Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[pemerton]

My view is that a player who follows the character build rules, and who doesn't make any obviously sub-optimal choices (in D&D, this would be something like ignoring all the hints that a fighter should start with the best armour s/he can afford), should produce a PC that is as meaningfully able to participate in the game as any other PC.

How that actually cashes out is going to depend pretty heavily on what is meant by "the game".

If "the game" means overcoming challenges - especially combat challenges, but also perhaps social and exploratory challenges - then that is your measure of balance.

I recognise that, in some (many?) RPGs, "screen time" can be as significant to balance as ingame success - and hence mechanically weaker PCs can still be balanced in the relevant sense. But D&D has never really supported this idea, because at least historically it has had pretty narrow and brutal success conditions (kill and loot, or be killed and looted).

 

[Derren]

They don't have to do everything as well as each other. Classes need niches (which means spells like Knock aren't awesome.) But a player should be able to have roughly the same amount of fun and effectiveness in combat with any class.

Why treat combat different than non-combat here?
Instead of making everyone the same in combat, why not extend the "niche" system to include combat?

Fighter are good vs archers, strikers are good vs leaders, etc.

That way you don't have the problem of homogenization of combat powers where everyone does 3d6 + effect and its even more easy to tailor encounters to your group.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Many people complained about unbalanced classes in previous editions and expressed the hope that all classes will finally be balanced against each other.

But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?

Everyone should be the best there is at what they do. Balance means that the druid won't outfight the fighter. ("I have class features more powerful than your entire class"). And it means that the information presented about classes is accurate. Which means everyone gets to shine when they would expect to.

Balance is information.

I don't agree with the bolded part. Combat is one part of the game and some people enjoy excelling at other parts. All classes should have great competence in some part of the game, and that doesn't have to be combat.

...

At 5th level you had ONE memorized 3rd level spell and TWO second level. You decide to outshine your thief by choosing invisibility, knock, and fly.

So now you can fly around for a while, be invisible for a little while, and open a locked door. Because of your choices, you cannot cast rope trick, strength, or fireball.

If you want to summon a monster and use it to find a trap then you won't have it for a fight to protect you and it uses a spell slot you could have used for something else while letting the thief do his thing.

There was balance for magic users at one time but it was discarded as being unfun.

If you replace the thief at 5th level it takes most of your ability.

Now when you hit 9th level you replace the thief with those same three spells. And then you both have other spells and have 4th and 5th level spells. The thief is sitting in the corner fuming because not only have you replaced him, you still have some third level spells left over - and your fourth and fifth level spells with which to be a wizard. Yes you have less to cast rope trick or strength. But it's better than nothing and you've replaced the thief. Worse than that even if you don't, the thief knows you could - while still remaining an effective wizard.

And you use your first level spells for summon monster 1. Not much use in combat by that point - but still work as polish mine detectors every bit as effectively as higher level spells.

There was more balance in older editions. But Gygax has gone on record agreeing that the purpose of the Unearthed Arcana's seemingly overpowered fighter types was to attempt to improve balance between casters and non-casters. AD&D was not balanced. It just wasn't as screamingly badly balanced as 3.x (+2 spells each spell level and more control over your spells) with craft scroll as a freebie (for those little used spells), and craft wand.

 

[Sunseeker]

But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?

That's not balance.

Lets say that a class being fully capable is 100%.

What you describe is all classes being 33.3/33.3/33.3.

That's not what we want when we say "balance".

What we want is for all classes to reach ~100%. In previous editions, many classes only got to 70, or 80%. Some went to 125%.

If in the new edition, balance is ~100% +/-3 that's not bad, and even in some of the best games, that's a a very functional level of balance. However, if some classes are only getting to 75% and others are getting to 150%, that's not balance.

Sure, some classes might be better at certain things, they might be 70/20/10, or they might be 50/25/25. That's fine, both of these classes still reach that 100%, that "full potential" mark. That's balance, all classes reaching their full design potential when compared on the whole scope of the game. Rogues are more skilly and less combatty, wizards are more bursty, fighters are more steady, bards are very social, ect... There's noone running around 100/100/100, or 70/90/50.

