Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[Neonchameleon]

In the game I play, a 7th level wizard has 10 spells for the day.

If that is "too much of a burden to ask of the average player"[] then I might suggest the "average player" not play a spellcaster.

Not really relevant to the conversation, sorry. Carry on.
--SD

You play 1e I think?

Using just PHB material a 3.5 level 7 wizard with Int 18 (which isn't too hard by that point) gets three L4 spells, four L3, five L2, and six L1. Oh, and four cantrips. At level 9 with an Int of 20 (again this isn't really a challenge) it becomes 3 L5, 4 L4, 5 L3, 6 L2, and 7L1, and four cantrips - or 29 spells. Thirty isn't much of an exaggeration. (Admittedly you're probably a diviner or have just dropped evocation and enchantment, but there's nothing unmissable there).

If using the Focussed Specialist from Complete Mage, your total goes up by a further one spell slot/level but you're fairly tightly tied to your school. Still, the ability to throw four spells of your highest level per day is scary.

30 spells at your fingertips might be a challenge by level 7, but isn't an exaggeration by level 9.

 

[Herschel]

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.

Another good example, just reversing low-levels vs. high levels.

When characters have such large "unfun" space, that's an issue in game design. You shouldn't have to multiclass to alleviate a long period of suck.

 

[Herschel]

Let's face it. Higher level wizards simply have too many spell slots. From a functional standpoint the repertoire of a level 7+ wizard is too much of a burden to ask of the average player and with 30+ spells at your finger tips each individual spell feels less important....


Here's what I'd like to see: Give all spell casters a reasonable number of spell slots (~15 at the high end), but make each spell count. Don't give spells levels. Learning a spell might have prerequisites including class level, and work on scaling spells so they stay relevant for longer. Plus make wizards more competent beyond casting so its okay for a spell caster not to Always Be Casting.

This is what the AEDU system did. At first level you got your cantrips, basic attack spells, one decent (Encounter) attack spell and one "big knocker" (Daily) as well as the ability to perform basic rituals. You gain attack spells as you level up (3,5,7,9) until you have three of each but after that, you swap out a lower-level spell because you learned something "better" now.

You get a couple of "signature spells" eventually through your paragon path and one via your epic destiny.

Using the same power structure for other classes gave them balance throughout as well where they were no longer boss at low-levels and useless at high levels as well as having cool things to do throughout.

It really is a great system.

 

[Remathilis]

Every class gains an advantage over other classes in certain situations, that is a part of the game design. It's not broken and it's not bad game design, it is what it is.

There is no difference in saying "The rogue overshadows my Wizard in this situation" and "In this situation, my rogue has it's chance to shine".

It's all about the context. We come up with scenario's where class X looks bad and scenario's where class X is awesome. This can be done with each and every class so it's not a proper argument as to the design of a system.

I think few people will argue this. The problem isn't "the wizard overshadowed the rogue when it came to deciphering that magical puzzle or even getting us all onto that ledge" but when "the wizard overshadowed my rogue which had max ranks in Open Lock by using a charge from his wand."

 

[Hussar]

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.

How is your 1e fighter contributing to the game outside of combat that has anything to do with his class? In what way is he contributing that you could not do in exactly the same way with any other character?

/edit to add You're also missing the point. It's not that you can't do things outside of your character's schtick. It's when your schtick only exists because one (or more) of the players at the table allows your schtick to exist. No, the wizard with a wand of knock isn't being a dick player when he overshadows the rogue. The rogue has a chance of failure. The wizard doesn't. Why wouldn't the wizard take over opening locks? He's the best at it. No, the wizard with Unseen Servant isn't being a dick for triggering every trap. He's defeating the traps in the safest manner possible. He's the best at it. Why wouldn't he do it? No the cleric burning a Divine Might spell isn't being a dick when he makes the fighter look like an amateur. He's playing his character. On and on and on.

Balance means that no single option is clearly better than all other options. Knock is better than Open Locks. It's balanced by being a much more limited resource. Only, that limitation can be very easily removed at very low levels. So, it's not balanced.

Oh, and, a bit of a rant.

I'm getting really tired of people doing the passive/agressive schtick of "Oh, you poor poor gamer, if you only knew how to play better, you'd be ok." Gimme a break. It's condescending and ridiculous. Sorry, you have zero idea what happens at my table and please, for the love of little fishes, stop projecting your own inadequacies on others.

 

[ExploderWizard]

How is your 1e fighter contributing to the game outside of combat that has anything to do with his class? In what way is he contributing that you could not do in exactly the same way with any other character?

He isn't. But then any other character wouldn't be him. Are your characters exactly the same if someone else played them? I certainly hope not because that would be admitting yourself as a useless meatbag that just rolls dice. A player adds quality to a character that you can't find recorded on the sheet.

/edit to add You're also missing the point. It's not that you can't do things outside of your character's schtick. It's when your schtick only exists because one (or more) of the players at the table allows your schtick to exist. No, the wizard with a wand of knock isn't being a dick player when he overshadows the rogue. The rogue has a chance of failure. The wizard doesn't. Why wouldn't the wizard take over opening locks? He's the best at it. No, the wizard with Unseen Servant isn't being a dick for triggering every trap. He's defeating the traps in the safest manner possible. He's the best at it. Why wouldn't he do it? No the cleric burning a Divine Might spell isn't being a dick when he makes the fighter look like an amateur. He's playing his character. On and on and on.

