Balance. Why do we need it?

[Nifft]

I was thinking about this and realized that there was already a d20 book that tackeld this idea: Monte Cook's Iron Heroes had Mastery feats that scaled like that. I'd give a link to the book to show what I mean, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have an SRD, and getting a copy will cost about $15-20 dollars, so it's a bit much to ask to prove a point.

I know that I bought several heaps of PDFs when the d20 craze was going strong, but I never actually had time to read most of them... let me see if I already have it.

I've certainly got his Arcana Evolved stuff.

Anyway, thanks for the rec.

The only non scaling feet I can think of that doesn't Grant an interesting ability but rather just ran to a static bonus is improved initiative, because initiative is a number that doesn't really scale much with your level normally so the bonus from improved Initiative continues being worth the Feats lot for quite some time.

Hmm!

Let's see how to describe the benefit of Improved Initiative by level...

Level 1: "+4 to the check which determines whether you eat a level 1 spell while flat-footed, or whether you feed your foes a level 1 spell while they are flat-footed."

Level 3: "+4 to the check which determines whether you eat a level 2 spell while flat-footed, or whether you feed your foes a level 2 spell while they are flat-footed."

Level 5: "+4 to the check which determines whether you eat a level 3 spell while flat-footed, or whether you feed your foes a level 3 spell while they are flat-footed."


... yeah I feel like there might be some scaling going on there, too, if we consider how the consequences of a single extra action can increase with level.

Or maybe that's too much of a stretch.

[death390]

scaling feats are a nice idea but i don't know if i like the way those above are presented. yes you get a extra "feat bonus" at the specified levels but at the same time it would restrict you to the options given from those. what if the fighter wants both improved disarm and improved feint. at that point he has to wait until his next freebie in order to get it since those are no longer feats they are "feats bonuses" scaling feats would definitely be better overall. something like.

Two weapon fighting
Pre-req: Dex 15.
Benefit: You can attack with both weapons as a standard action, and a extra attack on a full action .
If your BaB is +3 or higher, you get +1 Shield AC from your off-hand weapon. (+2 when fighting defensively)
If your BAB is +6 or higher, you get a second attack with your off-hand weapon, at -5.
If your BaB is +9 or higher, you get +2 Shield AC from your off-hand weapon. (+4 when fighting defensively)
If your BAB is +11 or higher, you get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, at -10.
If your BaB is +14 or higher, you get +3 Shield AC from your off-hand weapon. (+6 when fighting defensibly)
EDIT: oh silly copy paste i i love and hate thee.

Combat Expertise
Pre-req: Int 13
Benefit: You can increase your AC by 1 per 1 you lower your BaB for the round. at -2 BaB you are considered fighting defensively.

Power Attack
Pre-req: Str 13
Benefit: You can increase your Damage by 1 per 1 you lower your BaB for the round. Fighting with a 2 handed weapon increased the damage to 2 per 1 BaB lowered and when Two Weapon Fighting each hand gets the same bonus.

Combat Maneuvers
Pre-req: none
Benefit: You do not provoke an Attack of Opportunity from attackers when attempting a combat maneuver. additionally you get +1 per 2 BaB you have as a bonus to your roll. (required for specialized maneuver feats)

i like the weapon focus one though. and just straight get rid of dodge please.

[Nifft]

scaling feats are a nice idea but i don't know if i like the way those above are presented. yes you get a extra "feat bonus" at the specified levels but at the same time it would restrict you to the options given from those. what if the fighter wants both improved disarm and improved feint. at that point he has to wait until his next freebie in order to get it since those are no longer feats they are "feats bonuses"

Everyone has to make choices, though. There's always an opportunity cost.

In my variant, it's a choice between two freebies which only compete against each other.

In the current rules, it's a choice about how to spend your only class feature, and you don't get to start a new feat chain at the same time that you're getting your one new perk.

[death390]

Everyone has to make choices, though. There's always an opportunity cost.

In my variant, it's a choice between two freebies which only compete against each other.

In the current rules, it's a choice about how to spend your only class feature, and you don't get to start a new feat chain at the same time that you're getting your one new perk.

right and i understand that its just why not keep these special maneuvers feats but drop some of the pre-reqs.

look at spring attack rename it attack on the run. and incorporate shot on the run into it.

Moving Strike
Pre-req: mobility (updated to scale somehow, maybe combined with run and some other stuff)
Benefit: As a full round action move your speed during your turn and at some point during this move perform a standard action. this standard action does not provoke an attack of opportunity for a single enemy (your primary target).

this combined with a modified standard action that lets you use half of your iterative attacks (odd numbered 1, 3, 5, ect) lets those who use melee on the run attack a target. while archers can use manyshot, and casters can cast a single spell. this is in all honesty a simple movement mode.

[Psyren]

And to me, if its no longer true after CoDzilla has applied their own buffs, its no longer true full stop.

Sure, the GM can (and maybe should) even that one out, but balance is there to lessen the number of times you've got to rely on the GM.

See, I don't think the GM needs to "even it out" most of the time. Gaps can exist between the classes, so long as they don't get too large (e.g. ice assassin aleaxes and chain-gating solars.) I would bet that in most games, these gaps stay manageable and align with people's expectations of spellcasting vs. not-spellcasting.

Most of the tables I've been at offer a fun game if no one's pushing at the game's unbalanced bits too much, but go to hell in a handcart quickly if they are. I guess... maybe 50% of the games end with someone pushing the balance too far?

Which actually means D&D (and all derivations) tend to be the best game, largely because everyone's too disorganised to ever get much beyond level 3 or so. All the various White Wolf super games though, they tend to be ugly. I'd love to play a 10th level D&D game with my current group, but I wouldn't be putting too much effort into the character back story, if you get me.

Maybe this is contributing to my bias but it just hasn't happened in mine. What's far more likely to make our GM slam on the brakes is when someone does a lot of damage in one turn - typically a martial or a gish - not a spellcaster erasing the plot with a standard action or whatnot.

