Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5857690" data-attributes="member: 59082">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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Combat - specifically refers to martial combat - using weapons and armor, and of course unarmed combat.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Magic - refers to utilizing any kind of supernatural force, from arcane to divine to psionic to elemental, etc.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Skills - This is the "everything else" category - anything from picking pockets  to negotiating a deal to playing a lute to deciphering a script.</li> </ul>Certainly these categories are very broad, especially Skills, but it serves my purpose. Let us now posit three general levels of training and ability: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Primary - highly trained, regular ongoing development, the major focus of a class</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Secondary - highly trained, one of two major foci</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tertiary - rudimentary training, possibly without ongoing development, or only intentional development</li> </ul>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 4secondary 2tertiary 1specialization 1Giving 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. <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/318318-danger-three-pillars-d-d.html" target="_blank">Some</a> 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?</blockquote>

Verification