| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| SlatzGrubnik12-01-06, 11:46 AM | Which classes are considered 'balanced'? Im not strictly limiting this to the PHB, i mean from any 3.5 book. |
| Szatany12-01-06, 12:23 PM | Which classes are considered 'balanced'? Im not strictly limiting this to the PHB, i mean from any 3.5 book. I varies by person. For me, none ;) |
| SlatzGrubnik12-01-06, 12:41 PM | Hmm, the reason i ask is because i'm readying my campaing for when i get to DM (the group i play with takes turns DMing, when one campaign is done, the next person gets to DM) and I would like to limit the class choices to those that are balanced, mostly to filter out the weak ones. Any ideas? |
| Szatany12-01-06, 12:43 PM | Hmm, the reason i ask is because i'm readying my campaing for when i get to DM (the group i play with takes turns DMing, when one campaign is done, the next person gets to DM) and I would like to limit the class choices to those that are balanced, mostly to filter out the weak ones. Any ideas? Just let anyone play anything they want, and if you notice that someone is behind others give his class a boost. There is no point in fixing stuff before you find flaws in it. Most problems with classes people will show you are situational anyway and might not apply to your games. |
| MerlintheTuna12-01-06, 12:50 PM | What classes are "balanced" depends on where you want to balance things at. For example, you can say that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are balanced against each other and everyone else needs to pick up the slack. Alternatively, you can say that the Ranger, Rogue, and Barbarian are balanced and that the others need to scale up or down accordingly. It'd probably be best to try to tier the classes to answer this question with any sort of accuracy. So Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Artificers fall in the top tier. Maybe add Sorcerers and Favored Souls in too, though there's argument to be had there. Below that you have some of the powerful but not overwhelming classes -- maybe the Beguiler/Warmage/Dread Necro, Duskblade, and so on -- gradually going down until the "Borderline useless, what were they thinking" level. |
| travellersside12-01-06, 01:10 PM | What classes are "balanced" depends on where you want to balance things at. The ideal thing to balance them against is, not each other, but against the challenges that they'd be expected to encounter. If you have a primarily social game, then it's obvious that the bard is vastly over-powered, wheareas if the game is a total hack-fest, then the bard is pretty weak (certainly not useless though) Likewise, if you have a low magic setting, then magical classes will dominate, since their powers come from their spells, and they have proportionately more magical power than those around them. On the other hand, in a setting where you have an abundance of magic items - easily obtained and custom-crafted - non-casters get a major power-up. So, firstly, you see what the campaign emphasises, then you see which classes contribute to this, and which don't. If a class consistently, in a variety of situations, does worse than other classes do, then that class is weak. Likewise, if a class dominates the majority of situations it's put into, it's over-powered. Unfortunately, the majority of monsters - certainly the newer, shinier ones - require a lot of power to handle. Usually it's essential to have strong magic on your side, which causes classes that have no magic to lag behind. So, how versatile is a particular class? Can it cover several bases? How does it fit in with the rest of the party? My understanding is that a group composed of a ranger, druid, artificer and warlock will handle situations better than a standard fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard. |
| Nitan12-01-06, 01:14 PM | The Rogue seems to be "balanced" as in being able to be useful in pretty much all situations but not dominating. When it comes to balanced against monsters of appropriate level, the full spell casters do appropriately. |
| SlatzGrubnik12-01-06, 01:29 PM | Well, i was thinking of an arctic setting with relatively low magic.. magic is a necessary tool, life is harsh, adventuring is dangerous and gritty. A sort of barbaric, tribal setting. |
| Tony Vargas12-01-06, 01:49 PM | Which classes are considered 'balanced'? Im not strictly limiting this to the PHB, i mean from any 3.5 book.It's very much a matter of degree and varies a lot from one campaign to another, but I'd tag the fighter, sorcerer, and rogue as the best-balanced of the core classes. The Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and Scout are also pretty solid, and, though I haven't seen it in action enough to be sure, the Warlock looks pretty decent in theory. The Bard and Monk aren't exactly badly imbalanced, but they're not very consistent from campaign to campaign, nor in the standard 4-character party - in larger parties I think they can be a good fit, and be basically balanced, though. The Monk tends to get a little crazy the more a campaign deviates from the usual wealth/level guidelines, however. The Cleric and Wizard have some serious balance issues - it's not that they're automatically imbalanced, it's just that the range of player behavoir and campaign style within which they remain balanced can be pretty darn narrow. The Druid - thanks to Wildshape working like Polymorph, and Natural Spell not working like Metamagick - is just hopeless. Of course, class balance can be wildly distorted just by adding the wrong mix of non-core material, or placing a lot of emphasis on one aspect or another of your campaign, or by players focused on defeating the game rather than enjoying it. Well, i was thinking of an arctic setting with relatively low magic.. magic is a necessary tool, life is harsh, adventuring is dangerous and gritty. A sort of barbaric, tribal setting.As has been pointed out, 'low magic' in the sense of fewer/less-available magic items skews things towards the casters (actually, away from the non-casters). This isn't devestating, though. Non-casters tend to be more balanced classes, and, if the party responds to the relative lack of items apropriately (by compensating with increased use of buff spells, particularly things like Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestments, etc on the entire party), the overall effectiveness of the party won't particularly suffer (casters will have fewer spells left over, but if the challenges are similarly 'low magic' there shouldn't be as many encounters that demand spellcasting to resolve, either). OTOH, it does open up the possibilty of the party using thier casters to dominate - either the casters dominate, or the party overwhelms the opposition with the magic made available by thier casters. That can happen if you set up the world, including the opposition, to be light on magic in general, and casters in particular - while leaving caster classes entirely open for PCs to choose. Getting rid of some of those classes, or allowing only one or two in the party could address that issue, too - but, whatever the aproach, going 'low magic' creates some serious challenges for the DM, both in terms of class balance, and in terms of creating aporpieate challenges. |
