Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Qube 04-28-07, 03:40 PM	intro first: the "Modus ponens" rule. this is the "well deuh" rule of logic: if P is correct, and P => Q, then Q is correct. see? yust a difficult name for easy logic: if premise and rule, then conclusion normal logic premice (P): class A is balanced. rule: class A is stronger then class B => class B is underpowered conculsion(Q): class B is underpowered here is the balance falacy: class B is underpowered, because his is weaker then class A Oke, you say? why in heavens blazes is THIS a fallacy? (1) because the premise is not proven ( A is balanced ) whats the use? to arguments like this (note: pleaze don't start discussing if the example is true or not): person A) The fighter is unbalanced (note: this is the conclusion) Person B) Why? person A) because he is weaker then the wizard (note: this is use of the rule) Person B) Why is the weaker fighter weaker the the wizard? Person A) A lvl 20 wizard can singlehandedly defeat a balor. a lvl 20 fighter can't. the fact that a lvl 20 wizard can singlehandedly defeat a balor would make the wizard overpowerpowered, hence the premice (the wizard is balanced) is wrong, and thus it is not proven that the fighter is underpowered.
fatal error 04-28-07, 07:17 PM	Well of course, all balance arguments have the capability to go in one of two directions: Class A is considered overpowered and reduced to the power of Class B, or Class B is considered underpowered and raised to the power of Class A. However, apparently the majority (it seems that way, at least) of the board users have decided to set the mark at Class A and work up with Class B. Furthermore, how does one come to the solid conclusion that the Wizard is overpowered by being able to defeat a Balor at level 20? Theoretically, any one level 20 character should be able to beat it, if you follow this line of logic: For 4 characters, an equal CR monster = 20-25% resources. Thus, for 1 character, an equal CR monster should = 80-100% resources. So, clearly the Fighter is underpowered if he can't defeat an equal CR monster, even using up all his resources. Now, this doesn't make the Wizard un-overpowered if he can take on a Balor multiple times a day, but it also doesn't make the Fighter balanced. Clearly, we must find the class exactly capable of killing a Balor once per day to find our holy grail of balance.
Scribbler 04-28-07, 08:15 PM	Theoretically, any one level 20 character should be able to beat it, if you follow this line of logic: For 4 characters, an equal CR monster = 20-25% resources. Thus, for 1 character, an equal CR monster should = 80-100% resources. First, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Four characters who work well together should do better to overcome four challenges than those four characters each handling one challenge. Thus, 100% or greater of resources is fine for a single character. Second, "resources" includes things like hit points. If you use up 100% of your resources to defeat a monster, than you die. Since things that can cause both to die at the same time are fairly limited, this actually means that you should just barely win about 50% of the time and just barely lose about 50% of the time. Not always win.
celtredleg 04-28-07, 08:54 PM	Dice being what they are, you are likely to have a bit wider range than that. And who wants to sit down to a long series of one on one fights to find this point anyway??
theotherdraxen 04-28-07, 09:22 PM	Nice job, Qube. My only advice is that you correct some spelling, otherwise, this is an excellent thread. However, apparently the majority (it seems that way, at least) of the board users have decided to set the mark at Class A and work up with Class B. this is an Appeal to Majority logical fallacy. Just because the majority of the board has decided class A is balanced does not mean class A is balanced. Furthermore, how does one come to the solid conclusion that the Wizard is overpowered by being able to defeat a Balor at level 20? Theoretically, any one level 20 character should be able to beat it, if you follow this line of logic: For 4 characters, an equal CR monster = 20-25% resources. Thus, for 1 character, an equal CR monster should = 80-100% resources. But that's not how D&D works. It's balanced around 4 party members facing off against 4 varying encounters per day. A solo rogue doesn't stand a chance against a Balor, since rogues rely on TWFing and flanking to dish out incredible amounts of damage. Dice being what they are, you are likely to have a bit wider range than that. And who wants to sit down to a long series of one on one fights to find this point anyway?? That's why we use the laws of probability. Rogues might to 10d6 damage, but that's an average of 35 damage per hit. Then, divide that by the odds of them hitting, and you have the average damage output of a Rogue against a certain foe. In the case of Balors, a TWFing rogue with flanking bonuses making a full attack can lay out 105 precision-based damage as an average for his full attack.
