Class Balance - why?

[mmadsen]

Balanced classes will make those want balanced classes happy and should not really bother those to whom it is not an issue of importance.

It should also be mentioned that it is not necessary for balanced classes to be the same as one another. Fighters can still be fighters with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with that class, Mages can still be mages and so on. Classes can be (and should be) very different from one another and still be relatively balanced.

While I agree that balanced classes shouldn't upset people who don't care about balance, the issue is that designing balanced classes isn't always easy, and sometimes efforts to balance classes (or monster powers, or whatever) ruin the feel.

For instance, 4E's Fighters do (arguably) feel like Wizards, with their daily martial exploits that feel (at least a bit) like Vancian spells, and medusas that don't actually petrify with their gaze don't feel like the Medusa of myth, etc.

Good game balance doesn't come free, so going for balance can cost you something in other parts of the game.

 

[howandwhy99]

A different kind of balance might be thought of for a sandbox campaign, that of class balance by content.

If you look at all your PC classes, let's say there are 11, then you include all 11 pieces in the sandbox of the game world equally. If you add in more content for Fighters to engage with, then you need to add more for the other 10 classes too. (I think this was a bit easier when it was only about 4 classes and then subclasses with additional niches.) The key is to include all 11 classes on average everywhere even if none of the players are playing one. The reason is they may seek one out or opt into one for awhile without warning.

Since all of the players already have an equal opportunity to engage with the game, based upon its design of taking turns or sharing a turn together, the balance of spotlight time is already accounted for. Balancing content equality is more difficult, but I think it can be done if desired.

 

[SlyDoubt]

As long as they can balance the classes within reason. Sure. However, not in the way 4E did. Which was so methodical and obvious it took any and all character away from the classes.

When the difference between characters of the same 'role' becomes basically "do you like shiny armor or silky robes?" something is terribly wrong. That's what 4E did. Functionally they're all so similar there's no real interest to any class.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I can see that a lot of this conversation comes from personal experiences, which of course makes sense.

So, my take. I hate the concept of balance by skills because it makes the DM look like a complete moron. In the past it was always up to the DM to ensure that everyone at the table, including him/herself was having a good time. If not, the problem began and ended behind the screen, not the rules. As time progressed I saw that the rules took the "power" (for lack of a better term) from the DM and put it in the rules. While this did take out a lot of the "You can't do that because I'm the DM and I said so", arguments (which I think we can all agree was a good thing) it also took away some of that ability for a DM to do stuff outside of the scope of the rules which obviously broke some of the accepted guidelines and let a sense of "fantasy" stay in the game.

I don't think there is a simple solution to this. If M&M (Mike and Monte) can figure a way to do it, great, I think the peace caused by that one action should have them splitting the Nobel Peace Prize, but I don't feel all that hopeful. I like both systems, balanced and unbalanced for what they bring to the table and hate both of them for what they don't. My preference is unbalanced and flexible rather than the balanced and inflexible, but I am far from a fan boy for any system.

The problem as I see it is where you find your inspirational reading material. As many have said Conan eats wizards and priests for lunch and picks his teeth with their wands. While Rand Al'Thor can change the world with a passing thought and waste armies with a pass of his hand (or stump). Neither is wrong, just different. I guess that's why I'm partial to the works of Fritz Lieber, his heroes don't always win, they just try to survive.

 

[hanez]

<Begin Rant>
For myself class balance is one of the make or break issues for 5th edition. I think that (within reason) the various classes should be balanced. This makes for a greater likelyhood that people might move away from their favourite class(es) and try out others that may have been previously perceived as weaker. Also (and more importantly) as a player everybody wants to have a chance to contribute in a meaningful way in most (if not all) situations.

... snip ...

It should also be mentioned that it is not necessary for balanced classes to be the same as one another. Fighters can still be fighters with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with that class, Mages can still be mages and so on. Classes can be (and should be) very different from one another and still be relatively balanced.

Well......

There are a lot of reasons why we should bring up previous editions, especially in a proposed unity edition. I also believe that balance is important, but it is the COST and TYPE of balance that many of us are discussing.

I believe that classes should be balanced. But not strictly ONLY balanced with combat. I believe that the skill needed to sneak into a castle, and the skill needed to sweet talk a king is just as useful as the skill needed to fry an orc. As a DM I have seen characters with strong non combat skills bypass whole dungeons and have awarded them the XP for bypassing that encounter (following RAW and RAI as I see it).

I believe a D&D that gives the players a variety of abilities makes for more fun and engaging adventures. I also believe balancing across a range of features allows for truly different class options and not just a tacked on skill and non combat system that doesnt feel a part of the "one true combat system". I believe that 2e, 3e, and 4e had illustrative examples on why with this was so and we should take the best elements of the past to form a better DND-Next.

So I believe when you say "It should also be mentioned that it is not necessary for balanced classes to be the same as one another" you need to be more specific. If all classes follow the exact same progression, use the same amount of powers, gain powers at the same time, and have relatively simple, mostly combat powers then the game will be very balanced. But I personally believe that the classes will "be the same".

What degree of balance do you mean exactly? The kind where its somewhat balanced in a VARIETY of situations but of course there are exceptions and errors that should to be revised and errated on occasion (a la 2e and 3e?). Or the kind where the classes are very very balanced but some people think the classes are too similar and the balance is at the cost of focusin only on combat (a la 4e)? It's easy to say your for balance and different classes, but its a lot harder when you start taking into account the different ways classes progress, act mechanically, gain powers, and act in a variety of situations.

