D&D (2024) Would you be fine with classes that you can't always play but are better than base classes?

[Vaalingrade]

So what if they sold classes in randomized booster packs with the features people want to play locked to a mega rare only millionares with face tattoos can own?

the wizard with absolutely no limits we're heading toward in 2030, only that's just the one available in the entire world.

 

[DarkCrisis]

So what if they sold classes in randomized booster packs with the features people want to play locked to a mega rare only millionares with face tattoos can own?

the wizard with absolutely no limits we're heading toward in 2030, only that's just the one available in the entire world.

Dont give them ideas!

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Do classes need to be balanced anyways? Most people seem to get a character idea and not really worried if they will be A+ tier in combat.

I don't think classes need to be "balanced" but I do think every member of the party should be given an opportunity to shine in their way.

That's not really baked into the rules - it's more left up to table culture. And tbh, it might require a bit more rules focused on not-combat to support

So the default position of a lot of people on the internets is to fall back to demanding "balance"

 

[Vaalingrade]

Dont give them ideas!

Making wizard an UR would absolutely solve a lot of problems in a hurry though.

 

[Staffan]

Making wizard an UR would absolutely solve a lot of problems in a hurry though.

Reminds me of the mid-80s version of Drakar och Demoner (recently released as Dragonbane). The game had something like 10 professions, and in order to choose a profession you needed to roll equal to or below the sum of two stats (each normally rolled on 3d6 for regular humans) multiplied by 1 to 4 depending on the profession's rarity. I don't recall all the details, but I do remember that Knights and Wizards both had a multiplier of 1. This was a bit of a bummer when you were rolling random stats, because if you rolled a character with poor physical stats and couldn't play a wizard, your next best hope would be a monk (generally more of a Tuck than a Lee) or a sage.

In the advanced rules, Drakar och Demoner Expert they mostly did away with that and instead gated professions behind a modest minimum stat, and sometimes a social class as well (so to become a knight you needed to be a noble, which meant rolling 1-2 on a d20 for a human). But wizards retained the requirement to roll below INT+POW on d100 in order to have the gift for magic.

Later versions of the rules mostly did away with that entirely, and replaced it with stat requirements which combined with a point-buy system meant you would be able to play what you wanted. The INT+POW roll remained for characters who wanted to learn magic after chargen.

 

[CapnZapp]

Back in the long long ago, Paladins and Rangers where just better. They were Fighters+.

But you couldn't just pick it. You had to roll stats high enough.

Yes. Reward great dice luck with... even better class features!

I'm sure that will work out great

 

[DarkCrisis]

Yes. Reward great dice luck with... even better class features!

I'm sure that will work out great

It worked just fine for like 20 years.

 

[delericho]

Class balance will never be perfect, but it should be a goal that designers aspire to. If some characters are intended to be objectively stronger than others, that can be represented by making those characters different levels, or by giving them features independent of their classes (higher ability scores, magic items, bonus feats...).

Pretty much this.

In theory, there might be an argument of having some classes more powerful that you can only play if your ability scores are below certain thresholds (the reverse of the old 1st/2nd Ed idea), but even that is really more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Remathilis]

It worked just fine for like 20 years.

Citation needed

 

[Vaalingrade]

It worked just fine for like 20 years.

That's why they stopped and didn't do it for the next thirty years, yeah?