Balance. Why do we need it?

[Deadline]

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

I think it's probably clear at this point that you and I very much disagree here. 4e is a pretty clear evolution path from the later 3.5 books (Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, etc). The "roles" that 4e formalized have existed in D&D in every edition. I'm honestly not sure what "videogamey" piece of 4e design I've heard mentioned isn't something that was clearly in place in the earlier editions already. So from my perspective, the "WotC made 4e to pull in the WoW crowd" doesn't really hold water. Again, YMMV.

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.

Except, as has been pointed out since the start of this thread, a group of 4 fighters is about as bad as you can get, where a group of 4 wizards is incredibly capable (moreso than a "balanced" group of utility/blaster/healer/tank). So if it was meant for a party of those roles to have a better chance than a group of all the same role, that design goal has failed miserably in each iteration of D&D, except for 4e, because those roles are far more rigid in that edition, which makes it much harder for any one role to tick all the boxes. Can you get by in 4e with a party of all healers? Sure, but it'll be harder than if you had a balanced party. That ... isn't the case in 3.5, where a full party of Clerics can do it all, and better than the niche role equivalents.

As was pointed out earlier, the ultimate goal is to have fun, so if you and your players are doing that, you are good to go. And yes, all sorts of folks can have fun with an unbalanced system (I've had the occasional spot of fun with Rifts, for example). With the exceptions of D&D 4e and 5e, the remaining iterations of D&D have been wildly unbalanced. Balance isn't necessary so long as everyone is having fun, but that lack of balance makes things more difficult on GMs, and not knowing about the lack of balance can lead to sour experiences for new players.

Agreed on the skill challenge system in 4e though. The initial release of 4e had a terrible skill system. That said, they fixed it later, and that coupled with rituals gave you plenty of things to do outside of combat.

[Calthropstu]

I think it's probably clear at this point that you and I very much disagree here. 4e is a pretty clear evolution path from the later 3.5 books (Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, etc). The "roles" that 4e formalized have existed in D&D in every edition. I'm honestly not sure what "videogamey" piece of 4e design I've heard mentioned isn't something that was clearly in place in the earlier editions already. So from my perspective, the "WotC made 4e to pull in the WoW crowd" doesn't really hold water. Again, YMMV.



Except, as has been pointed out since the start of this thread, a group of 4 fighters is about as bad as you can get, where a group of 4 wizards is incredibly capable (moreso than a "balanced" group of utility/blaster/healer/tank). So if it was meant for a party of those roles to have a better chance than a group of all the same role, that design goal has failed miserably in each iteration of D&D, except for 4e, because those roles are far more rigid in that edition, which makes it much harder for any one role to tick all the boxes. Can you get by in 4e with a party of all healers? Sure, but it'll be harder than if you had a balanced party. That ... isn't the case in 3.5, where a full party of Clerics can do it all, and better than the niche role equivalents.

As was pointed out earlier, the ultimate goal is to have fun, so if you and your players are doing that, you are good to go. And yes, all sorts of folks can have fun with an unbalanced system (I've had the occasional spot of fun with Rifts, for example). With the exceptions of D&D 4e and 5e, the remaining iterations of D&D have been wildly unbalanced. Balance isn't necessary so long as everyone is having fun, but that lack of balance makes things more difficult on GMs, and not knowing about the lack of balance can lead to sour experiences for new players.

Agreed on the skill challenge system in 4e though. The initial release of 4e had a terrible skill system. That said, they fixed it later, and that coupled with rituals gave you plenty of things to do outside of combat.

Take a 4e character.
Take an MMO character.
Place them side by side.
The 4e character has "at will" powers.
The MMO character has quick recharge spam powers.
The 4e character has encounter powers.
The MMO character has mid recharge powers taking about 10-15 seconds to recharge... essentially once per encounter.
The 4e character has a daily power, requiring rest between each use.
The MMO character has a slow recharge power taking quite a bit of time between use requiring you to wait around (mmo equivalent of resting.)

Then you look at the effects themselves and the similarities get even closer. The abilities and effects were quite literally ripped directly from WoW. I remember seeing an ability in the phb3 that did some mental damage and alliwed respositioning the enemy, and video game sound effects went through my head.
The final straw was reading orc king by salvatore.

[Psyren]

Mearls outright said that 4e was based on MMOs, so that's beyond dispute. The only question is whether that's a bad thing or not. Personally I don't think it's bad inherently, but I think 4e went a bit too far with it, with every kind of power in a given role being reskinned (with minor adjustments, or not) for every other class in that role, like "do damage and move the enemy" or "do damage, apply status" etc., and the interesting stuff being foisted off to rituals.

[Vhaidara]

Mearls outright said that 4e was based on MMOs, so that's beyond dispute. The only question is whether that's a bad thing or not. Personally I don't think it's bad inherently, but I think 4e went a bit too far with it, with every kind of power in a given role being reskinned (with minor adjustments, or not) for every other class in that role, like "do damage and move the enemy" or "do damage, apply status" etc., and the interesting stuff being foisted off to rituals.

