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

[Bedrockbrendan]

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.

A fighter who cant fly taking on a dragon that can is iconic. Without fly characters have to do stuff like lure the animal into a trap, set up waves of arrows or even catapults to drop it, wrangle it with ropes to hinder its flying etc. I a not seeing why the existence of flying dragons means fighters must also be able to do stuff like fly.

I think you just want weeabo and you are trying to prove others should as well. I have played countless rpgs with flying dragons and non flying fighters and it has never once been a problem for me or anyone at the table. So i see no reason to adopt your preference as a universal rule her.

If this is an issue, as mguy points out, make sure there are ways to disrupt flight in the game.

[Rum Cove]

A fighter who cant fly taking on a dragon that can is iconic.

Beowulf [2007]

[Rum Cove]

With thanks to acaeum.com:

Cover to D&D Basic Set

Cover to D&D Expert Set

Cover to D&D Companion Set

Cover to D&D Master Set

If this isn't a continuation of the Wizard vs Fighter thread, then what else needs to be balanced?  Wizard vs Cleric?

[RandallS]

....or have to sneak into it's lair like a coward an cut it's throat while it's sleeping.

That's cowardly???  It sounds more like the stuff or legend to me.

Lone warrior sneaks into the lair of the great dragon that had been terrorizing villages and decimating units of the King's Army and single-handedly kills it in its sleep. In its death throws, the dragon brought down the roof of it lair and the warrior barely escaped with his life -- and a small fortune in jewelry he managed to snag as he out ran the cave's collapse.

[Rum Cove]

That's cowardly???  It sounds more like the stuff or legend to me.

One should distract it with a Silent Image, while hiding Invisibly, watching summoned monsters kill it while it sleeps.

Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, A, B and start!

[Sacrosanct]

With thanks to acaeum.com:

Cover to D&D Basic Set

Cover to D&D Expert Set

Cover to D&D Companion Set

Cover to D&D Master Set

If this isn't a continuation of the Wizard vs Fighter thread, then what else needs to be balanced?  Wizard vs Cleric?

Don't forget Moldvay's basic as well



But man, you mean fighters who can't fly are worthless against dragons?  If only there were examples in wide-spread literature to pull from.....


Who knew that Bard (the Hobbit) could fly?  Or St. George?

[StormBringer]

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?

Oh, sure, but starting with a specific claim made about a specific 'balance' issue (Class1 is better than Class2) seems a good place to start.  I guess we can circle back to it instead.

How about:

Premise #1: Spells are the most powerful element in D&D
Premise #2: Classes that can use spells are more powerful than classes that cannot.
Premise #3: Magic Users, Clerics, et al, can use spells
Premise #4: Fighters, Thieves, et al, cannot use spells.
Conclusion: Magic Users, Clerics, et al are more powerful than Fighters, Thieves, et al.

They aren't going to define 'balance', they aren't going to engage in any discussion they don't have absolute control over, and they will continue to whine about those two things almost endlessly.  It doesn't really matter if I start with a specific issue and move outwards, or if I start with the general position and move inwards.  As soon as someone actually presents a 'cohesive discussion' or offers a purely 'logical' path, we are treated to more whining about how we are supposed to prove them wrong and repeat after repeat of statements that have already been proven wrong as absolute fact.

FvW isn't a unlucky happenstance from this line of discussion.  It's the only thing they really want to argue.  The entirety of their balance discussion is based on Wizards being far superior to Fighters, and just about everyone else.

I understand no wants to re-hash FvW, but that is the very nucleus of their arguments.  Balance for them begins and ends with the relative power of Wizards and Fighters.  And now that I have offered them their 'logical' discussion to prove how awesome they are at logic, and how unquestionably correct their assertions are.  What happens?  They go scuttling off into the dark corners again.

[beejazz]

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.

I left out time-based resource management because I didn't want to get into a discussion on the various loopholes, how the adventure must be paced around it, or how parties can or can't control the pace.

But to answer my own question there's no good solution. If the class can be as good as one of two classes, but only on different days there's no reason to choose one of the two classes over the respeccing class. If the class is never as good in his own field as a specialist that might not be satisfying either.

Oh, sure, but starting with a specific claim made about a specific 'balance' issue (Class1 is better than Class2) seems a good place to start.  I guess we can circle back to it instead.

How about:

Premise #1: Spells are the most powerful element in D&D
Premise #2: Classes that can use spells are more powerful than classes that cannot.
Premise #3: Magic Users, Clerics, et al, can use spells
Premise #4: Fighters, Thieves, et al, cannot use spells.
Conclusion: Magic Users, Clerics, et al are more powerful than Fighters, Thieves, et al.

Since we're talking generally, #1 depends on edition, spell level, party level and a bunch of other things. Never mind that this isn't just about D&D.

