Do we need balanced classes?

201 posts / 0 new
Last post
I have seen several post and read several survey questions posing the question of "are the classes balanced?"  When did this become a problem or a concern.  In 1st edition, if you played a monk you knew he was probably going to die, but you hoped he wouldn't so you could have an awesome character later, same with the mage classes, cast that one spell and then find a weapon that you could wield (or hide out) until you got a chance to rest.  If you didn't want the risk you could play a fighter or cleric.  What happened to those high risk, high reward classes.  I don't get it are we trying to make it fair?  Did Gandalf sit down with Elrond and have a conversation about making sure the party setting out from Rivendell was "balanced"?
YES.

Because Yes.

Because being inherently weaker doesn't make you a better roleplayer, and it does NOT make for better roleplaying opportunities.

EDIT: Because not having any effect on the game is NOT fun.  And this is a game.

Because being relegated to "pack-mule_ because I picked the wrong class is NOT fun.

Because ending the game with a handful of resources is NOT fun.  (In a serious game.  in silly games, it's only not fun for the other players.)

Because having to hold myself back so that my friends can make worthwhile contributiions is NOT fun.

EDIT2:

Because: JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST

Exmple: I have a car.  I receive a recall notice saying that some cars of my Make & Model have had a problem where the whels come off and the car flips over into oncoming trafic.
Just because I haven't experienced this problem doesn't make other people's experiences less valid, or any less relevant to me.
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
I dont think classes need to be balanced evenly at every level. There are three progressions I can see working equally well:
1) weaker at first, stronger later
2) stronger at first, weaker later
3) moderately strong all the way through

The complaint of, "He's stronger than me and it's not FAIR!" is childish and immature. Every class will shine at some point when used to its highest capacity. I want them all to be drastically different and this necessitates an imbalance in power at various levels.

I do NOT want the 4th edition balance-all-classes-to-the-point-that-they're-identical-save-for-flavor-text approach.

...just my 2cp
My Paladin: Hey mage, why are you always reading that book? Party Wizard: This tome contains a wealth of knowledge, sir knight. My Paladin: Well if tomes contain knowledge, knowledge is power, power corrupts, and corruption is evil...than the more you read the more evil you become! Quickly everyone, get her!
"He's stronger than me and it's not FAIR!" is childish and immature.


That's not the complaint.

The complaint is "He's so MUCH stronger than me that there is no reason for me to be here."

A well played 3x Wizard could be this guy from level 1, and was this guy from by level 7 at the latest.
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
Arguing that 4e classes all played the same same is childish and immature and factually false.

If you want to play spellcasters and sidekicks ask your DM to give all your attacks advantage and all enemies disadvantage against you. It is far easier to unbalance a balanced game than to balance an unbalanced one.
The wizard is super-powerful three times a day in this playtest. After that, he needs his friends or he will die as running and hiding so he can rest is not always an option. There is absolutely a reason for the other party members to be there. The wizard can't disable the traps reliably, heal himself or the other party members, doesn't have incredible social capacities and can't carry the heavy loads. What's the problem?

And, yes, it is somewhat childish to say that all of the classes played the same. It comes down to how you use the tools available. So, they could easily have been played the same if you chose to. That's kinda weird if you ask me and I really prefer a system that differentiates options more greatly.

...just my 2cp
My Paladin: Hey mage, why are you always reading that book? Party Wizard: This tome contains a wealth of knowledge, sir knight. My Paladin: Well if tomes contain knowledge, knowledge is power, power corrupts, and corruption is evil...than the more you read the more evil you become! Quickly everyone, get her!
Yes, Dungeons and Dragons must be balanced because it is a tactical combat simulator. 

No matter how "weak" a character is - a strong roleplayer cannot be outshined in roleplay - and vice versa.

I do NOT want the 4th edition balance-all-classes-to-the-point-that-they're-identical-save-for-flavor-text approach. ...just my 2cp



That's a pretty narrowminded judgement, as the form a Defender class does his job is very different depending on class (e.g.: Fighter vs Swordmage).  I like balance in the game because IT'S A GAME and we want to enjoy it all the time we play it, not just at the start of the campaign or at the end of one.  All of us want to do meaningful contributions in and out of combat.
Balance it's of the essence of games, specially RPGs;  this is not reality, this is a game.

(I'm a DM and Wizard-class player, since AD&D and hated that the wizard did nothing at early levels and then could overwhelm all his enemies alone at high levels)
The wizard is super-powerful three times a day in this playtest. After that, the party goes back to town to rest so the Wizard can get his spells back.





