In Praise of Nerfs

[Pex]

No, I'm implying that 5e's design decisions are weird and not conductive to balance. But yes, I recognise that you are asking sarcastically.

It's a shame that, despite all the issues it had (radical shift from two/three standard class chasises to one, broken skill challenges, lack of adequate playtesting) 4e's focus on balance was thrown aside to a focus on not actually giving rules and making everything look as similar to 3.X as they could.

People wanted 3E. That's why Pathfinder became so popular. 4E's problem was it sacrificed everything in the name of balance. It made everyone and every magic item "samey". Yes, there was the portable hole and such, but magic items were mainly another word for daily powers. Magic weapons only changed the type[color] of damage, not the amount of damage nor odds of hitting. If it did anything special it was another daily power. Class powers were X[weapon] damage of type [color] plus Condition or Someone Moves. If Condition is harmful, save ends. Wizard did have some powers that were not this chasis. Encounter powers were at will powers with bigger numbers. Dailies were encounter powers with bigger numbers.

There's nothing wrong with balance, but it matters how it's done. Though I'm not a fan of the Tier System of 3E, it acknowledges 3E has balanced classes - those in Tier 3. Pathfinder has its balanced classes.

[icefractal]

Pathfinder did goof with the Summoner spell list. Summoners were able to cast Teleport as a 4th level spell. That means Summoners could create wands of Teleport. They fixed it in a later splat book, redoing Summoner and moved Teleport back to 5th level. Haste was also their 2nd level spell, which they returned to 3rd level. Trouble is some players weren't happy with changes to the Eidolon, again showing you can never please everyone.

Summoners (original version) are only a problem if you expected them to be weaker than full-casters based on their limited progression. And actually they are weaker, but only in some areas; in summoning/binding, transportation, and to an extent ally boosting, they're as good as a full caster. But why wouldn't they be? Summoner never promised to nerf casters, it's simply a very specialized one. And personally, I would find it bad design if the answer to "how to make a good summoning-focused character" was "sor/wiz is actually the best at it, summoner is a flavorful but weaker choice".

The spell level thing is only a problem with magic item creation (which itself is questionably balanced for anything using a fixed formula - some wands/scrolls/etc are much better than others). And honestly, does a Wand of Teleport break anything? That's a rather expensive item.

As for why I dislike the Unchained Eidolon - it changes it from "here's a class where you can build exactly the companion you imagine, not pick off a list like Druid etc" to "here's a class where you can tweak a bit Paizo's ideas of what an Eidolon should look like".

Although if anything, even the original Eidolon is too melee focused, with the SLA options being terrible. The Spheres of Power Conjuration companion rules are much more versatile.

[Lucas Yew]

Also, in 5e why on earth does the Wizard effectively get both a larger Spells Known list than the Sorcerer and the ability to change it from day to day? Oh, throw that question out to both the Cleric and Druid as well, Clerics even get an additional set of always memorised spells on top of the wizard like number of flexible spells, just from a more limited list.

Rage material alone, that one is. I'd prefer that the fixed list casters should have had more than what an equal leveled prep caster had each day (the current 5E Bard is a good start; Sorcerer's utter lack of personal spells is a massive felony) + have the latter prepare less spells per day than Level + CastMod (like Level/2 + CastMod or something similar)...

[King of Nowhere]

I must point out that D&D 3.5 is intentionally needing nerfs and bans and it was always intended to run heavily on rule 0. The dmg is fulll of "at the discretion of the dm", "the dm decides whether to allow", "the dm sets up stuff", "variant rules". it was never meant as a free for all. 3.5 does not function as it is, it only works if you tamper with it and take a subset of its options.
But this grants greater flexibility. you can play the game at different power levels, with different tones, widely different settings.
forcing balance always happens at the cost of freedom.
much better to balance to the table. but that requires, implicityly, bans and nerfs. because if everyone at your table agrees to not play an ubercharger, what's that if not a ban?

[kyoryu]

But this grants greater flexibility. you can play the game at different power levels, with different tones, widely different settings.

