Balancing 3.x

[Anguirus]

If this has already been covered in another thread I apologize, just link me to the thread and I'll go back to lurking.

So it seems to me that one of the major issues with 3.x DnD is that martial and magical character balance is predicated on the idea of a full work day such that there are encounters where the magical characters are left without level appropriate spells and the martial characters are the heroes of the encounter. This, of course, never happens because as soon as the caster runs out of level appropriate spells the party rests because it is in everyone's best interest to do so. One possible solution to this, and the one that I think the gaming den would like to see, is to make martial characters that are as relevant as casters are when casters do have level appropriate spells left to use; however, I think another possible solution would be to incentiveize continuing onward after the caster has shot his wad. This approach has the following two advantages:

1.) I think it would create for a bit of dramatic tension between martial characters, who would benefit by not resting, and casters, who would benefit by resting.

2.) I think that thematically the idea of powerful but limited by resources vs less powerful but consistent is a fun one. I want my wizards to turn into useless sacks of shit once they've pushed themselves too far and I want my fighters to never be as powerful as a well rested wizard.

So, my question is: Ignoring the fact that martial characters are not allowed to interact with an entire section of the game's physics for a moment, do you think that putting a system in place that allows martial characters to become more useful the longer they go without stopping to recharge [building off of the energy of combat or some such nonsense] could make martial characters playable in 3.x? If so how would you structure such a system to avoid blatant abuse? If not, why not, or how might one create a system that achieves the two perceived advantages listed above?

[Kaelik]

martial and magical character balance is predicated on the idea of a full work day such that there are encounters where the magical characters are left without level appropriate spells and the martial characters are the heroes of the encounter.

You are wrong.

[mean_liar]

Not entirely wrong.

The bigger issue is that the spellcasters are swinging for the fences with spell effects and the non-spellcasters are getting +1 to their skill maximums and some trinket abilities that don't measure up.

[PhoneLobster]

Ignoring the rest...

I think that thematically the idea of powerful but limited by resources vs less powerful but consistent is a fun one.

Then you haven't thought enough. It is a bad idea.

The whole "I'm good in one situation and crap in another thing" is a popular way of differentiating characters. And on a round by round, even opponent by opponent basis it isn't so bad. People's game experience sucks for one round, or for a brief moment until everyone in the fight shuffles to better match ups against opponents or something and it provides some contrast and differentiation.

But having your character sit out half the adventure in the suck corner? THAT is your proposal (for BOTH fighters and wizards) and it is not acceptable.

Half of every game, even one entire session of "and now the second level of the fortress of not resting" is TOO MUCH SUCK for players to be expected to tolerate.

If you are hitting a player with the "your character sucks now" hammer you had damn well better be ready to dangle the "your character is cool again!" carrot like 2 seconds of game play later. Not two hours of game play.

[Anguirus]

You are wrong

Please elaborate. What is the central balance point or is 3.x so poorly designed that there is no intended balance point?

Not entirely wrong.

The bigger issue is that the spellcasters are swinging for the fences with spell effects and the non-spellcasters are getting +1 to their skill maximums and some trinket abilities that don't measure up

This is a bigger issue. Could this be resolved, in your estimation, while maintaining a fundamental inequality between non-spellcasters and casters? I.e. do you think it would be possible to maintain the tortoise and the hare situation while allowing martial characters to advance at a rate similar to casters?

Ignoring the rest...

I think that thematically the idea of powerful but limited by resources vs less powerful but consistent is a fun one.

Then you haven't thought enough. It is a bad idea.

The whole "I'm good in one situation and crap in another thing" is a popular way of differentiating characters. And on a round by round, even opponent by opponent basis it isn't so bad. People's game experience sucks for one round, or for a brief moment until everyone in the fight shuffles to better match ups against opponents or something and it provides some contrast and differentiation.

But having your character sit out half the adventure in the suck corner? THAT is your proposal (for BOTH fighters and wizards) and it is not acceptable.

Half of every game, even one entire session of "and now the second level of the fortress of not resting" is TOO MUCH SUCK for players to be expected to tolerate.

If you are hitting a player with the "your character sucks now" hammer you had damn well better be ready to dangle the "your character is cool again!" carrot like 2 seconds of game play later. Not two hours of game play.