Interesting interpretation of

As far as I know, 4th edition was the first set of rules to look to videogames for inspiration. I wasn’t involved in the initial design meetings for the game, but I believe that MMOs played a role in how the game was shaped.

So Mearls is just guessing in your "outright statement".

[Nifft]

So Mearls is just guessing in your "outright statement".

Unsupported guesses are a solid foundation "that's beyond dispute" for an edition warrior.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

[Deadline]

Then you look at the effects themselves and the similarities get even closer. The abilities and effects were quite literally ripped directly from WoW. I remember seeing an ability in the phb3 that did some mental damage and alliwed respositioning the enemy, and video game sound effects went through my head.
The final straw was reading orc king by salvatore.

Are you familiar with the later stuff in 3.5e? Reserve feats (and for an earlier reference, racial at-will abilities in things like the Monster Manual), Encounter recharge powers (Tome of Battle Maneuvers, Skill Tricks, etc.), and daily powers (spells, or 1/day abilities that have been present since the inception of 3e). Repositioning allies? Look at things like the White Raven school of maneuvers, or the Benign Transposition spell. Likewise, there are plenty of abilities that reposition enemies in 3.5. I'd be honestly surprised if there wasn't a 3.5 psionic power that did damage and moved the enemy around. Battlefield control and positioning isn't new in 4e, and sure as heck didn't come from video games.

Again, the skeleton for 4e has been in place for a long while, 4e just cleaned up and codified it. So no, I don't think that video games had anything to do with it. And to borrow your argument against 2e being videogamey, the common MMO roles weren't invented by the MMO's, they came from existing games - like D&D. Take a look at the ideal D&D party (thief/fighter/wizard/cleric) and look at those roles. You could claim they aren't the same as what you find in MMO's these days, but IMO that's a hard position to argue.

I've never been a fan of Salvatore's stuff, so I can't really comment on that.

Edit - And to be clear, because tone is hard to read in the written language, I'm not saying you are a bad person, or that you should like 4e. Quite the contrary, your opinion is your own, and I shouldn't have any say in your ability to hold it. I don't have to agree with it, but that goes both ways.

[Psyren]

Interesting interpretation of



So Mearls is just guessing in your "outright statement".

Ah, so I hallucinated his name in the development credits of my 4e PHB then. Good to know.

"I wasn't involved initially" does not translate to "I have no basis for this conclusion." Certainly as a member of the design team, he has far more insight to how the sausage was made than you ever could.

Unsupported guesses are a solid foundation "that's beyond dispute" for an edition warrior.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

Not warring - as I said, its basis on video games is not automatically a negative for me. My issue is with the execution, not the concept. (BTW, I noticed you didn't reply to my Ranger quote from the 3.5 PHB?)

[Nifft]

Ah, so I hallucinated his name in the development credits of my 4e PHB then. Good to know.

"I wasn't involved initially" does not translate to "I have no basis for this conclusion." Certainly as a member of the design team, he has far more insight to how the sausage was made than you ever could.

Sure but he outright says he has no basis.

As far as I know, 4th edition was the first set of rules to look to videogames for inspiration. I wasn’t involved in the initial design meetings for the game, but I believe that MMOs played a role in how the game was shaped. I think there was a feeling that D&D needed to move into the MMO space as quickly as possible and that creating a set of MMO-conversion friendly rules would help hasten that.

He's saying that he never actually saw 4e designers copy video-game mechanics, but he's got an impression that 4e was supposed to be MMO conversion friendly.

Just FYI: 4e is vehemently NOT friendly for MMO conversion, of course. 4e has a ton of interrupt mechanics which are only usable due to the non-verbal communication possible in face-to-face gaming. Interrupt powers and Minor action powers would require interface adjustments that video-games can't currently handle. If anything, 4e took inspiration from mechanically strict games like M:tG -- which should be no surprise, given who owned M:tG.

Anyway, the point is: it's dishonest to represent an unfounded, ignorant opinion as if it were eyewitness testimony.

(BTW, I noticed you didn't reply to my Ranger quote from the 3.5 PHB?)

You haven't used the word "ranger" on page 7 or 6 of this thread, so ... maybe you could describe your problem more explicitly, or link to whatever it is you're referencing?

[Morty]

"4E is an MMO" is a meme in the original sense of the word, which is to say, a self-propagating idea. A completely false idea, but one people repeat without thinking. Because it sounds nicely condemnatory and dismissive. 4E's design flows pretty directly from 3E's late run and the discourse about balance that pervaded it. It also takes 3E's increased reliance on positioning and movement and takes it a step further.

[Peat]

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:





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.

Maybe not 15 ft letters of flame, but I do think the game developers could be more explicit about the game's intended range and imbalance.

And to a certain extent, being open about its intent solves the issue. As pointed out, there are other games out there with gigantic chasms of balance, but where it works because people get that's the intent. If you accept D&D for what it is and the casters agree not to go mental, the game works. And I think that's the only way you balance it while keeping the range of power currently in D&D, as either you nerf the casters (mostly by having them be Warmage/Beguiler etc.etc types as suggested) or you buff the martials. Or both.

