The class balance thread (let's try to keep this one trolling free)

[Black Vulmea]

"This is what I like as houserules"

is not the same as:

"This is what D&D should be."

Exactamundo.

People equate "what I like" with "how it should be."

Some people do, yes.

That's their failing, however, and it deserves to be called out.

[LordVreeg]

Premier speaks for me.

Aye.  As I said earlier, balancing the ruleset primnarily on combat is a new thing.

[Rum Cove]

~60% of the games rules are combat (and the other ~40% is mostly spells) every PHP in every edition has contained the fighter class which specializes only in combat.

My Blu-Ray manual barely mentions watching movies.

[Lord Mistborn]

Aye.  As I said earlier, balancing the ruleset primnarily on combat is a new thing.

I never said the ruleset has to be balanced primarily on combat. The SGT is supposed to be a menu of challenges that characters face at their level. If the game is supposed to have less combat then that game's SGT should have fewer combats.

Now if you excuse me I have grognards to game with. Apparently Expeditious Retreat, Swift Is Broken doesn't write itself.

[Bedrockbrendan]

If you don't want to talk about class balance noone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to post in "The class balance thread".

I suggest you re-read my post. I think you are missing the point of my remarks.

[LordVreeg]

I never said the ruleset has to be balanced primarily on combat. The SGT is supposed to be a menu of challenges that characters face at their level. If the game is supposed to have less combat then that game's SGT should have fewer combats.

Now if you excuse me I have grognards to game with. Apparently Expeditious Retreat, Swift Is Broken doesn't write itself.

No, but your comments about the devolution of said games into combat-centrism is a feature of newer games.  I left D&D in general a while ago, but balancing on multiple fronts is actually very difficult.

[RandallS]

I never said the ruleset has to be balanced primarily on combat. The SGT is supposed to be a menu of challenges that characters face at their level. If the game is supposed to have less combat then that game's SGT should have fewer combats.

I guess I don't get the "face at their level" bit, as the challenges PCs face in my games are based not on their level but on where they go and what they choose to do. If they go to the "Black Hills" where orcs and goblins are known to live, that's what they will most likely encounter, orcs, goblins, and other creatures that can/would live in the same area. They'll encounter those orcs and goblins regardless of their level because that's what lives there. If they visit Bloodcrag, they'll have a good chance of encountering a couple of older red dragons. Again, red dragons live there whether the PCs are 1st level or 10th level.

Perhaps this is one reason the whole "balance" thing doesn't resonate much with me. I don't design adventures for a specific set of characters at a specific level. I expect the players to interact with the world, discover rumors and facts about places therein and choose where they want to go based on what they want to do, not based on what some set of rules says is a challenge they should be able to beat X% of the time while using Y% of their resources and if they win that encounter they should get Z treasure which moves them about 1/13 of the way (or whatever fraction) to the amount of treasure the rules say they should have when they reach the next level. I have no problem with people who want to run their games that way, but I will not as I (and the people who choose to play in my games) find it boring and unrealistic.

[MGuy]

Mistborn, before any rational debate can be had AT ALL you need to clearly define what you think balance is. Calling for SGT isn't going to help because SGT only exists as far as it was implemented for 3rd. It wouldn't work for anything else. If you are talking about class balance in general you need to focus on that. Whether or not a game "can" devolve into hack and slash isn't something you can base an arument on. You can say:
Combat is something everyone is expected to participate in in all editions of DnD and thus everyone should have something of relevant importance to do.
You cannot, however, make the claim that everyone always has to be good at combat because there are a number of games where it wouldn't be beyond texpectations to not participate in combat at all. For example I'd consider any Shadowrun team that can completely avoid any real combat (not including single turn ambushes) and complete objectives to be pretty bad ass.

You have to keep in mind that you started a thread about class balance in general so your assertions have to fit general class based games. Now I agree with you that classes should be relatively balanced in that they should be about as useful as each other. The reason I don't like the fighter class is that while at low level he's a valuable tool at higher levels he falls flat because of his inability to participate in regular high level adventures.