Did you just tell me that my opinion is wrong?
I like the theme and I like the stories and character interactions that it makes. You don't and that's fine.

Thank you everyone that has responded. I really do appreciate the dialog.

[Thymos]

Even if we have the paradigm that wizards dominate the first encounter and do nothing the second and there are always 2 encounters every day we still have imbalance.

Massive offense simply is not balanced by a massive weakness.

Not to mention the appropriate CR's for the first and second encounters will be drastically different.

[Anguirus]

Even if we have the paradigm that wizards dominate the first encounter and do nothing the second and there are always 2 encounters every day we still have imbalance.

Massive offense simply is not balanced by a massive weakness.

Not to mention the appropriate CR's for the first and second encounters will be drastically different.

The first half of your post is a good point and something I need to think about for a bit. The second half is less so in that the idea would be a martial character late in the series of encounters is about on par with a wizard early in the series because he gets awesome incentives to continue adventuring. As the wizard becomes less useful the fighter becomes more useful at about an equivalent rate.

[RobbyPants]

There's another issue too: all wizard or all fighter parties. The former will go on a couple encounters per day and refuse to go on. The latter will chug through a couple and suddenly start rocking for some contrived reason and wipe the rest of the dungeon.

Other than that, PhoneLobster is right. You're going to have bored/pissed players all of the time. It's either one half or the other, but always someone. What kind of cooperative game is that? Even when the group's winning, someone is always losing? And I'm not sure I'd call the concept thematic, in that I can't think of any time I've seen this in any fantasy medium. The wizard blast the first half of the day and gets tired, only to be pulled up the hill by the Little Fighter that Could?

[Roy]

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50243

[Avoraciopoctules]

the idea would be a martial character late in the series of encounters is about on par with a wizard early in the series because he gets awesome incentives to continue adventuring. As the wizard becomes less useful the fighter becomes more useful at about an equivalent rate.

Hmm. So, if one were to go for this in the laziest way possible:

Mages start with a bunch of spells. They need to do a ritual or something to get them back.
For every enemy/encounter the group beats, Warriors get expendable "Martial Techniques" which are exactly identical to spells. If the DM is feeling ambitious, "Martial Techniques" will be a different set of abilities than spells, but it will still be equal in power. After an hour of no fighting, the "Martial Techniques" go away. There should probably be a cap of some kind on how many "Martial Techniques" you can have stored at once, and undead swordsmen who have been fighting each other in an endless war should probably not start with the cap maxed when they meet the party.


Is this the sort of thing you were aiming for?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I think it would be best to avoid straight numerical bonuses that increase for every fight beyond. This destroys the RNG.

[RobbyPants]

So it's a complicated, contrived way of granting warriors per encounter powers?

[Avoraciopoctules]

Not from what I can see. The easiest way to do this I can think of is give N dailies to mages at the start and 2N dailies to fighters over the course of the day, allowing them to be stockpiled for a later fight. All you have to do then is balance the two kinds of dailies, which is why I just made them exactly the same.

[NativeJovian]

An easy way to accomplish what Anguirus is talking about: establish a time limit for missions. If you only have three days to get to the Caves of Death and wreck the place, then you have to keep going even if the wizard novas all his useful spells on the pack of wolves you run into on the way there, or else you fail to accomplish your goal. This encourages the nova-prone to conserve their ammo (or allows them to suffer the consequences of their poor planning), and makes fighter-types more useful because they don't have to pace themselves -- they can decapitate a goblin every round all day long without running out of juice.

Of course, this requires you to invent reasons why you have a time limit, and it's important that the PCs know that there's a time limit and what it is, otherwise they'll either take their time with 5-minute workdays and run out of time or rush heedlessly to their doom because they didn't rest when they had no spells and 3 HP a piece left after a battle.

[Kaelik]

Please elaborate. What is the central balance point or is 3.x so poorly designed that there is no intended balance point?

The 'central balance point' (Which is a flawed way of thinking about anything) is that there are some monsters. That you face X monsters a day. And that each player contributes equally to the defeat of each monster.

That's the design. A Wizard that casts one Color Spray in each of 4 encounters at level 1 is supposed to be contributing just as much as a Fighter who attacks as many times as he is able that encounter.

