Another approach to class balance

[Mercurius]

A common topic on this board these days seems to be class balance, especially in relation to 4E's very balanced approach vs. the imbalance in 3.x (in particular, the power of spell-casters at higher levels). 4E seemingly achieved this balance through two channels: 1) delineating different combat roles, and balancing both across roles and within roles; and 2) building powers over an underlying substructure, so that class powers differ mainly by fluff and role; in other words, a 5th level striker daily power is pretty much the same in terms of its effects, regardless of class.

The problem, for me at least and presumably others, is that a certain homogeneity sets in. A martial striker and an arcane striker are only cosmetically different, but they end up playing very similarly. 4E's reliance on the game grid generates a further abstraction from the narrative, and thus exacerbates the situation and furthers the "sameness" of classes of the same roles. Reliance on the power structure for class balance has blurred the lines between magical and non-magical, with fighters and rogues having daily powers, a clear adherence to a more gamist approach that many old-timers (including myself) have taken issue with.

All of this got me thinking - is it really so hard to balance classes without homogenizing them? Do wizards and fighters really need to use the same mechanics for what they can do in order for them to be balanced and for the game engine to be "elegant?"

The key here, the mission statement even, is this: Design a system in which classes are both balanced and unique, with a wide diversity of flavor and abilities. That's pretty much it, although how we interpret "balance" and "diversity" can vary. But I don't think balance means that a wizard and fighter have to be equally powerful at every level, or that all classes have to be able to do the same things equally well.

So what are the main areas of activity in D&D? That is, what are the main modalities through which the PC interacts with the environment? For the sake of this discussion, I'd like to put them into three broad categories:

• Combat - specifically refers to martial combat - using weapons and armor, and of course unarmed combat.
• Magic - refers to utilizing any kind of supernatural force, from arcane to divine to psionic to elemental, etc.
• Skills - This is the "everything else" category - anything from picking pockets to negotiating a deal to playing a lute to deciphering a script.

Certainly these categories are very broad, especially Skills, but it serves my purpose. Let us now posit three general levels of training and ability:

• Primary - highly trained, regular ongoing development, the major focus of a class
• Secondary - highly trained, one of two major foci
• Tertiary - rudimentary training, possibly without ongoing development, or only intentional development

An unspoken fourth category would be Untrained - that is, the class template has no training in that category (although the character could develop it later on through multi-classing).

Now the point here is to assign these three training or capacity levels to the above categories in all classes, and to do so in a way that is balanced. One way to do this is simply through common sense and intuition; it obviously makes sense that a fighter, for instance, has primary combat, secondary skills, and is untrained in magic; a cleric has secondary combat and magic, and tertiary skills; a rogue has primary skills, secondary combat, and perhaps tertiary magic. And so forth.

But what if we put a "point buy" system for class design? First of all, we need to have some fail-safes so that, for instance, a class couldn't be primary in two categories, especially combat and magic. I would suggest that every class has 7 "training points," and that primary is 4, secondary 2, and tertiary 1. Then add in another category called Specialization, which can be added to any training and add some kind of special ability, such as sneak attack or weapon specialization (this would, for instance, differentiate the combat ability of a fighter and paladin). Further Specializations can be added at later levels, but we're talking about at character creation. For instance, a fighter would have a combat specialization while a paladin would not; both would have the same basic attack bonus, but the fighter gets a leg up with a starting specialization (which might be more than simply "+1 with heavy blades," but I'm not going into that level of detail here). So we have:

primary 4
secondary 2
tertiary 1
specialization 1

Giving every class 7 points, we could have the following configurations:

primary (4), secondary (2), tertiary (1)
primary (4), secondary (2), specialization (1)
primary (4), tertiary x2 (2), specialization (1)
primary (4), tertiary (1), specialization x2 (2)
secondary x3 (6), specialization (1)
secondary x2 (4), tertiary (1), specialization x2 (2)

I could be forgetting some combinations, but that's most of it. The above implies that you can't have more specializations, at least to start with, than trained groups. That way we don't have uper-specialists with, say, primary combat and three specializations but no skill or magic training.

Here is how I would assign some of the major classes:

Fighter: primary combat (4) with specialization (1), secondary skills (2)
Cleric: primary magic (4), secondary combat (2), tertiary skills (1)
Rogue: primary skills (4), secondary combat (2) with specialization (1)
Wizard: primary magic (4) with specialization (1), secondary skills (2)
Paladin: primary combat (4), secondary magic (2), tertiary skills (1)
Ranger: primary combat (4), secondary skills (2), tertiary magic (1)
Bard: primary skills (4), secondary magic (2), tertiary combat (1)
Sorcerer: primary magic (4), secondary magic (2), tertiary combat (1)
Druid: primary magic (4), secondary skills (2), tertiary combat (1)
Assassin: secondary combat (2) with specialization (1), secondary skills (2), secondary magic (2)

Etc. The above aren't set in stone, but display the way that this system can create balanced character classes.

