Balancing versus realism?

[mcmanusaur]

1. You're making a huge leap of logic with your "stands to reason"; what is this conclusion based on? What in the real world corresponds with a magical fireball that would allow you to make that comparison on a "realistic" level? Yes, it's pretty much an oxymoron to try to evaluate magic "realistically"; a setting can have extremely weak magic or extremely strong magic, because magic is whatever the creator wants it to be.

 

 

 

2. How does an overall long-term balanced system detract from situational tactics? Isn't an unbalanced system actually asking for min-maxing because it encourages you to just "max" the number of powerful-class characters in your party and "min" the number of weak-class characters, rather than including a variety of classes since you'll never know which you'll need?

 

3. Wait, so asking for certain classes to be inherently more powerful isn't powergaming, but asking for a nice balance is? You could make that argument if it was somehow established that mages should objectively be more powerful, but that point hasn't been established yet. I don't really see how character class is comparable to socioeconomic background, to me starting as a famous noble would be more comparable to starting the game at level 20, regardless of class.

 

 

1.  A fireball to the face should be....a fireball to the face.  It should kill you or horribly burn you to the point you can't attack, provided you're not armored.  But then again, I've always disliked the way RPGs have dealt with damage in general.  Hit points are stupid (and were originally brought into D&D as Gygax imported rules from a Battleship game).  You can see how nonsensical they are from games like Fallout when you can shoot someone in the head and have them not only not die, but keep attacking you.  A system of wounds with a high chance of instant death if you hit in a critical body part would be more realistic.  

 

2.  I dunno.  I knew that in a lot of D&D games I could get away with an intelligence of 3 for my characters.  It didn't mean I did it.  Hell, when my BG protagonist was even a class where intelligence wasn't needed, I still tended to set my intelligence at 13 or so, just because I don't like playing stupid characters.  

 

3.  For the record, I actually don't like playing mages much, unless I dual over from something else which gives me more versatility (my fav in BG2 was Swashbuckler).  I liked how I needed to think strategically about how to break through the defense of mages however, as it forced me to think through which counterspells I needed to dispell a mage's protections and make him weak.  If I could just run in there with a warrior and zerg Kangaxx I'd feel cheated.  

 

 

1. But when have the effects of a "fireball" to the face actually been tested? Most "fireballs" you'd see in real life are different from the more or less hollow kinds used in spells, in that there's an object being hurled that happens to be on fire, meaning that these "fireballs" impart physical force as well as heat energy upon impact. The closest comparison is a flamethrower, but even many of those propel flammable liquids so it's not entirely comparable, and the volume of fire being projected is much greater than the typical palm-sized fireballs you see in RPGs. Certainly it would cause burns, but can we really say with any certainty that coming into contact with the typical mage's fireball causes more damage than a sword or an arrow, whether it's someone's face or a limb? And that doesn't even take into account the differences in physics and biology that could easily be present in a fantasy setting, which would also influence this comparison.

 

I don't mean to over-analyze the semantics of the word "fireball", but the point is that you can do this to the same effect with any spell; Should shards of ice really be any more powerful than crossbow bolts? I don't see what "realistic" evidence (in terms of energy and force differentials) we have for these conclusions. The whole hit points construct does have problems, and I have some ideas for alternatives, but that's sort of a different issue.

 

2. Alright, but your lack of powergaming in this instance has little to do with class balance or lack thereof, so I'm not sure what you want me to take away from this example.

 

3. Once again, the level of strategy required to play a particular build is a separate issue from how powerful the classes are relative to one another. While some people prefer to play warriors for the simplicity, every class should have relatively simpler and more complicated builds, and I think I agree that choosing the more strategically demanding option should be rewarded. However, that doesn't require certain classes to be more powerful, if each class has just as much potential for strategic gameplay, as should be the case.

[eschaton]

Better you don't know.  To sum it up though it is a game design crutch used in MMO's mostly to force cooperative play.

 

 

 

All classes should be balanced.  That it isn't to say a rogue shouldn't be more useful on a quest to steal the war plans from the generals tent.  Or a fighter shouldn't have the advantage in a close quarters combat inside a pit when your party is trapped.  But things should be balanced out, no one class should always be the better choice for a quest or battle.  In fact no one class should ever be the better choice even 50% of the time.

 

The game and classes need to be designed in such a way that there is no such thing as a "must have" or superior class, and all party make ups could in theory clear the game.  Baring the one exception being the idiot who gimps himself just because he thinks it is funny or you have to be weak to be "roleplaying".

