Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[mkill]

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.

In 3.5? Are you kidding? The general consensus is that the Cleric is tier 1, the Fighter is tier 5. Note that tier 6 is the Commoner.
Tier System for Classes
And really, this discussion was finished around 2007, nothing I can add here. Ignore it at your own peril.

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.

Meh. As DM, I want to run a game, not fix game designer screwups. An item that allows you to use a flexible but limited class feature without limit should have never made it past editing. At the very least, they should have been limit to actual undead turning, not any divine channeling ability.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I want to hit on this for a moment. I really get tired of hearing the old "because of Knock my rogue is useless" excuse.

3rd edition and before actually had the crazy notion that player's would actually work together and DM's would actually have a backbone and keep their games in check.

What does players working together even mean? What end are people working together towards?

In character, the characters are normally working together to do something important like save the world. Yet you are saying that a part of the game includes deliberately not trying your hardest to save the world so you can worry about the rogue's pwecious feelings. You are quite literally endangering the fate of the world to not have issues with one person's justified feelings of inadequacy.

As for the idea that DMs would have a backbone, I have this idea that when I pay money for a professionally produced product the work will actually be professional. I bought that product to take the heavy lifting off my shoulders. If mistakes are made they are made. Errata helps. But there is a level of using things for their intended purpose in any system that if it fails, the whole product should be considered not fit for purpose.

And the correct response to a product being not fit for purpose that you've paid good money for is to take it back and demand your money back.

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.

I'm sorry, there might be arguments on both sides - but that's like saying there are arguments on both sides about who's the better painter between a random college undergrad and Pablo Picasso. One cure minor wounds and the cleric's carrying as many HP as the fighter. The cleric has the same AC as the fighter. The cleric has better defences than the fighter. In your quest to prove balance you need to demonstrate that two feats (one for a good weapon), plus one feat every two levels, plus a point of BaB every two levels is a match for full primary spellcasting. And... um... no. No it isn't.

Nightsticks aren't actually that bad. They were intended for turning undead which is a marginal use in most settings - it gets bad only when you combo them. Someone didn't spot the combo. I'd therefore be happy to allow them under the condition that their turn attempts could only be spent on turning undead and call that the RAI. (And then blame WoTC for not putting out errata).

 

[BobTheNob]

I dont know how anyone can call a comparison between a 3.5 Cleric and Fighter "subjective". I can compare a beat up wreck to a Ferrari and call em both cars, doesnt mean the comparison counts for the anything.

The very fact that a Meme exists to describe clerics and druids should be indicative enough. As far as the fighter goes, I have never heard anyone key a term for a "F-Zilla".

 

[Hussar]

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?

As has been already stated, your definition of balance is sorely lacking. Perhaps you could clarify your position on what you believe to be balance between classes and we could move forward. As it stands, you seem to be equating balance with homogeneity.

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.

Mage hand is a 0 level spell. Unseen servant lasts an hour per level. Either one will handle every trapped door/chest you care to name.

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.

Just as a point, the paladin gains his xp for tithe cash before he has to tithe. Just because he uses the money, doesn't mean he doesn't get xp for it, any more than a fighter would lose xp for blowing his cash on ale and whores.

Also note, a ranger's restrictions are much more egregious in 1e. A ranger can only keep what he can carry on his horse. A paladin can keep his cash anywhere he likes, so long as he tithes the 10% and there is no requirement to tithe more than that.

So, no, the paladin isn't actually all that far behind. 1 level, sometimes, but, not always, since he'll level up long before the fighter hits the next level. At least before name level. After name level, you are probably right. But, I don't think balancing two classes that way really works all that well. It presumes a length of campaign that is perhaps a bit too ambitious.

And, let's be honest here. No one really worries too much about balancing the fighter types anyway. A fighter isn't much weaker than a paladin, particularly if you use Specialization rules. That's never really the issue. The issue is that the caster classes just get too damn much power.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

To everyone that responded to my posts:

First of all, D&D used to be a voluntary team game. 4th edition made it into a forced team game because it doesn’t trust everyone to work together.
If a player is using another class to mimic you is fine because there is nothing wrong with having two classes that are similar trying to work together. If someone is just trying their best to out do you then there is a problem with that player and not the system. If you design your wizard to be a rogue type then there is nothing wrong with that but for the people that think a wizard can replace a rogue, you really need to think back to what a rogue can do and a wizard can’t do. Rogues can disarm traps, use “any” magic item in the game thanks to UMD, Sneak Attack, Evasion(As a class ability), Uncanny Dodge(As a class ability), Long list of skills, better BAB etc…
Well you say there are a few things the Wizard can do as well and one of them I hear is Invisibility. Well that’s true but Stealth is a hell of a lot better that Invisibility because See Invisibility doesn’t detect stealth because it’s not magical hiding. Detect Magic could give you an idea as well as to where someone is hiding due to Invisibility or even Superior Invis.
Also I keep hearing about wands of Summon Monster I being used to set off traps. That’s great and all but those are used for only a few types of traps. I don’t know of anything that you can summon that can open a door because it doesn’t have hands. Oh and the big kicker! What’s wrong with a rogue having these things as well? The rogue has UMD so he can have and use “any” type of Scroll, Wand, Item etc… The rogue is actually more of a utility monkey than the wizard.
Let’s use RAW for a moment here. According to RAW, the only guarantee that a Wizard has of gaining new spells is his 2 per level. Finding that spellbook, finding that other mage to copy from, finding those magic shops are all optional and up to the DM, they are not guaranteed. Sure there are rules for buying and copying but you have to get to that point and getting there is purely up to your DM. So if you aren’t trying to mimic another class, are you going to sit there and waste your spell choices on those types of spells?
With regards to the cleric: So the consensus consists of a few internet forums that don’t even make up close to half the total gaming population? Careful when putting all your eggs in one basket. To make a long story short, the cleric and fighter debate remains subjective.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Mage hand is a 0 level spell. Unseen servant lasts an hour per level. Either one will handle every trapped door/chest you care to name.

