Class Balance - why?

[Elf Witch]

I 100 percent agree with you. If you can't support your argument with core books, the argument is broken.

But that's also why I like a system with multiple methods of rolling abilities and whereas i hope 5e has a point buy or an array system as default and the rolling system as an option.

If you allow every book, anything and everything can and will be broken. Heck, with just a core book and a few splats (and a lingient DM) we erased time once.

I really prefer rolling my stats when I DM I give people a choice roll or 32 point buy. But most of the DMs I play with are hung up on point buy. I would like to see several ways to generate characters incorporated in 5E.

One of my houserules is core only anything else needs my permission. I don't allow spells from the compendium in my game without my permission either. I find that it lets me control things better.

 

[Kingreaper]

I chose the latter. Which let them get off without any real disadvantage for resting after only a couple of fights each day. But it was better than ending the game.

I think you missed the third option here. Have the world end, and the game continue in the now ended world. Demons wondering around, cities are unsafe, and extraplanar spaces now try and eat you

 

[Fanaelialae]

I have to agree with those who say that magic was broken (or at the very least, eminently breakable) prior to 4e, with 3e being the worst offender. There were plenty of save or suck spells that didn't even really allow a save (such as Web, which was a death sentence for most creatures). The easy availability of scroll and wand crafting also contributed heavily (why bother instituting daily limits if you're going to allow them to be so easily circumvented). Gold and xp were not real limits, as gold was plentiful if you follow RAW/RAI and XP costs were quite marginal.

That isn't to say that you couldn't play a group friendly wizard, or one who fought with one hand tied behind his back so as not to upset other group members, but it's a bit silly to expect everyone to do this.

Which is why the system should be balanced. That isn't to say that classes can't be different from each other. Just that they should contribute fairly equally.

Take the following for example. It's a very bare bones concept, so please don't try poking holes in it as that isn't what it's intended for. It isn't something I'm advocating, just an illustration to explain how classes might play differently from each other. (In one respect, it almost reverses the old fighter / wizard roles.)

This fighter relies primarily on at-will abilities. He has a special attribute, which we'll call Stamina, that begins each encounter at maximum. He can use Stamina to boost his abilities, but once it's used it doesn't return until after a short rest. Thus, the fighter begins the fight at his strongest, but ends at his weakest.

The wizard relies primarily on daily abilities. These are individually somewhat stronger than the fighter's at-wills. Additionally, the wizard can gather mana from the surrounding environment to enhance his spells even more. However, because mana is dangerous and can only be held for a short time, wizards start encounters with zero mana and gain a measured amount each round. As such, the wizard starts the encounter at his weakest and ends at his strongest.

With some careful math and playtesting, both of these classes could be balanced, as you could measure out their impact on an expected adventure and make that roughly equal. The classes should also feel quite different. One is at-will, while the other is daily (the traditional fighter / wizard divide). One starts strong while the other finishes strong. The wizard's unmodified powers are more powerful than the fighter's, though the fact that the fighter gets Stamina at the beginning of the encounter makes it less of a clear issue as to who is actually stronger (IMO, the answer will vary from round to round and situation to situation).

Would anyone be opposed to mechanically differentiated yet balanced classes? Again, please don't take issue with the fact that you don't like the idea of mana or some such, as again this is just for illustrative purposes. I'm not saying this is how I think the D&DN fighter and wizard should look, just that they could easily be equal yet different. If you do take issue with the idea of equal yet distinct, I would ask, on what basis do you do so?

 

[kitsune9]

I'm not a fan of class balance. I can also swing either way with a uniformed XP system or different XP systems for different classes. Either works for me.

 

[Dellamon]

Wait - you wonder why there seems to be an obsession with class balance and then argue that magic-using classes should be balanced by requiring more XP, lower survivability, and rules such as weapon speed factors and dynamic initiative? This would suggest that you are arguing more about the means of class balance while acknowledging that there is nothing wrong with the end of class balance in itself.

You are reading a lot into that statement. I never said anything about ending class balance or that there was never class balance. I was wondering what the issues were with the classes balanced as is. Some classes are going to be more powerful than others in certain situations. I am approaching this from a 1E /2E perspective in which all of those factors were there and provided balance from the beginning. 3E and 4E was where they were left behind.

Now, with respect to the means of class balancing, different XP tables in themselves are actually quite meaningless. If a magic-using class requires 25% more XP, but each level grants it 25% more power, then you might as well just scale back both the power and the XP required and have a unified XP table. If a fighter with 50,000 xp is supposed to be on par (however that is defined) with a wizard with 50,000 xp, does it matter whether the fighter is 8th level and the wizard is 6th, or both are 7th level?

I do not agree that XP is meaningless. While a unit of XP may be the same amount of experience, this experience amount will impact advancement differently for different classes.

If class X advances at a 25% greater rate than class Y, since class Y in inherently more powerful and difficult to master, then there is definitely balance. Why limit a class advancement framework for the sake of keeping levels even? For example, if I choose to play a magic-user or cleric I am fully aware that when I am 8th level the fighter and thief, who started their characters at the same time, may be 10th level (provided a 25% delta). Its a limitation that balances the game while still allowing for differentiation. Hit points and saves for a few levels can make a big difference.

I guess the point I am trying to make is - classes are different and should be able to advance at different rates! If you think of them as professions, maybe that will make it a little easier to understand. Take for example an auto mechanic versus a rocket scientist. If both of these people spend a year working in their prospective field, who will be more accomplished in that field? I would dare say the auto mechanic, since the field is more narrow in terms of knowledge requirements. Both professions are needed and good, and both excel under different situations, but the auto mechanic will learn their profession at a faster rate due to the nature of the work. Does that make the rocket scientist intrinsically better? No, it just means they are in a more demanding profession that takes a lot longer to master - and there are a hell of lot less rocket scientists than auto mechanics.

