Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Qube 04-30-07, 10:57 AM	after much discussion about problems with balance/underpowered/overpowered and many many threads, I think its time to define balance. as concluded in this thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12245786), the problem with many discussions is that people use diffrent ways of calculating balance, and so endless pages are spend in useless discussions goal of this thread: to create a Standardized Balance Measurement System (SBMS). A way to define balance and check if something if something is unbalanced. the balance problem consist out of 2 problems: (1) defining the what the 'center' is (2) defining when something is above or below the center current proposition: there are 5 roles, and each (exept the 5th wheel) has 3 components Arcane: blaster, enchanter, encylopedia (weak melee) Core AM: Sorcerer, Wizard Combat: close combat, ranged combat, party shield (major melee) Core MC: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger Divine: healer, buffer, defender Core DM: Cleric, Druid Rogueish: trap finder, flank, scout (moderate melee) Core SU: Rogue 5th Wheel: five of the twelve components (all good) core 5W: Bard GRADES: excellent: ex. a barbarian in mellee good: a (non-knowledge build) wizard with his knowledge average: a ranged barbarian (above average dex + base attack bonus + rage + throwing weapon) a ranged ranger going mellee (high dex + weapon finesse + base attack bonus) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: - Choose a role. the class needs to be excellent in at least one of the components and good in a second compenent, and average in a third OVERPOWERED: check each other role: - if you find that there is an other 'excellent' component and an other 'good' component, the class is overpowered (CoDzilla's close combat and party shield)
Qube 04-30-07, 11:05 AM	oke, ... my oppinion BALANCE/UNDERPOWERED: a class of level X is balanced if it has about an 80 % chance to beat a monster of the same challenge rating (not calculation extreme luck or extreme failiure, or special cases (wizard vs magic immune monster, rogue vs undead, ...) ); using about all of his easy replacable resources (cheap one-time use items, and 1/Day resources, hp, ....) though this definition makes rogues very underpowered, since they are very bad in one-on-one combat OVERPOWERED: a class is overpowered if it can easely take over the job of an other class (wizard go fontline, ...) example: the rogue is not overpowered: UMD costs too much to take over the casters role, and the rogue has not enough hp for front liner
Seeker95 04-30-07, 11:14 AM	I do not view balance in terms of a one-on-one approach/criteria. The game is intended for a party of four PCs. Balance, or any definition thereof, should take this into account.
Qube 04-30-07, 11:54 AM	I do not view balance in terms of a one-on-one approach/criteria. The game is intended for a party of four PCs. Balance, or any definition thereof, should take this into account.Any suggestion how? and what 4 party members: 2 overpowered characters and 2 underpowered characters will spend as much resources as a party of 4 balanced characters.
Tempest Stormwind 04-30-07, 12:24 PM	The simplest definition of "balanced" is one I've been using for ages. If, given a choice, there is no best answer, then those two choices are balanced. (I've been quoted as saying "Taste the indecision? That's balance, right there.") This is, by its very nature, subjective. Guess what? Balance is also somewhat subjective since each DM creates different circumstances based on their own preferences. One of my DMs hates building spellbooks, so wizards seldom show up as opponents (and thus captured spellbooks are *rare*). My other DM loves high-magic intrigue games, and thus our combat encounters tend to be less frequent but higher CR, and often involve wizards. Choosing to play a wizard under the second DM is a better choice than under the first as a result -- but while both of those are real-world examples, neither is an idealized, theoretical case. I agree with Seeker. You cannot arbitrarily assume one-on-one combat is any indication of balance. Furthermore, not every option is suited for combat -- Diplomacy-heavy characters, strictly by the rules, can be freakishly overpowered. How can you measure that in terms of victory 80% of the time? What of particular feats? How can you definitively say that THIS feat led to victory all those times, but did not contribute all of *these* times? For that matter, how can you definitively attribute the victory to the class, as opposed to a portion of the class (perhaps the class is perfectly fine except for a high Hit Die, for instance, but won 100% of the fights because he had enough hit points to survive), as opposed to some other portion of the character (a synergistic feat choice, for instance)? This even says nothing about tactical environmental combat -- i.e. bull rushing a foe off a cliff, using cover or concealment, or pretty much *anything* stealth-related. So, not only are they idealistic gladiators, they're also fighting on the open plains and disregarding that they don't always need to fight to overcome the challenge and earn their XP. And all that assumes that solo combat is the way to go, when it clearly isn't.
