Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[Sunseeker]

A class system must work as a whole, so it's impossible to answer that question without knowing what the other classes do. 3e classes are very flexible, for a class-based system, though caster flexibility is far greater due to the ability to switch spell loadout on a daily basis. But even rogues and fighters can vary quite a bit dependent on skill and feat selection.

In a tight class-based system with a high degree of niche protection, the wizard would not have anything like the range of spells they do in 1e to 3e. Even OD&D probably has too many. I can't say what a wizard would be. An AoE specialist? A sage? A diviner? Whatever it is, it should be what other classes are not.

Another method would be to allow any of these options and more for the wizard, but determined during character generation, so the wizard would be more like the sorcerer, or 3e fighter, or rogue.

There are many other possibilities. One could vary the number of areas in which each class can contribute and the degree to which they can contribute. If one put a value from 1-10, then a fighter might be combat 10; a bard social 5, information gathering 5; a rogue stealth 5, combat 5 and so forth. The problem is if you then introduce a wizard who can be combat 20 one day, information gathering 20 the next, and so forth.

Or the wizard could be 'spiky', a nova class, contributing a high value in one encounter, and virtually nothing in another. This is, traditionally, what D&D has tried to do.

All approaches are problematic. In a game with high niche protection, what happens if the class that fills a niche is unpopular or unavailable for any reason? World of Warcraft suffers from this problem, with tanks and healers both essential for group PvE play, but far rarer than damage-dealers.

The 'valued niche' approach can fail if it puts the wrong value on a niche. Maybe combat is a rare occurence in a particular campaign, making the fighter worth a lot less than anticipated.

The 15-minute day, the necessity of the traditional D&D dungeon, and player boredom, are obvious problems with the spiky wizard.

In some games, the solution to utility was the Hybrid Tax. The more things you were capable of doing in a given moment, the lower the quality at which u did those things. So a Wizard who could only blast was very effective at it, while a wizard who could buff, blast, unlock, and sneak was less effective. Problematically D&D has always presented the Wizard as the utility man who could do anything, at any time, and be great at it. So, with a Vancian system on the way for DDN, WOTC will either have to scale down spells per day or establish some sort of system to restrict non-specialization.

 

[Doug McCrae]

So, with a Vancian system on the way for DDN, WOTC will either have to scale down spells per day or establish some sort of system to restrict non-specialization.

I think, post-1974 OD&D, D&D went in totally the wrong direction with caster spell lists. They got bigger and bigger when they really should've gotten smaller. The OD&D spell lists for the magic-user and cleric work reasonably well for a game with three classes, and set primarily in the mega-dungeon environment. As soon as the game started adding more and more classes, niches had to be given more protection, not less.

 

[Bluenose]

I think, post-1974 OD&D, D&D went in totally the wrong direction with caster spell lists. They got bigger and bigger when they really should've gotten smaller. The OD&D spell lists for the magic-user and cleric work reasonably well for a game with three classes, and set primarily in the mega-dungeon environment. As soon as the game started adding more and more classes, niches had to be given more protection, not less.

I think it would have been effective if they'd kept the magic-user/illusionist split from 1e and emphasised it, so there simply wouldn't have been a generalist wizard class able to learn any spells. Create a Mage class with a few "general" spells, including some divination and ways to protect yourself and your allies from magic (note, I mean magic, not weapons) as well as some way to break hostile spells. Then, require they go down a specialised path, such as illusion, enchantment, evocation, necromancy, whatever. That last would be where the bulk of the spells were. And with clerics, emphasise the specialist priest rather than the generic cleric.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Create a Mage class with a few "general" spells

That was part of Gary Gygax's plan for 2e AD&D wasn't it? I like your ideas, sort of '2e done right' with much tighter niches for casters.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think, to be fair to Hussar et al, they had D&D in mind, where 15th level doesn't just mean more skill points, but more magic and general story oomph.

Without snark, I think it's unfair to imply that skill points can't mechanically drive quite a bit of story weight. They sure do in my game, as you can see by that list of things that hit die 1 character could do. By players used skills to great effect last session, including one PC who did use Heal to diagnose the wounds that killed someone, amongst many other skill uses that drove the story forward (Negotiation, Survival, Appraise, etc.). Combat did occur last session, too, and the warriors/spellcasters contributed there as well (though the warriors did far more than the spellcasters).

But, once again, you can drive quite a bit of story forward if skills give you the tools to do so. Level 1 or otherwise. As always, play what you like

Edit: [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION], I don't know about [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. But I certainly see your list of things to do as more or less irrelevant by 15th in classic D&D level or things you hire people to do and certainly don't have them join the party.

Oh, sure, you can hire someone to do this for you. Or get an ally to help. No questions. If you are, though, then you're getting someone to do something for you that is contributing to the party. I was addressing whether or not it's possible for a level 1 PC to meaningfully contribute to a level 15 party, or if the level 1 is capable of "shining" in such an environment. Since we both seem to agree that those skills can be useful to that level 15 party, I think it's fair to say that the level 1 can meaningfully contribute, and even shine.

