54 réponses à ce sujet

[Arkalezth]

First of all, I mentioned 3 classes, and none of them is underpowered in combat. The opposite, actually.

Even if light in combat, I've yet to see a module where skills have a really big importance, and even then, some skills are hardly useful most of the time.

And come on, maybe it's kinda vague, but when you read overpowered, did you think about a Rogue with 20+ INT?

[nicethugbert]

kamalpoe wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

If high skill classes are overpowered in a skills based module then how can they be underpowered in a skills and combat based module?

Because in most modules the balance is not 50/50 between combat/skill, and being able to complete a mod via mostly skill use happens almost never.

Then wouldn't a more skills based module be a more balanced module thereby making the classes more balanced?  How about the other parameters of D&D?  Wouldn't the module be more balanced, and by extension the classes, if the other elements of D&D/NWN2 were used?  Wouldn't clerics lose their melee power if they constantly had to load their spell list with cures, heals, restorations, removes, antidotes, etc?  Wouldn't the party lose a fighter or cleric slot if the lairs were trapped so you really needed a rogue?  Locks?

D&D/NWN2 has a number of elements designed into the game to keep balance.  But module builders typically ignore this.  Then the people ignoring 90% of the game want to complain about balance and power and blame the game.  A person cannot blame someone else for their own decisions to not use the tools.

Arkalezth wrote...

First of all, I mentioned 3 classes, and none of them is underpowered in combat. The opposite, actually.
Even
if light in combat, I've yet to see a module where skills have a really
big importance, and even then, some skills are hardly useful most of
the time.
And come on, maybe it's kinda vague, but when you read overpowered, did you think about a Rogue with 20+ INT?

The opposite of underpowered would be overpowered.  You had previousely said that low str rogues were underpowered and did not mention bard or wizards except in reference to my a no-combat skills based module.  Your view is inconsistent.

You would take 20+ int rogues more seriosly if you had to guard the nucular football 24/7/365.

[kamalpoe]

nicethugbert wrote...

kamalpoe wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...
If high skill classes are overpowered in a skills based module then how can they be underpowered in a skills and combat based module?

Because in most modules the balance is not 50/50 between combat/skill, and being able to complete a mod via mostly skill use happens almost never.

Then wouldn't a more skills based module be a more balanced module thereby making the classes more balanced? 

Sure, but it's an issue of developer time vs gameplay time. A highly skill based module takes much, much more time to make the same amount of gameplay time. It's also much, much more difficult to do since it requires much more scripting, which most people are not so good at (me included). A highly skill based module would likely require a lot more writing as well, which is also time consuming.

Finally, most people will simply not notice. If I make some script that adjusts an encounter difficulty based on some combination of skills, this will be invisible to people despite my spending potentially hours working out the skill checking. I do have a three level dungeon section of my campaign that is entirely skill based. And some sections that vary in difficulty based on skills.

It's the same problem as accounting for each and every diety a cleric may have. There are too many to be able to give a cleric of each diety extensive diety specific responses, I'd have to write 50 or so lines for each diety specific line you spoke, and that's before you account for all the other classes and what they would need.

You either write something very specific, like TMGS, Wizard's Apprentice, or Last of the Danaan, or something broad. There's not enough time to do both.

[Shaughn78]

One thing to look at as well is the party size. From what I gather you are looking into making companions. Some classes are under powered by themselves but once you add them to a group even a small group the they are much more benificial.



With your mod are you looking into ways to balance companions or prevent powerplaying or prevent over powered companions?

[Arkalezth]

The opposite of underpowered would be overpowered.  You had previousely said that low str rogues were underpowered and did not mention bard or wizards except in reference to my a no-combat skills based module.  Your view is inconsistent.

You would take 20+ int rogues more seriosly if you had to guard the nucular football 24/7/365.

Read again. Quoting myself:

-Overpowered:

Low levels: Melee mages,

With some more levels: Frenzied Berserker, RDD, ASoCk, Stormlord, Cleric, Bard.

Rogues don't need to have low STR. OK, they may not be overpowered (at low levels), but they're not weak either. And Bards and Wizards can be untouchable. That's pretty overpowered IMO.

And what I mean is that I've never seen the word "overpowered" refeered to roleplaying, always for combat. And in how many modules do you need 13 SP/level? I agree that skill checks are cool and all that, but I'm talking about real modules here. Some skills are rarely useful in this game.

[PJ156]

kamalpoe wrote...

You either write something very specific, like TMGS, Wizard's Apprentice, or Last of the Danaan, or something broad. There's not enough time to do both.

