Statistical Analysis of the Classes - popularity vs. power

[Crothian]

I'll grant you that playing a bard is hard. I've tried; I'm not good at it. No desire to play a monk.

--BUT-- you shouldn't have to be a good role-player to get the power out of a class. I could just as easily play a rog1/sor3 versus a brd4 and get just as much bang for my buck, and have a ton more skills and spells to boot.

I'm not saying you have to be a good role player. I've seen bad role players play bards. I'm saying that people don't understand the proper way a Bard is, a support character. I've heard people complain becasue they couldn't make a frontline fighter out of him, or a powerful spellcaster. People try to make the Bard (and other classes) something they are not. That is why the Cleric is seen as powerful. People have turned it into a fighting/healing machine.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The cleric is powerful because it darn well can do anything in combat competently based on its class abilities alone, not even spending feats. It just doesn't take much skill or thought as a player to make an effective PC out of a cleric.

The reason clerics are not as popular as they are powerful is it is far easier to make a glamorous character out of a fighter, wizard, sorceror or rogue. We are playing this game for fun and we are greedy for personal glory.

I agree that many players overlook the long term value of base 4 skill points and a few extra class skills. Once you hit mid levels, a maxxed Listen, frex, is every bit as good as a superior quality feat.

The Ranger, Druid, and Bard are good teamwork classes. They can't just be dropped into any old party and be expected to do the heavy lifting. Druid Animal Companions are a weak version of Leadership you get at 1st level; I think that is undervalued, especially for low level characters.

 

[Umbran]

Rank them in order from 1 to 11. Theoretically, if enough people rank them all, if the classes TRULY are balanced, then they should all average out to be 6.0.

Only if you feel people's perceptions actually reflect reality, which is probably a false assumption. People's perceptions of the classes is based strongly upon their personal styles of play. If some play-styles are predominant, that will add a bias to your results.

 

[Crothian]

Only if you feel people's perceptions actually reflect reality, which is probably a false assumption. People's perceptions of the classes is based strongly upon their personal styles of play. If some play-styles are predominant, that will add a bias to your results.

And to bandwagon jumping. Everyone things the Ranger is bad, because everyone else does. I doubt that 75% of the people who think this would have gotten to that conclusion if the anti ranger people were not so vocal.

 

[shurai]

Actually, speaking of the ranger . . .

It looks like his popularity is the middle of the pack with 7% of the makeup in the games you surveyed. In a game with 11 playable classes, 7% is pretty good. It means that the ranger is not much less than 1/11 of the characters surveyed.

The fascinating thing is that in the survey he's the second-weakest class, besting only the bard. That means that, weighted by power, the ranger is the most popular class on the boards. Not bad, if you ask me.

-S

 

[sfgiants]

I think the power levels of the classes are balanced perfectly. It is all in how they are played. For instance: IMC clerics have duties and obligations due to their churchs' influence. This may lead to a variety of undesirable elements/quests etc. If this aspect isn't used and the actual religious beliefs of a cleric never factor in, then obviously a cleric is the most powerful class. It's the same with paladins, no LG alignment and they are amazing fighters and everyone would play them. Perhaps the fact that the religious ethos of a cleric aren't codified leads to some poorly used clerics.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

As someone who's seen bards played effectively, I have to take issue with this statement. A character who understands the role of a bard can make the bard quite an effective class. A bard isn't just a neutered sorc/rog. Bards have a lot of other abilties.

BTW, re: your contention that a sor/rog gets more skills and spells than a bard 4, that's open to debate.

No int bonus skills:
rog 1/sor3 32+6--effectively 35 since almost all rogue skills are cross-class for a sorceror
brd 4 16+12--28

Human skill comparison
rog 1/sor 3 36+9--effectively 40
brd 4--20+15--effectively 35

Human with 12 int (or nonhuman with 14 int)
rog 1/sor 3 40+12--effectively 46
brd 4--24+18--effectively 42

This, however, is somewhat misleading since the rog/sor will only be able to keep 1+ (1/2 int and human bonus) skills maxed (that takes two skill points per level since he'll be purchasing cross-classed) but the bard will be able to keep 4+int and human bonus skills maxed. Consequently, even though the rog/sor will have more skill points until level 6 or so, they will be spread out rather than concentrated. The bard will have more skill points than a rog 1/sor x multiclass after level 6 or so and will be able to concentrate them in skills he wishes to excel at.

