A treatise on game balance in the game of Dungeons and Dragons by Adam Fasoldt
We are plagued with threads on these boards which bemoan the alleged uselessness of certain classes in the game. We have been absolutely crushed by the weight of the multitudes of fighter fixes and sorcerer tweaks. What’s worse is that this groupthink is awarded with rules that support its theories and creep into our games like slimy, little worms in our otherwise crunchy and delicious apple.
Prestige classes are decidedly more powerful than single class builds. Most of the new core classes are rather good, yet take specialization too far. Its one thing to introduce a new mechanic and make it interesting, like the Warlock, but classes like the Swashbuckler, while cute and balanced, completely miss the mark as far as what a core class is supposed to do.
I would like to present to you that prestige classes have gotten completely out of control as have phantom fixes to the Fighter and the Sorcerer in the Player’s Handbook 2 and the Tome of Battle. I am excessively disappointed in these products, though there is little I can do about it. I want my players to be happy above all else, or else why would I be a DM? I want them to have lots of options and have a good time playing their characters. Moreover, I don’t want to have to twink my NPCs from here to Golgotha to present any kind of challenge.
There are several things I would like to prove in this article, as well as several things I would like to propose. These are:
- Fallacy: the one-on-one fight is not a good gauge for class or prestige class balance.
- Corollary: it is a mistake for prestige classes to be “better” overall than core classes.
- Corollary: it is a mistake to create core classes which are over-specialized.
The One-on-One Fight Fallacy
There are a multitude of reasons why duels are not a very good gauge of game balance. I’ll touch on the finer points and try to be as complete as possible.
The most glaring point is that there are too many factors involved in a duel. Where is the duel occurring? What are the atmospheric conditions? Are the characters allowed magic items? Are they prepared for a duel or are they prepared for a month’s worth of adventuring? Are they allowed to cast spells on themselves before the fight begins? How far do they start from each other? Are they aware of each other from the beginning? You cannot argue a point which does not consider every factor. Each of these circumstances, adjusted slightly one way or the other, will favor one class or another.
The question of character preparation also brings to light that we often fail to take into account a player’s character creation choices. Some character classes, such as the wizard, excel at encounters for which they are prepared ahead of time. Other characters, such as the sorcerer and the fighter, rely on their builds to be as prepared as possible for any eventuality. This, alone, makes it terribly difficult to figure out which classes are superior. Even if the Wizard could succeed in a battle versus either one, they might be annihilated in an encounter they weren’t prepared for while a Sorcerer or a Fighter could easily survive. Spells can turn a caster into a machine comparable to a Fighter, but some dispel here and improved initiative there and the list of counters and counter-counters goes on and on. This is not to detract from the Wizard, but it just proves that there are far more dimensions to the argument than people truly appreciate.
Magic item choice throws all hope of a clear comparison out the window. In many arguments, one magic item will trump another in a heated battle resembling a game of magic, blue deck vs. blue deck. Not fun and wholly pointless. One might suggest removing magic items from the picture. This is not an option. High-level characters rely on magic items; they always have. The game is designed on the idea that your character will have access to these items throughout the game. Magic items are intended to allow your character to go beyond their limitations without breaking from their idiom. To give the fighter class the ability to fly, good will saves, and spell resistance as class features is not the answer. That’s what magic items are for.
Sure, classes have weaknesses. It's a fact. People have trouble understanding that part of the game is playing against your opponent's weaknesses. Sometimes that is readily apparent on the battlefield. Sometimes it's more elusive.
Let me tell you a story. One day my players were resting in an inn. They were godawfully powerful at level fifteen. I don't hold back as far as allowing players to explore their characters and push boundaries. The two characters were lovers, one a Paladin and the other a Sorcerer. While they slept, a level 6 rogue disabled the alarm spell, broke into the room, crept to the bed, quietly cut the sorcerer's throat, took the time to scrawl a message in her blood on the wall, stepped out and re-locked the window. The paladin awoke the next day embracing a cold, bloodless corpse. All of this was done by the rules, no fudging, no problems. In a one-on-one fight this would have been completely impossible.
There are so many different scenarios one can create for any of the core classes which puts that class in a positive light. There are also many that can cause a class to look pitiful and useless. The classes are built to be part of a group of adventurers, each with their own abilities and each able to contribute to the group. Some, like the cleric, are relied on by the group a great deal. A player could, conceivably, run a cleric as a warrior if they so wished, but I doubt the party would look after them as much as a cleric filling its role as party healer. A wizard could cast any number of spells to make himself as capable in a battle as a fighter. How long will that last? What are the durations of the spells? Can they be countered? Will they survive an anti-magic field? Will the wizard on the front lines be erased when he does lose those abilities? Even in a group, it's hard to quantify the usefulness of a single class.
It is a Mistake For Prestige Classes to be "Better" Overall than Core Classes
Game balance is important in D&D. If you run a game which is heavy with role-play, then you might disagree, but you also shouldn't really care. Whether classes are balanced or not, your players expect a heavy RP experience. Now, for people that run adventure games pockmarked or filled with action, game balance becomes very important. The entire reward system is based on this game balance--experience and treasure alike. It's natural for players to want to select classes which will allow them to more easily overcome obstacles you place before them. You can't fault them that. However, these choices should be choices of style, not power. When a player looks at a prestige class, they shouldn't be considering whether it'll make their character more powerful. A good prestige class will make the player ask the following:
Will this be fun to play? A good prestige class is fun to play, but you don't need to crank up the power to make it so. It must be unique and follow a certain idiom. A player chooses a prestige class to be different and try something new. Make it so. Several prestige classes have abilities which are not powerful and do not detract from the balance of the class. Some players make the mistake of including these things as detractors from taking the class, "This power is dumb, you should let me switch it out for something of the same level, but useful." These kinds of players are difficult to convert.
What benefits does this class give me? Of course, a prestige class should make a character better at something within it's sphere of influence. Even a small edge on paper could be a huge benefit in the game. You also want to look at whether the class consolidates stats. By this, I mean, does it shift the duty of ability scores, allowing a player to use one high ability score for too many things? Avoid this. Does the class's specialization allow it to do a core class's main job better all or most of the time? A balanced prestige class will always take the most powerful build possible and compare it to a similar core class character of the same level. If the prestige class is excessively better than the core class at its primary tasks, it's time to start over.
What sorts of things does this class hinder? You cannot give a bird an extra-large wing and cut off it's other one and expect it to fly. The same thing goes for prestige classes. On the other hand, the specialized nature of the class should be balanced by a tangible array of penalties. A prestige class that, for instance, gives a character improved damage with invocation spells, but decreases the damage of all other spells, or a warrior type which is much better at fighting with his specialized weapon but worse with others, is not a good balancing factor. There will be too few opportunities for that hindrance to actually cause the character a problem. A savvy DM could metagame those situations, but most DMs don't like doing that, this one included.
Will this class fit my style of play? This is the best question, in my opinion. If the player cannot answer this question, then this is a bad class. If the class cannot successfully communicate what it's supposed to do, then it's just a worthless jumble of numbers.
In which situations will this class excel? If the situations in which the class will excel a similar core class pile up, or if the situations in which the class will excel are woefully common, it's time to start over. A warrior prestige class which will be better in a battle than the core Fighter needs to be sent back to the drawing board.