| SlatzGrubnik12-01-06, 04:58 PM | Well, the past few campaigns have been pretty much 'do what you want'... so we have some pretty outrageous stuff going on, and while everyone has LA +1 and higher characters, or classes from books that seem to OWN everything, i tend to stick with more basic stuff, like a pure wizard, using feats from other books as well. Until the release of Complete Mage, i constantly died, and was resurrected by PCs and NPCs alike, like its no big deal (we JUST reached 8th level). Now, i use the new reserve feats, and other stuff, and i seem to be catching up with the power of the others. Its just annoying. So, i'd like a more 'realistic' (albeit fantasy) setting, I'm strongly leaning toward using the Generic Class (or variant thereof) from Unearthed Arcana because of our recent games. |
| Lina_Inverse12-01-06, 06:00 PM | Balance comes in tiers in D&D. From campaign busters, to overpowered, to balanced, to underpowered, to lacking. Each means different things in there own right. Ill only mention "core" ie srd material. Campaign Busters:If played intelligently, your campaign is doomed. These will completely overshadow other characters in there intended roles, as well as completely dominate the party power wise. Cleric&Druid obviously. Overpowered:These classes are overpowered, but wont ruin a campaign or overshadow other characters in there intended roles. Wizard, Sorcerer as well but overshadowed by his big brother. Balanced:These classes have effective roles, stack up against challenges well, and certainly wont break the game if you understand them. Rogues, Barbarians, Psion, Psywarrior and Bard. Underpowered:These classes fill a niche and role, aren't utterly terrible but aren't quite upto the challenges presented to the players. Paladin, Ranger. Lacking:These classes not only dont fill an effective role in the party, but they are unable to compete with appropriate challenges. Fighter, Monk, Soul Knife. |
| Lecen_of_Mitran12-01-06, 06:36 PM | Balance comes in tiers in D&D. From campaign busters, to overpowered, to balanced, to underpowered, to lacking. Each means different things in there own right. Ill only mention "core" ie srd material. Campaign Busters:If played intelligently, your campaign is doomed. These will completely overshadow other characters in there intended roles, as well as completely dominate the party power wise. Cleric&Druid obviously. Overpowered:These classes are overpowered, but wont ruin a campaign or overshadow other characters in there intended roles. Wizard, Sorcerer as well but overshadowed by his big brother. Balanced:These classes have effective roles, stack up against challenges well, and certainly wont break the game if you understand them. Rogues, Barbarians, Psion, Psywarrior and Bard. Underpowered:These classes fill a niche and role, aren't utterly terrible but aren't quite upto the challenges presented to the players. Paladin, Ranger. Lacking:These classes not only dont fill an effective role in the party, but they are unable to compete with appropriate challenges. Fighter, Monk, Soul Knife. Everybody hates the Fighter... |
| Szatany12-01-06, 07:02 PM | Balance comes in tiers in D&D. From campaign busters, to overpowered, to balanced, to underpowered, to lacking. Each means different things in there own right. Ill only mention "core" ie srd material. Campaign Busters:If played intelligently, your campaign is doomed. These will completely overshadow other characters in there intended roles, as well as completely dominate the party power wise. Cleric&Druid obviously. Overpowered:These classes are overpowered, but wont ruin a campaign or overshadow other characters in there intended roles. Wizard, Sorcerer as well but overshadowed by his big brother. Balanced:These classes have effective roles, stack up against challenges well, and certainly wont break the game if you understand them. Rogues, Barbarians, Psion, Psywarrior and Bard. Underpowered:These classes fill a niche and role, aren't utterly terrible but aren't quite upto the challenges presented to the players. Paladin, Ranger. Lacking:These classes not only dont fill an effective role in the party, but they are unable to compete with appropriate challenges. Fighter, Monk, Soul Knife. Remember than all of this is only true at higher levels. I DMed few games that ended around lvl 7 or so, and at those levels things looked completly different. Just saying this is something to consider. Whenever someone compares classes, they look at lvl 20, and it's not always the case. |
| Galeigh12-01-06, 07:04 PM | DESPITE what most people will tell you anything published by WotC is balanced. There are no garuntees for third party publications however. |
| Lotus Crane12-01-06, 07:25 PM | The 3.5 ranger is probably the most well-balanced class in D&D history: •It's difficult to make brokenly powerful, but it's even more difficult to make brokenly useless. •It has a good range of abilities that allow it to contribute to nearly any situation, so that a ranger player should never get bored waiting for his party members. •It hits the "sweet spot" between being overly generalized (fighter, when built poorly, or when using only the PHB I), and being overly specialized (warmage), thus avoiding the pitfalls that each of those extremes stumble over so often. •The level spread on useful abilities is nearly perfect; you never feel that the ranger is front-loaded or back-loaded, so a ranger build should be balanced at any level, whether 1st, 10th, or 20th, and you don't experience "empty level syndrome" like characters from most other classes do. •Ranger PrC's are generally a fair trade for straight ranger, so it's purely your preference in choosing how you want to develop your character, without distracting concerns for whether you're making yourself over or under-powered. This is a refreshing change from certain classes (fighters and sorcerers should always PrC; druids and monks should never PrC). |