On spells, it's actually more clear cut.
Spells Known:
Rog 1/Sor 3
5/3
Brd 4
6/3/2

Spells/Day
Rog 1/Sor 3
6/5
Brd 4
3/2/0
Since both characters will have similar charisma bonusses this is probably really:
Rog/Sor
6/6
Brd
3/3/1

The bard knows significantly more spells than the reg/sorceror and can cast higher level spells (although fewer of them per day). Since higher level spells tend to be more effective than a couple of lower level ones, and the bard knows more spells but the sorceror/rogue has a more extensive spell list, I'd say that they're about equivalent in spellcasting ability.

Of course, skills and spells (and sneak attack) are just about all that the rog/sor has going for him. The bard also gets bardic music abilities (none of which should be sneered at), bardic lore, a better base attack bonus (+3 vs +2 at the levels compared), and an average of 3 extra hit points (potentially compensated for by a toad familiar on the rog/sor's part). If the rog/sor gains more levels of rogue, he may be able to keep up in terms of skill points but will fall behind the bard in spellcasting ability. If he advances only in sorceror levels, he will be ahead of the bard in spellcasting ability but will fall dramatically behind in terms of skills saves, and other abilities.

The case against the bard isn't nearly so cut and dried as you make it out to be.

I'll grant you that playing a bard is hard. I've tried; I'm not good at it. No desire to play a monk.

--BUT-- you shouldn't have to be a good role-player to get the power out of a class. I could just as easily play a rog1/sor3 versus a brd4 and get just as much bang for my buck, and have a ton more skills and spells to boot.

 

[MinscFan]

The major factor missing in this analysis is how well a player plays the game and his/her class. An intelligent, experienced player who knows the game well can make any of the classes very powerful.

I think the results in this thread show a skew toward "easier" classes -- most inexperienced players or those who don't want to think about what they are playing and how to play it well will skate along by playing a core class, typically a Fighter or a simplified Ranger, perhaps a poor Rogue. I'm sure much of the voting in his data set is skewed by these types of players.

Much would depend upon the demographic, education level, experience level and dedication to the game each of the respondents has in order to get a more accurate set of results from which to discuss which class is the most powerful.

Even that designation is, at best, subjective.

 

[The Serge]

The major factor missing in this analysis is how well a player plays the game and his/her class. An intelligent, experienced player who knows the game well can make any of the classes very powerful.

I think the results in this thread show a skew toward "easier" classes -- most inexperienced players or those who don't want to think about what they are playing and how to play it well will skate along by playing a core class, typically a Fighter or a simplified Ranger, perhaps a poor Rogue. I'm sure much of the voting in his data set is skewed by these types of players.

Much would depend upon the demographic, education level, experience level and dedication to the game each of the respondents has in order to get a more accurate set of results from which to discuss which class is the most powerful.

Even that designation is, at best, subjective.

I agree entirely.

 

[tarchon]

I'll grant you that playing a bard is hard. I've tried; I'm not good at it. No desire to play a monk.

--BUT-- you shouldn't have to be a good role-player to get the power out of a class. I could just as easily play a rog1/sor3 versus a brd4 and get just as much bang for my buck, and have a ton more skills and spells to boot.

The bard has BAB +3 vs. +1 for the sor/rog, and 16.5 vs. 13.5 avg hp. BAB and hitpoints don't matter in determining class power?

The skills advantage is questionable, since you spend three levels getting the crappy sorcerer skill set (and remember the rank maxima? - the rogue skill points at 1st level aren't going to get you any ranks above 4). I'd say they're really about even on skills if you bother to consider everything. You also miss out on bard songs and bardic knowledge, which is like a very versatile Knowledge skill. The rogue sneak attack ability won't be much good to you either since you'll be pretty useless in melee combat.

And you say more spells...?

<table>
<tr><th>rog 1/sor 3</th><th>lev 0</th><th>lev 1</th><th>lev 2</th></tr>
<tr>
<td>known</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>= 8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>per day</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>= 12</td>
</tr>
<tr><th>bard 4</th></tr>
<tr>
<td>known</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>= 11</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>per day</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>= 7</td>
</tr>
</table>
(assuming both have Cha of at least 14)

I guess it's more a question of whether you prefer higher level spells with more variety (and higher caster level) or more lower level spells from a smaller selection. I strongly disagree that the sor3/rog1 is clearly the winner on spells here.

You're doing the same thing that most people on gaming boards do with these class "analyses". You pick a couple abilities where the class you want to attack is (ostensibly) weaker, and you ignore the points where it's stronger. That's not analysis; that's just a rationalization of some subjective prejudice. I dunno if a bard scared you when you were a kid or something, but I think you should take another look at this.