Class Balance - why?

[Arrowhawk]

I'm so late to this party, it pains me.

I'll ignore the basic question of "why" and instead focus on "why does this need to be designed into the game":

If you want a balanced game and the system is inherently unbalanced, it can be darn near impossible to modify the game in the right way to find balance. But if you want an unbalanced game and the system is inherently balanced (or close to it), it is extremely easy to modify the game as you wish. Change the xp levels, add extra abilities, cap levels, whatever; those are all easy mods to make.

Thus, if some people want a balanced system and some don't, it is easiest to make both sides happy by having the base system be balanced and allow it to be modified.

I haven't had the chance to read every post, but I wanted to respond to this one. In theory, what you say is true. Oddly enough, it was this thought process that caused Ben Franklin to argue that we have AC voltage instead of DC coming out of our wall circuits.

However, there is a big problem with this perspective:

How do we know when the game is balanced?

We don't. There's no way to prove it. What may feel balanced in one setting may feel completely unbalanced in another. Two rational people may completely disagree on what is balanced and even worse, they may disagree on whether that "balance" is good or bad.

Balance is the wrong word. Why? Because it has no meaning in a PnP game like D&D. Balance implies you can put two things on a scale and determine if they reach an equilibrium. You can't do that with an RPG...it's nonsensical.

The real word word you want is "fairness." People want things to be fair. But what happens when we use that word? Everyone instinctively knows that fairness is subject. We know we can't argue something isn't fair because we sound like we're whining or crying. But if we say things aren't "balanced" then it sounds like we're making an objective assessment....when nothing could be further from the truth.

Balance is irrelevant. The what an RPG must address are two separate but equally important issues that obviate the need to talk about balance:

1) Classes must have a nontrivial purpose. The game must provide/allow for meaningful challenges that require the use of one class or another. If a party has a Rogue, the DM can use locks and traps. If the party has a Fighter, the DM can use fights and physical obsticals. If the party has Ranger, then the DM can require someone to track something.

Where the problem arises is when a class is overlapped by the presence of another class. If a Wizard can overcome all the obstacles without the help of a Fighter, then the game has a problem. If a Factotum results in the Bard, Rogue, and Ranger being useless in a party, the game has a problem.


2) Playability. I made this word up. It essentially means the game must be manageable for the players and the DM. If one character has a has an AC of 30 and everyone else has an AC of 15, then the game becomes unwieldy. Any threat that posses moderate risk to one group, will be completely trivial to the other. Any threat challenges the AC 30, will be lethal to the AC 15 group. So an RPG has to keep everyone in the same power band. You can't have one character destroying planets while the others can't chop down a tree.

This word essentially addresses the Risk vs Reward concept in all games.

So "balance" is a false god. It doesn't exist. It's a notion that is incorrectly applied to RPG's and results in a lot of bad decisions and misconceptions about the game. Purpose and Playability are, imo, the things that should be addressed.

my .02.

 

[Wormwood]

If the wizard is the ultimate skeleton key class, he should have less power. Pre-4e, casters were both more powerful and more flexible. Something's gotta give.

Exactly. All other considerations aside, role-playing is a group activity. Sucking for a few weeks and then dominating the game is untenable in 2012.

 

[Aldarc]

So you can play without a rogue.

But why do you need to play with a rogue? Or a wizard? Or a fighter? Or a cleric?

 

[Hassassin]

Why is it considered reasonable for the wizard to replace any other class, but not the other way around.?

The other way around is also reasonable. For example, we have had rogues with scrolls and Use Magic Device when there were no wizards.

Neither can replace the other perfectly, but that is as it should be.

 

[Hassassin]

But why do you need to play with a rogue? Or a wizard? Or a fighter? Or a cleric?

Umm... You don't? That's the point.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think something that people really need to look at it is where are you talking about when it comes to balance, in combat or out of combat.

Also, how one feels useful varies from person to person. I think what 4th edition was stuck on was "their" idea of being useful was in combat. I have friends who loved to build PC's in 3rd edition that weren't really made for combat and were made for other things, mainly outside of combat.

Party contribution doesn't just exist on the battle grid.

 

[Wormwood]

Party contribution doesn't just exist on the battle grid.

Reminds me of our Hexblade who has focused on social skills---to the detriment of his combat utilty. He can hold his own during fights (4e tends to prevent utter incompetence), but he is a master of the honeyed word during roleplaying encounters.

There is a tribe of orcs outside of their keep who worships him as an avatar of Gruumsh, for example. That particular parcel of lies took three weeks of planning to enact, and it is a great D&D memory for me.