Drachasor 04-30-07, 12:34 PM	Any suggestion how? and what 4 party members: 2 overpowered characters and 2 underpowered characters will spend as much resources as a party of 4 balanced characters. Right, so you can't just slap together 4 characters and then determine if ONE of them is balanced or not. As best that just tells you how powerful they are relative to each other, since you can figure out who is doing the most 'work'. That's not necessarily full proof though. So balance is tricky because it requires that you assemble multiple groups of 4 together, of varying compositions. Then if you find swapping out a fighter for a barbarian makes the group more powerful (and consume fewer resources than they should in an equal CR encounter), then the fighter must be underpowered. Of course, one has to bear in mind the various roles a party of 4 has to fill. There needs to be a trap handling person, healing capability, area damage, crowd control, and single target damage. Not each one of those 'roles' is exclusive to one member. Indeed, most classes cover two or more. However, each one of those needs has to be met. Once you have those groups of 4 though, you can run them through a bunch of equal CR encounters and see how they fare. Then comparing a given 4-person group with an otherwise identical 4-person group (save one member) you can determine how one class compares to another, and how one group compares to another. That's the hard way of doing balance, but it would judge balance the best. The easier way is making an analysis of how well an individual character can perform in a combat. Determine how much damage he can do, how he can affect the enemy, etc. This is harder and more subjective, but it can definitely show you where large imbalances lie. I think it is sufficient to show that a fighter is too weak, and wizards/druids/clerics are too strong. -Drachasor
wrecan 04-30-07, 03:04 PM	I agree that one-on-one analysis does not tell you if a class is under or over powered. D&D assumes a four-man team with the following roles: combat monkey (CM), skill monkey (SM), arcane magic (AM) and divine magic (DM). Each role has several components. AM: blaster, enchanter, encylopedia (weak melee) Core AM: Sorcerer, Wizard CM: close combat, ranged combat, party shield (major melee) Core MC: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger DM: healer, buffer, defender Core DM: Cleric, Druid SM: trap finder, flank, scout (moderate melee) Core SU: Rogue There is also what I call the "5th wheel" (5W). This class, such as the bard, doesn't have a single role, but should be able to perform five of the twelve roles adequately (a bard is a healer, buffer, encyclopedia, enchanter, and scout) Each class to be examined should be assigned one of these five roles. If it can perform all three roles as well as any other class of its role, it is definitely overpowered. If you could replace a character of a different role with this class without sacrificing party effectiveness, it is overpowered (this is the most convincing argument I've seen for cleric being overpowered). If it does not perform a majority of the three components of its role effectively, it is underpowered (or has been assigned the wrong role), even if it performs one component spectacularly. All IMO, of course.
Archtyrant Terevoth 04-30-07, 04:35 PM	oke, ... my oppinion BALANCE/UNDERPOWERED: a class of level X is balanced if it has about an 80 % chance to beat a monster of the same challenge rating (not calculation extreme luck or extreme failiure, or special cases (wizard vs magic immune monster, rogue vs undead, ...) ); using about all of his easy replacable resources (cheap one-time use items, and 1/Day resources, hp, ....) The problem here is that this is very difficult to show. You've got to analyze everything versus basically every monster in the monster manual. To make matters worse, many monsters are under or over CRed, so you end up with a circular definition. You're much better off just arbitrarily choosing a zero point rather than using a wealth of existing material to try to generate rules for a zero point character. The thing is that D&D is poorly balanced right now, and any attempt to try to tie in your balance rules to existing D&D rules is sure to fail. For instance, your CR criteria assumes that monster CRs are good, which in many cases, they're not. So pick a class, any class, it doesn't have to be core, it doesn't even have to be an official class. And that becomes your zero point. The class you choose should be simple, this means minimal actual choices at character creation or prior to engaging in battle. A fighter for instance is a bad choice, because there are so many feats he could take. A wizard is also a bad choice, because we have no way of telling what spells he has prepared, and any wizard could individually have a separate configuration that makes him a totally different role. It's important that your class be simple enough so that everyone knows what you're talking about. You say "wizard" and nobody has a freaking clue. You could be talking about a summoner type, a blaster, a battlefield control mage, or maybe an illusionist/enchanter. In fact, he could be all or none of these things. Nobody knows. And you can't even get in a wizard argument because it all hinges on having a bunch of spells that you may or may not have prepared for the day. As a zero point, there are quite simply too many factors to consider to even start to compare him to anyone else. If you're looking for a fighter, a barbarian or monk may not be a terrible choice (though they are very weak starting choices). A beguiler is also a reasonable choice, as their spell list is not something that is regularly mutable. I recommend mostly just eyeballing which class you want, so long as it's simple. After that you just start using Tempest's definition of balance and applying it between any two characters. If the choice is obvious in one direction, then you've probably got a balance problem. After identifying that, you just move everything towards the zero point. After you've chosen your zero point class,
MHolland 04-30-07, 08:21 PM	Once again I will toss out there that I don't think you are going to be able to build an equation to measure balance. Subjective? I agree and it appears many continue to measure the classes from an objective point of view. But how can you really measure a subjective entity with objective measurements? I don't think you can. Spinning wheels without going anywhere. Just my thoughts.
theotherdraxen 04-30-07, 09:30 PM	Qube, again, nice thread. I'm with the Arch Tyrant on this one. We simply pick a point and then compare objective power levels. I do think that such a class should be a jack of all trades class with as few options as possible. That way, any class can be compared to it in terms of a chosen niche, and we can then measure. Problem is, I'm not aware of any class that satisfies this need. The Bard has to pick too many spells to be simple enough, the Beguiler can't fight like a fighter, ect. In fact, the DMG says that's its bad design philosophy to create a class that can do everything, so I doubt we'll find a class that actually suits our needs. Therefore, I propose two options. Either we pick the Commoner (sans class skills) as our standpoint of balance, and compare how far above every other class is at any given niche, or we create a new class that has every option at his disposal, and we compare how far below every other class is at any given niche. Thoughts?
