PDA

View Full Version : Balancing 3.5 by cutting classes



Titanium Dragon
2008-03-08, 05:39 AM
Let's say I wanted to cut out all of the classes significantly more powerful than the classes in the Tome of Battle. What classes would I have to cut out? I know the following are must cuts:

Artificer
Archivist
Wizard
Sorcerer
Cleric
Druid

What other classes would the game need to lose to get rid of all of the "broken classes" and put the most powerful classes at the much lower (but more reasonable) ToB level?

Kurald Galain
2008-03-08, 06:17 AM
Possibly the beguiler and erudite.

However, for the game to be balanced you'd also have to remove the overly weak to worthless classes, in particular the healer, fighter and monk.

Riffington
2008-03-08, 06:35 AM
Er, once you take out the cleric and druid, the healer becomes an entirely reasonable class. It only sucks compared to them. And some people like playing medics.

Similarly, the fighter's tricks are actually pretty useful if magic isn't as available. A well-built fighter (or, especially, a fighter/barbarian) can easily go toe to toe with anyone from Tome of Battle.

Monks are on their own though.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-08, 02:32 PM
Monks are ok if you cross class them and stuff them into a PrC.

Animefunkmaster
2008-03-08, 02:47 PM
A well-built fighter (or, especially, a fighter/barbarian) can easily go toe to toe with anyone from Tome of Battle.


Possibly toe to toe with a swordsage, maybe a warblade (if he can down it in a single round) but not the Crusader.

I am of the belief that a fighter's best aspect is utilizing AoOs, reach, knockback (improved bullrush as well), dungeoncrasher and trips (even then magic items and magic support is very much neaded). Barbarians (especially the fenzied kind) should be shocktrooping - leap attacking- battle jumping- combat bruting- Supreme Power Attacking with a valorous weapon of vaulting.

I would like to submit the psion, psionic reformation, fusion, reality reformation to name a few things that might be considered a little too much.

UR Priest.

FlyMolo
2008-03-08, 03:13 PM
Monks are ok if you cross class them and stuff them into a PrC.

i.e. Monks are okay, if they're not monks.:smallwink:

SurlySeraph
2008-03-08, 03:17 PM
@^: Well, if they're not pure monks. Taking 11 levels in Monk for Greater Flurry can be worthwhile. However, there is no good reason that I know of to ever take more than 11 levels in Monk.

shadeofblack
2008-03-08, 04:08 PM
I say ban broken spells instead.

Talya
2008-03-08, 04:35 PM
If cutting classes led to balance, I'd have been a world class gymnast in high school.

Indon
2008-03-08, 04:40 PM
What? Monks are awesome at being anti-magic in a world of Binders and Truenamers. Warlocks might be a bit tricky, but that's what having a high touch AC is all about.

The Bard is potentially more powerful than a ToB class if you specialize on their spellcasting, but that requires slightly more optimization than on the part of the Cleric or Wizard.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-08, 04:44 PM
I say ban broken spells instead.

I've tried taking this approach in the past, but it involves lists a large number of word pages long. Better to just ban the broken classes than have someone try to play one and be told that they can't do something they thought they could do after they've gained four levels.

ladditude
2008-03-08, 04:51 PM
I sat let them be. CRs are built expecting a cleric/druid and a wizard/sorcerer. Cutting those will make you have to totally rework CR for everything in the book. Just let them play the game. And if they do anything to overpowered, hit them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and shout NO!

Then just ban whatever cheese they try to use, when they try to use it. YOU ARE THE DM. Plus, being told no is what you get for trying to break the game.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-08, 05:26 PM
I sat let them be. CRs are built expecting a cleric/druid and a wizard/sorcerer. Cutting those will make you have to totally rework CR for everything in the book. Just let them play the game. And if they do anything to overpowered, hit them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and shout NO!

Then just ban whatever cheese they try to use, when they try to use it. YOU ARE THE DM. Plus, being told no is what you get for trying to break the game.

Not really. The CR system is not expecting a cleric/druid and a wizard/sorcer; it is expecting things much weaker. If you toss a powerful magic user at an encounter of the "appropriate" CR they will crush it. I've had a group of 2 10th level characters, a fighter/rogue and a wizard, take out an entire tribe of goblins (including some magic users and class level goblins, one of which dispelled buffs on the characters) and 12 hill giants. While it is true it was more 6 hill giants and a bunch of goblins, some with class levels followed by 6 more hill giants, more higher-leveled goblins and the like, this was a party of two tenth level characters. They used up most of their power but they took them all out, and even killed a vrock.

I'm well aware I'm the DM; the point is to make it so people understand what I'm talking about. Hitting people on the head after they've been going on for a while, springing "secret rules" on them is lame. Banning classes makes the expectations clear, and lowers the maximum power level available dramatically.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-08, 06:37 PM
What? Monks are awesome at being anti-magic in a world of Binders and Truenamers. Warlocks might be a bit tricky, but that's what having a high touch AC is all about.
Ah, here we go again. Nope, even if you discount the wizard and cleric, they're still the weakest core class by a long shot, and are even outclassed by one of the NPC classes. Removing the top tier doesn't magically make the bottom tier "not the bottom tier".


I've tried taking this approach in the past, but it involves lists a large number of word pages long.
Maybe. Depending on what level you're playing at, I don't think you need to ban more than a dozen of spells.

Squash Monster
2008-03-08, 07:59 PM
Force Druids to take the shapeshift variant and ban all core spells.

I think that's the fastest way to get a semblance of balance.

PHII's spells might need banning too. In my experience, they're the strongest other than core.

Devils_Advocate
2008-03-09, 01:24 PM
Um, ladditude, "just letting them play the game" is fundamentally incompatible with whacking players with a newspaper and shouting at them (whether metaphorically or literally) when they do something you disapprove of. You're suggesting combining two mutually exclusive approaches to DMing. Needless to say, that makes no sense.

What you seem to be suggesting is basically a bait and switch, where players are allowed to use options that the DM regards as overpowered, and then reprimanded for it. There are restrictions on what they're allowed to do, but they're secret restrictions that the players aren't told about ahead of time. There's, uh, really no reason to do that, unless you just like telling players, "No, you can't do that."

Xyk
2008-03-09, 02:33 PM
You just cut out all the magic! That's a major part of Dnd. I can see balancing them through spell limitation, but not cutting them entirely. You'd be left with the ranger, and barbarian.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-09, 05:01 PM
cut everything but cleric, wizard, fighter and rogue. Then change cleric to cloistered cleric.

Indon
2008-03-09, 05:07 PM
Ah, here we go again. Nope, even if you discount the wizard and cleric, they're still the weakest core class by a long shot, and are even outclassed by one of the NPC classes. Removing the top tier doesn't magically make the bottom tier "not the bottom tier".

Firstly, the Adept technically outclasses _most_ of the core classes.

Secondly, unlike against core casters, the Tome of Magic classes don't have the tools to bypass the defensive capabilities of the Monk, meaning the Monk can function just fine as an anti-caster.

Considering that removing spell casters also causes most of the _other_ 'bottom tier' classes to stop being obsolete (with the arguable exception of the Samurai, because it's almost exactly like another non-magic class), there's no reason for the Monk to be an exception.

Aquillion
2008-03-09, 07:53 PM
Secondly, unlike against core casters, the Tome of Magic classes don't have the tools to bypass the defensive capabilities of the Monk, meaning the Monk can function just fine as an anti-caster.The Tome of Magic classes, for the most part, suck. They are never going to be reasonable magic alternatives, and being able to beat them is never going to be even a slight point of interest as a fringe-benefit to any class, never mind anybody's main role. The Tome of Magic classes just aren't strong enough to be worth having someone in your party just to counter (and that is assuming your DM throws a lot of tome of magic people at you constantly -- which is stupid, again, because many of the spellcasters PCs encounter are going to be monsters with sorcerer casting. The idea of an 'anti-wizard class' has never been viable for a core role.)