Mage Hand doesn't work that way. Your DM may have allowed you to do somethings that you can't normally do but Mage Hand allows you to lift non magical objects. If doesn't say anything about opening doors.

Someone mentioned Unseen Servant. It opens unlocked doors so it does nothing for doors that are locked. You can't use Mage Hand to float a wand of Knock to a door and use it that way. Traps are triggered by actually unlocking the door so the moment you use your wand of knock the trap goes off.

 

[Neonchameleon]

First of all, D&D used to be a voluntary team game. 4th edition made it into a forced team game because it doesn’t trust everyone to work together.

Where, pray tell, is this force? Absolutely nowhere in the rules I'm aware of - indeed, 4e characters are actually more self-sufficent than most 3.X characters that aren't tier 1 and being played as such.

If a player is using another class to mimic you is fine because there is nothing wrong with having two classes that are similar trying to work together. If someone is just trying their best to out do you then there is a problem with that player and not the system.

And if someone isn't trying their best to outdo you - they are just trying to do something and they are still better than you at what you are trying to do then there is a problem with the system. This is where 3.X stands.

Well you say there are a few things the Wizard can do as well and one of them I hear is Invisibility. Well that’s true but Stealth is a hell of a lot better that Invisibility because See Invisibility doesn’t detect stealth because it’s not magical hiding. Detect Magic could give you an idea as well as to where someone is hiding due to Invisibility or even Superior Invis.

"Stealth is a hell of a lot better than invisibility because there is one single possible countermeasure to invisibility that only appears on teh wizard and bard spell lists." With Invisibility you can stand right in the middle of a whitewashed room and no one will see you. With Stealth, (or http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/hide.htm]Hide[/url])anyone with eyes is going to see you. As for Detect Magic, you need to actually concentrate. And invisibility shows up as a faint aura - just like a +1 dagger. You can see the auras of the magical weapons a hidden foe is carrying.

So no. Hide is not better than invisibility.

I don’t know of anything that you can summon that can open a door because it doesn’t have hands.

That doesn't stop one of my host's cats when we play! And an octopus can open a door. As can an ape.

Oh and the big kicker! What’s wrong with a rogue having these things as well? The rogue has UMD so he can have and use “any” type of Scroll, Wand, Item etc… The rogue is actually more of a utility monkey than the wizard.

1: The wizard can make the wands at mid level. And scrolls from level 1. The rogue never can.
2: The rogue can not use the wands reliably until high level. The wizard can use wizard wands with no failure chance. So the wizard is better with the wizard wands than the rogue is.

Let’s use RAW for a moment here. According to RAW, the only guarantee that a Wizard has of gaining new spells is his 2 per level. Finding that spellbook, finding that other mage to copy from, finding those magic shops are all optional and up to the DM, they are not guaranteed. Sure there are rules for buying and copying but you have to get to that point and getting there is purely up to your DM. So if you aren’t trying to mimic another class, are you going to sit there and waste your spell choices on those types of spells?

So. If you throw the worldbuilding guidance out and consider the work done by the designers in setting the default world setting to be actively worse than useless, you can partially limit the wizard. And at four spells per spell level there's certainly room for invisibility - it's just that useful. Possibly not for knock. Depends how often locks appear. If I want a trickster or a utility mage I might well be using knock as my fourth second level spell (glitterdust, alter self, invisibility all being no brainers - with web and rope trick being normally ahead of knock). And yes, alter self and invisibility are both that good. If you want to be a blaster... but then blasters bore me.

 

[Bluenose]

First of all, D&D used to be a voluntary team game. 4th edition made it into a forced team game because it doesn’t trust everyone to work together./QUOTE]

By your own words, before 4e D&D didn't have to be a team game at all. Team play was voluntary. It's hardly great support for the idea that D&D is a team game.

Mage Hand doesn't work that way. Your DM may have allowed you to do somethings that you can't normally do but Mage Hand allows you to lift non magical objects. If doesn't say anything about opening doors.

Re:Mage Hand
You point your finger at an object and can lift it and move it at will from a distance.

You could I am sure argue that moving something at will doesn't let you open a door, but it's hardly unreasonable for a GM to say that you can push a door open with it, or open the lid of a chest. It might even be considered creative use of an ability, though I know that's the sort of thing D&D GMs are supposed to frown on.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You could I am sure argue that moving something at will doesn't let you open a door, but it's hardly unreasonable for a GM to say that you can push a door open with it, or open the lid of a chest. It might even be considered creative use of an ability, though I know that's the sort of thing D&D GMs are supposed to frown on.

Creative interpretation is fine home games but you can't use it when discussing the credibility of RAW game rules.

 

[Dausuul]

Creative interpretation is fine home games but you can't use it when discussing the credibility of RAW game rules.

A smart rules lawyer could certainly find a way to use mage hand to get a door open. But you don't even need to do that, because there is another cantrip called open/close, whose entire function is to manipulate doors, chests, and other such trappable things from a safe distance.