3.5 is inherently imbalanced, but is that really an issue?

[MeimuHakurei]

Because in doing things the way you suggest, I can't preserve 3.5's breadth. It would be a different game in some way, infinitely better balanced and well-designed - for a certain style of game. We can elevate all classes to Wizard's balance point and run a game like that, and we can also lower everyone to Fighters and run a game like that. However, if someone would design for those things from the ground up, those would be very different games in mechanics. Even basic mechanics, I think. So if you would retain 3.5 as a game which has the design space broad enough to have both Fighter balance point and Wizard balance point in it, then you should have classes like Warblade which are "Fighters that are close to Wizards" and Warmage, which are "Wizards that are close to Fighters".

Any reason you can't run gritty Fighter-style games at Levels 3-5 and run over the top Wizard-style games at Levels 16-18 in a balanced 3.5 D&D?

[ryu]

Any reason you can't run gritty Fighter-style games at Levels 3-5 and run over the top Wizard-style games at Levels 16-18 in a balanced 3.5 D&D?

That would be effort, and denies the primal human urge to see numbers go up. I cannot oversell the importance of the primal human urge to see numbers go up. People like to think they aren't subject to it. The popularity of idle games blows away that notion.

[ShurikVch]

'Course. But it's not exactly Russian roulette, more like "darn problematic". And often, you can minimize that risk significantly. For example, the risk either teleport in my first example ("Get the demon hunter!") fails would of course typically not be more than about 6% to 9%, and those in my second example ("Save the royal family!") about 3% to 9% (depending on circumstances and whether the second teleport is even needed). I'd say those are pretty great odds of success in comparison to those of other adventurers' shenanigans...

If I understood your example correctly, location of the Demonhunter should count as “False destination” (Sorcerer never seen it!) - thus, 70% chance to fail.
And then they need also go back, which is much easier, but still not 100% ensured

Uh... Skill checks lets you teleport now? How do you do that, beat a DC 100 Tumble? Or if you happen to have a scroll of teleport, how do you minimize the risks in a more efficient and timely manner than say arcane eye, scry or a combination of the two or similar?

Skill checks in Hide, Move Silently, Disguise, Intimidate, Bluff, or Diplomacy - it's about the #2
And for #1 - Teleport by itself isn't the most important thing there - scroll is.
Replace it with a scroll of Planar Binding to call in Astral Deva; or Dismissal, which may just remove the demon altogether - as we can see, Teleport is underperforming there: not just it have chance to fail, but also need a second casting...

[Quertus]

So, IME, the huge imbalance in 3e is great for game balance.

Hear me out.

So, sure, there's the fact that we can point little Timmy towards the Warblade (or whatever the good muggle class is), while Tippy plays a Warrior in order to make the table balanced. That's the part I usually discuss and advocate.

But there also the fact that it makes balance obviously an issue.

Quite contrary to the poster who... we'll say claimed that people would cry "imbalance" if the only stats were aesthetic, players of older editions / other more balanced games had, IME, much less of an awareness of game balance. They much less frequently could articulate what they didn't like about a given table / game / system.

By making imbalance so huge, 3e has facilitates that conversation, and made tables capable of being more balanced.

And, IMO, if the group cares about balance (which is not a requirement for fun), then it is on the group, not just the GM, to make that happen. There is no real extra workload for the GM.

D&D 3.5 is accidentally the closest to flawless tabletop experience that has ever existed.

While I could spend pages disagreeing with most of what you've said, that probably won't be of value to either of us, or anyone else reading this thread. But I think that this bit here could prove interesting.

What makes you say this? What, to your mind, is the superlative value of the 3e experience?

(For reference, I ask as someone who likes 3e, but prefers 2e. So, for example, you don't have to convince me that the 3e experience is good, just why you consider it best.)

1) You're not really enabling any success for skilled users. Even if you can't build dumb, you can still play dumb, and in a well-designed system e.g. encounter design should provide enough hooks to correct for expect imbalance.

2) What the pro-imbalance people are saying is that we should make the hardest job at the table even harder. That's absurd.

Numbered for convenience.

1) while I don't personally disagree (as is obvious by some of my characters (cough Quertus cough)), there are Playgrounders who have voiced the belief that many people just won't play dumb for balance.

2) no, I'm advocating offloading the responsibility game balance to the players, and I always have.

I agree with you that it's absurd to have the GM balance the game.

But people choose whatever character and class that they feel comfortable playing. To me I play whatever character and class by any tier. Weak, Strong, Average. I really don't care. As long that I'm having fun playing with the character that all it matters.

+1 this.

[Ignimortis]

Any reason you can't run gritty Fighter-style games at Levels 3-5 and run over the top Wizard-style games at Levels 16-18 in a balanced 3.5 D&D?

Like Ryu said, you'd have a very limited play space available. Imagine running a year-long campaign and only getting to level up three times? You'd need more levels or a way for campaigns to overlap somewhat - if Fighter games begin at 1st level and end at 10th level, Beguiler games run through 5 to 15, and Wizard games are 10 to 20, then it's somewhat more possible. But this probably creates a whole different system, where you can upgrade your Fighter to Super Fighter at level 11, taking a level in a much better class that puts you on a rather even level with Wizards, if you want to keep playing.

[ryu]

As I've already stated, a good tabletop game creates a positive experience irreplaceable by other means. certainly not easier, faster, or better.

No other game, video or otherwise has successfully replicated proper tier 1 play. None of the glorious information proxy wars, or wildly different attack/defense methods, or ability completely alter every facet of the battle in a single move any dozen numbers of ways.

A good tabletop game is worth putting up with all the nonsense. The scheduling, pen stocking, mat placement, screens, paper fiddling, lost dice, dribbled pizza grease cleaning, and so on.

If I wanted to walk up and hit things with simple tactics and rock paper scissors dependent strengths and weaknesses I'd play fire emblem.

I WISH I COULD wizard, really wizard not fake wizard, without dealing with that, but I can't.

