Why Balance?

[Hzurr]

This is something that has bothered me for a long time as I read the boards.

Why do we expect classes to be balanced?

I mean, seriously, think about it.

Should a fighter be on the same level as a wizard? No; because one swings a sword, the other changes the laws of physics.

Should a monk be on the same level as a cleric? No; because while one takes the human(oid) body to it's limits, the other has an all-powerful diety on his/her side.

I see a lot of complaints about how powerful the batman-wizard or Cleric/Druid-zilla is, and my first thought is "well...yeah, they use magic. It's powerful stuff."

In one of the recent threads about Tome of Battle, there was a comment that ToB helped bring melee characters to the level of spellcasters again. This is not a good thing. No matter how well you can swing a sword, you shouldn't be able to beat someone who can stop time, make things spontaniously combust, summon demons to his/her aid, and utter words so powerful that things die just by hearing it.

I've got some theories about why people rant about balance (which I'll put in the spoiler below), but on a fundamental level, why do you think we expect the classes to be balanced?

Spoiler

Show

Some of my theories for people wanting balance are:
- They are trying to "beat" d&d as if it were a video game
- They are trying to impress other people with how awesome their make-believe character is
- They really enjoy throwing lots of dice
- They can’t stand losing the spotlight
- They don't want to accept that the unfairness of real-life carries over into make-believe life.
- They are trying to rectify cool character concepts with competitiveness to be better than those around them.
Note: Most of these are very tongue-in-cheek. Except for the last one, that’s one I really do believe is the case 92% of the time

[tyckspoon]

It's because all of the classes are expected to be in the same party and all be played by equal real-life players. That's the basic premise of the game. It follows from that that each class should be able to contribute roughly equally, or you risk excluding a player from a large portion of the game. Not the character, the player- you know, those people who are sitting around the table trying to have fun with this thing. If spellcasters are awesome and everybody else is teh suck, then only spellcasters should be player characters. There are other good game systems based on this premise. D&D is not one of them.

[Skjaldbakka]

Because it isn't any fun to have no purpose in an adventuring party. Seriously, why should there even be any fighters in an adventuring party? What do they contribute to the group? The answer? HPs.

HPs don't win battles. HPs aren't interesting.


Don't you want to contribute to the group?

[SmartAlec]

Should a fighter be on the same level as a wizard? No; because one swings a sword, the other changes the laws of physics.

You're kind of assuming that Magic should be this awesomely, incredibly potent force that warps and twists the natural laws of the universe to suit the wielder. Should that be the case? When 'magic' is anything that the fluff says it is, why should it be so powerful? It could just as easy not be so powerful.

In a sense, you've bought into the 3rd Edition respresentation of a Wizard. That representation is by no means the only way to implement a spellcasting class. On one end of the scale, you've got something like Ars Magica, a game where even middle-ranking wizards can literally move mountains, boil seas and make the sky rain fire. On the other, you've got the Lord of the Rings RPG, say, where 'magic' is a largely unseen force and the spellcaster classes are simited to a variety of useful tricks, like magical light or speaking to birds.

In the first example there, Wizards dominate. It's a game written around Wizards. In the second, magic is very rarely used, or seen. That's fine. Both of these examples are very heavily-themed and anyone playing a spellcaster/non-spellcaster knows the drill.

But when we're dealing with a system that is made to be as applicable as possible, I'd like to see things on a more even level. That is all.

[Khanderas]

Op

You list fluff reasons why the casters should be better.
But the reality of it is, you gotta make it work for 2-20 people with dice and for that to work every class should be viable, atleast most of the time.
That is all the reason I need to write.

The why it is the way it is:
a) 2nd ed D&D Fighting classes needed less xp to level up meaning wizards could be several levels behind and that kept it even. Then they scrapped the old xp system but didnt adjust much on the other end.
b) when you can cherrypick spells you can whip up some combos that was never ment to be.
c) magic is flashy and often features in new splatbooks. Flashy sells. Sold books are used. And Darwin might (possibly... or not) agree that only PrC's and splatspells that are more powerful then the originals are used ahead of the spells provided in the basic books.

