2nd ed AD&D) arguably was predicated on the idea, and so it's probably at least something the designers of a unity edition should think about.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> We had a wizard who was 14th level who used to teleport back to his house each night from the dungeon just so that his butler could make him a home cooked meal in the morning.  We had 6 players in our group, so he regretted that he couldn't bring us all back.  But he assured us that he'd bring us some scones.



Terrific stuff! In my Rolemaster game where this happened, the whole party were wizards (except the warrior mage, who nevertheless took the build that gave access to teleport), and every day they would teleport from the wilds of the Howling Hills (on the NW of the Greyhawk map) to the comfort of their palace in Rauxes (on the SE of the Greyhawk map). So no need to bring anyone else scones.

These examples, for me, also undermine the injunction to use time pressure or the threat of retaliation to shut down the 15 min day. When PCs are teleporting back to these sorts of secure bases, it strains verisimilitude to have their enemies routinely turning up to threaten them.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 18, 2012)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I don't agree with this. The issue of the way in which the mechanics should distribute power among the players is not just an issue for "an obnoxious group of players". It is relevant to any game in which player agency is at the forefront, because players exercise that agency by wielding their power. [MENTION=12401]Belphanior[/MENTION] gives a nice example, and I have no reason to think that s/he is obnoxious as either a player or a GM.



My intent in posting was not to say that balance is exclusively the concern of a malcontentious group of players, but that it is preferentially their concern. And, more importantly, that the designers seem to give their voice too much weight. The corollary is that game design has moved towards balance at the expense of other valid concerns.

I certainly try to keep my game balanced, but that's one of many goals, and I find balance is highly situational and specific to the person playing. Thus, it's the DM's job more than the game designers' to balance things.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 18, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I certainly try to keep my game balanced, but that's one of many goals, and I find balance is highly situational and specific to the person playing. Thus, it's the DM's job more than the game designers' to balance things.



Both have a job in that.

The DM has to build scenarios where the players and their characters are equally involved (or at least as equal as required is for them to be satisfied. Some players like a more passive role, others need more spotlight). It doesn't really matter if one player has a character that is perfectly fine for combat if he doesn't like combat very much, or another one loves combat but hates exploration. That's something the DM has to consider and the designer can't fix.

But the designer can create a baseline balance that makes it easier to achieve these goals. In combat encounters, can everyone contribute meaningful? (And can we make the contribution "easy" but still relevant for someone that doesn't like them too much but doesn't want his party left hanging?). Similar for other types of "encounters" and challenges. Exploration. Social Interaction. Puzzles.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 18, 2012)

Apologies if I reiterate something already addressed. I only skimmed any of the new responses that weren't addressed specifically at myself.



Elf Witch said:


> The opposite is also true for me if I had to change everything I find that makes 4 unplayable for my group I  would find it more work then I want do.




Who's talking about making you play 4e? I've already said I think classes should be balanced but unhomogenized. Is it that you simply don't believe that it's possible, or something else?



> You realize that if it was a fact that most people find 3E magic to be over powered and unplayable Pathfinder would not be doing so well.




That doesn't make sense. There are plenty of things about 4e that they might not like, that would cause them to not switch. Also, clearly there is a play style (yours) that doesn't have the balance issues seen in other play styles under 3e.

Unsurprisingly, I don't think everyone should have to adopt your play style just to play D&D. Clearly, there are other ways of playing it, and there are plenty of people who have voiced umbrage with the 3e magic system. It's not like I'm the only one.

EDIT: To expound on this further, with my group's preferences / play style, while we did go out of our way not to step on other people's toes most of the time, it often felt like we were walking on eggshells with the 3e magic system. For us, at least, it did feel like we were playing with one arm tied behind our backs, and it didn't much appeal to us. We prefer a system that can be driven to near its limits without breaking, because it cheapens the experience for us to have to hold back. I think that's part of why we like 4e. We never have to hold back and neither does the DM.

You say that a good DM and players can compensate for the imbalance inherent in the 3e magic system. I say they shouldn't have to. As a DM, I have better things to spend my time on than trying to figure out ways to nerf the wizard and raise the fighter into the spotlight. I'd rather give them both opportunities to shine, without having to worry that the fighter will be atomized during the wizard's moment, or that the fighter's moment will be trivialized when the wizard resolves the scenario with a single spell (probably not even realizing that the moment was intended for the fighter, but rather thinking he was helping out).



> The argument about the newbie and inexperienced player does not hold any water we were all inexperienced and new to the game at one time. And all the old editions have these kind of spells in them and so for 30 yeas we managed to play with them.




And let me tell you, some of our early games were _terrible_! Just because I say my group is polite doesn't mean that that was the case when I first started playing. I didn't even know this group back then.



> Over the years my group has had plenty of newbies in it our current game as a person who had never played before not RPGs or video games she is playing a sorcerer and she has not had an issue with any of this. She did take improved invisibility as one of her spells known and sometimes she cast it on herself but she but more often she cats it on the rest of us when we need to all be sneaky.
> 
> Sure she looked at knocked and we explained to her why for a sorcerer with a rogue in the party is really is a waste of a slot.
> 
> DMs need to guide new players no matter what class they play and that means pointing out spell choices and other choices.




That only works if there's someone experienced at the table. I, myself, am a black box self-taught D&D player. I taught the rest of my friends, after I figured out the basics. And guess what? I had no clue whatsoever that taking Knock would be in bad taste. Given how low the 1st level Thief's starting percentages were, I probably would have advocated the idea.



> Here is what I have gotten from this thread wizards should not be allowed to have any spells that might infringe on another class so no buffs, or spells to raise their ACs because that puts them in competition with the fighter.
> 
> They should not be allowed to have knock or spider climb or invisibility because that infringes on the rogue.
> 
> ...




I'm not saying that the wizard shouldn't be able to do any of those things. Only that he should not be able to do them as effectively as he does in 3e. 

Invisibility shouldn't come into play until after a rouge gains Hide in Plain Sight. When Charm Person wears off, the creature should realize that it was magically beguiled and react accordingly.

Magic should have both limits and a price. It should not be the default go-to best option in most situations. Why even have a skill like Diplomacy if a 1st level spell like Charm is arguably better?




Elf Witch said:


> Shapechange s a druid spell not a wizard spell. And I find druids have the potential to be far more game breaking then any wizard.




Not only is Shapechange a druid spell, it's also a wizard spell _and_ a cleric spell (animal domain). Druids are probably the most potent of the casting classes, I'll agree. The Wizard is nonetheless a better skeleton key though. Besides, the wizard is not the only issue. As I've previously stated, it's all casters. The wizard is just the example I keep using.



> Like I said a simple fix for knock is make a noisy spell or give it a longer casting time.
> 
> But I wonder how many players would answer this if being chased by a red dragon about to eat you would you rather the rogue pick the lock of the door between you and safety or would you rather the wizard pull out their emergency scroll of knock and use it ?
> 
> HMM death but at least this one time the rogue feet were not stepped on or a chance to live. I just texted the player playing our party rogue and his answer was are you crazy get that door open now.




_That's the problem!_ The wizard should not have the best emergency "get out of the locked room card". It should be the rogue, because a locked door is his schtick and his time to shine. It shouldn't be a choice between use the rogue and die, or use the wizard and live. Of course every player, including the rogue, will choose the second option. They'd have to be brain damaged to do otherwise! And therein lies the problem.

If anything, the rogue should have automatic success picking locks x time per day, and the wizard should always have to roll a check for knock. Or the rogue should have to roll as well, but the wizard's check is not as good. 

When faced with a locked door and no time, the rogue should always be the first choice.

The problem is exactly that, in 3e, he's not.



> I would rather have the freedom to deal with rude players by out of game methods then have things nerfed because it might be abused by rude players.
> 
> I want to make one thing clear that I don't think that you liking 4E and its playstyle is in any way wrong.
> 
> ...




First, I'm not trying to knock 3e. It did a number of things well. I recognize that the magic system does work when using certain playstyles. I don't, however, feel that that is sufficient, as I believe that D&D should support as many play styles as possible. And there are definitely a few play styles out there for which it works quite poorly.

Honestly, I'd be fine with them doing an entire huge line of D&DN supplements on 3e style magics. I just don't think it should be the default, because then it becomes nigh impossible to house rule out or balance.

I have faith in the designers though. I think they'll be able to come up with a default design that's more flexible than 4e, yet more balanced than 3e. All it requires is a critical examination of the 3e spell list, and careful consideration of the implications of each spell's mechanics. Which in all fairness, would be a lot of work, but then again they're paid to do it!

Perhaps that will mean that the party has to hold out for a round or two while the wizard gathers the requisite mana to cast teleport as a single round action, and/or that long-range teleportation is only possible to a location with an existing teleportation circle. Perhaps it will mean that scrying can only be performed in certain remote magical locations, and therefore officially becomes part of the DM's purview. I certainly hope it means that when a door needs to be opened and there's no time, the rogue is the man for the job. 

I do think, however, that it can be done.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> You're right. It's people who enjoying playing wizards and those who don't enjoy being their torchbearers.




Now who's making the unsupported assumption why people play what they play? I'll give you a clue, it's not Elf Witch.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 18, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Yeah, the reason they stop at that level is because the system doesn't handle high levels well.  Mainly because of spellcasters and their ability to ruin any adventure you come up with.




Pretty big assumption. To pull a page from Aldarc's book, how do you know this? Perhaps it's because higher level adventures (or even ends of the path) don't sell as well. Maybe it's because the cumulative effect of 15+ level of choices in character building make it much harder to create an adventure that works for all groups. You can say either without the implication that the game breaks down at high levels or spellcasters ruin adventures.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 18, 2012)

pemerton said:


> How? Only by engaging action resolution systems that do not depend upon PC stats - what we might call "free roleplaying", or, more pejoratively, "mother may I".
> 
> There are things to be said for and against free roleplaying and GM adjudication, but a game in which that is the _main_ source of agency for a player is, in my view, well-positioned to head in one of two directions: (i) overwhelming GM force with the players mostly along for the ride; or, (ii) balance of power issues as the players - particularly those without good stats on their sheets - fight with one another, and with the GM, about the direction of the game.
> 
> ...



LOL, my comment as made in response to "crazy" absurd situatios. I agree with most of what you say here.  Balance is important.  I dont plan for a game to accomdoate craziness, i plan for a game to accomodate balance. 

It's the reason I dont play too many american made games. Random is just not fun or challenging.  The same character, same build and one 5th level guy had 10 hit points and the other 50 hit points.  There's something wrong with that system.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 18, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Pretty big assumption. To pull a page from Aldarc's book, how do you know this? Perhaps it's because higher level adventures (or even ends of the path) don't sell as well. Maybe it's because the cumulative effect of 15+ level of choices in character building make it much harder to create an adventure that works for all groups. You can say either without the implication that the game breaks down at high levels or spellcasters ruin adventures.




Most designers, writers and players have said the game breaks (at least 3.5) over a ceratin level.  

This is contributed to crazy amount of attacks and damage. Again, the problem with the system now is that randomness scales along with level, so for some reason a game balanced at level 1 steadly loses that balance the more random inputs you place in. By 20 its all 20d6, 5 attacks and various armors to boost you to +30.  YOu're a god at that point. 

That's not how fiction usually works for thesecharacters and it makes it feel that level 20 is a god level instead of just an accomplished adventure.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> The opposite is also true for me if I had to change everything I find that makes 4 unplayable for my group I would find it more work then I want do.
> 
> You realize that if it was a fact that most people find 3E magic to be over powered and unplayable Pathfinder would not be doing so well.



... except that most games don't make it to even the mid-level range where casters start being seriously overpowered, let alone high levels, and Pathfinder casters are overpowered in the exact same ways casters are overpowered in all non-4e editions of D&D so they're used to it.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 18, 2012)

DonTadow said:


> That's not how fiction usually works for these characters, and it makes it feel that level 20 is a god level instead of just an accomplished adventure.



Level 20 _is_ god level though, isn't it?  If the game had simply presented levels 1 through 10, would it have been a better game?  (Or just levels 1 through 6, as the *E6* folks suggest?)


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> One of the biggest reason I have read of why people like 4E is because it balances the magic classes with the mundane classes. The term wizards and muggles is used by 4E players to describe 3E.
> 
> I have read so many threads on how to nerf the magic system in 3E by people who don't like it. I have read how a lot of 4E players feel that this was accomplished by the 4E rule set.
> 
> ...




Good points. In other words, there is a huge gulf between the roleplayers who like (what I perceive as) god-like classes and their muggle henchmen, and the roleplayers who prefer an even playing field.

Which is why I think this whole attempt at Fifth Edition is doomed to failure. People who like balance already have Fourth Edition (which admittedly needs some fine-tuning and revision). People who like 3.5 already have Pathfinder (which is the fine-tuning and revision of 3.5).

Unbalanced classes would be a deal-breaker for me. As would a system whose mechanics are obscure and difficult to weigh. I want a transparent and fair system for classes, feats, powers and themes. (I also want those more fine-tuned from even Fourth Edition: there are many weak and useless paragon paths, powers, feats and even classes liek the Binder and Seeker in Fourth.)


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 18, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I don't want to get into the railroading debate again.  Suffice to say, I don't believe railroading is bad.  Also, nearly every thing a DM does is "railroading" by at least one definition of railroading.
> 
> I don't believe the situation is railroading, it doesn't force the PCs to do anything. It only limits their options.  They have the option to talk to the bridge keeper or they have the option to turn around and go back.  They have the option to trick the bridge keeper into letting them past or bribing him or negotiating or threatening him or complimenting him until he agrees.  They can take the long way around the pit, finding a way that doesn't involve crossing the bridge.  They can kill him and walk over the bridge.
> 
> ...




I cannot give you any more experience points just now, so I will just quote you for truth in the hopes that people will understand.

Mind you, there are many who want the games you describe. They want to play Zeus and the Olympians and their mortal servants. I just hope Fifth Edition does not accommodate them. Unity will not happen, alas.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 18, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Mind you, there are many who want the games you describe. They want to play Zeus and the Olympians and their mortal servants. I just hope Fifth Edition does not accommodate them. Unity will not happen, alas.




Can we cut the veiled insults here? There are plenty of people who don't care about mechanical balance because there are other ways to balance games, including finding something worthwhile for everyone to do or spotlight balance.

Or should we talk about 4e fans as people more interested in playing CopyCat and the Duplicates rather than real fantasy archetypes? Pejorative characterizations work both ways.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 18, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> They want to play Zeus and the Olympians and their mortal servants. I just hope Fifth Edition does not accommodate them.



I see nothing wrong with playing Olympians and their servants, as long as the game doesn't present a super-powerful 1st-level Olympian as an equal choice against a very mortal 1st-level servant.

Also, we have to remember that D&D's notion of "powerful" isn't typical or universal.  For instance, a game like Mutants & Masterminds can revolve around superheroes who do _not_ have the wide portfolio of powers of a D&D wizard (or 4E Fighter).  They have higher numbers, but not higher complexity.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 18, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Can we cut the veiled insults here? There are plenty of people who don't care about mechanical balance because there are other ways to balance games, including finding something worthwhile for everyone to do or spotlight balance.
> 
> Or should we talk about 4e fans as people more interested in playing CopyCat and the Duplicates rather than real fantasy archetypes? Pejorative characterizations work both ways.



SOrry, i carry a card as a long time pro 3.5 veteran in the war.  I still look at 4e folk suspiciously in the grocery store and I won't let my kids go to school with them. 

I don't think balance means copycat, it means making sure that a 4th level character can only do 3d6 damage a turn, no matter what they are.  How that damage is done, where its done and how its issued out is completely up to the mechanics and can be quite diverse.  

I have no problem with god games, love mutants and mastermind. I think a game works right if its the whole game for the basic core of the game. I mean, you've never played monopoly after 4 hours he game turned into DIe Macher.  No, it stays monpoly. So why does DnD suddenly change games after level 14 or 15 and starts getting power creepy about 12. 

I get the emotional inestment that everyone has. No one wants a dnd without  their timestops or meteor storms and such. And I guet that iconic spells should be there. But tone them down and balance them with other abilities.  It's not about everyone shining, its about everyone having an equal chance to play and have a good time.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 18, 2012)

mmadsen said:


> I see nothing wrong with playing Olympians and their servants, as long as the game doesn't present a super-powerful 1st-level Olympian as an equal choice against a very mortal 1st-level servant.
> 
> Also, we have to remember that D&D's notion of "powerful" isn't typical or universal.  For instance, a game like Mutants & Masterminds can revolve around superheroes who do _not_ have the wide portfolio of powers of a D&D wizard (or 4E Fighter).  They have higher numbers, but not higher complexity.




Mand M is a great analolgy in that, in Mand m the base game has a power level.  This powerlevel is the same for the entire campaign.  I would say the game is as compelex, in that you have powers, but unlike dnd, you dont have a huge variety of ways to effect opponents other than knocking them out. So your powers end up doing a multiple of different things that compare to the options of a dnd player.


----------



## hanez (Jan 18, 2012)

I think people talking about fighters being "servants" for wizards and the like have either not played the system in the while, exaggerating, didn't follow the rules of the game, or were subject to a very bad DMs game.

Anyways, of course aspects of that system needed to be rebalanced, thats why a new edition was released that went too far in the other way and significantly contributed to the failure of that edition.   

I'm very hopeful that Monte and crew will be able to strike a closer balance while still maintaining the fun and flavor we all want.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 18, 2012)

I value class balance because as a DM is makes combat encounters easier to construct. It is very easy to chalange my players in 4e and I don't even have to care what classes they are or what powers they have taken. 
I don have the same issues in non-combat encounters as the resolution falls naturally out of the rp.

So if D&D.next is as unbalanced as 3.x and before then I am simply not switching and if the Wizard ninjas steal my 3e books then I will run D&D using Savage Worlds or something.

Now i see no reason that WoTC cannot create a nice balanced 5e and then provide switches to unbalance it in favour of casters if that what some people want. Seems much easier than building something unbalanced in the base and trying to then add bits to balance it.


----------



## mcintma (Jan 18, 2012)

IME, mid+ level Wizards in some 3e games come off as overpowered *mainly* because of:

-the 15-min adventuring day
-DMs too nice or inexperienced to exploit their long list of weaknesses
-Monsters using Wiz spells (e.g. Lich spell nails the Ftr, who says "That spell's borked!") but monsters generally don't share the Wiz's balancing weaknesses and always have a de-facto '15-min adventuring day'
-unlimited time to craft & scribe, or unlimited ability and selection to buy scrolls and wands of their choice
-an assumption by some that the wizard will always have the right spell prepped (even casted) at all times, and the duration is infinite [I'm exaggerating here, I realize]

If 5e nerfs the wizard, they should consider 'nerfing' the class's many weaknesses to compensate. PF was heading in this direction with d6 HP, & no familiar-death level loss. I hope WOTC can find a happy medium for 5e. 

I just want real spell lists back, it can be vancian or spell-points.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 18, 2012)

ardoughter said:


> I value class balance because as a DM is makes combat encounters easier to construct. It is very easy to chalange my players in 4e and I don't even have to care what classes they are or what powers they have taken.
> I don have the same issues in non-combat encounters as the resolution falls naturally out of the rp.
> 
> So if D&D.next is as unbalanced as 3.x and before then I am simply not switching and if the Wizard ninjas steal my 3e books then I will run D&D using Savage Worlds or something.
> ...





It's not that people DESIRE incredibly powerful magic users to the point that all other classes are completely useless. No one wants that as an option. 

The problem is what is tied to what makes the magic users so strong. Or rather, the entire construction of 3.X/PF. It's startling how people ignore the entire game and focus on one aspect as the defining quality and the only reason anyone plays one version over another.

imho in every way outside of pure raw mechanical balance 3.X/PF is a superior game to 4E. So yes, I will take that hit. Why? Because it can be mitigated by playing with a good group of people you've known and played with a long time.

Please stop trying to simplify editions. It's annoying. Every edition has issues but they're all great. I think 4E has a ton of great ideas and mechanics. I just cannot stand the way it presents itself. When playing and when looking over books it does not feel like D&D to me.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 18, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Can we cut the veiled insults here? There are plenty of people who don't care about mechanical balance because there are other ways to balance games, including finding something worthwhile for everyone to do or spotlight balance.




I made no insult veiled or otherwise. Do not cry about your injured feelings. This thread opened with the question: why class balance? Why not have the Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit? The very heart of this thread is that question: why have mechanical balance.

My sad conclusion is that some people do not want mechanical balance. They want a Magus and his Grog. Now the Grog might have a narrative spotlight, but that will not satisfy the other camp, who want all Splugs or all Olympians. I prefer all medium-powered characters, another Fourther prefers all epic heroes, but we both agree that neither of us want a mix at the same table. So my observation about the the unbridgeable gulf remains.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 18, 2012)

I don't mind people that dish it out and can take it. I don't mind people that would prefer neither--so don't. I don't even mind that everyone wants to set the bar at a slightly different place--within, of course, whatever limits the moderaters choose to impose--that's mere human nature at work, and why such talk even among fair-minded people requires some moderation in the first place.

Then there are the ironic exceptions that seem to lack even the self awareness to realize they are dishing it out *while* complaining about taking it.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 18, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Now who's making the unsupported assumption why people play what they play? I'll give you a clue, it's not Elf Witch.



Of course I am. I certainly won't deny it. I spoke out of frustration. 



billd91 said:


> Can we cut the veiled insults here? There are plenty of people who don't care about mechanical balance because there are other ways to balance games, including finding something worthwhile for everyone to do or spotlight balance.



If these people don't care about mechanical balance, then why are they so opposed to the people who do want balanced classes? That's what puzzles me. 



hanez said:


> I think people talking about fighters being "servants" for wizards and the like have either not played the system in the while, exaggerating, didn't follow the rules of the game, or were subject to a very bad DMs game.



I think those people would then be more than happy to rephrase that as fighters being "BMX Bandits" for "Angel Summoner" classes.


----------



## Henry (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> I think those people would then be more than happy to rephrase that as fighters being "BMX Bandits" for "Angel Summoner" classes.




The [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw]"BMX Bandit/ Angel Summoner"[/ame] thing is a great (and funny!) parallel that I've seen at table playing 3.5 especially. However, it doesn't need to be that way -- Pathfinder did make some REALLY good strides at an example of useful casters who don't dominate all areas of play. It's not "end all and be all", of course, but I was impressed to the extent they nerfed key wizard and cleric spells to keep the "I win" buttons to a minimum. Finger of death, all the polymorph spells, not to mention the edits to concentration checks, just a few of the changes to rein in casters a bit from some of the nasty tricks that could be pulled in 3.5.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 18, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> Extremes - thats what I think hurts the discussion of class balance. The whole concept of "Well, if my fighter cannot cause as much damage in a round as a wizard who casts a meteor swarm, then I am done!". This is a tactical wargame balance argument, not a roleplaying argument. Why can the fighter not contribute just as much by sneaking around the flanks and hitting the big bad while the big bad wizards duke it out. They could turnt he tide of the battle. Or the priest who provides the critical heal at just the right moment. Or is it all just about damage?




