Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Calliban 02-15-05, 01:10 PM	After reading the FAQ and "Ultimate (put a class here)3.5 Thread"s, I am convinced that even in the 3.5, there is no real balance. Otherwise, why would the non primary spell casters be "2 level classes"? I'm new to 3.5, as you already know. And I'm one of that guys that keep trying to balance everything. I know that some of you will tell me that there is no such thing as balance. "Druid is just great" or "Do not get fighter odd levels". I'm sure that there are people here who created solutions to balance the classes. Ways to ensure that a 20 level Fighter would be as powerful and optimized as a 20 level Druid, Rogue, Paladin, Monk, etc. Let us limit this topic only to the main, basic classes, from PHB. Just select one class (like Druid or Wizard), and tell us what you would change in the rules to make it as powerful as another main class (like Fighter or Rogue). I posted it here because, as optimizers, you guys know where the power lies. So, I hope with that we (the newbies like me) could see what's wrong with some classes, and maybe we all could learn something... Thank you for your help.
Lavis Knight 02-15-05, 01:23 PM	I personally worry about the Cleric class. There are many PRC's out there for it where you lose virtually nothing at all and end up being better than the base class. Some Cleric builds can net more feats at level 1 then a Fighter and they are useful feats too! Cleric with the War Domain gains Weapon Focus which is a pretty solid feat and spells. He takes a hit to HD and BAB, although that certainly is easily made up by the Clerics spells and ability to cast in any armor. Divine power alone makes it so that you would net about as many average hit points as a barbarian and have as much BAB. However my main problems is that it is far too easy to outshine the Fighter. Good for two level dips but not much else... -Lavis :fight!:
rilem 02-15-05, 01:57 PM	This isn't optimizing, it's rule-rewriting. As such, it belongs on the classes board, not here.
catharz 02-15-05, 02:52 PM	I'll start off with my Fighter... FIGHTER Alignment: Any. Hit Die: d12. Class Skills The fighter’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spot (Wis) and Swim (Str). Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) x4. Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier. Table: The Fighter Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special 1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Bonus feat 2nd +2 +3 +0 +0 Bonus feat 3rd +3 +3 +1 +1 Bonus feat 4th +4 +4 +1 +1 Special ability 5th +5 +4 +1 +1 Bonus feat 6th +6 +5 +2 +2 Bonus feat 7th +7 +5 +2 +2 Bonus feat 8th +8 +6 +2 +2 Special ability 9th +9 +6 +3 +3 Bonus feat 10th +10 +7 +3 +3 Bonus feat 11th +11 +7 +3 +3 Bonus feat 12th +12 +8 +4 +4 Special ability 13th +13 +8 +4 +4 Bonus feat 14th +14 +9 +4 +4 Bonus feat 15th +15 +9 +5 +5 Bonus feat 16th +16 +10 +5 +5 Special ability 17th +17 +10 +5 +5 Bonus feat 18th +18 +11 +6 +6 Bonus feat 19th +19 +11 +6 +6 Bonus feat 20th +20 +12 +6 +6 Special ability Class Features All of the following are class features of the fighter. Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, medium, and light) and shields. They also begin with proficiency in either one exotic weapon, armor, or shield, or tower shields. Bonus Feats: At 1st level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The fighter gains an additional bonus feat at every level,, with the exception of levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 (levels evenly divisable by 4). These bonus feats must be drawn from the list of [general] feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums. These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. Special Abilities: On attaining 4th level, and at every 4 levels thereafter (8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th), a fighter gains a special ability of her choice from among the following options. Mettle (Ex): Some fighters have an almost supernatural ability to shrug off effects that would leave others dead. If he makes a successful Fortitude or Will saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, he instead takes no damage. Opportunist (Ex): Once per round, the fighter can make an attack of opportunity against an opponent who has just been struck for damage in melee by another character. This attack counts as the fighter’s attack of opportunity for that round. Even a fighter with the Combat Reflexes feat can’t use the opportunist ability more than once per round. Specialization (Ex): The fighter chooses a weapon with which he already has weapon focus. He gains a +1 bonus to attack and damage with that weapon for every four levels of fighter he has. Feat: A fighter may gain any feat he qualifies for in place of a special ability. I'd like to come up with more special abilities, but I'm not creative enough ;)
mean_liar 02-15-05, 03:13 PM	I don't think its possible to create a balanced system until you remove classes from it, and allow abilities, BAB, feats, spell access and other features to be purcahsed with XP. Gain XP, spend XP. No classes.
Lavis Knight 02-15-05, 03:16 PM	I don't think its possible to create a balanced system until you remove classes from it, and allow abilities, BAB, feats, spell access and other features to be purcahsed with XP. Gain XP, spend XP. No classes. Even then you could still err by making something cost more or less than it should. Although it would certainly be interesting to be able to spend points developing specified abilities as you go. Perhaps also being able to spend a few such points at character creation. Although i would insist that ability scores be kept seperate from this method. -Lavis
necrosnoop110 02-15-05, 03:43 PM	I don't think its possible to create a balanced system until you remove classes from it, and allow abilities, BAB, feats, spell access and other features to be purcahsed with XP. Gain XP, spend XP. No classes. Why would that be impossible? I do admit that this would be difficult but I don’t think it would be impossible. I think that across the board relative power equality in the PHB classes should be a goal of 4E. If all the classes have the same XP chart then they should all have relatively the same power level (this equalization can still allow for a given particular niches). But in 3E, niche or not, Fighter 20 is joke next to Wizard 20. Q: Do you think that the Ranger and Paladin are relatively on par "power" wise? Peace, Necro
Lavis Knight 02-15-05, 03:50 PM	Why would that be impossible? I do admit that this would be difficult but I don’t think it would be impossible. I think that across the board relative power equality in the PHB classes should be a goal of 4E. If all the classes have the same XP chart then they should all have relatively the same power level (this equalization can still allow for a given particular niches). But in 3E, niche or not, Fighter 20 is joke next to Wizard 20. Q: Do you think that the Ranger and Paladin are relatively on par "power" wise? Peace, Necro I feel that the Ranger has an edge over the Paladin.
Caelic 02-15-05, 03:51 PM	What would I do? I'd go back to differential experience charts. Yes, I know that it's nice and streamlined to use one experience chart for all of the classes--but by doing that, they removed a major balancing factor from first and second edition AD&D. Yes, a wizard became very powerful at high levels in first and second edition, but it took him FOREVER to get there, and he had to struggle through the lower levels first. In the meantime, the fighter was more powerful at lower levels...and, given that AD&D was designed primarily for play at levels below 14, that was a majority of the character's career, in all probability. "Balance" does not mean "equal at all levels."
necrosnoop110 02-15-05, 04:02 PM	I feel that the Ranger has an edge over the Paladin. You have to admit they are very close. What would I do? I'd go back to differential experience charts … "Balance" does not mean "equal at all levels." I agree with you that "balanced" does not necessarily mean "equal at all levels". But, I like the idea of relative equality in power levels across the classes. I would love to always play wizards but at levels 1-5 they are terribly weak. If all the classes were relatively equal in strength then it would be easier to play the character class I want regardless of the level of the campaign. To me "equal at all levels" is certainly not the only way to balance the classes but it is one way that I would be interested in seeing. (and when I say “relatively” the same in power levels it means that certain classes would be better at certain things than other classes but overall they have the same relative party worth) It comes down to why could a party of Four 1st level Fighters likely survive a game session but a party of Four 1st level Wizards could likely not? Ignoring the iconic role in game-play for a moment, I think that one should choose a character class based on interest not power level appropriateness. Fighters shouldn’t be as screwed at the high end of the 20 level scale same as the Wizard shouldn’t be screwed at the low end. If smoothing out the differences between the classes means getting rid of the Wizard's crazy Gygax-inherated spells such as Wish and toning down others such as Shapechange I say so be it. And the Druid needs a beat down at all levels or everybody else needs a raise! :P An important question in all this is where do we want to set the bar, lower everyones power relative to the Fighter or raise everyone to the Druid? Or would some middle ground be the best idea? Cheers, Necro
lonewolf 02-15-05, 05:09 PM	@Cartharz Figther: I like that one, with one exception: I think the skills should stay at 2+int and spot and listen shouldn´t be class skills for him. I also think that a few combat related feats should become figther only feats. I´ll continue with a new try on the babarian BABARIAN Alignment: Any chaotic Hit Die: 2d8 Class Skills The Babarian´s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Hide(Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Move Silently(Dex), Ride (Dex), Spot (Wis), Survival (Wis) and Swim (Str). Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) x4. Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier. Table: The Babarian Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special 1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Fast movement +10, illiteracy, rage 1/day 2nd +2 +3 +0 +0 Uncanny dodge, Rage 2/day 3rd +3 +3 +1 +1 Trap sense +1, Damage reduction 1/— 4th +4 +4 +1 +1 Rage 3/day 5th +5 +4 +1 +1 Improved uncanny dodge 6th +6 +5 +2 +2 Trap sense +2, Damage reduction 2/— 7th +7 +5 +2 +2 Rage 4/day 8th +8 +6 +2 +2 Mettle of Fortitude, Greater rage 9th +9 +6 +3 +3 Trap sense +3, Damage reduction 3/— 10th +10 +7 +3 +3 Rage 5/day 11th +11 +7 +3 +3 Fast movement +20 12th +12 +8 +4 +4 trap sense +4, Damage reduction 4/— 13th +13 +8 +4 +4 Rage 6/day 14th +14 +9 +4 +4 Indomitable will 15th +15 +9 +5 +5 Trap sense +5, Damage reduction 5/—, Mighty rage 16th +16 +10 +5 +5 rage 7/day, Slippery Mind 17th +17 +10 +5 +5 Tireless rage 18th +18 +11 +6 +6 Trap sense +6, Damage reduction 6/— 19th +19 +11 +6 +6 Rage 9/day 20th +20 +12 +6 +6 Ultimate Rage (new)Class abilities Mettle of Fortitude: Whenever he makes a successful Fortitude saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, he instead takes no damage. Ultimate Rage: At 20th level, a barbarian’s bonuses to Strength and Constitution during his rage each increase to +12, and his morale bonus on Will saves increases to +5. The penalty to AC remains at –2.