[MeimuHakurei]

I haven't actually mentioned the biggest issue I have with the way the game handles class imbalances: It forces me to play classes with fluff and attached mechanics that I absolutely detest just so my power level is high/low enough for me to get into the game. The Wizard class is my biggest issue; as much as I actually kinda like the spell slot mechanic, appraising my spells I get against one another as well as the breadth of options for a specialist, I don't want to have the "scours lost tombs for new spells" and "needs to carry books on them to function at virtually all times" tropes forced onto me every time I want to have a magic-focused character with good options available. Likewise, I enjoy playing unarmed combatants (particularly the big bruiser types) but the game's choices for this combat style are excessively narrow and generally favor more lithe, agile martial artists. That or I just polymorph into some kind of monster, which isn't always what I want either.

There's also the problem that many flavorful concepts and interesting class playstyles are locked into the higher levels and there isn't a way to begin doing that from Level 1.

[ryu]

I haven't actually mentioned the biggest issue I have with the way the game handles class imbalances: It forces me to play classes with fluff and attached mechanics that I absolutely detest just so my power level is high/low enough for me to get into the game. The Wizard class is my biggest issue; as much as I actually kinda like the spell slot mechanic, appraising my spells I get against one another as well as the breadth of options for a specialist, I don't want to have the "scours lost tombs for new spells" and "needs to carry books on them to function at virtually all times" tropes forced onto me every time I want to have a magic-focused character with good options available. Likewise, I enjoy playing unarmed combatants (particularly the big bruiser types) but the game's choices for this combat style are excessively narrow and generally favor more lithe, agile martial artists. That or I just polymorph into some kind of monster, which isn't always what I want either.

There's also the problem that many flavorful concepts and interesting class playstyles are locked into the higher levels and there isn't a way to begin doing that from Level 1.

Google easy bake wizard. It's a simple method of building designed specifically to passive-aggressively counter DMs who'll passive-aggressively limit spell getting opportunities, attack spell component pouches, and steal spellbooks.

Spell selection and lack of books out of EVERY ORIFICE.

Edit: In fact HERE.

[Hackulator]

I haven't actually mentioned the biggest issue I have with the way the game handles class imbalances: It forces me to play classes with fluff and attached mechanics that I absolutely detest just so my power level is high/low enough for me to get into the game. The Wizard class is my biggest issue; as much as I actually kinda like the spell slot mechanic, appraising my spells I get against one another as well as the breadth of options for a specialist, I don't want to have the "scours lost tombs for new spells" and "needs to carry books on them to function at virtually all times" tropes forced onto me every time I want to have a magic-focused character with good options available. Likewise, I enjoy playing unarmed combatants (particularly the big bruiser types) but the game's choices for this combat style are excessively narrow and generally favor more lithe, agile martial artists. That or I just polymorph into some kind of monster, which isn't always what I want either.

There's also the problem that many flavorful concepts and interesting class playstyles are locked into the higher levels and there isn't a way to begin doing that from Level 1.

I mean, you can play a cleric, druid, or sorcerer to be a magic focused character who doesn't need spellbooks.

As for there not being options for big bruisers, there's dungeoncrashers, the combat brute or shocktrooper feats as well as various other feats that fulfill that particularly character fantasy, as well as various prestige classes like hulking hurler, war hulk, frenzied berserker and others. Making them unarmed can be done in various ways, from taking some form of improved unarmed strike to playing a monster with a slam or claw attack.

Google easy bake wizard. It's a simple method of building designed specifically to passive-aggressively counter DMs who'll passive-aggressively limit spell getting opportunities, attack spell component pouches, and steal spellbooks.

Spell selection and lack of books out of EVERY ORIFICE.

Edit: In fact HERE.

This is the sort of attitude in people who play wizards that makes them problems: the idea that using one of the most basic ways of limiting a wizard's power, ie not making spells always available everywhere to get, is somehow a problematic thing and an example of the DM being "passive-aggressive".

[ryu]

Not just that. All of those things together. And constant nighttime ambushes. And grapplers EVERYWHERE. Silence all over the place. That's passive aggressive put KINDLY.

[Hackulator]

Not just that. All of those things together. And constant nighttime ambushes. And grapplers EVERYWHERE. Silence all over the place. That's passive aggressive put KINDLY.

In a world where spellcasters were a common problem, the only reason stuff like that wouldn't be common is that your DM is being nice to you.

[ryu]

In a world where spellcasters were a common problem, the only reason stuff like that wouldn't be common is that your DM is being nice to you.

Literally every encounter? No.

[Hackulator]

Literally every encounter? No.

Well if anything is present in every encounter it's generally bad DMing.

[ryu]

Well if anything is present in every encounter it's generally bad DMing.

You mean like I was saying originally? The thing you called me a problem player for stating as a reason to bring that set?

[Hackulator]

Google easy bake wizard. It's a simple method of building designed specifically to passive-aggressively counter DMs who'll passive-aggressively limit spell getting opportunities, attack spell component pouches, and steal spellbooks.

Spell selection and lack of books out of EVERY ORIFICE.

Edit: In fact HERE.

You mean like I was saying originally? The thing you called me a problem player for stating as a reason to bring that set?

See the above quote of you to remind you what you actually said originally that I responded too. You didn't mention anything happening in every encounter, you referred to a DM limiting your options to get spells or trying to actively deal with your casting as being passive-aggressive with the clear implication it was bad.

[ryu]

See the above quote of you to remind you what you actually said originally that I responded too. You didn't mention anything happening in every encounter, you referred to a DM limiting your options to get spells or trying to actively deal with your casting as being passive-aggressive with the clear implication it was bad.

The implication was that it was only the beginning. I thought every man woman and child on this forum knew the stories. If by being here a while if nothing else. Just like everyone knows the attempts to call monks the strongest meme.

[upho]

1) call the GM an incompetent fool.

2) Agreed. But then I hope you also realize that it's both unfair and frankly mean to demand players to counter balance issues by playing brilliant or inept characters, especially in a game like 3.5 where simply realizing whether you ought to do one or the other requires quite a bit of system mastery.

3) But I do also really think you should be a lot more careful in making sweeping assumptions about the game in general, or about the preferences of those who play it, based on your own "demonstrations". Your potted plant PC doesn't say anything about the game at all beside the fact that you can play as a potted plant. It does however say things about you and your games specifically. So merely using that term - "demonstration" - is not only grossly misleading, but more importantly risks invalidating any of your associated points, even those that are actually good.