Now one could argue "But primary magic or combat is way better than primary skills, so Bards are going to suck." They won't if 5E is truly designed around the "Three Pillars" of Roleplay, Combat, and Exploration. Some have suggested that trying to balance classes in this way is a bad idea, that every class should be able to do something in each situation - and this is certainly true to some extent. But if we go too far the other way, well, we end up with homogeneity. Note also that my categories aren't mutually exclusive, and certainly don't line up fully with the three pillars. Combat and Combat are the only one-to-one synonym; magic and skills apply to all three pillars.

What we don't want is bards being able to do as much hit point damage as fighters or rogues; but what we do want is them being able to use their music and magic to calm or charm a whole group of rampaging orcs.

So what do you think? How would you approach class balance? Given that the above is rough, are there ways you would change/improve it?

 

[Mattachine]

Yes, balancing classes without making them somewhat the same is very, very hard.

Using three different aspects of the game to try to balance classes doesn't usually work, because combat is the most common challenge in default D&D (throughout all editions).

Of course, some adventures, campaigns, and DMs prominently feature other aspects of the game (besides combat).

Given no standard for the importance of combat, magic, or skills in different games, using them as a means to balance classes is a fool's errand--one that the 5e designers seem to be engaged in.

Until D&D explicitly moves away from a combat emphasis (which I don't think it will), class balance must be focused on combat. Otherwise, we'll have classes (like the AD&D thief) that have great use in some games, and near uselessness in others.

 

[dkyle]

That sounds good and all, but it glosses over the truly difficult part: what does primary Combat really mean as far as actual mechanics? Or primary Magic? What gets lost with less training?

If primary Combat means "full BaB, and a combat feat every two levels" and primary Magic means "full caster levels, and fastest progression, in Arcane spells", then we're just back to 3.5.

So, while it's useful to think about classes the way you describe, I think it basically reflects how 3.5 was designed. The intended tradeoffs between classes are clear. There's a clear combat training progression from 1/2 BAB to 3/4 BAB to full BAB. There's a clear magic training progression from Ranger/Paladin to Bard to Wizard/Sorcerer/Druid/Cleric. The problem is that the martial side was way over-estimated, and the magic side way under-estimated.

 

[paladinm]

I think "class balance" is largely a myth, especially given players' tendency to minmax. Creative players can Always find ways to make "uncool" classes work. Besides, that's what magic items are for. A 20th level barbarian with a +5 sword-of-magic-resistance- and-annihilation vs. a 20th level wizard? Who's the daddy now?

Seriously, I think too much has been made of this. Mages are Supposed to be weak at lower levels, and fighters strong, and this Slowly reverses over time (if the mage can survive). That has Always been the SOP for D&D. This is why so many of us grognards find the 4e attempt at class balance to be a serious departure from "true" D&D.

 

[dkyle]

I think "class balance" is largely a myth, especially given players' tendency to minmax.

A well designed system would be balanced even with min-maxing. If min-maxing is a useful optimization technique, that means that there are imbalances in the cost-benefits. Is perfect balance a myth? Sure. As is anything perfect, but it's well worth striving for.

Creative players can Always find ways to make "uncool" classes work.

Sure, but then they get accused of cheesing for daring to make interesting things out of classes that are supposed to be boring. And even then, barely managing to keep up with a basic, straightforward caster.

Besides, that's what magic items are for. A 20th level barbarian with a +5 sword-of-magic-resistance- and-annihilation vs. a 20th level wizard? Who's the daddy now?

So one character has 20 class levels, plus an uber magic item, and another has 20 class levels, and no items worth mentioning? I would absolutely expect the former to be more powerful, in a well balanced system. But I doubt it would actually be the case, and the Wizard would still win. And in fact, that is the balance problem. 20 class levels should be balanced 20 class levels. One class shouldn't need an uber item to make up for being a lesser class.

Seriously, I think too much has been made of this. Mages are Supposed to be weak at lower levels, and fighters strong, and this Slowly reverses over time (if the mage can survive). That has Always been the SOP for D&D. This is why so many of us grognards find the 4e attempt at class balance to be a serious departure from "true" D&D.

Well then, I guess I'm just not "supposed" to play D&D, apparently. I always saw that design as a bug, not a feature, and was glad to see it get fixed.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So what are the main areas of activity in D&D? That is, what are the main modalities through which the PC interacts with the environment? For the sake of this discussion, I'd like to put them into three broad categories:

• Combat - specifically refers to martial combat - using weapons and armor, and of course unarmed combat.
• Magic - refers to utilizing any kind of supernatural force, from arcane to divine to psionic to elemental, etc.
• Skills - This is the "everything else" category - anything from picking pockets to negotiating a deal to playing a lute to deciphering a script.