RadicalTaoist 05-01-07, 12:45 AM	I prefer to use monsters/encounters of the appropriate CR as a balance point rather than a particular class; there are more of those and the power level doesn't vary as widely as it does between classes. As such, I define balanced material as "material appropriate to the level at which it is acquired and used in a way that it helps a character assist within a three-to-five man party in defeating encounters of the right CR with the right amount of resources*." Overpowered? It's stronger than that; often identifiable with that 'is there indecision' heuristic Tempest employs. Underpowered? It's weaker than that, and depending on the material actually increases the risk of the party failing in the encounters. Broken means something else entirely; I follow others in using that term to describe rules that just don't work and completely change the nature of the game. *keep in mind that daily resource expenditure and encounters per day go hand in hand. A day with a single encounter the PCs can blow all their resources on is perfectly balanced if it's about 3-5 CRs higher than the party level, depending on how much preparation and tactical advantage either side can leverage. Likewise, an 8-encounter day is fine, if the encounters are about 2 CRs below the party level.
Qube 05-01-07, 07:28 AM	... there are 5 roles, and each (exept the 5th wheel) has 3 components Arcane: blaster, enchanter, encylopedia (weak melee) Core AM: Sorcerer, Wizard Combat: close combat, ranged combat, party shield (major melee) Core MC: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger Divine: healer, buffer, defender Core DM: Cleric, Druid Rogueish: trap finder, flank, scout (moderate melee) Core SU: Rogue 5th Wheel: five of the twelve components (all good) core 5W: Bard GRADES: excellent: ex. a barbarian in mellee good: a (non-knowledge build) wizard with his knowledge average: a ranged barbarian (above average dex + base attack bonus + rage + throwing weapon) a ranged ranger going mellee (high dex + weapon finesse + base attack bonus) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: - Choose a role. the class needs to be excellent in at least one of the components and good in a second compenent, and average in a third OVERPOWERED: check each other role: - if you find that there is an other 'excellent' component and an other 'good' component, the class is overpowered (CoDzilla's close combat and party shield) how does that sound (I'll edit the OP, with this proposition)
MHolland 05-01-07, 09:15 AM	How about defining them by 6 roles instead? Giving a nod to d20 Modern create Strong/Fast/Tough/Smart/Dedicated/Charismatic hero templates bearing the abilities typical for a class that fell into. For example the Dedicated hero template would represent the typical 'Paladin/Cleric'. The Strong hero template would represent the typical 'Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger'. Features for this template would include good armor, moderate offense and healing abilities. So first your build those six templates because 6 templates could be used to cover all the core class concepts (as it did in d20 Modern). THEN you put them into this particular scenario. A 6 man party consisting of 1 of each of the templates faces off against a 6 man party consisting of 1 of each of these templates. Basically the group faces itself. This is your control group for the experiment. In theory the groups will beat each other down. So you sit down and detail the scenario round by round using the best tactics. Obviously both teams are going to use the same tactics. Each group is the same. Also consider you use the the law of averages for dice rolls. Whatever number has the highest % chance to be rolled becomes your standard for that dice roll through the entire scenario. This eliminates the randomness and creates stability for the purposes of the experiment. Okay, so you have this worked out. Now you take whatever class you are working with, say for example, a fighter. Remove the Strong hero from one of the groups only and place the generic fighter in its place. Then rerun the scenario as detailed in the control group. Compare the differences that occur between the control scenario and the experiment scenario. If the experiment scenario shows the group does much better with the actual character class and completely unbalances the scenario then you are looking at an overpowered class. If the group the same or perhaps a little bit better or a little bit worse then you are probably looking at a fairly well balanced class. If the group does much, much worse then you are looking at an underpowered class.
wrecan 05-01-07, 11:54 AM	How about defining them by 6 roles instead? Because the DMG expressly states that D&D 3.5 was designed with a four-PC party in mind? A six-man party might be appropriate for analyzing D20 Modern, but I don't think it appropriate for D&D 3.5 THEN you put them into this particular scenario. A 6 man party consisting of 1 of each of the templates faces off against a 6 man party consisting of 1 of each of these templates. I don't think party on party analysis is any better than one-on-one analysis. Some classes are designed for certain types of foes. A class designed to fight the undead is going to appear weak when sent against a bunch of humanoids, even though it might be a fine balance. I really think that any analysis of over/underpower is going to have look at how well a character fills a given role and how much it replaces roles of other characters.