| SlatzGrubnik12-01-06, 07:27 PM | Are there any other classes that would compare the same as that description of the ranger? |
| Szatany12-01-06, 07:33 PM | Are there any other classes that would compare the same as that description of the ranger? Rogue most likely, followed by paladin, duskblade, and psychic warrior. Some might put bard and monk here as well, thought not many :) |
| Nexis12-01-06, 07:40 PM | The Scout from complete adventurer fits the ranged marksmen archtype pretty good. And in terms of perfect balance, I see the rogue as the perfect model of balance... Rangers seem to trail behind in our games because my DM likes to throw a wide variety of creatures... that seems to mess with their favored enemy’s ability a little. |
| SlatzGrubnik12-01-06, 07:41 PM | I personally dont like the idea of the Paladin as a standard class, and i dont like the weakness of the fighter at higher levels. I dont really like the monk class at all, without Vow of Poverty to make him broken, he seems vastly underpowered at higher levels, imo. The bard seems a bit awkward, and i dont know what to think of two spellcasting classes (sorcerer and wizard) that pretty much do the same thing, imo. Although i know there are differences, i would easily throw out the sorcerer in favour of the wizard if given a chance, but wont due to the players demand of it in favour of the wizard. Perhaps im being too picky. I'll keep thinking about this more, and read what everyone has to say. I appreciate the feedback. |
| Tony Vargas12-01-06, 08:14 PM | I personally dont like the idea of the Paladin as a standard classA lot of people agree with you, and it is the sort of thing that's a matter of DM preference. In some world, folks who just 'hear the call' one day, and become mind-numbingly Lawful-Good and smitey fits just fine; in others, it's the kind of thing you should have to work towards achieving (working better as a PrC). and i dont like the weakness of the fighter at higher levels.I'd say don't worry about the fighter - he'll be fine at lower levels, and you can can cross the 'too weak at high levels' bridge if you ever come to it. Introduce some good fighter-exit PrCs if it becomes an issue, for instance. In any case, it's much easier to deal with a PC that ends up a little weak than one that starts dominating play. I dont really like the monk class at all, without Vow of Poverty to make him broken, he seems vastly underpowered at higher levels, imo. I don't care for the concept, but it's hardly underpowered at any level when well-designed and set up against reasonable challenges ...and the other classes in the party are also meaningfully challenged (which means the party, at times, has need of a member who can be at near-full effectiveness when unarmed or similarly disadvantaged for instance). The Monk, though, works best as a 5th character, it doesn't adequately fill any one of the 4 basic party roles, though it suplements them nicely if they're already filled. Of course, the Monk /can/ break dramatically low (with a bad build, poor tactics and a small party or one that doesn't work well with the monk) or high (with VoP, or a campaign that deviates radically from the usual wealth/level guidelines). It's not a well-balanced class, but neither is it one that's always imbalanced in the same way - it depends a lot on the campaign and the party's style of play. The bard seems a bit awkward,The bard really shines as a 5th or 6th character in a largish group - especially one that's heavy on the melee types or has an archer or even warlock providing ranged support rather than an artillary piece in that role. They also do the 'face' role superbly, and provide a lot of skills, and widely-useful knowledge. The bard doesn't replace a Sorcerer or Wizard that well, but it /can/ do it, and has definite advantages of it's own, though it means modifying play style slightly. and i dont know what to think of two spellcasting classes (sorcerer and wizard) that pretty much do the same thing, imo. Although i know there are differences, i would easily throw out the sorcerer in favour of the wizard if given a chance, but wont due to the players demand of it in favour of the wizard. The difference is subtle, but profound. If you're worried about class balance and heading off abuse, the Sorcerer is less problematic (as long as you don't dangle the wrong PrCs in front of it) than the wizard by a large margin. |
| Nitan12-01-06, 08:25 PM | DESPITE what most people will tell you anything published by WotC is balanced. Hahahahaha. A very funny joke. A good way to break up a potentially tense situation. Whew. It's been a while since I've seen such pure comedy in the D&D boards. -Edit- Indeed, in my eyes, the Bard is pretty awkward. It's a fun class to play but it's particularly good at anything nor is is particularly powerful. If you decide to abuse the all too easily abused Bluff and Diplomacy rules though, it's a game breaker. It's obviously a support class and very few people like playing second fiddle. That's partly why clerics are fairly unpopular despite the "omg pwn" power they have. |
| Galeigh12-01-06, 08:29 PM | Hahahahaha. A very funny joke. A good way to break up a potentially tense situation. Whew. It's been a while since I've seen such pure comedy in the D&D boards. I love you're sarcasm, too bad i wasn't joking :twocents: |
| DragonChild_12-01-06, 08:33 PM | Galeigh, you claim that the ability for level 17 characters to get +tenmillion to all stats, saves, checks, and every spell at will is balanced. You claim that the ability to instantly kill anyone, no save, no sr, from another plane is balanced. You claim that getting triple digit caster levels and using holy word to instantly kill any enemy, including instantly killing GODS, no save, no SR, is balanced. Would you like to take that claim back, or do you stand by your ignorance? EDIT: How can both the 3.0 and 3.5 ranger be balanced? The 3.5 ranger is a direct power up of the 3.0 ranger. Clearly, they can't BOTH be balanced, but they're both printed by wizards. Really, the question extends to the entirety of the revision as a whole. |
