Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[billd91]

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?

Why does your contribution, after that sleep spell, have to be unique?

 

[Hussar]

Why does your contribution, after that sleep spell, have to be unique?

Well, there's a couple of points here.

1. Sorry to answer a question with a question, but, how do you explain every subsequent edition of D&D giving casters more spells up front if it's not a recognition that spending the first three levels sitting on your hands is boring? 2e gives us specialist wizards with significant more spells per day and 3e gives us even more spells per day with options for taking it through the roof. Why?

2. I have a choice of class when I create a character. Partially I choose a class because I want to play that class. I play a fighter to hit things with lumpy metal bits. I play a thief/rogue to sneak around and find traps. And, I think rather unsurprisingly, I play a wizard to cast spells. I don't play classes to be a commoner 90% of the time for the first several weeks of play.

When I did play AD&D (either 1e or 2e), if I played a wizard, I almost never played a single classed character because it was boring. Cleric? No problem. Heck, other than cure light wounds, I'm probably not casting any spells at all for the first three levels. But a wizard? Nope. Played tons of wizard/clerics or wizard/thief, but straight wizard? Snore. No thanks. I'd rather play a class that lets me contribute to the game as that class most of the time.

 

[Trance-Zg]

If we have classes that are equally balanced around the 3 pillars and have more ore less equal amount of spell/powers and feats and same inpact on combat then we have character that are:

1st one: blue circle that fires out blue square that deals blue triangle amount of damage.

2nd one: red circle that fires out red square that deals red triangle amount of damage.

3rd one: green circle that fires out green square that deals green triangle amount of damage.

...

feel free to add more colors if you like.



If you want to say it differently: BOOOOORING!

Admin here. This post isn't a problem, but it seems like a fantastic opportunity to mention that edition warring in XP comments is still edition warring, and will be dealt with accordingly. Don't use it for such, please. - Piratecat

 

[billd91]

Well, there's a couple of points here.

1. Sorry to answer a question with a question, but, how do you explain every subsequent edition of D&D giving casters more spells up front if it's not a recognition that spending the first three levels sitting on your hands is boring? 2e gives us specialist wizards with significant more spells per day and 3e gives us even more spells per day with options for taking it through the roof. Why?

But none of those spell resources are infinite either. The 1st level specialist in 2e has, what?, one more spell before being in the same "useless" state. 3e's wizard may have a bonus spell by intelligence and a few cantrips. Again, still not infinite and still only useless if the player puts himself in that category.

So why increase spellcasting resources? Because the market seems to demand it, which still doesn't indicate that the spellcaster is useless without the spells.

2. I have a choice of class when I create a character. Partially I choose a class because I want to play that class. I play a fighter to hit things with lumpy metal bits. I play a thief/rogue to sneak around and find traps. And, I think rather unsurprisingly, I play a wizard to cast spells. I don't play classes to be a commoner 90% of the time for the first several weeks of play.

When I did play AD&D (either 1e or 2e), if I played a wizard, I almost never played a single classed character because it was boring. Cleric? No problem. Heck, other than cure light wounds, I'm probably not casting any spells at all for the first three levels. But a wizard? Nope. Played tons of wizard/clerics or wizard/thief, but straight wizard? Snore. No thanks. I'd rather play a class that lets me contribute to the game as that class most of the time.

So why should your preferences be an indictment of the system rather than an indictment of your tendency to keep playing a system that doesn't work for you?

 

[Herschel]

But none of those spell resources are infinite either. The 1st level specialist in 2e has, what?, one more spell before being in the same "useless" state. 3e's wizard may have a bonus spell by intelligence and a few cantrips. Again, still not infinite and still only useless if the player puts himself in that category.

The point is, no character should be useless for a large chunk of the game. If you're just tossing darts and saving your spell, that's still useless, just useless with potential to serve a purpose at some point. And when you get to the powerful levels, then non-casters become useless most of the time.

So why increase spellcasting resources? Because the market seems to demand it, which still doesn't indicate that the spellcaster is useless without the spells.

This is illogical. The market demands more spellcasting resources because low-level casters are not fun without them. If they were, there would be no demand for more. Cause & Effect.

 

[Remathilis]

When I did play AD&D (either 1e or 2e), if I played a wizard, I almost never played a single classed character because it was boring. Cleric? No problem. Heck, other than cure light wounds, I'm probably not casting any spells at all for the first three levels. But a wizard? Nope. Played tons of wizard/clerics or wizard/thief, but straight wizard? Snore. No thanks. I'd rather play a class that lets me contribute to the game as that class most of the time.

Funny, I learned the same lesson with 2e thieves. Since there was rarely a point to playing one beyond 9th level, I found pairing them with mage or fighter made a lot of sense. In fact, I enjoyed my mage/thief more than I did my longstanding single class thief.

