Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[Derren]

Many people complained about unbalanced classes in previous editions and expressed the hope that all classes will finally be balanced against each other.

But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?

 

[Ahnehnois]

They don't.

 

[herrozerro]

The point is that no class should be able to fully do its job and be able to replace another class.

 

[avin]

They don't.

But we also can't go back to a game where one spellcaster do better than a melee in all areas (fly, read mind, go invisible and do more damage) in a way there's no point playing some class.

Like high level 3.5 Fighters compared do Wizards or CODzilla.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The simple answer is because a fair segment of players has more fun when classes are balanced.

As to why not just let those individual groups balance classes in their games, that's because it's much easier to unbalance classes than to balance them. Take two perfectly identical (and therefore balanced) classes and give one the ability to cast Wish an unlimited number of times per day. Easy.

Now, no one's suggesting that classes should actually be the same to achieve balance. A balance needs to be struck between class balance and other priorities. That said, there are methods to achieve such balance without engendering homogenization (just look at the Essentials classes).

 

[Piratecat]

They don't have to do everything as well as each other. Classes need niches (which means spells like Knock aren't awesome.) But a player should be able to have roughly the same amount of fun and effectiveness in combat with any class.

 

[marelion]

I second that! No class should be able to entitrely replace another. Which is exactly why some people tend to enjoy to play systems where a melee character can still be more than a caster`s meatshield at higher levels.

Take the rogue for example: He is stealthy, he can sneak up on pepole in combat and deal significant damage and finally, he is the only class in editions prior to 4E who can fid and disable traps.

At second level the wizard gets Invisibility and later on, he gets Improved Invsibilty. Add fly and you know why even somethig like tremorsense does not stop him from sneaking past.

He can deal significant damage but he has to spend time setting up for that while the wizards deals the same damage to multiple enemies and all the preparation that he needs to pull this off is Line Of Sight.

And finally, the only one who can disarm traps is the rogue so one might expect te rogue to really shine here. "Summon Monster X" is the answer to all your trapfinding problems. You do not have to disarm traps if you can set them off without any real opportunity cost.

Issues like this make people womder about class balance and issues like these explain why some people contemplate about such idealistic concepts as "balance".

 

[billd91]

I don't agree that classes shouldn't be able to partially replace each other or that there should be ironclad niche protection. But I do believe that classes shouldn't be able to replace each other without trade-offs from their own core competencies or without cooperation of the other PCs. Thus, I have no problem with a knock spell that displaces another wizardly choice if the party is looking for a way to sub for roguelessness.

Too much niche protection and you just end up with the same problem that people used to complain about - must have a cleric, must have a wizard, must have a fighter, must have a rogue. If all you're swapping for is roles like healer, artillerist/controller, meat shield, and skill guy/face/trapfinder/whatever, then you're not really really doing any better than just having the 4 classes. You might as well just have the 4 and leave any variation to reskinning the flavor. Some people don't want a party to be crippled without a cleric/healer, but I sure as hell don't want them crippled without a fighter, wizard, or rogue either despite each one bringing important exploration, interpersonal, or combat abilities to the group.

 

[dkyle]

But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?

This is not what balance means. Balance does not mean that everyone is the same. There can be wild differences between classes, that are well balanced.

Ultimately, the important thing is that there be balance between players. And that can be summed up as: each player should have equal right to claim that they are playing the protagonist of the story.

In narrative games, this is enforced directly, by providing balanced mechanics for distributing narrative control. But in games like DnD, the mechanics are highly oriented towards how effective a character is within the world, and that effectiveness is the prime determination of which characters can truly claim to be "protagonists".

For example, when the casters massively overshadow the non-casters in 3.X, it becomes laughable to think that the non-casters are in any way the equals of the casters. The casters are clearly the stars of the show. Which ends up meaning that the players of those characters aren't being treated as equals. And people tend to not have as much fun if they are being treated as less than the equals of their peers.

In addition, balance doesn't just have to mean combat, but if that is the mechanical focus of the game (as has traditionally been the case in DnD), then those mechanics need to be balanced. In a game with a more even mechanical focus on combat, and non-combat, it's OK for characters to be balanced overall, not just in combat.

 

[ExploderWizard]

They don't have to do everything as well as each other. Classes need niches (which means spells like Knock aren't awesome.) But a player should be able to have roughly the same amount of fun and effectiveness in combat with any class.

I don't agree with the bolded part. Combat is one part of the game and some people enjoy excelling at other parts. All classes should have great competence in some part of the game, and that doesn't have to be combat.

I second that! No class should be able to entitrely replace another. Which is exactly why some people tend to enjoy to play systems where a melee character can still be more than a caster`s meatshield at higher levels.

Take the rogue for example: He is stealthy, he can sneak up on pepole in combat and deal significant damage and finally, he is the only class in editions prior to 4E who can fid and disable traps.

At second level the wizard gets Invisibility and later on, he gets Improved Invsibilty. Add fly and you know why even somethig like tremorsense does not stop him from sneaking past.

He can deal significant damage but he has to spend time setting up for that while the wizards deals the same damage to multiple enemies and all the preparation that he needs to pull this off is Line Of Sight.

And finally, the only one who can disarm traps is the rogue so one might expect te rogue to really shine here. "Summon Monster X" is the answer to all your trapfinding problems. You do not have to disarm traps if you can set them off without any real opportunity cost.

Issues like this make people womder about class balance and issues like these explain why some people contemplate about such idealistic concepts as "balance".

The wizard gets this, the wizard gets that, my character has been replaced!

Before 3E with its nigh-uninterruptible casting, cheap plentiful magic items, and bonus spells for wizards there was an opportunity cost for everything.

Spell slots were important before they could be circumvented with scrolls and wands. Sure your wizard could memorize knock and invisibility and fly along with a host of other utility spells. It meant that they were trading off potential offensive or defensive power for a while.

At 5th level you had ONE memorized 3rd level spell and TWO second level. You decide to outshine your thief by choosing invisibility, knock, and fly.

So now you can fly around for a while, be invisible for a little while, and open a locked door. Because of your choices, you cannot cast rope trick, strength, or fireball.

If you want to summon a monster and use it to find a trap then you won't have it for a fight to protect you and it uses a spell slot you could have used for something else while letting the thief do his thing.

There was balance for magic users at one time but it was discarded as being unfun.