Another approach to class balance

[paladinm]

I don't have a problem with the classes being "more balanced" at all.. but striving for "perfect balance" (as I remember from the 4e introductions) should not be the focus of the game design. "Perfect balance" = uniformity.

 

[dkyle]

I don't have a problem with the classes being "more balanced" at all.. but striving for "perfect balance" (as I remember from the 4e introductions) should not be the focus of the game design. "Perfect balance" = uniformity.

Balance does not imply sameness. Sameness is just an easy way to get balance.

For example, Starcraft has excellent balance, even though each race plays quite differently.

 

[Bluenose]

I don't have a problem with the classes being "more balanced" at all.. but striving for "perfect balance" (as I remember from the 4e introductions) should not be the focus of the game design. "Perfect balance" = uniformity.

Technically, yes. For perfect balance everything has to be the same except cosmetically. Like Monoply pieces, where it doesn't actually matter where you're the train rather than the top hat. But since this isn't what anyone is talking about, I think we can ignore it as irrelevant.

It's always going to depend on the GM's approach to some extent. If they never run combat-heavy situations, then the class that shines in combat isn't going to be fun to play. Conversely, a game where outdoor exploration is minimal won't make the classes that are good at that. So there's no universal solution.

What I would suggest is that as well as going down the path of identifying ways for a class to contribute usefully in any situation, the opposite be seriously considered. Make it that all classes have situations where they often can't contribute in other than a minor way.

For example. make every wizard spell that isn't an At-Will ability into a ritual that takes time and effort to cast. So they can start preparing some big blast that will end a combat, but only if they can stay alive and unhindered for the time it takes to cast it. Or they can use minor magics, which aren't particularly deadly, and keep up a steady contribution to the fight which will nevertheless be less than other characters.

 

[OnlineDM]

What do folks think of the approach to martial classes taken in Heroes of the Fallen Lands / Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms (the Essentials books) for 4e? Martial classes worked differently than arcane and divine classes in those books (no daily powers, more focus on basic attacks with stance tweaks or special movement abilities). The overall balance was still good, although it could vary based on the number of encounters in an adventuring day (fewer than 3-4 combat encounters per day -> classes with daily powers are stronger; more than 3-4 -> classes without daily powers are stronger). And there was not so much sameness, either.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You're looking at balance all wrong. Everyone knows you balance an arcane caster with a martial character wielding a duck.

It's a fair cop.

 

[paladinm]

Wasn't Essentials all about "diversity with the uniformity"? I think if the "perfect balance" was what (most) people really wanted, there would have been no need for Essentials. IMHO.

 

[dkyle]

Wasn't Essentials all about "diversity with the uniformity"? I think if the "perfect balance" was what (most) people really wanted, there would have been no need for Essentials. IMHO.

Essentials was about maintaining balance, while having less sameness between Fighters and Wizards. This is the problem with conflating sameness and balance. I want as much variety and breadth of different options as possible, with as much balance as possible. Too much sameness is boring and not fun, but so is too little balance.

Overall, I think Essentials did a good job. It's unfortunate that the Essentials martial characters lost so many options during combat, but that seems to be what people wanted.

 

[nightwalker450]

The essentials, and books that have come since then have done a great job at diversifying the classes more. It's unfortunate that they didn't start from there, but instead built from that to the fully customized class powers.

I'm hoping this is going to be the result with 5e. I'd be very happy if I could build something on par with an essentials character (in terms of versatility) from the core books. If they later give swaptions to turn them into a weaponmaster style fighter, even better.

 

[Aenghus]

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

The problem with this is I have seen many D&D games over the years where the referee made no effort to indicate what classes would work better in his or her campaign, and which wouldn't, which led to lots of players being disappointed when their character concept proved to be weak or useless in a particular game. This is the sort of situation which drives new players away from the hobby - demanding system mastery to obtain the desired game experience.

Over the years we have learned of the dangers of situationally useful classes, especially in combination with themed campaigns and widespread immunities.

The lesson I learned at this time is to avoid any class with situational abiltities in favour of those whose powers worked almost all the time.

I would prefer for the next edition of D&D to tone down the edges and weaknesses of classes, so every class is potentially viable in an average campaign, and doesn't risk being hosed by random choices such as the types of adventure played.