I would like to see martials' out of combat ability buffed in general though and I think Pathfinder took some much needed steps there.

[Psyren]

Sure but he outright says he has no basis.

Nah, he doesn't say that at all. He just says he wasn't involved initially - that's it. You're the one extrapolating that to mean "I have no reason to believe what I do" which is not the case. If I'm involved in building something, even if I wasn't the first one to pick up a hammer, I can still get a pretty decent idea of its inspiration and origins.

Anyway, the point is: it's dishonest to represent an unfounded, ignorant opinion as if it were eyewitness testimony.

Indeed, good thing I didn't do that.

Maybe not 15 ft letters of flame, but I do think the game developers could be more explicit about the game's intended range and imbalance.

And to a certain extent, being open about its intent solves the issue. As pointed out, there are other games out there with gigantic chasms of balance, but where it works because people get that's the intent. If you accept D&D for what it is and the casters agree not to go mental, the game works. And I think that's the only way you balance it while keeping the range of power currently in D&D, as either you nerf the casters (mostly by having them be Warmage/Beguiler etc.etc types as suggested) or you buff the martials. Or both.

I almost wish they would, so that we could kill these threads once and for all. People would finally see what is obvious - that having spellcasting is generally superior to not - and just go play/design a different game where that is not the case. But for me, it is indeed obvious and I genuinely have a hard time conceiving how it could not be.

[Lazymancer]

"4E is an MMO" is a meme in the original sense of the word, which is to say, a self-propagating idea. A completely false idea, but one people repeat without thinking. Because it sounds nicely condemnatory and dismissive. 4E's design flows pretty directly from 3E's late run and the discourse about balance that pervaded it. It also takes 3E's increased reliance on positioning and movement and takes it a step further.

For the love of god...

No. The idea has basis in reality. It's just people have problems expressing their ideas properly.

It's not about MMO as such. The problem is that 4e has unrealistically "gamey" elements (i.e. the ones that break suspension of disbelief, and clearly do it for the sake of "balance" - this is the thing people are complaining about). And this "gameyness" (as a quality; not necessarily the specific elements themselves) is common in MMOs - which is why, people are making connection between 4e and MMOs.

People don't like that instead of somewhat realistic attempt at simulation of fantasy world, they got overly abstract playground.

[Psyren]

For the love of god...

No. The idea has basis in reality. It's just people have problems expressing their ideas properly.

It's not about MMO as such. The problem is that 4e has unrealistically "gamey" elements (i.e. the ones that break suspension of disbelief, and clearly do it for the sake of "balance" - this is the thing people are complaining about). And this "gameyness" (as a quality; not necessarily the specific elements themselves) is common in MMOs - which is why, people are making connection between 4e and MMOs.

People don't like that instead of somewhat realistic attempt at simulation of fantasy world, they got overly abstract playground.

This too. The Giant's 4e comic sums it up for me perfectly.

[Elkad]

I'd say that MMO vs D&D comparison is backwards.

2e had hard interrupts, and lower level spells cast faster. In 1990.
1997 we get UO, the first big MMO. Hard interrupts, and lower level spells are faster. No cooldown timers.
I didn't play EQ, but I believe it had hard interrupts as well.
2000 we get DAoC. Hard interrupts. Casting time matters (supported by dexterity instead of spell level). Still no cooldown timers on most abilities.

2000 & 2003 we get 3.0 and 3.5. With their new concentration mechanic, which makes interrupting casters difficult if not impossible.
2004 we get WOW, with it's soft interrupt mechanic, and scads of abilities on cooldown timers.
Basically every other MMO after that goes with a soft interrupt system and cooldown timers.

If 4e (and later 3.5 - like ToB) copied MMOs for encounter timers, that's news to me. But it kinda makes sense.

WoW is a terrible game from a depth-of-play standpoint. But it's excellent from a moneymaking standpoint. It's predigested pap that the masses love.
I feel like 4e and 5e tried to do the same thing. Balance and ease of play at the expense of depth. Moderately high floor, and you bump your head on the ceiling almost immediately.

[Zanos]

"4E is an MMO" is a meme in the original sense of the word, which is to say, a self-propagating idea. A completely false idea, but one people repeat without thinking. Because it sounds nicely condemnatory and dismissive. 4E's design flows pretty directly from 3E's late run and the discourse about balance that pervaded it. It also takes 3E's increased reliance on positioning and movement and takes it a step further.

That sounds like something an MMO would say.

I'm onto you.

[Nifft]

I'd say that MMO vs D&D comparison is backwards.

2e had hard interrupts, and lower level spells cast faster. In 1990.
1997 we get UO, the first big MMO. Hard interrupts, and lower level spells are faster. No cooldown timers.
I didn't play EQ, but I believe it had hard interrupts as well.
2000 we get DAoC. Hard interrupts. Casting time matters (supported by dexterity instead of spell level). Still no cooldown timers on most abilities.