Metafictional 04-28-07, 10:17 PM	Fighter vs. Balor is flawed, check out the One on One Fight Fallacy thread for a better explanation than I can give.
Bob Loblaw 04-28-07, 10:24 PM	I think one of the major problems with the solo encounter is that people tend to forget something very important. The character is supposed to be part of a party of 4. This means that there should be 4 times the amount of actions going against the opponent or the opponent should have 1/4 the number of actions. This may seem minor to some, but the game assumes as much. Also note that the party of 4 also should have 4 times the wealth. This is a ton of gear. I bet if you gave the fighter 4 times the wealth and 4 times the actions, he would be able to defeat the balor with the loss of about 20% of his resources, just like it's supposed to be.
runestar 04-29-07, 12:53 AM	Note that there is a fine line between underpowered and one class being weaker than the other. A can be weaker than B, but A may not necessarily be underpowered as A is still able to fulfill the role expected of him. That other classes may somehow do it better is irrelevant. A might be weaker compared to B, but in a vacuum, would still be a decent character to play. For example, a secretary can type 60 words/min, thus meeting the requirements expected of her. Just because someone else can type at twice the speed does not mean the former is underpowered. Not as good does not equate not good at all. Also note that the party of 4 also should have 4 times the wealth. This is a ton of gear. I bet if you gave the fighter 4 times the wealth and 4 times the actions, he would be able to defeat the balor with the loss of about 20% of his resources, just like it's supposed to be. In theory, a commoner with the right gear can take on a dragon as well. What's your point?:P And the fighter does not have 4 times the actions etc. So I doubt it is a fair comparison. And on a side note, I have my doubts as to how a lv20 fighter can take on a well-played balor solo. But I digress...:P
NoldorForce 04-29-07, 01:09 AM	I don't see this as a fallacy so much as an omission or an assumption, and generally an unintended one at that. For instance, in the above reasoning, the part about Class B being underpowered likely assumes that Class A is close enough to a standard of balance to allow for comparison of Class B. But this was not actually stated, hence the problem. When people say that something is unbalanced, the implicit standard of balance is simply everything else. That's why we use the term 'balance' in the first place, such that everything is assumed to be able to exert roughly equal amortized weight in an adventuring party. Thus when people say that the Planar Shepherd is unbalanced, they're referring to its ability to gain powerful spell-like abilities of outsiders without any true cost. And because practically nothing else can match that power, we call it 'unbalanced'.
Bob Loblaw 04-29-07, 01:43 AM	In theory, a commoner with the right gear can take on a dragon as well. What's your point?:P And the fighter does not have 4 times the actions etc. So I doubt it is a fair comparison. And on a side note, I have my doubts as to how a lv20 fighter can take on a well-played balor solo. But I digress...:P My point is that the Encounter Levels and Challenge Ratings assume that the party has 4 full rounds of actions every round while the balor has but one round of actions. The party has 4 times the wealth that a single character should have. If the soloing character is not granted the appropriate gear and actions, then the example is flawed from the beginning because it favors the balor rather than being consistent with they way the system is set up. Oh, and a level 20 fighter can handle a balor just fine. He needs to be built properly and have the appropriate gear, but he can do it. I have a fighter that is core-only with saves all over +20. He can sunder or disarm the balor in round one and be dealing damage in that same round.
