First, I'd like to reiterate that I *like* games based around skills. I
just happen to think that 3e D&D is one of them, even if they have been
disguised in packages called classes and levels. Also, 'balance' is a
subject on which learned people can reasonably disagree and both be correct.
> Infinite Possibilities
>
> Really? I've always found it easier to balance a skill based
> system, than a
> level based system. In a skill based system, to keep it balanced
> all you have to
> do is make sure all your skills have the same scope, and that
> everyone starts
> out with the same amount of skill levels to divide up as they
> choose.
This is actually one step beyond what I was talking about - class-less and
skill-less. I personally find that this leads to a very 'generic' feeling
game. I think it is hard to make this style flexible enough for most
players' tastes.
> With a
> level based system, you have to check out each level and compare
> it with every
> other level in the game, which normally includes classes and the
> bonuses they receive.
But really, you have to do this anyway. The first time a player comes up
with a synergy between skills and wants a bonus this can of worms pops open.
Better to have it handled before game play begins. Also, I find that a
system where some skills are not available until a certain level of
expertise is reached in another skill is attained to be richer and more
satisfying. D&D uses Feats and Class Talents to accomplish this. These are
actually cleverly disguised Skills, relying on class level for their skill
value.
> Of course I've also found it makes a better game if you
> intentionally unbalance
> a skill based system, by assigning initial skill points based on
> you stats.
Give that stats are random, this will actually balance itself out over time.
I've never had a problem with this concept - most games use it in some form
or another (sometimes it is stats, sometimes it is classes, sometimes it is
a trade-off during the character creation process).
> > I think the d20
> > system is an object lesson in exactly this, and based on my
> experience so
> > far it's balance mechanics are outstanding.
>
> Really? When you break it down, I found it incredibly unbalanced.
> It always
> seemed to me that they just put in so much character power that
> one couldn't
> tell if it was balanced or not, with the human still getting the
> short end of the stick.
Compared to prior editions, they have certainly upped the ante for character
power. But they did the same to monsters, so in that respect it evens out.
The classes themselves are certainly not all equally capable in all domains,
but that is the essence of what a class is all about. A barbarian is likely
to fare poorly against a rogue in the city, while a druid will overpower a
mage in the forest. However, power for power (and as I said before, powers
are just skills in disguise), I think they have done a fine job. They also
played up the concept of 'hard choices' when advancing in level, forcing the
player to make trade-offs between two desirable paths. This is a great
balance mechanism, and the fact that one path isn't empirically better than
another and that the choice really is 'hard' bears this out. I am much
happier now with the balance of the game than I ever was with the prior two
editions.
Flexibility (Multiclassing) is the key to a Human's long-term success, but
the additional feat helps out a great deal in the short term. When you
consider that for a character of 'name level' as it was called in 1st
edition (9th), they only have four feats, a 20% bonus to the number of feats
is a huge boost. At low levels (2nd through 5th) it is even bigger. For
Feats that have prerequisites this can mean a human picks up the top-tier
feat 2 or 3 levels earlier than his demi-human buddies. Given that every
stat counts now (in skills), the fact that humans have no built-in
weaknesses is actually a substantial bonus, from the perspective of
flexibility.
I agree that if multiclassing is discouraged in a game that Humans wind up
on the short end of the stick.
> Now granted, the combat power is more balanced between the
> classes, but there is
> more to game balance than just combat, and not every class has to
> be a great fighter.
Absolutely. I agree with both of these.
I think the best measure of balance in a game is this: when does character
advancement break down the balance? It always does. Most games have a
'target window' where they expect most of the game time to occur, and then
the character is expected to retire after that point, because the game isn't
any fun. I think 3e's target of '20th level' is a bit high, but the game is
still very playable even at 15th level. That in itself says quite a bit.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