 

[FireLance]

I respectfully disagree. If any player playing any character can contribute equally to any facet of the game (i.e. any situation), then there may be some feelings that the choices they make are not meaningful. For example, if I choose to play a rogue and I can contribute equally in a fight against undead as a player who built an undead-hunter priest type character, his character concept is cheapened. He should be better than me in that scenario. That's just the tip of the iceberg with encounter design - some encounters will favor certain class/race/ability combinations and that is okay.

Granted, contributing equally all the time, as you pointed out, makes certain player choices irrelevant. However, only being able to contribute marginally to certain encounters is (IMO) also a problem. Maybe I should add a "frequently" qualifier to that last statement: occasionally not being able to contribute much to an encounter can be a refreshing change of pace. Not being able to contribute much on a regular basis probably should be avoided, though.

And while this can result in "whiny brat" behavior when taken to extremes, I would venture that most of the time, it's not. Certainly, someone who whines if he can't contribute in just one encounter is not someone I would want to game with, either. However, at what point does it become a legitimate complaint? Not being useful (and I don't mean "aid another", "hold a torch", "throw a dart at it" useful) in 70% of the challenges? 50%? My threshold is probably around 30%. What's yours?

EDIT to add: I do agree that someone who specializes in handling undead should do better than the others in an undead encounter. However it is again a matter of degree. 50% better than the rest should be okay. Similarly, if a character is particularly weak against undead, maybe he can do 50% worse than the others. Significant dominance or marginalization, except on infrequent occasions (as noted above), should be avoided.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I played DND in an age where players thought of creative ways to get out of things if they didnt make a save. Tossing acid on the web, burning it away and i've had cases where people made simple machines to get out of similar situations. I understand some players want to hit the Tee ball everytime, buti think that dms should adjust for this type of group, but not the system adjust for these minority of players. .

Players can get as creative as they want. They typically do have counters for Web. Unless the DM is metagaming though, your average monster won't. There are spells that are more effective against players than monsters (save or die), but Web is the reverse. I'd be very surprised to discover a Rust Monster carrying a torch or vial of acid in its back pocket, for example.

If I have to give all of my monsters a common counter to a specific spell, chances are that spell is broken.

I get it, but this is a game. I tell players ths all the time. The DM is in charge of making sure things don't get broken. So if the crafting rules mean that there's so much downtime that you can break the game, we still can't break the game. This means that regardless of the downtime, you still only get so much of something. Chalk it up to living expenses, chalk it up to a downturn in the market chalk it up to social security, but you only get enoguh where the game does not break.

So your argument for why the crafting feats are balanced is that the DM contrive to prevent players from using them under reasonable circumstances? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as unreasonable.

It's like saying that a monster that's vastly overpowered for its CR is okay because the DM should know never to use it, except in the most unique circumstances. Well, no, any inexperienced DM is going to have to find that out the hard way because there's nothing in any of the books to even suggest that.

If you enjoy DMining with Dritzt and Batman, that's your thing, but the game is not designed for :gruff voice: batman to not cooperate. It is a cooperative game.

I have a player who makes useless characters in every game. This is his thing, I understand that. I don't expect the system to accomodate this kind of player. The player doesnt expect it. Asa DM i design encounters as if only 4 players will participate, because that's my responsiblities, not the system.

3e, in particular, was designed to be flexible. NPCs are often designed with class levels. Are NPCs similarly going to hold back because they want to uphold this spirit of cooperation? I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of killer DMs out there who would object to that idea.

A party of martial characters going against a party of casters would get creamed in 3e (after the first few levels, and maybe even then). Sure, they might get one or two of the casters, but it only takes one caster to destroy the entire team of martial characters. You can't say the same about the martial characters.

I really don't understand why people are against the idea of balance. It is not synonymous with homogeneity, which I could understand taking issue with. I'm not saying that things need to be balanced to the point where two classes are indistinguishable. I am saying that it should be balanced to a higher standard than 3e was.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Contrary to popular belief, in 1e the magic-user isn't all-powerful at high levels and the fighter still has a major role in the party.

At high levels, 1e M-U's have very few hit points. They are very fragile. At 20th level they have 37 on average and 75 with max Con and max rolls. On top of that, magic resistance and good saving throws mean that many of their attacks either fail completely or do reduced damage.

Fighters at 20th level, on the other hand, have great hit points, heavy armor, great saving throws, and can dish out huge, reliable damage with a combination of multiple attacks, magic weapons, and a great natural to-hit chance that makes missing very rare. There is no weapon resistance % or saving throw vs. longsword.

I don't know how many people here actually played 1e at high levels, but the idea that fighters are useless and M-U's are all-powerful is largely a myth.