Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[Derren]

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.

And yet that was how 4E was balanced and what many people seems to want/like.
That in combat no class is better than the other.

 

[hanez]

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.

Mage hand has never been able to open anything but the simplest of doors in any campaign I have ever run. Your "rules laywer" can argue however he likes, but after he makes his case and a competent DM says "you attempt that.... and fail" life goes on.

Speaking of the rules, the second sentence of "open/close" specifically says that it cant open anything with a lock

You can open or close (your choice) a door, chest, box, window, bag, pouch, bottle, barrel, or other container. If anything resists this activity (such as a bar on a door or a lock on a chest), the spell fails.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Mage Hand
Transmutation
Level: Brd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One nonmagical, unattended
object weighing up to 5 lb.
Duration: Concentration
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

You point your finger at an object and can
lift it and move it at will from a distance.
As a move action, you can propel the object
as far as 15 feet in any direction,
though the spell ends if the distance
between you and the object ever exceeds
the spell’s range.

I see nothing here about opening or closing anything. All I see is moving objects.

 

[Serendipity]

I see nothing here about opening or closing anything. All I see is moving objects.

That's because he's talking about Open/Close. Different spell.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

That's because he's talking about Open/Close. Different spell.

Ahhh...Well I can guarantee you that most wooden doors weigh more than 30 pounds. I don't even know why they mention doors that are enormous.

My brother-in-law has doors in his house that weigh 65 to 70 pounds each. They are wooden trimmed in metal.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Mage hand has never been able to open anything but the simplest of doors in any campaign I have ever run. Your "rules laywer" can argue however he likes, but after he makes his case and a competent DM says "you attempt that.... and fail" life goes on.

Speaking of the rules, the second sentence of "open/close" specifically says that it cant open anything with a lock

You can open or close (your choice) a door, chest, box, window, bag, pouch, bottle, barrel, or other container. If anything resists this activity (such as a bar on a door or a lock on a chest), the spell fails.​

​

The way I read it it says it can't open anything that is locked or fastened. If it has a lock but is unlocked then it can. Or you can mage hand the door handle then open/close the door for simple shut doors.

 

[JasonZZ]

And yet that was how 4E was balanced and what many people seems to want/like.
That in combat no class is better than the other.

I notice you say nothing about whether classes are identical to one another in a 4e combat, because they are not. Not even between classes with the same role. In some cases, not even between different builds of the same class--an archer ranger is very different from a two-weapon ranger, and neither plays like a rogue or warlock, to make one example.

 

[Sunseeker]

And yet that was how 4E was balanced and what many people seems to want/like.
That in combat no class is better than the other.

No, it really wasn't. The only way in which "powers" were homogeneous was that they all came in flavors of at will, encounter and daily. [XW] damage made weapon choice more personal and meaningful. A lot of powers had riders, but there is a huge diversity of riders. A lot of powers had conditions, but there were at least a dozen different conditions and those were paired up in unique ways with the powers.

Sure, if you look at each power as x[W], rider, yeah, they all seem pretty much the same, but that's really cutting things down to a level of simplicity that gives no credit to the creativity of many powers.

Yes, they got rid of stuff scaling with faster level, but that was hardly unique.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

[/INDENT]The way I read it it says it can't open anything that is locked or fastened. If it has a lock but is unlocked then it can. Or you can mage hand the door handle then open/close the door for simple shut doors.

Your DM may allow you to Mage Hand a door open but the description of the spell tells what it can do. The spell can lift and move objects that weighs a certain amount. It says nothing about opening doors.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Originally Posted by Hussar
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.

And yet that was how 4E was balanced and what many people seems to want/like.
That in combat no class is better than the other.

4e initially used an underlying structure that helped balance classes. It's often called 'AEDU,' but it's really a little more than that. It's a single experience progression that all classes use. That's not even unique to 4e. 3e used a single experience progression, and all classes got, for instance, a hit die and skill points at every level.

That's the about the limit of the 'homogeneity.' While a common structure does make balance much easier - you need only balance encounters against encounters, dailies against dailies, class features against class features - it is not, in itself an example of balance. In a sense, it's more a matter of sacrificing one source of balance to enable another.

To explain that, I have to get into a definition of balance. One of the best I've heard is that, in a game, balance is greater the more meaningful and viable choices that are available. Lack of choices is not balance. Presence of choices is not balance. Choices have to be real choices to attain some balance.


Now, 4e is very nicely balanced for a version of D&D. Take the number of classes for instance. There are over 20 classes, more if you include sub-classes. Of those, a few are noticeably lacking, and could be judged (rather harshly) as non-viable or meaningless choices. If you were to be equally harsh with 3.x core classes, you could reasonably assert that the 3 top-optimization-tier classes - the Cleric, Druid and Wizard - were the only really viable and meaningful choices of class in the game (ironically, the top-tier classes are all 'vancian' full casters, so use prettymuch the same underlying structure - class features plus spell slots, new spell levels at odd caster levels - so they're about as homogeneous as 4e classes in that sense).

Not to pile-on 3e balance, but two of the top-tier classes were 'vancian' with their entire spell lists effectively 'known,' meaning the actual differences between any two characters of one of those classes could be pretty minimal: given the same expectations for the day, two vancian casters with the same spells known are likely to prepare very similar slates of spells.


Now, as to combat balance, yes, 4e classes are probably best-balanced around combat. There are some, like the fighter, with a distinct lack of out-of-combat options. In combat each class is quite different, even within a given role, but each is viable - of comparable overall effectiveness and consistency of contribution to the party. So, that is a good example of balance.

The alternative is not 'more choice but less balance,' but 'less balance, and consequently fewer real choices.'