In which situations will this class not excel? We don't want a class to ever be useless, but we need to know when a class will not be of much value. Compare the class to another similar class of the same level, and if there are too many rare situations, and not enough fundamental situations where the class will have less advantage than the core, then it's time to start over unless the situations it excels are equally unadvantageous.
When looking over a prestige class, can you answer these questions truthfully and get a response that favors a balanced character? I would like to present to you that there are a hefty number of Wizards-produced prestige classes which smash these logical guidelines to dust. We have gotten so used to prestige classes being just plain better than other classes. I don't see the excuse for this. I don't see how this helps DMs give their players rewards... are we supposed to reward people for picking a powerful prestige class? I think not.
It is a Mistake to Make Core Classes Which are Over-Specialized
This is what Prestige Classes and feats are for. Specialized core classes are a waste of paper. Core classes should stand alone and do well in any situation or role they were designed to fill. If a class, however, exists to deliver a different modus operandi entirely, then a new class may be warranted. Such was the case of the Warlock. However, classes like the Swashbuckler and the Ninja really did not warrant new core classes. Their abilities, historically, are easily demonstrated by existing core classes with different skill and feat choices. If one would like to go into the legendary abilities of these classes, then prestige classes would do just fine to facilitate.
Now, one should not stick their head in the sand and say that none of the core classes as written are immune to this. The Paladin is often reviled for being far too stringent and one might argue that the Monk could use a little more variety as well.
Core classes should offer choices, not limitations. Prestige classes should offer a single choice with expanded limitations.
What Do We Do About It?
What, indeed? We need to look at this objectively. Taking away player choice is not the answer. Players see an option and they want to use it. It's in our nature as Americans to want to have choices. Nothing is wrong with that. But, at the same time, as DMs we want to have balance so that we can give player's their much-deserved rewards. Do not take away from the current prestige classes or the current core-classes-gone-wild (such as the Warblade). I suggest doing one of two things, at least until we get a new edition cleaning up this mess:
One is to improve upon the 3.5 standard core classes. Improve the fighter to make it as powerful as a warblade. Allow the Sorcerer to cast metamagic spells at the normal casting time. Give the cleric access to all his deity's domains. Allow the Paladin to choose his alignment and pick a domain or two. Give the Wizard 4 skill points per level instead of 2 and a free feat at level 1 instead of scribe scroll. Strengthen the familiar. There are any number of things at your disposal.
Another thing you could do is expand the XP table to more resemble the 1st and 2nd edition method. All the core classes would still use the same table, but each other prestige or core class should be given a balance score. Slightly over-powerful classes would receive a rank 1 and the grossly overpowered would receive a rank 2. Rank 1 would require 10% more xp for that level and a rank 2 would require 20% more.
A Personal Note
I have avoided this for a long time. I've always been one to rail against any insistence that the game balance is in trouble. I can't deny it any longer and it's just time to do something about it. I opted to use the first option and will be posting my core class fixes, including fighter fix in this thread very soon. Ye gods, it feels weird to say that: "My fighter fix." Thought I'd never say it. Please, if you have any other suggestions, let's talk about it!
In any case, I think that almost everyone can agree that the problem stems from the fact that almost nothing in the core 3 books was designed to be used in the same game at the same time as everything else.
If not we wouldn't see classes like "Fighter", "Monk", "Bard", "Paladin", "Barbarian" or "Sorcerer" that are supposedly equal to classes like "Ranger", "Rogue" or "Wizard." To say nothing of truly powerful classes like "Cleric" and the class who has single class features that are more powerful than other classes whole class, the "Druid."
We would also definitely not see a monster manual and a dungeon master guide that can be read to have a DM assume that a quatro of Hezrou demons is an ¸equally dangerous encounter for any 4 level 11 PCs be they "cleric, druid, wizard and rogue" or a "bard, monk, paladin and sorcerer".
I DM a group of 5 players and I’ve got to bite my lip every time I hear a player say: "What do you mean balance? WoTC made sure all the classes were balanced before releasing them." If only that were the case, it would make a DM job easier. Because I feel the same way as you, I want my players to have fun but not at the sacrifice of game balance.
Here goes. First on the list, of course...
Loopy's Re-Balanced Fighter
The Fighter is supposed to be a highly malleable class. You should be able to make any kind of warrior-type character you'd like with the class. There are a great many feats that make this possible, but when compared to prestige classes, the Fighter is woefully underpowered. Many warrior prestige classes assume the lack of generalization is a key weakness. What the creators of these prestige classes don't understand that most players of the core classes are attempting to do the same thing with their feat, skill, race, and multiclass choices.
This Fighter re-balance attempts to allow players to further specialize in armed combat while minimizing that impact of that specialization on their combat-usefulness. It also attempts to give players of the fighter the same level of choice they have become used to with that class while, at the same time, re-balancing them with the powerful, and fun as heck to play Warblade class.
This re-balance does not attempt to give the Fighter the ability to weather the spells of a Wizard. That is not the point of the class. It just attempts to make the fighter better at what it already does.
Hit die: Unchanged
Skill points: Unchanged
Skill list: add Sense Motive
Base attack bonus: Unchanged
Saves: Unchanged (see abilities)
Special:
Fighter Feats: Unchanged, except that a fighter may no longer take weapon focus or weapon specialization as feats. Feats beyond the core feats that build on weapon specialization or attempt some kind of armor specialization are also prohibited.
Combat Specialization: At level 1, a fighter may choose a single combat specialization from the following list: weapon, armor, shield, agility, stamina. The Fighter chooses a new specialization at levels 5, 10, and 15. You may choose weapon, and armor specialization more than once, each time applying it to a different weapon or armor. Shield, agility, and stamina specializations may only be taken once.
Weapon Specialization: Choose a single melee or ranged weapon. You receive a bonus to hit and an increase in damage for the chosen weapon according to the table below. You may use 1 month of down-time to change a weapon specialization, or less if the DM determines that the weapons are similar enough.
Armor Specialization: Choose a single non-shield armor type. You are very comfortable in this type of armor and are able to move your body fluidly and have learned how to adjust and wear your armor to perfection. You recieve a bonus to maximum dex bonus, AC, DR, and a decrease in armor check penalty according to the chart below. It takes one day of work to properly and perfectly attune any suit of armor, even magical armor, to your body. Until then, your specialization does not apply. You gain You may use 1 month of down-time to change an armor specialization, or less if the DM determines that the armors are similar enough.
Shield Specialization: You gain the ability to deflect attacks with your shield. Whenever you use an attack action or full attack action, you may use one of your attacks as your armor class against the next attack directed at you. You must use this ability in place of one of your normal attacks this round. Special abilities, feats, and spells that grant extra attacks such as Whirlwind Attack and Cleave may not be used for your deflected attack. You receive your shield's Shield Bonus to AC on this attack roll. Additionally, you receive a bonus to the AC your shield grants according to the Armor Specialization Table. At specialization levels 6, 11, and 16, you may use this ability one more time per day each. At specialization level 10, you may add your shield's Shield Bonus to AC to your Touch Attack AC.
Agility Specialization: On the level you take Agility Specialization, you may choose to change your good saving throw to Reflex instead of Fortitude as if you had begun taking levels in another class that had Reflex as its good save. Fortitude and Will both become bad saves. From this point on, you may not change your save. You also receive a bonus to your initiative according to the chart below. At level 5, you may add your intelligence bonus to all damage rolls. At level 10, all of your armor check penalties are reduced by 2. At level 15, you gain the ability to re-roll your initiative once per encounter.