4) Sorry, but are you actually saying your "ultimate demonstration" is that surprising to most people? If so, that is weird, indeed.

5) Diplomacy check and/or most likely some application of a high Bluff, Sense Motive and/or Intimidate check result, (mass) charm person, dominate person, detect thoughts, certain bardic performances, several illusion spells, do I really need to go on?

Diplomacy check and/or most likely some application of a high Bluff, Sense Motive and/or Intimidate check result, charm person, detect thoughts, suggestion and several divination spells. Now I'll grant you that since this is very much an intra-party "challenge", it's already by default largely limited to RP rather than mechanics (and many of my suggestions may not be very nice and especially the use of Diplomacy between PCs is iffy also per RAW, to say the least). And while my group would most likely have a similar kind of IC discussion if facing a similar problem,

5b) it's worth keeping in mind that there seem to be plenty of groups which would either never even consider the idea that a PC maybe should give their inherited staff to another. Not to mention plenty of groups who would simply agree giving the staffs to the noobs would be optimal in less than 30 seconds OoC before the session has even started.

6) Not really valid, consider this was based on GM fiat from pretty much start to end.

6) And that's the far most important detail, and unfortunately it invalidates the entire purpose of mentioning this example in this context. There's simply very little in there to help us determine whether the game's imbalance causes serious problems and/or grants significant benefits.

Numbered for convenience (and, yes, there are two #6)

1) that's not what I was doing.

2) sigh. "GM grog think game no work right, krag do to much. Grog pull out nerf bat on krag" doesn't seem to require much brainpower or understanding of the game. Neither does toning down your character when you realize that you're OP by sharing the spotlight or whatever. Quertus and Armus just represent engineered balance (OK, Quertus was purely accidental, he was engineered psychology that happened to be fun and balanced), demonstrating that it is possible - yes, with system mastery and knowledge of the group - to engineer such things without requiring epimethian fixes.

3) ? So, how is "demonstration" the wrong word?

4) well, much like I never met a 2e group that didn't try to "correct" me when I ran Amalak, and said that my AC was 11 (which was worse than 10), it sure seems to surprise many people that balance and fun are not synonyms.

5) well, an awful lot if that isn't spells, doesn't work on PCs, and/or will have bad consequences down the road. About the only one that would have helped at any of my tables was Detect Thoughts, and it wouldn't have had the desired effect for either scene at this particular table.

Oh, wait, you notice Detect Thoughts in 3e. Never mind. They all would have been worse than what Armus did. So I reject your examples that spells could have done it "better".

5b) absolutely. This was quite the gamble, and wouldn't have worked (or wouldn't have been necessary) at many tables. Which transitions into #6 nicely.

6) Narrative power isn't Magic Missile, it isn't "push button, get effect", it isn't science. It's swinging a sword, it's hoping things work as intended, it's art.

Narrative power is inherently subject to GM (or other player) whim. That doesn't invalidate it, that's the point.

I choose not to slaughter all the goblin children. I don't know what effect that will have. But that's narrative power, at least under a good GM.

1. To clarify: No you didn't, I said you'd be "right or at least less wrong" to do so, "you" in this case mostly referring to anyone rather than "you who post on GitP under the user name 'Quertus'". It was mostly to make it abundantly clear that I fully agree that things like a GM "demanding that no solution but the McGuffin will possibly work" isn't much of a reason for claiming teleport (or any other player option) is powerful, and that my examples were written under the assumption that the hypothetical games where they took place in weren't run by an incompetent fool of a GM. And this again touches upon the very reason why teleport has such great narrative power, as it enables a PCs to, you know, "direct the narrative" in directions/manners which would often be less viable or flat out impossible without the spell.

2. In my eyes, the main issue here is that you seem to assume a pretty darn high level of system mastery, including prior knowledge that the game even can produce OP PCs, not to mention that it's likely to do so. There are tons of examples on this forum alone which will tell you that this isn't any kind of norm or average, with groups/GMs who don't nerf when they should or who nerf the wrong things for the wrong reasons. More importantly, it's quite a different thing to realize that a PC is OP after the fact than it is to correctly identify which option(s) in an OP character is mostly to blame, not to mention to read options X, Y and Z and understand that combining them will result in an OP character. It's also often difficult/problematic to significantly alter your PCs personality once you've realized you're no longer on par with the rest of the group/game, as that realization typically happens only several levels in.

On top of this, the "compensate through player skill/PC personality" method is often not even a viable option for a less skilled player, or in the case of a more seriously mechanically UP character. For example, despite fantastic player skills, AFAICT Armus would be so UP in comparison to the other PCs in my current "long-haul" PF campaign it's most unlikely he'd make it past his first couple of combat encounters, and he'd be useless or even detrimental in most situations which involve game mechanics intended to challenge the other party members. That is of course unless I either turned the mechanical aspects of challenges into complete jokes for the rest of the party, or made so many and all-encompassing house rules exclusively for Armus you'd effectively be playing a completely different game than the other players. And note that a) this is a game which I strongly suspect would in all other respects suit you and go very well with your "Armus play style", and b) the other PCs aren't anywhere near "high-op wizard" levels of mechanical power, but simply well played (in all respects) and well-built PCs based on what I'd call "mid-power" classes (alchemist, nerfed witch, warder, magus and bloodrager).

3. At least in the context of this discussion, a "demonstration" implies a generally applicable solution or concept. But your potted plant PC is an extremely niche concept with virtually zero general applicability, especially in the context of the combat-focused and mechanics-heavy game that 3.5/PF is and this particular discussion. In other words, it doesn't demonstrate anything outside that specific game or your personal experiences of playing in that game.

4. I think I understand. But AFAICT, this discussion isn't about whether balance is a necessity for fun (which I'd find a rather inane question not really worth anyone's time). More importantly, AFAIK nobody in this thread has claimed a game with poor mechanical balance between PCs cannot possibly be fun. So what I'm saying is simply that you should be careful not to put words in other persons' mouths, especially if you find those words make little sense and/or to be full of hyperbole. Better to ask instead whether your interpretation is correct before jumping to conclusions with a straw-man which frames the other party as some kind of idiot.