fatal error 04-29-07, 02:06 AM	[QUOTE=runestar;12244914] For example, a secretary can type 60 words/min, thus meeting the requirements expected of her. Just because someone else can type at twice the speed does not mean the former is underpowered. Not as good does not equate not good at all. /QUOTE] I disagree. This, in my mind, is an excellent example of something being underpowered. If you had the choice of playing a secretary that typed 60 words/min or one that typed 120 words/min, why would you ever pick 60? If one class is the equivalent of Secretary A moving at 60 words/min, and the other is the equivalent of Secretary B moving at 120 words/min, why would anyone play Secretary A? Of course, going back to the original point of this thread, you could say Secretary B is actually overpowered, not that Secretary A is underpowered, but those are both relative terms anyway. Regardless of whether there is an overpowered or an underpowered, there is still a severe imbalance. Sure Secretary A is fine if Secretary B doesn't exist, like how a Fighter is fine if a Wizard doesn't exist (or so the argument goes. . .). You say, "Not good does not equate not good at all." But I don't believe it. If there are two options open, and one is clearly better, then the fact that the other one is "good enough" doesn't change the fact that you benefit from choosing the better of the two. When one choice is clearly superior to another, there are unbalanced options.
Silverthumb128 04-29-07, 02:08 AM	There sure are a lot of fallacies around these boards. a =/= b =/= c
Qube 04-29-07, 02:21 AM	theotherdraxen, I see you also did your research on what type of fallacies ther are :) Thus, for 1 character, an equal CR monster should = 80-100% resources. since a level 12 wizard has CR 12, a character should have 50% chance to win. even then this is not correct; since characters that can spend all their resources in a short timespan will have a very big advantage vs a characters that spend their resources in a short timespan. NoldorForce, I think it is a falacy example of a falacy ( -P => -Q ) => (P => Q ) this fallacy ( P=> Q ) => Q Bob Loblaw, Runestar is of the oppinion that Balors can use part of their treasure for items (wether of not this is true is not of the discussion): single fighters much trouble killing a balor; so does single wizards (Balors with items have insane saves). but remember: this is NOT an other fighter thread so please no more "the fighter could/couldn't take on the balor". not because of truth of lies, but because I don't want this thread die of it.
ArcTan 04-29-07, 02:30 AM	If you want to rewrite the Wizard so that he advances in power in a similar way to the Fighter and remains on par with him through 20 levels, be my guest. My guess is that it won't be much fun to do so (you'll be actively taking away from the tantalizing reward of higher-level spells). More to the point, you'll be actively decreasing the power of the average four-man party to the point that you'll need to rewrite the CRs of everything (a CR 20 challenge like the Tarrasque is written on the *assumption* you've got a Wizard throwing around 9th-level spells). WotC has understandably gone the opposite route -- of taking the boring and weak class concept and trying to spice it up to match the caster (ToB and the martial adepts). They actually *have* tried to go the other way -- "mystic" or "magical" themed classes that are fundamentally weaker than the Wizard -- and have generally seen these be failures, because people don't *want* a class with the same flavor as a Wizard or Sorcerer but weaker. It's failed multiple times -- the Warlock, Psionics, Tome of Magic, Incarnum -- don't hold your breath. As clunky as the core magic system is, people aren't going to give up power during a game for a better-balanced, easier-to-use, but objectively weaker system.
