I strongly disagree on class balance. A wizard is not a fighter. A wizard has to have low HP and AC. A fighter is not a wizard, he doesn't have to prepare maneuvers from his "maneuver book" every day. Yes Mellored, some classes can be less complex than others, it makes even better tactical combat. Think about that: What's the point of tactics when all the players characters have nearly the same HP, AC and spell-like mechanics?
Just jumping in to point out that this is a strawman argument. Those that are arguing for class balance a la 4e are not advocating equal AC, HP, or even the same abilities across the board. Indeed, that would ruin tactical play (though I don't subscribe to the notion that those who want balanced play necessarily want it for tactical reasons; I for one don't care one whit about tactical play).
4e didn't have equal AC, HP, or identical abilities across the board. What it did have was careful analysis of strengths and weaknesses, so that the weaknesses of one one class compared to another were counterbalanced by an appropriate strength.
It is clear such goals were attempted in previous editions. Early editions had different XP tables, so classes like the fighter leveled up faster than the wizard. 3e had fighters gain bonus feats and a higher BAB, which in turn led to more attacks per round.
It is my belief, and those of others, that given the mechanical nuances to those earlier editions, those benefits were not commensurate with the weaknesses. Or alternately, the benefits of other classes (wizards, Druids, and clerics in particular) were not commensurate to their flaws, or were easily circumvented.
It is my belief that D&D has always strived for some semblance of balance, and 4e succeeded by a fair margin where other editions failed. This is not to say that earlier editions failed at being fun. Merely that they failed at being balanced, which could affect the fun for some audiences.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
For me, I know balance does improve the gaming experience, since it makes it feel like everyone matters. But balance, to me, isn't what some people on the forum think it is. 4e was balanced to me, not because everything was AEDU, or that classes generally had net strengths minus weaknesses about the same level, but it was in the fact that classes were encouraged, by the mechanics, to not nessisarily overlap, in what they should do. A Fighter, therefore, won't feel like he is inferior to a Wizard, because the Wizard's role as a Controller contributes much differently than a Fighter's role as Defender.
This way balance means that a Wizard can be as good at being a Wizard as the player chooses to optimize him as, and the Fighter will never feel as if he isn't as good at his job, as a result.
I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.
4) I thought it was limited to set skills. (i.e. the one's you trained in).
I didn't read it like this, but it does say "When you determine the bonus for each of your skills...". This is not totally clear, I think, but Mellored's version is so much more fair.
I do believe you have to be trained. My suggestion was that it be limited to a "rogue" skill set that doesn't include all possible skills.
I'm actually strongly opposed to that idea. I detest class skill lists, unless they're nothing more than skills you get an extra minor bonus to, at most. A core class feature shouldn't revolve around them. I guarantee you I can think of a rogue character that is very much a rogue, that has any skill you would think shouldn't be on the list, and even if I'm wrong, there's still no good reason to restrict the feature in that way.
@thread: I like the idea of rogues that can do disabling/disorienting/whatever types stuff that opens targets up to ally attacks, ally/rogue combos, more limited rogue stuff on the next turn (with the thing being done this turn still being interesting/useful) and/or combinations of those. If the rogue can kick someone's knee out, blind them, trip them, knock them into a position advantageous for the rogues allies, etc with his attacks, then the rogue will feel like it's mechanics match it's flavour, to me.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
4e didn't have equal AC, HP, or identical abilities across the board. What it did have was careful analysis of strengths and weaknesses, so that the weaknesses of one one class compared to another were counterbalanced by an appropriate strength.
Ok, I played and enjoyed 4th edition so I won't get into edition wars here. It is fair enough to say that 4th edition was one of the best attempt at balancing classes through standardization.
What I tried to point out in my previous comment is that some gamers (mellored is one of them) are currently complaining about the wizard survavibility issues, they may be right, but the way they propose to fix this problem is, in my opinion, wrong. Let me explain you why.
I often read the following: "wizards can get two or one-shoted, so let's give them more HP and maybe rise their AC" (by giving them INT bonus to AC for instance). When I hear or read that it sounds to me as if they were saying/typing the following: "wizards can get two or one-shoted, so let's put some fighter into them".
There are other ways to fix this issue. High(er) AC and HP are not by any shape of form wizard class features. However a wizard should be able to avoid harm by clever use of powerful (but limited) defensive and control spells/abilities.
The current shield spell version for instance is too weak to provide useful defense to a wizard. It should be more effective in my opinion so that a wizard could survive without "fighter-like attributes" (AC and HP). This way a wizard could survive an occasional attack or two and there will still be a need for clever party tactics, positioning and ressources management.
On the other hand, if you decide to simply increase wizard HP and AC, other classes such as rogues and "lazer" clerics will soon complain about their current HP and AC because they will have nearly the same defensive "stats" as the wizard but lack the wizard ability to escape or control.
