PDA

View Full Version : Balanced characters for newbies



Weimann
2009-05-30, 08:16 PM
I've read a thread in here discussing the unbalance between some classes, in particular the monk and fighter on the side that needs buffing and pretty much any caster when it comes to nerfs.

I have newly acquired a lot of 3.5 source books from a friend, and while I won't be starting any game for quite some time, these discussions have rendered me somewhat concerned.

I suppose my question is: to a group of newbies, with an inexperienced GM, will these unbalanced features be something to worry about? Is it noticeable enough that I'd be doing the Fighter a disservice if I didn't make him aware of the Warblade? Or can the games be played adequately with these presumably weaker classes as well?

On the flip side, is it frowned upon to play casters due to their power level?

I don't mean to state any opinions on this. Education is my only goal.

Flickerdart
2009-05-30, 08:28 PM
As long as people are all on an even level regarding optimization, it's usually fine. If all your players are new, it is very likely that the casters will take the "spells that make the peoples fall down" and Blast enemies, which is what the game is balanced against. You may want to offer a word of caution to Monk and Fighter players, but in the lower levels, this will not matter as much.

As DM, you can also make it easier for them by dropping loot they can use. Fighter taking damage too much? Looks like an Orc War Chief is wearing some nifty magical Plate Mail that's his for the taking. Monk can't hit anything? The party happens upon an acolyte of a nearby monastery attacked by monsters, who rewards the party with gloves of precision or some such item. The casters have no use for the loot, so that helps a bit.

It is not considered bad form to play casters, merely the ultra-paranoid God wizard who single-handedly overwhelms encounters with his chain-Gated Solar minion horde and Astral Travel cloning shenanigans. Buffing/Debuffing Wizards that make the Fighter's job easier are beloved.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-05-30, 08:34 PM
I've read a thread in here discussing the unbalance between some classes, in particular the monk and fighter on the side that needs buffing and pretty much any caster when it comes to nerfs.

I have newly acquired a lot of 3.5 source books from a friend, and while I won't be starting any game for quite some time, these discussions have rendered me somewhat concerned.

I suppose my question is: to a group of newbies, with an inexperienced DM, will these unbalanced features be something to worry about? Is it noticeable enough that I'd be doing the Fighter a disservice if I didn't make him aware of the Warblade? Or can the games be played adequately with these presumably weaker classes as well?

On the flip side, is it frowned upon to play casters due to their power level?

I don't mean to state any opinions on this. Education is my only goal.

Okay, you ask three people on these forums and you will get seven different answers, depending on their opinion. Here's mine, take it with as many grains of salt as you feel necessary.

Basically, it really depends on what you call balanced. However, you need to place some limitations on everyone involved.

To make the Cleric more balanced, you simply remove the ability to use the feat Divine Metamagic to negate the Spell Level adjustment from a Metamagic feat which is applied to a spell, if that adjustment increases the spell level of the spell to one which the character does not have access to. So basically, no casting DMM:Persist Divine Power until Epic levels.

To balance the Wizard is going to be harder, since they have SO MANY 'win' buttons. Basically, the key here is to limit sources and exclude specifics. For example, ban any form of Celerity. It is simply win in a can. Don't punish a player for creative use of his spells, but neither should you allow him to get away with making the party obsolete.

If you can, try and interest people in spontaneous caster classes. There's a very good Spontaneous Divine Caster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/spontaneousDivineCasters.htm) variant which is quite good. Likewise, see if you can interest them in the Sorcerer rather than the Wizard.

I like Spontaneous classes better because a) you don't have the headache of "Which spells did you mem today", b) limit on the 'Schrodinger Effect" of finding just the right spells to make your encounter obsolete by forcing him to choose his spells when he levels up. To compensate, you may allow the spontaneous casters to replace A SINGLE spell every time they level up, so they don't get perma-screwed by poor spell choice.

The Warlock is a good class which I feel is very balanced. He's an arcane caster who can dish out his effects all day long, but he is limited in what invocations he knows. This prevents the "OMG! I'm out of spells! Quick, let's retreat to our Magnificent Mansion/Rope Trick" scenario.

