It`s all about combat! That seems to be what balanced meens now! And if you have a combat based campaign I guess it`s ok. If you don`t have an intirely strategy board game-ish, combat encounter focused game. If not, should balance be all about combat?..
It does seem like the playtest is starting with combat. That's understandable, as D&D has always been very combat-focused. Most RPGs, even RPGs that try very hard to be "storytelling" games end up devoting a lot of page-count to combat. It's just the kind of 'action' or 'dramatic system' that's very high-stakes and detailed, so all that emphasis is, I think, called for.
Of course, combat balance is important. If not because it's a big part of any RPG, mechanically, then because it's the last restort that any interaction can devolve to. So, for intance, a character who is too overbalanced in combat effectiveness can dominate in interaction, as well, simply by becoming the aggressor.
Ideally, though, balance should be within each of the "Three Pillars" (a very handy concept, BTW). Characters should all be able to contribute meaningfully in combat - balance in combat, that is. Likewise, they should be contributing in interaction and exploration, as well. I suppose, the ultimate 'holy grail' would be dramatic systems for interaction and exploration that were as engaging as the combat system - I've never seen a game come close to that, though many (Storyteller, for instance) have tried.
What if I told you that I want a class that focus on one pillar?
Not sure if you can play a class that`s not combat oriented anymore, at least you couldn`t in 4e, but we`ll see what happens in the next iteration. I`m not saying one is more right than than the other..
Gatt, I disagree with your premise. I really hate the "required specialist" approach to game design - and here's why. We had a successful 2 year campaign with 4 players. We had a cleric, rogue, fighter/barbarian, and paladin. Now, a "required specialist" approach would mean we couldn't field that party, because we didn't have a mage. And, more importantly, if Rogues are only good at skills, then if he's ever sick, the dm (me), needs to re-jigger the outline for the night because we're missing one specialty.
I actually think the thread is really pretty much in agreement more than it disagrees. I think that most of the 'balance is required' camp would be okay with something like:
(since, balance people aren't requiring "Perfect Balance", and as crow has pointed out, even in a perfect game, the dice and other factors keep balance from perfection)
Now, those who want to optimize would be okay with: Rogue: Exploration: 80 combat: 10 Social: 10 Fighter: Exploration: 10 Combat: 80 Social: 10.
So, all we need to do is allow the fighter to range between 33-80 combat, while being able to give up combat ability to have more social and exploration options.
BTW, I think the real problem with the rogue being a skill monkey is with appropriate skills, you can do very well in exploration and social. Which is to say, you can make a rogue like: Rogue: Exploration: 90 combat 33% social: 90. My problem with the fighter is that with various negatives on exploration due to heavy armor, the fighter when designed to be "Combat specialist" starts lookign like: Fighter: Exploration: -10 (since it's actually better if the fighter is sick that week) combat: 80% Social: 20%.
And of course, many people argue that the wizard is just 100% in everything after level 6.
Balance (or its illusion, if you wish to think of it like that) is making sure that everyone has the same choices, and that they are equally powered and equally efficient.
Equally powered and equally efficient can't happen. I'll give a legit reason why.
1. Players: Their build and how they play that build effects the balance. 2. DM: How he set up the challenges. 3. The Dice: Basically luck. Advantage pretty much helps limit it.
On your quote, you basically saying I can make a CHA/Wis focus fighter and he will be just as good as a CON/STR fighter. This can never happen. You could set up a situation where the CHA/WIS fighter could be better then CON/STR fighter, but rarely would happen.
Also your quote say that all classes should be equal no matter what they do. That also can't happen. There will be situations where one class will be better then the other one. Can a fighter will as effective as a cleric against undead? Not a chance. Can a fighter be as effective as a wizard against swarms? A fireball says no. How about killing flying enemies? A range focus ranger out do the melee focus fighter anyday.
This is your balance in D&D.
Cleric Fighter Rogue Wizard
When your party come across a situation, you gonna pick the best person(or two) for the job. That's how D&D works.
Then maybe it's time to look at it and change it for the better. Old design doesn't mean it's good. Often people keep using it because they're afraid of change. Stagnation is not a good thing.
What if I told you that I want a class that focus on one pillar?
That should be a player decision, not a class structure decision. You should be able to do that with any class if you so choose.
A fighter should focus on fighting, that why he is called a fighter. His class structure should be how many ways he can kill you. Tank, two-handed, polearm, bow, two weapon, exotic weapons, even one handed.
Does the class got room for social? No, but that's what background and speciality is for.
The reason why Rogue do better social then fighter, because that what they do. They are con artist, swindlers, and cheaters. That why I prefer them as smooth talking pimps.
That why there no balance, because everybody good at different stuff. No exception.
Thank you for proving my point. There is no balance that way, which is why the concept needs to die in a fire.
Such narrow class concepts are terrible. There's no reason a rogue should have to be a 'con artist, swindler, and cheater'. I have never played a rogue that fit any of those descriptions. A class is a BROAD concept, not a single archetype.