wrecan 05-01-07, 12:21 PM	According to the Consolidated Lists, here are all of the 54 character classes in the game. (I've dropped racial substitution classes, NPC classes, variants and epic classes, which really aren't supposed to be balanced) archivist ardent artificer barbarian bard beguiler binder cleric crusader divine mind dragon shaman dread necromancer druid duskblade factotum favored soul fighter healer hexblade incarnate knight lurk marshal monk mystic ninja noble paladin psion psionic artificer psychic warrior ranger rogue samurai scout shadowcaster shaman shugenja sohei sorcerer soulborn soulknife spellthief spirit shaman swashbuckler swordsage totemist truenamer warblade warlock warmage wilder wizard wu jen Now we can divide them into the five positions. Each position has three responsibilities that the position is expected to fill. To qualify for a position, the class must be able to fulfill two or three of the responsibilities for the position excellently and the remaining one (if any) at least averagely. The Fifth Wheel, however, must fufill five or more of the twelve responsibilities averagely or excellently but shoudl not otherwise qualify for a position other than Fifth Wheel. For example, a bard is an excellent enchanter and average (maybe even excellent) encyclopedia, but is a poor blaster. It is also an average healer, scout and buffer. It is a Fifth Wheel. I admit I don't have all the books, so I'm guessin' some of these. Archivist Ardent Artificer Beguiler Incarnate Mystic Psion Psionic Artificer Shadowcaster Sorcerer (E/E/A) Truenamer Warlock Warmage Wilder Wizard (E/E/E) Wu Jen Cleric (E/E/E) (+blaster and melee combat) Divine Mind Dread Necromancer Druid (E/E/A) (+blaster and melee combat) Favored Soul Healer Shugenja Shaman Spirit Shaman Totemist Barbarian (E/E/A) Crusader Fighter (E/A/A) Knight Paladin (E/A/A) (+healing) Psychic Warrior Ranger (E/A/A) (+healing) Samurai Sohei Soulborn Soulknife Swashbuckler Warblade Duskblade Lurk Monk (E/E/A) Ninja Rogue (E/E/E) Scout Spellthief Bard (buffer, enchanter, encyclopedia, healer, scout) Binder Dragon Shaman Factotum Hexblade Marshal Noble Swordsage If anybody thinks I've misclassified one, let me know. The next step would be to determine how well each class fills its role, and if it fills any other roles well.
Archtyrant Terevoth 05-01-07, 12:31 PM	Arcane: blaster, enchanter, encylopedia (weak melee) Core AM: Sorcerer, Wizard Combat: close combat, ranged combat, party shield (major melee) Core MC: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger Divine: healer, buffer, defender Core DM: Cleric, Druid Rogueish: trap finder, flank, scout (moderate melee) Core SU: Rogue 5th Wheel: five of the twelve components (all good) core 5W: Bard Problem is that these aren't roles per se. A role tells you what the character does. Melee damage specialist is a role. tank is a role. Trap disarmer is a role. Healer is a role. Party diviner is a role. Tracker is a role. Divine caster or Combat is not. Because everyone has some combat usage and nobody knows what it is a divine caster even means anymore. You can design skill specialist divines, melee specialists, ranged specialists, healers, support characters or even save-or-die support characters. It's so varied, it's crazy.
wrecan 05-01-07, 01:45 PM	You can design skill specialist divines, melee specialists, ranged specialists, healers, support characters or even save-or-die support characters. It's so varied, it's crazy. Right, but that's the point. If your skill-monkey cleric is better than a rogue at the same things, then either rogue is underpowered for its intended design, or cleric is overpowered for its. If your skill monkey "divine scout" (I made this up) is as good as a rogue for its intended roles, but isn't as good at any of the divine caster roles, then it belongs in the skillmaster category. Yes, at the fine edges, the analysis of under/overpower is going to be very subjective, but I believe that some consensus could be reached.
Seeker95 05-01-07, 02:31 PM	wrecan, I disagree with both of your conclusions (regarding the skill monkey cleric/divine scout). If your skill-monkey cleric is better than the rogue, then it is equally possible the specific rogue you are comparing to was poorly built. Your final conclusion (I believe that some consensus could be reached) is a claim I would never try to make on these Boards! Around a specific gaming-table / in a specific group? Yes. But not on these Boards!
