Should all things be created equal ?

[Sir Brennen]

And yet option 3 is an abbreviated form of that very sentiment that each classes usefulness is a function of the DM's world yet look how few people have chosen it.

Perhaps what this poll is showing is the lack of understand about how D&D is balanced ? No ?

No, option 3 to me sounds more like 3E, where a ranger's effectiveness can vary depending on how many of the character's favored enemies the DM uses in the game, or where the rogue can suddenly become very ineffective when the DM frequently uses creatures that are immune to sneak attacks.

Class balance in 4E sounds like it's aiming more for classes that remain equally effective in relation to each other, both in and out of combat, regardless of the types of challenges they face, but not in a "What if Mighty Mouse fought Superman?" kind of way.

So I didn't vote.

 

[Phasics]

So I didn't vote.

My Bad I'll put in a "I choose not to vote" option next time

 

[Sir Brennen]

My Bad I'll put in a "I choose not to vote" option next time

Or the common option "Other: Please explain below" would suffice...

 

[Arkhandus]

None of the poll options are what I'd vote for. Heck, two or three of them are basically the same thing just with different spin.

Also, your point about the DM tailoring stuff is already doable regardless of any internal balance or lack thereof.

All classes need not be equally powerful, but they should be equally useful and fun. The DM can always adjust the number of traps, or melee brutes, or golems, or blaster mages, or social encounters as he or she needs to keep things fun for everyone. Internal balance between the usefulness of the classes should still exist.

That said, just because Class A can do something nobody else can do, or can handle a particular kind of situation/encounter that nobody else can, does not mean that Class A should just be left as-is if it sucks the rest of the time. If Class B can handle a different kind of situation well, and happens to also be halfway-decent in some other cases, then by rights Class A should also be halfway-decent in some situations outside its main area of expertise.

And of course, since D&D is firstmost a combat-oriented game (with plenty of roleplay and such though in some groups, like my main group), every class should be able to contribute in some meaningful way to a battle. Not necessarily a major contribution, not necessarily a constant contribution (getting in one or two good hits against a key opponent, then keeping a mook or two busy the rest of the fight, would suffice).

 

[JohnSnow]

But isn't that what a "defender" role is suppose to be good at?

Yeah. That and hopefully getting creative ways to whack the monsters dead.

It's not strictly that the 3e fighter is underpowered (although he is) so much as that playing one is boring. Mostly, it boils down to: Move and attack. Full attack. Repeat ad nauseam.

 

[Counterspin]

I'd like to vote for "All Classes should be roughly equally useful both in combat, and out of combat (two discrete comparisons)"

 

[Fenes]

I'd like to vote for "All Classes should be roughly equally useful both in combat, and out of combat (two discrete comparisons)"

Yes.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd like to vote for "All Classes should be roughly equally useful both in combat, and out of combat (two discrete comparisons)"

I'd like to vote against that, and instead vote for "All classes should be about equally useful overall on a campaign-length scale". Trying to make every class equally useful both in combat and out of combat is what's leading to so much of the non-realistic design we're seeing. But if combat is just seen as part of the whole, and a class less useful in combat becomes more useful out of it (and gains ExP for such), what's the problem?

Lanefan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I lean towards R/P/S, I took the 3rd option.

My experience in having fun in 70+ systems in 30 years is that even in the most objectively balanced systems, like GURPS or HERO, some players will be able to play the system like Jimi Hendrix played guitar while others will struggle to pluck out an identifiable "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star." I've also seen systems with radically unbalanced classes, like RIFTS (is there a greater disparity than that between the Glitterboy and the Vagabond?), in which good players have as much fun as anyone else, despite playing a "suboptimal" PC.

From non-RPG games like M:tG, I've also learned that serial dominance does not equal balance.

The fun in the RPG game lies in cooperative storytelling. If you think a class underpowered in combat and you dislike that, don't play one- find another class that fits your playstyle. Don't criticize a rogue for not being a fighter's equal in combat, or a wizard for not being a cleric's equal in healing.

As for utility in or out of combat...for me, its as much a wash as anything else. As a player or GM, I've no problem with PCs that blend their party role and those that are corner cases (pure combat monsters and paper tigers).

 

[Victim]

Or in truth does it really not matter ? Even the simplest of campaigns are never balanced, they always tend to favor one class over another. More traps on average than WoTC used when balancing and Rogue are the new golden boys. Higher proportion of magically resistant creatures, thanks for playing wizard maybe next time.

Really? Lots of traps may make a rogue invaluable to the group, but how does that make the rogue good in its own right? The rogue is generally the one taking the lion's share of the risk as far as traps go, and (IMO) dealing with traps isn't fun. Having a rogue is a great is a great way to handle traps - as long as someone else is the rogue.

GURPS and HERO are objectively balanced? I don't have much experience with GURPS, but HERO basically requires heavy GM involvement in creating characters and has many instances where point costs aren't really balanced.