Kojiro James 04-29-07, 02:33 AM	There sure are a lot of fallacies around these boards. a =/= b =/= c It's because people see other fallacy threads, say "Hey, that's cool" and then decide they want to be cool too and make their own. You won't be in the "IN" crowd if you don't have a fallacy thread. Fallacy threads are the "THING" now. :cool:
runestar 04-29-07, 02:42 AM	Oh, and a level 20 fighter can handle a balor just fine. He needs to be built properly and have the appropriate gear, but he can do it. I have a fighter that is core-only with saves all over +20. He can sunder or disarm the balor in round one and be dealing damage in that same round. Right, because the balor is standing on the ground waiting for him to charge, instead of flying overhead and spamming SLAs...:P But I better stop, lest this thread be derailed. Another thread for another time. You say, "Not good does not equate not good at all." But I don't believe it. If there are two options open, and one is clearly better, then the fact that the other one is "good enough" doesn't change the fact that you benefit from choosing the better of the two. Hmm...perhaps my example was a little off. Regardless, lets see what I have to work with. You would be correct if both secretaries were identical to each other in every other aspect, save for the typing speed. However, this may not necessarily be the case. The former might file better, be prettier etc. Remember that this is an analogy for comparing base classes, say a fighter to a druid competing for the role of tank. In this aspect, tanking is more or less a black box. The fighter may win in some areas, the druid may excel in others, bottom line is about who ends up being ahead after all the "pluses and minuses have been totaled", for lack of a better term to describe it. Hypothetically(so as not to ignite another debate, so for all intents and purposes, assume this is true for the moment), the druid may not be able to do everything a fighter can, but he might be able replicate most features well enough, and this coupled with other factors, makes the druid a more attractive choice than a fighter. For example, the druid may have less hp, but more AC. And so on and so forth. Or perhaps someone can try and rephrase my point better?:embarrass
Sphere 04-29-07, 02:46 AM	the fact that a lvl 20 wizard can singlehandedly defeat a balor would make the wizard overpowerpowered, hence the premice (the wizard is balanced) is wrong, and thus it is not proven that the fighter is underpowered. This statement is flawed. It is operating on the assumption that a level 20 wizard is not supposed to be able to defeat a balor without any evidence to prove that a level 20 wizard should not be able to defeat a balor.
Deep Blue 9000 04-29-07, 02:52 AM	First of all let me say I agree that this fallacy exists and is commonly used (I'm look at you psionics board) and I hope you are able to popularize it as a fallacy. However, you said two things I have a problem with. since a level 12 wizard has CR 12, a character should have 50% chance to win. A level 12 NPC wizard is CR 12 but he also has NPC wealth. If you give him PC wealth he's not going to be CR 12 and should be expected to beat other CR 12s. (note: pleaze don't start discussing if the example is true or not): person A) The fighter is unbalanced (note: this is the conclusion) Person B) Why? person A) because he is weaker then the wizard (note: this is use of the rule) If you're refering to "fighter sucks" threads, a great many of them are simply magic v. melee like http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=825094 In these threads a warrior < wizard argument involving punching balors is perfectly valid. As an aside, why balors? The have blasphemy at will people! You're gonna die!
Qube 04-29-07, 03:09 AM	This statement is flawed. It is operating on the assumption that a level 20 wizard is not supposed to be able to defeat a balor without any evidence to prove that a level 20 wizard should not be able to defeat a balor. since a single level 20 character shouldn't be able to easely beat a CR 20 monster. without help of others. Deep Blue 9000, thanks Why Balors? because it is a common example. To everyone: it was an example. please don't debate the balor: it derails the thread.
Sphere 04-29-07, 03:29 AM	since a single level 20 character shouldn't be able to easely beat a CR 20 monster. without help of others. This is still flawed; It is within the realm of possibility that a level 20 character can defeat a CR 20 encounter, therefore a level 20 wizard defeating a balor does not prove the wizard is overpowered, and in turn does not disprove person A's statement. It does not prove person A's statement by default, but it cannot be used to disprove it.
Sphere 04-29-07, 04:11 AM	Let me elaborate: This is not a fallacy. This is a matter of opinions in disagreement. Overpowered and underpowered are comparative terms, just like up and down, hot and cold, or big and small. In order for these words to have meaning they must be used in reference between multiple things. Now you cannot establish balance without comparisons. And you cannot make accurate comparisons without establishing a control, or else people will interpret what you are saying in a different manner, and that leads to confusion. There are many ways to establish a control, including arbitrarily setting one that people can later replicate. What is happening in this "fallacy" is; People are disagreeing on what control should be used for a comparison, as there are multiple controls can can be used. In this case Person A established the level 20 wizard as his control, however Person B established something else as her control, leading to different conclusions from the same test. Neither person did anything wrong, yet neither person can disprove the other. What is needed here is not a fallacy, what is needed here is a universal control that everyone can agree to make comparisons against.
