Character Balancing
I think this is specifically for Book 2 planning...dak wrote:Thinking it over I've realised I do not think there is much point in reworking the system for book 1, just consider this balance for book 2 instead! The only thing to maybe fix in book 1 would be so some attack spells could make more damage, the buff spells are already powerful enough.
to be honest i'm not sure how you base the build on the "typical person" but to me if we take the assumptions that the person has a firm grasp of the manual and is on his/her first playthrough i'm still not sure they would arrive at a similar build.Necromis wrote:and you are right. I was not trying to make a warrior mage. I was just giving examples of what a typical person would do to build each of those classes w/o assuming later on I could buy the skills or get the books. You have to remember if someone got book I w/o reading all of the forum posts they would have no clue about all the in game spoilers we know about these things. I agree my build is flawed, but it was a quick and dirty example of the skills you need for each. You are right that now we know you don't need to build meditation as perception alone does that. However dodge is good to NOT be hit, you also won't find stoneskin till typically blackwater so you may not always have. Also was also trying to show how someone who is trying to play a typical *true* mage cannot survive as his costs are higher than a typical *true* warrior. If you forget all skills you can buy in the game you can truly see how a warrior can easily out do a mage, and warrior is not overpowered.
statwise:
for the fighter it is likely they would also increase speed know only that it increases damage and armour rating
the mage is likely to focus on either wisdom or intelligence rarely both 'til later levels and i'm not sure if dexterity would be of great concern
skills:
here i would deviate greatly (again if we only take the assumptions that they had read the manual a few times and was playing for the first time)
for the fighter it is likely they would have got shield as well as heavy armour while i'm so sure they would have placed as much emphasis on bow (afterall if they had wanted to be so reliant on bows they would have gone for a ranger build instead)
for the mage it is likely they would have gone for either divination or elemental with some points in meditation. knowing that there is no penalty for casting while wearing armour they are also likely to have a point in either light or heavy and possible a point in a melee skill just in case
so therefore i end up with:
fighter stats:
fairly evenly spread across all 4 physical stats
fighter skills:
fairly evenly spread across melee of choice, armour of choice, shield with maybe a smattering in survival, dodge and ranged of choice
caster stats:
focused on perception and either wisdom or intelligence with possibly a few into concentration
caster skills:
focusing on divination or elemental and some on meditation and alchemy with a smattering in lore, weapon of choice and armour of choice
![Officer [Bronze Rank]](./images/ranks/officer1.png "Officer [Bronze Rank]")
yes, while my skill selection might be slightly off you still prove my point. the mage will have to spread points much farther apart to achieve the desired results. A warrior would not. Granted you just need to switch bow for shield in skills, and change either elemental/divination for lore. But my point is still valid on costs with no positive results for mage.
The Quickest way to a man's heart is thru his back.
on the contrary not only does the mage have fewer stats to spread his points but only 1 primary skill, 2 secondary (3 if you include the other casting class skill not made primary) and 3 with only a point or 2
the fighter on the other hand has 4 stats to spread his points and skillwise has 3 primary skills with the others raised whenever convenient
the fighter on the other hand has 4 stats to spread his points and skillwise has 3 primary skills with the others raised whenever convenient
Couple of points:
This is an old-school game. It is supposed to be unforgiving unless you know and work the mechanics to your favour. The fact is, Eschalon is actually quite easy for an old-school game and you are forgiven for a lot of basic build errors. Therefore, I don't accept the idea that because a newcomer to the game would intuitively build wrong, the game itself is unbalanced.
I want no truck with a game based on class 'archetypes'. As I've said before, back in the day you had rpgs that were class based and rpgs that were skill based. These days things are blurred as the most popular rpg, D&D has been moving to a skills model from a classes starting point. However, the idea of a skills based approach is perfectly fine in my book; classes are merely a cocktail of skills, and I prefer to pick my own than to be dictated by developer fiat as to what a class should be. If people looked at Eschalon as a skills based game where classes merely added background flavour, things might make much more sense to them.
As a skills based system, my earlier posts re: balance are how I view the game, and how I would fix the game. If people want to play 'blaster mages' or whatever, this can be achieved via the skills system and appropriate balancing (perhaps to the extent of further breaking down the magical skills, or making them even less similar to what they are now).
