The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)

[Lord Mistborn]

I can see the logic of that I do the same thing myself. However, in your sandbox world do you have areas that are kind of aimed at 1-3rd level PCs, areas that are 4 -6 etc....
I have found that if I don't do that its hard for adventures to occur. Take your area with goblins and orcs for example. Would you add a couple of trolls or a hill giant. Logically its entirely possible that a Hill giant moves in dominates the local goblinoid population and sets himself up as a lord. But from a level of play perspective that is problematic. You don't want 1st level PCs to best a small group of orcs and then suddenly to have to fight a giant, the giant would just smite them. Likewise a bunch of 7th level characters hunting down the giant and his giant mates might get bored wading through 3 dozen goblins to get there.
Likewise your wandering monster tables. D&D suggests you use certain tables for certain risk areas. This is thinly justified through this area is home to lower level creatures but in reality its really this area is set up to provide suitable challenges for lower level PCs.
If the wandering monster table for your spooky castle includes goblins, kobolds, Beholders and ghosts then basically you are saying only go there if you can beat a Beholder and the rest of it is background noise.

Though in theory it could be possible to have high level monsters in a low level area. So in the Spooky castle you have to avoid the Beholders while you're there. Of course this only works if "Avoid the Beholder" is a much easier chalenge than "Slay the Beholder".
Sort of like Sons of Argul/Devilsaurs/Fel Reavers/ect in WoW

[jibbajibba]

Though in theory it could be possible to have high level monsters in a low level area. So in the Spooky castle you have to avoid the Beholders while you're there. Of course this only works if "Avoid the Beholder" is a much easier chalenge than "Slay the Beholder".
Sort of like Sons of Argul/Devilsaurs/Fel Reavers/ect in WoW

Agreed, but I picked a Beholder because by its nature its pretty fucking hard to sneak past

In an entirely logical setting it would make sense to employ something like Christaller's central place theory to place monsters. In effect the high level monsters would be spread evenly across the world with their spheres of influence barely overlapping or focused on areas of highly dense resource concentration that could maintain one or more high level predators (the Serenghetti for example). Lower level critters are spread uniformly between these points. But this is unlikely to create a satisfying game world.

The MMO model of this wood is ful of 10th level baddies and this wood is full of 4th level baddies is illogical because the 10th level baddies would be far better off occuping the 4th level wood where they have less competition for resources.

Dungeons are the same. It makes no sense for all the tough stuff to cluster at the bottom of the dungeon unless the bottom of the dungeon contains a concentration of resources. In fact high level predators are far more likely to concentrate where their prey gathers. A 10HD Dire Wolf is better off preying on 3 HD deer than 10HD giant Lizards, of course size is relevant (lions can't live on mice) but since HD are only loosely related to size.
So if the bottom layers of a dungeon contain a powerful energy source or magic then it makes sense for high level creatures who seek that power to concentrate there and compete for control of those resources. Otherwise they may as well choose to spread themselves out more uniformly to minimise competition and maximise their own access to resources.

[deadDMwalking]

Also, I thought we were shutting down threads that drift into the Wizard v Fighter territory...?

Not if they're in the 'Design, Development, and Gameplay' and are focused on 'Design, Development, and Gameplay'.  So I'll jump in (no trolling).

Lord Mistborn is clearly wrong to imply that games will devolve into hack and slash.  However, he's correct that combat is expected to be an important part of each game.  Regardless of edition, different characters are expected to contribute in combat (maybe not to the same degree - but they are expected to contribute).  

Combat is easy to make a 'team' activity.  

Opening a lock, on the other hand, is much harder to make a 'team activity'.  Usually only one person can try to pick a lock at a time; or one person can try to bash the door down at a time; or if the wizard unlocks it with magic only the one casting matters.  Using all attempts at the same time is a little silly and only one of them will actually matter - that is, whichever one was successful first.  This is a situation where all classes could contribute, but not equally.  The Rogue/Thief can unlock an unlimited number of doors per day, so if he is skilled enough, he can overcome all the challenges without expending any 'resources'.  The wizard can overcome any single locked door with the proper spell selection, but it comes at the opportunity cost of having something else that could have been useful.  The Fighter (or other high strength character) offers the least contribution - many doors can be secured too well for even an impossibly strong human to break down.  Even if that's not the case, making several attempts to open the door is likely to warn the occupants on the other side and actually make the job of exploring the dungeon MORE difficult.  