 
I agree, unless you are writing a class specific mod then this becomes very difficult to do. Perhaps you might expect a cleric of lathander to have some specific lines if they enter a temple of lathander or a rogue to have some in a thieves den. But move outside these specific instances and it becomes much harder to do.

Writing a skills based mod becomes hard as well because, for me, I do not have the imagination or roleplay skill to create as many coherent responses as might be needed to complete such a task in a general mod environment.

I aslo think that kamal is right in that, as a mod writer, I want people to know the effort that has gone into it. Much of it gets hidden when you script and make complicated coversation trees. People notice nice areas but not complex convos unless thay are done badly, a nice area is much easier to do.

I am also a fan of party based play, in a mod that requires such I don't think many classes stand out as overpowered. Some individual builds might be poor and die a lot but that is poor playing skill. So from a mod creation point of view if the PC is presented with a balance of classes and combat that is challenging and requires all of these to work in unison both in combat and conversation then all classes should show thier colours at some point.

PJ

Modifié par PJ156, 30 décembre 2010 - 10:41 .

[The Fred]

Arkalezth wrote...
And what I mean is that I've never seen the word "overpowered" refeered to roleplaying, always for combat.

I managed to find this article, though it is pure D&D rather than NWN. Admittedly, non-combat things are rarely called overpowered, but that's probably because most mods are mostly combat, so non-combat things never are overpowered.

As Kamal says, though, it's about how much payoff you get for the amount of time and effort you put in. I'm not being lazy here and looking to blame the system for a lack of balance in my module; rather, I'm looking to see what needs to be done in a module to maintain or instate balance. Obviously, filling up with skill checks and rogue content is a good idea, but this is far from a rogue-only mod so I don't want to spend ages hand-crafting a brilliant rogue story to find out that 9/10 of the classes get a plain, boring module.

Fighter-types are not really overpowered, so I'm probably just going to make heavy armour and things rarer and leave it at that. By the time they get it, they'll hopefully be past the point where fighters have the advantage.

Rogue-type content and skill checks should make classes like this better to play, and it is going to be a big deal for balance since the Ninja class I've just added is, in combat terms, a rogue with better a weapon selection and other perks. I intend to have a lot of non-combat solutions to problems which are at least as rewarding as the combat ones, but again, it's hard work and easy to forget.

Loading up enemies with dispels and things should stop buffing types and Divine Power Clerics from being too powerful, and anyway the Cleric is (in my module at least) due a massive re-work which, I hope, will make them a lot more awesome (not in balance terms - rather, the opposite should be true) and flavourful.

Modifié par The Fred, 30 décembre 2010 - 05:40 .

[nicethugbert]

Arkalezth wrote...

The opposite of underpowered would be overpowered.  You had previousely said that low str rogues were underpowered and did not mention bard or wizards except in reference to my a no-combat skills based module.  Your view is inconsistent.

You would take 20+ int rogues more seriosly if you had to guard the nucular football 24/7/365.

Read again. Quoting myself:

-Overpowered:

Low levels: Melee mages,

With some more levels: Frenzied Berserker, RDD, ASoCk, Stormlord, Cleric, Bard.

Rogues don't need to have low STR. OK, they may not be overpowered (at low levels), but they're not weak either. And Bards and Wizards can be untouchable. That's pretty overpowered IMO.

And what I mean is that I've never seen the word "overpowered" refeered to roleplaying, always for combat. And in how many modules do you need 13 SP/level? I agree that skill checks are cool and all that, but I'm talking about real modules here. Some skills are rarely useful in this game.

Melee Wiz:  Low Fort Saves, Low AB
Bard:  Low Fort Saves, Low AC or Low AB depending on which inspiration is being used.

+100 Plate and +100 Shield will not stop a will or relex save attack, or fort save attack either.

All this talk of over and under powered is highly inaccurate.  That game has plenty of tools to challenge even the most OP build.  But, module makers do not use them.  People would rather blame the classes.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 31 décembre 2010 - 01:11 .

[manageri]

nicethugbert wrote...

All this talk of over and under powered is highly inaccurate.  That game has plenty of tools to challenge even the most OP build.  But, module makers do not use them.  People would rather blame the classes.

So how do you consistently challenge a low level solo fighter without making fights that are too hard for say a rogue, without either changing the fight based on the class or giving some classes more/better gear or other perks?

[nicethugbert]

Why wouldn't you change the fight based on the class?  How can you treat all the classes the same when they are different?  Rock, paper, scissors.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 31 décembre 2010 - 09:09 .

