Balancing Classes in a homebrew world

[steeldragons]

A recent thread got me thinking about TYPES of classes allowed for player options who would want to game...specifically, on my world of Orea.

The spread of magic-using versus NON-magic-using classes, I hope, allow people enough options to generate a type of character they like, without generating a sub- or "prestige" class for every possible facet of fluff imaginable.

The world design is for magic to be fairly common, and potentially quite powerful, but not a controlling force in all corners of the world.

I have restructured some of the existing classes (like taking spell-casting away from Rangers) and weeded out tons of (what seem to be) "common" special classes (from 3.x & 4e).

I think I have a pretty decent split but would be happy for some feedback/thoughts...areas I might be lacking...absolute FAVorite or "best" class that you can't play without (and why)...

I have (and continue to) debated adding certain others, like a defined "Swashbuckler" class or a Warlock option...but then the question becomes "Where do you draw the line?" or risk ending up with 2e's endless splat books or 3x's endless "flavor prestige" options.

I think the more fun and imaginative option is to leave things simpler than more involved where class is concerned. Let the player create the flavor they want (within the context of the campaign world, of course). Have them take the skills/feats/proficiencies, create the backstory and conduct themselves in such a manner during play that MAKES, for example, their character- a "Fighter" on the character sheet- into the roguish "would-be Pirate Queen" the player envisions.

(Please note, non-magic-based classes are still perfectly capable of using various types of magic items.)

Non-Magic-using/-based Classes
Fighter
Barbarian (a race of human tribes constitutes this class)
Ranger
Thief
Acrobat
Assassin

Magic-using Classes
Mage (i.e. "Wizard", including Specialists' schools, "Unique to Orea": Elementalists and a Battle-mage option)
Cleric (including a few "Unique to Orea" prestige classes and orders)
Druid (a single order throughout the continent)
Shaman
Bard

In-between Classes (with Powers/Spell-like Abilities, but not heavily dependent on spell-casting/magic-use as a class.
Paladin
Monk
Psionicist/Psion
Soraryn (Unique to Orea: essentially an order of Elf Psionic Paladins)

Would this seem to cover enough options for a set of D&D players?

Thanks in advance for any feedback.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Celebrim]

Sounds like you are in a similar situation to me, trying to figure out what is really archetypal to your world so that it could be called a 'base class'. For me, the goal is that the buckets:

1) Don't overlap much.
2) Are about equal size in the sense of containing equal amounts of freedom and variaty. Or in other words, no base class should be afflicted with arbitrarily narrow flavor.
3) Don't leave gaps between them where viable characters ideas exist but lack a class for them
4) Don't have redundant buckets where the only difference between the two classes could be considered flavor.
5) Don't have two classes exist mainly because of arbitrary mechanical differences or simply to provide mechanical alternatives to a class that already has basically the same flavor.
6) Don't need prestige classes or other kludges to allow for things that the base classes either by themselves or in combination ought to be able to provide on their own. In essence, my philosophy is that you don't take a prestige class - you become one.

My base adventuring classes are:
Aesthetic
Bard
Champion
Cleric
Explorer
Fanatic
Feyborne
Fighter
Hunter
Rogue
Shaman
Sorcerer
Wizard

There are also four fairly simple NPC classes: Brute, Commoner, Expert, and Scholar (Explorer began life as an NPC class).

Of my list, only two are 'narrow' classes - Aesthetic and Feyborne - but they are narrow only in the sense that they are what in other systems might be 'racial classes' designed to capture unique abilities of a the least human of the normal PC races. In the sense of what you can do with them, they are quite broad and indeed are more 'jack of all trades' classes than even the bard.

