Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 archangel62 Apr 26, 2007 3:40:23	A common argument brought up in debates on class balance, especially of caster vs. martial classes, is the nova effect of caster classes. The power that they have to either nuke a small set of encounters then work poorly for the rest of them or to be at best mediocre in many encounters but never really do anything incredible in one of them has led to some questioning of the challenge rating system as well as the based mechanic of encounters per day. There have been some who argue that the best way to deal with this is to instead focus on a new idea of being simply built to work per-encounter rather than per day. This method does have some merit and for a while I was strongly behind it but recently I have considered several problems that could arise, or at the very least potential issues that need to be considered before such a conversion would take place. 1) The magic system needs a total overhaul, this has been said before but the thing is that the slot based Vancian system and the point based psionics system will not balance well in a per-encounter environment. The question becomes how magic would work, would we have something closer to the caster of Iron Heroes? Or perhaps we’d be looking at something like the Binder, Incarnate, and Warlock on slightly modified scales. Maybe a variation on the Tome of Battle or the recharge magic variant in Unearthed Arcana but there are some pitfalls there as well, one of the largest dealing with the universal issue of hitpoints. 2) Healing and hitpoints are a big problem in this setup as they are what you might call the key to the entire setup. HP are probably not going to magically regenerate between encounters without some form of help so healing in some capacity in necessary. This is a big balance area because if we were to modify the magic system to be more steady the party could conceivably face every encounter at full hitpoints with no loss of resources. This might not sound like much by itself but it, combined with potentially limited augmentation magic or abilities would play merry hell with any semblance of trying to create a proper challenge system. 3) What would the intended purpose be for this conversion? I mean while we might argue that it will cut down on certain abuses but there is no such thing as an airtight gaming system. Whatever we manage to fix or remove we are likely to create just as many problems. 4) Class design would need a complete reworking from the ground up. The classes would still have differences but now with a game with classes built on a per-encounter basis we would either need to have multiple classes with narrow roles or an entirely classless system to make the game function at some semblance to keep it interesting. Otherwise there is likely to be a plethora of classes that are functionally identical and that is likely to reduce overall enjoyment of the game. 5) How do we intend to make the balance per-encounter? I ask because this would necessitate changes of monsters, magic systems, the entire combat system and probably alter how magic items work. The big question here is what we are looking for with the idea of per-encounter balance?
#2 tarlss May 11, 2007 15:31:56	If you want per encounter balance, then everyone should contribute equally to the combat. That means what a fighter can do in a single standard action should be no less than what a wizard can do in the same amount of time. Essentially, that means if a 4th level wizard casts HOLD PERSON with a 75% chance of success, essentially killing the person in one shot, then either a fighter should A) Substantially be more durable in terms of 'Not Dying/Getting screwedness' rather than merely hitpoints B) able to kill/incapacitate kill someone with a higher percentage chance due to the fact that he's melee. C) Not kill the target within one round, but have a guaranteed kill on the second round ( IE, for a 20 HP goblin, do 10 on the first round, 10 on the second, at a 100% chance.) Honestly, encounters per day is a completely ridiculous way to balance things. Arbitrarily deciding whether the adventure should have 1, 2, 3 or 4 encounters should be up to the DM, and he shouldn't have to face balance problems because there's a certain story he wants to tell. Only D&D suffers from this particular problem- D20 Modern, Star Wars and other RPGs certainly don't suffer the same way D&D does from the encounters per day balance, and don't come with that advisory. Honestly, it's a bit demanding for anyone to fight four encounters a day- Who does that? Rarely does it happen in fiction. There are battles to be certain, but those tend to run as a single encounter, and serve as climactic plot points. They certainly are not the norm. It's also a fairly demanding thing on Roleplaying groups. Most game sessions are four hours long. Honestly, most folks are prepared to call a gameday once the session is over. If I give a generous estimate of one hour per combat, that's four hours of nothing but killing anything, with little to say of plot or 'role-playing' in between. Yeah, you can stretch a game day over multiple sessions, but honestly. Every time in the plot there's a combat situation, isn't it a little much to ask the DM to REGULARLY put in THREE MORE just so things balanced out? I think it's a little unfair to essentially 'punish' groups that do less combat by making certain character choices, like psions, quite obviously overpowered the less fighting there is. This is really, why fighters suck and spellcasters rule. In an RPG group, combat oriented classes should be equally capable in combat, irregardless of how much actual fighting there is. I hate to say this, but look at WOW and other MMORPGS. The character classes fulfill different roles and fight differently, but are balanced regardless of whether the players wish to have an 8 hour game session or a 1 hour game session. D&D should be the same.