[manageri]

If you have to change the fight then obviously the classes aren't balanced. A soloing rogue is basically just a fighter with worse proficiencies and stats, that's nothing remotely close to rock, paper & scissors, it's more like rusty scissors and scissors. I don't know how it's not the most obvious thing in the world that soloing completely screws up class balance.

[The Fred]

Yes, all the classes are different, and yes, some are better in certain situations, but having to change a fight suggests that they indeed aren't balanced. If the classes were like rock, paper, scissors, I could have three encounters which are also like rock, paper and scissors. Then, each class would fine one easy, one moderate, and one hard. However, if different classes find different %ages of these easy, it suggests they're more adaptable than other classes.

Regardless, there are some instances where one class will get a lot more than another class; for example a level 1 Cleric getting two domain feats and all their proficiencies.

If I want to make a boss fight extra hard by tailoring it to the player, that sounds like a great idea, but if I have to tailor each fight to preserve difficulty across the classes, dumbing it down for weaker ones and buffing it up for stronger ones, that screams imbalance.

I completely agree with your point, but I'm not blaming the classes, merely asking which ones are more powerful. Also, if a class needs to have a module built a certain way to flourish, then it is underpowered in a module not built that way. Equally, if I fill my module with, say, dispelling foes, then I have indirectly nerfed buff-based characters. So, consider instead the question "Which classes are under/overpowered in common module compositions such as the OC?" (even more wooly a question, perhaps) and "What can a module builder do to remedy that?"

Modifié par The Fred, 31 décembre 2010 - 10:55 .

[Arkalezth]

nicethugbert wrote...

Melee Wiz:  Low Fort Saves, Low AB
Bard:  Low Fort Saves, Low AC or Low AB depending on which inspiration is being used.

+100 Plate and +100 Shield will not stop a will or relex save attack, or fort save attack either.

All this talk of over and under powered is highly inaccurate.  That game has plenty of tools to challenge even the most OP build.  But, module makers do not use them.  People would rather blame the classes.

I don't have problems with AB myself.

I'm talking about real module experience here. Melee mages are one of the most powerful classes at low levels in my experience.  I agree that every class has its weakness and modules rarely exploit them, but some are clearly better than others. 30 AC at low levels won't stop a Fort save (Protection from Alignment will protect Will saves completely, unless every enemy is neutral), but it'll stop almost every melee attack, which is the most common form of attack in every game I've played.

[Arkalezth]

The Fred wrote...

"Which classes are under/overpowered in common module compositions such as the OC?"

My comments are about experience in common modules: low levels, usually low magic, few enemy casters, critical immune enemies...

[The Fred]

Yes, I know, but NTB seemed to be getting at the (valid) point that balance is very module-dependant. What I'm trying to ask then, is if you don't want to balance classes around the module, how can you balance the module around the classes?

[Arkalezth]

I know, I just replied to the easy question and left the hard one unanswered.

I guess it's hard to balance if the module is available to multiple classes. You could use more spellcasters, dispells, not a lot of undead...

Modifié par Arkalezth, 31 décembre 2010 - 03:09 .

[nicethugbert]

The easy solution if you want to use the stock game is to use the stock game. The stock game is built for parties, not for soloing. So, of course, if you try to solo a party based game with classes built for party play, you will encounter problems.

If you insist on soloing then you will have to tailor the module to soloing by either changing the classes or changing the fight based on the class or including stuff other than just fighting. You will have to chart a playable path for each class.

One of the things about classes that makes it hard to design challenges in D&D based games is all the break points built into the game. By that I mean all the "all or nothing" stuff such as immunities, monk wis AC bonus, etc. Immunities should be converted to save bonuses so that it's much easier to scale challenges. Monk wis AC bonus should be level capped so you have to invest in monk levels to get the max benefit from it. I'd say the same for EDM, Divine Might, Divine Shield, HIPS, etc.

You might want to get rid of multiclassing altogether. There is no multiclassing in chess.

In the nd you might want to buld the module for a specific party composition, let the player know exactly what party you used to test the module, and warn the player that if they deviate, the results are all their fault.

Modifié par nicethugbert, 31 décembre 2010 - 06:23 .

[PJ156]

nicethugbert wrote...

The easy solution if you want to use the stock game is to use the stock game. The stock game is built for parties, not for soloing. So, of course, if you try to solo a party based game with classes built for party play, you will encounter problems.

Indeed, which is one of the problems with creating a mod as players sometimes seem to want both.

If you insist on soloing then you will have to tailor the module to soloing by either changing the classes or changing the fight based on the class or including stuff other than just fighting. You will have to chart a playable path for each class.