Edit: Upon reflecting, I have a feeling you might have been sarcastic/ironic or whatever word that is applicable. I think it was the bit about the monks.

[Hzurr]

Because it isn't any fun to have no purpose in an adventuring party. Seriously, why should there even be any fighters in an adventuring party?

[...]

Don't you want to contribute to the group?

Yeah, of course I do. However, my ability to kill as many monsters as my friend Billy-the-wizard has no bearing on whether or not I'm contributing to the group.

HPs don't win battles. HPs aren't interesting.

Heh, see, you say that, but as soon as you start running out of them

In a sense, you've bought into the 3rd Edition respresentation of a Wizard. That representation is by no means the only way to implement a spellcasting class. On one end of the scale, you've got something like Ars Magica, a game where even middle-ranking wizards can literally move mountains, boil seas and make the sky rain fire. On the other, you've got the Lord of the Rings RPG, say, where 'magic' is a largely unseen force and the spellcaster classes are simited to a variety of useful tricks, like magical light or speaking to birds.

In the first example there, Wizards dominate. It's a game written around Wizards. In the second, magic is very rarely used, or seen. That's fine. Both of these examples are very heavily-themed and anyone playing a spellcaster/non-spellcaster knows the drill.

But when we're dealing with a system that is made to be as applicable as possible, I'd like to see things on a more even level. That is all.

Ok, that argument I'll buy. You're definately right, I'm accepting spellcasters as they're presented in 3E (largely because of my inexperience with other systems) and basing my definition on that.

[Snadgeros]

It's not just a matter of whether or not a wizard can do more than a fighter. The problem isn't that a wizard's attacks are more potent than a fighter's (although that's contributing). The issue is that DnD is a team game, meant to be so that every member contributes to the overall success in a significant manner. Fighters are supposed to tank, rogues are supposed to use skills, clerics are meant to heal and buff, and wizards are meant to blast stuff. The problem arises when wizards get spells so potent they can fill these roles themselves and no longer need the fighter. Melee classes cease to contribute anywhere close to the level that casters do at high levels.

Sure, casters alter reality at will, but playing to that does not make good game design. If I want to play one of the melee classes they created, I'm inevitably going to be outshined and made useless by Batman and CoDzilla, and the game is no longer fun for fighters. The point of a game is fun, and tell me, would you have fun sitting back and watching as one player takes over the entire campaign?

[horseboy]

Because 4' of sharp steel should always be lethal. Because of the vagaries of hp's that stops being the case around 4thish. Sure wizards can still fly and call forth demons from beyond the pale. That's not really the problem. The problem is that the fighter, unless taken to excessive extremes can no longer do it's job.

[Serpentine]

It seems like most of these arguments only involve comparisons of how much damage can be dealt and the like. I dunno, I don't think that works. Not all classes are meant to deal a lot of damage. In the case of spellcasters, too (I suppose druids and clerics largely excluded), the die a lot, or at least are at risk of it. A party isn't just attacking, it's being attacked, too. You want a party to be balanced? Then stop playing the enemies like idiots, and have them take out the wizard and cleric first.
There's also the fact that, although wizards and sorcerers and the like can deal horrendous amounts of damage, that's not what they're for. I can't remember where I read it (Logic Ninja's Guide?), but they're meant to control the battlefield, not obliterate it. The fighters are meant to be the major damage-dealer, and furthermore they have plenty enough adaptability to carve their own niche in the party.
It seems to me that most, if not all, the "balance" issues of the classes are easily solvable by creative character creation, DM fiat ("I'd prefer it if you didn't take Natural Spell"), and/or inter-player communication.