Finn is presented as a human in the stories. His probable mythological origin is neither here nor there.

Whoever invented him still felt the need to "explain" his superhuman muggleness this way though. Spellcasters meanwhile can just be talented.

I'd like to see feats that improve with level, instead of chains that lock you into one ever-more-expensive style.

This I can agree with, it's long-overdue.

[Fizban]

One more for the road then, but I'll spoiler the rest since it's been two pages since I went to bed.

Your central point was that dead-magic combat is so important to D&D that it's a good idea to bring along a fighter. This is wrong in two different ways, as discussed above.

No it wasn't.

Spoiler

Show

Casters make those items. Fighters are helpless. Next?
Casters have better options (i.e. spells), and if they wanted anti-ooze gear, they'd make that gear. No caster, no gear. Next?

Both irrelevant, as grabbed by another poster, and in accurate on the second as once again you can just shoot them.

You eat an AoO on every bow attack since you're unable to climb or fly over it, and you're unable to sneak past it. Skill-types can usually do one or the other; casters can usually do all of the above (or kill it with a spell). Next?

This one's particularly rich, as you're willfully ignoring the whole point of a bow and simply dictating the problems you want to happen. I could give literally the same argument against spellcasting. This is why I said there's no point in going back and forth.

It's just that the Fighter brings practically nothing to the team, when compared with a second Cleric. (Did I just blow your mind? Yeah, you could have two Clerics on a team instead of one Cleric and one Fighter. Guess which team is going to perform better?)
Your team is: Fighter + Healer + Monk + Ranger (ACFs: minus-spells, plus-trapfinding)
My team is: Wizard + Cleric + Druid + Beguiler

Unsurprisingly, "my team" is underpowered since you've denied them their standard arcanist, and your team is grossly overpowered. But you don't believe it's possible to be overpowered, so you perceive an imbalance in the normally powered party, nor do you believe in the standard party around which the game and all its assumptions are designed.

Now you can't move the goalposts in this particular direction again.

(No u)

It's not rare at all. Look through White Plume Mountain for a decent variety of difficult terrain encounters. Also, of course, it's a condition that my spellcasters can and do impose on NPC monsters all the time. Next?

Well lets take a look at all the adventures I consider myself well familiar with. Red Hand of Doom, World's Largest Dungeon, Shadowdale: TSotL, Anauraoch: TEoS, War of the Burning Sky (up through chapter 8/12), and The Sunless Citadel. Of those, the only one that majorly features fighting on "screw you" terrain is the last, which has you roll reflex saves to not fall off the cliff at level 1 while fighting rats- against all the rules of how that actually works (it's the first 3.0 main module though so I cut it some slack). All the rest are deliberately designed so as to not screw the players and/or specifically mention they're intended to covered by spellcasting (and more spells spent on obstacles means more reliance on not-spells to kill enemies) Meanwhile Shadowdale and Anauroch are specifically about the spread of dead magic areas, WotBS includes penalties for teleporting and high level NPCs dedicated to reactive counterspelling, and WLD says straight out that some spells might be too good (then spoils it later by using them anyway of course). No, once again you're using an incredibly vague definition of "difficult terrain encounters" and then assuming that fighters are useless.

You are the target in 50% of these scenarios, so your answer is you let yourself get caught and die? Okay then. Fighter-tier "winning" I guess. But even in the other 50% of cases, the targets can do sneaky things like go around corners or hide behind a tree and you're going to lose anyway. You have chosen poorly. Next?

Yeah, it's called teamwork bro. When they're attacking you they're not attacking the other 3 party members and the team wins. When you stand in front of the other party members you block charges and force them to waste extra turns not hitting people, and that's if you don't have a convenient choke point like say the hallway of a dungeon. And I find it hilarious that you managed so say "the enemy hides behind a tree" and declare that a loss.

No, I'm talking about how spellcasters can impose all the preceding conditions on you, stuff like "create difficult terrain" or "summon a colossal scorpion" or "cast spells while flying away", plus they can dominate / blind / stun / petrify / confuse / etc. a weak-willed muggle.

And they have less hit points and defenses than actual monsters and you have two magical party members for dealing with magic. But again, you don't seem to believe in teamwork or party composition.

What was my anti-Fighter scenario?

Uh, what? The list of 9 things of increasing vagueness you picked where "fighters fall flat" back on page 3?

You are saying that you don't care about normal D&D combat.
I should have seen that coming.

No, I'm saying your definition of "contribute" is wrong, as well as your expectations of normal DnD combat. Every single thing you've listed as screwing fighters (both specific and vague) could be listed as screwing wizards simply by changing the viewpoint. In fact they frequently are as ways to deal with out of control casters-but you only see them as anti-fighter. You are essentially assuming a DM that uses a bunch of difficulty increasing scenarios, but doesn't spread them around evenly, allowing the caster to dominate by "always having the perfect spell" while never running an adventure where casters have to rely on the fighter. Of course that's difficult to do when you're blind to the role of the fighter and the expectations of encounter design.

Sadly, what you are trying to blame on "my metagame" is actually the exact and specific thing which is supported by the default rules. Even more sadly, it's the ONLY thing supported by the default rules.
It's a strange habit that some people seem to have: I'm telling you about a flaw, so you're trying to assign the flaw to something specific about me.

I can only tell you that you've misunderstood the base game so many times when you refuse to believe it. Like Cosi, you're raging about this horrible flaw, as you put it, your PHB lied to you. But its quite clear even with just the the PHB and DMG that your base assumption is wrong and the flaw is not considered a flaw by the designers-the other books just reinforce it. Your values do not match the game.

I wonder if this is the same basic cognitive error which leads to victim-blaming.

Nice try, but you're not a victim and it's not victim-blaming to point out your argument starts on the wrong foot. Funny how you pull this line after accusing me of personal insults for using the word "whining" though.

I think virtually everyone would agree that Fighters are supposed to be balanced well against spellcasters.