Gold Halberdier 04-29-07, 04:25 AM	He who builds his house on sand shall not be able to get earthquake insurance. Simply, you can't reach a valid conclusion if your premises are invalid. To achieve balance in your classes, I suggest the great Rphair's :cool: flowchart to be found in this Thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12227858#post12227858)
Reinforcements 04-29-07, 11:23 AM	However, apparently the majority (it seems that way, at least) of the board users have decided to set the mark at Class A and work up with Class B. I don't really think that this is true. I think the problem is you're seeing what are really two separate issues. The first issue is caster overpoweredness. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think I've seen ANY board member attest that the wizard, cleric, and druid are balanced and that other classes should be brought up to their level. The prevailing opinion (and I agree) is that these ARE the most powerful classes, and are therefore overpowered. The question of how much this is a problem is not so uniform. The second issue is that fighters are underpowered. They are not simply weak compared to the overpowered casters, they are weak compared to every other core class. The feat-only mechanic is just poor. There is no good mechanical reason to play fighter beyond level 2, or MAYBE level 4. As such, the fighter is a class that should be boosted - but not up to druid level, certainly. So no, I don't think that the use of this "fallacy" is as widespread as some might believe. I think that the majority of people on the boards with solid understanding of the rules have a pretty reasonable idea of where the balancing line should be.
Qube 04-29-07, 11:53 AM	The first issue is caster overpoweredness. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think I've seen ANY board member attest that the wizard, cleric, and druid are balanced and that other classes should be brought up to their level. well, since i read many times 'the fighters are underpowered: wizards are so much better', i'm guessing you are mistaken. I even started this thread because I thought this has to stop. The second issue is that fighters are underpowered. They are not simply weak compared to the overpowered casters, they are weak compared to every other core class. IMO fighters hold their ground against barbarians, rangers and paladins. but this is not of the issue here
_SIN_ 04-29-07, 12:18 PM	I'll get me penny's worth while I can!... Why is it always wizards and fighters? Why are rogues never compaired to fighters? Or Druids to Wizards? A lvl 20 Druid who can wildshape into Titans/Dragons is a pretty nasty adversary! I remember back in 2nd ed no one liked the mage 'cause his progression was too slow. We all wanted to be fighters & thieves. Now it's the opposite! Everyone's gone wizard - even half the WARRIOR PrC's incorporate magic using! Drives me mad.... It seems like where fighters are concernd the designers injected only a little fantasy, where as the Wizard got it all. Ok, sure, the wizard should be able to release firey balls of destruction from his finger tips, but the fearless warrior should stand a chance of charging through it like a 'hero' he's meant to be! The Fighter is meant to be the epitomy of heroes. So why'd Wotc make him so lame?
Reinforcements 04-29-07, 12:25 PM	well, since i read many times 'the fighters are underpowered: wizards are so much better', i'm guessing you are mistaken. I even started this thread because I thought this has to stop. That's just it, though. Actually, in one way that's EXACTLY it - that's what I just said. Fighters are a bad counterpart as the weakest core class. But my other point was that just because someone says "wizards are so much better," that by no means implies that they think wizards are balanced. To state plainly - I would say that the vast majority of people 'round her' think that wizards, clerics, and druids are overpowered.
Archtyrant Terevoth 04-29-07, 01:05 PM	Well it's not a fallacy per se, as something being underpowered or overpowered is all relative anyway. If class X is weaker than class Y, then you know that there's a balance problem. You can say that at least one of the following is true: -Class X is underpowered. -Class Y is overpowered. Without further criteria though, you can't narrow down which of those two is true, or if both are true. The main problem with balance arguments is that everyone has different premises for what they believe a balanced class is. Some people tend to use the wizard as being their "zero point" for balance, and other people start with something like a fighter or barbarian. And anything bigger or better than the zero point happens to be overpowered and anything weaker is underpowered. Most people spend endless time arguing simply because they set different zero points. And we'd solve a lot of problems if we could all have a common zero point. Now, contrary to popular belief, both fighters and wizards are terrible zero points. This is because there are a multitude of choices associated with both. We know little of what a "fighter" does, because he has so many class feats to choose from, he can be a mounted warrior or an archer. So saying "fighter" doesn't even mean anything. Wizards and other primary casters (other than the beguiler) are even worse than that, because they shift what they can do per day. So people can't even figure out how powerful the zero point is. And this leads to so many problems... For a zero point we really need to pick a class with minimal choices. Barbarian is fine, beguiler is fine and so forth. Otherwise our zero point is vague as to not really be zero, but rather a wide range.