Nothing new here. 3E thought it knew better than all the old editions about how to balance for optimal fun. The results of this assertion can now be reflected upon and judged.

Balance means that no single option is clearly better than all other options. Knock is better than Open Locks. It's balanced by being a much more limited resource. Only, that limitation can be very easily removed at very low levels. So, it's not balanced.

Once again, 3E breaks at the most base of levels. Film at 11.

Oh, and, a bit of a rant.

I'm getting really tired of people doing the passive/agressive schtick of "Oh, you poor poor gamer, if you only knew how to play better, you'd be ok." Gimme a break. It's condescending and ridiculous. Sorry, you have zero idea what happens at my table and please, for the love of little fishes, stop projecting your own inadequacies on others.

Rant noted.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is EW, 1e is no better here. The fighter still gets owned by the higher level caster. The cleric is simply better than the fighter - his attacks are on par, he can use virtually the same weapons and armor, and with his spells, he can be a better combatant than the fighter. A single pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, a Girdle of Giant Strength or even a Manual of Gainful Exercise (to name a few) makes my cleric every bit as effective in combat as a fighter and he's still several times better out of combat (information gathering spells, movement spells, etc).

The wizard spends his first three or four levels warming the pines most of the time in combat since he cannot actually contribute to combat outside of a couple of rounds. Now, if your DM was nice, and let you pick spells, you got that all powerful Sleep spell, so you got to end a combat once or twice a day, but, again, in combat, you were down to chucking darts the rest of the time and missing more often than not.

Since 1e has very little in the way of conflict resolution outside of combat, you're more or less free-forming and class doesn't particularly matter. Want to bluff the guard? Talk it out ... aka freeforming. However, even here, the casters get an edge with various spells (charms being an obvious choice) that bypass the system.

I mean, isn't the whole point of 1e casters that you go from zero to fantastic cosmic power? If that's true, then what I'm saying has to be true - you spend a significant amount of time as a zero and then, on the other end, you've got fantastic cosmic power.

 

[Sunseeker]

Fortunately, D&D has never been like that. Oh, wait, you're using hyperbole to artificially inflate an argument. Carry on.

I don't know about you, but without some incredible houserules or running Pathfinder, this was the basic experience in 3.x. The caster could literally do everything anyone in the party could do, better, faster and more often.

 

[billd91]

I don't know about you, but without some incredible houserules or running Pathfinder, this was the basic experience in 3.x. The caster could literally do everything anyone in the party could do, better, faster and more often.

No. He couldn't. Really.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The problem is EW, 1e is no better here. The fighter still gets owned by the higher level caster. The cleric is simply better than the fighter - his attacks are on par, he can use virtually the same weapons and armor, and with his spells, he can be a better combatant than the fighter. A single pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, a Girdle of Giant Strength or even a Manual of Gainful Exercise (to name a few) makes my cleric every bit as effective in combat as a fighter and he's still several times better out of combat (information gathering spells, movement spells, etc).

The wizard spends his first three or four levels warming the pines most of the time in combat since he cannot actually contribute to combat outside of a couple of rounds. Now, if your DM was nice, and let you pick spells, you got that all powerful Sleep spell, so you got to end a combat once or twice a day, but, again, in combat, you were down to chucking darts the rest of the time and missing more often than not.

Since 1e has very little in the way of conflict resolution outside of combat, you're more or less free-forming and class doesn't particularly matter. Want to bluff the guard? Talk it out ... aka freeforming. However, even here, the casters get an edge with various spells (charms being an obvious choice) that bypass the system.

I mean, isn't the whole point of 1e casters that you go from zero to fantastic cosmic power? If that's true, then what I'm saying has to be true - you spend a significant amount of time as a zero and then, on the other end, you've got fantastic cosmic power.

Atacks on par? A level 9 fighter hits AC 0 on a 12 sans bonus. A level 9 cleric hits AC 0 on a 16. Sure we could assume the cleric has magic items to make this up that the fighter for some reason doesn't have access to but the cleric is still behind the fighter on the combat tables everything else being equal.

High level casters are very powerful but not without limitations. A level 9 magic user has 4 1st, 3 2nd, 3 3rd, 2 4th, and 1 5th level spell per day. These need to be carefully chosen to balance offensive, defensive, and misc. needs. If the MU decides to allot all spells to doing one thing for the day then he/she will be very weak in other areas.

Want to use charm to avoid negotiating with that NPC? Go for it but its a resource you won't have later.

Also certain magic items cannot be assumed to be freely available just because a character is at level X or has a certain amount of gold. Spells are also much easier to disrupt since a caster must declare them prior to initiative, cannot move, or even use a DEX bonus to boost his/her pitiful AC.


Oh but the caster has shield, protection from normal missiles, mirror image, etc.

Well yes, but these take valuable spell slots and don't last forever. If the rules are actually used then casters are not the unstoppable monstrocities that they are made out to be.