Thought Experiment: Does Balance Actually Matter?

[Headfirst]

Here's a quick question for all of you theory-crafters out there.

Imagine Pathfinder had only one class. Let's call it "hero." The hero class has these basic features:

• 1d12 hit dice
• Full BAB
• All good saves
• 8 skill points per level with all skills treated as class skills
• Proficiency with all weapons, armor, and shields.
• Full wizard spell progression
• Full cleric spell progression
• At every even numbered level, the hero gets a bonus feat.

So my question is: Given access to only the hero class, do you think most players would build their characters in almost the exact same way, in terms of feats, traits, race, etc, or do you think they would still naturally gravitate toward the classic fantasy RPG roles and maintain diversity among their companions?

[Headfirst]

Follow-up question:

If the hero class was instead added to the list of available classes, how often do you think players would choose it over all the other options? Always? Often? Occasionally? Rarely? Never?

[Milo v3]

Question 1: People would likely build in different ways. Not sure what this question has to do with the title.
Question 2: I don't think many people would play it because it'd be banned at most tables.

[The Sword]

Headfirst wrote:

Given access to only the hero class, do you think most players would build their characters in almost the exact same way?

No, players would do the things they enjoy doing. There are players in my group that don't enjoy spellcasting because of the book keeping. There are some that don't like martials because of the percieved lack of choice. There are always only a certain number of actions per round and people would fill those with the actions they enjoy. However in my experience the people I play with like to create characters around a theme and rarely seek to be a jack of all trades.

Headfirst wrote:

If the hero class was instead added to the list of available classes, how often do you think players would choose it over all the other options?

The answer is Never. My group is pretty good at showing self restraint to maintain party harmony. A class that is substantially better. e.g. swashbuckler or magus would be played rarely and often with some form of self imposed limitations such as avoiding 18-20 crit ranges. A class or archetype that is substantially better such as Pistolier gunslinger or Synthesist Summoner/Master Summoner just wouldnt be played at all. Good people don't gain pleasure from making other people feel less than they are.

Edit - sorry I'm answering from my groups point of view. From the forums it is clear that a substantial number of players would bite your hand off to play your hero!

[Generic Villain]

I don't know what a theory crafter is so I'm probably not one of them. That said, as to your questions:

Ambiguous answers are crummy answers, but in this case I really do think it depends on factors outside your stated hypothetical. Specifically, are the players more interested in creating powerful characters or interesting, imperfection-leads-to-roleplaying-opportunity characters. If the former, than I suspect every character would follow a similar build; pre-planned feat chain to maximum effect, only "useful" skills, optimal spells, etc. If the latter, than I would expect each character to be distinct. Or as distinct as possible. You would still have a combat-focused character, a utility/skill focused character, a support character, etc.

To your second question, I must once again query the nature of the players sitting around your table. I know one group I GM'd for years ago would jump at the opportunity to play an incredibly, blatantly overpowered class like your hero. (I stopped playing with that group for such a large number of reasons. Just so many reasons). A more recent group I've played with from time to time would avoid it like the plague.

As for your initial question "does balance really matter?", I would answer no, not really. Not how I play at least. Were I a GM of a group comprised of one hero and a smattering of standard PC classes, I would make sure to craft challenges appropriate for every character. Obvious high-end opponents for the hero, slightly less potent but no less interesting/important enemies for the rest.

Personally I took your questions as more of a psychological exercise than a purely in-game, mechanical one. Whether or not a player chooses the obvious, glaringly superior character options depends very much on what he or she wants from their Pathfinder experience.

[TriOmegaZero]

1) No, personal preference would still lead to different characters.
2) I think the ratio would be about 50/50 between this one and others. Actual class features tend to win out for specific concepts, where mechanical abilities tend to win out for unfocused characters.

[Avoron]

1. If everyone built their heroes in the exact same way, it would be not only boring and unpleasant, but also suboptimal. Action economy will still be a huge factor, so you can normally only spend your turn doing one thing. And it is a lot more effective for one person to become good at buffing and buff the whole party, and for one person to become good at debuffing and debuff several enemies, and so on and so forth. Players would still divide into the arm/hammer/anvil roles just as much as they would if you had an entire party of clerics, druids, or bards.

This would, however, get rid of a few roles, such as tanks (everyone's pretty tough), healbots (everyone can prepare an in-combat healing spell for emergencies, and everyone can use wands for in-between), and skill monkeys (in terms of the skills themselves; I'm sure some people would specialize in utility magic). But the reason those roles would vanish is because they were mostly pointless and unproductive in the first place.

