Statistical Analysis of the Classes - popularity vs. power

[der_kluge]

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.

Interesting. I seem to recall understanding that at one time, and then reading the first rule later on believing that my initial understanding was incorrect, but you've shown me that my initial understanding was the correct one.

I probably need to redo my own character's skills.

Well, my contention remains the same, more or less, that a Brd1/Sor19 could be as effective as a bard in the musical department, plus have far more spells to boot.

 

[Victim]

And a single class bard will have tons more skill points, better HP, a much better reflex save, and more bardic music powers. Also, your sor 19, bard 1 will have need a decent INT to get the concentration, and other magic skills that will help as a sorcerer.

If the sorcerer 19 didn't have much better spell abilities, then something would be very wrong, considering that sorcerers are primary spell users, and bards seem to work on skills and spells evenly.

 

[jmucchiello]

Well, my contention remains the same, more or less, that a Brd1/Sor19 could be as effective as a bard in the musical department, plus have far more spells to boot.

He would only be able to use bardic music once per day. That's not very effective, IMHO.

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

 

[tarchon]

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.

I use Fascinate, Suggestion, Inspire Competence and Inspire Greatness frequently. Inspire Courage I use in maybe 95% of combats. Countersong I agree is not so useful, but it does also work on gibbering mouthers, yeth hounds, androsphinxes (or androsphinges), red slaadi, shadow mastiffs, howlers, dragonnes, satyr pipes, krenshar shrieks, perhaps destrachans, vrocks, trumpet archons, allips, the spells sound burst, command, suggestion, shatter, shout, greater command, geas/quest, wail of the banshee, enthrall, mass suggestion, and of course other bards' fascinate/suggestion abilities and some virtuoso songs. That's er... a few more than "one example," so you have been rebutted by your own standard.

And bardic knowledge... let's see with a +20 you automatically know legends about powerful magic items and more than 1/2 the time get petty magic items. With a +1... well, occasionally you might know something about a very famous powerful item. Do the spells Legend Lore and Identify ring a bell? Does it occur to you that this ability is like a powerful divination spell with no casting time and no limit per day? But I guess in your campaigns, information doesn't matter. Like in your games, you just kind of go and kill monsters, you don't ever have to like figure anything out?

Your "take a level of bard" answer also is also empty. Bardic knowledge and bardic music are both level dependent, BK is +1/level and BM is 1/day/level. The difference between 1 level of bard and 4 (or 10 or 20) is pretty substantial. Inspire Greatness also has bard level-based number of targets/use. At 18th level a bard can cover 4 at a time with Insp Greatness, and he can do it 18 times a day.

You keep saying "Once a skill is a class skill, it is always a class skill," but do you know what it means? The fact is that if you front-load the rogue level the way you did in your original post, your rogue skill points are limited by being 1st level. Perhaps you are also unaware that the "always a class skill" rule only applies to the skill maximum, not the skill cost (PHB p. 56)? Your bard 1/sorc 19 can only spend his sorc skill points as class skills for sorc class skills, not for bard class skills, i.e. most of his bard skills will be basically worthless at that level. Sure, you can buy perform as a sorc, but at 2 pts./level, it gets expensive fast.

I agree, this is obviously just something personal with you.

...

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.

The phrase is "cut and dried", BTW, not "cut and dry."

Again, you keep ignoring the idea of balance. Does a 19th level sorcerer have more spells than a 20th level bard? Of course! The bard also has a 50%+ higher BAB and almost twice the Ref save, not to mention 37% more hit points. Though since you snort at a mere 1/3+ of you hit point total, you must think then that a bard is about as good as a cleric in melee, since they have the same BAB and a bard only has 21 less hit points as 20th level (only a 22% difference).

 

[Graythebruce]

Power patterns

Although I tend to agree that the cleric is a bit more powerful than most other classes, and that the ranger is slightly short-changed, I don't think these power differences have as much of an impact on game play as some other factors do.

