Class Balance VS. Class Enterainment

Although I believe that classes should be balanced, I would also accept a level of imbalance as long as it resulted in all of the classes being fun to play in its own way. IMO that's what makes a class system stay.

I support balance within reason, with reason upholding the continued prioritization of keeping the classes all relatively equal (among the general populace) in how much fun they can be to play. Individual preferences can go one way or another but as long as there is no class that is not fun to play that should be what DnD Next aims for, right?

What sort of imbalance would you consider acceptable so long as it did not make classes less fun to play?

What do you want from the different classes regardless of class balance?

Edit (12/1/12, 6:55pm EST): How do you want the gameplay to be like at the lowest levels and at the highest levels for the different classes? What do you picture certain classes being able to do or not able to do?
Fun is the ultimate and only test of any game, and all mathematical balancing is only a substep of that goal. I would be happy with a game of Gods vs. Redshirts, if it were fun for everyone to play.
Oh look a caddies and casters self justification thread ... have fun.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

He didn't actually say caddies and casters. Though there isn't much to say on the subject of balance that hasn't already been rehashed into a tasteless Elmer's paste in a hundred other threads.
I want every class to be similarly capable of moment of awesomeness. And that capability should be fairly high.

I also want every class to be similarly capable of moments of uselessness. And that capability should be fairly low. 

And I want every class to be similarly interesting in the in-between moments.

4E pre-Essentials mostly achieved this.  Granted they did so in a fairly easy way. But the way they did it also had the advantage that all the above remains equally true in a one-encounter day and in a ten-encounter day. In prior editions, it simply wasn't possible to beef up the weak classes and weaken the overpowered ones, without altering their resource management, to create that sort of agnostic balance.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
He didn't actually say caddies and casters. Though there isn't much to say on the subject of balance that hasn't already been rehashed into a tasteless Elmer's paste in a hundred other threads.



When the redshirts are high level casters still using mostly rituals to accomplish fairly minor effects we will talk (more like legends and myth maybe). Till then we all know what it means. Balance bashing... and spell caster supremacists... they are best buddies.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Although I believe that classes should be balanced, I would also accept a level of imbalance as long as it resulted in all of the classes being fun to play in its own way. IMO that's what makes a class system stay.

What sort of imbalance would you consider acceptable so long as it did not make classes less fun to play?


I know it when I see it.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.


What do you want from the different classes regardless of class balance?




As close to perfectly balanced as possible.  The game being imbalanced inherently makes it not-fun for me.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Oh look a caddies and casters self justification thread ... have fun.




Ha, so old, this clinging to the caddy malarkey, never seen,it, I doubt you have, it's just become trendy to spout that rubbish since 2008.

No one wants casters to dominate and fighters to be henchman in D&D, that daftness needs to stop.

Please stop passive-aggressively edition warring. 
Although I believe that classes should be balanced, I would also accept a level of imbalance as long as it resulted in all of the classes being fun to play in its own way. IMO that's what makes a class system stay.

I support balance within reason, with reason upholding the continued prioritization of keeping the classes all relatively equal (among the general populace) in how much fun they can be to play. Individual preferences can go one way or another but as long as there is no class that is not fun to play that should be what DnD Next aims for, right?

What sort of imbalance would you consider acceptable so long as it did not make classes less fun to play?



Acceptable imbalance?  As long as a character has the ability to meaningfully contribute to combat and to overcoming non-combat obstacles (either exploration or social), and the character isn't far enough ahead or behind in the math of these things to outclass or be consistently outclassed by other classes.  Some characters may consistently outclass others in a specific situation through specialization, but that should come from specialization and not from the classes themselves.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Everyone keeps saying "If it isn't balanced, it's not fun' or "I won't play it", but pretty much every major RPG out there right now has major imbalances. Notice I said major. There may be some smaller products that are, but obviously lots of people will still play an imbalanced product because the major products are still major.

D&D 3e/Pathfinder? Super imbalanced, arguably less so in pathfinder but it's still there.

4e? It was better, but Clerics? Barbarians? Rangers?! It got pretty rediculous when you dug in deep.

Shadowrun? Magic is the end all/be all in that game. With a little bit of karma, a mage can replace almost anyone save maybe the decker.

