Class Balance - why?

[Light Knight]

Get rid of classes, then you get rid of the necessity of class balance.

 

[Belphanior]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]:

When I said "I'm out of this discussion", I meant it.

 

[DonTadow]

Bottom line, this is a game. Who doesn't expect a game that is not balanced?

What other game is not balanced? Why is this even a question if we want 5e to be a game.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

First off apologies if you feel insulted by my words, it was not my intention but I was mildy irritated by the notion that if one felt 3.x was imbalanced one had bad players or was a poor DM and I know that was not you, or at at I don't reall you writing that.

However, I feel that casters as done in D&D cannot but be more powerful because they have more flexibility. It is intrinsic in the design and equated to more powerfull when the number of available slots risrs to a level where they have options to cast spells throughout the adventuring day. It s not really particular spells it is the structure of the caster classes.

4e balances by severly rrestricting hte number of available slots, the spells known that can be available in those slots. Simply removing the most problematic of the spells, and severly nerfying many others and placing htem in another sub system, namely rituals.
Finally they give all other classes powers to allow a similar flexibility previously only enjoyed by casters.

So, no I do not believe one can have 3.x casters and not have them overpowered relative to non casters unless one removes pretty much all non blasting spells and gives the non casters some powers or very severly reduce the slots avialable to the casters at whicjh point they simply might not ba viable anyway.

 

[Elf Witch]

Apologies if I reiterate something already addressed. I only skimmed any of the new responses that weren't addressed specifically at myself.



Who's talking about making you play 4e? I've already said I think classes should be balanced but unhomogenized. Is it that you simply don't believe that it's possible, or something else?



That doesn't make sense. There are plenty of things about 4e that they might not like, that would cause them to not switch. Also, clearly there is a play style (yours) that doesn't have the balance issues seen in other play styles under 3e.

Unsurprisingly, I don't think everyone should have to adopt your play style just to play D&D. Clearly, there are other ways of playing it, and there are plenty of people who have voiced umbrage with the 3e magic system. It's not like I'm the only one.

EDIT: To expound on this further, with my group's preferences / play style, while we did go out of our way not to step on other people's toes most of the time, it often felt like we were walking on eggshells with the 3e magic system. For us, at least, it did feel like we were playing with one arm tied behind our backs, and it didn't much appeal to us. We prefer a system that can be driven to near its limits without breaking, because it cheapens the experience for us to have to hold back. I think that's part of why we like 4e. We never have to hold back and neither does the DM.

You say that a good DM and players can compensate for the imbalance inherent in the 3e magic system. I say they shouldn't have to. As a DM, I have better things to spend my time on than trying to figure out ways to nerf the wizard and raise the fighter into the spotlight. I'd rather give them both opportunities to shine, without having to worry that the fighter will be atomized during the wizard's moment, or that the fighter's moment will be trivialized when the wizard resolves the scenario with a single spell (probably not even realizing that the moment was intended for the fighter, but rather thinking he was helping out).



And let me tell you, some of our early games were terrible! Just because I say my group is polite doesn't mean that that was the case when I first started playing. I didn't even know this group back then.



That only works if there's someone experienced at the table. I, myself, am a black box self-taught D&D player. I taught the rest of my friends, after I figured out the basics. And guess what? I had no clue whatsoever that taking Knock would be in bad taste. Given how low the 1st level Thief's starting percentages were, I probably would have advocated the idea.



I'm not saying that the wizard shouldn't be able to do any of those things. Only that he should not be able to do them as effectively as he does in 3e.

Invisibility shouldn't come into play until after a rouge gains Hide in Plain Sight. When Charm Person wears off, the creature should realize that it was magically beguiled and react accordingly.

Magic should have both limits and a price. It should not be the default go-to best option in most situations. Why even have a skill like Diplomacy if a 1st level spell like Charm is arguably better?




Not only is Shapechange a druid spell, it's also a wizard spell and a cleric spell (animal domain). Druids are probably the most potent of the casting classes, I'll agree. The Wizard is nonetheless a better skeleton key though. Besides, the wizard is not the only issue. As I've previously stated, it's all casters. The wizard is just the example I keep using.



That's the problem! The wizard should not have the best emergency "get out of the locked room card". It should be the rogue, because a locked door is his schtick and his time to shine. It shouldn't be a choice between use the rogue and die, or use the wizard and live. Of course every player, including the rogue, will choose the second option. They'd have to be brain damaged to do otherwise! And therein lies the problem.

If anything, the rogue should have automatic success picking locks x time per day, and the wizard should always have to roll a check for knock. Or the rogue should have to roll as well, but the wizard's check is not as good.

When faced with a locked door and no time, the rogue should always be the first choice.

The problem is exactly that, in 3e, he's not.



First, I'm not trying to knock 3e. It did a number of things well. I recognize that the magic system does work when using certain playstyles. I don't, however, feel that that is sufficient, as I believe that D&D should support as many play styles as possible. And there are definitely a few play styles out there for which it works quite poorly.

Honestly, I'd be fine with them doing an entire huge line of D&DN supplements on 3e style magics. I just don't think it should be the default, because then it becomes nigh impossible to house rule out or balance.

I have faith in the designers though. I think they'll be able to come up with a default design that's more flexible than 4e, yet more balanced than 3e. All it requires is a critical examination of the 3e spell list, and careful consideration of the implications of each spell's mechanics. Which in all fairness, would be a lot of work, but then again they're paid to do it!