2000 & 2003 we get 3.0 and 3.5. With their new concentration mechanic, which makes interrupting casters difficult if not impossible.
2004 we get WOW, with it's soft interrupt mechanic, and scads of abilities on cooldown timers.
Basically every other MMO after that goes with a soft interrupt system and cooldown timers.

If 4e (and later 3.5 - like ToB) copied MMOs for encounter timers, that's news to me. But it kinda makes sense.

WoW is a terrible game from a depth-of-play standpoint. But it's excellent from a moneymaking standpoint. It's predigested pap that the masses love.
I feel like 4e and 5e tried to do the same thing. Balance and ease of play at the expense of depth. Moderately high floor, and you bump your head on the ceiling almost immediately.

Cooldowns can also be traced to D&D (e.g. dragon's breath recharges after 1d4 turns in 1e MM1), but D&D probably took the idea of cooldowns from tactical wargames -- stuff like musket & artillery reloading taking more time than a cavalry unit's charge attack.

[Morty]

For the love of god...

No. The idea has basis in reality. It's just people have problems expressing their ideas properly.

It's not about MMO as such. The problem is that 4e has unrealistically "gamey" elements (i.e. the ones that break suspension of disbelief, and clearly do it for the sake of "balance" - this is the thing people are complaining about). And this "gameyness" (as a quality; not necessarily the specific elements themselves) is common in MMOs - which is why, people are making connection between 4e and MMOs.

People don't like that instead of somewhat realistic attempt at simulation of fantasy world, they got overly abstract playground.

Those are entirely legitimate concerns. I know them and I share some of them. But I discuss them without falling back on a nice-sounding but ultimately false catch-phrase. Yes, 4E is rife with elements that focus on gameplay first, and portraying a world second. That's not the same thing as a massively-multiplayer computer game. 4E's gamist elements are, once again, a direct result of the late-3E metagame and overzealous attempts to fix it.

I treat "4E is a tabletop MMO" like using "Mary Sue" towards a character someone doesn't like, or "Deus Ex Machina" towards a development they don't like. Or, for that matter, fans of other games calling new editions of the game... D&D-like. Happens a lot among Polish Warhammer Fantasy RPG grognards. Either way, it's a scary-sounding phrase that condemns the thing you dislike, but doesn't contribute to a discussion.

[Peat]

I almost wish they would, so that we could kill these threads once and for all. People would finally see what is obvious - that having spellcasting is generally superior to not - and just go play/design a different game where that is not the case. But for me, it is indeed obvious and I genuinely have a hard time conceiving how it could not be.

Why the almost?

[BassoonHero]

having spellcasting is generally superior to not - and just go play/design a different game where that is not the case.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that it is impossible to patch 3.5 to substantially improve class balance, that it is inadvisable, or that doing so would make it in your mind "a different game"? And in either case, why do you say that?

Frankly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say in general. We all agree (I think) that 3.5 has severe class imbalances. Many people feel that this detracts from their enjoyment of the game. You do not. Nobody here is going to convince anyone else that they are wrong about what they enjoy.

You mention preferring 3.5's diverse mechanics to 4e's relatively homogeneous mechanics. I strongly agree. I wouldn't want to sacrifice that diversity for balance. But we're not talking about some specific proposed balance fix. Do you believe that any increase in class balance must necessarily result in unacceptably homogenous mechanics? If, hypothetically, you saw a variant that improved class balance without sacrificing diversity, how would you feel about it? Would you prefer it, prefer the less-balanced rules, or have no strong preference? If you would actively prefer the less-balanced rules, then why?

[Lazymancer]

Those are entirely legitimate concerns. I know them and I share some of them. But I discuss them without falling back on a nice-sounding but ultimately false catch-phrase.

A catch-phrase like "a completely false idea"?

4E's gamist elements are, once again, a direct result of the late-3E metagame and overzealous attempts to fix it.

Initially, I thought I should agree with this, but then I realized you must be meaning entirely different "metagame", if you consider that there was an attempt to fix it.

[Psyren]

Those are entirely legitimate concerns. I know them and I share some of them. But I discuss them without falling back on a nice-sounding but ultimately false catch-phrase. Yes, 4E is rife with elements that focus on gameplay first, and portraying a world second. That's not the same thing as a massively-multiplayer computer game. 4E's gamist elements are, once again, a direct result of the late-3E metagame and overzealous attempts to fix it.

I treat "4E is a tabletop MMO" like using "Mary Sue" towards a character someone doesn't like, or "Deus Ex Machina" towards a development they don't like. Or, for that matter, fans of other games calling new editions of the game... D&D-like. Happens a lot among Polish Warhammer Fantasy RPG grognards. Either way, it's a scary-sounding phrase that condemns the thing you dislike, but doesn't contribute to a discussion.

Well fine then, it's shorthand. Shorthand you don't particularly like, but now you've demonstrated that you do know what the edition's critics are actually getting at, so the rest is pedantry.