 

 

Oh, an MMO.  I haven't played one of those since back when I was in high school and beta-tested Meridian 59 and Ultima Online.  I just have zero interest in them because they don't seem to have narratives worth crap.  Only thing worse is a Bethesda game, which also lacks other people.  

 

I don't think I was arguing that any class should always be the better choice.  Remember, we're talking about a party-based system here, not single players duking it out in an arena.  What I mean is that different classes should feel different.  I liked how in BG2 the Monk was a frustrating character at the beginning, who needed to be hidden behind heavy-hitters, but slowly became a powerhouse.  It was in some ways the most rewarding character to play, although I think Swashbucklers fit my own play style more.  

[mcmanusaur]

I also want to say a couple things about your use of the term "true roleplayer" with regard to powergaming and such issues. While I also have my own views about what constitutes "true" or "mature" roleplaying, I find that ultimately little good comes from trying to make such claims. Specifically with regard to your claim about powergaming and roleplay, I don't think that it's fair to say that any "true roleplayer" should accept poor ability score rolls. To me the dice roll system is more of a game mechanic than it is a roleplay mechanic, or perhaps more accurately it tries to game-ify roleplay (and fails to do so in a compelling manner). While to me it's fair and correct to say that a "mature" roleplayer should be able to accept playing a disadvantaged or limited character, they should be the one who makes that decision, not a random number during character creation. Introducing the random dice aspect simply game-ifies this question, and if anything it therefore decreases the incentive to make such a suboptimal character, since people will inevitably want to "win" that mini-game, and thus produces the opposite effect to what was intended. I believe that I share your dissatisfaction with the prevalence of powergaming, but game-ifying things further is more likely to lead to more powergaming than it is to improve roleplay.

Edited June 6, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[eschaton]

1. But when have the effects of a "fireball" to the face actually been tested? Most "fireballs" you'd see in real life are different from the more or less hollow kinds used in spells, in that there's an object being hurled that happens to be on fire, meaning that these "fireballs" impart physical force as well as heat energy upon impact. The closest comparison is a flamethrower, but even many of those propel flammable liquids so it's not entirely comparable, and the volume of fire being projected is much greater than the typical palm-sized fireballs you see in RPGs. Certainly it would cause burns, but can we really say with any certainty that coming into contact with the typical mage's fireball causes more damage than a sword or an arrow, whether it's someone's face or a limb? And that doesn't even take into account the differences in physics and biology that could easily be present in a fantasy setting, which would also influence this comparison.

 

I don't mean to over-analyze the semantics of the word "fireball", but the point is that you can do this to the same effect with any spell; Should shards of ice really be any more powerful than crossbow bolts? I don't see what "realistic" evidence (in terms of energy and force differentials) we have for these conclusions. The whole hit points construct does have problems, and I have some ideas for alternatives, but that's sort of a different issue.

 

2. Alright, but your lack of powergaming in this instance has little to do with class balance or lack thereof, so I'm not sure what you want me to take away from this example.

 

3. Once again, the level of strategy required to play a particular build is a separate issue from how powerful the classes are relative to one another. While some people prefer to play warriors for the simplicity, every class should have relatively simpler and more complicated builds, and I think I agree that choosing the more strategically demanding option should be rewarded. However, that doesn't require certain classes to be more powerful, if each class has just as much potential for strategic gameplay, as should be the case.

 

 

1.  I understand what you mean regarding a fireball.  Still, in terms of the effects that most game systems allow for mages, they certainly visually look more powerful than mundane attacks.  I'd be happier with a system that instead of "balancing" the damage of a spellcaster and a non-spellcaster, made higher-level spells more costly (in terms of casting time, ingredients, stamina/mana drain, etc) to ensure that casting itself was a much more strategic concern.  

 

2./3.  My point was that no one is really hurt by small imbalances in single-player games.  If you're a powergamer, you'll look for imbalances to exploit, and enjoy doing so.  If you're a roleplayer, you'll play whatever you enjoy, even if it sets you back slightly.  Regardless, my original argument was having "strong out the box" characters versus "builds to greatness" both offer different play experiences, and both are equally enjoyable.  I'm not calling for bards to be like 2nd Edition D&D bards or anything.  

Edited June 6, 2013 by eschaton

[hearn]

Why exactly would a mage throwing fireballs around with ease after a few levels have to be any more realistic than a mage who needs to study for 60 years before he can make people tingle inside a little?

[Lephys]

Cross-class-balance is something I don't see a need for in single-player games. It's not competetive, so if someoen wants a party of all mages that make the gmae a cakewalk, I don't feel a need to stop them.

