Rate Class Balance

[Merlion]

I've been thinking about and discussing class balance, and the relative power of the classes a lot again.

I personally feel that most of the classes, right now are pretty balanced, and that for the most part, each class is strong in its way. However there are some exceptions.

The Cleric: I feel the cleric is almost indisputably the strongest class in the game. I also feel it is at least mildly overpowered. Not as in it'll break every game its in, but I think it has a tendency to outshine other classes, and some times "step on their toes" a bit. And I think it can easily be "broken" especially with the inclusion of certain non-core material.

The Druid: I think the Druid is probably second place in overall power amongst the classes. I feel that they might be slightly overpowered, some times, in some ways but not to the degree of the Cleric.

The Sorcerer: I think that while the Sorcerer isnt neccesarilly underpowered when measured against the classes as a whole, it is I think considerably inferior to the other 3 primary casters (Wizard, Cleric, Druid).

The Bard: I think the current bard is a pretty balanced character overall. However, I think its just about the only class that is truly limited to a support role...Bards have very very minimal offensive ability. Also, I think the Cleric tends to steal the Bard's thunder as the "jack of all trades."

The Fighter: I think the Fighter suffers from much the same problem as the Sorcerer. I'm not sure that its really underpowered as compared to the other classes as a whole, but when compared to the other melee classes, there just seems to be little mechanical reason to go with Fighter, largely due to their almost totall vulnerability to magical and special attacks.


What I would like, is for people to rate the classes, on 2 different levels. First, on the level of overall power, seperate from balance (in other words, which classes do you think are strongest or weakest in terms of what all they can do, and survive etc). 1 being like unto a Commoner, 10 being incredibly strong.

Second, in terms of balance. 1 being absurdly weak, 10 being definitely overpowered.

And then, discuss the overall issue. I'm interested to see what different people think about it.

Here are my ratings

Balance:

Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Monk, Wizard All about a 5. More or less balanced.

Cleric, 9 or 10

Druid: 7 or 8

Sorcerer: Overall, 5, compared to other casters, 4, maybe even 3

Fighter: 4

Bard: 4


Power:
Cleric 10

Druid: 8

Wizard: 7 or 8

Sorcerer: 6ish

Paladin: 6ish

Fighter: 4 or 5

Rogue: 5

Bard: 3 or 4

Ranger: 5

Monk: 5

Barbarian: 5 or 6

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I have participated in many of these discussions and my conclusion is that summing up abilities to measure raw power does not measure anything important in actual play. My experience is that players will enjoy the game as long as their PC gets a fair share of time in the limelight.

The Cleric seems too powerful overall, but the class is just "not sexy" because they fail to excel at anything really flashy & exciting.

I am satisfied that the 3.5 PHB classes are adequately balanced against each other when we are talking about single-classed characters. What I have noticed is that some classes multi-class poorly: Paladin, Bard, Sorceror, Wizard. Some classes multi-class extremely efficiently: Cleric, Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue. Throw PrcS into the mix and it becomes even more complicated.

 

[Merlion]

I have participated in many of these discussions and my conclusion is that summing up abilities to measure raw power does not measure anything important in actual play. My experience is that players will enjoy the game as long as their PC gets a fair share of time in the limelight.

Trouble is, if one or two classes have considerably greater abilities/raw power/usefulness, it reduces the chance of that happening.

 

[Terath Ninir]

The Cleric: I feel the cleric is almost indisputably the strongest class in the game. I also feel it is at least mildly overpowered. Not as in it'll break every game its in, but I think it has a tendency to outshine other classes, and some times "step on their toes" a bit. And I think it can easily be "broken" especially with the inclusion of certain non-core material.

And yet, no one wants to play the cleric. "Sigh. Someone has to be the combat medic. I guess it's my turn, this campaign." With their increased power in 3e, they are just strong enough to tempt people to take the class. If they were much weaker, few people would be willing to play them.

 

[MeiRen]

You have to look at what the abilities are in relation to the other things the class can do. If you add up all the abilities using a point based method, the Bard and Cleric are both very overpowered. But the Bard isn't that good, because his abilities are so spread out, and d&d rewards specialization. The Cleric isn't that powerful because he doesn't have any sort of combat bonuses (like sneak attack or feats) to go with his average attack bonus and good defense.

And like Ridley said, both classes tend to play supporting roles. The guy from "Order of the Stick" once drew his Cleric as a walking box of bandaids, and the Cleric can feel like that a lot of the time. If you did nothing but walk around and heal, would that be a fun game?

There are a lot of other issues as well. But basically, the core classes are, in practice, well balanced for relatively average d&d campaigns.

-Mei

 

[Corlon]

Clerics and Druids being the most powerful, what?

Have I missed some min-maxing tactics?

 

[Lamoni]

I agree with what has been said. A character is balanced and fun to play if you get some time in the limelight and you don't prevent everyone else from getting their share.

With this view, what character classes are the weakest? Weak meaning that the class strengths correspond to boring tasks that aren't memorable or shine... or are overshadowed by others.

I feel like the barbarian and fighter are probably the best classes in this regard because they generally shine the most in battles, and at 4 battles a day that is a lot of time to shine.

Other classes that are quite fun are wizard and sorcerer. Their spells can save the day many times. We are about to die! gather round the wizard so he can teleport us to safety! If you ever need to follow enemies, rangers are great. If you ever need to get around a lot of traps or locked doors rogues are great.

The classes that get the least time in the spotlight in our games seem to be the monk and the bard, with the cleric coming in 3rd place. The cleric still has some nice flashy spells like harm and destruction, but most of the time they are just helping the party stay healthy so they can do their own special tricks.

 

[Terath Ninir]

I didn't notice the thing on druids before. On paper, a druid looks powerful, because they get more abilities than anyone besides the monk. In practice, they're just not all that great, especially at the hard-to-survive low levels.

Fighters, on the other hand, are VERY strong, because you get to pick and choose your abilities, unlike almost everyone else. Their versatility makes them strong.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Trouble is, if one or two classes have considerably greater abilities/raw power/usefulness, it reduces the chance of that happening.

True. But "considerably greater" is a subjective term that is only meaningful when measured at the gaming table.

Defensive abilities generally do not gain a PC much glory unless you habitually play in very dangerous, PC killing combats. Where is the glamor in standing around waiting to not be killed by the enemy?

Good offensive abilities are the ones that have the sex appeal. When you can quickly take an opponent(s) out of the combat completely, that is when you can singlehandedly shift the tide of battle. Real world experience tells me that players have a lot of fun with their Fighters, Barbarians, and Wizards, even if these same PCs tend to get killed more often.

If you rate defensive abilities as just as valuable as offensive abilities, you will find the Cleric, Druid, and Paladin to be very, very strong. Actual play experience shows they are not standouts at the game table. The reason: a grabbag of abilities is never as potent as a carefully selected brew of offensive abilities (as Cyberzombie said). Themed abilities, especially defensive themes (e.g. the Paladin), just do not have the synergies a competent player can build into, say, a Fighter.

 

[kenobi65]

And yet, no one wants to play the cleric. "Sigh. Someone has to be the combat medic. I guess it's my turn, this campaign." With their increased power in 3e, they are just strong enough to tempt people to take the class. If they were much weaker, few people would be willing to play them.

I agree entirely...IME, it's like pulling teeth to get someone to play a straight-up cleric. Even when one of the players decides to go with cleric, they almost always multiclass, and the cleric side gets largely ignored.

Maybe I should start throwing large numbers of undead at the PCs...