5. Think "spells = specific action regulated by specific rules", as spells per se are of course not necessary to prove my point, just any kind of game mechanic applicable to the situation. But again, yes, the party discussion is indeed an example of a situation in which most mechanics would actually be problematic. But then one also can't help but wonder how much "narrative power" the ability to solve such issues between PCs provides in most games. I'd guess "near zero", unfortunately (which is far, far less than what I'd prefer myself in most games).

6. I don't really disagree here (with the exception of Magic Missile, but the narrative power there is typically near non-existent, relatively speaking, so whatever). What I find absurd is the claim that narrative power cannot come from any action or ability written on a PC's character sheet. To me, that is to claim that a party of PCs that are, say, stationary disembodied voices and auditory senses with a life-span of a few years and no further mechanical abilities whatsoever, would be able to get through most published adventures just fine when run as written by a reasonably "good GM".

In addition, there are thousands of "push button, get effect" options and combos of options available to PCs which grant very substantial narrative power. The most extreme such "buttons" could even grant "effects" with narrative power enough to utterly and completely and instantly end or radically alter not just the main story but also the entire setting. If you claim this isn't narrative power, you also claim say Pun-Pun would have no greater narrative power than any other 1st level PC in most games, despite the fact that Pun-Pun's "buttons" make him literally infinitely more powerful than anyone or -thing in existence, and despite the fact that the kind of "player skill" you refer to becomes completely redundant and irrelevant as soon as the game starts.

The GM who absolutely required the McGuffin and who nearly ruined one of my favorite characters? He believed in the "law of unintended consequences" (which is fine), but did not believe in the "law of intended consequences". So much so that I listed it as a "major accomplishment" when one of my character's actions actually had the intended* effect. He was not amused.

* Which only worked because that didn't look like what he intended to happen.

Ugh... Yeah, seems to be the kind of "incompetent fool" of a GM you made me think of, except it appears this guy also had an almost narcissistic streak to his OCD-style, and wouldn't be able to excuse his poor GM-ing with inexperience. (And I do believe inexperience is a perfectly valid excuse for GM-ing like an incompetent fool in most cases.)

I'm relieved to hear you've found a good GM. Honestly, the very existence of bad and especially of mean GMs bothers me more than it probably should, but they can ruin a potentially fantastic experience and truly meaningful hobby for so many.

[VoltsofEight]

Literally every encounter? No.

But why wouldn't it? In a high-magic world why wouldn't every 2-bit bandit and slaver both expect magic and prepare ways to dispel and negate the magic of their potential victims? Why wouldn't any wild monster that evolved/was created to not just exist but to be an actual threat to the world's inhabitants have extremely potent anti-magic fields to eat the squishy magic using prey? Why wouldn't any long forgotten demons or ancient dragons not just know the value of stopping their opponents magic but also making sure their spells their spells stick?

The answer is that it sucks for the players to build their characters around a mechanic and then have that mechanic contested 90% of the time and succeeds about 50%(which sounds familiar...)?

[Cosi]

But people choose whatever character and class that they feel comfortable playing. To me I play whatever character and class by any tier. Weak, Strong, Average. I really don't care. As long that I'm having fun playing with the character that all it matters.

Well, that seems inconsistent with your previous comments on Tier One classes. And in any case, being indifferent to power doesn't mean a preference for imbalance. It means a lack of preference either way. And that's fine. But it's different from wanting some classes to be stronger than others.

Because in doing things the way you suggest, I can't preserve 3.5's breadth.

Why on earth not? What do you lose -- aside from imbalance itself -- by making things balanced? You wouldn't have to lose the ability to have multiple resource management systems (as the Warblade, Binder, Warlock, and Totemist demonstrate), you wouldn't lose the ability to have a wide variety of options or have abilities that impact the plot (as the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid demonstrate), and you wouldn't have to lose the ability to have characters at a variety of different levels of complexity (as the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Beguiler demonstrate). So what breadth are we supposed to be losing?

Any reason you can't run gritty Fighter-style games at Levels 3-5 and run over the top Wizard-style games at Levels 16-18 in a balanced 3.5 D&D?

No, there's no reason you can't do that.

That would be effort, and denies the primal human urge to see numbers go up. I cannot oversell the importance of the primal human urge to see numbers go up. People like to think they aren't subject to it. The popularity of idle games blows away that notion.

Your numbers are still going up. Yes, they don't go up to twenty, but frankly you can't stretch "mundane warrior" out over twenty levels even if you wanted to. There are just not twenty gradations of power between anything resembling an acceptable starting character and Conan that you care about. Look at something like Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones. Do you honestly think there's twenty levels of game there?

Quite contrary to the poster who... we'll say claimed that people would cry "imbalance" if the only stats were aesthetic, players of older editions / other more balanced games had, IME, much less of an awareness of game balance. They much less frequently could articulate what they didn't like about a given table / game / system.

By making imbalance so huge, 3e has facilitates that conversation, and made tables capable of being more balanced.

I think this has more to do with 3e coinciding with the internet boom. 3e simply saw dramatically more analysis than any prior edition of the game did. I don't really think the earlier games were more balanced, or less analyzed, or any of that. It's just that the analysis wasn't signal-boosted to the entire world.

Not just that. All of those things together. And constant nighttime ambushes. And grapplers EVERYWHERE. Silence all over the place. That's passive aggressive put KINDLY.

To expand on this, the thing I object to is the idea that every encounter will include things that screw over Wizards and provide opportunities for Fighters to shine, and the reverse will never happen, and the fact that this happens reflects absolutely nothing about the relative power of the classes. It's like how Calthropsu will go "but what if there's an ambush by exactly whatever the Wizard's spells don't cover" as if that was an argument against the power of the Wizard, but will never consider "what if the Fighter has to do anything at all that effects anything else in the world in any meaningful way" as an argument against the Fighter.