It kind of is, though, really. It's a Feasibility Tournament between various allegedly-feasible options (in this case, classes) for a given player to get through the game. It's the same reason you don't go to a car rental shop and have the salesperson tell you "Well, there's this one, which is fully functional to transport you places. This one, however, is missing a wheel and only turns left, but you can totally rent it for the same price, 8D!" There's nothing wrong with one vehicle having 500 horsepower and only getting 10mpg, and one having only 70 horsepower and getting 50mpg. That affects HOW you go through the game, but neither is detrimental to your getting through the game.

 

Rolling with the AOE example, it's not so much that if a Wizard has a radius-targeted spell, a Warrior must ALSO have a radius-targeted spell. It's that, if you're going to be facing entire groups of enemies throughout the entire game (the figurative road), you can't say "all 11 of these classes are yours to choose from, and will all get you through the game! (down the road to your destination)" when one of them is incapable of handling entire groups of enemies in some fashion (i.e. figuratively missing a wheel and/or has no fuel tank, etc.). Maybe you can't take on AS MANY as the Wizard as you can with the Warrior, all at once. Maybe you actually take on one-at-a-time, but you're much better at controlling several individual enemies in rapid succession. Maybe you can control obstacles. Maybe it requires a lot more effort/intricacy to tackle multiple enemies, but the point is that you're actually capable as opposed to being incapable.

 

It's a very broad balance. It's not "wait, if you to make fire, I should get to make fire!" It's not about being able to do the same things. It's about being able to handle the same situations, even if in drastically different manners.

 

In a game in which combat is an integral part of narrative progression throughout the entire game, it's hardly prudent to tell one player who happens to pick a certain class "Your class sucks at combat. But don't worry... you can talk really well, which doesn't help you in combat. Basically, if you make a party of all that class, then you're going to find out 1/3 of the way through the game that, when you're playing on Easy, you're essentially playing on Insane."

 

It's kinda like saying "You can totally pick whatever class you want and the game won't be a living hell, as long as you restrict your class choice."

 

And, interestingly enough, I'm glad you brought up a class making the game a cakewalk, because balance isn't about simply making sure no class has a tough time of the whole game. Really, no class should make the game significantly easier, either. Ideally (in theory), the only thing that should actually affect the overall difficulty of an entire playthrough is your difficulty setting. Obviously, the fluctuations are gonna vary, but the mean should be relatively the same.

 

There's always tradeoffs, but they don't always have to be balanced.  Think back to randomly rolling dice for D&D characters in 2nd edition.  Sometimes you just roll ****ty stats, and there's no consolation.  Most people keep doing it until they get average (or great) stats, but this is a powergaming thing.  A true roleplayer would take those ****ty stats (even if it meant a below-average character) and just play the challenge of being an all-around subpar character.

They don't have to be balanced, but they should be. Chance wasn't incorporated into stat allocation so that it could take over. That's exactly why everyone-and-their-brother quite rapidly adopted the "roll 4, take 3" rule for stat rolling in DnD. Not to mention, what did you do if you rolled 6 3s? You re-rolled. Is it at ALL fun to play a character with 3 in every stat? Pretty much, no. All your player choices would be overruled by your character's complete lack of capability. Not to mention that, generally, after you'v rolled 6 stat values, you still get the choice of which values to assign to which stats. A good DM vies for a bit of balance in the characters' stats. A few low numbers, a few high numbers. Not all low or all high.

 

You didn't re-roll until you got all 18s, though, because that's equally preposterous. Chance was introduced for variance, because variance is interesting and provides external factors for the player to deal with. For balance, in the whole thing, really. Because all choice excludes a lot of things people might not think to try but might enjoy, and all external factors leaves out choice. That's why we blend them.

[Ffordesoon]

All classes should be separate (that is, they should play and roleplay as differently as possible) but equal (that is, no class should offer a demonstrably inferior or superior experience to any or all other classes, and all of them should be able to get to the end of the game, albeit with difficulties particular to them). I should be just as happy I chose to be a Cipher as I would have been had I chosen to be a Warrior, but part of that is that I should have a very different experience as a Cipher than I would have had as a Warrior. That's how classes in a cRPG should be balanced.

[Greensleeve]

-snip-

 

 

You have some valid points here.  I guess in my mind, when I think about a build, what matters the most to me is the build is fun.  I guess I've been somewhat let down by more recent games because I don't feel like there's the same diversity in terms of gameplay between the classes anymore.  Again, in DA:O, once you took out the visuals there wasn't that much of a difference between playing a ranged weapons character and a mage, which made it kind of boring to play through as a different class.   