| Nitan12-01-06, 08:35 PM | I love you're sarcasm, too bad i wasn't joking :twocents: ...do you honestly believe everything Wizards prints is balanced? Please explain. Considering the numerous attempts at balancing Polymorph alone, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. But still, I have been shot down before. You might do it again. Please don't commit Oberoni Fallacy while explaining. -Edit- DragonChild, do you mind me having a quote of yours in my signature? |
| Galeigh12-01-06, 08:37 PM | Galeigh, you claim that the ability for level 17 characters to get +tenmillion to all stats, saves, checks, and every spell at will is balanced. You claim that the ability to instantly kill anyone, no save, no sr, from another plane is balanced. You claim that getting triple digit caster levels and using holy word to instantly kill any enemy, including instantly killing GODS, no save, no SR, is balanced. Would you like to take that claim back, or do you stand by your ignorance? Name a class that w/o cross classing (You can use PrC's however) and loop holing that can do what you say (provide proof) THEN I will take back my statement. |
| Tony Vargas12-01-06, 08:47 PM | Galeigh, you claim that the ability for level 17 characters to get +tenmillion to all stats, saves, checks, and every spell at will is balanced. You claim that the ability to instantly kill anyone, no save, no sr, from another plane is balanced. You claim that getting triple digit caster levels and using holy word to instantly kill any enemy, including instantly killing GODS, no save, no SR, is balanced. Would you like to take that claim back, or do you stand by your ignorance?Heh. Most of that is based on rather dubious interpretations - yeah, WotC published some stuff that could be taken as allowing anything up to Pun-Pun. But, it could also be taken seriously. I'd venture to say that the balance point of the game becomes harder to find, and less ...hm... stable... the more stuff is published. So, maybe WotC puts out balanced material - but balance is a matter of degree, and it's certainly /less/ well-balanced the more you throw into the mix. How can both the 3.0 and 3.5 ranger be balanced? The 3.5 ranger is a direct power up of the 3.0 ranger. Clearly, they can't BOTH be balanced, but they're both printed by wizards.I assume he was talking about 3.5, specifically. But, the 3.5 ranger is not a pure power-up. He gets feats over 3 levels that the 3.0 ranger got at 1st, and he's down hps. Sure, it's obvious he comes out ahead, but it's not quite that bad. Besides, one's 3.5, the other's 3.0 - you can't have both in the same context to be not balanced with eachother. |
| Galeigh12-01-06, 08:52 PM | Heh. Most of that is based on rather dubious interpretations - yeah, WotC published some stuff that could be taken as allowing anything up to Pun-Pun. But, it could also be taken seriously. I'd venture to say that the balance point of the game becomes harder to find, and less ...hm... stable... the more stuff is published. So, maybe WotC puts out balanced material - but balance is a matter of degree, and it's certainly /less/ well-balanced the more you throw into the mix. I assume he was talking about 3.5, specifically. But, the 3.5 ranger is not a pure power-up. He gets feats over 3 levels that the 3.0 ranger got at 1st, and he's down hps. Sure, it's obvious he comes out ahead, but it's not quite that bad. Besides, one's 3.5, the other's 3.0 - you can't have both in the same context to be not balanced with eachother. Yes we're reffering to 3.5 rules, since it is the most used rule set of the two. |
| DragonChild_12-01-06, 08:55 PM | Besides, one's 3.5, the other's 3.0 - you can't have both in the same context to be not balanced with eachother. Right, but my point is, are they BOTH balanced with the fighter? Are both the 3.0 and 3.5 barbarian balanced with the fighter? What about the bard? Clearly, there has to be SOME imbalance, in order there to be some fix needed. Name a class that w/o cross classing (You can use PrC's however) and loop holing that can do what you say (provide proof) THEN I will take back my statement. Gladly! Galeigh, you claim that the ability for level 17 characters to get +tenmillion to all stats, saves, checks, and every spell at will is balanced. Two choices here. 1) 3.5 Shapechange + Zodar (Fiend Folio) lets you have Wish with no XP cost. 2) Binding and summoning a creature that gives Wish as a spell like ability. Note that at level 17, you have dominate monster. You do the math. So, you have Wish either as a Spell-Like or Supernatural ability. This is what happens. You use that Wish to ask for WHATEVER ITEM YOU WANT to be created. I suggest you go for a custom epic item that has as much power as you can possibly get. Then, that item is CREATED - it's not taken, it CANNOT be screwed with, no more than the DM can say fireball drops a whale on your head. In exchange for creating the item, the Wish spell gains an XP Component cost of a huge, huge amount. Only... you're using it as Sp or Su, which means that component cost immediately goes away. You claim that the ability to instantly kill anyone, no save, no sr, from another plane is balanced. Gate. You claim that getting triple digit caster levels and using holy word to instantly kill any enemy, including instantly killing GODS, no save, no SR, is balanced. Aka, the Word. Not allowed under your criteria, but still quite possible. EDIT: Just to say... yes, I do feel that many classes are underpowered. However, I also feel that D&D3.5 is one of the most balanced RPGs out there. Other RPGs require total rewrites of sections to use properly, or are just plain designed without balance in mind. The fact that so many people think D&D has no balance problems is proof that it's a pretty good system overall. However, to claim that there ARE no problems - that no such things exist - is foolish. Noone is perfect, especially not designers. It's better to acknowledge, and fix the bugs in the system then let them sit. |
| Argaud12-01-06, 08:57 PM | Rogue most likely, followed by paladin, duskblade, and psychic warrior. Some might put bard and monk here as well, thought not many :) Paladin is pretty frontloaded, though :) What is too powerful or two weak seems to vary with each person. I think the classes are pretty well balanced until level 10-12. Then the cleric starts quicken spells and takes the lead in raw power. Wizards also become very powerful, but only later than the cleric, at levels ~15 and over. So many people say the druid is overpowered that they must have a point, even though I have not seen that in my games. |
