PDA

View Full Version : Class Balance (4e and otherwise)



OneFamiliarFace
2008-06-10, 12:23 AM
You all may have heard that DnD 4e was released this past week. I certainly did! And because of it, many people have begun to once again talk about class balance.

As an avid 3.5e DM and Rogue player, this probably should have been, but never was, an issue for me. I remember many discussions with friends about how the cleric could be overpowered, if given 10 rounds to prepare all his buffs. I remember playing Star Wars as a Scoundrel and realizing that my Jedi companions could mop the floor with me in combat, even if I got the jump on them. And, in my thinking, all was as it should be, because they couldn't break into complex electronic systems or fix droids (and Jedi should beat scoundrels in combat, afterall).

Hmm, I should get to a point. My point is this: Class balance is not an issue that matters to me. I only care about class playability, and I think class balance often takes away a lot of the class fun. When DnD made the switch to 3.5e, they changed the Barbarian, Ranger, and Bard classes, not to make them more balanced, but to make them more playable beyond first level. And it worked all around. The Ranger is still one of my favorite classes, evolved far and beyond his half-rogue/half-fighter craptastic self in 3.0.

And I'm kind of wondering what other people think on this issue (if you've managed to read this far). It's okay that Jedi are better at combat than scoundrels and wizards kill more guys than rogues, right? It's one of the reasons I like DnD over most video games: you have a team, and not just a group of people trying to look cooler than the other players (though there is always one). The best thing WoW stole(borrowed/used) from DnD was that team idea, which isn't found in many games outside of the tabletop RPG world (even, I might argue, in many sports, despite all the underdog movies where everyone has a quirky trait or special trick).

So anyway, I'm putting in a vote for character distinction, rather than character balance. (No matter what 4e does or does not do. If it doesn't hold up, then I don't buy more books. No big deal. I've got enough 3.5 ideas hiding in notebooks to last a lifetime.) Just thought I would say that in a really long-winded post. Good gaming everyone.

TheOOB
2008-06-10, 12:36 AM
Class balance is paramount to the game working however. Every player wants to feel like the hero occasionally, and at the very least every character has an obligation to the party to be useful and good and what they do.

Now keep in mind, class balance doesn't mean everyone does the same thing equally well, in fact it usually means quite the opposite. If everyone does the same thing, they a class that happens to, by intent or accident, be a little better at it is directly better then everyone else, which is no fun. When classes do different things though, they can be balanced by all being as good at what they do as what the other guys are at what they do.

4e is fairly balanced, some classes are a little more powerful then others(notably I find the rogue to be the weakest class, though thats like being an 8.5 when most the others are about a 9), they are still very playable.

Natural20
2008-06-10, 02:13 AM
I agree with the opening post. I have the same opinion because I'm currently running a Star Wars Saga Edition campaign. I have 3 players, one playing a Jedi, another a Soldier, and the last one a Noble. Initially, all 3 had concerns about the Jedi class: they all agreed that it was very powerful and unbalanced. I shrugged, and said let's play and see what happens.

At first, my players' concerns were verified: the Jedi proved the most powerful combatant in the party, demolishing enemies left and right with his force powers in every encounter. Certainly the rest of the party members contributed to the combat, but not to the extent that the Jedi could by using the force.

Pretty soon however the party needed to hack into a computer system to dig up secret information on a corrupt syndicate. The Noble character was the only one that could do it, and her character found information with which she could blackmail powerful members of society.

Next, the party took part in a thrilling speeder chase, in which the Soldier's Pilot skill came into play. He managed to catch up to the criminals, and the whole affair resulted in a very dramatic crash scene in the end.

The Jedi character sulked during these two instances, and lamented at his class' limited role outside of combat.

My point is, a gaming session does not have to have combat in it. Heck, I've a sessions with none at all, and instead explored the other areas of roleplaying, such as interaction, espionage, and plotting. My players also enjoyed it immensely. Having a session without combat seemed almost foreign to them, because I think they never really considered the possibility.

Aside from Munchkin campaigns, you can't have a pure combat game. The most memorable moments in D&D for me weren't the combat, but the interactions with other players, as well as the advancement of the plot by my character. The 'fighter' is but one role, and combat only one facet of roleplaying. People who complain about unbalanced classes are too focused on the latter.

Animefunkmaster
2008-06-10, 02:20 AM
I actually agree with the op to an extent. The only extent is that you can't have a player who is completely outclassed at everything he does all day long, which is something that should be thought about upon character creation. Otherwise a good dm should be able to make everyone a hero.

Skyserpent
2008-06-10, 02:30 AM
haha, indeed Class balance really isn't all that important if you have a good group. A solid team of friends and people who all play for the fun of the game, there's really no reason TO switch if you don't have a problem personally.

I've been in both types of groups, one where everyone just plays to have fun and no one really cares if the Wizard is ridiculously overpowered, and groups where we have Batman Wizards and Clericzillas overshadowing the other players and making them feel less special, or worse, like sidekicks... The problem, for me, is that I'm going to be playing with the second group a lot more often, so I'm really into the whole class balance thing...

