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

[Bedrockbrendan]

If you want that sort of balance it is a valid preference. But personal i need more variety. I think if we imagine three areas of the game with four levels of competence (awesome, great average, suck) and layer on top of that some specific Shine situations and perhaps specific weaknesses, you might have a measure of balance that at least has some texture to it. But i still think quantifying every power and ability is virtually impossible. You will have to eye ball stuff to a degree.

It might look something like this:

Class A: exploration suck, comba average, roleplay great
Class B: exploration average, combat average, role play average
Class C: exploration great, combat average, role play suck
Class D: exploration suck, combat suck, roleplay awesome
Etc...

On top of that you could give each class specific weaknesses and shine:
Class b: shine against undead, weak against lycanthropes

The problem with this sort of approach is you end up building the flavor around the mechanical structure, so balance will dictate the flavor of the game to an enormous extent and I am not sure that is a good thing at all.

[RandallS]

The problem with this sort of approach is you end up building the flavor around the mechanical structure, so balance will dictate the flavor of the game to an enormous extent and I am not sure that is a good thing at all.

This method tends to produce classes that make little sense in any setting but one designed around them. I want classes designed organically: you look at a profession group in the genre (or setting if you are designing a game around a specific setting) and create a class that has those abilities. You do that for every class you want. Fiddle a bit if needed to get them generally "balanced". This tends to produce classes that aren't balanced enough for the folks who want games designed around balanced characters but that actually work well in play for most people -- and fit the genre.  Designing classes mechanics and balance first (and place in the world second) tends to end up with games I cannot stand to play (e.g. 4e).

[Lord Mistborn]

I assume you are talking only about D&D 3.x here?

Why this assumption: Prior editions really don't have builds (even 2e kits really aren't builds) nor do they have feats or PrCs. Pre-2e, they really don't even have any options to select from other than a few weapon and non-weapon proficiencies.

I'm talking about any game that gives people options. I thinks feats are the simplest way to implement it. 2e has kits, 3e leaned more on PrCs, Pathfinder is more about alternate class features, and I advocate a system where feats matter more.

If you want that sort of balance it is a valid preference. But personal i need more variety. I think if we imagine three areas of the game with four levels of competence (awesome, great average, suck) and layer on top of that some specific Shine situations and perhaps specific weaknesses, you might have a measure of balance that at least has some texture to it. But i still think quantifying every power and ability is virtually impossible. You will have to eye ball stuff to a degree.

It might look something like this:

Class A: exploration suck, comba average, roleplay great
Class B: exploration average, combat average, role play average
Class C: exploration great, combat average, role play suck
Class D: exploration suck, combat suck, roleplay awesome
Etc...

On top of that you could give each class specific weaknesses and shine:
Class b: shine against undead, weak against lycanthropes

The problem with this sort of approach is you end up building the flavor around the mechanical structure, so balance will dictate the flavor of the game to an enormous extent and I am not sure that is a good thing at all.

One, how the fuck is a class going to be "good at roleplay".

Two, I'd say that that my idea will work for far more people in far more games if the DM is focusing his game on combat then people who want to play class D can spec into more combat potential. On the other hand if the DM wants to include more social stuff people can spec into having relevant stuff even if their class doesn't give them it.

[Bedrockbrendan]

This method tends to produce classes that make little sense in any setting but one designed around them. I want classes designed organically: you look at a profession group in the genre (or setting if you are designing a game around a specific setting) and create a class that has those abilities. You do that for every class you want. Fiddle a bit if needed to get them generally "balanced". This tends to produce classes that aren't balanced enough for the folks who want games designed around balanced characters but that actually work well in play for most people -- and fit the genre.  Designing classes mechanics and balance first (and place in the world second) tends to end up with games I cannot stand to play (e.g. 4e).

I would agree with you.

Not only are games built this way not fun for me to play, i dont find them enjoyable to design either.

But if you are going to obsess with balance i would at least like the balance to have room for being terrible in a portion of the game instead of the always being useful thing. That gives much needed variety.