I agree, a module needs to set up for solo play, then it can be class specific balanced right and the issue of power becomes irrelevant if the modder has done thier job half right. You could try to have an enemy/situation which each class could overcome by playing to thier skillset: fighting toe to toe, backstabbing, charming or intelligent spell use, but man that is a lot of work.

In the nd you might want to buld the module for a specific party composition, let the player know exactly what party you used to test the module, and warn the player that if they deviate, the results are all their fault.

Yes or just inform them it is a party based module and to play it as such, your statement is still true either way. I get frustrated by complaints of balancing issues from persons who, reading between the liines, have left the npc's at home with thier feet up and a copy of the jobs/party vacancies section of the newspaper.

Some classes may be better at soloing because they can do more, take more damage or whatever. However for me, a party based module should be set up so that any class gets thier bottoms spanked and sent home if they try to go alone or at least find it a very tough ride. I would not consider catering for solo play unless I were creating a solo play module. I think you are right however, the player should be forwarned what to expect. Then they only have themselves to blame.

PJ

Modifié par PJ156, 31 décembre 2010 - 06:58 .

[Lugaid of the Red Stripes]

I'm really enjoying this discussion, and though I'm not much of a character builder myself, I want to add a bit more fuel to the fire.

In designing Last of the Danaan, I thought about character abilities as falling into four main categories; melee, ranged, mobility, and stealth (I wasn't thinking about magic).

Melee includes melee weapons, of course, but also defense, like raw AC and feats like combat expertise.

Ranged is mostly the ability to wield ranged weapons, to inflict damage from a safe distance.

Mobility includes speed and skills like tumble that allow you to avoid attacks of opportunity.

Stealth is the hide and move silently skills, plus related feats.

The idea was that these four elements are complementary, and so character design is about choosing a good balance that suits your play style. For example, a character weak in close-quarters melee would need either mobility or stealth to extricate themselves from tight spots. Conversely, if they lacked mobility, they would need enough high AC to deal with any foe they couldn't outrun.

For this kind of balance to work though, the module needs open areas for maneuver and ranged attacks, and quests have to be written so that it's possible to succeed by avoiding combat through stealth.

Though of this way, fighters, rangers, monks, and rogues each seem to balance out to a different style of tactical play, and multi-classing is a great way to fine-tune the differences. What I don't know is how the other classes figure into this scheme, especially when you start thinking about non-combat related skills (e.g. healing vs. resting, buffs vs. items, conversation skills), or very module-specific situations (like hordes of undead, particular spellcasters).

[The Fred]

I guess that approach could be extended to all classes, but it'd get a lot more complicated as you'd have to take into account the plethora of magic-users and non-combat features.

[MokahTGS]

One of the things that I'm doing for Jabberwocky is restricting the items available.  There are no "magical" weapons in the module other than the Vorpal Blade, which has a very specific purpose.  Weapons and armor only go as high as masterwork, which means that players need to have a party to help out the meat shields.  Jabberwocky is built around party play (SoZ style) so the player can build their party knowing that they will have to rely on feats, skills, spells to survive.

With this design choice the classes chosen have higher importance.  Picking feats/skills/spells that help the party as a whole become paramount.  In Jabberwocky, I don't balance the mod...I let the player balance their party and try to survive.  It's about the journey, I want to see if the player can make it.

In the end...isn't that the point?

As module makers, we quite often seem scared to let players fail, die, and lose.  If someone decides they want to try to solo Jabberwocky and then screams that it's unbalanced, that is their fault, not mine.  I will test the module in many different party configurations, and the player be warned.  I plan for the players death.  It's part of the design.  I'm balancing this mod for the mod to win.  They players need to beat me.  That's where the fun is.

[The Fred]

That's very true. I have to say I'm very much in favour of throwing the players to the wolves and seeing how they survive. However, whilst the game might not be unbalanced if you can't solo it, it's probably unbalanced if you can't do it as a rogue, say. I guess in party terms, a balanced one is probably going to be better than a team of four pure barbarians, but on an individual basis, classes ought to be - more or less - balanced. I don't mind giving some classes a more challenging time of it, but I'd rather it be because I've decided it'll be so - for example, my mod will be quite low-magic in many respects, with few scrolls and things, so wizards may struggle - rather than because Hide in Plain Sight equals easy wins, and Barbarian Rage doesn't stack.

[kamalpoe]

Give xp for disarming traps and picking locks, and make traps more dangerous. All of a sudden rogue doesn't look so useless and they hold their own in accumulating xp for the party.

[Haplose]

Well, nothing is stopping players from doing 1 Rogue / X Wizard or whatever multiclasses then to overcome these challenges. But I suppose it can't really be helped much.