DBoot 02-15-05, 05:27 PM	Lonewolf: That would give Barbarians twice the hit dice of any other fighter. Lower it back to d12, turn Mettle of Fortitude to Mettle (general, since you have a good will save in rage to merit full Mettle), and call it a day. You really don't need those extra HP from HD, since you'll be grabbing an additional +120 HP in a rage due to Ultimate Rage anyway. Catharz: I like it, but d10 is a fine HD. Tumble might want to make its way on that list, though its really not that important. I might suggest a strong Will track, or at the very least the ability to get 'Special Ability: Fearless'. Otherwise: Yikes. Fighter becomes a true optimizers class. All those feats... I like.
Elgonn 02-15-05, 05:57 PM	An important question in all this is where do we want to set the bar, lower everyones power relative to the Fighter or raise everyone to the Druid? Or would some middle ground be the best idea? I'd betting on lowering the cleric/druid to around wizardish levels and raising the rest up to there.
Cold Napalm 02-15-05, 06:07 PM	Balance... Either druids/clerics need to be lowered to 1/2 wizard BAB or wizards/sorcerers need to be bumped up to cleric BAB + HD bump to d6 + some minor addition weapons...and then the caster classes would be more or less equal. Yes that actually is the extent of how broken clerics and druids are.
PhaedrusXY 02-15-05, 06:48 PM	I have house-ruled alot of stuff, including the Fighter, Sorcerer, and Wizard, and added tons of combat feats to the game I DM. I got the vast majority of the stuff off the WotC boards, and a bit off of other websites like Giant In The Playground (GITP). I'm not going to post all the stuff I've done here, but you can download a file with all of it here (https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jthollan/www/PlayerPacket.rtf). Briefly, I let the fighter choose bonus feats from a list of Epic feats at 12th level and up. I also gave the fighter a mechanic that is similiar to Turn Undead, and have feats based off using it. I got both these ideas off of two different "fix the fighter" threads and combined them. I can't remember who originally posted them right now, but I have it saved on my home PC. I also took some ideas from another thread about letting certain feats get better with higher fighter levels, like the AC bonus from Dodge increasing and apply to all enemies. I haven't implemented the Polymorph changes in that file, as I'd already started the game when I found them on the GITP website, and didn't want to add yet more houserules to an already heavily houseruled game after it had already started. (At least I think their still in there. I might have removed them. :D ) The wizard has the same number of spellslots per day, but can spontaneously cast the spells that he's prepared in any combo that he wants. So if a level 1 wizard prepared Burning Hands and Magic Missle, he could cast one of each, or two of either of them. The sorcerer can choose spells known from any spell list, and I added Intimidate and Bluff to his skill list. He can also choose Spell Secrets exactly like the Wu Jen in Oriental Adventures. I realize this is a huge powerup, but I hate the PHB sorcerer and would never think of playing one as-is. I thought they also needed a bit more of a beef-up considering the change that I made to the wizard. Oh yeah, and all the "hybrid" spellcasters like ranger and palladin have a caster level equal to their class level.
Otto the Bugbear 02-15-05, 07:04 PM	I recently began fooling around with the casting classes to remove a little bit of the high end power from them. Of course, I didn't want to castrate them completely, but rather just put a few more limitations on them. So far, I've only been working on the arcane caster, but the divine caster would follow much the same path. The druid is where the real problem lies in applying the same sort of system as the arcane casters have recieved. I haven't actually started DMing again yet, but I'm seriously considering these changes if/when I do. Forgive the crude wording for some of this stuff. I've only worked on it for about an hour, maybe less. Eliminate wizards and sorcerers and instead make a single caster class to cover both spell books and spontaneous casting. This caster class will be called the Arcanist. A spell book is a necessity for Arcanists. Without this spell book, the Arcanist will not be able to replenish the spells he has memorized for daily use. Without memorized spells, the Arcanist will be unable to spontaneously cast spells. An Arcanist knows a number of spells of each spell level equal to three times his intelligence modifier: i.e. intelligence 16 knows 9 spells of each spell level. Once chosen, spells in the spell book may not be changed -- so choose carefully! At each level, the Arcanist may choose any 2 spells he can cast to add to his spell book without cost. He may add other spells between level-up by paying the costs as described in the PHB(?). The number of spontaneously cast spells is wholly dependent upon the Arcanist’s charisma. These spells must be included in an Arcanist’s spell book, and count toward the limit of spells he may know. An Arcanist with a charisma score of 11-20 chooses one spell of each level to cast spontaneously; charisma 21-30 chooses two spells of each level; charisma 31-40 chooses three spells of each level. Upon attaining the ability to cast a new level of spells, the Arcanist chooses a spell he knows and may cast that spell spontaneously by losing a spell he has memorized. The Arcanist must still provide any material components or other costs associated with the spells chosen for spontaneous casting (material components, focuses, experience points, etc.). Spontaneously casting changes spells to a full round action (unless casting time began as a full round action or longer). At each even level, the Arcanist may change one spell he has chosen for spontaneous casting with another spell he knows. (may have to make this intelligence based) The save DC for any spells cast by the Arcanist are calculated by his charisma modifier. The save DC for any spells cast will be 10 + charisma modifier + spell level + special circumstances (feat, class abilities, etc.) Arcanists are also limited by what spells they may have access to. Each time an Arcanist gains a new spell level, he chooses a school of magic. From that point on, he cannot cast spells of the chosen school equal to or greater than the spell level he just gained. He can still cast spells of a lower level from the chosen school, but none from the new spell level and up. For example, upon attaining 3rd caster level, John the Wizard gains 2nd level spells. He chooses to drop divination from his accessible schools. He keeps, and may cast, any of his 1st level divination spells, but cannot learn or cast any spells from the school of divination from that point on. When he reaches 5th caster level, he chooses another school, evocation perhaps, and can not cast any spells of 3rd level or higher from the evocation school. An Arcanist also gains special powers that he may choose from the following list. These special powers are gained at 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels. ***make a chart with special powers and some way to determine how a character can gain them. "class level + int mod", "int mod + cha mod", look around for other suggestions. Summon Familiar, Scribe Scroll, some metamagic feats, some item creations feats, extra spontaneous spell, +1 DC for chosen school, +1 caster level for chosen school, etc.*** Very much still a work in progress. I was trying to make it so that the casters still have a good amount of power, without being all-powerful. Wizards in particular can, with enough time and gold, research enough spells to overcome just about any problem. Making a character choose what schools he will keep through higher levels makes sacrifice a little for all that power. As for the intelligence + charisma thing; intelligence makes sense for his arcane knowledge (thus maybe changing spontaneous casting to intelligence), while charisma (force of personality) makes sense for setting save DCs. Divine casters are going to be handled in much the same way. The real problem lies in the druid. With all those class abilities plus full casting, it makes for a rather big mess. I saw on the classes board where someone made the druid into an options class based on the type of terrain they come from. I may go with that, but I'm not entirely sold on the idea. For clerics, instead of the regular spontaneous casting thing, they'll give the cure/inflict choice as normal, but I may do something with domains as well. Removing X+1 on the casting chart and making the domain spells the only spontaneous choices the divine casters have. I dunno. But, what I do know is that if I end up changing the arcane casters around so much, the divine ones definetly need a change as well. This may not bring them down to the level of the fighter (or indeed any of the melee classes), but I'm always tinkering with the classes anyway. Again, forgive the roughness of this draft. I didn't actually work on it for very long. Also, I may have overlooked some ways that this will have too great a negative impact on the game. Cheers Otto :)
The Thing in the Night 02-15-05, 08:20 PM	I like to look at Arcana Unearthed as a model of decent balance. Spells are treated more like weapons, with proficiency, and everyone has access to the same list. All primary casters use a d6 instead of a d4...etc...Also, many of the warriors gain abilities that help them counter magic, or reduce it's effectiveness. High end magic isn't as overwhelmingly powerful as well (it takes 7 castings of a 7th level spell to raise someone from the dead), no wish, no timestop, no shapechange. All in all, it's a more balanced system.
