Core classes. How are they balanced?

[Sylrae]

OK.

Druid, and Cleric, and Wizard.

The druid is a wizard with a much bigger selection of spells, full armor casting, armor proficiencies, weapon proficiencies, a combat animal companion, and wildshape, they don't rely on a spellbook, have a better HD, better saves, better bab, and better skillpoints. They lose the bonus feats. explain how that is balanced against the wizard please? also, how would you recommend altering the class to fix it?

now the cleric: full armor casting,better bab, better saves, bigger hd than the druid, better proficiencies, combat effective class features depending on domain, no spellbook, same skillpoints, and once again, they just lose the bonus feats.explain how that is balanced against the wizard please? also, how would you recommend altering the class to fix it?

The reason im saying against the wizard, is that people complain about the wizard vs the fighter, where the fighter has linear progression, and the wizard has exponential. these also have exponential via spell power, so can you guys explain how this is supposed to work? or how to rework it?

 

[Ruslanchik]

First, Wizard spells do way, way more damage and have much more varied use that Druid or Cleric spells. Also, Wizards also choose from a much larger list, so though they have fewer spells known at the beginning, they have a much greater selection.

Druid spells and some of their class features are only useful in natural environments so in the dungeon (quite a common environment in DnD) they are at a disadvantage.

Finally, the Cleric is THE support character. WotC intentionally gave them more features in order to make them more attractive to players who might not like to play a straight healer.

Also, any idea of actual balance in 3E is a figment. There is no real system for doing it. It is very subjective. I like that fact and think it makes 3E feel very organic in play.

 

[Jack Simth]

Well, seems the playtesters weren't optimizers.

The game is balanced reasonably assuming:
1) A Direct-Damage Blaster Wizard (or Sorcerer) that only pulls out other types of spells when he's virtually forced to do so.
2) A heal-bot Cleric or Druid.

However, the Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Druid have much, much better things to be doing with their spells, and much betters spells to do with them. Hence most of the imbalance in the game.

 

[Kurashu]

Finally, the Cleric is THE support character. WotC intentionally gave them more features in order to make them more attractive to players who might not like to play a straight healer.

Emphasis mine. Major lawlz.

Personally, if I played a cleric I would tell my party the following: Do not expect me to drop everything in the middle of battle to run over and play nurse; I'll heal you if I can; if I can't, here's some potions, use them wisely, pitch in when you want some more; first and foremost, I am a walking destruction.

Then I would take a beating.

 

[Sylrae]

So what youre saying is basically that the game was balanced around wizards being blasters, and clerics and druids being there as support classes, and the fact that they are noticeably better is to compensate for the support classiness.

which means that in a game where the players are mostly expected to take care of themselves, and the cleric only takes enough healing to heal himself, or takes no healing at all (same with the druid), then thats where they totally kick ass more than the other classes?

It sounds like the game was designed to be balanced for one specific gameplay style I've never even SEEN anyone play.

who would you change the cleric and druid to balance with the wizard more? Because they are considerably better by my reckoning. the things I listed above. what features would you say would be removed.

Let's go with the assumption that each player only looks after themself, and they only heal eachother in extenuating circumstances (each player carries dozens of potions), and that nothing extra is needed to compensate for them taking care of the rest of the group.

should the cleric be turned into a sortof priest? lose much of the melee abilities? or should I drop some of the magic and keep the melee?

as for the druid, what are your tips there?

the answers I'm not looking for are the 'keep the classes as imbalanced as they are' or 'switch to 4e'. 4e is a whole nother bag of feces.
-------------------
and the post above, that's the exact reason im saying the cleric is imbalanced. you'd have to be a very generous person to play the other type of cleric, especially when you can be walking destruction with virtually unlimited hit points.

 

[Derro]

Well, seems the playtesters weren't optimizers.

That is so very true and so very telling in regards to the evolution of D&D from 3.0 to 3.5 and finally 4.0.

3.0, and to a lesser extent 3.5 because it is a derivative, presume balance based on an ideal of how the game should be played. 3.0 kept much of the ideal that was present in 1e and 2e but provided mechanics to go beyond that ideal. I think that is where a lot of the problems arose with broken class builds that were perfectly legal and, as the OP suggests, an inherent imbalance in the classes.

If you look at Clerics, Druids, and Wizards from the original 3.0 rules there are no really glaring imbalances.

Clerics are more powerful than their counterparts of earlier editions simply by means of having two more levels of spells and domains with their attendant powers. Ultimately their spell selection is pretty fair. Mostly bolstering and defensive with the occasional big bang to use against opposed alignment enemies. There are the occasional spells that break that mold, Blade Barrier springs to mind, but for the most part the cleric fills the defender/healer role.

Druids were given a bigger bump in 3.0 to make the class more enticing. Their class abilities (wildshape not included) are very niche oriented but pretty much indomitable in that niche. The basic druid spells of 3.0 were definitely given more juice. We see a lot more offensive spells and spells that were once based on environmental conditions are a lot less restricted. Even wildshape was balanced at first glance. Turning into animals and elementals only goes so far. But that is only one layer.