2. Not by a long shot. One thing gestalt teaches you pretty quickly is that it doesn't help to have lots of powerful abilities unless you can use them to complement each other. In any given round either those lovely spells or that lovely BAB are going to waste, and you don't have the additional class features to support either one to its full utility. The diversity is fun, but you really don't need whole groups full of diverse characters with no specialization. I doubt most groups would have more than one or two heroes in them.

[Headfirst]

Milo v3 wrote:

I don't think many people would play it because it'd be banned at most tables.

To clarify: I'm not trying to introduce a home-brew class here. This is just a theoretical question. The question really is: If Pathfinder had an "uber class," or one that was flat-out, unmistakably superior to all others, would it be played exclusively and, when it was played, would everyone build it the same way?

So far, it sounds like the answer is no.

[Nohwear]

I believe that the main "problem" with this class is that there is not a lot to build off of. There is no starting point for fluff, background, and rp. Thus, if it was the only class, then there would be a lot less variety. If the other classes were also there, then it would mainly appeal to the power gamers.

[Anzyr]

You are asking the wrong question for this thought experiment. I have yet to see a single person who argues for better balanced classes (though I'm sure there is someone) ask for exactly the same starting point. For the most part people are asking for a variety of different classes, abilities, feats, etc. to not be exactly the same, but be different and be reasonably close to a median balance point. So your question doesn't really address what the vast majority of people that I've seen who argue that balance matters are trying to address.

I suggest fixing that if you want any meaningful insight.

[Avoron]

Headfirst wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

I don't think many people would play it because it'd be banned at most tables.

To clarify: I'm not trying to introduce a home-brew class here. This is just a theoretical question. The question really is: If Pathfinder had an "uber class," or one that was flat-out, unmistakably superior to all others, would it be played exclusively and, when it was played, would everyone build it the same way?

So far, it sounds like the answer is no.

Let's make something clear: This class would not be the most powerful thing Pathfinder PCs have to offer.

For the first eight levels, maybe. But it would still have to contend with things like pouncing Saurian Shaman druids and gnome Heavens Oracles sending color sprays in every direction. I mean, a well-built skald is going to surpass it in group buffing ability right off the bat.

But from level nine on, not only will it be going up against classes with ever-increasing specialization and unique techniques for dominating a particular task, but there's also the possibility of ultra-specialized builds that just plain break the game in completely rules-legal ways. I'm talking about things like Samsaran Witches with early access to Simulacrum abuse and Elemental Ally druids abusing Awaken to give their eidolons arbitrarily high Charisma and HD.

That sort of thing will never be used in an actual game, and that's the point. Options that are clearly better than everything around them already exist in the game, and people who realize that they're there steer far clear of them. If the hero is adding anything new to the game, it's the fact that it requires barely any system mastery to use.

[Michael Sayre]

I think the problem with this question is that, assuming your thread title is your actual hypothesis, answers aren't going to establish anything meaningful either way.

Typically, people who are looking for inter-class balance are wanting asymmetrical balance; that is, they want classes who make equivalent contributions, but not the same contributions. The classic complaint about the Fighter tends to boil down to the fact that he doesn't bring anything unique to the table; he can damage stuff, but so can anyone else, generally within a very small variance of effectiveness. Typically, a well optimized inquisitor designed for combat and a well optimized fighter are going to drop the enemy in the same round, so the fact that the fighter overkilled the target by 10 hp is largely irrelevant, and the gap doesn't widen in the fighter's favor until pretty much his capstone, a level the majority of players will never see. So the idea of "balance" tends to go hand in hand with classes like the Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Paladin and others of their ilk, who can usually be good at a couple things but are still reliant on other characters to complete an adventure. The "unbalanced" classes tend to be those that can either completely pass or completely fail every aspect of a given adventure in a vacuum. Master summoners tend to be unbalanced in that they don't need anyone else and have all the tools to address pretty much any challenge an adventure might through at them without leaving their basic class chassis, while fighters tend to be unbalanced because they'll quickly hit a point where they can't do anything on their own, without spellcasters there to provide them with magic items, skillmonkeys to steer them around traps, etc.

As others have kind of noted/speculated, the issue with the theoretical "hero" class is that just because you've piled all of the class features onto one chassis, you'll still need to chop them up to play the game. You've only got so much action economy, and then your feats are going to steer you in different directions, there may be other issues as well; is the wizard casting Int based and the cleric casting Wis based? Because then, again, you're going to find that even if everyone in the group is using your provided chassis they're going to naturally gravitate towards a particular role by virtue of things like MAD and the fact that different spells work better on different characters (buffing spells work better the better a combatant you are to begin with, control spells tend not to require any "physical" stats, etc.).