wrecan 05-01-07, 03:23 PM	If your skill-monkey cleric is better than the rogue, then it is equally possible the specific rogue you are comparing to was poorly built. Which only means we need to compare things to a properly built rogue. Ie, a rogue designed to best fulfill the three roles of a skillmaster. Obviously, comapring an effective character to a purposely ineffective character isn't a fair comparison. Your final conclusion (I believe that some consensus could be reached) is a claim I would never try to make on these Boards! Around a specific gaming-table / in a specific group? Yes. But not on these Boards! What can I say? I'm an optimist :D
Qube 05-02-07, 04:27 AM	Problem is that these aren't roles per se. A role tells you what the character does. symantics. here I define a role as a group of functions (components) that a partymember, filling that role should have. a melee damage specialist should fill the combat-role* the trap disarmer should fill the roguish-role* healer should fill the divine-role* (or 5th wheel) if your melee damage specialist fills in the combat-role, but can only do mellee damage, and can't take the hits of attacking monsters (who might win init), he's underpowered. (since, like it or not, that's also his job). if he fills in the 5 wheel, he might not be able to take the hits of monsters, but has other bonusses (example, might have some healing, some difination, ...). the party won't depend on him to take hits, so that balances it. Because everyone has some combat usage and nobody knows what it is a divine caster even means anymore. You can design skill specialist divines, melee specialists, ranged specialists, healers, support characters or even save-or-die support characters. It's so varied, it's crazy. not everyone has excellent combat uses: the rogue needs to flank, and is waisted against undead and constructs. the wizard does not have excellent combat uses, since he first needs to get buffed (offencive and defencive). thats why I created degrees (excellent, average, good). If some class like the wizard would have excellent mellee combat capabilitys and be good party shield, that class would be overpowered. I defined divine casters as 'boosters': they heal wounds, they pervent wounds (buffs), and create a strong second line (= 'defence') (when they had some time to buff)
Senevri 05-02-07, 06:04 AM	wrecan: Beguiler, Binder, Truenamer, Shadowcaster as a "Blaster, Enchanter, Encyclopedia"? Beguiler can do 1 of 3, Binder can do _anything_ but nothing as the "best", which to me puts them strictly into 5th feel category. Truenamers as blasters are quite far-fetched, too. Shadowcaster... I guess. They're just a bit underpowered. Dread Necro won't heal nor buff unless everyone's undead. Isn't Duskblade quite strictly the Combat guy?
Qube 05-02-07, 06:25 AM	wrecan: Beguiler, Binder, Truenamer, Shadowcaster as a "Blaster, Enchanter, Encyclopedia"? most of the 'special' classes indeed fall under the '5th wheel', or for some it is dependant on what choice you take (fire based shugenja's more likely fall under 'arcane' then 'divine' )
wrecan 05-02-07, 09:35 AM	As I said, I'm not familiar with every class listed in the consolidated lists.
Captain_Kobold 05-02-07, 10:07 AM	Its a bit tricky to nail down specific roles, even for the base classes. For example: I would have placed the Monk in the same slot as the rogue: Good scouting, special abilities, can do a lot of damage in the right situation, but is not as tough as a front-line combatant. Depending on how they are focused, Ranger might belong there too. However the difficulty in putting them in the rogueish class is that the only ability that they are missing is the all-important trap-finding. Likewise, some Divine casters can do duty as melee combatant/party shield role. Also, there are vast differences between a character who has been optimised to the limit, and one of the same class whose player is playing a more interesting, but less powerful concept.
Archtyrant Terevoth 05-02-07, 10:45 AM	symantics. here I define a role as a group of functions (components) that a partymember, filling that role should have. a melee damage specialist should fill the combat-role* the trap disarmer should fill the roguish-role* healer should fill the divine-role* (or 5th wheel) Semantics are important here. You'll have a much easier job defining actual strategic roles rather than vague D&D roles. Because as I've said before, nobody knows what a divine caster is supposed to do, or what their limitations are. if your melee damage specialist fills in the combat-role, but can only do mellee damage, and can't take the hits of attacking monsters (who might win init), he's underpowered. (since, like it or not, that's also his job). That actually describes the rogue's combat role. not everyone has excellent combat uses: the rogue needs to flank, and is waisted against undead and constructs. the wizard does not have excellent combat uses, since he first needs to get buffed (offencive and defencive). thats why I created degrees (excellent, average, good). If some class like the wizard would have excellent mellee combat capabilitys and be good party shield, that class would be overpowered. No, you're not getting it. See, combat is combat. It doesn't matter if you're swinging a sword or tossing a fireball. If you throw a fireball for 50 damage or chop someone with an axe for 50 damage, your'e still contributing the same combat wise. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you're getting caught up in how someone does something rather than what they actually do. It doesn't take a sword swinger to be a combat character. The wizard who just knocked out half the enemy with a color spray is a combat character. Whether you do it with sword, fireball or color spray, you're still contributing in combat and that makes you a combat character. What you want to worry about are actual combat roles. Stuff like: -Damage dealer -Tank -Speed skirmisher -Long Range attack -Battlefield control -Healer And so on. Thats the important stuff. The fact that you happen to heal because your power comes from divine magic instead of the 'heal' skill is irrelevant for purposes of balance. Divine caster, Arcane caster and skill character are just flavor.