mean_liar 02-15-05, 09:36 PM	What would I do? I'd go back to differential experience charts. Yes, I know that it's nice and streamlined to use one experience chart for all of the classes--but by doing that, they removed a major balancing factor from first and second edition AD&D. I'd consider that acceptable. You only need to assign a relative multiplier for each class and be done with it (ie, Wizard levels cost 1.2 times the default amount). You could extend it to include a scaling multiplier that alters with level (ie, Wizard 1 costs x1, whereas Wizard 5 costs x1.2; more importantly, Fighter 12 costs x0.8 whereas Fighter 1 costs x1). Playtesting to ensure proper assessment would be a must, but it would also help to balance things. Of course, you'd have to assess every PrC in the game in addition to every class, so its not exactly a wonderful arrangement, but its better than nothing.
Elgonn 02-15-05, 09:47 PM	That system would be way too unwieldly. You could probably balance all the classes by the time you could find an appropriate scaling XP chart for everything.
Keldar 02-15-05, 11:07 PM	One of the simplest things that can be done to improve class balance is to throw out the tired old method of feat design. As it stands currently feats only improve on what a character can allready do. In other words for a feat to be magical, it has spellcasting as a prerequisite. Bah I say! Its that thinking that causes much of a Fighter's problems at higher levels. (That no feat is designed for higher than 11th level is the other big problem) The solution is to make feats that are magical in nature and allow non magical types to cope better with magic. Here's a few examples that I'm working on for a future campaign. Block Spell Your long experience in coping with magic has lead you to learn how to shield yourself from magical harm. Prerequisites : Base Attack Bonus +9, Spellcraft 3 Ranks Benifit : When you have a magical shield readied you may ready an action to counterspell. This counterspell functions as a Dispel Magic with a caster level equal to your Base Attack Bonus or the Caster level of the Shield, whichever is less, to a maximum caster level of 10th. Normal : Magical Shields do not provide any benifit when dealing with most spells. Sever Spell With study and practice you have learned to use the magic within your weapon to disrupt ongoing magical effects. Prerequisites : Base Attack Bonus +9, spellcraft 4 Ranks Benifit : You may touch your magical weapon to a target as a standard action to achieve the results of a targeted Dispel Magic. Your caster level is equal to your Base Attack Bonus or the Caster Level of your weapon, whichever is less. From these examples you can get the idea of where I'm going. Come up with a few more of your own and it should help balance out the classes much better at higher levels.
catharz 02-16-05, 12:14 AM	(it takes 7 castings of a 7th level spell to raise someone from the dead) Like that balances anything at all...Lethality is one of the least balanced things in D&D. To balance character death at low levels Raise dead should be available at low levels. Otherwise you'll just always be rolling up a new character. I'd consider that acceptable. You only need to assign a relative multiplier for each class and be done with it (ie, Wizard levels cost 1.2 times the default amount). You could extend it to include a scaling multiplier that alters with level (ie, Wizard 1 costs x1, whereas Wizard 5 costs x1.2; more importantly, Fighter 12 costs x0.8 whereas Fighter 1 costs x1). Playtesting to ensure proper assessment would be a must, but it would also help to balance things. Of course, you'd have to assess every PrC in the game in addition to every class, so its not exactly a wonderful arrangement, but its better than nothing. Seems like a good idea, but how could you balance it to the CR system? If you have one level worth more than another, characters who take the more powerful level are slightly delayed in level accuisition relative EL. And that means that the character with better class abilities also gains more XP. ... Frank Trollman has actually probably what is the only truely balanced (mechanics-wise) RPG system I have seen. I'm not going to go into the mechanics too much here (it would probably be against CoC), but here is some basic game design theory: Class abilities that give options rather than bonuses are never balanced when one of those options is to get a bonus (compare Spikes to Weapon specialization). Classes that give options are almost impossible to balance with classes that give bonuses, because either the bonus class ends up with so big of a bonus none of the 'options' characters can compete, or the options give bonuses (which I already said is unbalanced). This means that the basic idea that magic should always be better than non-magic has to go, and possibly the distinction between magic and non-magic must go with it. Set time is almost impossible to use as a balancing factor. This means that per/day spells are pretty much imossible to to balance. Things like Rope trick, Tiny hut, and simple DMing styles make it so. The problem is made even worse when you have character with 1/day spell-like abilities, characters with spells, and characters with at-will abilities. Which brings me to my (or possibly Frank's, although I'm certainly not his Metatron) next point. The only balanced durations are abstract, and basically have to work around a Combat's time scale. If they don't refresh after each combat, they aren't balanced. Which is a problem in D&D when you can basically declare "Combat" whenever you feel like it. It really only works in computer games.
mean_liar 02-16-05, 10:42 AM	Seems like a good idea, but how could you balance it to the CR system? If you have one level worth more than another, characters who take the more powerful level are slightly delayed in level accuisition relative EL. And that means that the character with better class abilities also gains more XP. I didn't consider that. The fix would be to base CR and XP calculations off of XP Totals rather than actual level (ie, PC1 with 10k XP may be only level 4 due to class choices, but he would be considered identical to PC2 with 10k XP at level 5; additionally, each would be considered level 5 for CR and XP calculation purposes, having 10k-15k XP). Can you PM me a link to Frank's stuff?
Dain 02-16-05, 11:05 AM	I don't believe ultimate balance can ever be achieved. Besides, who would want that? If the regular fighter was as good as some of the best builds in here, this place would fall apart. Who would ever want to play a Dervish if you got a better HD and a feat every level as a regular fighter? I don't think you guys are considering the fact that we freakin' worship the lack of balance in the game in this forum. Wizards can't publish a Races of... or Complete... every other month with completely balanced stuff. Who are we kidding? One more thing: Power sells books. People despise all the mediocre PrC and write long and angry posts about how much the new Tempest sucks and so on and so forth. They want power. I don't think that people would buy all the new things if the regular classes in the PHB could match the newly published things anyday. I, for one, love the fact that this game isn't 100% balanced. It's one of the things that makes it fun. - Dain
catharz 02-16-05, 11:52 AM	I didn't consider that. The fix would be to base CR and XP calculations off of XP Totals rather than actual level (ie, PC1 with 10k XP may be only level 4 due to class choices, but he would be considered identical to PC2 with 10k XP at level 5; additionally, each would be considered level 5 for CR and XP calculation purposes, having 10k-15k XP). Hmm. That would probably work, although you've still got the item creation problem (that exists in D&D now). Why not have the standard level-based system, but slow down the accuisition of abilities for certain classes by the appropriate %? In fact, that would probably be one of the best ways to balance spellcasters. Just shove 8th and 9th level spells into the epic. ... Dain, you're right. If D&D were perfectly balanced and it was impossible to make poor character choices (like Bard 3/Wizard 4), the C.O. board would indeed implode. The Hulking hurler and Dweomercheater threads are probably the biggest on the board, even if they are primarily composed of misguided rants about how they don't or shoulden't work.