But even aside from the fact that the whole idea of an 'anti-ToM' class is comically absurd no matter what your setting, let's look at the list of banned classes so far, and see what's slipped through:

The psion. A significantly less powerful class than the wizard or codzilla... about on par with ToB, yes. So they're probably going to be the chief 'caster' in our new world. Oh, whoops, psions are auto-stilled and auto-silenced, so the monk's one viable offensive trick against wizards -- grappling -- doesn't work! In fact, if anything, banning the top-class casters has left the monk even weaker. How's them apples?

Wu-Jen. Wu-Jen are full casters with a list that overlaps with sorc/wiz a lot, but they might actually be allowable, since their list is much, much smaller. Again, Wu-Jen beat the ToM classes handily. Similarly, Shugenja.

Cloistered Cleric varient. There isn't really much argument for banning this; it's still powerful, but can't really beat the ToB without very specific cheese.

Oh, and don't forget -- we specifically left in the ToB, by making that the baseline. You mentioned that the Samurai remains obsolete because other classes do his job better? Monk, meet the Swordsage. The door is over there; try not to let it hit your ass on the way out.

Indon
2008-03-09, 07:57 PM
The psion. A significantly less powerful class than the wizard or codzilla... about on par with ToB, yes. So they're probably going to be the chief 'caster' in our new world. Oh, whoops, psions are auto-stilled and auto-silenced, so the monk's one viable offensive trick against wizards -- grappling -- doesn't work! In fact, if anything, banning the top-class casters has left the monk even weaker. How's them apples?

Wu-Jen. Wu-Jen are full casters with a list that overlaps with sorc/wiz a lot, but they might actually be allowable, since their list is much, much smaller. Again, Wu-Jen beat the ToM classes handily. Similarly, Shugenja.

Cloistered Cleric varient. There isn't really much argument for banning this; it's still powerful, but can't really beat the ToB without very specific cheese.

Their inclusion is up to Titanium Dragon - I'm sure he'll be thankful that you've brought them up for review.


Oh, and don't forget -- we specifically left in the ToB, by making that the baseline. You mentioned that the Samurai remains obsolete because other classes do his job better? Monk, meet the Swordsage. The door is over there; try not to let it hit your ass on the way out.

No, I said the Samurai is obsolete because there is a class that has strong overlap of class abilities - the Swordsage does not have strong overlap with the monk. I in fact said, "almost exactly like," which the swordsage is not, no more than the Fighter and Paladin are like the Warblade and Crusader. I think both of them have room to stay, too, by the way.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-09, 08:08 PM
No, I said the Samurai is obsolete because there is a class that has strong overlap of class abilities - the Swordsage does not have strong overlap with the monk. I in fact said, "almost exactly like," which the swordsage is not, no more than the Fighter and Paladin are like the Warblade and Crusader. I think both of them have room to stay, too, by the way.There is a variant Swordsage in ToB with no Light Armor proficiency and the monk's unarmed strike progression. That plus the wis-to-AC is about all that defines the monk, as all else they get is fast movement and a few bonus feats (and the ability to talk to squirrels, yay).

Charlie Kemek
2008-03-09, 09:18 PM
here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3864804&postcount=3) is Fax_Celestis' opinion of the class power ratings. You want them to be in the second or third tier. get rid of anything above or below.

Aquillion
2008-03-10, 12:05 AM
Their inclusion is up to Titanium Dragon - I'm sure he'll be thankful that you've brought them up for review.Even if Titanium Dragon manages to ban every single casting class outside of the ToM (which is just about what it would take to make anyone use them), beating them still wouldn't be an accomplishment.

Squash Monster
2008-03-10, 12:38 AM
here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3864804&postcount=3) is Fax_Celestis' opinion of the class power ratings. You want them to be in the second or third tier. get rid of anything above or below.I have to take issue with this tier list. Wu Jen is a full caster with a perfectly serviceable spell list (it gets the whole cloud/fog line of spells, that's all I need), yet it's two tiers under the other casters. Good fighter builds are fantastic, yet they're two tiers under barbarian. And how is Psychic Warrior that high up? Isn't the general consensus that they are horribly lacking in power points?

Aquillion
2008-03-10, 01:49 AM
And how is Psychic Warrior that high up? Isn't the general consensus that they are horribly lacking in power points?They are, and this keeps them from being overpowered, but they can still do plenty with what they have. Many of their best powers -- Expansion and Psionic Lion's Charge, say -- can be quite adequate with little or no augmentation, costing nearly nothing. That, combined with the fact that they can also augment them when they need to be more than just 'adequate' in a pinch, is what keeps the class effective.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-10, 02:34 AM
First, thank you all for helping me out with this project. If I ever run another 3.5 game, this will be really helpful.

Second, I still have some questions:


The psion. A significantly less powerful class than the wizard or codzilla... about on par with ToB, yes. So they're probably going to be the chief 'caster' in our new world. Oh, whoops, psions are auto-stilled and auto-silenced, so the monk's one viable offensive trick against wizards -- grappling -- doesn't work! In fact, if anything, banning the top-class casters has left the monk even weaker. How's them apples?

Wu-Jen. Wu-Jen are full casters with a list that overlaps with sorc/wiz a lot, but they might actually be allowable, since their list is much, much smaller. Again, Wu-Jen beat the ToM classes handily. Similarly, Shugenja.

Cloistered Cleric varient. There isn't really much argument for banning this; it's still powerful, but can't really beat the ToB without very specific cheese.


Firstly, the Adept technically outclasses _most_ of the core classes.


And how is Psychic Warrior that high up?

These were all comments made in the thread. Thus, I must ask what abilities these classes have which make them potentially problematic:

Psion
Psychic Warrior
Wu-Jen
Shugenja (What book is this from?)
Adept
Cloistered Cleric (What book is this from?)

It seems those are the last of the really potent potential spellcasters, and I need to know what basically they're capable of and how much stronger than ToB classes they are (if at all). And is the Adept a viable class for a PC to play as? It sounds like you all think they're pretty potent.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-10, 03:48 AM
I agree with Xyk's comment. Perosnally, I'd say that replacing Clerics with Cloisered Clerics is a bad idea due to how redundant Cloistered Clerics are (eg: they get a worse HD and BAB and less armour proficiency in exchange for some extra skill points and Int based class skils which Wizards are better off taking ranks in. I'd say that Archivists are a much better idea if you want an academic Divine caster due to them using Int for spells while being able to use Knowledge ranks for Dark Knowledge checks).
Regarding Arcanists, are you sure it isn't just a case of DMs being unable to exploit their glaring weaknesses rather then the classes being overpowered? As far as Clerics go, my stance is that they need to be able to survive on the frontlines due to Cure spells only having Touch range (if they were shortrange, Clerics would be fine without heavy armour, but without it, they would be too vurnerable (any sensible group of enermies would focus on killing them ASAP, which would be much easier if Clerics couldn't fight while lacking AC).
In regards to Druids, making players use the Shapeshifting variant would probably be a good idea as it would eliminate the animal companion, and the Druid wouldn't be able to use Natural Spell (also, the Shapeshifting forms are less powerful then Wild Shape). Alternatively, trying to improve weaker classes would help (I tend to class it as making sense for magic to be more powerful due to spellcasters only having limited spellslots, and they aren't jsst picking locks, going berserk, tracking things or any of the other less fantastic class features which non-spellcasters have).

Riffington
2008-03-10, 07:54 AM
Possibly toe to toe with a swordsage, maybe a warblade (if he can down it in a single round) but not the Crusader.