It's all about not sucking. Why can't the fighter sneak around the flank while the wizards duke it out? (setting aside you once again mean to make the figher a luking flunkie while the wizard gets the glory) 

Because the typical fighter sucks at it. Plate Armor and "seaking" are not things that go together in any logical or serious sentence without the words "has no chance of" being between them.


----------



## serch (Jan 18, 2012)

Henry said:


> The "BMX Bandit/ Angel Summonerthing" is a great (and funny!) parallel that I've seen at table playing 3.5 especially. However, it doesn't need to be that way -- Pathfinder did make some REALLY good strides at an example of useful casters who don't dominate all areas of play. It's not "end all and be all", of course, but I was impressed to the extent they nerfed key wizard and cleric spells to keep the "I win" buttons to a minimum. Finger of death, all the polymorph spells, not to mention the edits to concentration checks, just a few of the changes to rein in casters a bit from some of the nasty tricks that could be pulled in 3.5.




Also hero points give a good chance to non-magical classes to face enemy casters. Hehe some antihero points to main antagonists may work too.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> If these people don't care about mechanical balance, then why are they so opposed to the people who do want balanced classes? That's what puzzles me.




I think it's partly a question of what you lose by pursuing it, particularly in the 4e case. There are a variety of ways to pursue balance. 3e pursues it (or at least tries to) more than 1e and 2e did, but some of the other gamist changes built in to streamline the game ended up working against that. (Such as how much easier it is for a caster to cast without interruptions in 3e with cyclical initiatives and standard action casting times compared to 2e's round-by-round initiative and declaring your action before the initiative is rolled.)

I can understand, at least partly, why 4e's design team put all PCs on the same power and action structure. It's easier to do it that way. But it's also unsatisfying for players who want their fantasy RPG archetypes to behave in different ways and feel different. But the more different the powers and abilities are, the harder they are to directly compare and be sure they are balanced. 

Moreover, focusing on the mechanical balance of the PCs, depending on how it is done, may alter the balance of the game between simulationist and gamist elements. For a simulationist, magic should be pretty magical and be largely open ended in what effects it can produce. It's magic after all. Put too much effort into balance and the magic gets watered down. You get the same thing if you spend too much time with character class niche protection too, so that's not a situation limited solely to 4e. This creates a certain kind of imbalance in that casters have a broader palette of options to choose from when dealing with an encounter - the more mundane ones such as negotiating, sneaking, and fighting their way through, as well as magical ones like flying, charming, teleporting, and so on. And ultimately, for someone who wants a simulation with significant magic, there's ultimately no getting around it. Casters get a suite of options the non-magical classes don't get no matter how much better a physical combatant a fighter is. Ultimately, this is even true in 4e, though 4e does offer up rituals to any character interested in investing in them.

Pathfinder, for example, leaves the magical power of magic mostly in its place but tries to inject balance in other ways. They could have gone a bit farther, I think improving some saving throws would help as would bumping more spells to 1 round casting times. And there are undoubtedly more ideas as well that we'll probably see in PF 2nd edition in another 7 years or so if Paizo predictions hold true.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 18, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I can understand, at least partly, why 4e's design team put all PCs on the same power and action structure. It's easier to do it that way. But it's also unsatisfying for players who want their fantasy RPG archetypes to behave in different ways and feel different. But the more different the powers and abilities are, the harder they are to directly compare and be sure they are balanced.




I was just wondering earlier today if a lot of people would be satisfied with a handful of such structures. That is, don't put everyone on the same structure. But don't make up something different every time a particular class doesn't exactly fit one of the structures, either.

Of course, I realize that is hard to answer without seeing the structures, with examples, but with four or five structures, carefully chosen to cover a subset of archetypes, at least the classes within a given structure can be balanced. If it turns out that one structure is a bit overpowered and another a bit under, it is easy enough for individual groups to either ban those structures--or depend upon house rules or social contract or DM adventure tailoring to mitigate the problem.  If separate feel by caster versus non-caster is desired, could also restrict classes within given structures.


----------



## Deadboy (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I am just tired of people tossing around wizards are broken as a hard fact not as an opinion. I think a lot comes down to playstyle and taste in playstyles.




I think this is the crux of the problem in this thread, and it cuts both ways. Whether a table has had problems with the class balance seems to largely come down to playstyle. One table may have players use the Wizard's abilities to their logical conclusion and thus reduced the fun of others, while another play Wizards along a power curve that feels more fair to other players. It all comes down to playstyle.

But there's several problems with that - at what percentage of tables experiencing problems and holding these opinions does it become an issue that needs to be addressed? Five percent? 25 percent? 50 percent? Even if its only five percent, isn't the fact that those players - maybe hundreds of them - are having an issue bad for the game? And isn't it also a problem that should players of the different playstyles cross, players of one playstyle may ruin the fun for players of others? Does it occur to you that maybe my playstyle may have been closer to your playstyle, if not for bad experiences I've had with players who have just used the Wizard to the fullest of its capabilities?

Is it really a good thing for D&D to only cater to the playstyles that don't utilize options to their fullest extent, even if those are the playstyles that are intended by the designers? Every player can't know how rules were intended, so if they see an advantage that's in the rules, the core rules no less, and use it, that should be a perfectly valid way to play the game.

From my perspective, its incumbent for the rules to encourage players to play the way designers intended it to be played, and not just throw whatever out there and hope that that players respect the intent.

Last, I do think it's hard fact that the Wizard is broken - in certain playstyles. I also think it's hard fact that the Wizard isn't broken - in different playstyles. It's my belief that a game should be designed to make sure the class is broken in as few playstyles as possible, or even preferably none at all. 

4e succeeded at that, even if the way they succeeded wasn't to everyone's taste. Heck, I'm a 4e supporter but I won't try to hide its flaws - it DID go too far and sacrifice too much on the alter of balance. Giving everyone exactly the same AEDU progressions made the game insanely easy to balance but has created an impression (a mistaken one, in my opinion, but also not entirely invalid) that all the classes are the same. I also think it was a mistake to have not included more non-combat powers in the earliest versions of the game, creating the (also mistaken) impression that the game was all about combat.


----------



## Dellamon (Jan 18, 2012)

Herschel said:


> It's all about not sucking. Why can't the fighter sneak around the flank while the wizards duke it out? (setting aside you once again mean to make the figher a luking flunkie while the wizard gets the glory)
> 
> Because the typical fighter sucks at it. Plate Armor and "seaking" are not things that go together in any logical or serious sentence without the words "has no chance of" being between them.




Reading through some of the posts, its very obvious that there is a lot of angst with the 3.5 fighter / wizard comparison.  And that no two D&D games are alike.  Some want a strong DM, others just want a ancillary player pushing monsters around for them to kill and speaking in funny voices for NPCs while reading from adventure text boxes.  I think the play styles are really reflected in the responses to what they are looking for in terms of balance and from the game in general. 

So why is pathfinder so popular?  I don't play it, but from the responses, its really doing well.  How did Paizo fix the fighter / wizard balance issue where it was so terribly broken in 3.5?  I'm genuinely asking because I do not play Pathfinder and did not play much 3.5 - from the tone of a lot of folks here it was broken beyond repair and only 4E restored the balance.

And as for the comment above, please keep in mind I am speaking from a AD&D 1E standpoint (and I was not literally meaning "sneaking" - more just gaining the flank).  Classes are not nearly as broken in that version of the game (and in C&C and other retro clones).  Balance may not be as tight as it is in 4E, but it is still fun, even for those fools who enjoy playing fighters.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Here's the deal.  They are wrong but they aren't wrong at the same time.  3e lets you make a character however you want.  However, it allows you to make a character that has a power level anywhere between 1 and 100.  Fighters and non-magical characters are capped at a relative power of 10.  Wizards and other casters are capped at 100.
> 
> So, when a person makes a character, they can make a Wizard of power level 10.  They can purposefully choose poor spells and make character decisions to limit their power("I won't cast my big spell this combat, I'll let the rest of the party have their fun this time" or "I could prepare a spell that gives +1 to hit to the fighter and rogue or one that gives me +7 to hit and +5 damage, 2 extra attacks per round, and temporarily 40 more hitpoints...I'll take the first one").  And if they make these poor decisions, you won't notice how overpowered they are.  Because on an average round, they aren't doing anything extravagant.  And the one or two rounds a day where they outperform everyone else, people shrug and say "They are a wizard, they are supposed to be better than us."
> 
> ...





Why is it that people keep implying that since I don't fins wizards broken I must be playing with a hand tied behind my back that I am choosing not to take the best spells?

I play with a few powergamers and anything combined the right way can break the game and cause a major imbalance at the table and make the rest of the party feel like henchmen. And the interesting thing the people making these monster characters never use wizard at the base they use cleric, druids and classes from the splat books. They have muliclassing down to a science. 

Now using the logic that I see so many wizards are broken people use this mean multiclassing is broken. 

In the hands of a min maxer anything can be broken.


In your example of the fighter and the wizard is a perfect example of what happens in a game where you have people who make role playing characters and others who make optimized characters. You can easily change that to an optimized fighter and role playing wizard who only has a 14 in intelligence at that point the wizard won't get any spell higher then fifth.

Right now I play a wizard in our Age of Worms game because we had a sorcerer I choose not to play her as blaster she is all about knowledge, utility spells and party support. 

The player playing our rogue is a powergamer has combined classes to make his rogue a combat monster. He routinely does more damage in combat than the party cleric or the paladin who replaced the cleric. So he not only has all the rogue niche stuff going on he also co opted the front line fighter position. His use magic device is now high enough that he is now using a wand of healing to heal himself and sometimes the rest of the party.

But again using the logic so many wizards are broken use this means rogues are also broken because they can out fight the fighters, heal the same as the clerics and now can use wands and scrolls to step on the wizard's niche.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I don't want to get into the railroading debate again.  Suffice to say, I don't believe railroading is bad.  Also, nearly every thing a DM does is "railroading" by at least one definition of railroading.
> 
> I don't believe the situation is railroading, it doesn't force the PCs to do anything. It only limits their options.  They have the option to talk to the bridge keeper or they have the option to turn around and go back.  They have the option to trick the bridge keeper into letting them past or bribing him or negotiating or threatening him or complimenting him until he agrees.  They can take the long way around the pit, finding a way that doesn't involve crossing the bridge.  They can kill him and walk over the bridge.
> 
> ...




By choosing to take the long way around the pit they are avoiding dealing with your NPC so what is the difference between that  and using magic to avoid it? What is the difference between the fighter killing the troll or the wizard killing him with a fireball?

You are right about teleport at ninth level you can teleport a party of four. Though for larger parties it can be an issue our groups usually have five to six players in it.  We play a different version that is house ruled where the levels start at ninth. It was a spell that we nerfed a long time ago so I sometimes forget what is raw and what is house ruled. Especially late at night when I am dying to go to bed but I can't because I am feeding a baby bird every two hours. 

The wizard that was teleporting home every night which spell was he using? If he was using teleport did he always make the roll to arrive exactly where he wanted to? There have been times where we have used teleport and ended way off target.

You have every eight to say you don't want something in your game but just because you don't want that level in magic doesn't mean that others agree. Look I agree that running a low magic gritty game in 3E takes a lot of tweaking I know because I have tried to do it. It is a lot of work.

One of the things I really hope for 5E is that it will give us the ability to use the rules easily to play a low magic gritty campaign and then turn around and use them for a high magic campaign.   


And Pathfinder ending at 15 is not just because of magic it is also because other classes also get high powered.


----------



## hanez (Jan 18, 2012)

Aldarc said:


> If these people don't care about mechanical balance, then why are they so opposed to the people who do want balanced classes? That's what puzzles me.




I can't speak for everyone.  But I was all for balance until about a year AFTER 4e came out.  It then became clear, after a lot of playing, that the deisngers threw A LOT out of the window in exchange for balance.  They seem to have come to the same conclusion too.

I am STILL for balance, but not at any cost.  And I use this thread to discuss the degrees and variables of balance we want, and the cost of balance.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 18, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> How did Paizo fix the fighter / wizard balance issue where it was so terribly broken in 3.5?



The simple answer: they didn't.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Belphanior said:


> I'm out of this discussion, btw. I don't think anybody is going to convince anybody else here, everything we say seems to be a repetition of the same steps over and over.
> 
> I do want to leave one final thought though:
> 
> There are people who don't see a balance problem. They've never come across it. Ok, that's fair enough. But why should the game cater only to them? If there's also a bunch of people who claim they _do_ have problems, why shouldn't the game address this? Why is, "I have never had problems with this", considered a retort against the people who did have problems with this? People, your own experiences are not the only yardstick against which to measure out there. If a lot of people make complaints, something ain't right. Even if you don't see it.




I don't think the game should just cater to us who don't have an issue but the same thing goes the other way why should they cater to the people who do have an issue.

I think it should be addressed but in a way that allows both sides to have the ability to use the system.  But even if they can't there are other editions and systems that can be used to get what you want.

Just because people complain about something does not mean they are right. And the people who don't agree are wrong. Are you claiming that you are not basing your opinions on your experiences? 

In my gaming history I have seen every class played one time or another in a way that totally stepped all over the rest of the players. 

Powergamers and role players often have major issues playing at the same table. And there are people who believe that powergamers are playing wrong and have horrible experiences with it so they want rules that prevent it from happening. Other people feel it is a valid fun way to play and want rules that allow it.


----------



## Light Knight (Jan 18, 2012)

Get rid of classes, then you get rid of the necessity of class balance.


----------



## Belphanior (Jan 18, 2012)

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]:

When I said "I'm out of this discussion", I meant it.


----------



## DonTadow (Jan 18, 2012)

Bottom line, this is a game.  Who doesn't expect a game that is not balanced? 

What other game is not balanced?  Why is this even a question if we want 5e to be a game.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 18, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> It's not that people DESIRE incredibly powerful magic users to the point that all other classes are completely useless. No one wants that as an option.
> 
> The problem is what is tied to what makes the magic users so strong. Or rather, the entire construction of 3.X/PF. It's startling how people ignore the entire game and focus on one aspect as the defining quality and the only reason anyone plays one version over another.
> 
> ...



First off apologies if you feel insulted by my words, it was not my intention but I was mildy irritated by the notion that if one felt 3.x was imbalanced one had bad players or was a poor DM and I know that was not you, or at at I don't reall you writing that.

However, I feel that casters as done in D&D cannot but be more powerful because they have more flexibility. It is intrinsic in the design and equated to more powerfull when the number of available slots risrs to a level where they have options to cast spells throughout the adventuring day. It s not really particular spells it is the structure of the caster classes.

4e balances by severly rrestricting hte number of available slots, the spells known that can be available in those slots. Simply removing the most problematic of the spells, and severly nerfying many others and placing htem in another sub system, namely rituals. 
Finally they give all other classes powers to allow a similar flexibility previously only enjoyed by casters.

So, no I do not believe one can have 3.x casters and not have them overpowered relative to non casters unless one removes pretty much all non blasting spells and gives the non casters some powers or very severly reduce the slots avialable to the casters at whicjh point they simply might not ba viable anyway.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Apologies if I reiterate something already addressed. I only skimmed any of the new responses that weren't addressed specifically at myself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




First of all my comment about tweaking 4 was to someone who said that they could only play 3E with a lot of tweaking and it took a lot of work and I was pointing out that I understood because I had the same issue.

And I never said that anyone was forcing me to play 4E so I have no clue where that is coming from and I have  said that my hope for 5E is a way to include several different play styles so that would include people who play 4E as well as those of us who play older editions.

I didn't claim that there was only one reason why people didn't switch just that liking the current magic system was one reason to switch to Pathfinder. 

And I never said that you are anyone else should have to play my play style not sure why you are saying that. Again for the umpteenth time I have said that I hope the new system allows a variety of ways to play and to dial the magic system up and down.

OKay so your group felt that they were playing with their hands tied behind their back mine does not. People do play the game differently and have different experiences. 

I didn't say that I find the game imbalanced so I didn't say that the DM and players need to work to fix the imbalance. What I said was everyone at the table has a responsibility to make the game fun for everyone. Which means making choices not to step all over someone else character. And that goes for any class not just wizard. 

Well I am sorry that your early games were terrible mine were not even though I got stuck playing a character whose highest stat was an 11. 

Again your opinion is that wizards should not be able to do it as effectively in 3E I think they should be able to. And right now there are several editions of DnD that let us choose what and how we want to play.

You think that wizards should not have the best emergency and that is fine I don't agree. The only way the rogue is going to get through the door is by picking a lock if he fails then the dragon gets to the party. Magic gets around this. That does not mean that the wizard is the one doing it. In my experiences most rogues get an item that lets them have knock. 

This is why knock is in the game not to only allow a party to function without a rogue but to also be able to make items that allow the rogue to function in a variety of situations.

Anyway I think the balance comes from the fact that spells are limited and can't be used all the time they run out they won't work in anti magic areas if a wizard does not get enough sleep  loses his spellbook he can't function. Rogues can pick locks until the cows come home they can hide and use their class abilities to the cows come home they can go without sleep and still function they can function in an anti magic zone. 

I find that it works pretty well for the style of games I play and run.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 18, 2012)

Belphanior said:


> [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]:
> 
> When I said "I'm out of this discussion", I meant it.




Well I guess that means you think you should be allowed to make a statement and if someone disagrees with it then just because you say I am out of it they should not address what you brought up. 

The best way to leave a discussion is to just leave it.


----------



## Roland55 (Jan 18, 2012)

This Thread and the others dealing with Balance over the past few years have been absolutely fascinating for me to read.  I have a much better appreciation for what the WOTC designers were going for as they developed 4th Edition.  I also have a much better appreciation for what the 4e fans found so wonderful about 4th Edition.

However, I haven't been converted to the position of Balance Before All.

To me, D&D is still primarily about having Fun ... of course, Fun for the whole group.  Other considerations, including Balance, are and will likely remain secondary for me.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 18, 2012)

Roland55 said:


> This Thread and the others dealing with Balance over the past few years have been absolutely fascinating for me to read.  I have a much better appreciation for what the WOTC designers were going for as they developed 4th Edition.  I also have a much better appreciation for what the 4e fans found so wonderful about 4th Edition.
> 
> However, I haven't been converted to the position of Balance Before All.
> 
> To me, D&D is still primarily about having Fun ... of course, Fun for the whole group.  Other considerations, including Balance, are and will likely remain secondary for me.




Fun is my primary concern as well. Personally, the reason I hold balance on the high pedestal that I do is because imbalance has been the number one cause of unfun for me over the years, whether I'm the DM or a player. I expect that's true of many who hold similar views to myself.

For myself, at least, imbalance is the anti-fun.


----------



## Belphanior (Jan 18, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Well I guess that means you think you should be allowed to make a statement and if someone disagrees with it then just because you say I am out of it they should not address what you brought up.
> 
> The best way to leave a discussion is to just leave it.




For goodness' sake, I was only trying to explain why I won't respond to your arguments so that you wouldn't feel as if you were being ignored. I'm trying to be clear. There's no need to be so hostile, ok?

And with that I am now, finally, for real-real, out of the discussion.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jan 18, 2012)

Belphanior said:


> I'm out of this discussion, btw. I don't think anybody is going to convince anybody else here, everything we say seems to be a repetition of the same steps over and over.
> 
> I do want to leave one final thought though:
> 
> There are people who don't see a balance problem. They've never come across it. Ok, that's fair enough. But why should the game cater only to them? If there's also a bunch of people who claim they _do_ have problems, why shouldn't the game address this? Why is, "I have never had problems with this", considered a retort against the people who did have problems with this? People, your own experiences are not the only yardstick against which to measure out there. If a lot of people make complaints, something ain't right. Even if you don't see it.




Because there are two camps. There are people who don't have a problem with balance and there are people who do. What 4th edition did was kill the fun factor in sake of the balance and this upset a lot of people. People want so desperately to blame marketing and other factors as being the cause of 4th edition's downfall. While a lot of people did like the game, there are also a lot of people who did not and apparently there was enough people in the "no" crowd. If they can design a balanced game that gives most people what they want then that's great for everyone but they failed to do that with 4th edition. 

There has to be a side chosen to be perfectly honest unless they find a way to have balanced fun.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 18, 2012)

Roland55 said:


> This Thread and the others dealing with Balance over the past few years have been absolutely fascinating for me to read. I have a much better appreciation for what the WOTC designers were going for as they developed 4th Edition. I also have a much better appreciation for what the 4e fans found so wonderful about 4th Edition.
> 
> However, I haven't been converted to the position of Balance Before All.
> 
> To me, D&D is still primarily about having Fun ... of course, Fun for the whole group. Other considerations, including Balance, are and will likely remain secondary for me.




That's where I draw the line. In all the 3E and related games that I ran, the "killer classes" where played by people who didn't play as much (and thus fell behind in level), or by the people who were acutely sensitive to not stepping on toes. In the former case, it worked great. They were a few levels behind, but still felt effective. In the latter case, it did "work". Between the wizard and cleric player being careful to not dominate the action, and me carefully crafting the game so that had a harder time doing so.

After awhile, though, all that "work" wasn't fun for either them or me, and it became harder and harder to juggle. It got absolutely painful to see them work through the situation in their head and decide to gimp their choices in play in order to leave something for the other characters. Then the rest of the players caught on, and we still couldn't make it work all the time.

When friends of over 20 years feel the need to go to that much trouble, then it is out of control. 4E may be too far, but if it was, it was probably because it was an over-correction to something as off the other way.


----------



## SKyOdin (Jan 19, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Because there are two camps. There are people who don't have a problem with balance and there are people who do. What 4th edition did was kill the fun factor in sake of the balance and this upset a lot of people. People want so desperately to blame marketing and other factors as being the cause of 4th edition's downfall. While a lot of people did like the game, there are also a lot of people who did not and apparently there was enough people in the "no" crowd. If they can design a balanced game that gives most people what they want then that's great for everyone but they failed to do that with 4th edition.
> 
> There has to be a side chosen to be perfectly honest unless they find a way to have balanced fun.



I don't think this is a matter of two opposing sides. I for one think that balance is essential to a fun RPG experience, but I also think 4E did go way too far unnecessarily in the name of balance. When various people call out for balance, they are not asking for constrained uniform design.

Balance and a healthy diversity of options and game mechanics among classes are not mutually exclusive goals. Both are essential to a good RPG. It is perfectly possible to have both at the same time. For example, while the original 3E classes were generally unbalanced, late-era 3E classes were generally very well balanced, despite the fact that they used hugely varying mechanics and subsystems, from maneuvers, to psionics, and even the original "can eldritch blast all day" warlock.