necrosnoop110 02-16-05, 12:05 PM	I would argue that even if the classes were externally balanced between each other one could still make better or worse combinations of their pieces in regard to what kind of job you want your character to be able to competently perform, especially when you take into account highly specialized PrC, even if overall relative power is consistent. I'll break it down how it should be (PP= Physical Power; MP=Magic Power; TP=Total Power): Fighter: PP=8 + MP=2 ... TP=10 Wizard: PP=2 + MP=8 ... TP=10 Cleric: PP=5 + MP=5 ... TP=10 The other classes can be based around these. Necro
Molot 02-16-05, 12:19 PM	About the spellcasters too weak on low levels: Two times my sorcerer (sor2 and Rng1/Sor2, and it was in 3,0 but general problems didn't changed) was the one who make at least medium damage (comparing with the party) and died as the last. Both parties was a bit optimized for teamwork, and we have cleric, fighter, rouge and ranger there. Rolls was +- equal. So if you play wise, you can play a succesful spellcaster at low level. PS: Yes, those characters died. But to die when all your friends are already dead is not a shame. And third sorcerer died as the first :) maybe just for balance? ;)
Molot 02-16-05, 12:25 PM	I'll break it down how it should be (PP= Physical Power; MP=Magic Power; TP=Total Power): Fighter: PP=8 + MP=2 ... TP=10 Wizard: PP=2 + MP=8 ... TP=10 Cleric: PP=5 + MP=5 ... TP=10 The other classes can be based around these. And what with the rouges? Their doesn't get so much physical power - they are dex and int characters, but not using brute force or magic... So this scheme have a little holes.
necrosnoop110 02-16-05, 12:37 PM	And what with the rouges? Their doesn't get so much physical power - they are dex and int characters, but not using brute force or magic... So this scheme have a little holes. Physical power, as I am using it here, does not necessarily mean just brute strength it can mean any sort of physical ability from physical grace and dexterity all the way to raw muscle. For rogues I would say PP=6 + MP=4 would seem appropriate. Necro PS - Maybe I should have called it PA= Physical Ability & MA= Magical Ability so as not to confuse Power with strength.
Molot 02-16-05, 12:43 PM	PS - Maybe I should have called it PA= Physical Ability & MA= Magical Ability so as not to confuse Power with strength. Yes ;) System is simply. It may be it's strenght... But how you compare Priest's and Rouge's abilities? In this system it looks like they are similar. But they not.
necrosnoop110 02-16-05, 01:05 PM	But how you compare Priest's and Rouge's abilities? In this system it looks like they are similar. But they not. Relative ability power levels do not mean the same style or niche character wise. The difference between a Druid: PA=4 + MA=6 and a Monk: PA=4 + MA=6 would be in the way in which their abilities would focus not in their relative Total Ability (TA) power. To me the biggest changes that need to be made are that no core class should have top marks in both physical abilties and magical abilities (whether they be spellcasting, spell-like, or supernatural magical abilities) they should have either one top mark one low, average in both, or a mix not totaling more than 10 in Total Ability (TA) power. Admittedly, this is all tough to judge but I think that certain classes in the latest edition of D&D obviously pull ahead from the others (*cough* Druid *cough*). In my world D&D Relative Power Levels would break down like this: (PA= Physical Ability & MA= Magical Ability) Barbarian: PA=9 + MA=1 Bard: PA=5 + MA=5 Cleric: PA=5 + MA=5 Druid: PA=4 + MA=6 Fighter: PA=8 + MA=2 Monk: PA=4 + MA=6 Paladin: PA=7 + MA=3 Ranger: PA=7 + MA=3 Rogue: PA=6 + MA=4 Sorcerer: PA=2 + MA=8 Wizard: PA=2 + MA=8 And all classes totaling ten, relatively equal, Total Ability (TA) power. However this is how I see the classes in present D&D edition: (PA= Physical Ability; MA= Magical Ability; TA= Total Ability) Barbarian: PA=8 + MA=2 … TA= 10 Bard: PA=4 + MA=6 … TA= 10 Cleric: PA=8 + MA=8 … TA= 16 Druid: PA=8 + MA=9 … TA= 17 Fighter: PA=7 + MA=2 … TA= 9 Monk: PA=5 + MA=6 … TA= 11 Paladin: PA=6 + MA=4 … TA= 10 Ranger: PA=7 + MA=4 … TA= 11 Rogue: PA=5 + MA=5 … TA= 10 Sorcerer: PA=2 + MA=10 … TA= 12 Wizard: PA=1 + MA=13 … TA= 14
Molot 02-16-05, 01:28 PM	Necro, I can agree with your general look on this. But I think that monk's abilities and druid's one are hardly comparable with so simple way. As long as the one person grants points, we could hope there will be some balance in it. But do you belive that anyone can take the class you didn't describe (for example his own rewrited version of class), grant points to it, and then give it to You and get the same point result? I don't belive... :( BTW relations between classes ARE changing throught advancement. In your system it is not shown. I wish there was a system for balancing classes. Yours is a good start. But it is not perfect... yet? ;)
Dain 02-16-05, 01:28 PM	Dain, you're right. If D&D were perfectly balanced and it was impossible to make poor character choices (like Bard 3/Wizard 4), the C.O. board would indeed implode. The Hulking hurler and Dweomercheater threads are probably the biggest on the board, even if they are primarily composed of misguided rants about how they don't or shoulden't work. My point exactly.
Kuroi Kenshi 02-16-05, 02:06 PM	catharz, one of those fighter special abilities could be armor compatability, where the fighter adds 1 to max dex modifier, removes 1 from armor check penalties, and 5% ASF from all armor worn for every 4 levels of fighter. Maybe even add a point of DR on top of that too. I've never understood why the fighter class doesn't have an ability to more effectively use armor when they're supposed to have armor as class defense whereas the barbarian has higher HP and damage reduction for a class defense, something that is superior given the way the armor system is laid out. There's also no reason for fighters to not have spot and listen as class skills if they're supposed to be commonly employed as guards and sentries. It'd be like bard not being able to perform and tumble even though entertainer is a common bard profession. As for a more abstract game mechanic system and classlessness in lieu of exp spent on character talents, have any you ever played white wolf? I've tried out exalted, and it's alright, though the books are poorly organized and worded. Many durations on abilities are "one scene" (encounter, in other words), instead of a set amount of rounds, and other secondary aspects of spells and abilities are left to the DM. It's interesting. Of course the game isn't perfectly balanced since there are ways to exploit character creation points in relation to exp costs (which is minor), and some spell or ability combinations are severely broken compared to others (which is major). Some combinations or major parts of such combinations can be attained at character creation, too.
Molot 02-16-05, 02:21 PM	As for a more abstract game mechanic system and classlessness in lieu of exp spent on character talents, have any you ever played white wolf? I've tried out exalted, and it's alright, though the books are poorly organized and worded. Many durations on abilities are "one scene" (encounter, in other words), instead of a set amount of rounds, and other secondary aspects of spells and abilities are left to the DM. It's interesting. The main problem with White Wolf's games are the dot-dice system: More dices = biger chance to roll 1 on any = more chance to have bad luck (like natyral 1 in d20 systems). For this reasons, some of my friends was interested to "rewrite" White Wolf's games to d20! We are going off-topic :( About balancing games - plz don't try to change whole mechanic. It simply is not the same, it wouldn't be D&D any longer. We have not so bad d20 mechanics, why not to try with it?
catharz 02-16-05, 02:40 PM	catharz, one of those fighter special abilities could be armor compatability, where the fighter adds 1 to max dex modifier, removes 1 from armor check penalties, and 5% ASF from all armor worn for every 4 levels of fighter. Maybe even add a point of DR on top of that too. I've never understood why the fighter class doesn't have an ability to more effectively use armor when they're supposed to have armor as class defense whereas the barbarian has higher HP and damage reduction for a class defense, something that is superior given the way the armor system is laid out. The first one seems a bit weak, and I don't like the idea of giving something to fighters that will be useless to most of them (ASF reduction). However, the basic idea seems very good. How about armor dance I and II? The first effectively gives the benefits (aside from weight, hardness, and ASF) of Mithral to any armor the character wears, as well as +1 to AC. The second would apply the benefits of mithral again, as well as allowing the character to get full rest in all types of armor, and giving the character +1 to AC (+2 total). This would basically mean that after 8 levels of straight fighter, the character can treat adamantine full plate as having an AC+10, ACP of 0, Max dex of 5, and being light armor. That may seem powerful, but remember that it is an 8th level ability. And also...Heavy armor mastery I and II: The first gives DR/Adamantine of 1/2 the armor's AC bonus, stacking with that of adamantine armor (so adamant full plate gives DR 7/Adamantine) -when wearing heavy or medium armor. The second adds 1/3 (1/2?) the character's fighter level to the number, and makes 1/2 the total DR/-, when wearing heavy armor. So a fighter 8 with Heavy armor mastery I and II, and with adamant full plate will have DR 9/Adamantine and DR 4/-. And a 4th-level fighter with mastery I and breast plate will have DR 2/Adamantine. Of course, the game mechanics problem is that the heavy armor stuff is worth less to a high-Con character than a low-Con one.
