Balance. Why do we need it?

[Luccan]

I think to most people, Balance would mean being able to contribute very well in your class's specialized area or well enough in several areas (like a bard), as well as having potential to be helpful outisde that. The problem is 3.5 is (unintentionally) not built that way. As many have pointed out: if you want to be a good fighter, pick a differeny class. And that's in their area of supposed expertise. Outside that, most fighters aren't worth their weight in guano

Edit: to be clear, this applies to most martials. 9th level casters tend to have the inverse problem: they can potentially do anything or make doing that thing irrelevant.

[ryu]

I think to most people, Balance would mean being able to contribute very well in your class's specialized area or well enough in several areas (like a bard), as well as having potential to be helpful outisde that. The problem is 3.5 is (unintentionally) not built that way. As many have pointed out: if you want to be a good fighter, pick a differeny class. And that's in their area of supposed expertise. Outside that, most fighters aren't worth their weight in guano

Edit: to be clear, this applies to most martials. 9th level casters tend to have the inverse problem: they can potentially do anything or make doing that thing irrelevant.

Even among t1s you have specializations in the sense some classes expend less effort or more effort to perform any given task. It's less about physical capability of doing any given necessary thing and more about who has the simplest time of doing it.

[Nifft]

Why do "we" need balance? Well, I'm probably never going to play at your table, so there is no such "we".

Since there is no "we", I don't actually need you to agree with anything -- but if you're honestly interested in why people feel that class balance is deficient in 3.5e, I'd be happy to help.


So, why do I want a game where options that are presented as equally valid actually kick butt in roughly equal volume?

Because it saves me from having to explain a game designer's bad decision, and it saves my players some heartbreak.

Note that I don't say much about balance except in so far as the game leads a player to believe that balance exists.


Let's look at a game which I like which has significant character imbalance. In the FATE game Dresden Files RPG, you can play a Wizard or a cop. Wizards tell physics to shut up and sit down. Cops have guns. (Wizards also have guns.)

Why would anyone play a cop? Because if you play a mundane character, you spend no character points on supernatural stuff, so you get a lot of Fate Points. (Wizards also get a Fate Point... probably just one.) You can spend a Fate Point as a player to tell the plot to shut up and sit down.

DFRPG Wizards have extra in-character agency (ICA), and cops have more direct player agency (DPA). One character may have objectively more plot impact or less plot impact, but the two players have roughly equal plot impact overall -- one through in-character game mechanics, the other through out-of-character game mechanics.


Now let's look at D&D again.

Two characters (Fighter and Wizard), one of whom has massive in-character agency, the other of whom has... less. And nothing to make up for that. Probably because the game's designers didn't think there was a deficit of agency.


The D&D PHB told my players that a Fighter was as good a choice as a Druid.

The D&D PHB lied.

I have to clean up the consequences of that lie.

That's why I need balance: it's less work for me.

[Yogibear41]

I personally think some classes SHOULD be more powerful than others.

For instances in my opinion the Paladin should more or less be just a better fighter.

The paladin if he chooses to specialize in one form of combat should be just as good as a fighter specialized in that form of combat IMO.
Say a fighter specializes in fighting with a greatsword, power attacking, cleaving etc. A paladin who specializes in that type of fighting should have all the same abilities as that fighter.
(I'm talking stuff like weapon specialization, melee weapon mastery, weapon supremacy, etc. that are generally fighters only)

In terms of combat ability they should be equal.
Then on top of that the paladin gets his divine casting/abilities added on. So that the Paladin is essentially a Fighter Plus.

To compensate for the added power the Paladin has to follow a specific code of conduct, related to his alignment and deity's ethos. While the fighter can do essentially whatever he wants.

IMO the role playing aspect/restraints of the Paladin justifies him gaining extra powers.