ToB classes are very solid, but not for new players. The mechanics are pretty... well... they can be very confusing to a new player. If you want the Fighter to not suck, create feat chains which allow him to be useful in the campaign, at the cost of feats. If you feel your players can handle the mechanics, BY ALL MEANS do it. Swordsage (use the Unarmed variant which removes all armor proficencies and gives monk unarmed attack progression) replaces monk. Warblade replaces Fighter. Crusader replaces Paladin.

Also, tailor your encounters to your party. This is why I suggest spontaneous casters, because you KNOW what your party has access to. So, your Sorcerer decides to pick up a few Save or Loose effects and is being unbalancing with his 'win' buttons? The next batch of monsters are ones with very high saves vs that save. Example: Is he nerfing casters with Blindness, which is a Fort save? See how a Troll handles it. Likewise, is he abusing Enervation to cripple encounters and make them cakewalks? Run them into Undead, which HEAL from it.

Above all, have fun. If your players are having fun, and you are having fun, then it's balanced.

Sinfire Titan
2009-05-30, 08:34 PM
It is not considered bad form to play casters, merely the ultra-paranoid God wizard who single-handedly overwhelms encounters with his chain-Gated Solar minion horde and Astral Travel cloning shenanigans. Buffing/Debuffing Wizards that make the Fighter's job easier are beloved.

No, that's the Hostess version of the Wizard, AKA "Twinky". GOD Wizards focus on either:

1)Disabling the enemy's ability to fight back with spells such as Grease, Glitterdust, Evard's, and Cloudkill.
2)Buff their allies to the point where the enemy can't hurt them easily.
3)Debuff enemies to the point where they can't physically damage your allies with spells such as Ray of Enfeeblement, Chained Suppress Magic, and Enervate. often overlaps with the 1st version.
4)Abuse the everliving hell out of Polymorph and Share Spell.

Flickerdart
2009-05-30, 08:42 PM
No, that's the Hostess version of the Wizard, AKA "Twinky". GOD Wizards focus on either:

1)Disabling the enemy's ability to fight back with spells such as Grease, Glitterdust, Evard's, and Cloudkill.
2)Buff their allies to the point where the enemy can't hurt them easily.
3)Debuff enemies to the point where they can't physically damage your allies with spells such as Ray of Enfeeblement, Chained Suppress Magic, and Enervate. often overlaps with the 1st version.
4)Abuse the everliving hell out of Polymorph and Share Spell.
Yes, but most of those options make the party redundant, and thus overshadow them. Poly cheese is perhaps the worst.

Woot Spitum
2009-05-30, 09:11 PM
Bards, clerics, sorcerors, and wizards aren't too bad if no one knows what they're doing. Druids, on the other hand...

Of course, druid is one of the better classes for starting players since it takes real effort to make an ineffective druid, so it depends on how you look at things I guess.

sonofzeal
2009-05-30, 09:18 PM
I suppose my question is: to a group of newbies, with an inexperienced GM, will these unbalanced features be something to worry about?
Somewhat. An adaptive DM should be able to cope though, even if they don't know the system.


Is it noticeable enough that I'd be doing the Fighter a disservice if I didn't make him aware of the Warblade?
Well, the Warblade offers a quite significant and noticeable jump in power over a newbie Fighter. On the other hand, a newbie Warblade is going to run all over a group of newbie Core classes, for the most part. Basically, I'd recommend starting with Fighters if the rest of the group is newbie too, because chances are everyone's going to suck to some extent, and Fighters suck no worse than most. If there's pros already in the group though, Warblade is a great way to get him up to speed quickly.

Also note that Warblades have a much more consistant power level than Fighters. A Fighter can be horrid or quite effective depending on how it's played and what feats are chosen. Warblades are pretty hard to mess up, so their starting newbie power level is high, but a really optimized Warblade is pretty much on par with a really optimized Fighter. It's just way way harder to get Fighters to that point.


Or can the games be played adequately with these presumably weaker classes as well?
Yup! Just make sure that everyone's on roughly the same power level, doesn't matter what that level is.