Balance is important, but so is fun and diversity. I think that 5E really needs to aim for having both.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 19, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> First of all my comment about tweaking 4 was to someone who said that they could only play 3E with a lot of tweaking and it took a lot of work and I was pointing out that I understood because I had the same issue.
> 
> And I never said that anyone was forcing me to play 4E so I have no clue where that is coming from and I have  said that my hope for 5E is a way to include several different play styles so that would include people who play 4E as well as those of us who play older editions.
> 
> ...




You seem to have taken many of my responses out of context; perhaps I simply wasn't clear enough. If that wasn't the case, we appear to be talking past each other, as (in all honesty) I wasn't making a personal attack but I get the impression that you may have taken it as such.

For the record, I wasn't stating that my early games were terrible because I wanted you to feel sorry. I was attempting to elaborate on my own point of view. 

I was perhaps seven years old, a self-taught DM, and I was the one teaching the game to my players (Basic D&D at first, later replaced by 2nd edition). I didn't have the safety net of an experienced player to show me the ropes. I had to figure things out on my own and mistakes were made, which I eventually learned from. 

Imbalance is bad for that type of group. Yes, I still loved the game, but it would have been nice to have something that didn't make it quite so easy to play the "wrong way". 

As for the rogue, I don't think it's acceptable that he needs a magic item to achieve his archetype. Also, considering that the best item for opening locks is a wand of knock (which requires UMD) it would be unwise to give it to the rogue instead of the wizard. The wizard gets auto-success, while the rogue replaces an Open Locks check with a UMD check. So I don't think it likely at all that the rogue would possess the item, and even if he did it's effectively no change.

Who cares if the rogue can pop every unimportant chest and door along the way, only to be stymied during an actual crisis because the wizard with a scroll is a better choice than he is? That's like saying that it's cool for the wizard to handle the duel with the black knight instead of the fighter, because the fighter got to beat up a bunch of kobolds on the way there. It's hardly equitable.

I get that you have your play style and that that works for you, but the above is my personal take on the matter.

I agree that it would be nice if everyone received systems perfect for them in D&DN.


----------



## Deadboy (Jan 19, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Because there are two camps. There are people who don't have a problem with balance and there are people who do. What 4th edition did was kill the fun factor in sake of the balance and this upset a lot of people. People want so desperately to blame marketing and other factors as being the cause of 4th edition's downfall. While a lot of people did like the game, there are also a lot of people who did not and apparently there was enough people in the "no" crowd. If they can design a balanced game that gives most people what they want then that's great for everyone but they failed to do that with 4th edition.
> 
> There has to be a side chosen to be perfectly honest unless they find a way to have balanced fun.




I happen to find 4e to be the most fun version of D&D... So let's call it something more like those who like balance and those who like unrestrained diversity. That way we're not accusing each other of badwrongfun.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jan 19, 2012)

Deadboy said:


> I happen to find 4e to be the most fun version of D&D... So let's call it something more like those who like balance and those who like unrestrained diversity. That way we're not accusing each other of badwrongfun.




Call it whatever you like but the fact of the matter is not enough people are in the same boat as you, hence the abrupt edition change. It's not about badwrongfun, but particular cases aren't what's looked at. If we looked at individual cases instead of the overall picture then D&D would have never gotten past it's first edition.


----------



## Deadboy (Jan 19, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> Call it whatever you like but the fact of the matter is not enough people are in the same boat as you, hence the abrupt edition change. It's not about badwrongfun, but particular cases aren't what's looked at. If we looked at individual cases instead of the overall picture then D&D would have never gotten past it's first edition.




"Not enough people" being in the same boat as me to sustain WotC's corporate bottom line is a LOT different than "not a substantial or important part of the audience." Keep in mind 4e still sold more than Pathfinder over most of the past few years and Pathfinder only pulled ahead when WotC slowed its release schedule. Ryan Dancey has a very informative post about why this is happening somewhere around EnWorld - it basically comes down to the fact that D&D needs to be a $50 million business to survive and D&D NEVER really has been, even during 3.5. In all likelihood, if WotC released Pathfinder and sold exactly the same amount of books as Paizo has, WotC would consider that a failure even though a small company like Paizo considers that level of sales to be wildly successful.

Please don't try to diminish the position of 4e fans just because WotC decided that half a divided audience isn't as good as the whole audience.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 19, 2012)

ardoughter said:


> First off apologies if you feel insulted by my words, it was not my intention but I was mildy irritated by the notion that if one felt 3.x was imbalanced one had bad players or was a poor DM and I know that was not you, or at at I don't reall you writing that.
> 
> However, I feel that casters as done in D&D cannot but be more powerful because they have more flexibility. It is intrinsic in the design and equated to more powerfull when the number of available slots risrs to a level where they have options to cast spells throughout the adventuring day. It s not really particular spells it is the structure of the caster classes.
> 
> ...




No offense taken man. What bothered me was the idea that people like to turn 3.x into a decision of "Do you like super powerful wizards or not?" 

Because that simply isn't the main difference between 3.x and 4e. It isn't even the main difference between those editions when you're solely focused on classes. The differences and the results of those differences are drastic in so many ways that to try to label everyone who likes 3.x as supporting of super wizards is kind of ridiculous.

I don't like them, but I don't think the changed made in 4E in order to bring things in line were worth everything else that was sacrificed along the way. I still think 4E is a good system with many merits, just not in the actual way they chose to pursue class balance. Tons of excellent ideas in 4E but the end product isn't for me personally.

So yeah, no offense taken, and I didn't mean any either. Just know there are tons of people who play 3.X/PF and 4E and find both styles of game to have worthwhile qualities. Even if they prefer one or the other.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 19, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> By choosing to take the long way around the pit they are avoiding dealing with your NPC so what is the difference between that  and using magic to avoid it?



There is a big difference between the following two scenarios:

(1) The PCs, cresting a hill, see a river 150' wide, spanned by a single bridge, with a giant snoozing at the foot of the bridge on their side of the river. Before they get close enough to stir the giant, they retreat back to the other side of the hill to discuss their options. They decide to have the wizard cast a teleport to get all the party over the river and too their intended destination.

(2) The PCs, cresting a hill, see a wide river, with a single bridge, with a giant snoozing at the foot of the bridge on their side of the river. Before they get close enough to stir the giant, they retreat backt to the other side of the hill. They decide that the wizard will cast teleport to get them across the river, so they do not have to either pay off the giant, or fight it while crossing. But to do this requires giving the wizard a round to get into the middle of the bridge! [In 4e, the 10th level spell Arcane Gate can connect to points, each no more than 100' from the caster. A double run let's the wizard move 80' and still have a minor action left to cast the spell.] So the plan they come up with is . . . .  [fill in the details yourself].​
4e, by removing, watering down or raising the cost of various "encounter bypassing" effects, increases the GM's situational authority. This is one aspect of the game's well-known focus on "the encounter". It is why the DMG has the notorious "guards at the gate" quote - the idea, as I see it, is not that the gameworld will contain no fantasy colour, but rather there is no need for "mere colour" encounters because the meaty encounters will provide that colour. And part of the way they will do that is because the system requires the players to engage with them - even when, as in scenario (2) above, the relevant mode of engagement is to try to avoid a conflict.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 19, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> You seem to have taken many of my responses out of context; perhaps I simply wasn't clear enough. If that wasn't the case, we appear to be talking past each other, as (in all honesty) I wasn't making a personal attack but I get the impression that you may have taken it as such.
> 
> For the record, I wasn't stating that my early games were terrible because I wanted you to feel sorry. I was attempting to elaborate on my own point of view.
> 
> ...




I will admit to feeling defensive over this. I get the feeling that some of them are saying well just because your experiences are different you don't see what is right in front of your face on how broken magic is. 

Some people feel that magic should not be better than what the archetype can do like knock so for them that makes it broken. And if you feel that way I will agree that it is broken for your needs. Also if you don't like characters having to depend on magic items it can also be broken.

But there are people who don't feel or look at it the same way so we don't find the magic broken. That does not mean that I don't think there are spells that need to be looked at. I find the magic creation rules for 3E to be broken and I dislike metamagic.

I was older when I started playing so maybe that was the difference and yes I do think a simple basic game is the best way for new players and DMs to get into the game. 

When I DM newbies who want to play a magic class I usually recommend warlock because it is much easier then even sorcerer to play.

While a wand of knock is one of the best ways to go it was not what I was thinking of. Our rogue has a ring of lock picking with knock in it. He also just got a earring of improved invisibility. 

Magic items have the ability to even out the playing field for mundane vs magical characters. And I know that there are people who dislike this and say it should be about the character not his items. That is one POV not mine. I don't see the difference between a magical item and a sword both are tools to allow the character to adventure. 

Now there are things I have done to allow mundane characters easier access to magical things for example ranks in heal allow you on a successful heal check to give back permanent hit points. Taking profession herbalist allows you to heal diseases, give antidotes for poison. 

Alchemy which I house rule any one can take can allow you to make cures for magical effects like paralyzation and petrification.

Any class can take use magic device as class skill. 

Just because I don't agree that magic is broken does not mean that I don't think balance is not needed.  As I said pages and pages ago balance to me is when every class gets a chance to contribute and shine. Not they all have contribute equally at the same time.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 19, 2012)

billd91 said:


> For a simulationist, magic should be pretty magical and be largely open ended in what effects it can produce. It's magic after all. Put too much effort into balance and the magic gets watered down.



This is a fairly common view point, but it still surprises me.

I haven't got my Moldvay Basic book ready-to-hand, but it's description of fireball is along the following lines: a 20'R ball of fire explodes, doing 1d6 per level damage to creatures in the radius.

That is almost identical to the 4e spell description - yet people talk as if Basic D&D, and other forms of classic D&D, were these fonts of creativity, and 4e the greatest anchor on creativity yet devised! And this despite page 42, and the discussion of the use of powers in skill challenges in DMG2, and the discussion of damaging objects in the DMG, all of which not only take for granted, but offer guidelines for the GM to adjudicate, creative and open-ended uses of magic (and other abilities) by a PC.



ardoughter said:


> I value class balance because as a DM is makes combat encounters easier to construct.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don have the same issues in non-combat encounters as the resolution falls naturally out of the rp.



I'm generally sympathetic to your posts in this (and other) threads, but I don't agree with your equation, here, of "mechanically governed resolution" with "combat".

I mean, 4e has a mechanical system for resolving out-of-combat encounters - namely, skill challenges - and some of the major changes between 3E and 4e (like the skill training and progression rules, the DC by level chart, etc) are all about making those non-combat encounters mechancially balanced, so a GM doesn't need to regulate the roleplaying and its outcomes in the sort of way the OP is advocating.



hanez said:


> I think people talking about fighters being "servants" for wizards and the like have either not played the system in the while, exaggerating, didn't follow the rules of the game, or were subject to a very bad DMs game.



I'll add a fifth possibility - they were following the rules of the game, in a style of play in which the main responsibility for regulating player agency lies with the _players_ rather than the GM, and in doing this discovered that the mechanics are at odds with player self-regulation. Hence the description of "playing with one hand tied behind one's back".



Dellamon said:


> Reading through some of the posts, its very obvious that there is a lot of angst with the 3.5 fighter / wizard comparison.  And that no two D&D games are alike.  Some want a strong DM, others just want a ancillary player pushing monsters around for them to kill and speaking in funny voices for NPCs while reading from adventure text boxes.



This is a completely unreasonable description of games in which GM force is not a significant component of action resolution.

Consider this quote from Paul Czege:

Let me say that I think your "Point A to Point B" way of thinking about scene framing is pretty damn incisive. . .

There are two points to a scene - Point A, where the PCs start the scene, and Point B, where they end up. Most games let the players control some aspect of Point A, and then railroad the PCs to point B. Good narrativism will reverse that by letting the GM create a compelling Point A, and let the players dictate what Point B is (ie, there is no Point B prior to the scene beginning). . .​
My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.

"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. . .  I'm having trouble capturing in dispassionate words what it's like, so I'm going to have to dispense with dispassionate words. By god, when I'm framing scenes, and I'm in the zone, I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. . .  I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And like Scott's "Point A to Point B" model says, the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.​
This has been a more useful guide for me, in GMing 4e, than most of the hundreds of pages of GMing advice produced by WotC for the edition. It has nothing to do with "pushing monsters around and speaking in funny voices". It is about framing situations, and maintainig the pressure, while the players try to resolve those situations via their PCs without GM force hindering or governing that resolution.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 19, 2012)

pemerton said:


> There is a big difference between the following two scenarios:
> 
> (1) The PCs, cresting a hill, see a river 150' wide, spanned by a single bridge, with a giant snoozing at the foot of the bridge on their side of the river. Before they get close enough to stir the giant, they retreat back to the other side of the hill to discuss their options. They decide to have the wizard cast a teleport to get all the party over the river and too their intended destination.
> 
> ...




I don't see the difference both are methods to handle the encounter. As a DM I know my players abilities so I am aware that they may use teleport if they choose to teleport then they have just used a fifth level spell. Go me, that is a spell they won't have later. I enjoy making magic users use up their spells before they get to the big encounter.  

I use little flow charts like what happens if they teleport and miss. I over plan encounters so that if they find away around ones that I expected to take awhile  I have more.

If the bridge keeper was going to give them clues about what they were facing then they now are facing that blind. 

I have said this before if you don't want your players having the ability to teleport then take it out of the game or add in game reasons that makes it more dangerous. But don't complain about it if it is available in your game and the players choose to use it get around an encounter they don't feel is important. If you really want them to face the encounter give them a reason why. Is the troll killing innocents is the bridge keeper a race of hated foes. It is up to the DM to make players want to engage with the encounters. 

In our first 3.0 game we were captured stripped of all our stuff and told we would have to fight in the arena if we lived we would be given our stuff back and escorted to the boundaries of the land that were in.  

We shocked the DM who really believed we would never willing leave all our items behind and try to cross a dangerous wilderness without any weapons or items. We choose to run and not fight in the arena. The DM had spent a week working on the arena encounters jokingly woth a hint of frustrations he waved those papers at us and said "this is why some DMs railroad."


----------



## billd91 (Jan 19, 2012)

pemerton said:


> This is a fairly common view point, but it still surprises me.
> 
> I haven't got my Moldvay Basic book ready-to-hand, but it's description of fireball is along the following lines: a 20'R ball of fire explodes, doing 1d6 per level damage to creatures in the radius.
> 
> That is almost identical to the 4e spell description - yet people talk as if Basic D&D, and other forms of classic D&D, were these fonts of creativity, and 4e the greatest anchor on creativity yet devised! And this despite page 42, and the discussion of the use of powers in skill challenges in DMG2, and the discussion of damaging objects in the DMG, all of which not only take for granted, but offer guidelines for the GM to adjudicate, creative and open-ended uses of magic (and other abilities) by a PC.




Why on earth would I limit my concerns on the scope of magic to something as narrow as a fireball? Magic does so much more. It stops time, it warps the fabric of reality, it bends the will, it clouds the senses, and it makes a damn fine cup of coffee.

For that matter, why would I limit my comparison to 4e and very early D&D to just one spell that happens to be very similar in those two editions?

An important point in all of this, even with 4e, is that magic is magic and gives magic using characters options non-magic using characters don't have. That will cause a form of imbalance. Sweating over that because it doesn't fit some gamist notion of balance is probably a waste of time and trying to force it into some kind of mechanical balance is going to cost you something, particularly in the eyes of the RPG simulationist.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 19, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I don't see the difference both are methods to handle the encounter.



Fair enough.

For me, the difference is that one will create a story about a wizard casting a teleport to avoid the inconvenience of dealing with a giant-guarded bridge over a river, while the other will create a story about a group of wily rogues who outwitted a giant and managed to teleport across the river without having either to pay it or to fight it.

I've GMed systems that push in the direction of both sorts of story, but over time my preference has shifted in favour of systems that reliably encourage (2) rather than (1). Hence my preference for 4e over Rolemaster, 3E, AD&D etc.



Elf Witch said:


> If you really want them to face the encounter give them a reason why. Is the troll killing innocents is the bridge keeper a race of hated foes. It is up to the DM to make players want to engage with the encounters.



That's one approach to the game. It's not my preferred approach. I don't like to treat the identification and framing of situations as something to itself to be handled as part of the play. I prefer to handle the issue at the metagame level - ie to frame situations relying upon my players to be confident that I will present stuff of interest to them, so we can all cut to the chase of engaging with those situations.



Elf Witch said:


> As a DM I know my players abilities so I am aware that they may use teleport if they choose to teleport then they have just used a fifth level spell. Go me, that is a spell they won't have later.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If the bridge keeper was going to give them clues about what they were facing then they now are facing that blind.



I don't really enjoy that style of play - certainly not as a GM, and only in very limited doses as a player. But if I _did_ want to run such a game, I probably wouldn't use 4e.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 19, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Why on earth would I limit my concerns on the scope of magic to something as narrow as a fireball? Magic does so much more. It stops time, it warps the fabric of reality, it bends the will, it clouds the senses, and it makes a damn fine cup of coffee.



But magic does these things in 4e too. I started with fireball because it's an easy case, and often discussed ("4e fireballs can't be used to set objects alight!" is a frequent refrain). But I intended the point to generalise.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 19, 2012)

Yes so when you design for one system it doesn't necessarily work as well in the other.

Things that work in 4E don't work in 3.X. Things that work in 3.X don't work in 4E. That's how it is. But 5E is a new edition and is specifically about distilling things down and allowing for flexibility.

How will the important ideas learned across so many years be integrated? I have a hard time believing _everything_ will be modular. They need some kind of baseline for organized play and without a baseline it would be difficult to introduce new players to the game.

I imagine a number of specifics will be 'core'. How magic functions will be one of them I believe. Also how classes function. So how can this be avoided while still satisfying both camps? How can magic be kept nearly limitless and yet not make the fighter annoyed?

My guess is some kind of package system that allows for customizing to the extreme but you can still choose from a number of pre-builts instead. The pre-builts being designed around each other to be very balanced as far as damage and utility, skills, etc. While the larger system which the pre-builts fit into is very open as far as potential power level and spell usage.


----------



## Bobbum Man (Jan 19, 2012)

Beeee-cause D&D is a class-based game. The purpose of a class-based game is to provide classes that can contribute equally to the adventure.

If one class can perform another classes function even better than the intended class can, it undermines the very nature of the game.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jan 19, 2012)

Deadboy said:


> "Not enough people" being in the same boat as me to sustain WotC's corporate bottom line is a LOT different than "not a substantial or important part of the audience." Keep in mind 4e still sold more than Pathfinder over most of the past few years and Pathfinder only pulled ahead when WotC slowed its release schedule. Ryan Dancey has a very informative post about why this is happening somewhere around EnWorld - it basically comes down to the fact that D&D needs to be a $50 million business to survive and D&D NEVER really has been, even during 3.5. In all likelihood, if WotC released Pathfinder and sold exactly the same amount of books as Paizo has, WotC would consider that a failure even though a small company like Paizo considers that level of sales to be wildly successful.
> 
> Please don't try to diminish the position of 4e fans just because WotC decided that half a divided audience isn't as good as the whole audience.




But Ryan Dancey doesn't know everything. Please don't use the "4th edition was fine, it was Hasbro that set the dollar bar to high" excuse. Hasbro has been around for a long time and they are involved in a lot of things. I'm sure they didn't roll to d10's and decided to add "million" to whatever came up and said that's what needs to be made. 

Wizards will most likely be listening to people who either didn't like 4th edition and/or the people who thought 4th was okay but would rather have something else. Actually listening to die hard 4th edition fans is rather pointless because they want 4th edition or another edition that will mirror it. You don't want to mirror something that was essentially a failure.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 19, 2012)

pemerton said:


> 4e, by removing, watering down or raising the cost of various "encounter bypassing" effects, increases the GM's situational authority.




I wouldn't use the word "authority", but the DM's job is definitely made more difficult by many 3e spells that need some tweaking. I'd rather see them balanced using drawbacks (system shock, teleport mishap), though. Teleport mishaps have been useful as plot hooks. Alternatively, just move them up some levels.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 19, 2012)

pemerton said:


> ...
> 
> I'm generally sympathetic to your posts in this (and other) threads, but I don't agree with your equation, here, of "mechanically governed resolution" with "combat".
> 
> ...



Fair enough man, I have read enough of your posts to reckon I would have fun in your game, however, I like the skill challange idea but not found it satisfing as implemented. I also find imbanlance much less of a problem to the GM in non combat encounters. 
I also find that while all players will engage equally in combat not all players will engage equally in the non combat encounters. Some will lean more on their mechanics than others. However, l think imbalance is less problematic than in combat. 
Mid to high level 3x is very problematic because CR is, as far as I am concerned not a relaible guide to difficulty to a given party in the way that monster xp is in 4e.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 19, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> You don't want to mirror something that was essentially a failure.



Such as making statements that could be construed as being disparaging of a previous edition? Oh yes, we certainly wouldn't want to see a repeat of _that_.


----------



## Dornam (Jan 19, 2012)

About OT:
While class balance is important it is a design failure to make all the classes roughly the same in both powers and complexity. There is a need for a very easy class with not a ot of powers and this class may be weaker than another class with lots of powers as long as it isn't totally obsolete at anything.

About the recent discussion:
While it is important nowadays to make the GMs life easier, it is a design failure to take the fantastic out of a fantasy rpg in order to maintain the possibility of very linear adventuring into the highest levels. There is nothing epic about being able to fly for 500 feet.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 19, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> I 'd rather see them balanced using drawbacks (system shock, teleport mishap), though. Teleport mishaps have been useful as plot hooks. Alternatively, just move them up some levels.



I'm not a big fan of the drawbacks approach - Rolemaster uses it a lot, so I've seen it an action over many years of GMing that system - because (i) it just encourages the players to spend time and effort on building in failsafes (eg feather fall effects to protect against teleporting too high) which is (from my point of view) a waste of play time, and (ii) it pushes the game in the direction of Russian roulette a bit too much for my liking. But I think I'm probably in a minority on this one - a lot of people seem to like risk-based balance.

The higher level thing is more interesting. I kind of like how 4e handles this, but I think that it is another thing the rulebooks could do a better job of explaining. At least as I interpret it, teleport in 4e comes to play at about the level when travel between locations (or, at least, known locations) is no longer intended to be a source of adventure - adventure for paragon and epic PCs is going to be found on other planes, or in the Underdark, or in the wild places of the mortal realm, where there are no teleport circles to travel to (at least, not until the PCs discover them, at which point they become short cuts to the adventure location). I think the ritual to teleport to a non-circle is 28th level - so AD&D-style teleport is never going to be a big part of the game.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 19, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> No offense taken man. What bothered me was the idea that people like to turn 3.x into a decision of "Do you like super powerful wizards or not?"



It's just so tied to the system that it can't be removed.  That's the problem.  So, inevitably the decision comes down to which one can you deal with more: Wizards who are extremely powerful and can possibly ruin the fun of everyone at your table, including the DM.