Since the types of challenges in any particular campaign may vary from 'typical expectations', there is a strong possibility that some classes may have their contributions minimized or rendered meaningless.  For example, a campaign that focuses almost exclusively on 'urban intrigue' and has few major combats favors rogues and would be bad for Fighters.  Similarly, a campaign that is entirely wilderness favors Rangers and Druids.  

The thing is, since not every campaign includes all the same features, there should be some effort to ensure that different classes can contribute in some manner to all the different challenges.  Just as a Rogue/Thief can make a contribution in combat, a Fighter needs to be able to contribute to exploration.  

Balance means that no matter what situation comes up, you feel that your character can do something useful in that scenario.  

As far as whether you have something written on your character sheet, it only matters if other people do.  If I have an ability on my character sheet that says Breaks Down Doors - you have a 90% chance to break down any door you find - that's an ability, and it's pretty easy to see how it works.  Does the DM decide that people who don't have that ability can also break down doors and if so, at a lower percentage chance?  That ability starts to interact with our understanding of the game, and not in a strictly positive way.  Further, all players can contribute equally from abilities that don't exist (at least, except how they interact with attributes).  That is, if jumping is not defined in the game, then everyone can suggest jumping over an obstacle - the actual determining whether it will work or not and how well is left to be decided.  But if three classes have defined abilities that work in a particular scenario, they can also make a suggestion that's not written on their character sheet.  So anybody that has no abilities relevant to that scenario on their character sheet can 'make something up', but so can everyone with abilities.  People that have abilities and the ability to make a creative contribution have more options than the person that can only make a creative contribution.  x + y is greater than x.  It doesn't matter how close x is to infinity - the number of possible ideas can be tremendous - the person that can do those things and a few more has an advantage.  

So ensuring that every class has abilities that potentially could contribute in every field of play is important.  

If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail.  If the only thing that all classes are relatively good at is combat, there is an incentive to start focusing the game on just combat.  Otherwise, even though a class may be good in another area, that doesn't necessarily work for 'group play' - depending on how much of a focus it is.  If one player is REALLY good at talking to royalty, but everyone else is REALLY bad at it, if the game is supposed to be 90% about negotiations, the rest of the party is going to find a way to get into a fight - because at least then they're doing something.  It's not fun to be a spectator in a role-playing game - at least not for long.  When everyone can contribute TOGETHER, that's when the game is most fun.  Unfortunately, combat is sometimes the only time that's true.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Balance means that no matter what situation comes up, you feel that your character can do something useful in that scenario.  

  .

This is certainly one type of balance, but it isn't what I look for in a game at all. In fact, i strongly dislike games that do this. For me it is desired for some characters to great in some situation but very bad in others. I don't mind when circumstances mean I have less to contribute.

[jibbajibba]

This is certainly one type of balance, but it isn't what I look for in a game at all. In fact, i strongly dislike games that do this. For me it is desired for some characters to great in some situation but very bad in others. I don't mind when circumstances mean I have less to contribute.

Tend to agree with Brendan here.

I would say that balance is more -

'Over a course of a typical session all PCs have had an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to game play'

This may seem obvious but the bugbear to this whole ongoing debate is that some , usually Old Shoolers, feel that player skill is most important and so their PCs can always contribute because they can always make suggestions 'not on the character sheet'.
The counter argument of course is that stuff anyone can do, anyone can do. So as DeadDM states the PCs that can do stuff anyone can do and some "more stuff" will dominate play because of the "more stuff".

[beejazz]

Mistborn, before any rational debate can be had AT ALL you need to clearly define what you think balance is. Calling for SGT isn't going to help because SGT only exists as far as it was implemented for 3rd. It wouldn't work for anything else. If you are talking about class balance in general you need to focus on that. Whether or not a game "can" devolve into hack and slash isn't something you can base an arument on.

This. Thousand times this.

Old school D&D put a heavy emphasis on an open and non-linear world. Players are supposed to have some say in selecting what challenges they face and how they face them. They can fight, flee, bargain with, disarm, ignore, etc. Even though lots of the advice on FvW threads revolves around taking the pace out of players' hands, all of the rest should be the kind of thing they can decide (at least as long as they make the effort to scout ahead so they're not surprised by everything they encounter).

In newer editions, this is also why I like character build options: No getting stuck with turn undead in a campaign with no undead, and easy houseruling turn undead out when all foes are undead and that ability makes the game too easy.

