Why Class Balance In 3e Is No Longer As Important.

I find it rather odd some people go on and on about whether or not one character class in 3e is well balanced with each of the other 10 character classes. True, this was a far more important issue in previous editions of AD&D, but I'm not sure many players grasp the fact why this is no longer all that important in 3e.

In previous editions, once you picked your character class that was about it. You were more or less stuck with that choice for the remainder of that character's life. Thus, it was rather important all choices for character class be equally attractive and well balanced, else too many players would only play the "best" class - and that wouldn't particularly be fun. This is why such comparisons between classes was probably a good thing before since each class really had to be worthwhile as a stand-alone class.

NOTE: 2e didn't actually forbid acquiring new classes, but they didn't supply rules as to how to go about this, so if the DM wished it to occur, they had to write some house rules about it. The point is that many players erroneously felt 2e did forbid this practice when, in fact, it really didn't. It's hard to forbid something with guidelines, and that's all the rules really are. But I digress.

Now I can go on at length about a fundamental lack of realism in the way 3e does some things - using the standard rules, though they do suggest the DM may call for greater realism if desired, almost as if a roleplayer wouldn't naturally want this option to begin with. Go figure. In fact, I apologize for this, but I will go on at length about one issue. Later, however. For now, the point is 3e does certain things, realistically or not.

NOTE: "Huh?" you may ask. "Didn't you just say 2e also required the DM to add greater realism?" Well, yes. The difference, however, is not so minor. The default position of 2e is that switching classes mid career was probably quite hard - which is very realistic - while the default position in 3e is that switching classes mid career is ridiculously simple - which is very unrealistic.

Sadly, one of the things 3e does is to allow characters to acquire different classes almost with the frequency of a cheap transistor radio. Oh, ok; it's not quite that bad. But it is definitely untrue that once you pick a class, that's it. No longer are you forever confined to your initial choice. Now you may acquire two, three, or more classes with relative ease, jump back and forth between them during your PC's adventuring career, and study almost any skill you want any time you wish.

Since the 'apparent' but almost artificial boundaries in 2e between classes no longer hold in 3e, it isn't nearly as important that each class be equally as attractive as all the others are. Most characters will almost certainly take more than one class, even if only for a level or two, or just for those base skills afforded by that second or third character class. I'd even go so far as to suggest not taking a second class when favored class allows you to do it without penalty is more unrealistic than one might initially think. But I, again, digress.

There are some fundamental flaws in the way 3e allows your characters to acquire new classes beyond the first. (BTW, this is where I start to go on at length about one of the bigger flaws in 3e). The largest flaw is how long it should take to acquire the base skills of a new class. Realistically, it should take years. In fact, it is assumed for the most part that your PC has spent years becoming first level in their first class. Yet, unless the DM exercises more realistic "options," most PCs will be picking up their second class's base skills as a matter of sudden development. A miracle! And those DMs who wish to curtail this will not be able to do so without serious adjustments. That is, they will have to impose restrictions the standard rules do not insist upon.

NOTE: There's the rub. Players hardly ever mind when their DM gives them greater freedom than the book suggests. Like in 2e, it is a pleasant surprise if the DM allows greater options in acquiring a new class. That's fine - even appreciated. But players often hate it when their DMs seem to curtail the freedom the book suggests they 'should' have. So in 3e, they tend to seriously dislike it if the DM insists switching classes is not as easy as the book or standard rules imply. In short - in the eyes of many roleplayers - 3e suggested unrealistic sudden development was "O.K." and now it's incumbent upon the roleplaying DM to disappoint his or her players by taking back something they probably shouldn't have been given to begin with. It would sort of be like your grandfather gave you a BB gun, but your parents then tell you that you are too young to have a BB gun. Then your parents take it away. That's disappointment, and possibly breeds resentment. But now I seriously digress.

But 3e does 'suggest' a fix. Unfortunately, their suggested fix of announcing your PC's intent to switch classes one level in advance still distills what would normally be years of training into the time required to pick up one level's worth of experience - which is far less than a single year, probably, particularly at lower levels where most of this class hopping will be happening.

But doesn't 3e say they are just learning all that knowledge while adventuring, sort of in the background? Well, the problem is still the sudden development in a quantum leap sort of way. For example, you would think if a non-wizard character had most of their wizard training complete already, that realistically they should be able to exercise some if not most of their wizard skills, at least to some degree. But they can't - not at all. Each wizard skill, without exception, appears to be dormant until their training is 100% complete on all of their new skills. Though there are some 1/2 class options in the DMG, these only mitigate the true problem. And all the new class's base skills are apparently finished at the same time. It's silly, of course.