Or deal with the fact that Fighters have encounters and daily powers.  I know for a lot of people this isn't an option since it's anathema to everything they believe in.  Not that I really understand why.  Though I spend a lot of time on message boards reading their opinions to figure it out.

I was recently talking to a friend of mine I hadn't gamed with in a while.  He was mentioning that their group got annoyed at a couple aspects of 4e, so decided to switch back to 3.5e.  Apparently, he is now on his 3rd character in 3 sessions, because each time he makes up a character the group jointly decides that his character is abusive and insanely powerful.  He even has to agree with them.  So he makes up a new character the next session.

His character animates the dead mostly.  But they've been annoyed that the creatures he animates are more powerful than the fighter in the group.  So, he gets to outshine the fighter with one spell.  And he's only used less than a quarter of his allowed hitdice limit for Animate Dead.

I know the way he thinks, however.  This player will be making a new character every session for the rest of time, since there are enough overpowered options available to him.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 19, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's just so tied to the system that it can't be removed.  That's the problem.  So, inevitably the decision comes down to which one can you deal with more: Wizards who are extremely powerful and can possibly ruin the fun of everyone at your table, including the DM.
> 
> Or deal with the fact that Fighters have encounters and daily powers.  I know for a lot of people this isn't an option since it's anathema to everything they believe in.  Not that I really understand why.  Though I spend a lot of time on message boards reading their opinions to figure it out.




Unless you are talking about choosing between 3/4e (we're supposed to discuss 5e I think), it doesn't have to come down to those two choices. You could, for example, redesign the 4e fighter without daily and/or encounter powers.

Personally, I don't like daily/encounter martial powers when there is no good (IMHO!) reason they would be limited to once per day/encounter. Most of the 4e fighter's abilities are like this. Some such abilities could work - I'm not opposed to them on principle.


----------



## Siberys (Jan 19, 2012)

I think the disconnect re: Fighter encounter/dailies is tied to how the person reading them thinks of ablities.

People who like them are more likely to view the game as if it's a story, complete with scenes and acts and so on. You see "Encounter" and "daily" powers in movies all the time - my favorite example is Iron Man 2, when Stark uses a whole bunch of rockets against some robots. They even talk about how it's limited use! These movies would be boring if the characters did the exact same thing every time they attacked.

On the other hand, people who dislike E/Ds on martial character are used to the game being more of a physics engine. Where the previous sort would say "of course you can only do that once a fight or once a day, it's narratively dependent on circumstances not under the PC's control and that is represented by limited availability", these people say "But if I can choose when to use it, it must not be reliant on external forces, so why can't I do it whenever I want?"

TL;DR People who are fine with E/Ds on martial characters are fine with narrative malleability, while those who aren't dislike it because it relies on narrative malleability.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 19, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Why is it that people keep implying that since I don't fins wizards broken I must be playing with a hand tied behind my back that I am choosing not to take the best spells?



Because I've seen the extremely powergamed Wizards.  I've seen how powerful they are.  Anyone who has seen them in action agrees they are overpowered.  I've found that those people who don't find them overpowered come from one of two camps:

1) I've never seen anyone try that before.

2) People have tried that before.  But we're going for "realism" here, don't you think Wizards should be 10 times better than some guy with a sword?

People who come from group 1 rarely KNOW they are from group one.  Their playstyle is such that it just REALLY never occurred to them to try some of the super broken things.

For instance, I was discussing this with a friend of mine recently that I mention in a post above who was animating the dead and making his party feel he was overpowered.  He said "And I'm not even abusing my powers.  I mean, I was thinking of keeping a bunch of monsters around who have recently died and keeping them in suspended animation so that I could use Death Knell on all of them to temporarily raise my caster level from 7 to 18.  Then I'll be able to animate WAY better monsters."

I reminded him that there is a magic item that makes your caster level higher if you cast spells near it(it's a candle) and he could probably get his caster level even higher if he wanted.

But that kind of thing never occurs to me.  I'm one of the people in the group who is always left behind when powergaming.  I don't ever think of increasing my caster level to 18 from 7.  That idea is just unthinkable to me.  So I know where these groups come from.  Left to my own devices, my table might never have noticed the broken power levels of Wizards/Clerics/Druids.  But the internet exists, and as long as it does...my players will read message boards, find broken things and bring them into my game.

They've already started bringing broken things into our 4e games.  They are far and few between, and luckily most of them rely on a fairly shady reading of the rules to accomplish.  So, most of the time I'll say "So, if you interpret the rule one way, you do 20 damage and if you interpret it another way, you do 150?  Yeah, I believe in my game we'll interpret it the first way."



Elf Witch said:


> And the interesting thing the people making these monster characters never use wizard at the base they use cleric, druids and classes from the splat books. They have muliclassing down to a science.
> 
> Now using the logic that I see so many wizards are broken people use this mean multiclassing is broken.



Here we get down to the real route of the problem.  Multiclassing is the single most broken thing in 3.5e.  Wizards(and often when I refer to Wizards, I also refer to ALL the casters) are my second biggest problem with the way 3.5e did things.  Multiclassing is my first.

I once made a character, that due to careful multiclassing at 20th level was a Warmage with 3 or 4 different PrC.  He had a BAB of +17, he had a 20 caster level and cast spells as if he was a 18th level Warmage.  He had the ability to cast spells in full plate with 0% arcane spell failure.  When he attacked, he used feats to drop his highest level spells for 9d4 damage added to his attacks.

When he finished casting all his spells, he had a better attack bonus and AC than anyone in the entire party.  And our group had powergamed extensively.

It was the point where I finally realized HOW badly you could abuse multiclassing.  Especially if you take the premise that a single class character should be the "default" power level for the game.  I outshined any single class Warmage or Fighter.

I've said it before in other threads and I'll say it again.  There is a spectrum between balanced and absolute character building freedom.  The closer to get to balanced, the less freedom you'll have.  I'm ok with this.  There's still a line I don't want to cross where everyone is identical.  But people being very close to the same is fine with me.



Elf Witch said:


> In the hands of a min maxer anything can be broken.



Not anything.  If there was a system that had no classes, no races, no feats, no spells, and everyone got the same bonus to attack rolls and all weapons did the same damage...there's nothing for a min-maxer to break.

Now, I'm not suggesting that this is a good idea.  But you need to start there and work forwards until you get a system that is varied enough to be interesting but not varied enough to be able to be broken TOO BADLY.

I don't mind a system where choosing Rogue means doing 10 damage but having less hitpoints, whereas being a fighter means doing 5 damage and having more.  I DO mind when the difference between the most powerful class and the least powerful class is 10 or 100 times.

The problem I find with attempting to balance a 3.5e-like system is that you are starting with a 100 times difference in power and attempting to balance backwards...VERY slowly.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 19, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> Unless you are talking about choosing between 3/4e (we're supposed to discuss 5e I think), it doesn't have to come down to those two choices. You could, for example, redesign the 4e fighter without daily and/or encounter powers.



In this case, I was.  But I was also talking in general.  From a math standpoint, those are the two choices you have, even when designing 4e.



Hassassin said:


> Personally, I don't like daily/encounter martial powers when there is no good (IMHO!) reason they would be limited to once per day/encounter. Most of the 4e fighter's abilities are like this. Some such abilities could work - I'm not opposed to them on principle.



There's no good in character reason for them to be limited, no.  You can quibble(and I've seen people do so) about how it's very straining to put extra effort into an attack to do more damage and you can't just do that over and over again.  But, when it comes down to it, there's no good reason in character to limit them.

But there's no good reason to limit Wizards to 3 spells a day either.  Once they know a spell, they should be able to cast it infinite times.  The answer only comes down to "It's magic, that's the way it works".  Which isn't(IMHO!) a good reason that they should work this way.

If we're going to use an entirely metagame reason to limit spells to a certain number of times per day, why can't we do it to fighters?  It appears to only be a matter of what things are called.

I propose an errata to the 4e PHB that officially changes every instance of the world "Fighter" with the word "Fightomancer".  Also, insert a section that says that the class is a spell caster who has learned to channel magic in order to do great combat abilities(without even learning them!) that normal people just couldn't accomplish.  But they can only channel some of the magics so often(like every 5 minutes or every day) depending on how powerful the magic is.

I have a feeling that would satisfy 90% of the people who had a problem with it, without changing a single rule.  And it would keep the game balanced.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 19, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Here we get down to the real route of the problem.  Multiclassing is the single most broken thing in 3.5e.  Wizards(and often when I refer to Wizards, I also refer to ALL the casters) are my second biggest problem with the way 3.5e did things.  Multiclassing is my first.




I disagree. Multi-class only between base classes and you won't do anything more broken than you could while single-classing. It's PrCs that are broken. I only use them like originally intended - as options I offer when PCs have joined an organization in game (or more generally done something plot related, they don't know if doing it enables a PrC or which).


----------



## hanez (Jan 19, 2012)

Dornam said:


> About OT:
> While class balance is important it is a design failure to make all the classes roughly the same in both powers and complexity. There is a need for a very easy class with not a ot of powers and this class may be weaker than another class with lots of powers as long as it isn't totally obsolete at anything.
> 
> About the recent discussion:
> While it is important nowadays to make the GMs life easier, it is a design failure to take the fantastic out of a fantasy rpg in order to maintain the possibility of very linear adventuring into the highest levels. There is nothing epic about being able to fly for 500 feet.




Well said


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 19, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> But there's no good reason to limit Wizards to 3 spells a day either.  Once they know a spell, they should be able to cast it infinite times.  The answer only comes down to "It's magic, that's the way it works".  Which isn't(IMHO!) a good reason that they should work this way.
> 
> If we're going to use an entirely metagame reason to limit spells to a certain number of times per day, why can't we do it to fighters?  It appears to only be a matter of what things are called.




No, Vancian magic is specifically based on the idea that *in-game* your wizard can only prepare so many spells that he can hold in his mind simultaneously. There are, of course, metagame reasons to have the specific numbers, but the limit is something that exists in the game world.

(BTW, some class abilities in 3.5 are per day without an in-game explanation. I do find some of them annoying, and have house-ruled some away.)

Now you could come up with an in-game limiting mechanic for the fighter, like fatigue. If that results in a good D&D, I'm fine with them using something like that.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 19, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> I disagree. Multi-class only between base classes and you won't do anything more broken than you could while single-classing. It's PrCs that are broken. I only use them like originally intended - as options I offer when PCs have joined an organization in game (or more generally done something plot related, they don't know if doing it enables a PrC or which).



It's not just that.  The number of people who take 1 level of Sorcerer for their Fighter so they can cast True Strike or Shield is amazing.

I knew a Wizard who took one level of Rogue just to get trapfinding and the Rogue skills as class skills.  He then used his really high intelligence to take all of the Rogue skills.  It was a Living Greyhawk character, so he played with many different groups.  But his Search skill in order to find traps was better than every Rogue he ever encountered.  And the rest of his Rogue skills were on par or better than them.  So, he tended to make Rogues feel useless.

Fighters with one level of Barbarian are way better than Fighters without it.  Especially when you can just take a feat to increase the number of Rages per day you have.

There are many other examples.  Being single classed in 3.5e was unoptimal.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 19, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> No, Vancian magic is specifically based on the idea that *in-game* your wizard can only prepare so many spells that he can hold in his mind simultaneously. There are, of course, metagame reasons to have the specific numbers, but the limit is something that exists in the game world.



And that in-game reason is entirely made up by the creators of D&D(with a little help from Vance).  We all accept it because...well, it's magic, it's supposed to be weird and we can't compare it to anything in real life since magic doesn't really exist.

But when you think about it?  Why can't Wizards hold more spells in their mind at the same time?  It doesn't make any sense.  It's an in-game reason, but a poor one.



Hassassin said:


> Now you could come up with an in-game limiting mechanic for the fighter, like fatigue. If that results in a good D&D, I'm fine with them using something like that.



I just did come up with an in-game reason for it. See my above post.  They are secretly Wizards..  Or look at the 3 or 4 in game reasons they give in the 4e PHB.


----------



## nightwyrm (Jan 19, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Being single classed in 3.5e was unoptimal.




Unless you're a caster who couldn't get into a PrC, or a druid.  

First law of optimization: Thou shalt not lose caster levels.

It's the melees who have to jump around cherry picking class abilities coz their base chassis sucks.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 19, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> [snip]
> There are many other examples.  Being single classed in 3.5e was unoptimal.




We may have a different definition of broken.

I wouldn't have any problem with Fighters taking a level of Sorcerer - they are sacrificing consistency for better attacks when prepared. The Wizard taking Rogue wouldn't be a problem in a rogueless party. Pure Fighters are weak, but the one level of Barbarian will still mean you get some feats a level later.

None of these give you a character that either 1) is strictly better than a single-classed character of one of those classes or 2) gets to do something no single-classed character can.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> But when you think about it?  Why can't Wizards hold more spells in their mind at the same time?  It doesn't make any sense.  It's an in-game reason, but a poor one.




Subjective.

I mean even more subjective than the rest of this discussion. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I just did come up with an in-game reason for it. See my above post.  They are secretly Wizards..  Or look at the 3 or 4 in game reasons they give in the 4e PHB.




A fightomancer might be an interesting character, but sometimes I want to play a non-magical character.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 19, 2012)

Part of the high level casters problem--of which wizards have been the poster child--is that with the right assumptions at the table, you *can* balance it. You can do this in any editions, though the "right assumptions" move a bit by edition.

For example, in 1E, it is very easy to go full "operational resource management" mode and keep the wizard balanced well into the teen levels. And in 3E, you can do a bit of that mixed with "throw situations that only the casters can handle, that deplete their resources, and get the party nothing--then move onto the main adventure pieces." (In that latter styles, you'd put the giant on the bridge and make the giant over-powered, because you know full well that you are going to drain a teleport or similar magic out of the wizard. Do this enough, and don't spend too much time on it, then you've used effectively mere color to bring the casters back into balance.)

The problem is, however, that most people *don't want* to balance this way. They've been complaining about it since D&D started, whether because the DM or rules went overboard and the low-level wizard was this cat-fearing, treasure bearing, glorified link-boy that took a share of the XP as an investment by the party for later returns--or because the DM or rules turned him into Mr. Teleport/Timestop/MeteorSwarm/Wish god. And even with a system as balanced as 4E, people are still complaining about needing about 4 encounters per day.

In fact, one of the ways that BECMI and 1E fight against this is with the importance of items. Since items aren't intrinsically tied to the characters, you can handle a lot of these balance issues with distribution. Don't want Link-boy? Give the poor low-level wizard a wand and some scrolls. They'll get used up. Give him some more. When he stops needing them, stop giving them. Later, don't want Wish-god? Be stingy with equipment approrpriate for the upper level wizard, not so much for everyone else. (Check out the probabilities on the random treasure in the 1E DMG. This bias is built in.)

4E nodded in the direction of this with some things, but then undermined itself in other ways. For an example of how it might have been stronger, take the 3E conception of items, tweak the assumptions to be like 1E to deliberately favor the non-casters (whether assigned or random tables or straight fiat--it doesn't matter), and then use only one change from 4E: Move the problematic spells into "rituals" *and do not tie them to character advancement at all*. Make them a mix of equipment and plot device. You can cast a ritual because you find a scroll that lets you do that, and while the right character can make that scroll, it is tough to do. It's not a thing you do very often, and when you get one you save it for when it really matters. Sometimes, you find them. Sometimes, a "ritual" magic is part of a location or other immovable object. 

There. Now the giant on the bridge encounter can be handled one of two ways, and the players get to pick:

1. Engage with it as normal.
2. Bypass it using magical resources that are essentially non-renewable--at least on any regular schedule.

Whether you then want the flavor of the wizard doing something magical with that magical resource--or prefer that such bypassing be more spread out amongst the group--doesn't matter for balance. Do it how ever you want.


----------



## Deadboy (Jan 19, 2012)

Encounters and Dailies for martial characters aren't REALLY that hard to look at in a way that makes sense.

Consider this: I tell my friends I'm going to attack one of them. I run up to one and stomp on his foot. He probably wasn't expecting that so I succeed. Now, if I try to stomp on his foot again, he's going to see it coming and move his foot, and possibly stomp on my foot that's currently bearing my weight. However, if instead of trying to stomp on his foot again, I tweak his nose, I stand a much better chance of succeeding. Spamming Foot Stomp or Nose Tweak will never work.

Encounters are a lot like that. They're flashy, easily countered moves that leave you open once an enemy knows to expect them. Which is why I have my At Will, Face Slap. Face Slap I can spam because  that doesn't require an easy to predict vector - I can use either hand, I  can backhand - and I don't leave myself as open to counterattack as my  hands are still in a good position to defend.

Dailies are a bit harder, but they represent bigger, flashier moves that the situation only aligns for every once in a while. So getting back to my example, if I try to break out my Daily, Nipple Twist, on my friend, I better make sure I'm going to catch my friend totally off guard or I'm gonna regret it. 

It's a more narrativist way of looking at things than simulationist, which is how some players seem to look at things in D&D (which I've never understood as I've always seen D&D as very poor for simulationism, but that's just my perspective).


----------



## Deadboy (Jan 19, 2012)

ForeverSlayer said:


> But Ryan Dancey doesn't know everything.  Please don't use the "4th edition was fine, it was Hasbro that set the  dollar bar to high" excuse. Hasbro has been around for a long time and  they are involved in a lot of things. I'm sure they didn't roll to d10's  and decided to add "million" to whatever came up and said that's what  needs to be made.
> 
> Wizards will most likely be listening to people who either didn't like  4th edition and/or the people who thought 4th was okay but would rather  have something else. Actually listening to die hard 4th edition fans is  rather pointless because they want 4th edition or another edition that  will mirror it. You don't want to mirror something that was essentially a  failure.




I'm pretty sure they're going to try to put out something that's going  to please as wide a variety of D&D fans as possible. Which means not  ignoring the desires of 4th fans. And nobody ever said anything about  mirroring anything. 

It won't work if they mirror 3rd edition either. What's the point in  getting back one segment of your audience and losing another? Especially  when the segment they're trying to win back already have a game -  Pathfinder - so they can't count on the entirety of that segment coming  back? That sounds like a recipe for a brand new failure. They can't  possibly try to succeed without making sure they keep a large portion of  their current audience.

It's most likely that they will include different modular segments of  the games that fans of each edition will be able to be able to add in to  flavor the game to their tastes; at least that's what Mearls and Cook  both seem to be saying.

And I'll take Dancey's opinion over yours anyday.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 19, 2012)

Deadboy said:


> Encounters and Dailies for martial characters aren't REALLY that hard to look at in a way that makes sense.
> 
> Consider this: I tell my friends I'm going to attack one of them. I run up to one and stomp on his foot. He probably wasn't expecting that so I succeed. Now, if I try to stomp on his foot again, he's going to see it coming and move his foot, and possibly stomp on my foot that's currently bearing my weight. However, if instead of trying to stomp on his foot again, I tweak his nose, I stand a much better chance of succeeding. Spamming Foot Stomp or Nose Tweak will never work.
> 
> ...



Welcome to the boards but not to curb your enthusiam but every variant of explaination and justification has been hashed out on these boards over the last couple of years and people still do not agee. It is better to accept this and move on.
For the records i completely agree with you and lack of simulation in D&D.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 19, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> You can make your 1st level rouge just as interesting and fun as a 20th level sorceress with the power to level mountains.



Let's think about this for a minute...

How, exactly, do you make a 1st level rogue as interesting as a 20th level sorcerer?

Well, the person playing the rogue can give him or her an entertaining personality! And the player can contribute clever ideas and actions not covered by the rules!

But wait -- the person playing the sorcerer can do the exact same things! In addition to moving/flattering/temporally-suspending mountains.

(I like to call this the "There's Nothing Stopping the Guy Playing Superman From Playing Batman At The Same Time" Principal of role-playing games)

So we're back to square one. Two interesting, clever characters, one who, on a good day, hide sometimes and pick a pocket, and the other, who can redecorate the surrounding landscape on a whim. 

The rules can't really give a PC an interesting personality or clever idea. They _can_ attempt to keep the number and scale of rules-defined options for interacting with the game environment _somewhat_ on par between PCs, more-or-less.

And they should do that, because, after all, D&D is still a game.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2012)

Mallus said:


> Well, the person playing the rogue can give him or her an entertaining personality! And the player can contribute clever ideas and actions not covered by the rules!
> 
> But wait -- the person playing the sorcerer can do the exact same things!



Not if the GM is harsher on the player of the sorcerer than the player of the rogue in adjudicating free-roleplayed action resolution.

Or if the GM designs encounters that the sorcerer will feel obliged to engage mechanically, while creating space in the same encounter where the player of the rogue can free roleplay.

This is not how I particularly like to run or play the game, but I think it is what the OP has in mind, and I think it is a fairly widespread way of playing D&D (I would say it became widespread in the mid-80s and would associate it mostly with a certain type of 2nd ed AD&D approach).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2012)

Deadboy said:


> Encounters and Dailies for martial characters aren't REALLY that hard to look at in a way that makes sense.



I prefer to regard them just as metagame abilities.

What is the difference between a Brutal Strike and a Reaping Strike, in game? Nothing. They're both hits by the fighter. The Brutal Strike is just a slightly more brutal one. What the mechanics do is let the player of the fighter decide when his/her PC will achieve a slightly more brutal strike, by letting him/her choose to use the daily rather than the at-will.

What is the difference between hitting two targets with a close burst, and hitting target A with a melee attack in round 1, and then hitting target B with a melee attack in round 2? Nothing, except that with the close burst the fighter got lucky, or struck slighly more quickly, or . . . (This actually helps to reduce the sense of a stop-motion world that a turn-based combat system can tend to engender.)

Now some ranger and rogue powers that impose conditions (blinded, weakened etc) perhaps do have to be narrated as special moves, but they are a minority of overall martial powers. And even then there's nothing stopping the player of the ranger characterising every attack as an Excrutiating Shot - it's just that only once a day is it so excrutiating that the target is weakened!


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 20, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> IYou can make your 1st level rouge just as interesting and fun as a 20th level sorceress with the power to level mountains. The rules should not try to force that, but rather compliment play to make sure you have fun regardless which class you try to play instead of sit around comparing die sizes all evening.




I respectfully disagree.

At my table, a 1st-level Rogue is every bit as interesting as its 1st-level Sorcerer counterpart.  And they maintain parity to 20th level and beyond.

But if the rules allow one character to overshadow another, then the rules are broken.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 20, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Not if the GM is harsher on the player of the sorcerer than the player of the rogue in adjudicating free-roleplayed action resolution.
> 
> Or if the GM designs encounters that the sorcerer will feel obliged to engage mechanically, while creating space in the same encounter where the player of the rogue can free roleplay.
> 
> This is not how I particularly like to run or play the game, but I think it is what the OP has in mind, and I think it is a fairly widespread way of playing D&D (I would say it became widespread in the mid-80s and would associate it mostly with a certain type of 2nd ed AD&D approach).