calebjyoung 02-16-05, 02:47 PM	Last time I checked, reality isn't balanced. Each character class should have it's strenghts and weakness's. SR/Anti-Magic Fields makes crapy fighters out of mage's. Not to mention the hundred's of combinations of items you can get to effectively make a mage think long and hard about casting a spell at you. 4th lvl character class's should be able to survive an encounter - just in different ways. This system is balanced by the DM, not its Min-Maxing / Optimizing players.
catharz 02-16-05, 02:51 PM	Last time I checked, reality isn't balanced. Each character class should have it's strenghts and weakness's. SR/Anti-Magic Fields makes crapy fighters out of mage's. Not to mention the hundred's of combinations of items you can get to effectively make a mage think long and hard about casting a spell at you. 4th lvl character class's should be able to survive an encounter - just in different ways. This system is balanced by the DM, not its Min-Maxing / Optimizing players. Fighters can't craft magical items, and they can't cast Antimagic field ;) And if you're suggesting that the C.O. board shoulden't exist, I suggest that you take a look at the Code of Conduct.
sma 02-16-05, 03:01 PM	Last time I checked, reality isn't balanced. Each character class should have it's strenghts and weakness's. SR/Anti-Magic Fields makes crapy fighters out of mage's. Not to mention the hundred's of combinations of items you can get to effectively make a mage think long and hard about casting a spell at you. 4th lvl character class's should be able to survive an encounter - just in different ways. This system is balanced by the DM, not its Min-Maxing / Optimizing players. But we´re not playing reality we´re playing a game, and while I imagine that playing chess with only the king and a couple of rooks is fun to some, it sure isn´t fair. Or balanced. Right now D&D isn´t either. Invoking the GM to balance everything, leads to a situation where we don´t need to care about rules at all, and should be playing amber and not D&D.
necrosnoop110 02-16-05, 03:10 PM	But we´re not playing reality we´re playing a game, and while I imagine that playing chess with only the king and a couple of rooks is fun to some, it sure isn´t fair. Or balanced. Right now D&D isn´t either. Invoking the GM to balance everything, leads to a situation where we don´t need to care about rules at all, and should be playing amber and not D&D. Amen brother! :clap: :bow: :clap: Necro
Caelic 02-16-05, 03:32 PM	Games don't need to be fair or balanced; they simply need to be fun. The fact that D&D has persisted, in its various forms, for better than three decades--without perfect parity between classes--suggests that such parity simply isn't necessary. If I want perfect balance, I'll play Go.
necrosnoop110 02-16-05, 03:58 PM	Games don't need to be fair or balanced; they simply need to be fun. The fact that D&D has persisted, in its various forms, for better than three decades--without perfect parity between classes--suggests that such parity simply isn't necessary. If I want perfect balance, I'll play Go. Perfect parity is not possible in a game like D&D I will agree with you. However, general or relative parity is an ideal that should be reached for. The imbalance of relative power levels between the Druids and the Fighters is unacceptable to me and it inhibits my fun if I am Fighter in the same party as a Druid. The fact that D&D has been revised however many times and keeps getting better each go-around, IMHO, shows that improvements are possible. Also, I would argue for the greater number of players a game needs to balanced, fair, and interesting in order to be fun. Necro
Molot 02-16-05, 04:19 PM	Yeah! Look on this like that: if one party member is useles in most situations, and other can do almost anything (and there are at similar levels)... The first one would not have fun. He can play more powerfull class, you might say. But it should be RolePlaying game - no one will play character he don't like only for it's powers. So different classes could have differend fields, but with equal/similar sizes ;) where they can show themselves.
Dain 02-16-05, 04:36 PM	Perfect parity is not possible in a game like D&D I will agree with you. However, general or relative parity is an ideal that should be reached for. The imbalance of relative power levels between the Druids and the Fighters is unacceptable to me and it inhibits my fun if I am Fighter in the same party as a Druid. The fact that D&D has been revised however many times and keeps getting better each go-around, IMHO, shows that improvements are possible. Also, I would argue for the greater number of players a game needs to balanced, fair, and interesting in order to be fun. Necro Mayhaps if you're a clean Fighter. But a Fighter with a/some good PrCs, while still not as powerful as the Druid, will certainly not be fun-inhibited by the Druid, in my experience. Games don't need to be fair or balanced; they simply need to be fun. The fact that D&D has persisted, in its various forms, for better than three decades--without perfect parity between classes--suggests that such parity simply isn't necessary. If I want perfect balance, I'll play Go. I agree.
necrosnoop110 02-16-05, 04:40 PM	Mayhaps if you're a clean Fighter. But a Fighter with a/some good PrCs, while still not as powerful as the Druid, will certainly not be fun-inhibited by the Druid, in my experience. PrCs should be extras they should not be required by the basic rules set to make a character class viable. Necro
Kuroi Kenshi 02-16-05, 04:48 PM	The first one seems a bit weak, and I don't like the idea of giving something to fighters that will be useless to most of them (ASF reduction). However, the basic idea seems very good. Er, you didn't notice that it's almost a mirror image of your own take on weapon specialization? Your weap spec requires weapon focus and gives +1 hit/damage per 4 levels for one weapon. This applies to all armors and gives a potential -1 to hit and a definite -1 to damage on attacks against you, lets you use skills more easily, and the ASF is just there for a complete 1 bonus to everything armor-related. I thought of suggesting an increase in the armor bonus by 1 as well, but thought that imbalanced compared to your weapon specialization. Never the less, the armor abilities you suggested are good, though imbalanced compared to the others you gave.
Caelic 02-16-05, 04:48 PM	I disagree that fighters aren't viable. Fighters aren't EQUAL, at the most competitive levels of play, to Druids; then again, Druids are significantly overpowered, in that they can defeat enemies of significantly higher CR than their level without too much difficulty.
Dain 02-16-05, 04:50 PM	PrCs should be extras they should not be required by the basic rules set to make a character class viable. Necro Snow's gatlin chain gun tripper is viable, don't you think so? Not that that prooves anything. Anyway, I wouldn't mind if they gave the higher level fighter a slight boost. All I'm saying is that I think it's just fine that the classes aren't totally balanced, for reasons mentioned before in this thread. - Dain
necrosnoop110 02-16-05, 04:55 PM	I disagree that fighters aren't viable. Fighters aren't EQUAL, at the most competitive levels of play, to Druids; then again, Druids are significantly overpowered, in that they can defeat enemies of significantly higher CR than their level without too much difficulty. Well said Caelic. This is what I meant to say regardless of how I came off. Necro
necrosnoop110 02-16-05, 04:57 PM	All I'm saying is that I think it's just fine that the classes aren't totally balanced, for reasons mentioned before in this thread. - Dain I have to respectfully disagree, I don't think it's just fine for the classes to be unbalanced. D&D is such a well crafted game that this problem can be overcome or ignored but ideally it should be remedied. Necro
Molot 02-16-05, 05:03 PM	All I'm saying is that I think it's just fine that the classes aren't totally balanced, for reasons mentioned before in this thread. If it's ok for you, nobody tries to make you play different than in the sourcebooks. But for many people this is not ok - so you shouldn't try to make them (us?) stop balancing. Easy, isn't it? Arguing about "should we do it or shouldn't" is pointless. Lets talk HOW to do it right. And if anybody don't want, he may don't read his thread ;)
Caelic 02-16-05, 05:04 PM	And I maintain that the classes ARE balanced--they're simply balanced over the long run, rather than level-by-level. Please remember that this board isn't representative of D&D players as a whole. Market research indicated (and it probably still holds true) that the majority of play is at levels 1-10. That's why most modules are targeted at these levels. At levels 1-10, the fighter is at his peak...certainly as powerful as spellcasters, arguably moreso. At any given point in any given campaign, certain classes will dominate. There's no way around this, even if you try to achieve perfect level-by-level parity. In a campaign based entirely in a city, with strict laws regarding the use of magic, a Druid loses considerable oomph. In an air-based campaign, a character build around flight becomes much more powerful than he would otherwise be. Even games where the perfect parity model has been adopted, and where EVERYTHING is point-purchase--not all characters are equal. Indeed, pure point-buy encourages rules manipulation, and certain expenditures of points come to be common to almost all builds. Our group plays such games regularly. There's a reason "I can rule the world on three character points!" is an unofficial motto. :)
Dain 02-16-05, 05:05 PM	I have to respectfully disagree, I don't think it's just fine for the classes to be unbalanced. D&D is such a well crafted game that this problem can be overcome or ignored but ideally it should be remedied. Necro Should it? Why? I agree that there shouldn't be obscene differences in power between the classes. There [i]shouldn't[/b] be as big a difference between Fighter and Druid as there is now. But frankly, I don't mind the druid being a little more powerful in the long run. Furthermore, you haven't adressed the other things I posted earlier: "... If the regular fighter was as good as some of the best builds in here, this place would fall apart. Who would ever want to play a Dervish if you got a better HD and a feat every level as a regular fighter? I don't think you guys are considering the fact that we freakin' worship the lack of balance in the game in this forum. Wizards can't publish a Races of... or Complete... every other month with completely balanced stuff. Who are we kidding? One more thing: Power sells books. People despise all the mediocre PrC and write long and angry posts about how much the new Tempest sucks and so on and so forth. They want power. I don't think that people would buy all the new things if the regular classes in the PHB could match the newly published things anyday. ..." Respectfully - Dain
Molot 02-16-05, 05:19 PM	One more thing: Power sells books. People despise all the mediocre PrC and write long and angry posts about how much the new Tempest sucks and so on and so forth. They want power. I don't think that people would buy all the new things if the regular classes in the PHB could match the newly published things anyday. Here you are right. But in 1'st post in this thread author was asking to think only about base classes from player's handbook. Of course PrC's should me more powerfull or at least have different powers. But there were not meant to be matter of this thread.
