The first problem in a discussion of balance is deciding what we consider balance to be. If we mean a class is balanced compared to another class, then comparison is impossible. Each class is very different and has a different set of strengths and weaknesses; equality is not the way to go if looking for a meaningful comparison. To me, balance is when each class has a certain niche that they are able to fill allowing it to contribute fully to a group without special interventions. I define special interventions as specific DM fiats or houserules made to enhance a character or giving one character disproportionately more treasure or bonuses than anyone else. Examples of this might be if you add in penalties to make a particular class useless, if you decide to specifically weaken other classes by constantly challenging their weaknesses while leaving one class alone to allow it to shine, or tailoring all encounters to make a certain class or character be useful above all the others. If a DM makes a class called the pinmaster and makes a campaign setting called balloon world where only the pinmaster can reliably kill balloon beasts then yes, the pinmaster might seem a viable or even overpowered class, but that is only true for balloon world. This standard seems like a good way to evaluate balance--consider what niche a class fills, how well it fills it, and how effective it is overall.
Some classes get very difficult to evaluate because of how they are designed. One example of this might be the hexblade, a class that many initially regarded as a sort of gish. In truth, it’s a variation on the fighter that uses magic and dirty tricks to weaken foes and win in combat. You don’t try to tank with it and you have to be very careful with chosen spells to ensure a good combination. The duskblade is closer to a gish but it is more of a “deal lots and lots of damage” class rather than a true mixture of magic and melee.
I’m not sure that the warlock was meant to be any one thing. A blaster is the most obvious role but I’ve seen them used as debuffers, scouts and troubleshooters. Casters are similar; most people initially see them as mobile artillery pieces. I did myself when I started play, but after a while I learned the abilities allowed for battlefield control, total restructuring of a being, and thousands of tactical options. More options appeared as more spells were created and metamagic feats offered.
We can also evaluate classes by their effectiveness over the long haul of the game. Effectiveness may change greatly depending on the campaign style but that style is usually at least somewhat known at the start. If the game is going to be diplomacy heavy intrigue type then the smasher types might have a few issues but they know that going in. The problem I see is that each class has a curve of usefulness. A rogue, for example, will probably find use for themselves throughout the game. The traps will scale with them, and with Use magic Device as a class skill they can pull out a few other options to aid them in their role. A caster has a sharp growth in usefulness, as higher level spells are able to do more and more things both in and out of combat. Martial characters, however, usually decrease in usefulness after a certain point because the beings faced have such high hitpoint totals or because reaching the enemy to strike them is a task in and of itself. Combat maneuvers have similar issues: tripping stops working at around level 10, disarming fails against beings with natural weapons (quite common at high levels), sundering is usually a bad idea, and tanking only works if you can control all fields of movement.
Finally we can evaluate the versatility or specialization of a class. A barbarian is a fairly strong melee class, It is focused heavily on being a damage dealer, the muscle boosting power of rage being a nice springboard helping offset the penalties to hit from power attack (a feat common to barbarians). A Ranger is also focused either on archery or two weapon fighting and the spells that they have available amplify their abilities already gained from the granted feats and skills. A paladin has abilities which make them a better tank, lay on hands, the ability to remove diseases, and spells that they gain which can greatly increase their AC, saves, and other bonuses. The paladin also gets the benefits of a mount and can do great things with mounted combat as well. The rogue has abilities which can make them great scouts or assassins depending on the inclination of the person designing the character.
The Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Druid have an advantage in that their class abilities are highly mutable. Each day a caster can choose a new set of spells, making themselves artillery pieces, spies, troubleshooters, debuffers, buffers, healers, melee combatants, battlefield controllers, or some combination thereof depending on what spells they choose. This is a great power because it is an example of constantly expanding class abilities. Each new spell provides new tricks and stratagems for someone to use or to find a way to use in concert with other spells.
Of these, the fighter is the only one I see with a problem. While feats are useful, class abilities simply count for more, feat chains rarely merge well and many times will not augment previous feats on the chain. For example, Power attack, at least in core, has no feats which improve it. You have feats that show you know how to hit harder: Improved Sunder, Improved Bull Rush, Cleave, Great Cleave. Outside of core there are tactical feats and feats like leap attack which augment power attack but those feats are exceptions rather than the rule.