Granted for the most part in 3.5 I believe Paladins and Fighters are both considered tier 5, maybe tier 4 and are thus on more or less "equal footing"
(Its also my opinion that that 3.5 Paladin is only a shadow of what it should have been power wise, but I won't get into that)

On another note, I think people give wizards way to much credit in the power department, sure they can do unbelievable things and have X number of contingencies and defenses in place, but at the end of the day those d4 hit dice will always leave them squishy and potentially vulnerable.

I'll always remember the story of the level 14 chosen of mystra wizard who decided he wanted to tango with a red dragon, decided he would sneak attack the dragon while it was sleeping in its dormant volcano home. Said wizard zoomed in with all his magical might and spells prepared and was just about ready to unleash hell, when the dragon awoke, the wizard realized the volcano was a dead magic zone, and the dragon proceeded to have a 14d4 snack.

[Luccan]

So your wizard didn't do his research and got canned?

Edit: to be clear, a wizard is undoubtedly the weakest t1, particularly without spells. This is because it must learn its spells by hand and has low HD. If you were a Cleric or Druid, you might have survived the attack. On top of that Clerics and Druids get their whole spell list inately

[Grod_The_Giant]

What happened to solving problems and obstacles through roleplaying? Why is it always about stats and mechanics, what happened to clever ideas. Maybe in my gaming group my DM just dosnt force mechcanics into everything, and unbalance isn't an issue.

Because stats and mechanics, ideally, provide more and newer tools to use in solving problems. Here, allow me to metaphor:

• A Commoner has a hammer, a screwdriver, and a saw. And that's great! You can do plenty of things with those three tools, if you put your mind to it.
• A Fighter has those same tools, but he's also got a level and a power drill. He's maybe a bit better at general-purpose stuff, but he's also got a totally new tool that's really good at a one task. Sure, you COULD use your basic tools to jury rig a way to put holes in things, but having that power drill makes it easy enough that it's no longer a big deal. Drilling holes becomes a new standard practice, and you can build things you couldn't before.
• A Bard, perhaps, has the same three tools as the Commoner.. but they've also got a power screwdriver, an awl, some wrenches, a jigsaw, a bunch of sandpaper, and... you get the idea. You can still build the same stuff as the Commoner, but you also have the tools to make so much more stuff--and to make it faster, stronger, and easier. "Build a scaffold" becomes a part of a larger, more exciting project, rather than a big project all by itself.

You can see the problem with having the guy with three tools in the same group as the guy with ten, yes? You're not bringing much to the table--even the Fighter has a power drill the Bard doesn't. Everything you do with roleplaying, the Bard can do... but they can do so much more besides. THAT'S why abilities matter.

(To continue the metaphor, the Wizard is the guy with an entire Home Depot's worth of power tools back home, and the cash to bring in outside contractors when he wants them. He can only bring one toolbox at a time, but goddamn if he doesn't have it packed with fancy stuff. And, like, you can just fill your toolbox with a power drill with a bunch of bits, or you can take a couple of really good multi-purpose tools, or you wheel out a penetrating sonar system and an MRI machine one day and come back the next with a bunch of expensive tools you never knew existed but which, I dunno, are exactly designed to build a fence in 30 seconds)

[Svata]

Sure it does. You feel entitled to be as good as the other players with some little justification you feel is important as you are. Wow, massive ego.

Yes. Entitled. To a character that can actually meaningfully contribute. Wow, what an unreasonable expectation, to want your character being there vs not existing at all to matter to the group at all. If they can do it all by themselves as easily as they can with your help... why are you even there?

[ryu]

Because stats and mechanics, ideally, provide more and newer tools to use in solving problems. Here, allow me to metaphor:

• A Commoner has a hammer, a screwdriver, and a saw. And that's great! You can do plenty of things with those three tools, if you put your mind to it.
• A Fighter has those same tools, but he's also got a level and a power drill. He's maybe a bit better at general-purpose stuff, but he's also got a totally new tool that's really good at a one task. Sure, you COULD use your basic tools to jury rig a way to put holes in things, but having that power drill makes it easy enough that it's no longer a big deal. Drilling holes becomes a new standard practice, and you can build things you couldn't before.
• A Bard, perhaps, has the same three tools as the Commoner.. but they've also got a power screwdriver, an awl, some wrenches, a jigsaw, a bunch of sandpaper, and... you get the idea. You can still build the same stuff as the Commoner, but you also have the tools to make so much more stuff--and to make it faster, stronger, and easier. "Build a scaffold" becomes a part of a larger, more exciting project, rather than a big project all by itself.