On the flip side, is it frowned upon to play casters due to their power level?
Not really, no. Wizards probably have the biggest range of power level in the game, depending on the various choices made. A horribly-designed Wizard is probably worse than a horribly-designed Fighter, while an optimized Wizard is nigh-unmatched. If you're playing with all newbies, Wizards might seem underpowered.


Handy dandy spur-of-the-moment list, of entirely my own opinions....

Fighters: at their weakest, 2/10; at their strongest, 7/10
Rogues: at their weakest, 3/10; at their strongest, 8/10
Rangers: at their weakest, 2/10; at their stronest, 6/10
Monks: at their weakest, 1/10; at their strongest, 5/10
Druids: at their weakest, 5/10; at their strongest, 9/10
Wizards: at their weakest, 0.5/10; at their strongest, 10/10
Warblades/Swordsages/Crusaders: at their weakest, 5/10; at their strongest, 8/10

Sinfire Titan
2009-05-30, 09:19 PM
Yes, but most of those options make the party redundant, and thus overshadow them. Poly cheese is perhaps the worst.

Ok, you just ruined the good mood I was in (I found out that Walgreens has a 2 for $5 sale on Biscotts, also known as "those addictive cookies they give you on airplanes").

Read the GOD handbook again. Options 1-3 are meant to support your allies, and still lets the Fighter do the real work (killing it). They get the enjoyment of putting it in it's grave, you have the pleasure of telling reality to suck it.

OracleofWuffing
2009-05-30, 09:41 PM
I suppose my question is: to a group of newbies, with an inexperienced GM, will these unbalanced features be something to worry about?
Short answer, no.

Every table plays differently, and if everybody's new, you're not going to have a feel for what's overpowered and what's underpowered. For example, I have a DM that really overpowers Rogues: He never uses enemies that are immune to Sneak Attack, hiding does not require cover or concealment, and the Hide check is not opposed by a spot check (It's DC 15). His reasoning for this rule is that he's under the belief that playing the Sneak Attack and Hide rules as written effectively renders Rogues useless in combat- he's never actually played the Rogue as written, he's just listened to discussions. Now, you may see a whole lot on the internet supporting this line of thinking, as there are quite a few topics about being able to use Sneak Attack on targets that are usually immune to it.
Because of these rules, whenever this guy DMs, being a Rogue is about putting as much as you can into Hide and Move Silently, and then the rest of the skills don't matter. I've seen a rogue with no ranks in Disable Device, Sleight of Hand, Open Lock, Listen, and Use Magic Device because of this. Now, what I'm not saying is "Rogues without ranks in that stuff are bad," and I'm also not saying "Rogues shouldn't put ranks in Hide and Move Silently." However, the best part about Rogues as written is that they're supposed to have a lot of skills, and cover for the rest of the party when such skills are needed.
What we get, is Rogues are melee-unmatchable killing machines that don't do anything outside of battle. Now, uh, I managed to get the group to ban Bards, so now, there aren't any real skillmonkeys in core left to play.

It is completely true that Wizards are more useful than Fighters for just about every situation. This does not mean that any Wizard will always be better than any Fighter. It means that the "best-planned" Wizard will always be better than the "best-planned" Fighter. Especially in a newbie group, you will likely not have "best-planned" characters. It is the DM's responsibility to adjust the campaign for balancing characters, and while that may sound like a daunting task for beginners, you can quickly get the hang of it.


On the flip side, is it frowned upon to play casters due to their power level?
It is 100% true that casters are powerful, but it is also a slight misnomer. The truly "Powerful" Wizards focus on disabling- not killing- the enemy, and enhancing the party. This sort of thing encourages team synergy. That's not to say those Wizards that love slinging fireballs everywhere are "Weak" or disruptive, as they can also implement tactics (eg, softening multiple targets so the Fighter can cleave through a swath of enemies).
Clerics and Druids are going to help your party survive by providing a cushion of HP recovery. Should they be recovering HP in combat (this is something "optimized" characters rarely do), that's a round when they're not actually doing damage.
It is possible for Clerics to permanently outpower Fighters, this involves the use of Divine Metamagic (Persist) combined with a high number of Turn/Rebuke Undead uses. It is also possible for Druids to out-melee melee classes for practically the same amount of time, this involves Natural Spell combined with a really fierce Wildshape form. Finally, it is also quite possible that your players haven't looked through and retained enough information across the books to put these strategies together. Yet.