GURPS/BESM/Any other build point system? DM has to step in heavily to prevent balance issues :P Then again these systems aren't meant to enforce balance I suppose. I guess it's a good example of how a DM can inforce balance and a system doesn't quite have to carry all the load.

1e/2e? Same old fighters rock at low levels, casters rock at higher levels.

And don't even get me started on White Wolf games...I guess I can just hand out the example of Werewolves and changelings having infinite combat turns


Games have imbalance :P But that doesn't make them grossly less fun. If 5e turns out to be imbalanced in some ways, people will still play it and people will still have fun. So I would rather have an array of interesting classes that follow a loose balance structure than have a tight group of uninteresting classes that are 1 to 1 balanced so that no class ever feels useless. 
My two copper.


Acceptable imbalance?  As long as a character has the ability to meaningfully contribute to combat and to overcoming non-combat obstacles (either exploration or social), and the character isn't far enough ahead or behind in the math of these things to outclass or be consistently outclassed by other classes.  Some characters may consistently outclass others in a specific situation through specialization, but that should come from specialization and not from the classes themselves.



This is exactly how I feel about it: everybody's neither consistently useless nor overpowering, in or out of combat.
In my opinion 4E was too balanced, to the point that it wasn't even interesting to read about a new class because you already knew it'd basically be the other classes in its category with different powers.

Some classes in 3E may have been underpowered to a powergamer, but to a roleplayer they were all useful and fun and unique.
In my opinion 4E was too balanced, to the point that it wasn't even interesting to read about a new class because you already knew it'd basically be the other classes in its category with different powers.




Even that would be lucky.
I want every class to be similarly capable of moment of awesomeness. And that capability should be fairly high.

I also want every class to be similarly capable of moments of uselessness. And that capability should be fairly low. 

And I want every class to be similarly interesting in the in-between moments.

4E pre-Essentials mostly achieved this.  Granted they did so in a fairly easy way. But the way they did it also had the advantage that all the above remains equally true in a one-encounter day and in a ten-encounter day. In prior editions, it simply wasn't possible to beef up the weak classes and weaken the overpowered ones, without altering their resource management, to create that sort of agnostic balance.



You say it better than I, In general I dont want a particular archetype excluded from any of that ... that is just a failed imagination issue if its so.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

  but to a roleplayer they were all useful and fun and unique.



Yeh nobody who likes game balance could possibly like roleplaying.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Are we talking about the same 4th edition? Well, its rather moot, 'cause I'd take 4e over 3e. In my opinion, 3.x was so imbalanced that it was unplayable, what with the number of classes that were just useless next to other classes. If roleplaying is your thing, if that's what makes the game fun, its a lot easier to do it with a balanced system than with an imbalanced one. In a balanced system, everybody matters, so everybody's participation is important, whereas in an imbalanced system, only a few people's participation matters, and everybody else is pretty much a slightly-involved spectator.

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.
  but to a roleplayer they were all useful and fun and unique.



Yeh nobody who likes game balance could possibly like roleplaying.



Also, that.

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.
An acceptable level of imbalance pretty much entails this:



  • No character should ever completely eclipse another character's ability. This pretty much means that the gish/druid/cleric type should never exceed a regular fighter at fighting ability. 

  • Everyone should get meaningful stuff to do both in combat and out of combat. 

  • The relative effectiveness of the characters at killing monsters should be roughly equivalent for two classes of the same level. This means that any imbalances aren't easily noticeable. Nobody should feel like the sidekick.

  • It's okay (possibly even preferable) for individual encounters to be able to negate a character's primary abilities, though if one class can have this occur, then it should exist for all classes.

  but to a roleplayer they were all useful and fun and unique.



Yeh nobody who likes game balance could possibly like roleplaying.



Trying to think of a comment to annoy you...ah well.  Can't think of oneLaughing


Yeah your right, this thread is a rehash.


CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
All the "casters are overpowered" wailers need a guy-check: in the last, oh, four games you've played (of any edition you consider "unbalanced):

(1.) did every single player choose a casting class? If not, why not?
(2.) Assuming you were all playing casters, did any character ever die, or even come close to it, at the hands of a non-casting monster or NPC? How do you explain such an occurence?
(3.) Have you or any other party member playing a fighter, rogue, or other non-casting class, ever managed to slay an enemy wizard, cleric, or other caster? How, given your "obvious" combat inferiority?