So that being said-

1)Given access to only the hero class, do you think most players would build their characters in almost the exact same way?
A) No. There would still be particular needs the party, feat chains, etc. would have, and this would cause the characters to gravitate in different directions depending on which needs they set out to fill.

2)If the hero class was instead added to the list of available classes, how often do you think players would choose it over all the other options?
A) I think it would be the default option for players who aren't looking for a specific packet of abilities that are better executed on another chassis. A big example would be classes like those in Path of War or Akashic Mysteries, or my recent Ultimate Battle Lord release with Amora Games - you wouldn't be replacing these classes with the hero because they introduce new dynamics into the game that aren't covered by your "hero". It might have a hard time unseating classes like the paladin or druid as well, since the paladin and druid have a lot of great unique class features that are more difficult to weigh against the hero's benefits. What you would see, is that most people would stop playing fighters, wizards, and clerics, since those classes are getting near straight upgrades in the form of the hero. Of the three, the only I see possibly weathering that storm, ironically enough, is the fighter, since there are those people out there who just don't want to be bogged down with tracking and/or preparing slot-based spellcasting.

[My Self]

This class would be chosen 99/100 against a vanilla Fighter, but that's just because vanilla Fighter. I'd say that this would be hands-down the best polymorpher class short of Druid, considering that you get full BAB, Cleric self-buffs, and Wizard polymorphs. This would also invalidate Clerics who don't touch their domain powers, Channel Energy, or archetypes, as well as Wizards who shy away from school powers or just pick the school for the extra slots. Skill-wise and combat-wise, you could also be head, shoulders, and feet above the core Rogue, but that's not saying much.

Many people would find some sort of uniquely broken build with this class. Many people would also gravitate towards classic fantasy roles. Just because you have a class feature, doesn't mean you have to use it (See: Wholeness of Body, non-feat Rogue talents, Monk club proficiency).

[Milo v3]

Headfirst wrote:

To clarify: I'm not trying to introduce a home-brew class here. This is just a theoretical question. The question really is: If Pathfinder had an "uber class," or one that was flat-out, unmistakably superior to all others, would it be played exclusively and, when it was played, would everyone build it the same way?

I was aware of all that, so I'm not sure why you are restating it.

[AwesomenessDog]

Might as well rename that Hero class, nerfed dragon (not like one can make use of both wizard and cleric casting without some better action economy) since its got less skill points and doesn't become huge.

A, Feats and spell selection will allow variance; will there be a best or set of best builds, yes but not everyone wants that.

B Even if we assume the class isn't banned, there certainly will be a stigma about taking it (just as there is about sorcerer barbarian in gestalt), but that doesn't mean people will play it as to alienate other players in all cases.

Balance is important: making sure classes aren't entirely overshadowed (or even mostly) by another class and then some is a must but perfect balance is not necessary; its mostly pointless as its apples to oranges before accounting for build variance and makes the game overall boring if there isn't some form of circular unbalancing.

[Headfirst]

Thanks for the input, everyone!

[Athaleon]

Headfirst wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

I don't think many people would play it because it'd be banned at most tables.

To clarify: I'm not trying to introduce a home-brew class here. This is just a theoretical question. The question really is: If Pathfinder had an "uber class," or one that was flat-out, unmistakably superior to all others, would it be played exclusively and, when it was played, would everyone build it the same way?

So far, it sounds like the answer is no.

If the class wasn't flat-out banned for being so overpowered, and if the other players were okay it, and if the player's character concept was compatible with an Arcane/Divine/Martial/Skill do-everything class, then yes: The Hero Class would become the "default" class. When someone would ask the question, "Which class would be the best mechanical option for this character concept?", the answer would be "Hero". The question wouldn't even need to be asked. Whether this Druid has more DPR, or that Magus can cast and full attack at the same time, or that Barbarian could kill a Hero in a duel under X, Y, and Z circumstances, is irrelevant to the only form of balance that really matters. The Hero class would blow anyone else right out of the water in any Same Game Test at any level.

Would everyone build it the same way? Well, unless someone wanted to dispense with the Wizard Casting portion of the character, no one would wear armor. That would cause them to gravitate towards Dex-based fencer or archer builds. Other than that, the variations would run the gamut of what variety is achievable through feat, skill, spell, and magic item selection. So to answer question one, I think that anyone who isn't playing something different-but-worse for sake of variety would still gravitate towards the same feats, spells, skills, and magic items as before. If a character = Class * (Feats + Spells + Skills + Gear), and the value of Class is cranked up to 11 for every player, then the relative importance of those other choices increases.