What's probably most striking about my list is what isn't on there:

1) Paladin: The problem with this class is straight foward. You need a different class for each alignment at minimum, and probably for each god. It represent a type of Champion, but not the template from which all Champions can be derived. I took a big hint from the Holy Warrior class in BotR, made that class even more Cleric-like and through out the need to exactly conform to the 3.0 Paladin. The result is a generalized Champion class that is much broader even than the Holy Warrior/Unholy Warrior combo, no longer dependent on DM intervention, and much more flexible in the hands of the player. I'm quite happy with it.
2) Druid: In addition to simply being overpowered by 3.5, the problem with the Druid is that it represents a type of animistic spellcaster and not the general template from which all animistic spellcasters from every possible culture and setting are derivided. It's not only too northern european with its temperate forest focused spell list and northern european trappings, it's too self-referential, and it's too specific and limited in its taboos, too nature focused, and just too bloody narrow. I basically tooled up the Green Ronin Shaman class from the Shaman Handbook without the need to step on the Druid's toes and that's what I use.
3) Barbarian: This is actually the class that sparked the revolution 8 years or so ago. The problem with the class for me began with the alignment restriction. Why are all primitive tribesman from warrior cults 'chaotic'? It seemed to make the mistake of seeing all primitives as disordered and all civilized folk as lawful. But that struck me as nonsense. Why also was there an implied Northern European bias to the Barbarian? Why indeed was it primitive at all? Couldn't you be a raging warrior from the city? The result of me stripping the class down the essentials was a slightly more flexible class I called 'the Fanatic'. My current version of the class is the direct descendent of that.
4) Ranger: This is probably the worst of them all. It's basically based off a bad imagining of an archetype from 'The Lord of the Rings', that has been tinkered with until its self-referential. It's an archetype of itself as it appears in fantasy games. Third edition took a big step towards broadening the class into a true base class, but it didn't go in my opinion far enough. It kept the ranger tied to the woods, which forced the creation of special classes for 'Urban Rangers' and who knows what else. And it meant that any character that loosely met the ranger archetype, from the local sheriff to bounty hunters to seal clubbers, was also a nature mystic with spellcasting power. The class stripped of its spells and unnecessary baggage became 'the Hunter'.
5) Psion: My basic problem with Psionic classes is that they seem to be mechanical diversity for its own sake. That is, the real unique flavor of the class seems to come from its unique mechanics. The actual flavor of the class - mind over matter or telepathy or what not - seems to me to be ordinary arcane magic. I feel basically the same way about the Warlock.
6) Monk: I just don't like them. If I did want to include them, they'd be as a generalized 'Martial Artist' class of which '[eastern] Monk' was only one sort you might play (along with I don't know Duelist, Cavalier, Kensai and Gladiator). The problem with 'Martial Artist' is that every time I think about it, it seems like it ought to be captured within the range of 'Fighter'. I don't see enough space for another focused fighting class. I fully expect 'Fighter' to encompass pretty much any sort of 'fighting man' from a veteren warlord of the steppes to a tea sipping caligraphy artist who studies brush strokes to improve his karate to an illiterate gladiatorial pit fighter to a dainty but deadly fop who moves with the grace of the lord of cats. And that includes a hermit who hands are lethal weapons.

Now, you can play Rangers, Paladins, Hunters, and Druids in my game - although your mechanics might be slightly different - but if you do so, you do so as a particular instance of a broader type.

Now, when I have problems imagining a character under my rules, my first instincts aren't to invent new classes. My first instincts are to invent new feats or spells. Virtually anything that you could make a class feature, you can also make into a feat or spell and make available. In this way, you transform a base class into a prestige class according to the player's choices.

 

[the Jester]

What system are you running, 3e? 4e? A homebrew?

TBH, the real minimum for players to have enough options is:

• Spellcaster
• Warrior
• Expert

Everything else is butter.

 

[steeldragons]

What system are you running, 3e? 4e? A homebrew?

TBH, the real minimum for players to have enough options is:

• Spellcaster
• Warrior
• Expert

Everything else is butter.

The real goal for Orea is that it is simply a campaign setting...a world of fluff, if you would. Ideally I'd like it as "edition neutral" as possible. What system you run is up to the group you are playing with.

I am trying to think of a "generic" list of classes that could be chosen for play and are likely to be encountered throughout the game world. Though not completely boiled down to your core 3. lol. Which I agree with and all of my options could easily be assigned to one of those 3.

Like, if I were to, say, publish an Orean Compendium-type of Sourcebook and all you had was that book and your dice, your group and knowledge of whatever edition you like to play. Do you think suitable options are there to entertain and spark the imaginations of most types of players?