Granted, giving the Wizard the ability to have at-wills is a welcome change, but....it still boils down to the fact that the Wizard and the Cleric, and more specifically their spells, are the ones determining when the entire party goes back to rest. 

There is absolutely a reason for the other party members to be there.



To carry the Wizard's luggage! Ok, ok, I'll read..

The wizard can't disable the traps reliably, heal himself or the other party members,



.....sooo the Wizard needs an entourage to carry his luggage, dress him, and file his nails. But, concerning the traps....creative use of the Wizard's at-will abilities (Mage Hand, et al) can probably serve well. if not, well, then thats what scrolls of Summon Monster are for.

doesn't have incredible social capacities



Charm.

and can't carry the heavy loads.



Yet. 

What's the problem?



The problem is that aside from some insignificant instances, this playtest is back to Casters and Commoners. Casters, be they Wizards or Clerics, are the ones that matter; non-casters do not.

I may be drawing from prior editions here, but....even by low levels (before 7), Wizards don't need help for some stuff. For example, by level 4, a Wizard doesn't really need someone to watch over him while he sleeps, because Alarm can wake him if his perimiter is breached, and guard him for the entire 8 hours of his nap. At level 5, Tiny Hut means you really don't need to worry.

The history of Wizards is that, eventually, they'll get a spell that can let them say, "Yeah, I can do that too."

Thats what I am against.

I really prefer a system that differentiates options more greatly.



Oh, then have you looked at 4th Edition? Each class has a different mechanic for how they do their job! Strikers, for instance, require the Rogues to have Combat Advantage to sneak attack, whereas the Avenger can only do extra damage against the target of his oath, which he can't change until the current target is defeated.

I have to cut this rant short. Going on a bike ride.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Defenders: We ARE the wall!

 

I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
@Ogiwan

If this is, in fact, how your group plays things then that sucks, but none of the groups I've ever been in we're remotely close to that. Once the Wizard blew his load he grabbed his Xbow and chilled in back taking pot-shots. He wasn't the group leader and didn't command the party to bow to his wishes and retreat to town so he could take a catnap. That's ridiculous!

Charm is useable x/day. Skill checks are unlimited. Ergo, a character trained in social skills will outshine the wizard. Additionally, if the wizard is spending resources on duplicating other party member's capabilities that player is willingly forgoing versatility which is generally a flawed approach to playing a Wizard.

Each class has its own strengths and use in conjunction create a powerful and fun group to play in. One of them being stronger some of the time is not an issue in the groups I play in.

Also, what you constitute as significant and insignificant are perhaps different than me, but I like to think as anything that let's people have fun is very significant.

Finally, I don't want to tread to closely to the "Edition war" debate, so I'll say in closing that 4th edition classes have a great amount of overlap that is truly only differentiated by flavor text and keywords. My experience showed eight different classes handling the NPCs in combat in nearly identical fashion despite my attempts to the contrary. YMMV

...just my 2 cp
My Paladin: Hey mage, why are you always reading that book? Party Wizard: This tome contains a wealth of knowledge, sir knight. My Paladin: Well if tomes contain knowledge, knowledge is power, power corrupts, and corruption is evil...than the more you read the more evil you become! Quickly everyone, get her!
I dont think classes need to be balanced evenly at every level. There are three progressions I can see working equally well: 1) weaker at first, stronger later 2) stronger at first, weaker later 3) moderately strong all the way through The complaint of, "He's stronger than me and it's not FAIR!" is childish and immature. Every class will shine at some point when used to its highest capacity. I want them all to be drastically different and this necessitates an imbalance in power at various levels. I do NOT want the 4th edition balance-all-classes-to-the-point-that-they're-identical-save-for-flavor-text approach. ...just my 2cp



Not every campaign is going to last the full gambit of levels, characters need to be of equal importance consistantly.

Its is not childish or immature to be dissastified when your character is dead weight and you could be spending your free time doing something more entertaining, without balanced classes that is an inevitablity for some.

