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

[crkrueger]

I'm not going to beat my head into the wall arguing about older editions.

It certainly would be more painful then actually opening one of the books and reading it.

If I've learned anything here it's that making grognards concede any points is like pulling teeth. If people really want to continue a decade old edition war they can do it from my ignore list.

All you left out was the *shrug*.

[Rum Cove]

Balance is subjective. Thus ultimately useless as a discussion trying to pin it down.

beejazz managed to define his concept of balance and noted that it was subjective.  No arguments there, and it is a good place to begin discussion.

Lord Mistborn has claimed that his own views on balance are objective.

[One Horse Town]

Lord Mistborn has claimed that his own views on balance are objective.

That's why the IL is so cool.

[Rum Cove]

That's why the IL is so cool.

Ignoring someone is a pathetic tactic in mature debates.  All posts need to be addressed so that onlookers and outsiders can understand the truth.

[beejazz]

INdeed we do.

You understand the term, "Necessary Complication"

Heh, I swear I use the "you're conflating a bunch of things" argument like five times a week, but it happens a lot. There's a reason "realism" got ditched as a design term and got replaced by discussions on abstraction, verisimilitude, immersion, and simulation.

Parity is a real thing. Numerical parity is relatively easy to measure. Niche protection has some weirdness but can be described pretty clearly. Spotlight on the other hand is almost entirely situational, and often isn't a design priority. And the system of seeing problems and answers in spells and the like (don't know if this line of thought has such a good name yet) is pretty Den and charop specific, but I'd place it somewhere between niche protection and spotlight  in terms of clarity.

beejazz managed to define his concept of balance and noted that it was subjective.  No arguments there, and it is a good place to begin discussion.

Lord Mistborn has claimed that his own views on balance are objective.

What I'm seeing here is that in a game where characters are built deliberately, classes may have measurable relative worth. The party is better off with a "fighter and x" than a fighter. Not an issue in a roll-em-up game, but with character building you don't want "necessary" or "trap" items. Additionally, while I mentioned that:

1) You can build characters to face the challenges common in the campaign and
2) You can select encounters / adventures you are equipped to handle,

LM brings up the somewhat valid points that:

1) You can't always opt out of combat and
2) Combat is high stakes (you fail you die)

therefore LM's conception of balance is one where characters have the resources to be good at combat and something else. This is distinct from the 4e goal of limiting the game to combat entirely.

Mind: there are other solutions to LM's issues, and those issues aren't even issues in a roll-em-up game. Like EVER. So if he's presenting either his problems or solutions as objective or universal he's a fool.

EDIT: What I'm not as clear on is how he's classifying things between "nothing" and "best." The whole idea that if you aren't the best at something you "can't contribute" still baffles me a bit. Especially in regards to combat and the like.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Balance is subjective. Thus ultimately useless as a discussion trying to pin it down.

I would agree with you. The OP seems to be searching for some kind of ideal  balance that is univeraal and it doesnt really exist. But i think it is possible to clarify what a persons means by balance for the purpose of a specific project.

[MGuy]

Ugh, Mist, you have GOT to stop responding to everyone otherwise you'll get side tracked. Sacro cannot hand being shown he's wrong even if you quote him, even if you repost what he actually said and tell him how he was wrong one step at a time he will not budge. Storm is so unwilling to change his views that he will argue with you about how a rule works even if you are the one who wrote the rule. Marley openly admits she doesn't know how game design works. Rum argued that the fighter being able to open doors makes him a valuable party member. Brendan believes in a balance where in your character's effectiveness (relative to other classes) depends on what level he's at. I've ignored CRK so long that I don't even remember anything about his position. These are not people who are going to give you an actual discussion about class balance. Hell most of them can't hold up a coherent discussion.

I said ealier but you need to quit getting bogged down with this edition bullshit and stop concentrating on the fighter class. Dead and I have laid down some points for you that have to do with balance. Beej, as far as I can tell, has been very reasonable thus far. You still have to lay down what you believe actual balance is. I gave you my view on it (That classes should be relatively useful as one another and each be able to contribute something of value to every part of the game so whole sections of the game aren't filled with them sitting around with their thumbs up their asses) so do you agree with that or is there another definition for balance you're trying to advertise?