Qube 05-02-07, 11:26 AM	Its a bit tricky to nail down specific roles, even for the base classes. For example: I would have placed the Monk in the same slot as the rogue: Good scouting, special abilities, can do a lot of damage in the right situation, but is not as tough as a front-line combatant. Depending on how they are focused, Ranger might belong there too. monk would be a fifth wheel: in the 4 man party: with what are you going to replace him. as you said: no trapfinding, no uber front liner. @Archtyrant Terevoth: - divine caster is supposed to give support. problem is when they use support on their selves - yes, but the rogue also has other uses (trapfinding, ...) without it, the melee damage specialist can't fill the rogues shoes (an addtional rogue-type instead of combat-type will weaken the parties defence; no rogue will geive 'trap' problems) i'll contemplate about the rest of the mail (my current time's up :) )
wrecan 05-02-07, 12:46 PM	Archtyrant Terevoth: I am calling the five categories "positions" rather than roles. Semantically, this is a correct way to describe the four PCs that D&D assumes comprise a party as set forth in the DMG XP sections. I have listed the jobs that each of these positions are expected to fill. You will note that each of them has at least one combat position (blaster, close/ranged, defender and flank) as well as non-combat jobs. I have renamed "Combatant" into "Weaponmaster" to avoid confusion with respect to the fact that all PCs are expected to engage in combat.
wrecan 05-02-07, 12:47 PM	wrecan: Beguiler, Binder, Truenamer, Shadowcaster as a "Blaster, Enchanter, Encyclopedia"? Beguiler can do 1 of 3, Binder can do _anything_ but nothing as the "best", which to me puts them strictly into 5th feel category. Truenamers as blasters are quite far-fetched, too. Shadowcaster... I guess. They're just a bit underpowered. Dread Necro won't heal nor buff unless everyone's undead. Isn't Duskblade quite strictly the Combat guy? I moved Binder to Fifth Wheel. WHere do you suggest the other classes should go?
wrecan 05-03-07, 03:42 PM	I've added some analysis of the core classes. A=Average, E=Excellent, P (if used) = Poor. Anyone want to try to grade some of the alternative classes?
Archtyrant Terevoth 05-03-07, 07:12 PM	Archtyrant Terevoth: I am calling the five categories "positions" rather than roles. Semantically, this is a correct way to describe the four PCs that D&D assumes comprise a party as set forth in the DMG XP sections. But what's even the point of doing that? The only thing defining positions tends to do is get people to say, "you can't judge the fighter on the same level as the cleric or the wizard, because they're different positions!" Positions don't help you towards balancing anything.
RadicalTaoist 05-03-07, 09:34 PM	What? Balance by arbitrary game positions? http://pics.livejournal.com/twoflower/pic/0002xxtw Don't bother. The four-position paradigm is how you spoon-feed the game to new players. Many classes and tactics are balanced to different party compositions. Take the bard. Have him assume a scouting position alongside the rogue, and have him use his bardic music effects (such as Fascinate and Suggestion) on foes that aren't mindless. You change the dynamics of many encounters this way, and can render roles in the traditional 4-position paradigm obsolete. The fact that the cleric and druid were designed to force feed the 4-position paradigm to people - by being powerful enough to eclipse entire classes by themselves to encourage someone to play the band-aid - is support enough for the idea that we should judge capability by actual abilities in relation to CR and possible party members, not just idealized roles.
Ongorth 05-03-07, 10:43 PM	Don't bother. The four-position paradigm is how you spoon-feed the game to new players. Many classes and tactics are balanced to different party compositions. Word. All lonewolfing aside, the premise in D&D is that "the party" needs to be able to overcome certain challenges. It doesn't matter how the challenge gets solved or who solves it. With the ever growing range of abilities available (and as such, combinations of abilities), the idea of different positions as being critical to the system is completely gone. When I think of a badly balanced class, I think of a class that adds in so many different ways you could get away with throwing a commoner into the party and not suffering or a class that's value is both shallow and narrow simultaneously.
Qube 05-04-07, 03:37 AM	Positions don't help you towards balancing anything. no? it doens't mather what a class can do? if it can't function in a party, its underpowered. why diffrent positions: if a class can fill in multiple positions, its overpowered: Cleric vs Bard: - cleric can be the healer of can be the frontliner (CoDZilla) ---> overpowered - Bard: can heal, can have pretty nifty defences (mirror image+displacement), and some great spells; but cant take over the divine caster, arcane caster or even front liner (a supprize round can obliterate the bard quite easy)... he's a '5th wheel' ---> not overpowered either way, Archtyrant Terevoth, RadicalTaoist, Ongorth other suggestions to create a system to define balance are quite wellcome. problem with comparing all classes to one: how can you compare a wizard to a fighter or a rogue or a bard. also what class would be the 'balanced one' : why not the druid? <--- this is the reason I wrote the balance falacy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12245786) problem with the compare against the CR system: example: 2 CoDZilla's and 2 underpowered commoners would get the same result as a default 4 man party, so the underpowered commoner is balanced? @Ongorth: it DOES mather who does it: each player wants to have some active role in DnD: if one partymember never gets to take the glory, its no fun for that player. With the ever growing range of abilities available, the underpowered characters get stronger, but so do overpowered character: balance is yust shifting.