Don't worry about balance until balance becomes an actual issue. Play a session, take notes if you have to, identify things that look or feel like they are troublesome, and work to challenge those issues in the next session- that's part of making an exciting adventure. If you need help, you can always ask around. Game theory doesn't always support game practice, but it's nice to know.

shadzar
2009-05-30, 10:22 PM
Balance between players is rarely a problem for any cooperative game, so long as the players are cooperating.

If there are special concessions made for doing certain things in the game, then it needs to be fair to all players regardless of any character they have created.

If one is trying to turn a cooperative game into a competitive one where it becomes PvP rather than player group vs the game; then there is nothing any balance can do other than forcing all players to play the same type of characters with the same abilities.

Most times when I have heard a problem of balance it comes from the same lines as fighter vs wizard. One feels that they are not doing as much, well, etc as the other. It is often spoken as such "I am not hitting as often", "I am not doing as much damage", "I", "I", "I". Notice the use of I. It may sound annoying to hear as we have all heard it like a broken record, but....there is no I in TEAM.

If any player feels as though they are not contributing to the game as much as they want, then should talk with the rest of the group and figure out what contributions that person feels they are missing out on. You will likely find it is a character design problem that didn't fit with the rest of the group, rather than a game design problem.

The reason for this is that most characters are created in a vacuum. The player creates them solely for their gaming goals, rather than to be a part of the group.

This isn't to say that you cannot have your own goals, but you have to devote a part of your character for the group as well to make sure it will function. This does not mean every cleric is only a walking first-aid kit, or each rogue is just a walking set of lock-picks.

When you have trust and confidence in each other to back you up in the game, then your group will always function better even with the worst ruleset.

Sorry if this abstract look at it doesn't define any particular problems you may have heard about, but being new; you are not yet subjective to those trappings others have got caught up in, and may be able to avoid them with a clearer thinking on the subject itself.

So make sure your group works, and your character works within the group; and that the group of characters work for the game/world you are playing in.

Hope something in this post can help you.

Gorbash
2009-05-30, 10:26 PM
I suppose my question is: to a group of newbies, with an inexperienced GM, will these unbalanced features be something to worry about?

I agree with what everyone said, so I'm not saying anything actually new, but hey, a guy can have an opinion. :smallsmile:

Truly, you have nothing to worry about from a PC who just opened a PHB, since he won't notice how better it is to disable stuff than to damage them. This comes from the fact that a monster with 1 HP fights just as well as a monster with 301 HP. But a monster who's say... Blind (Glitterdust), grappled (Black Tentacles), exhausted (Ray of Exhaustion), prone (Grease), immobilized (Web) suddenly has a much tougher time getting to you and your friends, while your party is free to maul them at their leasure and in turn not get mauled back.

Most of those 'better' tactics come from veterans of D&D and forums such as this one. I'm sure everyone giggled like a girl when they found out their wizard can fly around, safe from harm, casting fireball. I thought that Wizards suck since they're so squishy, but now if you check any class vs. class topic, you'll see me zealously supporting Wizards. :smallbiggrin:

In a game such as yours, every class will get a chance to shine, don't worry about that. :smallsmile:

huttj509
2009-05-30, 10:53 PM
It is fairly easy for a druid to inadvertantly outdo melee classes. Natural spell just looks neat and useful, but it then opens up, even with normal animal shifts, being a decent meleer, having all your spells, AND an animal companion.

For wizard and Cleric to really outdo the rest of the party, you have to think outside the box.

If you just assume the cleric's a healer and party buffer, no problem. It's just when you find the various self buffs, ways to extend them, etc. that he becomes Clericzilla. Even just core, without Divine Metamagic, someone whos eattentions turn that way can be a good powerhouse.