As for question two, I guess I answered it in the first paragraph. If using it wouldn't get you the stink eye from the DM and other players, then

[Darth Grall]

While the question is somewhat of an extreme scenario, the answer is no. People like certain unique class features for flavor reasons and some like the challenge of playing low power/niche class archetypes to make them shine. Plus, a generically powerful class like that one, still would lose access to mechanically advantageous unique abilities. Like spell combat, or a reincarnation class feature. Not everything simply is the "best".

Though honestly, I would love to see a class like the OP' s hero just because it sounds like a Fighter on speed thanks to it's incredible customizability.

[Athaleon]

Athaleon wrote:

If using it wouldn't get you the stink eye from the DM and other players, then

Whoops, left it unfinished and it's too late to edit now.

If using it wouldn't get you the stink eye from the DM and other players, then it would be used at nearly all times.

[Bob Bob Bob]

Question the first! No, absolutely not. With that much flexibility there would obviously be a lot of different build choices. Especially with point buy, as you'd never get 20 Int and 20 Str at character creation. 16 and 16 maybe, but then you're not also getting a 16 in Wis for the cleric spells. Everyone would have to specialize in their stats, at a minimum.

Question the follow! The class would probably replace the fighter outright and probably replace the wizard or cleric about 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time you actually care about school abilities or domains. It'd also replace the Mystic Theurge completely. If you included a "you may select any one class feature from another class" it'd probably replace, like, 80% of all classes. A few classes have enough features you'd want the whole package (now that I look at it, mostly the 6 level casters) but others you only really want a single feature. I guess you could VMC some of them. Either way, lots of class features exist that people want that "hero" just can't duplicate.

[Athaleon]

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Question the first! No, absolutely not. With that much flexibility there would obviously be a lot of different build choices. Especially with point buy, as you'd never get 20 Int and 20 Str at character creation. 16 and 16 maybe, but then you're not also getting a 16 in Wis for the cleric spells. Everyone would have to specialize in their stats, at a minimum.

Question the follow! The class would probably replace the fighter outright and probably replace the wizard or cleric about 50% of the time. The other 50% of the time you actually care about school abilities or domains. It'd also replace the Mystic Theurge completely. If you included a "you may select any one class feature from another class" it'd probably replace, like, 80% of all classes. A few classes have enough features you'd want the whole package (now that I look at it, mostly the 6 level casters) but others you only really want a single feature. I guess you could VMC some of them. Either way, lots of class features exist that people want that "hero" just can't duplicate.

I forgot about ability scores. The MAD-ness would probably drive more players into pushing Dex/Int/Wis, trying for a decent CON, and dumping STR and CHA.

As for class features: What are two Domains and Channel Energy compared to Wizard Spellcasting and all the other perks? What are School Abilities compared to Cleric Spellcasting and all the other perks?

[Casual Viking]

Anzyr wrote:

You are asking the wrong question for this thought experiment. I have yet to see a single person who argues for better balanced classes (though I'm sure there is someone) ask for exactly the same starting point.

I suggest fixing that if you want any meaningful insight.

You know what, I think that's a pretty big "if".

[PathlessBeth]

Casual Viking wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

You are asking the wrong question for this thought experiment. I have yet to see a single person who argues for better balanced classes (though I'm sure there is someone) ask for exactly the same starting point.

I suggest fixing that if you want any meaningful insight.

You know what, I think that's a pretty big "if".

Normally I think it is nice to give people on the internet the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, though, I think you (casual viking) are probably right, unfortunately.

Headfirst wrote:

If Pathfinder had an "uber class," or one that was flat-out, unmistakably superior to all others,

I don't see Wildshape ore druid spellcasting in your "Hero" class, so I don't see how it is entirely superior to all the other classes.

[My Self]

137ben wrote:

Headfirst wrote:

If Pathfinder had an "uber class," or one that was flat-out, unmistakably superior to all others,

I don't see Wildshape ore druid spellcasting in your "Hero" class, so I don't see how it is entirely superior to all the other classes.

Or a Synthesist Summoner Eidolon, but that's besides the point. Wasn't the idea to have a class that is unmistakably more powerful than any other class?

[N. Jolly]

1. No, because part of the thing is that this class is just terribly designed. Some people seem to think more power makes for a better design, but it doesn't. This class is bland, it has nothing but class features thrown together, it doesn't have any flavor beyond "Hero", and really it's just trash.

2. Myself, I'd pick it either once, or whenever we were playing a 'god' game, but beyond that, meh. Being overpowered is fun every so often, but it gets old fast. Part of me feels like this question is being asked by someone who doesn't understand why a large part of power gamers actually power game.

Again, I do it because I like putting together puzzle pieces to make something amazing, I like combining features, taking archetypes, and overall making a chimera creation to run like a fine tuned machine, that's the sort of thing that I enjoy, and this class has none of that.

