Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[Doug McCrae]

You know well in advance the various power levels of OCCs and RCCs. It's not like you choose a Vagabond while someone chooses a Holy Terror and you become jealous because you aren't a giant suit of armor with cool abilities.

Yes, you're right, it's pretty obvious.

If power was all that matter then wouldn't almost all games be comprised of the same classes?

That's been a problem in many rpgs I've played, a lot of the less powerful options never get picked, which severely restricts the amount of usable content in the books. When we played Rifts, for example, no one ever chose any of the 'Scholars and Adventurers' OCCs, such as the Vagabond.

It depends on how much a group plays rpgs 'to win'.

 

[Arlough]

I want to discuss RIFTS for a moment seeing as I am a long time player.

RIFTS is a game about choice, it's not about who can piss the farthest. If you want to play a Glitterboy who can blow things away from a mile out then you can, if you want to play a Vagabond who lives by his wits it's there as well.

You know well in advance the various power levels of OCCs and RCCs. It's not like you choose a Vagabond while someone chooses a Holy Terror and you become jealous because you aren't a giant suit of armor with cool abilities. If that is the character you want to play then then play it. The same goes for any game really. If power was all that matter then wouldn't almost all games be comprised of the same classes?

But, as has been explained before, those games make no guff about letting the player know that the pleb is the weaker choice. That, if you are playing a pleb, your contribution will be in the freeforming and the such, kinda like .
Also, the better books will state outright that thee type of game being played, in those circumstances, should be discussed upfront so if it is a combat heavy campaign I, the guy who chose the pleb for roleplay reasons isn't left out in the cold when there is very little roleplay.

Traditionally, D&D has been called a roleplaying game, but has been more of a fantasy combat and trial game. The classic dungeon crawl does not have much in the way of rollplaying, but it dies have combats as well as trials (usually in the form of traps and riddles.) Thus, traditionally, pleb classes have been a trap as there is predominantly conflict resolution.
Also, traditionally, D&D has not expressed that X class is better and X class is worse. It was always up to the players to discover that, usually painfully.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes, you're right, it's pretty obvious.

And that's one of the biggest issues with D&D class balance, its not obvious that X class is weaker than Y class, especially when a wizard may start out weaker and end up stronger. Without a high level of system mastery, there's no way for most players to know this. Su

It depends on how much a group plays rpgs 'to win'.

I never liked this expression, because it sounds like the reverse is that people play the game to lose. Which simply doesn't make sense. I think most players play Amy game with the intent to succeed. I think most DMs would rather see their party succeed than see them fail. Failure can create interesting outcomes as much as success can, but is often handled very poorly compared to success.

I would wager that most players want to play a character who succeeds. Succeeds at what they want their character troped to be, succeeds at challenges before them, and succeeds at being fun to play. A character who is 1st level (either in terms of power or literally 1st level), in a 15th level party is unlikely to reach those goals. And that's a problem. If two classes are off by 10-15% power at the same level, this is workable, variance in the game will likely make this difference unnoticable. But if one class is 200x better than another, or one class is 1000x worse, then this will lead to the latter being a non-viable character.

All games should strive to avoid non-viable choices. Significantly different levels of power can be viable, but it is a much more careful thing to balance.

 

[Hussar]

JC - It's not so much that I'm against the idea of a 1st level character contributing meaningfully, I've just never played a leveless level based game. Which, looking at what you're talking about here, is what you play.

If your 15th level party is doing pretty much the exact same things that they would be doing at 5th level, again, what's the point of levels? Steal the MacGuffin from the mundane castle isn't something I would expect a 15th level party to be doing. After all, if the 1st level character is capable of realistically providing vital information, can reliably provide bonuses through aid another (since you did mention that rolls are required) and whatnot, what exactly does a 15th level party need to do?

To me, a 15th level party is assaulting the abyss, not some mundane castle guarded by mundane, regular soldiers.

Like I said, you've basically created a leveless, leveled fantasy game. There is no signficant difference between high and low level.

Which is great, but, I'm not quite sure how this relates to D&D.

 

[Hussar]

I want to discuss RIFTS for a moment seeing as I am a long time player.

RIFTS is a game about choice, it's not about who can piss the farthest. If you want to play a Glitterboy who can blow things away from a mile out then you can, if you want to play a Vagabond who lives by his wits it's there as well.