| Galeigh12-01-06, 09:04 PM | Right, but my point is, are they BOTH balanced with the fighter? Are both the 3.0 and 3.5 barbarian balanced with the fighter? What about the bard? Clearly, there has to be SOME imbalance, in order there to be some fix needed. Gladly! Galeigh, you claim that the ability for level 17 characters to get +tenmillion to all stats, saves, checks, and every spell at will is balanced. Two choices here. 1) 3.5 Shapechange + Zodar (Fiend Folio) lets you have Wish with no XP cost. 2) Binding and summoning a creature that gives Wish as a spell like ability. Note that at level 17, you have dominate monster. You do the math. So, you have Wish either as a Spell-Like or Supernatural ability. This is what happens. You use that Wish to ask for WHATEVER ITEM YOU WANT to be created. I suggest you go for a custom epic item that has as much power as you can possibly get. Then, that item is CREATED - it's not taken, it CANNOT be screwed with, no more than the DM can say fireball drops a whale on your head. In exchange for creating the item, the Wish spell gains an XP Component cost of a huge, huge amount. Only... you're using it as Sp or Su, which means that component cost immediately goes away. You claim that the ability to instantly kill anyone, no save, no sr, from another plane is balanced. Gate. You claim that getting triple digit caster levels and using holy word to instantly kill any enemy, including instantly killing GODS, no save, no SR, is balanced. Aka, the Word. Not allowed under your criteria, but still quite possible. EDIT: Just to say... yes, I do feel that many classes are underpowered. However, I also feel that D&D3.5 is one of the most balanced RPGs out there. Other RPGs require total rewrites of sections to use properly, or are just plain designed without balance in mind. The fact that so many people think D&D has no balance problems is proof that it's a pretty good system overall. However, to claim that there ARE no problems - that no such things exist - is foolish. Noone is perfect, especially not designers. It's better to acknowledge, and fix the bugs in the system then let them sit. Ok, you have me on the final statement, I'll concede there, but there's one flaw. Even if an ability is SP or SU if it has an XP cost, that must still be paid, I'm quite sure of this, having read it somewhere in a 3.5 book. EDIT: Also, I believe this thread is reffering to classes not races... |
| DragonChild_12-01-06, 09:06 PM | Not quite. The XP cost is quite specifically added to the component. An Su ability quite specifically has NO components. What you say might be a pretty common houserule, but I've never seen it in print. And even if it was in print, it was in print after the first three core books were released. In other words... a fix. As far as I know, there's only one Sp ability in the entire game that requires XP, and it's quite specifically the exception (Heir of Siberys). |
| Galeigh12-01-06, 09:12 PM | Even if you are right about that, you missed my edit, you used a race to get that wish, this thread is about classes, and my challenge to you was to find a CLASS that could do what you say, and you failed. |
| nastynate12-01-06, 09:14 PM | Over-powered: Archivist, Cleric, and Druid These classes fill multiple party roles as well as, if not better than most other classes. High-powered: Most full-casting classes (wizard, favored soul, archivist [arguably over-powered], and sorcerer for example) Both powerful and diverse. Middle of the road: Niche full-casting classes (beguiler, dread necro, war mage), ToB classes, barbarian, rogue, paladin [arguably low-powered], ranger, duskblade, knight, scout. Either powerful in one specific role, or diverse enough to contribute in many different roles. Low-powered: fighter, ninja, spellthief, samurai, swashbuckler, healer, marshal, bard, monk, hexblade [arguably middle of the road], warlock Not particularly powerful in any one role, extremely limited in options, MAD, poor class feature synergy, or simply trumped by something that does the same thing better. Some of the low-powered classes are actually quite good at low to mid levels (like the fighter and warlock for example), but their power tends to taper off around 8th level or so, and they never really catch back up. If you use psionics, the psion, wilder, ardent, erudite, lurk, and psychic warrior fall into the middle of the road mostly, though they will seem high-powered if you don't run multiple encounters per day. The divine mind and soulknife however are both terribly weak. PrCs throw the whole thing out of wack. Once you start mixing and matching levels, feats, and class features, it becomes much more difficult to gauge the power-level accurately, and you'll have to judge on an individual build-by-build basis. -Peace- |
| DragonChild_12-01-06, 09:22 PM | Even if you are right about that, you missed my edit, you used a race to get that wish, this thread is about classes, and my challenge to you was to find a CLASS that could do what you say, and you failed. No, I used a spell. Are you saying I'm not allowed to count spells that turn you into other things? Am I not allowed to count spells AT ALL, because they aren't a class? What about weapons - those aren't classes, either, and neither are feats! |
| Galeigh12-01-06, 09:27 PM | No, I used a spell. Are you saying I'm not allowed to count spells that turn you into other things? Am I not allowed to count spells AT ALL, because they aren't a class? What about weapons - those aren't classes, either, and neither are feats! I have no problem with you using a spell, however, that spell was not gained through a spellcasting class. You used a racial feature to gain the spell. I may support WotC Classes but when a monster is used as a character race ANY class can be severly broken. |
| DragonChild_12-01-06, 09:28 PM | Also, you specifically said "Anything published by WOTC is balanced". The thread may be on classes, but your statement most certainly is not. |
| DragonChild_12-01-06, 09:29 PM | Ok, you're apparently misunderstanding how this works, or I'm being unclear. You have a character who is a level 17 wizard. He can be of ANY race. He uses shapechange, to become a Zodar. That grants him Wish, as a supernatural ability. Or, you have a character who is a high level wizard, and binds a genie capable of casting wish as a spell-like ability. You then diplomacize/charm/dominate that genie, and enjoy your wish. There's no "Monster as a race" involved, just summoning and shapechanging. |
