Class Balance - why?

[Rex Blunder]

I think this is a strawman and is somewhat frustrating. We got that attitude in 4th, "oh you just want that because you want to be better then everyone else"

Yeah, after I posted that, I regretted lowering the tone of discourse. Apologies!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This is a tactical wargame balance argument, not a roleplaying argument.

D&D is a tactical wargame on top of a role playing game. Or vice versa. Chainmail that eventually became D&D was an attempt to ask the question "What would it be like if the Wizard and the Fighter from my tactical war game decided to go into a dungeon and kill a dragon?"

And immediately after that thought came the "And I wonder what their personalities would be like and how they'd react to the quests people gave them?" and thus roleplaying was born.

But balance isn't about being a tactical wargame. In fact, in a tactical war game, it's perfectly ok for the Wizard to be the better unit in your army, because they are all pieces that are being played by the same person anyway.

Extremes - thats what I think hurts the discussion of class balance. The whole concept of "Well, if my fighter cannot cause as much damage in a round as a wizard who casts a meteor swarm, then I am done!"

It also isn't about damage. It's about feeling like what you can do matters as much as other people. In the D&D system that uses hitpoints, mathematically the only thing that matters is damage or the ability to eliminate opponents out of a combat. The reverse of damage, healing also matters in that it causes you to win by having more hitpoints than your enemies.

Why can the fighter not contribute just as much by sneaking around the flanks and hitting the big bad while the big bad wizards duke it out. They could turnt he tide of the battle. Or the priest who provides the critical heal at just the right moment. Or is it all just about damage?

Because math doesn't work that way. If wizards are that much more powerful than fighters, than taking out the big bad guy won't matter if your wizard loses. Because the enemy wizard is powerful enough to take the rest of you out once he's done with your wizard. Not being able to take out the big bad guy doesn't matter because your wizard is powerful enough to take him out once he's done with the enemy wizard. The end result is, it doesn't matter what you do. You might as well not have come on the adventure. The only answer to this is specially constructed scenarios that purposefully lure off the wizard to fight his own battle but something else needs to be done at the EXACT same time, so you have to complete it.

But those aren't the average scenarios people run into. The average scenarios is: Party walks down a corridor, ends up in a room with 20 orcs, roll for initiative. The fighter kills one orc. The wizard kills them all."

Also, I question how someone can be the "big bad guy" if he's less powerful than the wizard under his command. That makes the wizard the BBG and him just a mook.

 

[Gronin]

....... True, once a magic using class reaches higher levels, they are very powerful. But should they not be? The god-like wizard, sorceress, or priest that is a force in the world for good or evil is a staple of classic fantasy. .........

While the all-powerful wizard etc. can make for a great story it does not necessarily make for a great game.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I was using that example as a roleplaying / fun example, not a literal power example. And I think that is the crux of the issue - class balance is looked at by the majority of players from a purely combat and mechanical perspective. It seems a lot of people have lost the narrative roots of roleplaying. A good DM an allow a 1st level thief to be a bad ass if that is what the story requires. And make it a lot of fun for the player as well.

I haven't lost track of the narrative roots of roleplaying. I think you might be reading too much into them, mind you. Sure, we roleplay. I play a Halfling Rogue in 4e who is a swashbuckler. He over exaggerates his importance and his adventures, he lies even when he doesn't have to, he steals just to prove he can. In combat he is able to sword fight better than most people. He specializes in using parrying abilities that increase his AC dramatically and jumping and leaping between the enemies to find the best tactical position while attacking people's vital spots with great precision. I'm the one in the party who is really good at hiding and opening locks.

I could play the same character in 1e, however you'd have to cut out the entire section about how good I am in combat and hiding and opening locks. In other words, I'd be the same character, but less fun. Because every time one of my skills was needed, the wizard could do it better than me.

My fun comes from the FULL experience of playing the game...the combat portions, the non-combat mechanical portions, AND the roleplaying portions.

 

[Hassassin]

Also, I question how someone can be the "big bad guy" if he's less powerful than the wizard under his command. That makes the wizard the BBG and him just a mook.

I agree with the point of your message, but this is just wrong. There are plenty of BBEG's who have stronger underlings. A smart bad guy will just have found a way to control them.

Similarly, a party might have a leader (not 4e role) even if that character is two levels behind the rest. No problem.

 

[Gronin]

I think in D&D there is a dungeon master, and that dungeon master is tasked with making the game fun for everyone. He does this buy managing time slicing, droppping the perfect item for the fighter a couple adventures before he needs it, making an enemy somehow magic resistant the adventure after Gandalf "shined a lil too much" and buy calling people out when they are min maxing and not roleplaying.

Min/maxing and good roleplaying are not mutually exclusive concepts -- you can put together a well built character and still be a roleplayer. I think it is important to remember that everyone has different styles and likes.

 

[hanez]

Yeah, after I posted that, I regretted lowering the tone of discourse. Apologies!

NP. I think this will be the absolute hardest thing for designers of 5e.

I love the arguments that inevivitably occur now and then at my table about who is stronger. The fighters always argue that they are the strongest. (they aren't the forum frequenter types), but the wizards just say I fly, and the fighter argues, ok, Ill wait for you to come down, or laugh as you run from me. I like this argument, it strikes me we never had it in 4e cause there wasnt much to argue about, they were all the same in most ways.

So much of this depends on the DM. My wizards know that someone may occasionally steal there spell book, my clerics know they better be damnd strict with their chosen gods teachings or theyll wake up spellless, and everyone knows that I am working overtime to make the game fun FOR EVERYONE and that they are supposed to help me in the en devour.

It shouldnt completely depend on the DM though, maybe the designers can find a way to make this argument moot. Maybe the classes can be soo different and so geared to helping the party in different situations that no one really knows what class is best.

I haven't lost track of the narrative roots of roleplaying. I think you might be reading too much into them, mind you. Sure, we roleplay. I play a Halfling Rogue in 4e who is a swashbuckler. He over exaggerates his importance and his adventures, he lies even when he doesn't have to, he steals just to prove he can. In combat he is able to sword fight better than most people. He specializes in using parrying abilities that increase his AC dramatically and jumping and leaping between the enemies to find the best tactical position while attacking people's vital spots with great precision. I'm the one in the party who is really good at hiding and opening locks.

I could play the same character in 1e, however you'd have to cut out the entire section about how good I am in combat and hiding and opening locks. In other words, I'd be the same character, but less fun. Because every time one of my skills was needed, the wizard could do it better than me.

So maybe the wizards rogue spells need to be cut down? I agree with that. Maybe on a door with 4 locks, knock only opens one, or maybe make the spell is a higher level or remove it completely. All acceptable solutions. I would also agree that any spells that turn a caster into a fighter must not make them a better fighter then the fighter, it should be a much WORSE fighter.

I think its a question of degree. What I describe above could be balanced, but NEVER as balanced as "all classes have powers, same amount of powers, same type of powers". So my personal opinion is that I will accept some loss of balance in exchange for having different types of classes.

Min/maxing and good roleplaying are not mutually exclusive concepts -- you can put together a well built character and still be a roleplayer. I think it is important to remember that everyone has different styles and likes.

Kind of agree, kind of disagree. I think if the ONLY reason your choosing a power is because its the best mathematically, and not because it fits the character you are tyring to roleplay... then you have lessened your committment to roleplay in exchange for damage.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I agree with the point of your message, but this is just wrong. There are plenty of BBEG's who have stronger underlings. A smart bad guy will just have found a way to control them..

Yeah, I was being kind of coy. I'm sure he can be the "bad guy"...but he probably isn't the BIG bad guy.

My point was that he's probably not the one your group is worried about defeating except for some role playing reason...like "The enemy army will stop attacking as soon as their leader dies" or something.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I don't think it was fun to have classes whose weights were completely different at different levels (see 1st - 3rd Editions), but I think 4th Edition went too far to balance the classes by homogenising them.

Perhaps wizards should have the most powerful single actions available in the game - but perhaps they should be vulnerable whilst casting and require fighter protection. Perhaps rogues should be able to get away with extraordinary tricks to gain the party advantages in combat, but be in trouble if it goes wrong. Maybe fighters ought to be necessary against those pesky magic-immune types and enemy wizards that need taking down fast.

I suppose it's the difference between sports where one's role is quite general (basketball? water polo? maybe I'm reaching) vs. those where role is quite important (american football, perhaps soccer).

 

[Rex Blunder]

"The DM can fix it" is an argument that cuts both ways. In 4e, if the wizard is too balanced, the DM can drop the Robe of the Archmage, not give the fighter a magic weapon that matches his Expertise feat, and introduce a lot of flying enemies that the wizard can shoot but that the fighter can only attack with his crappy javelins.

In general I don't like "the DM can fix it" arguments because they are a universal argument that can be used to dismiss any rules issue. If you accept it as a valid argument for one issue, you're practically giving up the right to examine the rules with a critical eye.

 

[Dellamon]

D&D is a tactical wargame on top of a role playing game. Or vice versa. Chainmail that eventually became D&D was an attempt to ask the question "What would it be like if the Wizard and the Fighter from my tactical war game decided to go into a dungeon and kill a dragon?"

I agree 100% that this is what D&D was derived from. However, just because it was derived from a tactical wargame did not mean it did not evolve from being a tactical wargame.

But balance isn't about being a tactical wargame. In fact, in a tactical war game, it's perfectly ok for the Wizard to be the better unit in your army, because they are all pieces that are being played by the same person anyway.

Also, 100% agree. The same can be said with a roleplaying game. If a player wizard is inherently more powerful, the DM needs to make sure the NPC / enemy wizard is just as powerful to balance things out. The same could be said with clerics, fighters and rouges.

Because math doesn't work that way. If wizards are that much more powerful than fighters, than taking out the big bad guy won't matter if your wizard loses. Because the enemy wizard is powerful enough to take the rest of you out once he's done with your wizard. Not being able to take out the big bad guy doesn't matter because your wizard is powerful enough to take him out once he's done with the enemy wizard. The end result is, it doesn't matter what you do. You might as well not have come on the adventure.

I disagree 100% on this. Why is the wizard always more powerful? The fighter could take the wizard out within one round when considering the low hit points. The wizard and fighter are both powerful, just each in their own way. The wizard has a lot of negatives that the fighter does not suffer from - vancian spell limitations, low hit point, crap armor, limited weapons, poor physical saves, etc. I enjoy playing fighters, especially when playing with a good DM. A single good throw of a rock could ruin a mega arch-mage's spell of instant party doom and end a big-boss battle. I think when you get too involved in the math of the game (which is fairly broken, even in 4E), it takes away from the game.

But those aren't the average scenarios people run into. The average scenarios is: Party walks down a corridor, ends up in a room with 20 orcs, roll for initiative. The fighter kills one orc. The wizard kills them all."

Never seen it happen this way, especially at the levels where you are encountering orcs. Fighters and rouges shine at those levels.

 

[DonTadow]

Thanks for making this post! I completely agree. I have been wanting to post something like this for a while but have been looking for a way to word it. (and may still do that)


I was happy to have different levels for classes go in 3rd editon, that was just something I was happy to let go. But every class being soooo similar in 4e was really the dealbreaker for me and my play group.

I believe that a lot of the discussion on these forums miss the point. Mainly that a large part of the problem with 4e was that it was OVERLY focussed on combat balance. In fact I remember the designers arguing that there was no way to balance vancian magic with at will fighter-type powers (e.g. attack).

I would argue that this largely misses the point of D&D. The point is to play archetype characters that we see in fantasy, to have an amazing time playing those characters together as part of a team roleplaying through interesting encounters and kicking the bad guys butt.


I respect the drive for balance and believe that previous editions needed work to balance play, but I also believe the cost that 4e incurred was not worth it. Everyone needs a spot to shine, but those spots dont all have to be "cause x damange and move the enemy one space".

• Let the fighter be an unbeatable brute that people are truly scared of and regularly run from.
• Let the rogue have adventures where he says "well I just killed everyone in the keep before they knew we were even here, guess we can just walk to the treasure",
• Let the wizard rain fire down from the sky raising an army.
• AND let all classes have different areas to shine in noncombat too! If the bard bypasses a whole adventure or convinces an army to join the party because of his charm it is JUST AS SATISFYIN as "causing x damage". I played an illusionist not because I wanted to do as much damage as everyone else, but because I occasionally want to bypass battles because of my whit.

It's ok if during one adventure, someone shines more then the other, thats what makes D&D characters so darnd interesting. Work to balances forces together, but dont throw the baby out with the bath water.

I absolutely disagree that you can't balance powers. The problem is the system design, now the actual classes. Thus, if 5e is designed with balance first, you can have classes at each level with abilities that are similar in power level.

I applaud everyone who can remember playing and 2nd edition and 1st edition, but if you want other people to play the game, things need to work in an understandable way. The way i level a cleric should be the way i level a fighter. It doesnt mean the character works differently, but it does mean they are built structurally similar enough where there's an understanding in their progression and a confirmation that they are balanced at that level.

 

[Zaukrie]

You don't need perfect balance, you need everyone to feel like they are contributing and having fun. That was harder to do in the earliest editions, imo.

 

[Dellamon]

You don't need perfect balance, you need everyone to feel like they are contributing and having fun.

Agreed, but is this a responsibility of the rules or of the DM? I think thats where the major difference of opinions arises from. Some want the balance forced through the rules, others think it should be more of a DM / party / story component.

 

[Wormwood]

Agreed, but is this a responsibility of the rules or of the DM? I think thats where the major difference of opinions arises from.

I believe it should be the *default* setting, following the assumption that it is generally easier to break something than create it.

 

[avin]

Extremes - thats what I think hurts the discussion of class balance. The whole concept of "Well, if my fighter cannot cause as much damage in a round as a wizard who casts a meteor swarm, then I am done!". This is a tactical wargame balance argument, not a roleplaying argument. Why can the fighter not contribute just as much by sneaking around the flanks and hitting the big bad while the big bad wizards duke it out. They could turnt he tide of the battle. Or the priest who provides the critical heal at just the right moment. Or is it all just about damage?

You describe a scene where the Fighter is the sidekick of a Wizard nuking the bad guy.

You described what I should call tactical combat, not roleplaying (fighter flanking, wizard duking is not RP in my book).

I can't agree with the notion roleplaying is "Wizards at high level are demigods and fighters must flank", because it was like worked on Lord of the Rings. I want Conan. I want 300. I want steampunk. I want Planescape. I want psionics. I want everybody being useful at table.

I think this is a strawman and is somewhat frustrating. We got that attitude in 4th, "oh you just want that because you want to be better then everyone else" ... no, I have never heard of codzilla except in forums, and neither have the 10-12 players I regularly play with.

I have no clue about what it's a CODzilla (really)

I wanna tell you what happened around here.

When 3E launched two friends of mine drop the game because their one-trick-wizards weren't as powerful as in 2E. They hate it. They hated Sorcereres being on PHB (go figure out that...). They drop the game.

When 4E launched no friend of mine who played a Wizard like it, because they couldn't be the utility guy and best damage dealers in party, at the same time.

They flat out told me that.

I don't like the way 4E Wizards turned out, really, but the balance among classes is welcome at my table.

I think in D&D there is a dungeon master, and that dungeon master is tasked with making the game fun for everyone. He does this buy managing time slicing, droppping the perfect item for the fighter a couple adventures before he needs it, making an enemy somehow magic resistant the adventure after Gandalf "shined a lil too much" and buy calling people out when they are min maxing and not roleplaying.

See? A Dungeon Master is forced to create a monster immune to magic in order the Wizard don't play alone.

Problem is: at high levels Gandalf don't shine "a lil too much". He owns enemies while others watch. I understand that some people are very fond of LOTR, Gandalf being "the guy" (he sure is) but there's more fantasy styles around, and D&DN isn't going to cater them all?

I think the more D&D caters to "professional players" who debate on what the mathematical best class is, the less it can be relevant to 4 guys sitting around a table because they just want to play some cool characters that ARE DIFFERENT from eachother.

No, this was not my point here.

I will be glad if they play different.

My point is: quadratic Wizards and linear Fighters is something I don't like it.

I don't want to be the best, I want to be competitive. WIzards have all sorts of tricks, must they do the best damage dealers from a mile or Fighters can come just a little behind?

And, please, damage? Tell me how many spells a Wizard or a Cleric have that emulate things Rogues and Fighters can do, better than them.

And, by the way, I'm far from a D&D pro. I never did a min/max char, except for a STR 18 for a FTR or a CHA 18 for a Bard. One of my most known fighters was a cook

I'm looking for roleplaying in first place. If I'd want to min max I would run and grab a Wizard on 2E or maybe a monk in 3E, not a Fighter.

I also think no one wants them to be OVERPOWERED. No one said that. What we want is them to be sufficiently different, vary in strengths at different levels and in different situations, and remain true to D&Ds traditional archetype. Make them as balanced as you can, just not like 4e did because that just made them all the same class IMHO. Feel free to buff the hell out of the fighter if the system needs it, I believe Iron Heroes and even 4e had a lot of ways to make the fighter more interesting. Just don't reduce the classes to the same exact same framework in your attempt to balance the game.

I'm fine with different, heck, where do I sign?

Let's just get rid of 2E and 3E level of power where casters solve everything alone at higher levels and don't push every effort to balance in DM's hands.

But, let's get straight, IMO Wizards were overpowered on 2E and 3E, and a lot of people just don't wanna drop that bone.

 

[WarlockLord]

Alright. I am currently laboring under the impression that the OP (and several other posters) have absolutely no idea what the hell a properly played caster in 3.5 can do. Let's just take a straight up wizard for now, if you'd like.

The common example is fireball. This is widely regarded as a crap spell for many reasons, mainly because it does less damage than a properly built fighter. However, the common response is "well if we make it immune to fire/immune to magic, we can balance it so we need the fighter". There are several problems with this approach.

1) Too much crap in 3.5 ignored spell resistance. I can use telekinesis to (at the level I get it) throw 9 large greatswords for 27d6 damage a shot. This ignores spell resistance. I can also use animate dead or planar binding to acquire minions which are straight up better than the fighter. I don't actually care that Sir Bob the Knight thinks he's the boss, my zombie hydra probably has more hit points and attacks. And I can ride it, so there.

2) Too many attack vectors for casters, too few for melee Casters get it pretty good. They've got attacks which attack all three saves, ignore armor, and straight-up no save or be removed from combat.. You can force people to grapple with Evard's black tentacles, or snare them in webs while your skeleton archers whittle them down. You can magic jar the target's bff and stab them at the dinner party, or mind control a loved one into assassinating them from afar. The fighter is... a moron with a stick.

3)In 3.5, fighters are actually really bad at their jobs. Fighters have bad saves, AC doesn't matter at high levels, they can't see through illusions (without whining at spellcasters or getting magic items) and they can't close to melee with high level enemies. They don't have defenses against common status afflictions (guess what casters get?) and go down pretty quickly. By contrast, casters are stacking up miss chances, damage reduction, and flight to ensure that they don't get hit.

So the "wizard-fighter imbalance" is not so much a "this character is slightly more powerful than the others" as "this wizard is tall enough to ride, and you are actively hurting your team by playing a fighter". Being in the latter category because you wanted to play Sun Tzu (or someone else cool) and have him be competitive is a terrible thing for a game system to support.

 

[Dellamon]

Why don't we shift the discussions away from wizards for a moment? This has been an argument for a long while and it will never be resolved (IMO). Lets look at it from a fighter / rouge perspective. For those who are wanting the Conan, 300, etc. what do you think about a rouge being able to backstab and perform all of their talents? A rouge (usually) will outdamage a fighter (and mages except in short bursts) in combat. They will also be more useful outside of combat with negotiations, pilfering, etc. Should the fighter and mages just give up since the rouge outshines them in those regards? And what about the poor clerics?

I like that 4E really emphasized roles in the party, but why do all roles have to be balanced all the time? Just because a wizard or rouge can perform "shock and awe" type actions in and out of combat, does that make the fighter's role all that less important? Tanks are needed, and believe it or not some people actually enjoy that aspect. And when the cleric and wizard are out of spells and the rouge is almost dead from 2 moderate hits, who is going to be left standing to save the day?

 

[Gronin]

"The DM can fix it" is an argument that cuts both ways. In 4e, if the wizard is too balanced, the DM can drop the Robe of the Archmage, not give the fighter a magic weapon that matches his Expertise feat, and introduce a lot of flying enemies that the wizard can shoot but that the fighter can only attack with his crappy javelins.

In general I don't like "the DM can fix it" arguments because they are a universal argument that can be used to dismiss any rules issue. If you accept it as a valid argument for one issue, you're practically giving up the right to examine the rules with a critical eye.

I agree completely with this --- if the DM can fix it then it is broken. I am not interested in buying broken games (I have plenty of those that I have fixed -- don't need another one).

 

[Dellamon]

Alright. I am currently laboring under the impression that the OP (and several other posters) have absolutely no idea what the hell a properly played caster in 3.5 can do. Let's just take a straight up wizard for now, if you'd like.

I was never referring to 3.5. 1E / 2E.