You can see the problem with having the guy with three tools in the same group as the guy with ten, yes? You're not bringing much to the table--even the Fighter has a power drill the Bard doesn't. Everything you do with roleplaying, the Bard can do... but they can do so much more besides. THAT'S why abilities matter.

(To continue the metaphor, the Wizard is the guy with an entire Home Depot's worth of power tools back home, and the cash to bring in outside contractors when he wants them. He can only bring one toolbox at a time, but goddamn if he doesn't have it packed with fancy stuff)

I'd actually say in this metaphor wizard is probably Rick teaching people about True Level. No, those capitals aren't accidental.

[Gnaeus]

Yes. Entitled. To a character that can actually meaningfully contribute. Wow, what an unreasonable expectation, to want your character being there vs not existing at all to matter to the group at all. If they can do it all by themselves as easily as they can with your help... why are you even there?

There are lots of good IC reasons to be there. I played a kinfolk in a werewolf game for years and he was one of my favorite characters. At no point was he ever the equal in any real capacity to the werewolf PCs. But he was fun to play and he was fun in the story.

The difference between that and D&D was that everyone knew, IC and OOC, that that was how those characters were supposed to work. The imbalance didn’t subtract from realism or character or story, it added to it. I mechanically made the character I wanted to play. But when I want to be a character from crouching tiger hidden dragon, and I play a monk, and I wind up useless, the imbalance is preventing me from mechanically executing my concept (super ninja). There is a class for “mechanically incompetent martial”. That’s warrior and it plays as it should. Fighter doesn’t play as it should.

[death390]

dear god i love that metaphor. and see this is what so many people don't get about dnd 3.5

my dnd group i am part of currently has 6 players (including myself) and 1 DM (i help when i can). EVERYSIGNLE one of them is mundane (technically several rangers but lets be honest they mostly dont count as spellcasters). being the only person to run a spellcaster i have to cover us 6 ways from sunday. that said i need to fairly often replace my character from play to prevent them from getting pissy at the character due to overshadowing them.

in our latest campaign one of the 2 rangers swapped track for trapfinding ACF and is our trapfinder. this is the first time that i have not had to be our trapfinder on top of everything else.

this is party comp.
Survivalist dwarven fighter. (i hit things, good RP-er)[1mo in group. lifetime RPG experience]

Bodyguard dwarven fighter. (i hit things, good RP-er) [1mo in group. lifetime RPG experience]

Mounted pole-arm halfling ranger. ("i'm new and don't quite understand the system yet") [1mo in group.]

guy A left (wanted to socialize not play, extreemly disruptive), guy B and C had real world problems to deal with and also left. this is why we have 3 new guys.

currently Vow of Poverty Monk. (meatshield, good number of skills, party face at 14 charisma,) [makes new character every 3-4 weeks due to PC death [actually not kidding] 2 years in group, always melee mundane]

Archery dwarven ranger. (trapfinder, "i shoot things") [guy is almost always an archer, always mundane, father is DM]



My gambit of misc spellcasters/ skillmonkeys i have had to swap in-out to prevent being PK-ed[founding member of group of 3 years]

Elven rouge (OG char, got ahold of a 3/day eternal wand of shades from a lvl 5 module and caused a party by DM fiat.)

elven rouge greater manyshot/ splitting-bow
(ok this was too cool an idea to try, but 1 rounding the boss 4 CR above us, solo, might have been a bit much i admit)

elven buff-centric wizard/beguiler/ultimate magus
(only actual PC death, was left with 1 other PC to face digester both lvl 6, got nuked by acid spit with 6 hp left on it)

Elven Beguiler/ Shadowcraft mage (steals the spotlight!!)