Mage you need to realize that the debuffing, save or lose, save or die spells are much more useful than the blasting damage spells in general. This is something that is not obvious.

Druid is the only one where someone can really accidently outshine the others easily, just because with natural spell, a very useful feat, it ends up with few-no weaknesses. And then beyond that there's many power choices one can take in particular animal, particular spells, buffs, etc. if they try to become a real powerhouse.

Saph
2009-05-30, 11:16 PM
Fighters: at their weakest, 2/10; at their strongest, 7/10
Rogues: at their weakest, 3/10; at their strongest, 8/10
Rangers: at their weakest, 2/10; at their stronest, 6/10
Monks: at their weakest, 1/10; at their strongest, 5/10
Druids: at their weakest, 5/10; at their strongest, 9/10
Wizards: at their weakest, 0.5/10; at their strongest, 10/10
Warblades/Swordsages/Crusaders: at their weakest, 5/10; at their strongest, 8/10

This. These numbers are pretty accurate in my experience.

Unoptimised, at low-mid levels, you probably won't see much trouble with balance. Druids and ToB characters will seem the strongest, because they're most powerful 'out-of-the-box'. To a lesser degree the same applies to Clerics.

The majority of new players don't have balance issues to begin with, and groups who aren't interested in optimisation often never notice it at all. It only becomes a problem once some players start experimenting and searching for the best options, at which point they begin to dominate over the others.

- Saph

wadledo
2009-05-30, 11:35 PM
Fighters: at their weakest, 2/10; at their strongest, 7/10
Rogues: at their weakest, 3/10; at their strongest, 8/10
Rangers: at their weakest, 2/10; at their strongest, 6/10
Monks: at their weakest, 1/10; at their strongest, 5/10
Druids: at their weakest, 5/10; at their strongest, 9/10
Wizards: at their weakest, 0.5/10; at their strongest, 10/10
Warblades/Swordsages/Crusaders: at their weakest, 5/10; at their strongest, 8/10

I myself would change the fighter to 6/10 at highest and the ranger to 8/10 at highest, possibly 7.

Aside from that, what everyone else has said is pretty good.

Weimann
2009-05-31, 05:52 AM
Thanks for your opinions, people :)

It seems the general consensus is that in order for the described differences to show, one needs to have a good understanding on how to call them forth, something none of us would have. That's reassuring ^^

If it is as you say, and the Tome of Battle effectively "replaces" Fighter with Warblade, Monk with Swordsage and Paladin with Crusader, it might not be the smartest book to start with. If they are also mechanically stronger than core classes, it might pose a problem since the relative power level is important.

However, what about the Complete series of books? In my possession right now I have PHB I and II, as well as a full set of Complete books. There are some quite awesome prestige classes in there, for one, and I think missing out on them would be a bad thing.

I figure that since there are many choices for each class, introducing these (but possibly banning the base classes that each presents) would make for a great enjoyment around the table. Everyone likes to identify their character with something; I saw a dancer assassin and some kind of power beam mage that spoke to me in particular :P

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-31, 06:27 AM
I suppose my question is: to a group of newbies, with an inexperienced GM, will these unbalanced features be something to worry about?

No.


Is it noticeable enough that I'd be doing the Fighter a disservice if I didn't make him aware of the Warblade?

Nope.


Or can the games be played adequately with these presumably weaker classes as well?

Yes.


To elaborate: all the differences are less stark at low levels, new players won't make optimal choices (casting fireballs and whatnot), and will not have the frame of reference to tell what actually is and isn't (mechanically) awesome.

Even experienced groups can play fine with suboptimal PCs; one of my players always makes druids, and the others never make casters, but we still have fun playing the game. (At least when it doesn't progress into high and epic levels; our first 3.0/3.5 campaign did, and I ended up essentially running the game for three separate characters rather than one party, since the power difference between the druid, fighter, and monk was so huge that they couldn't be placed in the same encounter.)

Triaxx
2009-05-31, 06:32 AM
The game is only unbalanced as knowledge of the rules increases.


....there is no I in TEAM

But without ME, there is no TEAM.