| Galeigh12-01-06, 09:31 PM | Also, you specifically said "Anything published by WOTC is balanced". The thread may be on classes, but your statement most certainly is not. Ok granted I did say that, and if left to thier intended purposes the published material from WotC is balanced. It's dipping, loop-holing, and monsters as charcter races that break classes. Edit: Ok, very well. I concede to that. I'm going to assume whatever DM you happened to playing with actually allowed those wishes. I take back my statement. |
| SlatzGrubnik12-01-06, 09:36 PM | Anyway, it seems, from a few posts, that the ranger and rogue are the best balanced. According to these same posts, which arcane/divine/melee classes would be en par with these two? |
| DragonChild_12-01-06, 09:39 PM | Edit: Ok, very well. I concede to that. I'm going to assume whatever DM you happened to playing with actually allowed those wishes. I take back my statement. Technically, Wish is only twistable if you wish for something outside the spell's boundaries. This is not outside the spells boudaries. No DM I know would allow this... but that's because they admit it's broken, and fix it. ;) |
| Tony Vargas12-01-06, 09:43 PM | Anyway, it seems, from a few posts, that the ranger and rogue are the best balanced. According to these same posts, which arcane/divine/melee classes would be en par with these two?In terms of balance, all the classic melee classes are on par with the Ranger and Rogue - different, but comparably well-balanced. Among the casters, the Sorcerer and Bard are about it - the others are too easily abused to be put in the same category - and, that's cutting the bard a little slack: he can 'break low' pretty easily, or could pull some diplomacy cheese if the DM isn't thinking.. Of course, that's just considering the classes, with the right race, non-core feats, and PrC, some of the melee classes can get out of hand (not really overpowered, so much as overspecialized, and, thus, poorly balanced). |
| SlatzGrubnik12-01-06, 09:46 PM | Hmm, it seems that regaurdless of how i design my campaign, nothing can be truly balanced. Eventually, classes may become broken/useless, even if i try to implement safeguards around it... |
| Tony Vargas12-01-06, 10:05 PM | Yeah, it's an art, not a science. A lot of it has to do with how willful your players are about defeating the game - trying to win at the drawing board, I guess, might be another way to put it. The game's not meant to be won or lost at chargen, but played. If you get into a nerf vs exploit contest with your players, it detracts from everyone's enjoyment. If you don't, and have some players who are better optimizers, some of the characters dominate, and others are left behind; not quite as bad, but still problematic, is if your players are all proficienc optimizers - it makes them harder to challenge without actually overwhelming (the more heavily-powergamed the party, the more challenges tend to fall into two categories: either so easy as to seem trivial or so startlingly difficult as to threaten a TPK), that you're also forced to use higher ELs can mess up advancement, too. DMing is just plain not an easy task. I've found that the best DMs are open about simply asking players to refrain from excessive cheese. Some might back it up with the threat of excessive cheese showing up in response (the DM has access to infinite cheese, afterall), or by saying that nerfing will only happen if you give him no other choice - but, you can often do it more subtly when discussing characters before the campaign starts. |
| SlatzGrubnik12-01-06, 10:12 PM | @ Tony: Thank you for that, i really want the players to enjoy themselves, but i get so much 'excessive cheese' coming at me its rediculous. I get anywhere from broken melee builds to spellcasters that can do anything they want to custom made classes that end up dominating everything, but on paper look ok. So... i just want to try to limit the classes this time around, thus the reason for this post. lol |
| Lotus Crane12-01-06, 10:26 PM | How can both the 3.0 and 3.5 ranger be balanced? The 3.5 ranger is a direct power up of the 3.0 ranger. Clearly, they can't BOTH be balanced, but they're both printed by wizards. Really, the question extends to the entirety of the revision as a whole. Hmm, I don't see Galeigh mentioning anything about either ranger, and I was specifically referring to the 3.5 version. That being said, the 3.0 ranger was a bit underpowered, and aside from losing an average of 1 hit point per level, yes, the 3.5 ranger is a considerable improvement. Not enough to break it; just enough to make it the most perfectly balanced class. |
| Seerow12-01-06, 10:29 PM | Hmm, I don't see Galeigh mentioning anything about either ranger, and I was specifically referring to the 3.5 version. Dragonchild was referring to the mention from Galeigh saying every class ever posted by Wizards is balanced. His reasoning is, this can't be true, because the 3.0 Ranger and 3.5 ranger are on totally different power levels. Therefore the 3.0 Ranger must be underpowered, disproving the statement, OR the 3.5 ranger must be overpowered, disproving the statement. Either way, the claim that all classes posted by Wizards are balanced is debunked. |
| RadicalTaoist12-01-06, 10:30 PM | I personally place the Psychic Warrior at the perfect center point of my balance paradigm. |
| SlatzGrubnik12-01-06, 11:00 PM | I love psionics, however, i dont believe my players will take kindly to it. So, im thinking of not even implementing it. Specifically two of my players refuse to believe anything other than "psionics are too powerful". And i dont know how to implement psionics correctly, i suppose. |
| RadicalTaoist12-02-06, 12:50 AM | Check out the Psionics boards - we'll be glad to answer questions you have. This thread should deal with most of your problems. Here should link you to other threads that could help. |