You know well in advance the various power levels of OCCs and RCCs. It's not like you choose a Vagabond while someone chooses a Holy Terror and you become jealous because you aren't a giant suit of armor with cool abilities. If that is the character you want to play then then play it. The same goes for any game really. If power was all that matter then wouldn't almost all games be comprised of the same classes?

And what is one of the biggest criticisms of RIFTS? Class balance being so far out of whack that it's ludicrous. Holding up RIFTS as an example of good game design (as opposed to FANTASTIC flavour) is kinda like holding up a DeLorian as good car design.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

And what is one of the biggest criticisms of RIFTS? Class balance being so far out of whack that it's ludicrous. Holding up RIFTS as an example of good game design (as opposed to FANTASTIC flavour) is kinda like holding up a DeLorian as good car design.

The game was never intended for balance, it was intended, and succeeded, at being fun.

 

[JamesonCourage]

JC - It's not so much that I'm against the idea of a 1st level character contributing meaningfully, I've just never played a leveless level based game. Which, looking at what you're talking about here, is what you play.

It's got levels, they're just called "hit die" instead. It is classless, if that's what you meant (not trying to be snippy or anything, just trying to clarify if that's what you meant, or if you meant something else by "leveless level based game").

If your 15th level party is doing pretty much the exact same things that they would be doing at 5th level, again, what's the point of levels? Steal the MacGuffin from the mundane castle isn't something I would expect a 15th level party to be doing. After all, if the 1st level character is capable of realistically providing vital information, can reliably provide bonuses through aid another (since you did mention that rolls are required) and whatnot, what exactly does a 15th level party need to do?

Well, I wouldn't expect a 5th level party to plan an ambush against a group of warriors, especially ones with powerful creatures guarding magical items. Perhaps arrange for some sort of trade, or bluffing their way in, or maybe trying to sneak their way in. The level 15 party, however, just decided to jump the group, take the leader hostage, grab the item, and run before they could be found. I wouldn't expect a 5th level party in my game to accomplish that against the foes they did it to.

You may not want "15th level characters" to be storming a mundane castle, but "15th level character" is just a metagame term that's being used. To you, that's in the middle of the Paragon Tier. In my RPG, first level is not the beginning of you being a Hero (Heroic Tier), nor is it assumed to be the case. The core assumptions of my RPG and 4e (or 3.X, or 2e, etc.) are pretty different. My RPG is generally less powerful. It can peak higher, but it's not assumed that you'll become mythic just based on "level" or anything.

You want a system where the metagame phrase "15th level character" also has the connotations of surpassing mundane castles. I don't want any hit die capable of just bypassing that sort of challenge inherently. Perhaps certain builds, maybe around hit die 20, but they'd be lacking in other areas.

But, while it's just a preference difference, it seems to be the root cause of our impasse. To you, it must seem weird to have a level 1 (just starting out as a Hero) be able to help level 15s (well into Paragon, far and above "mundane" obstacles like castles). But, your "level 15 character" assumption is not mine.

And, perhaps, that's what I'm saying can change in 5e. The default assumption that you become mythic and level 1 characters can't contribute doesn't need to occur (this goes for both magicians and warriors, not to mention other common concepts). Will it turn out this way? It looks mixed. On the one hand you have flatter math, which can certainly help a level 1 stay relevant. On the other hand, you have design goals that include Fighters gaining "mythic" levels of power (a "mundane but not mundane" situation going on). So, we'll have to wait and see.

To me, a 15th level party is assaulting the abyss, not some mundane castle guarded by mundane, regular soldiers.

Like I said, you've basically created a leveless, leveled fantasy game. There is no signficant difference between high and low level.

I think I see what you're getting at, here. It's mistaken, but that's probably more due to unfamiliarity with my system than any sort of insult. At hit die 5, you're just about a normal soldier. You go up against two professional soldiers, you're in a very bad situation. You go up against ten, and you're almost certainly dead. At hit die 15, you're very far above a normal soldier. You can take on two professional soldiers with little risk, or go up against ten with the odds well on your side (if you're built to take on groups of men, through Whirling Movement combat maneuvers, the Adaptive Style feat, Improved Deflect Arrows, and the like).

The bodyguard and the warrior in my hit die 15 party could probably take on ten professional soldiers each with little worry (both capable of taking on groups), where a hit die 5 warrior would get overwhelmed and be bested. A hit die 5 magician is capable of some nice things (conjuring food and water, and the like), but the hit die 15 magician is capable of instantaneously conjuring a 5-room stone house.

