D&D (2024) Would you be fine with classes that you can't always play but are better than base classes?

[Yaarel]

All available options being comparable to each other in power − in other words game balance − is hugely important to me for many reasons.

Part of the reason 3e failed was because of its convoluted and entangling imbalances that were impossible to fix.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Back in the long long ago, Paladins and Rangers where just better. They were Fighters+.

But you couldn't just pick it. You had to roll stats high enough. And even if your DM let you insert your rolls into any stat still didn't mean you had high enough stats to be a Ranger or Paly. They were special and you wanted one in the party if possible. It was always a pleasant surprise when one got to be in the party. Now-a-days it's just ho hum another Ranger.

Of course, with the standard being Point Buy or whatever now there would have to be an alternate method. Like roll a 6 on a D6 if you want to make a Paladin or Ranger. This is assuming they are Better Class Plus. Could be whole new classes that are a take on the regular balanced class. Not a Sorcerer but a... Witch King! Or whatever.

Do classes need to be balanced anyways? Most people seem to get a character idea and not really worried if they will be A+ tier in combat.

There's a reason no one does Fighters+ any more in ... just about any RPG. It's simply a bad idea. If you want A to be more powerful than B then we have a simple thing that's meant to be a measure of power. Level.

And every class should be what the 3.5 Tier List called Tier 3 - good at their role and able to contribute outside it without their role being everything.

Were there a standard array set that was used I might have no problem with the idea of the class seeming more powerful because you need to drop that 17 into Charisma for your front line fighter, mind you. But that's a much subtler level of balancing than current D&D manages.

 

[Amrûnril]

Class balance will never be perfect, but it should be a goal that designers aspire to. If some characters are intended to be objectively stronger than others, that can be represented by making those characters different levels, or by giving them features independent of their classes (higher ability scores, magic items, bonus feats...).

 

[Deset Gled]

I'll echo others on this and say balance doesn't have to be perfect, but there should at least be an attempt. Intentionally making one class better than others is just bad design.

If you want one character to be better than others, just make them a higher level. That's very literally what levels are for: a measure of power/ability.

 

[Yaarel]

I'll echo others on this and say balance doesn't have to be perfect, but there should at least be an attempt. Intentionally making one class better than others is just bad design.

Heh. Imbalances happen by themselves. We definitely dont need to try to create them.

If you want one character to be better than others, just make them a higher level. That's very literally what levels are for: a measure of power/ability.

Exactly.

All of the options within a level should be reasonably equal to each other, so players have real choices, and without esoteric optimization manuals.

 

[CleverNickName]

Do classes need to be balanced anyways?

In my opinion, no.

And for a couple of reasons:
1. As you said: my players choose their characters based on a concept or idea that popped into their head...not because of a perceived advantage or strength. You'll hear my players say "I want to play Gimli, if Gimli were a Hogwarts student!" but you'll never hear them say "No, I don't want to play a Dwarf because I need a plus-two to my Intelligence in order to boost my spell DCs."

2. What does "balanced" even mean, anyway? Same ability scores? Same number of proficiencies? Same hit points? Same damage-per-round? Same effectiveness? (and if so, "effective" how? Same number of attacks? Same hit frequency? Same options? (and if so, which "options" need to be the same? Spell lists? Weapons? (and if so...), and so on), and so on), and so on. There is no agreement on what classes are balanced, and how they are balanced.

A fighter is rubbish at picking locks, and a rogue is rubbish at using magic, and a wizard is rubbish at hand-to-hand combat. Not everyone thinks this is a problem.

 

[Yaarel]

What does "balanced" even mean, anyway?

In practice, balance means, if a mechanically minded player can only have one feature or the other, it really is a tough choice.

In the aggregate, the better options − more mechanically effective and more frequently useful − become clear.

The "traps" − ineffective or rarely useful − also become clear.

 

[GrimCo]

Played 2ed Paladin. And it wasn't all that great. Although it was more powerful, it came with heavy role play restrictions. Those were there for balancing purposes. Only Human, only lawful good, can associate only with good creatures, cant lie or cheat, use suprise and some other things i don't remember. You got fair bit of restrictions to player agency and ways you could play your paladin that it killed lot of fun. Not to mention tiny bit that you can fall from grace, lose your powers and you are just fighter with high charisma.

I like classes to be balanced mechanically, not with role play restrictions to balance them out.

 

[Deset Gled]

2. What does "balanced" even mean, anyway? Same ability scores? Same number of proficiencies? Same hit points? Same damage-per-round? Same effectiveness? (and if so, "effective" how? Same number of attacks? Same hit frequency? Same options? (and if so, which "options" need to be the same? Spell lists? Weapons? (and if so...you get the idea))).

At a very high level view, balance is the idea that two different classes have roughly the same amount of power, usefulness, and contribution to the game at the same level.

Balance is one of those things that is easy to turn into a problem if you want to make it a very big problem, but it's also relatively easy to get something functional if you choose to focus on solutions.

If I can invoke an imperfect metaphor, measuring the "power" of a class is like trying to measure the length of a coastline. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox The closer you try to exactly measure every tiny detail, the harder and more complicated it gets, and the less sure you'll be. But when you need to compare the coastal length of one geographical mass to another, it's really not that hard to get a rough comparative measurement after you make a couple of basic decisions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nope.

I want the designers to at least pretend at balance instead of throwing their hands up and make material that's annoying to interact with, and what I don't want is the fallacy that people who want balance want 'perfect' balance.