3E Balance thread

[clockworkjoe]

From: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3272173

The problem with Linear Fighters/Geometric Wizards games isn't so much that the non-casters never do anything but that the group has no way to work together, because half of them only become useful if the others are incapacitated. It's like the "fish-lad saves the day" back-up stories you get in superhero comics where Contrivo uses his reverso ray to turn everyone with superpowers into apes and is all set to take over the world until he's taken out by the one thing he didn't plan for: a twerp in a cat suit punching him in the balls. And then Superman looks at the camera and says "we learned an important lesson here today: some of us may be indestructible giants or time traveling robots or literally omnipotent, and some of us have arrows with boxing gloves on the end, each has an important tactical role to play and it takes all our unique skills to form the Justice League" and then Blue Beetle never does anything interesting ever again.

I am going to play pathfinder soon.

Discuss and stuff.

[Murph]

I actually played Pathfinder last night.  I think this session could be called a microcosm of 3.x.

So we were in a cave.  Not just any cave, an evil cave, a cave so evil it oozed acid from the walls.  We are all level 5, I was a paladin, and my companions were a ninja, a cleric/wizard, and a bard.  After traversing a pit of acid by jumping from column to column, we came across a black dragon, foul with evil and insane from time alone in the cave.  He dropped behind us, spewing acid.  My paladin, being the holy avenger smite evil type, charged the foul beasts, yelling at his companions to clear the wall in the back of the room so we could escape.  The dragon grappled me next round, and jumped into the pit of acid we had just traversed.  Instead of attempting to break his grip, I let go of my sword and shield, and started pummeling the dragon.  As a paladin, I could use my healing powers on myself freely, so I could stay in the acid for some time.  Seeing that I wasn't letting him go, the dragon then took to the air, and flung me off onto a ledge.  Feeling heroic, I immediately ran and jumped back towards him, and rolling exceptionally well, managed to grab onto him again.  By then the dragon was low in hit points, easily killable with one more blow from me,  he attempted a barrel roll to dislodge me, and the DM said I had one final attack before I fell.  I  picked up my dice and....

rolled a 1.

I fell back into the acid pit.  The wizard/cleric then cast magic missile and killed the dragon.  Later on we fought a shadow and I took 5 strength damage, rendering me quite useless till the wizard/cleric could spend the night to cast lesser restoration.

Basically, 3.x is good for fighter types if the DM is good and you are a crazy son of bitch, just like every other game.  The mechanics are biased towards casters, but if you are creative and crazy, you can make your mark as a fighter.  That being said, if were playing D&D, I'd rather play 4th, or some other system entirely.


On a more practical level, if you want to play a fighter, play a paladin, they are pretty much mechanically better in every way.

However, the wizard will start to show you up very quickly. 

[Tadanori Oyama]

Pathfinder, in the Campaign setting and in the new corebook, doesn't do anything that I can see to bring the classes closer together. They offer new options for all of the classes and make some of them different (campagin guide) or stronger (corebook).

For example, in the campaign guide Sorcerers have the option of trading one of their class features to gain use of an overcasting mechanic. In the core book, bloodlines become an enforced part of Sorcerer advancement, imparting additional spells and abilities as you level. Wizards have a similar adjustment from 3.5 regarding their Specialization class feature.

I certainly like Pathfinder, particularly their adjustments to the Cleric's Turning power. It doesn't do anything to the split progression of the classes.

[theoutsiders68]

Hi all,

In my view 3.5 is solid for group play if the following is observed..

Firstly each of the core classes must be played ie have one cleric one fighter one thief one magic user

If you have more players maybe another cleric/fighter/or druid depending on campaign..

Other classes are not as strong so a straight barbarian is no match against a straight fighter ect.

The edition makes other classes nice on flavour weak on ability however if you are good at what you do you can mix certain careers together but you have to be careful not to dilute there power.

So in answer to your thread yes its balanced but you have to have players who know how to get the most out of it don't blame the system for your poor choices.

I could go on but thats my take great question.   