 

[steeldragons]

Sounds like you are in a similar situation to me, trying to figure out what is really archetypal to your world so that it could be called a 'base class'.

Yes. Exactly!

For me, the goal is that the buckets:

1) Don't overlap much.
2) Are about equal size in the sense of containing equal amounts of freedom and variaty. Or in other words, no base class should be afflicted with arbitrarily narrow flavor.
3) Don't leave gaps between them where viable characters ideas exist but lack a class for them
4) Don't have redundant buckets where the only difference between the two classes could be considered flavor.
5) Don't have two classes exist mainly because of arbitrary mechanical differences or simply to provide mechanical alternatives to a class that already has basically the same flavor.
6) Don't need prestige classes or other kludges to allow for things that the base classes either by themselves or in combination ought to be able to provide on their own. In essence, my philosophy is that you don't take a prestige class - you become one.

I like this. Good criteria. I'll have to apply them to my list and see how everything holds up.

Now, you can play Rangers, Paladins, Hunters, and Druids in my game - although your mechanics might be slightly different - but if you do so, you do so as a particular instance of a broader type.

Now, when I have problems imagining a character under my rules, my first instincts aren't to invent new classes. My first instincts are to invent new feats or spells. Virtually anything that you could make a class feature, you can also make into a feat or spell and make available. In this way, you transform a base class into a prestige class according to the player's choices.

Yes. I agree...This is a much more eloquent way of saying what I am thinking. hahaha. Thanks.

 

[Celebrim]

What system are you running, 3e? 4e? A homebrew?

TBH, the real minimum for players to have enough options is:

• Spellcaster
• Warrior
• Expert

Everything else is butter.

I agree, but some butter can be nice. Also, with that few archetypes you aren't offering alot of combinations of BAB, saves, HD, and skill points. Unless you have classes with variable HD and skill points, effective 'subclasses', it becomes overly hard to achieve certain results. Also, having slightly more than 3 options means that its easier to deal with balance issues because you've made the choices for class abilities just a little more rigid. Also, counter-intuitively, it's usually easier to force characters to make just a little more well-rounded of a character from a class than it would be with a more flexible system because you can force players to 'buy' things that they don't want.

I mean, when you get down to it, even the above is 'butter'. In theory, you could have one class 'Adventurer', and you'd have effectively a skill based system where on leveling up you could decide what saves, features, BAB, and so forth you wanted to buy. But of course, under such system you'd inevitably end up with a lot of spellcasters that sacrificed any BAB progression for better saves or more hits points or other things of more obvious utility to them. You'd also probably end up with no spellcasters that couldn't heal at least a little, and it wouldn't be that suprising to see the same list of spells appear on every spellcasters list, and if certain skills always appeared. Sure, table dynamics might mean that players deliberately eshewed the obivious routes to power or didn't highly prize combat utility, but without self-limiting players the system would be subject to the same problems pretty much all point buy systems I've seen suffer from.

My approach more or less began with asking what was wrong with the 3.0 base class list, but you could probably do the same thing from first principle by enumerating the combinations of HD/Saves/BAB/Skill Points/Spellcasting Progression you felt were balanceable, assigning how many bonus feats (or equivalent) you felt were necessary to make up the difference, and then creating the classes from those skeletons. I suspect however there is more art than science in producing balanced classes, and too much rigid formalism will get you in trouble.

Three base classes strikes me as excessive and unnecessary rigid formalism.

 

[the Jester]

The real goal for Orea is that it is simply a campaign setting...a world of fluff, if you would. Ideally I'd like it as "edition neutral" as possible. What system you run is up to the group you are playing with.

I am trying to think of a "generic" list of classes that could be chosen for play and are likely to be encountered throughout the game world.

The problem is, not all of your classes appear in every system...

Maybe use an "archetype" system instead, where you list an archetype (acrobat) along with various classes that can fill that role (rogue, monk, assassin depending on edition) and special rules, traits, etc. that the role applies?