You can of course think whatever you want, but clearly it's not true, as multiple people in this thread have argued against you and the game itself knows perfectly well it was not designed to match your definition of "balance."

I wish you were saying something true here.

So your strategy in an argument is to continue saying "nuh uh" rather than provide evidence of your position. Or is it that you demand I cite all the lines for you individually? I've done that before against people more receptive to arguments than you and it still didn't work, so no, I've wasted enough time.

If the designers knew that Fighters were garbage, they'd make Fighter NPCs lower CR than Wizard NPCs. They did not do this. I can't see any justification for your assertion that the Fighter's poor relative performance was "fully intentional".

And trying to reverse the CR system, yup, this argument would lead to exactly the same point as I predicted. In short, no, the CR of NPCs does not justify any assumptions about class balance, and no, I'm not walking you through line by line on how to read it. I already know from your refusal to consider any definitions other than those you consider "natural reading" that you will never consider that your natural reading might be off, or that the reading needs to be informed by other things you'd rather ignore.

In short, this argument is over, as you refuse to acknowledge the reason there even is an argument.

Running a caster-heavy 16th level 3.5e game was a lot more rewarding than constantly shoring up the self-esteem of a Fighter-type who felt useless (spoiler: Fighters were in fact useless).
I'm not talking from theory here -- it's way more fun to be surprised by the creativity of my players than it is to dig for ways that the useless Fighter might be able to contribute. Getting that guy to play a Tome of Battle class made the game significantly more fun for everyone, including him.

Congratulations, you have discovered that your metagame is of a higher optimization level than the base game (and that include both player and DM sides), wherein the fighter class is underpowered. It's quite a popular one, the forums love it. This does not affect the fighters ability to contribute in games of the expected optimization level, which is lower.


Incidentally, I find it amusing that people who say the fighter is completely useless will recommend fighter fixes that. . . give them slightly better numbers and more feats. It's not actually wrong, in fact it's pretty effective at dealing with power-creep, but it's so at odds with the so-called problem it's laughable.

[AvatarVecna]

Hmm!

Let's see how to describe the benefit of Improved Initiative by level...

Level 1: "+4 to the check which determines whether you eat a level 1 spell while flat-footed, or whether you feed your foes a level 1 spell while they are flat-footed."

Level 3: "+4 to the check which determines whether you eat a level 2 spell while flat-footed, or whether you feed your foes a level 2 spell while they are flat-footed."

Level 5: "+4 to the check which determines whether you eat a level 3 spell while flat-footed, or whether you feed your foes a level 3 spell while they are flat-footed."


... yeah I feel like there might be some scaling going on there, too, if we consider how the consequences of a single extra action can increase with level.

Or maybe that's too much of a stretch.

I think it's too much of a stretch. It's like saying that Weapon Focus scales because you get more attacks as you level up, or that Lightning Reflexes scales with level because the higher-level you are, the more often you'll need to make Reflex saves in a fight and the more dire the consequences are for failure. The fact that circumstances related to the roll have changed doesn't change the fact that +1 to attacks is a much larger portion of your attack bonus at lvl 1 than at lvl 20. If you have a stat that scales with level in some fashion (BAB, saves, skill bonuses, AC, HP), a flat bonus will, inevitably, become such a small percentage of your total that it doesn't matter. For obvious reasons, this becomes a lot more painfully clear in epic than it does pre-epic, but it still comes up pre-epic.

The poster child of this is Toughness: a first level Fighter with Con 14 will have 12 HP, and another 3 is maybe worth a feat, but the Barbarian 1 with Con 18 and rage will have 18 HP during combat, and another 3 just isn't worth the feat. For any class with a good Fort save, Toughness is objectively worse than Improved Toughness starting at lvl 3; for any class with a bad Fort save, it's objectively worse starting at lvl 6. The existence of Improved Toughness points out that even WotC is aware that awful flats don't scale well. The epic version of Toughness gives +30 HP, and honestly...probably isn't worth your epic feat slots even if you're playing in a game where HP still matter. A Wizard 21 will probably have base Con 12 and another +6 from an item or spell or something, so they're probably looking at 21d4+84 (avg 136.5), another 30 just can't compete with even just +1 to Int, let alone epic feats that give new abilities...and that's assuming the wizard didn't pick up FMI to get Int to HP instead of Con - those Wizards are playing with the big boys, rocking 21d4+252 (avg 304.5). 3 extra HP is worth nothing to these guys; even 30 is only maybe worth it to them, and that feat's got some stiff competition. And even if you have so few HP that Epic Toughness is a must-have, even that Epic Feat will eventually (read: lvl 31) be outstripped by the non-epic feat Improved Toughness. Saying "but wait, at any given level those extra 3 HP could make the difference between bleeding out and getting another attack" is technically correct, but is making the circumstance out to be more common than it is.

Think of opposed rolls like races, damage vs HP, attack bonus vs AC, Bluff vs Sense Motive, Spot vs Hide, Init vs Init. Scaling bonuses are an increase in Velocity, while flat bonuses merely represent who gets a headstart. Depending on how long the race goes, who had the biggest headstart will inevitably not matter compared to who was going faster. The shorter the race is and the slower people are going, the more the headstarts matter. Of course, of the races listed, only one race has next to no Velocity: Init vs Init, both of which level with Dex (which, for a lot of characters, won't really advance very often - maybe when you pick up an item for it), so a +4 headstart is a big bonus for a lvl 1 character, and is still a sizeable bonus for a lvl 20 character. But, depending on the lvl 20 character, that +4 bonus might not even be the biggest headstart you have, particularly if you're a class with a good Dexterity Velocity. The headstart of Imp Init matters because the race is slow for most creatures.