Also nice false statement about 4e. 
@Ogiwan If this is, in fact, how your group plays things then that sucks, but none of the groups I've ever been in we're remotely close to that. Once the Wizard blew his load he grabbed his Xbow and chilled in back taking pot-shots. He wasn't the group leader and didn't command the party to bow to his wishes and retreat to town so he could take a catnap. That's ridiculous! Charm is useable x/day. Skill checks are unlimited. Ergo, a character trained in social skills will outshine the wizard. Additionally, if the wizard is spending resources on duplicating other party member's capabilities that player is willingly forgoing versatility which is generally a flawed approach to playing a Wizard. Each class has its own strengths and use in conjunction create a powerful and fun group to play in. One of them being stronger some of the time is not an issue in the groups I play in. Also, what you constitute as significant and insignificant are perhaps different than me, but I like to think as anything that let's people have fun is very significant. Finally, I don't want to tread to closely to the "Edition war" debate, so I'll say in closing that 4th edition classes have a great amount of overlap that is truly only differentiated by flavor text and keywords. My experience showed eight different classes handling the NPCs in combat in nearly identical fashion despite my attempts to the contrary. YMMV ...just my 2 cp



Do didnt even read the first responce fully did you? Just because you have not had this problem does not change the fact that there are scaths of groups out there that suffer from this and if 5E does not address this problem they will not play it. Your one group, style and tastes are far less important than the hundreds of groups who had this problrem with 3.5.
Inevitably, in every system ever, there is one thing gained at one level by one class at some point that happens to excell above and beyond some of the other characters. Balancing this perfectly is nigh-impossible if things are to be kept varied and it is a waste of valuable design time if you ask me.
I agree not one class should be the most uber all the time, but evenly balancing everything always is overkill.


It was true for me. End of conversation about 4th edition.
My Paladin: Hey mage, why are you always reading that book? Party Wizard: This tome contains a wealth of knowledge, sir knight. My Paladin: Well if tomes contain knowledge, knowledge is power, power corrupts, and corruption is evil...than the more you read the more evil you become! Quickly everyone, get her!
I´m afraid classe must be balance if WotC wishs a future MMO with player versus player (PvP).

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

I am of the mind that it's not OK for a caster to use up his spells and then be relegated to just hanging out and making basic ranged attacks till he/she can rest.  I think 5e has done a decent job of combating that problem by use of the orison/cantrip mechanic which still allows the use of an at-will spell to make the character continually be useful throughout a session.  I do hope that the number of at-wills available to each character at a time does grow as the character levels, but this shouldn't be necessary at higher levels if the number of prepared spells allowed grows to be large enough that the caster has plenty of spells to work with for a day.
"He's stronger than me and it's not FAIR!" is childish and immature.


That's not the complaint.

The complaint is "He's so MUCH stronger than me that there is no reason for me to be here."

A well played 3x Wizard could be this guy from level 1, and was this guy from by level 7 at the latest.



Don't forget that many people played previous edition starting at level 3-4 and stopping around level 14 because of the overpowered casters never needing anyone. The red wizards prestige class even allowed the wizard to use one spell each level as an at-will. It was just as broken.

I see the same trap in 5E. Different progressions will unbalance the game because the wizard will have 36 different things to do while the fighter will have around 20 (if that, I think they will throw in static modifiers)...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Arguing that 4e classes all played the same same is childish and immature and factually false. If you want to play spellcasters and sidekicks ask your DM to give all your attacks advantage and all enemies disadvantage against you. It is far easier to unbalance a balanced game than to balance an unbalanced one.



Exactly. Anyone that uses the "all of them play the same" fallacy, either never played or didn't play enough. In fact essentials moved away from the same resource structure so you can factually say their argument has no merit...

Now if they say "They felt too similar to me." that's another story.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Inevitably, in every system ever, there is one thing gained at one level by one class at some point that happens to excell above and beyond some of the other characters. Balancing this perfectly is nigh-impossible if things are to be kept varied and it is a waste of valuable design time if you ask me. I agree not one class should be the most uber all the time, but evenly balancing everything always is overkill. It was true for me. End of conversation about 4th edition.



All I can say is go read the essentials player books, you'll be surprised. Complete balance as well as extremely different styles for each class, even when just reading the book.

Unlike pre-Essentials 4E where because they use the same format all powers look the same, but in practice they play differently...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I cant realy say im a 4e Expert. So im not touching it our group mostly used 3.5 and sotmies AD&D.

One thing of the 5e sessions we had is that we noticed that the healign clerc sorta is better at dealing damge then the wizzard. Ok the wizzard doesnt have to roll an attack rol but our clerc kept hitting the dam beasty's even scoring a crit.

Somting we realy felt missing tho was critting. A crit was cool you do max damge but it didnt feel as epic when you did a crit in 3.5 ok in 3.5 you had this hig chance of actealy going lower. Were we considerd ok maybe a cool way to discibe a crit is max damage plus one time you trow an extra damage die (eg for a bow it could be max dmg plus 2 more dammage dies).

I do like the fluff but in deed well balanced is nice if you go player versus player. But its somtims a bit more cool to be under powerd and have a chance to win by luck eg hig treat range and just damnd lucky confirm it.