[Bedrockbrendan]

One, how the fuck is a class going to be "good at roleplay".

These are just sample categories based on the ones they are uing for D&D next. Role play here just means social interaction. So if you have skills like diplomacy, this character would be good at those. If yiu have social interacion abilities in the game, this character would likely have those. You might have a mundane ability for exampe that makes it easier for the character to recruit people or establish a network of followers.

Two, I'd say that that my idea will work for far more people in far more games if the DM is focusing his game on combat then people who want to play class D can spec into more combat potential. On the other hand if the DM wants to include more social stuff people can spec into having relevant stuff even if their class doesn't give them it.

I think my approach has broader appeal than yours based on discusdions i have followed on the D&D next discussions at en world and elsewhere. Though i do think it is close with about 40 percent wanting something you offer and 60 perent prefering something like i am suggesting. But of course that is just my impression. I for one wiuldnt enjoy a game using your method.

[Bedrockbrendan]

One, how the fuck is a class going to be "good at roleplay".

.

Als if you want a mature discussion, make mature posts, rather than this sort of stuff. It really makes it hard to take your calls for "mature debate" seriously.

[Bedrockbrendan]

I also think this demonstrates a key issue with balance. Lordmistborn just assumes his definition has universal appeal, but it soesnt (and neither does mine). If you talk to lots of gamers about balance you see there are many different campsof preferences and it is vey difficult to enforce one approach on a broad appeal game likeD&D. This is why 4E had such a back lash. They took a balance appriach that appealed strongly to one crowd but was distasteful to the others. So while your approach  will strongly appeal to players like you and mguy, it will probably be jst as fanbase splitting as 4E. Now you could make a new game intended for peope like you and mguy as the target audience. That is actually probably a good idea.  but if you walk around thinking your preferences are universal and more valid than others, you are going to be puzzled. Balance and preferences are very subjective things. All you are doing is creating criteria based on your preferences.

[Lord Mistborn]

I also think this demonstrates a key issue with balance. Lordmistborn just assumes his definition has universal appeal, but it soesnt (and neither does mine). If you talk to lots of gamers about balance you see there are many different campsof preferences and it is vey difficult to enforce one approach on a broad appeal game likeD&D. This is why 4E had such a back lash. They took a balance appriach that appealed strongly to one crowd but was distasteful to the others. So while your approach  will strongly appeal to players like you and mguy, it will probably be jst as fanbase splitting as 4E. Now you could make a new game intended for peope like you and mguy as the target audience. That is actually probably a good idea.  but if you walk around thinking your preferences are universal and more valid than others, you are going to be puzzled. Balance and preferences are very subjective things. All you are doing is creating criteria based on your preferences.

The reasons people dislike 4e are
-the 4e power system being samey, bland, and incredibly dumb when applied to martial classes
-the removal of 90% of the non-combat games
-making the combat bland and deterministic
-trying to have non-combat via  the skill challenge mechanic and failing at it.
-saying they where going to trim down the magic item Christmas tree and then instead making items mandatory to keep up with the math.

Say what you will about 3e it didn't split the fanbase the way 4e did, people did like d20 enough to clone the shit out of it. Barring a small handful of hopeless grognards and 4vengers, The majority of people out there will settle for 3.75 if the design is sound. Which is basically what me and MGuy are trying to do.

Don't hold your breath though. That's never going to come out of Wizards. Heck Pathfinder will probably still out compete whatever Mearls writes for 5e even though it's designers can't into game design 101 just on it's merits as a d20 clone.

[Bedrockbrendan]

The reasons people dislike 4e are
-the 4e power system being samey, bland, and incredibly dumb when applied to martial classes
-the removal of 90% of the non-combat games
-making the combat bland and deterministic
-trying to have non-combat via  the skill challenge mechanic and failing at it.
-saying they where going to trim down the magic item Christmas tree and then instead making items mandatory to keep up with the math.