In my campaigns, power levels seem to remain consistent from player to player, regardless of what classes they choose. I tend to adjust the scenarios to give particular *players* a chance to shine, rather than particular classes.

Here are some factors that seem to contribute to the phenomenon:

1. Single-classing -- This point has been made on several other threads by writers with a higher Initiative score than mine, but I tend to agree with them. Time and time again, the single-classed PC seems to outshine an entire squad of Rogue/Sorcerer/Shadowdancer/Assassins, or their equivalents. This is particularly true for spellcasters, as multi-classing simply slows down one's access to spells like heal, meteor swarm, and geas. Two of my players always single-class, while the others tend to multi-class at the drop of a hat. The first duo always appears a little unbalanced with respect to their comrades, even when min-max synergies between classes are exploited at high levels by the latter group. (An earlier post in this thread noted how a high-level ranger outclassed a long list of fellow PCs, most of whom appeared to be multi-classed.)

Personally, I'm okay with single-classed characters being generally more powerful than their diversified kin. It encourages them to be more common, and helps keep weird characters truly weird -- there is little in the world more nauseating than ubiquitous, ostentatious "uniqueness." I find it refreshing that I can still find a classic human fighter with a broadsword from time to time.

2. Min-maxing - I include this for the sake of completeness, and assume it needs little elaboration. However, I will note that one of the more common and successful min-maxing strategies I've seen lately is, well, single-classing (see #1 above).

3. Approach - If a psion and a barbarian slug it out with broadswords, who's going to win? Silly, yes; but I'm convinced some of the "power" concerns stem from approaches similar to the psion's above. (MinscFan's point about popularity of classes being tied to ease-of-play struck a chord with me for this very reason.)

In another thread about CRs, someone argued that an orc with three levels of fighter should have a higher CR than an orc with three levels of bard, asking rhetorically -- "Which would you rather fight?" I didn't respond to that question there, but I will here.

If I were stuck in a gladitorial pit with said foe, I'd pick the bard. In a straight fight, my chances are far better against him.

But out in the open world, if I had to choose an enemy... I dunno, I might pick the fighter. Do you really want an opponent who:

* Anonymously adds to the local musical canon a series of brilliant and catchy songs that chronicle your paladin's crimes against humanity? If the bard ties your paladin to very real evils, a lynching wouldn't be too surprising. (Many scholars now believe much of Richard III's sinister reputation might be due solely to a corrupt historian who was hired by his enemies, so there's some tradition behind this tactic. People tend to believe this sort of slander, particularly about the high and mighty.)

* Forges a series of "historical" documents and other clues that suggest a highly coveted magical artifact is being carried around by one of your party members -- and then arranges for these clues to be discovered by a murderous band of high-level mercenaries?

* Fearlessly walks into humanoid, drow, and giant encampments and persuades leaders there to ambush your party? (The orc fighter could try this, but there's a far greater chance he'd end up stew.)

* Arranges for your party to stumble across misleading but very compelling information and lore -- the kind that could get you all killed? ("According to the Chronicles of Meibelung, there's a secret command word that awakens the full powers of your sword, but we have to venture into the Vault of the Drow to get it.")

Many of these tactics are as powerful as high-level conjuration spells in the final analysis; and while anyone can attempt them, the bard actually has a better-than-decent shot at pulling them off.

A lot of "power" analysis has traditionally focused on combat options -- attacks, damage, offfensive spells.

But quite a few classes are far more menacing when they *aren't* on the battlefield - they can get you killed without even being there. I sometimes frustrate my players by refusing to give them a visible opponent: they run into mechanical traps, animals and summoned beasts, nasty rumors, red herrings, poisoned meals, and even legal obstacles (set by NPC expert-lawyers or politicians). Most of the opponents behind these moves would go down in a single round of straight combat with the party -- part of the "challenge" within their challenge rating is that the party has to *find* them. Overlooked abilities for "weak" classes usually figure into their strategies, just as they do with the orc bard above.

