Class Balance - why?

[Dellamon]

I've primarily just lurked on the forums the past few years, but now that the new edition has been officially announced I wanted to discuss something that bothered me with 4E (and to some extent 3.5). What is the obsession with class balance? Why should a magic-user and fighter or rouge and cleric all be comparable in power at the same levels? Isn't balance a subjective quality that can shift based on play conditions?

I think one of the things that did the most damage to class balance was putting all classes on the same xp progression table (I think this occurred in 3E). Granted, the XP progression in AD&D was a bit wonky, but I think they were on the right track in some regards. It makes sense that a fighter or rouge class would progress more quickly than a magic using class. If you make the progression ratio 1.25:1 (or something like that), you have suddenly balanced out the tables a bit, especially when you consider the challenges most magic-using classes face with survivability in the early levels. True, once a magic using class reaches higher levels, they are very powerful. But should they not be? The god-like wizard, sorceress, or priest that is a force in the world for good or evil is a staple of classic fantasy. I think 4E magic using classes lost that mystique by trying to force balance through the rule set rather than putting that in the hands of the DM.

And if you think about it, there was additional balance built into AD&D that a lot of people just chose to ignore (it was too hard to use, slowed game play, etc.). That balance was in the form of weapon speed factors and dynamic initiative. It was completely plausible that a 5th level fighter could defeat a 10th level magic-user if they got the jump on them and had a little luck with the dice (and the 10th level magic-user is not a Monty Haulizard). Could you say the same for a 5th level magic-user taking out a 10th level fighter, even if they got a jump on them? I think the later is a lot less likely.

I fully understand that we all want to be special flowers at the table with our characters, but should that not be more about character development and roleplaying than stat blocks? You can make your 1st level rouge just as interesting and fun as a 20th level sorceress with the power to level mountains. The rules should not try to force that, but rather compliment play to make sure you have fun regardless which class you try to play instead of sit around comparing die sizes all evening.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Class balance is a good way to allow everyone to take the spotlight and feel contributing to the game. If one class is weak at an aspect that comes up very often in your game, the player in question can easily feel left out and not enjoy the game much.

But should they not be? The god-like wizard, sorceress, or priest that is a force in the world for good or evil is a staple of classic fantasy.

Is it really? Lord of the Rings, maybe. But then... I didn't find Gandalf all that powerful,he didn't seem to slay people left and right or even throw fireballs.
And I definitely know that one fantasy archetype is that of the guy that only goes by his wits and his martial skill - even against those wizards and priests. Isn't Conan regularly fighting priests and wizards?

I think the archetypes do not per se set a "maximum reasonable power level". It sets more their style, but the rest is a matter of experience, training and pure devotion. Most people just don't have the opportunity to devote all their time to studying spellbook or mastering their fighting styles. They have "normal" lifes.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

My take? Class balance is important because no one wants to suck night after night while another player steals the show, just because you chose to play a rogue and he chose to play a wizard. Every character should be able to provide a fair contribution, all else being equal. That's not to say the same contribution -- fair is not equal, fair is fair.

I'd like to think we learned from the bad old days of 2 hp magic-users with one light spell, who could do nothing but hide at the back of the party for most of the adventure, hoping to eventually gain enough levels to really be important ... and by the time they got there they rendered their fighter and thief counterparts irrelevant.

As to XP ... they are a metagame concept. Design rule #0 for game designers in my opinion should be not to balance in-game concepts by metagame systems. One XP should have equal value for all players, just as in-game one GP has equal value for all characters. If you want a class to be "easier to learn" and gain in power faster, bake that into the class design; don't do that by varying the value of XP for every player at the table. Similarly, if you have magic item creation, don't try to balance it by having an XP component requirement ... again it's using a metagame concept to try and solve an in-game balance dilemma.

 

[Deset Gled]

I'll ignore the basic question of "why" and instead focus on "why does this need to be designed into the game":

If you want a balanced game and the system is inherently unbalanced, it can be darn near impossible to modify the game in the right way to find balance. But if you want an unbalanced game and the system is inherently balanced (or close to it), it is extremely easy to modify the game as you wish. Change the xp levels, add extra abilities, cap levels, whatever; those are all easy mods to make.

Thus, if some people want a balanced system and some don't, it is easiest to make both sides happy by having the base system be balanced and allow it to be modified.