I do agree with the rest of the advice though.

Leon
2009-05-31, 06:53 AM
Without Tea, there is no team

Weimann
2009-05-31, 07:16 AM
Every team also requires meat. In great amounts.

tiercel
2009-05-31, 07:21 AM
Probably repetitive but...

... well one, while casters can get broken but for most of the game you kinda have to *try* to break casters. If you are a newbie, chances are you won't be coming in with an Optimization Board Build of Terror and so even DruidZilla will be just a solid character. (That having been said, it does bear thought in advance how you will handle game-changing and potentially broken spells like polymorph and teleport.)

Also, *in general* I find most of 3.5 D&D to be reasonably not crazy unbalanced over character levels 1-12 or so. At the high end of that range casters are starting to really shine but haven't made non-caster characters into mere sidekicks or even irrelevant. In my experience, it's somewhere around the teens when you start getting "casters win" syndrome; and honestly the majority of games I've been in and around tend to be low to mid level games anyhow. (Not to mention you wouldn't want to throw newbies into a high level campaign off the bat anyway.)

I'd say don't worry so much about what will or won't be "balanced" as a character type, let people basically play what they want to play, and just keep an eye open for *individual* things that could make a character problematic (especially if you are going to have 1001 supplement books available). It's a lot easier to discuss/nerf one spell or ability than to worry about an entire class.

Goatman_Ted
2009-05-31, 10:15 AM
An unrelated problem that you very well might have is with Druids:
All three of their defining abilities (Wild Shape, Animal Companions, Summoning) require rooting through the MM to find the proper animal for the job.

Give a newbie a Druid and you'll never build any in-game momentum.

derfenrirwolv
2009-05-31, 10:15 AM
I suppose my question is: to a group of newbies, with an inexperienced GM, will these unbalanced features be something to worry about?

No. Chances are you won't play a game past level 9 or so, when the differences in power level really start to matter. For the first few levels the fighter with power attack and cleave will be more than a match for the wizard.




Is it noticeable enough that I'd be doing the Fighter a disservice if I didn't make him aware of the Warblade? Or can the games be played adequately with these presumably weaker classes as well?

Fighter works fine and is plenty of fun as long as you're in single digits.




On the flip side, is it frowned upon to play casters due to their power level?

Not usually. Most people accept that some want to fight mano e mano. If anything its frowned on to play MELEE because of their low power level.

Weimann
2009-05-31, 10:45 AM
Again, thanks for the comments :)

How do you feel about adding extra rulebooks, particularly in regards to prestige classes? Would you advice to stick to the PHB only the first time, or should a couple of prestige classes be possible to involve? Because some of them are damn cool.

sonofzeal
2009-05-31, 11:00 AM
I myself would change the fighter to 6/10 at highest and the ranger to 8/10 at highest, possibly 7.

Aside from that, what everyone else has said is pretty good.
I knew someone was going to comment on the Ranger one. :P

Here's the thing - Fighters, because of all their feats, have a few really solid builds out there. Lockdown 2.0, Ubercharger, etc. There's not many, but they are pretty effective and they can be nice to have around even with a CoDzilla in the party. Rangers, on the other hand, are generally trapped into one of two highly suboptimal combat styles. TWF is pretty useless without bonus damage (which Rangers don't get), and archery is too easy to negate at higher levels. I'll grant that Rangers are more useful to have around, in an out-of-combat sort of way, and I could see giving them a better minimum power, but I do think they cap out lower than Fighters. Either they use a combat style that doesn't work, or one they don't have the feats to support, and their other class features aren't going to make up the difference.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-31, 12:13 PM
Again, thanks for the comments :)

How do you feel about adding extra rulebooks, particularly in regards to prestige classes? Would you advice to stick to the PHB only the first time, or should a couple of prestige classes be possible to involve? Because some of them are damn cool.

You don't need PrCs at first, because everyone should start at level 1 (maybe 2 with maximum HP for both levels, if you're worried about low survivability of 1st level PCs) the first time they play. Higher levels require players to learn too many new things too fast.