EXAMPLE: Since wizards employ cantrips - 0th level arcane spells - to learn their craft and progress toward the capability to cast 1st level arcane spells, it looks odd, for example, that they get 0th and 1st level spells simultaneously. They really ought to have mastered their cantrips far sooner, and thus they should be able to use them long before their 1st level training is complete. The same would hold true of a cleric's orisons - 0th level divine spells.

To explore these matters further, one may wish to visit the article on 0th level characters. If you wish to do this, please follow the link below:

Zero Level Characters (Why They Are Required To Avoid Problems Of Sudden Development.)

And if something happens in the game world that is the cause of your PC's desire to start learning a new class, then no amount of justification for what they may have done before or have been doing before will justify stuffing years of training - which must realistically start now since it didn't start before then - in a few weeks or months. And to make it even lamer, they will begin learning this new class not even while seriously engaged in study at home under the supervision of a master of the new class, but while simultaneously or even mostly adventuring and using skills quite different from what they are supposed to be learning. Can you say "bogus"? I knew you could.

Even with the assumption all their non adventuring spare time is spent with a mentor learning the new class's base skills, this is still happening - it seems - in the time it takes to gain enough xp for one level, which is far shorter than the time it took even the serious student to become 1st level.

To add insult to injury, they justify the sheer number of initial skills since you learn faster while younger - which is more or less true - but apparently abandon this notion when it comes to picking up a new class where you learn far quicker when older, apparently. There's a fundamental flaw here, you realize.

Of course, many of the initial 4x skills may not be related to class training at all, but rather the skills one acquired while growing up, before they even started their class training. As a rough estimate, about 3x is a good guess for those, and the last 1x will be the ones you acquired while also gaining your class's base skills. Thus, starting at 1st level, you have all those 4x skills (3x +1x = 4x).

A class's base skills are all the skills a class has for free that are not part of the skill costs or feat cost, such as - for example, a fighter - his light, medium, and heavy armor proficiencies, his shield proficiencies, his extra weapon proficiencies, his saving throws, his extra feat, etc. - or for a wizard - the complex intricacies of spell casting - which are not well spelled out as individual skills or feats, but are assumed to be there, nonetheless. The assumption here, however, is that those base skills are hard to learn and take a great deal of time - perhaps years - and are not so easy they may be picked up in a few weeks or months. The years of training your 1st level character is assumed to endure, therefore, isn't for the 4x skills so much as for the class's base skills, which are formidable and complex and difficult to acquire.

Other problems arise when it is demonstrated a 1st level rogue becoming a 1st level (insert other class), has advantages over a 1st level (insert other class) becoming a 1st level rogue. Both are second level characters, but becoming a rogue first has many advantages due to the sheer number of other skills ( 16 to 24 more skill points!!!). Realistically they should be about the same in power; else players will abuse this trick, or try to. A savvy DM may always invent reasons to stop that abuse.

For example, give those who start out as 1st level rogue 16 skill points less than normal, UNLESS they are a member of a thieves' guild.

(4 + Int Modifier) x 4 instead of (8 + Int Modifier) x 4.

But according to the rules of the thieves' guild, they demand devotion, so a member may not multiclass until they make their 'bones' or meet some minimal requirements. A good requirement might be having to wait until they were 5th level rogues before allowed to pick up a second class. Naturally, one may break their oath to the guild, but that could carry heavy consequences - it's not worth it, trust me.

Such a rule might help prevent the abuse of rule mini maxing of this particular flaw. Those who really wish to play rogue will likely stick with it for a time, be a member, and earn 16 extra skill points. Those who don't really want to play a rogue will likely not try to become a rogue first before moving on to what they really want to play just to gain those extra 16 to 24 skill points and other advantages from so easily being able to pick up another class's base skills. And let's face it. Without such a rule, you'd almost have to be a fool - using wizard as an example - not to acquire 24 extra skill points for the time it takes you to learn one level. I mean, before you really get into being a wizard, you can either spend one level being a rogue first and gain 24 extra skill points, or you can be a straight wizard for 12 whole levels before you get as many skill points. Even if you wish to buy all wizard skills (they cost double since they are cross class for these points), that's still like 12 extra skill points or a whole 6 levels advantage - as far as skills are concerned.

