Core classes. How are they balanced?

[Asen]

Well, I know that clerics and druids have summoning abilities, but in general the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list has spells of much greater ability. Invisibility? Magic missile? Fire ball? Hard to go wrong with these, and hard to equal them with a cleric, unless you have some type of additional books that seek to make divine casters more powerful.

The balance is there. A 10-level sorcerer versus a 10-level cleric is often going to go for the sorcerer.

 

[billd91]

heres the question then.

how is the cleric spell list weaker than the wizard spell list?

The list is generally less based around artillery and dealing direct damage over large areas than the wizard/sorcerer list. Same for the druid list. I think there are too many buffs in the cleric list and that tends to make him a bit nastier than the fighter if he has time to buff up. Even if he doesn't have much time, a little time and he generally equals the fighter.
But I still don't think he holds a candle to the wizard for spreading out a lot of damage to multiple enemies. And that puts some balance between the two. If you had to slog your way through the old 1e giant series of modules under 3e rules, the cleric is important because healing is a big deal. The wizard (or his equivalent) is necessary to whittle down lots of the giants so the fighter can finish them off quickly.

My analysis does rather depend on not using the Spell Compendium wholesale. It should be looked at very warily, in my experience.

 

[Asen]

Well, the Spell Compendium and other books render the balance discussion completely pointless, so I think you're wise to look at the book with some skepticism. Depending on what extra books you use, any class can outgun any other class.

I use the three core books, the Complete series (except for Scoundrel), and I house-rule in a few other spells if people can show me the entry on the page and I think it's acceptable.

In the core game, mages are balanced with divine casters because the latter have a bit of fighting competency, better hit dice, and other abilities, whereas the mages have access to absolutely amazing spells that can defeat entire armies. Again, if said mages survive their awkward youth. It's balanced.

 

[rgard]

If you want to even things out you can make the generic 'Spellcaster' from UA as your only full casting class.

The class works like the Sorcerer in that you have x spells known and y spells per level per day. The player picks whether the spells are cast as divine spells or as arcane spells. The player also picks the stat that the spells are cast in respect to saves and bonus spells. Player also picks one save as a good save and two saves as bad saves. HD = d4. The player picks spells known from all the spells available. No casting in armor that I can remember (though I did HR 'Armored Casting' - cast in light armor without chance of spell failure) and the BAB is that of a Sorcerer/Wizard.

I played briefly in one campaign and DM'd another that used the generic classes exclusively. We pretty much ignored PrCs as the generic class were flexible enough to build to most any character concept.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[rgard]

Well if you want to use actual number values, we created the Prestige Class Cookbook where we break down every class and prestige ability into a numeric value.

Great suggestive sell! Bought, downloaded and reading it now! I like what I see so far.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Sylrae]

I'm familiar with generic classes.

We don't play with the spell compendium being canon necessarily, but we keep something many don't. All things from the Forgotten Realms books are canon. If we aren't playing a FR game, then just the spells, and most of the feats are canon, and the odd PrC.

 

[roguerouge]

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.

s-------------------
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.

Because such a party dies very quickly without team work?

If I were a fighter in that party with that jerk of a cleric, I'd say fine and then let the next Ogre through to attack the back lines of the party. If they aren't going to fulfill their party role and be a team player, I see no reason why I should risk my neck for them. After all, that Ogre will be lots easier for ME to down after he's taken some damage, and the cleric will do SOME damage before he's dying, simply because the fighter's not allowing him to spend a few rounds buffing and the rogue's not serving as a scout, which is dangerous, don't you know...

 

[Sylrae]

Except the rest of the party is thinking the same thing, or at least thinking youre thinking that and expecting you to try to backstab them to benefit yourself. so you won't really get the chance, because everyone is watching their own backs.

They aren't going to just *assume* youre trustworthy if you don't have to be.

And they all come up with contingency plans. They spend much of their cash on their own survival gear. Potions, magic items, whatever. They don't just upgrade to the newest weapon their class uses. They are prepared for that ogre. and while they may not be able to take it out on their own, they likely have thought it out in advance and have ways to escape.

Maybe when you decide to abandon the cleric to his fate, he casts darkness on you and then leaves before it wears off. or hold person while he leaves you to the ogre, or casts animate dead and tells them to attack you AND the ogre. or maybe you suddenly find yourself in a Geas to defend the cleric, or a geas to kill the ogre.

Every class has things they can do to be nasty. my issue is that the cleric can be nasty like a mage while crushing things like a fighter.

players not being able to guarantee that they will have help from their 'friends' means theyll play smarter, and pay more attention to whats going on around them.


and even IF the party has teamwork, they shouldnt assume someone will fill a certain role. Just because I'm a cleric doesn't mean I'll take healing. just like if I'm a rogue I might not take disable device. and whether or not I take those things has nothing to do with the rest of the party, those are independent decisions that have nothing to do with them.


most of your argument is more of a "I dont like evil PCs" point of view. whether or not you like Evil PCs really has nothing to with whether a class is balanced. deciding to use your abilities differently shouldnt make you greatly more powerful than any other way of making them.

 

[roguerouge]

My problem is that I have no experience with players acting in the manner that you describe.

And I've DMed 4th graders.

And some of them were off their ADD meds.

And they split into three different groups.

And they still worked together better than this thread assumes when we assume people will look after only for themselves and buy things with no regard to what the group's needs might be.

There shouldn't be an "IF" when it comes to party teamwork.

 

[Sylrae]

thats fine, I dont expect you to run a game with that kind of freedom, I'm sure it is more complicated to run, but as I said, I don't like the Idea of imposing restrictions like that.

(typing is virtually impossible right now. I slept on my right hant and i cant feel it. lol)