Why the almost?

Because (first-party) dev time is finite, and having to watch these threads occasionally pop up like recurring weeds is ultimately a worthwhile price to pay if it means more content for the design philosophies I actually enjoy.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that it is impossible to patch 3.5 to substantially improve class balance, that it is inadvisable, or that doing so would make it in your mind "a different game"? And in either case, why do you say that?

It's definitely possible - both 4e and 5e proved that if nothing else. The issue becomes more about what is lost in the attempt, and what we're willing to give up.

Frankly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say in general. We all agree (I think) that 3.5 has severe class imbalances. Many people feel that this detracts from their enjoyment of the game. You do not. Nobody here is going to convince anyone else that they are wrong about what they enjoy.

You're right, arguing about it probably is futile, but arguing on the internet when we can't actually play the game is a big part of why we're all here anyway.

You mention preferring 3.5's diverse mechanics to 4e's relatively homogeneous mechanics. I strongly agree. I wouldn't want to sacrifice that diversity for balance. But we're not talking about some specific proposed balance fix. Do you believe that any increase in class balance must necessarily result in unacceptably homogenous mechanics? If, hypothetically, you saw a variant that improved class balance without sacrificing diversity, how would you feel about it? Would you prefer it, prefer the less-balanced rules, or have no strong preference? If you would actively prefer the less-balanced rules, then why?

Two responses here:

a) No, I'm not opposed to it. You're correct though that I'm pessimistic that it can be done. Are you familiar with the Snowbluff Axiom from these boards?

b) The best attempt I've seen thus far (that I might actually get to play due to adoption) might very well be Starfinder. By eliminating spells above 6th level and iteratives, I think it's brining the classes more in line with one another without the mechanical homogenization of 4th or the nebulous mother-may-I style of 5th. That is however a preliminary reaction, and I'm looking forward to continuing to ingest material to see if that first impression holds up.

[death390]

i honestly don't care about who copied what for video games or tabletop. as long as either is implemented well-enough to play and have fun. so ignoring all of those posts.



i think the primary balance issue with 3.5 was the lack of things for mundane characters to do overall. most mundanes were simply i hit things. some of the classes have minor alterations that allow for more but even still not much.

Fighter: i hit things and wear heavy armor, no skill points really, lacking class skills to do job (spot/search/listen/ sense motive) these are the guards are they not? the should be the soft counter to the rouges sneaky-ness. should they be able to fly at will and solve every problem no. however they should have a better niche than i hit things.

Barbarian: i hit things and go into a frenzy. 2 more skill points than the fighters 2+ but still not enough, also these are the wilderness survivalist the people who live off the land. why the hell don't these guys have track as a free feat! again should have spot/search/listen/hide/move silently in their skill list as they are tracking/ foraging for their food.

Ranger: these our outdoors-men who are more civilized than the barbarian but still live on the fringe of society. they should have more than 2 combat styles (there are ACF's for this at least). they do have the skills to make a difference, and the points to actually do so. even ignoring their spellcasting they can solve alot of the problems the party comes across outdoors.

Paladin: oh god the guy who is unplayable in my opinion. this character is so niche that he can't get out without losing his powers. even taking the other variations they uphold one code. these are our knights riding on a white horse, our black knights sowing seeds of chaos. these are closer to what a fighter was than the fighter. thier poblem in my opinion is an identity crisis. he is a fighter/ a healer/ a mounted champion. but he fulfills none of this. i have no idea how to fix this mess.

Monk: the martial artist who strikes a thousand times and hits twice. the monk suffers from two weapon fighting syndrome in that he misses more often as he tries to hit more. additionally he is split in so many directions that he is almost needs a point-buy to get the necessary attributes. his only 2 "dump" stats are int and charisma. so while he has a decent skill list he often doesn't have the points to take advantage of it. he is an armor-less fighter forced to two weapon fighting, and cannot increase is weapons strength. (amulet of natural attacks is a slot item. monk loses the ones for his weapon slots unless you are a kick-attacker and even then those are held slots)

He should have had different martial styles that affected his combat. AND there should have been a "weapon" the monk could upgrade to increase his power (arm/leg guards/wraps?) there should have be the heavy strikes who's standard strikes have the power of two (2h fighting, NOT decisive strike that's 1 hit), the defensive fighter who while not as strong could deflect or shrug off attacks (sword and board [AC and possibly fort/ref bonus?), or our standard monk who's overwhelming speed allows for an increased number of attacks.

these "fixes" mostly affect their combat mechanics but that would make it better for them to do the job they are listed to do. the expanded skill lists would enable the fighter and barbarian to better fulfill their identities AND contribute more out of combat. would it give them the raw versatility of a wizard no. but we should focus on bringing the power floor UP, not comparing the two. as it stands there is no way to lower the magic cap of early level casters without gimping them horridly. i will admit that several of the higher power spells are broken but that can be adressed after we bring the mundanes closer to an decent versatility level.