How much responsibility do players have for balancing their own character? I often play characters that stat far below the party norm and In cases where anMVP xp award was voted for at the end of the evening I ended up getting it as often and sometimes more often than players with mechanically superior sheets. Same sort of thing in tournaments, I never had problems getting my points because the class was unbalanced.


 As far as every character having something to do every turn, the only reason you wouldn’t have something to do is if the DM forgot to ask you what you were doing. But when its your turn to state your actions there is always something to do. Its true that often times the best option wont be the most heroic or powerful feeling.


But the game mechanic that provides a feeling of power to a player is very different from balance.


I think that I know what people are getting at when they ask for “balanced characters” I just wish that it was called something that more closely represented what it is that people are actually looking for.


IDK “universally or equally empowered characters” something like that. “mechanically balanced characters” maybe.


No need to comment, I am but a candle before the cyclone. 

  but to a roleplayer they were all useful and fun and unique.



Yeh nobody who likes game balance could possibly like roleplaying.



Trying to think of a comment to annoy you...ah well.  Can't think of one


Yeah your right, this thread is a rehash.





Yes it has all the markings.  Next you will hear that people wanting character balance, are not team players.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

(1.) did every single player choose a casting class? If not, why not?


Because even though players may want to play balanced classes and may want to play a balanaced game, they are willing to play unbalanced classes and an unbalanced game if that is what their friends want to play. It doesn't mean that those friends would be unwilling to play a balanced game, it is just that they want to play, say, 3e.

(2.) Assuming you were all playing casters, did any character ever die, or even come close to it, at the hands of a non-casting monster or NPC? How do you explain such an occurence?


Not really sure what the point of this is? Regardless of how unbalanced a class is compared to other classes, the party could face powerful monsters or things with save or die type effects or things like that. Just because you are more powerful does not mean you are unstopppable, especially if the DM is trying to stop you.

(3.) Have you or any other party member playing a fighter, rogue, or other non-casting class, ever managed to slay an enemy wizard, cleric, or other caster? How, given your "obvious" combat inferiority?


Ok, so ignoring that this seems to be implying monsters with class levels to simulate a sort of PvP environment, but ignoring that, superior (or being inferior) does not mean cannot be defeated. For exmaple, imagine we have two classes: Fighter and Super-Fighter. The Super-Fighter is either better or almost better than the Fighter at everything the Fighter is trying to do and the Super-Fighter has a ton of other stuff it can do too. This is clearly a case that the Super-Fighter is unbalanced compared to the Fighter, but that doesn't mean that three Fighters working together cannot defeat a single Super-Fighter that wants to fight them.
In other words, Cheethorne, "imbalance" was not enough of an issue to keep people from not only playing the game, but playing non-casters. And both the DM and players figured out ways to defeat what the BALANCE BRIGADE keep telling us are unspeakably, unstoppably indefeatable casters. Turns out casting 'flight' doesn't make you arrow proof...and that this supposedly game-wrecking "problem" isn't one.
In the last 3.5E game I was in, two of the casters (a wizard and a cleric) dealt with the crowds AND the bbegs (what in 4e would have been minions, solos, controllers, and artillery), while the other three casters (no full clerics, wizards, or druids) and the other six players dealt with the other distractions (soldiers and brutes).

In the 4E games I have been in, everyone deals with everything. 
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
All the "casters are overpowered" wailers need a guy-check:

in the last, oh, four games you've played (of any edition you consider "unbalanced): (1.) did every single player choose a casting class? If not, why not?



They claimed to "role-play" their characters and balance didn't matter to them. I played a caster, made encounters FAR easier than they were designed, which made the DM mad and forced harder encounters. 2 players died (not mine) and in the end, left the group for personal reason (their house was......well lets just say it wasn't very clean).

All the other games were in 4E and not every one played a spellcaster because they weren't broken or unbalanced. We had no problems at all.   


(2.) Assuming you were all playing casters, did any character ever die, or even come close to it, at the hands of a non-casting monster or NPC? How do you explain such an occurence?