[Hzurr]

It seems like most of these arguments only involve comparisons of how much damage can be dealt and the like. I dunno, I don't think that works. Not all classes are meant to deal a lot of damage. In the case of spellcasters, too (I suppose druids and clerics largely excluded), the die a lot, or at least are at risk of it. A party isn't just attacking, it's being attacked, too. You want a party to be balanced? Then stop playing the enemies like idiots, and have them take out the wizard and cleric first.
There's also the fact that, although wizards and sorcerers and the like can deal horrendous amounts of damage, that's not what they're for. I can't remember where I read it (Logic Ninja's Guide?), but they're meant to control the battlefield, not obliterate it. The fighters are meant to be the major damage-dealer, and furthermore they have plenty enough adaptability to carve their own niche in the party.
It seems to me that most, if not all, the "balance" issues of the classes are easily solvable by creative character creation, DM fiat ("I'd prefer it if you didn't take Natural Spell"), and/or inter-player communication.

*pauses*, *thinks* nods. Yeah, I think I agree with just about everything you said. I'm definately with you on the last paragraph, and I think because I've had this experience (of players communicating and working together) that I've never had the sit-on-the-sidelines-because-I'm-useless senario that some posters have mentioned.

[Artemician]

It seems like most of these arguments only involve comparisons of how much damage can be dealt and the like. I dunno, I don't think that works. Not all classes are meant to deal a lot of damage. In the case of spellcasters, too (I suppose druids and clerics largely excluded), the die a lot, or at least are at risk of it. A party isn't just attacking, it's being attacked, too. You want a party to be balanced? Then stop playing the enemies like idiots, and have them take out the wizard and cleric first.
There's also the fact that, although wizards and sorcerers and the like can deal horrendous amounts of damage, that's not what they're for. I can't remember where I read it (Logic Ninja's Guide?), but they're meant to control the battlefield, not obliterate it. The fighters are meant to be the major damage-dealer, and furthermore they have plenty enough adaptability to carve their own niche in the party.
It seems to me that most, if not all, the "balance" issues of the classes are easily solvable by creative character creation, DM fiat ("I'd prefer it if you didn't take Natural Spell"), and/or inter-player communication.

That's not answering the question. The OP asked for the reasons why people would want balance. Whether the imbalance can actually be overcome is a moot point.

Now.. in my personal view.. I want balance for the simple fact that well, it's fair. Why should someone be punished with a lower power level if he wants to play a fighter? Similiarly, why should a caster automatically be stronger than a fighter, or a rogue? I want the ability to make my own choice; to be a strong fighter, or a weak caster if I see fit, and imbalances present inside Core Classes make it harder for me to do so. I'm not by any means suggesting that it's impossible, but it definitely makes it harder.

[hamstard4ever]

Should a fighter be on the same level as a wizard?

That depends. If we have a 15th level fighter and a 15th level wizard, yes, they should be on the same level. This is implied by the word "level".

No matter how well you can swing a sword, you shouldn't be able to beat someone who can stop time, make things spontaniously combust, summon demons to his/her aid, and utter words so powerful that things die just by hearing it.

But apparently, it's just as easy to learn to stop time, spontaneously combust things, summon demons, and utter words of annihilation as it is to learn how to swing a sword pretty well. What is wrong with this picture?

[Skjaldbakka]

It seems like most of these arguments only involve comparisons of how much damage can be dealt and the like. I dunno, I don't think that works. Not all classes are meant to deal a lot of damage. In the case of spellcasters, too (I suppose druids and clerics largely excluded), the die a lot, or at least are at risk of it. A party isn't just attacking, it's being attacked, too. You want a party to be balanced? Then stop playing the enemies like idiots, and have them take out the wizard and cleric first.
There's also the fact that, although wizards and sorcerers and the like can deal horrendous amounts of damage, that's not what they're for. I can't remember where I read it (Logic Ninja's Guide?), but they're meant to control the battlefield, not obliterate it. The fighters are meant to be the major damage-dealer, and furthermore they have plenty enough adaptability to carve their own niche in the party.
It seems to me that most, if not all, the "balance" issues of the classes are easily solvable by creative character creation, DM fiat ("I'd prefer it if you didn't take Natural Spell"), and/or inter-player communication.

