Statistical Analysis of the Classes - popularity vs. power

[Umbran]

I think, perhaps, a large part of the issue is equating the notion of "balance" with "balance of power in battle". While that is part of balance, I don't think it's the only consideration.

I think that classes are balanced if they are found to be equally effective over the course of the whole campaign. Not just the battles, but the whole story. Even in a dungeon-crawling, hack and slashing campaign, there's more to playing than the fights.

It's been mentioned that part of the issue is that some players aren't as skilled at utilizing the full potential of some classes. This is true. However, it's also true that some DMs don't provide the avenues for proper use...

Yes, in dungeon fights, the fighter, cleric, and wizard are all tops in combat. But what about the Baron's Tea Party? Has that combat cleric even bothered to take any diplomacy skill? And, does the DM play up the fact that going into the wilderness in a fantasy world is pretty hazardous business, where knowing what you're doing is important? If the DM focuses on combat, that will skew perceptions.

 

[der_kluge]

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

Read the section on multi-class characters again. Once a skill is a class skill, it is always a class skill.

Human Rog1/Sor3 vs. Brd4 With a 14 Int.
(44 + 15) 69 sp vs. 49 sp

Rog1 is 8+int (10) * 4 (+4 for human)= 44
Sor3 is 2+2(int)+1 (human) * 3 = 15
Brd4 is 6+2(int) * 4 (+4 for human) = 28 + 7 more sp * 3 more levels = 21 more. 28+21 = 49

20 more skill points.

I didn't really want this to be a Bard debate, but I think the Bard is horrible as designed, so it's kind of personal with me.

Let's continue, shall we?
Bards have Sorcerer-based casting, which means that can never pick up new spells like the 2nd ed. Bard could. They're less flexible than wizards, which doesn't make sense to me.

And Bardic music sucks. Give me one example of where you would use Countersong that doesn't include a Harpy. Inspire Courage is the only useful song there is.

And Bardic Knowledge is just as weak. But, if you want those two abilities, just take 1 level of Bard.

Human Brd1/Sor19 versus. Brd20 (14 int, and 18 cha); let's assume these scores have remained constant for the 20 levels (the character raised dex, or something else every 4 levels)

Brd1/Sor19
Skills: 28 + 95 = 123 skill points
HP: 1d6+19d4 (51 hit points)
Spells:
Brd: 2/0
Sor: 6/7/7/7/7/6/6/6/6/4
Bardic Knowledge +1
Bardic music
Familiar


Brd20
Skills: 28 + 133 = 161 skill points
HP: 20d6 (70 hit points)
Spells
Brd: 4/5/5/5/5/4/4
Bardic Knowledge +20
Bardic music


So, let's compare, shall we? The Brd/Sor has fewer skill points, but still a fair number. Has 19 less hit points, but at 20th level, the difference between 51 hit points and 70 hit points is negligible.
Spells - whoa. The Bard's spellcasting abilitiy is paltry compared to the brd/sor. It doesn't even begin to compare. The brd/sor has 4 more cantrips, 2 more 1st through 4th level spells, 2 more 5th and 6th, and then on top of that has 6 7th, 6 8th, and 4 9th level spells. That's some serious firepower.
Plus, the Brd/Sor has just as good ability with Bardic music since he could continue to put a point into Perform at every level, and have 23 ranks in Perform at 20th character level. He's JUST as effective with Bardic Music as the straight Bard.

The ONE and ONLY ONE reason to play a Bard past 1st level is to increase the Bardic Knowledge roll. But, the Brd/Sor gets a roll he just adds only a +1 to his die. The Bard adds +20. So, the straight Bard ends up knowing a few more scattered bits of knowledge. Whoop-de-freaking-do.


I'm sorry, my friend. The case against the bard IS as cut and dry as I make it out to be.

 

[der_kluge]

I dunno if a bard scared you when you were a kid or something, but I think you should take another look at this.

The reason I chose rog/sor was because that was just the PC that I'm currently playing. I actually chose rog over brd because it just didn't fit my character's style to be playing music. My character is basically a 17-yr old female con-artist. Made more sense as a rog than a brd. I just couldn't see her breaking into song during combat "Glory, Glory, Hallelujah!" to give 'inspire courage' to her allies. Didn't fit her personality.

But, read my recent post comparing brd/sor to straight brd and you get a better picture of the Bard's weaknesses.

Again, I should point out that you, too, should re-read the section on multi-class characters. Once a class skill, always a class skill.