Basically, you treat the unfairness of the rules by adding unfairness in how or when to apply them. Maybe this is a case where two wrongs make a right for some people - if the "unfairness" in the second part is part of the social contract, it may not be felt as such. 
I, obviously, dislike it.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 20, 2012)

So do I. But I really do think this is what the OP has in mind - what else are we meant to make of the repeated invocations of the importance of the GM, and the claims that those of us who rely more heavily on mechanical balance have lost the roots of the game in a powerful GM who is more than just a miniature-pushing funny-voice-talker?


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 20, 2012)

Wormwood said:


> But if the rules allow one character to overshadow another, then the rules are broken.




I think allowing "overshadowing" is pretty much inevitable. (E.g. make a clone of another player's character and be a dick about playing it.)

However, *encouraging* it would be another matter, and I think some people here may see the 3e rules as having done that.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 20, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> I think allowing "overshadowing" is pretty much inevitable. (E.g. make a clone of another player's character and be a dick about playing it.)
> 
> However, *encouraging* it would be another matter, and I think some people here may see the 3e rules as having done that.




Probably some here do, but while I largely agree with their analysis of the problem, I wouldn't go as far as "encouraging" on that question.  In fact, sometimes I think the problem is not with the "over-powered" casters but with everything else.  We tend to want to rein in the 3E wizard, cleric, and druid on behalf of the poor fighter, paladin, ranger, bard, etc.  However, in 3E, those casters finally got to do a lot!  That's been a complaint of earlier editions for some time.

The problem was, most everyone else got stuck too close to the old model.  A bunch of feats (or minor music magic or sprinkling of low-level spells and abilities) just didn't compare.  That is, in relation to the main model, 3E tends to *hamstring* several classes, the initial fighter, bard, and ranger being the prime examples.  It just seems like encouraging the casters to be overpowered in comparison.

Of course, a lot of people didn't like the iniital 4E answer to that, either--bring the fighter and the rest up to snuff with analogous mechanics, flavored differently.  Yet, nothing says that some combination of 3E/3.5/4E/Essentials couldn't come up with a good set of "stances" or the like to mix with feats to make the fighter operate on that same plane with the wizard.  I think you'd still need to find away to make casting not quite so reliable compared to the 3E model, but that could probably be done.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 20, 2012)

Soramain said:


> I respectfully disagree.  If any player playing any character can contribute equally to any facet of the game (i.e. any _situation_), then there may be some feelings that the choices they make are not meaningful.  For example, if I choose to play a rogue and I can contribute equally in a fight against undead as a player who built an undead-hunter priest type character, his character concept is cheapened.  He *should* be better than me in that scenario.  That's just the tip of the iceberg with encounter design - some encounters will favor certain class/race/ability combinations and _that is okay._



"Combat" is a facet of the game that takes up a lot of playing time. "Combat vs undead" is a specific situation, and not at all what I was talking about.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 21, 2012)

Wormwood said:


> But if the rules allow one character to overshadow another, then the rules are broken.




On what scale? Rogues in 4e generally overshadow most other characters in stealthy or thieving situations. Does that mean the rules are broken?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 21, 2012)

pemerton said:


> So do I. But I really do think this is what the OP has in mind - what else are we meant to make of the repeated invocations of the importance of the GM, and the claims that those of us who rely more heavily on mechanical balance have lost the roots of the game in a powerful GM who is more than just a miniature-pushing funny-voice-talker?




I ghink people are starting to make a lot of unsupported assumptions in this thread.


----------



## Dellamon (Jan 21, 2012)

pemerton said:


> So do I. But I really do think this is what the OP has in mind - what else are we meant to make of the repeated invocations of the importance of the GM, and the claims that those of us who rely more heavily on mechanical balance have lost the roots of the game in a powerful GM who is more than just a miniature-pushing funny-voice-talker?




I'll agree with that, but I am not being judgmental, which is how I think some of you are taking it.  I honestly believe that the structural changes brought about in the later editions marginalized the role of the DM.  It really boxed the game into a more rigid framework and invited min-maxing and power-gaming (and a healthy dose of rules-lawyering). If you are one of those gamers (and there is nothing wrong with that - to each their own), you probably love those editions.  If you are not, you probably are not the biggest fan.  I, obviously, am not one of later edition fans.  While not as refined as 3.5 or 4E, I feel the framework of 1E (and retro clones and hybrids like C&C, etc.), allows for more narrative freedom for the DM and more creativity for the players.  Plus, combat and encounter resolution is soooo much faster (and usually deadlier!).  

Ultimately, from my experiences at the game table, I think the abundance of rules and powers have stifled player creativity.  I see that in a lot of the younger players that I have played with.  And a lot of those changes were made in the name of strict class balance.  

I'm just psyched to see the re-release of the 1E books.  I hope a lot of the people who started playing in the 3E era can give it a shot.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 21, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I ghink people are starting to make a lot of unsupported assumptions in this thread.





Dellamon said:


> I'll agree with that



I'm glad that the OP understood what I was trying to get at.



Dellamon said:


> I am not being judgmental, which is how I think some of you are taking it.  I honestly believe that the structural changes brought about in the later editions marginalized the role of the DM.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Ultimately, from my experiences at the game table, I think the abundance of rules and powers have stifled player creativity.



I don't think you're being judgemental. I think you might be underestimating the range of playstyles and play experiences that are going on with more "modern" rulesets. On the off chance that you're interested, here are some links to actual play posts from my 4e game. I think you'll see that it plays a bit differently from the "min-maxing" game you're describing, but nevertheless _does_ rely on the modern mechanical design.



Dellamon said:


> I'm just psyched to see the re-release of the 1E books.  I hope a lot of the people who started playing in the 3E era can give it a shot.



I won't be buying them - partly because I'm in Australia, but also because I've already got a full set of 1st ed AD&D hardbacks in good condition (my PHB, DMG and MM are the revised covers - the wizard, the guardian of hell, and the red dragon frying pegasi).

I enjoyed AD&D a lot back when I played it - especially Oriental Adventures - but I don't think I could go back to it now. As for the influence of that era on 5E - I hope that the designers pay attention to the subtle differences of tone between Moldvay/Cook B/X and Gygaxian AD&D, and draw more on the former than the latter. I think Gygax is a bit more prescriptive in his approach to scenario design, adjudication, and the overall point of play.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 23, 2012)

Here is a post by [MENTION=40522]Dykstrav[/MENTION], and another by [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION], in a thread on the General forum, that illustrate similar approaches to balance between PCs as the OP in this thread is suggesting - the GM shaping the story, the rewards etc to ensure that no single PC is dominant _in spite of_ mechanical imbalances between PCs.

The OP is not on his/her own in respect to this. It's a fairly widespread approach that I think the designers need to be aware of, and to talk about in their guidelines for the game.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 23, 2012)

Dellamon said:


> What is the obsession with class balance?



Balance is a critical aspect of any game, RPG or otherwise.  Class balance is critical to D&D because Class is such a big part of a character.



> Why should a magic-user and fighter or rouge and cleric all be comparable in power at the same levels?



So the game doesn't automatically suck for you based on the archetype you want to play.



> Isn't balance a subjective quality that can shift based on play conditions?



No, it's prettymuch objective, but, yes, it can shift based on play conditions, if it's not very good balance.  A well-balanced game will support a variety of play styles and conditions without breaking.  



> I think one of the things that did the most damage to class balance was putting all classes on the same xp progression table (I think this occurred in 3E).



Ultimately, experience progression is entirely abstract.  If you have one character that gets to level X and Y,000 exp, and another that gets to level X+2 at Y,000 exp, but the two are balanced at those different levels, then that is no different than having two charters balancing at the same level & exp totals.  The only difference is that it's easier to tell that characters are of about the same power level if /level means the same thing to all classes/.



> I think 4E magic using classes lost that mystique by trying to force balance through the rule set rather than putting that in the hands of the DM.



They did lose a certain, subjective, mystique, yes.  That was a very small price to pay, though, especially as the loss is meaningless to anyone who doesn't have the same subjective opinion about 'mystique.'  

4e casters still do tons of physically impossible things, it's just that in the abstract math of game mechanics, those things are more nearly balanced, now.

Putting balance in the hands of the DM makes the role much harder.  That means more DMs screw up, running imbalanced campaigns that frustrate players and put them off D&D, and many more players simply never DM, because it is such a difficult and thankless job.  In 4e, it's much easier to run.  I was never able to find more than one or two campaigns of AD&D or 3e to play in at a time.  I'm currently in 3 4e campaigns, plus one Gamma World, and I've turned down invitations to others.  And, while I rarely ever ran 3e (having run AD&D for 10 years straight, so a little burned out at the outset, and just not having the time 3e demanded due to RL), I frequently run 4e.

It's just a much better game from the DM perspective.  If you like the challenge of taking a really bad game, and thrashing and house-ruling it into playable shape, though, it's definitely not for you.



> And if you think about it, there was additional balance built into AD&D that a lot of people just chose to ignore (it was too hard to use, slowed game play, etc.).



There was a /lot/ of that, yes.  Vancian casting, too was a hard limit - but people made up spell-point systems.  Each ed, actually, went and did what people were doing with their house rules: removed restrictions on casting without powering it down correspondingly.   Until 4e, which leaves casting no more restricted than non-casting, but also not much more powerful.



> I fully understand that we all want to be special flowers at the table with our characters, but should that not be more about character development and roleplaying than stat blocks?



It /should/, yes.  Which is why balanced mechanics are better than crap mechanics - because they allow you to make your character about development and roleplay, instead of chasing broken combos.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 24, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Balance is a critical aspect of any game, RPG or otherwise.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Interesting post.

I agree that balance is important, but I think the OP is right in thinking that it can be handled by the GM rather than the mechanics. Whether that is a _good_ way to handle it is a different question, and I think your post picks up the key issues there - GM-adjudicated balance puts a lot of pressure on the GM, and as the last sentence I've quoted hints at, opens the door to "gaming the GM" and "playing to break the system". I think the tendency of GM-adjudicated balance to lead to this sort of balance-of-power struggle is a real one, to which classic D&D - with it's entry level players and GMs and its lack of balanced mechanics - was historically prone.

I think that the designers of 5E need to learn from that history, but also think about why it is that a large group of D&D players seem to want this sort of strong GM, and see if they can create modules/options to support forceful GMing without leaving the rest of us stuck with crappy mechanics.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 24, 2012)

DMs will always have the power to do what they want with their campaigns.  Not having a desperate need to change everything because the system is eff'd up doesn't mean you can't choose to change the system as much as you wish.  

Maybe the key is that players are more apt to put up with a 'forceful' style of DMing if the DM is the only thing making the game playable?  "Give me a bad system so I can use the threat of RAW to bully my players into whatever variant if feel like this week!"


----------



## pemerton (Jan 24, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Maybe the key is that players are more apt to put up with a 'forceful' style of DMing if the DM is the only thing making the game playable?



Another possibility, but still one that doesn't paint the preference very nicely, is that the players want a strong GM for other reasons (eg they don't know other techniques for achieving a satisfying story out of play) and the need for the GM to intervene in basic action resolution creates the "in" for the desired exercise of GM force.

Is there a way of painting the preference in a favourable light? When you look at some of the posts on this thread from the OP and those who agree, they seem to imply that (i) without a strong GM, fictional positioning will become less relevant to action resolution, and (ii) once fictional positioning is relevant, mechanical balance becomes less important.

I don't agree with these hypotheses, but the "4e is a boardgame in drag" motif is widespread, so maybe these players aren't familiar with, or don't like, other techniques - including mechanical techniques and player-driven techniques - for making fictional positioning count.


----------



## Dornam (Jan 24, 2012)

Class balance is important, but having player characters that cater to the needs of many different type of players is just more important.

We don't play 4e because some of my players prefer the "pick 4 feats and you're done Fighter" and others prefer the "I want to have 200 spells at my disposal Wizard".

Are these two characters balanced by the rules all the way up to Level 20? Probably not!

Can the GM balance these classes ingame? Sure way!

So I myself appreciate the early snips of information that promise easy chars and I do not expect them to be balanced power wise.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 24, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Balance is a critical aspect of any game, RPG or otherwise.  Class balance is critical to D&D because Class is such a big part of a character.




There are a lot of games where 1) some players are better than others (e.g. sports, chess, poker), 2) some players will affect the game more/less than others (e.g. different positions in soccer, ice hockey), or 3) the balance of the game will be determined by chance in the beginning of the game (e.g. many card games).

Ultimately, I find arguments like "most/all games have feature X so D&D should too"* unconvincing, simply because *RPGs aren't like most games*. Most games have (groups of) players playing against each other, but not RPGs. In most games the objective is to win, but not in RPGs.

* I'm not trying to quote you here, but this is what some posts in the thread amount to.


----------



## Siberys (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, Hassassin - Tony Vargas is saying a very D&D mechanic (class) is important, not that something from another game is... Unless you're saying mechanical balance is a feature of other games that D&D doesn't necessarily need. Is that what you're getting at?


----------



## darkwing (Jan 24, 2012)

Let's examine the word "balance". In 4e that doesn't mean any class can kill any other class if they just get initiative. It just means that all classes contribute and the game is fun for all classes, regardless of level. That's why it's important.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 24, 2012)

Siberys said:


> I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, Hassassin - Tony Vargas is saying a very D&D mechanic (class) is important, not that something from another game is... Unless you're saying mechanical balance is a feature of other games that D&D doesn't necessarily need. Is that what you're getting at?




The argument was basically: 1) class is important in D&D + 2) important things in games should be balanced => 3) classes should be balanced in D&D.

I disagree with #2, because of the examples I gave.

That doesn't mean I oppose balancing classes (as long as done in a way that doesn't sacrifice other things I like), but I don't find the argument convincing.


----------



## Siberys (Jan 24, 2012)

In that case, I'm not sure most of your examples follow through. In chess, each side as as whole is balanced, because they have the same pieces; each soccer team is balanced because they have the same number of players in the same positions; et cetera. Player skill is not at question here; of course someone skilled at chess will beat someone that isn't. That's not a balance question, that's a skill question.

Let's use that soccer example; you seem to be coming from the POV that a D&D character would be presented as an individual soccer player. I would rather think of the character as being the whole team; individual players on a team are not going to be balanced, but each team as a whole has access to the same positions in the same numbers. No one would think it fair if one team had twice the number of players on the field as the other.

As to the point about RPGs not being like most games, yes, that's true. But the point of balance in D&D is different from its point in other games. In other games, it's there so that opposing players or groups of players have a roughly equal chance of success, barring skill level differences. In RPGs, it's there so that the player's choices are meaningful. If the classes are unblalanced, at some point one player's choices could become functionally meaningless because another player's choices override theirs. That's the problem people had with pre-4e casters - some players felt worthless by comparison if they were playing anything different.

TL;DR - The argument isn't "important things should be balanced", it's "balance is important", in the context of a game.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 24, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I think that the designers of 5E need to learn from that history, but also think about why it is that a large group of D&D players seem to want this sort of strong GM, and see if they can create modules/options to support forceful GMing without leaving the rest of us stuck with crappy mechanics.




I certainly don't want to be the "strong DM".  I like planning adventures in terms of "I control the world, the world works as I expect it to work.  The players play their characters, I simply have the world react to them."

So, when I plan an adventure, I plan it in terms of "The bad guy wants to take over the world.  He lives in a castle near a town.  He has a spy in town working for him feeding him information.  There is a large pit around his castle that only has one working bridge.  That'll provide the PCs an interesting obstacle to pass when they try to get to the castle."

Then I just let what happens in game happen as it may.  If we follow that the DM is required to balance the party forcibly, no matter what the rules say...then it is now my job to insert NPCs who want to steal the Wizards spellbook, creating the need to run another adventure where the PCs try to track down the spellbook.  Then I have to create an NPC Wizard with the spells to counter most of what the PC Wizard tries.  Probably 2 NPC Wizards as I'll need one to stay near the BBEG and another to stay near the spy, constantly refreshing protection spells to prevent the spy from being found out and the BBEG from being scryed on.

That's a lot of work that I feel shouldn't be put on the DMs head.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 24, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Not if the GM is harsher on the player of the sorcerer than the player of the rogue in adjudicating free-roleplayed action resolution.



Now *this* is what Harrison Bergeron-style D&D would look like!



> Or if the GM designs encounters that the sorcerer will feel obliged to engage mechanically, while creating space in the same encounter where the player of the rogue can free roleplay.



This is a variation on the common practice in superhero game encounter design, where the goal is to engage each PC with the challenge most appropriate to them, or at least to make the appropriate match-ups obvious to the players ie, send the hero with the ultra-sharp claws and instant healing against the giant, mutant-killing robot, not the hero who's an exceptional linguist (unless he's wearing his alien friend like a suit of powered armor -- sometimes I deeply regret knowing these kinds of thing...).

In other words, the X-Men school of encounter design. 



> This is not how I particularly like to run or play the game, but I think it is what the OP has in mind, and I think it is a fairly widespread way of playing D&D (I would say it became widespread in the mid-80s and would associate it mostly with a certain type of 2nd ed AD&D approach).



Actually, I'm running this kind of game right now, more-or-less. Fairly by-the-book AD&D with a thief in the party. "Going easy on the thief" has been a guiding adjudicating principle (but not the reverse, "make it harder for the casters/specialized fighter"). 

Doing this sort of ad-hoc, on-the-fly balancing has been fairly easy so far, but it inevitably makes more work for the DM. And system really matters here; balancing AD&D, especially at lower levels isn't difficult, but I would want to do it under 3e, which neatly undoes a lot of 1e/2e balancing mechanisms w/r/t casting classes (in order to open up new avenues of play).

My advice for balancing 3e/Pathfinder is simple: play a class with access to spells and rely on NPCs for the rest! (I kid... barely). 



Dellamon said:


> I honestly believe that the structural changes brought about in the later editions marginalized the role of the DM.



For the record, I never felt marginalized by 3e or 4e. I had the same amount of authority/freedom as I did running older editions -- which was exactly equal to the amount the players gave me. Which was a lot. But I admit I may be quite lucky when it comes to players. 



> While not as refined as 3.5 or 4E, I feel the framework of 1E (and retro clones and hybrids like C&C, etc.), allows for more narrative freedom for the DM and more creativity for the players.



I agree there's a certain pressure to operate within the constraints of the (admittedly complicated) rules framework present in the later editions. But that pressure came from me, not my players. 

Had I learned to relax a bit more, my 3e campaign would have been easier to DM! 



> Plus, combat and encounter resolution is soooo much faster (and usually deadlier!).



Here I agree completely. Resolving... well everything except unarmed attacks is much, much faster using pre-3e rules. 



> Ultimately, from my experiences at the game table, I think the abundance of rules and powers have stifled player creativity.



There's a link to the Story Hour about my 3e campaign in my .sig, ie The Chronicles of Burne. *That's* my experience of player creativity under 3e. It's wildly creative. Also, funny (no really). Check it out if you get a chance.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 24, 2012)

Mallus that sounds about right. In my case since I began with 3E, it was a lot to take in at once. 

Because of that, from the beginning there was a level of leniency. We knew the game was complex and had many parts that weren't clear but we simply wanted to get to the playing. Over time I kept reading so we could fill in spots we had improved with some guiding rules (if everyone thought they made sense).

So yes, I think it is almost being able to relax in 3E. I think the people who are really bugged by 3E saw it as kind of taking D&D off in a different direction and making it more about rules and less about RP. I understand how people see that but it's really just a matter of being comfortable and having the players on your side. Since I grew up with 3E D&D I am comfortable with all the issues it has and through overall system knowledge am able to simply roll with things (which is what I think should always be the case).

I think when presented with so many rules for so many specific things some people feel the need to know everything. Maybe they feel a duty to their players, or just a compulsion, I don't know. But as has been stated many times here, it really can be boiled down to trust between DM and players, and players to players. If everyone knows they're all there to enjoy the game which means not stepping on toes constantly and everything being in good fun then really anything works.

Majoru Oakheart,

As for designing the world and such. If you're designing things without knowing your PCs potential don't blame the system. The system gives you a bunch of tools to make things with and gives you rough estimations of power by level. If you know the wizard can do x y z then it's in part your job to give the wizard a challenge. Maybe those spies have simple magical stones that block scrying or teleporting within a certain range. That's not absurd, it's logical if the person controlling the spies lives in the same world as the PCs. If they don't have anything of the sort than your players would be smart to take advantage where they can.

That's not an arms race, it's just intelligent creation. If the world itself doesn't recognize the PCs as part of the world, it's silly. Why wouldn't the big bad guy know that wizards are powerful foes and can turn invisible, shoot fireballs, teleport, etc? Yes you're designing around the wizard, just like by having guards you're designing around the rogue or the fighter. By having traps you're designing around the rogue. This is all completely normal. A good world combines everything so nothing seems made for anyone specifically, it seems like a natural creation to living in a magical setting.

If all you're saying ultimately is that it just takes a bit more time, that's totally understandable. But really it's just a level of consideration. Wizards are insane but if you assume the world also knows that, it isn't so weird to have elements designed to hinder them sometimes. Just like sometimes the rogue has no trap to disable or lock to pick, because instead it's magical. It's really no different.

Sorry for the essay and sorry if something sounded snarky or harsh, it wasn't meant to be. You make a lot of great posts that clearly illustrate things and I respect that.


----------



## underfoot007ct (Jan 24, 2012)

Gronin said:


> For some crunching numbers is part of the fun.






Fun is exactly the point, fun for everyone. Not the wizard who kills most of the baddies in the first round, then ever one just stands protect the wizard. Unless the Thief goes in at night & kills everyone if their sleep.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 25, 2012)

Dornam said:


> So I myself appreciate the early snips of information that promise easy chars and I do not expect them to be balanced power wise.




Argh! Simple is not a synonym for imbalanced! Imbalanced Synonyms, Imbalanced Antonyms | Thesaurus.com Nor is complicated a synonym for balanced! That's like saying all left-handed people must have brown hair. I see this all over these threads like somehow they've come to mean the same thing! It's especially funny when the same people try to claim the more complex 4E characters are part of a dumbed-down game.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2012)

Mallus said:


> I'm running this kind of game right now, more-or-less. Fairly by-the-book AD&D with a thief in the party. "Going easy on the thief" has been a guiding adjudicating principle (but not the reverse, "make it harder for the casters/specialized fighter").
> 
> Doing this sort of ad-hoc, on-the-fly balancing has been fairly easy so far, but it inevitably makes more work for the DM. And system really matters here; balancing AD&D, especially at lower levels isn't difficult, but I would want to do it under 3e, which neatly undoes a lot of 1e/2e balancing mechanisms w/r/t casting classes (in order to open up new avenues of play).
> 
> My advice for balancing 3e/Pathfinder is simple: play a class with access to spells and rely on NPCs for the rest! (I kid... barely).



Is there a deep difference between going easy on X and going harder on not-X? What's the baseline for easier vs harder?