Thing is, the Rogue IS that broad. People mentioned rogues that were Cat Burglars, others were Swashbucklers and others still were deep, dark Assassins.
And you know what? All those builds were available for the Rogue/Thief. Why? Because she/he has all these skills or skill points to play with. All the other classes (removing special rules like Magic Spells) were/are more focused into a single path. Fighter is the Stupid Jock/Brute with little brains or charm but lot's of physical power. Wizards are super smart Nerds, also with almost no social skills (but they have spells, which makes it OK.) And Clerics, well who hasn't made a Priest joke at some point?
This is wrong. It's as wrong as having one class dominate the game at later levels.
I totally agree.
Rogues like wizard are totally undefined, except that wizards have this spellbook to restrict their archetype to something vaguely recognizable when battle rogues have absolutly nothing in common with the classic bigmouthed coward rogue or the spy rogue. A cleric is some everything with spells in it to render the healing bot attractive.
This new D&D is already old…
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
If you're going to wander out into a dungeon, where you expect to fight a ton of various creatures over the period of days or weeks, and you didn't bring a healer, you deserve to die. You failed to plan for the situation at hand, and just like any other situation that starts out with bad planning, it brings a heightened probability of failure.
How about a party that involves people who know herbalism, brought alembics and decanters to craft healing potions, and are able to perform first aid and "mundane" forms of healing? Do they deserve to die for not bringing a cleric?
Ultimately, where this whole line of thinking ends is that the entire party is either all fighters or all mages, because the thief and cleric are no longer needed, and all that matters is Damage Per Round. Everyone is the same class, has the same abilities, etc. As "Any party composition" should succeed, there's *never* a reason to have a party composed of the hybrid archtypes or non-combat archtypes that don't have the very highest damage output.
False.
First off, a party of mages in just about every edition (especially 3.x) can eventually remove the need of other classes; at worst, they'll need a sackload of potions all stuffed in a Bag of Holding for protection -- or in the case of 3.x, a bunch of Wands of Cure Light Wounds -- and healing is solved. A party of clerics have it easier actually, since in a party of five clerics two can be assigned as "healbots" while the rest can load up on their holy spells and rain holiness over everything (and if/when you can't rain holiness, there's always the mace).
Yes the DM can fix it, but since it's a universal problem, why not have it fixed as early as developer-level?
Second, I see no reason why a group of knights should have all the same abilities, focus on DPR, etc. That's exaggeration apparently. Here's how I'd realistically have a party of five composed only of Weaponmaster Fighters in 4E (assuming zero multiclassing or hybriding):
Each PC would always go out with a bunch of healing potions to add to what Second Wind would do
Each PC would have means of taking less damage and overall making the job of the group's "healer" much more bearable
One Fighter -- the "healer" -- would load up on the Heal skill, take Skill Powers that involve the Heal skill, and maybe add a touch of Religion and Ritual Caster on the side (since there are a couple of Religion Skill Powers that involve healing); might have to go less on the power spamming and more on support [Aid Attack/Defense] and basic attacks. Can make up for it by being the party's "face" or "arcane scholar". Base healing involves rolling possibly a 7 or 6 (with bonuses) to initiate Second Wind, although the Guardian theme helps too. Works best as a Half-Elf with either their "Knack for Success" or ability to pilfer a power from a different class.
One Fighter -- the "trapsmith" -- would be directly involved in rogue duty: finding traps, lock picking, sneaking around. High DEX guy, likely going for Tempest build and light weaponry, although one-handed specialization and spear-wielding doesn't seem so bad, given the support they get. Gets to contribute greatly in and out of combat
Three Fighters -- the "defenders" -- would maximize on defending the rest of the group, using each style they'd prefer:
Striker - defend by maximizing single-target damage
Controller - defend by attacking and debilitating multiple opponents
Defender - defend by creating Catch-22 (lose-lose) scenarios for enemies
The best part: because of the way the system is designed, while there is a definite potential for imbalance, 4E is still mechanically robust enough that as long as everyone is within roughly the same level of competency mechanics-wise, the DM can much more readily accommodate them.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to play that game. I doubt very many other people would either. In fact, you can go try it out right now. Subscribe to Asheron's Call, you have the option of dozens of skills with user defined "Classes" by picking them. There's only one set of skills to take though, the magic skills, since there are no archtypes and everyone can do everything the only class that is worth playing is the Mage.
That is a problem with game mechanics making magic too powerful and broad. Much like how magic pretty much solves everything in D&D [especially pre-4E], yet was "balanced" by the fact that you had a limited supply of player-granted deus ex machina... something that was inadvertently lifted in 3.x due to design flaws.