To be clear, I'm mostly fine with Improved Initiative not scaling - like I said, it's basically the only flat-bonus feat I can think of that's actually good, and it only really becomes a wasted feat when you're playing in games where either nobody's ever really rolling initiative (high-level rocket tag involving Celerity, Contingency, and dire turtles comes to mind), or everybody's initiative bonuses are so different that no amount of dice rolling will change the order people act in. Improved Initiative is a feat that I don't think needs to scale, because it's a race that goes slow enough for the +4 headstart to matter well into low-epic for most games, which is good enough for the vast majority of tables. But feats that give a flat bonus to things that have per-level scaling? Toughness needs to scale (and Improved Toughness is the proof). Weapon Focus needs to scale. Iron Will needs to scale - and to counter it, Spell Focus should probably scale too (although we don't want casters getting too many nice things).

[Fizban]

I think it's too much of a stretch. It's like saying that Weapon Focus scales because you get more attacks as you level up, or that Lightning Reflexes scales with level because the higher-level you are, the more often you'll need to make Reflex saves in a fight and the more dire the consequences are for failure. The fact that circumstances related to the roll have changed doesn't change the fact that +1 to attacks is a much larger portion of your attack bonus at lvl 1 than at lvl 20. If you have a stat that scales with level in some fashion (BAB, saves, skill bonuses, AC, HP), a flat bonus will, inevitably, become such a small percentage of your total that it doesn't matter.

Except that's not how d20 rolls work. The total is irrelevant, what matters is the gap between the bonus and the DC. This gap does tend to get larger as time goes on, but not as much as "percentage of total" implies. And of course it's further muddied by having to make educated guesses at what the expected gear is.

The question is weather the gap is huge enough that those headstarts are inevitably shut down by scaling. I say that with expected gear against standard monsters, it's far less of a sure thing. But as everything gets more exaggerated by optimization, it is inevitable that higher op will demand more scaling.

[Nifft]

In short, this argument is over, as you refuse to acknowledge the reason there even is an argument.

The reason there is an argument is because someone on the internet is wrong.

Spoiler: Who could it be?

Show

It's you, Fizban.

You are wrong on the internet.

The epic version of Toughness gives +30 HP, and honestly...probably isn't worth your epic feat slots even if you're playing in a game where HP still matter. A Wizard 21 will probably have base Con 12 and another +6 from an item or spell or something, so they're probably looking at 21d4+84 (avg 136.5), another 30 just can't compete

Another +30 gives immunity* to Power Word: Stun, which is a mainstream spell.

But yeah, I'd expect a low-op PC to use a +6 item and spend or quest for a +5 Inherent bonus, and then either spend a point of level-up or take one Epic +1 Con feat for a total of 12 + 12 = 24 Con (for another 7 x 21 = 147 bonus hp; 199.5 expected total baseline hp) before considering Epic Toughness.

Saying "but wait, at any given level those extra 3 HP could make the difference between bleeding out and getting another attack" is technically correct, but is making the circumstance out to be more common than it is.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

I bet there's someone out there for whom this exact scenario was a reality, and to this day that person will swear that Toughness is a great feat. It saved brave Ser Cuitous, after all.

The headstart of Imp Init matters because the race is slow for most creatures.

Creatures don't use spells as aggressively as PCs do. There's an easy +10 / -10 if you've got a few slots to burn. The fact that creatures haven't optimized around initiative is

To be clear, I'm mostly fine with Improved Initiative not scaling - like I said, it's basically the only flat-bonus feat I can think of that's actually good, and it only really becomes a wasted feat when you're playing in games where either nobody's ever really rolling initiative (high-level rocket tag involving Celerity, Contingency, and dire turtles comes to mind), or everybody's initiative bonuses are so different that no amount of dice rolling will change the order people act in. Improved Initiative is a feat that I don't think needs to scale, because it's a race that goes slow enough for the +4 headstart to matter well into low-epic for most games, which is good enough for the vast majority of tables. But feats that give a flat bonus to things that have per-level scaling? Toughness needs to scale (and Improved Toughness is the proof). Weapon Focus needs to scale. Iron Will needs to scale - and to counter it, Spell Focus should probably scale too (although we don't want casters getting too many nice things).

Hmm. What I'd worry about there is just creating an arms-race / feat-tax.

The direction I'd prefer would be something like...
- Spell Focus gives you a +2 to one school or descriptor. Does not stack with itself. There is no Greater version.
- How do you deal with high defenses? Debuff spells that target a different defense (e.g. touch AC), or that have no defense (no-save-just-suck). These would trade time for accuracy -- they'd be poor debuffs in themselves, except for the way they help your real debuffs land. It seems like this is already the way that SR is handled.
- Since the trade-off is time, a muggle-type PC would have more actions with which to perpetrate violence upon the spellcaster.

That could allow scaling defenses without also needing scaling accuracy buffs.


*) terms and conditions may apply

[Peat]

See, I don't think the GM needs to "even it out" most of the time. Gaps can exist between the classes, so long as they don't get too large (e.g. ice assassin aleaxes and chain-gating solars.) I would bet that in most games, these gaps stay manageable and align with people's expectations of spellcasting vs. not-spellcasting.

I am happy with there being gaps if those are as advertised and as fit expectations.

But to go back to the start of the argument, in this particular area (physical combat), it doesn't fit the expectations I'm given and based on everything I see on the internet, it doesn't fit a lot of people's expectations.

Maybe this is contributing to my bias but it just hasn't happened in mine. What's far more likely to make our GM slam on the brakes is when someone does a lot of damage in one turn - typically a martial or a gish - not a spellcaster erasing the plot with a standard action or whatnot.

... I don't think I said the imbalance of martials vs casters was the problem at our table?

I said bad balance was. Argument about whether the martial vs caster disparity is expected aside, all I'm talking about is all bad balance. To me, the point of this thread is to point out why a balanced game is a good one. Not martials vs casters.

And yes big damage numbers are a lot of our problem too. A lot of the time our problems will come from the GM setting all of the enemies' difficulty to match the outlier in the group, leaving everyone else cowering away in long boring combats... after which someone usually runs out of patience and tries to force their superpower into the plot, usually with bad consequences.