1CentSage 04-29-07, 01:28 PM	normal logic premice (P): class A is balanced. rule: class A is weaker then class B => class B is underpowered conculsion(Q): class B is underpowered I guess this should read class B is weaker then class A => class B is underpowered ? here is the balance falacy: class B is underpowered, because his is weaker then class A Oke, you say? why in heavens blazes is THIS a fallacy? (1) because the premise is not proven ( A is balanced ) This is not really correct, because it is often the nature of the premise that it does not need to be (or can not be) proven (as in the case of an axiom). In fact logical fallacies never are about the truth of premises but only about the correct application of the rules of logic towards them. So, as has been stated, this whole balance discussion issue is not about fallacies (although one or the other might be committed during discussions) but most of the time about which are the "correct" premises (=measures) to use. So in your case it would be all about the definition of the terms "balanced" and "weaker", which are exactly the two concepts that no two persons seem to have the same opinion on.
theotherdraxen 04-29-07, 01:33 PM	This isn't the issue here. We can't find a single "control" here, because d&D is not balanced around a single class: it's balanced around a party of 4 characters, one is a warrior, one is an expert, one is a divine caster, and one is an arcane caster. If you don't have all four elements, you can't test for balance. That doesn't make it impossible to prove unbalance, however. What I'm trying to do (in other threads) is to show that any fighter build can be matched and surpassed by a second cleric of equal level. Qube, is this a good way of assessing the fighter's power? By comparing a party of a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric to a party of Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric?
Count Arioch the 28th 04-29-07, 01:51 PM	How about this then. what if said class is less effective than a majority of the classes? For example, it is my opinion that fighter is weaker than Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Barbarian, Rogue, Bard, and Ranger. Would that mean that the fighter could be underpowered since they are (in my humble opinion of course) weaker than anything except paladins and monks? Of course, my definition of underpowered is different than most people's. I feel that a class that can only do things in combat but not out of combat is weaker than a class that it useful both in and out of combat. (Because it is my honest opinion that every class in 3E is good in combat, and everyone but fighters, paladins, and monks also have uses out of combat.)
MHolland 04-29-07, 04:45 PM	The only real fallacy of logic I keep seeing and I see repeated in this thread is the Strawman Fallacy. Everyone provides their argument and then attacks the weakest form of their opponent's argument. To avoid this fallacy assume the strongest version of your opponent's argument and attack that. Only then have you made a truly strong case. A => B A Therefore, B Modus Ponens. :) Classic, my only suggestion is to write it like I did above. It is exactly what you wrote BUT it is easier for people to make sense of. I don't know why, I just know people get it a bit easier if you write it like that. And there are no "rules". There are premises and conclusions. The first and second line are both premises of the conclusion. It is important to point out that Modus Ponens is a linked argument too. Neither premise stands alone, they must be looked at together. That is another problem I see a lot on the boards here. They may accept one premise but they don't accept the other. As a linked argument that technically means the argument failed. Not in terms of validity because it is valid. Modus Ponens is the definition of validity. It fails in terms of soundness because one of the premises was shown to not be true (in their opinion of course). I see that a lot. People make a valid argument and get frustrated because people don't accept it. What they forget while an argument may be valid it may not be sound and that is what people attack 99% of the time even if they don't know how to structure their thoughts along the lines of critical thinking. I'm glad you started this thread though. I just finished my philosophy logic class at IUPUI three days ago and I rocked an A in it. This stuff is still fresh in my mind and peeks my interest. Gimme a month and I won't care much anymore.