Obviously, if you want to be a skillful wizard, you'll study how to be a rogue in 3e's system. And if your wizard wants to pick up a weapon feats, shield feat, armor feats - light, medium, and heavy - they can take years, decades even, to buy all those feats, or they can learn them virtually overnight by taking one level of fighter. It's silly, of course.

The guild idea is pretty realistic, too. If a member of the guild, this explains how they came to have so many people who could teach them so many skills so quickly. If not a member, then this explains why they have fewer skills. Naturally, if one doesn't wish to be a member of the guild or one doesn't wish to wait until 5th level before multiclassing, they can get by with less skill points. One MAY even rule non-guild members only get 4-skill points/level, but guild members get 8-skill points/level. This will further prevent anyone from becoming a rogue just for skill points. Once joining, however, they must become 5th level rogues before being allowed to go up in other classes. I'm sure there are other possible ways to fix this flaw. These are only a couple suggestions, but I like them.

You can see inconsistencies here in other ways. Using 3e starting ages just as an example, let's look at an elf. Their starting age is 110 plus some dice, depending on their class. An elven wizard, for example, starts at 110+10d6. 10d6 averages 35 years, but its range is 10 to 60. So a starting elven wizard should be between 120 and 170 years old, but no younger than 120 years. Now the starting age of an elven rogue, for example, is 110+4d6. If you rolled below average, you could be as young as 114 years old. Now here's the problem. An elven rogue starts adventuring. They will accrue enough experience points to become second level in far less than a year. Suppose they wish to become a wizard for that level. There you go. Unless the DM forces the player to shelf that character for at least 6 whole game years while it studies to become a wizard, there's a slight problem in the rules. Furthermore, the xp that was gathered probably wasn't even for doing wizard things, but for doing rogue things.

Thus we can see in 3e if your elf wishes to become a wizard, the quickest way is to become a rogue first - not to mention they'll get those extra 24 skill points! Even using average rolls, the average starting age for an elven rogue is 124 while the average age of a starting elven wizard is 145. An elf can, on average, become a wizard 21 years faster if they first study how to be a rogue - or a barbarian or a sorcerer. Neat, huh? What's worse, by doing it 21 years faster, they learn more - not less - like an extra 24 skill point's worth. This is just too lame for words.

And this isn't just some player manipulation of the rules. Characters could actually perceive this on the IC (In Character) level. They will see, for example, that getting into the field as quickly as possible, no matter what their skills that allow them to do this, no matter what their background, will be the quickest path to power, and that somehow, active adventurers learn a lot (lot lot lot lot lot lot lot) quicker than home bound students.

But the starting age table isn't really the problem. Not really - though it could be tweaked a bit, no doubt. The real problem is the notion anyone can learn what should be years of training in such short order. But without that silly notion, class hopping and standard multiclassing just won't work in 3e - unless the DM insists upon some serious changes to prevent sudden development. Yet the authors of 3e really wanted it to work so much that they were willing to ignore this flaw and, at best, suggest a DM "may" insert more realism. That sort of attitude does give 3e the feel of a board game or combat simulation more than a roleplaying game, at least in certain regards.

In fact, as I read 3e, I got the distinct impression they were just toying with numbers, almost as if their primary intent wasn't to work toward roleplaying, but to work toward computerization and automation. You may have noticed that the 3e rules bear a striking resemblance to computer games. And computer games almost need to be free of the requirement of a living GM or DM. Is WotC trying to computerize roleplaying? Maybe they are.

But even the authors of 3e knew it had problems. I just don't think they cared all that much about the lack of realism, even on the IC level where it affects roleplaying - almost as if many roleplaying ideals were optional, or they knew they wouldn't be needed in a computer game. Go figure.

Not only is it merely "suggested" the DM "may" do something about it, but they are pretty vague about giving any hard rules or hard numbers to cover the situation since they know how messy and unattractive it would get for power gamers. No one wants to be forced to shelf their character for years of game time while they acquire a second class's base skills; even roleplayers for the sake of realism wouldn't have fun shelving their characters. So a better approach than class hopping is probably required.

Their only attempt to curtail this class hopping was with favored classes for races AND experience point penalties, neither of which are very realistic - and since they offered several ways around this penalty, it isn't really working as an effective deterrent anyway.

