Balancing Classes in a homebrew world

[steeldragons]

But, not to put too fine a point on it, but aren't the powers of a sorcerer simply personal abilities born of their own mental energies?

I knew sorcerers were to come up sooner or later...This is true, but you'll notice, I did not list "sorcerer" among the core classes I'm suggesting. Spontaneous casting does occur in certain circumstances...but that would be the "flavor" of the world I'm talking about and how the various types of "magic" are defined in Orea.

Mages gain spontaneous casting 2 spells levels below their top level. Thus, at 3rd level, a mage (wizard) can cast 1st level spells spontaneously. At 5th level, they can cast 1st and 2nd spontaneously, etc.

Psionics, technically speaking is not included in the Orea's "types" of magic. It is an individual power.

What are these 'mental energies' if they aren't arcane magic?

This is most easily answered by sending you here- http://www.enworld.org/forum/5367806-post25.html.

In short: The Arcane magic "source" is an all pervading energy that surrounds the world...like a part of the atmosphere...that is harnessed and directed through the practice of spells and rituals.

Psionics are, again, "personal mental energies." They possess no specific (arcane magic) knowledge or training to access. No spells or gestures, no books or scrolls. Just the psion's focusing and directing of their own (or tapping into others) mental energy.

And what is arcane magic, if in fact they aren't 'mental energies'?

See above.

Sure, a psion learns to cast spells by disciplining his mind to unlock his native potential to effect the world around him through the force of his will,

That is one way to look at it, I suppose. But I do not consider the manifestation of a psion's powers a "spell."

but doesn't a wizard learn to cast spells by disciplining his mind to unlock his native potential to effect the world around him through the force of his will?

Not as I define arcane magic, no. While yes, a wizard does require training to set his mind to the access/working of arcane magic, this is not accessing "his native potential" this is accessing the arcane energy around/outside of him.

They are easily seen as similar, if not identical. But not on Orea. I do think differentiating between psionic and arcane is as distinct as separating arcane and divine or divine and "primal".

More importantly, why does anyone need to be a monk by class?
-snip-
...if you are stuck on questions of mechanics here like, "Only monks should have 'flurry of blows'" or "Only monks should get a bonus to AC based on wisdom when wearing light armor.", that you aren't arguing strongly for the classes existence.

True enough. This warrants some further examination/consideration as to their relevance (and/or inclusion) in the world of Orea.

Thanks.

 

[Troll Slayer]

Class balancing becomes a problem when you mix in way too many exclusive classes.

There's no reason the Monk class should be so restricted to one particular group of people. It does nothing to disrupt game balance by allowing flavor variations. Monks didn't exist in a void, there are always tales of rival martial arts schools with differing aims and even alignment choices.

For Example: I always thought the Drunken Master Prestige Class was neat but unnecessary. Take some defensive feats, and improvised weapon feats and you have a Drunken Master. Perhaps he has to drink to heal wounds but you throw him an AC bonus while intoxicated to balance it out. Simple, elegant and eliminating the need for a PrC.

If a great person comes along and lives their life like a traditional monk, why couldn't they begin to develope the same techniques? Why couldn't they learn to harness the power of the human body without joining a reclusive monestary? It just never made sense to me.

There are humans out there who exhibit many of the traits associated with real world monk lore, and they've never set foot in a traditional monestary. Parkour athletes for one specific example. They are at the peak of physical condition and can do things no normal man can do thanks to their devotion and discipline.

Sure you could just create new feats for the Fighter class, and run into new balance issues OR you could allow monk to cover more possible character areas, thereby limiting your own work and keeping balance issues to a minimum.

It's just my opinion that classes with exclusive membership create the need for new classes; and new classes create the majority of all balance issues.

Hell I have a friend who is a barbarian in a fight. He literally foams at the mouth, breaks furniture and has to be dragged off his opponent (at the risk of harm to whomever is doing the dragging.) He never notices his wounds until the fight is over, I've even seen him shatter two bones in his hand (in 5 total different places) and keep punching someone in the face with that hand! He's easily a berserker and he's never lived a "tribal" lifestyle by any stretch of the definition.

Some things in DnD are so arbitrarily limited it drives me bonkers, and it's these silly limitations that often drive players to want weird classes, or make irritatingly weird characters just to be different.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Personally, I think you are all missing the mark.

When I'm looking at a campaign, I ask myself two questions:

1) What does the campaign world demand?
2) Will that give me a spread of classes that will appeal to all player types (or at least the player types represented by my players)?

The campaign world is the first stop: If you're running Rokugan, you'd darn well better have a class that represents samurai well.

After that, though, you've got to have something of interest to your players. If you've got someone who loves sneaking around, your Seven Samurai campaign needs room for a ninja or at least a roguish sort.

After that, "balance" is an issue of adventure design. Design encounters that include the sorts of things your classes can handle. Should be pretty easy, given the adventures should fit the same campaign constraints that your class choices hit.

I went through this exact exercise a few years ago when I launched my Magica campaign, for which I designed a suite of classes from the ground up. (Coincidentally, I posted the chevalier class to my web site just a couple days ago.)

 

[steeldragons]

Thanks for the response, Charles.

Is there something specific to the classes offered that is "missing the mark"?

They are there because, at this stage in the world development, I have places for all of them...even nations and/or organizations for most of them.

The world is quite large with multiple nations, monarchies, city-states, empires, all of which provide a home for some if not all of the proposed classes.

Now, your point, as others have made, are they all "necessary"? Perhaps not. But I can see places/reasons for them all to be.

To your point, "What does the campaign world demand?"

It demands a proliferation of magic-using classes as magic is found across the world. I do not/have never agreed, however, with the idea that all classes have or access "magic" to utilize their skills or powers.

So, the point of the OP was to see if I was supplying a sufficient base for non-magic-using classes.

Is that is lacking, or too abundant, then I'd be interested in hearing what you (or anyone else) would "cut" or add.

--SD

 

[steenan]

In my opinion, the most important question to be answered is: what does a class mean to you? It may sound strange or trivial, but I think it's not. I encountered several different interpretations - and disagreements about them started quite a lot of flames.

So, what is a class?
An archetype, found in a wide range of fantasy stories?
A particular group in the setting, clearly defined by their abilities and social ties?
A set of purely mechanical powers, to be flavored as a player likes?
Something else entirely?

With a clear understanding of what a class is, it's easy to decide what should be a class and what shouldn't.

If it's an archetype, you should have no more than 6-7 classes and they should be thematically strong. There is definitely no place for several caster classes (wizard, sorcerer, psion, druid), unless you want to make everyone a caster and focus on the differences between types of magic and types of magic users. There is also no place for extremely generic, but flavorless classes as a fighter (nearly everybody fights - that's not something that defines a character). Take ten to twenty good fantasy books you want to use as a base for your setting, list all the main characters and find a set of archetypes that fits them.

If every class corresponds to a group in the setting, you'll have a lot of them, but they may be thematically narrow. There is a lot of conceptual space for monks, paladins, druids and your soraryn - all are very specific, but in this approach classes may be. On the other hand, fighters don't fit here too - you should have separate classes for knights, tribal warriors, swashbucklers etc. Classes don't have to be balanced (if a group is hard to enter or burdens members with a lot of duties, it may be more powerful) and should have various in-setting limitations reflecting who they are and what they do.

In the purely mechanical approach, you need to make every class balanced in itself on every level. No roleplaying limitations may be used as they make reflavoring hard or impossible. Different abilities should be the only criterion for separating classes, as the flavor differences are not represented (the system does not care if you do magic by the power of your mind or by praying to deities - only the effect matters). The only good limit for the number of classes is the amount of good ideas you have for their abilities and the amount of time you have for playtesting to make sure all combinations are balanced and tactically interesting.

 

[Haltherrion]

It's a lot of options; should be fine. Nothing says you can't socialize it with your players to get some early feedback. If one player comes back with a different class, you could consider if it makes sense to work it on to the approved class list. That is, nothing says you have to create your list in a vacuum, give the players a chance to offer their opinions. They may come back with something you really don't want in which case you politely say no but they may also come back with something you are okay with and you can modify the setting to incorporate.

 

[steeldragons]

In my opinion, the most important question to be answered is: what does a class mean to you? It may sound strange or trivial, but I think it's not. I encountered several different interpretations - and disagreements about them started quite a lot of flames.

Well definitely don't want to be creating any flame wars.

So, what is a class?
An archetype, found in a wide range of fantasy stories?
A particular group in the setting, clearly defined by their abilities and social ties?
A set of purely mechanical powers, to be flavored as a player likes?
Something else entirely?

With a clear understanding of what a class is, it's easy to decide what should be a class and what shouldn't.

I've given this some thought and I've come to the conclusion, that in my view, there's room for both of the first two: an archetype AND specific/special groups.

I am soooo not interested in defining/developing mechanics other than as necessary for the special classes. So, no worries about going THAT route.

Is there some reason a setting can't have both? Some reason you can't say, here's the general breakdown (fighter, cleric, mage, rogue) and here are the sub-/special-classes (paladins, druids, sorarynae, psions, etc.).

If you want to play a swashbuckler-be a fighter or a rogue, take the mechanics (skills, feats, proficiencies, what have you) make him a swashbuckler. If you want to be a "Dread Necromancer" be a necromancer specialist and take the feats, skills, etc. to get you to that level. Personally, I see no reason to have an entire separate "build" just to make a necromancer more necromancer-y. That's taking all of the RP out of RPG and making it all about the mechanics.

OR, go ahead! Allow DN in your game if you like it. I'm not interested in what versions of what games people like to play. I'm just interested in offering players, who maybe are looking for a change in setting or even people who've never played, possibilities for character classes and races that they can play and feel themselves immediately a part of that setting.

Wide enough possibilities that most anyone would find something they'd want to try without separate a class for every permutation of feat combos or special abilities.

If it's an archetype, you should have no more than 6-7 classes and they should be thematically strong. There is definitely no place for several caster classes (wizard, sorcerer, psion, druid), unless you want to make everyone a caster and focus on the differences between types of magic and types of magic users.

Orea's definitely a worlds that needs a lot of magic-users....and...I'm sorry I don't think I'm following. How can an archetype/only 6 or 7 be "thematically strong"? How can I make them thematically strong if they are supposed to be generalities?

Well, here I would put: "Warriors", Mages, Clerics, Barbarians (in their Orean definition/incarnation), Rangers, Druids (in their Orean definition/incarnation), Rogues...Rogues are easily the ones with the most possible shoot-offs...of which, possibly the Assassin could be an archetype of its own.

There is also no place for extremely generic, but flavorless classes as a fighter (nearly everybody fights - that's not something that defines a character).

I really don't understand. An archetype is fairly generic...it is kind of the definition. A pinnacle...a "standard perfect example" of...but a generic. If I called them "Warriors" instead of "Fighters" (huh, shades of 2e. haha) would that make it more palatable?

If every class corresponds to a group in the setting, you'll have a lot of them, but they may be thematically narrow. There is a lot of conceptual space for monks, paladins, druids and your soraryn - all are very specific, but in this approach classes may be. On the other hand, fighters don't fit here too - you should have separate classes for knights, tribal warriors, swashbucklers etc.

I could certainly do that...but it goes to the original post, where's that line? When does the breaking down by skills and feats stop? 20 classes? 50? One could make each person/player a completely INDEPENDENT class just for them...one-to-one classes...individual skills and feats. That's actually an interesting idea for a small, knowledgeable group...but impossible for packaged product.

Classes don't have to be balanced (if a group is hard to enter or burdens members with a lot of duties, it may be more powerful) and should have various in-setting limitations reflecting who they are and what they do.

Yes, agreed. This can certainly be built in...I suppose I'm leaning more towards the second (specifics) than the first (archetypes)...but as I've said, I'm really concerned about breaking down too far/too many options/too many classes splintering from each other.

Sooo....I guess where I'm going with all of this is CAN I have classes that are both archetypal and specific groups...or is there some unspoken rule somewhere that says I can't or shouldn't?

Thanks for all of the feedback.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Smoss]

Heh, you COULD go MY route for balancing classes in a homebrew...

I killed them all off. No classes at all. Build your own unique character (Build point style - Like Shadowrun or Mutants & Masterminds, etc)

Of course, I built my own RPG system - Not something most have the time to pull off successfully. Hard to go classless with normal D&D...

Then balance is making sure the build points all balance out. Plus it allows to to hand out XP (used as build points!) each session so characters can slowly grow. No levels!

There are certainly several systems that work similarly, hard to say if any fit your needs though.
Smoss

 

[steenan]

Is there some reason a setting can't have both? Some reason you can't say, here's the general breakdown (fighter, cleric, mage, rogue) and here are the sub-/special-classes (paladins, druids, sorarynae, psions, etc.).

There is no reason a setting can't. There is a reason why it, IMO, should not. And the reason is threefold:
1. It confuses the correspondence between the system and the game world. When you have "classes" that, in the setting, mean drastically different things, the "class" loses meaning. In effect, by trying to have options 1 and 2 together, you are left with having option 3 (classes as purely mechanical constructs). It also confuses the correspondence between classes. If there is a paladin class, can I just play a religious, honorable fighter? And if I can, what is the (in-setting) difference between such fighter and a paladin?
2. Having both archetypal and narrow classes creates a false picture of class demography. People who read your game will think that all the classes are similarly numerous - they would assume there is a lot more druids, paladins etc. that you plan in your setting. And if you specifically state that it's not like that, they will scratch their heads and ask "so why is there a single class for thousands of soldiers, knights, bandits and duelists, while a single order of twenty elven psionic paladins get their own?".
3. It's very hard to balance. Narrow classes have a lot of thematic limitations. They are either as powerful as others, which makes them globally weaker because they are limited, or more powerful to offset the limitation, which makes them too powerful when they act inside their limits. In effect, you leave balancing to the GM, as he is responsible to create adventures in such a way that specialists may shine but not too much. If balance is important for the game, such situation means that the designer failed.

Orea's definitely a worlds that needs a lot of magic-users....and...I'm sorry I don't think I'm following. How can an archetype/only 6 or 7 be "thematically strong"? How can I make them thematically strong if they are supposed to be generalities?

"Thematically strong" is something much different from "detailed". You don't need a lot of flavor text or rules to make something interesting. That's why I used the word "archetypes", not "generic categories".
An archetype is something that our thinking naturally resonates with, something that is a common element in many stories from different times and different authors. That's why I suggested basing the classes on books that inspire you, not on existing RPG material.
Archetype is not about what exactly somebody can do. Archetype is about a role in a story. The same archetype encompasses Merlin in Arthurian legends and hackers in Gibson's cyberpunk novels; the same archetype encompasses Paul Atreides and Neo. But Galahad and Conan are definitely different archetypes, despite both fighting with swords.

I could certainly do that...but it goes to the original post, where's that line? When does the breaking down by skills and feats stop? 20 classes? 50? One could make each person/player a completely INDEPENDENT class just for them...one-to-one classes...individual skills and feats. That's actually an interesting idea for a small, knowledgeable group...but impossible for packaged product.

You only create classes for distinct groups that exist in your setting. You don't need a separate class for every character.
The point is: don't create a class that represents characters strongly varied in style and abilities. There is much less difference between a knight and a paladin than between a knight and a pirate or a tribal warrior. If paladin is a separate class, the other three definitely shouldn't be combined into one.

 

[steeldragons]

You only create classes for distinct groups that exist in your setting. You don't need a separate class for every character.
The point is: don't create a class that represents characters strongly varied in style and abilities. There is much less difference between a knight and a paladin than between a knight and a pirate or a tribal warrior. If paladin is a separate class, the other three definitely shouldn't be combined into one.

Ok. Well, here's what I've already worked up (limited descriptions)...more flavor-wise than mechanic specifics.These are classes that are pretty firmly set (in my mind) in the world's populace...though most are region/realm-specific.

Orea Barbarians: They are a race of human tribes collectively called the Gorunduun. They are each devoted to a totem animal who is the mythological spirit, protector, originator of the tribe. There are 6 or 7, I don't recall off the top of my head. There are traits (stat mod's and abilities) that are common to all Barbarians in Orea and certain abilities/skills (foremost a tribal weapon) unique to each tribe.

Orea Druids: The druidic order, the Ancient Order of Mistwood, is spawned from one of the mythological original Five Tribes of Men. It has grown to be a continent-wide organization with 3 major holdings throuhgout the world and multiple other "sacred" natural locations (mounds, henges, springs, mountains, etc.) patrolled by an appointed "Keeper." The organization has also grown to spread its teachings to other peoples/races (so there are elf druids, a halfling druids, etc.). Any druid on Orea begins as a member of this order and is subject to the command of their superiors and the order's governing body (a council of the 13 highest level druids on the continent, simply called "The Grove"). Leaving the order/"going rogue" is very rarely permitted/tolerated without dire consequences.

The Sorarynae ("Golden Stags"): Elf only order of psionic paladin-like (much more disciplined and ordered than most elves) protectors of the elvin wood/kingdom of Miralosta. They possess paladin- and ranger-like abilities plus their psionic powers which imitate some druidic spells, plus telekinetic and limited telepathic powers. This is a relatively small organization and, as stated, they are primarily NPCs defending/protecting the Miralostae realm and people. A soraryn encountered outside of Miralosta is on some mission for the order or at the behest of the elf king or some other high-level royal.

Initiates of the Emerald Tear: This is a pseudo-religious secretive/hidden organization for psionicists of all kinds to train, expand and master their mental powers. None but initiates know where the order's legendary Emerald Tower is hidden, but there are few in Orea who do not recognize the green crescent moon and teardrop symbol or the glimmering green robes of one of the order's seers and their counsel is much sought after and respected by most of the ruling bodies in Orea.

Witch-Priests of Manat: the religious order of the goddess of magic, these are Manat's "clerics." They are some of the most respected (and feared) spellcasters in Orea. They enjoy both divine and arcane spell-casting...a "Mystic Theurge" kinda as I've come to find out. They have dual casting advancement (a 1st level Witch-Priest casts as a 1st lvl mage AND a 1st lvl cleric, with Int and Wis bonuses applicable). They are limited to leather or studded leather armor, no shields. They may not (nor would one be likely to want to) specialize in an arcane school. They are also easily identifiable by the large blue 5-pointed star tattooed on their face (top point goes up the forehead to the hair line, side points across the eyes creating a mask look and the bottom 2 points down the cheeks). Weapons are limited to dagger and staff...though most wouldn't opt to "limit" themselves with a physical weapon...magic is not only highly superior, it is the enlightened and divinely bestowed way to make one's way through the multiverse.

The Daughters of Gilea & the Protectress: The religious order of the goddess of healing and fortitude, Gilea, is an all female organization. By temple is primarily pacifist healers. They serve as medics and are greatly sought out for their curative magics as well as their knowledge of herbs and other mundane healing skills. No armor allowed but may use small shields and fight with maces or staffs. There is a branch of the Daughters of Gilea composed of more martially trained clerics (normal armor wearing, mace wielding clerics as far as most are concerned) that one might find themselves "called to", the Protrectress. This is more a "prestige class" I guess as one must be a cleric of Gilea to level 5 before being "divinely" chosen to be one of the pacifist order's Protectresses...there is whole prophetic/mythological story behind the origins of the Protectresses that is part of the temple's holy scripture.

Specialist mages: The Academies of the magelands of R'Hath have set up schools of the different types of magic. Achieving "mage-hood" (i.e. graduating to lvl 1/not beholden to any further training) as a specialist mage is a high privilege and honor. Each school of magic has their own heraldry- a color (often worn as a mantle if not full robes), symbol (a skull for necromancy, a shield for abjuration, etc...) and sigil. A graduated Specialist will normally take great pride in these...he definitely would wear/display some or all of these in public within R'Hath's lands, usually without, and would expect to be referred to by his/her "proper" title, "Conjurer Chris", "Evan the Evoker", etc...and would be insulted if they were not..."I'm not some 'common' wizard."

R'Hathi Battlemages: These are simply mages that can use up to chain armor, all single-handed weapons or staffs, and specialize in combat spell-use (pretty much anything dealing damage, area effects and strong protection magic). Buckler shields are allowed but not any other. As their name states, they hail from the mage-lands of R'Hath and are only trained there. Non-R'Hathi citizens are not accepted for battlemage training and most of them become start out or become officers in R'Hath's military.

There are a couple of more: The Scribe-monks of Sorilor, The Redstar Knights (Lawful Good paladinic order of the god of guardianship and battleskill), The Iron Gauntlets (Lawful Evil paladins of the god of domination and power)...but I'll save them for a later time.

So what do we think of these sorts of classes?

I can't imagine making up individual stuff like this for every permutation of a fighter-type class....swordsmen, archers, tribal spear throwers, swashbucklers, bounty hunters, knights, bounty hunters (though I am thinking of specifying a Orean "Bounty Hunter" class that would essentially be a simple rework and name change cuz I think "Urban Ranger" is an oxymoron.)

Or do you prefer the archetype style stuff?

Thanks again for your responses, this is all very helpful stuff.
--SD