sma 02-16-05, 05:24 PM	Snow's gatlin chain gun tripper is viable, don't you think so? Not that that prooves anything. Anyway, I wouldn't mind if they gave the higher level fighter a slight boost. All I'm saying is that I think it's just fine that the classes aren't totally balanced, for reasons mentioned before in this thread. - Dain To me it comes down to having to jumps through some pretty extreme hoops to build a viable guy who swords stuff just to be close to the guy who jotted down druid 20 on his sheet in combat effectiveness, while still being far behind out of combat, is simply inacceptible. While I accept that perfect balance isn´t something we can hope for in a roleplaying game I´d like to see something better than having an average all fighter party simply die, while the Cleric´s and Druids are still busy polishing their nails. Right now D&D is playable up to levels 8-10, after that it´s a casters game. While there are some specific builds out there that allow you to be competetive with a noncaster those are few and far between, and are still unable to pull off the **** a wizard with a couple of 4th or 5th level spells is capable of.
necrosnoop110 02-16-05, 05:25 PM	At levels 1-10, the fighter is at his peak...certainly as powerful as spellcasters, arguably moreso. When it comes down to it that is my main beef. 90% of the campaigns I'm in are at those levels and since I'd almost always want to play Wizard (or other arcane spellcaster type) it hurts me to admit that what you're saying is true. I just dream of a system that WOULD have parity at all levels of the game. A guy can dream can't he? :weep: Necro
Dain 02-16-05, 05:43 PM	Right now D&D is playable up to levels 8-10, after that it´s a casters game. While there are some specific builds out there that allow you to be competetive with a noncaster those are few and far between, and are still unable to pull off the **** a wizard with a couple of 4th or 5th level spells is capable of. While I don't want this to turn into a discussion on which class is the most powerful, I would like to say this: Yeah, a mage can pull off some nasty stuff in the higher levels. But he can only do it so often. The melee-guy's advantage is, and always has been, that he's always ready for another round. --> My point being that even at the higher levels being a no-magic kind of guy certainly has it's merits.
sma 02-16-05, 05:58 PM	Yeah, a mage can pull off some nasty stuff in the higher levels. But he can only do it so often. The melee-guy's advantage is, and always has been, that he's always ready for another round. No. It´s quite simple, when you are fighting the Lichlord right now, noone cares about the ability to keep on hacking up stuff after the battle, what you want is the ability to survive the battle through offing the opposition. Furthermore the ability to keep on going after the loss of hitpoints is more the strength of clerics than fighters. But it´s true this is probably not the right forum to discuss this.
PhaedrusXY 02-16-05, 06:03 PM	I don't think the system is that bad now, and don't think it is realistic that it will ever be perfectly balanced while being as complex as it is. Having said that, I also don't think this means that we shouldn't strive to make it a bit more balanced than it is. Myself, I'd rather power-up the melee end of things than power-down the spellcasters. Last game I DMed using my house rules, an undead fighter12/barbarian1 dropped the 15th level party druid from full health into the negatives with one crit... I signifigantly powered up the fighter, and by virtue of the feats I added and changes I made gave it the ability to be quite defensive (vs. melee or magic, or both), very offensive, or somewhere in the middle. I worry that I've made it too much better than the other melee classes, but as of right now, none of the PCs are even playing one, so I guess I don't need to worry too much about that. :P The players that have looked thoroughly through my house rules, and also DM themselves, have both said that they like it, however, and wouldn't mind playing one in the future, and might use it in their games, also. (I posted a link to my house rules, and a short summary, earlier in the thread.)
Dain 02-16-05, 06:24 PM	No. It´s quite simple, when you are fighting the Lichlord right now, noone cares about the ability to keep on hacking up stuff after the battle, what you want is the ability to survive the battle through offing the opposition. Furthermore the ability to keep on going after the loss of hitpoints is more the strength of clerics than fighters. Well, if you feel that the only sweet deal is if you can beat the Lichlord, then the fighter probably isn't for you! Unleashing wast amounts of power in one brutal thrust is not his specialty. However - the rest of us (or me, anyway) like the fact that if you get surprised by yet another attack after a day of adventuring it's the fighter that's gonna save your butt, not the mage. The fighter, while arguably not as powerful as the cleric or druid, is still nice to have around in the higher levels. Which you seem to ignore. But it´s true this is probably not the right forum to discuss this. Yeah, that is true. :)
The Thing in the Night 02-16-05, 08:20 PM	One also has to remember that DnD is a party based system. It isn't about which character is the most powerful relative to the others, it's about how they interact. A fighter is still powerful at high levels if he gets buffed, but he has to get someone else to do it for him. Meanwhile, the wizard can inflict massive damage with spells, but if caught unprotected or out of spells, he's nailed. That's what the fighter's for. So, in essence, the game isn't supposed to be perfectly balanced on a class vs class level, as each class has a different niche to fulfill. Combat is also not everything. Both rogues and bards clearly have an edge in rolplaying situations. Where does that factor in to physical vs magical? It's all about the team, and each member's role within it.
calebjyoung 02-16-05, 08:35 PM	... in essence, the game isn't supposed to be perfectly balanced on a class vs class level, as each class has a different niche to fulfill... That is what I was trying to point out. Using only the PHB and DMG and MM : This game is desinged to show that no one class can do everything. Each class should excell in an area another class could not. Using tactics and enough GP a 20th lvl commoner can take out a 20th lvl Druid.
necrosnoop110 02-16-05, 09:05 PM	That is what I was trying to point out. Using only the PHB and DMG and MM : This game is desinged to show that no one class can do everything. While I agree with you the game SHOULD have each class specialize in a certain niche I'd argue that the current edition has some serious missteps. Don't the Cleric and even more so the Druid step on the Fighter's toes? And can't a team of Clerics basically do everything an Iconic party can but remove traps? (And if you have a Dwarf Cleric they can even remove stone traps and what not!) Necro
beaver1024 02-16-05, 09:20 PM	The main problem in the core rules are Clerics and Druids. Wiz/sorc can be neutralised easily at high levels due to the fact that they are entirely reliant on their spells. The reason why clerics and druids are inbalanced is not because of some accident. It is a deliberate inbalance caused by the designers to "encourage" a certain style of play. There can never be class balance in D&D if designers take this bone headed dumb T$R attitude.
Neeek 02-16-05, 09:56 PM	However - the rest of us (or me, anyway) like the fact that if you get surprised by yet another attack after a day of adventuring it's the fighter that's gonna save your butt, not the mage. Wrong. Anytime at high levels the Wizard actually runs out of spells, the Fighter will have long since ran out of hps already. The fighter, while arguably not as powerful as the cleric or druid, is still nice to have around in the higher levels. Which you seem to ignore. No, it's really kinda pointless to have the Fighter around. Another Druid or Cleric could everything the Fighter does, and do it better. Sure, it's better to have a Fighter around than not having the Fighter around, and having nothing in his place, but clearly, if you are keeping the number of people constant, you're better off with a character from a class that doesn't suck.