Lower survivability can be a balancing factor in a game that features high character turnover or multiple characters per player, but it does not suit games in which the players are limited to one character each, and the same characters are expected to progress through a campaign. Hence, it is not suitable for all styles of play.

I think this is a concept really brought about with MMOs and 4E. The idea that your character should progress throughout the campaign with little fear of needing to re-roll, an expectation even. In the 4E games I have played in, I almost had to go out of my way to put my character in danger of dying (granted, this could have been a DM issue). That was one of the elements of excitement with earlier editions - you never knew if you were going to be able to survive the next battle. Someone who made it to 8th or 9th level had really accomplished something. It was hard to do that, unless you started at a higher level to begin with.

That said, the initial 4e classes have been criticised for having similar power structures and similar powers and abilities, which have caused some players to feel that the character do not play differently enough. However, that to me is an indication that classes and powers should be made more distinct, and not an argument against class balance per se.

I agree with you here. If you can balance the classes while differentiating the powers and making each class unique that would be great. I am just very doubtful that this is possible since one player will always feel left out since their character cannot cast a mega-death-bomb-of-doom even though they just used their really-awesome-cleave-of-deathly-might to take out a quarter of the enemies.

 

[mmadsen]

What is the obsession with class balance? Why should a magic-user and fighter or rouge and cleric all be comparable in power at the same levels? Isn't balance a subjective quality that can shift based on play conditions?

Certainly balance shifts based on play conditions, but that doesn't mean there's no central tendency.

You should probably ask, what does level even mean? If we were designing a pure simulation, we might ask, how much does a fighter learn about fighting by overcoming a dozen foes in a dungeon? And how much does a magic-user learn about magic by doing the same? And that would determine their skill and power progression from level to level.

Not only is that difficult to assess, but it makes for a lackluster game. What we really want is for the players of the game to all feel engaged while playing the game, and that means playing characters who can contribute meaningfully in the game.

So, we define similarly useful characters of different types as characters of the same level, but of different classes, and we try to keep the party composed of characters of the same level, so everyone can contribute.

There are other ways to keep everyone engaged, of course, but making everyone similarly powerful and thus similarly useful is one tried and tested method. Other options might include boosting the usefulness of less powerful characters, by giving them more intangible fate points (or whatever), giving the less powerful characters more powerful equipment (like a low-level halfling rogue with a ring of invisibility), giving the less powerful characters a more central role in the story (heir to the throne, target of the Dark Lord, love interest of someone important), or having players control a portfolio of characters.

 

[Gronin]

<Begin Rant>

I am really not trying to be an ass here but I think this thread has (in some cases) slipped away from the original post and the original question. We have begun to discuss and comment on whether or not the previous editions were balanced. This is not relevant to the forum we are in. The heading of this thread is "Class Balance - Why?" and we are supposed to be discussing this and how it is relevant to the "upcoming new iteration of D & D".

I am very interested in reading a discussion that deals with how people feel regarding class balance in 5th (or whatever it ends up being called) but I am already well aware of the strong feelings that can be generated when it comes to pointing out perceived shotcomings in a persons edition of choice.

</End Rant>

Now on to discussion of Class Balance - Why?

For myself class balance is one of the make or break issues for 5th edition. I think that (within reason) the various classes should be balanced. This makes for a greater likelyhood that people might move away from their favourite class(es) and try out others that may have been previously perceived as weaker. Also (and more importantly) as a player everybody wants to have a chance to contribute in a meaningful way in most (if not all) situations.

Balanced classes also makes the job of the DM much easier. As a DM (which is the position at the table in which I usually find myself) I do not want to have to throw away a good encounter because someone in the group has an uber-character. It is also important to me that everyone at the table have fun and sitting and watching others repeatedly take the spotlight is nto fun for most people.

Finally and here I am simply repeating what Mike Mearls mentioned in his article that was mentioned (and linked to) earlier in this forum --and I paraphrase here --- Balanced classes will make those want balanced classes happy and should not really bother those to whom it is not an issue of importance.

It should also be mentioned that it is not necessary for balanced classes to be the same as one another. Fighters can still be fighters with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with that class, Mages can still be mages and so on. Classes can be (and should be) very different from one another and still be relatively balanced.

 

[Hassassin]

It should also be mentioned that it is not necessary for balanced classes to be the same as one another. Fighters can still be fighters with all the advantages and disadvantages that come with that class, Mages can still be mages and so on. Classes can be (and should be) very different from one another and still be relatively balanced.

Totally agreed on the post. I just want to highlight one word above: disadvantages.

Flawless heroes are boring. Some people seem to take "balanced" to imply that classes can have no disadvantages. That certainly isn't true.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

It sounds like your character isn't nearly as optimized as the game lets you be. The Wizards I've seen started with a 20 in their Int, then they put every point into it. They've gotten a +6 Int item as soon as possible, crafting it so they can get it cheaply. That increases the save DCs to the maximum on all their spells and gives them more spells per day. Then they've taken feats to increase their spell DCs, preferably 2 or 3 feats to do so. Then taken a PrC to increase it again.

And none of this is broken, save or dies are? Seems to me the problem is the infinite scaling of stats and dcs.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Well, the rules say to point buy your stats and then apply racial bonuses on top. You can certainly fix that in your game, but it isn't the rules. Every wizard I ever played with started with a 20 Int, since it makes nearly no sense not to.

This is why I don't like point buy. Every wizard has the same stats.