Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[Sadras]

If the DM isn't giving ou any thematic consistency or forewarning then your DM is very different to mine.

Which is my main point about 3-4 pages ago. Some people have problems with classes some dont. The game has always been flexible and is never produced perfect - hence our house rules, which has always been encouraged.
But one major factor in all of this is the DM and open communication with the players. If the DM is creating encounters that consistently highlight a classes innefectiveness or shortcomings if you will, then the fault will lie with the DM. We all have the same PHB, that much we can agree on, but we all dont have the same DM/s.
Refer to my post upthread for details - how this could be resolved quite easily and effectively in the DMG. Adjusting class design for them to be balanced during combat encounters - which is 95% of the problem that has arisen in this thread.

 

[CroBob]

3e had Tome of Battle that gave fighters similar options, the presence of that choice for martial types was a welcome addition in 3e AND 4e. But the removal of the choice to be a simple traditional D&D fighter in 4e WAS a problem. I can think of two players in my campaigns (one always plays a dwarven fighter, the other always plays a half orc barbarian) that had problems with 4e forcing them to use a complicated "spell list". So I might ammend your quote to be "Fighters being forced to do more then hit things with sharp stuff and now manage "fight- spells" was a problem.

Nevertheless I think core D&D NEEDS a fighter with choices/spell lists similar to the 4e version, call him the warlord or the ritualfighter or something, make him a choice for the player who wants to play a more complicated martial type, there are plenty of players who want that choice. But DONT take away the simple 5 attacks a round fighter either because there are plenty of players who consider that a staple of D&D.


Oh and removing the option at playing vancian, a staple of D&D, that too.

I don't know how managing a few extra abilities makes any class difficult to manage. At least, not in the heroic tier. I simply cannot empathize with the this. Two at wills, a single Encounter, a single daily, that's it at first level, and they're all optional. You don't have to use any of those. Either way, I couldn't claim I think this is complicated enough to make anyone confused or anything.

I can't empathize with the desire to play Vancian casting, either. "Well, boys, I done cast my three spells. I'm done contributing in meaningful ways for a while. Let me know when we get to sleep for the night. In the mean time, I'll be googling up crap over here." I don't like wizards who are done wizarding after a few spells, even if they get a bunch more when they grow up. Daily limits on anything do nothing more than force players to rest in order to continue moving if those daily abilities are important. I would prefer a system of basic attacks and encounter powers exclusively, but hey, you like things that bother me. Okay. This the end of the discussion.

 

[Hussar]

This is something that should not be implemented in rules because it is highly highly subjective. Nobody is ever dead weight in 3rd edition.

Ballocks. This is outright untrue. I had a player playing a halfling monk/paladin/Pious Templar in my World's Largest Dungeon campaign. Now, he could barely ever fail a saving throw and any save he made meant that he ignored the effects. That's true. However, the cost for this was he couldn't hit anything, and, when the stars aligned and he actually did hit, he did about as much damage as a commoner with a stick. He was so far outclassed by everything else at the table, INCLUDING the kobold bard (!), that he was essentially dead weight in combat.

Everyone has a way to contribute to the party whether it's through combat or out of combat. Everyone views party contribution differently. 3rd edition gives you the freedom to mechanically build almost any type of character that you want, just saying it isn't goo enough for a good many people.

Yup, you could create anything you wanted. Unfortunately, you could also create anything you wanted and the game gave you virtually no guidance on whether what you were creating was actually a viable character or not.

4th edition made the mistake of trying to tell people how to play and they tried to focus on telling people that if their PC didn't contribute enough in combat then they were pretty much playing it wrong. While the designers didn't directly say this, the rules of the game made this clear.

This is wrong. What the game does actually say is that all classes, regardless of other considerations, will be in roughly the same ballpark in combat. You will not create a dead weight character unless you do so very deliberately. It says nothing about playing it wrong or anything like that.

Balance has nothing to do with party contributions and having characters "shine". This concept is different for everyone so rules for it are not a good idea.

This is outright wrong. And easily proven. Create a party of 15th level characters. Now, add a 1st level character to the party. How much is that 1st level character contributing to the game? Some freeform roleplay and that's about it. Certainly a HELL of a lot less than the other 15th level characters. If balance had nothing to do with characters shining, then my 1st level character should be able to contribute equally with in the 15th level party.

But, I'm pretty willing to bet that he can't.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Ballocks. This is outright untrue. I had a player playing a halfling monk/paladin/Pious Templar in my World's Largest Dungeon campaign. Now, he could barely ever fail a saving throw and any save he made meant that he ignored the effects. That's true. However, the cost for this was he couldn't hit anything, and, when the stars aligned and he actually did hit, he did about as much damage as a commoner with a stick. He was so far outclassed by everything else at the table, INCLUDING the kobold bard (!), that he was essentially dead weight in combat.

This reminds me of a character in one of our games, he was a halfling Rogue/Cleric/Scout/something else if I remember correctly. He ended up trying to "powergame" a character with really high AC and saves. He was nearly impossible to hit, but had about 8 less bonuses to hit than everyone else in the group. He'd spend most combats "roleplaying" his character as afraid of enemies and running away from them and trying not to be hit. When he did attack because someone in the group told him when we were fighting for our lives we had no desire to have someone along for the ride who didn't even TRY to beat the enemies....he'd make an attack roll and miss. When he did hit, we found out he was doing something like 1d6+1 points of damage while other people in the group were hitting for 40 and 50. In an average combat, if he wasn't actually in the group, nothing would have changed. The monsters wasted about 1 attack roll on him before changing targets. Since our DM knew his AC, often the monsters wouldn't even waste 1 attack roll on him, they'd just ignore him.