[clockworkjoe]

why do you need fighters though? Get a druid - the druid will have an animal companion and wildshifting to tank. Hell, a cleric could tank just as well as a fighter.

There's a cleric spell that grants them trap finding ability so they can replace rogues too.

[Murph]

Other classes are not as strong so a straight barbarian is no match against a straight fighter ect.

This is the exact opposite of balance!

So in answer to your thread yes its balanced but you have to have players who know how to get the most out of it don't blame the system for your poor choices.

 I think you're confusing party balance with class balance.  For example, you might have a balanced breakfast, but that doesn't mean the bacon is just as good for you as the fruit.  If bacon and fruit were balanced, you should need an equal amount of both, and you shouldn't be able to just take more of the other, or substitute one entirely, to make your breakfast more powerful healthy.  Its not a perfect metaphor, but it has bacon in it.

  Also, I have a problem with any design that makes me play a character creation minigame that I might lose before I actually get to the game.  Don't get me wrong, character creation should be full of meaningful choices, but never wrong choices.

[ethan_dawe]

My players have managed to get all the way frlom 3rd to 12th level in 3.5 without a wizard. The party is:

Knight 12 (PHB2)
Rogue 12
Duskblade 12 (PHB2)
Cleric 9 Radiant Servant of Pelor 3

The Duskblade typically does the most damage, but ends up with low HP regularly
The Knight anchors the group soaking up damdge and dealing okay damdage too.
The Rogue is hit or miss with damdage depending if he can sneak attack
The Cleric heals, buffs, and now occasionally blasts.

[Tadanori Oyama]

Continuing on a seperate line of thought which a previous poster has sparked in me, the locked in nature of many of the classes non-caster classes suddenly leaps into the front of my mind.

When a Wizard wakes up every morning, he is a different person than he was before. His base attack bonus, his skills, and his attributes have no changed but he selects his complete spell list and can fill whatever role or take on whatever tasks he anticipates may come before him.

When a Fighter wakes up every morning, he hasn't changed in the least. A Fighter's "power" is tied to his feats; these feats do not change in any significant manner in the short term and most of his primary abilities (Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Weapon Proficiency) are inherently specialized.

One of my favorite elements from the Tomb of Battle, which introduced Martial Adept classes, was the Warblade. One of the Warblade's class powers was that with a small amount of preparation it could change the specific weapon to which many of its feats applied, giving the class a wider range of options.

[Murph]

My players have managed to get all the way frlom 3rd to 12th level in 3.5 without a wizard. The party is:

Knight 12 (PHB2)
Rogue 12
Duskblade 12 (PHB2)
Cleric 9 Radiant Servant of Pelor 3

The Duskblade typically does the most damage, but ends up with low HP regularly
The Knight anchors the group soaking up damdge and dealing okay damdage too.
The Rogue is hit or miss with damdage depending if he can sneak attack
The Cleric heals, buffs, and now occasionally blasts.

Its not that you can't do without a wizard, but lets say a level 12 wizard shows up to your group.

He can probably outdamage the Duskblade, as well as being more sneaky
He can summon something (or become something) that can soak more damage than the knight
He can detect traps and unlock doors, at least as good as the rogue
He can't heal, but he can buff and blast

He's better mechanically than 3 of the 4 party members, and the 4th is also a caster.

[theoutsiders68]

Other classes are not as strong so a straight barbarian is no match against a straight fighter ect.

This is the exact opposite of balance!

So in answer to your thread yes its balanced but you have to have players who know how to get the most out of it don't blame the system for your poor choices.

 I think you're confusing party balance with class balance.  For example, you might have a balanced breakfast, but that doesn't mean the bacon is just as good for you as the fruit.  If bacon and fruit were balanced, you should need an equal amount of both, and you shouldn't be able to just take more of the other, or substitute one entirely, to make your breakfast more powerful healthy.  Its not a perfect metaphor, but it has bacon in it.