Capabilities are going to vary, obviously, but to say that everyone at low hit die is capable of doing what everyone else at higher hit die is able to do is just showing a certain blatant ignorance of my RPG (and understandably so). The higher hit die you are, the more you can invest in the depth of your concept. A hit die 5 warrior is good (he'd stomp most people in the street), but he's about on par with any other professional soldier who has seen some action; a hit die 15 warrior, on the other hand, can reliably walk into a barracks and cleave down five men, grab another guy to use as a shield and hostage once he's surrounded, and then continue his mayhem.

It's a matter of depth, and that's what being higher level brings. Hit die 5 is "I can fight better than most people"; hit die 15 is "I can fight better than all but the champions of nations and the best wandering swordsmen". Hit die 5 is "I'm a capable and helpful magician"; hit die 15 is "I can perform feats of magical prowess that are rarely seen, and can only be duplicated by archmages."

The same, of course, is true for skills, too. I can help out with Knowledge at hit die 1, but a hit die 15 sage is a fountain of useful and relevant information. A hit die 1 hunter can provide food for people and navigate the wilderness, but a hit die 15 can gather food and herbs in a desert in the summer for a group of people without slowing down. And so on, and so on.

I really hope that clears up what part levels play in my RPG.

(As a side note, I think you're also talking about what threats you go up against. Sure, you can take on 10 guys now, but they're still mundane soldiers, right? Yes, that's true. Well, you can also create creatures in a way that pretty much negate lower level creatures, if they're built to do so. Add high damage reduction, spell resistance, and the like, and boom! Balor, dragon, or some other monster than low hit die creatures can't deal with, but high hit die creatures can. If you want to move to new realms as you level up, then introduce magic items like "gate stones" or something to allow that movement, and have the party encounter bigger threats. You're describing a style of play that has more to do with preference than mechanics in my game, since it can cater to mundane threats or "big threats only powerful creatures can deal with" at higher level. As far as other mechanical differences, see above.)

Which is great, but, I'm not quite sure how this relates to D&D.

It relates to game theory and what's in store for 5e. People claiming "a level 1 cannot meaningfully contribute to a level 15" are mistaken, in my mind. They can contribute, and it doesn't even need to be how I handled things (by toning down power, more or less; though to be fair, there was that PC in my game recently who was capable of wrestling dragons...).

That is, you can make a game where a level 1 character can make checks even on a gonzo scale (closer to 4e's default tiers) from level 1, allowing them to drive the story forward, especially if the math if flatter (as they've said they intend 5e to be) and the gap between a skill roll at level 1 and level 15 isn't vast.

So, how do my posts relate to D&D? I'm making a point about level 1s contributing (disagreement that level 1s can't contribute) based on game theory backed up by actual play experiences (references to my RPG), and how that might play into 5e based on what the designers have said (flatter math). In essence, like I've said before (and re-quoted a few times in this thread):

I do know that -as I told pemerton- from a game theory perspective, level 1's consistently meaningfully contributing can be true for a level-based system, even with escalating level-dependent skills. Was it historically true in D&D? Probably not as much. Does that need to hold true for 5e? Definitely not. And thus my point.

So, there you are. That's how it's relevant, and what "my point" is. As always, play what you like

 

[B.T.]

Saying that a 1HD character can contribute meaningfully to combat by using Aid Another is somewhat...disingenuous. Okay, you've applied a whopping p) +5 bonus to an attack roll or damage roll. That's very, ahem, well, you've contributed in some way that wasn't totally laughable.

Now it's time for the bad guys to act. What's your AC? 15? 20? Even the most min-maxed builds are going to top the scales at around 25 at first level (unless you're wielding a bunch of magical equipment). At which point, you're going to get hit by a stray arrow or spell or sword and die instantly. Best case scenario, the bad guy rolls low and you survive two rounds rather than one.

Not really contributing meaningfully, as I see it. We can pretend that the level one character is going to be really important, but let's be completely honest here: that 1 HD would-be commoner only matters in the way that Dawn mattered on Buffy, and that was because Joss Whedon wrote the plot around her. And I'll be honest, I feel a little dirty and ultranerdy for making a Buffy reference.