The key thing is to find the right balance for the skills.
This is an old-school game. It is supposed to be unforgiving unless you know and work the mechanics to your favour. The fact is, Eschalon is actually quite easy for an old-school game and you are forgiven for a lot of basic build errors. Therefore, I don't accept the idea that because a newcomer to the game would intuitively build wrong, the game itself is unbalanced.
I want no truck with a game based on class 'archetypes'. As I've said before, back in the day you had rpgs that were class based and rpgs that were skill based. These days things are blurred as the most popular rpg, D&D has been moving to a skills model from a classes starting point. However, the idea of a skills based approach is perfectly fine in my book; classes are merely a cocktail of skills, and I prefer to pick my own than to be dictated by developer fiat as to what a class should be. If people looked at Eschalon as a skills based game where classes merely added background flavour, things might make much more sense to them.
As a skills based system, my earlier posts re: balance are how I view the game, and how I would fix the game. If people want to play 'blaster mages' or whatever, this can be achieved via the skills system and appropriate balancing (perhaps to the extent of further breaking down the magical skills, or making them even less similar to what they are now).
The key thing is to find the right balance for the skills.
If this is meant for me, you missed my point. I'm not saying you have to have meaningful classes, which is overt archetyping. I'm saying that if you go with a skill-based system, you still need subtle archetyping. I.e. if it's possible to do everything with a build, as it is in Eschalon (by learning magic, you automatically pick up sword fighting and rogue stuff), then there's nothing to balance since you're only "balancing" badass against badass.Loriac wrote: I want no truck with a game based on class 'archetypes'. As I've said before, back in the day you had rpgs that were class based and rpgs that were skill based. These days things are blurred as the most popular rpg, D&D has been moving to a skills model from a classes starting point. However, the idea of a skills based approach is perfectly fine in my book; classes are merely a cocktail of skills, and I prefer to pick my own than to be dictated by developer fiat as to what a class should be. If people looked at Eschalon as a skills based game where classes merely added background flavour, things might make much more sense to them.
There needs to be some kind of mechanical restriction to force your character into meaningful roles. Eschalon lacks this.
Hence my points re: balancing up skills - some skills at the moment are too expensive for what they give, others are too cheap. In particular, rogue skills need to be cheaper, magic skills more expensive. If this is done, then you have a real choice rather than a choice that gimps your character.quasius wrote: If this is meant for me, you missed my point. I'm not saying you have to have meaningful classes, which is overt archetyping. I'm saying that if you go with a skill-based system, you still need subtle archetyping. I.e. if it's possible to do everything with a build, as it is in Eschalon (by learning magic, you automatically pick up sword fighting and rogue stuff), then there's nothing to balance since you're only "balancing" badass against badass.
There needs to be some kind of mechanical restriction to force your character into meaningful roles. Eschalon lacks this.
At the moment, the safest thing to do is take 20 in elemental and divine, and you gain access to most other skills through magic whilst still having a bucket load of skill points to spend. This is the core reason I think mages are overpowered.
personally i don't see skill as the full story in regards balancing as i would like to see stats tweaked ie i can see no compelling reason for increasing intelligence or wisdom above 20 (even less if you have the patience to switch equipment when you find spells and such) even for a caster or to raise speed instead of either strength or dexterity etc
Good point - I overlooked this in my eagerness to rant about classes vs. skillspunter x wrote:personally i don't see skill as the full story in regards balancing as i would like to see stats tweaked ie i can see no compelling reason for increasing intelligence or wisdom above 20 (even less if you have the patience to switch equipment when you find spells and such) even for a caster or to raise speed instead of either strength or dexterity etc
I don't think there "needs" to be this. You may like it that way, but this game does not "need" it.quasius wrote:There needs to be some kind of mechanical restriction to force your character into meaningful roles. Eschalon lacks this.
I find the only useful discussion on balance for SP cRPG's like this is if one of two related things is happening: 1)If I play my preferred role, the game is so easy it's not fun OR 2)If I play my preferred role, the game is too hard, so it is, again, not fun. This is assuming, of course, that one's preferred role is reasonable to support in a game. No "unarmed-thief-powermage-ranger-alchemist-harmonica-expert" requests, please.