  Also, I have a problem with any design that makes me play a character creation minigame that I might lose before I actually get to the game.  Don't get me wrong, character creation should be full of meaningful choices, but never wrong choices.

I am sorry to say this however i must some characters are better than other thats a fact however as i said if you know what your doing its fine.

Unfortunatly there not balanced and i personally dont mind that.

I still believe you can make great characters in this system.

Also someone said that druids are better than fighters and so are clerics they clearly do not know what they are talking about.

A straight fighter is critical to a groups performance at high level with the right components the group all shine. 

[malyss]

Its not that you can't do without a wizard, but lets say a level 12 wizard shows up to your group.

He can probably outdamage the Duskblade, as well as being more sneaky
He can summon something (or become something) that can soak more damage than the knight
He can detect traps and unlock doors, at least as good as the rogue
He can't heal, but he can buff and blast

He's better mechanically than 3 of the 4 party members, and the 4th is also a caster.

Yes - let's say a 12th level wizards shows up - what does he do? Does he play a wizard, or does he play a rogue?

Knock: "make a caster level check against the DC of the lock with a +10 bonus." = d20 + level + 10. His bonus is 22. Once. How many second level spells (or higher slots) is he going to devote to opening doors and chests etc? The rogue? oh, his bonus is (and lets assume equal stats - Dex 24) and assuming he only half-assed disable device (which he wouldn't...) 6+3+7+2 (lockpicks...) = 18. And that is without him even devoting himself to it. But if he did, and because in pathfinder disable device also covers traps (sorry wizard... how did you disable that trap again? Wait - how did you detect that trap?) 12+3+7+2 = 24 as many times as he wants to...

Clerics get find traps, but they don't get knock... and find traps still doesn't let you disable the trap.

Am I saying wizards, with the right preparation, aren't effective? Heck no. They can be great - in very precise ways. That is the role they fill. They are supposed to be able to adapt to many circumstances, but at no point are they absolutely better than any other single class - period. It all depends on the mystical scenario you craft to put them in.

I can come up with scenarios that a rogue could handle at any time and that a PREPARED wizard could do well at - but not if the wizard isn't prepared.

A fighter is a fighter all of the time. A wizard can be, occasionally, and for a little while, once or maybe twice in a day, a basic fighter (no nifty feats and really high AC). But when he is being a fighter, he isn't being a wizard. And let's hope the other guys don't get initiative or sneak attack the little guy...

[clockworkjoe]

I am sorry to say this however i must some characters are better than other thats a fact however as i said if you know what your doing its fine.

Unfortunatly there not balanced and i personally dont mind that.

I still believe you can make great characters in this system.

Also someone said that druids are better than fighters and so are clerics they clearly do not know what they are talking about.

A straight fighter is critical to a groups performance at high level with the right components the group all shine. 

Can you specify how a straight fighter is critical in a high level (level 10 minimum) encounter in a way that can't be done with a druid or cleric?  Hell, even a paladin is better than a fighter. Just one example would be fine.

[Setherick]

My players have managed to get all the way frlom 3rd to 12th level in 3.5 without a wizard. The party is:

Knight 12 (PHB2)
Rogue 12
Duskblade 12 (PHB2)
Cleric 9 Radiant Servant of Pelor 3

The Duskblade typically does the most damage, but ends up with low HP regularly
The Knight anchors the group soaking up damdge and dealing okay damdage too.
The Rogue is hit or miss with damdage depending if he can sneak attack
The Cleric heals, buffs, and now occasionally blasts.

A level 12, that duskblade is basically a wizard with a sword. What the party will miss, though, is mass attack spells. (Thank god I have internet again.)

[clockworkjoe]

On a more practical level, if you want to play a fighter, play a paladin, they are pretty much mechanically better in every way.

that's not true a fighter has bonus feats
in my eye there =

what feats are better than smite evil, divine grace, lay on hands, aura of courage, special mount, spell casting, turn undead and remove disease?

[Kroack]

Hm. Magic unbalances everything.
Solution: Iron Heroes
Arcanist