Because, if necessary, you can hire a high level Wizard to cast a spell for your Wizard-less party. That doesn't mean he doesn't contribute if he's a PC. Additionally, most of the time you don't have a level 1 in a level 15 party, so you probably would just hire someone to fulfill that role, and not have them join the party. However, in this hypothetical, it's "can they meaningfully contribute, and can they shine?" And to me, all signs point to "yes".

To illustrate the difference, you say "My PCs frequently visit sages, which might take days (if they need to travel to a city with a sage)," Now I have no problem with the PCs visiting sages. But taking days to get there? A 9th level party in 3.X/PF can travel 900 miles in the blink of an eye. And a 13th level party has no chance of failing to get there. If it's on another plane, it only needs two spells - plane shift before teleport. Your party might have 15HD but this doesn't make them the equivalent of a 3.X party. (And as for foraging, not a problem if you're just teleporting).

Whoa, when did this turn into me competing with a 3.X party? I loved 3.X, but I left it because it had a few problems I wanted to fix (including teleportation). I'm not trying to compete with the power of a 3.X party. I am saying that a level 1 can meaningfully contribute to a level 15 party, in game theory exercise, and that I'd even be able to do so in 3.X in many games. In all games? No. If it's too combat focused, I won't help at all. If they PCs are exceptionally broadly skilled, I won't really help at all.

But, from my personal experience, most PCs aren't playing Persistent-DDM Clerics, or Time-Stopping Shapechanging Wizards. Much of this has to do with level, and much of it has to do with levels of optimization in groups. However, most of the time, a party can always use an extra guy, even if he's that low level Bard who gives them that bardic knowledge that they'd have to go to lengths to learn about.

Is it possible for a level 1 to not contribute to a level 15? Oh, certainly. Easily. Is that always the case? No. No, not at all. I think I'd be able to meaningfully contribute to most parties as a level 1, but system does play into this. I think using 3.X is a mixed benchmark, as it had the most power out of the editions, as far as I can tell. It did have skills, though, and I often wielded those to great effect. Maybe it's just my group's style, I don't know.

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. As always, play what you like

 

[Steely_Dan]

Yup, when you don't have a cleric, a druid or a wizard in the party, the fighter and the rogue get to do okay.

Well there was still a Spirit Shaman in the party (in a campaign with a heavy fey theme); and I don't mean okay, some sick damage, the fighter had some prestige classes, sometimes it was shocking.

This everyone carried the cleric/druid/wizard's jockstrap in pre-4th Ed urban myth has gone on for too long, change the record.

 

[hanez]

Change the record indeed. Lots of moaning and groaning.

Talk about 15th level is odd considering thats just when most campaigns usually peter out anyways. I think D&D should get a lil wacky in the last few levels anyways. The fighters are commanding armys and the wizards are jumping planes, it seems like some people are just complaining that all the epicness isnt exactly the same from character to character. Last time I looked at a poll (source?) almost no one played level 15 and up anyways.

I agree with increasing balance, I think many people are raising legitimate issues that can and should be changed. But the sheer force of their argument (fighter equaling a commoner for example) is on a level that I can not agree with.

Lets not pretend that everyone played wizards and no one played fighters, lets not pretend that the wizard was killing all the npcs, picking all the doors, always flying and being invisible sneaking around to counter the rogue while he's summoning his own armies every encounter while the fighter watched. By and large this didn't and wasn't happening, although it makes for a good history rewrite on forums. Sure your l33t build was pretty overpowered, sure it was arguably more powerful then other characters. But it was largely remedied in most situations, by good dms, varied adventure designs, treasure, players who thinkin your a j-rk for using it and the existence of social conventions in a social game. Which is to say its not as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.

 

[hanez]

Originally Posted by Neonchameleon
Fine. If you think it's preposterous, show how it's preposterous. Show how, with just the abilities from his class (which are, after all, what separates him from a commoner) a level 15 Fighter is more useful than a choice of D3+1 Celestial (or fiendish) Dire Tigers, D4+2 Anklyosauri, or D4+2 Bralani Azata. What do you think he's actually contributing to the party? Damage? He's not doing the damage of three pouncing Celestial Dire Tigers, all at +14 damage for smite. Soak? He doesn't have the area coverage or total hit points of a herd of bison, never mind a herd of anklyosauri. Even the Dire Tigers each have 133 HP (allowing for Augment Summons).

Uh... thats quite a switch. You were the one comparing the 15th level fighter to a 1st level PC, so why should I have to compare him to another 15th level character (summoner). Want to compare the 15th level fighter to a 1st level PC instead? Don't remember saying that?

Originally Posted by Neonchameleon
The argument is that in a party with a wizard, a druid, and an artificer (or a wizard, a summoner, and a cleric in PF) the fighter is contributing little more than the 1st level PC would.

And do so without reference to spells cast on him please. Those are resources granted to him by other party members in order to make him relevant. Also magic items - most of them will be the proceeds from adventuring, which could be split with the commoner instead - or just go to the more useful people. Ignore them please.