For different power levels, I'd rather just play at different level bands. Want to play an uber-powered game? Start at level 10. Want to player a lower-powered game? Do something like E6.

Having all the classes at the same effective tier doesn't stop you from doing games at different power levels - it just standardizes on one tool for determining "power".

[Anonymouswizard]

But this grants greater flexibility. you can play the game at different power levels, with different tones, widely different settings.
forcing balance always happens at the cost of freedom.

If I wanted flexibility I'd play Fudge, or possibly GURPS. But United you're going to be a toolkit you can't promise freedom, and people are always going to assume that everything is on the table unless told otherwise.

If you want multiple tiers it might be best to split archetypes between them explicitly, as Wrath & Gory. There you get four tiers: worthless cannon fodder, Rogue Traders (and occasionally Rouge Traders), Glory Stealers, Everybody Expects The Imperial Inquisition, and grand heroes (actually just called Tiers 1-5, but the descriptions help grasp the power level). Every Archetype has a Tier, and every Archetype above Tier 1 had a points cost. You can't play an archetype from the campaign's Tier or below, and if your Archetype is below the campaign Tier you have to boost it up by buying an Accessible Package to show how you're not just a Guardsman, Ganger, Sanctioned Psyker, or Tactical Marine.

This can lead to the Guardsman lugging around four rifle sized weapons (say a lasgun, grenade launcher, meltagun, and bolter), or swapping one out for Carapace or Powered Armour, buying their Ballistic Skill up to six, and purchasing both a Reticule Eye and Subdermal Armour, just because they're in a Tier 3 campaign and have to compete with Space Marines (who have to pay 150BP just to purchase the right to be a Tactical Marine). But that also makes sense for some games (say basically being the personal retinue of an Inquisitor who likes to delegate, a Guardsman might reasonably end up there and would have ready access to such weapons from their position).

[King of Nowhere]

For different power levels, I'd rather just play at different level bands. Want to play an uber-powered game? Start at level 10. Want to player a lower-powered game? Do something like E6.

Having all the classes at the same effective tier doesn't stop you from doing games at different power levels - it just standardizes on one tool for determining "power".

but you'd have to strictly restrict builds to achieve that uniformity. the more moving part you allow in a build, the more you create the potential for unforeseen powerful combination. nobody created the ubercharger or the mailman, they come together as a combo of different powers from different books, none of which is broken when taken individually. so, you either forbid multiclassing and ban most interesting feats, or leaving freedom is going to result in some high power combos.
freedom or equality. you can't have both.

aside from that, a low-op level 10 or a high op level 5 may have similar powers, but playing them has a much different feel. it's definitely not the same thing.

[Anonymouswizard]

3.X was designed for low op characters? What world-shattering news!

Honestly a game being narrow and limited in concept isn't bad. Paleomythic won't let you play anything but a member of a stone age tribe, with a decent number of Talents on the hunter/gatherer side, but apart from a couple of niggles (mainly chargen being fixed cost and progression being scaling cost) does it very well/ Despite a couple of powerful talents, mostly the various minion focused ones, nothing is outright broken and it's focus has helped it. Plus it has the decency to have the entire game in one book, so if I want to play something else it's not like my Paleomythic collection is stopping me from buying something else.

D&D having a wide variety of play doen/t tell me it's suitable for a lot of things, it tells me that it probably doesn;t do it all well. It's why one of my projects is a fantasy RPG at a specific power level and an included setting, I feel that it would run mucvh better at it's intended level.

[kyoryu]

but you'd have to strictly restrict builds to achieve that uniformity. the more moving part you allow in a build, the more you create the potential for unforeseen powerful combination. nobody created the ubercharger or the mailman, they come together as a combo of different powers from different books, none of which is broken when taken individually. so, you either forbid multiclassing and ban most interesting feats, or leaving freedom is going to result in some high power combos.
freedom or equality. you can't have both.

aside from that, a low-op level 10 or a high op level 5 may have similar powers, but playing them has a much different feel. it's definitely not the same thing.