 

[Hussar]

And we're right back where we were with the "Falling Damage" thread. You want a flatter game where high level characters are still essentially just better than low level characters. Your idea of a high level character can take on ten soldiers and win.

My idea of a high level character is one that can take on ten thousand soldiers and win. Ok, that's hyperbole. But certainly a heck of a lot more than ten. I want high level characters that are truly mythic. A fifteenth level party facing a largely mundane castle guarded by low level soldiers blows open the front door, rips the heads off of anything that stands in their way and kicks the dog on the way out.

Because, to me, a high level party is challenging gods. Or, if not gods, then certainly powerful unique beings that are close enough to gods to see divinity on a clear day. It's Queen of the Demonweb Pits, it's Isle of the Ape (where in the first encounter, you're intended to wade through a couple of hundred axe wielding 1e Barbarians), it's the last three or four modules of any Paizo (3e D&D anyway) Adventure Path.

And, like we went through the last time with this, if you flatten the math to the point where it resembles your game, I'm left out in the cold. It takes a massive rewrite of D&D to get to the point of what you have. To the point where I'd pretty much say that whatever you're playing, it's not D&D (classless would be the first clue). It might be level based, but, just barely. It's closer to something like E6, where levels really don't matter a whole lot and the game is predicated on a campaign not radically changing from beginning to end.

But, rolling this back around to the OP and why do classes have to be balanced. I think this nicely encapsulates it. If you flatten the math to the point where 1st and 15th level are not significantly different, then you've balanced it one way - the campaign will not radically change through the entire campaign. OTOH, if you go the more traditional D&D route where play does radically change from one end of the scale to the other, then you have to make sure that balance is achieved at all points or it doesn't work.

 

[pemerton]

The default assumption that you become mythic and level 1 characters can't contribute doesn't need to occur (this goes for both magicians and warriors, not to mention other common concepts).

<snip>

At hit die 5, you're just about a normal soldier. You go up against two professional soldiers, you're in a very bad situation. You go up against ten, and you're almost certainly dead. At hit die 15, you're very far above a normal soldier. You can take on two professional soldiers with little risk, or go up against ten with the odds well on your side

My idea of a high level character is one that can take on ten thousand soldiers and win. Ok, that's hyperbole. But certainly a heck of a lot more than ten.

I GMed a 4e session yesterday for a party of 5 15th level PCs. The party was mostly out of dailies, having used them all (i) sneaking into a temple, and then (ii) having a big fight in said temple. Two of the PCs were suffering from mummy rot (healing restores only half hp), including the paladin (one of the two defenders in the party).

The PCs decided to leave the temple through the front door (where the hobgoblin army outside was trying to break into the temple in pursuit of them).

I had statted up the army as 4 17th level gargantuan hobgoblin phalanxes (each around 40 hobgoblins) plus 10 minion skirmishers and 30 minion rabble. At one stage, a 15th level Bane-ite angel of battle also turned up.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, at one stage the dwarven fighter was engaging two hobgoblin phalanxes (ie approx 80 skilled hobgoblin soldiers) on his own. At another stage the party sorcerer was dropping the rabble 3 at a time (CHA-based melee basic attack with dagger (from some sorcerer power I can't remember the name of), triggering his Flurry of Blows from his monk multi-class). The PC wizard was killed, but only because (i) he was knocked off his flying carpet by a flurry of spears from one phalanx, (ii) was cut down by more spears when he tried to cast a spell to escape the phalanx, and (iii) was then caught inside the angel's storm of blades.

I think this is closer to the sort of thing that Hussar has in mind as typical of 15th level D&D. And it is closer to my personal conception also - it's part of what distinguishes D&D from other fantasy RPGs (especially grittier ones like Rolemaster, or even moreso Runequest - and on this scale, I suspect Chivalry and Sorcery is closer to Runequest).

I will also add - count me in as one of those who doesn't regard "aid another" as signficant contribution. And no iteration of D&D has had a skill system robust enough in its action resolution mechanics to make a 1st level "skill guy" meaningful (by my standards) in what they contribute via their sage-iness, scouting etc. (Contrast eg Burning Wheel, which has a standard "linked test" mechanic for making those earlier skill checks matter significantly to the resolution of combat.)

As I've been saying in a few thread recently, I'll eat my hat if D&Dnext changes this significantly, given that it would require increasing the sophistication of skill-challenge style mechanics, rather than dropping them as has been suggested to be likely.