Yes, you can find encounters that screw the Wizard. But you can find encounters that screw everyone, so that's not important. When evaluated against a reasonably representative sample of encounters -- which is the fair standard by which to evaluate -- the Wizard has a substantially higher expected performance than the Fighter.

[Mechalich]

I think this has more to do with 3e coinciding with the internet boom. 3e simply saw dramatically more analysis than any prior edition of the game did. I don't really think the earlier games were more balanced, or less analyzed, or any of that. It's just that the analysis wasn't signal-boosted to the entire world.

While the internet certainly contributed, I actually think it has more to do with how 3e - by implementing a skills system - expanded the use of rules to a much larger portion of the play space. In 2e AD&D, you generally don't make any roles during social interactions unless you try to pick someone's pocket. Everything is purely freeform. In 3e this is no longer true. For example, compare conversation prompts in BGII versus PF: Kingmaker. In BGII there are no roles or skill checks in conversation, you just make text choices. In PF: Kingmaker, you make Diplomacy, Bluff, and Knowledge checks in conversation all the time, and they have a dramatic impact on the gameplay.

In 2e a fighter could be, and in fact was actually encouraged to be, the party face (because the Fighter was part of the noble hierarchy that presumably ruled the quasi-medieval setting and the wizard was not). In 3e this is no longer possible, and the Fighter, and also the Barbarian, Paladin, and some other classes, has little to do but stand around staring at the wall when not hitting things with a big sword, and this is a problem because you're probably only in combat for 33-66% of the time anyway.

[Jack_Simth]

Why on earth not? What do you lose -- aside from imbalance itself -- by making things balanced? You wouldn't have to lose the ability to have multiple resource management systems (as the Warblade, Binder, Warlock, and Totemist demonstrate), you wouldn't lose the ability to have a wide variety of options or have abilities that impact the plot (as the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid demonstrate), and you wouldn't have to lose the ability to have characters at a variety of different levels of complexity (as the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Beguiler demonstrate). So what breadth are we supposed to be losing?

You're making an assumption; namely: Balance can be achieved while still permitting "high fantasy casters" and "mundanes" in the same game.

This assumption might be valid... or it might not. The only real way to check would be to try it... can you balance the "high fantasy casters" with the "mundanes" without doing either of two things:
1) Scrapping the massive number of options present to the "high fantasy casters" (e.g., removing many individual spells).
2) Beefing up what's available to the "mundanes" to the point where the term no longer applies.

The reason for those two restrictions:
If you scrap individual spells, you're removing options, which inherently removes some of the breadth of the system.
If you file the serial numbers off of a caster class and call it "mundane", you've effectively removed the option for a non-magical class, and forced the "mundanes" into the realm of anime and wuxia. That's great for folks who like those sorts of fantasy, but it removes some breadth from the game and removes the option of playing an essentially mundane character.

If you violate either restriction in your attempt at balance, you've removed breadth from the game.

[Doctor Awkward]

While the internet certainly contributed, I actually think it has more to do with how 3e - by implementing a skills system - expanded the use of rules to a much larger portion of the play space. In 2e AD&D, you generally don't make any roles during social interactions unless you try to pick someone's pocket. Everything is purely freeform. In 3e this is no longer true. For example, compare conversation prompts in BGII versus PF: Kingmaker. In BGII there are no roles or skill checks in conversation, you just make text choices. In PF: Kingmaker, you make Diplomacy, Bluff, and Knowledge checks in conversation all the time, and they have a dramatic impact on the gameplay.

In 2e a fighter could be, and in fact was actually encouraged to be, the party face (because the Fighter was part of the noble hierarchy that presumably ruled the quasi-medieval setting and the wizard was not). In 3e this is no longer possible, and the Fighter, and also the Barbarian, Paladin, and some other classes, has little to do but stand around staring at the wall when not hitting things with a big sword, and this is a problem because you're probably only in combat for 33-66% of the time anyway.

I argued much the same point in a different thread.

In the OG D&D, the only class to have anything to roll in non-combat situations was the thief, who had a list of skills that only they could do: open locks, pick pockets, move silently, hide in the shadows, and disarm traps. They had a pool of points to distribute to these skills and success was determined by rolling under your total score in the skill on a percentage die. 2E gave them a few more skills (I recall Detect Illusions being a huge one), and a couple of the class kits added some more.

Then the 2e rules added an optional sub-system called "non-weapon proficiencies". The way it worked was each class had a fixed number of NWP points to spend on ranks in a given pool of abilities ranging from Pottery, to Carriage Driver, to Ventriloquism, to Falconry, and so on. You could purchase proficiencies from outside of your class's pool, but each rank would cost you two specialty points instead of one. The system was a pain to implement because a) Each NWP had an associated ability score and duplicated the roll-under mechanic on a d20 to determine success which made it awkward to use alongside the rest of the game, b) You had a limited number of points to spend and the vast majority of the choices were far too narrow to be worthwhile, and c) the checks themselves were annoying to make. Contested checks were subject to a bizarre "roll well but not too well" mechanic, the difficulties for each task were too "hard-coded" to your ability scores (so a character with high ability scores and minimal training had a far better chance of succeeding than a character with average scores and extensive training), and there were very, very few methods of boosting your check. As a result, most tables simply did without them and improv-acted all social situations.

3rd Edition attempted to rectify this issue by splitting NWP's into both skills and feats, and allowing chance to adjudicate the outcome of a social situation rather than the player's actual abilities.

[upho]

I would love to see the breakdown of what parts of my stories lead you to conclude each of these.

I'm gonna have to admit I was being at least 50% facetious here. I just couldn't resist.

The remaining 50% was simply saying the game actually has rules for most of what makes a character "a prodigy" with "an unparalleled education". Meaning those qualities typically have substantial mechanical implications, if not requirements. If Armus actually didn't have those abilities per the rules, in the game world there would also be little to no reason to call him a "a prodigy", and arguably even less reason to say he had "an unparalleled education".*

But most importantly, I was 100% hinting at the greatest problem I see with claiming that "button power" has no "narrative power". For example, AFAICT you yourself claim the reason Quertus wasn't OP is because you played him as tactically inept, and the reason Armus actually was OP instead of UP is because you played him like a prodigy and tactical genius. But wouldn't you say both characters clearly affected the narrative? And if you imagine that Quertus had been played as "optimized" as you played Armus, or that Armus had been armed with the same mechanical power as Quertus, both using those god-like wizard button powers to their fullest extent and as effectively as possible, wouldn't you say they both likely would've had a significantly greater impact on the narrative than they actually had?