 

 

Now that is something that I can agree with. I do feel that diversity is important and classes need to feel different. I don't think that means that there needs to be substantive power differences between classes just because of that though. Difference in build power I wholly embrace however. I do not feel that every build should be equal. But then again, I also love optimizing and having a vast amount of character options to sift through at my finger-tips. 

[Bartimaeus]

I can't help but agree with the OP...all this talk of "the same exact amount of utility as another class and the ability to play whatever class however you like" keeps making me think the classes won't end up being all that unique...I feel like, if you want to play a Mage, you should probably be playing a Mage. Similarly, if you want to be playing a Fighter, you should be a Fighter, NOT a Mage. I like the idea of giving each class the ability to somewhat simulate other classes' abilities to fill SOME other roles than "normal" to some extent - and that does assert there is generally a "normal" role(s) for each class...but I don't feel like every class should be able to do most things well if they just really want to. For that, I'd prefer a classless system where you could just develop characters however you please with absolutely no restraints from classes...

 

i.e. I feel like a Fighter should definitely be able to invest in lockpicking and trap disabling...but I don't feel like they should be able to invest much in more magicky stuff. It's admittedly completely arbitrary from previous experience, but hey, I can have opinions, too, right?

Edited June 6, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[Iron_JG]

Life isn't balanced. Games should be. The point of fantasy RPGs is to have a diverse and interesting array of options at your disposal, allowing you to build your kind of character and play him/her your way, to the extent possible by the game's designers. So having clearly superior/inferior classes isn't fun. But I think it's key to understand that, in story-heavy RPGs, the definition of balance has to be very broad. In combat, this has to include offense, defense, mobility, control, sustainability, etc., all those little factors that determine how dangerous a character is in practice, not theory. But balance has to extend beyond combat, to include how characters prepare for combat. This is something I think even good games fall short on. Balance should include how the characters research the enemy, acquire resources, secure allies, scout and choose the battlefield, and so on. These are all things that, in well-developed worlds (no matter how fantastical), are pivotal in determining victory or defeat.

 

I think PE's challenge is to make these intangibles matter, and to have it subtly, but significantly, offset any lack of combat ability. 

 

As far as 'realism' goes, I think the idea of "soul magic" actually offers a better route to supernatural abilities than DnD had for non-caster classes. I also think it suggests a good mechanism for why those classes might endure ridiculous amounts of punishment (understanding that raw HP should be interpreted as a way of mitigating damage more than directly taking it) or exhibit superhuman strength or speed. I think the system works if it a character's training represents an attunement of their soul energy, which they can 'spike' under duress to great effect. To use an example from earlier in thread, a fighter might endure a powerful spell by magically becoming tougher for a few seconds. If that seems contrived or silly, again: magic. But I think non-casters' magical abilities, if existent, need to limited in scope and reflect their natural class abilities. It totally shouldn't let them conjure a storm of arrows, or swing a giant spirit hammer, or whatever.

[eschaton]

 

Rolling with the AOE example, it's not so much that if a Wizard has a radius-targeted spell, a Warrior must ALSO have a radius-targeted spell. It's that, if you're going to be facing entire groups of enemies throughout the entire game (the figurative road), you can't say "all 11 of these classes are yours to choose from, and will all get you through the game! (down the road to your destination)" when one of them is incapable of handling entire groups of enemies in some fashion (i.e. figuratively missing a wheel and/or has no fuel tank, etc.). Maybe you can't take on AS MANY as the Wizard as you can with the Warrior, all at once. Maybe you actually take on one-at-a-time, but you're much better at controlling several individual enemies in rapid succession. Maybe you can control obstacles. Maybe it requires a lot more effort/intricacy to tackle multiple enemies, but the point is that you're actually capable as opposed to being incapable.

 

There was something called "Oil of Fiery Burning" in BGI/BGII which essentially did the same thing as a fireball, which anyone could throw.  True, it was ridiculously expensive for what it did, but I always saved up the few I found for situations like the chessboard in Durlag's Tower, where having a lot of fire clearing out the mooks right away helped tremendously.  Sort of similar to how if you didn't have a priest/druid, you could always chug healing potions.  Or how by BGII, you needed fire/acid to kill trolls, but spells, arrows, or magic weapons worked equally well.  

