Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[pemerton]

They don't. As long as a class is fun to play and isn't rendered useless by another class, I don't see what the obsessive fuss is about that makes "balance" a central design goal to the point that it hurts other aspects of the game.

There's a certain amount of balance fetishism that suddenly appeared circa 2008 that I didn't see before and that I really don't understand.

As [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] said, there is extensive reference to balance by Gygax in the AD&D books. It is also called out as an important consideration in the Moldvay Basic rulebook.

My own view is that balance - conceived of as comparable mechanical effectiveness across the classes in contributing to typical scenarios and situations - was seen to be less important in a certain sort of 2nd ed play which downplayed the action resolution mechanics altogether for a mixture instead of freeforming and GM fiat.

Another feature of 2nd ed, and one sees it coming up also in this thread, is that the GM is said to have a special job to do in maintaining balance, by telling players how they may and may not build their PCs. In my view that sort of GM approach is not really viable in a game which expectes PC building to be a signficant element in the game - whether because part of the skill of playing the game is building an effective PC (this is a part of 4e, and I gather quite a big part of 3E for many people), or because part of the point of playing the game is for the player to control the PC and the PC's development (this player protagonism is a big part of 4e, and presumably a part of 3E too).

 

[Doug McCrae]

My own view is that balance - conceived of as comparable mechanical effectiveness across the classes in contributing to typical scenarios and situations - was seen to be less important in a certain sort of 2nd ed play which downplayed the action resolution mechanics altogether for a mixture instead of freeforming and GM fiat.

Yes, I think game balance has been a high priority throughout most of D&D's history, but was at its lowest ebb during 2e. Funnily enough, I think the word 'fetishism' applies better to the attitude towards wizards and elves in 2e, particularly in Forgotten Realms-related material.

 

[Drowbane]

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?

In short, they don't.

I played 2e for almost a decade and despite the fact that my players and I knew that casters were total badasses past a certain level, we never lacked for fighters and thieves (or fighter/thieves). And I kid you not, I once had half of one of my 2e groups whine at me because my fighter was showing up thier characters. A Bard, Wizard, and Druid. Yay for splat books (elf and fighter handbook was all that took ).

I have also played 3e off and on since 2000. My first 3e character was a dwarven barbarian / fighter. I have played 10* of of the 11 PHB classes at great length. I enjoy casters the most, but I am cool with rolling up a fighter or whatever if thats what the party needs.

*I do not play Bards.

edit: Gygaxian D&D was not "balanced" the way 4e fans explain "balance". Magic Users of a certain level were strictly better in nearly every way compared to their meat-shield companions... but those fighting men were still necessary and my groups never saw a lack of people who liked playing warriors.

 

[billd91]

And how does a party without a wizard fly? Or deploy artillery? How does a party without a cleric heal?

I've never understood why thieves and fighters should be substitutable by spellcasters, but not vice versa. Or to flip it around - if spell casters are essential, why not non-spell casters also?

How do they do it? With magical equipment on one hand. Boots of flying, flying carpets, rings of flying, winged cape, and a variety of other materials.

Also, don't forget the choices the PCs make. A party with no clerics and wizards should choose to engage in things suited for their abilities so substitution is less likely to be necessary in the first place. Alternatively, they can hire a cohort or henchman.

 

[billd91]

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], I think you are misunderstanding [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION].

You (billd91) said that a player who feels his/her low-level wizard PC can do nothing when out of spells is choosing to be useless.

Bluenose is saying: OK, by that standard a player who feels that his/her high level wizard will be able to contribute nothing if the fighter is just able to shrug of his/her spells is also presumably choosing to be useless.

Or, to put it another way: if your "choosing to be useless" claim is true, it follows that utility, for a wizard, is not a function of being able to use spells to achieve things. And Bluenose is pointing out that many players feel otherwise - not just Hussar, but all those complaining about a design in which high level fighters can shrug off a high level wizard's magic.

I don't see how those situations track as being a similar standard at all. The wizard in D&D, with one spell, has other options in combat and exploration. They may not be as suited for them as other types of PCs are, but that won't stop the wizard from making valuable contributions.

I'm going to reiterate that we need to know more about the situation of the fighter shrugging off the wizard's spells. Are they having any effect at all, just not an encounter-ending one? Could they but are failing to do so because the fighter's rolling hot on his saving throws? Or is this like casting charm person at a brick wall - something the wizard knows can't work yet he does it anyway?

If it's the last one, then he is pretty much choosing to be as useless as the wizard who hangs back and laments he can't do anything other than cast sleep once a day. But if it's either of the two previous options, then no he isn't choosing to be useless even if he isn't being particularly successful at stopping the fighter.

But again, this has nothing to do with looking at your single spell and concluding that there's nothing else you can do for the rest of the day.

 

[Drowbane]

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.