Leo 05-04-07, 07:16 AM	This is not a wargame where players compete between themselves to see who's best, with strict clear limited rules, where balance would indeed be needed. It's a freaking table game where half the things are in the player's heads, the rules in the books themselves aren't that clear and with plenty of holes, one of the guys can change rules at will anyway, and where the main purpose is puting the players in a fantasy world where they can have a nice adventure, where balance is as a loose concept as the rules themselves. The game is too complex for perfect balance, because it allows literally ANYTHING, and probably the reason why it's the most played roleplaying table game in the world(wich is pretty funny, since so much people say the game is awfully built in comparioson to others, yet it remains the most popular). Also, diferent people have diferent tastes. Many wizards takes magic missile as their first ofensive spell. Some people just want to take a big sword and bash. Other people will pour hours in the books looking for the uber combinations, while others will make their characters in 5 minutes. How are you suposed to put balance in that, so everybody stays happy? You can't. At least with just one set of rules. That's why the Dm is given god power. To make the game fun to everybody by changing rules to fit the group needs. As a final example, I show you how popular games like Starcraft and Wow never got really balanced, even with much more limited rules to stop abuse and hundreds of fixes over the years, and worldwide competition demanding for balance. If these games are hard to be balanced, what about D&D? Go to the dealing with overpowered classes in the regdar's repository. It has some great pieces of advice if you really care so much about balance.
Qube 05-04-07, 07:21 AM	... I understand your oppinion, and am partially of that oppinion too, but this thread isn't to find an awnser to the question is it needed or not. it presumes it is needed.
Ongorth 05-04-07, 08:06 AM	@Ongorth: it DOES mather who does it: each player wants to have some active role in DnD: if one partymember never gets to take the glory, its no fun for that player. With the ever growing range of abilities available, the underpowered characters get stronger, but so do overpowered character: balance is yust shifting. This does not address my comment on positions What I said was the obective is for the party to overcome challenges. You do not need to have characters who fill some sort of "positions" to do this, you just need to have the requisite abilities somewhere in the party. The fact that Cleric/Druid/Commoner/Commoner probably could overcome most standard challenges illustrates this nicely. This is not to show that clerics and commoners are balanced. I even did say that precisely! When I think of a badly balanced class, I think of a class that adds in so many different ways you could get away with throwing a commoner into the party and not suffering or a class that's value is both shallow and narrow simultaneously. Getting good balance is just a matter of constant tinkering. Leo is right on the Starcraft thing. You just have to keep on shifting things (that is changing the depth and width) until they hit the point where everyone has something to give without negating the need for others.
wrecan 05-04-07, 09:10 AM	But what's even the point of doing that? The only thing defining positions tends to do is get people to say, "you can't judge the fighter on the same level as the cleric or the wizard, because they're different positions!" Positions don't help you towards balancing anything. But you can judge a fighter on the same level as a cleric or wizard in one respect: of the cleric can perform the role of a fighter as well as (or better than) a fighter of the same level, then the cleric is overpowered (or the fighter is underpowered). The premise of the exercise is that the game is designed with the idea that there will be four PCs with different responsibilities. If a class cannot fulfill the responsibilities of the role it is intended to fill, it is underpowered. If the class can fill multiple roles as well as a class designed for that role, it is overpowered. The most common complaint of a cleric being "unbalanced" is that a properly equipped cleric can replace a fighter in his own role. (I.e., a party would be better off with two clerics in a party, one of whom is prepped to fill the fighter role, rather than a cleric and a fighter.) But to make that analysis, you first have to figure out what responsibilities the fighter was supposed to fill. Can a cleric or druid really replace the fighter? (I think that, in many cases, the cleric and druid can, in a "standard" campaign of four encounters between resting.) I would call this "horizontal" balance, in that you are judging the breadth of a class. Another form of mis-balance might be called "vertical" balance, in which a class of a given level is as powerful as other classes of its position, but of lower level. For example, if a 5th level warlock (just to pull an example out of the air), is as effective in a party as a 6th level wizard, in each of the responsibilities that a wizard was intended to fill, then either the warlock is overpowered, or the wizard is underpowered.
wrecan 05-04-07, 09:15 AM	Getting good balance is just a matter of constant tinkering. Leo is right on the Starcraft thing. You just have to keep on shifting things (that is changing the depth and width) until they hit the point where everyone has something to give without negating the need for others. Well, isn't that exactly what this thread is intended to examine? What classes need tinkering? What classes do not? What roles do parties require to overcome obstacles? How proficient do they have to be at given levels to overcome those obstacles? Yes, you don't have to have a party with the four positions mentioned. You can mix and match, as long as all party members collectively cover all the roles at the proper power levels. Analyzing which classes can fulfill which roles is useful and helpful to DMs looking at the party they are to run and discerning if they are properly balanced so that they can overcome the obstacles the DM willsend at them, and whether there is one or more characters who might find themselves with little to do, becasue other characters can fulfill their roles with more facility.