Say what you will about 3e it didn't split the fanbase the way 4e did, people did like d20 enough to clone the shit out of it. Barring a small handful of hopeless grognards and 4vengers, The majority of people out there will settle for 3.75 if the design is sound. Which is basically what me and MGuy are trying to do.

Don't hold your breath though. That's never going to come out of Wizards. Heck Pathfinder will probably still out compete whatever Mearls writes for 5e even though it's designers can't into game design 101 just on it's merits as a d20 clone.

3E didnt split tthe base, i agree, it was very popular. But your approach to balance is similarly rigid to the 4E approach in my opinion. I also agree there is an appetite for 3.75, but I dont think your solutiion provides it. I think you are offering somehting that will appeal to a smaller portion of 3E players than you believe. I certainly could be wrong. But like I said, based on what I have heard from people on discussions of balance, not everyone is on board for this approach. I personally think my approach, as much as I think it is misguided in the firstplace, has broader appeal because people want characters that are good at some things, bad at others and they want real variety. If everyone is good at combat, good at exploration, good at intrigue, the game gets boring very quickly.

[Lord Mistborn]

If everyone is good at combat, good at exploration, good at intrigue, the game gets boring very quickly.

This wasn't my point. In say LM's d20 clone classes that are good at one thing have the option of branching out into doing more thing or beefing up what they're good at. The core of it is seeing feats as options that have a degree of separation form class.

If people want to build Fighty McFightsalot or Socialguy McUselesssincombat people will do that. The game just shouldn't railroad people into it.

[Bedrockbrendan]

I think you are being unclear then, because it looks like you are both saying it is okay for characters to suck at things, but they should be at all things as well from your other posts.

If you are fine with including a class that sucks at combat, but there exist options in the game to build that charcter up, i do think there may a larger demand for that sort of balance. But you still seem to be focusing a lot on stuff like combat for my taste. Also if the game requires weeabo, you know my position on that.

[Sacrosanct]

The reasons people dislike 4e are
-the 4e power system being samey, bland, and incredibly dumb when applied to martial classes
-the removal of 90% of the non-combat games
-making the combat bland and deterministic
-trying to have non-combat via  the skill challenge mechanic and failing at it.
-saying they where going to trim down the magic item Christmas tree and then instead making items mandatory to keep up with the math.

You forgot the biggest one: dependance on minis and a battlemap.

Say what you will about 3e it didn't split the fanbase the way 4e did, people did like d20 enough to clone the shit out of it.
.

Actually, 3e did split the gamer base.  However, I suspect you aren't old enough to remember those discussions.  The difference, and the reason why Pathfinder took off (a clone of 3e) was the OGL.  When 3e came out, there was no OGL for fans of 2e to keep playing new material.  That's hugely significant because you pretty much had to move on, whereas when 4e came out, you could play 3e and still get new material.

[jibbajibba]

Actually, 3e did split the gamer base.  However, I suspect you aren't old enough to remember those discussions.  The difference, and the reason why Pathfinder took off (a clone of 3e) was the OGL.  When 3e came out, there was no OGL for fans of 2e to keep playing new material.  That's hugely significant because you pretty much had to move on, whereas when 4e came out, you could play 3e and still get new material.

Of course some of old Grognards stuck with 2e anyway

[Rum Cove]

Rum argued that the fighter being able to open doors makes him a valuable party member.

Let those that have ears hear.

[beejazz]

I think you are being unclear then, because it looks like you are both saying it is okay for characters to suck at things, but they should be at all things as well from your other posts.

I'm pretty sure it was MGuy that wanted to give everyone "something to do" in each of the broad spheres of gameplay. I think LM just wants everyone to have something in combat and something else. His argument being that no one wants to choose weakness in combat because you can be attacked and dying is unpleasant.

Old school D&D had weaker niche protection than anyone seems to get, though. You had something to do in all spheres because very few spheres were in any way class specific. Of course, there's a difference between having something to do in any given sphere and having something *unique* to do in any given sphere. I've got no strong leaning one way or the other on that front.