But I agree that system matters to this. Which I think is also part of the OP's point (although perhaps not self-consciously so).



Majoru Oakheart said:


> I certainly don't want to be the "strong DM".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Agreed, especially if the system makes it hard.

But I think some _do_ want to play this way. Which is why I think the 5e designers have to think about it, and try to find a system (or at least a range of modules for a core system) that can support both approaches.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jan 25, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> I think when presented with so many rules for so many specific things some people feel the need to know everything. Maybe they feel a duty to their players, or just a compulsion, I don't know. But as has been stated many times here, it really can be boiled down to trust between DM and players, and players to players. If everyone knows they're all there to enjoy the game which means not stepping on toes constantly and everything being in good fun then really anything works.




Something to that, though I look at the effect from a slightly different angle. Not infrequently we hear the statement, "Look at what a game spends time on to see what the game is about." At its most literal (and thus most useless), this comes out as saying that a game is proportionally about whatever its page count is dedicated to. In contrast, I see what a game spends time on (including dedicating page count to) as a sign of *what the authors think they have handled*. 

Is 3.* D&D *about* making your rogue3/fighter2/super-prestige6 guy? No. Do the 3.* authors think they have mostly *handled* letting you make the guy you want to make? Sure. Is 4E *about* tactical combat? No. Do the 4E authors think they have mostly *handled* tactical combat. No doubt.

Of course, what a game handles well will become what the game is about, or at least a pleasant sideline, for *some* people. You had people in 1E days that would spend more time making characters than they did playing (though often due to lack of a group). And you also had people that made characters and used the game as a mini-wargame (even though it wasn't the best option for that). That was more about them than the game, though. Given them a game that satisfied their itch didn't say as much about the game as it did their preferences.

Which is a long way around to get back to that quote, in that I think people feel obligated to use those specific rules because having the specific rules creates the impression that the game authors have *handled* what those rules are about. When the rules are extensive but lacking, there will be a natural resistance to change them, and to make the changes as small as possible. You have to get really fed up (often from prior experience with rules) to simply chunk the whole section altogether. After all, you paid for those rules, right? Might as well use them.

This is why the oft-cited "1E was such a hodge-podge of screwed up rules that people had to house rule" effect is even stronger than usually stated. It wasn't so much that everything in 1E was screwed up (it wasn't), or that none of it had subtle effects that could be lost (there were). Rather, it was that some of it was so blatantly and obviously *not handled*, that you got that resistance out of your system fairly rapidly.


----------



## Phaezen (Jan 25, 2012)

Reposting my thoughts on balance from another thread:

I think there is enough evidence that there are people who have had  issues with the imbalance between casters and non-casters at mid to high  level, just as there is enough evidence that a DM or group can mitigate  this problem through social pacts and game management.

Given that not all DMs are strong enough to be able to manage a table  like this, or don't have enough time to customize opponents and  scenarios so that all the class power levels can participate  meaningfully I feel a system which balances the classes is preferable  for the following reasons:

1. It puts less pressure on the DM to have complete system mastery and  have to balance various competing rules elements so that everyone can  participate in the majority of scenes, whether they are combat, social  or other.  The DM can instead spend more time on preparing plot and  story.

2. Min-maxers can still ply their trade without being overwhelmingly powerful at the table.

3. There is no expectation for players to play their class suboptimaly  to allow other players a chance to shine at the table.  If it is cost  effective for casters to create and carry wands and scrolls for utility  spells, then there is no reason for casters not to do this, unless they  want to allow other players a chance to do there thing.  One player  should not have this amount of control over the other players at the  table.

4. There is no pressure on players to min-max, they can choose class  elements for story and plot reasons and not have to worry about their  effectiveness at the table.

5. Instead of relying on rules loopholes and weak spots to overpower  encounters, it should encourage players to look for in game resources to  gain advantages - leaning on allies, using terrain and such.

At the end of the day, a balanced system should cater for all play  styles without letting one player dominate because of his class or  causing another player to unintentionally hamstring himself due to the  character concept he would like to play.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 25, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> As for designing the world and such. If you're designing things without knowing your PCs potential don't blame the system.



Why is that?  When I sit down to play Monopoly, I don't have to change the rules or do preparations in advance based on one of the other players is playing the Boot.  I don't change the rules of Settlers of Catan based on the fact that STEVE is playing with us vs when BOB plays with us.  But those games play fine without changing anything based on who is playing because the system was designed balanced.

Here's an idea.  The potential of ALL 5th level characters is the same(or very close to the same) so that you can say "The characters are 5th level, they have the ability to easily get through locks that are DC 15, but DC 30 will be impossible for them.  If I put a DC 30 lock in this room, I can expect they won't be able to enter."  Instead, I have to wait to find out if they have a Wizard since he'll be able to open it easily(or teleport through or make a hole through the wall) and have to change my adventure accordingly.



SlyDoubt said:


> That's not an arms race, it's just intelligent creation. If the world itself doesn't recognize the PCs as part of the world, it's silly. Why wouldn't the big bad guy know that wizards are powerful foes and can turn invisible, shoot fireballs, teleport, etc?....This is all completely normal. A good world combines everything so nothing seems made for anyone specifically, it seems like a natural creation to living in a magical setting.



It is in SOME D&D worlds.  Not in others. Say I want to run a game where the land outside of a kingdom's borders are unexplored.  There are 250,000 people in this kingdom and that is the only civilization that they know.

In this kingdom, there are wizards.  But their order numbers 725(the same percentage of the population that is doctors in the US) or so.  Most people in the country have never seen a Wizard.  There are tales of what they can do, but no one knows exactly except the Wizards themselves which they keep hidden to avoid anyone being able to oppose them.

So, why would all the enemies plan to have a Wizard show up?  What COULD they even do to plan for a Wizard?

Or even if we consider a slightly more magic plentiful world.  Say there are 2500 Wizards in the kingdom.  That's still only 1 in 100.  And with the technology level of most D&D campaigns, that means most people have still never met or even seen a Wizard in real life.

Sure, as the DM you know the exact abilities of a Wizard.  But most people on most D&D worlds would have no idea.  The abilities of Wizards would be past on via Bards and stories that would act like a giant game of Broken Telephone until the abilities didn't resemble what they could ACTUALLY do at all.  

And finding a Wizard willing to help you by warding your entire building against the abilities of Wizards would be next to impossible and would cost more money than most people have.



SlyDoubt said:


> Yes you're designing around the wizard, just like by having guards you're designing around the rogue or the fighter. By having traps you're designing around the rogue.



I don't put traps in the game to design around the Rogue.  I put the traps in there to give the PCs a challenge.  If they have a Rogue they can defeat the challenge by disarming it.  If they don't have a Rogue they may defeat it by dodging/avoiding the trap or smashing the trap with their weapons/spells.  I know that regardless of the party composition, they will be able to pass the trap, just using different methods.

I put guards in front of buildings to prevent people from getting in, regardless of their class.  They aren't put there as a design around the Fighter or Rogue.  They can stab swords into Clerics and Wizards the same way they can a Fighter or Rogue.



SlyDoubt said:


> If all you're saying ultimately is that it just takes a bit more time, that's totally understandable. But really it's just a level of consideration. Wizards are insane but if you assume the world also knows that, it isn't so weird to have elements designed to hinder them sometimes. Just like sometimes the rogue has no trap to disable or lock to pick, because instead it's magical. It's really no different.



Except that magic locks can be picked by Rogues in 3e and 4e.

But, yes, my point is it takes more time than it should and seems contrived when you do it ALL the time.  If you come across one enemy who is extremely rich and his warehouse has a magic lock on it that can't be picked and needs to be dispelled with magic and you think "Wow, this guy has to be rich to be able to afford this!" then it's special.  If your thought is "Of course he has a magic lock.  Every house in the city has a magic lock." then there is a problem.  Of course, the reason they all have magic locks is because the DM planned against the Wizard and wants to make sure that he has to use up his spells on things like locks rather than combat spells to balance him".  Meanwhile it causes the Rogue to go "Why did I come along?  All of these doors are warded against picking.  You don't need me."

I was one of the Triad members in Living Greyhawk back in 3.5e.  When you read through some of the higher level adventures from later in the campaign, the amount of contrivances to stop high level players were completely out of whack.  Our campaign had to follow the rules without any house rules, and we were never allowed to destroy equipment...that was considered unfair.

So, by the end there was an adventure where Devils and Demons are fighting each other and the PCs come into the room in the middle of it.  They both turn around and attack the PCs.  Each Demon and Devil had no less than 6 spells put on them, each with caster level 20.  The adventure instructed you to start their durations the moment the PCs entered.  The spells in question were a mix of Cleric, Druid, and Wizard spells that none of the Demons or Devils there had the ability to cast.  And at least one of the spells had a range of Personal.

The reason they had all those spells up is because the adventure was designed for level 14 characters, and by this point the campaign staff had realized that Wizards were too powerful and without that suite of protection spells the battle would be so short as to be insignificant.  I once talked to the author and asked him "How could they even do that?  It seems like we are stuck in an arms race against the PCs and now we're writing things into adventures that isn't even possible just to defeat their powers."  He said "Well, they could have had all the spells stored in Ioun stones and cast them from there just before the PCs enter the room."  I said "But they didn't have any Ioun stones with them."  He said "Well, the text says a Wizard passed through the room just before the players get there.  Maybe he took them."

As a side note, they all had to be 20th level caster level because PCs have this tendency to cast Dispel Magic and remove all the spells from enemies, reducing them back down to a level they could beat easily.

Also, I'd like to note that even with all those extra spells, most people playing the adventure thought it was too easy.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 25, 2012)

Fair enough. Those are all good points. 

And by magic lock I meant a lock that is magical not at all physical. I don't put guards around places for the rogue or fighter either. I meant guards for spellcasters actually but it doesn't matter. Regardless to design a world that the PCs live in without the world knowing that the PCs live there is strange. You can make any kind of world, like the one you described and still make it a challenge. It probably is more work, but I'm ok with that.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 25, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> And by magic lock I meant a lock that is magical not at all physical. I don't put guards around places for the rogue or fighter either. I meant guards for spellcasters actually but it doesn't matter. Regardless to design a world that the PCs live in without the world knowing that the PCs live there is strange. You can make any kind of world, like the one you described and still make it a challenge. It probably is more work, but I'm ok with that.



Of course the world is aware of PCs.  Just not these specific PCs unless they have reason to.  They are aware that there are people with swords.  They are aware that some Wizards can teleport, some can fly, some can turn invisible.  They are aware that some people are stealthy and can sneak past people.

But they aren't aware that the heroes of the story have a Wizard until their spies tell them that or they run into them first hand.  They aren't aware that the PC Wizard doesn't know Fly or that he does know Teleport.  It's also been my experience that most villains find out about the PCs about 10 seconds before the PCs kill them.  And no more than half of them have enough intelligence to plan for the PCs at all.

And it's not just hard to challenge a group without giving the NPCs knowledge they don't have...it's downright impossible in some editions of D&D.  Well, without the battle going something like this

DM: "The horribly evil Undead creature shambles out of the nearest sewer manhole cover, it's 40 feet tall and horribly ugly."  (DM thinks to himself: They are 14th level and this creature is CR 20, according to the DMG, this is instant death for a 14th level party, but they've defeated everything lower I've thrown at them easily.)
DM: "The enemy uses an area of effect attack, DC 37 save or die."
Rogue: "You realize that means we all need 17s to succeed, right?  Yeah, we all die."
Cleric: "Actually, it's a death magic spell, I cast Death Ward on me and the Wizard.  We're immune."
Rogue: "Alright, so only the rest of us die."
Wizard: "Alright, my turn.  Quickened True Strike, Disintegrate. 212 points of damage."
DM: "Right.  It dies."


----------



## billd91 (Jan 25, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Why is that?  When I sit down to play Monopoly, I don't have to change the rules or do preparations in advance based on one of the other players is playing the Boot.  I don't change the rules of Settlers of Catan based on the fact that STEVE is playing with us vs when BOB plays with us.  But those games play fine without changing anything based on who is playing because the system was designed balanced.




I wouldn't consider that a very good comparison. Monopoly is a directly competitive game with a very limited set of capabilities of the players. That said, you might want to adjust your strategy if you know about how the player tends to play - aggressive in his property upgrades, hoarder until he can manage to afford more expensive properties? 

Now let's compare to Advanced Squad Leader. In that game, a player is well advised to study the capabilities of his opponent's units on the scenario card because they are highly variable. And the game will be different depending on who you are playing. Do they aggressively scout with half squads down the wings of the board? Do they tend to use assault movement and the advance phase to slowly grind up the board or make use of Soviet human waves/Japanese banzai charges, dashes through smoke to make faster gains? This game is more open-ended in what the player can do and with more complex pieces. More consideration is necessary. And there are scenario based balance adjustments that can be made to compensate between players with different skill levels. 

Now look at RPGs. They're even more open-ended than ASL, with characters that are potentially more complex. Yeah, RPGs are going to need a bit more consideration than Monopoly or Settlers of Catan to make them fit what my players want and how they play.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 25, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Of course the world is aware of PCs.  Just not these specific PCs unless they have reason to.  They are aware that there are people with swords.  They are aware that some Wizards can teleport, some can fly, some can turn invisible.  They are aware that some people are stealthy and can sneak past people.
> 
> But they aren't aware that the heroes of the story have a Wizard until their spies tell them that or they run into them first hand.  They aren't aware that the PC Wizard doesn't know Fly or that he does know Teleport.  It's also been my experience that most villains find out about the PCs about 10 seconds before the PCs kill them.  And no more than half of them have enough intelligence to plan for the PCs at all.
> 
> ...




I don't really know what you expect people to say. "Yes you're absolutely right, what a fool I am!" 

3.X doesn't work for you. For a lot of people, it works just fine. Not everyone who it works for specifically likes super wizards/clerics. Classes will never be balanced. I would rather have a system of unique classes with unique abilities than one where everything is tuned so (considering combat only) everyone can participate equally. No thanks. The game is so wide open that to limit it like that just seems like a bad idea.

I really hope they don't feel locked into that idea. That's the bigger concern. Worrying about class 'balance' seems like a recipe for a bland game. I would rather see unbalanced but exciting and interesting classes. Because ultimately D&D is not a computer game. A human is running it and a human can alter and make judgement to even things out where needed. I'd rather the framework push into new and fun ideas than be confined to "well this class has 'a' so we need to give an 'a' equivalent to everyone".

I don't think lessons learned in 4E should be forgotten or thrown out; definitely not. But look where 4E ended up. Hopefully they have been looking hard and long at what worked and what was simply a result of this balance dogma everyone seems so obsessed with. Because sacrifices are made for balance. With a game like D&D which is neither competitive nor run by a cpu, I don't see the absolute need for this. 

I want an edition where everyone has stuff only they can do that is unique in style and application. The wizard is a problem because by his nature he is supposed to have access to all sorts of magic that can do nearly anything. That's what makes him wizardly. I'd like to see the wizard able to do ridiculous stuff and still able to do things like a fighter or rogue can do (like knock) but not as well. I think there is definitely a very achievable middle ground and I hope wotc explores that thoroughly.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 25, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> I don't really know what you expect people to say. "Yes you're absolutely right, what a fool I am!"



I wouldn't expect you to say that, but it'd be correct.



> Worrying about class 'balance' seems like a recipe for a bland game. I would rather see unbalanced but exciting and interesting classes.



Nope.  Imbalance actually gives you a bland game, once you've 'mastered it.'   Once you figure out that there are only 3 top-tier classes and everything else is a waste of time, a balanced game with a dozen viable classes starts to look a lot less bland.




> I want an edition where everyone has stuff only they can do that is unique in style and application. The wizard is a problem because by his nature he is supposed to have access to all sorts of magic that can do nearly anything. That's what makes him wizardly.



See, that's just circular. A wizard is supposed to be broken because that what's make him a wizard?  Why?  Because wizards were broken before.  Classes need to be balanced because that makes each class a viable choice and give you a more varied, more interesting game that handles a greater breadth of play styles.  

For far too long, D&D got by on being familiar, on sucking the way it always sucked, rather than making the big leap and actually becoming a better, modern game.  The virulent rejection of die-hards to that leap is positively tragic.  If the grognards win, they'll get the game they want, but it'll die with them.


----------



## hanez (Jan 25, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> DM: "The horribly evil Undead creature shambles out of the nearest sewer manhole cover, it's 40 feet tall and horribly ugly."  (DM thinks to himself: They are 14th level and this creature is CR 20, according to the DMG, this is instant death for a 14th level party, but they've defeated everything lower I've thrown at them easily.)
> DM: "The enemy uses an area of effect attack, DC 37 save or die."
> Rogue: "You realize that means we all need 17s to succeed, right?  Yeah, we all die."
> Cleric: "Actually, it's a death magic spell, I cast Death Ward on me and the Wizard.  We're immune."
> ...




uh....... Is that supposed to be a real situation?  In your campaign clerics can cast death ward in response to an attack?  Don't see where thats in the rules.  And it is only applicable to one target... soooo hows he doing it for the wizard?    

And if disintegrate is 2d6 per level, and the wizard is level 14, it seems to me we are looking at 84 damage?  At that level the fighter has 3 attacks per round, EVERY SINGLE ROUND.  Wheres the imbalance again?

And why is the DM throwing such that encounter at them anyways?  Because hes wants to prove a point on a forum board or because he wants to run a fun game?


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 26, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> I wouldn't expect you to say that, but it'd be correct.
> 
> Nope.  Imbalance actually gives you a bland game, once you've 'mastered it.'   Once you figure out that there are only 3 top-tier classes and everything else is a waste of time, a balanced game with a dozen viable classes starts to look a lot less bland.
> 
> ...




I give up. I'm being as even and reasonable as is possible and yet this is the kind of response I get. 

Here, it's simple. You enjoy your thing. I enjoy my thing. Stay away from my thing just like I stay away from your thing. 

We can both hope that 5E is _our_ thing. Or not. Maybe you hope it's _your_ thing. I don't. All I want is for history and previous designs and ideas not to be forgotten for the sake of balance.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 26, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> I wouldn't expect you to say that, but it'd be correct.





Tony, you've been around a while. Did you forget that insulting folks, even slyly, indirectly, or by implication, is apt to get you into trouble?

We have had enough edition warring.  You may well feel your approach is the better choice, but if you cannot be diplomatic in how you present it, you will continue to have issues - with other posters and with moderation.

Remember - the people on the boards are more important than game preferences.  Treat them kindly, and with respect, please.

If anyone has questions about this, please take it to e-mail or Private Message with the Moderator of your choice.  Thanks, all.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> The wizard is a problem because by his nature he is supposed to have access to all sorts of magic that can do nearly anything. That's what makes him wizardly.



Gandalf is pretty wizardly (in my book, at least), but he can't do nearly anything. He can't fly or teleport - his best movement spells are his friendships with a really fast horse and with a giant eagle. (And the eagle friendship is clearly a "per session" ability at best.) His artillery ability is highly limited. He can't cast knock (rather, he runs through lists of magical passwords).

The wizard in my 4e game is pretty wizardly. He conjures walls of flame, giant hands made of ice, and clouds of force-knives. He can teleport his enemies around the battlefield, or enshroud them in fire or darkness. He can open doorways between physically separate locations. He can consult with the Mystic Sages to learn ancient lore, perform object reading, and place a wide variety of wards.

Nevertheless, in play he does not overshadow the fighter. His elemental attacks are no more dangerous than the fighter's elemental attacks (a contrast with pre-3E D&D). And his battlefield control, while different from the fighters (longer ranged, in particular) is not superior - although it does have more powerful spikes.



Tony Vargas said:


> For far too long, D&D got by on being familiar, on sucking the way it always sucked, rather than making the big leap and actually becoming a better, modern game.  The virulent rejection of die-hards to that leap is positively tragic.  If the grognards win, they'll get the game they want, but it'll die with them.



For me, this sums up the great puzzle about 4e and its reception.

There is obviously something about classic D&D, and the dependance upon a type of GM discretion in both encounter design and action resolution that almost no other RPG seems to have, that is immensely appealing to the audience for the game. I don't get it, but it seems hard to deny that it is there.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 26, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Gandalf is pretty wizardly (in my book, at least), but he can't do nearly anything. He can't fly or teleport - his best movement spells are his friendships with a really fast horse and with a giant eagle. (And the eagle friendship is clearly a "per session" ability at best.) His artillery ability is highly limited. He can't cast knock (rather, he runs through lists of magical passwords).




He *doesn't* do a lot of stuff we'd consider D&D wizardish... but that doesn't mean all of those capabilities are outside his ability. He uses some spells like fire seeds against goblins, fireball against wolves, he does something unknown that helps Bill the pony make it back to Tom Bombadil's place. We don't know he can't do a knock spell because the Hollin Gate may be resistant to any opening spell in any language.

Gandalf is operating in a significantly different environment to what most D&D characters operate in. We know he has to keep his cards pretty close to his chest because there are plenty of spies about and he wants to keep his movements secret as much as he can. As a result, we don't know how much he can't do versus chooses not to do.

I agree that radical transport magic is not part of the Middle Earth setting, though. So no teleports. And I wouldn't call flying with giant eagles anything close to being as useful as once a session. It's more like he's owed a few favors and happens to call them in.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 26, 2012)

billd91 said:


> He *doesn't* do a lot of stuff we'd consider D&D wizardish... but that doesn't mean all of those capabilities are outside his ability. He uses some spells like fire seeds against goblins, fireball against wolves, he does something unknown that helps Bill the pony make it back to Tom Bombadil's place. We don't know he can't do a knock spell because the Hollin Gate may be resistant to any opening spell in any language.
> 
> Gandalf is operating in a significantly different environment to what most D&D characters operate in. We know he has to keep his cards pretty close to his chest because there are plenty of spies about and he wants to keep his movements secret as much as he can. As a result, we don't know how much he can't do versus chooses not to do.
> 
> I agree that radical transport magic is not part of the Middle Earth setting, though. So no teleports. And I wouldn't call flying with giant eagles anything close to being as useful as once a session. It's more like he's owed a few favors and happens to call them in.



Let's pretend for a moment that Gandalf actually is capable of all the 3E Wizard's feat (with a few exceptions, like Teleport, as you mention)

Why doesn't he use them? If I wanted to play Gandalf, what reason would I have not to throw Fireballs left and right, or Quickened Disintegrates, or whatever? 

There is definitely no mechanical rule enforcing it. It's just a "story choice". Gandalf is casting only very few spells and often only weak and subtle spells because he wants to. 

So basically, it is "balance by roleplaying". I like balance, but "balance by roleplaying" is not my method of choice.