Favored classes for races are not really racial considerations so much as cultural ones, so they failed there unless the DM forces cultures not to mix or insists your PC's race and culture match - for example, a dwarf must come from a dwarven culture and may not be raised by humans or elves or gnomes or whatever. They do point out, after the class and race section, that a DM may allow you to customize your character by having one race and a different culture, but that's another option they don't spell out as well as they could, and freely doing it will throw a monkey wrench into the so-called better balanced system, so I suspect they won't encourage its use too much - like by giving complete examples for each race and each culture, let alone mentioning it in the actual race and class section instead of much later in another section - in the updated PHB.

And the idea of xp penalties increasing due to uneven levels is so laughable to me I can't really stomach it. I could agree with greater xp penalties due to the sheer number of classes beyond the first, but differences in level or "uneven levels" is just a cheap and obvious way they wish to try to force players not to pick up many class base skills too easily and ignore it from then on. That is, first they broke realism by letting them do it, but tried to step back by forcing an unrealistic 20% penalty on them if they dared take advantage of their obvious and deliberate flaw. *Sigh* Poor game design makes me ill.

They may need to do something to fix this since as it is now, they did it badly, IMHO (In My Honest Opinion). If having more skills operating at different levels is such a strain, then rogues - with all those extra skills - and fighters - with all those extra feats - should similarly have greater xp penalties and difficulty maintaining all those uneven levels of skills than the other classes. They don't, you'll notice.

As a quick fix, the DM may simply rule no character may multiclass until they reach Nth level, where N is picked by the DM depending on what they want. All that favored class nonsense and xp penalty stuff due to uneven levels is then simply lost since it is no longer applicable. Depending on your choice for N, this could make it take a long time to learn a second class or a very short time. (Current standard 3e rules, BTW, have N = 1). The above thieves' guild idea had N = 5, but only for rogues. This global fix will prevent much abuse of the flaws in 3e's multiclassing system. The DM may set a different N value for each of the 11 classes, as well.

The IC justification for this rule is that each mentor, school, guild, or whoever trains your PC, fully expects them to complete minimal training - to Nth level - before they dabble elsewhere. If they don't, they are not a serious student and the master has better things to do then waste their time on students who are not serious.

As an added bonus, the larger N is, the more time a character may realistically be working on their second or third class in the background. Thus sudden development becomes less of a problem and a higher level of realism is obtained naturally. N can get too large, however. N = infinity suggests it is impossible to learn a new class, and that's not good either. N > 7 makes it too difficult to realistically switch at all, so what's the point of having rules that allow one to switch if it's going to be that hard? But N > 1 and N < 7, as the DM decrees, is just fine.

But I am getting far afield of the topic, which is class balance, so I again apologize for the lengthy excursions into that 3e example.

CLASS BALANCE

Returning to the notion of class balance, we next find that those who compare and contrast classes almost invariably compare only combat prowess, and not against monsters so much as against each other. The toe-to-toe contest is often cited as their basic assumption in their analysis of a class's power and balance. And what's sad is there is again no realistic reason to believe class's "should" be well balanced - on the character level anyway.

True, as a game we might wish they were better done and better balanced, and in many ways, even I agree they should have been done differently to make them so. Some of them seem ill contrived and hastily slapped together without much thought - particularly sorcerer - or almost more like they were merely an after thought. And as stand-alone classes, they do leave something to be desired.

But there's the other rub. Stand-alone classes are not really a part of 3e's intent - I think so, anyway. And with the number of ways they have around the xp penalty using favored classes, I think they more or less assumed some classes were meant to be supplementary or complimentary to your primary field of study, which I suspect is still either fighter, rogue, cleric, or wizard.

One may also note that in order to get to 3rd level, one has to survive 2nd level. Once players fully realize 1/1 multiclass 2nd level characters are generally more powerful and versatile than any 2nd level single class characters, this fact alone would tend to suggest one would have to be a fool not to multiclass. If you don't believe me, put together a bunch of 1/1 combinations vs. 2nd level single class characters in the so-called toe-to-toe contests and see. I think you'll marvel at how ridiculously simple it is for many of these 1/1 2nd level characters to kick arse on the single class 2nd level characters. If that's true, you can hardly avoid the conclusion these 1/1 2nd level characters will more likely survive to reach 3rd level than the 2nd level single class characters will.

Of course, it is also true it's the power gamer who wishes to do everything under the sun, wishes to be a jack of all trades, and also wishes to achieve the power normally reserved for the single class character as well. 3e offers this option more than previous editions did. In fact, 3e seems to cater to this desired style of play. IMHO, this sort of cuts down on the need for party teamwork and cooperation, and yes, the required roleplaying to achieve this goal, but that's another matter.