I do think roles are funn and till we try testing the character creation im not saying eny thing on the balance becouse at this moment we get pre made characters and thus testing if tere all balanced is hard to say becouse we seen a tip of an ice berg and we dont know how deep or how diverse the rest is. 
@Ogiwan

If this is, in fact, how your group plays things then that sucks, but none of the groups I've ever been in we're remotely close to that. Once the Wizard blew his load he grabbed his Xbow and chilled in back taking pot-shots. He wasn't the group leader and didn't command the party to bow to his wishes and retreat to town so he could take a catnap. That's ridiculous!

Charm is useable x/day. Skill checks are unlimited. Ergo, a character trained in social skills will outshine the wizard. Additionally, if the wizard is spending resources on duplicating other party member's capabilities that player is willingly forgoing versatility which is generally a flawed approach to playing a Wizard.

Each class has its own strengths and use in conjunction create a powerful and fun group to play in. One of them being stronger some of the time is not an issue in the groups I play in.

Also, what you constitute as significant and insignificant are perhaps different than me, but I like to think as anything that let's people have fun is very significant.

Finally, I don't want to tread to closely to the "Edition war" debate, so I'll say in closing that 4th edition classes have a great amount of overlap that is truly only differentiated by flavor text and keywords. My experience showed eight different classes handling the NPCs in combat in nearly identical fashion despite my attempts to the contrary. YMMV

...just my 2 cp

JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST

Exmple: I have a car.  I receive a recall notice saying that some cars of my Make & Model have had a problem where the whels come off and the car flips over into oncoming trafic.
Just because I haven't experienced this problem doesn't make other people's experiences less valid, or any less relevant to me.
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
Of course balance is important in a long running game. Every player needs to feel they are contributing in and out of combat in a meaningfull way.

Don't let one class do another classes gimic better just by casting a spell.
 JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST

Exmple: I have a car.  I receive a recall notice saying that some cars of my Make & Model have had a problem where the whels come off and the car flips over into oncoming trafic.
Just because I haven't experienced this problem doesn't make other people's experiences less valid, or any less relevant to me.



Repeating yoru self doesnt help in a argument.

A bit of disbalance can be funn. But in the end its indeed the players that need to diside. Its mostly about do the feel genereic or work generic. In essense to make the system work (look at 3.5) you have the work generic. The get to hit, new skills and feats.

The wizard gets spells and few bonus feats. The fighter gets a owsome 2 hit and trough the feats he can specilise in the awsome treatning and conforming fichter that can protect the caster so he can do that one Big spell so that the boss gets distracted (bad example maybe but you get the drifft).
 JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST

Exmple: I have a car.  I receive a recall notice saying that some cars of my Make & Model have had a problem where the whels come off and the car flips over into oncoming trafic.
Just because I haven't experienced this problem doesn't make other people's experiences less valid, or any less relevant to me.



Repeating yoru self doesnt help in a argument.

A bit of disbalance can be funn. But in the end its indeed the players that need to diside. Its mostly about do the feel genereic or work generic. In essense to make the system work (look at 3.5) you have the work generic. The get to hit, new skills and feats.

The wizard gets spells and few bonus feats. The fighter gets a owsome 2 hit and trough the feats he can specilise in the awsome treatning and conforming fichter that can protect the caster so he can do that one Big spell so that the boss gets distracted (bad example maybe but you get the drifft).



when people say that "a bit of disbalance can be fun." I really think they might mean "a bit of variety can be fun." because variety has nothing to do with balance, even though they packaged the powers up the same in 4E and it read like the same thing. Go check out essentials and then come back and tell us how 4E was the same all around.

Those that think a bit of disbalance can be fun and actually mean disbalance are usually those players that like lording it over other players and being the only hero in a group of commoners...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
when people say that "a bit of disbalance can be fun." I really think they might mean "a bit of variety can be fun." because variety has nothing to do with balance, even though they packaged the powers up the same in 4E and it read like the same thing. Go check out essentials and then come back and tell us how 4E was the same all around.

Those that think a bit of disbalance can be fun and actually mean disbalance are usually those players that like lording it over other players and being the only hero in a group of commoners...



I read the essentials. But what I mean with disbalance may be indeed be wrongly interpeted.

Disbalnce I see the flolwing I see a figher alwasy haveing a better meelee to hit then a wizard. And that a fichter focusd on range weapons having a hig dex.

But that means he secrafised his melee to hit. that kind of disbalance.. 
Balance need not be total, and identical, everywhere. But it needs to be there overall.

