Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[pemerton]

There are games where the social contract is the balance. I'm just not sure D&D has ever been one of them.

Agreed.

And it's not just about D&D traditions or culture, in my view. It's about the mechanics. For example, in D&D "screen time" is almost always about overcoming some challenge, and D&D has no mechanics for overcoming challenges other than "do you best and hope you make it" - there is almost never an incentive not to bring your very highest numbers to bear, and the penalty for failure within the fction is typically failure at the metagame level also.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You say this as if this doesn't happen at every gaming table since day one.

Apparently not according to a few people here on these boards. They seem to be playing with people who make it their life's dream to try and make characters that step on the toes of other characters.

Every PC steps on the toes of another in way or another but no PC can do everything that another PC can do.

Some PC's out DPR other PC's all the time but we don't hear any complaints about that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Unless I've misunderstood, your system is functionally a version of E6. (But with escalating hit points?)

I'd say that this isn't an unfair comparison (can't XP yet). But there are certainly powerful effects that people can perform or achieve (probably significantly more powerful than E6 allows).

15th level PCs in D&D have Teleport Without Error, Limited Wish, Legend Lore, Commune, Vision (the old Illusionist spell), flying carpets, flying mounts, Plane Shift, Create Food and Water, Heroes' Feast, Control Weather, etc. When they need mundane gear they don't have they cast Fabricate or a Creation spell. They can cast Heal, Restoration and Regeneration when they get hurt.

Whereas the PCs in your game walk from place to place, are troubled by inclement weather, learn new things by talking to 1st level sages, and need Appraise skill to learn if there is work in a town. And can't magically neutralise poisons.

That's not a criticism of your game. (Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like it would play a little like Runequest.) But it is an expression of doubt that it tells us much about the balance between classes in 15th level D&D.

I did address this. This may not hold true for D&D historically, but it most certainly can be true for a level-based system, even with escalating level-dependent skills. Which was, really, my point. The universal statement of level 1's not being able to consistently meaningfully contribute to a party of level 15 PCs seems demonstrably untrue, to me, even if I have to cite my own RPG. And, I think that says something about game theory, especially considering how 5e seems to want to flatten the math (like I did in my game to some degree [attack bonuses of +19 around hit die 20]).

Has D&D been different? Yes. Does a system with levels necessitate this? Not at all. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

This may not hold true for D&D historically, but it most certainly can be true for a level-based system, even with escalating level-dependent skills.

<snip>

Does a system with levels necessitate this? Not at all.

I think, to be fair to Hussar et al, they had D&D in mind, where 15th level doesn't just mean more skill points, but more magic and general story oomph.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Apparently not according to a few people here on these boards. They seem to be playing with people who make it their life's dream to try and make characters that step on the toes of other characters.

No. I'm a person who often wants to play a wizard. And to me, my conception of a wizard fits one of several archetypes (battlefield artillery/evoker is not one of them).

The first and most obvious one is a trickster. Very illusion heavy, with some enchantment and shapeshifting thrown in for good measure. If this concept steps on the rogue's toes then I'm doing it right. It is basically a rogue backed with magic. There's nothing wrong with this concept - the fundamental problem arises that I make a better rogue than the rogue. I shouldn't - we should be complementary. It sucks that I do, for either the rogue, for me, or for us both.

The second, and possibly more obvious one, is the loremaster. An old wizard who knows about things, or even a young research wizard interested in learning about the world. Possibly specialises in divination magic (and if not certainly uses it). But ultimately what he specialises in is being prepared and knowing and having the right tool for the job. And this, to me, is the only excuse for "Vancian" casting - that it allows you and encourages you to prepare for the eventualities you are likely to meet that day. And it's called "playing a wizard to its best advantage" (which when you have a starting Int of 18 should be permissable). But it's spectacularly overpowered.

The third is the summoner. A classic form of magic - in some mythologies the only form of magic. Summoning creatures and bargaining with them to do your bidding. In 3.X, this is represented by the binder class - but in PF it's the Summoner. And as I've shown on this thread, the PF summoner when used even vaguely competently smashes the fighter of the same level. This should not be.

Now in 3.X, all these are overpowered concepts. They aren't chosen to be overpowered. Tricksters are fun. Loremasters are how I see wizards, and Summoners as I've described them are a fairly classic type of magic - and one who deservedly get a class of their own in Pathfinder. And all of them are meant to be intelligent (hell, it's the primary stat of wizards). But if I don't give them an in character lobotomy or an intentional large set of handicaps (both of which subtract from my enjoyment of the game and make me feel like I'm patronising everyone else at the table - because I am)

Because of the sheer unbalance of 3.X if I want to play a wizard using the wizard class I have two basic choices. Play a moron or be a jerk. I complain about how overpowered the wizard is and how useless the fighter is on message boards because I don't want to have this problem at the table itself.

Which do you want me to do? Not play some of my favourite fantasy archetypes despite the game encouraging me to? Lobotomise a character that's meant to be based on wits? Or be a jerk?

And if that is the choice you and the game designers are forcing on me, why do you consider this acceptable?

Edit: [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION], I don't know about [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. But I certainly see your list of things to do as more or less irrelevant by 15th in classic D&D level or things you hire people to do and certainly don't have them join the party. To illustrate the difference, you say "My PCs frequently visit sages, which might take days (if they need to travel to a city with a sage)," Now I have no problem with the PCs visiting sages. But taking days to get there? A 9th level party in 3.X/PF can travel 900 miles in the blink of an eye. And a 13th level party has no chance of failing to get there. If it's on another plane, it only needs two spells - plane shift before teleport. Your party might have 15HD but this doesn't make them the equivalent of a 3.X party. (And as for foraging, not a problem if you're just teleporting).

