Author Topic: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.  (Read 18537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nytemare3701

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
    • Email
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2011, 07:46:34 PM »
Quote from: Nytemare3701
Unfortunately, getting people together in a chatroom or on ventrilo is almost impossible with this lot.

We also have differing view on what balance is.

I believe that's more or less what hapened during 3.0/3.5's design from what I gathered. There was  a bunch of dudes with cool ideas, but they were each on diferent pages, on more than one sense. So the dude making planar bidding didn't notice the wish-granting outsider with low HD, the dude making druid didn't notice the actual animal stats, the dude making weapon focus probably heard that +1 Bab should be a big deal, ect, ect.


And then there was sheer fanboysm. One of the authors of Unhearted Arcana says druids aren't cool enough and should get a domain of their choice for free. Probably the same dude that made planar sheperd (advance all of the druid's main strenghts, get uber new powers, and lose only the minor vanilla druid abilities you probably didn't even notice anyway???)



ninjarabbit:
Actually, natural spell was not on 3.0 core (it first apeared in masters of the wild). And animal companions were considerably weaker. And wildshape didn't grant extraordinary abilities of the animal you transformed.

So yeah, there was definetely a druid fanboy hidden somewhere infiltrating the designers between 3.0 and 3.5.

Even with the problems this board has, we are 100x better than they were at development. At least we all have an idea of what is wrong, and all have semi-workable ideas on how to fix it. I've been pulling homebrew out of my ass all week, and I've had very little negative feedback. If I can join BG, lurk for a few months, then suddenly start whipping out WORKING revisions to the PHB, then think of what would happen if TML got on ventrilo with me for a week.

BeholderSlayer

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2011, 07:49:06 PM »
Quote from: Nytemare3701
Unfortunately, getting people together in a chatroom or on ventrilo is almost impossible with this lot.

We also have differing view on what balance is.

I believe that's more or less what hapened during 3.0/3.5's design from what I gathered. There was  a bunch of dudes with cool ideas, but they were each on diferent pages, on more than one sense. So the dude making planar bidding didn't notice the wish-granting outsider with low HD, the dude making druid didn't notice the actual animal stats, the dude making weapon focus probably heard that +1 Bab should be a big deal, ect, ect.


And then there was sheer fanboysm. One of the authors of Unhearted Arcana says druids aren't cool enough and should get a domain of their choice for free. Probably the same dude that made planar sheperd (advance all of the druid's main strenghts, get uber new powers, and lose only the minor vanilla druid abilities you probably didn't even notice anyway???)



ninjarabbit:
Actually, natural spell was not on 3.0 core (it first apeared in masters of the wild). And animal companions were considerably weaker. And wildshape didn't grant extraordinary abilities of the animal you transformed.

So yeah, there was definetely a druid fanboy hidden somewhere infiltrating the designers between 3.0 and 3.5.

Even with the problems this board has, we are 100x better than they were at development. At least we all have an idea of what is wrong, and all have semi-workable ideas on how to fix it. I've been pulling homebrew out of my ass all week, and I've had very little negative feedback. If I can join BG, lurk for a few months, then suddenly start whipping out WORKING revisions to the PHB, then think of what would happen if TML got on ventrilo with me for a week.

I would rather not think about it. Even just the thought of it gives me visions of Catholic priests and choir boys.
Hi Welcome
[spoiler]
Allow me to welcome you both with my literal words and with an active display of how much you fit in by being tone deaf, dumb, and uncritical of your babbling myself.[/spoiler]


The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #23 on: January 22, 2011, 07:55:27 PM »
I don't do voice chat or podcasts.

It is a thing with me.  If I know what somebody sounds like, I read text in their voice.

I find myself unable to take people with stupid sounding voices seriously.

And my speakers are crappy enough to make everybody's voices sound stupid when they're recorded on a microphone.


I once made the mistake of trying out sound recorder and listening to myself.  I can no longer take myself seriously.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

ninjarabbit

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
    • Email
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2011, 07:56:09 PM »
Not to mention that druids also got spontaneous summoning between 3.0 and 3.5, there's a conspiracy there.

Nytemare3701

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
    • Email
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2011, 08:00:42 PM »
I don't do voice chat or podcasts.

It is a thing with me.  If I know what somebody sounds like, I read text in their voice.

I find myself unable to take people with stupid sounding voices seriously.

And my speakers are crappy enough to make everybody's voices sound stupid when they're recorded on a microphone.


I once made the mistake of trying out sound recorder and listening to myself.  I can no longer take myself seriously.