Stamina Specialization: You receive a damage soak roll according to the table below. Every time you take damage from any source you roll the dice indicated and adjust the roll with your Constitution modifier. You reduce the damage taken by this number.
Now, I really wanted to add another, called "Tactical Specialization". I'm not sure what it would be. Perhaps the ability to take a feat every 5 levels or so without having to take the prerequisites? Perhaps abilities which improve on current feats? I'm not sure. Sound off and tell me what you think.
However, classes like the Swashbuckler and the Ninja really did not warrant new core classes. Their abilities, historically, are easily demonstrated by existing core classes with different skill and feat choices. If one would like to go into the legendary abilities of these classes, then prestige classes would do just fine to facilitate.
Take the example of the fighter core class. Leaving aside questions of the relative power of the fighter, we can still make some assumptions. One is that the fighter is a combat class and nothing else. All of the fighter's class features focus on combat, and aside from those, the fighter only has 2 skill points per level and a short class skill list which can allow him to move through the environment without the use of spells or magic items, but little else. Now, this could be an example of your second corollary; I think a strong argument could be made that the fighter is an overspecialized class, but let me get back to my main point.
The fighter's primary, and only, task is combat. Therefore, a prestige class should not make a character a better combatant than a fighter, as that would be unbalanced. This is all well and good, but, following the same line of reasoning, a prestige class that makes an equally effective combatant is also unbalanced. If a Fighter 20 and a Fighter 10/ PrC 10 are equally effective in combat, then the straight fighter is getting a worse deal because the PrC provides other flavorful abilities or additions, such as more skill points or special extraordinary or supernatural abilities, that expand the tasks and roles they are able to fulfill.
Therefore, the only balanced Prestige Class for a fighter is one that makes the character weaker in their primary task of combat than the fighter. So you make a Prestige Class that is weaker at combat and adds a new role to the character, but then you run into the second problem. The core classes have done a good job of covering the necessary roles, which means that any new role you add with the Prestige Class will coincide with the role of another core class. The PrC can't make the character as or more effective at this new role than the existing core class, as that would be unbalanced. The end result is that any Fighter PrC, as opposed to specializing the Fighter, which is the stated role of PrC's, must instead have the opposite effect of spreading the Fighter's focus and making him a weaker "Jack of Trades." We have a contradiction, as a Prestige Class cannot follow your balance rules and follow its purpose of specializing a character, so we either need to readjust the purpose of a Prestige Class or adjust your rules.
I think you've been reading the boards too much. One brain was never meant to interpret the rants of a thousand brains! I suspect many of the people fixing and blaming haven't considered all the options or even played some of the classes in question enough. Many a time I’ve found that what posters here claim isn't true at all in normal play [warlock, mystic theurge are prime examples].Besides, you don't have to use all supplements and "IF YOU USE SOME SUPPLEMENTS YOU’LL NEED TO USE OTHER SUPPLEMENTS". If players use Tome of Battle, you'll need to use PHB2 and other non-core supplements to challenge them. Core writers didn't consider all the possible options in D&D, just the core ones. So naturally you can't expect core rules to hold up well against some specific class in some since released sourcebook.
One is to improve upon the 3.5 standard core classes. Give the cleric access to all his deity's domains. Give the Wizard 4 skill points per level instead of 2 and a free feat at level 1 instead of scribe scroll. Strengthen the familiar. There are any number of things at your disposal.
Whoa, that shows you're in Rant Mode right now. Whatever made you think that clerics and wizards need help? 
Besides there's not much wrong with the warblade or the fighter looking at the class itself. I suspect it has to do with their "components" of Feats and maneuvers/stances. The broken-ness or power of what feats/maneuvers/stances they get determines their efficiency. Don't hate the warblade, hate the "insert broken maneuver/stance here.”Also I agree with the 1-o-1 fallacy, D&D is a team adventure game not a duel/arena/gladiatorial game. So, you've got to apply the proper yardsticks [seeing it in play in a few adventures].
Of course this would probably only work for games that start around level 1 and work their way up to the high levels, but I do find moving anything that isn't core into the prestige bracket solves a lot of those unbalances.
IRL, D&D is not played as series of one on one arena battles. It is more often played at level one than at level 20.And very very rarely does one get to design your PC for a single combat.
IRL, the cleric or druid is widely eschewed--no one wants to play one. The "What's a DM to Do?" forum is filled with DMs bemoaning the fact that their 6 player games have no divine casters. And that is because in a group, IRL D&D, the best role for a single divine caster is "Heal-bot" which is THE single most boring niche/role in the party.
Do not get me wrong, the Cleric and especially the Druid are certainly powerful classes- especially at higher levels. But the "CoDzilla" is a complete fallacy in REAL LIFE gaming situations.
I, for a long time have thought about making the XP tables more like 2nd ed. as even the PHB core classes seem to need it(and I always just liked those tables). I have no idea about the warblade and other such classes, as my knowledge is limited to the core rulebooks and Dragon, but from the discussions on the board about fighter fixes and fighter vs warblade I have seen the problem that you have talked about: core class over specialisation. Now while I have no problem with a class that allows a high level of specialisation in a given area, a class which has a high level of specialisation in one area with no choice seems to be in need of dumping, make a prestige class out of it.
Classes should be built more like Rogue or Fighter, where the abilities keep coming and there's always something ahead you feel like you can use. As a primarily Rogue/Assassin I can't tell you how many times I want to take rogue a few more levels for those special abilities. And that’s what Wizard's needs to do next.
We've seen Epic, we've seen Wild, even Tactical and Combat Form but today ladies and gentlemen I bring you a new concept that will reawaken the base classes and shake the foundation of prestige classes.
Superior Feats. The feats for the pure base class. Like a fighter's weapon specialization, it'll require a specific base class of a specific level in order to take it. And make them really good as feats go. This almost mimics the rogue's special abilities. Essentially Improved Evasion is a lvl 10 rogue bonus feat, along with Skill Mastery and the others. Make them hard to pick between and slightly redefine the character's role.
Examples:
Superior Spell Mastery (Wizard lvl 10+, Spell Mastery)
Pick one first level spell you have used in Spell Mastery. You can substitute any 1st level spell or higher to cast that spell spontaneously as a sorcerer does(meaning metamagics take longer to cast).
Whoa! Hold on now. Spontaneous wizards? its not unheard of if you're read non-canon sources, and honestly its not that unbalanced. So what if he doesn't need to memorize magic missile when he's still burning the slots off for it. He's still limited to his spells per day, he just has a new use for those spells he thinks he won't need anymore.
Superior Favored Enemy (Ranger lvl 10+)
Pick one favored enemy that you have a +4 bonus against. Your spells affecting that monster have a save DC +2.
A +2 DC feat? I want my wizard to have that one! but wait, the spell levels of ranger spells are low, and so their DCs are usually low too. Well this kind of balances that out, doesn't it? Perhaps our dashing ranger knows that enemy so well his spells are as hard to resist and any druid's.
Superior Smite Evil (Paladin lvl 10+)
When a paladin uses Smite Evil on a foe, he can spend an additional use to stun his opponent as per stunning fist, but using the paladin's cha as the ability score and with a +2 bonus if the enemy is evil.
Now we're getting a bit shady on this as far as power level goes, but wouldn't a paladin just love to not only sock it to 'em but to also sock it to 'em so hard they can even react? Against an evil party a Paladin will burn his smite evils so fast he'll end up pretty balanced I think, and it leads to a lot of awesome fights.