I think those two systemic solutions are waaaay more important to the SGT than hard and fast guidelines for how often the GM "provides" this or that challenge, or how often the class is given a solution. Although on the first point, random tables may have been used to "nudge" a game closer to an expected default.

Hack and slash is the product of a party built to survive combat or a GM who stocks the world with weak (or appropriate) foes more than it is the product of class design or rules percents. High lethality combat, even if it's more than half the book, can discourage combat.

Combat is something everyone is expected to participate in in all editions of DnD and thus everyone should have something of relevant importance to do.
You cannot, however, make the claim that everyone always has to be good at combat because there are a number of games where it wouldn't be beyond texpectations to not participate in combat at all. For example I'd consider any Shadowrun team that can completely avoid any real combat (not including single turn ambushes) and complete objectives to be pretty bad ass.

Again with agreement. Everyone participating doesn't mean everyone's a fighter. Healer only can participate, and even be vital, without being good at fighting in particular.

Combat is easy to make a 'team' activity.  

Correct. Based on what you go on to say about doors, a good starting point for attaining balance might be to seek out other good "team" encounter types. For myself I'm a huge fan of transversal and hide-and-seek type rules, both because they can make "team" encounters on their own and because they can feed back into the combat engine and make that more interesting.

Giving anyone a non-team niche, based on your criteria, would probably be less satisfying than giving everyone something different to do within a "team" encounter. At least if the door problem is an issue for you.

Since the types of challenges in any particular campaign may vary from 'typical expectations', there is a strong possibility that some classes may have their contributions minimized or rendered meaningless.  For example, a campaign that focuses almost exclusively on 'urban intrigue' and has few major combats favors rogues and would be bad for Fighters.  Similarly, a campaign that is entirely wilderness favors Rangers and Druids.  

The thing is, since not every campaign includes all the same features, there should be some effort to ensure that different classes can contribute in some manner to all the different challenges.  Just as a Rogue/Thief can make a contribution in combat, a Fighter needs to be able to contribute to exploration.

Balance means that no matter what situation comes up, you feel that your character can do something useful in that scenario.  

Most of us here prefer adventure-scale balance over encounter-scale. But giving each class a niche that will come up no matter what might be worthwhile. Of the core four: Fighter (fighting), Rogue (transversal / hide and seek), and Cleric (healing) all have that. If Wizard being the back-up-everything at best bothers you it might help to define a similar niche for that class.

[Lord Mistborn]

Lord Mistborn is clearly wrong to imply that games will devolve into hack and slash.  However, he's correct that combat is expected to be an important part of each game.  Regardless of edition, different characters are expected to contribute in combat (maybe not to the same degree - but they are expected to contribute).

>__< I never said that D&D always devolves into hack and slash, just that it's often the case that it turns out like that.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail.  If the only thing that all classes are relatively good at is combat, there is an incentive to start focusing the game on just combat.  Otherwise, even though a class may be good in another area, that doesn't necessarily work for 'group play' - depending on how much of a focus it is.  If one player is REALLY good at talking to royalty, but everyone else is REALLY bad at it, if the game is supposed to be 90% about negotiations, the rest of the party is going to find a way to get into a fight - because at least then they're doing something.  It's not fun to be a spectator in a role-playing game - at least not for long.  When everyone can contribute TOGETHER, that's when the game is most fun.  Unfortunately, combat is sometimes the only time that's true.

This is what I was trying to say. The rules of the game exist to support what people are doing in game time. If all/most the classes have combat abilities and one or more classes is heavily weighted towards combat then that implies a game that's combat heavy.

I think you're also touching on another important point. The game should try to avoid locking out one of more characters for a long period of time. If there are say complex social rules and only one character can interact with them then the rest of the party has to spectate while he dose his stuff. This problem is usually summed up by the indictment of the 4e skill challenge system, the rules encourage one player to roll all the dice while everyone else plays Smash Bros or something. If I remember correctly this is also a problem with Shadowrun hacking, in general only one person has something to do and everyone just watches

[RandallS]

I can see the logic of that I do the same thing myself. However, in your sandbox world do you have areas that are kind of aimed at 1-3rd level PCs, areas that are 4 -6 etc....

Not in any meaningful way -- at least meaningful in the sense that people used to WOTC D&D would recognize as meaningful.