Wizards, under 3.0, had a lot of juice. They had more spells, more effective spells, and more implied ability with bonus feats, which I believe were geared toward meta-magic over item creation. But that is only under the basic rules.

Playtesting NEVER reveals all of the exploits. Exploits are something that arise over time. Playtesting is there, IMO, to see if the class at its most basic functions does its job and holds its own against other classes.

The biggest disparity in balance arises from add-on rules. Splatbooks. Those extra fancy feats that let you cast spells while wildshaped or use turn attempts to increase caster level or whatever are a big game breaker. There is the argument that Sorcerer/Wizards receive similar splat benefits but ultimately it becomes an arms race. And there is always that belief that pure arcane casters are powerful enough so their bennies shouldn't go over the top.

Referring to the original quote about playtesters not being optimizers:

I can't help but chuckle at that in regard to 4e. I distinctly remember someone from the current WotC design pool saying, essentially, D&D players will always look for the best way to optimize their characters and that is one of the principles of design of 4e. Under 4e no character, whatever the class, should be more proficient in their role than any other character. And I say good on them if they've managed to pull that off. To me it looks like the homogenization of character design but that is most definitely the view of a jaundiced eye.

I've used some pretty broad strokes here, I know, but the point I'm trying to make is that there was most definitely a particular eye for balance at the origins of 3.0. This was colored by the implied balance of the previous editions and pretty much torn to shreds by later revisions. If you want to play the game as is, I'd suggest balancing factors beyond those stated by the rules.

Clerics and Druids are both highly religious classes. Religion suggests an obeisance to higher powers and ideals. Make clerics go on holy quests. Make druids defend sacred groves. Tithe, TITHE, TITHE. If you recall in 1e (maybe 2e as well?) druids actually had to defeat higher ranked druids to advance.

Obviously this isn't everyone's style of play. If you just want to strap on your holy symbol or your sickle and mistletoe and go kick ass then these might not be solutions and are instead fabricated barriers. But it is important to remember that the balance is sometimes found in the way the game is [eye-roll]supposed[/eye-roll] to be played.

Personally, I can only take so much balance. If I run a game where things start to favor one or two characters too much it's either time for a smack on the ass for said characters or perks for everybody else. But that is purely my style. I guess I've adapted what I've been given. Or maybe adapted to what I've been given.

 

[Sylrae]

Your solution is a possible solution, I agree. But in a freeform game where the players are not forced to work as a single entity, and pvp and playerkills are an occasional but acceptable happening over different motives, then having the druid and cleric better isnt a great idea.

fudging things to make a class seem better against npcs is one thing. but when you seriously have to consider the possibility of the players turning on eachother, or just not helping eachother in some crucial moment, then you have to consider the balance of the mechanics.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have attack spells, or have clearly defined roles, actually the narrowly defined roles are one of the biggest things that turn me off from 4e. I'm just saying that if their casting is as good as a wizard's (which it pretty much is, a wizard gets more choice, but can't repick every day, and only has the spells in his book to pick from instead of having ALL the spells) then why do they get all that extra stuff on top?

the better stats, ability to function in better gear, all those other class abilities. shouldnt they be giving up some of their wizardly power for all that? instead of just layering it all on top?

or if you think the cleric and druid are closely balanced in power to the fighter and rogue and all hat, then that means the wizard and sorcerer are totally lax. so in that case shouldnt the arcane casters have all sorts of extra layered on them too? <== I dont think this, just presenting the other POV. I think the cleric and druid need powering down, not the wizard powering up.

I wasnt sure whethr it should be in house rules or here, cause i needed to make sure the issue was real and it wasnt all in my head. still though, if anyone can help me with this, it would be incredibly helpful. it'll be a good change from my current solution : no clerics allowed, and giving the wizard the healing spells... druids, well, i havent really tried disallowing them, but i dont want to have to.

-wisdom based wizards
-many cleric spells become arcane spells that any arcane casters can take
-turn undead is a feat anyone can have

that has worked so far, but if i can *fix* the class so its viable it may be better.

!! maybe thats the solution for the cleric!

make them just a isdom based wizard with the cleric spell list and turn undead!
then I could maybe give them a few more spells and some small extras to make up for the missing feats. what do you guys think?

as for the druid, I think it needs to be tougher than a wizard, how do we make it compensate?

 

[Derro]

Your solution is a possible solution, I agree. But in a freeform game where the players are not forced to work as a single entity, and pvp and playerkills are an occasional but acceptable happening over different motives, then having the druid and cleric better isnt a great idea.

Ouch. Emph mine obviously. That is a pretty harsh situation. But that is endemic to your game, not something that is generally part of the typical D&D party dynamic. And don't get me wrong. I am not judging. PvP happens. Is that something that you, as a GM, even want though? Anyway, different issue.

If you need to take divine casters down a notch you can try this fix. Make them pray for their spells as needed, no memorization. The gimme can be orisons and spells 3 or 4 levels below their maximum available level can be memorized. Everything else is a direct entreaty to their deity or its proxies.

In game the effect of this can be a Religion roll (DC 10 + spell level or spell level x2) and a full round action. This gives more opportunity for disruption and general phuquetyness since they're giving up a whole round.

