Class Balance - why?

[GSHamster]

I think that a lot of the people who arguing against class balance are really arguing against homogenization. That is balancing the classes by making them play in a similar fashion.

In my view, we need class balance. But we also need each class to feel like a different experience at all levels of the game, both thematically and mechanically.

And resolving those two tensions is hard. They pull in opposite directions.

 

[Belphanior]

For me I have no desire to play in a game where balance is derived from making everyone equal on everything. That is not balance to me. Balance comes from allowing each character a chance to contribute to the game just because the fighter may only be taking down one enemy at a time and the wizard can take out more does not mean that they are unbalanced.

OK. But I don't believe this is what the (pre-4e) complaints about wizards are about, though.

Preciously few people think that blasting spells were the problem. A fighter might kill a guy every round. Sure. And the wizard can spend a limited resource to kill, say, two guys a round. Still no problem.

Unfortunately, the wizard can also spend a limited resource to bypass the entire encounter. Troll under a bridge wants toll? No problem, wizard can teleport and bypass the journey. Adventure requires you to seek out a forgotten library for ancient knowledge? Haha, no, just cast a spell and gain the knowledge directly. Adventure requires us to undertake a task to prove our worth to someone? Yeah... no, how about a nice Charm/Suggestion instead? Venture through a maze? Passwall/Stoneshape/Etherealness/god-knows-what-else can shortcut you to the end.

This is what the balance problem is.

Did 4e solve this?
Yes!

Did 4e take this too far?
Up to individual taste, but clearly there's enough people who feel that it did. So it warrants another look.

But...

But!

Don't ever think that the cries of "imbalance!" came from the amount of damage dealt or people killed per round. That was never the problem.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Web does have a save if you make it you move through the web slowly. if you tangled you can spend a round using strength or escape artist to break free. I have never seen web as an death sentence all that often usually it just slowed down the other guys to give you a chance to get away. I have never seen a PC die in a web Evards Black Tentacles yes web no.

Yeah, it grants you a save. If you fail it, you have to make a DC 20 Strength check as a full round action to be able to move at all. Either way you're suffering entangled penalties. Even if you make the save, you have to make a Strength check of at least DC 15 to move 1 square as a full round action.

At 3rd level, when a wizard can first cast Web, creatures are hardly guaranteed to be able to make that check at all. Even if they make their save, and their check, it's a DC 30 check to exit the web in one round if you're caught at the center. More than likely, a creature will spend 4 or 5 rounds doing nothing but trying to escape the web.

Spell resistance doesn't help either, nor does magic immunity. Even at high levels, against creatures with enormous strength who are guaranteed to make their save, the creatures have to spend a full round extracting themselves, which is almost as good as an AoE stun, at the paltry price of a level 2 spell slot.

At that point, they're easy pickins for even a lowly wizard with a crossbow, let alone a fighter or the rogue. Sure, the rest of the party contributes, but only by mopping up after the wizard has won the fight for them. Web is one of the best spells to trivialize a fight. In fact, I can't think of a single time that Web was cast that it didn't trivialize combat (and I've seen a lot of Web spells cast).

Yes the rules for scribing scrolls and making magic items are relatively cheap in 3E an Issue I have with it but and this is a big but unless you are allowing your party huge amounts of downtime there is a limit of how many you can make. And that is not just the DM being a meanie it is way of managing the flow of the game.

Not every game jumps nonstop from adventure to adventure at breakneck speed. I don't think the game should break just because the DM decides that going from level 1 to 20 is more reasonable over a span of 20 years of game time, as opposed to two months.

It is my opinion everyone should play a friendly wizard. fighter , rogue fill in the blank as a player you have a responsibility not to be a jerk at the table which means doing things that impact another player's character and stepping all over their toes.

I play party friendly wizards all the time and I don't play with one hand tied behind my back.

I don't think balance should require someone to be a team player. There is plenty of basis in fantasy for the loner who grudgingly tags along with the party, but isn't a team player. The game shouldn't break just because Joe decides he wants to play a Raistlin-esque wizard instead of a member of the Scooby-gang.