 

Again, to me, this is what good strategy looks like.  I found a weakness in my party members, and supplemented with a item.  That's why what's being discussed makes me a bit nervous, because it seems like it will result in a lot less utility for augmenting items over the course of the game, which was part of why I found tactical playing so fascinating.  

 

 

 

 

Anyway, to those arguing in favor of heavy balance, can you give me some examples of well-balanced RPGs, and ones which were not well balanced?  I'd argue that for all its splendor, Planescape:Torment was actually fairly badly balanced.  I didn't enjoy playing as a mage very much, but there was so much content in the game which could only be accessed by being a mage.   

 

 

[Sacred_Path]

Anyway, to those arguing in favor of heavy balance, can you give me some examples of well-balanced RPGs, and ones which were not well balanced?  I'd argue that for all its splendor, Planescape:Torment was actually fairly badly balanced.

don't you say

 

I was actually thinking about this right now and I'd say the first Icewind Dale (with HoW installed). Single class thieves and mages were underpowered, but apart from that, all classes were useful. Of course the game lacked balance in the same regard that all AD&D games heavily favored an equal share of tanks, healers and controllers in a party, but that's nitpicking.

That's one thing I like about heavily linear games, the potential to be well-balanced. If P:E was simply an updated version of IWD with a different ruleset, I'd be happy (maybe next time?).

Edited June 7, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Lephys]

Again, to me, this is what good strategy looks like.  I found a weakness in my party members, and supplemented with a item.  That's why what's being discussed makes me a bit nervous, because it seems like it will result in a lot less utility for augmenting items over the course of the game, which was part of why I found tactical playing so fascinating.

That is an excellent example. Of course, it's mildly tricky in this discussion, because the fact that it literally mimicked a fireball is not really an important detail. But, yes, the broader idea is the point. The fact that Wizards/Mages don't get exclusive rights to igniting things. I would say that, ideally, the two things wouldn't function identically. But, I mean... you're going to run into things that do. Like... a telekinetic shove, and a physical Warrior's kick. Far be it from me to exclude something as simple as a telekinetic shove simply because it almost mimics another class's kick.

 

So, yeah, I think a lot of this back-and-forth between the "I don't know that it really needs to be balanced" and "BALANCE IS NECESSARY! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!" groups is simply misunderstanding. Or rather... ambiguity? Ambiguous understanding? Heh.

 

To put it as simply as possible, I don't want to go through a game and run into 173 instances of NEEDING to be able to set an area on fire, and having the game say "Lolz! Since you don't have a Mage, simply because you don't prefer Mages, I'm actually denying you the very ability to set an area ablaze, even though fire, itself, isn't even magical! 8D!"

 

Now, maybe the Mage is still the best at setting areas on fire, because he has so much more control over the fire, and so much more ease with which he tosses it about. But, that's why I specify "utility." If one class can relocate enemies to any extent, then any other class should be able to do the same. It's only practical. And you shouldn't base strengths and weaknesses on extremely general aspects of the game, like damage. A relative damage difference is one thing. But, the difference in a class's ability to deal out damage should really be in HOW they deal damage, because an overall lack of damage output is always bad, and an overall abundance of damage output is always good. Low damage is not a situational detriment, because you're never going to say "Oh, hey, turns out THESE enemies are actually more susceptible to LOW damage than they are to HIGH damage! 8D" And, again, combat is an integral part of progression. So, yes, the problem with super general class roles based on things like damage output is NOT that "Oh no, that Warrior can deal more damage with his sword than I can with MY sword!", but rather in how the damage output capability of a given class relates to necessity of adequate damage output to facilitate combat progress.

 

That overlaps with oodles of other things, like encounter balance, in general. If an easy encounter becomes difficult simply because you have certain characters of certain classes (as opposed to another party make-up), then any generally tough encounters are suddenly impossible. If you're already on Easy, then you can no longer account for such a shift, except to go back and pick a different party makeup, which solves the problem of being at a huge combat disadvantage due to raw class power, but produces the problem of the infeasibility of not choosing a specific set of classes.

 

It's not a comparison that can simply be made in one encounter example (as it would have to manifest in enough combat examples, throughout a playthrough, to reach the point of unreasonableness), so it's hard to simply describe here in a few words. But, the balance that is necessary is quite broad; it encompassess a LOT of factors. Which is why you don't need to think inside such a small box when it comes to it, like with a Warrior needing something that resembles a fireball.