Certainly these categories are very broad, especially Skills, but it serves my purpose. Let us now posit three general levels of training and ability:

• Primary - highly trained, regular ongoing development, the major focus of a class
• Secondary - highly trained, one of two major foci
• Tertiary - rudimentary training, possibly without ongoing development, or only intentional development

An unspoken fourth category would be Untrained - that is, the class template has no training in that category (although the character could develop it later on through multi-classing).

I'll assert here (will discuss more fully later, if interested, and had some stuff along those lines in the Codzilla topic), that you'll never get to your goal with only those three categories, not even with the specializations you mentioned later.

You might get there with something like this:

• Heavy Combat - assuming heavier armor and weapons
• Skirmish Combat - assuming lighter armor but still very varied weapons
• Ranged Combat - assuming lighter armor and light melee weapons
• Combat Magic - blasting and straight, "active" defenses
• Healing/Informational Magic - supportive in combat but very powerful strategicallly
• Conjuring/Summoning/Transformation Magic - not as strong when replicating (e.g. transform to melee one step down in your general levels, best you can do with primary here is secondary melee transformation).
• Utility Magic - capable of replicating skills, with the same restrictions as conjuring above.
• Sneaky Skills - including stealth, but also bluff, streetwise, and the like.
• Lore Skills - assuming "lore" is made to matter, a catch-all for the exotic. Otherwise roll into the other categories.
• Perception Skills - so valuable should cost a pick, but can be pretty broad.
• General Society Skills - basic diplomacy, mercantile abilities, understanding societal levers.
• Craft Skills - being "handy", ablility to readily make things.

Then layer your specializations on top of that. "Skullduggery" is a specialization of "Sneaky Skills" that adds lockpicking, trap disarming, etc. "Item Enchanting" are various specializations on top of "Craft Skills"--and in a mundane enough game, any kind of strong crafting (e.g. blacksmith) would also be so layered.

Of course, you might break them down some other way, too, especially in magic. But I think you need about that many categories to make such divisions work. Then give each class at least a couple of primaries and secondaries, perhaps some fixed and some chosen.

So your typical fighter gets primary heavy combat or skirmish combat (his choice) and primary skill pick (his choice, but must be a skill pick). Then he also gets a secondary combat pick and a secondary skill pick. Finally he gets one or two tertiary picks, one of which can be magic--but often won't be. (The default rules can simply pick something likely, then offer the chance to swap some of them. It amounts to the same thing.) Meanwhile, a paladin is primary heavy combat, primary societal skill, secondary healing magic. The rest of his picks are wide open to compensate for his limits here. (Alternately, paladins can be a little more rough and ready, with the primary societal skill being an option.)

 

[hanez]

Until D&D explicitly moves away from a combat emphasis (which I don't think it will), class balance must be focused on combat. Otherwise, we'll have classes (like the AD&D thief) that have great use in some games, and near uselessness in others.

I am content with classes [ (like the AD&D thief) that have great use in some games, and near uselessness in others].

A variety of useful classes, is a cue to new DMs and players that there should be a variety of challenges in each area in D&D. If a particular DM favors social settings, then he's going to see a lot of bards and illusionists pop up in his campaign, if another favors undead dungeons then clerics and paladins will be the power classes in that campaign.

I am OK with variety and its drawbacks in D&D. And the differences in DMs and the D&D games they run is a central strength of the game.

Sure classes should have a minimum usefulness in all areas, but not uniformity.

 

[nightwalker450]

Weak at the Beginning, and Uber-Powerful at the End is not a good balance. At the low levels yeah the wizard can look forward to becoming powerful, and bide their time. But once they reach the point that the fighter is pointless, he has nothing to look forward to. He has the rest of the campaign being bag carrier for the wizard to look forward to.

Every character should feel they are a contributing member of the party at all levels. Equipment should not be a balancing mechanic either, unless fighters are able to pull it out of their ... and nobody else is able to use it.

Yes they can do different mechanics, and keep balance it's just a lot more difficult to pull off. But however they are balanced they should be balanced within bare class features and nothing else.

 

[hanez]

Every character should feel they are a contributing member of the party at all levels. Equipment should not be a balancing mechanic either, unless fighters are able to pull it out of their ... and nobody else is able to use it.

Put some powerful swords and armor in the DMs guide and they will almost certainly end up in the martial classes hands in 70% of games. And if the martial weapons/armor are more powerful then the divine/arcane items, that will boost martial ability over spellcaster ability. Only problem with this that I see is the cleric that could use both.

 

[FireLance]

Put some powerful swords and armor in the DMs guide and they will almost certainly end up in the martial classes hands in 70% of games. And if the martial weapons/armor are more powerful then the divine/arcane items, that will boost martial ability over spellcaster ability. Only problem with this that I see is the cleric that could use both.

Some folks are already complaining about the supposed "magic item treadmill" when it comes to PC vs monster balance. A "magic item treadmill" to maintain PC vs PC balance would be even worse, IMO.