A DM may insist upon more realistic constraints, but this seems more the option rather than the standard, more the exception rather than the rule. And obtaining national, let alone international consistency on how they will do this is probably not going to happen without more official guidelines from WotC.

Now I have to take pains to point out that though some roleplaying ideals are definitely my preference, they are not everyone's, nor are they an intrinsically superior style of play just because I like them. Nor is unparalleled realism the ultimate goal of a roleplaying game - even for roleplayers. So if you like the way 3e does some of this stuff, more power to you - Literally!

What many fail to consider when comparing class balance, however, is roleplayability. Is that a word? Let's assume so. Aside from prowess in combat, classes may offer much more than hack and slash options. Skills and feats designed for versatility and character interaction are much more important to roleplayers than sheer strength of class in the proverbial toe-to-toe. There are plenty of reasons to take a class other than what it may afford you in combat situations, and these are not easily measured against one another.

If adjustments should be made to any class, I'd rather they either made fundamental sense to the class concept, or increased its roleplayability. Alterations just to increase its power or combat prowess in comparison to another class's power or combat prowess is not really required.

Power gamers don't see this as clearly, which is why I feel they tend to make such comparisons in the first place. And while it is not such a firm rule one can point with confidence at anyone doing this sort of comparison and know for a fact they are a power gamer at heart, it is suggestive.

Similarly, if someone tells me they hated 2nd edition AD&D but love 3rd edition D&D, I sort of suspect the same thing. Again, not because it must be true, but seems to tend to be true. But if they liked 2e, whether or not they will like 3e better doesn't really seem to indicate their preferred style one way or the other. Though it seems as if hack and slash is the standard in 3e, it can be optionally used for more roleplaying styles as well, and with a better and more consistent game mechanic to boot.

If you disagree, however, that's fine. I mean no insult. The point is to have fun, and how you "should" play the game is the way that gives you and your co-players the most enjoyment.

So, to summarize, class balance is not as important in 3e as it was in previous editions - unless the DM does impose serious restraints to curtail class hopping. In my above-suggested fix, if N > 5, then the issue of class comparison becomes more important again, for example, but in standard 3e, it really isn't that important. After all, you can be any class you want, well after character inception, and move in many more directions than before, and in next to no time - under standard rules.

But since a larger percentage of this article perhaps looks unfavorably on some things about 3e, I think I must clarify something. 3e is not a bad game, nor is it impossible to roleplay in it. In fact, so many good things can be found in 3e that I feel a decent set of House Rules can and will fix the problems I'm having with 3e, and these will make it a great game for even us idealistic roleplayers looking for an extra touch of believability and realism.

And it isn't that I don't like multi classing or think multi classing is unrealistic; I just don't like the "way" 3e did it. Some good House Rules can fix this, assuming you care about that sort of thing, and if you don't, no worries mate. Just play it as is.

I also wish to point out that in no way do I mean to suggest 2e didn't have many similar problems - or different problems. Over the years, House Rules were employed that also fixed those. So while I don't wish to offend anyone who doesn't share a more roleplaying philosophy or similar approach to roleplaying games as I, neither do I wish to give anyone the false impression I'm happy with 3e as it came out. I think it needs fixing to roleplay well with it. But if you don't agree, that's fine too.

But one thing for sure can be said about 3e that couldn't be said about 2e. If you don't like your class, you can more easily switch to a new class than you ever could before.

And what's more, one is far more likely to play a variety of class combinations, and these multiclass characters, even if one's second class is but a single level, will become the mainstay of 3e play. Single class characters are impractical and even almost foolish under standard 3e rules. Thus, we probably shouldn't be wondering about this class vs. that class anymore, but instead should be looking at this class combination vs. that class combination. Only here, in various multiclass combinations, will we be able to find out whether or not things are balanced.

And, as before, we must remember that balance doesn't have to be balance from beginning to end, but as an overall lifetime of a character. For example, to start wizards are weak while fighters are strong, but much later on, wizards are much stronger than fighters. "Balance" assumes, therefore, you are not taking a snapshot of one level range, but must consider the characters over the entire lifetime of the campaign. More power now should mean less power later, and vice versa, in order to balance some things, and this is still true. Thus, when comparing classes, remember to compare them are various levels and not just, for example, as 1st level or low level characters.

And on that note, I think we must conclude that, without exception, there are definitely good arguments to be made for the worth of each class as a supplemental class for almost any other class. Thus, no classes are broken.