Dr Durothil 02-16-05, 11:02 PM	Well, I'll throw my two cents in here: First off, I believe that everything is possible, although it is not everything that is feasible in a reasonable time frame. 2. That being said, I believe that given a lot of time, it would be possible to create a system where not only every class would be balanced, but every class combinations would also be balanced against each other. However, in order to have a perfectly balanced system that encompasses as many possibilities as there are in D&D, chances are that only a computer (or a computer-assisted human) could manage the sheer amount of rules regulating everything, and thus be able DM the game. Which leads me to my next point: 3. Game balance in a table-top RPG is the DM's job. The DM controls the circumstances, so it is his job to give every player an opportunity to accomplish something. A warrior-type character is nerfed in a heavy role-play campaign, a spellcaster with item creation feats is nerfed if he never has time to use them, a wizard is nerfed if he never finds any scrolls to augment his repertoire, a skill-monkey is nerfed if the majority of his skills are useless, and the list goes on and on and on. 4. Why would we want perfect balance anyway? If you roll your stats, you already don't want balance. In fact, as soon as you roll something, you are throwing balance out of the window. If 5 players play D&D for a hundred years, then yes we will start to see some balance between every player's average character's power. That is how randomness works in the long term, but in the short term, it makes things unbalanced. This also means that in a perfectly balanced game that relies on dices, the outcome would basically be determined by luck. And such games do exist, one of them is called "let's see who rolls the highest number on a d20". Conclusion: the actual state of relative balance in the D&D game results in excitement, competition and fun. Too much imbalance can result in abuses, which can reduce the fun for the weaker players, but such abuses aren't all over the place, and it is easy to single out the few tragically problematic ones, to either fix or ban them. Most importantly, it is the DM's job to present circumstances that give every players the opportunity to shine.
sma 02-16-05, 11:03 PM	However - the rest of us (or me, anyway) like the fact that if you get surprised by yet another attack after a day of adventuring it's the fighter that's gonna save your butt, not the mage. This is true for the low to mid level game, where there is no abundance of spells that let a wizard choose his battlefield. After that all bets are off. At least if we play be the rules proposed in the core books. It´s like there are actually two different games. In one you are playing the merry band of adventurers who rely on Krusk to smash the lichlord, Lidda is busy ransacking the chests, Jozan turns some undead and slaps one or the other healing spell on his friends, while Mialee summons up some fireballs. After a while you tune into the same program to see Jozan and Mialee teleport-ambushing the Fireking, inbetween their numerous and kaleidoscopic planespanning adventures with Lidda hanging on. Krusk meanwhile gets busy preparing camp with the spirits Lidda and Jozan summoned on their day off, because he somehow got the notion that to playing the same game at level 15 as the one he played 10 levels ago was a good idea. Being a melee fighter is part of many valid character concepts that shouldn´t be demoted close to uselessness just because you still play the game after level 10. Sma
catharz 02-17-05, 12:47 AM	Er, you didn't notice that it's almost a mirror image of your own take on weapon specialization? Your weap spec requires weapon focus and gives +1 hit/damage per 4 levels for one weapon. This applies to all armors and gives a potential -1 to hit and a definite -1 to damage on attacks against you, lets you use skills more easily, and the ASF is just there for a complete 1 bonus to everything armor-related. I thought of suggesting an increase in the armor bonus by 1 as well, but thought that imbalanced compared to your weapon specialization. Never the less, the armor abilities you suggested are good, though imbalanced compared to the others you gave. Eh heh heh... You've got me there. I just figured that the +damage and attack would be for characters that didn't want anything interesting (That is, those who would take weapon spec), and that the armor thing could get a bit more involved. Plus adamantine armor is currently pointless. Maybe I should remove the AC bonus and let them go for either effectively lighter armor or more armoring armor?
Kuroi Kenshi 02-17-05, 02:35 AM	I sent a PM. Don't want to take up tons of thread space with my response when it's a little OT ;)
Calliban 02-17-05, 04:11 AM	As an old fashioned guy who played Paladin since AD&D, I know what Unbalance means. We've got a group of a Cleric, a Wizard and 3 man-at-arms. If the Wizard coudl'nt solve the entire problem himself, the Cleric could. Let's clarify my thoughs for you: - Spells are powerful, because they are lots, and noone can balance 400 things at the same time. - Feats are less balanced, and as was said, there are just a few feats that are really helpful - most of them, epic. - I've seen Fighters 20 being beated in melee fights for a Cleric - and a Wizard with the right spells. So, I would ballance the spells using another way: Making some levels os spell Epic (aka: you only have access up to the 6th when you're 20). Power balance means that no "i-wanna-be-a-fighter" guy will stop playing when he notices that the "nah-wizards-best" guy beat him. Maybe you are people who don't care about being Robin in Justice League games, or think C3P0 is a great fighter template... :) Balance is needed. Or at least, Illusion of balance is needed.
sornet 02-17-05, 04:22 AM	I don't think its possible to create a balanced system until you remove classes from it, and allow abilities, BAB, feats, spell access and other features to be purcahsed with XP. Gain XP, spend XP. No classes. Have anyone tried Buy the Numbers (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2909)?
Neeek 02-17-05, 04:52 AM	Let's clarify my thoughs for you: - Spells are powerful, because they are lots, and noone can balance 400 things at the same time. - Feats are less balanced, and as was said, there are just a few feats that are really helpful - most of them, epic. That's not how I'd put it. The problem is more of this: - Spells are really freaking powerful. They also get better with higher levels(both spell level and caster level) - Feats aren't very powerful. Well, the feats warrior classes get aren't powerful. I could take a feat every level with a Cleric and still want more. They also don't get better with level, except VoP. Further, the best feats often have prereqs that suck. Like Dodge. Or Weapon Focus. Or Improved Bull Rush. And the Feat chains just end too early(though having the chains at all sucks). Basically, a 14th level fighter is usually getting something he could have got at 1st level. A 13th level Cleric just got Holy Word(or whichever they qualify for). Then you have stuff like the TWF feats. Which basically give you a less and less powerful abilities as you put more feats in. Improved TWF is a better feat than Greater TWF. The fact that they work together is irrelevant, since you just gave up a higher level class feature for something that is less of a power boost than something you picked up 6 levels ago. The whole tree could be 1 feat(automatically giving iterative attacks with appropriate BAB), and it still would only be "okay". Fighters suck for 3 reasons: 1) Dead levels 2) Feats as class abilities, when no 3 feats is as good as most other classes' 1st level class abilities. 3) The lack of a balanced spell system. For example, how are Foresight and Shapechange the same level spell? How is Polymorph a lower level spell than Sending? How is Mordenkainen's Sword higher level than Chain Lightning? Was 4d6+3 damage a round that will probably not hit too powerful for an 11th level caster to have?
Votan 02-17-05, 07:53 AM	One of the problems with balance is that the system balances the abilitry to do amazing things a limited number of times (magic) with the ability to do something for a very long time (melee). If you have many, many encounters of appropriate CR in a day (say 15) then a wizard 15 will actually start to lag a fighter 15 (even with gear). But, in reality, many games have 1 or 2 encounters per day. The result is that wizards/sorcerers/clerics always have their peak abilities available. An interesting experiment in balancing this is the Warlock. While I will not comment on whether or not it is, overall, a balanced class, I will note that it follows a power curve much more similar to that of a Fighter than a Wizard. Perhaps a new model of magic?
necrosnoop110 02-17-05, 08:16 AM	So, I would ballance the spells using another way: Making some levels os spell Epic (aka: you only have access up to the 6th when you're 20). That's fine to want to knock off the high end of a Wizard's spellcasting but you'll then have to boost the low. Maybe more spells per day or something. Because allthough a Wizard 15 rocks the house Wizard 2 blows. Power balance means that no "i-wanna-be-a-fighter" guy will stop playing when he notices that the "nah-wizards-best" guy beat him. Yes, if you can't make a system that is relatively balanced overall then at least let each class have its own niche, its own area to shine. When the Druid and Cleric (and even the right kind of Wizard) can at the higher levels be a better fighter than a fighter then something is wrong. Maybe you are people who don't care about being Robin in Justice League games, or think C3P0 is a great fighter template... :) :rofl: Necro
Calliban 02-17-05, 10:29 AM	OK, Spells ARE power. Druid means power. We all know that there are no Fighter Feats that will be really needed when you can pay for it. Epic Feats seems amazing if you are a lv10 depressed fighter. And lv12+ feats seems just what you need at lv 3. But for mages (I'll call mage any full spell caster), isn't like that. You know, with just 2 or 3 spells, you can get some bonuses (that will last for the encounter) higher than those a fighter could even dream about. "What about anti-magic fields, huh, Mr Anti-Fighter?". Simple. Druids and clerics could fight, and considering that a lv10 group will fight against Magic-Immune or Anti-Magic fields more or less 1 encounter each 10, you see... there is no need to worry about. Of course, a group with 4 lv 1-5 wizards couldn't beat the same amount of orcs that 4 fighters could -- but they've INT 16+! They could just realize something smarter than using daggers! You know, strategy, plans! So, some old 70's D&D players will say no group is better and more capable than a Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue. Really? A group with only clerics could teach'em about it ¬¬ The fact is: from D&D1st to AD&D, there was lots of good changes. From AD&D to D&D 3rd, the changes are amazing. But from 3.0 to 3.5, they only lowered non-spellcasters classes. I think no place is better than the Optimization boards for the objective of pointing out what is unbalanced, and ways to try fix it. You guys are the ones who know each rule, each break point, each obscure prestige class... Well, let's go back to topic. What would you do to make Paladin's balanced near Druids and Clerics?