*As a side note, I have a lot of understanding for people who find it annoying that 3.5/PF typically demands such significant portion of a character's qualities are reflected in actual mechanics, especially since it's a class-based system. Which frequently means a player must have plenty of nerdy system-specific knowledge before being able to accurately capture a certain character concept in mechanics that are also reasonably balanced for their game.

Out of the 14 there? Maybe two, if they cared (neither ever showed any such interest, so I'm just guessing). Three, I imagine, if my brother had been there for that campaign.

So at the very most two or three out of no less than 14 players more experienced than you. Which seems to be about similar to my own experiences, which basically boils down to the "balance through player skill"-method being difficult for both for the GM and most players to apply in practice. Which isn't strange, considering a large part of the reason the rules to exist in the first place is to allow for a PC's skill to replace the player's skill and the GM's need to constantly balance the skills of the players through adjustments in the game. That said, I certainly agree that player skill often has - and should have - the greatest impact on a PC's ability to ultimately achieve their goals.

(Judging by your descriptions of the other PCs' "tactics", I have to say it also appears Armus didn't have to be much of an actual tactical genius in order to appear as one next to his PC companions...)

False... Octotomy?

Darn, you're absolutely correct! The options weren't supposed to be mutually exclusive, so I intended to say basically: "Which of the following applied (if any)?"

False octotomy... I love it!

Hmm... Wonder if this means I've set some kind of new record here on GitP...

So, the GM never really explained it, but, from what I've inferred, the closest was "c", except that it was supposed to be part of the plot.

And this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I don't know how many published 7th level drow priestesses you've looked at, but I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to hear that they'd typically barely register killing a 1st level PC as anything but the most minor speed-bump, while the probability that the poor PC manages to kill the priestess is likely lower than 0.01% in a very large majority of situations. Actually, even should we assume the PC is played by a verified tactical genius who only rolls natural 20's, I'd surely put my money on the priestess. The PC would need some ridiculously massive circumstantial advantages for this to not be true (the PC wins initiate/gets a surprise round and has some kind of super-weapon far outside WBL which the priestess is unaware of, maybe?).

Which, again, takes us back to the fact that if you play a game from 1st - 20th at least roughly according to RAW, there are typically a huge number of events where player skill won't be nearly enough to affect the narrative in the direction the PC (or player) would prefer. The least "mechanical" decisions and actions a PC/player can take typically only lets a PC get to a certain point, and thereafter the PC needs "buttons" powerful enough to actually accomplish what they intended to.

EDIT: definitely not "D", in fact the exact opposite (which was part of the point of the character, to be as mechanically weak as I could make him). And where did you get "but you're not very good at any similar kind of tabletop combat"?

From you, saying you're a mediocre WH player IIRC? (I would've had plenty of reason to believe otherwise if you hadn't said so.)

* Narrative power is the ability to shape the flow of events, through the actions and choices of the character.

* "Power" power is the statistical attributes of the character.

Phew! This is thankfully pretty much exactly what I believed you would say, so at least it seems you've been clear enough and I haven't misinterpreted anything you've said so far. Unfortunately, I can't see how those definitions will be anywhere near applicable enough to matter though. But sure, let's give it try with something far less clear-cut and far more common IME, like say a situation I believe was discussed in the "Extraction from the Necromancer" thread you started:

A party has to get through a large dungeon complex full of patrolling zombies in order to save a girl from being sacrificed by the evil necromancer. The party wizard casts an illusion of a wall in one of the rooms, allowing the party to safely pass several mindless zombies without having to worry about being attacked.

1. Did the wizard (player) shape the flow of events by choosing to cast the spell and then doing so? - I'd say yes, most definitely. For example, the action obviously meant avoiding the event "dangerous combat with zombies" which otherwise most likely would've occurred. So this was obviously a display of "narrative power".

2. Did the wizard (player) "push a button" in order to shape the event? - Yes, the wizard (player) used a clearly defined mechanical ability ("a statistical attribute") available to the wizard PC in order to avoid the event "dangerous combat with zombies" which otherwise most likely would've occurred. So this was obviously a display of "button power" (or "power" power).

Besides the problem of your button power definition not actually saying what it achieves while your narrative power definition does, do you see where the actual concepts are bound to get confusing, pretty much regardless of the specific wording of the definitions? And AFAICT, as long as you keep either one or both of the following aims for the definitions, this problem will remain:

1. "Narrative power" should be defined as something which exists without mechanical "button power".

2. "Button power" should be defined as something which doesn't grant "narrative power".

So unless you ditch these aims, a far more accurate name for "narrative power" in most 3.5/PF games would be "next to meaningless power". Or arguably even "totally meaningless power", as even in the example of Armus having the staffs shift owners resulted in a shift in the respective PCs' button power. Would I be correct if I guessed that shift of button power was also the primary reason why Armus made an effort to convince the PC to lend their staff in the first place?

------

My "backwards" definitions would instead define two power types as inclusive sources of power with which a player can affect the narrative (= the events in the game world). Which makes a whole lot more sense IMO:

1. "Player Skill" (PS) is the relative degree to which the player can affect the narrative through the PCs actions.

2. "Button Power" (BP) is the relative degree to which the PC's mechanical abilities and statistics can affect the narrative.

A few interesting ideas/facts which support the above "sources of power" definitions:

A. Every action taken by a PC needs some measure, however minuscule, of both PS and BP in order to affect the narrative at all.
B. The relative amounts of PS versus BP required to affect the narrative in a certain direction may vary greatly, and both have varying low and high thresholds depending on the situation.
C. PS may compensate for BP to a certain extent, and vice versa. Hence, a PC with both high PS and high BP is likely to be deemed as OP in many games.

Does my "backwards" way of thinking make more sense to you now?