Whisper Gnome warlock/beguiler/ the eldritch combo class.
(eldritch blast is OP!!!! 1 of 2 to survive party wipe via possession)

Elven unseelie fey Arcane Swordsage
(limited to trickery spells, due to poor ACF wording [self-imposed]) is current character.

if your looking for a balanced party and need a spellcaster, make sure there is more than 1 or he has to be OP and split focused as all hell. not to mention i had to do trapfinding, knowledge checks, stealth play, magic detection/ identification, battlefield-control, damage [god i love reserve feats now], and generally help move the plot along.

[Yogibear41]

So your wizard didn't do his research and got canned?

Edit: to be clear, a wizard is undoubtedly the weakest t1, particularly without spells. This is because it must learn its spells by hand and has low HD. If you were a Cleric or Druid, you might have survived the attack. On top of that Clerics and Druids get their whole spell list inately

Wasn't my character, and I wasn't there, But I enjoyed the DM telling me the story of how a guy who thought he was more or less the best person to every play the game met his end.

I tend to shy away from Caster focus'd characters and play defensively optimized melee characters. You'll never see me pounce one shot something, but my AC might be high enough that you have to roll a nat 20 to hit, then my damage reduction and healing will probably cancel out your attack if you managed to hit, soon enough anyway.

I find that if you optimize for defense, it still lets you be optimized/powerful, but it also lets the other players do stuff and not feel like you are hogging the spot light.

[Psyren]

The D&D PHB told my players that a Fighter was as good a choice as a Druid.

The D&D PHB lied.

Do people honestly think this? Do the designers really have to write "MAGIC GIVES YOU THINGS" in flaming letters or be seen as dirty swindlers?

Because I have a PHB, and let me tell you, I never came away from it thinking Caramon should be equally capable to Raistlin and Goldmoon. All of them contributing is an admirable goal, sure, but being equals? Really?

[Knaight]

Okay. Add one-shots to the list. However, everything else boils down to not playing D&D.

They're unconventional playstyles, but D&D can be used for them.

With that said the point intended and the point I read were a bit distinct, the difference between "This mechanic is a bad match for D&D" and "This is a bad mechanic that D&D is better for providing an alternative to". My case was mostly against that second point; I broadly agree on the first.

[Nifft]

Do people honestly think this? Do the designers really have to write "MAGIC GIVES YOU THINGS" in flaming letters or be seen as dirty swindlers?

The designers honestly did. Last I heard they were people.

That kinda precludes your idea about the designers writing something informative like that, since it would tend to contradict what the designers actually thought.

Because I have a PHB, and let me tell you, I never came away from it thinking Caramon should be equally capable to Raistlin and Goldmoon. All of them contributing is an admirable goal, sure, but being equals? Really?

Nope, not equals.

Fighters are the best at fighting (hence the name).

Spoiler: Literally 15 seconds of reading, works better than merely having a PHB, girls like men who read, try it

Show

[Luccan]

Do people honestly think this? Do the designers really have to write "MAGIC GIVES YOU THINGS" in flaming letters or be seen as dirty swindlers?

Because I have a PHB, and let me tell you, I never came away from it thinking Caramon should be equally capable to Raistlin and Goldmoon. All of them contributing is an admirable goal, sure, but being equals? Really?

Not terribly long ago for me. I preferred magic-users, but never thought I could use it to outclass the fighter at fighting or the rogue at roguing. And then I found this forum and other online d&d whats-its. I suppose I should say: I never thought of being a magic user as inherently more helpful than being the guy that hits things or the guy that steals things. Part of this probably came from the fact that I never felt I needed to optimize. I was, as the playtesters of yore, looking at cool things I could do and just picking those, rather than considering what would be most useful/flexible most of the time.

Edit: Perhaps on some level, I did instinctively understand it: when I was younger, we had Core + Complete Warrior. I had 0 interest in Samurai or Swashbuckler because I thought they sucked. When I didn't play a full caster, I almost always played a Rogue, Bard, or Ranger. Because I did at least think that being able to do more things was better than being able to do less things.