The thief [I've never liked the term 'rogue' for a combat/trapfinding guy, keep the term for your bards and other conment] shines outside of combat, where constant applications of his skills and experience mean he's all but de-facto party-leader when it comes to navigating the sleazier underbelly or deciding what's safe or not, and what's lootable or not down in the dungeons. There's a lot to be said for having a guy that knows what things are worth around. Of course, he couldn't hope to outfight a knight or fighter, he's got the tools to bug out, but unless he was able to shank him in the negatives before the big armored death machine knew the thief was there,  he's either running or torn apart.

The fighter can dish it out as well as he can take it. If someone needs to be wrestling a bear, he's there. If someone needs to kill a dragon from the inside, been there, done that, got the armor. Lots of aimed blows, occasional defensive bypasses, so long as we're not dealing in magic, and something needs to die, he knows where to hit, he knows what to cut. I'm certainly of the opinion that he should be allowed a couple of cheap-shots against opponents, rather than needing whole feat lines just to be allowed to free-topple on an attack. Sure, twice a day he can double-action surge, but other times, he's trying to cut your legs out, after sending an arrow at your mage. People LISTEN to him in combat.

The Cleric is not necessarily a Mobile Infantry Combat Healing and Ressucitation Unit. He is, however, a walking conduit of his belief system, and you don't need nearly as much healing if you're all avoiding or absorbing part of the damage anyways. A thief can cut his throat, and even with his buffs he can't stand toe to toe with a fighter for more than just a moment, though he can hold him off a little while, but if need be he's got tons of help to call upon.

Mages should not be as good a fighter with a simple spell [or summoning one] than a fighter, can rarely do more than the most basic of stablizing or regenerative healing magics, and certainly can't make a thief obsolete, but if its magic, its their job, and when it comes to combat, they're either severely debilitating a single target, [hopefully in stages of stacking applications that are hard to resist but take a while, instead of instant SoD] or applying significant, but moderate, damage to a group.
Balance need not be total, and identical, everywhere. But it needs to be there overall.

The thief [I've never liked the term 'rogue' for a combat/trapfinding guy, keep the term for your bards and other conment] shines outside of combat, where constant applications of his skills and experience mean he's all but de-facto party-leader when it comes to navigating the sleazier underbelly or deciding what's safe or not, and what's lootable or not down in the dungeons. There's a lot to be said for having a guy that knows what things are worth around. Of course, he couldn't hope to outfight a knight or fighter, he's got the tools to bug out, but unless he was able to shank him in the negatives before the big armored death machine knew the thief was there,  he's either running or torn apart.

The fighter can dish it out as well as he can take it. If someone needs to be wrestling a bear, he's there. If someone needs to kill a dragon from the inside, been there, done that, got the armor. Lots of aimed blows, occasional defensive bypasses, so long as we're not dealing in magic, and something needs to die, he knows where to hit, he knows what to cut. I'm certainly of the opinion that he should be allowed a couple of cheap-shots against opponents, rather than needing whole feat lines just to be allowed to free-topple on an attack. Sure, twice a day he can double-action surge, but other times, he's trying to cut your legs out, after sending an arrow at your mage. People LISTEN to him in combat.

The Cleric is not necessarily a Mobile Infantry Combat Healing and Ressucitation Unit. He is, however, a walking conduit of his belief system, and you don't need nearly as much healing if you're all avoiding or absorbing part of the damage anyways. A thief can cut his throat, and even with his buffs he can't stand toe to toe with a fighter for more than just a moment, though he can hold him off a little while, but if need be he's got tons of help to call upon.

Mages should not be as good a fighter with a simple spell [or summoning one] than a fighter, can rarely do more than the most basic of stablizing or regenerative healing magics, and certainly can't make a thief obsolete, but if its magic, its their job, and when it comes to combat, they're either severely debilitating a single target, [hopefully in stages of stacking applications that are hard to resist but take a while, instead of instant SoD] or applying significant, but moderate, damage to a group.



This is what im talking about a +1 on this one
That basically describes 4e...
when people say that "a bit of disbalance can be fun." I really think they might mean "a bit of variety can be fun." because variety has nothing to do with balance, even though they packaged the powers up the same in 4E and it read like the same thing. Go check out essentials and then come back and tell us how 4E was the same all around.

Those that think a bit of disbalance can be fun and actually mean disbalance are usually those players that like lording it over other players and being the only hero in a group of commoners...



I read the essentials. But what I mean with disbalance may be indeed be wrongly interpeted.

Disbalnce I see the flolwing I see a figher alwasy haveing a better meelee to hit then a wizard. And that a fichter focusd on range weapons having a hig dex.