Once they've gained enough levels to be eligible for PrCs, break out the supplements and such. If someone REALLY wants a PrC but chose the wrong skills or feats, help them re-allocate them. If you've got the PHB2, use the retraining rules to allow them to move to the builds they want.

shadzar
2009-05-31, 12:55 PM
The game is only unbalanced as knowledge of the rules increases.



But without ME, there is no TEAM.

Correct. But ti takes the whole group of ME's to make the team work properly. So even missing a single player for a short time in-game could cause problems that you should be aware of what each player is responsible for, if you have some players that can only do specific things as their "role" in the group.

No class can truly replace another, but for the most parts there are things that help one class emulate the function of another for short periods of time.

The whole Wizard better than Rogue bit.

While a wizard can do most things better than a rogue can, what else is he bringing if he only has things prepared for rougish activities? Is he fulfilling his role in the group when trying to replace the rogue? If the rogue is absent then yes, otherwise the wizard may be creating a problem for the group if he always tries to replace the rogue as the wasted resources may become a problem. So that ME rouge player does make the team. But he can be absent for a time.

But it doesn't mean a wizard even being able to surpass a rogue should try to always replace the rogue because of those wasted resources.

If a wizard was always created to be a rogue in wizards clothing then the group would need to know that up front so they can prepare for it as a group.

So while the ME is required to have those functions of a class, a group can work without a specific class if made to do so from the beginning. Just again make sure all the players are working together for the TEAM and all the ME's should align up nicely in formation of the party.

I know you were making a joke, but thought I could expound on it further with an example of actually showing how there IS a good reason that each ME is important to the whole of the group.

Raltar
2009-05-31, 02:17 PM
I knew someone was going to comment on the Ranger one. :P

Here's the thing - Fighters, because of all their feats, have a few really solid builds out there. Lockdown 2.0, Ubercharger, etc. There's not many, but they are pretty effective and they can be nice to have around even with a CoDzilla in the party. Rangers, on the other hand, are generally trapped into one of two highly suboptimal combat styles. TWF is pretty useless without bonus damage (which Rangers don't get), and archery is too easy to negate at higher levels. I'll grant that Rangers are more useful to have around, in an out-of-combat sort of way, and I could see giving them a better minimum power, but I do think they cap out lower than Fighters. Either they use a combat style that doesn't work, or one they don't have the feats to support, and their other class features aren't going to make up the difference.

I think you don't give enough credit to the ranger spell list, which puts them ahead of fighters, IMO.

sonofzeal
2009-05-31, 03:07 PM
I think you don't give enough credit to the ranger spell list, which puts them ahead of fighters, IMO.
I don't really see it. There's some solid utility there, definitely more than a Fighter will usually have, but not much game-changing power. It's a nice addition, but I see it more as an out-of-combat thing (and even then, vastly inferior to the utility a Druid might bring), with little to recommend it in combat at the level it becomes available. Being able to cast nondetection and freedom of movement are nice though.

Grynning
2009-05-31, 03:14 PM
I don't really see it. There's some solid utility there, definitely more than a Fighter will usually have, but not much game-changing power. It's a nice addition, but I see it more as an out-of-combat thing (and even then, vastly inferior to the utility a Druid might bring), with little to recommend it in combat at the level it becomes available. Being able to cast nondetection and freedom of movement are nice though.

Depends on what books you include. If you have the spell compendium, there are several Ranger spells that significantly boost their combat abilities.

sonofzeal
2009-05-31, 03:16 PM
Depends on what books you include. If you have the spell compendium, there are several Ranger spells that significantly boost their combat abilities.
Any examples?

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-05-31, 03:23 PM
Again, thanks for the comments :)

How do you feel about adding extra rulebooks, particularly in regards to prestige classes? Would you advice to stick to the PHB only the first time, or should a couple of prestige classes be possible to involve? Because some of them are damn cool.

Ahh, this is the ancient debate which has raged on lo these many years...

Seriously, with more expansions comes more abusability, however also comes more coolness factor.

My suggestion: Ban Iot7B and Incantatrix. Ban Celerity. Talk with your gamers about everything else.