But your list seems pretty broad, maybe even overly so; for instance, what's the psionicist's archetype, and how different is it from an enchanter or diviner?

One approach I've toyed with in campaign design is saying, "This continent has these classes, while this island chain has those classes."

 

[Troll Slayer]

My philosophy has always been less class options, more class flexibility. Don't limit Barbarian players to being tribal. What if she's just an alcoholic dwarf that has anger issues and never bathes?

What if the Monk is a grappling pit fighter who spends his free time working out and caring for his body. Essentially he lives a monk lifestyle without the dogma of living in a monestary. Rename some of his abilities. For example, "Wholeness of Body" becomes "Second Wind" which just let's him shrug off more damage before succumbing by taking a moment to recover; rather than being monk-like magical healing.

I'm reminded of a player one time wanting to play the Scout from the Adventurer's handbook. In the end, we were all left wishing he'd just played a rogue.

 

[steeldragons]

The problem is, not all of your classes appear in every system...

This is true...and I hadn't thought of that.

Maybe use an "archetype" system instead, where you list an archetype (acrobat) along with various classes that can fill that role (rogue, monk, assassin depending on edition) and special rules, traits, etc. that the role applies?

Hmmm. I could try this.

But your list seems pretty broad, maybe even overly so; for instance, what's the psionicist's archetype, and how different is it from an enchanter or diviner?

I tend to think the Psion is his/her own archetype. The difference between an Enchanter or Diviner, to my mind, is that the latter use magic (arcane and/or divine) and the Psionicist does not. Their powers are personal abilities born of their own mental energies.

[/QUOTE]One approach I've toyed with in campaign design is saying, "This continent has these classes, while this island chain has those classes."[/QUOTE]

This is also good/requires further thought. Which is part of the reason I limited the barbarian class. You have to be a member of one of the tribes from this region to be a barbarian. It's a culture thing. A flavor thing. Someone not from that area can rush madly into battle weilding a battleaze if they wanna...but they're not a "barbarian."

My philosophy has always been less class options, more class flexibility.

Definitely. I agree in most cases.

Don't limit Barbarian players to being tribal. What if she's just an alcoholic dwarf that has anger issues and never bathes?

Then she's an angry alcoholic smelly dwarf...who's a fighter...or a thief...or even a cleric....but not a "barbarian" (doesn't receive barbarian stats adjustments or tribal weapon proficiencies, etc.)...not on Orea.

What if the Monk is a grappling pit fighter who spends his free time working out and caring for his body. Essentially he lives a monk lifestyle without the dogma of living in a monestary. Rename some of his abilities. For example, "Wholeness of Body" becomes "Second Wind" which just let's him shrug off more damage before succumbing by taking a moment to recover; rather than being monk-like magical healing.

Then...why can't he just be a fighter and take the feats for grappling and unarmed strike and all of that? Make "Second Wind" (that's a 4e thing, isn't it?) a feat he can have...sure why not. Why does he need to be a "monk" by class?

I'm reminded of a player one time wanting to play the Scout from the Adventurer's handbook. In the end, we were all left wishing he'd just played a rogue.

Precisely what I'm saying...and trying to avoid...and seems to contradict your point...unless I'm misunderstanding (always a possibility

Thanks to all of you for the input, guys. This is really giving me good stuff to think about.

 

[Celebrim]

I tend to think the Psion is his/her own archetype. The difference between an Enchanter or Diviner, to my mind, is that the latter use magic (arcane and/or divine) and the Psionicist does not. Their powers are personal abilities born of their own mental energies.

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

Then...why can't he just be a fighter and take the feats for grappling and unarmed strike and all of that? Make "Second Wind" (that's a 4e thing, isn't it?) a feat he can have...sure why not. Why does he need to be a "monk" by class?

More importantly, why does anyone need to be a monk by class? What things do you want a monk to be able to do which are exclusive to the monk and which no character should have access to unless they are a monk? What differentiates the monk from the fighter, or for that matter from a cleric? What particular role do monks have in your society that the particular combination of skills will be found reoccuring in character after character? Does you society have a culture of monasticism which for some reason encourages people to learn to fight barehanded? Personally, I feel that 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.