 

[hanez]

Thanks for making this post! I completely agree. I have been wanting to post something like this for a while but have been looking for a way to word it. (and may still do that)


I was happy to have different levels for classes go in 3rd editon, that was just something I was happy to let go. But every class being soooo similar in 4e was really the dealbreaker for me and my play group.

I believe that a lot of the discussion on these forums miss the point. Mainly that a large part of the problem with 4e was that it was OVERLY focussed on combat balance. In fact I remember the designers arguing that there was no way to balance vancian magic with at will fighter-type powers (e.g. attack).

I would argue that this largely misses the point of D&D. The point is to play archetype characters that we see in fantasy, to have an amazing time playing those characters together as part of a team roleplaying through interesting encounters and kicking the bad guys butt.


I respect the drive for balance and believe that previous editions needed work to balance play, but I also believe the cost that 4e incurred was not worth it. Everyone needs a spot to shine, but those spots dont all have to be "cause x damange and move the enemy one space".

• Let the fighter be an unbeatable brute that people are truly scared of and regularly run from.
• Let the rogue have adventures where he says "well I just killed everyone in the keep before they knew we were even here, guess we can just walk to the treasure",
• Let the wizard rain fire down from the sky raising an army.
• AND let all classes have different areas to shine in noncombat too! If the bard bypasses a whole adventure or convinces an army to join the party because of his charm it is JUST AS SATISFYIN as "causing x damage". I played an illusionist not because I wanted to do as much damage as everyone else, but because I occasionally want to bypass battles because of my whit.

It's ok if during one adventure, someone shines more then the other, thats what makes D&D characters so darnd interesting. Work to balances forces together, but dont throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[avin]

True, once a magic using class reaches higher levels, they are very powerful. But should they not be?

They should be equal to the powerful level Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, etc.

The god-like wizard, sorceress, or priest that is a force in the world for good or evil is a staple of classic fantasy.

In the way you describe Conan would knee down to Thulsa Doom and beg for his life.

There's only ONE thing that can make me turn back to 5E and never return: a edition that keep the pre-4E notion that Fighters are sidekicks for high level casters.

Boo!

 

[hanez]

Thus, if some people want a balanced system and some don't, it is easiest to make both sides happy by having the base system be balanced and allow it to be modified.

Sure.... but if that was sufficient 4e would have captured those players who could have just used unbalanced "house rules" or expansions. Instead, I believe they played the game as described in the first 3 books, found its strict balance to be comparably boring to what they were used to, and abandoned the game for something else. That may happen again if 5e leaves what we like for a Mod.

There's only ONE thing that can make me turn back to 5E and never return: a edition that keep the pre-4E notion that Fighters are sidekicks for high level casters.

I highly disagree with your assessment of that being the case pre-4e. I have had many fighter players that would disagree, Taku:lightbringer (my brothers half orc barbarian), and Babo Gutwrencher (my friends dwarven fighter) often laughed at the weakling wizard (who, granted, would one day amaze them too).

But I agree that 5e should aim for closer balance between the two. Maybe the fighter is unbeatable in one-on-one fights with big baddies, and the wizard is unbeatable on one to many fights with their minions?

As long as it isn't balanced because they have the same amount of powers, and that there powers do roughly the same thing (as in 4e), I will at least give the system a try.

 

[Dellamon]

Amen to that! Class balance is imperative in a tactical war game (which I felt 4E developed into) played on a battle mat or in an MMO, but does not need to be so ingrained in a roleplaying game. There are narrative aspects that cannot be achieved with true class balance.

 

[avin]

• Let the fighter be an unbeatable brute that people are truly scared of and regularly run from.
• Let the rogue have adventures where he says "well I just killed everyone in the keep before they knew we were even here, guess we can just walk to the treasure",
• Let the wizard rain fire down from the sky raising an army.

You like playing casters, don't you?

I agree that the 4E model where every single power look similar to another isn't fun, but back to a place where casters rule the game and Fighters watch it's a deal breaker to me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My take? Class balance is important because no one wants to suck night after night while another player steals the show

A very telling choice of words. Would that we could balance players, but the best we can do is try to balance the mechanics for their characters.


Class balance is important inasmuch as all the available options should be at least minimally viable, and none should be clearly dominant over the rest. That said, even early versions of D&D easily achieved this is most cases.

A lot of the modern "balance" emphasis is more about the designers trying to win a battle with an obnoxious group of players whose goal is to abuse the rules. This is a battle the designers are doomed to lose, and frankly, the rest of us can end up being casualties.