I dont think thats a fair argument. Many magic items are useable only (or are best used by) by martial classes therefore they often go to the martial classes. The reason they use them best is because as you say it's an "ability of their class". As for the spells cast on him, we would have to compare casting the spells (haste, invisibility, fly etc) on a 15th level fighter VS a 1st level PC. That is the quote I was responding to.

 

[Neonchameleon]

By players used skills to great effect last session, including one PC who did use Heal to diagnose the wounds that killed someone,

Oh, you mean by DM Fiat. Heal has specific uses. Now using heal for forensic pathology is something I'd allow as DM. And allowing it was a good thing. But it's not the skills themselves driving the game forward.

Whoa, when did this turn into me competing with a 3.X party?

When you answered Hussar's challenge in this post. Hussar's challenge was:

Create a party of 15th level characters. Now, add a 1st level character to the party. How much is that 1st level character contributing to the game?"
​

It was therefore very specifically a 15th level party that you were saying could be helped by:

Gathering food quickly, navigating, or dealing with animals/plants (like gathering herbs) if nobody has any survival skills.
​

And so on.

Change the record indeed. Lots of moaning and groaning.

Talk about 15th level is odd considering thats just when most campaigns usually peter out anyways.

I wasn't the one who brought it up.

The fighters are commanding armys and the wizards are jumping planes, it seems like some people are just complaining that all the epicness isnt exactly the same from character to character.

Why are the fighters commanding armies? How are they? If it's 3.X, I see no abilities that even slightly help fighters command armies. A bard would make a better general than a fighter. And that's the problem in 3.X/PF. The fighters get no epicness. It all goes to the casters.

Sure your l33t build was pretty overpowered, sure it was arguably more powerful then other characters. But it was largely remedied in most situations, by good dms, varied adventure designs, treasure, players who thinkin your a j-rk for using it and the existence of social conventions in a social game. Which is to say its not as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.

And that's another problem. When I've not even tried to min-max - just taken a simple class out of the box like Wizard, Druid, or Summoner, and people think I'm a j-rk for using it then the fault is that of the game designer.

If they object to my Bard 4/Barbarian 1/Ur-priest 4/Nar Demonbinder 1/Mystic Theurge 5 with his 9th level divine spells, 8th level arcane spells, and caster levels probably in the 40s (I really can't be bothered to solve the simultaneous equations for that build's caster levels) then they have every right to call me a jerk. But if my build is Druid 15 Summoner 15 and I'm using summons from core and no real monkey business then the problem is that the designer messed up.

Uh... thats quite a switch. You were the one comparing the 15th level fighter to a 1st level PC, so why should I have to compare him to another 15th level character (summoner). Want to compare the 15th level fighter to a 1st level PC instead? Don't remember saying that?

Oh, I remember saying it - and it is slight hyperbole. I just need several steps to demonstrate quite how much of a supernumerary the fighter is.

1: Compare the combat ability of the level 15 fighter to that of a crippled level 13 summoner. Showing that even when we take away the biggest class features of a relatively strong class (probably the third strongest PF class - but behind wizard and cleric) and dock a few levels from the summoner, the fighter is way out of his league at the things he is supposed to be good at.

2: Try to baseline the combat ability of the level 15 fighter against an ordinary summoner who leads with summon monster. I then suggested that 10th level was fair as being able to drop almost 300 hp of anklysauri and follow up with spells would be as useful as the fighter, so you couldn't match a L11 summoner even without an Eidolon.

3: Realise that this makes the fighter in combat, the place where he is supposed to shine, the equivalent of five threat levels lower than the other PCs. In other words not a significant threat.

4: Add in to the mix that the fighter is not only not a threat in combat, he has almost no skill outside combat.

5: Trivial in combat and almost a zero outside combat makes the fighter a supernumerary. Sure he's got 28 skill points more than the commoner, and a whole lot of hp. But it's still a supernumerary.

Many magic items are useable only (or are best used by) by martial classes

Name three fighter specific items.

As for the spells cast on him, we would have to compare casting the spells (haste, invisibility, fly etc) on a 15th level fighter VS a 1st level PC. That is the quote I was responding to.

No. Because no one in their senses would waste the spells on the commoner. You tell the commoner to stay home.

 

[pemerton]

Without snark, I think it's unfair to imply that skill points can't mechanically drive quite a bit of story weight.

I'm not meaning to imply that don't.

What I'm trying to say is that in a game with E6/Runequest-style play - skills are more important than spells, travel is by foot or horseback rather than teleport even for powerful PCs, etc - we are not talking about a D&D-ish game at all. We are not talking about a game in which the playes, by using their PCs' magical abilities (teleport, rope trick, healing etc), can exercise a very high degree of control over scene-framing, the passage of time, the mitigation of consequences from past encounters, etc. And, therefore (in my view) are not really answering the question posed by Hussar, which was (I think) fairly obviously talking about a 15th level D&D-style party.