But that means he secrafised his melee to hit. that kind of disbalance.. 


That's not disbalance.

That's balance.
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
Balance should be attempted, but I don't think it can ever be truly achieved if each PC is going to be special at something unique.  

How can you equate being awesome with an axe with being a master at opening doors and picking locks?   How can you equate being able to bring a character back from the brink of death, with the ability to cast a burning spray of fire that can injure multiple opponents?   How can you equate having the ability to protect an ally once per round (insuring that an attack against it is done at a disadvantage) to being able to re-roll any roll for or against you 2x per day (halfling "Lucky")?  

Most players play a PC because they want a specific feel or roleplaying experience.  Each class should have a number of options and some cool powers that are different.  If the PC feels like something I'd want to play (and it is unique) that's really all I can ask for.  

Unfortunately, in a game where ultimately players will be able to pick and choose what race and class, background and theme they want, I'm sure there will always be issues with balance.  The only way to control these issues would be to preset the races and classes and not allow any tinkering.  That would create a much worse game in my opinion.

A Brave Knight of WTF

That basically describes 4e...



Like 4e except where it says “shines outside of combat”.

In 4e, it is important for every character to be able to shine in combat.

4e is amazing in this regard. I can be in a team of five adventurers. Each adventurer has a different fighting style, and functions differently in the battle. Each one feels extremely different. One can be an evasive Sorcerer who is difficult to hit and who blasts from a distance. The other can be a Barbarian to charges head-first into the next target. One can be a staunch Warden who controls an area. And so on. Yet all can put the hurt on the monsters, especially when the team is working together optimally.

Not necessarily. 4e was heavily combat-centric. The classes were balanced around combat roles, and very little else. While you had 'rituals' and some utilities, most of the mechanics focused on the times when two or more opposing groups are attempting to significantly affect the lifespans of the other groups. The balances there were the typical MMO triumverate, of Tank, Healer and DPS, plus the also-typical mechanics of buff/debuff and control.

What we're suggesting here is instead a balance of value to a party in an overall adventuring environment. Not "everyone is equally valuable in combat", but rather, "at the end of the adventure, everyone will have had their time to shine in the spotlight"

In other words, the thief need not be a DPS machine, because while he's somewhat capable in combat, his real value is in getting there richer and in one piece. While difficult to mechanically quantify if you're just looking at combat, a party that arrived as well, or better equipped than when it started, with only a few expended resources or a few extra cuts and bruises, is at a great advantage in combat when pitted against a party that's technically better when fresh at combat, but currently has the fighter in a tourniquet bemoaning his lost left hand, and never did find that wand of cone of cold the gm had as the power source to that one trap that killed their cleric.

The fighter is about surviving in combat, sure. You gotta be able to neutralize what threatens you, and you should be fairly handy with a small number of weapon close groups in addition to your prefered equipment [let's be a little less unrealistic this edition: nobody's fully and equally proficient at 60+ different weapons any more than they can be fluent in thirty languages] which you're really good at. Your party's expected to be able to hold their ground just like you, though; you come from a world of phalanxes and pike-hedges. If the non-fighters in the group are to be properly defended, they're gonna have to learn the basics. Saves should be decent all around; the stupid fighter is a dead fighter, the unwise fighter is a dead fighter, and anyone that collapses under all that equipment never became a fighter. And skills. You get so many things drilled into you when in the armies... "no no, 2+int, fighters aren't skilled at all" was just plain bull.

and so on.

It doesn't have to be in-combat-balance only. That's what 4e brought. What you want is value overall. The party will look to the fighter for leadership in combat, the mage brings constant minor utility, handles deciphering the arcane stuff, and provides the occasional massive burst of power, the thief gets all of them from one place to the next in one piece and just a little richer, and so on.
I´m afraid classe must be balance if WotC wishs a future MMO with player versus player (PvP).




This right here is the problem with trying to balance classes. Tabletop games ARE NOT computer games and shouldn't ever be designed as such. If I want to play a computer RPG I do. If I want to play a tabletop RPG (which is the preference 100% of the time), I will. I do not want to play the same game, with all the same mechanics and balance, because what works in a computer game translates poorly into a tabletop game and vice-versa.


As for class balance, I don't think all classes should be created equal. Each class has strengths and weaknesses and that's fine. Every class has their moments to shine. When I come up with a new character idea, I never care about how 'balanced' he'll be compared to other classes. If anything I'm only concerned with him balancing out the party. I don't mind taking a back seat to other players, when they are better at a particular thing than I. That's their time to shine. It's the same when my character gets to 'steal the show' and they have to sit back a bit. Everyone can't be at center stage all the time.
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."
Not necessarily. 4e was heavily combat-centric.



