Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[Steely_Dan]

It's equally unrealistic to expect math to be so flat as to be able to put high level characters and low level ones together and expect the latter to be meaningful.

Not if you run a 4th Ed campaign without the 1/2 level shenanigans (you can expect), a lower level PC can join a party and not feel worthless at all (totally contribute), and lower level monsters can still challenge the party.

 

[Hussar]

Not if you run a 4th Ed campaign without the 1/2 level shenanigans (you can expect), a lower level PC can join a party and not feel worthless at all (totally contribute), and lower level monsters can still challenge the party.

But how do you stop the higher level monsters from totally crushing the party? Without that 1/2 level bonus to hit, any equal level soldier monster will be virtually unhittable by the party.

Sure, if you use nothing but much lower level monsters, this would work, but, what's the point then? Why not just cap everyone's level and be done with it?

 

[RobertLie]

But how do you stop the higher level monsters from totally crushing the party? Without that 1/2 level bonus to hit, any equal level soldier monster will be virtually unhittable by the party.

Sure, if you use nothing but much lower level monsters, this would work, but, what's the point then? Why not just cap everyone's level and be done with it?

That 1/2 level bonus is more then to just a player's attack bonus. Its also in the Monster defenses, Monster attack bonus, player's defenses, skill checks, skill check DCs, ability checks, and ability check DCs. So you remove it from everything.
-I've played in that fashion before. It allows monsters older monsters to still stay a threat longer, as they can still hit you as you out level them. It also allows newer monsters to be easier to despite being higher levels. Though it is theoretical that a level 30 monster with average AC (46 AC turned 31 AC after removal of half-level) could be hit on a 19 by a level 1 Fighter with a +3 prof sword, expertise, and CA after the removal of half-level bonuses.

 

[Sunseeker]

But how do you stop the higher level monsters from totally crushing the party? Without that 1/2 level bonus to hit, any equal level soldier monster will be virtually unhittable by the party.

Sure, if you use nothing but much lower level monsters, this would work, but, what's the point then? Why not just cap everyone's level and be done with it?

My solution is the sale as always. Do the monster math yourself. All the enemies in my game are adjusted to the output of the party. So an optimized party is just as challenged as an unoptimized one.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It's interesting that "most" other groups will play in such a way that accommodates the Fighter but not the Rogue. Is it because they can both "contribute" by "stabbing sharp things through enemies" whereas the Fighter can't poison the guards? Is it more a focus on "everyone contributes now" than "everyone shines in their area"? Honest questions.

Yes. We used to play every week for about 20 hours a week. Given, we played more than the average players so we saw the problem more than others. However, every player in our group was tired of sitting there waiting for other players to finish their portion of the game.

Too many times the Thief decided to "scout ahead...just for a minute" and ended up 6 rooms ahead trying to figure out a puzzle by himself without coming back and informing the rest of the party. If we tried to contribute the DM would remind us that we weren't in the room and didn't know about the puzzle and should shut up.

Sometimes it was out of the player's control. They just wanted to open the door, see who was inside and then come back to the party...but the enemies ended up seeing them and starting a battle with them that was too far away for us to hear...so we waited for him to fight them solo.

Often this involved everyone getting so bored that they wandered into the other room to watch a movie or go for food rather than wait for the solo adventure to complete.

After about a year of constantly enduring these solo adventures, it became our unwritten rule that NO one wanders off by themselves. If it's the choice between the Thief/Rogue sneaking in and poisoning them and possibly running into complications that take hours to resolve and opening the door and having the whole group charge in...we take the option that involves the whole group.

Well, I use an extended skill resolution system, that has a frame similar to that of skill challenges. Many times it has come down to "one more success and you achieve your goal, but one more failure and you fail at it." I've found plenty of tension in those moments. Especially if they've maxed out on failures early (2/3), and they start getting successes. In such a scenario, each success brings a little more hope, then a little more, then a lot more, and the tension builds.

There's some, certainly. That type of extended skill resolution wasn't part of any of the earlier editions of D&D, however. We used as many skill checks as the DM deemed necessary to complete something...so in a way it was an extended skill check. But often the penalty for failing these types of challenges is something like "They spot you and a battle starts". So, there's no REAL penalty for failing since the option you had to begin with was to start a battle OR to sneak in. Failing just means you go back to the other option.

Well, I don't see how things like Hide, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, Bluff, Disguise, and the like would be great to use off the character sheet. My RPG has quite specific rules on sneaking around, lying to people, disguising yourself, slipping something into something else without it being seen, and the like. It is true that 4e basically cut these down to Bluff, Stealth, and Thievery (as far as I know), but that's still three skills that you can use to resolve action. Although I do see your point about involving the entire group, and that answers one of my earlier questions.

