Before we start, I'll show you an example of a basic class that I designed earlier. Bear with me for a moment; as somewhat of a newbie to the forums I don't know how to make those pretty spoiler tags that would allow me to keep a table straight, so I'm going to have to list the abilities out.
HD: d12
BAB: Strong
Strong Saves: Fortitude, Reflex and Will
Spellcasting: Full, nine-level, spontaneous divine casting (as Favored Soul)
Class Features: DR 10/-, increasing by 5 every 3 levels; spell resistance 10 + class level; Divine Grace; Energy Resistance (fire, cold, acid or electricity: player's choice) 10 at level 5, plus 10 per 5 levels
Note: Does not get more actions than other players
Notice the finely tuned balance and careful thought that went into this class. You might think it's best to start by assigning basic numbers, using other classes as a baseline, then to start with basic class features that emphasize the roleplay and gameplay aspects of this class, then to flesh those out, compare to other classes with similar roles and finally playtest. Actually, having studied recent splatbooks, it turns out it's just best to slap everything you want on one class with one caveat: it can't take more actions than anyone else. According to science*, it is absolutely 100 percent impossible to make an unbalanced class so long as it can't take more actions than anyone else in one round.
I hope this was an informative guide to class balance. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go -not- break the game with my Favored Soul because it's clearly only the fourth or fifth best class out there. I mean, it can't even take three full-round actions in one round! How could that possibly be better than a Bard?
*There is a slight chance that by "science" I mean "message board arguments," but you don't want to start arguing with science, do you? What are you, some kind of crazy? I have a computer model, you know.
While I think I get the point, which I'm guessing is that many of the classes in recent supplemental rulebooks are "unbalanced" by the OPs standards and his/her frustration when other posters express an opinion to the contrary, I do not understand why this is in Regdar's.
This contributes nothing to, well, anything in my opinion.
This will be a little insight into how to create a perfectly balanced class. I'm assuming you already have the "fluff" out of the way, such as your class concept and such. This is going to be about how to transform that fluff text into something perfectly balanced.
Before we start, I'll show you an example of a basic class that I designed earlier. Bear with me for a moment; as somewhat of a newbie to the forums I don't know how to make those pretty spoiler tags that would allow me to keep a table straight, so I'm going to have to list the abilities out.
HD: d12
BAB: Strong
Strong Saves: Fortitude, Reflex and Will
Spellcasting: Full, nine-level, spontaneous divine casting (as Favored Soul)
Class Features: DR 10/-, increasing by 5 every 3 levels; spell resistance 10 + class level; Divine Grace; Energy Resistance (fire, cold, acid or electricity: player's choice) 10 at level 5, plus 10 per 5 levels
Note: Does not get more actions than other players
Oh, I see, it's a joke. For a while I was imagining just the first 3 lines of the class, and 8+int modifier skills, but no class features. That would have been cool.
Notice the finely tuned balance and careful thought that went into this class. You might think it's best to start by assigning basic numbers, using other classes as a baseline, then to start with basic class features that emphasize the roleplay and gameplay aspects of this class, then to flesh those out, compare to other classes with similar roles and finally playtest. Actually, having studied recent splatbooks, it turns out it's just best to slap everything you want on one class with one caveat: it can't take more actions than anyone else. According to science*, it is absolutely 100 percent impossible to make an unbalanced class so long as it can't take more actions than anyone else in one round.
I've never seen anyone make that argument.
I hope this was an informative guide to class balance. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go -not- break the game with my Favored Soul because it's clearly only the fourth or fifth best class out there. I mean, it can't even take three full-round actions in one round! How could that possibly be better than a Bard?
It is only the fourth or fifth best class out there. Considering the first three are Wizard, Druid, and Cleric, of course the Favored Soul is going to be better then the Bard.
*There is a slight chance that by "science" I mean "message board arguments," but you don't want to start arguing with science, do you? What are you, some kind of crazy? I have a computer model, you know.
Have you ever seen anyone anywhere make these arguments?
The most powerful 3 classes are Wizard, Cleric, and Druid. All in the PHB. Then , down the list, is a mix of PHB and not-PHB classes. At the bottom, the "below-fighter" level, we have classes like Healer and Samurai, not from PHB.
In addition, because the 3 most powerful PHB classes are all remarkably similar (full spellcasters w/preparation), while the most powerful non-PHB classes are more diverse. Psion and artificer are up there, both spellcasters but radically different from the norm. ToB is also up there, and that class is a spellcasting-related fighter-type. So, splat books make things more balanced, because balance means "# of top-tier choices", not "height of top-tier choices".
It makes sense to say that new material should be compared (mathematically whenever possible) to already existing material to make sure that it fits nicely in the game. The level 1 Munchkin spell Really Limited Wish, while it may be hilarious, can not be reasonably considered balanced by any definition.
However, I have found that new material in 3.5 lacks a certain aura of play-testing and mathematical comparison. Granted, my usual area of complaint is in PrC's. When I first opened my 3.5 DMG, I found a PrC that I thought was an incredible concept for D&D to make use of, the Mystic Theurge. You acquired two classes worth of casting potential, but suffered lower level spells, no special abilities, a poor BAB, and only one good saving throw. When I saw that, I was sincerely impressed. That was one of the things that sold me on the revised edition.
At first, new PrC's were built along the same lines as the Mystic Theurge. When the Expanded Psionics Handbook came out, they built a mirror image class. The XPH arcane/psionic hybrid class (sorry, name escapes me and my XPH isn't on-hand) offered the casting/manifesting power of two classes, but it suffered a lower spell/power level, no special abilities, a poor BAB, and only one good save. Very comparable in design. (Btw, can we please avoid Arcane vs. Psionic power level debates? That's not even close to my main point.)
Later, that sense of balance was lost. If I may draw your attention to Races of the Wild, and a PrC entitled Arcane Hierophant. This is a class that blends Arcane and Divine magic into one powerful PrC. Yes, I realize it has harder entry requirements, but they are not significantly harder, and they only really prevent Clerics from taking the PrC. You get the aforementioned progression of two different spell casting progressions, but this time the class is quite different. It offers a better HD (d6 instead of d4), moderate BAB, special ability progression from previous classes (wild shape, animal companion w/ benefits), more skill points (and a correspondingly larger skill list), and several special abilities: Ignore Arcane Spell Failure (which I almost intuitively hate), Command Animal, and Command Plant.
If I was playing a Druid/Arcane hybrid, there would be no reason for me to even remotely consider the Mystic Theurge. They are not mathematically comparable, despite having the same number of actions per turn as everyone else. I remember Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic producing similar PrC's that, once again, failed to hold to the design philosophy of the standard set in the DMG.
How did this happen? I have two possible theories: 1) Early, unforeseen balance issues; or, 2) A discarding of previous design standards.
1) Wizards produces a cool new PrC, the Mystic Theurge w/ the release of 3.5. Gamers think this concept is cool, but after extensive use in play, the class falls behind in power levels when compared to other classes.
2) Wizards develops the A.H. PrC from Races of the Wild w/o comparing it to previous material for balance.
Either way, there is a problem. If scenario one is correct, then there was not enough play testing before the release of 3.5 (which, from the conversations on these forums, is my pet theory). If scenario two is correct, then you have poor internal consistency in the game, which lowers the quality of the product overall.
I have seen, from time to time, arguments that state that every character has the same number of actions in a round, hence they are (reasonably) balanced. I disagree with this concept. I have long been a fan of Wizards for purely flavor reasons (I like the bookish, scholarly hero.). You have not discovered the meaning of stress until you've burnt your last spell on what turns out to be the scouting force for a larger army about an hour away. To my credit, my ranks in Craft (Alchemy) and creative use of a couple of scrolls saved the day. However, now I'm seeing classes and feats that give the player an almost endless stream of attacks... what's a wizard to do?
In what will be an off-topic opinionated rant, Wizards are left eating dirt. In modern D&D, knowledge is anything but power, as a spellbook is nothing more than a target for every thief in a thousand miles. Meanwhile, the Warmage (in Mithral Full Plate) is busy casting spells that can't be stolen, and deal more damage than an Evoker can even dream of, spontaneously!
Where's the consistency?
Are there ways to play a wizard and keep up with, or even lead, a party? Yes. However, it is clear that new material is not being compared to old material during the design process. When I want to play a Direct Damage Spell Slinger, and I immediately skip the Evoker, something has gone wrong.
If the original material was too weak (and, seriously, who's going to argue the casters got hosed?), then there was a flaw from day one. Otherwise, standards are being discarded as time progresses, to the detriment of the game.
Have you ever seen anyone anywhere make these arguments?
I believe that he may be referencing the article in which the designers explain that the Mystic Theurge prestige class, while provoking a little bit of a reaction at first, turned out to be a bit of a paper tiger.
The area referencing actions explain that the MT trades off high level spells for a larger pool of diverse spells (both divine and arcane). However, these spells are an order of magnitude less powerful (and have lower caster levels, do not penetrate SR as well, and have lower saves). Additionally, even with a larger pool of weaker spells they Mystic Theurge is very hard pressed to find enough combat rounds in a day to make this a realized advantage.
The above rant seems to take the notion that the MT will, in fact, steal your baby and ruin your game, that the designers have tuned to pure munchkinism in releasing it (and probably other "broken" classes like the warlock") and rails against a perceived version of an argument that was never really made.
Now, if I am misreading any of this due to the "cleverness" that the above rant is drenched with, I'd invite the OP to by all means clarify what he was trying to get across. However, if I'm anywhere near the money, I think it's pretty clear that the statement is five types of wrong. The MT theurge is a woeful under-performer, and any mechanically inclined player worth his salt recoils from it. And the idea that a giant pool of short-of-level-appropriate spells can't even be all cast in combats without additional actions is indeed a valid point.
No fans of reducto ad absurdum, huh? Too bad. I still happen to think this is hilarious and insightful.
Reductio Ad Absurdum is used for logical arguments, right? Game balance arguments tend to be a lot more about opinion. I also suspect that this argument did not go far enough for it to be clear that you were trying to disprove the point you were making, per reductio ad absurdum.
snip...
Where's the consistency?
snip...
If the original material was too weak (and, seriously, who's going to argue the casters got hosed?), then there was a flaw from day one. Otherwise, standards are being discarded as time progresses, to the detriment of the game.
It's called "power creep". It's talked about from time to time over on the Magic:the Gathering part of the site.
The basic idea is this; WotC will make something cool, (be it a cycle of cards for M:tG, D&D minis, or a feat/PrC/spell/magic item for D&D proper...), players will like it and use it. A couple of months later, WotC will make another "something" and there has to be a reason for players to want to make that purchase.
Magic can get away with this much easier than D&D can. If you play in the Standard format you can only use the current core set and the last two blocks. If you want to continue to play, you have to continue to purchase the cards no matter if they're more powerful, less powerful or equal. Even players such as myself who play the Vintage format, which allows players to use any and every set, still purchase the new sets to improve our pool of cards. I could by card [X] that I really want for $10-$15, or I could buy 3 packs of 15 cards for the same price and hope I get that card.
D&D, however, doesn't have the benefit of older material "rotating out". Once I buy the PHB it's always good. In order for them to sell me PHB2 it had better have something in there that improves my game. For a lot of things that means making something more powerful.
There has to always be a "wow" factor with any product they make, and it's always easier for them to get players to say "wow" when they publish a more powerful version of a previous whatever, (card, mini, D&D rule), than it is to be truly innovative. Maybe it's not the best policy, maybe it does hurt the game just a little each time they do it, but it does work.
The balancing factors are that we don't have to buy the book, and we don't have to allow the material in our games. I hate doing it. I don't like not using 100% of my material, but sometimes it has to be done. Sometimes it's more than just power creep.
No fans of reducto ad absurdum, huh? Too bad. I still happen to think this is hilarious and insightful.
Of course I am, but not here on Regdar's. I expect a higher level of article here. While I believe you have a valid point of view, and encourage you to share that point of view with the community, I don't think this belongs here. This would have been better suited on the general forums.
At first, new PrCs were built along the same lines as the Mystic Theurge. When the Expanded Psionics Handbook came out, they built a mirror image class. The XPH arcane/psionic hybrid class (sorry, name escapes me and my XPH isn't on-hand) offered the casting/manifesting power of two classes, but it suffered a lower spell/power level, no special abilities, a poor BAB, and only one good save. Very comparable in design. (Btw, can we please avoid Arcane vs. Psionic power level debates? That's not even close to my main point.)
Cerebremancer is the name of the class that you're thinking of.
2nd: I am inclined to agree with the OP. Back in 3.0 I allowed everything WotC published, because there were few things that were overpowered (though the few that were op'd were really op'd and I fully supported the revision), and what was overpowered I could easily rule out or revise.
When 3.5 first came out, I admit I was on the bandwagon against the Mystic Theurge. Eventually I came to understand it's flaws and backed off. I am convinced it's an OK class. So at first, I too allowed all 3.5 material.
As time dragged on, my group began to see the many problems already addressed. Instead of a few bad things and mostly good things, we found 3.5 splat material to be mostly bad with very little of it good. Most of what was published was either overpowered or had no real purpose.
We decided to go Core Rules Only. We still are today. A few months ago we went looking at the previous two years of books to see if the trend had shifted and briefly considered bringing in some new material, but we found that it was altogether still unreasonable and, for us, unusable.
3rd: So what is my basis for saying something is overpowered? Contrary to many people, comparing which class can "kill" which class like an MMO might is a flawed argument. D&D is not a "player v player" game. It's a Co-Op game, so such arguments are missing the point of the game entirely.
My basis is two-fold, for simplicity I will focus only on classes, though the system can be applied to feats, spells, whatever.
1. Is this class more appealing than other classes of it's type? Basically, if you might a variant warrior-type class, is it so good that no one will ever play fighters or barbarians again? If that's true, its "overpowered".
2. How does this class benefit a party?
- A. Does the class fill a specific party need?
- B. Is there a class that already fills that need adequately?
Most of the time I find #1 to be true and #2B to be true. That is, it is a class whose niche is filled by other pre-existing class, and this new class is far superior in the way it fills said niche, to the point that future players hoping to fill that niche will never select the older class.
The rest of the time I find only #2A to be true, in that the class is superfluous and fills no real niche or does so in a capacity that is either on par or inadequate to an existing class.
So far, I have not found one party niche that cannot be filled adequately by the existing PHB classes. IMO, if you start adding classes, you will either be totally replacing the older classes forever or introducing classes with no direction or purpose that no one will take. If you don't mind either of those scenarios, go ahead.
In what will be an off-topic opinionated rant, Wizards are left eating dirt. In modern D&D, knowledge is anything but power, as a spellbook is nothing more than a target for every thief in a thousand miles. Meanwhile, the Warmage (in Mithral Full Plate) is busy casting spells that can't be stolen, and deal more damage than an Evoker can even dream of, spontaneously!
Where's the consistency?
Are there ways to play a wizard and keep up with, or even lead, a party? Yes. However, it is clear that new material is not being compared to old material during the design process. When I want to play a Direct Damage Spell Slinger, and I immediately skip the Evoker, something has gone wrong.
If the original material was too weak (and, seriously, who's going to argue the casters got hosed?), then there was a flaw from day one. Otherwise, standards are being discarded as time progresses, to the detriment of the game.
I was agreeing with you up until here.
The Warmage may very well beat out the Evoker in terms of ability to deal damage but an Evoker is, and never should be, limited to Evocation magic. Yes he specializes in it but that does not preclude him from learning some Conjuration magic that could help the Rogue flank easier or maybe some Divinations that can help progress the plot. The Warmage is left with his megere spells and watches helplessly as the enemies become tougher and have their SR increase with each passing level.
The point of the Specialized Spontaneous Casters was to allow players to play that iconic Spell Slinger/Illusionist/Necromancer and forgo the benefits of a broader spell knowledge base in favor of a focused spell list with the ability to wear armor.
Also, I think your argument lacks the realization that the way in which the game was initially created and what it became are two separate entities. Power Creep is a fact of life. But beyond Power Creep there is a sense that some of the things designed in Core didn't work out quite like they planned. This is a partial reason why splat books are created. They help to reinvigorate Core and make it better through additions such as spells and feats.
No game is perfect when it is created, most especially a game as modular as D&D. It grows with experience of both the Devs and the Players. Some things that were initially hailed as a standard belief go by the way side as problems and new ideas pop up.
What class combination would enable a spellcaster to cast more than one spell a round? And yes I've heard of quicken spell, immediate actions and the like. Those are weak alternatives with big drawbacks.
I believe PrCs that combine arcane and divine spellcasting are trying to balance spellcasters with multi-classed warriors and having a hard time doing it. Spell casters where at one time the most powerful of the classes but that is hard to believe now.
I believe that he may be referencing the article in which the designers explain that the Mystic Theurge prestige class, while provoking a little bit of a reaction at first, turned out to be a bit of a paper tiger.
The area referencing actions explain that the MT trades off high level spells for a larger pool of diverse spells (both divine and arcane). However, these spells are an order of magnitude less powerful (and have lower caster levels, do not penetrate SR as well, and have lower saves). Additionally, even with a larger pool of weaker spells they Mystic Theurge is very hard pressed to find enough combat rounds in a day to make this a realized advantage.
The above rant seems to take the notion that the MT will, in fact, steal your baby and ruin your game, that the designers have tuned to pure munchkinism in releasing it (and probably other "broken" classes like the warlock") and rails against a perceived version of an argument that was never really made.
Now, if I am misreading any of this due to the "cleverness" that the above rant is drenched with, I'd invite the OP to by all means clarify what he was trying to get across. However, if I'm anywhere near the money, I think it's pretty clear that the statement is five types of wrong. The MT theurge is a woeful under-performer, and any mechanically inclined player worth his salt recoils from it. And the idea that a giant pool of short-of-level-appropriate spells can't even be all cast in combats without additional actions is indeed a valid point.
I thought he was talking about Favored Soul. Either way, he's wrong. Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Psion/Artificer kick the hit dice off all other classes.
I found that in actuality very little 3.5 stuff is overpowered. The main flaw of much of it is more, like Baptor put it, that it fills the same niche as existing material and somehow has been made to seem sexier, more appealing to many players - if only with cool artwork. Much 3.5 stuff I find to be much better balanced than 3.0. However, my pet peeve is that there is simply too much out there to choose from, and this stuff often makes simple, down-to-earth character builds obsolete, by way of unappealingly bland. Because the more material is published, the more the interactions between different sources can create problems.
Pun-Pun is impossible without Sarrukh... I never even heard of Sarrukh until I first saw the Pun-Pun build. WoTC probably didn't intend for Sarrukh to make Pun-Pun possible. Nor did they foresee that Locate City was soon to become the most powerful damage-dealing spell in D&D, with millions of d6s of untyped damage.
In both cases, interaction between totally unrelated D&D publications have obscene consequences. That is the danger of publishing a lot of material. And it is also the reason that many people run core-only games. I've come to that point myself, and am strongly considering a core-only game for my next campaign. It seems that all the publications have finally made themselves obsolete - a negative feedback loop.
And somehow, this is the exact point in time when 4.0 comes along. You can say what you will: WoTC certainly know their business. Power creep (if only through the mass of options available) sells a whole game edition. When it's becoming too much, you stomp it all and issue a completely new edition. I can't even say I complain. I salute WoTC's good business sense and hope for the best 4.0 they can make. Don't expect me to buy any supplements beyond core this time around, though: I've finally figured it out.
My main problem is the fact that my PCs can create warrior type characters with an untold number of attacks in a round especially if I agree to let them be a monster class such as a thri-keen or some other race with more than 2 arms. Spellcasters have no prestige classes that enable them to "copy" that strategy and it shows in the design of newer PrCs.
What class combination would enable a spellcaster to cast more than one spell a round? And yes I've heard of quicken spell, immediate actions and the like. Those are weak alternatives with big drawbacks.
I believe PrCs that combine arcane and divine spellcasting are trying to balance spellcasters with multi-classed warriors and having a hard time doing it. Spell casters where at one time the most powerful of the classes but that is hard to believe now.
Gestalt Shadowcaster Wizard allows you to use supernatural Mysteries and spells in the same round. Anima Mage, and JPM also let you do more than cast spells, if you build them right.