How do you improve a class’s ability to handle multiple challenges? A wizard would likely defer to a rogue to navigate a trapped area, just as the rogue would defer to the wizard in areas of knowledge and secrets, and both would likely defer to the bard in social situations. This is mostly on regular classes, but as I look I think that WotC has realized that some mistakes were made in class design in this regard and came up with an easy way to fix the problem, Prestige Classes.
Prestige classes can be many things: world builders, organizational forces, sources for plot hooks, and also a way to fix bad designs. There are a lot of people who argue that prestige classes are inherently bad for many reasons, and there are ways to abuse them. But, my own view is that prestige classes are a “patch” for the game. They’re a way to fix problems that crop up without having to rewrite the entire rules system. The Eldritch Knight is a great class for those that want to blend arcane power with combat and to try to create a harmonious blend of physical prowess and arcane might. I also argue that this class is a way to use the archetypical Spellsword without having to create new classes or come up with incredibly convoluted feat chains. It also means that you can blend the two rather classes that otherwise simply won’t mesh as well, like a level 10 wizard/level 10 fighter. The prestige classes can provide a way to make normally suboptimal hybrid choices work.
But my main focus is their use in fixing problems with classes. Many have argued that the fighter class has issues in it, one of the counter-arguments is that they qualify for many potent prestige classes; I call that a stealth fix. I believe that designers at WotC might have realized the problem with fighters, but what were they to do? They couldn’t rebuild the whole fighter class, and to produce enough feats to make it a truly potent class would be very resource consuming. Not to mention that these feats could easily break other classes if used. Instead they designed prestige classes based around fighter archetypes or offering new abilities for a style and have a fair amount of feats as a prerequisite. It means that the fighter, while not completely ‘fixed’ is patched enough that the character can still be useful at high levels. It also means that if a new class didn’t work as well as intended, or had some unforeseen problems, prestige classes could fix them by having requirements native to a certain class. It also lets WotC keep some things from getting out of control, if the casters are going nuts, Witch slayers and Occult slayers can help against them, almost every new system introduced that could have some issues also has counters built in as prestige classes where the material is introduced or can be countered by pre-existing prestige classes.
Prestige classes are a better option than rewriting each class because then all that happens is constant rewrites to fix things as they go and the game wouldn’t be stable. Instead, new material can offer new options through feats and prestige classes, and multiclassing options allow for a character to make something that will fit their concept as well as work well mechanically. It also means that the money keeps coming into the company and they can use book sales and feedback as a way to figure out what is working well versus what isn’t and react accordingly.
Essentially, the Fighter was designed as a class to lead into Prestige Classes, instead of standing on its own merit, meaning even at the very beginning, it was unbalanced against the other classes. The sheer variety of melee-centered PrCs, all of which gain abilities at every level more powerful then bonus feats, confirms the fact that Fighters are simply woefully underpowered from a design standpoint...their 'versatility' of build is simply discarded since the game rewards specialization, not versatility, unless it is ABSOLUTE versatility...which is to say, versatility of play, such as a spellcaster being able to change his spells, or a Warblade or Swordsage to change their readied maneuvers.
Fighters have only versatility of build, which falls in game to specialization of build, and versatility of play.
---------------
The fact remains that this PrC 'patch' is, for the large part, unnecessary. Making up a feat tree that includes all the abilities of these 'specialist' PrCs (as opposed to hybrids) is almost ridiculously easy. The much looser requirements for most PrCs, as opposed to feat reqs, is one strange barrier, or additional requirement you can build in, if you like.
It's also grounds for immediate 'nerf-desire', because suddenly 2 levels of a PrC has to be summed up in one bonus feat. When a PrC typically has per level abilities that are often MORE powerful then feats, and are often front loaded to heavy extremes.
A simple counter-balance would have been to give the Fighter a bonus feat every level, then you have 1:1 comparison and no reason to complain...qualifying for a 'melee fix' PrC should be no harder then qualifying for a particular feat tree, and the 'fluff' works the same as the 'crunch'.
===Aelryinth
However, fighters who stray from the brute force archetype have plenty of interesting prestige class options, like the Duelist, the Spellsword, the Dwarven Defender (although this is obviously only a choice for dwarves), the Devoted Defender, and many more.