This will inevitably leads to numbers inflation (see my first post) and/or standardization. I think guys at wotc understood this, so when playtesters complained about the fighter lack of versatility they didn't choose to give a fighter spell-like abilities in the same format as the wizard does but they rather came up with a new ressource.
Likewise, I don't think that allowing wizards to soak and avoid damage the same way fighters do (HP and AC) is the right answer here. That's why I want to see in d&dn classes that have different and simple mechanics that feel unique.
I hope you will better understand my opinion after this rather long explanation Foxface and won't call it a straw man argument.
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
Ok, I played and enjoyed 4th edition so I won't get into edition wars here. It is fair enough to say that 4th edition was one of the best attempt at balancing classes through standardization.
What I tried to point out in my previous comment is that some gamers (mellored is one of them) are currently complaining about the wizard survavibility issues, they may be right, but the way they propose to fix this problem is, in my opinion, wrong. Let me explain you why.
I often read the following: "wizards can get two or one-shoted, so let's give them more HP and maybe rise their AC" (by giving them INT bonus to AC for instance). When I hear or read that it sounds to me as if they were saying/typing the following: "wizards can get two or one-shoted, so let's put some fighter into them".
There are other ways to fix this issue. High(er) AC and HP are not by any shape of form wizard class features. However a wizard should be able to avoid harm by clever use of powerful (but limited) defensive and control spells/abilities.
The current shield spell version for instance is too weak to provide useful defense to a wizard. It should be more effective in my opinion so that a wizard could survive without "fighter-like attributes" (AC and HP). This way a wizard could survive an occasional attack or two and there will still be a need for clever party tactics, positioning and ressources management.
On the other hand, if you decide to simply increase wizard HP and AC, other classes such as rogues and "lazer" clerics will soon complain about their current HP and AC because they will have nearly the same defensive "stats" as the wizard but lack the wizard ability to escape or control.
This will inevitably leads to numbers inflation (see my first post) and/or standardization. I think guys at wotc understood this, so when playtesters complained about the fighter lack of versatility they didn't choose to give a fighter spell-like abilities in the same format as the wizard does but they rather came up with a new ressource.
Likewise, I don't think that allowing wizards to soak and avoid damage the same way fighters do (HP and AC) is the right answer here. That's why I want to see in d&dn classes that have different and simple mechanics that feel unique.
On the other hand, giving wizards a variety of powerful defensive abilities leads to power creep and defensive inflation. Consider the Wizard in 3e, where you had your Greater Mage Armors, Greater Mirror Image, False Life, Displacement, etc for avoiding physical damage, and Spell Turning, Mind Blank, Resistance, etc., for the non-physical attacks. Ironically, in 3e full spellcasters ended up being more viable defensively, because they had the abilty to avoid/negate the more common save or die effects in addition to being able to buff their physical defenses to the extent that they were difficult to damage.
A system may lean towards power creep in one direction or another (HP and AC or powerful absolute defenses), but the system itself can do little to prevent power creep, as we've already seen. No matter what system-based restrictions have been put in place to limit power creep in previous editions, it has occured, because whether power creep itself happens has little to do with the system and everything to do with the level of restraint exercised by the developers.
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
Lokiare suggested an at will shield that gets blown down when penetrated or similar so that it eats some of the wizards action economy and feels magical while improving survivability
On the other hand, giving wizards a variety of powerful defensive abilities leads to power creep and defensive inflation.
Yes, spells that turn the wizard into a magical tank existed in second and third editions, though I still think it's easier to fix the defenses of a wizard with spells rather than with HP and AC. Spells are a limited ressource, you can only cast a limited number of them (except for cantrips), you have to spend actions to cast them, their effect is temporary and can be adjusted to avoid power creep (stacking several defensive spells with pre-casting), besides they don't mess with HD and AC class balance.
I actually suggested reducing the wizards AC to balance out the HP gain. So he'll still die just as fast on average, but can't be 1-shotted.
Though I apparently failed at grammer.
Thank you for answering mellored. You didn't fail, I actually did because I didn't pay attention to the "hit on 5" example you gave. I still don't think this is the best way to solve the problem though. Starting hits points and defensive spells could be adjusted to prevent instant-death.
Lokiare suggested an at will shield that gets blown down when penetrated or similar so that it eats some of the wizards action economy and feels magical while improving survivability.
Well, if you wanted to add flavor.. Give every wizard a 1/day spell that increases his HP. Same diff.
Though my point wasn't just about wizards. I want it to apply to fighters (and everyone else) as well. They can take 3 hits, but can only be hit on an 16+. So he can stand in the middlesame of combat for 5 rounds without being touched, or drop on round 1. Switching that to 6 hits and reduce plate to a 10 AC would reduce the swingyness alot.
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
