Core classes. How are they balanced?

[Sylrae]

My opinion would be if characters are prone to self interest and factions then the roleplay element needs to be much more important. What skills can affect the game outside of the combat? Some characters may find it easier to get npcs to side with them, if this is a powerful npc then it may outweigh another characters advantage in one on one.
In a game I’m in currently our wizard has a great deal of knowledge but no social skills at all, while others social skills make npc interaction very easy indeed.
Make obstacles that one character simply cannot get past without the others, force a temporary alliance. The players need to be focused by their DM, let them fail a few tasks because of excessive self interest etc. Give them long term goals the others are not aware of so that they see the benefits in getting player x or npc y on side.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the above in roleplay becoming more important, you seem to want to deter the players from acting independently. That's exactly what I want to avoid. I'm all for them working together, but I don't really *make* the players follow a set course once I have the game going and they are comfortable in it. They decide where the plot is going. I might set the actions of the NPCs, but they decide (individually, not necessarily as a group) what their motives are, where their alliances lie, and what their goals and aspirations are. Which means, they don't have to be the heroes. They don't have to be the villains, they can be neither, they can be both at different times, or different players could be different things at the same time. That's the *point*.

I push them in certain directions, but that hopefully only lasts a couple sessions, until they decide what it is they want to do with their character.

I dont want to be forcing them along any particular path. If they want to save women and children and puppies, thats fine. if they decide to be twisted bastards, and kill men and sell women and kids ino slavery who am I to stop them. I mean, I'm the cops/guards, and the adventurers that want to take down the evildoers(who are in this case the players), but I'm not going to slap them with divine intervention. And if one of the players is playing with morals and another isn't, then whatever results from that results from that.

I have run 'good' campaigns, and I have run 'evil' campaigns. 80% of the time I prefer to let the players play how they want, and I just control the world theyre in. Players occasionally get executed for their crimes, that's life.

The freeform-ness, is part of the reason why I think it matters if the players have access to more or less powerful classes. They may not work together.

And even if they do work together, its rare that they make well rounded groups. the "Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric" has nevr happened in one of my games. I've seen "Fighter, Rogue, Scout, Swashbuckler", "Cleric, Cleric, Cleric, Rogue" and a number of other things. Especially if you look at all the splats that players have used in my games over the past 8 years. And even when they have a bunch of clerics, you're expected to take care of yourself. The cleric isn't going to take time to buff or heal you unless youre about to die. and even then, he's likely only going to try to heal you once in a while. Players always stock up on potions, and potions are very common finds in my games - alot of the time theyre just considered alchemical, not magical, and they cost about half what they do in the dmg and whatnot. Also, there are potions for all the cure spells, even above the max level you can supposedly get potions in. I had to do that, because as I said, they dont heal eachother, and there often IS no healer.

 

[ardentmoth]

Balance is in the hands of a DM. Quit yer whinin'.

 

[Sylrae]

Balance is in the hands of a DM. Quit yer whinin'.

Nice opinion. I wasn't whining though.

Balance is in the hands of a DM by either stacking the cards against a class to play down their strengths(which is a pain in the ass in a freeform game), or by changing the mechanics to be more balanced, and then having less mid-game tweaking to do.

I was looking for tips on HOW to adjust it. a few people were helpful, and most were just useless in the help category, telling me to wing it to compensate for bad class design. which I gather is what youre also telling me to do. What you describe as whining is me actually pointing out the validity of my claims, by providing evidence to back it up.

Additionally I was pointing out why in a freeform game having classes be closer together in relative power level is more important then the standard dungeon delve - which not everyone wants to play.

So: can one run the game in a way to compensate for the places Wizards did a job designing? yes. Do alot of DMs play that way? yes. Would I rather have a more level playing field, particularly because it's harder to fudge it when the players don't face monsters, or when the players face npcs with class levels? absolutely.

Anyways. I got what I was looking for, and will proceed to revise the cleric into a class that I could actually :let: players play in a freeform game where I dont make their decisions for their characters and have them put up with those decisions.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Sadly, my experience is that the outcome tends to be the same regardless of whether the fighter is willing to assume the mantle of party tank. Why? Because unlike the 4e fighter, the 3e fighter utterly stinks at being a tank, because he has no means of instigating the enemy to want to attack him over another PC who would have fewer hp, be less heavily armoured and possess greater potential for mass destruction. There is absolutely nothing he can do to say, convince the dragon to attack him, not when the dragon can just fly overhead to assault the weaker wizard or rogue, and the fighter can do little but just continue attacking the dragon, all while helplessly watching it eviscerate the other PCs. Nor is he an effective battlefield controller, since popular tactics such as grapple or tripping have their own limitations, and monsters tend to be just as good at this, if not better, because of their size/str advantages.

I play a human fighter in a long running campaign that makes a great tank.