We asked him to at least fix his character so he could contribute. He refused. Since he was our friend, we put up with it. But none of us were happy about it.

This is outright wrong. And easily proven. Create a party of 15th level characters. Now, add a 1st level character to the party. How much is that 1st level character contributing to the game? Some freeform roleplay and that's about it.

To be fair, from reading his previous posts, it appears that he is a proponent of balancing low combat strength with out of combat benefits. So, if this was a 1e game where there were no social skills and the player in question was really charismatic(player, not character), then I could see a 1st level character contributing to freeform roleplaying a lot.

And that seems to be his point. He believes the game doesn't need to encourage balance because that 1st level character will hold his own in "other" portions of the game.

However, given that the average game I've played in has had about 10 minutes of freeform roleplaying for every hour of combat, it's not a balanced tradeoff by any means.

 

[Sunseeker]

Which is my main point about 3-4 pages ago. Some people have problems with classes some dont. The game has always been flexible and is never produced perfect - hence our house rules, which has always been encouraged.

There are good houserules, and there are bad houserules. Now, I don't mean to call anyone out for having badwrongfun, but my point is this: Modifying the game to work in ways that are preferable to the table in question are good. They adjust various parts of the game in ways that make everyone happy either by adding ability, utility, or flavor.
But then there are houserules that are made to fix poor design. They exist because the designers left such glaring flaws that every table needed to create the same rules at every table to rectify the same flaws.

Think of it as the difference between houseruling that you can play a large character, no bonuses, no penalties and creating Pathfinder. The first alters the game to suit certain tastes. The latter alters the game to fix various design errors.

The game should encourage creative houserules which modify the game in ways to more closely tailor it to the wants and needs of the table. The game shouldn't require tables to create hourserules because the designers made a broken game.

But one major factor in all of this is the DM and open communication with the players. If the DM is creating encounters that consistently highlight a classes innefectiveness or shortcomings if you will, then the fault will lie with the DM. We all have the same PHB, that much we can agree on, but we all dont have the same DM/s.
Refer to my post upthread for details - how this could be resolved quite easily and effectively in the DMG. Adjusting class design for them to be balanced during combat encounters - which is 95% of the problem that has arisen in this thread.

This is why, at the very least, all characters should be able to bring something to each pillar of the game. But yes, in a home-game if there are consistently one type of encounter far more often than another, the DM either didn't make that clear, or isn't very good at encounter design. Of course if it's the latter, there's also the possibility that the game favors a specific kind of encounter over another.

 

[hanez]

Essentials slayer says hi.

There power list is hit with sword and hit with sword harder. Occasionally utilitys that do something else.

Also, one can argue that a fighter could have simply not used any powers. You would just suck compared to one that did. Is that a problem?

Quit about a year and a half into 4e. Slayer doesnt have the same amount of powers as the other classes I take it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

les that are made to fix poor design. They exist because the designers left such glaring flaws that every table needed to create the same rules at every table to rectify the same flaws.

Well, not the same rules. People are more creative and less consistent than that. There may be many different variants to cope with the same shortcoming of flawed game. Among the most common house-rules back in the day were: individual initiative, 'mana' point alternatives to vancian casting, higher hit points at first level, reduced or eliminated training time/cost to level, expanded or eliminated class/level limits by race, and various attempts at grafting on some sort of skill system. Among many others, of course.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, not the same rules. People are more creative and less consistent than that. There may be many different variants to cope with the same shortcoming of flawed game. Among the most common house-rules back in the day were: individual initiative, 'mana' point alternatives to vancian casting, higher hit points at first level, reduced or eliminated training time/cost to level, expanded or eliminated class/level limits by race, and various attempts at grafting on some sort of skill system. Among many others, of course.

True, not everyone sees the same solution to the same problem, and in some regards, that works. A lot of those things you mention however are still a bit of table opinion.

Lets say there was a problem with attack bonuses and defenses, and the only way the game fixed it is by forcing players to take boring, uncreative "math feats", so players figured that instead, they'd just adjust the bonuses up or down at certain levels, making the problem and the designer's solution irrelevent.

That's the sort of flaws I'm talking about. The game should encourage and provide tools for creative creation that adds things that improve the game. Players shouldn't be required to create solutions to problems that designers should be addressing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

em with attack bonuses and defenses, and the only way the game fixed it is by forcing players to take boring, uncreative "math feats", so players figured that instead, they'd just adjust the bonuses up or down at certain levels, making the problem and the designer's solution irrelevent.

Even such a simple flaw has multiple possible fixes, though. Some tables give a feat for free, but let you spend feats on others. Some gave a 'tier bonus' at certain levels. Some banned the feats and countered the issue with in-game player options (like leaning heavily on bonus granting leaders) or DM fiat (adjusting monster level or numbers slightly).

Players shouldn't be required to create solutions to problems that designers should be addressing.

That's the important point.

 

[Sunseeker]

Even such a simple flaw has multiple possible fixes, though. Some tables give a feat for free, but let you spend feats on others. Some gave a 'tier bonus' at certain levels. Some banned the feats and countered the issue with in-game player options (like leaning heavily on bonus granting leaders) or DM fiat (adjusting monster level or numbers slightly).

Sure, but the end result is still moving the numbers on one end or the other up or down respectively.

Personally, I do the latter. My monsters are exactly as tough or as weak as the players are capable of handing and the situation requires. Realistically, this solution should exist regardless of broken math or not, 4e monster building is pretty darn ideal all around.

That's the important point.

mmhmm, while some math fixes are inevitable as new material is released, problems should not be so....glaring.