Which roughly translates to "its ok the game is broken, because of rule 0".

Just because something can be fixed doesn't mean its not broken.

[Dairun Cates]

It seems like most of these arguments only involve comparisons of how much damage can be dealt and the like. I dunno, I don't think that works. Not all classes are meant to deal a lot of damage. In the case of spellcasters, too (I suppose druids and clerics largely excluded), the die a lot, or at least are at risk of it. A party isn't just attacking, it's being attacked, too. You want a party to be balanced? Then stop playing the enemies like idiots, and have them take out the wizard and cleric first.
There's also the fact that, although wizards and sorcerers and the like can deal horrendous amounts of damage, that's not what they're for. I can't remember where I read it (Logic Ninja's Guide?), but they're meant to control the battlefield, not obliterate it. The fighters are meant to be the major damage-dealer, and furthermore they have plenty enough adaptability to carve their own niche in the party.
It seems to me that most, if not all, the "balance" issues of the classes are easily solvable by creative character creation, DM fiat ("I'd prefer it if you didn't take Natural Spell"), and/or inter-player communication.

Not to beat a dead horse, but doesn't the fact that wizards can do more damage AND are better at battlefield control just prove inherent brokeness even worse?

Besides, I think from the way the game is designed, the people that made D&D did not exactly expect people to play Batman Wizards. That's something that's been created by the fans of the game and emergent gameplay.

[hewhosaysfish]

That depends. If we have a 15th level fighter and a 15th level wizard, yes, they should be on the same level. This is implied by the word "level".

QFT

Saying that "Magic should be able to do more that might, so a Wizard 10 should be better than a Fighter 10" makes about as much sense to me as saying "A warrior should be tougher than a bookworm, so a Fighter with 40hp should be able to take more damage than a Wizard with 40 hp".

[Kantolin]

Doing nothing is not fun.

Playing a mook is not fun.

Wanting to play the heroic knight in shining armour who gallantly slays the dragon, as opposed to the guy standing there to watch important people do their things, should be a pleasant option.

Nevermind that the flavor you've mentioned can be reversed, and fairly easily.

So I suppose to answer your question: The classes should be balanced so the game is fun.

[Fiery Diamond]

I'm gonna agree with Serpentine and the OP. Serpentine did respond to the question adequately -- essentially said "I'm not one of those people who get upset about balance. Here is why." The thread would be boring if only people who had problems with balance posted - discussion (the point of a forum) can only take place if opposing sides are both presented.

By the way, players and DM working together to create a better game is "rule 0." If that is how you define Rule 0. However, if that is how you define rule 0, then the initial game designers' creations and even intentions should always take back seat to rule 0, rule 0 not being a bad thing. The point of playing D&D is to have fun, not to "play D&D."

That said, I can understand why some people are concerned about balance - to a small extent. If the DM and players are all inexperienced, they might not know which things could potentially cause problems. After playing a little bit, though, I'm pretty sure that most people are going to decide what is necessary and what is not. I DM, and I don't use extensive houserules. I just do I feel is needed. We don't have any problems.

Respectfully yours,

- Fiery Diamond

[random11]

"Balance" is not the same as "equal".

In a balanced game, not all classes will have the same job, but all will be useful in some ways during the campaign.

If a 15th level wizard can defeat most 15th level fighters in a duel, it's acceptable. But if in a group that 15th level fighter will be just an ornament because of the wizard, then it won't be fun for that player.