4. The DM -- Judging from some earlier posts, I suspect some readers will dismiss my above comments with a remark to the effect that "PC powers shouldn't require ingenuity. If they do, they aren't as powerful as abilities that require no creativity." This is true, to a degree.

However, the onus for full utilization of PC "powers" doesn't really fall to the player -- it falls to the DM.

DMs should be aware of which PCs aren't being fully utilized and throw in challenges that provide obvious entry points for seldom used abilities. If you don't have a lot of undead in your campaign (such campaigns exist), take the DMG's advice and throw in a portal from time to time that only opens on a successful Turning check. If a character has boned up on the Pick Pocket skill, stick a critical map in a warlord's belt pouch.

Back in second edition, I noticed that my party's thieves (rogues) weren't having much fun in combat. (Flanking didn't exist back then.) So I came up with a setting specifically for them -- I had a whole combat sequence take place in a field of giant stones of varying heights up to about 30 ft. It was twilight, so there were a lot of shadows to hide in. And most of the opponents were thieves high on the rocks around them. The wizards and fighters did okay, but they were generally less effective because they couldn't get line-of-sight on opponents, and sometimes couldn't even see them at all. But the two party thieves went ape -- climbing, hiding, back-stabbing, pushing guys off ledges, etc.

Lately my party's archer has been eclipsed a bit by the barbarian and wizard, so I've thrown them into a wooded setting with hit-and-run, tree-scaling opponents, and several sniper battles have erupted. Once "less" powerful, he's now quite a menace.

Indeed, one of the most powerful PCs in my campaign right now is (arguably) a 5th-level accountant (expert NPC class) who has been busy amassing political power in the City of Greyhawk.

In short, the concept of "power" is usually relative to the challenge at hand. Accordingly, the best way to balance power is to balance challenges.

Graham R. Scott

 

[der_kluge]

I use Fascinate, Suggestion, Inspire Competence and Inspire Greatness frequently. Inspire Courage I use in maybe 95% of combats. Countersong I agree is not so useful, but it does also work on gibbering mouthers, yeth hounds, androsphinxes (or androsphinges), red slaadi, shadow mastiffs, howlers, dragonnes, satyr pipes, krenshar shrieks, perhaps destrachans, vrocks, trumpet archons, allips, the spells sound burst, command, suggestion, shatter, shout, greater command, geas/quest, wail of the banshee, enthrall, mass suggestion, and of course other bards' fascinate/suggestion abilities and some virtuoso songs. That's er... a few more than "one example," so you have been rebutted by your own standard.

Yes, bust most of the examples are instantaneous. Tell me how a bard's countersong is effective against the Suggestion spell unless the Bard was playing the song when the spell was cast. By the time the Bard figures out that there is a suggestion spell being cast, it's too late.

Like in your games, you just kind of go and kill monsters, you don't ever have to like figure anything out?

Nonsense. But we're not talking about my game here, we're talking about in general. Having information is always great, but the bard's ability to know things doesn't set him apart from divination spells and the gather information skill. It's just another way to get things done.

Your "take a level of bard" answer also is also empty. Bardic knowledge and bardic music are both level dependent, BK is +1/level and BM is 1/day/level. The difference between 1 level of bard and 4 (or 10 or 20) is pretty substantial. Inspire Greatness also has bard level-based number of targets/use. At 18th level a bard can cover 4 at a time with Insp Greatness, and he can do it 18 times a day.

Certainly a 20th level bard is effective. I'd take just about any other class over it, though. I guess my main problem with the bard is that it's to be played in a very specific way. There's no room for variation. You either play the bard like it's written, or you suffer greatly as a result. The cleric, on the other hand, has tons of potential for variation. Fighters, wizards, and rogues are the same way. Even sorcerers who seem extremely limited at the onset can be vastly different depending on the spells that they choose. Bards have to be music-playing, enchantment-casting characters or they're nothing at all.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is quickly turning into a "Bard Thread," but I'll toss in my few coppers...