| Tony Vargas12-04-06, 06:02 PM | I get anywhere from broken melee builds to spellcasters that can do anything they want to custom made classes that end up dominating everything, but on paper look ok. So... i just want to try to limit the classes this time around, thus the reason for this post. lolIt's fair to want to keep things simple, and I can see how frustrating it would be to get players pushing the envelope until it bursts. The problem of course, is also one of balancing your desire with balance, with your player's desires for imbalance (presumably in thier favor). Many players see having an overpowered character as a justifiable reward for 'cleverness' (even though it's just a matter of posting the right question of the CharOp board to get a broken build made for you). They just won't have fun if you tighten things up on them too much. I don't know your players, so I can't tell you were to strike a happy medium with you. Another aproach, though, is to start with the campaign, and choose permiseable classes, spells, feats, PrCs, etc, to support the campaign tone. It doesn't matter, then, if some characters get a little overpowered, as the ways they get overpowered will mesh with the setting in a way that helps bring it to life and make it more enjoyable. The key to doing that is to have a clear vision of your campaign and setting... |
| BrotherRichard12-04-06, 06:33 PM | WOW: ToB classes Extremely Overpowered: Cleric and Druid Overpowered: All full arcane casters (including niche), psion, psychic warrior, archivist, artificer Slightly Powerful: Warlock, Duskblade, Dragonfire Adept, Shadowcaster Balanced: Paladin, Rogue, Monk, All of Incarnum, Spellthief(to niche in my opinion), Dragon Shaman(I hate the entire concept, but it is balanced), Binder Underpowered: Hexblade, Barbarian, Mountebank, Ninja Crap: Bard, Fighter, Martial, Healer, Ranger, Swashbuckler, Samurai I think I missed a couple, so sorry. |
| Archangel6212-04-06, 06:36 PM | Balance is actually heavily based on the kind of campaign. I don't base balance on power equality, what I base it on is the ability of every player to contribute meaningfully in the campaign. If a player cannot, then there is an issue. What you might want to do is to ask players want to try and work from there. BTW, where is the Mountebank from? |
| HamHam12-04-06, 06:38 PM | Balanced: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Bard, Warlock, Swashbuckler, Warmage, Wu-jen, ToB Too weak: The rest of Core, Samurai, Hexblade Rest I'm not sure on. |
| BrotherRichard12-04-06, 06:43 PM | Mountebank is from Dragon Compendium and mountebank is better in a social settting. That is why I am playing one in it and it is still not too powerful. |
| RadicalTaoist12-04-06, 06:49 PM | ...the ToB classes more powerful than the archivist and the artificer? Psychic Warrior as powerful as the artificer?:rofl: |
| BrotherRichard12-04-06, 06:52 PM | Response: I do not want to turn this into I hate ToB thread, but I do. Warblades especially. Artificers are not too powerful unless someone abuses wand abilities. Also please explain in more depth why you believe I am wrong instead of giving a generic statement. |
| Archangel6212-04-06, 06:54 PM | ...the ToB classes more powerful than the archivist and the artificer? Psychic Warrior as powerful as the artificer?:rofl: I know the feeling. Please remember folks, It's OK when Martial Classes Don't Suck |
| BrotherRichard12-04-06, 06:56 PM | Are you talking to me? because I truly believe ToB is overpowered. i do not look at it as a warrior. It is a spellcaster and i will treat it like one. It is also an extremely overpowered spellcaster. |
| Archangel6212-04-06, 06:58 PM | Are you talking to me? because I truly believe ToB is overpowered. i do not look at it as a warrior. It is a spellcaster and i will treat it like one. It is also an extremely overpowered spellcaster. Ummm, how? I've seen it in action and it is far from overpowered. More likely you're misreading rules as that is what has caused many people issues with it. That and they're generally used to martial classes sucking so they get scared when they don't. |
| BrotherRichard12-04-06, 07:04 PM | Swordsages, I can see you argument, but every battle they can throw out insane abilities such as a 100 damage fire burst (about a meteor swarm). Granted it is has bad range, but every encounter. Also warblades are the main problem with full base insane hit dice and full casting as well. |
| Archangel6212-04-06, 07:05 PM | Swordsages, I can see you argument, but every battle they can throw out insane abilities such as a 100 damage fire burst (about a meteor swarm). Granted it is has bad range, but every encounter. Also warblades are the main problem with full base insane hit dice and full casting as well. Ummm, no they can't. They can't get anything like this until very high levels at which point casters are far outperforming them and abilities like that are generally not even that useful at the levels gained. |
| DragonChild_12-04-06, 07:07 PM | You think the Monteback is playable? My god, someone get this man a brain, FAST! That's the class that gets a nearly worthless "sneak attack" that can barely never be used, a bunch of spells that an arcane trickster or someone with UMD could easily duplicate, and NO useful class features to speak of. Seriously, there's no reason not play on, at all. You can do EVERYTHING better as a sorcerer/rogue, no exaggeration. EDIT: I'm going to be harsher here. You said "underpowered". The monteback is NOT underpowered - it's a freaking NPC class. The Monteback is weaker than an Adept! There is no way it deserves such a high position on your chart there. It makes me seriously question your sanity. |
| RadicalTaoist12-04-06, 10:30 PM | Effect, BrotherRichard, effect. On the first round of combat, a Swordsage of high level can do 100 damage allowing a Reflex save, or lots of ability damage allowing a Fortitude save. A Psychic Warrior of high level can spend a round buffing himself into an actual combat challenge. Hopefully neither gets killed when the monsters of that CR actually retaliate. Meanwhile, Artificers have been doing 90d6+ damage with wands that are well within their crafting abilities since about level 9, and at that level wizards can start using the Telekinesis + Shrink Item trick (completely core) to do damage in the range of oh, thousands of d6 if he wants to get perverse and hundreds of d6 if he's not that sadistic. Martial Adepts and Psychic Warriors don't have infinite wealth loops. Martial Adepts and Psychic Warriors don't have the widest and most versatile spell lists in the game. Martial Adepts and Psychic Warriors don't have the ability to call outsiders like tavern wenches. Martial Adepts and Psychic Warriors don't have the ability to trap foes on the Positive Energy Plane or attack you from miles away with no chance of counterattack. Martial Adepts and Psychic Warriors don't have shapechanging magic. Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Artificers, and Archivists do. Psions have less of this but still a few fault lines. Martial Adepts and Psychic Warriors just don't. With the exceptions of a very few maneuvers and powers (White Raven Tactics is the only hole I can think of in ToB, and the few problem powers in the XPH aren't on the psywar list), I can't think of any martial adepts or psywars that are out of line for monsters they are expected to face of the CR they'd have to. |