 

[Leatherhead]

What is going on in this thread?

If a wizard cast knock, invisibility, or charm person, or an illusion they are trivializing anyone who uses skill points like bards or rogues.
If a wizard summons a monster or casts a damage spell like fireball, they are trivializing the fighter or any other defender/striker person.
If the wizard casts fly, they trivialize melee characters.

So what, dare I ask, is a wizard supposed to cast? Furthermore, what is a wizard supposed to actually do for their party?

Why is everyone so hung up over niche protection now? I thought 4e killed the trends of spotlight balance, and with it the potential of "The Decker Problem."

 

[Grimmjow]

If a wizard summons a monster or casts a damage spell like fireball, they are trivializing the fighter or any other defender/striker person.

But they as wizards won't be able to stand in the front line as well as a fighter, and the monsters they summon will all have different problems within itself

 

[Neonchameleon]

What is going on in this thread?

If a wizard cast knock, invisibility, or charm person, or an illusion they are trivializing anyone who uses skill points like bards or rogues.
If a wizard summons a monster or casts a damage spell like fireball, they are trivializing the fighter or any other defender/striker person.
If the wizard casts fly, they trivialize melee characters.

I don't know of anyone who is saying that a 3.X caster casting direct damage evocations is trivialising the fighter. This is because a fighter is better at doing damage most of the time than a simple fireball - single target damage to drop foes is normally more effective than shared damage. And the fighter can do things in combat the evoker can't - like survive.

The problem with classic knock is that it makes the wizard better at one of the rogue's primary purposes than the rogue is. The rogue who decides to focus on lockpicking should always be better at lockpicking than the wizard who just decides to prepare a spell that morning. If the knock spell, instead of being automatic were to give an effective lockpicking skill equal to the caster level, with tools, then no one would complain. Spells like that would make the wizard into a jack of all trades, master of none (or master of a few things that only a wizard could do). It would still open locked doors. But you'd use it either because you didn't have a rogue or on the offchance you rolled better. No one is saying that Jack of All Trades is bad. The problem is the wizard being Master of Other Peoples' Trades.

And summoning wouldn't be a problem if the summons were significantly less powerful than the fighter. The problem is that they aren't. D3+1 Celestial Dire Tigers have more hit points than the fighter, do more damage, and cover a wider area. If instead of D3+1 Celestial Dire Tigers you were to get D3+1 Celestial Wolverines, you'd have the meatshield. Things underfoot that either do a little damage and clog up the enemy's mobility or force the enemy to divert attacks to destroy. But you wouldn't have summoned D3+1 creatures, each of which does a potential 140 points of damage per round to an evil foe without crits, assuming all attacks hit for average damage. Once again it's not about being a Jack of All Trades. The problem here is that the Summoner (and to a lesser extent the Wizard here) is Master of Other Peoples' Trades.

Does that help show you what's going on?

 

[Hussar]

Apparently not according to a few people here on these boards. They seem to be playing with people who make it their life's dream to try and make characters that step on the toes of other characters.

Every PC steps on the toes of another in way or another but no PC can do everything that another PC can do.

Some PC's out DPR other PC's all the time but we don't hear any complaints about that.

See, this is just not true. My wizard can do everything your rogue can do, can do it better and can do it more often. Not by being a dick or by abusing the rules, but by using the baseline mechanics in the PHB.

Now, do I do this? Nope, at least, not intentionally. I have stepped on the group's toes from time to time, simply by picking options that are easily available without realizing quite how powerful they can be and I've completely bypassed entire challenges the same way, but, not intentionally.

The problem is, the casters are SO powerful at higher levels that it's virtually impossible NOT to do it.

Again, it's not a case of players being dicks here. It's a major flaw in the system that is very easily exploitable. Sure, we could return to the days when a caster actually got to do something related to his class about 10% of the time, but, considering how much people complain about the nerfing of casters in 4e, I'm thinking that returning to AD&D levels isn't going to work either.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Furthermore, what is a wizard supposed to actually do for their party?

A class system must work as a whole, so it's impossible to answer that question without knowing what the other classes do. 3e classes are very flexible, for a class-based system, though caster flexibility is far greater due to the ability to switch spell loadout on a daily basis. But even rogues and fighters can vary quite a bit dependent on skill and feat selection.

In a tight class-based system with a high degree of niche protection, the wizard would not have anything like the range of spells they do in 1e to 3e. Even OD&D probably has too many. I can't say what a wizard would be. An AoE specialist? A sage? A diviner? Whatever it is, it should be what other classes are not.

Another method would be to allow any of these options and more for the wizard, but determined during character generation, so the wizard would be more like the sorcerer, or 3e fighter, or rogue.

There are many other possibilities. One could vary the number of areas in which each class can contribute and the degree to which they can contribute. If one put a value from 1-10, then a fighter might be combat 10; a bard social 5, information gathering 5; a rogue stealth 5, combat 5 and so forth. The problem is if you then introduce a wizard who can be combat 20 one day and information gathering 20 the next.

Or the wizard could be 'spiky', a nova class, contributing a high value in one encounter, and virtually nothing in another. This is, traditionally, what D&D has tried to do.

All approaches are problematic. In a game with high niche protection, what happens if the class that fills a niche is unpopular or unavailable for any reason? World of Warcraft suffers from this problem, with tanks and healers both essential for group PvE play, but far rarer than damage-dealers.

The 'valued niche' approach can fail if it puts the wrong value on a niche. Maybe combat is a rare occurrence in a particular campaign, making the fighter worth a lot less than anticipated.

The 15-minute day, the necessity of the traditional D&D dungeon, and player boredom, are obvious problems with the spiky wizard.