Uh, yes, that's my point. I'd rather handle varying power levels through levels rather than tiers.

In other words, I'd prefer if everything in 3.x was effectively Tier 3, and if you wanted to play higher power levels, you'd play at a higher level.

How to apply that to Actual D&D 3.x is beyond the scope of this discussion. I'm not interested in opening that can of worms.

[King of Nowhere]

Uh, yes, that's my point. I'd rather handle varying power levels through levels rather than tiers.

In other words, I'd prefer if everything in 3.x was effectively Tier 3, and if you wanted to play higher power levels, you'd play at a higher level.

How to apply that to Actual D&D 3.x is beyond the scope of this discussion. I'm not interested in opening that can of worms.

huh.... my point is kinda the opposite. i don't want every class to be tier 3. i want to be able to mix and mash my classes and have a wide variety of options of different power level. and then we choose with my table what's the target

[Batcathat]

huh.... my point is kinda the opposite. i don't want every class to be tier 3. i want to be able to mix and mash my classes and have a wide variety of options of different power level. and then we choose with my table what's the target

How is that different from a theoretical system where every class is about the same tier but can vary in power depending on their level? Except that such as system would be more honest and easy to understand than the actual one.

[Mechalich]

How is that different from a theoretical system where every class is about the same tier but can vary in power depending on their level? Except that such as system would be more honest and easy to understand than the actual one.

Classes are effectively character concepts, rendered broadly, and not all concepts are created equal in power. 'guy who hits people with sword' and 'master of the mystic arts' are not equal concepts (yes there are high-powered martial concepts, but they're things like 'legendary swordsaint' or 'Hulk').

A system that offers all classes of the same tier is balancing concepts, it includes those concepts it can manage along specific measured progression. A system that allows for vastly different concepts and only hopes to balance the ultimate outputs is different. GURPS, for example, will let you build anything you want at a certain point value, and then claim that all things at the same point value are balanced (which is not necessarily true, of course, but that's the idea).

Now, from a design perspective if you're going to have classes at all, then every effort should be made to balance them against each other. This is admittedly challenging in tabletop because its difficult to manage outputs very well, especially out of combat (video games, which can manage outputs arbitrarily, handle classes much more effectively).

[Rynjin]

How is that different from a theoretical system where every class is about the same tier but can vary in power depending on their level? Except that such as system would be more honest and easy to understand than the actual one.

It differs in the sense that locking character progression directly to power scaling results in pushing out everyone who wants characters to grow in versatility or a little in power out of playing the game, pretty much.

People crave some sort of progression in their RPGs, and systems typically provide one of three advancement paradigms.

1.) Advancement provides "more of what you are". This is how D&D and other d20 systems typically handle it. A Fighter gets more fighter-y, a Wizard gets more Wizard-y over time.
2.) Advancement provides more options. This would be something like Savage Worlds, where characters don't get very much demonstrably stronger in terms of numbers over time (though they do a bit), but they get more things they CAN do.
3.) A combination of both or neither. Systems like Mutants and Masterminds where raw power progression (numbers) and options progression are not necessarily tied. You can use Power Points for both, but only within pre-defined limits; a Power Level 10 character at a certain point caps out on numbers, but can still keep earing Power Points to boost the number of different things they can do.

These are the systems that work, and they each have their own benefits and drawbacks. Notice that none of them involve ascending directly to a new tier of power, universally, based on a simple leveling system. Because that's just really darn clunky. A level 1 Fighter should not be "just a dude with a sword" while a level 20 Fighter is, like...Maui or Thor or some other semi-cosmic deity figure. It just doesn't make very much sense.

Instead, a Fighter should not ideally start off being "just a guy at the gym" at all; he should have something that delineates him as a superhuman physical paragon in waiting. At least, if you plan to have that level 20 demigod endpoint in mind, in any case.

Conversely, a Wizard should not be starting as just some nerd and attaining godhood from there. A Wizard should be a Wizard from the start, and just get more Wizard-y as time goes on.