I've used this mechanic for low magic games where spell-casters were supposed to be less wiz-bang and it works quite well.

fudging things to make a class seem better against npcs is one thing. but when you seriously have to consider the possibility of the players turning on eachother, or just not helping eachother in some crucial moment, then you have to consider the balance of the mechanics.

Again, and I really can not over-state this, if you are considering changes to some of the basic precepts of the game (i.e. class capability) based on your desire to level the playing field for PvP then class balance may not be your problem. I am not making any sort of judgement BUT D&D is based around a cooperative party dynamic. Trying to circumvent that with the RAW is a monumental task.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have attack spells, or have clearly defined roles, actually the narrowly defined roles are one of the biggest things that turn me off from 4e.

Testify!

the better stats, ability to function in better gear, all those other class abilities. shouldnt they be giving up some of their wizardly power for all that? instead of just layering it all on top?

Give them bard spell progression. It cuts the most powerful spells and slows the mid-grade to what you may feel is a more equitable level. For spells that absolutely must be used, generally as a plot device, substitute incantations from UA or the optional SRD rules.

or if you think the cleric and druid are closely balanced in power to the fighter and rogue and all hat, then that means the wizard and sorcerer are totally lax.

Sorc and Wiz are not lax. I've played both as PC and NPC plenty and there is more than enough power even with the lowly illusionist.

I wasnt sure whethr it should be in house rules or here, cause i needed to make sure the issue was real and it wasnt all in my head.

This seems as good a venue as any. You've raised questions about the basic precepts of class balance. My replies might be in the houserule domain but that is ultimately for a moderator to decide.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I, too, think that game balance is a bit of a misnomer in 3.5 ... although I do think it has gotten better through the years in the core game. The comment that was made earlier by the splatbooks making the situation worse has a lot of truth to it. But I do think that 3.5 has a better aspect of balance than other renditions.

But, there should also be some consideration to balance outside of combat. RPGs are more than wargames, if DMs are only running them as wargames then the classes that have better offensive tools are going to shine. If you want to make a cleric look bad, simply design challenges that their typically chosen spells can't defeat. It's not that hard, so long as you are willing to do more than just do combat.

Also, PvP has never happened in any one of my games ... I don't tolerate it. I don't game for players to bicker and fight at the table. But if PvP is happening atthe table, that's going to make balance have a different perspective. I don't really have much advice on that topic - but as was asked earlier is that an aspect you want as a part of the gaming experience? If so, then realize in not in many games. If not, then don't let it in.

EDIT: Have you ever looked at a gaming system that allows players to buy aspects to their characters individually rather than using levels? There are a few outthere, and I'm on the verge of publishing one through Dreamscarred Press. These systems don't guarantee balance - of course - butthey do let players create the characters they want for the power that they want, too.

 

[Sylrae]

I dont like the 'restrict what the players are allowed to do' method of DMing. I avoid playing in games with those types of DMs even though I usually work with thr group anyways, just because the restriction drives me nuts.

The Book of Vile darkness sees alot of use by my players usually, so that should tell you something. and we don't have a book of exalted deeds out of the lot of us.

Killing innocent people to get to the bad guy is fair game, holding his family hostage for drawing him out is fine too. I've had players come up with some twisted .
Sure, they get the authorities after them, but that's because of my realism, not because of my intolerance to extremes in game. the only thing I don't do is sex scenes. they get someone in the sack, it jumps to afterwards. I just dont care to detail that in game. any gore or other twisted stuff players come up with, or any disloyalty between them, is something I don't stop. I make sure the players know in advance that I allow that stuff to happen and that if it happens they cant be pissy out of game or ill have them leave. they watch the other players closely in the game from the start, usually.

so thats the long version, of "yes it's necessary in the game". I encourage them to work together, but by no means enforce it, and if they decide to not work together then i just take the plot in a different direction.

and PVP isn't about bickering and fighting. If they attack someone for out of game reasons, then I don't tolerate it either. if they get throw a fit about pvp then I don't tolerate that either. if they cant accept that the players act independently, then they can leave. of course, there's nothing preventing the player's new character from being some member of law enforcement, or making a character somehow connected to the killer of their old player who is already their enemy.



I agree that game balance is about more than combat, my issue isn't about them being better at one aspect, but about them being better in most to all aspects. You shouldnt be a better fighter than the fighter and a better mage than a mage. thats just twisted.


I've played those other games too, white wolf makes some of my favorite systems for example, but there are more D&D players than white wolf playrs, and I don't know why, but I'd rather play white wolf than dm it.


I think maybe Derro's solutions could be good ways to tweak it. break the cleric into two classes. one with unreliable casting (that's usually how it works in the D&D novels anyways, so it makes sense), and one with adjusted stats/casting.


I'd like to clarify that I don't just run games where the players fight eachother all the time, but I'm not restricted enough to say it won't ever happen. If there is a good in-game reason for one character to attack another, then I allow it. if it's petty out of game squabbling, then heavy misfortune prevents it. (player trips over a basilisk or something, or some monumental catastrophe like those in final destination happens to them - usually not resulting in their death, but it has happened occasionally.)