Not everyone should be able to do everything, and that was exactly why some classes in previous editions were broken. Because some classes could do everything better than anyone else.

 

[triqui]

Many people complained about unbalanced classes in previous editions and expressed the hope that all classes will finally be balanced against each other.

But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?

First, you have a poor definition of balance. "doing everything as well as the others" is not balance, is homogenity. And classes do not need to be homogeneus.

Now, to answer your question: Because players shouldn't be punished for the trope they like or the kind of hero they want to represent. If someone preffer to be "like" Conan, or The Grey Mouse, or Lancelot, or Frodo, he should not be punished for it with an inferior (ie: unbalanced) character than some other who likes to be a "clone" of Raistlin or Gandalf. He should do things better, and things worse. But they should not be "inferior"

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

First, this thread was opened and lasted 50 or something pages. You may want to search and see the answers everyone gave last time.

Second, it's a matter of feeling important. Everyone likes to feel important in the game. It makes it feel like a team game.

Combat balance is important mostly because a large part of the game takes place there in the majority of tables. The idea is to make combat not look like this:

Fighter: "I attack the Orc and...miss."
Wizard: "I Fireball 30 Orcs. They can make a saving throw to take half damage of....39. They only have 18 hp? Well, they all die then regardless of their saving throw."
DM: "Alright, you got 30 of them, but the other 40 fire back in a huge volley of arrows equally spread out amongst the party. Each of you takes 10 attacks. They do 40 damage each."
Fighter: "Umm...that drops me."
Wizard: "I'm immune to arrows that are non-magical, I don't take damage."
Cleric: "I have a spell up to absorb the next 50 points of damage I take, it has 10 points left."
Druid: "Do they hit my AC in Half-Elemental Half-Golem Dragon form? It's 50."
DM: "Umm, sorry, no, none of them hit 50."
Druid: "Then I don't take damage either."

You especially don't want combat to look like this when you are running a dungeon crawl that mostly consists of "Open the door, fight a battle". Because 90% of the game is going to be in combat and during that time, each of the players should feel useful.

 

[the Jester]

Many people complained about unbalanced classes in previous editions and expressed the hope that all classes will finally be balanced against each other.

But, why do all classes in a RPG be able to do everything as well as all the others?

As others have said, that's a profound misunderstanding of what 'balance' means.

 

[Kannik]

Ultimately, the important thing is that there be balance between players. And that can be summed up as: each player should have equal right to claim that they are playing the protagonist of the story.

Must spread XP around and all that. This I think is a good way to put it -- so long as the players, on the whole and overall (ie not necessarily moment by moment), all feel excited, involved, engaged and useful throughout the adventure and a campaign's life then that is the "balance" I would aim for.

peace,

Kannik

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There's an art and a craft to getting sufficient balance of character options without sacrificing too much other stuff in the process. Any fool can write a bunch of unbalanced classes ... and often has. If I pay money for something, I generally prefer that it be better done than what I could do myself--even in my more foolish moments.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

They don't have to do everything as well as each other. Classes need niches (which means spells like Knock aren't awesome.) But a player should be able to have roughly the same amount of fun and effectiveness in combat with any class.

I want to hit on this for a moment. I really get tired of hearing the old "because of Knock my rogue is useless" excuse.

3rd edition and before actually had the crazy notion that player's would actually work together and DM's would actually have a backbone and keep their games in check.

Worried about your Wizard, how about remove the hundreds of magic shops in your games to limit the ease of spell gain, limit splat books to your approval etc...?

I don't know about you but when there was a rogue in the party I didn't bother taking Knock. I was happy to use that slot for something else, also since spells weren't around every corner I chose my 2 spells per level very carefully.

4th edition removed that freedom and made it seem like they didn't trust players to work together and DM's to keep their games in control.