Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[Remathilis]

There is a few issues to consider when "balance" is addressed...

1.) Niche protection.

Quite simply; fighters are the best at fighting, thieves at sneaking, clerics and healing, wizards at nuking and stuff. If the proper spell selection or feat combo makes a wizard into a better thief or a cleric into a better fighter, you've got issues.

2.) "Subclasses" shouldn't strictly be better, just different.

A paladin shouldn't be "fighter + X". Nor should an assassin be a "thief + X". If the core classes are done well, then a ranger, barbarian, warlord, etc should be on par, not better, than the default four.

3.) Everyone needs something to do.

Boredom sets in when a character can't do something for an extended period of time. Fighters should be able to be keen observants and survivalists along with fighting. Rogues need to be able to hit in combat so they don't sit around useless through long fights. Just because your awesome at one thing doesn't mean you need to be useless elsewhere.

4.) Equality is worse than inequality.

4e failed IMHO by giving everyone roughly similar to-hit numbers, roughly the same amount of powers per day, roughly equal AC and Defenses, and roughly equal advancement. It made the classes roughly equal, and thus roughly forgettable. Classes need some inequality to create interest, and in a choice between samey and balance and unbalanced but fun, I'll take the latter.

 

[Piratecat]

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.

I didn't say (or at least mean) "useless." Certainly not useless - there are lots of other things that rogues can do superbly, including stealth, disarming traps and focused damage. That said, I will confirm that because of knock, in a 2e->3e->3.5e 16 year long campaign where I played a rogue and we had a second rogue NPC, we used the Open Locks skill fewer than 5 times once the PCs topped 4th level. It was useless because Knock was faster and safer. That spell is pretty much the poster child for niche infiltration, in the same way that 3e's divine power makes the cleric a better fighter than the fighter is.

 

[herrozerro]

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.

Imo the issue isnt that a dm could limit a caster. Its that casters were pretty much the only ones that ever needed it. I dont recall many "how do i limit my party fighter" threads.

Someone above mentioned the percentages some classes always falling around the 50% while others consistantly over the 100% mark. This is the issue. The mentality that because its magic it must be inheriently better then mundane.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Remathilis]

I didn't say (or at least mean) "useless." Certainly not useless - there are lots of other things that rogues can do superbly, including stealth, disarming traps and focused damage. That said, I will confirm that because of knock, in a 2e->3e->3.5e 16 year long campaign where I played a rogue and we had a second rogue NPC, we used the Open Locks skill fewer than 5 times once the PCs topped 4th level. It was useless because Knock was faster and safer. That spell is pretty much the poster child for niche infiltration, in the same way that 3e's divine power makes the cleric a better fighter than the fighter is.

Wands of Knock were a taboo discussion at our table. We kinda agreed that even though it made perfect sense for our wizard to make one, he didn't do it to give the rogue some face time.

That should not be. No class should be forced to tie one hand behind its back to give the "kid brother" class time to shine. Sure, when older D&D forced mages to use one of 4 possible 2nd level slots on knock, there was some trade off. When 3e's wands and scrolls aplenty happened, the limitation was gone. I never want to go back to thieves being "given a chance to shine" by the wizard, knowing full well that if he failed the mage could've solved it all along. No thank you.

 

[Anselyn]

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

See Ars Magica - Magi, Companions and Grogs in order of decreasing power or ability. (1987, Jonathan Tweet, Mark Rein-Hagen)

While D&D is "a RPG", it can't, or shouldn't, be used to represent all RPGs.

 

[Libramarian]

There's perceptual balance and mathematical balance.

For most people, balance seems to mean "each class has a niche" and "no class completely replaces another class". This is perceptual balance. Classes can be very unbalanced mathematically and still meet these goals.

When you're looking at balance mathematically, there is a strong tendency to overshoot perceptual balance. You underestimate the tolerance people have to a lack of balance, as long as it's fun.

It's like spending 10 minutes hanging a picture with a leveler. It doesn't matter. Unfortunately the DDN design team seems to be spending too much time noodling with levelers.

 

[dkyle]

That should not be. No class should be forced to tie one hand behind its back to give the "kid brother" class time to shine. Sure, when older D&D forced mages to use one of 4 possible 2nd level slots on knock, there was some trade off. When 3e's wands and scrolls aplenty happened, the limitation was gone. I never want to go back to thieves being "given a chance to shine" by the wizard, knowing full well that if he failed the mage could've solved it all along. No thank you.

Exactly. It's just plain degrading to know that another player could be playing more effectively (and more true to their character), but is deciding not to, to try to make you feel useful.

This is why, as one who enjoys powergaming and optimization, I like 4E much more than 3.5, even though 3.5 might seem like a powergamer's heaven. I could optimize 4E to my hearts content, and rarely feel like I was really impinging on the fun of anyone else at the table. Having tons and tons of options (as in 3.5) is only meaningful if they are balanced options.

 

[Libramarian]

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.

If by equal you mean that NO player has the right to claim they're playing the protagonist, OK. You shouldn't be automatically guaranteed to be the protagonist just for showing up, in D&D.

 

[dkyle]

If by equal you mean that NO player has the right to claim they're playing the protagonist, OK. You shouldn't be automatically guaranteed to be the protagonist just for showing up, in D&D.

OK, fine. Equal opportunity, through the mechanics of the game, to impact the story in ways that give them reasonable claim to being the protagonists of that story.

Obviously, if someone shows up, and does nothing, they have no right to claim anything. I'm talking about good-faith efforts at engaging in the game. I didn't think that needed specification.

 

[Kynn]

Because it's a game, and games are generally better when they're fair.

A game isn't fair if it presents, say, 6 options to players and half of them are really bad choices.