[Psyren]

The designers honestly did.

What I see is what you thought they said. Frankly, I find it hard to blame them for people who honestly thought Gimli should be as capable as Gandalf. Some brains mindsets are beyond even the realms of fantasy.

Spoiler: Literally 15 seconds of reading, works better than merely having a PHB, girls like men who read, try it

Show

"All-around" meaning even without magic. They're certainly better at that than a druid, whose fighting prowess depends on a supernatural ability or spells.

(Also, the kind of men girls want is not exactly of relevance to me.)

[Fizban]

Psyren and Gullintanni have done most of my work here, but there's still definitions we can clear up:

Fighters are the best at fighting (hence the name).

And they are. The discrepancy is that your definitions of fighting and best are not the same as the designers. Barbarians are better-if they are only judged on fights where they rage and AC is ignored.

Druids and spellcasters are always the sticking point, but the druid is not better at fighting. They're better at turning into a bear, which has higher dps and lower AC than a fighter, when surviving is the first part of fighting. Turning into a bear has other drawbacks that do not apply to a fighter who can fight without turning into a bear. Turn a fighter into a bear with a Polymorph and the fighter is still better at being a bear than a druid, with more BAB and hp. Druids are better at casting spells, which is not fighting.

Fighting is always having the hp, AC, attack bonus (and so on) to fight, with melee or ranged weapon. Always, as in no durations and no buff rounds. And with the feat system giving variable options like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and maneuver feats, all of which make you better at fighting, getting more of those abilities faster also makes you a better fighter. Even if you "run out" of feats that are "worth" taking, that just means you have room to pile on more untyped always-on buffs which make you better at fighting.

-And ninja'd by Psyren.

[Nifft]

What I see is what you thought they said. Frankly, I find it hard to blame them for people who honestly thought Gimli should be as capable as Gandalf. Some brains mindsets are beyond even the realms of fantasy.

Best all-around fighting capabilities.

They did think Gimli should get better fighting capabilities than Gandalf.

They didn't actually succeed in giving the Fighter better fighting capabilities, sadly, but it's what we see spelled out in their statement of class characteristics.

The intent was clear: Fighters are the best at fighting (hence the name).

"All-around" meaning even without magic. They're certainly better at that than a druid, whose fighting prowess depends on a supernatural ability or spells.

Hah, nice try, but nope.

Definition of all-around

1 : considered in or encompassing all aspects : comprehensive -- the best all-around performance so far
2 : competent in many fields -- an all-around performer
3 : having general utility or merit -- an all-around tool

Now I hope you understand the words better. Best all-around fighting capabilities means best when considering all aspects, not in just one purely theoretical scenario ("without magic") which never actually happens.

Also, regarding the Druid, how is her Animal Companion a spell in your game?

Wild Shape is a supernatural ability, but so what?

Best all-around fighting capabilities cannot honestly describe a Fighter. It's a very clear assertion of design intent, and there's simply no way to twist the words whereby that assertion becomes reasonable.

(Also, the kind of men girls want is not exactly of relevance to me.)

Actually I said like, not want.

If you're going to successfully nitpick, you have to actually find a nit before you try to pick.


EDIT:

And they are. The discrepancy is that your definitions of fighting and best are not the same as the designers. Barbarians are better-if they are only judged on fights where they rage and AC is ignored.

Druids and spellcasters are always the sticking point, but the druid is not better at fighting. They're better at turning into a bear, which has higher dps and lower AC than a fighter, when surviving is the first part of fighting. Turning into a bear has other drawbacks that do not apply to a fighter who can fight without turning into a bear. Turn a fighter into a bear with a Polymorph and the fighter is still better at being a bear than a druid, with more BAB and hp. Druids are better at casting spells, which is not fighting.

Casting a spell which wins a fight really ought to be classified as fighting.