Sunic_Flames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4782
  • The Crusader of Logic.
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #26 on: January 22, 2011, 08:08:10 PM »
I know the old saying, "Skillsman & minesweeper Rogue.  Healer Cleric.  Tanky Fighter.  Blasty Wizard.  All use a 25 point buy or thereabouts."

Still, what did these characters do to test the system?  Did they go on adventures?  Did they duel each other in arenas?

How did WotC test the other 7 PHB base classes?  What about all the PrCs?

At what levels did WotC test the game?  Generally, level 7+ spells were unchanged in the update to 3.5, implying that WotC generally ignored these levels.

How much multiclassing did these guys do?  It doesn't take much effort nowadays to realize multiclassing non-casters is expected.

Did characters take feats and skills simply for flavor?

What else should I know?

Supposedly, they went on adventures, except here's the thing.

1: They almost never played past level 10.
2: They almost never played anything other than Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard, which explains why they missed say... Wild Shape (the Druid has 10 str and fights with a shortspear).
3: They basically failed epically, which was ignored in the testing. For example, an adventure involved one of them getting stoned (Flesh to Stone save = fail) but the DM cheating so they were not stoned.

No multi and PRCing at all, even though the designers will assume it when discussing classes (Fighter is fine because a Fighter (lowest number of levels possible)/Full BAB PRC did great).

The only one of them that has even a half decent build is the Rogue. But being a core only Rogue, she still fails. Elite Array also really doesn't help with the whole not sucking thing.

The problem is when you outright admit the characters need blatant cheating to get through an adventure, you're supposed to FIX THE FUCKING PROBLEM. Not leave fail classes as fail classes.

Basically, their playtesting got absolutely nothing done. It was the worst playtesting I've ever seen, until I saw Pathfailure which also got absolutely nothing done, but blatantly lied to everyone by saying it was being done.

Sunic's right. 3.X wasn't really playtested in a mechanical sense. That's why I want so badly to rewrite 3.5 from the ground up, with a realtime team of people from these CO boards. Unfortunately, getting people together in a chatroom or on ventrilo is almost impossible with this lot. That's why my FG game is failing so hard.

Democracy fails. Tyranny is where it's at. Jokes aside, trying to get any number of people larger than one to agree on anything at all is like herding cats. The more chefs you get in the kitchen, the worse the stew turns out to be. Get one competent optimizer to go over that shit and start writing houserules. You'll get results. I'd give examples, but I can't yet. Spoilers.

Core druid feats: SF: conjuration, augment summoning, improved initative, quicken spell, empower spell, extend spell, natural spell, combat expertise, improved trip, track, combat reflexes, improved unarmed strike, improved grapple, spell penetration, greater spell penetration, mounted combat and that whole feat chain.

But I agree that the designers learned nothing or the wrong things from 1st and 2nd edition, just like how Pazio learned the wrong things from 3rd edition.

You mention the Turtle Fail feat, but do not mention the standard DPS feat known as Power Attack? Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars, you fail.
Smiting Imbeciles since 1985.

If you hear this music, run.

And don't forget:


There is no greater contribution than Hi Welcome.

Huge amounts of people are fuckwits. That doesn't mean that fuckwit is a valid lifestyle.

IP proofing and avoiding being CAPed OR - how to make characters relevant in the long term.

Friends don't let friends be Short Bus Hobos.

[spoiler]
Sunic may be more abrasive than sandpaper coated in chainsaws (not that its a bad thing, he really does know what he's talking about), but just posting in this thread without warning and telling him he's an asshole which, if you knew his past experiences on WotC and Paizo is flat-out uncalled for. Never mind the insults (which are clearly 4Chan-level childish). You say people like Sunic are the bane of the internet? Try looking at your own post and telling me you are better than him.

Here's a fun fact: You aren't. By a few leagues.
[/spoiler]

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #27 on: January 22, 2011, 08:10:27 PM »
My understanding of how you were "supposed" to play a Druid, and the example is one of these, is you weren't supposed to put your animal companion in combat because that would be abusing nature and violating what Druids are all about, so the animal companion was only supposed to jump in in the most dire of circumstances.  Also, you were supposed to blast a little and heal a little and maybe attack with your scimitar... Wild Shape was more for flavor anyway, and you wouldn't really want to use that in combat because it removed your gear when you did so.  Plus, you're mostly supposed to be in a dungeon, so it's not like you could even be in a really big form or could use a flying form anyhow.  And you can't role play in Wild Shape form so you're not supposed to stay in that form for more than one combat, despite the duration (which was only that long so you could just sit around in the wilderness being a bear to get back to nature for a while before going back into a dungeon).