The Bard is well balanced as a Jack-Of-All-Trades. No other arcane caster can heal. Even a cleric can't cast as many Cure Light Wounds as a Bard can per day.

Plus, they've got decent fighting ability. Your Sorc can't say that, and even a Rog/Sor is more handicapped than a straight bard in this area (check out the BAB, the HD, and the TWO good saves).

Countersong is a rather trivial ability most of the time, but Energy Substitution (sonic) is enough reason to do it. That, and that a lot of charm spells are sound and language-dependant.

In fact, I think that the only problem the bard has is that it doesn't satisfy the image of a sonic weaver of music and magic it sounds like it probably should. It's very much a jack-of-all-trades. A flavor change is mostly what's required, maybe with some rogue powers to substitute for their bardic music abilities...

The Ranger also suffers from a rather misplaced use of his skills. He wants to beat up things like a fighter, and they think "Cool! Two free weapons!" and not a lot beyond that. When I think Ranger, I think Stealthy Fighting Guy...and some Druid magic and Favored Enemies thrown in for no real reason. When most people think Ranger, they think: Two Weapon Fighter.

The Monk is also this. Monks are survivors and supporters. When I think Monk, I think of an unbeatable master of their environs. When most think Monk, they think: Fist Fighter.

The Cleric almost suffers from the reverse of this. They're fundamentally healers, but they have to have the religious dimension tacked on, so that they're healers + wielders of the energy of the gods. And they don't readily fit this image, either.

And it remains true that most of the "weak" classes are just very diverse classes. It's a maxim of D&D: Any character who is not specialized is going to not be as good as the specialized characters. Clerics, Wizards/Sorcerers, Fighters, and Rogues are all specialized. The rest of the classes, in some way, can be boiled down to being a mix of class features and abilities (maybe with the exception of the Barbarian and the Monk).

You're a Ranger? You're basically a Druid/Rogue/Fighter. You're a Druid? You're basically a Cleric/Wizard ('cuz of the destructive power + the curative power + the adaptability). You're a Bard? Bravo for Cleric (healing)/Wizard (magic)/Fighter (weapons)/Rogue (skills).

When you're a ranger, you're never going to be as good at fighting as the Fighter, never as good at sneaking as the Rogue, and never as good at using nature as a Druid. Otherwise, what's the point for any of those classes?

 

[7thlvlDM]

Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents:

1.
Bragg Battleaxe said:
I am convinced that one must run a campaign that is balanced before the classes can be balanced. One has to have equal amounts of combat, dungeon delving, city settings, social gatherings, intrigue, wilderness travel/exploration, etc, etc. Very few of the classes excel at ALL of these things, and most shine best in only one or two of them. Sometimes a player picks a class, say a Paladin or Ranger, because they enjoy the concept. One must look at the PCs in a party and as a DM provide them all equal chances to do their thing.

I believe that the D&D classes were balanced for the dungeon. I agree that balancing over a myriad of environments is better, but instead of trying to run a balanced campaign of equal parts combat, equal parts intrigue, etc., you should look at your past adventures and what elements they consist of naturally (e.g., 40% combat, 30% city, 10% intrigue, 10% dungeon, 5% social, 5% wilderness, etc.) then tweak the classes into balance with those weights in mind. You probably don't depart from your trend in game style much.

I think versatility is also a big factor, and so my view is Wizards and Clerics are much more powerful than Fighters, if they have time to prepare the right spells (i.e., not in a dungeon. Wizard see's a locked door, he can come back tomorrow when he has knock prepared).

2.
Biggus Geekus said:
Example: People "feel" the ranger is weak. I've been saying for a long time now that the ranger is only weak when you play one like a fighter. So is the ranger truly weak?
If you judge by damage-per-round, do you count things like animal companions or warhorses?