 

[Gronin]

While I agree that balanced classes shouldn't upset people who don't care about balance, the issue is that designing balanced classes isn't always easy, and sometimes efforts to balance classes (or monster powers, or whatever) ruin the feel.

For instance, 4E's Fighters do (arguably) feel like Wizards, with their daily martial exploits that feel (at least a bit) like Vancian spells, and medusas that don't actually petrify with their gaze don't feel like the Medusa of myth, etc.

Good game balance doesn't come free, so going for balance can cost you something in other parts of the game.

I won't argue that there is a cost associated with game balance and I also agree that it is not easy to create balanced classes that have a suffiently different feel. I don't currently have all the answers as to how this can be done, however the people designing these games do this for a living, they are a talented group with a great deal of experience in this field and they want me to contribute to their livlihood, so they can and should spend a great deal of time on the classes. There should be a way to accomplish this in a way that will satisfy the large majority of people and it should be built into the game at the core of the rules. The classes are what makes D & D what it is and without a doubt (at least in my mind) this is where the vast majority of the time and effort should be spent.

If people want to play a game that has uber-mages (insert class of choice if mages don't float your boat) then there could be an optional ruleset that would allow for this type of thing. In fact this would be very useful if you were playing in a small group of only 1 or 2 players or if you wanted to use this rule set to design the Big Bad.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

While I agree that balanced classes shouldn't upset people who don't care about balance, the issue is that designing balanced classes isn't always easy, and sometimes efforts to balance classes (or monster powers, or whatever) ruin the feel.

For instance, 4E's Fighters do (arguably) feel like Wizards, with their daily martial exploits that feel (at least a bit) like Vancian spells, and medusas that don't actually petrify with their gaze don't feel like the Medusa of myth, etc.

Good game balance doesn't come free, so going for balance can cost you something in other parts of the game.

I still maintain that FIghers and Wizard look similar on paper, but they play very different in game. But it appears that even people that played 4E don't always feel that way, so I figure it is just a particular frame of mind I and other 4E fans have and others don't. But for those that find the Core 4E Fighter and Wizard "samey", they created Essentials.

I was really skeptical about Essentials, because I couldn't quite believe it was balanced. But in play, it turned out well. Except that I still found the more "classic" Fighter classes boring in the long run.
But then, I did play a lot of 3E Fighters, and I always had them take feats that would give them complexity and many options, and thus 4E meant heaven to me. Not only could my Fighter be more complex, I also could play the type of Fighter that as not possible before - the charismatic and/or tactical leader (=Warlord).
But in the end, that's really a personal preference thing - some people don't need the complexity, some do, and it's nice if a system can actually accommodate both.

 

[SlyDoubt]

I can see that a lot of this conversation comes from personal experiences, which of course makes sense.

So, my take. I hate the concept of balance by skills because it makes the DM look like a complete moron. In the past it was always up to the DM to ensure that everyone at the table, including him/herself was having a good time. If not, the problem began and ended behind the screen, not the rules. As time progressed I saw that the rules took the "power" (for lack of a better term) from the DM and put it in the rules. While this did take out a lot of the "You can't do that because I'm the DM and I said so", arguments (which I think we can all agree was a good thing) it also took away some of that ability for a DM to do stuff outside of the scope of the rules which obviously broke some of the accepted guidelines and let a sense of "fantasy" stay in the game.

I don't think there is a simple solution to this. If M&M (Mike and Monte) can figure a way to do it, great, I think the peace caused by that one action should have them splitting the Nobel Peace Prize, but I don't feel all that hopeful. I like both systems, balanced and unbalanced for what they bring to the table and hate both of them for what they don't. My preference is unbalanced and flexible rather than the balanced and inflexible, but I am far from a fan boy for any system.

The problem as I see it is where you find your inspirational reading material. As many have said Conan eats wizards and priests for lunch and picks his teeth with their wands. While Rand Al'Thor can change the world with a passing thought and waste armies with a pass of his hand (or stump). Neither is wrong, just different. I guess that's why I'm partial to the works of Fritz Lieber, his heroes don't always win, they just try to survive.

Cool post.

That's what my problem with 4E can be boiled down to. It's so well balanced and tuned and all that it's too rigid. There's no room to make things wiggle and flow. Your plumbing has to be completely mapped out ahead of time, you can't fnagle as easily and that kills a lot of the enjoyment for me as a DM personally.

Adventures are easy to do in 4E because they basically write themselves when it comes to encounters. But because of that they're also too rigid to really expand properly and have them feel right. I mean that's why monsters had to be reworked entirely. Because everything was too exact.

Definitely do not need a return to that.

 

[hanez]

I also had fighters in 4e who hated the powers. These were guys who never came with the char updated and just wanted to have fun and say "I jump on the dragons head and stab him in the eye!!".

I think when we compare 3e fighter vs 3e wizard, we largely ask "how does a complicated (daily) class, mesh with a simple (at will) class."
Once you find that answer, theres nothing stopping you from making a mage based on the 3e fighter and a fighter based on the 3e wizard. (As for 4e, to continue this analogy, it seems that all classes were "sort of" based on the 3e wizard).

 

[Kingreaper]

Cool post.

That's what my problem with 4E can be boiled down to. It's so well balanced and tuned and all that it's too rigid. There's no room to make things wiggle and flow. Your plumbing has to be completely mapped out ahead of time, you can't fnagle as easily and that kills a lot of the enjoyment for me as a DM personally.

I disagree.

I think the problem is you're looking at 4e and going "if I fidget with it I'll damage the balance"; and in 3e there's no balance to damage.

But even if you fiddle with 4e, the result will probably be more balanced than 3.x, so why not go ahead and fiddle? It's not a work of art, it's a game