Premise #2 doesn't necessarily follow from premise #1, and again isn't necessarily true depending on the method of resource management.

Even premise #4 is somewhat circumstantial (a class-based game can have dabbling).

And without premise #2 in working order the conclusion is shot.

FvW isn't a unlucky happenstance from this line of discussion.  It's the only thing they really want to argue.  The entirety of their balance discussion is based on Wizards being far superior to Fighters, and just about everyone else.

I try to avoid attributing motive or jumping in with "what people really want to talk about" when I can avoid it.

Thread's been dragged back down by people on both "sides." Probably just because it's on peoples' minds and the other thread got locked. Not remotely surprising nor a conspiracy on anybody's part probably. It is, however, mildly annoying.

I understand no wants to re-hash FvW, but that is the very nucleus of their arguments.  Balance for them begins and ends with the relative power of Wizards and Fighters.  And now that I have offered them their 'logical' discussion to prove how awesome they are at logic, and how unquestionably correct their assertions are.  What happens?  They go scuttling off into the dark corners again.

Um... or they could be compulsive homebrewers interested in discussing balance for their own nefarious purposes of tinkering on their homebrews.

Relative power arguments are common regardless of the class pair (in circles that commonly have these arguments). Clerics bloat more with splats than wizards (since they have access to their entire spell list) and the monk is even more bitched about online than the fighter.

[Lord Mistborn]

A fighter who cant fly taking on a dragon that can is iconic. Without fly characters have to do stuff like lure the animal into a trap, set up waves of arrows or even catapults to drop it, wrangle it with ropes to hinder its flying etc. I a not seeing why the existence of flying dragons means fighters must also be able to do stuff like fly.

I think you just want weeabo and you are trying to prove others should as well. I have played countless rpgs with flying dragons and non flying fighters and it has never once been a problem for me or anyone at the table. So i see no reason to adopt your preference as a universal rule her.

If this is an issue, as mguy points out, make sure there are ways to disrupt flight in the game.

The reason the fighter class (and to a lesser extent the rogue) fails to keep up in so many games is that any suggestion that if a fighter of Xth level is capable of anything that is impossible for a normal human the model train enthusiasts come out and scream their denial.

So I want everyone to think long and hard on this one. If you keep asking the designers "I want to kill a city bus sized armored firebreathing death-lizard with my sword while still being totally within the realistic capabilities of an ordinary human" your never going to get that, ever.

Listen I have no interest in a game where some classes are capable of whatever because they have the (Su) tag while others can't have anything that the model train enthusiasts wont swallow.

[Sacrosanct]

For someone who keeps whining about not wanting trolling, you sure say a lot of vitriolic hyperbole meant for no other reason than to rile people up.

Newsflash: it doesn't make you sound any more grown up kid.

[Rum Cove]

This one is spinning bigger donuts than all the other failed attempts.

Label the thread "3.x/PF/d20" or shut'er down!

[Bedrockbrendan]

I left out time-based resource management because I didn't want to get into a discussion on the various loopholes, how the adventure must be paced around it, or how parties can or can't control the pace.

But to answer my own question there's no good solution. If the class can be as good as one of two classes, but only on different days there's no reason to choose one of the two classes over the respeccing class. If the class is never as good in his own field as a specialist that might not be satisfying either.
.

Not sure what you mean exactly by respeccing class but judging by ocntext here I dont see why this forces the conclusion there is no reason to choose the other two classes. Just because class a can mimix their abilities on a limited basis, that doesn't mean it preferable. There is a substantial difference between having an ability to use all day versus having that same ability with limited uses per day.

However we are also talking very abstractly so a little hard to know what you have specifically in mind here.

Mind you, i am not saying you have to agree with me that this produces more enjyable or balanced play. But I think balancing a game in this way is entirely valid.

[deadDMwalking]

Oh, sure, but starting with a specific claim made about a specific 'balance' issue (Class1 is better than Class2) seems a good place to start.  I guess we can circle back to it instead.

Yes.  We can talk about what balance is desireable before we discuss how different classes are balanced.  Because even if we agree the classes 'aren't balanced', unless we know what balance is desireable, we can't really move toward solutions.  

How about:

If I remember correctly, you've said that denners have some kind of hard-on for logic.  Or maybe they wank to it.  Something to that effect.  If that's the case, why do you keep pretending to want to use logic?  

But if you do, it'd be best to avoid starting with false premises.

Premise #1: Spells are the most powerful element in D&D

There are a number of factors that contribute to 'power'.  If spells were the 'most powerful element', then a gnome would be more powerful than a dwarf, because gnomes get speak with animals for free, and dwarves don't have any spells.  Spells are among the most powerful resouces in D&D - largely because they are flexible, scalable, and renewable.  This premise is false

Premise #2: Classes that can use spells are more powerful than classes that cannot.