Changing the rules of the games isn't the only way to solve balance issues, usually a good campaign setting can balance might and magic.
It might even make a monk useful

[Snadgeros]

It seems like most of these arguments only involve comparisons of how much damage can be dealt and the like. I dunno, I don't think that works. Not all classes are meant to deal a lot of damage. In the case of spellcasters, too (I suppose druids and clerics largely excluded), the die a lot, or at least are at risk of it. A party isn't just attacking, it's being attacked, too. You want a party to be balanced? Then stop playing the enemies like idiots, and have them take out the wizard and cleric first.

That's exactly part of the problem though. Go ahead; have your monsters attack CoDzilla. Unless you're throwing something with a CR well beyond what they should be facing at that level at them, that wildshaped druid or divine powered cleric will fight just as well as the fighter, probably better given their access to spells and healing. You want to kill Batman? Good luck; you can't reach him while he's flying and has a contingency up to dimension door away when anything comes within 10 feet of him. Let's not forget windwall and/or protection from arrows to keep archers at bay. Given his option of cherrypicking spells from a huge list of them for any occasion (and being able to hide out in extraplanar areas to replenish them) he's untouchable if played correctly.

Sure any of this could be overcome with Rule 0, but then the designers at WotC aren't doing their jobs properly. They're supposed to create a system in which the characters are innately balanced, but failed. Their solution? Allow the players to do all the work for them and make DMs do the balancing. Sure, you can't test for everything, as no one could see Pun-Pun coming, but these aren't cheesey builds, they're fundamental flaws in game design. Having party members fill roles other than those intended for them is breaking the game, and I'm seriously hoping 4E fixes this.

EDIT:

It might even make a monk useful

HEY! I resent that! Please don't bring this up; we have ENOUGH monk threads.

[Jarchh]

In reality obviously a wizard would be far more powerful then a fighter(if they existed that is), however you've got to remember the most important fact.... "This is a game". Having one player amazing powerful and the others all underpowered and usless is only fun for that one player. Everyone has to be able to contribute ((as close as possible to)) equally to the party otherwise it's unfair and the game isnt fun for half the people playing it.

[Serpentine]

Which roughly translates to "its ok the game is broken, because of rule 0".

Just because something can be fixed doesn't mean its not broken.

I'm not talking about houseruling or "fixing". I'm talking about the DM considering all the characters that the players want to play and suggesting ways to create them that takes into account all needs. It's not about changing the rules, it's about using them, generally the way they're meant to be used, to benefit everyone.

Not to beat a dead horse, but doesn't the fact that wizards can do more damage AND are better at battlefield control just prove inherent brokeness even worse?

Just because you can do that, doesn't mean you should, or that the DM should allow it (and just because you can use the rules to create something incredibly broken doesn't make the rules broken, just your use of them). Just pick a role, already. By taking the right feats and choosing the right weapons, etc., a Fighter can also be very good at battlefield control. There are enough niches to go around, and with enough player-player and DM-player communication, not only should they all be at least adequately filled but everyone should have their own, with minimum overlap (unless the party decides it could use a back-up).

I guess, basically, I'm trying to say what random11 has said so much more succinctly...

[Paragon Badger]

GM: Okay, so we have a cleric/druid, a wizard, another wizard...and a fighter.
Party: ...Hahah!
Fighter: What?
Cleric: A fighter? You suck! I could beat you in melee AND heal everyone else!
Fighter: Okay, I'll be a rogue, skill monkey.
Wizard A: Don't need it, I'm the blaster...
Wizard B: ...And I'm the fixer.
Fighter: ...I'll be what Jim is, then.
GM: Just photocopy his character sheet.

That's why we need balance. <_<

A good campaign setting could allow the skill monkey some time to shine, but what if another class is moving in on his territory? Opening locks, disarming traps, ect. The rogue is likely useless because the wizard can do it better, and faster.

Wizards and Clerics can walk on the territory of pretty much every other class, when they get high enough level.

Not fun.