Quite effective fighting, I'll add. Almost certainly more effective than whatever a guy with a pointy stick could have done.

Fighting is always having the hp, AC, and attack bonus to fight, with melee or ranged weapon. Always, as in no durations and no buff rounds. And with the feat system giving variable options like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and maneuver feats, all of which make you better at fighting, getting more of those abilities faster also makes you a better fighter. Even if you "run out" of feats that are "worth" taking, that just means you have room to pile on more untyped always-on buffs which make you better at fighting.

Nah, fighting means winning fights.

What is a fight? It's all the stuff that happens between "roll initiative" and "you win" (or "you escaped", or "would you like your possessions identified?").

- Talking diplomatically while dodging could win a fight. (Fighters can't do that.)
- Casting a spell might win a fight. (Fighters can't do that.)
- Running away and hiding might favorably resolve a fight. (Fighters can't do that.)
- Disabling the control-device on the alien rocket-sled, then tumbling out of melee, and finally jumping off the rocket-sled before it rams into the glacier of black ice and explodes might win a fight. (Fighters can't do any of those things.)

Fighters were supposed to be good at fighting, but they're just not good in practice.

[Psyren]

From your own definition - "competent in many fields." This presumably includes the ones where spellcasting isn't an option.

Actually I said like, not want.

That doesn't exactly matter either, so sure.

[Nifft]

From your own definition - "competent in many fields." This presumably includes the ones where spellcasting isn't an option.

Best all-around fighting capabilities.

Niche cases are technically included, but with the provision that they are niche, and don't generally apply.

If you had a point -- but your point was only valid in 0.001% of games -- then you'd technically have a point, but it would not be a very good point.

So far, you don't even have that.

That doesn't exactly matter either, so sure.

Here's what matters: try reading the book instead of waving around the fact that you own it.

Literally 15 seconds of reading found a passage that clearly showed that the designers intent was something which you didn't previously believe possible.

Hopefully I've fixed that belief for you. (Best all-around fighting capabilities.)

[ryu]

From your own definition - "competent in many fields." This presumably includes the ones where spellcasting isn't an option.



That doesn't exactly matter either, so sure.

Your definition of many is off too. You seem to mean one, wherein a specific limitation is imposed, as opposed to the necessarily plural nature of the word many. While there isn't a hard number for exactly how many you need for many, something tells me that in a system with hundreds if not thousands of methods of killing people being considered best at many requires a significantly larger number than one.

[Peat]

What I see is what you thought they said. Frankly, I find it hard to blame them for people who honestly thought Gimli should be as capable as Gandalf. Some brains mindsets are beyond even the realms of fantasy.

I don't think anyone is saying they should be equal, or as capable in all scenarios.

But they should match any given background and they should be capable enough that every player should, most sessions, go away from the table happy with how their cool idea was cool. Or at least laughing about how they blew all the rolls to be cool.

[Psyren]

Your definition of many is off too. You seem to mean one, wherein a specific limitation is imposed, as opposed to the necessarily plural nature of the word many. While there isn't a hard number for exactly how many you need for many, something tells me that in a system with hundreds if not thousands of methods of killing people being considered best at many requires a significantly larger number than one.

If one is competent when magic is an option and competent when it isn't, while the other is supreme when it is an option but not nearly as good when it isn't, I'd say the former is more "rounded."

Literally 15 seconds of reading found a passage that clearly showed that the designers intent was something which you didn't previously believe possible.

What you've highlighted is one (amusingly literal) reading of many possible for a single passage. That's hardly "clear designer intent."

I don't think anyone is saying they should be equal, or as capable in all scenarios.

Nifft appears to be saying that, or at the very least that his PHB lied by making him think so.

But they should match any given background and they should be capable enough that every player should, most sessions, go away from the table happy with how their cool idea was cool. Or at least laughing about how they blew all the rolls to be cool.

Not sure what you mean by "match any given background" - clearly not every background fits with every class, like a cleric who has no faith or piety in anything at all but still expects spells.