In the last 4 games? The cleric died once (using 3E) but we were all pretty squishy and at low level to boot. Actually, the only survivor was the Spirit Shaman (using a wand of lightning, which I know isn't technically legal, but i didn't care at the time). The death came at the hands of an Orc riding a Wyvern, not a spellcaster. Still, there were no spellcasters in that particular battle so I don't know what that is supposed to prove. Earlier in that adventure, our Spirit Shaman used entangle to single-handedly maintain a WHOLE group of orcs from entering the battle and the Cleric used Hold Person on the main bad-guy, which kept him out of the fight for 75% of the time. Those two spells made the encounter........well much easier to do than if the spells were lesser in power.

In 4E, we had our party routed by goblins in which our Swordmage and Barbarian died. But that was more due to poor combat sense than the classes power. In all sense, it was 4E so no one really cared if you played a spellcaster or not becuase there was sense of balance within class design.

As for dying at the hands of a non-casting bad guy? Easy, they're often higher level than the party. Take, for instance, our 3E game (the one I discussed earlier) in which our party of level 6 characters invaded an Orc stronghold. This adventure is called The Sons of Gruumsh, a pre-published adventure for the Forgotten Realms. At the end, you fight a magically enhanced level 9 Orc (CR 10, I believe) and is a pretty hard opponent when everyone is approx level 5-6. Yet he was nullified by 1 spell in our game. When he finally DID manage to break out of the Hold Person spell, he went toe-to-toe with the group's Fighter (Fighter 5) which he killed in 3 rounds.    

 
(3.) Have you or any other party member playing a fighter, rogue, or other non-casting class, ever managed to slay an enemy wizard, cleric, or other caster? How, given your "obvious" combat inferiority?



From a flying mount, with lucky rolls, and being severl levels higher than them. At least, that's what my experience was with 3E. In 4E, monsters aren't really assigned "levels and spells". They're assigned magical powers which scale and are pretty balanced along with other elements, so this wasn't a problem.
I kind of like how a spell in-conjunction with a good idea could get the party out of a jam or avoid an encounter entirely.  This is ok if it is limited.  It would also be ok, if other classes had the ability to do the same in a limited fashion.

A Brave Knight of WTF

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Simply put, all classes need an equivalent effectiveness in combat, exploration, and social situations. Social situations can largely be handled through RP, and thus need the least class based input, though this still doesn't mean that a class shouldn't have their own niche with social encounters. This leaves combat and exploration, and generally the problem is that while for combat, everyone can generally perform to some degree, exploration is where the imbalance starts to really show up. Combat is simple to balance with roles, avoidance of novas and sake or suck spells also helps since those can end combat before the other party members get a chance to participate.

As for exploration, which seems to generally refer to utility, stuff that isn't strictly combat or social, but might be able to be applied to either if used in the right way(such as flight, or invisibility), there is an issue. We have classes like the Fighter that has pretty much nonexistent ability out of combat aside from some strength checks, such as lifting a portcullis or pushing a boulder, Rogue which succeeds at pretty much any mundane task they attempt, and then Wizards that can generally duplicate or exceed the mundane effectiveness of other classes, as well as do things that mundane characters simply cannot do, such as fly, teleport, mass stealth, elemental protection, water breathing, and the like.This makes the caster player feel empowered, but detracts from the playing experience of non-casters at the table.

Unfortunately, some people have this idea that when party balance comes up, that this game is just a PvP game, and measures to disable or kill a wizard make them balanced. They do not, because if a DM uses these measures, you're just trading off the wizard ruining the experience for the rest of the party, for the DM ruining the wizard's experience to keep the rest of the party happy and the DM happy. It's only one person instead of several not having fun, but the whole goal of the game should be that EVERYONE has fun. To that end, everyone should have equal participation, anyone who can't understand that doesn't deserve to have a say on classes for this edition, because they are choosing their own fun over making the game fun.

Oh, and as for what imbalance is acceptable? Prefferably none. If you must have imbalance, you'll have to go the route of imbalanced balance. That is to say, if everyone is better than everyone else at a few things and can equally mess with the game, then it's balanced still. If one class can mess with the game, and others can't, that's not acceptable.
Simply put,all classes need an equivalent effectiveness in combat,exploration,and social situations...

So, mechanically identical classes. No thanks, I'd rather play D &D.
Simply put,all classes need an equivalent effectiveness in combat,exploration,and social situations...