We've also had problems with people maxing out luck or social powers right at chargen - something where D&D's level system actually makes the game a lot more balanced - and GMs not really understanding action economy. Mainly in Shadowrun.

Ironically D&D is one of the games that's been most balanced for us. The last time someone caused trouble with a spellcaster was me experimenting to see what the hype with Prismatic Spray was. Then after two sessions we stopped adventuring in small dungeon rooms and all was well again.

Apologies if you didn't need to hear this - but given his question, maybe the OP did if still around.

Whoever invented him still felt the need to "explain" his superhuman muggleness this way though. Spellcasters meanwhile can just be talented.

The many retellers of his story haven't felt the need to preserve Finn's probable divinity though.

[Psyren]

I am happy with there being gaps if those are as advertised and as fit expectations.

But to go back to the start of the argument, in this particular area (physical combat), it doesn't fit the expectations I'm given and based on everything I see on the internet, it doesn't fit a lot of people's expectations.

And I feel (kinda) bad for those people, but they can't realistically please everyone. Which takes me back to one of the earlier posts I made in the thread:

Do the designers really have to write "MAGIC GIVES YOU THINGS" in flaming letters or be seen as dirty swindlers?

... I don't think I said the imbalance of martials vs casters was the problem at our table?

I said bad balance was. Argument about whether the martial vs caster disparity is expected aside, all I'm talking about is all bad balance. To me, the point of this thread is to point out why a balanced game is a good one. Not martials vs casters.

The two seem intertwined. How do you propose balancing the game without addressing that disparity? More importantly, what would addressing that mean?

There might be a way to truly solve it without ending up with 4e homogenized pap. Me, I'd rather keep some of the imbalance while ironing out the larger peaks and valleys.

[Vhaidara]

There might be a way to truly solve it without ending up with 4e homogenized pap. Me, I'd rather keep some of the imbalance while ironing out the larger peaks and valleys.

Having played quite a bit of 4e, I'm a little astounded that people still believe this. Given the gap in the amount of content available, I've seen significantly more build variety out of 4e than I have from 3.X, and more of those builds were actually able to live up to the expectations of the people who made them.

[Psyren]

Having played quite a bit of 4e, I'm a little astounded that people still believe this. Given the gap in the amount of content available, I've seen significantly more build variety out of 4e than I have from 3.X, and more of those builds were actually able to live up to the expectations of the people who made them.

I'll take your word for it.

[Nifft]

Having played quite a bit of 4e, I'm a little astounded that people still believe this. Given the gap in the amount of content available, I've seen significantly more build variety out of 4e than I have from 3.X, and more of those builds were actually able to live up to the expectations of the people who made them.

The trouble is that 4e reads like a VCR manual, instead of like a fantasy novel glossary.

The homogeneity of presentation makes 4e boring for people who read RPGs but don't actually play them.

In contrast, 3.pf is a wonderland for people who don't play RPGs -- the solo character building min-game is quite extensive.

[Gnaeus]

The two seem intertwined. How do you propose balancing the game without addressing that disparity? More importantly, what would addressing that mean?

There might be a way to truly solve it without ending up with 4e homogenized pap. Me, I'd rather keep some of the imbalance while ironing out the larger peaks and valleys.

I still think the easiest way is to limit casters to some subsets of magic. Just because wizards should be able to teleport, summon, polymorph, fireball, animate zombies, use divinations, etc. doesn’t mean that a specific character should do all those things. Beguiler, Warmage, DN, Bard, are all better classes than Wizard, because they aren’t trying to do Everything. Most fantasy wizards can only do a small subset of those things.

One way to get there might be to have spell prerequisites. Limit spells known/level, and to learn Polymorph you need x transmutation spells, and PAO requires Polymorph and SF Transmutation, or something similar. So wizard can still do things fighter wouldn’t dream of, but not all the things.

[Psyren]

I'd say 3.P is fun for people who both read and play. (Source: myself)

I still think the easiest way is to limit casters to some subsets of magic. Just because wizards should be able to teleport, summon, polymorph, fireball, animate zombies, use divinations, etc. doesn’t mean that a specific character should do all those things. Beguiler, Warmage, DN, Bard, are all better classes than Wizard, because they aren’t trying to do Everything. Most fantasy wizards can only do a small subset of those things.

One way to get there might be to have spell prerequisites. Limit spells known/level, and to learn Polymorph you need x transmutation spells, and PAO requires Polymorph and SF Transmutation, or something similar. So wizard can still do things fighter wouldn’t dream of, but not all the things.

If that's what you want, I recommend Spheres of Power - it does a decent job of forcing casters to specialize (or generalize with more tradeoffs and balanced effects.)

[Calthropstu]

Without balance we'd spend most of our time on the floor.

[Gnaeus]

If that's what you want, I recommend Spheres of Power - it does a decent job of forcing casters to specialize (or generalize with more tradeoffs and balanced effects.)

We mostly use PoW, Akashic magic, and the PF 6 level casters. I’ve heard good things about SoP, but we’re doing ok with Pathfinder + Dreamscarred Press and lurking in the high 4-low 2 range. T1 spells are still in play, if the Vizier or Mystic wants to make a scroll of them.

[Deadline]

Having played quite a bit of 4e, I'm a little astounded that people still believe this. Given the gap in the amount of content available, I've seen significantly more build variety out of 4e than I have from 3.X, and more of those builds were actually able to live up to the expectations of the people who made them.

I'm right there with you. And yeah, it's super newbie friendly, as we've had several new gamers cycle through our group who were able to pick it up right away. Our group has used 4e quite a bit.

In fact, after running several campaigns using it, our gaming group eventually stripped 4e down to its base components. We took the published powers as a source of keywords (not keywords in the 4e sense, but in the sense of what they do: extra damage, push, pull, temp hp, teleport x squares and attack, grant an ally a basic attack, -x to enemy attacks, etc.), and worked up a value for each of them. Your daily, encounter, and at will slots have a maximum point value of keywords that can be used, and bam!, you get to dynamically create an attack that suits your needs each time you attack. Leveling up gets you more keywords you can use, and increases the amount of points you can use (at similar breakpoints to the 4e system).