[Ice9]

It seems most problematic when you have an uneven caster/warrior split in the party. In a 3-Wizard, 1-Fighter party, the Fighter is going to go sulk in the corner because everyone else demands to rest. In the reverse, the one Wizard is going to be reduced to a torchbearer most of the time and wonder why he even came along. And once people realize this, there will be a strong tendency to all-caster or all-martial parties, because they have a noticable advantage and less stress.

Also, any game design that requires every mission have a time-limit or it becomes imbalanced is crap.

[NineInchNall]

Anguirus, what you propose in simple math is this:

• Let n be the encounter index. That is, the first encounter is 1, the second 2, and so on.
• Fighter(n) = c, where c is a constant
• Mage(n) = a - n, where a is a constant and a > c

For the first half of the adventure, Mage(n) > Fighter(n), which is definitionally not balanced. It means the person playing the Fighter is playing a second class citizen of the game world.

For the second half of the adventure, Fighter(n) > Mage(n), which is definitionally not balanced. It means the person playing the Mage is playing a second class citizen of the game world.

In neither situation is the game balanced, and in each situation someone is sucking and not having as much fun as the other half of the group. That. Is. Lame.

As a game. It works fine in fiction, and is one of the most commonly used tropes. It is a terrible basis for a game in which everyone is supposed to have fun, however, and you should recognize the difference.

[PhoneLobster]

Did you just tell me that my opinion is wrong?

Yes.

This may seem alarming to you, but opinions CAN be wrong. They can even be factually and objectively wrong.

Your opinion that it is fun to make player characters suck for hours on end is objectively factually wrong. Those players will NOT be having fun for extended periods of "game play". That is bad game design.

I might as well say that it is my opinion that today Gravity is going up instead of down so we should all stay inside.

You could then say you disagree yet it's OK because it's my opinion and if I feel that way I'm allowed to. I would however be objectively wrong and making decisions on anything, like say game design, based on that wrongness will be bad. So Ceiling Boules is really an objectively un fun and dangerous idea.

[NineInchNall]

Did you just tell me that my opinion is wrong?

Yes.

This may seem alarming to you, but opinions CAN be wrong. They can even be factually and objectively wrong.

God, this is true. That you're entitled to your opinion does not make your opinion immune to logical criticism.

[Caedrus]

Did you just tell me that my opinion is wrong?

Did you just suggest that opinions can't be wrong?

Because that's just one of the most wrong things you can suggest and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself if that thought ever crossed your mind.

Your opinion that it is fun to make player characters suck for hours on end is objectively factually wrong.

No it's not. That's just as stupid as suggesting that opinions can't be wrong. In fact fun is about as subjective a topic as they come.

[PhoneLobster]

No it's not.

Did you read the front end of your post?

People do not want their D&D character to suck for excessive periods of the free time they dedicate to game play.

Any exceptions to that rule are so MASSIVELY edge case and contrarian in nature that to use them as justification makes you a moron.

Because remember "But what about Paranoia" is never a defense of anything but Paranoia. And it is totally dishonest to attempt to use it as a defense of a D&D design proposal. Which is what you just did.

[Anguirus]

Anguirus, what you propose in simple math is this:

• Let n be the encounter index. That is, the first encounter is 1, the second 2, and so on.
• Fighter(n) = c, where c is a constant
• Mage(n) = a - n, where a is a constant and a > c

For the first half of the adventure, Mage(n) > Fighter(n), which is definitionally not balanced. It means the person playing the Fighter is playing a second class citizen of the game world.

For the second half of the adventure, Fighter(n) > Mage(n), which is definitionally not balanced. It means the person playing the Mage is playing a second class citizen of the game world.

In neither situation is the game balanced, and in each situation someone is sucking and not having as much fun as the other half of the group. That. Is. Lame.

As a game. It works fine in fiction, and is one of the most commonly used tropes. It is a terrible basis for a game in which everyone is supposed to have fun, however, and you should recognize the difference.

I appreciate your point and recognize -and even stated in my opening post- that this mechanic would not be a useful one for most people. I and many of the people that I play with, however, gauge the value of a gaming session based on how interesting the narrative it creates is and not based on how interesting it was to interact with the game world directly. I like the trope and want to make a system that can replicate it without making some people less able to affect the narrative than others.