Qube 04-29-07, 05:18 PM	I guess this should read class B is weaker then class A => class B is underpowered ? fixed it theOtherDraxen: no: compare < fighter+ other > against <ranger + other>, <paladin + others >, < barbarian + others >. I'm guessing <cleric + others> will be stronger then <fighter + others>, since the second cleric can basicly go CoDzilla. I'm seeing multiple people saying: the problem is people use diffrent ways of measuring. I'll ponder about that. perhaps I'll put something together ...
Qube 04-29-07, 05:24 PM	A => B A Therefore, B people get this because, but for the wrong reason: in the eyes of someone not familiar with M.P., you said the same thing twice: (A => B) A, Therefore B or(since Therefore is implies): A => B |- A => B while m.p. says (A => B) and a thus b or A => B, A |- B for leymen the same thing, in formal logic, 2 completely diffrent things
MHolland 04-29-07, 06:00 PM	people get this because, but for the wrong reason: in the eyes of someone not familiar with M.P., you said the same thing twice: (A => B) A, Therefore B or(since Therefore is implies): A => B |- A => B while m.p. says (A => B) and a thus b or A => B, A |- B for leymen the same thing, in formal logic, 2 completely diffrent things Um, actually, they ARE the same thing. :P |- as you used it here I assume means the triple dot thing in normal logic MEANS therefore. The version I wrote for you was Modus Ponens is as it appears in the logic book for the college course I just aced. We both wrote Modus Ponens. They aren't different at all, lol.
MHolland 04-29-07, 06:05 PM	Check out the wikipedia for Modus Ponens. It lists the different ways to write Modus Ponens. Notice both of ours is on there. Modus Ponens on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens)
MHolland 04-29-07, 06:13 PM	Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread... Back on topic, perhaps to measure balance the community here should construct a standard scenario into which you plug the various classes. This scenario could be solo or group, up for popular decision. Then some consensus of a standard character in a class should be reached. That could take some time. I am seeing a mountain of details to be hashed out here. Simply say Class X against Monster Y and going from there seems too simplistic to me. Any thoughts?
1CentSage 04-29-07, 06:46 PM	Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread... Back on topic, perhaps to measure balance the community here should construct a standard scenario into which you plug the various classes. This scenario could be solo or group, up for popular decision. Then some consensus of a standard character in a class should be reached. That could take some time. I am seeing a mountain of details to be hashed out here. Simply say Class X against Monster Y and going from there seems too simplistic to me. Any thoughts? One big problem with all those "scenario measures" is that there are so many variables involved. So you - either give strict specifications for most of them. In this case you will have a measure which is "objective" and can be easily applied, but will be so special that the result will not hold true in most games therefore missing the objective -or you take a kind of "statistical" approach testing your class in so many standardized scenarios that you "sample" the whole spread of expected game situations under different conditions (gear, feats, spells,time,level, ...). This is rather impractical and it is not obvious that the "spread" of the results will be significantly smaller than the distribution of possible outcomes. Basically this approach will lead to the same results as "guessing from sufficient game experience". Even if one would conduct such a test, you still would have to define how much difference in the outcomes for two different classes warrants to declare one class "underpowered" to the other. This leads back to the initial problem of different opinions about what constitutes a power gap between classes and when it is too large. Another problem is that you would have to define how to derive the total result of the test from the set of results for the individual scenarios. For example, one class might show to be completely useless in some scenarios while it turns others into a complete cake walk where as another class has a medium but constant performance in all scenarios. Which one should be regarded as better? Again we have arrived back at the initial problem. So, I would say the "mounain of detail" is huge compared to the value of a possible result, especially because this result will never be objective since there are too many nontrivial premises to be made. Also it seems that an objective "class ranking" would be of purely theoretical value for discussions about D&D game design. Most people seem to have a clear oppinion about the power structures in their real games anyway. It's just different.