There's some food for thought on how to keep the base classes important. A straight fighter is still relevant with all these prestige classes because there's a level requirement on their amazing weapon feats, and rogues have special level required abilities, albeit you can't take them as regular feats, and that makes a straight rogue relevant too. Why not show some of that love to the other base classes?
Weapon Specialization: Choose a single melee or ranged weapon. You receive a bonus to hit and an increase in damage for the chosen weapon according to the table below. You may use 1 month of down-time to change a weapon specialization, or less if the DM determines that the weapons are similar enough.
Nice, but pointless in my opinion. Make it simple to change like the Warblade and feats, or just apply the bonus to everything. All you're doing is mimicking the PHB2 rules for retraining at this point.
Agility Specialization: On the level you take Agility Specialization, you may choose to change your good saving throw to Reflex instead of Fortitude as if you had begun taking levels in another class that had Reflex as its good save. Fortitude and Will both become bad saves. From this point on, you may not change your save. You also receive a bonus to your initiative according to the chart below. At level 5, you may add your intelligence bonus to all damage rolls. At level 10, all of your armor check penalties are reduced by 2. At level 15, you gain the ability to re-roll your initiative once per encounter.
Why bother with such a change to saves? It's a very minor benefit, or possibly even a penalty depending on when you take it. How does intelligence become part of "Agility Specialization?" This just looks like 5 feats rolled into one.
Stamina Specialization: You receive a damage soak roll according to the table below. Every time you take damage from any source you roll the dice indicated and adjust the roll with your Constitution modifier. You reduce the damage taken by this number.
This seems overly complicated for no real reason. Just make it DR or a damage pool like the barbarian or crusader respectively.
I really don't see these as saving the fighter in any way, but being mishmashes of stuff from other classes. The equivalent of what you're proposing could already essentially be done via feats and multi-classing.
Nice, but pointless in my opinion. Make it simple to change like the Warblade and feats, or just apply the bonus to everything. All you're doing is mimicking the PHB2 rules for retraining at this point.
I'll take a look at the PHB2 retraining rules.
Why bother with such a change to saves? It's a very minor benefit, or possibly even a penalty depending on when you take it.
Flavor.
How does intelligence become part of "Agility Specialization?" This just looks like 5 feats rolled into one.
It's for precision shots. You know where to strike. It's a far easier mechanic than requiring Knowledge (anatomy). Besides, I'm a Fighter, Jim, not a doctor.
This seems overly complicated for no real reason. Just make it DR or a damage pool like the barbarian or crusader respectively.
One of my favorite mechanics of the Storyteller system by White Wolf is the soak roll. It doesn't muck up combat at all.
I really don't see these as saving the fighter in any way, but being mishmashes of stuff from other classes.
I disagree. It helps them to be better at what they are intended to do without sacrificing malleability.
The equivalent of what you're proposing could already essentially be done via feats and multi-classing.
I think it's very different from that. Cherry-picking prestige classes to serve the sole purpose of character optimization, in my opinion is as senseless as it is laborious. The Fighter should be as powerful as any prestige class combination, and the only things that should be on a player's mind when deciding to choose a prestige class should be whether it will be fun to play or help them develop their character's story, not whether it'll make their character more powerful.
Let me tell you a story. One day my players were resting in an inn. They were godawfully powerful at level fifteen. I don't hold back as far as allowing players to explore their characters and push boundaries. The two characters were lovers, one a Paladin and the other a Sorcerer. While they slept, a level 6 rogue disabled the alarm spell, broke into the room, crept to the bed, quietly cut the sorcerer's throat, took the time to scrawl a message in her blood on the wall, stepped out and re-locked the window. The paladin awoke the next day embracing a cold, bloodless corpse. All of this was done by the rules, no fudging, no problems. In a one-on-one fight this would have been completely impossible.
You see Alarm does not allow disabling it. See the FAQ and the rules as written (RAW) about that.You fudged it. You didn't look up the rules and made something up.
Understandable that you wanted to kill the Sorcerer, but making things up doesn't prove balance. It also undermines your words: "All of this was done by the rules, no fudging, no problems."
Right, I call this the "CoDzilla Fallacy." It can be shown that a Cleric or Druid, if they can be built at level 20 to go against a particular foe, and they can use all their resources for that single one on one combat, can beat any other class. So?
How about the level 5 Druid that outdoes the Fighter at tanking and melee damage dealing? How about the level three archivist that deals more damage than the level three Warforged Fighter 2/Barbarian 1? How about the level 13 wizard that polymorphs into a Firbolg and kills his foes with a magiced-up stick?
These characters outdo the melee beat-sticks at their own game. I've been those spell casting characters that make the fighter/barbarians/frenzied berserkers feel small in their pants; not b/c I have wicked-ass spells, but b/c I can do more melee damage, get much higher AC than them and cast spells.
I'm not here to play: "Spellcasters and Cohorts: Casters kick ass, the rest of you are their loot haulers and bodygaurds while they sleep" I'm here to play: "Dungeons and Dragons: Everyone kicks ass and we fight fiends and dragons for their shinies"
IRL, D&D is not played as series of one on one arena battles. It is more often played at level one than at level 20.And very very rarely does one get to design your PC for a single combat.
The fighter picks his feats every level or so, right? The wizard picks 2 new spells every level? Right? Okay, so they gain new special abilities on a regular basis, every level. That much is clear.
The wizard can change his spells prepared, or even save his special abilities to use whenever he feels like. A fighter can't remember a whirlwind now to use tomorrow, nor can he change out his whirlwind feat tree for precise shot, point blank shot, mulitshot and shot on the run. Now that is the real problem.
Scaling Combat Feats would solve that. Oh, and hey should be level appropriate. So, the special ability that a level 11 Fighter gets from his feat? Yeah, it should be equal to the sort of power that a Druid gets at lvl 11, or a Wizard or a Cleric or a Ranger or a Rogue.
Because he seriously needs to be able to help his party take on the Boss fight his party is facing at level 11, four Hezrou demons, that could very well turn into 5 Hezrou Demons and 30-50 Dretches.
IRL, the cleric or druid is widely eschewed--no one wants to play one. The "What's a DM to Do?" forum is filled with DMs bemoaning the fact that their 6 player games have no divine casters. And that is because in a group, IRL D&D, the best role for a single divine caster is "Heal-bot" which is THE single most boring niche/role in the party.
No. Those DMs have boring and unimaginative player. Make them bloody sweat while they die due to attrition damage. Also, the D&D "heal-bot" is the rogue; Faith Healing mofo, can you speak it? Lesser Vigour also works tho'.
It's 8 +1HP/Caster lvl (max +5) to people of the same faith as you. You can see how that works. If not, read use magic device and how wands work until you do. Once a party hits level 3-4, clerical healing can't keep up. Parties just take too much damage to allow them to do so.
Wands fit the bill easily. At 750 Gp a wand of lesser vigour gives you 550 HP worth of healing in 11 HP shots.
Do not get me wrong, the Cleric and especially the Druid are certainly powerful classes- especially at higher levels. But the "CoDzilla" is a complete fallacy in REAL LIFE gaming situations.
You simply are seeing games full of either dummies or people who can't read and solve word problems.
Because I see Divine Power and that tells me one thing, and I see Righteous Might and that tells me an other, I see Polymorph and Wild Shape and the Monster Manual and that tells me even more; I see the Ranger's skill list and the Rogue's ability set and then... then I look at the monsters that a PC of "such and such" level would have to face.
I'm telling you, half the PCs can fulfill their "flavour" role; the other half either can't or don't have a defined role.
The One-on-One Fight Fallacy:
Right, that is obvious. Nobody says, that 1 on 1 fights completely describe a class' power. Yet whenever someone makes a post about class balance, someone rushes into the thread and shouts: "D&D is not about 1 on 1 fights, it's about parties working together!"
This is definitely right and makes you feel the original post is wrong, but if you look at it closer you will likely see that this is not the case, since this reply really has no relation to the original analysis, except for the fact that they are both statements about class balance.
And there is a similarity to your post, in the section labeled "The One-on-One Fight Fallacy" there are a lot of right points, but I don't really get the idea, what you want to say. What is balance then? It is a Mistake For Prestige Classes to be "Better" Overall than Core Classes
This can be either obvious or wrong, depending on how you look at it.
Obvious, unbalanced is bad because it will make players feel useless if their characters are clearly inferior to the rest of the party.
Wrong, because the prestige-class mechanism is a bit more complicated. You do not only have to look at the class but at the characters that can be made with that class. This is about requirements.
Sometimes requirements are used to make sure a character specialises in an area he already knows. It does not make sense to give a Prestige class a "Superior cleave" class feature, if this does not require the character to have Cleave, for example. However, this is no balancing factor.
Those are other requirements - weak requirements. If the requirements force a character to be suboptimally build before taking it (Skill focus, multiple caster-classes), the levels can be somewhat better than levels in a base class. However, I admit, that often goes above the acceptable.
Another point one should see is that the higher levels of classes are supposed to be better than the lower levels (except for the first). You see that the Barbarian get's his more powerful rages, the Rogue his special abilities, the Ranger gets the powerful "hide in plain sight". Sadly this does not work for everybody. It could work for the fighter, if he could use his highest level feats for something seriously better than the low level feats, but sadly the choice of good feats is often too limited (depending on the amount of material allowed in your games). It does not work for the casters, as long as they are advanced by "+1 spellcasting level".
The solution as far as I see it? Rework the classes or disallow them generally or in specific combinations. The mechanisms are not bad just the execution.
It is a Mistake to Make Core Classes Which are Over-Specialized
And this one I clearly disagree with. There are two ways to look at the class system. Let me explain with an example:
Player: "I'd like to play a ninja-like character. Good unarmed and armed and lightly -or better not at all- armored. Stealthy and cunning combatant (somewhat sneak-attack like). And then some mystical abilities on his high levels."
DM 1: "Okay, that would be a Fighter1/Monk/Rogue dipping a bit of Assassin and then going into Prestige class "I don't know what."
DM 2: "Yes, the Ninja in Complete Adventurer does most of that already let's customise it the rest."
Both are viable. As a dm I also had both philosophies players, those that like the challenge of building a good character from a given set of rules and those that don't care about rules and liked to get a class to play up to Level 20, able to describe the character they have in mind.
And guess what - Both is playable and fun. Base classes can't be over-specialised. Even if a "base class" is only a custom concept for one individual, this is not overspecialised, if the player and the DM like that style of the game.
I like this article for most part. I studied DnD for a few months before I bothered telling my wife, "Roll these; you're playing." I agree with the notion of more options. I loved the idea of playing fighters and sorcerers for the sheer spontaneity of the class. But I also loved the idea of playing as a cleric for the fun of the role-playing. I also wanted to pop zombie heads through sheer will.
*pop*
I've seen instances where I said, "Whoa, the sorcerer's gettin' shafted." I've seen times where I've wondered if a PrC was worth the effort, excluding DM options for NPCs. I refer to the Radiant Servant of Pelor as the Super Cleric. I think the root of the problem lies in too many people focusing on what their characters can do rather than who their characters are.
Well, take the Radiant Servant of Pelor for example. A much more powerful cleric than, well a straight cleric. BUT, the person has got to want to play as a hardcore healer/turner.
I think many PrCs have a limit within themselves as to why one wouldn't take them. The tattooed monk gains new powers at the cost of losing normal monk powers. He can earn them back through tattoos but then he doesn't optimize on the unique abilities of the tattooed monk.
Essentially, I think it comes down to players. Instead of offering specialized builds or fixes we should just encourage role-playing for role-playing's sake. There's nothing wrong with power builds or ghestalts, just so long as a person is in character.
Don't know if I contributed or not...
...
*pop*
The fighter's primary, and only, task is combat. Therefore, a prestige class should not make a character a better combatant than a fighter, as that would be unbalanced.
This is true, but the fighter's primary, and only task is combat in general. Thus no prestige class should be as good as the fighter in an all round combat ability, however, you could have a PrC for archery, swordsmanship, agile combat(though that would most likely go to the rogue, not fighter, but, meh.) and such. So what we see is that the fighter then becomes the base for a number of different and equally flavoursome PrCs which have their place, each outshining the fighter in a particular style but not overall.
As to Fighter Feats, I think they should only build on pre existing combat feats, like a feat that doubles the bonus for far shot or point blank shot, or any other fighter feat, because the Fighter is the best all round combatant(or s'posed to be), that or bring back the 2nd ed. specialisation table.
The fighter's primary, and only, task is combat. Therefore, a prestige class should not make a character a better combatant than a fighter, as that would be unbalanced. This is all well and good, but, following the same line of reasoning, a prestige class that makes an equally effective combatant is also unbalanced.
Not true. A good fighter PrC is one that make the Fighter a MORE effective combatant- in a limited area of expertise. The Hospitaler is more powerful as Mounted fighter, The Order of the Bow Initiate is more powerful as a pure archer and so forth. Each loses the adaptability of a fighter but gains power in a limited area.
I agree that prestige classes keep getting more and more powerful and in any game I play anymore lvl 6 has always become "What prestige class will I take" level. It wasn't a question of do I want a prestige class, it was a question of which one. Few character builds won't benefit from taking a prestige class as soon as it can; one of the best examples of this has to be spellcasters. A class like sorcerer which has a completely bare special ability list, and even wizards who want to trade in a couple of bonus feats for a whole new list of powers can both take a prestige class with perfect spell progression and gain a ridiculous list of powers with almost no penalty for not staying a pure base class. I say almost because in both my examples their familiar would suffer, but honestly few builds I see or read about anymore brag about the familiar.
Classes should be built more like Rogue or Fighter, where the abilities keep coming and there's always something ahead you feel like you can use. As a primarily Rogue/Assassin I can't tell you how many times I want to take rogue a few more levels for those special abilities. And that’s what Wizard's needs to do next.
We've seen Epic, we've seen Wild, even Tactical and Combat Form but today ladies and gentlemen I bring you a new concept that will reawaken the base classes and shake the foundation of prestige classes.
Superior Feats. The feats for the pure base class. Like a fighter's weapon specialization, it'll require a specific base class of a specific level in order to take it. And make them really good as feats go. This almost mimics the rogue's special abilities. Essentially Improved Evasion is a lvl 10 rogue bonus feat, along with Skill Mastery and the others. Make them hard to pick between and slightly redefine the character's role.
Examples:
Superior Spell Mastery (Wizard lvl 10+, Spell Mastery)
Pick one first level spell you have used in Spell Mastery. You can substitute any 1st level spell or higher to cast that spell spontaneously as a sorcerer does(meaning metamagics take longer to cast).
Whoa! Hold on now. Spontaneous wizards? its not unheard of if you're read non-canon sources, and honestly its not that unbalanced. So what if he doesn't need to memorize magic missile when he's still burning the slots off for it. He's still limited to his spells per day, he just has a new use for those spells he thinks he won't need anymore.
Superior Favored Enemy (Ranger lvl 10+)
Pick one favored enemy that you have a +4 bonus against. Your spells affecting that monster have a save DC +2.
A +2 DC feat? I want my wizard to have that one! but wait, the spell levels of ranger spells are low, and so their DCs are usually low too. Well this kind of balances that out, doesn't it? Perhaps our dashing ranger knows that enemy so well his spells are as hard to resist and any druid's.
Superior Smite Evil (Paladin lvl 10+)
When a paladin uses Smite Evil on a foe, he can spend an additional use to stun his opponent as per stunning fist, but using the paladin's cha as the ability score and with a +2 bonus if the enemy is evil.
Now we're getting a bit shady on this as far as power level goes, but wouldn't a paladin just love to not only sock it to 'em but to also sock it to 'em so hard they can even react? Against an evil party a Paladin will burn his smite evils so fast he'll end up pretty balanced I think, and it leads to a lot of awesome fights.
There's some food for thought on how to keep the base classes important. A straight fighter is still relevant with all these prestige classes because there's a level requirement on their amazing weapon feats, and rogues have special level required abilities, albeit you can't take them as regular feats, and that makes a straight rogue relevant too. Why not show some of that love to the other base classes?
I certainly hope you're joking. Choice 1 is already present in the game, it's called Signature Spell and can be found in Complete Arcane with lower requirements, and choice 2 and choice 3 are kind of on the useless side, no offense.
Not true. A good fighter PrC is one that make the Fighter a MORE effective combatant- in a limited area of expertise. The Hospitaler is more powerful as Mounted fighter, The Order of the Bow Initiate is more powerful as a pure archer and so forth. Each loses the adaptability of a fighter but gains power in a limited area.
The hospitaler is more powerful because the hospitaler has spells. A fighter ultimately can far out do a hospitaler at the "combat" elements of mounted combat. Much of the trouble with all of these comparison threads is that the fighters are very unimaginative builds. I think weapon focus and specialization are worthwhile feats because they give meaningful bonuses at lower levels. Beyond that, the greater specializations and such don't really appeal to me.
I think more focused tracks, especially those that are not one trick ponies. With 18 or 19 feats at 20th level, you can build a pretty diverse fighter, especially when you move beyond the PHB. Of course it takes a loth of thought in building an advanced fighter, and yes, fighters need gear, the game is balanced that way.
But playing a high level fighter is not for everyone. But the balance arguments leveled by many as to one on one battles are fallacious, as the game is not balanced that way.
You see Alarm does not allow disabling it. See the FAQ and the rules as written (RAW) about that. You fudged it. You didn't look up the rules and made something up.
Understandable that you wanted to kill the Sorcerer, but making things up doesn't prove balance. It also undermines your words: "All of this was done by the rules, no fudging, no problems."
DMG page 67 right column paragraph 4.
Spell traps are simply spells that themselves function as traps. Creating a spell trap requires the services of a character who can cast the needed spell or spells, who is usually either the character creating the trap or an NPC spellcaster hired for the purpose.
This is from the SRD, but the book itself actually goes so far as to name fire trap and glyph of warding.
then see the "Magic Traps" section.
Many spells can be used to create dangerous traps. Unless the spell or item description states otherwise, assume the following to be true.
* A successful Search check (DC 25 + spell level) made by a rogue (and only a rogue) detects a magic trap before it goes off. Other characters have no chance to find a magic trap with a Search check.
* Magic traps permit a saving throw in order to avoid the effect (DC 10 + spell level
Flavor.
Flavor doesn't fix the class. People will play it for the "flavor" now or take class that fits the flavor. For balancing the fighter, flavor has no place in the discussion.
It's for precision shots. You know where to strike. It's a far easier mechanic than requiring Knowledge (anatomy). Besides, I'm a Fighter, Jim, not a doctor.
I think you missed the point. What does brains have to do with agility? How does being light on my feet make me smart?
One of my favorite mechanics of the Storyteller system by White Wolf is the soak roll. It doesn't muck up combat at all.
It's bad game design. You're rolling more dice, slowing combat down, making an unreliable defense (very bad for a defense when all others are pretty much static) and adding new rules where existing mechanics do the exact job already. If just did DR 2/- for every d4 you give you'd end up with the exact same thing (2.5 technically, but still).
I disagree. It helps them to be better at what they are intended to do without sacrificing malleability.
But they don't do anything. You're just adding more stuff to the fighter, that most of the other classes get already (better to hit & damage, better AC and DR etc). You're slapping lots of bigger numbers onto the fighter that isn't going to help. The fighter still has to rely on everyone else to do everything, or tons of magical items. The numbers are a little bigger, but they don't solve the problems.
I think it's very different from that. Cherry-picking prestige classes to serve the sole purpose of character optimization, in my opinion is as senseless as it is laborious. The Fighter should be as powerful as any prestige class combination, and the only things that should be on a player's mind when deciding to choose a prestige class should be whether it will be fun to play or help them develop their character's story, not whether it'll make their character more powerful.
If one goes through the agony of working up to Mystic Theurge, why should one always be punished for it? A PrC can be flavor based or power based. There's no logical reason to have it be worse than the base classes in either case. You gave something up to get into the PrC by having to take specific skills, feats, lasses/races or fulfilling special requirements likes test or quests.
Right, I call this the "CoDzilla Fallacy." It can be shown that a Cleric or Druid, if they can be built at level 20 to go against a particular foe, and they can use all their resources for that single one on one combat, can beat any other class. So?
....
Do not get me wrong, the Cleric and especially the Druid are certainly powerful classes- especially at higher levels. But the "CoDzilla" is a complete fallacy in REAL LIFE gaming situations.
The problem here is that the druid starts out as a better fighter than the fighter does.
The druid gets a wolf for an animal companion at 1st level. That wolf has 2 hd, faster than the fighter, decent ac, better saves, and a build in trip. Then add in the druid with a bow to back it up. And the druid still has spells to buff/heal the group and decent skills.
6th level? The companion has advanced to a fleshraker and the druid is brown bear, snagging 2 attacks, a better movement, decent armor and awesome grappling backed up by a +8 strength mod. And more spells.
It just keeps on going for the druid. Heck, at any given level the druid's animal companion alone can beat out the fighter. The cleric might have to wait for a while before getting it's power, but the druid is always good at any level.
Not that this is the comparison as it should be carried out between two classes, not a fight, but a comparison of numbers. Who would you rather have at 1st level to function as the tank. The fighter, or the druid with their tougher animal companion and 2 separate actions (1 for the druid and 1 for the companion)?
- Fallacy: the one-on-one fight is not a good gauge for class or prestige class balance.
- Corollary: it is a mistake for prestige classes to be “better” overall than core classes.
- Corollary: it is a mistake to create core classes which are over-specialized.