This is important: I don't dislike the fighter because it's good at fighting. I dislike it because it cannot seriously participate in high level shennanians. Now this sentiment only goes for 3e and apparently was intended in 2e. However it doesn't fit for 4e. In 4E there were classes that fall behind say the Ranger (core) quite quickly but even though I didn't like it and my paladin felt like shit he never falls too far behind to not be worth bringin because 4E ONLY ever has you doin low level bullshit.

Second, as you said yourself, you think wizards stomp all over your SGT. So if you're going to advocate a balance point, a place where the game works for you, you should clearly explain what that balance point is, why it's good, and how yu would create a game that could generate that balance point.

As you're going now you're going to get bogged down by nonsense and frankly, the way you're arguing, I wouldn't expect any different.

TL : DR: Clearly define some terms, ideas, and tell us why they are good.

[StormBringer]

My Blu-Ray manual barely mentions watching movies.

:hatsoff:

[Black Vulmea]

Clearly define some terms, ideas, and tell us why they are good.

Umm . . . that whole post. Very well said.

[Exploderwizard]

Explode what exactly is your deal? If you cannot DO anything to help adventure why would I put you on my team? MMO logic? Its schoolyard logic. It is lack of contributing to the team that would make people skip over you when selecting people to play a game. If adventurers are to be "realistic" then I'd assume that they wouldn't take anybody on their "save the world" quest that would only get them fucked up especially when that person can be replaced and their role filled out much better by someone who doesn't suck. You don't take civilians into a warzone to help you fight a battle if you can help it. You don't pick someone overweight/out of shape to join your professional football team. You don't pick the gu that hates you to represent you in court. If doing things that are common sense is MMO logic then what MMOs were around when I was choosing not to pick the fat kid to play basketball with in grade school?

You also still haven't answered my earlier question which I suppose means you asked your "counter" question merely as a means to "prove me wrong" instead of actually taking any time to think about what I asked. If you're not going to actually answer my question then there's no point in even talking to you at all.

As long as the only contributions you can see come from the character sheet, there is little to discuss.

[Lord Mistborn]

Mistborn, before any rational debate can be had AT ALL you need to clearly define what you think balance is. Calling for SGT isn't going to help because SGT only exists as far as it was implemented for 3rd. It wouldn't work for anything else. If you are talking about class balance in general you need to focus on that. Whether or not a game "can" devolve into hack and slash isn't something you can base an arument on. You can say:
Combat is something everyone is expected to participate in in all editions of DnD and thus everyone should have something of relevant importance to do.
You cannot, however, make the claim that everyone always has to be good at combat because there are a number of games where it wouldn't be beyond texpectations to not participate in combat at all.

To have a SGT a game needs to have levels and some manner of metric for how chalenging something is. In a point based system the SGT is a non-starter since there are no classes.
When I'm talking about combat I'm talking about D&D, but fine "Combat is something everyone is expected to participate in in all editions of DnD and thus everyone should have something of relevant importance to do"

For example I'd consider any Shadowrun team that can completely avoid any real combat (not including single turn ambushes) and complete objectives to be pretty bad ass.

Shadowrun is a very diffrent game than D&D. It's also not class based.

You have to keep in mind that you started a thread about class balance in general so your assertions have to fit general class based games. Now I agree with you that classes should be relatively balanced in that they should be about as useful as each other. The reason I don't like the fighter class is that while at low level he's a valuable tool at higher levels he falls flat because of his inability to participate in regular high level adventures.

This is important: I don't dislike the fighter because it's good at fighting. I dislike it because it cannot seriously participate in high level shennanians. Now this sentiment only goes for 3e and apparently was intended in 2e. However it doesn't fit for 4e. In 4E there were classes that fall behind say the Ranger (core) quite quickly but even though I didn't like it and my paladin felt like shit he never falls too far behind to not be worth bringin because 4E ONLY ever has you doin low level bullshit.

If this is so then 4e still has huge balance problems. If the Ranger is radically outperforming that Paladin then any encounter that challenges the Ranger will likely destroy the Paladin. 4e has a very bad approach to balance if they simply lowered the difficulty until every class could fight monsters even the ones that are subpar.

Second, as you said yourself, you think wizards stomp all over your SGT. So if you're going to advocate a balance point, a place where the game works for you, you should clearly explain what that balance point is, why it's good, and how yu would create a game that could generate that balance point.