No more so than any other edition of D&D.

Now, are we accepting anecdotal evidence? Because if so, I submit that 4e is the least combat centric edition, because the Skill Challenge mechanic allows for rationalized award of XP without combat. My....3rd level, maybe 4th level, was a level entirely free of combat. It was an 'investigate the murder and prove the accused innocense while trying to unravel the conspiracy' plot, and, again, there was zero combat in that level, but XP awarded by the book.

4e: You don't need to kill stuff to get XP anymore!

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Defenders: We ARE the wall!

 

I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
Throwing in my two cents here.

When I read through the playtest characters, I thought the fighter looked pretty boring.

When my group played the playtest, the fighter was critical and the player running him had a lot of fun.  I think these characters are striving to be balanced, just not in the 4e sense.

Wizard's three rounds of spells let him pretty much steal the show, for three rounds.  Otherwise he is just throwing out magic missiles or rays of frost (which was helpful but not exactly riveting)

Fighter swung the axe every round, did very respectible damage, and could keep swinging long past the wizard running low on spells. 

Rogue (especially level two and three) is amazing with sneak attack.

Healer was critical with the heal spells but no slouch with radiant lance, and insane against undead with searing light.

Guardian very helpful to keeping others alive (shield other) and hits pretty hard too with crusader's strike up.

These classes aren't balanced in the same way as MMO characters or 4e characters, meaning in a given fight different characters are going to be more or less effective.  But they seemed pretty balanced in terms of each one had time to shine, each was critical in their own way.  Its going to be up to players to decide what they prefer.  Some will prefer the fighter, instead of carefully plotting thier next move they just swing, but if thats the Role they want to play, great for them.

***I think it is ok for some characters to shine a few rounds a day, or every other round, while others are steady performers. 
***I DON'T like the idea of some characters being terrible at low levels, and then amazing later on.  I think each character should have utility in the context of the group at all levels.

Just my two cents.
A few posters have touched on it and I'd like to reiterate it because I feel it's extremely important to this discussion:

Balancing all of the classes with each other is extremely difficult when you consider all of the intangibles and out-of-combat scenarios.

If a character is capable of scouting and locating a potential threat an leads the party around it, that is effectively winning an entire encounter solo. Does that make that character more powerful? Absolutely. Should you give the fighter more HP or spell resistance or something to "balance" it? Not even close.

I unfortunately need to be brief due to time constraints, but it's so important to remember that there are nigh limitless incalculable options that make balancing every class with each other all the time is just impossible. And combat effectiveness is only a small portion of balance.

...just my 2cp
My Paladin: Hey mage, why are you always reading that book? Party Wizard: This tome contains a wealth of knowledge, sir knight. My Paladin: Well if tomes contain knowledge, knowledge is power, power corrupts, and corruption is evil...than the more you read the more evil you become! Quickly everyone, get her!
when people say that "a bit of disbalance can be fun." I really think they might mean "a bit of variety can be fun." because variety has nothing to do with balance, even though they packaged the powers up the same in 4E and it read like the same thing. Go check out essentials and then come back and tell us how 4E was the same all around.

Those that think a bit of disbalance can be fun and actually mean disbalance are usually those players that like lording it over other players and being the only hero in a group of commoners...



I read the essentials. But what I mean with disbalance may be indeed be wrongly interpeted.

Disbalnce I see the flolwing I see a figher alwasy haveing a better meelee to hit then a wizard. And that a fichter focusd on range weapons having a hig dex.

But that means he secrafised his melee to hit. that kind of disbalance.. 



That's not disbalance thats variety or different subsystems. You can have that and balance at the same time...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Balance should be attempted, but I don't think it can ever be truly achieved if each PC is going to be special at something unique.  

How can you equate being awesome with an axe with being a master at opening doors and picking locks?   How can you equate being able to bring a character back from the brink of death, with the ability to cast a burning spray of fire that can injure multiple opponents?   How can you equate having the ability to protect an ally once per round (insuring that an attack against it is done at a disadvantage) to being able to re-roll any roll for or against you 2x per day (halfling "Lucky")?  

Most players play a PC because they want a specific feel or roleplaying experience.  Each class should have a number of options and some cool powers that are different.  If the PC feels like something I'd want to play (and it is unique) that's really all I can ask for.  

Unfortunately, in a game where ultimately players will be able to pick and choose what race and class, background and theme they want, I'm sure there will always be issues with balance.  The only way to control these issues would be to preset the races and classes and not allow any tinkering.  That would create a much worse game in my opinion.