It is a Mistake to Make Core Classes Which are Over-Specialized
This is what Prestige Classes and feats are for. Specialized core classes are a waste of paper. Core classes should stand alone and do well in any situation or role they were designed to fill. If a class, however, exists to deliver a different modus operandi entirely, then a new class may be warranted. Such was the case of the Warlock. However, classes like the Swashbuckler and the Ninja really did not warrant new core classes. Their abilities, historically, are easily demonstrated by existing core classes with different skill and feat choices. If one would like to go into the legendary abilities of these classes, then prestige classes would do just fine to facilitate.
Now, one should not stick their head in the sand and say that none of the core classes as written are immune to this. The Paladin is often reviled for being far too stringent and one might argue that the Monk could use a little more variety as well.
Core classes should offer choices, not limitations. Prestige classes should offer a single choice with expanded limitations.
I agree with your first two points. What I do not agree with is the third point, and I have two reasons for that:
The first reason is that prestige classes tend to be, exactly what you said, overpowered compared to core classes. I prefer to play a core class through, without weird losses of caster levels or gaps in BAB or saves due to multiclassing and then going into a PrC to get a desired effect. I like all of the core class choices that have come out, since I tend to find the PrCs too powerful for my taste. By having base classes that shed a different feel, allows you to start off at a completely different flavor without having to be exactly like every other necromancer at level 1... you can be a dread necromancer. Sure, when prestige classes at about 6th level comes in you can start to differentiate yourself, but if everyone starts off as the same class, when the classes represent years of training, the flavor of different base classes immediately distinguishes you from joe shmoe.
Now, I understand that if base classes did, indeed, have multitudes of choices that you could choose, and prestige classes weren't overpowered in my opinion, then this would be less of an issue, but as it stands, choosing a different base class is taking the alternate class feature choice that base classes should have.
The second reason is who are you to claim what the purpose of base classes and prestige classes are supposed to be? What they mean can vary from person to person. I think it's rather obvious that the purpose of a prestige class is to specifically focus in something given the trend with them, but that's what it looks like. The truth is there's a tens of thousands of D&D players and all of their views of what a base class and prestige class is supposed to be and bring to the game is varied.
I have rarely agreed with the current implementation of prestige classes, but I think the direction WotC has gone with multiple base classes is a great step towards making choice for players and has definitely increased my overall fun that I've had in playing D&D.
Player: "I'd like to play a ninja-like character. Good unarmed and armed and lightly -or better not at all- armored. Stealthy and cunning combatant (somewhat sneak-attack like). And then some mystical abilities on his high levels."
DM 1: "Okay, that would be a Fighter1/Monk/Rogue dipping a bit of Assassin and then going into Prestige class "I don't know what."
DM 2: "Yes, the Ninja in Complete Adventurer does most of that already let's customise it the rest."
DM me: "I suggest Monk or rogue: monk has unarmed and -armored down, and you can make him sneaky. Also, you could have dagger as a monk weapon, if we take something else out. Alternatively, try rogue: he gets more skill points to become sneaky and can sneak-attack. Maybe at higher levels you could go into the other class to combine the two."
Flavor doesn't fix the class. People will play it for the "flavor" now or take class that fits the flavor. For balancing the fighter, flavor has no place in the discussion.
I didn't say it added or detracted to the balance. To me, it made sense for the specialization and helps the character be a little more versatile.
I think you missed the point. What does brains have to do with agility?
You're splitting hairs.
It's bad game design. You're rolling more dice, slowing combat down,
That's your opinion. You're talking to someone who pines for the days of the previous "Buckets O' Dice" editions of Shadowrun.
making an unreliable defense (very bad for a defense when all others are pretty much static) and adding new rules where existing mechanics do the exact job already. If just did DR 2/- for every d4 you give you'd end up with the exact same thing (2.5 technically, but still).
The soak roll happens after DR.
But they don't do anything. You're just adding more stuff to the fighter, that most of the other classes get already (better to hit & damage, better AC and DR etc).
Sure they do, and I sure am!
You're slapping lots of bigger numbers onto the fighter that isn't going to help.
Are you so sure about that?
The fighter still has to rely on everyone else to do everything, or tons of magical items. The numbers are a little bigger, but they don't solve the problems.
Of course he does! He's a frickin' fighter! He can't fly, he can't heal, and he's got the mental defenses of a over-ripe potato!
A class with no weaknesses at all is pointless to play! What the heck is the point if you have a defense (especially a GOOD defense) against every gorram thing? What is the point of playing a character like that, I ask you?
The idea here was not to make the Fighter more independent, it was to make him as powerful a combatant as the Warblade. Would this class's ability to deal damage and avoid it be about the same as the Warblade?
If one goes through the agony of working up to Mystic Theurge, why should one always be punished for it? A PrC can be flavor based or power based. There's no logical reason to have it be worse than the base classes in either case. You gave something up to get into the PrC by having to take specific skills, feats, lasses/races or fulfilling special requirements likes test or quests.
Prerequisites should NEVER be a basis for testing a class's balance.
The problem here is that the druid starts out as a better fighter than the fighter does.
a
The druid gets a wolf for an animal companion at 1st level. That wolf has 2 hd, faster than the fighter, decent ac, better saves, and a build in trip. Then add in the druid with bow to back it up. And the druid still has spells to buff/heal the group and decent skills.
6th level? The companion has advanced to a fleshraker and the druid is brown bear, snagging 2 attacks, a better movement, decent armor and awesome grappling backed up by a +8 strength mod. And more spells.
It just keeps on going fror the druid. Heck, at any given level the druid's animal companion alone can beati out the fighter. The cleric might have to wait for a while before getting it's power, but the druid is always good at any level.
Not that this is the comparison as it should be carried out between two classes, not a fight, but a comparson of numbers. Who would you rather have at 1st level to function as the tank. The fighter, o the druid with their tougher animal companion and 2 separate actions (1 for the druid and 1 for the companion)?
I'd rather not have this thread degenerate into this old argument again.
How about the level 5 Druid that outdoes the Fighter at tanking and melee damage dealing?
These characters outdo the melee beat-sticks at their own game. I've been those spell casting characters that make the fighter/barbarians/frenzied berserkers feel small in their pants; not b/c I have wicked-ass spells, but b/c I can do more melee damage, get much higher AC than them and cast spells.
The wizard can change his spells prepared, or even save his special abilities to use whenever he feels like.
Scaling Combat Feats would solve that.
Also, the D&D "heal-bot" is the rogue; Faith Healing.....
It's 8 +1HP/Caster lvl (max +5) to people of the same faith as you. You can see how that works. If not, read use magic device and how wands work until you do. Once a party hits level 3-4, clerical healing can't keep up. Parties just take too much damage to allow them to do so.
Wands fit the bill easily. At 750 Gp a wand of lesser vigour gives you 550 HP worth of healing in 11 HP shots.
Pshaw. I ran a druid at level 5, and even during the single combat he was Wildshifted for, the fighter way out-tanked him- and I had two boosts on me, and the fighter only had one boost on him. And, no level 5 druid can cast spells while wildshaped.
Wizards are not clerics. Folks love to play ARCANE casters, they are the most popular choice.
I never said that the PHB Warrior classes do not call behind the spellcasters at higher levels. Certainly they do, and that IS becuase the fact their feats rarely scale. But still comparing a Ftr 20 to a Clr 20 in a one on one, one off, arena battle, with the cleric built from scratch to out tank a normal melee fighter - is NOT ANYTHING like IRL table-top D&D, and thus the comparison is meaningless for IRL table-top D&D games. However, the folks over at the CO boards and my friends do claim they can build a ToB/BoNS warrior that will whup a "CoDzilla".