So, mechanically identical classes. No thanks, I'd rather play D &D.



You can, because it already exists. Why don't you let everyone else move forward since you already have the game you want, eh?

Seriously, just stop already. Have you ever done anything other than try to shoot down balance and improvement? Have you suggested anything to improve the game yourself? Literally all I see from you is a grognard set in their ways who doesn't want other people to have fun if it costs them their power trip.
Added another question to the original post for this discussion.

Edit (12/1/12, 6:55pm EST): How do you want the gameplay to be like at the lowest levels and at the highest levels for the different classes? What do you picture certain classes being able to do or not able to do?



For example, I'd like to see a martial-oriented class become like Himura Kenshin from the anime/manga Rurouni Kenshin.

When I think of epic spellcasters, I like to think of the dragon/avangion wizard/psionicists from AD&D 2nd edition DARK SUN. There were some awesome epic descriptions for 10th level spells in my old Dragon Kings source book.




I like 4e, but it didnt balance every class across social, exploration and combat. The martial practices were weak and narrow compared to rituals, and rogues had twice(?) as many skills as fighters. By balancing combat, the system took a great step forward, but lets not sugar coat it.

I don't know if a real answer can be described to how much balance. I mean, my gut tells me that in combat, the rogue and the fighter are actually close enough, but other people will have different opinions.
Simply put,all classes need an equivalent effectiveness in combat,exploration,and social situations...

So, mechanically identical classes. No thanks, I'd rather play D &D.

So, equivalently effective always and only means mechanically identical?

I sure don't want you building anything for me, since you'd be unable to recognize the appropriate uses of a hammer and a screwdriver.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Simply put,all classes need an equivalent effectiveness in combat,exploration,and social situations...

So, mechanically identical classes. No thanks, I'd rather play D &D.



You can, because it already exists. Why don't you let everyone else move forward since you already have the game you want, eh?

Seriously, just stop already. Have you ever done anything other than try to shoot down balance and improvement? Have you suggested anything to improve the game yourself? Literally all I see from you is a grognard set in their ways who doesn't want other people to have fun if it costs them their power trip.



Not to mention that nobody has ever asked for mechanically identical classes here. Just mechanically effective classes.
So, equivalently effective always and only means mechanically identical?
I sure don't want you building anything for me, since you'd be unable to recognize the appropriate uses of a hammer and a screwdriver.



And I don't want you building any furniture for me, if you think a hammer and screwdriver are "equivalent."  They are completely different tools, with completely different functions, which operate in completely different fashions and (here's where your metaphor gets *really* hilarious) DO NOT WORK, AT ALL WELL, AT EACH OTHERS' TASKS.
Kind of like a fighter is no good at casting spells, a cleric sucks at picking locks, and a thief is weaker in combat than a barbarian.  Because the classes are NOT equivalent, and it would be poor, boring design to make them so.


Not to mention that nobody has ever asked for mechanically identical classes here. Just mechanically effective classes.




Effect = ability to perform task
Ability to perform task is determined mechanically
QED, identically effective = mechanically identical



Not to mention that nobody has ever asked for mechanically identical classes here. Just mechanically effective classes.




Effect = ability to perform task
Ability to perform task is determined mechanically
QED, identically effective = mechanically identical






(content removed)

Also, he didn't say identically effective, he said mechanically effective

(EDIT: Calling other users trolls is considered against the CoC. company.wizards.com/conduct
If all you can mount as a defense are personal attacks, that says a lot about the relative weakness of your position.

The fuzz that creeps when someone says that classes should contribute equally is brought about from a feeling that such a doctrine is contrived, inorganic game design focusing on creating an end result without justification. Explaining why that is bad is kinda tricky. Its easier to just say that it isn’t D&D.   


The fuzz that creeps when someone says that classes should contribute equally is brought about from a feeling that such a doctrine is contrived, inorganic game design focusing on creating an end result without justification. Explaining why that is bad is kinda tricky. Its easier to just say that it isn’t D&D.   



D&D is a game. It did not spring from the earth, it was created by people for people. There is nothing "organic" about it. Every single aspect of it is "contrived" and designed to achieve a particular play style. Asking that every participant has a comparable ability to contribute is just as justified as expecting that some people get to completely overshadow the other players simply because of the class they chose.