According to patch notes for the remaster, the developers decided to counter-balance the Paladin's saving throw bonus by giving them extra attacks more slowly. While I don't know the full balance implications of this change, I was thinking of the balance of the other fighter types, what could be improved, and what shouldn't be changed.

In this topic, I will focus on three classes: Hunter, Monk, and Geomancer (not that Geomancers are BT3 only, and hence not yet available in any of the remastered games).

Hunter: Can critical hit, but have poor armor selection. One thing to note is that critical hits are the *only* thing going for them, so a hunter that can't critical reliably is useless (except at really low levels). Therefore, to be balanced, a Hunter needs to be able to critical reliably. In BT1, other fighter-types can reliably one-hit kill enemies for most of the game, so, for balance, Hunters need to be able to as well. In BT2 and BT3, enemies get more HP (especially later in the game), but there is one weapon that makes them obsolete: The Stoneblade, which can reliably petrify enemies. (Maybe the Stoneblade should only work some of the time so that the Hunter has its use?) Also, note that spellcasters get STTO and DEST, both of which can instant kill enemies at melee range, and in BT2, Bards get the Deathdrum (and in BT3, the Deathhorn; more on that later).

One interesting change I noticed in the patch notes, however, is giving Hunters critical hits with ranged weapons; this is something that did not happen in the originals. This has some significant implications, which could result in the Hunter actually being worthwhile. In BT2, with this change, Hunters become the *only* class that can critical at range; it suddenly makes sense to give Hunters the Aram's Knife and just throw it at enemies to critical them from 90' away. In BT3, other classes can get ranged criticals (Chronomancers at 30', Geomancers at 60'), so ranged criticals aren't as much of a game changer, except maybe early on. However, there is one item that looks rather interesting with this change; the Black Arrows, which hit an entire group at once. If the Hunter's critical hit ability works with them (doesn't need to even be that reliable for this purpose), that would allow Hunters to (possibly) critical entire groups. It turns out that there's another way to critical an entire group; there's a musical instrument called the Deathhorn, which a Bard can use to critical a group up to 60' away, so the group critical wouldn't be entirely new. With that said, because of the number of items that can drop in the areas that they appear, Black Arrows, once they appear, are more common than Deathhorns are earlier.

(More in the next post)

Monk: Great AC, but limited equipment. In BT1, they can reliably kill enemies with one hit at a decent level, and they get great AC, but they have one significant drawback; no breath weapon. With that said, you really only need 4 characters with breath weapons; that is enough to clear out 4 groups of enemies at once.

In BT2, Monks are considerably less useful; Warriors and Paladins can outdamage them with the Sword of Zar (assuming reasonable levels), and late game, there's the Stoneblade, which Monks can't use. At that late stage of the game, single target attacks are pretty much useless unless they can instantly kill, and Monks have no way of doing so, so they're only really useful for carrying extra equipment. Actually, they do have one use: They can use the Staff of Lor; in some versions (DOS and possibly the remaster), equipping it is needed to use it, which hurts the Monk's attack power even more, but in return allows the Monk to cast Restoration, freeing up your mages for other things. (By the way, at this stage in the game, damage spells need to be MAMA level of power, which is not something that can be realistically sustained.)

In BT3, Monks got a lot stronger. There seem to be some wierd bugs here; in 8-bit versions, they can do over 2k damage right at level 35 (a rather sudden jump from lower levels), but don't get much stronger as the game progresses. In 16-bit versions, they can only do over 1k damage, but they slowly grow in strength until level 60, when they suddenly get as strong as in 8-bit versions. (Maybe there's a bug with attack capping when AC should cap? In 16-bit versions, at really high levels a Monk's AC bonus overflows and becomes negative, making Monks have horrible instead of great AC (like, over 100).) This is strong enough for most of the game, but will feel a bit weak on reaching Malefia. With Monks having no instant kill attacks, maybe they should get some further damage boosts at high levels?

Geomancer: Described as a class that can both fight well and cast spells, Geomancers unfortunately do not live up to that promise. Their spellcasting is fine (even if not as flexible as that of an Archmage; no healing except DIVA (which is too expensive for a Geomancer), for example), but they do not make good fighters. In particular:

* Geomancers come relatively late in the game. A new geomancer will be level 1 when the rest of the party is probably close to level 50 by that point. This gives Geomancers terrible accuracy (so their physical attacks can't hit), making them useless as fighters; it's also not good for saving throws. This could be fixed by giving Geomancers a significant bonus to hit and saving throws to compensate for their lower levels.