Not to mention it's lacking a lot of class features I like from other classes. Without spell strike/spell combat, it's not really that gishy either, it's action economy is the same as gestalt, and the best of it could probably be made in gestalt instead of this class. I know it's meant to be a kitchen sink class, but it lacks theme so it basically plays like a wizard with better saves who can martial it up whenever they're feeling like spells are too simple.

EDIT: To talk about the thread's title, balance does matter, but in non competitive games, it's less about overall balance and more about 'internal balance.' Internal balance is making sure one person isn't playing a CRB sword and board fighter and the other is playing an invulnerable rager with beast totem and spell sunder.

The system itself should work to achieve it's own balance so it's easier to maintain internal balance though. Certain outliers throw that out of whack, making it that much harder to maintain internal balance. Internal balance is different for every group, but it's the common ground that the rules should strive for, which is why overpowered things (playtest summon, god rest its soul) was hammered so hard.

Underpowered things are rarely looked at in the same way, and a part of that is because they rarely affect balance. A 'hero' would affect balance and be hammered because of it, but garbage stuff that sits at the bottom with other things (like 70% of the player options from Paizo's feats) and doesn't affect anyone's internal balance.

So yeah, balance matters, although the scope of the balance that matters for you may be different than me, and that's fine. The point is that the main line should strive to keep us at that solid middle ground. Really, most of the OA classes hit around that T4-T2 balance, which I appreciate. As I've said before, Paizo's at its best when making 6th level casters. If/when PF 2.0 hits, I hope they really focus on that as well as giving martials some more fun things (and building power attack into the system.)

[Matthew Downie]

N. Jolly wrote:

This class is bland, it has nothing but class features thrown together, it doesn't have any flavor beyond "Hero", and really it's just trash.

I don't generally look for flavor in my classes. I come up with character concepts independent of what my class will be, and try not to get distracted by words like Inquisitor or Samurai. If my character concept involved being able to cast spells, then this class would be fine for that.

Nothing in this class stops me making a fanatic who believes he's destined to become a god, a sober intellectual more interested in gaining knowledge than defeating enemies, a fun-loving warrior with magical gifts and a kind-heart, or whatever.

In a game where the GM offered this class for some reason, I'd probably take it (or quit the game because that GM has no concept of game balance). I'd assume that the adventure was going to be extra tough and I'd need to be extra powerful to survive. Also I'd assume that the other players would be thinking the same, and I wouldn't want to be stuck with a Fighter or Rogue among Heroes.

[Nohwear]

Matthew Downie wrote:

N. Jolly wrote:

This class is bland, it has nothing but class features thrown together, it doesn't have any flavor beyond "Hero", and really it's just trash.

I don't generally look for flavor in my classes. I come up with character concepts independent of what my class will be, and try not to get distracted by words like Inquisitor or Samurai. If my character concept involved being able to cast spells, then this class would be fine for that.

Nothing in this class stops me making a fanatic who believes he's destined to become a god, a sober intellectual more interested in gaining knowledge than defeating enemies, a fun-loving warrior with magical gifts and a kind-heart, or whatever.

In a game where the GM offered this class for some reason, I'd probably take it (or quit the game because that GM has no concept of game balance). I'd assume that the adventure was going to be extra tough and I'd need to be extra powerful to survive. Also I'd assume that the other players would be thinking the same, and I wouldn't want to be stuck with a Fighter or Rogue among Heroes.

Basically, this is where we see how different people take different approaches. Some start with an idea and try to make the game mechanics fit that. Some people like to let the more unusual mechanics inspire them.

[Jiggy]

*reads the OP*
*reads responses*
So did nobody see that he was gathering ammo? Why did you people feed him?

[Nohwear]

Jiggy wrote:

*reads the OP*

*reads responses*
So did nobody see that he was gathering ammo? Why did you people feed him?

Please forgive my naivete, but for what? What do you think that he is gathering ammo for?

[TriOmegaZero]

Because the forums would be boring if we all acted as we should.

[Athaleon]

Nohwear wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

*reads the OP*

*reads responses*
So did nobody see that he was gathering ammo? Why did you people feed him?

Please forgive my naivete, but for what? What do you think that he is gathering ammo for?

He's going to claim it as evidence that balance doesn't matter, which is generally the fallback position for people who first claim that no imbalance exists. 4e is often cited as evidence that balance is actually undesirable, for people like the OP who equate balance with sameness.

[Monkerdoodle]

I don't even know how to start here....
FORCING EQUALITY ON ALL OF US, HAVE YOU NO SHAME!?!?!?