[Animefunkmaster]

The reasons things SHOULD be balanced is because this is a game with equal players. No one wants to play a game of chess without there queen and knights VS a player with all queens instead of pawns.

With that said the classes in DND are not balanced perfectly, because players have options. Still, each player is needed, as long as they approach the game correctly.

Using the previous example of the druid cleric wizard wizard fighter mix.
No skill monkey, but the druid could fill in. (no one has trap finding which could be a problem, but thats why animate dead exist, I suppose)
Cleric and Druid can be melee with little problems.
Wizard can blast good
other wizard can "fix" not sure what that means, but lets assume that is battlefield control/support spells

So lets say the fighter is a spiked chain tripper. Without going too much into the build lets assume he is a half giant and uses dungeon crasher coupled with Knockback and shock trooper. He doesn't really conflict with the melee as his primary goal is to knock enemies on there butt and move them in situations to maximize the effectiveness of the other party members (So this example would use an AoO to make a touch attack, with power attack to trigger knockback, trip them, bullrush them into clumbs, get dungeon crasher damage). His damage is not going to be anything worth much but it will be something, and it will set up the blaster to fireball the tightly packed group of enemies, and it will set up the druid and the cleric to better protect the casters as a wall of melee death, from this point the wizard can also control the battlefield with various save or screwed spells. If the battle is being controlled by the wizard alone, have the fighter charge and power attack for full (hopefully pouncing somehow, lion totem barbarian, psionic lions pounce). He won't disrupt melee because you really can't have too much melee (unless you have no range at all), and you can keep using this tactic (knocking people over and bullrushing them) to allow the other party members to be able to prepare other useful spells.

I think the biggest problem in game balance is teamwork and general knowledge level of the players. If the game is played as a team rather than I fill this role he will fill that role, or worse the loner badass competition, then everyone is included and no one has hurt feelings. Big note: teamwork starts at character creation, helping people with characters if they are unknowledgable in this that or whatever or if they want to complement each other.

A DM should be able to make a campaign where non casters are still useful... such as a secret entrance to blah but it is blanketed in an antimagic field, or just a very long campaign where it is difficult to get rest and pearls of power/other spell restorative items are either not working or stolen. The DM should come up with something.

[Skjaldbakka]

I don't want to build 'part of the team'. I want to build a character. One that is unique and flavorful, and is good at something that matters.

Fighters don't do that well.

[serow]

Because Jedi kick the best ass when using a lightsaber, not their Force powers.

...

Yup.

[Serpentine]

A mercantile gladiator who excels in employing nets and tripping to ensure that all enemies are forced to face him and him alone.

The knight in shining armor, who charges in on horseback to pierce his foe with his lance.

The daring swashbuckler who relies on his quick feet rather than unwieldy plates of metal to keep him safe.

A cunning general, expert in coordinating attacks and not afraid to get into the fighting to bolster party morale.

The stealth killer, sniping from the shadows, picking off his targets with practiced ease.

Although many of these concepts now have their own classes and prestige classes, they can be created quite adequately just using the fighter class. They can all be unique, flavourful, and good at what they do. That's down to the player, not the rules.

[Skjaldbakka]

A mercantile gladiator who excels in employing nets and tripping to ensure that all enemies are forced to face him and him alone.

Is useless against large or bigger opponents, and is also useless outside of combat.

The knight in shining armor, who charges in on horseback to pierce his foe with his lance.

Is useless in any combat that isn't outdoors. Which is most combats, since outdoor encounters tend to be random encounters, which most DMs ignore because they don't add anything to the story. Also- useless outside of combat, and the only skill he has that you would expect of a knight (Ride, Diplomacy, Knowledge: Nobility) is Ride.

The daring swashbuckler who relies on his quick feet rather than unwieldy plates of metal to keep him safe.