MHolland 04-29-07, 06:50 PM	I couldn't agree more. :D
ArcTan 04-29-07, 09:56 PM	This statement is flawed. It is operating on the assumption that a level 20 wizard is not supposed to be able to defeat a balor without any evidence to prove that a level 20 wizard should not be able to defeat a balor. This is what the CR system *is*. The CR system says that a CR X monster should require a four-character party of level X to expend 20% of their total resources to defeat it. A Balor is a CR 20 creature. If it takes less than 20% of the resources of a four-character party to beat it -- if just the one Wizard can beat it without using up substantial resources -- then there's something wrong with the game. Either the Balor is too weak or the Wizard is too powerful or the CR needs to be rewritten.
Sphere 04-29-07, 10:25 PM	This is what the CR system *is*. The CR system says that a CR X monster should require a four-character party of level X to expend 20% of their total resources to defeat it. A Balor is a CR 20 creature. If it takes less than 20% of the resources of a four-character party to beat it -- if just the one Wizard can beat it without using up substantial resources -- then there's something wrong with the game. Either the Balor is too weak or the Wizard is too powerful or the CR needs to be rewritten. You clearly didn't get my line of thought in this thread.
theotherdraxen 04-29-07, 10:48 PM	theOtherDraxen: no: compare < fighter+ other > against <ranger + other>, <paladin + others >, < barbarian + others >. I'm guessing <cleric + others> will be stronger then <fighter + others>, since the second cleric can basicly go CoDzilla. Well, the first cleric can go CoDzilla anyway, the fighter just gets kind of neglected. Also, those four classes are regareded by the anti-fighters (pro-logic, or whatever) as underpowered as well. It's the entire branch of "melee-types" that you've isolated, and since sucky classes can only be compared to other sucky classes, yours fails to ascertain balance as well. The point is to compare two classes from different presumed roles. Thus, if one was to assert that expert-types were more powerful than warrior-types, we'd have to see how effective an expert could be in the warrior's shoes. The same goes for divine casters. If I want to show that a divine caster can do a better job at being a warrior-type than a warrior-type can, I'm going to take the standard game and make one chance. It's scientific, and IMO, if the cleric going CoDzilla next to a heal-bot cleric makes him better, then he is a superior option to the fighter, even if he isn't classified as a warrior-type.
Qube 04-30-07, 10:16 AM	Well, the first cleric can go CoDzilla anyway, the fighter just gets kind of neglected. Also, those four classes are regareded by the anti-fighters (pro-logic, or whatever) as underpowered as well. problem is comparing classes does not prove anything (reason: see OP: its a balance fallacy). best case you can create an order? <which is almost impossible since that would mean it would be easy to balance all clasees>
Bob Loblaw 04-30-07, 10:33 AM	It's scientific, and IMO, if the cleric going CoDzilla next to a heal-bot cleric makes him better, then he is a superior option to the fighter, even if he isn't classified as a warrior-type. So why doesn't this make the cleric overpowered? He can fill the role of fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric all in the same day. Doesn't this strike some people as too much?
Qube 04-30-07, 10:58 AM	I'm thinking about starting a new thread about idea's how we can define balance. this way anyone can use the same set of criteria ... and here it is (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12256364#post12256364)
NoldorForce 04-30-07, 10:59 AM	problem is comparing classes does not prove anything (reason: see OP: its a balance fallacy). best case you can create an order? <which is almost impossible since that would mean it would be easy to balance all clasees>On its own, nothing is proven with respect to balance. However, if you then set a baseline for acceptable amortized party contribution and compare those classes to it, THEN you can establish balance. And oftentimes this baseline is assumed along with the balance judgement itself. As above, the problem is not a fallacy. Rather, it is an omission.
Senevri 04-30-07, 05:56 PM	Baseline: Let's assume that people creating these classes learn. Thus, newer classes should be better balanced and/or more fun to play than older classes. Of course, it's very much hit-and-miss on these things. Here's my list of classes for Balance benchmark: Warlock Binder Swordsage Dragonfire Adept And so on and so forth. One of the things we notice is that you should get something interesting every level.