Comparing roles to each other in a SP cRPG in the context of balancing seems more of an academic exercise to me. Why must role A be equal in power to role B? As long as I can play role A and still have fun, what difference does it make? Should I be jealous of role B because it is a bit more powerful and has an easier time with the game? Sounds silly to me.
So, to the question at hand, are any of the typical roles just plain not fun to play because of balance issues? I can only speak for the Ranger type, and I'm having plenty of fun. So I'd say it's OK. I've started up a Warrior, Rogue and Mage, but aren't far enough along to have an informed opinion on them.
From what I've read, however, it seems that the Mage and Rogue types may stray a bit into unfun territory and could use a minor boost. For the Mage, I'm hearing primarily mana regen and boosting the AoE, higher-level spell damage. For the Rogue I'm hearing add some kind of backstab-like ability to make them more lethal.
I'd hate to see the char development system restricted in Eschalon. I like that fact that I can choose to play an archetype if I want and have fun or I can choose to play a generalist and have fun. Why reduce a player's options in the name of "the right system"? How is that a good thing?
Even if the game doesn't have strict archetyping/classes, it still needs its internal mechanics to be consistent. As others have mentioned, in Eschalon Book 1 the mechanics and scaling of both skills & stats are inconsistent: some function more as "checkpoints" (most of the "mage" skills and stats fall into this category) while the rest operate on simple, linear scales (ie. all the melee skills and stats).
For example, ever other point in a melee weapon skill gives a fixed bonus to the character's melee ability (with no cap). Conversely, the Alchemy, Divination, and Elemental skills are function as a series of checkpoints that allow the player to cast/brew at a certain, fixed level. The best example of this is Alchemy, which really only has four effective levels: 1, 5, 10, and 15. Level 6 is the same as 9, and there is no benefit for going over 15.
I feel it is this lack of internal consistency between how skills and stats operate at the fundamental level that causes people to perceive "mages" as being weaker than "warriors".
For example, ever other point in a melee weapon skill gives a fixed bonus to the character's melee ability (with no cap). Conversely, the Alchemy, Divination, and Elemental skills are function as a series of checkpoints that allow the player to cast/brew at a certain, fixed level. The best example of this is Alchemy, which really only has four effective levels: 1, 5, 10, and 15. Level 6 is the same as 9, and there is no benefit for going over 15.
I feel it is this lack of internal consistency between how skills and stats operate at the fundamental level that causes people to perceive "mages" as being weaker than "warriors".
Well that's your "opinion." You may think it's that way, but it's just your "opinion." Also, I'm sticking my tongue out at you right now.chamr wrote: I don't think there "needs" to be this. You may like it that way, but this game does not "need" it.
Are we done with this stupid game now?
Last edited by quasius on December 12th, 2007, 7:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I'm not saying your wrong. I'm saying if you're not stepping back far enough to see why those changes are necessary, you're going to miss other things that need changing.Loriac wrote: Hence my points re: balancing up skills - some skills at the moment are too expensive for what they give, others are too cheap. In particular, rogue skills need to be cheaper, magic skills more expensive. If this is done, then you have a real choice rather than a choice that gimps your character.
At the moment, the safest thing to do is take 20 in elemental and divine, and you gain access to most other skills through magic whilst still having a bucket load of skill points to spend. This is the core reason I think mages are overpowered.
Bzzt! Those are the only 2 things that matter to you. You're content to play the game your way and not really worry about the relative power of the other options- which is fine. But there are plenty of people, probably more than those that think of it your way, that are concerned with having optimal characters while playing the archetype they want. That's the genesis of these entire "balance" discussions.chamr wrote: I find the only useful discussion on balance for SP cRPG's like this is if one of two related things is happening: 1)If I play my preferred role, the game is so easy it's not fun OR 2)If I play my preferred role, the game is too hard, so it is, again, not fun. This is assuming, of course, that one's preferred role is reasonable to support in a game. No "unarmed-thief-powermage-ranger-alchemist-harmonica-expert" requests, please.
You will be happy regardless of whether or not a much "better" character can be made, but it's possible to minimize the complaints of those that do care without effecting you. And when you're trying to sell games, those are exactly the situations your looking for.