Of course, we've used a variety of systems for our games (including d20, Earthdawn, Iron Heroes, Rolemaster, and recently the new FFG Star Wars system), but 4e was certainly a noticeable contender for top system due to its being easy to use, and easy to hack.

[Calthropstu]

I'm right there with you. And yeah, it's super newbie friendly, as we've had several new gamers cycle through our group who were able to pick it up right away. Our group has used 4e quite a bit.

In fact, after running several campaigns using it, our gaming group eventually stripped 4e down to its base components. We took the published powers as a source of keywords (not keywords in the 4e sense, but in the sense of what they do: extra damage, push, pull, temp hp, teleport x squares and attack, grant an ally a basic attack, -x to enemy attacks, etc.), and worked up a value for each of them. Your daily, encounter, and at will slots have a maximum point value of keywords that can be used, and bam!, you get to dynamically create an attack that suits your needs each time you attack. Leveling up gets you more keywords you can use, and increases the amount of points you can use (at similar breakpoints to the 4e system).

Of course, we've used a variety of systems for our games (including d20, Earthdawn, Iron Heroes, Rolemaster, and recently the new FFG Star Wars system), but 4e was certainly a noticeable contender for top system due to its being easy to use, and easy to hack.

Errr... that's why it flopped so hard?
4e was such a disaster for wotc that they literally lost the top selling rpg title to pathfinder.
My experience with the game was that literally every character type had the exact same look and feel. The abilities made me feel like I was playing an mmo.
It was an unabashed attempt by wotc to get at the wow crowd and a complete snub of their core fan base... and it cost them my business for life.

[Deadline]

Errr... that's why it flopped so hard?
4e was such a disaster for wotc that they literally lost the top selling rpg title to pathfinder.
My experience with the game was that literally every character type had the exact same look and feel. The abilities made me feel like I was playing an mmo.
It was an unabashed attempt by wotc to get at the wow crowd and a complete snub of their core fan base... and it cost them my business for life.

It was a solid design, but killed a lot of sacred D&D cows. I know a handful of people who very much didn't like it, but enjoyed the stripped down version we put together because it didn't have a strong tie to the D&D brand. That's definitely anecdotal, but it does make me wonder how much of the dislike was rooted in edition loyalty. Keep in mind that I'm not interested in starting an edition war, all the above is just my opinion (and for reference, I enjoy 3.5, 4e, and 5e). I'm simply sharing my experience with the system.

As to the "mmo" chestnut, one of 4th edition's core ideas seems to be pretty clearly rooted in late 3.5 design philosophy, but YMMV.

[Psyren]

As to the "mmo" chestnut, one of 4th edition's core ideas seems to be pretty clearly rooted in late 3.5 design philosophy, but YMMV.

Of course it was - that late design philosophy was itself the Alpha for 4e.

As for "edition loyalty" - the runaway success of 5e proves that wasn't it, 5e either slaughtered or simply failed to revive plenty of 3e sacred cows all on its own.

[Lazymancer]

Balance vs monsters doesnt matter. The GM can always add more monsters, using nastier ones, or change powers/stats etc.

Why should GM be doing game designers job?

What is critical however is a rough intra-party balance for a campaign (doenst matter for a one shot). If you have one or two PCs that dwarf the others in power, your campaign will end early. It will end early either because (i) the other players get jack of playing second fiddle to the OP PCs, or (ii) the GM will accidentally TPK the party by trying to challenge the OP PCs, killling the weaker ones first, then overwhelming the OP one(s).

No, it's not critical. Not as long as you treat it like a game, rather than a performance art.

Also, it's not GM's job to challenge party, but party's - to choose what challenges they wish to tackle.

[Nifft]

It was a solid design, but killed a lot of sacred D&D cows. I know a handful of people who very much didn't like it, but enjoyed the stripped down version we put together because it didn't have a strong tie to the D&D brand. That's definitely anecdotal, but it does make me wonder how much of the dislike was rooted in edition loyalty. Keep in mind that I'm not interested in starting an edition war, all the above is just my opinion (and for reference, I enjoy 3.5, 4e, and 5e). I'm simply sharing my experience with the system.

As to the "mmo" chestnut, one of 4th edition's core ideas seems to be pretty clearly rooted in late 3.5 design philosophy, but YMMV.

Practically every edition war has included the "too video-gamey" accusation, so that's only to be expected.

Spoiler: Aside

Show

Ironically, the edition which had mechanics most closely modeled by MMO / cRPGs was 2e, with its trigger-twitch spell interrupt mechanics being very heavily represented across a variety of games. But nobody cares, because 2e is dead, so there's no reason to accuse it of being video-gamey, since it's not a "threat" to any current games.

The "snub" complaint might be a reference to how WotC made anti-3e ads when 4e began. (IIRC, the ads were poorly received.) Or it might be some other corporate behavior -- it's certainly not a complaint about game design.


Overall, people who hate 4e often seem to do so for reasons which don't require ever actually playing 4e.

[Morty]

The argument about not sacrificing balance for variety would ring a little bit more true if 90% of what variety 3E has wasn't concentrated in the hands of spell-casting classes. The others will do the same thing from level 1 to level 20. Usually pretty poorly.

The argument about 4E "killing sacred cows" would likewise have a bit more heft to it if the 4E PHB wasn't chock-full of things that are only there because that's what D&D players expect. Such as a great deal of the wizard spell list or melee rangers' being stuck with dual-wielding. Again. Or the class list, for that matter, which squeezes the old set of classes into the power source/role paradigm. The accusations of "not being D&D" just show how resistant the fanbase is to change of any sort.

[Psyren]

Why should GM be doing game designers job?

GMs ARE game designers. That's what you and many others don't seem to get. D&D is not a complete game without a GM.

