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

[RandallS]

Since people are talking about every edition of D&D in these game balance threads, I think that we can get a lot more discussion out of this and better clarification if people are clear about which edition they're talking about, which editions they have extensive experience with, and which edition sourcebooks they have access to.

I think the responses would be far more positive if the plan was to design a new game (or a variant game) fixing the balance issues one has in D&D edition X, instead of redesigning edition X and replacing the rules in that edition with rules you prefer.

[Libertad]

I think the responses would be far more positive if the plan was to design a new game (or a variant game) fixing the balance issues one has in D&D edition X, instead of redesigning edition X and replacing the rules in that edition with rules you prefer.

How is fixing balance issues different from game redesign and rule replacement? "Fixes" involve the latter two.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Since people are talking about every edition of D&D in these game balance threads, I think that we can get a lot more discussion out of this and better clarification if people are clear about which edition they're talking about, which editions they have extensive experience with, and which edition sourcebooks they have access to.

When one guy's debating and uses edition X as an example, it doesn't help clarify things for posters whose only experience is with edition Y.

I'll start by saying that I have extensive experience with 3rd Edition.  I have not played 1st Edition, but I have the three core books on me (the Reprints).  I have limited experience with 4th Edition, but I do not have the core books on me.  I do not own, and have no experience with, 2nd Edition, Original D&D, or the Mentzer/BX/BECMI rulesets.

Since things changed a lot between editions, it might be best if we had separate game balanced threads dedicated to different editions of D&D.  Otherwise people will use continually use examples from sourcebooks that a large portion of involved posters do not own.

I started on 1E, but had very limited experience with it and limited knowledge of the rules. Played and ran 2E heavily from about 89-until the release of 3E (also played quite a bit of the rules cyclopedia version of D&D as a player). During that period I picked up every brown book, blue book and most of the green books. Never touched Skills and Powers. Played most of the settings.  When 3E came out, I played that pretty regularly and we incporated most of the completes into our games. Had a lot of experience running for an optimizer group. But lost interest in the system around 2007, when 4E came out, tried it a bit and hated it, so I never really picked it up and I ended up not playing 3E beyond about 2008. Did try Pathfinder but wasn't that impressed with it.

[Exploderwizard]

How is fixing balance issues different from game redesign and rule replacement?  "Fixes" involve the latter two.

One involves saying "This is my idea for a game I think is better than D&D"

The other is saying " The designers got everything wrong. Let me correct their mistakes."

[Lynn]

Lastly I think that as one moves away from D&D, and it's heavy dependence on resource management and unrealistic mechanics, balance become even less important. The selection of a well designed game will alllow player skill in actual play (as opposed to taking advantage of character generation) to overwhelm any mechanically base balance issues between characters.

D&D - and computer games. Anyone have the experience of folks obsessing about class balance with other systems in a comparable way to D&D? In my experience, not close.

[Bedrockbrendan]

In terms of rulebooks for D&D I have access to at the moment:

-3E Core Books (3.0 and 3.5)
-d20 Modern
-d20 Cthulu
-3E Oriental Adventures, Monster Manual III, Complete Arcane, Complete ADventurer, Complete Warrior, Cityscape, Heroes of Battle, Savage Species, Psionic Handbook, Hero Builders Guidebook, Enemies and Allies
-2E core books and a good number of the brown books (as well as Ravenloft setting material and modules)
-1E Core books
-4E PHB and DMG

[Libertad]

One involves saying "This is my idea for a game I think is better than D&D"

The other is saying " The designers got everything wrong. Let me correct their mistakes."

Your descriptions both sound the same except in tone.

So you're saying the problem is not with design, but with tone?

[beejazz]

One involves saying "This is my idea for a game I think is better than D&D"

The other is saying " The designers got everything wrong. Let me correct their mistakes."

So.... if a person has a problem with a game they mostly like, they should make a new game instead of houseruling? Not discuss house rules on the internet? Awfully RAW or the highway I've got to say.

People have been "fixing" D&D since day one because it's easier than a brand new game.

[Libertad]

D&D - and computer games. Anyone have the experience of folks obsessing about class balance with other systems in a comparable way to D&D? In my experience, not close.

The Decker/Rigger problem's a big thing in Shadowrun, and still gets talked about.

Cross-overs in World of Darkness games are infamously hard to do, and even certain kinds of Vampires/Mages have radically different power levels.  The New World of Darkness system discourages combat, meaning that mental and social-focused characters are king.

Star Wars RPGs have the "Jedi problem," regarding a trained Force-User's power level in relation to non-Force-using PCs.

