Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[ForeverSlayer]

I didn't say (or at least mean) "useless." Certainly not useless - there are lots of other things that rogues can do superbly, including stealth, disarming traps and focused damage. That said, I will confirm that because of knock, in a 2e->3e->3.5e 16 year long campaign where I played a rogue and we had a second rogue NPC, we used the Open Locks skill fewer than 5 times once the PCs topped 4th level. It was useless because Knock was faster and safer. That spell is pretty much the poster child for niche infiltration, in the same way that 3e's divine power makes the cleric a better fighter than the fighter is.

PC: I can't agree with you here about the safe part. Knock never ever disarmed trapped doors, chests etc... Knock only unlocks and we have learned many many times to just let the rogue handle it.

Cleric being a better fighter is subjective and remains that to this day. There are arguments on both sides but nobody has walked away with the victory.

The cleric thing is another example of DM's actually taking the initiative. Nightsticks were something in Libris Mortis and since 3rd edition didn't carry the "everything is core" title then it didn't have to be allowed. Divine Metamagic had gotten the nerf so it would take pretty much every feat you had to do the Persistent Rightous Might, etc.... Which a simple dispel magic would take care of and leave the cleric back to normal and missing a lot Turn Undead attempts.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Wands of Knock were a taboo discussion at our table. We kinda agreed that even though it made perfect sense for our wizard to make one, he didn't do it to give the rogue some face time.

That should not be. No class should be forced to tie one hand behind its back to give the "kid brother" class time to shine. Sure, when older D&D forced mages to use one of 4 possible 2nd level slots on knock, there was some trade off. When 3e's wands and scrolls aplenty happened, the limitation was gone. I never want to go back to thieves being "given a chance to shine" by the wizard, knowing full well that if he failed the mage could've solved it all along. No thank you.

Why not? That was never the intention to start with. The intention was to give rogueless parties a chance to at least open doors but like I told Pirate, Knock doesn't disarm traps.

 

[Serendipity]

Eh, balance isn't really that important for me, at least not in the way it's obsessed about nowadays. No, I don't want any of my players to be standing around feeling useless....but that doesn't happen in games I run. If it happens to characters I'm playing, then there's generally something at fault other than "the game system is unbalanced" and I can only recall this occurring once in recent memory.
So...no, it isn't necessary. Not for me.

 

[dagger]

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.

Yea thats why I prefer 1e...

 

[JasonZZ]

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?

Homework time: I want you to go to YouTube, search for a short comedy sketch called "The Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit", watch it, and come back.

More seriously, you've badly misunderstood the meaning and intention of balance. It was never about every class having the same performance--they don't. Balance is about nobody being eclipsed by any other--it's about having your opportunity to shine, and not just be the comic relief.

 

[Mercule]

2.) "Subclasses" shouldn't strictly be better, just different.

A paladin shouldn't be "fighter + X". Nor should an assassin be a "thief + X". If the core classes are done well, then a ranger, barbarian, warlord, etc should be on par, not better, than the default four.

This is an interesting point -- and one with which I agree. IMO, this is where the uneven level advancement in AD&D was important, as well as the "unfun" roleplaying restrictions.

Sure, when you compare a starting 1e fighter and paladin, the paladin is immune to disease (not a huge deal at 1st level) and can cure diseases in others, can detect evil at will, has a +2 to saves, and can heal 2 hp/day. Those are nice, but not really a huge deal. In exchange, the paladin has to take 10% of all treasure off the top, then give away most of the rest, after expenses. The magic item restriction is probably not relevant at 1st level.

The paladin requires more XP to advance than the fighter, which means that, assuming even XP totals, the fighter will tend to be a level ahead of the paladin roughly half the time by 5th level. Additionally, because the paladin had to dump at least a 17 in charisma and has to have both a high strength and wisdom, the fighter is pretty likely to be gaining 10% more XP than the paladin, which can add up. This is also where the XP gained from treasure really helps the fighter, since the DMG says that treasure either needs to be made portable or stored in the PC's stronghold to grant XP, implying that only treasure kept is counted and the paladin has to give most of his away. Even if you only count the tithe against him, that's still another 10% additional XP that the fighter gains over the paladin. That puts our theoretic adventuring buddies about 200k XP apart by the time the paladin gets spells. At name level, the fighter will be gaining 3 levels for every 2 the paladin gains, without factoring in that 20% bonus. The ranger also has the high stat requirements, slower progression, and treasure restrictions, though not as pronounced.

Based on the above, the "balanced" solution for 5e fighters, who have the same advancement as their subclasses, would be to ensure the fighters always have a better BAB progression. Who would balk at giving the 3e fighter a 1.25 BAB progression? If 5e flattens BAB progression, maybe the 5e fighter just gets a flat +2 throughout his career. I'd also work bonus damage in there, but the fighter would be a bit more attractive, with just the BAB change.

 

[Remathilis]

Why not? That was never the intention to start with. The intention was to give rogueless parties a chance to at least open doors but like I told Pirate, Knock doesn't disarm traps.

No, but wands of summon monster I trigger them!

I played enough 2e and 3e to see what a well-prepped wizard (or group of wizards) can do. They dominate the game, and while I don't want to go 4e and give everyone the same stuff, I would like to see rogues have less competition from one-and-done spells...

 

[Shadeydm]

Yes all classes must be balanced because the alternative is wrongbadfun

 

[howandwhy99]

PCs being balanced against each other is a personal choice. I think the game should start a campaign off that way, generally speaking*, but it should not be forced to remain that way. Players are in the overall situation of sharing their stuff. That can mean casting a spell on someone, interposing yourself between an ally and an enemy, or giving your last healing potion to a friend. It also means handing over valuable information like getting new players up to speed on what's happening in the game. Not to mention handing down other treasure to bring up the viability of lower level PCs in the party.

There's never going to be a perfect balance between the PCs. Not unless everyone rolls the same stats, same HPs, picks the same class and race, buy the same equipment, and so on. The choices matter, but being a little bit weaker in this situation rather than another isn't such a bad thing.

What I think is the issue is the All-or-Nothing game. I can NEVER hit what you can hit. I can NEVER find a way to beat a challenge that's 50/50 for you. My odds can be lower, but the game is improving them without requiring equal XP & equal powers for players.


*Perfect balance is like saying a blink spell should be absolutely balanced with invisibility. It's up to the situations the players choose to place themselves in.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Because of this...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw]Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit - YouTube[/ame]