Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[DracoDruid]

Well. Guess you are right.
My group always tries to make roleplaying more than just combat. But that's just us, and ignoring the fact, that many groups out there just love to dash from combat to combat would be wrong.
At least when it comes to game design.

So the game should be that much customizable, that both/all playing styles work well.

The question is: Is this goal even possible?

 

[Minigiant]

From the last few posts I think the main problem of this class-balancing stems mostly from bad bad DMing. Lets face it, we all have difference experiences - and the main reason for this is the DM, not the player's handbooks.
Sure combat generally plays a major role in D&D and it overshadows a lot of the roleplaying and exploration aspect a lot of the time, especially when we were in our youth playing the older editions - but as we grow older, more roleplaying savvy, we explore the other aspects of the game.

If your roleplaying group is all about combat - then sure class balance and a wizard with more spells is probably best for you - hence you push for class-balancing during combat, which is understandable. BUT the game was not meant to be only/mostly combat. That is a style of play, not the only style of play.

Perhaps the new iteration will cater to those that wish to have a combat orientated group verses a mix. Not everyone wants class-balancing during combat. I believe it should be addressed in a large way within the DMG - defining the different styles of play and how it would affect the classes and if adjustments to the classes would be required to ensure enjoyment for all.

Summary - this class-balancing need/issue stems from style of play from the group/DM not from necessarily from poor class design as there are plenty of ppl playing older editions without any problems.

I disagree. I think the issue is that WOTC doesn't know how everyone plays, cannot force players to play a certain way, and thus cannot ignore a part of the game.

Players, by default, want to be involved in the major aspects of the game. But the part of the game that takes of the most time varies from group to group. Some groups are heavy combat. Others are exploration and interaction. Others are combat and interaction.

The designers don't know how you play. Nor should they conform to your group as the model of play if they ever find out how you play. So they have to balance ever character within ever pillar. So the group that spends 2 hours fighting and 10 minutes talking has every character involve. So the group that is 2 hours of social and exploration each has every character involved. So the ⅓ each group has every character involved. Unless they use pillars, they either have to force a certain time of gameplay or suggest banlists for character types/classes that can't fit in some campaigns. _

Basically if you have three D&D groups with four PCs that play 3 hours a session:

Group 1 is a hack and slash of 90% combat.
Group 2 is a do a bank heist and is doing 2 hours Exploration and 3 hours Interaction
Groups 3 is during a complete campaign with 1/3 of each pillar.

Now if there is a character that brings no combat ability and someone in Group 1 tries to play it, you will be doing nothing much of the time. Or an All combat character in Group 2. Now if the player wanted to be ineffective, kudos to them. But if the game is designed where whole groups of characters can't play in common game type...or is incapable out being useful for long periods of time... well it's not good.

 

[DracoDruid]

Solution:
a) give every class abilities in every "pillar" aka situation.
Though, this might blurr the class concept

OR

b) Make clear from the beginning, that certain classes are good/designed for certain roles/playstyles and avoid them in your group if they don't really fit.


I don't know which one might be the better solution.

In the end, I am pro point-buy. This is the only logical solution for real character flexibility and customization.
And I know, this wouldn't feel like D&D anymore.
But maybe this is the point...

 

[Sadras]

I disagree.

Ok. After reading your post I do not think you have understood mine.

I think the issue is that WOTC doesn't know how everyone plays, cannot force players to play a certain way, and thus cannot ignore a part of the game.

I did not say players were to be forced to play any specific way or ignoring parts of the game.

Players, by default, want to be involved in the major aspects of the game. But the part of the game that takes of the most time varies from group to group. Some groups are heavy combat. Others are exploration and interaction. Others are combat and interaction.

This is repetition of everything I said just using different words.

The designers don't know how you play. Nor should they conform to your group as the model of play if they ever find out how you play. So they have to balance ever character within ever pillar. So the group that spends 2 hours fighting and 10 minutes talking has every character involve. So the group that is 2 hours of social and exploration each has every character involved. So the ⅓ each group has every character involved. Unless they use pillars, they either have to force a certain time of gameplay or suggest banlists for character types/classes that can't fit in some campaigns.

The basis does not have to go by my style of play. The class basis in the PHB should be balanced classes, but not necesarily balanced combat design.

However the DMG should offer advice for all styles of play, including a combat orientated approach -which will be followed for the group. I did not declare that any types/classes should be banned. I said favourable ADJUSTMENTS could be added to classes/character types to promote a certain style of play that the group enjoys.
For instance: Many groups added additional feats to classes in 3.5 (to speed up progression, to superceed the feat tax or to buff up a classes for combat..etc).
We added proficiency skills in 2E. Similar thing.
That is a modification to an existing class. Adjustments like those and others could be used to balance classes in combat for combat-preferred groups/campaigns.

