Are iconics balanced but classes/races not?

[Votan]

It is my understanding that the playtesting was based on iconic characters. These iconic characters are specific class and race combinations. I am thinking that maybe part of the balance issues are that the combination is balanced but the individual elements are not.

The iconics are:

Kursk, Half-Orc Barbarian
Gimble, Gnome Bard
Jozan, Human Cleric
Vadania, Half-Elf Druid
Tordek, Dwarf Fighter
Ember, Human Monk
Alhandra, Human Paladin
Soveliss, Elf Ranger
Lidda, Halfling Rogue
Hennet, Human Sorcerer
Mialee, Elf Wizard

Some interesting patterns emerge. The strongest race (Dwarf) is paired with a class often thought to be the weakest (Fighter). On the other hand, the weakest race (Half-Elf) is paired with what is often considered to be the strongest class (Druid).

Humans are the race with the broadest range of classes: Cleric, Monk, Paladin and Sorcerer. Notice that the cleric is a cleric of Pelor as that is almost the worst choice from a power-gaming perspective.

Half-Orc is often thought to be a weak race but the 4 skill points per level of the Barbarian probably compensate for the -2 INT of the Half Orc when compared to the Fighter.

What do people think? Could this explain some of the paradoxes in D&D 3.5 in terms of class and race balance?

 

[brehobit]

Gimble, Gnome Bard
Some interesting patterns emerge. The strongest race (Dwarf) is paired with a class often thought to be the weakest (Fighter). On the other hand, the weakest race (Half-Elf) is paired with what is often considered to be the strongest class (Druid).

Boy, that explains the Gnome Bard (And I like Gnomes _and_ bards...)

Mark

 

[Nifft]

Hot diggity damn. I think you're on to something!

Thanks, -- N

 

[Particle_Man]

For what it is worth, each of the "favored class" per race are represented for the core 5 races that have specific favored classes. And, except for elf ranger, all the other classes are represented by human and half-elf.

 

[Hedgemage]

Well, gnomes were turned into bards simply to give bards a boost and gnomes a better favored class than Illusion Specialist Wizard. There was no basis for it in any D&D edition, campaign setting, or other source material. I would love to be proven wrong, but I think the gnome/bard pairing was done solely for 'marketing' (for lack of a better word) to make the race and class more interesting.

 

[Sejs]

What do people think? Could this explain some of the paradoxes in D&D 3.5 in terms of class and race balance?

What about the second-tier iconics?

Regdar, Human Fighter
Nebin, Gnome Illusionist
Devis, the previous Iconic Bard
Naull, Human Wizard
Eberk, Dwarf Cleric
Kerwyn, Human Rogue
(etc)

How do those fit into the picture? We see again a broad spread of humans. Interestingly, we see a very strong (albeit traditional) race/class combo with Eberk. Two old iconics, the old gnome and the guy he replaced. Also ... no halflings or half orcs doing ... anything other than their single FC.

 

[Victim]

Notice that the cleric is a cleric of Pelor as that is almost the worst choice from a power-gaming perspective.

Err, compared to what other core dieties? Strength and Sun are both strong domains, and the good domain is required to make Holy weapons.

What do people think? Could this explain some of the paradoxes in D&D 3.5 in terms of class and race balance?

Only if you assume that other class race combinations weren't playtested. Only trying out a mere double handful of builds hardly even merits the word the word playtest anyway.

Moreover, the 3.0 - 3.5 switch allowed further "play-testing" which seems to have been at least partially ignored. Druids and Dwarves only became stronger after more play, despite being good before. Half elves were throw a few scraps but had no significant changes made despite complaints.

 

[FireLance]

I am starting to wonder about the CRs for giants. I recently did some math on the likely outcome of a fight between a PC 8th-level fighter of various races and a CR 8 stone giant. The dwarf and the gnome are likely to be just able to beat the giant (the +4 Dodge bonus against giants makes a huge difference), but fighters of all the other races will be flattened in about half the time it will take them to beat the giant.

Of course, CR is against a balanced party of four, so I'm going to add a wizard, rogue and cleric into the mix to see how much better a party with a dwarf or gnome fighter will fare compared to a party with a fighter of another race.

 

[delericho]

I am starting to wonder about the CRs for giants. I recently did some math on the likely outcome of a fight between a PC 8th-level fighter of various races and a CR 8 stone giant. The dwarf and the gnome are likely to be just able to beat the giant (the +4 Dodge bonus against giants makes a huge difference), but fighters of all the other races will be flattened in about half the time it will take them to beat the giant.

I suspect that that's more to do with the races involved than anything to do with the Giant.

+4 AC is a massive boost, and is probably too powerful. (Isn't it a direct carry-over from 2nd Edition?) +2 would be more reasonable... or just drop that racial feature entirely. It's not as if Dwarves are short of reasons for people playing them, and Gnomes tend to be focussed away from combat classes anyway so some other feature may be more appropriate there.

 

[shilsen]

I am starting to wonder about the CRs for giants. I recently did some math on the likely outcome of a fight between a PC 8th-level fighter of various races and a CR 8 stone giant. The dwarf and the gnome are likely to be just able to beat the giant (the +4 Dodge bonus against giants makes a huge difference), but fighters of all the other races will be flattened in about half the time it will take them to beat the giant.

Of course, CR is against a balanced party of four, so I'm going to add a wizard, rogue and cleric into the mix to see how much better a party with a dwarf or gnome fighter will fare compared to a party with a fighter of another race.

Giants are effectively the top melee monster for their CR. Comparing them against just a fighter (or any other melee-oriented class) won't tell you much. Against a well-rounded party, however, it's a different story.

Consider a hill giant (CR 7), for example, with its Ref +3 and Will +4. A 7th lvl wizard with 16 Int casting a 4th lvl spell gives the giant only a 40% chance of saving against it if it's a Will save (35% if Ref). Throw in Spell Focus and an 18 Int, and that's down to 30% and 25%.

A party with spellcasters can take out a giant of the same CR as the party average level quite easily, which is precisely what their CR says that they should be able to.