Those things can be fun to do as well. But depending on the edition and what powers you get...it can often seem a lot less....I still have to use the word "glorious" to use a Sneak check followed by a Thievery check to put poison into someone food than to leap over their head, stab them in the back, tumble to the other side of the room and cut off someone's head while blinding another person with the vial of poison only to stab them through the heart.

If you want people dead...one seems like it takes a lot more skill and is more genuinely exciting. Plus it seems less underhanded and sneaky. Good aligned characters may already have issues with doing it the "sneaky" way, because it isn't fair to your enemies.

I know most of our groups would argue based entirely on "I don't want to watch him poison a bunch of people, that's boring as crap for me." and when that didn't sway the Rogue they'd argue their character objected to poisoning people on moral grounds and they should just face them head on.

But it all (mostly) comes from a desire to not split the party.

 

[Hussar]

Essentially, rogues are D&D's version of the Decker Problem. The rogues abilities don't play nicely with anyone else. The casters, at the very least, can buff the heck out of the mundane classes and everyone gets to play. The rogue is actually more effective if he's off by himself.

In a game that focuses on group interaction, having one solo player at the table is a bad thing.

 

[Sunseeker]

Essentially, rogues are D&D's version of the Decker Problem. The rogues abilities don't play nicely with anyone else. The casters, at the very least, can buff the heck out of the mundane classes and everyone gets to play. The rogue is actually more effective if he's off by himself.

In a game that focuses on group interaction, having one solo player at the table is a bad thing.

I don't think so, I really think it depends on what type of rogue you play. I believe thieves present that problem, as their very name implies that they are breaking the rules that other players are likely trying to uphold. The hunter-killer assassin, yeah he's got that problem too. But the live-by your wits, born on the street kinda rogue is less inclined, in fact he may have joined up with your party to make a better life for himself.

There's a lot of stuff in the rogue class that's very poorly detailed.

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough. But, Shidaku, most of the Rogue abilities are based around the rogue going off and doing his own thing. Sneaking, for example, doesn't work when you have the fighter and the cleric ten feet behind you sounding like a sack full of teakettles being shaken. Find and remove traps is entirely a solo endevour. Listening and Spotting, not team efforts.

The main schtick of the rogue is generally not very well integrated into the group dynamic.

 

[pemerton]

Too many times the Thief decided to "scout ahead...just for a minute" and ended up 6 rooms ahead trying to figure out a puzzle by himself without coming back and informing the rest of the party. If we tried to contribute the DM would remind us that we weren't in the room and didn't know about the puzzle and should shut up.

Sometimes it was out of the player's control. They just wanted to open the door, see who was inside and then come back to the party...but the enemies ended up seeing them and starting a battle with them that was too far away for us to hear...so we waited for him to fight them solo.

Often this involved everyone getting so bored that they wandered into the other room to watch a movie or go for food rather than wait for the solo adventure to complete.

<snip>

That type of extended skill resolution wasn't part of any of the earlier editions of D&D, however. We used as many skill checks as the DM deemed necessary to complete something...so in a way it was an extended skill check. But often the penalty for failing these types of challenges is something like "They spot you and a battle starts". So, there's no REAL penalty for failing since the option you had to begin with was to start a battle OR to sneak in. Failing just means you go back to the other option.

This is why I'm a little sceptical about D&Dnext's "three pillars" strategy. It seems to me that to make all the pillars equally viable, and in particular to make non-combat approaches viable in actual play at real world gaming tables, we need action resolution mechanics that won't create the headaches described here. Those sorts of mechanics exist in other RPGs. But part of what gives D&D its feel is the absence of them. 4e's attempt to go a little way down that path - skill challenges - doesn't seem to have been warmly embraced!

 

[Nikmal]

Actually if you want class balance then why design several classes? It is simple one class with several abilities. Balance is achieved.

The above is a system I would HATE playing. Each class fills a vital role in a party for D&D. When one is balanced with another it makes the party mentality redundant and obsolete. To me the party comes first and the roles for each member in it is vital to fantasy role playing games. There is the Rogue for detecting and disabling traps and maneuvering through tricky situations. The fighter to protect the more fragile of the members of the group. The sorcerer and wizard are there to deal with the magic, buffing, dispelling, and fighting magic with magic. The cleric is about healing and mostly buffing... with some attack abilities that are good in both melee and ranged. Paladin, Rangers and so on like the Bard are a bit more specific in roles but none the less vital. Yet... some people feel that this should all be taken away and make it balance.

Balancing is for video games... where it is NEEDED because of PvP... this is NOT PvP but a pen and paper game. If you make it balanced then it is and should be in a video game... anything else... keep it so that each role fills a niche in the party!!