Faith-healing is nice in a wand. Assuming that your DM lets you have a wand of faith-healing, and that everyone in your party is of the same religion.
But wands only work for AFTER combat healing, after the lower levels. During battle, esp at high level, my hgh Level HEALER was casting HEAL and still not always keeping up with the damage. A wand of lesser vigor- when the foes are doing 100hp a damage a round- is about as usefull as urinating on a forest-fire. Try and keep a party alive DURING combat at high levels with a wand of lesser vigor. It is to laff.
Then add in the druid with a bow to back it up. And the druid still has spells to buff/heal the group and decent skills.
6th level? The companion has advanced to a fleshraker and the druid is brown bear, snagging 2 attacks, a better movement, decent armor and awesome grappling backed up by a +8 strength mod.
It just keeps on going for the druid. Heck, at any given level the druid's animal companion alone can beat out the fighter.
Normal Druids can not use bows. Slings suck.
Druids do not get Wildshape (Large) until level 8. The Brown bear is awesome, but it can not get through DR.
I do not know what a "fleshraker" is, but I do know it ain't on the SRD's list of Druid animal companions.
The animal companion can sometimes beat a fighter at levels 1, 3 & 6. A 2 HD wolf will be beaten by a Fighter 2. A 4HD wolf will be beaten by a Barbarian 5, etc.
Yes, if you allow a druid to get Large at level 6, use a composite longbow, and get a "fleshraker" then they likely rule. But if I give a FTR6 +1 adamantium full plate, a exotic weapon, and a str of +8, he will not suck so badly either.
Many people have an idea for their character and how their build will work, and none of the base classes will work for it exactly, and I don't know about you, but multi-classing and taking prestige class dips for powers to build a character that resembles a desired concept leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Plus you get silly combos and build orders. For example, a dark knight type build, who's primarily a melee character, but fights dirty and has no qualms with stabbing people in the back as the honorless mockery of knight hood he is. Perfect fighter/rogue, right? But it makes little sense to start fighter then go rogue, so for at least one level your dirty fighter can't proficiently use a long sword, a shield or any armor past light. Plus neither rogue, nor fighter alone really fit the concept.
If my character is going to be something I'd like to be it since level one unless it truly is prestigious. I mean really, classed characters alone are supposed to be rare, then add on top that they need to be level 6 before they can take most prestige classes and they become even more rare (I'm surprised these organizations manage to exist being as each one must have more high level members in their organizations than exist in entire empires with a metropolis for it's capital.) So you have to wait till you are beyond exceptional JUST so you can START to fulfill what was your concept from DAY ONE.
People don't want to wait till they're level six to START playing their character. Especially when their concept stems from their character background. It's nice to have a class that builds upon your concept from the get go, so that everything not only fits nicely but makes sense. Take the concept character and expand upon it, rather than take a concept character and try to find ways to represent them later on in their chareer because honestly nothing quite fits at the beginning.
As for me, I'm more against prestige classes and am more for new base classes + class variants and options.
I like low powered games, and hate that it often takes a billion levels to customize your character's build and feel to help flesh them out.
None taken. Please, elaborate on their uselessness and help me come up with something better.
Well, choice 2 is based around Ranger spells, which are usually several levels lower than spells from a full caster. Even with a +2 to the save DC they're still not very useful as offensive options, what with the fact spell resistance is almost unbeatable when your caster level is half your character level. Choice 3 is based around spending additional smite evil attempts, which are already fairly small in number, to accomplish a fairly minor effect compared to the effects that spellcasters of a similar level can pull off. No, I don't mean to pull the "casters can do it better" arguement, but in this case these are both effects casters are supposed to be doing (casting and disabling opponents).
I certainly hope you're joking. Choice 1 is already present in the game, it's called Signature Spell and can be found in Complete Arcane with lower requirements, and choice 2 and choice 3 are kind of on the useless side, no offense.
Ok, well my feats aren't perfect but after I posted this someone else said something along the same lines. Specialized core classes will get us all swamped in millions of 'tweaked' core classes until we can't swim anymore. When we slowly keep taking things away from classes and then putting different things in we're slowly playing around with an undefined point-buy system. I've seen a class construction kit somewhere and I feel like we're not even picking a core class anymore, we're just buying what we'll get eventually ahead of time.
We can only tweak the core classes to GIVE players a progression of abilities until we've given everything away that SHOULD have been feats.
Why couldn't the ninja's ki abilities be a special line of rogue only feats?
Why couldn't the beguiler be a special line of sorcerer feats (starting with a lvl 1 mandatory feat like the background feats of Forgotten Realms)?
Why couldn't the knight be a special line of fighter feats?
Why couldn't the favored soul be a special line of cleric feats?
The only difference in classes other than abilities is saving throws and all that requires in the feat is to say "Treat * saving throw as a good saving through (+2 to +12)"
We've put too much weight on picking the best class that fits what you want to do, and less weight on the abilities a feat gives the player. Feats are important to a character's defining aspects, but when the classes the player picks are already filled with special abilities he's double dipping. FEATS WERE MEANT TO REPRESENT SPECIAL TRAINING THE CHARACTER UNDERWENT. And now we have classes that also represent special training. How special does this character need to be?
Core classes were meant to be broad, and versatile so that players could enjoy seperate roles in a party without much overlapping while at the same time being so versatile that players could be whatever they wanted. With the addition of these specialized classes there's so much overlap that its hard to tell where one ends and another begins.
I'm also not a fan of corollary # 3.
Many people have an idea for their character ... and hate that it often takes a billion levels to customize your character's build and feel to help flesh them out.
I think we're actually on the same page here. I'm saying that the core classes should give the player all the tools they need to be the kind of character they want. You shouldn't have to make a whole new core class to do it.
I have avoided this for a long time. I've always been one to rail against any insistence that the game balance is in trouble. I can't deny it any longer and it's just time to do something about it. I opted to use the first option and will be posting my core class fixes, including fighter fix in this thread very soon. Ye gods, it feels weird to say that: "My fighter fix." Thought I'd never say it. Please, if you have any other suggestions, let's talk about it!
I could not agree more. We're seeing reams of prestige characters padding out books, and new core classes that (as you point out) should be prestige classes.
Examples: when I bought the Complete Adventurer I wanted information expanding on skills. I did not want the largest chapter in the book to be prestige classes that unbalance my game and that I can't use. When I bought Complete Arcane, I made a deliberate choice to waste a bit of money on the pages covering Wu Jen, War Mages, and Prestige classes, because I liked Warlock and I liked some of the material at the end.
I won't buy the Fighter supplement. The classes and prestige classes in it are totally unnecessary and quite unbalanced. I'm very cautious about buying any other books for a similar reason.
Good essay, but this does become a marketing question for WotC. Will they profit more by spamming the market, or will they profit more by releasing fewer, better conceived supplements. Prestige classes were a boon for commercial designers - they made it very easy to quickly fill up chapters. The core classes came about from years of play and care.
It's a tough choice. I would personally prefer WotC go for quality, not quantity, but I do not know their business model...
-K
I think we're actually on the same page here. I'm saying that the core classes should give the player all the tools they need to be the kind of character they want. You shouldn't have to make a whole new core class to do it.
The problem is they don't, and that's why there needs to be new base classes. If they did allow for this, I'd agree but they don't. Though I'm a huge fan of alternate class features as it's a big step in this direction.