This isn't necessarily true.  First off, some classes can use more spells more often and/or more reliably than others.  A bard isn't necessarily 'more powerful' than a Fighter because he has access to spells.  In 3.x, people talk about the Beguiler and in Pathfinder the Summoner as a good class - while they are less powerful than a straight wizard or cleric, they are fun because they're built on a theme.  A standard wizard might have a spell that kills people instantly finger of death, lots of mobility spells (teleport, dimension door, fly, etc).  Spells are a resource.  Access to a resource is a net gain in power.  The quality of the resource determines which is more powerful.  Thus, someone could argue that 'fighters are more powerful' because they have 'better access' to feats.  Feats are a resource, like spells, and having more of, and better access to, increases character power.  

In the case of D&D 3.x, spells scale more quickly than feats, so in the long run, it is a more 'powerful' resource, assuming sensible selection of spells.

Premise #3: Magic Users, Clerics, et al, can use spells

This is mostly true, but isn't necessarily true.  A Wizard in Full Plate can't use spells.  A Wizard with an Intelligence of 10 can't use spells.  A wizard that is affected by a feeblemind spell, therefore, doesn't have access to his spells.  But in general, this statement is largely true.  Not enough to stand up to a strict logical evaluation, but this one I'll generally grant you.

Premise #4: Fighters, Thieves, et al, cannot use spells.

Again, not strictly true.  Use Magic Device is a skill.  With enough ranks in the skill, a Fighter or Rogue could cast spells.  Drinking a potion is 'using a spell'.  Let's say that Fighters are Rogues have limited access to spells, and generally, the access that they DO have is not as flexible, scalable, or powerful as that available to equal level 'spell casters'.  

Conclusion: Magic Users, Clerics, et al are more powerful than Fighters, Thieves, et al.

While this totally doesn't follow from your premises, yes, generally speaking clerics and wizards are more powerful than fighters or rogues.  More specifically, it is true at high levels when spellcasters have better access to spells making them more flexible, allowing their powers to scale to a level-appropriate effect, and they get the most powerful abilities in the game.  How many 'sword strokes' is finger of death equivalent to?  

In any case, if you value logic SO MUCH, you should be willing to explain your point, and then use logic in support of it.  As is, it looks like you're trying to build an easily torn apart straw man.  If I agree with your premises, you'll point out that they're false like I just did.  I don't agree with your premises, so if you want to attack my argument, you can do that without turning to 'illogic'.  

They aren't going to define 'balance', they aren't going to engage in any discussion they don't have absolute control over, and they will continue to whine about those two things almost endlessly.

People have defined balance several times in this thread, including Mguy and LordMistborn.  What I think is that you'll never admit that people have done what you asked.  Nobody in the 'they' that you mention has any control over the discussion, and they are 'engaged'.  Further, they're 'asserting', not 'whining'.  I've heard several claims that those 'assertions' have been 'refuted', but despite having read every post in this thread and the Fighter v Wizard balance bullshit thread, I haven't seen that happen.  

I understand no wants to re-hash FvW, but that is the very nucleus of their arguments.  Balance for them begins and ends with the relative power of Wizards and Fighters.  And now that I have offered them their 'logical' discussion to prove how awesome they are at logic, and how unquestionably correct their assertions are.  What happens?  They go scuttling off into the dark corners again.

Relative balance of Fighters and Wizards is illustrative of concerns I have with balance.  I want balance, and that's a very easy way to explain why high level games aren't balanced.  Considering how many people have been willing to INSIST that high level Fighters pull their weight in 3.x (even though it is apparently a game they know little about), it's lucky that we're using the most obvious example, because the less stark cases (while still illustrative) are a little harder to see.  You want to talk about why the Paladin isn't as powerful as a Cleric?  Do you want to discuss Multi-Attribute Dependency versus Single-Attribute Dependency?  Because we could.  

But I'm not interested in 'your logic', which isn't logical.  Nor am I scuttling off to a dark corner.  I'll continue to discuss the positions in good faith (depsite accusations to the contrary) because I believe that most of our positions are not as far apart as you might like to pretend.

[Lord Mistborn]

For someone who keeps whining about not wanting trolling, you sure say a lot of vitriolic hyperbole meant for no other reason than to rile people up.

Newsflash: it doesn't make you sound any more grown up kid.

I'm just asking the grognards stop hedging.

Either the mundane classes are not limited by "what's realistically within human capability" which if this is the case all the anti-weeaboo arguments are just kvetching about personal taste or they are intended to be so limited and that means the game has to be radically redesigned.

[Sacrosanct]

I'm just asking the grognards stop hedging.

No you're not.  You're insisting on using inflammatory hyperbole while in the same breath trying to call for "rational" discussion?

And you wonder why no one but your echo chamber brother takes you seriously.