look at the weapon mechanics alone, there is a vast discrepancy between 2h, 2w, and S&B fighting. why? power attack, feat costs, and just lack of support.

each of these styles should have some mechanical benefit to them over a long term. 2h fighting already has that with power attack, (honestly is basically a feat tax for most classes) two weapon fighting is ok as it is if not for the massive feat tax needed to do ANYTHING with it. honestly who takes more than the basic feat other than rangers and MAYBE sneak attackers, sword and board is the most under-utilized yet one of the MOST COMMON styles in medieval combat.

honestly the power scale for the three styles should be OVERWHELMING STRIKES, death by a thousand cuts with some defense, and a good offense with great defense. we do get the overwhelming strikes with two handed fighting due to power attack as already said. two weapon fighting would be fine if it was consolidated into 1-2 feats. and sword and board should have some way to better their defenses.

heck why isn't there a 1 handed weapon style? no shield no secondary weapon just a 1h weapon?

[Morty]

A catch-phrase like "a completely false idea"?

It is a completely false idea, since it has nothing to do with what 4E's strengths or weaknesses actually are.

Initially, I thought I should agree with this, but then I realized you must be meaning entirely different "metagame", if you consider that there was an attempt to fix it.

The last years of 3E's run saw a massive discussion about the game's balance and fundaments of different classes. Tome of Battle sparked the idea that non-magical classes (or, well, technically non-magical) can have discrete abilities. The abilities were assigned on a per-encounter basis. 4E effectively took a side in that debate, by making balance a priority, assigning classes discrete roles and power sources and trying to minimize overlap between them. It also doubled down on 3E's features of tactical grid combat. It's an evolution of a very particular way of looking at D&D.

Well fine then, it's shorthand. Shorthand you don't particularly like, but now you've demonstrated that you do know what the edition's critics are actually getting at, so the rest is pedantry.

It's not pedantry. How we discuss things matters, and "4E is like a MMO" is the kind of statements that sours debate.

[Psyren]

It's not pedantry. How we discuss things matters, and "4E is like a MMO" is the kind of statements that sours debate.

I honestly don't see why. MMOs are as valid a source of inspiration for game design as any other medium. Your issue should be with the folks who use that statement as a pejorative, not the statement itself (which, as noted previously, is true.)

[Nifft]

The last years of 3E's run saw a massive discussion about the game's balance and fundaments of different classes. Tome of Battle sparked the idea that non-magical classes (or, well, technically non-magical) can have discrete abilities. The abilities were assigned on a per-encounter basis. 4E effectively took a side in that debate, by making balance a priority, assigning classes discrete roles and power sources and trying to minimize overlap between them. It also doubled down on 3E's features of tactical grid combat. It's an evolution of a very particular way of looking at D&D.

UA also had a variant rule for recharge spellcasting.

Nobody seems to claim that 3.5e was an MMO.

(This is a good thing, since 3.5e wasn't an MMO. 4e also wasn't an MMO, and 5e continues the tradition by not being an MMO.)

[BassoonHero]

Are you familiar with the Snowbluff Axiom from these boards?

I am; however, I don't think it's especially relevant here. "Exploitability", to me, means the ability of a motivated player to substantially exceed the baseline via unanticipated use of the mechanics. I would tend to agree that exploitability is an unavoidable consequence of the kind of flexibility I look for in 3.5.

But my complaint with 3.5's class balance is not really about exploitability. That is, I'm not complaining that it's possible for a motivated player of a spellcaster to substantially exceed the baseline power of spellcasters via unanticipated use of the mechanics. I'm complaining that the baseline power of spellcasters is vastly greater than the baseline power of non-spellcasters.

There's some parsing that could be done here. If you believe that the 3.5 designers intended for the classes to be well-balanced, then you could say that a spellcaster that is vastly more powerful than the baseline power of a fighter must necessarily, by that fact alone, be "exploiting" the system by using the mechanics in a way the designers never intended. This argument is tautological, which is to say circular; it classifies all imbalances automatically as "exploits" and stipulates designer error to be a logical impossibility.

In 3.5, the power differential can manifest without any ill intent and without anyone feeling like they're exploiting the system. A novice player can demonstrate this fundamental imbalance by playing a core-only single-classed wizard. I don't think that this is inevitable in a versatile system the way that obvious exploits are. It doesn't bother me that the core rules contain an infinite-wish loop; that's much easier to regulate as a DM and as a group than deep-seated power gaps between same-level characters within a party.

In fact, given this baseline imbalance, exploitability is often a blessing. By jamming combinations of the abilities that would give the designers nightmares, you can build a non-spellcaster far above the non-spellcasting baseline, which can substantially reduce the power disparity within a mixed party of spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Of course, this is hardly an elegant solution. Doing this requires fairly deep system mastery, access to many, many sourcebooks, and a tolerant DM. It's also a lot of work, and it's not like 3.5 character creation is quick and easy in the first place. Nevertheless, the exploitability of 3.5 can be used by experienced players to mitigate its fundamental imbalances. (My biggest problem with Pathfinder is that by making the system less exploitable they made it more unbalanced.)