LONG LIVE CAPITALISM, DOWN WITH COMMUNISM!!!!!

[Headfirst]

Jiggy wrote:

So did nobody see that he was gathering ammo?

Sorry to disappoint, but there is no "gotcha" ulterior motive here. It's just a hypothetical question; it can't hurt you.

[Hitdice]

. . . I think that's the verbal component of Summon Doodlebug, isn't it, Monkerdoodle?

The thing is, removing all limits of any sort on PCs is actually pretty balanced, it's just that the GM will have to multiply the CR times infinity when building encounters. As long as every character has access to every class ability ever, they'll never out distance each other.

. . .

Builds like that would probably completely wreck any published encounter, though.

[CBDunkerson]

I have to wonder how many people would play the 'Wizard' class when the 'Hero' class is as good or better in almost every way. No Scribe Scroll or Arcane Bond... but you could use some of the extra feats to get those. No school specialization or arcane discoveries, but those are nowhere near as useful as the other benefits the 'Hero' gets. Clerics lose a bit more, but would likewise also become pretty rare. Plenty of Paladin, Ranger, Magus, et cetera type concepts could also be done better with the 'Hero'.

So yeah, people would still take other classes... for the things the 'Hero' couldn't do at all (e.g. disable magical traps, spontaneous casting, psychic magic, rage, et cetera). However, the 'Hero' would be hands down better than numerous other classes with substantial ability overlap.

[Hitdice]

CBDunkerson wrote:

I have to wonder how many people would play the 'Wizard' class when the 'Hero' class is as good or better in almost every way. No Scribe Scroll or Arcane Bond... but you could use some of the extra feats to get those. No school specialization or arcane discoveries, but those are nowhere near as useful as the other benefits the 'Hero' gets. Clerics lose a bit more, but would likewise also become pretty rare. Plenty of Paladin, Ranger, Magus, et cetera type concepts could also be done better with the 'Hero'.

So yeah, people would still take other classes... for the things the 'Hero' couldn't do at all (e.g. disable magical traps, spontaneous casting, psychic magic, rage, et cetera). However, the 'Hero' would be hands down better than numerous other classes with substantial ability overlap.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if I'm reading the hypothetical correctly, 'Hero' is the only class available, so all the various class features it ignores aren't available to anyone, making them a non-issue.

[Matthew Downie]

Hitdice wrote:

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if I'm reading the hypothetical correctly, 'Hero' is the only class available, so all the various class features it ignores aren't available to anyone, making them a non-issue.

Only in the first post. In the second post the OP asks whether people would take Hero over other options.

[Hitdice]

Oops, missed that; I guess I'd play Hero solo, but feel that bringing it to table of regular classes would be a bit of douche move.

[The Altar of Balance]

Looks in...approves

[Nohwear]

I just had an interesting thought. Would you say that the Medium is very similar to the Hero, but with with built in flavor? Or am I oversimplifying things?

EDIT: To clarify things a bit, I mean that both classes can fill every role, but unless you are rolling stats and get really lucky it is more that the class can fill any role.

[Kirth Gersen]

Headfirst wrote:

Follow-up question:

If the hero class was instead added to the list of available classes, how often do you think players would choose it over all the other options? Always? Often? Occasionally? Rarely? Never?

Since I've only answered this about 18,000 times in any number of threads, I might as well go for broke.

It depends on the campaign.

In a beer-n-pretzels Three Stooges game, with softball challenges (CR below ACL), maybe one person would play it for comic relief, and everyone else would play Experts with Skill Focus (Craft: basket weaving) or Awakened ponies with no class levels, or whatever. Because they signed up for a low-threat game in which power is irrelavant.

In a standard AP, probably at least 1-2 people would play it, and use the full casting capabilities to cover for the monk and the fighter and the rogue, especially at higher levels. In most cases, the Hero guys would never enter melee, because they've been told it's not nice to upstage the other PCs, so in essence they'd be just like clerics and wizards, in the long run, and you'd probably never notice the difference.

In an Age of Worms-type campaign in which you're facing CR = ACL +5 encounters, the incentive to play a Hero is a lot higher. I suspect the whole party would.

Notice that you have different answers because people play the game in different ways. That's a GOOD thing. The class you presented is actually reasonably good because it allows people to play at all three of the example difficulty levels cited -- both endpoints, and in between.

[PathlessBeth]

Headfirst wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

So did nobody see that he was gathering ammo?

Sorry to disappoint, but there is no "gotcha" ulterior motive here. It's just a hypothetical question; it can't hurt you.