Basing Tier (which is entirely a measurement of versatility/problem solving) as well as numbers entirely on level is not going to end up with the effect you may think it will.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Basing Tier (which is entirely a measurement of versatility/problem solving) as well as numbers entirely on level is not going to end up with the effect you may think it will.

And, I will note, extreme differences in power during a campaign make for tonal shifts that can be difficult to handle. For the DM, they're effectively playing 3 different games as the levels go on--

Low levels are action heroes, mid-levels are superheroes, and if you're doing the full T1-style, high levels are "reshape reality/xanatos gambits". And those take different competencies, really.

[Mechalich]

These are the systems that work, and they each have their own benefits and drawbacks. Notice that none of them involve ascending directly to a new tier of power, universally, based on a simple leveling system. Because that's just really darn clunky.

There are systems where character power is supposed to be broadly tied to a single metric, one that increases over time and may even have 'levels.' Exalted, for example, works like this, in that all characters have Essence and as your essence score increases so does overall power (actually a number of high-powered WW games did this, just using different labels each time). And this sort of thing is reasonable for certain kinds of stories, especially the kind of shounen anime style ones where all power is based on the manipulation of Qi or Chakra or some other universal mystic energy source.

The problem with such systems is that it requires precisely balancing abilities against mana cost or you can kiss any idea of balance goodbye and it becomes all about getting the good abilities and not taking the bad ones. For a D&D example, imagine a party where everyone plays sorcerers: balance then shifts to spell selection, because the spells aren't balanced against each other at all.

In order to make this work the powers available to each character need to be very limited. This works well in video game tactical RPGs, where each character might have only a handful of moves even as max level, but it has problems in tabletop, including the tendency to make the moves 'samey' that afflicted 4e (this is also true of video games, but they have shiny visuals with which to hide the issue).

And, I will note, extreme differences in power during a campaign make for tonal shifts that can be difficult to handle. For the DM, they're effectively playing 3 different games as the levels go on--

Low levels are action heroes, mid-levels are superheroes, and if you're doing the full T1-style, high levels are "reshape reality/xanatos gambits". And those take different competencies, really.

There's also the world-building difficulties attendant to such massive shifts in scale. Effectively different games need effectively different settings for the characters to stomp around in. They don't have to be completely different settings, it's fine if the characters reach superhero levels of power and then the demon invasion happens and so forth, but characters operating on a different scale also need a backdrop of a different scale.

[MrStabby]

So I have written about this a few times, but always in the context of 5th edition.

With respect to buffing or nerfing, sometimes you need to nerf. That a fix that buffs will cause more problems than it fixes.

Some problems are quantitative- things like damage, and a bit of scaling to bring outliers (at either end) towards the middle works. Others are qualitative, that the act of doing something disrupts the game.

My favourite example is from one of my games (5E) we had a ranger. The ranger's thing was to be a wilderness guide, a scout, and a survival expert. This faced some challenges but the last nail in the coffin was when the wizard picked up teleport. The character that would shine on a three week trek accross the mountains just saw their area of expertise removed from the game.

How do you buff ranger to avoid this problem? Giving ranger teleport doesnt fix it - your class fantasy of being a wilderness guide is reduced from a few sessions of spotlight time to a few seconds of casting one spell.

To preserve one character's class fantasy another character need to give something up.

I think that this also covers part of the challenge - it is really context specific. Teleport is not usually a "broken" spell but it is in the context of stepping on another class' toes. Invisibility isnt often a broken spell but if you have a rogue that has invested a lot of their class abilities in being unseen, then it is. In this case a buff may not fix things but can help (letting high stealth rolls turn you invisible).

So yeah, nerfing is sometimes needed and even if you wanted to, not everything can be fixed by buffs.

Add to that, that if some spell or ability is causing balance issues in a game then players want to see it fixed. Changing half a dozen abilities that are not the problem ability won't have the same confidence boosting impact than changing the abilities that have been problematic.