Also, it's not GM's job to challenge party, but party's - to choose what challenges they wish to tackle.

It's the GMs job to do both, and if you're only doing the latter, the DMG explicitly tells you to warn your players about this well in advance.

[Deadline]

Of course it was - that late design philosophy was itself the Alpha for 4e.

As for "edition loyalty" - the runaway success of 5e proves that wasn't it, 5e either slaughtered or simply failed to revive plenty of 3e sacred cows all on its own.

I think 5e still has several "sacred cows" intact, and that there are still quite a few people who don't like it. That being said, it keeps spellcasters in the forefront and still greatly rewards system mastery, so it's not surprising that it's more successful. I'm not a huge fan of the flattening out of the system, but it does go a long way to homogenizing the power gap between mundane and magic classes (and I personally like it more than 3.5 because of that).

[Quertus]

Why is game balance important? It isn't. What is important is fun. Does have balance produce fun? Are they synonyms? No. But balance does have certain ways in which it can affect fun.

When you create balance through symmetry, you lose variety, and get 4e D&D, which had a same-y feel, which was not fun for a lot of people, myself included. So, one implementation of balance is good for removing fun from the game.

But, generally, having a good distribution of being able to contribute, and being able to shine, is fun. Some people consider this distribution synonymous with game balance, and they're wrong. Player skill, class capabilities, and build are among the things that factor into one's contribution distribution.

Personally, I enjoy games where I have to work for certain victories, but just get handed others - and which are which is a factor of the character and simulation. Many of my characters have a whole plethora of sights - obtaining knowledge is something that should just be handed to them. Delock is more charismatic than the most charismatic gods - good PR & convincing NPCs should just be handed to him. Armus is statistically weak - actually contributing to combat should be a challenge. Etc.

It's not always about stats or mechanics, but no amount of RP and clever ideas will ever be better than the 3 words "I cast X".

It would, if I hadn't stolen your spell components while you weren't looking. No amount of "I cast X" will ever beat clever ideas on their own.

People are underestimating the value of balance to DMs.

If characters have equal and predictable abilities, you can pick up challenges and run them without worrying. This makes the game much easier. If they do not, you have to check every challenge against your PCs. Having game balance makes being a DM much easier, and it makes it easier in the places that are most often cited as obstacles to good DMing.

Put the burden of staying alive on the PCs / players, and the game becomes easy on the GM one again.

Harder to do with a module than a sandbox, where "for level X" is supposed to mean something. Still, if you put the burden on the player, but the module includes "this was written for level X characters with Y and Z. If this is not the case, here are some suggestions:"

(Also, the kind of men girls want is not exactly of relevance to me.)

Thanks for that laugh.

These types of arguments are always funny.

First we have a barbarian, who spent his entire life hunting. He can't read or write but he is a mountain of muscle.

Then we have a nerd, who spent his entire life in society, working with other humans, collaborating, and contributing. Eventually the nerd gets access to guns, computers, heat seaking missiles, and with enough money he builds aircraft carriers.

So now we have the barbarian getting angry that the nerd is overpowered, that his tanks make his spear look weak, that his thermonuclear bombs are flat out broken and shouldn't exist, and the world is wrong because the barbarian can't ever hope to kill the nerd in his space ship run by his army of robots armed to the teeth with computer guided weaponry. In fact he says nerds shouldn't even be allowed to have guns because guns alone can kill barbarians and it's not fair that a person who spent his entire life killing animals with his bare hands can die so easily and effortlessly to someone who spent his entire life indoors and without breaking any sweat.

The problem here isn't that the nerd is a part of an organization that spent thousands of years studying the world in attempt to understand how the world works, used that knowledge to their great advantage, and shares that knowledge to anyone who wishes to follow their methods. No, the problem is that the limit one can achieve with physical brute force from a human body is low, very, very, very low, so obviously someone pursuing strength via muscles is not going to get far.

The solution is cooperation. A barbarian with a gun is always more dangerous than a nerd with a gun, so there is tremendous benefit when the two cooperate. The nerd builds the equipment, and the barbarian just needs to learn how to use the equipment without understanding how it works. Of course once the nerd starts building robots the barbarian becomes obsolete, but that's not the nerd's fault, it's the barbarian's fault for choosing to hone his muscles instead of his mind.

There's no reason a barbarian can't be a nerd, and why a nerd can't be a barbarian, which is why this is a solution too, but then there are some people who say pure barbarians should be able to do everything a pure nerd can do. So when someone tells me Barbarians should be able to destroy cities just as quickly as a thermonuclear bomb would, cut through metal tanks, survive point blank artillery fire unscathed, and solve theoretical physics problems just by training their muscles, I say go play a different tabletop rpg.

If you chose to play a character dedicated to muscles instead of intellect, that's fine but don't start whining when the smarter characters do everything you do better with technology (magic) because it was your choice to embrace ignorance and simplicity, not theirs. Players who play significantly more complex characters that require reading several books deserve to have more power than your core-only character.

Anyways to answer the OP's question, we don't need balance. This is a PvE game (player versus environment). It doesn't matter how strong or weak you are, everyone can contribute to the campaign and have fun. If you're a mundane and spellcasters have rendered your character obsolete, go read books and make your character stronger. Mundanes are far from dead weight even in TO tables so it is your fault your character is weak as ****, it is your fault your character is a one trick pony that is useless out of combat, and it is your fault you're not enjoying the game, not the spellcasters'. As to why people think we need balance, barbarians want to do everything nerds do without putting in the effort.

In my tables fighters are always welcome because they dish out ungodly amounts of damage with power attacks and buffs from the spellcasters. They put all my blasting shenanigans to shame so when i see people claiming fighters are too weak I question their system mastery. When I see people claiming spellcasters can do everything and fighters can't, I say play a smart character instead of a dumb one. Gishes are just as powerful as pure casters in the TO level so it's your fault for not wanting to gish and go pure mundane, who are just as powerful as pure casters in HO.