 

An example is a Rogue's general ability to evade and avoid. What does this produce? Damage mitigation. You can't take damage if you're not getting hit. So, while a Barbarian might storm across the battlefield to his chosen target and shrug off a few arrows and blade nicks along the way because of his extreme meatiness, a Rogue will get to his target in a different manner. Of course, there are still differences. The Barbarian can strike back at other things along the way, but a stealthy Rogue must avoid interaction with the battle until reaching his intended target, lest he give himself away. See, they can both get to a given target without dying. Maybe a Wizard can eventually teleport but this costs him spell "ammo," and most likely defenseless cast duration, etc. So, they all accomplish the same fundamental goal (repositioning themselves to take on a given foe in the midst of battle), but they all have to consider not only different factors, but also the same factors in different ways. And they are not made identical. Neither the Barbarian nor the Rogue instantly travels from one point to another... Neither the Barbarian nor the Wizard adeptly avoid notice... Neither the Rogue nor the Wizard shrug off attacks and/or hurt people along their journey to their desired spot.

 

It's kind of like a puzzle, really. Class-balancing. "How can a hammer be effective here without being pliers?" That sort of thing.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think that the people arguing here mean two different things by "balanced".

 

Those against seem to be defining it as "every class must be exactly equal in ALL situations", while those for it seem to define it as "all classes must provide roughly the same amount of utility, but can have strengths and weaknesses".

 

I feel that PE should be balanced so that when I decide to play a Paladin, I am not selecting a class that is considerably worse than a Mage. This doesn't mean that a Paladin should have AoE abilities to match the Mage's fireball, this means that when constructing my party/creating my PC there should be clear advantages and disadvantages to the choices I make and not "this class can hit **** with a sword, this class can throw meteors with impunity, and this class just sucks". It is bad design when there is a clearly superior choice with no viable alternatives.

[Jarmo]

Those against seem to be defining it as "every class must be exactly equal in ALL situations", while those for it seem to define it as "all classes must provide roughly the same amount of utility, but can have strengths and weaknesses".

 

 

Probably mostly this, yes. But I'd take it a bit further.

For me it's enough all classes provide utility, doesn't need to be roughly equal.

 

For one, I'd separate combat and general utility. Like picking between a professor and a weaponmaster.

One can help you get into the institute, while the other is way better if a fight happens.

 

Just as long as you're not choosing from a weaponmaster vs a regular fighter,

where the weaponmastar can do everything the fighter does, only better.

 

But this seems to be better for games where you choose helpers for each mission from a worker pool.

Like NWN2 or any of the Biowares recent offerings. Less suited for likes of Icewind Dale or BG where you basically

want a dream team for combat and don't go swapping all too often.

 

And the thinking arises from ME2. DA2 frustration. Yea, choose the party, only it doesn't matter who you choose

because they're all equally useful in any given situation. (especially in DA2 where every given situation was you being rushed by a mob)

[cleric Nemir]

Heh. What can I as a cleric add here,lemme see.. oh,the little matter called undead. I can kill a dozen skeletons with one move,mostly. Is that a too much advantage when another class is facing a dozen skeletons? No,it just means that cleric is op against them. So how can you balance this? It's like Lephys said - it's a puzzle. Wee need all the pieces,that's why we form a party. Lemme quote the man,this is brilliant :

 

 

 

It's not a comparison that can simply be made in one encounter example (as it would have to manifest in enough combat examples, throughout a playthrough, to reach the point of unreasonableness), so it's hard to simply describe here in a few words. But, the balance that is necessary is quite broad; it encompassess a LOT of factors. Which is why you don't need to think inside such a small box when it comes to it, like with a Warrior needing something that resembles a fireball.
 

[mcmanusaur]

 

Those against seem to be defining it as "every class must be exactly equal in ALL situations", while those for it seem to define it as "all classes must provide roughly the same amount of utility, but can have strengths and weaknesses".

 

 

Probably mostly this, yes. But I'd take it a bit further.

For me it's enough all classes provide utility, doesn't need to be roughly equal.

 

For one, I'd separate combat and general utility. Like picking between a professor and a weaponmaster.

One can help you get into the institute, while the other is way better if a fight happens.

 

Just as long as you're not choosing from a weaponmaster vs a regular fighter,

where the weaponmastar can do everything the fighter does, only better.

 

But this seems to be better for games where you choose helpers for each mission from a worker pool.

Like NWN2 or any of the Biowares recent offerings. Less suited for likes of Icewind Dale or BG where you basically

want a dream team for combat and don't go swapping all too often.

