D&D (2024) Would you be fine with classes that you can't always play but are better than base classes?

[Charlaquin]

Powerful, but rare, randomized, and disposable, in an adventure format.

Somewhat like roleplaying a Magic The Gathering card as a character.

Oh, I see what you mean. The “on a battle mat” part threw me off, but yeah, kinda like that. Where that analogy falls a little short for me is the fact that, in constructed magic, rarity doesn’t end up actually being a limitation because anyone wanting to play competitively can just buy singles of whatever cards they want. But, limited formats like draft and sealed where you have a limited pool of cards to work from and rarity is a relevant factor makes more sense as a point of comparison.

 

[Nikosandros]

I would be fine with it in the context of an open-campaign in which each character is generated randomly and every player has a "stable" of characters.

 

[Li Shenron]

Back in the long long ago, Paladins and Rangers where just better. They were Fighters+.

But you couldn't just pick it. You had to roll stats high enough. And even if your DM let you insert your rolls into any stat still didn't mean you had high enough stats to be a Ranger or Paly. They were special and you wanted one in the party if possible.

I always hated it.

Do classes need to be balanced anyways?

Yes as a whole, but not necessarily in combat.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Frankly, I do not see the point.

This class would be played so rarely, because it would require not only a player wanting to play that archetype, but then that 1-in-6 chance that they actually can.
If you are going to put the effort into creating a class, why not create one that will be played six times more often?

I regard bad balance of a class is a mistake on the part of the designer. Deliberate bad balance is a rather more odious failing on their part.
If you are going to put the effort into creating a class, why not at least aim for parity, whether with the best classes, or just the median of those available?

 

[DEFCON 1]

If anyone really wanted a game with more powerful characters adventuring alongside lower-powered characters... rather than siloing some classes or building ones to be more powerful than others, the easiest way is to just have some PCs be a higher level than the rest of the group. Why go through all the effort of building something new when you can just have a 3rd level Barbarian fight alongside 1st level Clerics, Rogues, and Sorcerers? You get the same effect, you just don't get to hide the illusion.

 

[payn]

If anyone really wanted a game with more powerful characters adventuring alongside lower-powered characters... rather than siloing some classes or building ones to be more powerful than others, the easiest way is to just have some PCs be a higher level than the rest of the group. Why go through all the effort of building something new when you can just have a 3rd level Barbarian fight alongside 1st level Clerics, Rogues, and Sorcerers? You get the same effect, you just don't get to hide the illusion.

You can even roll for who gets to be the level 3 hero and who gets to be the hireling.

 

[Remathilis]

Or you can just do it with dice, and then the provocatively inapt TCG and loot box analogies disappear in a puff of irrelevance!

To my knowledge, no DM who runs an old edition or an OSR game with randomization elements built into character generation is profiteering off of it.

Where's the fun if you can't both monterarily profit off it and inspire a need for gambling and fomo into your players? There is a 1:500 chance your character could be AWESOME!

 

[Remathilis]

If anyone really wanted a game with more powerful characters adventuring alongside lower-powered characters... rather than siloing some classes or building ones to be more powerful than others, the easiest way is to just have some PCs be a higher level than the rest of the group. Why go through all the effort of building something new when you can just have a 3rd level Barbarian fight alongside 1st level Clerics, Rogues, and Sorcerers? You get the same effect, you just don't get to hide the illusion.

I once asked people who like the idea of gambling on ability scores if they would be cool rolling for starting level. Want a small split? Roll 1d4. Going for broke? Roll a 1d20! My 12 level fighter could adventure with your 2nd level thief!

 

[Yaarel]

There is much about 1e that I like and appreciate. Much of its flavor is innovative, and its formative structures historically interesting.

One of the reasons I dont normally 1e (or 2e) (or even 3e), is because of the inequity of power.

In 1e, a player rolls 3d6 strictly randomly without mitigation. In the 1e campaign that I played that is how the group did it. I find this absurd. A character that rolls straight 18s, virtually close enough to it for the top three abilities, breaks the game. The player that rolls all 3s or whatever subpar, has a piss-poor time for the rest of the campaign − except for the "custom" of intentionally getting such low rollers killed to reroll a new character.

Consider the 1e Magic-User. It is broken at low levels because it is underpowered, painfully sucks, and is unfun. Then at high levels it is broken because it is overpowered, painfully sucks for all the other players at the table, and is unfun. The game engine itself is unsustainable at high levels because of these wonky imbalances. To be fair, 1e preexists the concept of a "game engine" or any formal understanding how an ecology of gaming mechanics functions. It was all adhoc guesswork. Formative.

What is the point of breaking the game on purpose? Ridiculous.


3e is problematic similarly. The game offered overpowered features, such as via Prestige Classes, but had as prereqs investment in underpowered features. It was a process of "hazing". Suck at low levels because of worthless features, then after the hazing ritual, make the game suck for everyone else at high levels.

This imbalance is unappealing. Almost an abusive power dynamic and exploitative.

 

[Incenjucar]

I try to avoid using money or time on things that I won't be able to use.