That's easy, you don't balance across pillars, you balance within pillars. You do it using different subsystems. Its not that hard...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Yes, Dungeons and Dragons must be balanced because it is a tactical combat simulator. 

No matter how "weak" a character is - a strong roleplayer cannot be outshined in roleplay - and vice versa.




No it's not.  This is the whole problem with 4th ed and the reason that 5th Ed is on the table.  If you want a tactical table top combat simulator play 40K or D&D miniatures or hero clicks(?) etc.

Do didnt even read the first responce fully did you? Just because you have not had this problem does not change the fact that there are scaths of groups out there that suffer from this and if 5E does not address this problem they will not play it. Your one group, style and tastes are far less important than the hundreds of groups who had this problrem with 3.5.



Have you ever considered the xerox'd approach to character design is equally as much of a turn off to arguably more fans of 1-3rd ed than the balance issues from 3rd Ed were to 4th ed fans?

Yes, Dungeons and Dragons must be balanced because it is a tactical combat simulator. 

No matter how "weak" a character is - a strong roleplayer cannot be outshined in roleplay - and vice versa.




No it's not.  This is the whole problem with 4th ed and the reason that 5th Ed is on the table.  If you want a tactical table top combat simulator play 40K or D&D miniatures or hero clicks(?) etc.



I wouldn't use the  term "tactical combat simulator" to describe 4E or even D&D. But I would go so far as to say that I'd like more codified, concise rules for combat over non-combative elements in the game.

That being said, I can see why some people think 4E has a lot of same-ness with the classes. As each core class received the AEDU treatment, the powers were color coded, and damage expressions for classes of the same Role were roughly the same, it looks on paper like the same thing with different fluff. Playing the class, however, is a whole different matter.

4E's strive for balance went far more than each class getting the same "stuff" to do, it allowed for far less over-lap than previous editions. Fighters can't throw fireballs, hold monsters in place with a frozen pond, drop a pit of acid on his enemies, summon a demon to fight for him, etc... And Wizards can't really wade into combat with sword and fullplate, can't go toe-to-toe with a Frost Giant and live more than a round or two, Knock people down with a swing of their axe, wield a wide variety of weapons, etc... And neither of these guys can heal anyone like the cleric, put on party benefits like a cleric, or lead their comrades into battle like the cleric (or Warlord, bard, artificer, etc..) AND none of the classes I mention can out-damage the Ranger, Out sneak the Rogue, and so on. Basically each class has their niché thing.

Where as in 3.X/PF a Cleric could, with the right spells, be better than the fighter (all day if he so choose) at Fighter, the wizard could deal way more damage to a bigger area of monsters than the Ranger, could unlock any door they came across via spells, could be a better sneak with spells, could be better in intense negotiations with spells, etc.. Basically their spells were SO diverse that they could not only do their own specific job better, but everyone elses job as well. That's not really balance.


So yes, I'd like to see classes excel in areas they're designed for, with less over lap. I don't want my cleric (even a BATTLE cleric) to be better at Fighting than the Fighter, regardless of how/what spells is used. I don't want the wizard to be a utility belt that can solve any solution with the right spell all the time.       

YES.

Because Yes.

Because being inherently weaker doesn't make you a better roleplayer, and it does NOT make for better roleplaying opportunities.

EDIT: Because not having any effect on the game is NOT fun.  And this is a game.

Because being relegated to "pack-mule_ because I picked the wrong class is NOT fun.

Because ending the game with a handful of resources is NOT fun.  (In a serious game.  in silly games, it's only not fun for the other players.)

Because having to hold myself back so that my friends can make worthwhile contributiions is NOT fun.

EDIT2:

Because: JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST

Exmple: I have a car.  I receive a recall notice saying that some cars of my Make & Model have had a problem where the whels come off and the car flips over into oncoming trafic.
Just because I haven't experienced this problem doesn't make other people's experiences less valid, or any less relevant to me.



What he said.

To be honest, I don't see how we can have anyone who doesn't agree with this play at the same table with anyone who does.

Ever.

Good luck to WotC, because I don't think they can overcome a division as hard as the one between those who know how bad imbalance can be and those who don't care and won't listen.

I really hope they CAN overcome this division, but this is the one which I don't see a way to solve. 

The only REAL solution is balance, because it's easy to simply add more to some classes to unblance later.  But for some reason that MAKES NO SENSE to the anti-balance crowd (who seem uniformly ignorant of 4th edition... or much of 1st and 2nd as well in many cases).