[Rynjin]

I think that this also covers part of the challenge - it is really context specific. Teleport is not usually a "broken" spell but it is in the context of stepping on another class' toes. Invisibility isnt often a broken spell but if you have a rogue that has invested a lot of their class abilities in being unseen, then it is. In this case a buff may not fix things but can help (letting high stealth rolls turn you invisible).

You know the funny thing is, in Pathfinder anyway this is a weird parabola. At low levels, Invisibility thrashes Stealth. +20 bonus that stacks with everything else is too good.

Then at high levels, everything has so many ways to see through Invisibility and standard Stealth, that a true Stealth skill specialist begins to shine more and more, as they're not inconvenienced by See Invisibility, and can overcome issues like Blindsight and Scent making both Stealth and Invisibility irrelevant.

It takes investment, but it works.

[Pex]

Sometimes something might need a nerf, but the nerf is only necessary for the one doing it not a universal truth of need. People have different tolerance levels of power. For games that increase power over time some players can't or won't adjust and blame/resent the game. The game is not at fault. It would be nice and helpful for a game to explain and demonstrate the different power levels, so you can fault a game that doesn't adequately do this but the game is still not at fault for being that way. It is on purpose design feature for the PC to be that powerful at the relevant time the power is acquired. There is nothing inherently wrong with a PC having that power. The wrongness of it is only relevant to the individual who just can't stand it.

The previous is about the power existing in and of itself. It's a different topic when talking about two characters having disparate power when the game intends for them to be equivalent. This would be the game's fault because it's a mistake in its rules design. However, the mistake is not automatically the fault of the higher powered character. It could be, just not by default.

[Cluedrew]

Classes are effectively character concepts, rendered broadly, and not all concepts are created equal in power. 'guy who hits people with sword' and 'master of the mystic arts' are not equal concepts (yes there are high-powered martial concepts, but they're things like 'legendary swordsaint' or 'Hulk').

I'm not going to launch into the caster/martial disparity side of this (I'm so tempted but this is not the thread) but I will cover two points. Neither are actually counter points exactly to what you said but might go in a different direction.

First role-playing games have a pretty broad balance band because its not a competitive game. Characters don't need to have equal output they just need to be making meaningful contributions (and that band gets even wider when you consider the non-mechanical weight of "is a character in the story"). And although this sort of shoves the work to defining it to meaningful contributions but its usually good enough.

Second as wide as that band is it is still very easy to go outside of it. And I don't think a system should do that, its characters should always (or as close as possible) fit into one band. The individual concepts might be valid but they just don't belong together. You should not have a legendary swordsaint and struggling single mother herbalist in the same group (on the other hand that sounds like the basis for a romantic comedy), they belong to different games. And if you want to put them in the same system you should make that very clear.

[King of Nowhere]

How is that different from a theoretical system where every class is about the same tier but can vary in power depending on their level? Except that such as system would be more honest and easy to understand than the actual one.

this theoretical system is just that: theoretical.
and it cannot be made to exhist.

the thing is, you start to create all classes equal. ok, you can do it. then you add a bunch of extra material. at this point it won't matter how you do it, there's bound to be some combinations of class/level/feats that are stronger than others. Even if you somehow managed to make all classes equally powerful in theoretical balance (which would require so much tweaking as to make it completely impractical; 3.5 was supposed to be balanced, and to most casual players it is balanced except that monks are too strong and wizards are nerfed sorcerors. We only know how to abuse it because of years of gameplay practice and internet forums), then a skilled player can still build a stronger character.
notice that it's not a problem with class power, but with player skill. give a wizard and a druid to two bad players, look at them be useless.

So, if you don't want skilled players to build stronger characters than unskilled players, the only thing you can do is handing everyone pregenerated characters and forbid them to every touch their build.

Or, you can give them multiple options and expect them to sort them out balancing issues among themselves like adults.

