Are we all becoming balance lawyers?

[Ourph]

I have no problem with the game attempting to make classes balanced and actually wish WotC would put MORE effort into balancing the core classes and prestige classes they produce in their splatbooks. One of the most frustrating things I've found when playing D&D 3.x is that after ca. 2002 (when most of the 3.0 splatbooks had emerged) it became increasingly more difficult to play a straight, single-classed character and be as effective as another PC with prestige class levels.

With the advent in 3.5 of the extra core classes and expanded prestige classes, the problem has only worsened.

 

[Barak]

Here is why, in my opinion, balance is important in 3E. I'll restrict my point to base classes.

It was a stated goal of 3E, from the beginning, for the classes to be balanced. You might disagree as to wether or not it was achieved, but it -was- a goal. The first 9 classes were designed to be balanced against each other.

It was the same with feats and Prestige classes, I believe, but since (again, in my opinion) they didn't succeed as well there (at least in 3.0), I'm only talking about base classes.

-Because- of that, the "damage" made by a new base class that appears in a book and is "unbalanced" is greater. If a new base class is unbalanced, it will show a heck of a lot more. In the average party, most classes are represented once (yeah, there's overlap, but there won't usually be two players who have a major focus on the same class, and even if they do, it doesn't really affect my overall argument). So if you have 4 players, one playing a fighter, one a rogue, one a wizard, and the fourth is "UberMaster!" or "WeakAsHeckDude!", well it will show a heck of a lot, because only the fourth player will have a huge difference in relative power. If the original base classes weren't balanced against each other, no one would care that a new base class was unbalanced, because no one could tell the difference.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I don't want to start an edition war: but saying 1e was unbalanced is missing the mark.

1e was fairly well balanced, in part because each character filled a very specific niche and couldn't really deviate from that niche.

You're joking right? Like a high level fighter did anything worthwhile compared to an equal level cleric. Not that they would be equal level, since the cleric leveled faster.

 

[Mort]

You're joking right? Like a high level fighter did anything worthwhile compared to an equal level cleric. Not that they would be equal level, since the cleric leveled faster.

I suppose I should amend my statement to say "through levels 1-10", assuming the game got that high. Up to name level the classes were fairly balanced, after that the casters starting exponentially outdistinsing the non-casters.

That said, I don't ever remember clerics shining, it was the magic users that ran away with it at high levels.

 

[reanjr]

Screw that. Balance schmalance.

I think the primary problem is that the books are written in an attempt to be balanced, sometimes throwing out sense, style and/or flavor to achieve this. So when they do not acheive this, it is all the more annoying.

 

[Henry]

You're joking right? Like a high level fighter did anything worthwhile compared to an equal level cleric. Not that they would be equal level, since the cleric leveled faster.

I don't see Cleric as a good comparison, but your mileage varies from mine. Clerics in 1st AD&D had nothing like the powers they do now; almost no buffing powers, poor weapon choice, and were relegated very often to healers only in many groups. Fighters would still outperform the cleric in fighting in 1st AD&D. Wizards, however, were pretty nasty I agree. A 15th level wizard was shooting out 8 magic missiles with his weeniest spells, at casting time 1 -- His disintegrate was decimating creatures left and right, because most of them couldn't live with a 10 cubic foot piece of them missing. Finally, his limited wishes, simulacrums, cacodaemon spells, and conjured earth elementals were laying waste.

The 11th level Druid wasn't any slouch either, summoning those animals and laying animal growth on them to make GIGANTO-animals. But the clerics really didn't get much in the way of offensive power until roughly sixth level spells at 13th level.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Okay I have gripe about D&D 3.X and it is the assumption that all of the player classes should be balanced. Just scroll through the list of discussions and anyone can see that "Class Balance" is an important issue in most player's minds. I used to believe the same thing, that overall the classes should be balanced so that no class is any more powerful than another but then again I've had a revalation if you will.

What ever happened to just picking a character concept and playing what you want without regards to the "power-level" of the classes of the other characters? What ever happened to playing a character for the fun of playing and not getting all wound up about how powerful they are in combat compared to the other party members?

Kicking arse in combat is fun. If you don't kick arse, it's less fun. Hence, a big part about balance is fun.

1e and 2e certainly didn't have "Balance"... just look at the Thief class for that.

Yeah, it sucked, and wasn't a whole lot of fun. The lame combat ability wasn't it's only flaw, either. (Monte Cook has a great article on this, called a 2nd Edition Joke.)

As a DM I feel it is my responsibility to get a gauge on what the capabilities of my player's characters are so that I can challenge them but not overwhelm them.

That is an integral part of any DM's skill set, but it makes their job harder if PCs aren't balanced with each other. Plus, that often makes things less fun for their players.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

These arguments amuse me. If you don't care about balance between classes, then why do you care that the classes are balanced. Shouldn't you, by the definition of not caring, not care?

Would you rather the classes be imbalanced? Does not caring about balance mean preferring imbalance?

Well put.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I don't see Cleric as a good comparison, but your mileage varies from mine. Clerics in 1st AD&D had nothing like the powers they do now; almost no buffing powers, poor weapon choice, and were relegated very often to healers only in many groups. Fighters would still outperform the cleric in fighting in 1st AD&D. Wizards, however, were pretty nasty I agree. A 15th level wizard was shooting out 8 magic missiles with his weeniest spells, at casting time 1 -- His disintegrate was decimating creatures left and right, because most of them couldn't live with a 10 cubic foot piece of them missing. Finally, his limited wishes, simulacrums, cacodaemon spells, and conjured earth elementals were laying waste.

The 11th level Druid wasn't any slouch either, summoning those animals and laying animal growth on them to make GIGANTO-animals. But the clerics really didn't get much in the way of offensive power until roughly sixth level spells at 13th level.

Its all about creeping doom and harm. Two grotesquely broken spells in earlier editions. Really, what was the difference between what a cleric was using and what a fighter was? Longswords did d8 vs medium, morningstars did d8. The cleric lost a few HP, a minor to hit bonus, but gained gobs of virtual hit points in terms of healing, had good offense through some absurd spells, and had sweet saves. AND leveled faster. In my groups, no one played pure fighters simply because the cleric traded miniscule offense for lots of extra utility and survivability. Add in 1st/2nd edition's stupid stat breakdowns, and you'd have to be an idiot to even consider playing a fighter without an 18 for strength.

The speciality priests which were introduced in either late 1st or early 2nd edition made the choice even more of a no brainer.

 

[Umbran]

Married, 3 kids, 1.5 jobs. I understand. To me, the 320 pages of the PHB, the associated mods that go along with feats, skills, various situational mods, the time it takes to create NPCs, and all of the other stuff present in 3e which brings the balance to the table does not make it easier for me to prepare.

Well, here I think you're misidentifying some stuff. The mods for feats, skills, and situations, and all the other fiddly-bits are not there to bring balance. They are there to be fiddly bits for people who like to muck about with fiddly-bits.

In a thread about balance, you're making an argument about complexity. Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. You can make an argument that it is harder to balance a complex game, but if your stated view is that you don't care about balance anyway, that's hardly a line to worry about.