He has the Goad feat from Complete Adventurer, which is a nice taunting tool, and he controls a good portion of the battlefield with his Boots of Speed, his heavy flail (yeah, he can trip), and judicious use of things like caltrops and tanglefoot bags. He also has a respectable AC, and does pretty wicked power attack damage with the flail.

So, between his speed, the movement control devices, Goad, and the heavy damage he can inflict, he's pretty good at moving where he's needed and drawing the attention of whatever it is we're fighting.

You're right though--sometimes a smart enemy is going to hone in on a weaker party member, and if the fighter hasn't positioned himself properly to make sure the enemy has to go through him, (or the enemy can bypass him with flight, or by going ethereal or something), then its a mad scramble to cut them off before something really unfortunate occurs.

But I imagine that thats a possibility in 4e as well, even with all of its marking abilities and whatnot.


MrG

 

[ardentmoth]

Then what would you call what you're doing? If you were five your mother would agree with me, it's whining.

So you're doing it for logical reasons; that doesn't change anything.

"A feeble, peevish complaint."

I think it qualifies. Now to -my- logical reason for bringing it up:

It is rare for DnD to match real-life; however, in this case it does. Men are not created equally, nor do we all end up equal. There is more to it than our ability scores, too. A soldier serving in Iraq or a a veteran from Vietnam, though one has aged, learned basically the same skills; but those skills would still be -meh- when compared to, say, the skills of a surgeon who was also pressed into war. Or those of a scholar and scientist who discovered a way to bend reality to his will.

Similarly, a fighter is less skillful than a fighter who is also a doctor (a cleric), or a wizard; however, the roleplaying restrictions and age of the respective classes (19, 30, and 50 respectively) certainly provide enough reason to play a simple mercenary skilled with an axe.

The more complex a class is, the more roleplaying requirement, the more skillful a player must be to play that class correctly.

So, then, either you've been outshined by a skillful player playing a highly-skilled character, or you have discovered that you can skillfully play a druid and totally wipe the floor with a horde of ogres. Either way, ego, pride, and yes, whininess, are not becoming.

 

[Sylrae]

Then what would you call what you're doing? If you were five your mother would agree with me, it's whining.

So you're doing it for logical reasons; that doesn't change anything.

"A feeble, peevish complaint."

I think it qualifies. Now to -my- logical reason for bringing it up:

It is rare for DnD to match real-life; however, in this case it does. Men are not created equally, nor do we all end up equal. There is more to it than our ability scores, too. A soldier serving in Iraq or a a veteran from Vietnam, though one has aged, learned basically the same skills; but those skills would still be -meh- when compared to, say, the skills of a surgeon who was also pressed into war. Or those of a scholar and scientist who discovered a way to bend reality to his will.

Similarly, a fighter is less skillful than a fighter who is also a doctor (a cleric), or a wizard; however, the roleplaying restrictions and age of the respective classes (19, 30, and 50 respectively) certainly provide enough reason to play a simple mercenary skilled with an axe.

The more complex a class is, the more roleplaying requirement, the more skillful a player must be to play that class correctly.

So, then, either you've been outshined by a skillful player playing a highly-skilled character, or you have discovered that you can skillfully play a druid and totally wipe the floor with a horde of ogres. Either way, ego, pride, and yes, whininess, are not becoming.

well, on a board about the game and about designing things for the game, asking design tips isnt really feeble. and its not really complaining either, because i was looking for an actual solution.

Whining is just complaining. it's not constructive. I, on the other hand brought it up for a reason: to fix it. your personal attacks are uncalled for and are just a form of trolling. It's like calling using the raw as is houserules if you go by as written instead of as intended. its total bs, and is just an attempt to piss people off.

now, I agree that not everyone has equal skills, but having a class be better is illogical following 3e. back in 2e when every class progressed at a different rate, and each had their own experience tables, fine. but 3e+ has levels with the same experience valued, meaning that characters of equal experience should be just that: equal. they aren't but in most cases they're closeish. I don't want to detail the diffrences here because i already did it above, twice.

"The more complex a class is, the more roleplaying requirement, the more skillful a player must be to play that class correctly. "
Its not very complicated to play a cleric and blast everything and totally dominate through your fighting almost as good as a fighter and your magic almost as good as a wizard.
Your argument works as to how a wizard is probably about 2ish levels higher in power than a fighter at level 20, except the wizard makes up for that by being terrible for like the first 5 levels. The Wizard is actually considerably harder to play than a fighter, because there are so many things you have to keep track of. The cleric has less to keep track of, and I was saying the small amount they lose from the wizard typeis far less than what they gain from a fighter type.

I can't believe people are still having me explain this when the evidence is appallingly obvious. The post has nothing to do with just complaining, it was a question on HOW to fix it.

Holy crap.

