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

[Sacrosanct]

Of course some of old Grognards stuck with 2e anyway

I understand my anecdotal evidence really isn't all that special, but I recall the transition to 3e as such:

AD&D 2e S&P and C&T came out.  Some people thought there were some cool things there.  Most people were like, "WTF is this shit?  Sorry, not including this in my campaign."

WoTC took over shortly after in 1997, and people were, "I wonder what's going to happen to D&D.  WoTC has tons of money, so let's see."

3e came out.  And there was much bitterness.  Gamers were split between the "this is just C&T on roids, so hell no!" and "all these options are pretty cool, and WoTC is promoting the hell out it to bring in new players."

Flame wars ensued.  But AD&D players were screwed because without an OGL, their game was permanently shelved and no longer available.  In those days, there wasn't even a repository on the internet of AD&D stuff that was available.  Pretty much every new player who joined the rpg ranks had 3e as the only D&D option available to them.

[RandallS]

I also think this demonstrates a key issue with balance. Lordmistborn just assumes his definition has universal appeal, but it soesnt (and neither does mine). If you talk to lots of gamers about balance you see there are many different campsof preferences and it is vey difficult to enforce one approach on a broad appeal game likeD&D.

THIS. Different people want different types of balance. There is no one best type of balance -- even though many people believe the type of balance they like is the best. There is no way to objectively "prove" one type of balance is better than another in general, although one might (and note that I stress "might") be able to do so for a specific style of play.

[Bedrockbrendan]

I'm pretty sure it was MGuy that wanted to give everyone "something to do" in each of the broad spheres of gameplay. I think LM just wants everyone to have something in combat and something else. His argument being that no one wants to choose weakness in combat because you can be attacked and dying is unpleasant.

.

I seem to have got those a bit mixed. But i still dont have much love for the combat and something else approach. I think having a combat weak character is fine. The combat weak character in a party simply has to watch out when combat arises (like the AD&D thief for example). I personally found that much more interesting to play than the 3E version.

[MGuy]

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.

Now this is what I was looking for. This is a clear idea I can fllow and that can be debated. As long as you avoid letting people drag you into conversations that aren't this thing right here the thread will work out fine.

For the most part, I agree with you. Being extra good at fighting, exploring, info gathering, healing, etc should be options but shouldn't be something you're absolutely held to when you make a character annd shouldn't make you lose most of your ability to help out in other parts of the game in a significant fashion.

What I don't agree with is is not caring about niche protection. Without niche protection you might as well not have class system. Some kind of niche needs to be protected and that should be important to class design. I think the best/easiest niche to protect is theme. There should be clear and readily apparent differences between how I can approach obstacles as a ranger that are obviously different from how I approach them as a druid. If I put "Sorcerer" on my character sheet I should have abilities that set me significantly apart from having "wizard" on my character sheet.

Also, worrying about what "everyone" should be able to do isn't the way to go. I don't think that the solution to the problem "a lot of things fly after level X" is to give everyone auto flight at level X. I think a better solution is to make sure that flight (while useful) isn't the end all be all be all ability. There should be clear ways to counter flight for everyone and everyone should have options that are relatively as useful as flight. Short Range Teleportation, jumping really high, moving really fast on the ground, etc can all have about as much utility as being able to fly. If flight is otherwise such a boss ability that everyone has to fly at a certain point then flying is no longer an option but a requirement and if it becomes that then it makes being able to fly less special.

[MGuy]

When confronted (out of combat) with a door - who is opening it?

I'm going to let you flush out the scenario a bit. Because the way it reads now I'd have to say "anyone with hands to turn a nob, or anybody who can push/pull it.

The answer is the Fighter.

I know I've been downing the fighter a lot in this thread but I'm going to at least put the class's usefulness above that of "official door opener". I can mage hand a door open.

Just gonna leave this here.

[MGuy]

I seem to have got those a bit mixed. But i still dont have much love for the combat and something else approach. I think having a combat weak character is fine. The combat weak character in a party simply has to watch out when combat arises (like the AD&D thief for example). I personally found that much more interesting to play than the 3E version.

You realize you can make someone in 3e that can't do combat right? The rogue starts off with 6 hp (default) and the wizard/sorcerer starts off with 4 HP. I'm not sure what exactly you did in your 3e game but nothing is stopping you from being too frgaile to do combat and nothing is stopping you from making a character that can't do shit in combat.

[Sacrosanct]

Just gonna leave this here.

You should, because it's an excellent illustration as to your lack of knowledge with AD&D and the ruleset, and sums up the past month pretty well.  I.e., you and Lord Mistborn making assumptions and claims about all editions, and not having the first clue as to what you're talking about.

[Bedrockbrendan]

You realize you can make someone in 3e that can't do combat right? The rogue starts off with 6 hp (default) and the wizard/sorcerer starts off with 4 HP. I'm not sure what exactly you did in your 3e game but nothing is stopping you from being too frgaile to do combat and nothing is stopping you from making a character that can't do shit in combat.

Yes. My issue with 3E rogue is many fold. But being able to make a character bad at combat and always having that class be bad in combat are not the same thing.