Another point to note is that 4e may not be for everyone, but it definitely is for MORE people than 3.5 was. The byzantine spell system, while fascinating and rewarding for some, was daunting and frustrating for a lot of people. So I feel a little scaling back in that area can be helpful... honestly though: I can't promise anyone that they will for certain have more fun in 4e, but what I can say is that both systems have significant potential for awesome sessions, it's jsut that one is a little more user-friendly, and another is a little more complicated and variable. I'm going to go with user-friendly because DMing 3.5 was a freaking b*tch sometimes... That CR system was inane, and if Classes are more balanced, I don't have to devote hours of my prep time to making sure I can adequately challenge the Wizard specifically.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-06-10, 02:52 AM
Man, but I think my favorite thing about 3.5e was having a veritable library of books to be flipping through at all times.

I've been playing that system for what, 5-7 years or however old it is, and I still have to look up AoOs now and again.

"No, you took a 5ft step this round, so you have a move action left, but you can't use it to move. No, standard actions are for attacking. You draw your sword? Okay, AoO... No? That's when you sheath it? Why would you do that? Let's just say your sword was out to begin with."

I'm gonna miss those days.

Job
2008-06-10, 03:01 AM
I'm gonna miss those days.

It’s all good; my guess is that there will be quite a few people playing 3.5/d20 for some time to come, even those who switched to 4e.

Fitz
2008-06-10, 03:39 AM
ok i havn't finally made a descision yet (havn't finished reading the 4E books)
but if as they seem to be they are simpler to run as a DM i may well switch, since i usually end up running the games, and with limited time (3 1/2 hours a day commute, plus studying part time) if it is easier to throw combat encounters together i will have more time for roleplaying encounters puzzles and plot lines, which is all good for my game (as i see it)
so if 4E works out for the group (will be giving it a trial end of the month) we will probably switch

Fitz

turkishproverb
2008-06-10, 03:40 AM
It’s all good; my guess is that there will be quite a few people playing 3.5/d20 for some time to come, even those who switched to 4e.

I doubt it. Unless something unexpected happens, its going to be like the 3.0 transition. the problems with the older edition will continue to be exaggerate into mythic until for the most part people refuse to even learn it.

Counterspin
2008-06-10, 11:15 AM
Class balance is very important to me, and from what I've seen 4e is making great strides forward on that front. I play D&D because it's a roleplaying game with a strong tactical element. By moving toward class balance I think D&D is finally grasping its niche.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-10, 04:47 PM
I take the point about balance vs playability, but the thing is that on quite an important level, they're the same thing.

I have personally found that 3.X mages were sufficiently unbalanced to make things unplayable. Admittedly, part of this is a playstyle issue: I tend to run open-world, low-intensity games, so the party seldom faced more than one encounter per day, and usually had plenty of time to prepare for stuff. This left me with the option of either (a) design encounters *specifically* to deal with mage-tactics or (b) let the mages **** all over everything, neither of which were options I liked.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-06-10, 08:22 PM
I think a lot of times, the problem with wizards and balance is people fail to factor in two things: 1. The DM not wanting to kill off his players, making the d4 HD far less of a liability. And 2. The fact that this very phenomenon makes fighters and barbarians equally useful. Their job is to hold off the bad guys from the wizard, so he can release all his magical glory, and then to protect the wizard when he uses up said magical glory. I know it isn't the most glamorous job. But it's one my fighter always liked, because I got to take a little credit from everything anyone did. "Don't forgot you wouldn't be here to do all that boasting if it weren't for me."

Anyway, the balance I'm talking about is one of combat (which sacrifices utility and roles to make sure any class could beat another in a stand-up fight). In many of the games I play (and I even said this about WoW sometimes when I played it), players call for equal skills in combat, rather than different skills in role specific areas. It's one of the reasons I don't like PvP games and one of the reasons I shy away from comparing table-top roleplaying classes to each other, rather than the challenges at hand.

If my rogue was ever less 'balanced' than other party members, it was simply because the DM designed a slew of 20x20 rooms with maybe a stalagmite in it, excluded traps (calling them boring), and avoided reflex save explosions to save the wizard (who for that very reason never had to use up any of his slots on protection spells). Was the rogue a worse class than wizard? Probably. But it didn't matter to me, as long as I could do something to help the party out.

I understand that it feels contrived to have events that are only there to allow an underrated character to shine. But I eat these up all the time in the comics and cartoons. When I was younger, it never seemed a problem that the Justice League was constantly somehow trapped inside of a yellow kryptonite cage. Now that my players are more discerning, of course, I have to be more subtle. But it can still be done. Usually what I do is estimate the percentage of the encounter CR the bruisers will be able to take out easily with combat, and add a bit extra to that which could tip the scales unless a utility character found a way around it. All the skill monkeys I know love a good challenge anyway.

Besides, having oodles of background on some trap-ridden dungeon that is mostly a series of die rolls is what being a DM is all about. :smalltongue:

Prophaniti
2008-06-10, 08:57 PM
My issue with the move to 'balance' is not the idea itself, but the fact that all this 'balance' is almost entirely combat-related. All the classes have to be balanced in combat, which is not what I want. Everyone is not equally good at pounding things into the dirt (or magic-ing them into the dirt) nor should they be. It make for a boring campaign to my mind, one that encourages hack'n'slash playing and (essentially) small-scale wargaming. If that is the kind of game your after, then I guess they did a great job, since no matter what class you choose, your sure to have a fair crack at dragon-slaying.

I prefer a different kind of balance, where one class is awesome at hitting things, another sucks at it. But its really good at sneaking and woodscraft. Every class should have its niche in my mind, and 4E merely gives every class a combat niche. I like games with less emphasis on combat as the primary activity (though it is still fun). 4E's approach may be balance, but its balance within a very limited scope, that of the battlemap.