Yes and No Animal companions sound wonderful until you realize that you can't take a bear into the city, through a small tunnel, on a stealth mission, to the elemental plane of fire, on a rowboat through the swamp, etc., etc. Plus at higher levels a ranger's animal companion can't hit anything. If spells were suppose to compensate the Paladin & Ranger for lack of feats at higher levels, they should not have made their caster level = class level/2

3.
I think the unpopularity of the cleric compared to his power is partually due to the religious aspect. I have a friend who's Catholic who doesn't seem to want anything to do with clerics (perhaps it's the roleplaying a worshipper of a fake god). On the other hand, I'm pretty much an atheist. I can't seriously get into the mindset of a cleric too well.

4.
Somebody official (I'm inclined to say Monte Cook?) said you shouldn't balance powers with role-playing penalties, because it's too easy to ignore the role playing aspect.

MUST... HAVE... BALANCE!

 

[Victim]

Actually, a Bard can be effective in more than one. Certainly the charming, info gathering, party diplomat and buffer person is decent.

However, what about a swashbuckling swordsman who woos the ladies, befriends the king, and can fight with astonishing speed and grace - finess + haste spell + cat's grace and maybe some keen edge and GMW spells - while inspiring his comrades with witty insults directed at the enemies? A Bard can do that too. In addition to the spells mentioned above, some illusionary defenses could help too, along with things that show his uncanny alertness, like alarm or detect scrying. Maybe add in a fighter level or two and finish with duelist.

In fact, a Bard focusing on both music and enchantments is at a bit of a disadvantage. One can't continue bardic music and cast spells at the same time. One the other hand, a fighting bard can open with a buffing spell and a song, and then both fight and sing.

 

[tarchon]

Yes, bust most of the examples are instantaneous. Tell me how a bard's countersong is effective against the Suggestion spell unless the Bard was playing the song when the spell was cast. By the time the Bard figures out that there is a suggestion spell being cast, it's too late.

_Some_ of them sure, but not all. AND Countersong is a continuous effect, so as long as you have it running (one use can be kept up for 10 rounds), it continuously blocks what you call "instantaneous" effects as well. How do you know a destrachan attacks with sound when you first see it? Hmm... could it be... Bardic Knowledge? How do you use CS against an "instantaneous" spell. Ready it like you do a counterspell, or if you already know an opponent uses those spells, you just start it up and keep it going. I certainly do agree that Countersong is not the most useful ability (though partly because my DMs never use sound attacks ), but you completely failed to understand how it works. Your comments and the number of them that I and others have had to correct make it quite clear that you really don't know much about the class (and certain other aspects of the rules), so why do you persist in asserting your conclusions with such vehemence? Das scheint mir nicht so klug.

Nonsense. But we're not talking about my game here, we're talking about in general. Having information is always great, but the bard's ability to know things doesn't set him apart from divination spells and the gather information skill. It's just another way to get things done.

Yeah, and why is it a worse way to do it than casting a spell? Your argument was that it's useless. I see that now you've retreated to "just another way to get things done." OK, that's my point. Bard abilities, the knowledge, the songs, the BAB, the save, the skills, the hps, that's what makes up for the difference in spell power.

Certainly a 20th level bard is effective. I'd take just about any other class over it, though. I guess my main problem with the bard is that it's to be played in a very specific way. There's no room for variation. You either play the bard like it's written, or you suffer greatly as a result. The cleric, on the other hand, has tons of potential for variation. Fighters, wizards, and rogues are the same way. Even sorcerers who seem extremely limited at the onset can be vastly different depending on the spells that they choose. Bards have to be music-playing, enchantment-casting characters or they're nothing at all.

Piffle. Sorcerers are under-skilled spell-casting, familiar-using characters or they're nothing. Fighters are fighting characters or they're nothing. Clerics are god-worshipping sepll-casting semi-fighting characters or they're nothing. Druids are spell-casting nature-loving characters or they're nothing. You have no point to make here other than that you just don't like the bard class.