sma 02-17-05, 10:47 AM	Quick and dirty ? Slap Sorcerer casting form the Cleric list onto them.
mean_liar 02-17-05, 10:52 AM	Ah, the trouble of non-scaling feats, poorly-scaling BAB and easily scaling spells. That's the true reason why melee classes eat the stink. Perhaps the magical nature of spellcasters inhibits magical equipment near them, making magic items intended for spellcaster use cost more, or non-spellcasters cost less? Items scale well with level, as long as PCs have the appropriate amount of gold. Well, let's go back to topic. What would you do to make Paladin's balanced near Druids and Clerics? Eliminate them as a base class and institute them as a 5-level PrC. Prereqs would require Cleric levels and a good BAB. Create subtle variants depending on the alignment of the patron deity (detect evil/good/law/chaos, channel positive/negative, etc).
Neeek 02-17-05, 12:22 PM	One of the problems with balance is that the system balances the abilitry to do amazing things a limited number of times (magic) with the ability to do something for a very long time (melee). If you have many, many encounters of appropriate CR in a day (say 15) then a wizard 15 will actually start to lag a fighter 15 (even with gear). That depends. If no one is healing the fighter, odds are he'll be dead after the second or third fight. Actually, the only classes that might be useful in such a situation are clerics with divine persistent and druids. Oh, and halfling Paladins. They can all fight all day, and heal themselves, or just not take much damage in the halfling's case. 15 encounters of appropriate CR in a single day should wipeout most parties without much trouble. Being a wizard in this situation just means you die around the time you run out of power anyway.
necrosnoop110 02-17-05, 12:24 PM	Being a wizard in this situation just means you die around the time you run out of power anyway. No, it means you can teleport away and live to fight another day :D AJ
catharz 02-17-05, 12:42 PM	It´s like there are actually two different games. In one you are playing the merry band of adventurers who rely on Krusk to smash the lichlord, Lidda is busy ransacking the chests, Jozan turns some undead and slaps one or the other healing spell on his friends, while Mialee summons up some fireballs. After a while you tune into the same program to see Jozan and Mialee teleport-ambushing the Fireking, inbetween their numerous and kaleidoscopic planespanning adventures with Lidda hanging on. Krusk meanwhile gets busy preparing camp with the spirits Lidda and Jozan summoned on their day off, because he somehow got the notion that to playing the same game at level 15 as the one he played 10 levels ago was a good idea. Being a melee fighter is part of many valid character concepts that shouldn´t be demoted close to uselessness just because you still play the game after level 10. Sma Technically speaking it is. As far as I know, 3.X was only really playtested up to 10th level.
Neeek 02-17-05, 12:43 PM	No, it means you can teleport away and live to fight another day :D Ah yes. The other reason spellcaster win. They aren't restricted by things like "reality". Being restricted by "reality" is a huge weakness in a fantasy game.
necrosnoop110 02-17-05, 12:50 PM	I know this is beating a dead horse but another questioned I've always asked is what class ability does a Fighter possess that is even in the same universe as a Wizard's ability to cast Wish? (I know XP drain is a limiter but even still there is nothing in a Fighters bank of abilities that even approaches it in kind but yet Wizard's have Tenser's Transformation and Shapechange) Necro
Otto the Bugbear 02-17-05, 06:46 PM	Eliminate them as a base class and institute them as a 5-level PrC. Prereqs would require Cleric levels and a good BAB. Create subtle variants depending on the alignment of the patron deity (detect evil/good/law/chaos, channel positive/negative, etc). Amen! IMO, the base paladin should have no place in the D&D game. I've sait it before, and I'll say it again, I love the Prestige Paladin. It's what paladins should have been all along. The blackguard was a feeble attempt at an alternate alignment paladin, but it was at least a step in the right direction. Now, couple the PrC Paladin with the paladins of other alignments -- in both Unearthed Arcana and Dragon Magazine (issue #???) -- and they should be revamped into a prestige class. Five levels may be too short, but ten is definetly too many. The hardest part would be implementing 9 different alignment specific abilities at the various levels. And even that wouldn't be too hard. Spellcasting would probably be less that full caster. I like the 1/2 caster that the PrCPaladin gives, so that may be the best bet. Cheers Otto :)
Caelic 02-17-05, 07:04 PM	The fact is: from D&D1st to AD&D, there was lots of good changes. From AD&D to D&D 3rd, the changes are amazing. Odd that you should say that. In AD&D, nobody considered clerics and druids to be overpowered. Wizards were the class of choice at very high levels, but by no means the only dominant class, and certainly not able to discard the rest of the classes. I would argue that AD&D was considerably better balanced than third edition. For that matter, I still consider the D&D Rules Cyclopedia to be the single best D&D product ever released.
necrosnoop110 02-17-05, 07:08 PM	Amen! IMO, the base paladin should have no place in the D&D game. But then what about any other class but Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard? Shouldn't by this logic ALL the other classes but the iconic four be PrCs? The Ranger could easly be a PrC on a Fighter/Rogue for instance. And how does moving the Paladin to a PrC promote more balance in the game? Necro
Caelic 02-17-05, 07:13 PM	Here's the thing: D&D has never been balanced. It was, for the longest time, designed in such a way that the iconic classes were interdependent. A cleric was never going to be as good a fighter as a fighter, a wizard was never going to be able to heal, a fighter was never going to be able to disarm traps and sneak around. It was possible to fulfill two roles at a time--as a multiclassed demihuman or a dual-classed human--but you weren't going to be great at both. The whole new-age "Players should have unlimited choices!" mindset has removed that interdependence. It's now possible to design a character who can do it all...and, hence, class choice no longer needs to be about what will fit well with the party.
Reglovin 02-17-05, 07:26 PM	In AD&D, nobody considered clerics and druids to be overpowered. (snip) I would argue that AD&D was considerably better balanced than third edition. Well when AD&D was around TSR had a loasy website and no message boards to discuss game balance. In addition with the formalized grid based combat system it is easy to pit character against each other within 3.0 and 3.5. AD&D definately had it's problems: - No spell substitution and poor access to magic items meant that playing a cleric was the most boring class in the game. "Heal me" - Playing a rogue was a frustrating experiance when trying to determine whether you could "Backstab" and opponent or not. Now it is very formalized. - Trying to multi-class was a waste of time. Trying to do anything different with a character wasn't allowed, try getting a Wizard to wield a two handed greatsword. The splat books were horrific because it required new mechanics to be made for each new class. - Level progression tracks for different classes meant that different classes were unbalanced throughout the entire campaign. Wizards sucked at early levels, Rogue advanced quickly through mid levels and then really tapered off. - AD&D didn't scale well into high levels. I am glad that Wizards / TSR made Alternity to experiment with a new style of game mechanic.
Otto the Bugbear 02-17-05, 08:23 PM	But then what about any other class but Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard? What about 'em? Shouldn't by this logic ALL the other classes but the iconic four be PrCs? My opinion doesn't follow the world of logic. The Ranger could easly be a PrC on a Fighter/Rogue for instance. Yes. Yes it could. Actually, in my vision of an ideal gaming system, there would be no classes at all. Just abilities that you can pick and choose to define your character. Eliminating certain base classes is just a small step in that direction. Better yet, combining base classes, but giving them tons of options to pick their own path, would be an even better step in the right direction. And how does moving the Paladin to a PrC promote more balance in the game? IMO, it provides a better approach to the 'holy warrior' type. No more do they just exist -- they have to work their way into it. I know the base paladin has a later starting age to account for the training (working into it), but that's a pretty lame cop-out. I'm all for giving the players motivation to help move the story along. Instead of *plop* "I'm a paladin", it becomes a much more involved process and story for all players involved. In addition, moving to paladin to a PrC means removing it as a base class. To me, this would make more sense for the inclusion of the other 8 alignments in the holy warrior niche. One last thing to remember: my opinion may not be the best thing for balancing the game, after all, it's just the opinion of one bugbear. Cheers Otto :)
necrosnoop110 02-17-05, 08:33 PM	One last thing to remember: my opinion may not be the best thing for balancing the game, after all, it's just the opinion of one bugbear. :rofl: