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.