What you encounter in the wilderness is what's there by the map and what wondering monsters might be in the terrain type. One might encounter a dragon in the Black Hills as a wondering monster. It's not super-likely, but it is possible  -- the wilderness random monster tables are built on terrain type and monster rarity, the level of the party present does not factor into the tables.  

Dungeons tend to have weaker monsters near the surface and stronger monsters as you go deeper, but the random tables I use for populating most rooms with monsters include a strong possibility of what would be considered very "level-inappropriate monsters" by WOTC D&D standards. For example, most monsters on the first level of a dungeon are going to be of the skelton, kobold, goblin, gnoll, ghoul, zombie, etc. level, but one room in 6 with monsters is likely to have much stronger monsters like harpies, wererats, and giant snakes or even gargoyles, wraiths, and orges.

This isn't an issue in play as 1) PCs aren't expected to be able to take on (in combat with much of a chance of winning) everything they run across. 2) Monsters need not auto-attack. In fact, unless the party is acting very hostile or the monsters have some reason to attack everyone who comes into their area, a reaction check is rolled on 2d6 with only a 2-5 indicating the monsters are automatically hostile (and only a roll of 2 generally means they automatically attack regardless of what the party does. Therefore, since combat is not the assumed result of every encounter with monsters, there's really little need to be sure that nearly everything the party is likely to encounter is either level appropriate or just a bit above or below level appropriate.

You don't want 1st level PCs to best a small group of orcs and then suddenly to have to fight a giant, the giant would just smite them.

The thing is that they don't have to fight the giant just because they encounter him. Sure, he's likely to be pissed that they killed some of his orc tribe, but they can run away, bargain with the guy, be captured for later sacrifice or cooking and have to escape, etc. Having a giant leader of a bunch of orcs is really only a problem if the PCs are never going to have any options save fighting the giant in "fair fight" combat.

Likewise a bunch of 7th level characters hunting down the giant and his giant mates might get bored wading through 3 dozen goblins to get there.

Combat is very fast in my games so even if the 7th level PCs choose to fight all 3 dozen goblins, it will not take up that much time -- especially as the goblins are likely to quickly fail their morale checks against such a party and run home to the protection of the rest of their tribe and the giant.
 

If the wandering monster table for your spooky castle includes goblins, kobolds, Beholders and ghosts then basically you are saying only go there if you can beat a Beholder and the rest of it is background noise.

Again, that's only the message if the players are expected to fight everything they come across.

[Premier]

>__< I never said that D&D always devolves into hack and slash, just that it's often the case that it turns out like that.

If combat is a large part of a game then that game will devolve into hack and slash no mater how much about basketweaving you staple to the rules.

Pants on fire.

[jibbajibba]

Not in any meaningful way -- at least meaningful in the sense that people used to WOTC D&D would recognize as meaningful.

What you encounter in the wilderness is what's there by the map and what wondering monsters might be in the terrain type. One might encounter a dragon in the Black Hills as a wondering monster. It's not super-likely, but it is possible  -- the wilderness random monster tables are built on terrain type and monster rarity, the level of the party present does not factor into the tables.  


Combat is very fast in my games so even if the 7th level PCs choose to fight all 3 dozen goblins, it will not take up that much time -- especially as the goblins are likely to quickly fail their morale checks against such a party and run home to the protection of the rest of their tribe and the giant.
 


Again, that's only the message if the players are expected to fight everything they come across.

I agree with the not fighting everything you meet deal and it was an argument I used myself against wandering monsters being this panecea that fixes imbalance because it prevents wizards from resting and relearning spells.
However, even you have said that 'most' monsters the party meet on the 1st level of a dungeon will be low level stuff even if 1 in 6 is not. The game itself though is designed like that. the DMG wondering monster tables specifically grade risk in terms of monster level. After all there is no reason why the first level of a dungeon has skeletons and what not maybe it is a suitable lair for wights as well.

If you truely make no effort to have areas for low level play and areas for higher level play then your games are indeed very different to most.

[Lord Mistborn]

Pants on fire.

You were claiming that rules for things other than combat somehow will prevent the game from devolving, this is not true. I have claimed that D&D has a tendancy to devolve into hack and slash not that it always will. There is a reason the kill them and take their stuff meme exists.

Please stop playing word games and act like an adult.

[Premier]

You were claiming that rules for things other than combat somehow will prevent the game from devolving, this is not true.