Wizard in general tend to be able to do too many things and do them far too well. While some spells are to good and need to either bumped you in level or nerfed the Wizard/Cleric/Druid's ability to access such a huge and Diverse spell list needs to go. the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are casters it's rare to see complaints about, the Sorcerer and Favored Soul could also potentially be balanced classes (how do Sorcerers score on the SGT anyway).
Fighters tend to fail the SGT so badly not only because the can only do one thing but they often can't do that thing well. I think the Warblade passes the SGT but that class as also very light on non-combat stuff. On TGD I know the talk up the rogue a lot but I haven't seen many optimized rogues at my tables (and remain unconvinced that a Ring of Blink dose what they think is dose at least in 3.5)

[jibbajibba]

As long as the only contributions you can see come from the character sheet, there is little to discuss.

MGuy won't bite on that one as he has been down that path on other threads.

His response I suspect would be something like 'If its not on the character sheet then anyone can do it. If anyone can do it then its a zero sum and doesn't affect the balance of the classes.'

So in effect what differentiates the classes is what is on the character sheet. The stuff the players bring outside the character sheet is the same for any class.

Now you might argue that in your games that component accounts for 80% of what the character brings and you might say in a 4e game it only accounts for 20%. And from that you might be able to argue that if 80% is about the player then the relative value of the 'character sheet bit' their HP, feats, powers, skills, spells etc is relatively less important because 8/20 versus 17/20 really equates to 88/100 versus 97/100 so they are relatively balanced anyway.
However MGuy will focus on the stuff on the character sheet because logically the rest just nets out anyway in a particular game so all you can compare is the character sheet stuff.

If you see what I mean.

(don't mean to talk for MGuy here and he can feel free to tell me to shut up if I have misconstrued his position)

[Lord Mistborn]

Stuff

I'm gonna +1 this.

Everyone can MTP so using it as a talking point in a thread about class balance is a non-starter

[jibbajibba]

I guess I don't get the "face at their level" bit, as the challenges PCs face in my games are based not on their level but on where they go and what they choose to do. If they go to the "Black Hills" where orcs and goblins are known to live, that's what they will most likely encounter, orcs, goblins, and other creatures that can/would live in the same area. They'll encounter those orcs and goblins regardless of their level because that's what lives there. If they visit Bloodcrag, they'll have a good chance of encountering a couple of older red dragons. Again, red dragons live there whether the PCs are 1st level or 10th level.

Perhaps this is one reason the whole "balance" thing doesn't resonate much with me. I don't design adventures for a specific set of characters at a specific level. I expect the players to interact with the world, discover rumors and facts about places therein and choose where they want to go based on what they want to do, not based on what some set of rules says is a challenge they should be able to beat X% of the time while using Y% of their resources and if they win that encounter they should get Z treasure which moves them about 1/13 of the way (or whatever fraction) to the amount of treasure the rules say they should have when they reach the next level. I have no problem with people who want to run their games that way, but I will not as I (and the people who choose to play in my games) find it boring and unrealistic.

I can see the logic of that I do the same thing myself. However, in your sandbox world do you have areas that are kind of aimed at 1-3rd level PCs, areas that are 4 -6 etc....
I have found that if I don't do that its hard for adventures to occur. Take your area with goblins and orcs for example. Would you add a couple of trolls or a hill giant. Logically its entirely possible that a Hill giant moves in dominates the local goblinoid population and sets himself up as a lord. But from a level of play perspective that is problematic. You don't want 1st level PCs to best a small group of orcs and then suddenly to have to fight a giant, the giant would just smite them. Likewise a bunch of 7th level characters hunting down the giant and his giant mates might get bored wading through 3 dozen goblins to get there.
Likewise your wandering monster tables. D&D suggests you use certain tables for certain risk areas. This is thinly justified through this area is home to lower level creatures but in reality its really this area is set up to provide suitable challenges for lower level PCs.
If the wandering monster table for your spooky castle includes goblins, kobolds, Beholders and ghosts then basically you are saying only go there if you can beat a Beholder and the rest of it is background noise.