Knock (and other "niche replacing" spells) *is* awesome. However, it does not exist to replace the thief, it exists so that the mage can fill in when the thief doesn't show up. Mages who uses knock when the party has a locksmaster is just a jerk.

I always learn knock, but I rarely memorize it unless the group lacks a thief.

 

[Hussar]

How do they do it? With magical equipment on one hand. Boots of flying, flying carpets, rings of flying, winged cape, and a variety of other materials.

Also, don't forget the choices the PCs make. A party with no clerics and wizards should choose to engage in things suited for their abilities so substitution is less likely to be necessary in the first place. Alternatively, they can hire a cohort or henchman.

So, the solution to not having a given class is to bring in an NPC of that class? Well, that's one solution sure. But, it doesn't really address the idea that a given class is a necessity.

Balance, at least how I understand it, means that no given choice is inherently better than all other choices. Yes, in some circumstances, one choice might be better than another (in a ranged combat, having a ranged attack of some sort is an obviously better choice, but hardly unbalanced) but, overall, there should not be one choice that is just better.

2e two weapon fighting is my poster child for this. TWF in 2e was just flat out better than all other melee fighting styles. You doubled your attacks, which likely did more than double your average damage, at the cost of 1 point of AC and a couple of proficiencies. There was no other choice that could come close.

So, IME, in 2e, every character that could, took two weapon fighting. Why wouldn't you? Not doing it was deliberately playing with a handicap.

How does this apply to classes? Well, that's pretty obvious. If one class is just better (or worse) than other classes, then it becomes pretty obvious that chosing that class is a better idea. That's the whole point of the idea of the Tiered classes analysis. The casters are on top with everyone following.

Yes, in your group, you might have seen lots of fighters. Not everyone worries about it. True. But, it's still bad game design.

Let me put it this way. If I came to you and said that humans gain no bonuses. None. And, all other classes gain nothing but bonuses, would that be good game design? Why or why not? If balance doesn't matter, then you'd still see lots of humans being played wouldn't you?

Or, reverse it. All non-humans are now limited to 5th level. Humans can advance unlimited levels. Good design? Not likely. You're not likely to see a non-human PC. If you want everyone to be human, I suppose this is a good way to do it. But, generally, if you want a given option to be taken, it has to be at least in the same ballpark as other options.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

If it's the last one, then he is pretty much choosing to be as useless as the wizard who hangs back and laments he can't do anything other than cast sleep once a day. But if it's either of the two previous options, then no he isn't choosing to be useless even if he isn't being particularly successful at stopping the fighter.

But again, this has nothing to do with looking at your single spell and concluding that there's nothing else you can do for the rest of the day.

What can my wizard do after he has cast his one spell a day that no other character can do? I'm a 3rd level wizard, say. I've got 10 HP, a 8 AC and a bunch of darts and a THAC0 of 20. What am I actually contributing to the session after I've spent my three spells for the day? I can't hit anything. When I do hit, my damage is minimal. I have no talent that allows me to detect traps or anything like that. I can't meat shield.

So, what am I contributing that I couldn't be contributing with any other character?

 

[billd91]

So, the solution to not having a given class is to bring in an NPC of that class? Well, that's one solution sure. But, it doesn't really address the idea that a given class is a necessity.

The thing is, I'm not sure that's a real problem. It's a role playing game in which PCs have a lot of freedom to choose the lives they want to lead - or more accurately, the players have a lot of freedom to choose the way they want their PCs to live and make a living. Ultimately, I'm not sure it matters whether or not the healing duties are carried out by a PC or by a hired cohort, whether you hire a thief to pick your locks for you and otherwise bear your torches or those things are done by PCs.

My take on these sorts of things is play the characters you want to play. Choose to do the things you want to do. And if you're finding gaps in coverage while doing so, figure out how you want to fill them, avoid them, or endure them. If your style of play requires those duties to be filled by a PC, then realize that it's your style preference that puts that requirement on your and constrains your choices.

 

[Hussar]

The thing is, I'm not sure that's a real problem. It's a role playing game in which PCs have a lot of freedom to choose the lives they want to lead - or more accurately, the players have a lot of freedom to choose the way they want their PCs to live and make a living. Ultimately, I'm not sure it matters whether or not the healing duties are carried out by a PC or by a hired cohort, whether you hire a thief to pick your locks for you and otherwise bear your torches or those things are done by PCs.

My take on these sorts of things is play the characters you want to play. Choose to do the things you want to do. And if you're finding gaps in coverage while doing so, figure out how you want to fill them, avoid them, or endure them. If your style of play requires those duties to be filled by a PC, then realize that it's your style preference that puts that requirement on your and constrains your choices.

Or, conversely, play the characters you want to play, and don't penalize groups for not adhering to the single mode of play dictated by the mechanics. Allow enough flexibility to have your cake and eat it too.

IOW, why use the stick approach? If the group wants to be all rogues (for example), why shouldn't the mechanics support that instead of burying the group?