ToB classes are weak in various areas.
*Ranged Combat (a Barbarian/Fighter with a bow has twice the Crusader's speed; at least the swordsage or warblade could plausibly have some kind of one-round speed boost... but a cautious archer will still whump them).
*Mounted Combat (blah blah blah you only fight in dungeons)
*Grappling (most maneuvers won't work).
*If your group believes that buffs go on the warrior, not on the person with the buff spell, then buffs help a full attack much more than a maneuver.

Maybe your crusader beats tripmonkeys or uberchargers, but those are favored so much in the first place because they're so good against wizards (which are being taken out here anyway).

EvilElitest
2008-03-10, 08:34 AM
I've tried taking this approach in the past, but it involves lists a large number of word pages long. Better to just ban the broken classes than have someone try to play one and be told that they can't do something they thought they could do after they've gained four levels.

Cutting classes only seems to be a rather limiting solution, the classes have been fixed, redone and balanced so many times on these boards it should be easier
That being said, would you cut war mage?

from
EE

Person_Man
2008-03-10, 08:46 AM
There's really no reason to cut or add classes. Almost any class can be optimized to be made more powerful, or nerfed to be made weaker. If a group makes their characters together and agrees on a general power level at the start, most balance issues can be solved.

For example, the Healer is generally considered one of the weakest classes ever. But give it spontaneous casting from its full list, and its actually a decent class. Archivists are generally considered one of the most powerful classes ever. But if the player picks moderate spells and avoids abuse (cherry picking spells from every list), its weaker then a Cleric.

You don't even need to make them official house rules. You just have to have a conversation with your players. "Hey guys, remember when Bob Polymorphed into a Pyrohydra and mowed down an entire army by himself, thus ruining every plot tree I had written? Can we tone it down a bit to avoid that. Or alternatively, can you each spend 20 minutes on the optimization boards and all be uber, and I'll just write a campaign where you take on demi-gods?"

3.5 is so multi-faceted that you'll never balance it by removing classes (unless you want to force everyone to be the same 2-3 classes). You just need to have everyone put more effort into working as a team instead.

Snadgeros
2008-03-10, 09:30 AM
Allow me to throw my hat into the ring:

First off, cutting classes, especially this many, is changing the very face of the game. If you don't have a primary arcane caster, or a cleric or druid, you're no longer playing DnD. And removing the FIGHTER? Really? They're like, THE class you can't remove. That's like having Super Smash Bros. without Mario and Link.

Second off, monks. I'm not going to change any minds here, but I still fail to see how monks are underpowered. Stop trying to make them go toe-to-toe with a fighter, that's not their job. Their job is battlefield mobility and control. Does the rogue need a flanking buddy? The monk can get there in time. Is the wizard in melee? The monk can get over there and distract the bad guy. With high movement speed, high AC, fantastic saves, an enough skills to max out tumble, jump, climb, and more, the monk is unrivalled when it comes to survival and mobility. As such, along with the bard, he makes a fantastic "Fifth man."

Of course, he's still outclassed by Batman/CoDzilla, but then again, everyone is.

HOWEVER! Just because the game is broken doesn't mean you have to fix it. Unless your group consists of nothing but ubermunchkin powerplayers, you'll probably never have to worry about the wizard going batman or the cleric zilla'ing out. And a few simple houserules, such as banning shapechange or time stop, or even just the natural spell feat, go a long way towards game balance. For maximum effectiveness and satisfaction, though, go with Plan C. If your players throw CoDzilla at you, hit them with Batman. They'll get the message after the first TPK.

Squash Monster
2008-03-10, 04:30 PM
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=968062

Just found this. It's a character power ranking produced by a vote on the character optimization forums. It seems pretty solid to me, if you want to find a good chunk of balanced ones.

Artanis
2008-03-10, 05:16 PM
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=968062

Just found this. It's a character power ranking produced by a vote on the character optimization forums. It seems pretty solid to me, if you want to find a good chunk of balanced ones.
Ouch, Soulknife and Samurai got beat by an NPC class :smalleek:

Squash Monster
2008-03-10, 08:03 PM
Actually, they got beat by the second best NPC class. If you look for Adept, you'll notice it's quite a bit farther up there, beating Truenamer, Spellthief, Healer, and Monk as well.

What's worse... I think that's actually fairly accurate. I don't know about the Truenamer and the Spellthief, because I have no experience with them at all, but I'm pretty sure that a well-played Adept could out-perform Monks and Healers. Adept may only get five levels of spells, but I dare say that for those five levels, Adept gets one of the best spell lists in the game.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-11, 05:00 AM
I agree that it's an accurate list.

The truenamer mechanic is known to suffer from severe design flaws, requiring you to stack everything you have on a single skill in order to affect enemies at moderate-to-high level.

I'm only somewhat surprised at the spellthief; probably his abilities are far too situational.

And I thought warlocks were weaker than that, actually.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-11, 06:57 AM
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=968062

Just found this. It's a character power ranking produced by a vote on the character optimization forums. It seems pretty solid to me, if you want to find a good chunk of balanced ones.

Thanks, that's really helpful.

I'm thinking I'll nuke everything above Dread Necromancer; while it is rated .22 ahead of the Warblade, I think it is a pretty natural break as it is the first class to have a mode of 7 for power.

So my list of banned classes would be:

Wizard
Archivist
Artificer
Druid
Cleric
Psion
Sorcerer
Erudite
Beguiler
Wu Jen
Spirit Shaman
Favored Soul

Does that look like a fine list of banned classes?

Roderick_BR
2008-03-11, 07:50 AM
Umm. Cutting classes... For core, keep the figher and the rogue, use sorcerer instead of wizard, and either the healer, or the cloistered cleric instead of cleric.
Paladins, and rangers are on par with fighters, and barbarians are considered balanced with rogue. Bard are fine, I guess. Yeah, most problems come from the big 3 really: wizard, druid, and cleric.
Woudln't know which non-cores are broken, though, as I haven't read most of them yet.
I see a lot of people is placing sorcerers and favored souls as banable classes from their games, even though they are considered weak. I think they are limited enough to be the "big guys" in the group without much problem.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-11, 08:00 AM
Wouldn't you be bettr off with just trying to improve the weaker classes? As I said, the idea that spellcasters are overpowered probably comes from DMs being unable to exploit weaknesses, and I suggested a solution to fixing Druids. The fact is that without a large proportion of those classes, it isn't D&D anymore. One solution I'd have with Clerics is to just give them light armour proficiency while changing thier Cure spells so they have sort range. That would allow them to heal effectively while not causing them to become a liability due to being vurnerable on the frontline. Regarding Wizards, just ban or tone down some spells.

Alternatively, why don't you ban weaker classes before replacing those with more effective ones? As far as I'm concerned, full casters should be more powerful then other classes due to what their abilities are (eg: someone who can shoot fireballs at people or slow them down, or make injuries or diseases disappear, should be more powerful then someone who disarms traps while aiming for enermies weakpoints, or someone who hits things with a sword.

BollaertN
2008-03-11, 08:09 AM
Wait a minute... When you people DM you actually let people play all these crazy classes? I usually let them pick from the PHB, and maybe... maybe... I'd include another class or two if they fit my setting.

Heck, last 3.5 game I ran was straight PHB but I disallowed Barbarians, Gnomes, Half Orcs.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-11, 08:18 AM
Why did you disallow those races and Barbarians? I don't DM, but I don't see why people shouldn't play as those classes (some people may not want to just stick to Core classes, and it is the DM's job to create challenges which fit around the party). Also, how powerful are Druids in areas where they can;t use some of their spells? (Eg: ones which fizzle out if they are indoors).

tyckspoon
2008-03-11, 08:27 AM
Why did you disallow those races and Barbarians? I don't DM, but I don't see why people shouldn't play as those classes (some people may not want to just stick to Core classes, and it is the DM's job to create challenges which fit around the party). Also, how powerful are Druids in areas where they can;t use some of their spells? (Eg: ones which fizzle out if they are indoors).