* I base this on my experience learning about databases (which I love), but my initial impression was that they talk backwards. Seriously, people have shirts, and shirts have buttons. But ask a database, and buttons have shirts, and shirts have people.

Ha ha! Not a developer myself, but that pretty much sums up my own impression of SQL.

Are you really contending that the potted plant is more powerful than Thor by your definition of "power"?

In that particular situation at that particular moment? Certainly not. Thor's clearly a powerless petunia and Quertus Quesnelia a god.

But of course, in virtually every other situation and moment either of them interacted with the game world, I'm fairly certain it was exactly the opposite...

Also, note that Quertus Quesnelia is in fact not completely lacking in button power, since he (it?) obviously has some kind of game statistics and mechanics allowing him to be carried, perceive his surroundings in some manner (I assume), and to communicate with his friend Thor. Without this button power, however minimal, he wouldn't have had any power even in that situation.

If so, please define "power".

Sure, how 'bout: "The relative degree to which something is able to affect reality in a certain manner." In the context of PCs in a 3.5/PF game, that would translate into, say:

"The relative degree to which a player is able to affect the narrative through their PC according to their wishes."

Does that help?

[Cosi]

You're making an assumption; namely: Balance can be achieved while still permitting "high fantasy casters" and "mundanes" in the same game.

I'm not assuming that, it's true. Warblades are balanced with Warlocks. Balancing casters and martials is not impossible. Wizards are balanced with Druids. Balancing characters with abilities that impact the plot is not impossible. The burden of proof is very much on the people who think balance is impossible to demonstrate that you can't do both of those things at once.

And, yes, you said "mundanes", but that's irrelevant for a host of reasons. Most pressingly, there are certainly going to be some levels where characters are mundane in practice. But it's also true that even nominally-mundane classes like the Fighter aren't in practice once you get to high levels, and that there simply aren't twenty gradations of power within mundanity (seriously, try to come up with a list of twenty different characters where the strongest is "Conan" and tell me you'd be satisfied with that progression).

[Darth Ultron]

You're making an assumption; namely: Balance can be achieved while still permitting "high fantasy casters" and "mundanes" in the same game.

This assumption might be valid... or it might not. The only real way to check would be to try it... can you balance the "high fantasy casters" with the "mundanes" without doing either of two things:
1) Scrapping the massive number of options present to the "high fantasy casters" (e.g., removing many individual spells).
2) Beefing up what's available to the "mundanes" to the point where the term no longer applies.

Woah, your missing a couple things here:

3)Dangerous Magic. Magic is a great, powerful force that people can just barley use and control and with the slightest blink can be very harmful and even kill. 1E and 2E D&D did magic of this type. Teleport is powerful, yes....but it can also kill your character. The same is true with all powerful magic.

4)High Magic World. Everyone has defenses, both mundane and magical. It's an endless 'race', but no one ability will ever put you on top...for long.

5)Dangerous World. Again, like 1E and 2E. The whole world is dangerous. So watch out.

6)Making a couple, simple alterations to magic use.

A party has to get through a large dungeon complex full of patrolling zombies in order to save a girl from being sacrificed by the evil necromancer. The party wizard casts an illusion of a wall in one of the rooms, allowing the party to safely pass several mindless zombies without having to worry about being attacked.

This is a good example, but is it:

A)A typical example of a typical encounter in the game

Or

B)One of many, many, many types of encounters.

See there is a huge difference.......

A lot of DMs toss out the weakest encounters possible, and when the wizard defeats the encounter with easy just sit back and say ''yup, the game is unbalanced". Now a good game should have weak encounters, medium encounters, and hard encounters. Not just ''all easy".

[Hackulator]

A lot of DMs toss out the weakest encounters possible, and when the wizard defeats the encounter with easy just sit back and say ''yup, the game is unbalanced". Now a good game should have weak encounters, medium encounters, and hard encounters. Not just ''all easy".

This is not the kind of balance people are talking about. The question is whether all classes can meaningfully contribute to all level of encounters, and whether one class makes other classes completely unnecessary at certain levels of encounters.

[upho]

The reason for those two restrictions:
If you scrap individual spells, you're removing options, which inherently removes some of the breadth of the system.
If you file the serial numbers off of a caster class and call it "mundane", you've effectively removed the option for a non-magical class, and forced the "mundanes" into the realm of anime and wuxia. That's great for folks who like those sorts of fantasy, but it removes some breadth from the game and removes the option of playing an essentially mundane character.

I seriously don't get this reasoning. Could you please explain:

1. Why do you insist on calling current non-caster classes "mundane" when they have virtually zero properties which fit the definition of the word (see spoiler below)?
2. Why is it that if something in the current system can only be done by caster class, that something cannot possibly be done by a non-caster without also being in "the ream of anime and wuxia"? (And since when are the stories of say Cú Chulainn, Hercules or (movie) Thor categorized as "anime or wuxia"?)
3. Why is it impossible to for example make "fighter 10" the mechanical equivalent of the current "fighter 20", without also removing "the option of playing an essentially mundane character"?
4. Why should "mundane" PCs be an option in a heroic fantasy game?

Spoiler: Mundane

Show

Definitions of mundane:

1: lacking interest or excitement; dull.
"his mundane, humdrum existence"
Synonyms: humdrum, dull, boring, tedious, monotonous, tiresome, wearisome, prosaic, unexciting, uninteresting, uneventful, unvarying, unvaried, unremarkable, repetitive, repetitious, routine, ordinary, everyday, day-to-day, quotidian, run-of-the-mill, commonplace, common, workaday, usual, pedestrian, customary, regular, normal; unimaginative, banal, hackneyed, trite, stale, platitudinous; informaltypical, vanilla, plain vanilla, hacky; rare banausic

2: of this earthly world rather than a heavenly or spiritual one.
"according to the Shinto doctrine, spirits of the dead can act upon the mundane world"
synonyms: earthly, worldly, terrestrial, material, temporal, secular, non-spiritual, fleshly, carnal, sensual; rare sublunary
"the mundane world"

[Mechalich]

I'm not assuming that, it's true. Warblades are balanced with Warlocks. Balancing casters and martials is not impossible. Wizards are balanced with Druids. Balancing characters with abilities that impact the plot is not impossible. The burden of proof is very much on the people who think balance is impossible to demonstrate that you can't do both of those things at once.