Feats, when chosen properly, do serve to counter-balance some of that issue, however. Go ahead, max out the weapon focus tree. So what if you only crit on a 20? Take improved crit anyways. Go with the dodge tree, combat expertise, and whirlwind attack! Powerful charge from Eberron works very well (I never say no to an extra d8 of damage). If your chosen weapon has a combat style feat that goes with it, take it!
Of course, to keep up, the purely damage based fighter has to improve the enchants on his weapon as quickly as possible, and his armor takes a back seat on the grocery list. And you have to find the right balance between the +(#)s and the damage enchants, because if you focus completely on fiery burst, keen, and returning, you might not get to hit often enough to take advantage of them.
Of course, for any pure-fighter build, even the feats start to run a little dry, and it starts once you've hit level 14 or so, unless you have things planed out very well. Then you have to start expanding your options beyond simple massive damage dealing. Take a level or two in Justicar, and now you not only have Improved Grapple for free, but can deal massive subdual damage, with no penalty. Of course, to do so, you have to take two non-combat feats, but for a fighter, is that honestly that big of a deal?
Looking over the fighter, all you really need to keep him going is good planning. You have to start with something, and stick with it, planning exactly what you'll be doing and when you're going to do it. Do that, and the fighter isn't underpowered at all.
I think what would be a lot better is if people compared classes IN THE CONTEXT OF A FOUR- TO FIVE-MAN PARTY.
Like, for example, if someone would say how a Warblade would fit into a party that had a healer, a scoundrel, a support character, and a blaster. And what benefits and drawbacks they would have. Maybe I should do an article series based on real parties and actually comparing classes in the context of a real adventuring party. Talk about teamwork and stuff.
I agree with what you say in the beginning, that comparing one class to another is impossible. I would never compare a rogue to a fighter, for example. If the rogue goes first, I say the rogue probably wins. If the fighter goes first, I think the fighter wins. Just a guess.
I think what would be a lot better is if people compared classes IN THE CONTEXT OF A FOUR- TO FIVE-MAN PARTY.
Like, for example, if someone would say how a Warblade would fit into a party that had a healer, a scoundrel, a support character, and a blaster. And what benefits and drawbacks they would have. Maybe I should do an article series based on real parties and actually comparing classes in the context of a real adventuring party. Talk about teamwork and stuff.
Somewhat, teamwork is a bit difficult to quantify in a game but trying to do things like tracking the classes contributions can vary game to game, player to player. It might be worth seeing what each class brings to the table in terms of advantages and disadvantages however.
I think what would be a lot better is if people compared classes IN THE CONTEXT OF A FOUR- TO FIVE-MAN PARTY.
Like, for example, if someone would say how a Warblade would fit into a party that had a healer, a scoundrel, a support character, and a blaster. And what benefits and drawbacks they would have. Maybe I should do an article series based on real parties and actually comparing classes in the context of a real adventuring party. Talk about teamwork and stuff.
This is very true. I'm in a very melee oriented party, consisting of a strength rogue, a mind-blade user/avatist, and a dexterity fighter, as well as myself (a diplomacy based character who can't hit anything above AC 25 if he tries) and a cleric, who focuses on nuking everything evil.
What makes our fighter truly shine is how he cooperates with the party. His staying power and very high AC (it can easily top 35 if he tries. I could be mistaken, but I think he managed to get it up to 50 once, at level 7 or 8) allow him to set up the rogue's sneak attacks, and when the Cleric has a few rounds to buff him before a combat, he's even more of a monster. Some boots of haste let him get where he needs to go, and he deals more than enough damage with his gnome hooked hammer, even if he is small! True, he does dip into the Exotic Weapons Master class, but he'd be just as lethal without them.
Frankly I think such subjective analysis should be left to the hands of individual groups. Players will manage with whatever resources they have available, and builds of varying strengths will emerge. All that really matters is that players are happy with the balance dynamic of their own party and that DMs can provide challenges of appropriate difficulty. If a party is not balanced in, then they should discuss it out of game, and come up with alternative builds or character choices to bring themselves back into balance.
