Class balance changes in revised PHB?

[Frostmarrow]

I guess "balancing the core classes" means just that. I believe the core classes are unbalanced, as is, on purpose. The designers wanted fighters to be more common than paladins and thus made fighters better (to attract more gamers).

In retrospect they might have decided that they are going to balance the classes and not be bothered with which class will be the most popular. I think that if the ranger class is even half decent it will rapidly become the most popular class since the ranger concept is held dear by so many of us. By doing this the risk having the game derail as 2nd Ed did with elves but that's not such a big deal. I mean, you fix a broken game with a new edition.

Other than that I think Michael_Morris' theories above will hold lots of water.

 

[Liquide]

What I would like to see?
Hmmm *ponders*

• +2 Skill Points for Bards is a no-brainer.
• Some skill based on Charisma for Sorcerers (or use Charisma for Spellcraft since it makes sense).
• Fortitude save for harm, take 5d6+Caster level (max +25) on a failed save (more or less what I agreed on with my players).
• Spread out the abilities of the Ranger a bit more and if possible give us both the Drizzt and Aragon possibilities in the ranger (not just the Drizzt).
• Well even if some people are against it I would like the Cleric to have a d6 for HD. (still this will cause a lot of problems in backwards compability though)
• Explain the diffrence between Polymorph and Wildshape (I know the diffrence but many don't)
• Settle for one Polymorph version.
• Better and more detailed rules on how to create magical items.
• Include some of the splatbook feats (the two weapon fighting chain is what really comes into my head, improved familiar is also a feat I could see make it)

Well that is about it, there are more from me but I'll settle with this for now

 

[Belen]

Ugh! Why does everyone harp on the ranger? The class is in no need of a boost. Every ranger I have seen played in 3E has been a powerhouse. Yes, they are not as strong as a fighter, but neither should they be.

The have good skills, great BaB, spells and great abilities. A ranger is made for a party, not a combat demon.

If anything, they are too frontloaded with feats. A 1st level ranger gets 4 feats (track, ambidex, two-weapon, and general feat) This is seriously front-loaded and should be changed, but otherwise a very balanced class.

What burns me is that almost everyone one of my players who cannot wear armor take a ranger level to get those three feats!

Dave

 

[Liquide]

Ugh! Why does everyone harp on the ranger? The class is in no need of a boost. Every ranger I have seen played in 3E has been a powerhouse. Yes, they are not as strong as a fighter, but neither should they be.

The have good skills, great BaB, spells and great abilities. A ranger is made for a party, not a combat demon.

If anything, they are too frontloaded with feats. A 1st level ranger gets 4 feats (track, ambidex, two-weapon, and general feat) This is seriously front-loaded and should be changed, but otherwise a very balanced class.

What burns me is that almost everyone one of my players who cannot wear armor take a ranger level to get those three feats!

Dave

Well you just explained the reason to why most people wants to revise the ranger , it is too front-loaded and you get too much for the first level of the class.

We want the ranger and we want the ranger to be able to do what he does best, but we don't want it all at once since it is to attractive to just go with one level of ranger + other classes then go full out ranger.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Ugh! Why does everyone harp on the ranger? The class is in no need of a boost. Every ranger I have seen played in 3E has been a powerhouse. Yes, they are not as strong as a fighter, but neither should they be.

So does this make the fighters uber-powerhouses then?

 

[Plane Sailing]

It is worth remembering that the key element of "balance" as originally portrayed was not "equal power" as much as "equal fun". One of the core principles of 3e was to make all the classes equally fun to play across all the levels.

I, like others, would expect to see some changes to the bard and ranger. It would be nice to see some changes to the sorcerer too. After all how stupid is it for "natural magic users" to spend their spare time *learning to use simple weapons*.!!! If I was in that position I'd certainly spend my time learning other useful skills! What more than the crossbow do you want eh

Cheers

 

[Apok]

If anything, they are too frontloaded with feats. A 1st level ranger gets 4 feats (track, ambidex, two-weapon, and general feat)

What burns me is that almost everyone one of my players who cannot wear armor take a ranger level to get those three feats!

Dave

And that, I think, is the primary complaint most people have about Rangers. No matter what WotC does to try and fix or balance the Ranger, I seriously doubt it's going to compare to AEG's Mercenary Ranger class, which is the best alt.Ranger I've found so far.

 

[WizarDru]

Well you just explained the reason to why most people wants to revise the ranger , it is too front-loaded and you get too much for the first level of the class.

Exactly. And worse yet, you get virtually NOTHING after 1st level. An extra favored enemy at 5th? And then again at 10th? [sarcasm]GLEE![/sarcasm] Not to mention that huge variety of spells! Woo-hoo! Call the media!

I can guarantee you this: some of the more popular changes will be made, eratta will be applied and some new content will be added. More importantly, many people's pet rule changes will NOT be applied, and an equal number of folks will be just plain unhappy about it. Some folks house-rules will become real, and other folks will find themselves with their house-rules as variants in print, as opposed to in their heads.

A few classes will be retooled, but most will be left virtually untouched. Certain problematic spells will be softened or clarified for better understanding (and possibly to close loopholes by clarifying intent). Some additional explanation material will be added, with more concrete examples.

 

[bret]

It would be nice to see some changes to the sorcerer too. After all how stupid is it for "natural magic users" to spend their spare time *learning to use simple weapons*.!!! If I was in that position I'd certainly spend my time learning other useful skills! What more than the crossbow do you want eh

Cheers

What I find annoying is that rogues doesn't get simple weapon proficiency while the sorcerer does. Instead, they spend several column inches listing off almost every simple weapon.

Be sensible, save space and simplify the rules. Give rogues Simple Weapon proficiency and go on. It isn't like game balance is going to be broken by allowing them to suddenly use spears and guantlets.

I would like to see bonus spells given for the cantrips. The cantrips have a lot of utility spells that would be nice to carry.

I would be extremely surprised if Skill Focus isn't raised to +3. Even then, it will still be a weak feat.


The biggest thing on my list is fix spell copying costs for wizards! The current costs are way too high, making it very difficult to add spells to a spellbook. I would also like to see them add something like the FR rules for mastering somone else's spellbook. That would go a long way towards restoring spellbooks as a valued treasure.

 

[D'arc DeWinter]

One thing I would expect NOT to see. I don't think we'll see any mention of multi-classing restrictions for Paladins and Monks. I believe (hope?) that this rule will quietly disappear.