JaronK

Sunic_Flames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4782
  • The Crusader of Logic.
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #28 on: January 22, 2011, 08:22:03 PM »
My understanding of how you were "supposed" to play a Druid, and the example is one of these, is you weren't supposed to put your animal companion in combat because that would be abusing nature and violating what Druids are all about, so the animal companion was only supposed to jump in in the most dire of circumstances.  Also, you were supposed to blast a little and heal a little and maybe attack with your scimitar... Wild Shape was more for flavor anyway, and you wouldn't really want to use that in combat because it removed your gear when you did so.  Plus, you're mostly supposed to be in a dungeon, so it's not like you could even be in a really big form or could use a flying form anyhow.  And you can't role play in Wild Shape form so you're not supposed to stay in that form for more than one combat, despite the duration (which was only that long so you could just sit around in the wilderness being a bear to get back to nature for a while before going back into a dungeon).

JaronK

WhatisthisIdonteven...

And to the original poster. You make a lot of threads asking questions along these lines. And I mean a lot. What are you trying to accomplish here? What is your overall goal?
Smiting Imbeciles since 1985.

If you hear this music, run.

And don't forget:


There is no greater contribution than Hi Welcome.

Huge amounts of people are fuckwits. That doesn't mean that fuckwit is a valid lifestyle.

IP proofing and avoiding being CAPed OR - how to make characters relevant in the long term.

Friends don't let friends be Short Bus Hobos.

[spoiler]
Sunic may be more abrasive than sandpaper coated in chainsaws (not that its a bad thing, he really does know what he's talking about), but just posting in this thread without warning and telling him he's an asshole which, if you knew his past experiences on WotC and Paizo is flat-out uncalled for. Never mind the insults (which are clearly 4Chan-level childish). You say people like Sunic are the bane of the internet? Try looking at your own post and telling me you are better than him.

Here's a fun fact: You aren't. By a few leagues.
[/spoiler]

Nytemare3701

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
    • Email
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #29 on: January 22, 2011, 08:24:57 PM »
And to the original poster. You make a lot of threads asking questions along these lines. And I mean a lot. What are you trying to accomplish here? What is your overall goal?

If it wasn't him, I would have suspected he was just starting threads that easily incite flamewars. As is though, I'm pretty sure he's just trying to understand the mechanics and history of the game, and start intelligent discussions about them.

Endarire

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
    • Email
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2011, 08:30:23 PM »
How does CHA fare balance-wise?  It's the traditional dump stat!
Hood - My first answer to all your build questions; past, present, and future.

Speaking of which:
Don't even need TO for this.  Any decent Hood build, especially one with Celerity, one-rounds [Azathoth, the most powerful greater deity from d20 Cthulu].
Does it bug anyone else that we've reached the point where characters who can obliterate a greater deity in one round are considered "decent?"

Nytemare3701

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
    • Email
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2011, 08:34:07 PM »
They gave it so much splat love that it is now the best stat in the game (stacking wise).

oslecamo

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1940
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2011, 08:34:23 PM »
Now, ironically enough, ability scores are actually fairly well balanced against each other.  If they had started from that assumption, the game would have looked quite different.
My understanding of how you were "supposed" to play a Druid, and the example is one of these, is you weren't supposed to put your animal companion in combat because that would be abusing nature and violating what Druids are all about, so the animal companion was only supposed to jump in in the most dire of circumstances.
Actualy, that was how 3.0 animal companion worked by RAW. It would totally ditch you if you saw it as a portable meatshield.

The spell functions only if the character actually wishes to be the animal's friend. If the character is not willing to treat the animal as a friend the spell fails.


And then, when it died/ditched you, you had to find a replacement yourself, not a simple priceless 24 hour ritual like in 3.5. And it didn't get extra HD/sharing spells.

Wild Shape was more for flavor anyway, and you wouldn't really want to use that in combat because it removed your gear when you did so.  
On the other hand, whitout natural spell (that, again, wasn't 3.0 core), a wildshaped druid can't buff himself, or cast any magic for the matter, so the few daily uses of wildshape were an actual limiting factor. You coul totally stay on bear form all you wanted, but when you suddenly needed to cast a spell you would need to get back to your original form.

And dinossaurs weren't animals back in 3.0, wich also severly limited your wildshape/companion potential.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2011, 08:50:08 PM »
Now, ironically enough, ability scores are actually fairly well balanced against each other.  If they had started from that assumption, the game would have looked quite different.

Strength is a dump stat for spellcaster as well. 

Given how many ways there are to get cha to ac or saves or skills or whatever, it ends up working out pretty equally overall. 
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

lans

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 886
    • Email
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2011, 11:06:36 PM »
You mention the Turtle Fail feat, but do not mention the standard DPS feat known as Power Attack? Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars, you fail.
I think he mentioned because of improved trip.