 

And the thinking arises from ME2. DA2 frustration. Yea, choose the party, only it doesn't matter who you choose

because they're all equally useful in any given situation. (especially in DA2 where every given situation was you being rushed by a mob)

 

 

In my opinion it would defeat the purpose of having combat skills and non-combat skills draw upon different pools, which has been confirmed, to have certain classes excel in combat and other classes excel in non-combat.

[Jarmo]

 

In my opinion it would defeat the purpose of having combat skills and non-combat skills draw upon different pools, which has been confirmed, to have certain classes excel in combat and other classes excel in non-combat.

 

 

It would. Should have made it clear when I'm talking of possible PE implementation and when just rambling about in general terms.

One that still applies though, would be the (mis)balancing of companions.

 

I'd like to meet... say bob the flunked guardsman. A nice guy and all, decent fighter but not good enough to not get kicked out from imperial guard.

And then I'd meet Musashi the swordmaster. A brilliant fighter and a super smart guy.

 

Now if it's a recent Bioware, then it doesn't really matter which one I'm taking with me. Their combat worth will be roughly equal.

But I'd rather the other was just simply plain better than the other.

 

... and now I'm answering by switching the subject. Yeah.

[mcmanusaur]

 

 

In my opinion it would defeat the purpose of having combat skills and non-combat skills draw upon different pools, which has been confirmed, to have certain classes excel in combat and other classes excel in non-combat.

 

 

It would. Should have made it clear when I'm talking of possible PE implementation and when just rambling about in general terms.

One that still applies though, would be the (mis)balancing of companions.

 

I'd like to meet... say bob the flunked guardsman. A nice guy and all, decent fighter but not good enough to not get kicked out from imperial guard.

And then I'd meet Musashi the swordmaster. A brilliant fighter and a super smart guy.

 

Now if it's a recent Bioware, then it doesn't really matter which one I'm taking with me. Their combat worth will be roughly equal.

But I'd rather the other was just simply plain better than the other.

 

... and now I'm answering by switching the subject. Yeah.

 

 

Yeah, I don't understand how this has to do with the classes being imbalanced (rather it's a case of more and less optimal builds).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Those against seem to be defining it as "every class must be exactly equal in ALL situations", while those for it seem to define it as "all classes must provide roughly the same amount of utility, but can have strengths and weaknesses".

 

 

Probably mostly this, yes. But I'd take it a bit further.

For me it's enough all classes provide utility, doesn't need to be roughly equal.

 

For one, I'd separate combat and general utility. Like picking between a professor and a weaponmaster.

One can help you get into the institute, while the other is way better if a fight happens.

 

Just as long as you're not choosing from a weaponmaster vs a regular fighter,

where the weaponmastar can do everything the fighter does, only better.

 

But this seems to be better for games where you choose helpers for each mission from a worker pool.

Like NWN2 or any of the Biowares recent offerings. Less suited for likes of Icewind Dale or BG where you basically

want a dream team for combat and don't go swapping all too often.

 

And the thinking arises from ME2. DA2 frustration. Yea, choose the party, only it doesn't matter who you choose

because they're all equally useful in any given situation. (especially in DA2 where every given situation was you being rushed by a mob)

That is pretty much what I meant, except I think that all classes should be roughly equal in their particular fields. A Wizard should be about as good with magic as a Fighter is with martial combat.

 

The problem occurs when one class' field is much more powerful than another's. for example, if Fighters and Wizards are both equally good at what they do, but magic is much more useful in every situation, I believe that is poor balance. That isn't to say we should see classes reduced to the exact same effectiveness in every situation, that would not be very good design.

 

What we should see is that all classes can bring something valuable to a party and no class is designed to be superior to all others in any situation. I believe this can be achieved by making classes with similar roles more unique and introducing mechanics that make certain solutions harder(like spell resistance, damage resistance vs. physical damage, obstacles that require a wide array of skills, etc.).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Those against seem to be defining it as "every class must be exactly equal in ALL situations", while those for it seem to define it as "all classes must provide roughly the same amount of utility, but can have strengths and weaknesses".

 

 

Probably mostly this, yes. But I'd take it a bit further.

For me it's enough all classes provide utility, doesn't need to be roughly equal.

 

For one, I'd separate combat and general utility. Like picking between a professor and a weaponmaster.

One can help you get into the institute, while the other is way better if a fight happens.

 

Just as long as you're not choosing from a weaponmaster vs a regular fighter,

where the weaponmastar can do everything the fighter does, only better.

 

But this seems to be better for games where you choose helpers for each mission from a worker pool.

Like NWN2 or any of the Biowares recent offerings. Less suited for likes of Icewind Dale or BG where you basically

want a dream team for combat and don't go swapping all too often.