I would guess Barbarians, Gnomes, and Half-orcs didn't fit in the world he wanted to set the campaign in?

For the other question, the answer is- still pretty good. Buffs still work, summons still work (subject to the size of the available space), Wildshaping and ripping off somebody's face still works (again, subject to size; you can get a Medium or Large critter in most places, and if you can't turn into anything bigger than you aren't fighting anything bigger in that space either). Most of the spells that are really hampered by not being outside are the big army-destroying ones like Control Weather.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-11, 08:29 AM
Thanks (a friend who I'm talking with said that could be a problem). Do you think my Cleric and Druid ideas would be better then banning the classes?

Kurald Galain
2008-03-11, 12:34 PM
So my list of banned classes would be:


This appears to ban several archetypes from being played, though. You should have an answer ready for people who "really want to play somebody like Merlin".

Squash Monster
2008-03-11, 12:38 PM
Another approach on the subject. There was a question on a different forum about what eight classes you'd put in the PHB if you were limited to such. I decided to go with a balanced version. It had a pretty good response there, so here's my list:

Fighter - but the PHB only includes good fighter feats, namely the lockdown, bullrush, and archery lines. None of this cleave nonsense.
Crusader - because people like paladins, and these are better
Swordsage - because people like monks, and these are better
Rogue - you need one
Favored Soul - gets a domain power at 1st, 8th, and 14th, spell progression is slowed to bard speed. The divine caster choice
Bard - the arcane caster choice
Druid - shapeshift variant is mandatory, spell progression is slowed to bard speed
Warlock - the blasty guy

Bard is the strongest on that list, but not by a huge margin. If I redid the list now, the only change I'd make would be replacing warlock with binder.

ladditude
2008-03-11, 12:53 PM
I'm sorry if my post was miss understood. I meant along the the lines of what Person_Man said.

Tell the players not to ruin the game for others. If someone wants to play Merlin, then that should be allowable. Just tell them not to be CoDzilla or Batman. Furthermore, play the game from 3-12, when it actually make sense.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-11, 01:42 PM
Squash Monster, by "Bard speed", you mean limiting the FS and Druid to level 6 spells while stopping them from getting as many spells, right? I fail to see how making spellcasters rubbish by limiting their spells due to other classes not being as good would really help (especially since a lot of their spells such as healing and buffs benefit other party members). I still agree with ladditude about just asking the players not to rin things for other people (alternatively, the DM could actually try to think of countermeasures which don't involve nerfing or banning fullcasters casters). I think my list of classes would go like this if I could only have 8: Warblade, Swordsage, Rogue, Ranger (changed from Duskblade when I realised I nneded a nature-based warrior class), Clerics (as they are to fill the holy warrior roll to a degree), Shapeshifting Druids, Wizards (as they are), and Bards (to fill the face/support roll).

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-12, 02:41 AM
This appears to ban several archetypes from being played, though. You should have an answer ready for people who "really want to play somebody like Merlin".

Play an Adept? It supposedly has a pretty good spell list, even if it is pretty limited. Shugenja also seem like they could be capable of duplicating a rather merlin-esque character.

And saying "don't ruin the game" is hard, arbitrary, and as many people pointed out, probably bait and switch; a lot of bread and butter wizard abilities (fly, for instance), druid abilities (wildshape), and cleric abilities (their self buffs) are problematic in and of themselves. You don't have to do anything particularly cheesy to overshadow everyone else with a lot of what they do just naturally. By banning the broken stuff you eliminate the possibility, make it clear what is not allowed, and don't make anyone feel ripped off as they know from the start what they can't do.

Also, question: are there any presitige classes which are inherently broken, even without the broken full caster classes?

Kurald Galain
2008-03-12, 03:50 AM
Also, question: are there any presitige classes which are inherently broken, even without the broken full caster classes?

Well, yes. Planar Shepherd and Incantatrix come to mind.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-12, 03:54 AM
As I said: if someone is using "broken" abilities, use different tactics to counter them. If you can;t think of anything effective, let someone else be the DM. Also, why shouldn't full casters be more powerful then non-casters considering when it is they do?

SensFan
2008-03-12, 04:59 AM
As I said: if someone is using "broken" abilities, use different tactics to counter them. If you can;t think of anything effective, let someone else be the DM.
You, Sir, have obviously never actually seen a fully optimized Wizard/Cleric/Druid...

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-12, 05:42 AM
As I said: if someone is using "broken" abilities, use different tactics to counter them. If you can;t think of anything effective, let someone else be the DM. Also, why shouldn't full casters be more powerful then non-casters considering when it is they do?

A) Full casters are horribly, horribly broken. You clearly have no comprehension of the level of brokenness they are at.
B) Full casters should NOT be more powerful than non-casters because its broken, because it is less fun for the other players, because there is absolutely no reason whatsoever magic should be stronger than non-magic, and because it causes the game itself to break down on a fundamental level.

This thread is not here to argue over these things, however; I'm trying to get a good list for myself should I run another 3.5 campaign.


Planar Shepherd and Incantatrix

While it'd be a pain to qualify for Planar Shepherd (may be outright impossible, really, as only druids have wild shape as a class ability in books I allow, though IIRC there's something in Unearthed Arcana (a book I don't typically use) which has it as well), it being banned is entirely reasonable. 10:1 time ratio? Seriously? Who thought that was a good idea? Even if it is only an Eberron class, it still has to be banned, banned, banned.

As for the incantatrix... yeah, that needs to go too. I'm assuming it is the improved metamagic which breaks them in half; is it just the +1 metamagic things being free that break it, or are there other tricks associated with it?

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-12, 07:20 AM
How exactly are the full casters broken (excluding Druids, which I suggested a solution for), and how does their power really affect everyone elses fun? Also, why shouldn't magic be more powerful then non-magic? Excluding the fluff behind magic being more powerful, there's also the fact that spellcasters are limited regarding how many spells they can cast/day, while skill monkeys and warriors can use their skills/hit things at will. I'd have to agree with Planar Shepherd being ridiculous, though (who decided that that PrC was balanced?).

Telonius
2008-03-12, 07:56 AM
If someone really wants to play Merlin, take a Bard and put a floppy hat on him. Most of Merlin's powers in the legends are more Bard-like than Wizard-like, and some of them appear to come from his demonic heritage.

Artemician
2008-03-12, 09:51 AM
How exactly are the full casters broken (excluding Druids, which I suggested a solution for), and how does their power really affect everyone elses fun?

Full Casters are broken for a myriad of reasons already debated on this board, Gleemax and Enworld time and time again. I will not go into them here.

It doesn't matter how big or small the overall party power level is; it can be as high and low as you want, as long as each member contributes in roughly the same capacity. However, problems arise when one or more characters horribly outshadows the others. More often than not, this is the Full Caster, due to the sheer raw power of having spells.

When there's a power imbalance, less fun is had by everyone. This is because the DM finds it very hard to pitch appropriate encounters; a normal encounter for everyone else would be curbstomped by the high-powered character, while an encounter tailored to fit the high-powered character would ruthlessly murder everyone else. This is not the case all the time, but there's certainly a tendency towards this when a power imbalance is present.


Also, why shouldn't magic be more powerful then non-magic? Excluding the fluff behind magic being more powerful, there's also the fact that spellcasters are limited regarding how many spells they can cast/day, while skill monkeys and warriors can use their skills/hit things at will. I'd have to agree with Planar Shepherd being ridiculous, though (who decided that that PrC was balanced?).