I - I didn't say that. YOU said that "heavy on combat rules = devolve into combat", and in reaction I've said that it's not true because NON-RULE factors also influence the actual gameplay. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

II - Even if somebody else had said that, your summary "this is not true" is still bullshit. It's exactly what I've already called you out on: loud declamations devoid of any actual support. PROVE this is not true. PROVE that having non-combat rules in D&D fails to prevent it from devolving. PROVE it. Note that anecdotal evidence ("I personally have had a couple of bad experiences") is not proof.

[Lord Mistborn]

I - I didn't say that. YOU said that "heavy on combat rules = devolve into combat", and in reaction I've said that it's not true because NON-RULE factors also influence the actual gameplay. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

II - Even if somebody else had said that, your summary "this is not true" is still bullshit. It's exactly what I've already called you out on: loud declamations devoid of any actual support. PROVE this is not true. PROVE that having non-combat rules in D&D fails to prevent it from devolving. PROVE it. Note that anecdotal evidence ("I personally have had a couple of bad experiences") is not proof.

What I assumed is I wouldn't have to teach game design 101. An RPG is defined by It's rules and the rules of an RPG exist to create the kind of experience that people want out of the game. If the developers do not want combat to be a large part of their game then devoting a lot of rules to combat is counter productive. If you want to discourage combat that need not take up a lot of pagespace.

If every D&D character has combat abilities up to having an entire class that is often criticized for being useless outside combat and an entire core book full of mobs to fight. Then yes I assume that D&D encourages DMs and players to have a lot of combat. The fact that non-4e D&D also has lots of non-combat rules gives players/the DM the option of doing something other than dungeon crawling/fighting mobs is something I'm totally behind because D&D's main strength is that it's versatile and relatively adaptable without losing focus.

You're not going to argue that D&D old and new never ever devolves into hack and slash.

[Sacrosanct]

What I assumed is I wouldn't have to teach game design 101.

What do you know about game design 101?  How many games have you designed?

An RPG is defined by It's rules and the rules of an RPG exist to create the kind of experience that people want out of the game. If the developers do not want combat to be a large part of their game then devoting a lot of rules to combat is counter productive. If you want to discourage combat that need not take up a lot of pagespace.

This is so not true that it's laughable.  The reason why a significant portion of pages are dedicated towards combat (which you were also wrong on, btw in your claim above) is because resolving combat is more often than not reliant on a mechanical, mathematical resolution system.  Most everything outside of combat didn't require a ton of designated rules explanations because it was role-played out at the game table based on common sense and logic.  Lack of explicit role-play rules doesn't mean that player didn't spend a lot of time role-playing.  I mean, Christ, a huge portion of the PHB is spells, but the game doesn't end up being nothing but spellcasting.

But this has already been pointed out to you, and yet you continue to hold onto these positions that have been proven as false.  You also have no experience on games you are making these generalizations about.  And you're outright lying to boot.  Each time someone points this out to you, you start complaining about how people aren't fair to you and are not arguing in good faith.

:jaw-dropping:

That's why I'm beginning to think that you're less of an incompetent like I earlier thought, and now more of just a troll.  Otherwise, most people at this point would have just said, "I've never played those games, and I was totally wrong with my preconceived notions about how they were played."

[RandallS]

What I assumed is I wouldn't have to teach game design 101. An RPG is defined by It's rules and the rules of an RPG exist to create the kind of experience that people want out of the game.

This is the way some people feel RPGs should be designed. Other people feel differently. While you may have your favorite theory of the correct way to design TTRPGs, that does not mean everyone agrees with that theory or uses it.

The amount of rules devoted to something might not have anything to do with how much of game time the designers think the players should spend on it. Instead they might devote detailed rules to things that caused the most arguments during playtest. Perhaps actual combat only took about 30 minutes of actual play time out of every 5 hour playtest session but without detailed rules generated about an hour of arguments, so the designers provided detailed rules for it.  Far more detailed than the rules for exploration as while exploration took over 2 hours of actual play time in most playtest sessions, even with only a few pages of rules it generated practically no argument.

Also, some things take up a lot of space in a rule book even though they do not take up much actual play time. For example, feat list descriptions, equipment lists and descriptions, spell lists and descriptions. In many games these can take up entire rulebooks, this does not mean that the designers thing these things should take up an amount of play time proportional to the number of pages they take up. They are just information that is important to have detailed info on in case it is needed during play.