Perhaps that will mean that the party has to hold out for a round or two while the wizard gathers the requisite mana to cast teleport as a single round action, and/or that long-range teleportation is only possible to a location with an existing teleportation circle. Perhaps it will mean that scrying can only be performed in certain remote magical locations, and therefore officially becomes part of the DM's purview. I certainly hope it means that when a door needs to be opened and there's no time, the rogue is the man for the job.

I do think, however, that it can be done.

First of all my comment about tweaking 4 was to someone who said that they could only play 3E with a lot of tweaking and it took a lot of work and I was pointing out that I understood because I had the same issue.

And I never said that anyone was forcing me to play 4E so I have no clue where that is coming from and I have said that my hope for 5E is a way to include several different play styles so that would include people who play 4E as well as those of us who play older editions.

I didn't claim that there was only one reason why people didn't switch just that liking the current magic system was one reason to switch to Pathfinder.

And I never said that you are anyone else should have to play my play style not sure why you are saying that. Again for the umpteenth time I have said that I hope the new system allows a variety of ways to play and to dial the magic system up and down.

OKay so your group felt that they were playing with their hands tied behind their back mine does not. People do play the game differently and have different experiences.

I didn't say that I find the game imbalanced so I didn't say that the DM and players need to work to fix the imbalance. What I said was everyone at the table has a responsibility to make the game fun for everyone. Which means making choices not to step all over someone else character. And that goes for any class not just wizard.

Well I am sorry that your early games were terrible mine were not even though I got stuck playing a character whose highest stat was an 11.

Again your opinion is that wizards should not be able to do it as effectively in 3E I think they should be able to. And right now there are several editions of DnD that let us choose what and how we want to play.

You think that wizards should not have the best emergency and that is fine I don't agree. The only way the rogue is going to get through the door is by picking a lock if he fails then the dragon gets to the party. Magic gets around this. That does not mean that the wizard is the one doing it. In my experiences most rogues get an item that lets them have knock.

This is why knock is in the game not to only allow a party to function without a rogue but to also be able to make items that allow the rogue to function in a variety of situations.

Anyway I think the balance comes from the fact that spells are limited and can't be used all the time they run out they won't work in anti magic areas if a wizard does not get enough sleep loses his spellbook he can't function. Rogues can pick locks until the cows come home they can hide and use their class abilities to the cows come home they can go without sleep and still function they can function in an anti magic zone.

I find that it works pretty well for the style of games I play and run.

 

[Elf Witch]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]:

When I said "I'm out of this discussion", I meant it.

Well I guess that means you think you should be allowed to make a statement and if someone disagrees with it then just because you say I am out of it they should not address what you brought up.

The best way to leave a discussion is to just leave it.

 

[Roland55]

This Thread and the others dealing with Balance over the past few years have been absolutely fascinating for me to read. I have a much better appreciation for what the WOTC designers were going for as they developed 4th Edition. I also have a much better appreciation for what the 4e fans found so wonderful about 4th Edition.

However, I haven't been converted to the position of Balance Before All.

To me, D&D is still primarily about having Fun ... of course, Fun for the whole group. Other considerations, including Balance, are and will likely remain secondary for me.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This Thread and the others dealing with Balance over the past few years have been absolutely fascinating for me to read. I have a much better appreciation for what the WOTC designers were going for as they developed 4th Edition. I also have a much better appreciation for what the 4e fans found so wonderful about 4th Edition.

However, I haven't been converted to the position of Balance Before All.

To me, D&D is still primarily about having Fun ... of course, Fun for the whole group. Other considerations, including Balance, are and will likely remain secondary for me.

Fun is my primary concern as well. Personally, the reason I hold balance on the high pedestal that I do is because imbalance has been the number one cause of unfun for me over the years, whether I'm the DM or a player. I expect that's true of many who hold similar views to myself.

For myself, at least, imbalance is the anti-fun.

 

[Belphanior]

Well I guess that means you think you should be allowed to make a statement and if someone disagrees with it then just because you say I am out of it they should not address what you brought up.

The best way to leave a discussion is to just leave it.

For goodness' sake, I was only trying to explain why I won't respond to your arguments so that you wouldn't feel as if you were being ignored. I'm trying to be clear. There's no need to be so hostile, ok?

And with that I am now, finally, for real-real, out of the discussion.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I'm out of this discussion, btw. I don't think anybody is going to convince anybody else here, everything we say seems to be a repetition of the same steps over and over.

I do want to leave one final thought though:

There are people who don't see a balance problem. They've never come across it. Ok, that's fair enough. But why should the game cater only to them? If there's also a bunch of people who claim they do have problems, why shouldn't the game address this? Why is, "I have never had problems with this", considered a retort against the people who did have problems with this? People, your own experiences are not the only yardstick against which to measure out there. If a lot of people make complaints, something ain't right. Even if you don't see it.

Because there are two camps. There are people who don't have a problem with balance and there are people who do. What 4th edition did was kill the fun factor in sake of the balance and this upset a lot of people. People want so desperately to blame marketing and other factors as being the cause of 4th edition's downfall. While a lot of people did like the game, there are also a lot of people who did not and apparently there was enough people in the "no" crowd. If they can design a balanced game that gives most people what they want then that's great for everyone but they failed to do that with 4th edition.

There has to be a side chosen to be perfectly honest unless they find a way to have balanced fun.