As for being happy with a cool idea - I've done that plenty of times with Fighters. Far more often in PF than in 3.5, but it has happened.

[Fizban]

Saying a primary spellcaster is better at fighting than a fighter, is like saying some guy with a box of grenades and drugs is a better at fighting than a soldier (pick your favorite branch).

[ryu]

Saying a primary spellcaster is better at fighting than a fighter, is like saying some guy with a box of grenades and drugs is a better at fighting than a soldier (pick your favorite branch).

Depending on what the soldier is armed with this is by most reasonable interpretations accurate and correct. After all you never specified any rules for the physical conflict participation AKA FIGHTING besides that one side would get superior result.

[Endarire]

Balance is a handy thing to have so you don't fall over.

I'm glad Balance was folded into Acrobatics in Pathfinder.

[Vyanie]

As people have stated above balance is not about everyone doing the same exact thing the same way. Balance is about everyone being able to contribute meaningfully to a group. To put this into perspective I play a 3.5 game that both the DM and other players suffer from BNS (big numbers syndrome) and believe OMG 7th lvl rogue SOOO OPZZZZZ... because every once in a blue moon, I as the caster, take pity on him and let him do something.

For 7 levels I have literally dominated every single fight, every single social encounter and... well basically the entire game, but since i didn't put out a fist full of dice only one other player has really noticed. I wasn't initially doing this on purpose until 6th level when the dm kept saying "see look at all the damage the martials put out casters suck and martials are way to op." Now I am making it fully known that the party is not a group of martials with some lame caster following them around going pew pew, it is a GOD with some flunkies walking around to carry his stuff. Now some of the other players have looked back and are going... ohh, that was basically all you the entire time huh?

Without trying I had literally done everyone else job just by being a T1 caster. I had to show that in effect i was playing as a blind deaf mute to be on the same power level as them.... This was not fun for me and when I finally cut loose and said screw it the game was not fun for anyone else. THAT is what is wrong with the balance of the game.

The game at the moment is only semi balanced for those that suffer from BNS (and trust me way to many people including some of the people that write for 3.5 and pathfinder), once you get to be both a better DM and a better player you will see just how horribly broken the game is. This is compounded by the fact that.... everyone say it with me..... martials cant have nice things. If for some stupid reason a martial gets something that would be fun it is nerfed into oblivion or they have to spend 5 feats just to wipe their butt leaving them with not enough because of retarded feat taxes. A great example of this if you look at pathfinder the feat two weapon grace.

[ryu]

As people have stated above balance is not about everyone doing the same exact thing the same way. Balance is about everyone being able to contribute meaningfully to a group. To put this into perspective I play a 3.5 game that both the DM and other players suffer from BNS (big numbers syndrome) and believe OMG 7th lvl rogue SOOO OPZZZZZ... because every once in a blue moon, I as the caster, take pity on him and let him do something.

For 7 levels I have literally dominated every single fight, every single social encounter and... well basically the entire game, but since i didn't put out a fist full of dice only one other player has really noticed. I wasn't initially doing this on purpose until 6th level when the dm kept saying "see look at all the damage the martials put out casters suck and martials are way to op." Now I am making it fully known that the party is not a group of martials with some lame caster following them around going pew pew, it is a GOD with some flunkies walking around to carry his stuff. Now some of the other players have looked back and are going... ohh, that was basically all you the entire time huh?

Without trying I had literally done everyone else job just by being a T1 caster. I had to show that in effect i was playing as a blind deaf mute to be on the same power level as them.... This was not fun for me and when I finally cut loose and said screw it the game was not fun for anyone else. THAT is what is wrong with the balance of the game.

The game at the moment is only semi balanced for those that suffer from BNS, once you get to be both a better DM and a better player you will see just how horribly broken the game is.

And even if your measure of power is throwing as many dice of as large a size as possible at as much as you can, a good caster is going to throw more, miss less, in a wider area, with less counters, and because spell slots tend to last longer than HP without casters doing all the work more staying power. There is no reasonable standard for effectiveness where casters don't win. Even spells designed to screw over magic itself are still best countered or otherwise worked around by casters because they screw magic item dependent martials too and the casters have actual tools.