 

[pemerton]

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 why shouldn't this apply in reverse, then? If the party has no PC thief, why should they not just be avoiding locked doors and trapped rooms, or alternatively sucking up the traps and having the cleric heal, or alternatively hiring a thief henchman? Why the need for a Knock or Find Traps spell?

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.

And isn't this where the balance issue lies? If the answer is "do it with magic", then PC classes who can use magic (ie wizards and clerics) will always have an advantage. No doubt such a game is viable, but as Ars Magica recognises, it shouldn't be presented as one in which non-magic-users are equally viable PCs.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well, 1e has a barrel full of its own issues. Class balance is a joke. The high level casters still completely crush the low level casters. Heck, if you need proof, you only have to look at the high level AD&D modules. In high level AD&D modules, the fighter types typically lose 2 "plusses" from their items. The casters have a three page list of nerfs stripping their spell lists.

Never mind the other side where the wizard player is sitting in the corner twiddling his thumbs for three levels before he actually gets to contribute to the game regularly.

Yes, 3e has issues, but, 1e has issues equally as serious and pernicious.

If pushing buttons from a character sheet are the limitations of your definition of contributing to the game then I think you are missing something. It is a common misconception that goes hand in hand with equating the game to the RAW.

I have played 1E fighters and contributed to the game while not fighting, played clerics that contributed to the game while not fighting, casting spells, or turning undead, played thieves that contributed while not fighting, or trapfinding, or sneaking, and played wizards who contributed without fighting or casting.

All these codified things that characters do as outlined in the rules are just that, mechanically codified activities. If that were the entire experience of play I don't believe OD&D would have gotten off the ground.

Some feel the need to be constantly manipulating some mechanic or rolling dice to feel as if their contribution to a session is meaningful. Only through rules interaction do they feel important. I am sad for them.

 

[DracoDruid]

Hello and greetings from germany.

While I like Pathfinder and understand that combat is an essential part of D&D (bin there since AD&D), I REALLY don't like this ongoing trend that every class get's reduced to its combat value/abilities.

Take a look at the PF Universalist Wizard: 1st level ability "Flying Weapon"?! WTF?
That's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever seen. Really.

Or the Bard, who's pinacle ability is to *drum-roll*... RIGHT! Kill someone.
It's a bard for Tyr's sake! So let him be a bard swaying the masses not some doofus guy SINGING(!) in combat!
(That last part goes to all D&D)

Okay, after rampaging over PF, I'll get back to my point:

"Don't reduce all classes to their combat role!"

If you talk about balance, don't reduce it to combat balance. If you want to be great in combat play a fighter, if you want to be GREAT in manipulating people, play a bard!

A thief/rogue is a thief, not a battle-assassin (well, maybe not at first). The bard is a master of the word/story, not a battle-chanter, the cleric/priest should inflame the masses, not be a walking band-aid, the wizard should delve deep into the mysteries of the universe, not flung empowered fireballs around...

The exception to this are of course the warrior classes: namely fighter and barbarian. But in case of the fighter, they (D&D3) just messed up. Some additional feats and that's it?
(PF did some good here, but still not enough)

The fighter should be the one who REALLY controls the battlefield. Using tactics to spoil the attempts of their enemies, pinpointing weaknesses, holding ground against overwhelming numbers...
(Mechanic hints: changing his feats in combat, uncanny dodge, delaying action but acting before the triggering action, identifying monster types and vulnerabilities...)

So. Balance? Yes!
But please balance in an overall game sense, and not just combat balance.

 

[Sadras]

From the last few posts I think the main problem of this class-balancing stems mostly from bad bad DMing. Lets face it, we all have difference experiences - and the main reason for this is the DM, not the player's handbooks.
Sure combat generally plays a major role in D&D and it overshadows a lot of the roleplaying and exploration aspect a lot of the time, especially when we were in our youth playing the older editions - but as we grow older, more roleplaying savvy, we explore the other aspects of the game.

If your roleplaying group is all about combat - then sure class balance and a wizard with more spells is probably best for you - hence you push for class-balancing during combat, which is understandable. BUT the game was not meant to be only/mostly combat. That is a style of play, not the only style of play.

Perhaps the new iteration will cater to those that wish to have a combat orientated group verses a mix. Not everyone wants class-balancing during combat. I believe it should be addressed in a large way within the DMG - defining the different styles of play and how it would affect the classes and if adjustments to the classes would be required to ensure enjoyment for all.

Summary - this class-balancing need/issue stems from style of play from the group/DM not from necessarily from poor class design as there are plenty of ppl playing older editions without any problems.