The idea that you are gathering ammo may stem from the fact that your thread title has no apparent relation to any of the posts you have made in the thread. You've presented a hypothetical class which you claim is overpowered and....what? What does that "experiment" tell you?

[Matthew Downie]

Headfirst wrote:

The question really is: If Pathfinder had an "uber class," or one that was flat-out, unmistakably superior to all others, would it be played exclusively and, when it was played, would everyone build it the same way?

So far, it sounds like the answer is no.

That doesn't say much about whether balance matters.

Suppose half my group chooses to play the Hero class, one focused on casting high DC spells, and one on melee and buffing. The other two players play standard classes. If these players feel totally sidelined by the disparity, and the GM has no idea how to come up with a suitable challenge that is good for everyone, then the lack of balance matters.

[Michael Sayre]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Headfirst wrote:

The question really is: If Pathfinder had an "uber class," or one that was flat-out, unmistakably superior to all others, would it be played exclusively and, when it was played, would everyone build it the same way?

So far, it sounds like the answer is no.

That doesn't say much about whether balance matters.

Suppose half my group chooses to play the Hero class, one focused on casting high DC spells, and one on melee and buffing. The other two players play standard classes. If these players feel totally sidelined by the disparity, and the GM has no idea how to come up with a suitable challenge that is good for everyone, then the lack of balance matters.

Yeah, the questions really don't in any way address the hypothesis posed in the thread title.

It's kind of like titling your paper "Does Mayonnaise Matter?" and then discussing whether or not anyone would ever eat broccoli if a super vegetable with the power of three veggies was created.

[MMCJawa]

1) No, because people would still gravitate towards different ideas, which would also result in different feat investment. I do think there would be less variance (in a boring way) between different PCs than in the current system.

2) Depends on the group or playstyle. Personally, I think other classes would still get plenty of play, simply because some people don't want spells or martial ability or whatever, and if they have them they fell obligated to use them, less they be "underpowered".

[MendedWall12]

Ssalarn wrote:

Typically, people who are looking for inter-class balance are wanting asymmetrical balance; that is, they want classes who make equivalent contributions, but not the same contributions.

I find this to be true, but I also find that there is often an unspoken, unwritten (well sometimes spoken) consensus at the table that each character should have the same amount of time "in the spotlight." The spotlight need not be for the same thing, or it could be. The point is, each player at the table has a strong desire that the effort they put in to making their character is rewarded by some situation at the table that makes their character the center of attention. Whether the classes are perfectly balanced is not necessarily the issue; whether or not the GM can masterfully weave together a variety of situations to make sure each character sees "spotlight time" is. At least imho.

[Steve Geddes]

137ben wrote:

Headfirst wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

So did nobody see that he was gathering ammo?

Sorry to disappoint, but there is no "gotcha" ulterior motive here. It's just a hypothetical question; it can't hurt you.

The idea that you are gathering ammo may stem from the fact that your thread title has no apparent relation to any of the posts you have made in the thread. You've presented a hypothetical class which you claim is overpowered and....what? What does that "experiment" tell you?

I think the argument was:

1. People claim balance is desirable since otherwise everyone will always choose to play the strongest class.
2. Here's an undeniably stronger class.
3. People wouldn't always choose to play that class.
4. therefore balance isn't desirable.

I've heard people kind of claim the first premise, but I don't think I've ever heard it claimed that this is the sole reason balance matters.

I don't think it was some kind of trap - I think it was addressing an argument for balance that not many make. If your sole reason for desiring balance is to stop everyone always playing the obviously superior class, then this is a putative refutation (of sorts - premise 2 is suspect by virtue of ignoring class features).

[Michael Sayre]

MendedWall12 wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Typically, people who are looking for inter-class balance are wanting asymmetrical balance; that is, they want classes who make equivalent contributions, but not the same contributions.

I find this to be true, but I also find that there is often an unspoken, unwritten (well sometimes spoken) consensus at the table that each character should have the same amount of time "in the spotlight." The spotlight need not be for the same thing, or it could be. The point is, each player at the table has a strong desire that the effort they put in to making their character is rewarded by some situation at the table that makes their character the center of attention. Whether the classes are perfectly balanced is not necessarily the issue; whether or not the GM can masterfully weave together a variety of situations to make sure each character sees "spotlight time" is. At least imho.

Well crafted asymmetric balance does this automatically. I can't tell you how many times I've seen experienced GMs craft a scenario tailored to let a particular character shine, only to have a different player excel instead. If strengths and roles are more clearly delineated and supported by class, you don't need to go through ridiculous contortions to try and force someone into the spotlight if they aren't rising there naturally.