[Tanarii]

Sometimes something might need a nerf, but the nerf is only necessary for the one doing it not a universal truth of need. People have different tolerance levels of power. For games that increase power over time some players can't or won't adjust and blame/resent the game. The game is not at fault. It would be nice and helpful for a game to explain and demonstrate the different power levels, so you can fault a game that doesn't adequately do this but the game is still not at fault for being that way. It is on purpose design feature for the PC to be that powerful at the relevant time the power is acquired. There is nothing inherently wrong with a PC having that power. The wrongness of it is only relevant to the individual who just can't stand it.

Nerfing isn't about people. It's about an option being out of line with other options for the same character option.

If option A is always a better pick than option B through Z for the same character option, then option A should be nerfed to bring it in line. Or gotten rid of.

Examples from 5e:
- if a class were the flat out best class, nerf the class (spoiler, none are)
- if a subclass is flat out the best subclass for the class, nerf the subclass (IMO Hexblade)
- if feat(s) are far superior to all other feats and ASIs, nerf them (IMO GWM/SS)
- if an ability score is a god stat nerf it (some folks say Dexterity, but IMO none)
- if a skill is always necessary to pick, nerf it (some folks say Perception, but IMO none)

And the opposite goes true for buffing. If it's subpar compared to the other options, buff it or get rid of it. (Looking at you 5e Performance skill.)

Edit: To address you point properly ... no it's not universal, it's all about opinions. But it should be demonstrable independent of e.g. the other characters in a campaign or the challenges the GM is putting forth. By comparing it to the other options/choices available

[Pex]

Nerfing isn't about people. It's about an option being out of line with other options for the same character option.

If option A is always a better pick than option B through Z for the same character option, then option A should be nerfed to bring it in line. Or gotten rid of.

Examples from 5e:
- if a class were the flat out best class, nerf the class (spoiler, none are)
- if a subclass is flat out the best subclass for the class, nerf the subclass (IMO Hexblade)
- if feat(s) are far superior to all other feats and ASIs, nerf them (IMO GWM/SS)
- if an ability score is a god stat nerf it (some folks say Dexterity, but IMO none)
- if a skill is always necessary to pick, nerf it (some folks say Perception, but IMO none)

And the opposite goes true for buffing. If it's subpar compared to the other options, buff it or get rid of it. (Looking at you 5e Performance skill.)

Edit: To address you point properly ... no it's not universal, it's all about opinions. But it should be demonstrable independent of e.g. the other characters in a campaign or the challenges the GM is putting forth. By comparing it to the other options/choices available

If you want to change something, change it. If you don't change it, don't punish the player for choosing it when you said they could, such as denial of magic items.

[Tanarii]

If you want to change something, change it. If you don't change it, don't punish the player for choosing it when you said they could, such as denial of magic items.

Agreed, it's much better to nerf something before it's chosen, so they know the value of the option. Such as the explicit denial of Magic items as a balancing factor. (Which is not the same thing as not guaranteeing finding specific Magic items to go with a build.)

[Batcathat]

this theoretical system is just that: theoretical.
and it cannot be made to exhist.

Depends on what we're talking about. 100 percent balanced classes? Sure, that's probably impossible. Classes at roughly the same power level (or at least take turns being the most powerful, depending on the situation)? That's very much doable. Most RPGs don't have D&Ds miles wide power gaps, after all.

Even if you somehow managed to make all classes equally powerful in theoretical balance (which would require so much tweaking as to make it completely impractical; 3.5 was supposed to be balanced, and to most casual players it is balanced except that monks are too strong and wizards are nerfed sorcerors. We only know how to abuse it because of years of gameplay practice and internet forums)

I disagree. Sure, the most broken stuff might require some degree of system mastery (of the individual player or someone else), but even at the "default" level of skill the classes are far from equal. Even a very unoptimzed wizard have a ton more tricks than most martials.

notice that it's not a problem with class power, but with player skill. give a wizard and a druid to two bad players, look at them be useless.

Sure, and if I raced a formula one champion with me in a formula one car and the champion in my crappy car, I would probably lose. That doesn't mean my car is balanced against a formula one car and fit for same competitions.