[Vyanie]

And even if your measure of power is throwing as many dice of as large a size as possible at as much as you can, a good caster is going to throw more, miss less, in a wider area, with less counters, and because spell slots tend to last longer than HP without casters doing all the work more staying power. There is no reasonable standard for effectiveness where casters don't win. Even spells designed to screw over magic itself are still best countered or otherwise worked around by casters because they screw magic item dependent martials too and the casters have actual tools.

Basically yes this, and if you use point buy guess what... martials are screwed for needing so many stats and the caster needs .... one. Every time I hear about people wanting a grittier game so they are only allowing 15 or 10 point buys in pathfinder I immediately say, ohh so you only want casters? ohh lower wealth? only want casters? gotcha.

[Fizban]

Depending on what the soldier is armed with this is by most reasonable interpretations accurate and correct. After all you never specified any rules for the physical conflict participation AKA FIGHTING besides that one side would get superior result.

Well specifying "non-magical" apparently isn't valid, so I came up with an analogy. I'm not sure if your second sentence is supposed to be disagreement or not, though I would assume so. If the soldier fighter is better at fighting outside of specific scenarios, then they are better at fighting.

Unless the expectation is that every scenario must be specific, in which case we argue back and forth about specific scenarios until we address the rules under which those scenarios are crafted, each saying theirs is more supported by the rules, leading to what the intent is supposed to be behind those rules, and on up until the point where it's clear that the fighter not being good enough at fighting is an opinion derived from a metagame- popular, but not actually supported by the suggested method of play. At which point I pull up one of my posts from the last x times it's come up, as recently as last week. Or I could make meta-commentary on the argument I'm tired of having and then further explain what was supposed to be a simple analogy.

The soldier is armed with appropriate weapons. If I'd said blackbelt it'd be wah that's a monk. If I say a sword and bow, then wah grenades are better. If I say a gun, then wah fighters don't get guns. It doesn't matter. The point is that I would rather have someone who knows how to fight (actually able to use those weapons) watching my back in hostile territory than someone with a bag of drugs and grenades, or whathaveyou, even if that bag magically refills itself every day. The exception is if I myself am the person who knows how to fight (rather than civilian or support), in which case I'd want the tech backing me up.* Almost as if both roles are needed for a balanced team.

And so we return to the definitions of "fight" and "better." Re-defining the word "fight" to mean things other than fighting is obviously going to make a Fighter bad at "fighting" because all they know how to do is fight. And when every scenario where the Fighter's fighting would actually be superior is ignored, you've essentially created a tautology. "Fighting is bad because I say fighting is bad."


*Actually I quite like running with this analogy. One might say that if real-life tech was actually a magical re-filling re-configurable bag of stuff, we would send nothing but tech experts on missions. Except we wouldn't, because the moment they were caught off guard and/or ran out of daily supplies, they'd be dead. So we would train them in both tech bag use and fighting. Which we already do, as special forces have various specialists but still have to have combat training. The only question is weather these are multiclass builds or Bard-likes, but it drags the "balance" fix right into the open: if you want class balance, everyone needs to be playing the same class or build (which may or may not have game balance). Which to be fair, is what happens if everyone follows char-op's "all casters and gishes all the time" policy. If you want a group of varied and true specialists, there is of course no such thing as class balance, only game balance resulting from the expected team configuration.

-Edit: oh, and incidentally OP, that's another distinction of definition. The DMG does use the word "balance," but it does not mean what "most people" think it means. The DM is supposed to maintain game balance, as a vague sort of "fair and fun for everyone" quality. Not some precise mechanical class balance where every class is somehow guaranteed to be interchangeable while also being vastly different. That quality does not and never has existed, nor does anything I'm aware of indicate it was intended to or should. It is purely a desire of certain gamers, who wish the game as written supported their metagame more effectively.