eclipsic
2012-04-06, 06:55 PM
I've just posted my first base class revision (the fighter. Don't bother going to look if you've already seen Grod_the_giant's version; apparently, I was channeling Grod while writing mine) and I've had a minor epiphany (is that an oxymoron?) about the problems with class balance. Or, at least, one of the problems with class balance. And it's this:
A fighter (as an example of an ineffectual class) is defined by its role, while a wizard (or other effective class) is defined by its mechanic.
Essentially, that means that, even if a fighter is the best he is at his role, which is combat (or, in the case of my fighter, melee combat/battlefield control), he is mostly useless in other areas of the game. I think this was how D&D was intended to be played, originally, because being a member of a party was a fundamental part of D&D; you were only expected to excel in your bailiwick because you had companions that excelled in theirs and excused you from being useless outside of yours.
Originally, the wizard had a role, too, as the AoE blaster, but along the way, the wizard just somehow became excellent at everything. Spells stopped being special means that could accomplish some supernatural ends, and instead became everyday things that could accomplish anything; the wizard stopped serving a role and started becoming its mechanic. Now, a wizard doesn't have a role to fulfill, he simply has a mechanic by which he fills any role to which applies that mechanic. A wizard who needs to be a fighter casts fighting spells. A wizard who needs to be a sneak casts sneaking spells. A wizard....well, you get the idea.
I think, back in the day (and yes, I was around for the red boxed set, but I honestly prefer 3.5 to any edition in my 35 years of experience), wizards were balanced by their horrifying fragility. That d4 hit dice meant something when you literally couldn't cast a spell when an opponent was adjacent to you. Later on, you could try, but you always provoked an attack of opportunity (they weren't called that till 3E, though) and if it hit and did any damage at all, your spell was ruined. One archer with a readied action (or what passed for one in earlier editions) was all you needed to keep a wizard in check.
No, I'm not yearning for the bygone days of yore. I think 3.x did more for D&D than all other editions put together. What 3.x kind of lost, though, is a sense of belonging that party members felt, because they all knew they had a niche that only they fit into, and nobody else could fill it.
This is long and rambling, so I'll wrap it up. My point is this: perhaps we, as a group of people concerned with the future of our beloved game system, should come up with some ways to return to the idea of "party role" and move away from "class mechanic". I think "balance" would tend to follow. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I think I've asked a pretty good question.
And since I hate posing a question without having at least something in the way of an answer, here's my suggestion for moving toward a more role-oriented wizard: break up the wizard into different roles, much like the beguiler, dread necromancer, and warmage have already done. There's still room for a conjurer base class out there (I really like the summoner from Pathfinder), I'm actually really surprised there's no transmuter base class out there already and I think we even have enough spells now that we can make the diviner a passable build. And roles don't have to be built on schools: a "travel mage" would make a good base class.
Writing that, I realize that I crossed a bit from "role" to "theme", but the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Anyway, that's my 2 cp.
A fighter (as an example of an ineffectual class) is defined by its role, while a wizard (or other effective class) is defined by its mechanic.
Essentially, that means that, even if a fighter is the best he is at his role, which is combat (or, in the case of my fighter, melee combat/battlefield control), he is mostly useless in other areas of the game. I think this was how D&D was intended to be played, originally, because being a member of a party was a fundamental part of D&D; you were only expected to excel in your bailiwick because you had companions that excelled in theirs and excused you from being useless outside of yours.
Originally, the wizard had a role, too, as the AoE blaster, but along the way, the wizard just somehow became excellent at everything. Spells stopped being special means that could accomplish some supernatural ends, and instead became everyday things that could accomplish anything; the wizard stopped serving a role and started becoming its mechanic. Now, a wizard doesn't have a role to fulfill, he simply has a mechanic by which he fills any role to which applies that mechanic. A wizard who needs to be a fighter casts fighting spells. A wizard who needs to be a sneak casts sneaking spells. A wizard....well, you get the idea.
I think, back in the day (and yes, I was around for the red boxed set, but I honestly prefer 3.5 to any edition in my 35 years of experience), wizards were balanced by their horrifying fragility. That d4 hit dice meant something when you literally couldn't cast a spell when an opponent was adjacent to you. Later on, you could try, but you always provoked an attack of opportunity (they weren't called that till 3E, though) and if it hit and did any damage at all, your spell was ruined. One archer with a readied action (or what passed for one in earlier editions) was all you needed to keep a wizard in check.
No, I'm not yearning for the bygone days of yore. I think 3.x did more for D&D than all other editions put together. What 3.x kind of lost, though, is a sense of belonging that party members felt, because they all knew they had a niche that only they fit into, and nobody else could fill it.
This is long and rambling, so I'll wrap it up. My point is this: perhaps we, as a group of people concerned with the future of our beloved game system, should come up with some ways to return to the idea of "party role" and move away from "class mechanic". I think "balance" would tend to follow. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I think I've asked a pretty good question.
And since I hate posing a question without having at least something in the way of an answer, here's my suggestion for moving toward a more role-oriented wizard: break up the wizard into different roles, much like the beguiler, dread necromancer, and warmage have already done. There's still room for a conjurer base class out there (I really like the summoner from Pathfinder), I'm actually really surprised there's no transmuter base class out there already and I think we even have enough spells now that we can make the diviner a passable build. And roles don't have to be built on schools: a "travel mage" would make a good base class.
Writing that, I realize that I crossed a bit from "role" to "theme", but the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Anyway, that's my 2 cp.