Why should magic be more powerful than non-magic? You have power levels which are physically quantified by Character Level. If a character of Level X is much less able than another chatacter of the same level, that defeats the entire purpose of having levels in the first place.

As to how casters circumvent the limited spells/day, that too has been debated to the ground, and I shall nto go into this here.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-12, 09:57 AM
My logic is that magic should be more powerful due to how it involves changing reality through will power, or by channeling Divine power as opposed to being the sort of thing that can be done in real life. I'll try and find a thread which explaines why Full Casters are supposedly overpowered before I post anything else here.

Skjaldbakka
2008-03-12, 10:20 AM
My LotR project I've been working on cuts out all the spellcasting and otherwise magic using classes except Paladin, Ranger, and (modified)Bard. This also has an impact on what magical items are available. A BIG impact.

Expecially since Bard was modified to have Paladin/Ranger level spellcasting, and tweaked to be more combat oriented.

It is, however, not D&D if you do that. D&D is somewhat inherently high-magic. The above is high fantasy, but not high-magic.

ZekeArgo
2008-03-12, 11:16 AM
As for the incantatrix... yeah, that needs to go too. I'm assuming it is the improved metamagic which breaks them in half; is it just the +1 metamagic things being free that break it, or are there other tricks associated with it?

Might wanna re-read the part about improved metamagic, it doesn't drop metamagic feats below a +1 adjustment.

The problem with incantatrix is that it can apply metamagic feats to others spellcasting/exsisting effects with just a spellcraft check. Not so great if your in a solo campaign, but with another caster backing you up its free metamagic all over the place.

Edit: and they get metamagic spell trigger, which is borked. Seize concentration/snatch spell is kinda bleh, until you try to throw a conjurer at the group.

Frosty
2008-03-12, 11:52 AM
Thanks, that's really helpful.

I'm thinking I'll nuke everything above Dread Necromancer; while it is rated .22 ahead of the Warblade, I think it is a pretty natural break as it is the first class to have a mode of 7 for power.

So my list of banned classes would be:

Wizard
Archivist
Artificer
Druid
Cleric
Psion
Sorcerer
Erudite
Beguiler
Wu Jen
Spirit Shaman
Favored Soul

Does that look like a fine list of banned classes?

You're banning FAVORED SOUL and WU JEN because they're too powerful? You've gotta be kidding me.

Draz74
2008-03-12, 11:55 AM
My logic is that magic should be more powerful due to how it involves changing reality through will power, or by channeling Divine power as opposed to being the sort of thing that can be done in real life.

There's a perfectly simple way to simulate this philosophy even if you play with well-balanced classes. It is, "Spellcasters are higher level than non-spellcasters in this campaign world."

IMO the game is much more fun when characters of the same level, regardless of class, are equal in power. So I think that should be the design philosophy of the game.

If you check out the current thread on "fighters vs mages in fantasy," (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74673) you can find plenty of examples of fantasy where the casters are actually mostly weaker than the non-casters, in spite of being able to break the laws of "reality." Again, I say make the classes equal in power at any given level, then make characters higher or lower level to adjust the caster/noncaster balance to be the way that fits your campaign world and concept.

Draz74
2008-03-12, 11:59 AM
You're banning FAVORED SOUL and WU JEN because they're too powerful? You've gotta be kidding me.

Makes sense to me.

The only reason the Favored Soul is considered weak is because it's so much weaker than the Cleric. The only reason the Wu Jen (and Sorcerer) are considered weak is because they're so much worse than the Wizard.

A Favored Soul is still a full caster who can learn any broken Cleric spell from any book, Divine Favor/Divine Power/Righteous Might himself up, and ClericZilla away. (He just has to do some tricks or optimization, more than the Cleric, if he wants to Quicken those buffs or use Divine Metacheese on them.)

A Wu Jen is still a full arcane caster with infinite Spells Known capability (via spellbook). He just lacks some of the wizard's cheesier options due to spells that aren't on his list.

Frosty
2008-03-12, 12:13 PM
Just ban some of the broken spells. Not that difficult. No timestop, Celerity, Foresight, Contingency, MMM, Rope Trick, Shapechange, Astral Projection, etc.

Personally, I find it fairly balanced and perfectly fun to have a party consisting of Favored Soul, Beguiler, Swordsage, Crusader (or optimized Paladin) for example. I'm in such a group currently, and it's the swordsage that shines the most to be honest. Granted, everyone contributes signifacantly, but the swordsage shines because his stuff is flashy and he usually does the most damage.

Rutee
2008-03-12, 12:18 PM
Just ban some of the broken spells. Not that difficult. No timestop, Celerity, Foresight, Contingency, MMM, Rope Trick, Shapechange, Astral Projection, etc.
I think he's saying that to actually balance the classes, he'd basically have to force them to be Blasters.

The Rose Dragon
2008-03-12, 12:25 PM
I think he's saying that to actually balance the classes, he'd basically have to force them to be Blasters.

For good reason, too, because it is highly likely that most 3rd Edition playtesters played blaster wizards, because it just looked cooler and most people would do that anyway - not considering how broken certain combinations would prove.

I still thank my gaming groups because they play warmages. :smalltongue:

Frosty
2008-03-12, 12:45 PM
I think he's saying that to actually balance the classes, he'd basically have to force them to be Blasters.

Not really. Just banning Batman. There are plenty of non-blasting spells that are useful but not broken. Look at the Beguiler for example. Spell list is fairly non-broken. I see Timestop, but e Beguiler can't do as much with it as a Wizard can.

sonofzeal
2008-03-12, 12:58 PM
Don't ban classes, ban abilities! With the proper pruning, the truly excessive classes can be brought under control, without hurting their ability to be useful and playable in the game. I don't have any experience with the erudite, beguiler, or wu jen, but here are my suggestions for the other top offenders.

1) Wizards can no longer expand their spellbook beyond the 2-per-level (same restriction as the Psion's been under all along), and abilities that reduce Metamagic cost are cut.

2) Druids can no longer use Natural Spell, and do not gain the Extraordinary abilities of their new form, such as Pounce or Improved Grab (I think this might actually have been errata'd, but I'm not sure; they keep changing it and I've lost interest in staying current).

3) Psions, Wilders, and Erudites are no longer immune to ASF (even though they aren't arcane).

4) Clerics, Favoured Souls, and Spirit Shaman have their BAB reduced to 1/2; Divine Power increases it to 3/4.

5) Archivists cannot learn divine spells from Domain lists, the Divine Bard list, or similar sources. Cleric and Druid spells are still fine.

6) Artificers lose their Metamagic Spell Trigger and Metamagic Spell Completion class features, and the feats "Exceptional Artisan", "Extraordinary Artisan", "Legendary Artisan", and "Wand Mastery" are cut. The increase to caster level that allows 3rd level Artificers to craft scrolls of Fireball is also cut.



As to spells... Gate now offers a Will save vs control, PAO durations are all decreased one step (so nothing is ever permanent, and the same no-extraordinary as Wild Shape applies), and Assay Spell Resistance is cut. Time Stop requires one full action to cast. Other suggestions are welcome.

Rutee
2008-03-12, 12:59 PM
Not really. Just banning Batman. There are plenty of non-blasting spells that are useful but not broken. Look at the Beguiler for example. Spell list is fairly non-broken. I see Timestop, but e Beguiler can't do as much with it as a Wizard can.

The problem is not Batman. The problem is that magic can do anything. ANYTHING. Nobody can compete with that, within DnD guidelines.