But, let's take the onscreen or in-book Gandalf: 
The fire seeds and fireballs you saw or read about - could you say wether they deal 10d6 fire damage or 3d6? Isn't Aragon fighting back the Nazgul with Torches (potentially only 1d6 fire damage)? Maybe the 4E 3d6 fireball is actually quite sufficient to model Gandalf, after all? 
Why model stuff that we don't know if it even exist?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Gandalf is operating in a significantly different environment to what most D&D characters operate in. We know he has to keep his cards pretty close to his chest because there are plenty of spies about and he wants to keep his movements secret as much as he can. As a result, we don't know how much he can't do versus chooses not to do.



Just adding to what [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION] said, if I want my game to give wizards the feel of Gandalf, why would I give them the ability to do stuff that Gandalf doesn't do (in terms of either quantity or quality)?

To get that "Gandalf could really pull something out in an emergency if he had to" vibe, you might also give a wizard PC some sort of "drop the veil" mechanic - at it's crudest, this could be:

If you want to do something miraculous - like win a fight with a Balrog and return from the heavens in reincarnated form - give your "drop the veil" token to your GM. You then achieve what you want. The GM, however, may subsequently return inflict a serious complication upon you and/or your allies, overriding the usual action resolution rules; s/he must then return the token to you.​
Maybe the GM spends the token to force Frodo's player to fail a will/corruption check when drying to drop the ring in Mount Doom.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 26, 2012)

I happen to be quoting pemerton, but this is applicable to several of the recent posts.  



pemerton said:


> Just adding to what [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION] said, if I want my game to give wizards the feel of Gandalf, why would I give them the ability to do stuff that Gandalf doesn't do (in terms of either quantity or quality)?
> 
> To get that "Gandalf could really pull something out in an emergency if he had to" vibe, you might also give a wizard PC some sort of "drop the veil" mechanic - at it's crudest, this could be:
> 
> ...




I think this is attempting to take the discussion in a straw man direction. The d&d wizard has never really shared anything more than a name and a pointy hat with gandalf. There are middle earth RPGs that attempt to mimic the way magic is used in the books, d&d just doesn't do that. 

For an effective discussion why not talk about any of the hundreds of other fantasy magicians in print, almost all of whom would provide a more useful basis of discussion?

Surely that would be worth the effort, eh?


----------



## kimble (Jan 26, 2012)

Two cents,

Let me remember you that Gandalf wasn´t:
a) Human;
b) Someone who studied magic at some point;
c) Someone that used anything like 'arcane magic', by D&D standards.

He was some kind of divine agent that was sent to Middle Earth to help others. He was much closer to some kind of 'angel' or something like that, by D&D standards, than a wizard (someone with a class, etc.).

And during most of the LotR, he is a plot device. When the group has a problem they can´t handle or they are lost, he shows up.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 26, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I happen to be quoting pemerton, but this is applicable to several of the recent posts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What about Merlin? Any examples about him throwing fireballs or disintegrates?

What about the kind of Wizards Conan fought? Did they disintegrate people much, teleport, fly? And was he unable to survive against one of them without protective spells cast by friendly mages?

The mages in Harry Potter's world seem to be very different from D&D in some ways, though they may seem closest. Yet, the whole way how potions and spells work seems different. And truely deadly spells are disallowed and used basically only by the evil spellcasters. 

What other mages are there? I am not much of a fantasy book reader, my perception seems to be mostly colored by more mythological figures than literature.

The Discworld mages seem to have similar powers, but they also seem to be inspired partially by D&D influenced examples (which may be a general issue, distingiusihing D&D inspired material from the rest). And even there, no reason to assume that there fireballs deal more than 3d6 in a world of 1d8 swords, or that they can cast disintegrate. (They can turn people into frogs, though).



kimble said:


> Two cents,
> 
> Let me remember you that Gandalf wasn´t:
> a) Human;
> ...



Stylistically, Gandalf does look nothing like a Angel, though. Angels are these beings with feathery wings. 
Or, if you talk in D&D terms, they cast, say Holy Word and several other Clerical spells. Which also looks not like anything Gandalf ever did. 

Stylistically, he's a mage. If someone that hasn't read all the background material to the LotR, they will certainly call Gandalf a mage, and if someone would discuss how he imagines a mage to be, he will cite Gandalf. 

So, I think, he essentially _is_ a mage in how people envision mages. 
But you're certanily right that he doesn't use arcane magic by D&D standards - he doesn't cast fly, disintegrate, fireball or Teleport. But is it that the vision of a mage doesn't match D&D, or that many people simply have false visions of what mages are.


----------



## kimble (Jan 26, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Stylistically, Gandalf does look nothing like a Angel, though. Angels are these beings with feathery wings.
> Or, if you talk in D&D terms, they cast, say Holy Word and several other Clerical spells. Which also looks not like anything Gandalf ever did.




Not really. What Gandalf does during LotR that only a D&D wizard would be able to do, really? He doesn´t use a grimoire. He doesn´t have a familiar. He uses a staff, ok, but a cleric could do that to (depending on his god). And all his spells are (by D&D standards) divine magic.

He even uses a sword, something that mages from many editions couldn´t do. 

I understand what you mean ('Oh, but he is old! With a beard! And a pointy hat!'). I´m just saying that most people look at Gandalf, think 'That´s what a wizard should be!', and then never stop to think that Gandalf acts much more like a (D&D) cleric than a (D&D) mage.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 26, 2012)

kimble said:


> Not really. What Gandalf does during LotR that only a D&D wizard would be able to do, really? He doesn´t use a grimoire. He doesn´t have a familiar. He uses a staff, ok, but a cleric could do that to (depending on his god). And all his spells are (by D&D standards) divine magic.
> 
> He even uses a sword, something that mages from many editions couldn´t do.
> 
> I understand what you mean ('Oh, but he is old! With a beard! And a pointy hat!'). I´m just saying that most people look at Gandalf, think 'That´s what a wizard should be!', and then never stop to think that Gandalf acts much more like a (D&D) cleric than a (D&D) mage.



I tend to assume that D&D classes are modelled on pre-existing stereotypes first (at least some of them). So, if Gandalf is more like a D&D Cleric than a D&D Wizard, but people consider Gandalf a wizard, isn't D&D doing something wrong? (And does he really seem like a D&D Cleric? It's Aragon that heals Frodo, not Gandalf, right?)


----------



## kimble (Jan 26, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I tend to assume that D&D classes are modelled on pre-existing stereotypes first (at least some of them). So, if Gandalf is more like a D&D Cleric than a D&D Wizard, but people consider Gandalf a wizard, isn't D&D doing something wrong? (And does he really seem like a D&D Cleric? It's Aragon that heals Frodo, not Gandalf, right?)




There are a lot of characters that are called paladins, warlocks, druids, monks and others and they don´t act like they were D&D characters. Does that make D&D wrong? No.

The problem is that LotR is not a D&D setting and it never worked as a D&D setting. Ok, you have hobbits (halflings), elfs and dwarves. But a lot of things work completely different from D&D. Magic is one of those.

Again, I agree with you about the 'pointy hat' part. I´m just saying that Gandalf doesn´t work/act/has the same powers as a (D&D) wizard.

About not being a cleric because he doesn´t heal someone, I can´t remember him reading a grimoire also.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 26, 2012)

Mustrum, you are one of the people who I am talking about, drawing the discussion in a straw man direction. 

Why not drop unproductive discussions about a literary character that has only the most tenuous relationships with d&d wizards?

You say that you are not familiar with fantasy? Why not do a little research on the work of Vance (an obvious first stop, surely), LeGuin and others? A quick google search will reveal dozens of mythical, legendary and literary examples which would be worth considering. 

If you have a 1e DMG available why not check out the section in the back on inspirational reading?

That is where you'll find inspiration for d&d magic. Talk about that rather than rehash tired old arguments please. 

Thanks


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 26, 2012)

hanez said:


> uh....... Is that supposed to be a real situation?  In your campaign clerics can cast death ward in response to an attack?  Don't see where thats in the rules.  And it is only applicable to one target... soooo hows he doing it for the wizard?



He cast it before hand, of course.  But he can only cast it twice, so he decided to put it on the 2 most important party members.  I know, since my 14th level cleric did this as standard procedure before going into each battle that we suspected would use that type of spell.  They were on their way to destroy it, so it was a precaution.



hanez said:


> And if disintegrate is 2d6 per level, and the wizard is level 14, it seems to me we are looking at 84 damage?  At that level the fighter has 3 attacks per round, EVERY SINGLE ROUND.  Wheres the imbalance again?



I apologize, I missed a step and estimated instead of calcluating the numbers.  This happened in a game we played(not all of it in the same combat, but the pieces happened separately and were put together to prove a point).  The exact sequence was: Quickened True Strike, Sudden Maximized Disintegrate.  It did "only" 168 damage.  Still killed the enemy in one hit though.

As for the Fighter, there's a number of things causing the imbalance.  He had +22 to hit with his primary attack.  Most enemies were floating around AC 30.  That means that he hit with with his second attack less than 50% of of the time and his third attack his around 15% of the time.  On an average round he'd hit 0-1 times.  Especially against harder enemies.  The second and third attacks were often just a waste of the time it took to roll them.

When he did hit, he was doing 1d8+12 damage.  Or 16.4 damage on average.  If he hit with all his attacks miraculously, he'd need 3.4 rounds of attacking before he could equal the ONE spell cast by the Wizard(or 2, given that be made sure he hit with the True Strike).  Including chance to hit, he'd need closer to 10 rounds to equal that damage.

During the day in question, there were 3 battles.  Each one of them lasted between 1 and 2 rounds.  So, that's no more than 6 rounds of combat in the day.  The Wizard used lesser tricks in the rest of the combats.  But most of them were way more powerful than whatever the fighter did as well.


hanez said:


> And why is the DM throwing such that encounter at them anyways?  Because hes wants to prove a point on a forum board or because he wants to run a fun game?



Because his players were complaining that the game was too easy.  Everything dies on round one or two.  Nothing seemed like an epic fight.  They laughed at how this one really powerful Wizard who apparently had lived for hundreds of years and was 3 levels above them died before he even got to cast a spell.

Also, because portions of that were no fun for the DM.  The DM wanted the PCs to every once in a while be scared of the enemies.  He wanted combat to be something other than watching the PCs laugh at how easy his game was.  To show a bit of healthy concerned for their own lives.  

But they never did.  Because they rightfully believed that they were nearly indestructible.  The cleric could cast heal 4 times a day and that was enough to restore someone from empty to full.  Plus he had enough other spells to restore another 4 or 5 more people from empty to full.  If the worst happened, he could Raise Dead and always kept the money to do so.  In between combat he had enough wands to restore the entire party from empty to full 5 or 6 times.

The Wizard had enough offensive ability to kill most enemies on round 1 or 2 for 3-4 combats a day.  And if it took longer than that, he had the ability to teleport out and possibly fail their mission, but keep all of them alive.

The DM was just sick of combat being exactly the same each time:  Roll initiative, either PCs go first and the enemies die or the enemies go first and do negligible damage to one of them and then die on the PCs turn.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 26, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Mustrum, you are one of the people who I am talking about, drawing the discussion in a straw man direction.
> 
> Why not drop unproductive discussions about a literary character that has only the most tenuous relationships with d&d wizards?
> 
> That is where you'll find inspiration for d&d magic. Talk about that rather than rehash tired old arguments please.



I disagree.  I understand his point.  D&D has previously been modeled on books and literature that many people have not read and do not want to read.  Instead, they read other fantasy books and watch fantasy movies.  They expect their D&D to model the types of fantasy they like.  Instead D&D models a type of fantasy that very few people have read.  Then D&D attempts to justify its imbalance by saying "But, we are just trying to make it like fantasy literature."

I do think of Gandalf when I think of the archtypical Wizard.  The fact that he has only the most tenuous relationships with D&D Wizards is kind of the point.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 26, 2012)

Well, that is a trail of woe, isn't it?

Goodness knows how many of us were frustrated with vancian magic back in the 70's, the fanzines were full of spell point systems, klutz systems and other mechanisms to allow wizards to cast more like the characters in our favourite literature but you know what? D&d never really changed. 

Fact is, if you want to play a fantasy game that models a particular fictional world, you almost certainly don't choose d&d. You choose another rpg that is either directly customised to fit or a more generic one as a base. 

However, there is now a huge back catalog of  d&d based fiction - who is to say that newcomers to d&d won't have read that first? The fantasy fiction market has changed a lot in the last 40 years.


----------



## kimble (Jan 26, 2012)

From  @GeeksDreamGirl  twitter, tweeting the seminar happening now on DnDXP:

"#*ddxp* Monte: A #*dnd* wizard MEANS something. It's diff than Gandalf, or a spellcaster in Skyrim. We are focusing on the feeling of the class."

And then they explain how they want to find what make it each different and a 'DnD class'. They have good intentions, at least.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 26, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I apologize, I missed a step and estimated instead of calcluating the numbers.  This happened in a game we played(not all of it in the same combat, but the pieces happened separately and were put together to prove a point).  The exact sequence was: Quickened True Strike, Sudden Maximized Disintegrate.  It did "only" 168 damage.  Still killed the enemy in one hit though.
> 
> As for the Fighter, there's a number of things causing the imbalance.  He had +22 to hit with his primary attack.  Most enemies were floating around AC 30.  That means that he hit with with his second attack less than 50% of of the time and his third attack his around 15% of the time.  On an average round he'd hit 0-1 times.  Especially against harder enemies.  The second and third attacks were often just a waste of the time it took to roll them.
> 
> When he did hit, he was doing 1d8+12 damage.  Or 16.4 damage on average.  If he hit with all his attacks miraculously, he'd need 3.4 rounds of attacking before he could equal the ONE spell cast by the Wizard(or 2, given that be made sure he hit with the True Strike).  Including chance to hit, he'd need closer to 10 rounds to equal that damage.




Seems like you had an optimized wizard and an unoptimized fighter in the same party. A fighter with WF, GWF, Str 24 and +5 weapon would have +28 to hit, for example. That's probably not particularly optimized either.

I don't necessarily like the fact that power level in 3e depends on optimization, but it does mean even two characters of the same class can easily be "unbalanced", if only one is optimized.


----------



## Hassassin (Jan 26, 2012)

kimble said:


> From  @GeeksDreamGirl  twitter, tweeting the seminar happening now on DnDXP:
> 
> "#*ddxp* Monte: A #*dnd* wizard MEANS something. It's diff than Gandalf, or a spellcaster in Skyrim. We are focusing on the feeling of the class."
> 
> And then they explain how they want to find what make it each different and a 'DnD class'. They have good intentions, at least.



For the Twitter challenged (like me), the tweet is here: https://twitter.com/#!/geeksdreamgirl/status/162598657760301056 and GeeksDreamGirl's feed/stream/whatever here: https://twitter.com/#!/geeksdreamgirl


----------



## Spatula (Jan 26, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Mustrum, you are one of the people who I am talking about, drawing the discussion in a straw man direction.
> 
> Why not drop unproductive discussions about a literary character that has only the most tenuous relationships with d&d wizards?



I think it's a bit much to claim that comparisons of D&D to LotR are somehow out-of-bounds. Large parts of the original game were lifted wholesale from Tolkien (e.g. all of the PC races that are not named "gnome"). Nearly every effect that Gandalf produces in the books became a D&D spell. While some of those game elements have evolved and mutated over the years, LotR was clearly a big influence on D&D in general and on D&D magic, even if the resource system and other spells are taken from Vance.


----------



## hanez (Jan 26, 2012)

Spatula said:


> I think it's a bit much to claim that comparisons of D&D to LotR are somehow out-of-bounds. Large parts of the original game were lifted wholesale from Tolkien (e.g. all of the PC races that are not named "gnome"). Nearly every effect that Gandalf produces in the books became a D&D spell. While some of those game elements have evolved and mutated over the years, LotR was clearly a big influence on D&D in general and on D&D magic, even if the resource system and other spells are taken from Vance.




It just doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about what powers he displayed in the books.  Especially since he was basically a god that could do MUCH more then what he displayed in the books because he was forbidden from directly interfering.  

And, we don't need to justify flying because Gandalf did it.  Its there because its fun to do.  Heres a crazy idea, instead of making classes less fun, lets make them all more fun.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 26, 2012)

hanez said:


> Especially since he was basically a god that could do MUCH more then what he displayed in the books because he was forbidden from directly interfering.




I'm really not getting where that comes from. Gandalf interferes all the time. It is, in fact, his job to do so. He does so indirectly or subtlely because, in a mano a mano fight with Sauron, he's badly outclassed. In order to maximize his effectiveness, he has to apply strategy, avoid the head-on conflict, and not draw too much attention to himself when he's supposed to be traveling in secret.
With that in mind, we can neither conclude that Gandalf is *like* a D&D wizard or *unlike* a D&D wizard except in very limited ways.


----------



## DMKastmaria (Jan 26, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What about the kind of Wizards Conan fought? Did they disintegrate people much, teleport, fly? And was he unable to survive against one of them without protective spells cast by friendly mages?




Yes. See "The People of the Black Circle," where he needed the magic belt to protect him from sorcery, so he could take out the Seers.

Or, "The Hour of the Dragon," where he needed a friendly wizard to take out the undead wizard of Acheron (forgot his name) while Conan dealt with the mundane forces.

Or, '"The Scarlet Citadel," for a similar situation to the above. 

R. E. Howard's Conan is not the best example for this argument.


----------



## DMKastmaria (Jan 26, 2012)

Re: 3e - Ran one 3e campaign that went to high levels. The Fighter type guy had Samurai and Kensai prestige classes and was a virtual whirlwind of death. 

*Who the hell played a straight Fighter in 3e, anyway?* 

I agree that the MU class was too damn much in that edition, but the arguments about "caster-superiority" usually feature some rather selective data. Add in powerful magic items that the Fighter is going to be toting and the idea that they were worthless is more than a little overstated.

Now, my player who insisted on playing a straight rogue, _he_ was screwed. Practically begged him to roll up another character. It was almost impossible to challenge the rest of the party and not kill the poor PC. The Kensai, Sorcerer and Cleric, were able to hang together fine at 15th level.

Re: 1e - If you were playing a Fighter in 1e and felt useless, then it was your fault or you had a crappy DM! Fighter's in my high level 1e game were riding dragons, leading armies numbering in the tens of thousands and had kick-ass magic items, to boot. 

Not to mention the fact that what your PC does is up to you! I've never once had an experienced player, be unable to significantly contribute and have fun, in a 1e game. Even at 20+ level (never had anyone play a straight Thief, but...)

Quite the opposite and most experienced DM's have and had players who always, but always played Fighters. Because they like it! And have fun! 

On the other hand, I've played low level 1e MU's and still had a blast, participated and contributed to the game after casting my one little spell. Because it's a role-playing game and in 1e I can at least try to do damn near anything I can think of. 

The game is not just about the character sheet. Not the game I play and run, anyway.

A 1e MU is freakin' awesome. But, they're still vulnerable, still can't cast a spell if they're exposed to jostling and are unprotected, etc. Personally, I don't let an MU get off a spell with a longer casting time than 1 segment, if he's directly threatened in melee. You can't stand relatively still and concentrate (necessary, per the DMG) when some bozo is waving a sword in your face. 

I'm not saying that there aren't some valid points on the "balance" side of the argument. But some of those arguments, seem totally disconnected from actual play. At least in my experience. 

One of those 1st level Mu's I talked about above, had to tackle a wererat, in a fight where no one in the party had a magic weapon. He was quite effective in that battle, and I used nothing from his character sheet, but his *weight. *


----------



## DMKastmaria (Jan 26, 2012)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> At 5th level, wizards got fireball.  Back in 1e/2e, it was the be all end all of 3rd level spells.  It had a HUGE radius that could be made even bigger if you were in an enclosed space.  It did 5d6 points of damage at the level you got it.  Most of the enemies you were fighting were 1-4 hitdice creatures at that time, which meant you killed most enemies you were fighting on an average roll of a fireball.  If not, they were so low in hitpoints at that point that you could sit back and watch the fighters pick off the last couple of points of damage.
> 
> Thieves in 1e/2e weren't good at combat at any level.  Being limited to daggers for damage and encouraged not to have a high strength meant they were often doing 1d4+1 points of damage at early levels.  Which averages 3.5 damage or about 1/5th that of the wizard's fireball.  Backstabs could only be used if the enemy didn't know you were there...which meant you couldn't use it most combats that you started by walking in a door.
> 
> ...




Except, this isn't really what goes down. Not at all!

What goes down, is that the party is lucky enough to have enough distance from a group of enemies, that the MU can get off his fireball, taking care of them, thus saving the Fighter's HP and the rest of the party's resources, so that on that next encounter, when they're face to face with enemies and there's no room for an Area Effect Spell, the Fighter's are still tough enough to handle the situation.

You're ONLY thinking about the math. Your example is *totally disconnected from actual play. *


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 26, 2012)

DMKastmaria said:


> What goes down, is that the party is lucky enough to have enough distance from a group of enemies, that the MU can get off his fireball, taking care of them, thus saving the Fighter's HP and the rest of the party's resources, so that on that next encounter, when they're face to face with enemies and there's no room for an Area Effect Spell, the Fighter's are still tough enough to handle the situation.
> 
> You're ONLY thinking about the math. Your example is *totally disconnected from actual play. *




That's not true at all.  This is my opinion formed through playing D&D 2-3 times a week for nearly 15 years straight now.

It's been different in different editions.  In 2e, since fireballs expanded to fill whatever space they were put into, people were hesitant to cast a fireball, because it nearly impossible to do the math in your head to see if the room was too small and therefore would cause the fireball to hit your party or you.

But as soon as you were in any outdoor encounter or any room described as obviously big enough, the fireball came out, killing everyone.

For the longest time, we didn't use the initiative system in the book.  We rolled 1d6 for each side and the highest side took all of their turns at once, in clockwise order.  Our first group had 12 players in it.  It would take way too long to follow the initiative system of saying what actions we were taking and then applying modifiers to our initiative based on those actions.  So, Wizards couldn't be interrupted no matter how close they were to an enemy in that game.

In our later 2e games when we had less players, we used that system, but there is only a 3 segment time that a Wizard could be interrupted while casting a fireball.  The full details escape me right now, but if I remember correctly, you'd roll 1d10 and then if you rolled a 2 and then said you were casting fireball, you were casting from init 2 to init 5.  If the enemy rolled 6 for their initiative, even in melee, it was impossible to interrupt your spell.

And yes, if you succeeded on those spells, you saved your fighters hitpoints for the next battle, where you'd switch places.  Instead of the fighter hanging back and waiting for the Wizard to kill all the enemies, the Wizard would hang back and wait the 3-4 rounds for the fighters to take out all the enemies while he watched, not willing or able to use any of his spells.

Either that, or the Wizard would cast his guaranteed to hit 5d4 magic missile and still do more damage than the Fighter every round.

In 1e/2e. Wizards were a lot less powerful than they were in 3e, however.  3e virtually removed the concept of spell disruption since you had to hit the wizard at the exact right time, and concentration was too easy to boost.  Fireballs didn't expand to fill the area anymore, so you could just pick a square on the map and you'd never hit your allies.  And you only needed to have the radius of the spell in space.