We also have differing view on what balance is.
Wouldn't the correct thing to do be to establish a level of balance that we want, and go from there and if other people didn't accept it they could do there own thing?

Skill prodigy from Kingdoms of Kalamar

Nytemare3701

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 674
    • Email
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2011, 11:19:49 PM »
Most of the differences concerning balance are actually differences in game philosophy. Some people want nonmagical characters to work all the way to 20, but the game was never built for that.

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2011, 02:01:49 AM »
Most of the differences concerning balance are actually differences in game philosophy. Some people want nonmagical characters to work all the way to 20, but the game was never built for that.
[shrug]  I am again going to repeat my invocation that magic v. mundanes is not only a meaningless distinction, but also massively overhyped.  I can make a fighter-type that can survive, contribute, and rock out w/ a practically-optimized (note the proviso) party of pretty much any level.  Unless you mean "non-magical" to mean no magical gear, but then I can't imagine we'd be playing D&D anymore. 

I will say, though, that as a matter of design philosophy, characters that can at least plausibly be characterized as non-magical, meaning not wearing pointy wizard hats and shooting fire from their hands, should be viable options at all levels of play.  It's like in a Star Wars game, I want non-jedi to be totally viable characters at all levels. 

Now, w/ D&D, you do run into a problem as levels go up.  Not a mechanics problem, but a conceptual one.  D&D has an exponential power curve (as we all know), meaning that 10 2nd level flunkies will have no hope against an 8th level fighter (pick numbers to suit your taste).  Which means that by say 15th level, the label "mundane" or "non-magical" strains credulity as our lowly fighter type can slaughter entire legions before retiring for the day.  High-level warrior types (or other "mundanes") are characters more like Achilles than even Conan. 

But, if you were designing a game where my high-level fighter-type has a reasonably decent chance to ignore every attack leveled against him (invulnerability a la Achilles) and can then retaliate against them then as a player I'd certainly be mollified. 

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2011, 02:46:04 AM »
D&D has an exponential power curve (as we all know), meaning that 10 2nd level flunkies will have no hope against an 8th level fighter (pick numbers to suit your taste). 
The biggest problem is the power curve isn't the same shape across all classes.  Well, that and the action economy heavily favors small parties against fighty types, since they don't get nearly as large AoEs as wizardy types do.

Your fighter8's hp is going to be, say, around 70 or so (assuming a con of 16 or so)? 

If he's fighting ten sorc2s, he's going to be worried about them hitting him with magic missile.

... let's say he kills two a round (since they probably aren't clumped together, and he has two iteratives), and two of them manage to beat his init (which seems fair).

Fighter takes 2d4+2 damage (cumulative 2d4+2, average 10.5)
2 dudes die
Fighter takes 8d4+8 damage (cumulative 10d4+10, average 35)
2 dudes die
Fighter takes 6d4+6 damage (cumulative 16d4+16, average 56)
2 dudes die
Fighter takes 4d4+4 damage (cumulative 20d4+20, average 70)
2 dudes die (or possibly 1 - he's disabled at this point)
Fighter takes 2d4+2 from the scared shitless survivors, and is defeated.

Note that if he rolled poorly on his init, he'd take down significantly fewer of the newb mages.  Obviously, increasing the newbs ganked/round helps as well - reach would work, combined with whirlwind or cleave, but whirlwind attack kind of sucks.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2011, 02:52:10 AM »
Whereas an 8th level Sorc versus similarly-situated 2nd level fighters would do much better?  The reasons, I expect, being that (a) the Sorc can get his AC prohibitively high and (b) the Sorc has swift action types of defenses that would help protect him. 

In the scenario TML describes, where the people aren't clumped together, the AOE's seem less helpful in that case. 

I might have been off in my level guesses, hence my proviso, but as TML notes it really depends on our fighter dude.  A fighter dude w/ lots of reach and great cleave, or w/ mage slayer, or who happens to be a crusader (so he's healing on a few of those rounds) would fair much differently, and probably be fine, though we're speaking really roughly in what is a pretty tactical game. 

Amadi

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
    • Email
Re: Tell me more about how 3.x was balance tested.
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2011, 06:23:37 AM »
Whereas an 8th level Sorc versus similarly-situated 2nd level fighters would do much better?  The reasons, I expect, being that (a) the Sorc can get his AC prohibitively high and (b) the Sorc has swift action types of defenses that would help protect him.

Sorcerer casts Improved Invisibility Defensively. The fighters fold.