Class Balance - why?

[DonTadow]

I see nothing wrong with playing Olympians and their servants, as long as the game doesn't present a super-powerful 1st-level Olympian as an equal choice against a very mortal 1st-level servant.

Also, we have to remember that D&D's notion of "powerful" isn't typical or universal. For instance, a game like Mutants & Masterminds can revolve around superheroes who do not have the wide portfolio of powers of a D&D wizard (or 4E Fighter). They have higher numbers, but not higher complexity.

Mand M is a great analolgy in that, in Mand m the base game has a power level. This powerlevel is the same for the entire campaign. I would say the game is as compelex, in that you have powers, but unlike dnd, you dont have a huge variety of ways to effect opponents other than knocking them out. So your powers end up doing a multiple of different things that compare to the options of a dnd player.

 

[hanez]

I think people talking about fighters being "servants" for wizards and the like have either not played the system in the while, exaggerating, didn't follow the rules of the game, or were subject to a very bad DMs game.

Anyways, of course aspects of that system needed to be rebalanced, thats why a new edition was released that went too far in the other way and significantly contributed to the failure of that edition.

I'm very hopeful that Monte and crew will be able to strike a closer balance while still maintaining the fun and flavor we all want.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I value class balance because as a DM is makes combat encounters easier to construct. It is very easy to chalange my players in 4e and I don't even have to care what classes they are or what powers they have taken.
I don have the same issues in non-combat encounters as the resolution falls naturally out of the rp.

So if D&D.next is as unbalanced as 3.x and before then I am simply not switching and if the Wizard ninjas steal my 3e books then I will run D&D using Savage Worlds or something.

Now i see no reason that WoTC cannot create a nice balanced 5e and then provide switches to unbalance it in favour of casters if that what some people want. Seems much easier than building something unbalanced in the base and trying to then add bits to balance it.

 

[mcintma]

IME, mid+ level Wizards in some 3e games come off as overpowered *mainly* because of:

-the 15-min adventuring day
-DMs too nice or inexperienced to exploit their long list of weaknesses
-Monsters using Wiz spells (e.g. Lich spell nails the Ftr, who says "That spell's borked!") but monsters generally don't share the Wiz's balancing weaknesses and always have a de-facto '15-min adventuring day'
-unlimited time to craft & scribe, or unlimited ability and selection to buy scrolls and wands of their choice
-an assumption by some that the wizard will always have the right spell prepped (even casted) at all times, and the duration is infinite [I'm exaggerating here, I realize]

If 5e nerfs the wizard, they should consider 'nerfing' the class's many weaknesses to compensate. PF was heading in this direction with d6 HP, & no familiar-death level loss. I hope WOTC can find a happy medium for 5e.

I just want real spell lists back, it can be vancian or spell-points.

 

[SlyDoubt]

I value class balance because as a DM is makes combat encounters easier to construct. It is very easy to chalange my players in 4e and I don't even have to care what classes they are or what powers they have taken.
I don have the same issues in non-combat encounters as the resolution falls naturally out of the rp.

So if D&D.next is as unbalanced as 3.x and before then I am simply not switching and if the Wizard ninjas steal my 3e books then I will run D&D using Savage Worlds or something.

Now i see no reason that WoTC cannot create a nice balanced 5e and then provide switches to unbalance it in favour of casters if that what some people want. Seems much easier than building something unbalanced in the base and trying to then add bits to balance it.

It's not that people DESIRE incredibly powerful magic users to the point that all other classes are completely useless. No one wants that as an option.

The problem is what is tied to what makes the magic users so strong. Or rather, the entire construction of 3.X/PF. It's startling how people ignore the entire game and focus on one aspect as the defining quality and the only reason anyone plays one version over another.

imho in every way outside of pure raw mechanical balance 3.X/PF is a superior game to 4E. So yes, I will take that hit. Why? Because it can be mitigated by playing with a good group of people you've known and played with a long time.

Please stop trying to simplify editions. It's annoying. Every edition has issues but they're all great. I think 4E has a ton of great ideas and mechanics. I just cannot stand the way it presents itself. When playing and when looking over books it does not feel like D&D to me.

 

[Tallifer]

Can we cut the veiled insults here? There are plenty of people who don't care about mechanical balance because there are other ways to balance games, including finding something worthwhile for everyone to do or spotlight balance.

I made no insult veiled or otherwise. Do not cry about your injured feelings. This thread opened with the question: why class balance? Why not have the Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit? The very heart of this thread is that question: why have mechanical balance.

My sad conclusion is that some people do not want mechanical balance. They want a Magus and his Grog. Now the Grog might have a narrative spotlight, but that will not satisfy the other camp, who want all Splugs or all Olympians. I prefer all medium-powered characters, another Fourther prefers all epic heroes, but we both agree that neither of us want a mix at the same table. So my observation about the the unbridgeable gulf remains.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't mind people that dish it out and can take it. I don't mind people that would prefer neither--so don't. I don't even mind that everyone wants to set the bar at a slightly different place--within, of course, whatever limits the moderaters choose to impose--that's mere human nature at work, and why such talk even among fair-minded people requires some moderation in the first place.

Then there are the ironic exceptions that seem to lack even the self awareness to realize they are dishing it out while complaining about taking it.

 

[Aldarc]

Now who's making the unsupported assumption why people play what they play? I'll give you a clue, it's not Elf Witch.

Of course I am. I certainly won't deny it. I spoke out of frustration.

Can we cut the veiled insults here? There are plenty of people who don't care about mechanical balance because there are other ways to balance games, including finding something worthwhile for everyone to do or spotlight balance.

If these people don't care about mechanical balance, then why are they so opposed to the people who do want balanced classes? That's what puzzles me.

I think people talking about fighters being "servants" for wizards and the like have either not played the system in the while, exaggerating, didn't follow the rules of the game, or were subject to a very bad DMs game.

I think those people would then be more than happy to rephrase that as fighters being "BMX Bandits" for "Angel Summoner" classes.

 

[Henry]

I think those people would then be more than happy to rephrase that as fighters being "BMX Bandits" for "Angel Summoner" classes.

The [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw]"BMX Bandit/ Angel Summoner"[/ame] thing is a great (and funny!) parallel that I've seen at table playing 3.5 especially. However, it doesn't need to be that way -- Pathfinder did make some REALLY good strides at an example of useful casters who don't dominate all areas of play. It's not "end all and be all", of course, but I was impressed to the extent they nerfed key wizard and cleric spells to keep the "I win" buttons to a minimum. Finger of death, all the polymorph spells, not to mention the edits to concentration checks, just a few of the changes to rein in casters a bit from some of the nasty tricks that could be pulled in 3.5.

 

[Herschel]

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?

It's all about not sucking. Why can't the fighter sneak around the flank while the wizards duke it out? (setting aside you once again mean to make the figher a luking flunkie while the wizard gets the glory)

Because the typical fighter sucks at it. Plate Armor and "seaking" are not things that go together in any logical or serious sentence without the words "has no chance of" being between them.