| Nitan12-04-06, 11:48 PM | Balanced: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Bard, Warlock, Swashbuckler, Warmage, Wu-jen, ToB Too weak: The rest of Core, Samurai, Hexblade Rest I'm not sure on. You serious? I notice some major power discrepancies between the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid combo and the likes of the Warlock, Swashbuckler, and Warmage. |
| Archangel6212-05-06, 12:05 AM | You serious? I notice some major power discrepancies between the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid combo and the likes of the Warlock, Swashbuckler, and Warmage. My guess had more to do with internal balance and the idea of scaling. The Warlock doesn't scale perfectly but it's still a sight better than the fighter. |
| OneWinged4ngel12-05-06, 12:20 AM | Uhhh, Swashbucklers? Balanced? WTF? They're a three level long class! The others you listed aren't on the level fo the druid,wizard, or cleric either. |
| Nitan12-05-06, 12:33 AM | My guess had more to do with internal balance and the idea of scaling. The Warlock doesn't scale perfectly but it's still a sight better than the fighter. Ah. I guess I understand. But Swashbuckler? Come on. Like OneWinged said, 3 level dip! I mean, the Wizard, Cleric, Druid trio works nicely when compared against a bunch of equal CR challenges, getting a bit better than 50% success rate. The Rogue is balanced as it seems to be the midway between the top tier classes and the Complete Warrior Samurai and Healers of the world. It also is beginner friendly and effective both in and out of combat. |
| HamHam12-05-06, 01:20 AM | Uhhh, Swashbucklers? Balanced? WTF? They're a three level long class! The others you listed aren't on the level fo the druid,wizard, or cleric either. Okay, yeah, Swashbuckler needs to actually get something significant at higher levels. Not having ever used more than three levels of it in a build, I suppose I forgot why I haven't used more than three levels. ;) But Warlocks are fine. Between Utterdark Blast, Words of Changing, and taking 10 on UMD they can compete even in the end game. Warmages are Evocation specialists. And they are darn good at it. The fact that Evocation is lame is not their fault. Rogue's have trapfinding, UMD, and social skills. Sneak Attack, Move Silently, and Hide. Etc. Bards get a little bit of everything. |
| OneWinged4ngel12-05-06, 01:40 AM | Okay, yeah, Swashbuckler needs to actually get something significant at higher levels. Not having ever used more than three levels of it in a build, I suppose I forgot why I haven't used more than three levels. ;) But Warlocks are fine. Between Utterdark Blast, Words of Changing, and taking 10 on UMD they can compete even in the end game. Warmages are Evocation specialists. And they are darn good at it. The fact that Evocation is lame is not their fault. Rogue's have trapfinding, UMD, and social skills. Sneak Attack, Move Silently, and Hide. Etc. Bards get a little bit of everything. Swashbucklers *suck*. The others are okay. All of them pale agains the Wizard, Druid, and Cleric. Those with UMD do alright because they can pay to kinda pretend that they're a wizard, druid, or cleric for a bit. Bards don't really get a little bit of everything; they're useless frontliners and can't do much of anything in melee, nor can they expect to take a hit... so they're not really jacks of all trades. The Cleric is a better jack of all trades than the Bard. The Artificer is a great jack of all trades. The bards... they're more "mediocre support, some occasional very nice individual spells, and a decent amount of skills. Except now you have to spend those 2 extra skill points you gained to make up for them splitting up Perform." |
| HamHam12-05-06, 02:01 AM | All of them pale agains the Wizard, Druid, and Cleric. None of those can do what a Rogue can. Warlocks need to specialize, which is itself often a weakness, but that doesn't mean it's unbalanced. Those with UMD do alright because they can pay to kinda pretend that they're a wizard, druid, or cleric for a bit. And they can pretend to be any one of those, while Wizards can't pretend to be Druids or Clerics, and so forth. Bards don't really get a little bit of everything; they're useless frontliners and can't do much of anything in melee, nor can they expect to take a hit... so they're not really jacks of all trades. They get spells, skills, and are better at fighting than Wizards. That's a bit of everything. The Cleric is a better jack of all trades than the Bard.[quote] Clerics get crap for skills. [quote]The Artificer is a great jack of all trades. Artificers aren't balanced. |
| Sphyre12-05-06, 02:06 AM | Balanced classes? What is balance? When you weigh any two objects against each other and they have the same weight. What does this mean in class balance terms? That when you look at two different classes they both bring to the table through their strengths and weaknesses about the same weight, that the real deciding factor in playing one over another is simply preference, not a power difference. As such, if you pick any two classes in D&D, and there is an imbalance, EVERY class is imbalanced. Some may be seen as overpowered, others as underpowered, and others may seem like they are halfway inbetween the worst of the worst and the best of the best. But all it takes is just two things that are imbalanced to create an imbalance for the game. You cannot have a balanced class when imbalanced ones exist as your options. As such, I beleive that if you allow all classes, and everyone will be able to play something they enjoy. The biggest problem coming in when someone wants to play an "underpowered" class and everyone excels over them, this is where the "Class X Fixes" posts tend to come in. I think what a lot of the power creep is doing, is releasing more things on the medium to higher part of the spectrum. It doesn't do anything to "fix" the lower things on the spectrum, but what it does is gives you more options to play something high on the spectrum without having to be a wizard, cleric, or druid to play an effective character. |