The goal of a systematic rebalance should not be to avoid exploitability. Snowbluff was right; I'd rather have a versatile system than a bulletproof system. No, the goal of a systematic rebalance should be finding a common baseline.

The best attempt I've seen thus far (that I might actually get to play due to adoption) might very well be Starfinder. By eliminating spells above 6th level and iteratives, I think it's brining the classes more in line with one another without the mechanical homogenization of 4th or the nebulous mother-may-I style of 5th. That is however a preliminary reaction, and I'm looking forward to continuing to ingest material to see if that first impression holds up.

I haven't read Starfinder, but I'm intrigued by what I've heard so far.

@death390:

I generally agree. What I think most need an upgrade are the "bones" of the system; the stuff that a Warrior 20 could do. The lack of support for obvious combat styles is a big problem, and a pet peeve of mine is the sheer number of feat taxes required to use basic mechanics.

Lackluster class features play a big role as well, particularly for the monk and paladin. There probably are more rewrites of these two classes than any others, and for good reason. The monk's dependency on magic items is also a major problem, even more so than the other martial classes. I'm hoping to come up with a simple way of addressing this.

[EldritchWeaver]

When you look at the most popular combat abilities, it's amazing how many of them simply work around these limitations. The barbarian's lion spiritual totem lets you move and still use your normal attacks. Tome of Battle strikes let you deal level-appropriate damage withot being locked into a full attack, and its counters let you use your martial prowess to defend yourself. A spiked chain build can milk the trip mechanic hard enough that you'll forget it cost you three feats just to get started.

This tells me that the system has a lot of low-hanging fruit to make life easier for fighter-types. The first ones I choose to pluck are:

• Making a full attack a standard action.
• Limiting the iterative attack penalty to -5.
• Removing attacks of opportunity for most combat maneuvers.
• Removing Weapon Finesse and Brutal Throw, making the benefits standard options.
• Eliminating swaths of useless prerequisite feats.

In many cases, fixing these problems merely requires deleting caveats and restrictions, actually simplifying the rules in the process.

Spheres of Might is actually going in that direction. It focuses on standard actions, which can still give multiple aattacks. Barrage, the multishot, can provide additional attacks, but all attacks suffer a cumulative -2 for every attack except the first. IIRC, there is a single talent which removes AoOs in regards all combat maneuvers. A number of talents provide upgraded feat effects, but still count as that feat AND as its prerequisites, so feat chains are cut short and easier to fulfill. I can't remember though, if Weapon Finesse and Brutal Thrower are available as talents. I haven't required those for my builds yet.

The goal of a systematic rebalance should not be to avoid exploitability. Snowbluff was right; I'd rather have a versatile system than a bulletproof system. No, the goal of a systematic rebalance should be finding a common baseline.

I do think, Snowbluff was onto something, but D&D falls actually flat in fulfilling his axiom. You can have a blaster wizard along-side a simple sword-swinging fighter and those are basically balanced. You can in addition with the same mechanics have a wizard, who can create demiplanes, raises undead and dominates monsters. But there is no fighter, who can do more than killing monsters. In the end, the wizard's endgame is completely different than its start, while a fighter has at best higher numbers and maybe a single combat maneuver trick, which won't work against half of the enemies.

[Psyren]

I do think, Snowbluff was onto something, but D&D falls actually flat in fulfilling his axiom. You can have a blaster wizard along-side a simple sword-swinging fighter and those are basically balanced. You can in addition with the same mechanics have a wizard, who can create demiplanes, raises undead and dominates monsters. But there is no fighter, who can do more than killing monsters. In the end, the wizard's endgame is completely different than its start, while a fighter has at best higher numbers and maybe a single combat maneuver trick, which won't work against half of the enemies.

About the only thing in here that I see as an actual problem is "single combat maneuver." Fighters, more than any other martial class, should have multiple (even perhaps "all") and this is why I push the "Feat Taxes" link in my sig. But the rest? Not an issue.

I am; however, I don't think it's especially relevant here. "Exploitability", to me, means the ability of a motivated player to substantially exceed the baseline via unanticipated use of the mechanics. I would tend to agree that exploitability is an unavoidable consequence of the kind of flexibility I look for in 3.5.

You're focusing on the wrong part of it; the part I point to is that the game should have a very wide potential power level to please the widest audience. This more than anything is the mistake I felt 4e made, and why it feels homogenous. But as far as the "exploits" - sure they exist as possibilities, but at the tables I've played at they simply don't come up, except as a one-off trick to save us from a hopeless situation when the dice are trying to get us killed, and even those are at a much lower power level than most of the cheese and op-fu threads I've seen here.

There's some parsing that could be done here. If you believe that the 3.5 designers intended for the classes to be well-balanced, then you could say that a spellcaster that is vastly more powerful than the baseline power of a fighter must necessarily, by that fact alone, be "exploiting" the system by using the mechanics in a way the designers never intended. This argument is tautological, which is to say circular; it classifies all imbalances automatically as "exploits" and stipulates designer error to be a logical impossibility.