 

And the thinking arises from ME2. DA2 frustration. Yea, choose the party, only it doesn't matter who you choose

because they're all equally useful in any given situation. (especially in DA2 where every given situation was you being rushed by a mob)

 

In my opinion it would defeat the purpose of having combat skills and non-combat skills draw upon different pools, which has been confirmed, to have certain classes excel in combat and other classes excel in non-combat.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong but I disagree. I think that a Rogue should be less adept at martial combat than the warrior classes and be unable to cast spells like caster classes. They should get some unique abilities(like sneak attack) that make them something other than "Fighter-lite", but IMO a Rogue's greatest assets are the multitudes of skills they have access to and they should get the most skill points out of any class.

[mcmanusaur]

 

 

 

Those against seem to be defining it as "every class must be exactly equal in ALL situations", while those for it seem to define it as "all classes must provide roughly the same amount of utility, but can have strengths and weaknesses".

 

Probably mostly this, yes. But I'd take it a bit further.

For me it's enough all classes provide utility, doesn't need to be roughly equal.

 

For one, I'd separate combat and general utility. Like picking between a professor and a weaponmaster.

One can help you get into the institute, while the other is way better if a fight happens.

 

Just as long as you're not choosing from a weaponmaster vs a regular fighter,

where the weaponmastar can do everything the fighter does, only better.

 

But this seems to be better for games where you choose helpers for each mission from a worker pool.

Like NWN2 or any of the Biowares recent offerings. Less suited for likes of Icewind Dale or BG where you basically

want a dream team for combat and don't go swapping all too often.

 

And the thinking arises from ME2. DA2 frustration. Yea, choose the party, only it doesn't matter who you choose

because they're all equally useful in any given situation. (especially in DA2 where every given situation was you being rushed by a mob)

 

In my opinion it would defeat the purpose of having combat skills and non-combat skills draw upon different pools, which has been confirmed, to have certain classes excel in combat and other classes excel in non-combat.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong but I disagree. I think that a Rogue should be less adept at martial combat than the warrior classes and be unable to cast spells like caster classes. They should get some unique abilities(like sneak attack) that make them something other than "Fighter-lite", but IMO a Rogue's greatest assets are the multitudes of skills they have access to and they should get the most skill points out of any class.

 

 

The chances are that we'll see something like this, but I personally dislike the idea of one class getting all the skills very strongly, and I believe it does defeat the purpose of separating combat skills and non-combat skills if the class choice represents precisely that kind of tradeoff. But really it would require completely revamping DnD's utterly terrible skill system either way (and here's hoping for more non-rogue skills so that every class has an interest in skills).

Edited June 7, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Greensleeve]

Going back to the question of well/badly balanced games, anything relying on D&D is badly balanced. And I say that as someone who plays fighters most of the time. ToEE might be one of the worst games of the bunch, balance-wise, because it's basically just D&D core in video game form.

 

Well balanced games tend to games with competitive aspects, like MOBAs or MMOs. At a glance, the Banner Sage seems fairly well balanced too. RPGs tend not to have great balance, to be honest...

[TrashMan]

Uh yeah... let me be honest.  Have you ever even met an actual "master swordsman"?  I have seen a guy draw a sword, cut with it, and resheath it so fast all i felt was the wind and saw a blur.  Meanwhile a piece of paper he was cutting fell over, while the bottom half of the paper stayed still.  I also saw the same dude throw a knife over 20 feet and hit a dummy square in the forehead, and he started the throw facing the opposite direction.  Or is your mage too badass to die to something like having 6 inches of steel lodged in his eye socket?

 

Yeah, I call BS on that.

 

 

 

You can see how nonsensical they are from games like Fallout when you can shoot someone in the head and have them not only not die, but keep attacking you.

 

People an sometimes survive incredible injuries.

There are were poeple with a metal rod going trough their head that WALKED to the hospital.

 

 

HP is an abstraction, but a necessary one. Not only does tougness/endurace varry, but also a party-based game that is based on dice rolls NECESSITATES them.

You need to have some room to work with when you play, because controlling 6 people at the same time would be DISASTROUS if they were to die from 1 solid hit.

So yes, a character APPEARS to be able to take more punishment than any man would, but again..necessary abstraction. Armor. Animations also can make it look worse.

[Jarmo]

ToEE might be one of the worst games of the bunch, balance-wise, because it's basically just D&D core in video game form.

 

Can't see the meaning. Fighters in ToEE are pure distilled awesomeness!

Or did you mean bards and such?