Example- We once had an adventure where the task was to infiltrate a castle without killing anyone. The noble who lived there was suspected of treason, but we needed proof before we could act. The campaign had been pretty combat focused up to that point, with the party Magus and Paladin eating up most of the spotlight. So, while most of the party was engaged in innocuous information gathering, the rogue decided to sneak directly into the noble's private study and look for incriminating documents. The rogue, unfortunately, failed some critical skill checks and ended up in a prison cell with no thieve's tools. The party Magus ended up running a 1 man rescue mission, using careful application of his vanish spell to get huge bonuses to his Stealth checks in the more highly trafficked areas of the castle. So, the adventure that was intended to give the Rogue some spotlight time actually turned into the Magus showing off how versatile he was by rescuing the Rogue and snagging the incriminating evidence on the way out.

GMs have a lot of variables they can't always easily predict, like dice rolls, player system mastery, inappropriately assigned CRs, etc. Game designers on the other hand, can predict these things, at least to a certain degree. They have the statistics and the tools necessary to understand where par, above par, and below par are, and how to design a class that exists in one of those given areas. A well balanced group would, in theory, contain a variety of characters who are each at par in most areas, with a few areas where they fall below, and a roughly equal number of areas where they rise above. Classes like the Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, and even Paladin are great examples of this.
When you have some classes that are so versatile they can rise above in most areas while only dropping to par in their weak areas, and other classes that have more aspects of their build that don't meet par then they do aspects that meet or beat it put together, you end up putting more and more strain on the GM to try and enforce artificial spotlight balancing that the game should be capable of creating and promoting naturally.

This is where all that martial/caster disparity talk comes from - what people are really upset about, whether they realize it or not, isn't that some people get to be magical and fantastical and others don't, it's that there is a palpable dissonance between the classes whose tools are versatile and flexible, and those whose tools are rigid and limited.
Take the Magus v. Rogue example above - the Magus' vanish spell is simultaneously great for offense, defense, and utility. You can deny an opponent his Dex to AC, give yourself total concealment against attacks, and you get a whopping +20 or higher to one of the most commonly used and useful skills in the game, all for a fraction of your total resources. On top of that, every time your Intelligence goes up, you get more skills, more spells readied, it becomes harder to resist your spells, and you get more points in your arcane pool. The Rogue, conversely, has very few abilities that bridge the various functions of the game and are functionally useful for offense, defense, and utility, with each tool instead being generally focused towards only one of those areas and taking up a larger degree of resources. Each time the Rogue increases his Intelligence, he gets an extra skill point, and that's pretty much it.

That actually ties back to the questions in the OP, and why they're not very good at addressing the question posed in the thread title. The proposed Hero gets a generous mish-mash of some of the best features in the game, but he doesn't get a good way to tie them together. He's probably the best Fighter, the best Wizard, and the best Cleric, but he doesn't really seem to get the tools to be the best at, or even just be, more than one of those things at a time. If I wanted to play a character like the Magus, I wouldn't choose the Hero, because he lacks handy abilities like Spell Combat and Spellstrike which tie his martial and physical capabilities together. A Magus just natively has more ways to use vanish thanks to the circumstances he can cast it under, and will do a lot of things faster than the Hero would since the Magus can blend his action economy. Class features tend to be very important to enabling certain concepts, and the quality, versatility, and synergy of class features are generally more relevant to the concept of balance than anything else.

[Anzyr]

Steve Geddes wrote:

137ben wrote:

Headfirst wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

So did nobody see that he was gathering ammo?

Sorry to disappoint, but there is no "gotcha" ulterior motive here. It's just a hypothetical question; it can't hurt you.

The idea that you are gathering ammo may stem from the fact that your thread title has no apparent relation to any of the posts you have made in the thread. You've presented a hypothetical class which you claim is overpowered and....what? What does that "experiment" tell you?

I think the argument was:

1. People claim balance is desirable since otherwise everyone will always choose to play the strongest class.
2. Here's an undeniably stronger class.
3. People wouldn't always choose to play that class.
4. therefore balance isn't desirable.

I have literally never heard this argument from someone asking for better balance between classes in pathfinder. I've been in my fair share of balance threads and don't recall this being presented as an issue even once. I'm sure someone has said it, but it is a minority position in the extreme.

[Steve Geddes]

Yeah, I think it's a refutation of a position rarely held in isolation.

I have been told something similar to the first premise - but that was when I was describing my preference for imbalanced games (specifically for magic always being strictly more powerful than mundane). The reply was something like "In that kind of game, I'd just always play a spellcaster - I mean who wants to just be another player's minion?" or similar. I presume they had plenty of other reasons for desiring balance, they just presented one objection. I think that's what the OP is missing (presuming my paraphrase of his argument is correct).