Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Graythebruce" data-source="post: 339384" data-attributes="member: 6421">Power patternsAlthough 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</blockquote>

Verification