Define "well-balanced." If by that you mean that a class without spells should have the same capabilities as one that does - then no, I don't believe that, and can't fathom how anyone could.

(My biggest problem with Pathfinder is that by making the system less exploitable they made it more unbalanced.)

And you've completely lost me here. How can a system that lacks Ice Assassin, the original Shapechange, Craft Contingent Spell, Arcane Fusion etc. be more unbalanced?

The goal of a systematic rebalance should not be to avoid exploitability. Snowbluff was right; I'd rather have a versatile system than a bulletproof system. No, the goal of a systematic rebalance should be finding a common baseline.

When you can get everyone to agree on what that baseline should be, you should call the UN after that because they owe you a job. For my own groups, we're happy with the simple expedient of lowering the ceiling until most of the bad stuff is gone, and playing in the space that remains.

[Psikerlord]

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.

I liked 4e, we played it for 3 years, but it was definitely more boardgamey feel. A different kind of fun. I disliked the hardcoded "striker" role, though. I prefer everyone to have decent damage.

[BassoonHero]

Spheres of Might is actually going in that direction. It focuses on standard actions, which can still give multiple aattacks. Barrage, the multishot, can provide additional attacks, but all attacks suffer a cumulative -2 for every attack except the first. IIRC, there is a single talent which removes AoOs in regards all combat maneuvers. A number of talents provide upgraded feat effects, but still count as that feat AND as its prerequisites, so feat chains are cut short and easier to fulfill. I can't remember though, if Weapon Finesse and Brutal Thrower are available as talents. I haven't required those for my builds yet.

I'll have to look deeper into Spheres of Power as well.

One thing I believe strongly in is letting basic combat options work by default. Lowering the barriers is a good start, but even a trivial tax walls off options from the majority of characters who won't choose to pay it. That's why I favor making these enablers totally free rather than lessening the tax or giving it a consolation prize.

I do think, Snowbluff was onto something, but D&D falls actually flat in fulfilling his axiom. You can have a blaster wizard along-side a simple sword-swinging fighter and those are basically balanced.

Yeah, but the moment the wizard diversifies their spell selection, this no longer holds. Everyone likes to use the example of a wizard who takes nothing but area-effect direct damage, but even a brand-new player with no interest in character optimization might take sleep, web, or solid fog (or, Mystra forbid, polymorph).

You're focusing on the wrong part of it; the part I point to is that the game should have a very wide potential power level to please the widest audience.

You and I don't disagree here. One of the best parts of 3.5 is the vast range of power levels it encompasses. I've played hardcore high-optimization games with experienced min/maxers and lower-powered games with new players. And in addition to that sort of power range, the progression of a 3.5 character from level 1 to level 20 is nearly unrivalled in fantasy RPGs. Certainly, it's not rivalled by 5e. And, as I've said repeatedly, I'm willing to forgive a lot for a system that makes this possible. There's an infinite wish loop in the core rules, for crying out loud. As you say, the real cheese is unlikely to see practical play; is a player is trying to get infinite wishes, that's a problem best dealt with at a metagame level.

Define "well-balanced." If by that you mean that a class without spells should have the same capabilities as one that does - then no, I don't believe that, and can't fathom how anyone could.

I'm aware that you don't believe that class balance is a desirable trait, and I'm not trying to convince you that you like the wrong thing.

And you've completely lost me here. How can a system that lacks Ice Assassin, the original Shapechange, Craft Contingent Spell, Arcane Fusion etc. be more unbalanced?

The effect of Ice Assassin on 3.5 game balance is pretty much nil. You said it yourself — the real cheese simply doesn't come up in a typical game. Anyone who makes a spreadsheet to track their contingency crafting XP knows what they're getting themselves and their party into. These are fun things to talk about online, but by the time you get to 17th level for Shapechange it's a bit late to worry about magic screwing up game balance.

That's not to say that in a perfect world these things wouldn't be patched. On the contrary, in my list of D&D 3.5 spell house rules, quite a few of the entries read simply “use the Pathfinder version”. These are real improvements, and I appreciate them. But nerfing a handful of broken spells doesn't affect wizards nearly so much as eliminating most of the best combat abilities affects fighter-types. A half-ogre spiked-chain tripping specialist is not a theoretical exploit; it's a real, playable build that you can run in a moderate-power-level game. Some of the ubercharger builds could get out of hand, but removing all of the tools they relied upon was excessive. And, of course, the absence of the Tome of Battle shifts class balance dramatically further toward the spellcasters. (Simply adding back the Tome of Battle into Pathfinder improves it tremendously.)

When you can get everyone to agree on what that baseline should be, you should call the UN after that because they owe you a job.

There's no need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You don't have to agree with my assessment of every mechanic in 3.5 to acknowledge that a vast gap exists between the have-spells and the have-nots. You don't have to determine the exact ideal balance point to know what direction it's in.