Ongorth 05-04-07, 06:48 PM	Well, isn't that exactly what this thread is intended to examine? What classes need tinkering? What classes do not? What roles do parties require to overcome obstacles? How proficient do they have to be at given levels to overcome those obstacles? Well, sure, but figuring what "role" each class can fill isn't going to find this. I mean, lets take this as an example: Party faces a locked door Well, there are a lot of ways this could be handled. Pick the lock. Knock it down. Destroy it with a hammer. Destroy it with magic. Find the guy with the key and steal it. Convince someone with the key to give it to you or open the door for you. Make a passage around the door. And many more. Any of a number of different abilities could solve this. I don't think, however, that the ability to solve this problem gives you the "locked door opener role", particularly since some might work in certain situations or levels, but not others. Also, if you take every possible encoutner situation and give it the name of a role, you would have an unmanagebly long list. I would argue that there are no particular "roles" that a party requires to overcome obstacles, rather a great many types of obstacles that can be overcome in a flexible manner through a variety of different character or combination of characters ability/abilities. What a character gives you is a set of ability which have a depth (how powerful their individual abilities are) and a breadth (how large a range of abilities the character has). You don't need every ability in every encounter, but its important that you have an ability that is specific or powerful enough to contribute in a variety of encounters. Individual characters will vary, but its whether or not the class has the ability to make unique contributions to the party should the player chose to design in that direction. That's what you really need to look at. How would you test this? Well, here's what I do. Take an adventure. Look at each and every encounter, playtest it or just play through it with your group. See how each character (character class) can make unique contributions in each encounter. If one class is making significantly more/fewer unique contributions and/or significantly weaker/stronger contributions then other members of the party, there is could be a problem. It might only be regarding the balance of that particular adventure, but its something to tinker. Some of these things are blatantly obvious. If a cleric can fight as well as a fighter AND make other unique contributions (i.e. all the utility and healing spells) you probably don't even have to test. Now whether you should give the fighter more ability to make unique contributions, in combat ability (depth) or other areas (breadth), give the cleric weaker abilities (depth) or fewer abilities (breadth) or some combination requires adding in more classes and making comparisons to challenge ratings for a more complete tapestry.
wrecan 05-04-07, 07:18 PM	I mean, lets take this as an example: Party faces a locked door Well, there are a lot of ways this could be handled. Of course, which is why the proper way to determine balance is not to pose every hypothetical party at each hypothetical obstacle. By looking at general roles a party is expected to overcome, one can ensure all those roles are filled. The locked door can be overcome with magic, brawn and skill. Fine. That onyl means every party should have one of those. But what skills should every party be expected to possess? I don't think, however, that the ability to solve this problem gives you the "locked door opener role" But nobody has said there's a "locked door operner role". ROles shoudl be general, not specific. There shouldn't be a "Guy who hurts orcs" and "guy who hurts goblins" role either. That's not how balance should be measured. What a character gives you is a set of ability which have a depth (how powerful their individual abilities are) and a breadth (how large a range of abilities the character has). You don't need every ability in every encounter, but its important that you have an ability that is specific or powerful enough to contribute in a variety of encounters. Exactly. How would you test this? Well, here's what I do. Take an adventure. Look at each and every encounter, playtest it or just play through it with your group. That's great, but we're not discussing balance within a specific campaign, but balance from the perspective of game design. If you were hired to put out a 3.5 supplement that would include a few new base classes and given the instruction that the new base classes shuould be useful and neither over or underpowered, how would you make that determination?
Ongorth 05-05-07, 01:31 AM	That's great, but we're not discussing balance within a specific campaign, but balance from the perspective of game design. If you were hired to put out a 3.5 supplement that would include a few new base classes and given the instruction that the new base classes shuould be useful and neither over or underpowered, how would you make that determination? Balance from a game design perspective requires us to judge every specific campaign simultaneously, in the form of an "archtypical game". First party modules would seem to enbody this, as these are prepped series of encounters supposedly designed for use with the material. Game balance is a "game in play" concept and we can only design it around how the game is actually played. The only way we can analyze the breadth and depth of a set of abilities is to see how they work in actual play and first party modules would seem to be the "official 3.5" way to play. The further a given group deviates from that playstyle, the more they'll need to tinker to balance the game to their playstyle. The game doesn't, can't and shouldn't come pre-tuned universally to everyones' playstyle. But, it still has to be balanced and I would hope this balance is targetted to the actual material that is produced. So, basically, I would do exactly what I said, except I would use first party modules rather then my own adventures.
wrecan 05-05-07, 10:45 PM	I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with the term "first party module". What is that?
Captain_Kobold 05-06-07, 12:02 AM	I assume a module designed, written and published by WotC. Taking place in the default setting, and possibly using only core rules. As in, you can assume that the module is balanced around the official D&D design philiosophy.
Ongorth 05-06-07, 01:07 AM	I assume a module designed, written and published by WotC. Taking place in the default setting, and possibly using only core rules. As in, you can assume that the module is balanced around the official D&D design philiosophy. Exactly. I'm not saying that many third party (as in, those published by companies other then WotC) modules aren't balanced around the same philosophy, its just with a first party module the connection should be clear. WotC designed the adventure for the game that they made, so one would think it would embody the traits of what an archetypical adventure in there game would be. Unless of course the module is intentionally designed to be different, which should be clear from the product description.