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

[Bedrockbrendan]

If you want some examples than there is a thread on TGD called Aparently Expeditoius Retreat, Swift is broken. Though some of my past GMs have made some far more egregious violations of the social contract.

Maybe you could just offer up some examples. I appreciate that you took the time to write up a thread on the experience, but I really dont have time to read it just to find the instances where the GM violated your understanding of the social contract.

[Lord Mistborn]

Maybe you could just offer up some examples. I appreciate that you took the time to write up a thread on the experience, but I really dont have time to read it just to find the instances where the GM violated your understanding of the social contract.

From my experiences (not just AERSiB)

-tearing up another players character sheet when they wanted to multiclass fighter and barbarian.

-fudging rolls to keep players he likes alive, and the going out of his way to target players he dislikes.

-nerfing or banning stuff on the spot when it gets in the way of their railroad

-trying to "teach" players not minmax by punishing their characters

-forcing me to roll stats when the other players are clearly fudging their rolls

[Bedrockbrendan]

From my experiences (not just AERSiB)

-tearing up another players character sheet when they wanted to multiclass fighter and barbarian.

-fudging rolls to keep players he likes alive, and the going out of his way to target players he dislikes.

-nerfing or banning stuff on the spot when it gets in the way of their railroad

-trying to "teach" players not minmax by punishing their characters

These all seem a bit extreme to me. The nerfing on the spot is something that varies from table to table though. Some GMs do see that as a key function of their role and some players agree, so on that one I think it is important for people to have an understanding before they begin.

The last one seems quite subjective. How I react really depends on whether the Gm is simply not rewarding min/maxing or going out of his way to punish it (two very different things). How I deal with min/max depends on my group. I think it is important if the group isn't min/maxing and min/maxing clealry bothers them, for you as a player to tone it down. I have run for optimizers and non optimizers, so I can easily do both. In my experience being an optimizer doesn't make you a jerk (it isjust a playtsyle). However if your playstyle (whatever it may be) creates issues at the table, the polite thing to do is either leave the group or adapt to them.

Fudging is something I really dislike, and that is more of a 90s, storyteller thing than an oldschool thing. It is one of the major failings of the 2E support material, which often instructed the GM to fudge or ignore rules simply to kee the story going in the "right" direction.

I actually see fudging is more of a pathfinder, adventure path thing these days. My attitude is open dice rolls and let the dice fall where they may.

On the multiclassing. I do think the Gm should have a say in what multiclass options and prestige class options are available in his setting (both for balance and setting concerns) but he shouldn't rip up someone's sheet or belittle them for wanting something. The GM can have final say on this stuff without being a dick.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Also, for what is worth mistborn, at my table when people complain about "powergaming assholes" I am usually the one to point out it is just a playstyle and if your whole group is into optimization it can be fund to GM for them. It is also a great way to master the rules because one thing about optimizers is they really know the system well typically. But like any player, they still need to be aware of how their playstyle impacts the group. A lone optimizer in the group can be disruptive in the same way that a lone "role player"" who always speaks in character can be disruptive, even for minor exchanges.

[Lord Mistborn]

So like I was saying

Same game test. Pick a level, select a menu of chalenges that characters of that level should be facing. Then see if a character of a selected class measures up against those chalenges at that level. Some chalenges will likely be sure wins some may be sure failures some might go either way but if the class goes roughly 50/50 then the class is balance. If the class is over 50% then it's too good and needs to be weakened. If the class is under 50% then it's going to underpreform.


In 3.5 classes that are >50% and thus to good are the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid. Classes that are just about right are the Beguiler, Warblade, and Rogue. Classes that are <50% and thus are underpreforming are the Fighter, Monk, and CW Samurai.

[StormBringer]

From my experiences (not just AERSiB)

-tearing up another players character sheet when they wanted to multiclass fighter and barbarian.

-fudging rolls to keep players he likes alive, and the going out of his way to target players he dislikes.

-nerfing or banning stuff on the spot when it gets in the way of their railroad

-trying to "teach" players not minmax by punishing their characters

-forcing me to roll stats when the other players are clearly fudging their rolls

Don't Game with Assholes.™

[StormBringer]

Same game test.

There is absolutely nothing to validate this test to any degree.

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

[Bedrockbrendan]

So like I was saying

Same game test. Pick a level, select a menu of chalenges that characters of that level should be facing. Then see if a character of a selected class measures up against those chalenges at that level. Some chalenges will likely be sure wins some may be sure failures some might go either way but if the class goes roughly 50/50 then the class is balance. If the class is over 50% then it's too good and needs to be weakened. If the class is under 50% then it's going to underpreform.


In 3.5 classes that are >50% and thus to good are the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid. Classes that are just about right are the Beguiler, Warblade, and Rogue. Classes that are <50% and thus are underpreforming are the Fighter, Monk, and CW Samurai.

This isn't the standard I would use, but if you want to design a game with this approach I think it will achieve the sort of balance you are looking for. But it also depends on how you actually put the 50/50 thing to the test. You are going to have a few monsters for example that one class might always be under ten percent on (for instance a wizard against a magic resistant, magic deouring creature). So how do you intend to factor those kinds of things in?

The other issue is if you are measuring classes in isolation, wont that skew things against more supportive role characters like bards or even clerics (who may not have the time to buff in a one-on-one encounter).

