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

[MGuy]

So this is a thing. The fighter classes conceptual space is limited to "dude with a sword". As characters advance in levels they will reach a point where the fighter's limited conceptual space prevents him from gaining relevant abilities.

Discuss.

It should be noted that while I'm more accepting of rangers, paladins, rogues that they suffer from similar issues  so we shouldn't get too focused on a single "class" but again keep the conversation about general class balancing.

Instead you should argue about how havinng your effectiveness (relative to other classes dependent on playing at certain levels is bad. You can argue about why requiring characters to use external resources (that is resources that aren't guaranteed to them) to be effective at all is a bad thing. You can argue about why making wealth translate to power is bad.  Bringing up fighters specifically is like beating a dead horse.

I think what you would want to talk about is how "balanced" it is to have a subset of people bound with what they can do in game while having other classes much less bound.

For example you could explain why it is not good to have superman and green arrow on the same team.

[StormBringer]

Ooooh!  Is this where I get to break out the logic again?  I knew it would only be a few days at most until these guys wrested the conversation back there; it's like Tourette's with them.  "Balance! Motherfucker! Piss Shit!  Balance!"

[Sacrosanct]

I think this image needs to be re-captioned to

"OK!  I'm sorry I said you blowed"

[beejazz]

We where arguing about how much combat is in D&D relating to my point that "good in combat" is not a thing that should be role protected. This devolved into a debate about the relative merits of CompLang vis a vis Silent Image and Sleep. Thanks for giving me an excuse to get this thread back on track.

"Good in combat" isn't one feature, it's a plethora of features.

When you talk about a class being "useless" you're usually engaging in hyperbole. What it basically means is that the party would be better off with a member of some other class. So let's say that one class is best in combat compared with the others. You get into combat and you're going to want a party made up entirely of that guy. Problem is that if the game really has you needing anything else ever? Having a party of all combat monsters wouldn't work.

You can argue that the higher stakes of survival mean that combat is a more attractive niche when players are allowed to build their characters. Hell, I'll even agree with that bit. But that doesn't mean "best in combat" (as opposed to "good in combat") isn't a fair niche to protect.

Now, as I said, there are also niches within combat. In RPGs, there is a difference between:
survivability and offense
damage per round vs targets per round
mobility and range

All of the above are ways of breaking up in-combat niches in meaningful ways. If you could only pick one on any of the above axes, you'd still end up with 8 niches. And saying you could only pick one is arbitrary. And then there are roles not covered (like support and terrain manipulation and zones of control and debuffing). Being good at combat can mean a hell of a lot of things.

Now, you can say that every class should have an equal share of the niches to go around, but based on what? Fact is that if their out of combat role is sufficiently necessary it shouldn't hurt if they have neither good movement nor good range. Or neither DPR nor TPR strength.

[StormBringer]

"Good in combat" isn't one feature, it's a plethora of features.

Absolutely, and we haven't even defined what "good in combat" is supposed to mean yet.  Pure DPS?  Encounter ending attack?  Morale breaking ability?  And more important than a straight statistical analysis, are any of them fun?  Which is highly subjective, of course.  For some groups, "KAMEHAMEHA 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" that splits the planet is huge fun.  For others, it's the edge-of-the-seat suspense of outwitting and outmanoeuvring a pack of Kobolds when the characters only have slightly more hit points than the Kobolds.

Making the claim that every class should be 'good in combat' without qualification is almost useless, in other words.  For myself, I don't think there is a definition that would convince me of the premise anyway.  Like Brendon, I don't think every class should be 'good in combat' in the same way to begin with.

I refer again to Conan the Destroyer; Princess Jehnna was the NPC focus of the escort mission, but both Malak and Akiro were PCs.  Malak almost never engaged in combat, but when he did, it was from behind and then he scuttled away again.  Akiro never directly attacked anyone, and the fight with the other Wizard was a battle of wills.  Neither of them were 'good in combat', but both played crucial roles in completing the 'adventure'.  Great fun for Vintage grognards like myself, painfully boring for the Dungeons and DragonballZ players, I am sure.

[Lord Mistborn]

How many times do we really need to go over this?  If you take away magic items from a fighter, then you take away magic items for a MU as well (including his spell book).  The fighter class was specifically designed to be the one class that had the best range to magic items.  That's a core aspect of the class design, just like hit points and the ability to cast spells.

We can have this discussion as many times as you want. It wont make your point an less dumb. Apples =/= Oranges.

In the interest of not banging my head against the wall though, Clerics don't need a book to prepare their spells. the Psion is a thing that exists even in old editions, if we're talking about 3e then so do Sorcerers. You must know that your argument is lame. Wizards have a spellbook, it's right in their class description. Nowhere in the fighters class descriptions is it written he gets a magic sword.

So if you take away one of his class features then yes the wizard is not so good. the Psion or Sorcerer though are still better than you, even if they're naked.