So, if you don't want skilled players to build stronger characters than unskilled players, the only thing you can do is handing everyone pregenerated characters and forbid them to every touch their build.

Or, you can give them multiple options and expect them to sort them out balancing issues among themselves like adults.

Or we give them multiple options where some options aren't objectively several times more powerful and versatile as some others.

Yes, mature players can handle even the most unbalanced system without conflict, but wouldn't it be better if they didn't have to?

[Zombimode]

Even a very unoptimzed wizard have a ton more tricks than most martials.

An unoptimized wizard has picked bad/niche/redundant spells, feats that don't do anything for this character, has neither replaced the familiar with a ACF nor does anything with the familiar (outside of fluffy character moments), and consistently picks the wrong spell for the situation/target. A fighter on the other hand can botch all of their feat choices can still function at base competency thanks to hit dice, attributes and equipment alone.

Or we give them multiple options where some options aren't objectively several times more powerful and versatile as some others.

Which is hard to do in any high-fidelity systems that want to represent widely different kinds of abilities. And: most options do not stand in a objectively better/worse relation to each other. The context matters. What is usefull for one character build is useless in another. The game designer can very likely not know of all possible applications of any option.

Furthermore, game designers thinking too much about balance can be detrimental for a game that is interesting. "Polymorph? Way too flexible, this can't be in this game!" "Teleportation? Flying? But then my The Chasm of Death adventure will not work at all!" "Safe-or-Die? Trip? Any kind of action denial? But then all my single enemy encounters will not work!"
Balance never adds something to a game. All it can ever do is taking things away.
If you make balance your primary concern in your design then you will most likely not put many different things in your game. That may be ok, especially if you want a competative game.

Personally I don't care about competativeness in RPGs, but I do care about flashy interesting abilities, sprawling amount of options and aspects, and high-fidelity in character building. I would rather deal with balance issues when they crop up personally by talking with my fellow players then having balance concerns influencing the content of the game beforehand.

[Batcathat]

An unoptimized wizard has picked bad/niche/redundant spells, feats that don't do anything for this character, has neither replaced the familiar with a ACF nor does anything with the familiar (outside of fluffy character moments), and consistently picks the wrong spell for the situation/target. A fighter on the other hand can botch all of their feat choices can still function at base competency thanks to hit dice, attributes and equipment alone.

True. But the fighter – even if significantly more optimzed than the wizard – can still basically just hit things and get hit in return. Meanwhile, even the unoptimized wizard have (or can get by learning new spells) abilities that cover far more than just dealing or recieving damage.

Personally, I'm less bothered by power imbalance in combat than the extreme difference in versatility. If I play a rogue or some other sneaky-stabby type character, I'm totally okay if other characters are better at killing on the battle field than I am. I'm less okay if other characters out-perform mine in my supposed speciality (while also being better at killing and almost everything else).

[patchyman]

An unoptimized wizard has picked bad/niche/redundant spells, feats that don't do anything for this character, has neither replaced the familiar with a ACF nor does anything with the familiar (outside of fluffy character moments), and consistently picks the wrong spell for the situation/target. A fighter on the other hand can botch all of their feat choices can still function at base competency thanks to hit dice, attributes and equipment alone.

I disagree. Being bad at your class doesn’t really have a floor, so there is no value in using it as any kind of metric.

[noob]

You can always play the fighter worse(ex: waste all the time weapon swapping and not actually attack) but it can take dedication and you might want to switch to commoner for optimal worseness.

[kyoryu]

You can always play the fighter worse(ex: waste all the time weapon swapping and not actually attack) but it can take dedication and you might want to switch to commoner for optimal worseness.

Even less blatantly, you can make poor weapon, maneuver, and positioning choices.

[Talakeal]

Balance never adds something to a game. All it can ever do is taking things away.

Hard disagree.


If there is one clearly sub-optimal option, it might as well not exist.

Likewise, one clearly optimal option renders all others effectively nonexistent.