Thank you to Avoraciopoctules. Your posts outline an approach that is different from what I　would have thought of.

Roy, are you saying that the Nova fallacy is a fallacy because caster resources aren't as finite as their action resource? If we gave casters fewer spells per day would the nova fallacy still be applicable or would casters begin to nova?

Its becoming pretty clear that I'm going to have to re-write casters and martial characters from the ground up. That is going to take a while and I would love to get feedback as I go [relevant to whether or not I've achieved my design goal not the validity of my design goal please] but, for the people that are not interested in ever seeing my goal realized -the majority of the gaming den as I understand it- this thread is probably unwanted clutter.

If you want me to go back to lurking just say so. I don't want to burden the community with my personal projects.

[Thymos]

Oh, it's fine.

The problem with the concept of nova and 3.x is that for characters to nova there actually has to be combat after they Nova.

After the wizard Nova's, which he can do every combat (or at least 4 combats), there isn't anyone left. That's why the concept of Nova with 3.x is a fallacy.

[Caedrus]

Because remember "But what about Paranoia" is never a defense of anything but Paranoia. And it is totally dishonest to attempt to use it as a defense of a D&D design proposal. Which is what you just did.

Now you're just being blatantly dishonest. I didn't actually defend any game design decision (let alone use Paranoia to defend D&D), I just said that you calling your opinion of what is fun objective and factual is a load of horscecrap and represents a complete lack of understanding about what those terms actually mean.

I accused you of not knowing how to use goddamned English words right, and that has nothing to do with my opinion on any game system.

I mean seriously, how you go from this:

Your opinion that it is fun to make player characters suck for hours on end is objectively factually wrong.

No it's not. That's just as stupid as suggesting that opinions can't be wrong. In fact fun is about as subjective a topic as they come.

to whining about me "defending D&D with Paranoia" can only be explained by either you having godawful reading comprehension, or just being a extraordinarily disingenuous dick. That is not a valid translation of me saying "What people consider fun is subjective." Either respond to the words I actually say or GTFO.

[PhoneLobster]

Either respond to the words I actually say or GTFO.

So you said someone somewhere who we fucking give a fucking shit about LIKES their characters to suck for hours of game play. Because THATS what this opinion being "right" means. So who is that OTHER than Paranoia players? (and even then they don't really relatively suck)

Give us another example then, I just picked Paranoia because it's basically the only remotely good remotely relevant example.

Until then fuck you you fucking moron. You are defending the indefensible on the basis of "something" you refuse to permit to even be pinned down.

So really WHO the fuck enjoys their D&D characters sucking so fucking much WHO?

I demand satisfaction or you will be considered a total fucking idiot for all time WHO LIKES THEIR CHARACTERS TO SUCK FOR HOURS?

[Caedrus]

So you said someone somewhere who we fucking give a fucking shit about LIKES their characters to suck for hours of game play. OTHER than Paranoia players?

Would be nice if you could quote that for me. You know, where I said that, instead of saying "Actually, what people think is fun is subjective, not objective."

Until then fuck you you fucking moron. You are defending the indefensible on the basis of "something" you refuse to permit to even be pinned down.

Yes, indubitably, saying that people's opinion of what is fun is subjective is indefensible.

It's not like I could just... you know, point to a dictionary.

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

something that provides mirth or amusement: A picnic would be fun.

pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

I guess the idea that mirth is influenced by personal feelings is indefensible in the strange world of PL's mind. As is the idea that what someone considers fun pertains to or is characteristic of an individual.

Cuz you know, that would just be silly.

Seriously I think somehow words going to PL go through some kind of bizarro world translator.

Original message:

Your opinion that it is fun to make player characters suck for hours on end is objectively factually wrong.

"No it's not. That's just as stupid as suggesting that opinions can't be wrong. In fact fun is about as subjective a topic as they come." An astute (or at least marginally sane) observer might note that no game design position is addressed herein, nor is Paranoia, D&D, characters sucking, or anything of the sort mentioned.

What PL hears:
"People love for their characters to suck! Paranoia justifies D&D game design! I agree with the person I just insulted the words of!"

Someone needs to be checked into a psychiatric ward.