[Lord Mistborn]

Ooooh!  Is this where I get to break out the logic again?  I knew it would only be a few days at most until these guys wrested the conversation back there; it's like Tourette's with them.  "Balance! Motherfucker! Piss Shit!  Balance!"

Tell me again. What did I say about trolling this thread?

[Marleycat]

Tell me again. What did I say about trolling this thread?

I don't know or care but enlighten me given this whole thread is one big troll. Why do you think whatever you say has any value when all you're talking about is a playstyle issue not a rule issue?

[beejazz]

I don't know or care but enlighten me given this whole thread is one big troll. Why do you think whatever you say has any value when all you're talking about is a playstyle issue not a rule issue?

He actually believes a definition for balance can be arrived at through discussion. One that everyone here will agree on, or that will serve all kinds of games.

Humor him. It's gonna take a while, and for him to figure it out on his own a bit, but he'll learn otherwise.

Now, I don't see rules design as a playstyle issue, but even there different games are designed with different goals in mind. For example, if you can assign stats and choose class, you're going to need a different kind of balance than if you can roll well and get a gestalt class. Apples and oranges and all.

[Lord Mistborn]

He actually believes a definition for balance can be arrived at through discussion. One that everyone here will agree on, or that will serve all kinds of games.

Several posters have conceded they don't care if their game is balanced. many of them have had the decency not to troll my thread. If people are are posting in this thread, then they are by defintion arguing that some degree of game balance is desirable.

Humor him. It's gonna take a while, and for him to figure it out on his own a bit, but he'll learn otherwise.

Well fuck you too. ^_^

Now, I don't see rules design as a playstyle issue, but even there different games are designed with different goals in mind. For example, if you can assign stats and choose class, you're going to need a different kind of balance than if you can roll well and get a gestalt class. Apples and oranges and all.

Don't say such things here, it makes people call you autistic.

[Bedrockbrendan]

We can have this discussion as many times as you want. It wont make your point an less dumb. Apples =/= Oranges.

In the interest of not banging my head against the wall though, Clerics don't need a book to prepare their spells. the Psion is a thing that exists even in old editions, if we're talking about 3e then so do Sorcerers. You must know that your argument is lame. Wizards have a spellbook, it's right in their class description. Nowhere in the fighters class descriptions is it written he gets a magic sword.

So if you take away one of his class features then yes the wizard is not so good. the Psion or Sorcerer though are still better than you, even if they're naked.

Fighters by their very nature rely on physical equipment like swords, shields and armor. Most people are fine with this and dont feel a need for those things to be impended in a warrior's body somehow.

Congratulations you have derailed your own thread.

[beejazz]

Don't say such things here, it makes people call you autistic.

Eh. They know me here.

Personally I prefer "parity" to "balance." Parity is narrower in scope and easier to apply. For example, keeping things numerically within certain tolerances can improve parity. It would be really really hard to argue otherwise.

Balance is a weird bugaboo modified by the context of actual play, with a discussion so polluted by concepts like "spotlight" that it's hard to get anywhere.

A good example would be turn undead: Potentially useless, potentially really really useful. Always depends on context. You could force a certain frequency of undead encounters, but I prefer one or both of the following:

1) Character build options mean players get to select talents to suit the challenges they face frequently.
2) Non-linear adventures mean players get to select challenges that suit their talents.

For me, 1, 2, parity, and weak niche protection are more than enough to be called balance.

[Lord Mistborn]

Fighters by their very nature rely on physical equipment like swords, shields and armor. Most people are fine with this and dont feel a need for those things to be impended in a warrior's body somehow.

Congratulations you have derailed your own thread.

Needing a sword to use your class features is fine. It's when you need to be decorated like a Christmas tree with magic bling to keep up that it's a problem.

[LordVreeg]

Eh. They know me here.

Personally I prefer "parity" to "balance." Parity is narrower in scope and easier to apply. For example, keeping things numerically within certain tolerances can improve parity. It would be really really hard to argue otherwise.

Balance is a weird bugaboo modified by the context of actual play, with a discussion so polluted by concepts like "spotlight" that it's hard to get anywhere.

A good example would be turn undead: Potentially useless, potentially really really useful. Always depends on context. You could force a certain frequency of undead encounters, but I prefer one or both of the following:

1) Character build options mean players get to select talents to suit the challenges they face frequently.
2) Non-linear adventures mean players get to select challenges that suit their talents.

For me, 1, 2, parity, and weak niche protection are more than enough to be called balance.

INdeed we do.

You understand the term, "Necessary Complication"

[Bedrockbrendan]

Needing a sword to use your class features is fine. It's when you need to be decorated like a Christmas tree with magic bling to keep up that it's a problem.

In my campaigns i dont do things to let the players keep up with each other. The fighter ends up with whatever magic items he can manage to find or track down. Some fighters exceed others because of this, some fall below. Same for other classes though. Magic items are always potential game changers.

At a certain point a fighter without at least +x weapons will be hard pressed to face certain challenges. Dont see this as an issue or as a reaosn to embed their magical effects into the class itself.