Frosty
2008-03-12, 01:30 PM
So restrict the spell list. There are many things a Warmage, Dread Necromancer, and Beguiler cannot do. And you certainly don't see people complaining about Warmages, Dread Necros, and Beguilers nearly as much as about Wizards and Druids.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-12, 01:37 PM
Sonofzeal's ideas are really good. Just a couple of things: would Clerics and FSs be okay on the frontline with only 1/2 BAB? (I'd say that banning Divine Power would be a better idea). Also, I'd probably limit Archivists to spells from the Cleric list and from 2 of their dietie's Domains, while giving them a similar spell limit to Wizards (I'd probably allow them to use Int to calculate bonus spells as well).

Draz74
2008-03-12, 01:50 PM
So restrict the spell list. There are many things a Warmage, Dread Necromancer, and Beguiler cannot do. And you certainly don't see people complaining about Warmages, Dread Necros, and Beguilers nearly as much as about Wizards and Druids.

That's a fine suggestion, for another thread. But this thread is specifically about how balanced the game can be, just by cutting classes. Not by houseruling spell lists.

Frosty
2008-03-12, 01:56 PM
That's a fine suggestion, for another thread. But this thread is specifically about how balanced the game can be, just by cutting classes. Not by houseruling spell lists.

Done. Thread created already. Base line spell-lists limited to those in currently available limited caster classes. I've sort of taken the idea of cutting classes and limited spell lists and mashed them together.

sonofzeal
2008-03-12, 02:14 PM
Sonofzeal's ideas are really good. Just a couple of things: would Clerics and FSs be okay on the frontline with only 1/2 BAB? (I'd say that banning Divine Power would be a better idea). Also, I'd probably limit Archivists to spells from the Cleric list and from 2 of their dietie's Domains, while giving them a similar spell limit to Wizards (I'd probably allow them to use Int to calculate bonus spells as well).
That's just the thing though - Clerics and FSs are supposed to be primary casters, not first-tier melee combatants. As a full spellcaster, they're primary roll in the party should be based around their spells - healing, buffing, debuffing, battlefield control, blasting, etc. The problem with the Cleric and FS classes was not that they were too good at those things, the problem was that they were good at those AND better at melee than any of the non-ToB melee classes. This is a problem! A melee cleric should be playable, but secondary to the people who really specialize in that role. With the BAB reduction, they're still durable and armored enough to stay in the front lines, but in a much more secondary role than before.

The other option might have been to reduce their hit dice size. However, it makes sense for the party healer to be as durable as possible, so I think the BAB reduction is the better choice here.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-12, 02:42 PM
Tha is a good point. Would just eliminating the overpowered self-buffs stop them from out-meleeing non-ToB fighters? I agree with you about HDs, though (unless giving them a d6 HD would work for this purpose without making them too fragile, which it probably wouldn't considering how Bards can be used as melee fighters with only light armour and no shields).

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-12, 02:54 PM
First off, as someone else said, this thread is about something specific; arguing with it is pointless and a waste of space, it has been debated to death elsewhere, ect. This thread is about what classes I'd need to ban to balance the game, and as a guideline, I want the ToB classes to be near the top of the power curve.


I think he's saying that to actually balance the classes, he'd basically have to force them to be Blasters.

In which case I might as well just ban wizards entirely and allow warmages.


Not really. Just banning Batman. There are plenty of non-blasting spells that are useful but not broken. Look at the Beguiler for example. Spell list is fairly non-broken. I see Timestop, but e Beguiler can't do as much with it as a Wizard can.

Beguilers are still massively stronger than most characters; according to the optimization boards they're the ninth most powerful class. I banned the twelve most powerful classes because there was a natural break between the favored soul and the dread necromancer; the mode ranking of the favored soul and everything above it was an 8 or more, whereas the mode ranking on the dread necromancer and everything below it was a 7 or less. Only two classes below that line (the dread necromancer and the wilder) even had anyone give them a ranking of 10.

I do have a question, though: Wilders use the same powers list as psions, yet psions, according to their rankings, on a scale of 1 to 10 are 2 points above wilders. What makes psions so much more powerful than their less predictable cousins?

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-12, 02:59 PM
I think it is just versatillity (presumably, the Wilder's slightly better fighting abilities and HD aren't enough to compensate for having less powers).

sonofzeal
2008-03-12, 03:02 PM
Tha is a good point. Would just eliminating the overpowered self-buffs stop them from out-meleeing non-ToB fighters? I agree with you about HDs, though (unless giving them a d6 HD would work for this purpose without making them too fragile, which it probably wouldn't considering how Bards can be used as melee fighters with only light armour and no shields).
The problem there is that buff spells are one of the hallmarks of divine magic, and I'd be hesitant to remove them. Not allowing them to be cast on the Cleric himself is possible, but inelegant, and there's ways around it anyway.

As to d6 HD, you're right that wouldn't make them all that fragile (no more so than Bards and Rogue). However, keeping the Cleric alive should be every group's top priority. If the Rogue goes down it's troubling but recoverable; if the Cleric goes down you may be in a TPK scenario. As such, I personally would prefer to keep their HD where it is, and reduce their offensive capabilities instead. I know 1/2 BAB seems harsh, but we've more or less proven than 3/4 BAB was too high, given the various other abilities of the class.

Lord Tataraus
2008-03-12, 03:04 PM
I do have a question, though: Wilders use the same powers list as psions, yet psions, according to their rankings, on a scale of 1 to 10 are 2 points above wilders. What makes psions so much more powerful than their less predictable cousins?

Because a wilder is about as proportionally less power to a psion as a sorcerer is to a wizard, except the psion actually gets access to more powers (wilder's can't get disciplines) and the wilder has the potential to harm themselves with their own casting.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-12, 03:08 PM
I think it is just versatillity (presumably, the Wilder's slightly better fighting abilities and HD aren't enough to compensate for having less powers).

Looking at them, they don't actually have the same powers lists, either. Wilders lack access to psion disciplines, which means they can't use polymorph, shapechange, fission, fusion, energy ball (not really broken, but still potent), fly, reality reversion, fabricate, creation, genesis, mind switch, and psychic surgury - basically a who's who of broken abilities. The only psion/wilder power which really caught my eye while scanning the list was Temporal Accelleration, which looks like it is Time Stop at 6th level, except the duration is less random.

EDIT: Ninjaed.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-12, 03:13 PM
That would also explain why they are seens as weaker then Psions. How would Clerics get around spell descriptions saying "1 target (except for self)"? Also, could other abilities be cut to make them more balanced in melee?

sonofzeal
2008-03-12, 03:13 PM
I do have a question, though: Wilders use the same powers list as psions, yet psions, according to their rankings, on a scale of 1 to 10 are 2 points above wilders. What makes psions so much more powerful than their less predictable cousins?
Massively limited power selection. We're talking Warlock-limited, except they're not at-will, and you get worse Bab, HD, and class features. Seriously, 11 powers known at lvl20? What kind of sick joke is that? That said, they still manage to be a decent class. Elude Touch is nice, and Wild Surge means their powers can do more damage and have higher DCs in emergencies than a Psion's can. Still, they're so unbelievably narrow in their power selection that it would be hard to bring them back up into balance.

Frosty
2008-03-12, 03:20 PM
Beguilers are still massively stronger than most characters; according to the optimization boards they're the ninth most powerful class. I banned the twelve most powerful classes because there was a natural break between the favored soul and the dread necromancer; the mode ranking of the favored soul and everything above it was an 8 or more, whereas the mode ranking on the dread necromancer and everything below it was a 7 or less. Only two classes below that line (the dread necromancer and the wilder) even had anyone give them a ranking of 10.