Mostly agree. Fighters can be built to be plenty capable of handling modules as written, and cooperation is the key to most things, in life or in the game.

The reason that balance is important is related to the Original Position Fallacy. If you start a game of D&D blind; as a total newbie with no expectations other than "a cool adventure game", you are given the appearance of parity between the classes. Everyone expects that what they choose will be cool and powerful in different way, but that's not what was provided.

Imbalance can be fun if you know that going in; Rifts has characters that are literally as durable as tanks in the same party with "scholar of things the oppressive government doesn't want you to know". Similarly, in Mage: The Awakening, mages are explicitly more powerful and important than the Sleepers (the mundanes), but since you only play mages, there isn't that sense of grievous imbalance.

The difference is in both of those games, the imbalance was on purpose. Rifts is there to have a range of power levels, and Mage has the core concept of "magic is better than not-magic" and designed the game's lore around that. D&D's imbalance kinda just happened. While they wanted Wizards to be cool, they seriously failed consider how much power they were giving them, and greatly overestimated what fighter-types could do and kind of just said "Eh, they have feats, they'll be fine" without actually letting the feats do anythign interesting without also having a casting requirement.

Rifts can really hurt noobs, too, if they go in thinking a scientist was built to survive megadamage combat! Fortunately, I was warned away from such ignorant suicide.

3rd gave casters a whole pile more defenses. I think that's the biggest visible issue.
1e/2e weren't balanced either, but it felt that way because the world-altering power was offset by frailty.

A Magic-User with no concentration checks and 56hp at 18th level (assuming he could manage a 16 con, which was his effective max) was seriously squishy. If something got to melee range he was reduced to spamming 1st level spells - because anything else would be interrupted - or running away. An equal level caster had a fair chance of one-shotting him with a basic damage spell (18d6 Fireball, etc) if he didn't have defenses up. Even with Shapechange running, you were vulnerable to something.

So having the Fighter stand between you and the badguys was massively important. A Cleric would do in a pinch, but there was no Divine Power, much less Persisted Divine Power, and he had the same +2/die cap on Con bonus the M-U did. So while he was a warm body, he didn't have the durability the Fighter did.

The move to smaller parties and shorter encounter days didn't do the Fighters any favors either. The games I grew up with, if you only had 4 players, they all played 2 characters, plus all the sidekicks/henchmen/companions/familiars/etc. You got through battles with formations and reach weapons and swapping the wounded guys out of the front line. And then you pounded through at least a half-dozen set encounters in a day, plus 3 wandering monster encounters (at least one while you were trying to sleep), and if you had the temerity to cast a Rope Trick in the dungeon and not leave guards outside it, the goblins would build a bonfire under it, or dig a pit, or flood the room, or leave their pet Rust Monsters in the room, or go bribe the Orc Shaman in the next cave to come Dispel the thing while they all stood under it with braced spears.

I agree with your general sentiment, but... was there an edition where fireball wasn't capped at 10d6? And, while rare (surprising so, actually...), it was possible to have a 2e Fighter with only 1 HP

You're just frankly wrong, then. Even in the context of 3.5 the designers assume that class levels were relatively equivalent, since 1 class level = 1 CR.

Is there anyone here that even shares this viewpoint? I mean I played cRPGs before I got into tabletop, but the assumption of everyone I've ever played with was that two characters that were intelligently built from separate classes were intended to be roughly equivalent in power at the same level.

Back in y2k, looking at how they moved everyone to the same XP table, and put in defined methods for determining encounter balance (the CR system), I certainly had the expectation that that would be true.

And, while they did a lot to make casters closer to equal to the Fighters, I found that Fighters were still better.

Then my group got better at optimization, and we saw that casters had lots of broken bugs, but, even ignoring those, could actually hold their own for usefulness if everyone was built just right.

Then 3.5 nerfed Fighters into the dust, while continuing to give casters nice things.

[Calthropstu]

I was reluctant to go from 2e to 3e. After a while of playing 3e, I found I liked it. I still miss elements of 2e, but I admit 3e was a better overall system. Not so for 4e. Nearly every ability was exactly the same. There was no flavor, no difference and there was no abilities you could use outside of combat.

I have no problem with change, but 4e was bad change in every way. And RA Salvatore forcing the change into his book? Yeah... I haven't read a single dragonlance, forgoten realm etc book since, purchased any other wotc products or otherwise supported them.
And no, 2e was around before video games became a big thing. If it feels video gamey, it's because numerous games tried to emulate IT. However, when 4e came out, WoW was in full swing. It's success had game designers drooling. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together.

Wotc wanted the WoW crowd, and they made WoW the rpg and called it D&D. That's what has people upset about 4e.

Edit: I gave 4e a chance, I really did. I still have my 4e books in fact. But it was very clear what they did. And I hate it.

As far as balance is concerned, up until 4e it was meant for each character to be able to serve a niche, with a party working together being more capable than the sum of its parts. A group of 4 fighters or 4 wizards should, in theory, have a worse go of going through a dungeon than rogue/wizard/cleric/fighter.
So balancing them against each other should not be needed. This isn't a game designed for pvp, but pvm.

[Nightcanon]

M

What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas. Maybe in my gaming group my DM just dosnt force mechcanics into everything, and unbalance isn't an issue.

Why bother solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying when the party's wizard has the scroll to fix this situation in his Handy Haversack? In the older versions of the game that you refer to, wizards were far more limited in the spells they had available: limited spells known; fewer spell slots and less opportunity to carry around a library of scrolls of utility spells to solve most problems (why wouldn't a 3e wizard always have scrolls of knock, charm person and so on available to them at all times?). They also needed more XP to level up.
Part of the issue is that 3e explicitly claims that the classes are balanced and implies that such balance is desirable. It also introduces a lot of mechanics for situations that were previously governed roleplaying and clever ideas, and for most situations where there is a chance-based mechanic with a chance of failure (especially at low level) there is also a spell that gives an automatic pass.