* Geomancers don't get extra attacks or any other similar benefit. This means that, unless equipped with the Stoneblade or similar, a Geomancer isn't going to be doing meaningful damage. I really think that Geomancers do need to get some extra attacks, so they can at least do good damage with something like the Troth Lance, or decent damage with something like the Staff of Mangar (which actually has decent per-hit damage, but has enough other properties (-4 AC and 1/2 SP consumption) that its damage doesn't need to be great). Of course, you can just bypass this by casting ROCK all the time (petrify at 60' range), but it feels like this class should be able to do enough damage to matter without having to resort to magic or instant kill weapons all the time.

The older I grew, the less I understand this "balance" crap.

Back in the days no one cared. A game was at is was.
Mages dealt lots of damage. Warriors were tough. Monk where... whatever.
You play what you like.

Until you find that the class that you like to play is useless.

For example, the Geomancer, while not a bad spellcaster, is a bad fighter; if you try to have one use physical attacks without an instant kill weapon (or are playing a version where the Stoneblade doesn't work), you are not going to be happy with this setup.

Playing what you like only works if what you like is at least viable.

(Also, if what you like is overpowered, the game could become rather boring.)

It's D&D4 all over again, mate ;)

One things are bugs in the game (where things not work as intended), one thing is to try to balance everything with maths.

It is supposed to be a damn RPG.
Classes, skills and abilities are meant to be diffrent; instead of equalizing the "DPS" nonsense.
Otherwise just put together an excel file and have fun.

There are two types of gamers...

There's not much point in classes , skills and abilities being different if some of them are objectively useless / always sub-optimal to others. Which isn't to say things have to be equivalent, it's desirable for a class to be better at Area / Group Damage and worse at Single Target damage or better at defense and worse at offense (or vice versa), or to do better spike damage and worse constant damage, etc.

The overwhelming majority of gamers will do what the game system rewards, rather than what is fun. If that produces a game experience that is not fun, they won't change their game play style, they will decide that the game sucks and go play something else - possibly remembering the developer in a negative light when considering future purchases.

That's the purpose of balance in single player games. Choices that are objectively (and, if you have even cursory knowledge of the game, obviously) wrong are not interesting or fun choices. And players who choose to do what isfun even when it works poorly find it more enjoyable when that choice ceases to be objectively wrong. Well, usually - there are people out there who like do "do it wrong" just for the challenge.

Not saying the game has to be perfectly balanced, but if it can be balanced better, it will almost always end up a better, more enjoyable game for more people. Sometimes, of course, that comes at a price that makes it not worthwhile, but not always or even usually.

I always bring a Hunter on my Bard's Tale excursions. The class is almost never the best choice for a slot in my party - another heavily armored multiple-hitting fighter type would serve me better if I don't want to bring a Monk. But I bring the Hunter because it's fun, for me anyway. And because the balance is close enough that I'm not to horribly penalized. The Hunter still does what he's supposed to do - stand near the front of the party, have lots of HP and good AC to soak hits, and kill one enemy per round in melee combat. He does it well enough to get by, even if a Warrior, Paladin, or Monk would do it a little better.

I can think of two instances in the original series where a Hunter can be quite useful:
1. In BT2, the Stoneblade does not appear until rather late in the game. Therefore, it can be useful to have a Hunter for the time from when enemies get high HP to when you get a Stoneblade (which is most easily obtained on the first floor of the Grey Crypt). Of course, this is assuming you aren't playing one of the 8-bit versions which, from what I hear, make it impossible to hit enemies later on without magical aid (and in the Grey Crypt, you can forget about magical aid and will have to use thrown and breath weapons in those versions (unless item spells work there, which they don't in the Commodore 64 version)). (Be careful: In some versions, including the DOS versions, a Hunter's critical rate will overflow and become very low if leveled up too much. The DOS version of BT1 doesn't have this bug, so you can train a Hunter there and then transfer to BT2; if you don't level in BT2, you can maintain a near 100% critical rate.)
2. In the 16-bit versions of BT3 (DOS and Amiga), the Stoneblade is broken; as in, it does not petrify enemies like it's supposed to. However, the Hunter's critial hit ability still functions, so Hunters are the only ones who can critical hit without using magic (which is useful since some end-game enemies are effectively immune to magic in at least the DOS version). This does not apply to the 8-bit versions, where the Stoneblade actually works correctly, but at least you have the option of changing your Hunter into a Geomancer midway through the game (trading critical hits for magic and access to all Warrior and Archmage equipment).