That's why balance is important.

 

[Soramain]

It doesn't mean that all classes need to be exactly the same. I think that ideally, each player should have the capability to contribute equally to any facet of the game that is going to take up a lot of playing time.

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.

 

[Belphanior]

I don't think balance should require someone to be a team player. There is plenty of basis in fantasy for the loner who grudgingly tags along with the party, but isn't a team player. The game shouldn't break just because Joe decides he wants to play a Raistlin-esque wizard instead of a member of the Scooby-gang.

That's why balance is important.

First, I would like to say that no player should ever be a jerk. And games don't need to go out of their way to prevent jerks from happening. You can't prevent that, and it's better handled outside of the game rules.

But with that said, here's a thought:
If using a spell to hijack the rogue's role is being a jerk... then why is that spell there to begin with?

It's all good to say that you "shouldn't step all over the toes" of the rogue, but then why are there spells with practically no other function than to do that? In what way is it good game design to provide 10 spells to the wizard as options, but if he chooses any of those four he's a jerk? How would a new player even tell the difference?

 

[Soramain]

I don't think balance should require someone to be a team player. There is plenty of basis in fantasy for the loner who grudgingly tags along with the party, but isn't a team player. The game shouldn't break just because Joe decides he wants to play a Raistlin-esque wizard instead of a member of the Scooby-gang.

I don't think that's what he meant by team player. You can play a spellcaster with a personality of a loner who isn't a team player tactically, but as a player you select spells that still allow your fellow players to have spotlight time. Though your character is standoffish and maybe less than tactically ideal in combat, he conveniently doesn't know the knock spell, so as to let the party rogue shine. Maybe he lays off the divination spells so that the bard can still be the party face and acquire information.

 

[Hassassin]

If using a spell to hijack the rogue's role is being a jerk... then why is that spell there to begin with?

So you can play without a rogue.

 

[DonTadow]

Yeah, it grants you a save. If you fail it, you have to make a DC 20 Strength check as a full round action to be able to move at all. Either way you're suffering entangled penalties. Even if you make the save, you have to make a Strength check of at least DC 15 to move 1 square as a full round action.

At 3rd level, when a wizard can first cast Web, creatures are hardly guaranteed to be able to make that check at all. Even if they make their save, and their check, it's a DC 30 check to exit the web in one round if you're caught at the center. More than likely, a creature will spend 4 or 5 rounds doing nothing but trying to escape the web.

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. .
Spell resistance doesn't help either, nor does magic immunity. Even at high levels, against creatures with enormous strength who are guaranteed to make their save, the creatures have to spend a full round extracting themselves, which is almost as good as an AoE stun, at the paltry price of a level 2 spell slot.

Not every game jumps nonstop from adventure to adventure at breakneck speed. I don't think the game should break just because the DM decides that going from level 1 to 20 is more reasonable over a span of 20 years of game time, as opposed to two months.

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.

I don't think balance should require someone to be a team player. There is plenty of basis in fantasy for the loner who grudgingly tags along with the party, but isn't a team player. The game shouldn't break just because Joe decides he wants to play a Raistlin-esque wizard instead of a member of the Scooby-gang.

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.

 

[Soramain]

But with that said, here's a thought:
If using a spell to hijack the rogue's role is being a jerk... then why is that spell there to begin with?

In case there is no rogue? In case the guy playing a rogue is an acrobat/swashbuckler type instead of a dungeon crawler? After all, if one of your four or so doesn't want to play that type of rogue, doors may still need to be unlocked.

As an aside, a party that relies on wizard knock spells instead of skills may be in a world of hurt if locks are sufficiently common in the campaign or if the DM is a fan of nasty traps.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So you can play without a rogue.

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

The bard has traditionally been a versatile class, but he pays for that flexibility by being arguably less powerful than other classes. I've certainly never heard of a bard being accused of being a power house, and it's one of my favorite classes.

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.