 

[der_kluge]

The other big problem is the way you phrased the question about power. You did it as a ranking instead of a rating. To show how this is a problem, take two people, A and B. A thinks there are some slight variations in power, but all the classes are pretty balanced. B thinks some classes are uberpowerful, while others are a waste of paper. A and B could still give the exact same answers to a ranking question, because you have imposed a metric upon them that is not necessarily reflected in their opinions. However, if you give a rating question, where each class gets a power rating from 1 to 10. The the difference between A and B's answers would become apparent (A having a lot of 4s, 5s, and 6s; B having a lot of 10s and 1s).

I don't mean to be overly negative, it's just that I don't get to take the Sample Surveys class until next semester, so I don't know enough to suggest useful alternatives.

That's actually a good point. I recognized the analysis' shortcomings early on, but posted it just because I had it available, and found it to be interesting.

The problem with gathering good data is that it takes time on peoples part to think about it, and that's not always easy, especially here.

 

[der_kluge]

What Ichabod said.

The data is confusing ordinal rankings with cardinal values of power. The average of an ordinal value is not very meaningful, the median would probably be better.

We also have the problem of level. Monks are pathetically weak at low level, adequate at medium levels, quite cool at high levels. Rangers and Barbarians are better than Fighters at low levels.

But, wouldn't you agree that if we took the power levels by "level" and then averaged them out we could get an overall picture of the power level of one class versus another?

I mean, if Monks are weak (11) at level levels, balanced (6) at mid-levels, and uber-powerful (1) at high levels. Then the average is 6.
If a fighter is (6), (6), (6) for all categories, then that class, too, is rated a 6 - balanced.

I agree that the scales of power fluctuate from the low levels to the high levels, but we can average them out to get an overall picture.

 

[der_kluge]

I'm convinced that the designers made some classes better than others on purpose. I think their reasoning went something like this:

...

That's my assessment. I'm pretty sure I'm 100% wrong as usual.

Actually, there's probably some grain of truth to that. I especially agree with it when it comes to the cleric. Having played a ton of 2nd ed. clerics, I would agree that most people didn't like the 2nd ed. cleric. It was a glorified medic, and if you memorized something other than 80% healing spells, the rest of the party hated you. I think they went a bit far with it, though. The cleric is too powerful.

The Bard and Paladin should have been PrCs, and even Skip Williams admits that they decided not to make the Paladin a PrC because they feared people would rise up against them.

 

[Umbran]

Again, I should point out that you, too, should re-read the section on multi-class characters. Once a class skill, always a class skill.

PHB, pg 56, first column (emphasis my own):
"For purposes of determining maximum ranks, a skill is a class skill if at least one of the character's classes has it as a class skill."
PHB, pg 56, second column:
"Skill points are spent according to the class that the multiclass character just advanced in... Skills purchased from Table 4-2:Skills are purchased at the cost appropriate for that class."

If you take a level of rogue, and then take a level of sorcerer, your maximum rank in the Hide skill is just the same as if you'd taken two levels of rogue. If, however, you buy the Hide skill when you take that level of sorcerer, you must still pay the cross-class price in skill points. This can seriously chew up skill points if you are trying to advance rogue skills when taking sorcerer levels. In many cases, taking Bard levels would be more efficient, skill-wise.

 

[jmucchiello]

Read the section on multi-class characters again. Once a skill is a class skill, it is always a class skill.

Follow your own advice. The maximum rank for skill is based on character level. The cost for a skill is based on the class that is spending the ranks. Thus the rog1/sor3 can increase his hide skill when taking a sorcerer level only by spending 2 skill points per rank.

I can't look this up at work (to give you a quote) though because this is a leveling up issue and is not in the SRD. sigh.

I'm retiring if I got this one wrong. (Oh good, thanks Umbran.)

Joe Mucchiello
Throwing Dice Games
http://www.throwingdice.com

 

[Mercule]

In a perfect world maybe. But from what I've seen many people don't know how to play a bard or a monk. People hinder the Ranger by not allowing it to shine. People rank the cleric high becasue all they do is cast buff spells so they can fight well.

Amen.

I watch our party's bard and constantly shake my head. Never uses flurry of blows. Doesn't understand subdual damage. Never uses tumble.

He basically just runs at monsters and tries to beat them to death.

 

[Victim]

Amen.

I watch our party's bard and constantly shake my head. Never uses flurry of blows. Doesn't understand subdual damage. Never uses tumble.

He basically just runs at monsters and tries to beat them to death.

He probably doesn't use Flurry of Blows because that's monk power and not a Bard ability.

Of course, you probably meant Monk.