[Exploderwizard]

So.... if a person has a problem with a game they mostly like, they should make a new game instead of houseruling? Not discuss house rules on the internet? Awfully RAW or the highway I've got to say.

People have been "fixing" D&D since day one because it's easier than a brand new game.

Once again: "This is what I like as houserules"

is not the same as:

"This is what D&D should be."

[beejazz]

Once again: "This is what I like as houserules"

is not the same as:

"This is what D&D should be."

People equate "what I like" with "how it should be."

You can try to fight it, or you can understand the intent and not take everything literally. I should warn you the first is an unwinnable fight.

[RandallS]

* OD&D & Supplements
* Holmes Basic
* Moldvay B/X
* Mentzer BECMI
* Mentzer/Allston RC/WoI
* AD&D 1E
* AD&D 2E and most splat books through 1995 or so.

The above versions has been played a lot over the years and I really enjoy them. I started playing in 1975 and ran weekly games of using one or more of the above systems (with lots of house rules in some cases) through the early 1990s when sessions became much more irregular. When I think "D&D", games that play like the above editions are what I think of and what I want.

* AD&D 2E Players Option stuff

Tried the Player's option stuff and HATED it. Zero interest in character building or long combats.

* 3E core and some splat
* 3.5E and some splat

Played 3.x some and while I did not hate it (except for the long combats) I only liked it slightly better than the 2E Players Option stuff. Still no real interest in character building.

* 4E core

Played 4E a few times and truly hated it. It is my least favorite version of D&D. I strongly dislike almost everything about it.

[MGuy]

I will counter with : what makes not being as effective equal to the inability to contribute?

This... doesn't counter anything and doesn't answer the question I posed. However I will answer it if only to get you to answer mine.

Being less effective doesn't equate to you being unable to contribute. Having a +1 bonus to attack over someone else makes you a more effective attacker but doesn't mean that the other attacker can't contribute. What DOES make you unable to contribute is if your inclusion in the party is a net loss for the team or if you can't seriously do anything that to help the team. If the party is only worse off with your participation, you don't covver any ground that isn't better covered by someone else, and other people can out do you in the one thing you're supposed to do best then you cannot meaningfully contribute.

[MGuy]

Once again: "This is what I like as houserules"

is not the same as:

"This is what D&D should be."

That's still just a difference in tone. Why are you being hesitant about admitting that it's all about delivery for you?

[Lord Mistborn]

You need to more rigidly define exactly what you think " Class Balance" is. From reading what you wrote I understand what you don't like and that you think SGTs are tits but that doesn't tell me what you think "balance" actually is. SGTs or what would constitute a challenge in an SGT changes from system to system so it's pretty hard to nail what expectations different SGTs my entail because there are classless systems, levelless systems and the like where characters might be specifically built to not have the skills/abilities to approach anymore than 25% of the typical challenges the game may present.

The SGT is only realy aplicable to class and level based system. Like I've said it's not a perfect system but it's in my opinoin the best way to evaluate classes in D&D. If a game is published where all the classes scored ~50% on the SGT then that would be a game that's close enough.

The problems in DnD come when the fighter's ability to be punched in the face comes at the cost of being able to do anything else while others don't make that kind of sacrifice. I, as a wizard, lose skills for spells but my spells do what a number of skilsl do so it is no major loss. At lower levels it's basically a non issue even in 3rd since the RNG has a large enough range where I'm a lucky die roll away from achieving the success of someone else who has trained for something and low level shennanigans are easy to particpate in no matter who you are. However, at higher levels, not only is just getting bigger numbers boring (which is basically all the fighter does) it starts to fall behind on the usefulness scale when other classes/monsters are getting "real" abilities. At higher levels participating in direct combat gets easier and easier for casters and as long as you aren't specifically hitting them in the nuts they marginalize the usefulness of the fighter's face to fist style of participation.

That's the thing, given how much D&D devolved into hack and slash every class should have somthing to bring to combat. What that means is being good a combat isn't somthing that can be role protected in 3e. So I agree that the fighter needs to have access to out of combat stuff.

A "better" 3rd edition example of class balance would be the Beguiler in my opinion. It's a class with a protectable theme, it's focused. and has clear weaknesses. A beguiler is your mind controller which means you know what it does, its limitations, and it has abilities that can be useful throughout the range of the game without stomping all over other classes' themes or SGTs.

Yeah the Beguiler/Warmage/Dread Necromancer are the model for balanced casters.

About the Shadowrun thing. Shadowrun is point based and dose not dissolve in hack and slash in the same way D&D dose.

And please people let's not make this an edition war thread