The fighter really, really sucks at doing this. Take a look at all the dex-based skills a fighter gets. . . . . Yeah. Quick on your feet? Is that how you describe someone who buys all cross-class skills? Not to mention that Improved Feint, which is part of the skill tree you would expect from this character, doesn't help you do anything but hit. You need sneak attack to capitalize on that. Which means this character is a rogue. Rogues rock. Rogues are awesome. I'm not complaining about rogues.

A cunning general, expert in coordinating attacks and not afraid to get into the fighting to bolster party morale.

The fighter doesn't have any class features that help him do any of that. Oh wait! The fighter doesn't have class features. There IS a class that fits that concept. Its called a bard. Or a cleric.

The stealth killer, sniping from the shadows, picking off his targets with practiced ease.

Also, fighter can't do this at all. He doesn't have any way to be sneaky, or to capitalize on catching foes by surprise. See above comments on rogues.

Although many of these concepts now have their own classes and prestige classes, they can be created quite adequately just using the fighter class. They can all be unique, flavourful, and good at what they do. That's down to the player, not the rules.

Yeah, unique and flavorful, maybe. Fighter can't do any but 1 of the above concepts, and the one it can do, requires that the majority of the game be spent fighting medium size creatures.

Also, I said good at something that matters. Not good at what they do. Monks are good at . . . making will saves. Which isn't something that matters often enough to build a characte around.

[random11]

A mercantile gladiator who excels in employing nets and tripping to ensure that all enemies are forced to face him and him alone.

The knight in shining armor, who charges in on horseback to pierce his foe with his lance.

The daring swashbuckler who relies on his quick feet rather than unwieldy plates of metal to keep him safe.

A cunning general, expert in coordinating attacks and not afraid to get into the fighting to bolster party morale.

The stealth killer, sniping from the shadows, picking off his targets with practiced ease.

Although many of these concepts now have their own classes and prestige classes, they can be created quite adequately just using the fighter class. They can all be unique, flavourful, and good at what they do. That's down to the player, not the rules.

Yes, but what if the fighter is part of a group that contains another member who overpowers him in practically everything?
The fighter will still be unique and with flavor, but it just won't be fun to play.

[SmartAlec]

They can all be unique, flavourful, and good at what they do. That's down to the player, not the rules.

Unique and flavourful are indeed up to the player, but he or she can be so either supported by the game, or in spite of the game.

Unfortunately, in the case of melee classes and D&D 3rd Edition, it is the latter.

I suppose that's the most important reason for balance there is. An unbalanced system makes fun concepts difficult to implement, and you have to fight the rules to make them work.

[Serpentine]

Oh, for- You're complaining about a class called "Fighter" being most useful for fighting?! Shock-horror! It just looks to me like far too many people are worrying more about complaining that you can't do something than actually trying to do it. Those were just flavours and ideas. Saying things like this:

Is useless against large or bigger opponents, and is also useless outside of combat.

is like saying that a wizard is useless against anything immune to fire because he likes to use fireball a lot. Just because, to use that example, he excels at using nets, doesn't mean that's the only thing he's going to use.
No one character should be useful in all situations. All characters should have their time, of course, but they also need their time to be inadequate. Worried about a Fighter feeling left out? Go into combat! If fighting doesn't matter in Dungeons and Dragons, you're playing a very different game to most people.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, most core balance problems are minimal (though I must admit I am still considering limiting or eliminating Natural Spell, but it hasn't really mattered in my game), and fairly easily overcome just with cautious character building.*

For the record, no sane DM would allow a Pun-Pun in their game, so I don't really see how it proves anything at all.

*e.g. A wizard deciding not to use Knock at every door, a druid choosing to forego Natural Spell, a cleric focusing on healing and buffing rather than combat. Picking and choosing rules, priorities and roles, not "fixing", changing and homebrewing. Personally, I think it's much more fun to focus on a niche than being able to do everything.

edit: Huh. Funny how these discussions can make a normal person turn really bitchy... I think I've said everything I can, anyway.