[Sacrosanct]

Sacro cannot hand being shown he's wrong even if you quote him, even if you repost what he actually said and tell him how he was wrong one step at a time he will not budge.

Show me where I've been clearly wrong and couldn't handle it.  Go ahead, I'll wait.  I mean, it should be easy, right, if that's what I do.   Although I imagine it's much easier for you just to talk shit without backing anything up.  Classic ad hominem.  Seems to be modus operandi at this point for you.

[StormBringer]

Hell most of them can't hold up a coherent discussion.

You said the magic words, you win $100.

We'll take a step back and look at general 'balance' in a minute, but let's look at this one first:

Premise#1:  A Magic-User who can use any spell at any time is more powerful than a Fighter.
Premise#2:  A Magic-User can use any spell at any time.
Conclusion:  A Magic-User is more powerful than a Fighter.

I wrote up a 3e class called the Mega-Über Magic-User; this class can, in fact, use any spell they want at-will.  Is this class more powerful than a standard Fighter?

[Doom]

Not to mention, in AD&D monsters had magic resistance.  Not the pansy magic resistance you see in 3e, but an outright % chance of ignoring all magic.  That % was often pretty high too.

Yeah, that Mind Flayer MR was freakin' 90%....completely different monster in AD&D.

Don't forget, MR was modified by 5% per level relative to being name level (11th, for magic-users). An 18th level arch-mage had a great 50% chance of nailing a Flayer with an uber-fireball. On top of that, of course, was the saving throw chart.

[Justin Alexander]

To give and example, imagine that there is a class called the Lame Guy. He has the worst saves and worst thaco/bab/whatever and no class features but the ability to kill the dreaded fuckoffsaurus instantly at will.

Pretty much every single thing you posted was as irrelevant through its extremism as this.

Your effort to keep this thread "trolling free" failed in your very first post.

[Marleycat]

Pretty much every single thing you posted was as irrelevant through its extremism as this.

Your effort to keep this thread "trolling free" failed in your very first post.

Gee, did I miss the obvious?  I said that at the jump.  Fuck this silly bullshit.  I will see you guys either after this stupidity or the end of football season.  At least there this crap gets called out immediately.

Frikken Cowboys, next up for them is a real team.  The Giants are pussies,  no way to say it nicer. That performance was horrible.

[One Horse Town]

Ignoring someone is a pathetic tactic in mature debates.  

Let me know when there is one.

[Lord Mistborn]

I gave you my view on it (That classes should be relatively useful as one another and each be able to contribute something of value to every part of the game so whole sections of the game aren't filled with them sitting around with their thumbs up their asses) so do you agree with that or is there another definition for balance you're trying to advertise?

MGuy you're a bro.

What you have here is 90% of my idea of balance. To elaborate it's fine if their are parts of the game that some characters are less relevant in, but a choice of class should not completely lock a character out of one part of the game. If the game has any character customization resources they should be built to push people into specing outside their classes field.
 
So even if say the bard has less combat features baked in to his class he should have the option of specing into a more combat focused build (like in 3e when the bard takes Dragonfire Inspiration and Snowflake Wardance and sings the song of ice and fire). Conversely all classes should have some out of combat utility from their class with the option of getting more from their character options (feats/kits/PrCs).

The important thing here is to think less about protecting niches and more about having a good idea of what a character of X level should be capable of and then applying it to all classes. Also like I've said before parts of the game that odds are one or more characters probably wont be able to interact with should stay short. If only so people don't end up playing Smash Bros while one player is basically on a solo mission.

[RandallS]

So even if say the bard has less combat features baked in to his class he should have the option of specing into a more combat focused build (like in 3e when the bard takes Dragonfire Inspiration and Snowflake Wardance and sings the song of ice and fire). Conversely all classes should have some out of combat utility from their class with the option of getting more from their character options (feats/kits/PrCs).

I assume you are talking only about D&D 3.x here?

Why this assumption: Prior editions really don't have builds (even 2e kits really aren't builds) nor do they have feats or PrCs. Pre-2e, they really don't even have any options to select from other than a few weapon and non-weapon proficiencies.