You'll find that quite literally, in this design you want that Asheron's Call has implemented, it's 100% broken. If you actually create a melee character, you will be limited in where you can go, and when the big quests happen, no one wants you. If you get lucky, and someone takes pity on you, then maybe you can attend a quest where everyone kills everything before you get a chance to hit it, and ultimately, you're just a spectator. Everyone will have more money, better items, more things to do than you do. Because the entire game is designed around "Noone should need any other specific skill(s)", the game becomes designed around the highest damage per round and any other choice, every other choice, becomes invalid.
That's where "Any party composition should be viable" leads. Since you eliminate the inter-class balance, it ulitmately becomes a game where the only class that can be played is the class with the highest damage.
If you ask me, the problem with Asheron's Call is that it's basically utilizing a system appropriate for turn-based play in a real time environment, combined with everything that made 3.x casters overpowered.
By having abilities that are melee-oriented and mundane, and without the heavy restrictions on casters, combined with how advantageous ranged attacks already are -- heck, that's why *guns* are so popular in real life, even though a hammer to the face is just as deadly as a gunshot wound to the same area, if not deadlier -- well, why bother?
Additionally, unless I'm mistaken, because Asheron's Call is a CRPG (and an MMORPG at that), it's almost inevitable that everything is designed around combat, since that's the most straightforward to program with little to no need for elaborate storytelling. Remember that CRPGs (online or not) are made by programmers who are likely more busy with codes and are rushing with development cycles and what not; creating quality content is often relegated to at most just one team comprised of what, 5 or less people? And it's one thing to create quality content on the storyboard, and it's quite another feat to have them translated from storyboard to game. Easiest solutions: NPC chat, point A to point B, kill X monsters, gather Y loot. Nothing really in terms of deep, engaging story or finding creative uses for the abilities you have, etc.
Again: magic specialization + overly-broad magic = broken, especially when compared to someone who specialized in non-magic + underpowered equivalent options. (wait... I've seen this before... in D&D... ).
If you don't want people to be over-specializing in just one build or what not, then have the options to be as incomparable to each other as possible. Each option should have a "best used in" scenario, and then have everything restricted in such a way that you can't utilize all options, and just have to pick what you think is most appropriate for your character, depending on whatever factors are relevant to the character and campaign.
By the way, just because a party of the same class is "viable", doesn't necessarily mean that they're "optimal". A Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard party can likely cover the most ground -- making them the optimal choice -- but a party of Rogues should be able to survive, same with Fighters (even if it's just barely, or if it's on a very expensive upkeep cost of potions galore).
- - - - - I've just about mentioned everything I actually need to mention on balance in my sig, but if elaboration is needed, feel free to ask.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
ANY party can be viable. Depending on the GM's encounter design and the players' creativity and problem-solving abilities, you can have an enjoyable game. Unfortunately, the whole issue of balance is being approached solely on a dungeon-crawl, kick-in-the-door, combat-heavy playstyle. There are other ways to play, guys, and they all need to be supported by D&DNext.
In todays PC world, there can be no losers, only winners. After having taught this to our children and ruining their ability to cope with failure, we now have to instill it in our games. Everything is "balanced" so that everybody can do everything and nobody fails.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
My First D&D - 1979 D&D Basic Set (6th Printing)Show
ANY party can be viable. Depending on the GM's encounter design and the players' creativity and problem-solving abilities, you can have an enjoyable game. Unfortunately, the whole issue of balance is being approached solely on a dungeon-crawl, kick-in-the-door, combat-heavy playstyle. There are other ways to play, guys, and they all need to be supported by D&DNext. 3.0/3.5/PFRPG and 4E spoiled twinks and munchkins so much that they can't handle actually having to approach combat unless they clearly have overwhelming odds. That is a boring way to play to many of us. Most of us can handle a challenge.
I remember a party of paladins with holy avengers who could have qualified of "overpowered". It was a short joke, but munchkins have always been well served if the DM allowed it.
In 4th edition, it was harder to mke a weakling or a uber character. It needed some work to do one or another. There's no perfect edition, except for the one we played when we were full of wild hormones, lol…
The common opinion is things should be balanced within each pillar instead of between them, to obtain a balance int the attention given to each player at the table, and not just for spellcasters about their chosen spell list for the day, which spell they will cast from their huge lists of memorized spells, and so on. Or for the skill monkey having his own piece of adventure when other bored players chose to go for a walk, a cigarette, or a drink, and only come back to listen to the short version.
It's not just about the combat pillar, the argument hammered blindly by total imbalance defenders (I can be excessive too when I want !).
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
In todays PC world, there can be no losers, only winners. After having taught this to our children and ruining their ability to cope with failure, we now have to instill it in our games. Everything is "balanced" so that everybody can do everything and nobody fails.
QFT!
I agree with this 100%!
PC world ? Personnal success is the only value supported by the major parts of our industrialized societies. The children from any generation are what the older generations made of them. They are our children. From their love of guns and explosions, to their inability to eat fresh vegetables and their cells starting to be altered by alimentary nanoparticles.
Spontaneous generation only exists in RPGs
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
).