I consider the Beguiler within the acceptable bounds of what a PC should be in terms of power. Yes, they're more towards the top end of the curve, but still within acceptable bounds because of their limited spell list.

sonofzeal
2008-03-12, 03:24 PM
That would also explain why they are seens as weaker then Psions. How would Clerics get around spell descriptions saying "1 target (except for self)"? Also, could other abilities be cut to make them more balanced in melee?
"Share Spell" does the trick quite nicely. The easiest way would be to grab an Animal Companion somehow, and cast the spells on it and share it backwards to yourself. I'm not sure the text really supports that trick, but you'd have a lot of pissed-off players willing to argue it loudly.

And would you also remove the self-buffing abilities of the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Druid? How about the poor little Bard who's using many of the same spells? Would the Dragon Shaman and Divine Mind not benefit from their own auras anymore?

No, I don't think this is the way to go. Too contentious, too inelegant.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-12, 03:26 PM
Those are good points (I was only thinking about the Cleric buffs you were refering to which make them more powerful in melee combat then the actual melee warriors, and I'd forgotten about Share Spell).

Draz74
2008-03-12, 03:29 PM
Massively limited power selection. We're talking Warlock-limited, except they're not at-will, and you get worse Bab, HD, and class features.

Actually, it's the same BAB and HD.

Reasons that the Psion is better than the Wilder:
- Intelligence is a better primary stat tha Charisma
- Learn 3 times as many powers!
- Select powers from a discipline list in addition to the main list; although at least the Wilder can use the Expanded Knowledge feat to cherry-pick discipline powers. (It's still a very significant problem, because discipline powers are good.)
- So that means that the Wilder needs more feats than the Psion. But, oh, wait, the Psion gets bonus feats, and the Wilder doesn't. Way to add insult to injury.
- Doesn't fry himself with his own class features.

Reasons why the Wilder is better than the Psion:
- One more HP per level. Woot.
- Medium BAB. Which you'll never need unless you're already in trouble.
- More skill points. Oh wait, never mind, the Psion will have more skill points due to it needing INT instead of CHA.
- Better skill list. Wait, maybe not. Depends on the Psion's discipline, which gives him some good class skills.
- Wild Surge. Except wait, it's normally not worth using, because of the risk that you'll daze yourself.
- Elude Touch. OK, that's nice.

Human Paragon 3
2008-03-12, 03:30 PM
Beguilers are good, but I don't consider them to be significantly more powerful than the ToB classes, especially Crusader. They have a great-but-limited spell list. They are utterly useless in many situations where enchantments and illusions are not helpful. Vs. constructs, undead, and enemies with true-seeing/imunity to mind affecting spells they are good for a distraction and not much else, sort of the rogue-syndrom.

Draz74
2008-03-12, 03:37 PM
Vs. constructs, undead, and enemies with true-seeing/imunity to mind affecting spells they are good for a distraction and not much else, sort of the rogue-syndrom.

Problem is, they're better than the rogue at the rogue syndrome.

Beguilers are full skill monkeys, who also have situational-but-very-powerful arcane magic. Full casting.

Yikes.

Plus, even in the situations you mention, they can always buff the party or shoot stuff with UMD items.

Frosty
2008-03-12, 03:46 PM
Problem is, they're better than the rogue at the rogue syndrome.

Beguilers are full skill monkeys, who also have situational-but-very-powerful arcane magic. Full casting.

Yikes.

True. But I happen to believe Rogues to be on the low end of the power curve on what PCs should be, so Beguilers are fine by me. Sneak attack kinda sucks in 3e. Everything and their dogs are immune to it at high levels.

And hey Warblades are better than Fighters, and Swordsages are better than Monks. Does that mean ToB classes are OP? Nope.

sonofzeal
2008-03-12, 03:48 PM
Actually, it's the same BAB and HD.
Ah, my mistake. Never played one, never really cared to try. The BAB and HD do make it a slightly better class, but really... the Psion-Wizard, Wilder-Sorcerer analogy is unfair. It really should be closer to Psion-Wizard, Wilder-Bard.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-12, 04:12 PM
I consider the Beguiler within the acceptable bounds of what a PC should be in terms of power. Yes, they're more towards the top end of the curve, but still within acceptable bounds because of their limited spell list.

The optimization boards feel they're about 1 point on a 10 point scale better than Warblades, the best of the ToB classes, and better than Wu Jen, Spirit Shamans, and Favored Souls. I would tend to agree. Incidentally, rogues are pretty much dead in the middle of classes according to their list of classes by power level, and I would tend to agree.

Clearly beguilers aren't as good as wizards, sorcerers, archivsts, artificers, druids, and clerics, or even psions, but they're still pretty nasty. But, given this is my own list and no one else's, obviously people may draw the line at different points.


- Select powers from a discipline list in addition to the main list; although at least the Wilder can use the Expanded Knowledge feat to cherry-pick discipline powers. (It's still a very significant problem, because discipline powers are good.)

Ew. Well, as far as I'm concerned, banning Psions means their disciplines are gone too, but I'd have to spell that out explicitly. Thank you for pointing that out. I'd just ban the feat, but it seems reasonable to me, though I am banning one of the feats that allows for the Detect City bomb to work (namely, the one that lets a cold descriptor spell deal damage, even if it wouldn't normally).

Draz74
2008-03-13, 02:10 AM
Ew. Well, as far as I'm concerned, banning Psions means their disciplines are gone too, but I'd have to spell that out explicitly. Thank you for pointing that out. I'd just ban the feat, but it seems reasonable to me, though I am banning one of the feats that allows for the Detect City bomb to work (namely, the one that lets a cold descriptor spell deal damage, even if it wouldn't normally).

I wasn't actually advocating this restriction on Wilders. I meant "problem" as in, "the problem with Wilders being so much weaker than Psions."

I actually think Wilders kind of need to be able to cherry-pick discipline powers, or they might be much too weak.

You might want to ban a few of the powers they can choose from: Metamorphosis and Schism. Maybe Energy Missile and Astral Construct if you're really paranoid.

Rutee
2008-03-13, 02:14 AM
And hey Warblades are better than Fighters, and Swordsages are better than Monks. Does that mean ToB classes are OP? Nope.

Yeah, but the Rogue is generally considered to be one of the most closest to balanced classes. Hence why Spellthief and Beguiler are so very, very easy to claim as being iffy.

Frosty
2008-03-13, 11:22 AM
Yeah, but the Rogue is generally considered to be one of the most closest to balanced classes. Hence why Spellthief and Beguiler are so very, very easy to claim as being iffy.

I strongly disagree. They've got lots of skills...but we all know skills aren't worth that much in 3.5 except for things like Diplomacy and Bluff. They've got sneak attack...which sucks balls at higher levels because most things are immune. Unless prc out, I would not feel like I was having fun with the Rogue to be honest. Now Hellbreaker...that's *fun*. Spellthief too. They've got interesting things to do in combat. More than just "I try to flank and sneak attack). This is why Fighters are BORING and Warblades are not.

On the same vein, Beguilers are fun to play because they have options. Spells give options. Beguiler spells happen to not be abusive for the most part. Hence, I like em a lot.

Also, isn't Spellthief rated pretty low I thought? Below the Adept or something?

Rutee
2008-03-13, 11:28 AM
Isn't it sad that someone so easily negated is considered to be one of the more balanced classes?

And Spellthieves are Rogues with less Sneak Attack, and Casting. And they can take away Casting from living enemies not-immune to their sneak Attack

Frosty
2008-03-13, 11:34 AM
Isn't it sad that someone so easily negated is considered to be one of the more balanced classes?

And Spellthieves are Rogues with less Sneak Attack, and Casting. And they can take away Casting from living enemies not-immune to their sneak Attack

Absolutely! It is so very sad. If Rogues are fine, they wouldn't have improved/changed Rogues so much in 4e. In 4e very few things are immune to SA.