You could do the same with skills take away - add-on, reduced or enchance spells...etc to suit the style of play for a group or campaign that wont break the system. It will be in the form of advice and a few options within the DMG to suit the style of play the group wants to run, everyone in the group, not one player or class.

Therefore mods to enchance one pillar or the other would be in the DMG to satisfy a certain style. Of course say in the combat-mod the wizard gains a spell every spell level, he/she would lose something in the explorative or roleplaying aspect of the base class - to keep the balance. The mod is to balance the characters in combat specifically (because of the style of the campaign being run).

Hope this makes more sense now and remember I only suggested this because we have a disparity in roleplaying styles/experiences across the board and that mostly due to DMs (refer to my previous post).

 

[Neonchameleon]

If we have classes that are equally balanced around the 3 pillars and have more ore less equal amount of spell/powers and feats and same inpact on combat then we have character that are:

1st one: blue circle that fires out blue square that deals blue triangle amount of damage.

2nd one: red circle that fires out red square that deals red triangle amount of damage.

3rd one: green circle that fires out green square that deals green triangle amount of damage.

...

feel free to add more colors if you like.



If you want to say it differently: BOOOOORING!

What a fascinating surrealist world that game would be in. Inspired by Flatland and the new(ish) [ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shades-Grey-Jasper-Fforde/dp/0340963050/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1336129379&sr=8-5]series from Jasper Fforde[/ame] I assume. As a game about exploration and the meaning of the self, and the impact of the colour pallette on art. Possibly also about freedom in a number of guises - are single coloured entities looked up to or thought to be inferior and lesser? And how does reproduction work - are offspring of two different primary coloured entities secondary colours? I'm interested in the design decision to fire the same colour squares as the originating entity and yet use the three primary light colours rather than the three primary paint colours.

If you want to say it differently: Boring is what you make it. And ideas are easy enough to come by that the execution is what matters.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Every class gains an advantage over other classes in certain situations, that is a part of the game design. It's not broken and it's not bad game design, it is what it is.

There is no difference in saying "The rogue overshadows my Wizard in this situation" and "In this situation, my rogue has it's chance to shine".

It's all about the context. We come up with scenario's where class X looks bad and scenario's where class X is awesome. This can be done with each and every class so it's not a proper argument as to the design of a system.

 

[Bluenose]

Every class gains an advantage over other classes in certain situations, that is a part of the game design. It's not broken and it's not bad game design, it is what it is.

There is no difference in saying "The rogue overshadows my Wizard in this situation" and "In this situation, my rogue has it's chance to shine".

It's all about the context. We come up with scenario's where class X looks bad and scenario's where class X is awesome. This can be done with each and every class so it's not a proper argument as to the design of a system.

Yes. The game can be designed with that sort of balance in mind. On the other hand, if it's designed so that one class gets to shine on the 29th of every month with an "F" in it, and another gets to shine when there's a "y" in the day, then it's possible that some people might feel their chance to shine doesn't come up quite as often as they'd like, n'est ce pas.

 

[Campbell]

Let's face it. Higher level wizards simply have too many spell slots. From a functional standpoint the repertoire of a level 7+ wizard is too much of a burden to ask of the average player and with 30+ spells at your finger tips each individual spell feels less important. It also leads to our issue with spells like knock. Knock is awesome when you're using a precious limited resource to solve a problem and possibly hinder your ability to defeat the McBad at the end of the dungeon. Knock is not so awesome when you throw it into a bunch of lower level slots that aren't useful in tactical combat.

Here's what I'd like to see: Give all spell casters a reasonable number of spell slots (~15 at the high end), but make each spell count. Don't give spells levels. Learning a spell might have prerequisites including class level, and work on scaling spells so they stay relevant for longer. Plus make wizards more competent beyond casting so its okay for a spell caster not to Always Be Casting.

 

[billd91]

Yes. The game can be designed with that sort of balance in mind. On the other hand, if it's designed so that one class gets to shine on the 29th of every month with an "F" in it, and another gets to shine when there's a "y" in the day, then it's possible that some people might feel their chance to shine doesn't come up quite as often as they'd like, n'est ce pas.

Fortunately, D&D has never been like that. Oh, wait, you're using hyperbole to artificially inflate an argument. Carry on.

 

[steeldragons]

Let's face it. Higher level wizards simply have too many spell slots. From a functional standpoint the repertoire of a level 7+ wizard is too much of a burden to ask of the average player and with 30+ spells at your finger tips each individual spell feels less important.

In the game I play, a 7th level wizard has 10 spells for the day.

If that is "too much of a burden to ask of the average player"[] then I might suggest the "average player" not play a spellcaster.

Not really relevant to the conversation, sorry. Carry on.
--SD