As I was posting in a different topic in the Wizard folder about something I have a vested interest in as a player, it suddenly occured to me the sort of decisions involving Game Balance generally happen against the favor of pure classes.
Since as long as I can remember playing Gemstone, my opinon and observation has always been that the pure classes are better than the square and semi classes. I did hear that once upon a time pures were TERRIBLE (I'm talking GS2 GEnie days here when ICE was still around, which I wasn't present for, but know someone who was and even has a street named after her old PC), plagued with barren spell lists and ineffective means by which to use the ones they did have. By the time I started playing in mid '94, this was not the case. Pures were absolutely the best group of classes available, and I think they still are. Why?
1 : Shorter roundtimes or non*-*hindering roundtimes (casting roundtime) for spellcasting actions.
The ability to attack every 3 seconds instead of every 5 (or more) turns in to a lot. A square hits 3 times in 15 seconds and a pure hits 5 times in 15 seconds. Does the square do more damage? Maybe. Is the square more vulnerable while doing this damage? Definately.
2 : Access to defensive spells negating the most predominant source of difficulty for any PC, the AS*/*DS calculation.
Most any pure worth their salt is able to generate enough DS to render nearly all AS/DS calculations irrelevant. What does that leave then?
CS/TD? This is generally only a problem when you are in an opposing realm and without outside spells IE: spiritual vs elemental.
Maneuvers? Historically, there weren't many maneuvers for a long time in GS, and only recently have more creatures been designed with more maneuvers. Combine this with the new(relatively speaking) CMAN system and now pures actually have a problem, and generally a big one too. A problem that I am definately not opposed to, because it makes things more interesting.
3 : Magic itself. The very essence of what makes a pure a pure is also the biggest problem in balancing them - particularly against non*-*pure classes, but sometimes even amongst themselves.
Even in the old days, by the time a pure reaches level 60 they're pretty much guarunteed to have access to 60 (or more) different spells. Some of which are entirely benign, like defensive spells. The utility and offensive spells however can have a wide range of potential applications. From innocent things like making a spirit servant pick up a pile of snow and move it, to being able to charge up for 600 seconds and continue to multiply damage for an already potent attack spell. This can become a lot of variables to account for. Add in magical items and scrolls and various GM-created items that generate or create magical/spell-like abilities and you've got a whole plethora of different combinations that can be generated on a regular basis.
What does this mean? The interaction of spells with other spells or spells with the players who cast them can generate non-intended effects, even when these things are tested to death by the dev teams and or players alike. Coupled with new spells being created/released the problem of "What if this spell is cast or used when this other spell effect is already in effect?" gets larger and larger. Coupled still with the knowledge that nobody is perfect and mistakes are frequently coded in to the more complex spells and you've got an increasingly large potential for a problem or even multiple problems.
The historic solution decided upon:
Nerf. In some cases this may have been warranted. While many may not agree with me, the Dark Catalyst of old was an absurdly over-powered spell. Is it better the way it is now? No, but that's mostly because the class that it was changed on still hasn't recieved any extensive development (I say this compared to empaths, clerics, and wizards - all of which have recieved at least twice as much attention based on my own observations) since then. As a side note, the only pure class I don't enjoy playing is sorcerers, and I absolutely love pures and only play pures because of my love for them.
I would imagine that in theory, some of these actions are taken to continue to narrow down the options that a 'pure' has available as a whole, so that the various interactions between the class and the spells it has access to do not continue to make an imbalanced choice a preferable one. Is this really the right decision though?
A long*-*lost but recently rediscovered option
Prop-up. This has been a more recent development, and I'm glad to see it. Rogues and warriors have been getting the most attention from this sort of service, and they deserve it. I can only hope that this behavior trend continues. Speaking personally, any other game, table-top or MMO I have ever played I usually play what we would term 'squares' in Gemstone. Only in Gemstone do I play 'pures'.
The future of Gemstone
This is obviously not yet written. I can only hope that for the sake of those who enjoy the game that the path of 'nerf' does not continue to be so heavily a tread upon road, and that those brave new GMs who have recently rediscovered the ability to 'prop-up' the classes who are obviously not up to par with pures will continue to do so and embrace this.
Generally speaking, taking things away from people and paying customers (and though we know you own it all and you can do whatever you want with it and we agreed to that when we signed up blah blah blah) you can't escape or dispute the fact that the majority of customers will continue to feel slighted and dejected over having something 'revised' in a fashion that detracts from what was present before the revision.
Push up and reach higher... balance is balance, no matter what form it takes. Why not give a little instead? Continue to give squares more choices and more options. Don't punish the players of pures because the development teams of old lacked foresight or creativity.
/off my chest.
"The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power" - William Shakespeare