Your description of Spellthief abilities is very accurate. I think they could use a slight buff, so they have somthing to do when not fighting magical enemies, but overall they're pretty cool.

Rutee
2008-03-13, 11:37 AM
They do, if they and the wizard (Or so, so much worse, a Mystic Theurge) are on good terms. You know how the only thing that realistically keeps a caster from blowing all their spells is the action limit? A Spellthief can serve as a conduit to get 2 high level spells out each turn.

Frosty
2008-03-13, 12:02 PM
Not really. 1) isn't there a limit to how high of a spell you can steal? It's been a while since I read the specifics. 2) You' need a standard action to steal a spell from your wizard friend, and another standard action to cast the spell. So that menas you're casting the wizard's spell every *other* turn.

And if you want more spells, why not grab another wizard instead?

Draz74
2008-03-13, 12:12 PM
Absolutely! It is so very sad. If Rogues are fine, they wouldn't have improved/changed Rogues so much in 4e. In 4e very few things are immune to SA.

Yeah, but note that in 4e they also greatly reduced the amount of damage that Sneak Attack does (at higher levels, because it doesn't scale with level).

Rogues are "balanced" because they average out between being useless, and being able to deal really obscene amounts of damage. Not good class design, but good balance. :smallsigh:

Frosty
2008-03-13, 12:17 PM
While Beguilers are almost never useless. They can always buff if enemies are immune to mind-affecting things. Good class design means always having *something* to contribute in a meaningful way.

Draz74
2008-03-13, 12:35 PM
While Beguilers are almost never useless. They can always buff if enemies are immune to mind-affecting things. Good class design means always having *something* to contribute in a meaningful way.

True. But good class design and balanced class design aren't exactly the same thing. You can be a well-designed class and still be overpowered. Or underpowered.

Frosty
2008-03-13, 12:53 PM
True. But good class design and balanced class design aren't exactly the same thing. You can be a well-designed class and still be overpowered. Or underpowered.

Right. I just happen to believe Beguiler is well-designed *and* balanced. I have never felt myself making the other party members feel useless.

Riffington
2008-03-13, 01:42 PM
Yeah, the great thing about the beguiler is that it doesn't actually *matter* what their power level really is, because they rarely steal the show. They buff, manipulate, and otherwise make the rest of the party important.

If you wanna compare them to standard rogues... well, the real question is "does your beguiler make your rogue wanna cry"? Well, if it's a "manipulate others" rogue, probably yes. If your rogue needs more d6's than a Shadowrun campaign, then hell no.

Besides, "most balanced" never made any logical sense. You can only be balanced with something else. It's like being "the most equal".

Aquillion
2008-03-13, 09:17 PM
And I thought warlocks were weaker than that, actually.They could be taking Hellfire Warlocks into account.

But even without that, warlocks get UMD and abilities to support it; that alone would keep them from falling too low, despite otherwise generally limited class abilities.

sonofzeal
2008-03-13, 09:32 PM
So, in continuation of my list of proposed changes on the previous page, does anyone else have suggestions on how to prune the Erudite, Beguiler, and Wu Jen's power levels?

I realize the Beguiler is a controversial member of that list, but whether or not it makes the rogue cry, it's still considered one of the most effective classes in the game. A well-played Beguiler (or Erudite, or Wu Jen) may not steal the show, but a particularly munchkin one might. The question is how to tone it down so that it still does its job and does it well, without being such a serious step up over more conventional characters?

Draz74
2008-03-13, 09:33 PM
Besides, "most balanced" never made any logical sense. You can only be balanced with something else. It's like being "the most equal".

Well, but this thread started out with kind of an assumption of a standard: The Tome of Battle classes, or a little bit weaker.

Failing that, "most balanced" can always fall back on referring to "most balanced against most CR-appropriate monster encounters."

Koga
2008-03-13, 09:46 PM
Classs systems are inheritly flawed.


The only sure way to balance the classes would be to bring them down to less then ten. And have skill-trees the classes could take to power themselves up in some way.


For example, a swordsage could take bonus feats like a fighter, or gain smite like a paladin. But they could also take prestige classes abilities such as defensive stance. (dwarven defender)

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-13, 09:51 PM
Classs systems are inheritly flawed.

This isn't actually true; there's plenty of ways of balancing class systems. If you look at, say, the Tome of Battle, you see three classes which are all quite well balanced against each other. So it is definitely possible to do. I think 4e by the looks of it has at least some idea of how to do this, so I think the pessimism is unwarranted.

It is difficult to balance different things, but not impossible; many video games (such as fighting games) do exactly that. However, it is tough, as witnessed by the many unbalanced video games.

Squash Monster
2008-03-13, 11:08 PM
The reason why D&D is so unbalanced is because it's based on a variety of inherently difficult to balance systems.

Single-role class systems are far harder to balance than dual-role class systems. Are tanks overpowered compared to cannons? No way to tell, they don't do the same thing. But it's a lot easier to compare the tank/cannon class to the tank/controller.

Scaling systems are almost impossible to balance. In D&D, every level a bunch of your numbers go up. Even if level n is balanced, there's no way to be sure level n+1 will be. This is obvious even with melee classes: ever notice how much more armor matters at level 1 than it does at level 10?

Finally, spell-based magic systems have an innate tendency towards extremes. If spells are generally useful, then a spell caster will be innately capable of choosing the right one for each situation, or to pick out especially good combinations. If spells are not useful enough for this, then the caster is too. You'll note that one of the big fixes for D&D's melee characters was Tome of Battle, where they gave characters something that, for thee purposes, are spells.

Riffington
2008-03-14, 06:20 AM
Well, but this thread started out with kind of an assumption of a standard: The Tome of Battle classes, or a little bit weaker.

Failing that, "most balanced" can always fall back on referring to "most balanced against most CR-appropriate monster encounters."

Beguilers do not make Tome of Battle classes cry. You can have some kind of debate on whether good social skills or good combat skills are more "powerful", but the beguiler does not do better at combat than a combat class*. A wizard or cleric can quite easily.



*And to even come close, they'd need to use magic device with items that won't exist in this campaign anyway. In fact, UMD is a significant contributor to their power in certain campaigns; not in this one though.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-14, 07:03 AM
Beguilers do not make Tome of Battle classes cry. You can have some kind of debate on whether good social skills or good combat skills are more "powerful", but the beguiler does not do better at combat than a combat class*. A wizard or cleric can quite easily.



*And to even come close, they'd need to use magic device with items that won't exist in this campaign anyway. In fact, UMD is a significant contributor to their power in certain campaigns; not in this one though.

They're considerably more powerful than ToB classes and obsolete the reasonably powered rogue. Given the optimization boards consider them more powerful than two things with full access to cleric and druid spell lists, I put them on my list.

Everyone is going to draw their line in a different place; I drew mine where I did for a reason, namely, the optimization boards agreed on rankings and there was a line between dread necromancer and spirit shamans; on one side, most people felt it was a 7, on the other, it was an 8. Everything above that point was an 8 or more, everything below a 7 or less (including the ToB classes) for their mode. While mode is not necessarily the best way of looking at something, it can be a useful and informative one, and when you see that clear difference I do think it means something meaningful. Looking over the lists of what is available on both sides of the line, you can see the lack of the broken stuff below it; all those above it have at least one spell which is rediculous, and mostly have several. The beguiler is probably the least offensive of those above the line; he lacks a lot of the broken spells the other classes possess, though he has UMD, unlike almost all other good full casters (with the exception of the amazingly broken artificer). He possesses only a handful of actual spells which are rediculous, and he lacks the ability to grab scrolls of broken spells to duplicate them in a world where they have no one to produce them.

All that said, I'd rather play it safe, as the classes it obsoletes are not that far behind the ToB classes themselves.