[Lord Mistborn]

This isn't the standard I would use, but if you want to design a game with this approach I think it will achieve the sort of balance you are looking for. But it also depends on how you actually put the 50/50 thing to the test. You are going to have a few monsters for example that one class might always be under ten percent on (for instance a wizard against a magic resistant, magic deouring creature). So how do you intend to factor those kinds of things in?

Some monsters are going to be Immune: your primary shtick, while some monsters are vunrable to it. I'm suspecting that the prepared casters % may be inflated by people tailoring prepared spells to individual encounters. However I have no doubt that I could write up a spell list that scores 75% which is too high.

The other issue is if you are measuring classes in isolation, wont that skew things against more supportive role characters like bards or even clerics (who may not have the time to buff in a one-on-one encounter).

I never said the test was perfect, suport classes are likely undervalued by the SGT. Like I've said before if you have a better testing metric let's hear it.

Edit

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

If people stop bringing it up then I'll stop talking about it. I'm more intrested in seeing if there is a balance metric that everyone can agree on.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Mistborn, i am not trying to debate against your standard as any measure i propose probably wouldnt appeal to your sense of balance (and this is an ussue I have debated endlessly on enworld). I am just raising the question about support classes to help you refine the concept further. I am wondering if you could build in a handicap for such classes. I think you need to factor team play in here. Supporting other classes should count for toward balance.

I say establish a clear set of tests using your proposed method, build a variant system with that in mind, then check your classes for balance against it. Keep in mind though that fifty percent success also means they fail half tge time as well. So i would also think about whether 50% is the number you want.

[Lord Mistborn]

Mistborn, i am not trying to debate against your standard as any measure i propose probably wouldnt appeal to your sense of balance (and this is an ussue I have debated endlessly on enworld). I am just raising the question about support classes to help you refine the concept further. I am wondering if you could build in a handicap for such classes. I think you need to factor team play in here. Supporting other classes should count for toward balance.

I say establish a clear set of tests using your proposed method, build a variant system with that in mind, then check your classes for balance against it. Keep in mind though that fifty percent success also means they fail half tge time as well. So i would also think about whether 50% is the number you want.

If you don't want to talk about class balance noone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to post in "The class balance thread".

[Black Vulmea]

That's the thing, given how much D&D devolved into hack and slash every class should have somthing to bring to combat.

The game in all editions has a tendencey to disolve into hack and slash . . .

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.

If a class is only useful in combat then that makes the game even more likely to devolve into hack and slash.

The game can and dose devolve into hack and slash in every edition . . .

D&D can devolve into a hack and slash game . . .

So much for "trolling free."

The last quote is the only one containing a demonstrably true statement. That D&D can "devolve" into hack-and-slash does not mean does not mean it must do so, as evidenced by the many, many campaigns out there which didn't.

You can keep making that same assertion over and over as much as you like, but that doesn't make it true for anyone but you.

[Sacrosanct]

Insists on using terms like "magic tea party"

Says DMs of older editions are the worst kind.

Complains about problems in AD&D despite not having ever really played it

Uses false premises to base arguments on (% of combat rules in PHB)

.....

Complains about others not arguing in good faith

[Black Vulmea]

Had you prefaced the entire thread with "I'm specifically talking about 3/4E and nothing else", this statement wouldn't raise an eyebrow. However, it's billed as a generic discussion of levels and balance, so I must take issue with the veracity of this statement.

Considering your experience (absolutely nothing prior to 3E), your observation is perfectly understandable, but, alas, not true. It's specifically the WotC games that devolved into combat, previous editions have a rich tradition of offering much beyond that.

Now, there are plenty of folks here who I'm sure will be happy to enlighten you, explain how things were back then, and help you widen your understanding of D&D. But as the Freemasons say, "if you want to learn about Masonry, ask a Mason" (or whatever, Pundit will correct me). If you genuinely and earnestly want to discuss matters of balance and other game design issues as relates to D&D in general, it would behoove to actually ask for information on parts and eras of the game you're unfamiliar with, as opposed to making ostensibly generic statements while being ignorant of a significant part of the material you're making declarations about.

You yourself have said you have no experience with pre-3E editions. How the fuck do you dare pronounce sweeping statements about things you have, by your admission, no knowledge of, and then maintain them in the face of people who ARE speaking from personal experience and who are correcting you hoping you'll stop making an uninformed ass of yourself?

Also, you're moving he goalposts. First you said "D&D devolves into hack'n'slash". I told you it doesn't. Now you're "Combat is a large part of every edition, so I was right." No, you weren't. You ARE right in your second statement, but that's a completely different claim than your original one. So NO, while combat IS a large part of all D&D, all D&D does NOT "devolve into hack'n'slash". BECMI, for instance, has two entire books dedicated to high-level non-combat-oriented play: managing kingdoms, questing for immortality, tampering with history, etc.. Which you wouldn't know about, of course, because you prefer pulling shit out of your arse to actually getting informed about whatever the fuck you're making entitled declarations about.

Premier speaks for me.

[LordVreeg]

If the GM has to houserule the game into playability that's a huge amount of work to put on someone who didn't sign up to be a game designer. Let the GM sort it out is to game design what homeopathy is to medicine.

or what Paint by numbers is to actual art.

The majority of people need the lines and guidance to do even a passable job, tis true.  There will be less screw ups and perhaps less horrible games.

 But your way will never produce art.