Thinking something could be done better than it was isn't being whiney, it's being ambitious in the sense that you think you could contribute to doing it better, or at the very least it's acknowledging the realism that anyone who really tried could have done it better.

Whiney would have been: *whine*The cleric is too good guys! Wizards should rerelaease the books and make them equal with the other classes! How are they too good? I dunno I just don't like them*whine*.

as opposed to: "Ok. The cleric is too good. It has this, this, and this, which make it better than all of these classes. So what do we do about it to fix it?" This second example is class design/redesign.

Anyways, some of the posters (READ: Not You) gave constructive tips on how to correct the issue, and I will now proceed to do so on my own.

Later.
~Darkholme

 

[Runestar]

Then again, while the spellcasting classes are undeniably very strong, I am not sure if it warrants changing. For example, if you play the wizard as a battlefield controller, he would be fairly effective in what he did, without necessarily stealing the thunder from the other PCs. By say blinding all the enemies with a well placed sculpted glitterdust, he is paving the way for the rogue to sneak attack with impunity and the fighter to attack with less risk (since their attacks on him will be less effective). He will not even be competing with them in terms of damage output, but standing at the back filing his nails while waiting for his long lasting control spells to do their job. In this way, everyone wins, because the wizard has "enabled" them to perform to their best.

Same goes for the sorcerer.

The fighter should be replaced with the warblade. While I have no doubts that the fighter can be very effective if built/played properly, the problem is it can be very tricky to do so and all too easy to screw up if you so much as select a "wrong feat" (it is easily one of the more complex classes in the PHB, most notably due to a lack of direction). Also, the warblade has the added advantage of more options (in the form of save boosters, less reliance on full attacks, possibly better mobility and the like) and can generally be more fun to play, because you can do so much more than just "move+attack" or "full attack". This also lets you be sufficiently differentiated from the barbarian.

Likewise, crusader replaces paladin while swordsage takes over the monk. While I realize this is not quite the "core solution" you may have had in mind, it is possibly the most expedient, and probably more effective than revamping the classes from the ground up.

Consider replacing the cleric with the cloistered cleric variant from UA. More skills, but poorer armour proficiencies means that the player will likely have to think twice about meleeing in the frontline. So he will most likely be a support caster, the way you feel he ought to be.

As for druid, PHB2 already provided the answer in the form of the shapeshift variant (a much needed nerf to wildshape) and rejuvenation (which is faster to run than summoning). This way, he can still be a passable fighter or a decent spellcaster, just not both at the same time.

Rogue and bard don't really strike me as problematic, so they can be left as is.

Did I miss out anything?

 

[Wik]

Well.

First off, if you have a campaign where there is a regular PvP or inter-party bickering, you're playing a different game from the intended game. That much is obvious. D&D 3e, Rules-As-Written, envision heroic fantasy where the group works together to overcome obstacles. It assumes a balanced party (fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard, or the equivalents thereof). Cleric is more powerful, because the assumed setting requires those clerics to spend many of their kewl powers keeping the rest of the group alive.

Break the assumed setting by introducing PCs that work as solo entities, in unbalanced groups, and you break the classes. Suddenly, PC power inequalities really spring into life. While the cover of your books say "D&D", you're really playing a different game. And therein lies your problem.

I find that, in such a situation, the best solution to balancing the characters is to limit the number of variables, in this case, character classes. If you go with the generic classes (a GREAT ruleset, by the way), you take a lot of the meat out of the whole "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" problem.

Your limited clerics idea works well, too. It's a house rule similar to the 2nd edition specialty priests, but I can deal with it. Make sure you nerf the wizard too, though, or you're just shifting power into their courts, and keeping the fighters and rogues down.

 

[Elethiomel]

So, then, either you've been outshined by a skillful player playing a highly-skilled character, or you have discovered that you can skillfully play a druid and totally wipe the floor with a horde of ogres. Either way, ego, pride, and yes, whininess, are not becoming.

In addition to what the OP has said: Maybe next time you should try to address the OP's situation rather than a random one from your imagination. The OP is here specifically a GM and is seeing an imbalance between the classes that are on offer for his players, in case you missed it. This may not be evident from the first post, but if you read through the thread it's pretty clear.

 

[LittleRush]

Greetings,

First I admit to not having time to have read all of the posts, but I will say this until I get more time to read in detail the entire thread.

I have never seen a 3.5 Druid or Cleric become a game dominating character, their abilities and powers are impressive, but in a fantasy world they are bound by their Ethos, which can often be a stumbling block even for evil clerics. Wizards are bound by no supernatural morality, educated in the finest way, and almost universally brilliant. Those things tend to tip the scales for wizards. Wizards routinely become the top dog in 3.5 games. A well prepared wizard is a Mighty thing.

In my experience the personality invested into a given character make him powerful, not his stats. Choices, reactions, in game really do mean more than what is on your character sheet.