[StormBringer]

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?

Now this is what I was looking for. This is a clear idea I can fllow and that can be debated. As long as you avoid letting people drag you into conversations that aren't this thing right here the thread will work out fine.

Now, how did I know you would be ignoring my post?  I must be psychic.  I would imagine you are going to continue ignoring it, because it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters you want to have.

The next time you complain about 'logic' or whine about not getting a 'cohesive discussion', remember to shut the fuck up.  Because you don't actually want either of those things.

[Lord Mistborn]

Now, how did I know you would be ignoring my post?  I must be psychic.  I would imagine you are going to continue ignoring it, because it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters you want to have.

The next time you complain about 'logic' or whine about not getting a 'cohesive discussion', remember to shut the fuck up.  Because you don't actually want either of those things.

Storm I specifically asked you not to continue your bitchfest with MGuy in this thread.

[deadDMwalking]

Now, how did I know you would be ignoring my post?  I must be psychic.  I would imagine you are going to continue ignoring it, because it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters you want to have.

The next time you complain about 'logic' or whine about not getting a 'cohesive discussion', remember to shut the fuck up.  Because you don't actually want either of those things.

You're being ignored because you're using false premises.  

I don't care about your home-brew.  I've never played in a game where a magic-user can use any spell at any given time.

The magic-user doesn't need access to any particular spell at any given time to have more options than a similar level fighter.  He does need access to some 'reasonable' assortment of spells.  Reasonable may vary between groups (based on randomly found treasure), but every wizard I've seen in play has a 'reasonable' assortment as far as I'm concerned - if played intelligently, they can obviate the need for a Fighter in the party.  Most don't seem to play to their abilities because that's not very polite.  

But in any case, if you have something you want to discuss, maybe you should bring it up.  There's plenty of room for logic in this discussion, but you're not bringing it.

[beejazz]

Now, how did I know you would be ignoring my post?  I must be psychic.  I would imagine you are going to continue ignoring it, because it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters you want to have.

It's not entirely on topic for the thread. Right now they're trying to pin down what balance means (I think most agree at this point that balance is contextual, but it remains useful to balance particular games for particular goals). Rehashing FvW isn't really the point so much as something this thread keeps getting dragged into.

Now, resource management as it applies to niches and such does bring up a thorny problem: Classes that can respec the way a wizard does whenever he prepares spells. They're an entirely different beast than classes that don't.

To simplify: hypothetical class can be as good as a rogue and as good as a fighter, but not on the same day. Balanced?

[MGuy]

I'm fairly sure I've stated several times that I was ignoring storm. I didn't know that there was any doubt that I was skipping over every one of his posts after it became clear that he doesn't know how to actual debate an issue. Well I will reaffirm the fact that I am ignoring certain people. You don't have to be psychic to guess that I'm going to ignore you when I say "I'm going to ignore you".

[Bedrockbrendan]

It's not entirely on topic for the thread. Right now they're trying to pin down what balance means (I think most agree at this point that balance is contextual, but it remains useful to balance particular games for particular goals). Rehashing FvW isn't really the point so much as something this thread keeps getting dragged into.

Now, resource management as it applies to niches and such does bring up a thorny problem: Classes that can respec the way a wizard does whenever he prepares spells. They're an entirely different beast than classes that don't.

To simplify: hypothetical class can be as good as a rogue and as good as a fighter, but not on the same day. Balanced?

I think there is a fudamental divide on the power of resource management to balance. I think if a class can be as good as a rogue or fighter but only once or twice a day through use of specific spells, it isnt a big problem. I think you can also give one class smething that outshines others so long as its weighted with anegative (long casting time, inherent danger of use etc). These can all make the game more balanced imo.

[Lord Mistborn]

Also, worrying about what "everyone" should be able to do isn't the way to go. I don't think that the solution to the problem "a lot of things fly after level X" is to give everyone auto flight at level X. I think a better solution is to make sure that flight (while useful) isn't the end all be all be all ability. There should be clear ways to counter flight for everyone and everyone should have options that are relatively as useful as flight. Short Range Teleportation, jumping really high, moving really fast on the ground, etc can all have about as much utility as being able to fly. If flight is otherwise such a boss ability that everyone has to fly at a certain point then flying is no longer an option but a requirement and if it becomes that then it makes being able to fly less special.

The thing is that many of the iconic fantasy monsters can fly. The reason it's a big deal for mythic heros to slay a dragon is that it's a giant flying firebreathing lizard that's not supposed to be a fair fight for some shumck with a fancy sword. The problem is that a leveling system posits that this will be fair fight to a badass enough fighter. You can't say "I want to be able to slay a multi-ton armor plated deathlizard that is capable of terrorizing an entire nation with a sword and bow while still being totally within the bounds of a normal human being" it just doesn't work.

After over 9000 posts and several new threads how should the hero with a sword be able to fight the dragon burninating the countryside and/or peasants. Should he be able to ride out on his horse and challenge it one on one or should he regardless of level have to get blinged up with magic items until he glows or have to sneak into it's lair like a coward an cut it's throat while it's sleeping.