On PrCs: to my way of thinking they should really be there for flavour, rather than for power. You should have to give up something meaningful from your base class progression (familiar advancement and the like doesn't cut it for me) to gain the benefits of your unique abilities - none of this "full caster progression + extra powerful abilities".
I think your assessment of the role PrCs have come to play is sadly true, though, especially for the Fighter. After all, WotC aren't exactly going to come out and say, "Hey guys, we were just kidding in the PHB, here's the real Fighter, lol".
If we're talking about balance, surely the only real way to measure it is by getting feedback from players on: a) how much they enjoy the class and b) how much they feel they're contributing to the party.
On PrCs: to my way of thinking they should really be there for flavour, rather than for power. You should have to give up something meaningful from your base class progression (familiar advancement and the like doesn't cut it for me) to gain the benefits of your unique abilities - none of this "full caster progression + extra powerful abilities".
I think your assessment of the role PrCs have come to play is sadly true, though, especially for the Fighter. After all, WotC aren't exactly going to come out and say, "Hey guys, we were just kidding in the PHB, here's the real Fighter, lol".
PrCs can also be a nice way to helping define a character and differentiate between different types of characters. The basic idea is that the PRCs serve as a way to fix problems that can crop up in the system. My main point with this was to stimulate discussions about internal balance and see what other people thought of my views on some of what was done with the system and why it was done.
On PrCs: to my way of thinking they should really be there for flavour, rather than for power. You should have to give up something meaningful from your base class progression (familiar advancement and the like doesn't cut it for me) to gain the benefits of your unique abilities - none of this "full caster progression + extra powerful abilities".
PrCs can also be a nice way to helping define a character and differentiate between different types of characters. The basic idea is that the PRCs serve as a way to fix problems that can crop up in the system. My main point with this was to stimulate discussions about internal balance and see what other people thought of my views on some of what was done with the system and why it was done.
I think looking at classes for flavor is shortsighted. It's extremely easy to redefine flavor, and makes a lot of sense to do so. Classes are nothing more than a convenient way to organize abilities, and to disallow or to suggest that players should take them for the associated flavor denies them character options.
If you disassociate abilities from the flavor tied to them (especially when that flavor is very narrow and doesn't make all that much mechanical sense, like the Warblade for example) your players can then put whatever spin they like on what their characters can do. I feel this makes for better roleplaying, and doesn't try to impose restrictions that are bound to chafe players.
I think looking at classes for flavor is shortsighted. It's extremely easy to redefine flavor, and makes a lot of sense to do so. Classes are nothing more than a convenient way to organize abilities, and to disallow or to suggest that players should take them for the associated flavor denies them character options.
If you disassociate abilities from the flavor tied to them (especially when that flavor is very narrow and doesn't make all that much mechanical sense, like the Warblade for example) your players can then put whatever spin they like on what their characters can do. I feel this makes for better roleplaying, and doesn't try to impose restrictions that are bound to chafe players.
That's actually really what I believe about most classes. For example, I had one player who was a psychic warrior who focused on almost all self buff and self healing and said that he had been trained in a monastery to focus his mind over his body. The whole idea was that the learned to focus and push himself beyond his bodies preconceived settings and to their true physical limit as well as to learn to ignore physical pain and threat. It worked well flavor wise, the mechanics fit it, and most people that were playing figured he was a cleric.
I think looking at classes for flavor is shortsighted. It's extremely easy to redefine flavor, and makes a lot of sense to do so. Classes are nothing more than a convenient way to organize abilities, and to disallow or to suggest that players should take them for the associated flavor denies them character options.
If you disassociate abilities from the flavor tied to them (especially when that flavor is very narrow and doesn't make all that much mechanical sense, like the Warblade for example) your players can then put whatever spin they like on what their characters can do. I feel this makes for better roleplaying, and doesn't try to impose restrictions that are bound to chafe players.
Let me clarify here. I'm not referring to the flavour text/"fluff" here - I'm referring to the class abilities of prestige classes expanding the variety of things a character can do. "Flavour" is having access to unique abilities, not unique descriptors (which, as you point out, are highly adaptable anyway).
Prestige classes allow a character to develop abilities that may be more in line with the player's concept of that character than anything available in the base classes. Classes like Dervish and Drunken Master (to name only two) are great examples of this.