But either way, there are millions of different situations you can get into in a D&D game.  The situation should not affect the balance of the game.  It's ok to have a battle here and there where the Wizard's best power doesn't work.  But to say that "If the room is too small, the Wizard doesn't overpower the Fighter" isn't a balancing factor.  The classes should be balanced whether the DM is running an entirely underground game with 10x10 rooms or an above ground game where all the battles start at 100 ft away with no terrain.

You NEED to look at it from a purely math point of view because every DM is going to run their game differently.  And if even 10% of DMs run into problems because their games are entirely outdoors, that is a problem with the class.  You can't just say "Well, my games have been entirely underground and the Wizard is fine.  If everyone else would just run their games underground, they'd have no problem."  Just like you can't say "The Wizard is overpowered, but as long as you create more powerful enemies to counter all their abilities they are just fine."

The game system needs to be designed so that nearly 100% of DMs can have an easy time running the game and nearly 100% of all players can feel like they were doing something useful in every round of combat and weren't overshadowed.  Relying on the DMs skill/battlefield circumstances to balance these things drops the percentage to much lower than 100%.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 27, 2012)

Hassassin said:


> Seems like you had an optimized wizard and an unoptimized fighter in the same party. A fighter with WF, GWF, Str 24 and +5 weapon would have +28 to hit, for example. That's probably not particularly optimized either.



Well, I assumed a +1 weapon.  We were playing Living Greyhawk mostly and equipment was hard to come by.  Plus, almost everyone felt that it was better to take a +1 shocking frost flaming acidic merciful weapon than to take a +5 weapon.  After all, nearly every group had a cleric to cast Greater Magic Weapon on your weapon every session anyways, to increase it back up to +4 or +5.  But without the Wizard and Cleric, they'd be at that power level.

Which only reinforces that the casting classes were too powerful.  And before anyone asks.  I'm aware that the other classes(including Fighter) could be made nearly as powerful in combat, I'm aware.  But as powerful as a Fighter could get, a Cleric could be better than them at fighting or a Druid or sometimes even a Wizard.  Plus, no matter how powerful a Fighter was made IN combat, they always had to have virtually no out of combat abilities at all.


Hassassin said:


> I don't necessarily like the fact that power level in 3e depends on optimization, but it does mean even two characters of the same class can easily be "unbalanced", if only one is optimized.



Yes.  That's my single biggest reason for switching away from 3e.  There was imbalance between individuals of the same class, between members of different classes, and between the PCs and the monsters.  And as each book came out, and my players gained experience with powergaming, and the number of powergamed ideas posted on the internet grew the imbalance between the 3 grew.

Until at the end, finding a monster whose stat block was good enough to do anything but drop dead just by looking at the PCs was near impossible.  And being a member of the Triad for Living Greyhawk and having to write and edit adventures that were designed to be played by 4-6 characters levels 8 though 12 with any combination of experience levels, classes, and power levels and any kind of DM made me want to tear my hair out.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 27, 2012)

kimble said:


> From  @GeeksDreamGirl  twitter, tweeting the seminar happening now on DnDXP:
> 
> "#*ddxp* Monte: A #*dnd* wizard MEANS something. It's diff than Gandalf, or a spellcaster in Skyrim. We are focusing on the feeling of the class."



Yeah, I felt kind of dumb when I read it in her Twitter feed.  I agree that it IS something different...and perhaps it's taken on a life of it's own at this point.  I'm just hoping they can find a happy medium between having Wizards who can teleport across the world and Fighters who take months on horseback to make the same trip.

They've said in that same panel that some classes will be better at certain areas than others.  I don't so much have a problem with Wizards having the edge in transportation.  I'm just hoping the edge isn't overwhelming.  Or at least that they don't ALSO have the edge in combat.


----------



## hanez (Jan 27, 2012)

billd91 said:


> I'm really not getting where that comes from. Gandalf interferes all the time. It is, in fact, his job to do so. He does so indirectly or subtlely because, in a mano a mano fight with Sauron, he's badly outclassed. In order to maximize his effectiveness, he has to apply strategy, avoid the head-on conflict, and not draw too much attention to himself when he's supposed to be traveling in secret.
> With that in mind, we can neither conclude that Gandalf is *like* a D&D wizard or *unlike* a D&D wizard except in very limited ways.




No.  Its specifically mentioned in Tolkiens work that Gandalf as an Istari was not allowed to interfere directly with mortals.  Thats why most of his work is "meddling", talking, advising etc.  He only made an exception for Saruman who was also an Istari.    You could perhaps also add the Balrog as an exception, perhaps that is somehow related to Saruman.  Nevertheless the fact remains that for the bulk of Hobbit/LOTR Gandalfs lack of spells is because he was deliberately holding back using them because of some code.    The background for this is in the Simarillion.

Quick google search found me this from http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Wizards



> The Istari came to Middle-earth around the year 1000 of the Third Age.  They were clothed in the bodies of old men, restricting their powers so  that they would only assist to the peoples of Middle-earth and not seek  domination like Sauron, a fellow Maia spirit. By inhabiting the bodies  of Men they were ordered by the Valar to assist the people of  Middle-earth through persuasion and encouragement, not force or fear.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 27, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Why not do a little research on the work of Vance (an obvious first stop, surely), LeGuin and others?



The Vancian issue has been debated at length in a recent thread on general, so I won't rehash that - just state my agreement with [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] that 4e in many ways is closer to Vance than 3E, because it confines wizards to a handful of potent daily spells at one time. (Though for truly Vancian wizards, the at-wills probably should be martial, and the encounters involves potions and similar alchemical items.)

But I've just recently reread the Earthsea books, and so have views on them. The spells that we see used include (from memory):

*light and illusions (a wide variety);

*shapechanging (which is one mode of transportation spell, though dangerous because of the tendency to lose one's sense of self);

*weather summoning (the other mode of transportation spell);

*conjuration and mending in the style of an AD&D illusionist's minor/major creation spells (used to magically repair boats);

*quite powerful holding/binding spells (used against dragons, galley oarsmen etc);

*curses and confusion;

*healing and herbalism;

*animal calling and control;

*necromantic summoning/astral projection (used to call spirits and to travel to the land of the dead - also very dangerous).​
This is the sort of spell list that, in D&D, might be given to a witch class - a sort of druid/illusionist combination, but with the necromantic aspect thrown in also.

I still think that this shows that a wizard can feel wizardly while being limited in certain respects - there is no teleportation, no D&D-style elemental or force attacks, and no wish spells. In combat, Earthsea wizards mostly fit the "controller" paradigm - conjuring weather to hinder their enemies, using hold person/monster, and speaking words of command/cursing. The only time that a shapechange is used in combat is when Ged turns into a dragon to fight dragons - in an RPG version of Earthsea, some technique would need to be used to limit the resort to shapechange, or it could quickly come to dominate in a way that would not replicate the feel of the stories.

It is a little obscure exactly how powerful (and how mythically powerful) the heroic warriors of Earthsea are, but one important ability they have which wizards lack is rulership - in contemporary D&D terms, then, Earthsea warriors would probably be warlords as much as fighters. Mere warriors, being obviously inferior to wizards, would be NPC fodder, I think.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 27, 2012)

DMKastmaria said:


> R. E. Howard's Conan is not the best example for this argument.



It's a while since I've read it, but didn't Conan deal handily with the death-touch monks hanging out in a Stygian(?) temple?

But this also raises the issue of metagame mechanics, which [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] has talked about at least over the past year or so. Conan is good at getting the equipment that he needs - in the Phoenix on the Sword, for example, he gets the relevant equipment in a dream. If we turn this into an RPG, _shouldn't the player of Conan_ have the ability to ensure that his/her PC get the relevant equipment? - rather than relying on the GM's largesse, or the cooperation of another PC.



hanez said:


> for the bulk of Hobbit/LOTR Gandalfs lack of spells is because he was deliberately holding back using them because of some code.



And if you want to achieve this feel in an RPG, you don't design the PC to be uberpowerful, and then rely upon the player to adhere to the code (either because s/he is a "good roleplayer", or because there is some mechanical penalty, a la AD&D alignment and paladin rules, for not doing so). You design the PC so that it is as powerful as it should be when adhering to the code, and then you give some sort of ability that permits, in extremis, the use of powers beyond the code (like my "drop the veil" idea above).



hanez said:


> we don't need to justify flying because Gandalf did it.  Its there because its fun to do.  Heres a crazy idea, instead of making classes less fun, lets make them all more fun.



Well, didn't 4e try that - rogues who are as good at stealth as wizards, fighters who can be demigods, etc? And get widely criticised for doing so?


----------



## hanez (Jan 27, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I
> 
> Well, didn't 4e try that - rogues who are as good at stealth as wizards, fighters who can be demigods, etc? And get widely criticised for doing so?




Well.  I cant speak for everyone, but by knowing a lot of players and being active in the edition type posts, I can honestly say Ive never seen "making martial classes stronger" as a criticism of 4th.  I have to say that is something I would compliment 4th for very much.

I loved giving the fighter powers 

I think the criticism comes from forcing EVERY CLASS into the same power structure, not everyone has to have the exact same at wills, encounters and dailies.  One class (perhaps the fighter) could have mostly at wills that are comparitively weaker then another class (perhaps a wizard) that has mostly dailies.   When people such as myself argue against balance, we arent saying "dont make the fighter stronger" we are saying dont force them all into the exact same mold.


PS I also think there should be a martial class like the wizard (many spells/powers) and a arcane class like the 3e fighter (pretty much straight at wills, like the 3e warlock).  This would give people more choices.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 27, 2012)

hanez said:


> I can honestly say Ive never seen "making martial classes stronger" as a criticism of 4th.



I had this sort of thing in mind.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 27, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Mustrum, you are one of the people who I am talking about, drawing the discussion in a straw man direction.
> 
> Why not drop unproductive discussions about a literary character that has only the most tenuous relationships with d&d wizards?
> 
> ...



While I haven't read Vance, I have read about him. 

What I read sounded interesting - but it still doesn't seem to have much to do with the D&D Wizard. The spellcasting in the Dying Earth books did not allow Wizards to prepare dozens of spells. They certainly had powerful, deadly spells, but not that many available to them at the same time.
They couldn't easily prepare themselves for every eventuality either, with these limtiations.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 27, 2012)

DMKastmaria said:


> Except, this isn't really what goes down. Not at all!
> 
> What goes down, is that the party is lucky enough to have enough distance from a group of enemies, that the MU can get off his fireball, taking care of them, thus saving the Fighter's HP and the rest of the party's resources, so that on that next encounter, when they're face to face with enemies and there's no room for an Area Effect Spell, the Fighter's are still tough enough to handle the situation.
> 
> You're ONLY thinking about the math. Your example is *totally disconnected from actual play. *



If the party has acces to Cure Light Wound Wands, there is actually little reason to worry about the "toughness" of the Fighter over several encounters. Because he can be brought back to full health after every fight.

D&D 4 short rest mechanic basically made this a feature and not an accidental effect of magic item creation rules or magic item acquisition handling. But it introduced Healing Surges at the same time to limit all healing. Which made long-term resource management relevant to all classes and all party compositions, and at the same time decoupling healing for magic items or spells.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 27, 2012)

billd91 said:


> {Gandalf} *doesn't* do a lot of stuff we'd consider D&D wizardish... but that doesn't mean all of those capabilities are outside his ability. He uses some spells like fire seeds against goblins, fireball against wolves, he does something unknown that helps Bill the pony make it back to Tom Bombadil's place. We don't know he can't do a knock spell because the Hollin Gate may be resistant to any opening spell in any language.




In short "He doesn't do a lot of stuff we'd consider D&D wizardish".  Which means that a D&D wizard would be a poor fit for Gandalf.

He also does stuff we'd consider not-wizardish.  His voice is well known.  When he fought the Balrog it was _sword to sword_.  That is not D&D wizardish.  It is almost the _opposite_ of D&D wizardish.

If trying to model Gandalf in either 2e or 3e D&D there's a class to do it and one that does a respectable job.  It _isn't_ the wizard.  It's the _Bard_.  Jack of all trades, master of social skills, focus on illusion and communication - and ability to wield a sword.



> As a result, we don't know how much he can't do versus chooses not to do.




And from a coldly pragmatic perspective _this doesn't matter_.  All that matters is how he actually behaves.



> It's more like he's owed a few favors and happens to call them in.




Once more I say Bard.



Plane Sailing said:


> Mustrum, you are one of the people who I am talking about, drawing the discussion in a straw man direction.
> 
> Why not drop unproductive discussions about a literary character that has only the most tenuous relationships with d&d wizards?
> 
> ...




1: Lord of the Rings is explicitely _in_ Appendix N.  Gandalf is almost certainly the most famous wizard in fantasy fiction with the possible exceptions of Harry Potter (who massively post-dates Appendix N) and Merlin (explicitely a Bard).  So your argument is that we should be focussing on Appendix N is telling us that we should do _what we are already doing and you are objecting to_.  Claiming that he has only the most tenuous connection to D&D wizards is problematic.

2: From Appendix N "The most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt". 

We can and in the past have continued here too.  I've not read all the listed authors, but "Vancian magic" is nothing like that of Jack Vance's spellcasters who can learn only half a dozen spells at a time and are generally all round competent.  A better model for Jack Vance's heroes would be 4e martial heroes with Wizard dailies.  

Fritz Lieber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser has a spellcasting protagonist (Mouse) who is in practice a 4e rogue or thief with ritual caster - and certainly not a classic D&D either multiclass character or character with two classes.  REH's Conan stories have NPC magic only - or at least the ones I've read - and a very powerful warrior protagonist (shades of 4e).  And mostly ritual at that.  "Vancian magic" in no way resembles Lovecraftian eldritch tomes.  The only de Camp I've read and recall off hand is Against the Fall of Night - no magic (on appendix N - but it's Harold Shea who's called out and again appears to bear little resemblance to "Vancian magic" as I don't believe that magic systems cross worlds).  And I've not read the rest.

AD&D wizards are able to cast spells at the rate of characters in _Harry Potter_.  They are their own entity entirely and bear IMO far less resemblance to most of the source material they themselves claim than 4e characters do.  So which fantasy wizards should we be talking about?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 27, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> 1: Lord of the Rings is explicitely _in_ Appendix N.  Gandalf is almost certainly the most famous wizard in fantasy fiction with the possible exceptions of Harry Potter (who massively post-dates Appendix N) and Merlin (explicitely a Bard).  So your argument is that we should be focussing on Appendix N is telling us that we should do _what we are already doing and you are objecting to_.  Claiming that he has only the most tenuous connection to D&D wizards is problematic.




No, if you read me carefully you'll see that my argument is that there is little point in focussing on JUST ONE example of there original references when it would be so much more INTERESTING to have discussions about other examples (many of which have more compelling *wizard* references).




Neonchameleon said:


> They are their own entity entirely and bear IMO far less resemblance to most of the source material they themselves claim than 4e characters do.  So which fantasy wizards should we be talking about?




Also exactly my point. I'm not sure why you are asking me the very question that I'm posing - bit puzzled really.

I'm just thinking that it would be nice to get off the tired old 'Gandalf blah blah blah' treadmill as if that was the be-all and end-all of D&D and wizards, when it has always had only the most tangential connection. 

And who would want to see a thread end up closed because it spiraled into the same well-drawn battlelines, when there are whole additional vistas of discussion which could usefully be had in areas which barely get touched?


Regards


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jan 28, 2012)

hanez said:


> When people such as myself argue against balance, we arent saying "dont make the fighter stronger" we are saying dont force them all into the exact same mold.




I realize this thread is reaching the end of its life expectancy, but I really wanted to belabor this point. 

You can't have "balance" unless all the units are exactly the same.   I said this before in a post about 10 pages back, but _balance_ is a misnomer in an RPG.  To have things balanced, you have to put them on a scale so they can reach equilibrium.  It is nonsensical to talk about balancing spell casting with martial combat.  The only way this works is if spell casting and martial combat are functionally indistinguishable and merely have different names.  

Your very complaint (which I am sure is shared by many) that you want balance but don't want "EVERY CLASS into the same power structure" underscores the disconnect that runs rampant through this thread and discussion.  

True balance is something that requires provable certainty.  There is absolutely no way to "balance" the Knock spell with Two Weapon Fighting.  You can't even balance TWF with Power Attack.  To even argue such a balance is achieved or possible is nonsensical.  

What you are all talking about is _fairness_, not balance.   Is it _fair _to have a Wizard be able to do X while a Fighter can only do Y?  That is the question you are all asking.  As such, it has no right answer and that is why these discussions have no closure.  

You cannot balance characters that do different things.  They will only be balanced when they are indistinguishable metrically...and then you're simply all playing the same class with a different label.


----------



## hanez (Jan 28, 2012)

Arrowhawk said:


> I realize this thread is reaching the end of its life expectancy, but I really wanted to belabor this point.
> 
> You can't have "balance" unless all the units are exactly the same.   I said this before in a post about 10 pages back, but _balance_ is a misnomer in an RPG.  To have things balanced, you have to put them on a scale so they can reach equilibrium.  It is nonsensical to talk about balancing spell casting with martial combat.  The only way this works is if spell casting and martial combat are functionally indistinguishable and merely have different names.
> 
> ...




I agree with you.  That is fine.  Call it whatever you want.  Personally I am perfectly happy with the balance (fairness) that has existed in the game from 1e to 3e.  The kind of balance (fairness) that made D&D what it is today.  For the sake of unity, I agree that the balance (fairness) should be increased to make all players happy.  However I will not give the kind of balance that 4e introduced another shot.  I tried it for a year, and for my group that was not dungeons and dragons.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 28, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> I wouldn't expect you to say that, but it'd be correct.
> 
> 
> 
> For far too long, D&D got by on being familiar, on sucking the way it always sucked, rather than making the big leap and actually becoming a better, modern game.  The virulent rejection of die-hards to that leap is positively tragic.  If the grognards win, they'll get the game they want, but it'll die with them.




So basically you are saying that we fans of earlier editions are to set in our ways and to foolish to recognize that we play the game wrong and it is going to be our fault that the game dies.

Thank you for letting me know this and that I and my group are just to stupid to release we are having fun wrong.

Well if that is so true please explain why Pathfinder is not dying and why if 4E was such a success with its innovated changes that so many grognards didn't like WOTC is ready to bring out a new edition?


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 28, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> Well, that is a trail of woe, isn't it?
> 
> Goodness knows how many of us were frustrated with vancian magic back in the 70's, the fanzines were full of spell point systems, klutz systems and other mechanisms to allow wizards to cast more like the characters in our favourite literature but you know what? D&d never really changed.
> 
> ...




I am a huge fantasy fan have been since I read my first fantasy in 1976 which was the Narnia books. I did not read Tolkein until after the movies came out. I didn't go into DnD thinking Gandalf was the prime example of a wizard. 

As much as I was a huge Arthurian fan I never saw Merlin as the DnD style wizard either mainly because the other classes really didn't mirror any of the people in the Arthurian legend very well.  

I had read Vance and was oh yeah.

My son who was born in 1978 grew up on Dragonlance and David Eddings , Raymond Feist not Tolkein and he has never though that the wizards of DnD should mirror Gandalf. 

Right now I am reading Jim Butcher's Codex Alera and the powerful furycrafters can fly , and throw fireballs, command powerful earth elementals. 

To say that DnD wizards don't mirror most fantasy wizards because they don't look like Gandalf or Merlin is simply not true.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jan 28, 2012)

hanez said:


> I agree with you.  That is fine.  Call it whatever you want.  Personally I am perfectly happy with the balance (fairness) that has existed in the game from 1e to 3e.  The kind of balance (fairness) that made D&D what it is today.  For the sake of unity, I agree that the balance (fairness) should be increased to make all players happy.  However I will not give the kind of balance that 4e introduced another shot.  I tried it for a year, and for my group that was not dungeons and dragons.




I think we are on the same page.  Apologies for singling out your post, but I think this notion of "balance" is a pandemic in the RPG community.  So bare with me while I use your response to really highlight the problem.

It's really important to understand that there is no balance...none, unless we are all playing the same piece.  Pawns on a chessboard are balanced. Nothing is else is balanced with Pawns.  The reason it's important to drive this home is that it leads to the realization that 1e was NOT balanced.  But more to the point, balance was not a design goal in 1e.  But clearly it was a design goal in 4e.   So as you've so astutely observed, in order to obtain equality, you sacrifice uniqueness and with that, meaningful choices.

5e cannot bring the groups together.  With all due respect to Monte Cook, to suggest that all editions can be united is to make evident a fundamental lack of understanding on what makes each edition appealing to its player bases.   1e is not going to provide 4e players with a game that is fair and neither is 3.5.  4e is not going to provide 3.5 players with a game that provides the depth and consequence of choice.


----------



## Charleois (Jan 28, 2012)

No BMX Bandits teaming up with Angel Summoners in my core rules please.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 28, 2012)

This discussion got pretty wild with the introduction of Gandalf.

Just because Gandalf and Merlin represent the human archetype of a magic using character doesn't mean they represent anything like the wizard in dungeons and dragons.

Those characters are examples of the modern foundation, not the actual representation. They're where I think most people get the idea of 'magic' from (at least north america and western europe I think).

They aren't any more than characters who used magic in some form. That's the important part to remember. I don't think the wizard in D&D specifically resembles any other wizard except for itself. Just like I think the cleric in it's D&D form is pretty specific too. It's just a difference between passive and active influence. I don't think the D&D wizard is specifically modeled after gandalf or merlin. He's just also a magic user (which is a big thing to have in common) and along with that come all sorts of assumptions due to merlin and gandalf being sort of the cultural foundation of magic for I think most english speakers.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Feb 1, 2012)

SlyDoubt said:


> Here, it's simple. You enjoy your thing. I enjoy my thing. Stay away from my thing just like I stay away from your thing.



That is a great argument for continuing to have 4e and Pathfinder continue along as they were.  5e's goal, while laudible in noble sentiment, is not practical.



> We can both hope that 5E is _our_ thing. Or not. Maybe you hope it's _your_ thing. I don't.



I'm not the hopeful type. ;(  Rationally, I look at the rhetoric coming from WotC, it's ostensible fans and critics, and the realities of the OGL vs GSL and the market, and I have to expect that 5e will be catering to your thing, not mine.  And that 4e, which comes closer to 'my thing' will be actively supressed by WotC (at some point, it's on-line-only tool suite will be shut down and the GSL lets WotC block any 3pps from supporting or cloning 4e the way Paizo did 3.5) to bring 4e hold-outs on board with 5e.  



> All I want is for history and previous designs and ideas not to be forgotten for the sake of balance.



I'd like to see the history and previous designs remembered, yes.  But in the sense of learning from the mistakes of the past rather than repeating them for the sake of nostalgia and inertia.


----------