To expand upon this, we can look at other class-based games that use the d20 system and find that they are more balanced than 3.X, whether that be something like 5e or something like Starfinder. Both games still have balance problems, but they are significantly less extreme than 3.X has. Now, that doesn't necessarily make them better games, because it's part of a cost-benefit comparison with other components of the system, but it's a useful example of how things can be made to work. Starfinder, which I understand is in some ways a dry run for PF 2.0, is a particularly useful example. Starfinder annihilates all spells above level six, effectively turning all 'caster' type classes into partial casters around the Tier 3 mark, and it's certainly possible to crank a 'mundane' type up to that point with only a few modest structural changes.

This is illustrative in a particular fashion that, in the d20 system, full casters, once you crank the system mastery above the 'blaster' level, simply stronger than anyone ever intended them to be. An optimized Wizard or Druid in the upper spectrum of the level range is operating with the kind of "phenomenal cosmic power" that even players of Mage: the Ascension aren't used to having and is capable of obliterating with Thanos-snap levels of ease opposition by pretty much any contemporary fantasy antagonist. These are the kind of characters that people like later-book Rand al'Thor can't touch, with a mystical mastery that makes Dr. Strange curl up into a ball and cry.

Storytelling for characters of this level of power is extremely difficult, and, more importantly, it involves scenarios and dilemmas so unfamiliar that most gaming groups are uninterested in them. Now, obviously some people will disagree, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that D&D should have an 'epic-level' zone where your characters wander the planes and play cosmic games as arch-masters, but that should be a set of optional rules, not an unexpected part of the core.

And, yes, you said "mundanes", but that's irrelevant for a host of reasons. Most pressingly, there are certainly going to be some levels where characters are mundane in practice. But it's also true that even nominally-mundane classes like the Fighter aren't in practice once you get to high levels, and that there simply aren't twenty gradations of power within mundanity (seriously, try to come up with a list of twenty different characters where the strongest is "Conan" and tell me you'd be satisfied with that progression).

The level-based system of D&D has a particular utility in supporting zero-to-hero character functionality. The problem is that, for different theoretical concepts 'hero' caps at different places. For example, in professional sports, most players hit peak achievement levels shortly after their bodies finish maturation. They may gain more skill via experience thereafter, but such improvements tend to be rather marginal and are always in a race against physical decline. Basketball players, for instance, are often thought of as a having a 'prime' zone from around age 25-32.

So a warrior type character could achieve the peak of their capability after a year of training and a couple of years of intense combat experience, and after that everything is tinkering on the margins - the E6 fighter, who caps at level 6 and then continues to slowly add feats, mirrors this experience moderately well. However, this is not a thing confined to mundanity. A superhero type character might be suddenly blessed with titanic powers and never be able to fundamental increase them. They would then spend a period of time mastering and tinkering with them to become more capable, but their overall ability would only increase moderately. Captain America is a good example of this kind of character - his power is roughly the same always, but he keeps adding new shield tricks and becoming a better leader.

Now the trick is that a character whose power is 'learns magic' (for various values of magic) has an ultimate limit that is 'whatever magic can do' which might be nigh-infinite. So in a zero-to-hero scenario they never stop going up, even after everyone else's progression has stalled. If you're going to have characters of this type alongside characters who occupy a much more narrow theoretical space, then you have to impose limits on what magic can do. This is certainly possible: in Skyrim what magic can do is consistently less effective than face-stabbing outside of a few McGuffins.

[Hackulator]

I seriously don't get this reasoning. Could you please explain:

1. Why do you insist on calling current non-caster classes "mundane" when they have virtually zero properties which fit the definition of the word (see spoiler below)?
2. Why is it that if something in the current system can only be done by caster class, that something cannot possibly be done by a non-caster without also being in "the ream of anime and wuxia"? (And since when are the stories of say Cú Chulainn, Hercules or (movie) Thor categorized as "anime or wuxia"?)
3. Why is it impossible to for example make "fighter 10" the mechanical equivalent of the current "fighter 20", without also removing "the option of playing an essentially mundane character"?
4. Why should "mundane" PCs be an option in a heroic fantasy game?

1) That is the generally accepted term for classes without supernatural abilities on this board.

2) I don't really care about the realm of anime and Wuxia, it's just the point that when you go that route you're basically saying "the way to make the fighter more balanced with the wizard is to make him more like the wizard" which of course works but eventually makes everyone a wizard.

3) It's possible but making a Fighter 10 into a Fighter 20 pretty much just ups his damage output which is really not the issue here when discussing tiers or balance.

4) Because people want to play them

The fact is that using magic is understandably better than not using magic just like using modern technology is better than using medieval technology. Casters and noncasters cannot be balanced as long as one group can break the laws of reality and the other, generally, cannot. If you grant the weaker group the ability to break the laws of reality, you are basically just making them casters of some other type.

[upho]

This is a good example, but is it:

/irrelevant stuff cut for brevity/

And why does any of this matter?

Please read the post again (and previous posts if necessary), 'cause I strongly suspect you've completely missed the specific context and discussion this example was used in. In short, it was merely used to test Quertus' definitions of "narrative power" and "button power" (or "'power' power") as a situation which I believe would be far more common than "one PC convinces another PC to let a third PC use their special magic thingy".

This discussion has absolutely nothing specifically to do with "wizards vs fighters", "GM ability to challenge wizard" or anything similar. You're welcome to change the wizard, spell and situation into basically any PC, mechanically regulated ability and combat situation you prefer. Just be aware that if you do, there's a considerable risk you'll make things needlessly complicated and make it more difficult for you to get the point I was making.

This is not the kind of balance people are talking about. The question is whether all classes can meaningfully contribute to all level of encounters, and whether one class makes other classes completely unnecessary at certain levels of encounters.

Generally speaking, this thread is actually not about whether all classes are enough mechanically balanced, but about whether have to be and whether they should be. And the specific discussion DU replied to is a rather specific subset of that (see my reply to DU above).