Personally, I avoid BoED and BoVD, and allow all the Complete X books. I also generally ban Races Of books as well.

Grynning
2009-05-31, 03:30 PM
Any examples?
I don't seem to have a copy of SC any more, my old roommate must have taken it (curses!).
I do remember that there were a couple of Archery related ones, like Arrow Mind (which I believe let you shoot w/o AoO's or something) and something along the lines of "Arrow Storm" that let you shoot once at every target in range, and a melee "Blade Storm" that let you make a MH/OH attack at everything in your melee reach. There were a few others as well...
Anyways, the spells in SC did make a Ranger a better combatant at higher levels. Still not on par with other optimized damage dealers or ToB characters, but much more playable.

Eldariel
2009-05-31, 03:42 PM
I personally allow every book the players have access to (including my rather extensive 3.5 library), banning and applying arbitrary errata on stuff on case-by-case basis

It's worked fine thus far; we've had the Feral character in the party without making other melee useless (simple nerf of the bonuses to a level comparable with the +1 LA), we've had a Wizard/Nar Demonbinder/Ultimate Magus that still worked with a party, we've had a DMM: Persistent Cleric (a rather extensive rework of DMM to incorporate the Turn-check with the feat - that is, you make a Turn-check to determine how many levels above your maximum level the affected spell can be) that played out pretty well after the initial "wops, I think I have bigger numbers than the rest of the party combined", we've had a Frenzied Berserker that didn't kill the party, etc.

This kind of approach really needs a rather comprehensive awareness of the broken points of the 3.5 rules, but ultimately works really well if the DM is willing to put in the effort.

OracleofWuffing
2009-05-31, 03:53 PM
I figure that since there are many choices for each class, introducing [Complete Series and PHPII] (but possibly banning the base classes that each presents) would make for a great enjoyment around the table.
The thing is, some of those prestige classes and feats were designed with those new base classes in mind. For example, the Highland Stalker from Complete Adventurer has a requirement of Sneak Attack or Skirmish (a Scout ability), but the prestige class itself only advances Skirmish damage. Now, it's not hard at all to houserule that it advances Sneak Attack instead, but that's a "trap" for which you might be setting yourself up. You'll also run into a whole lot of trouble trying to meet the requirements for Eldritch Disciple and Eldritch Theurge (Complete Mage) without using the Warlock base class (Complete Arcane).
If you're worried about "overloading" yourself and your players, I wouldn't fear allowing base classes from those books, especially if you allow the prestige classes and feats- those are more likely to be confusing. If you're worried about "overpowering" things, I still wouldn't fear allowing those base classes. The "Tome of Battle" effect, where the base classes essentially replace existing classes, hardly happens outside of that one book.


How do you feel about adding extra rulebooks, particularly in regards to prestige classes? Would you advice to stick to the PHB only the first time, or should a couple of prestige classes be possible to involve? Because some of them are damn cool.
It sounds like you, as a potential DM, need to be introduced to the "Rule of Cool." As long as something is significantly cool enough to the DM, it is allowable, screw the other rules. It's next door neighbors are the Rule of Stupid and the Rule of Hilarity, I think you can guess what they're like.

As far as advice for what books to stick to for the first time, it depends on your audience. I, for one, like seeing a bunch of mechanics come together to form something strangely coherent, so I've enjoyed stacking splatbooks from roughly day one. On the other hand, if it appears that your group just wants to roll the dice and attack the darkness, they might not be interested in looking at more books than they need.

So, do your players like reading, researching, and discovery?

grautry
2009-05-31, 03:56 PM
My advice? Don't worry about it.

If your players are new then they probably won't make outrageously optimized characters that destroy everything in their paths. Simply tell the players before you begin playing that you reserve the right to nerf something if you feel that they are overshadowing the rest of the party.

That way you will be in the best possible situation. You won't restrict player choices too much and if something overpowering happens then at least the players shouldn't feel too cheated. A word of advice - if you are new to the game yourself then you might not be the best judge of balance. Ask around on forums first before you nerf something(an example of this: I've seen a DM who wanted to nerf Monks and buff Sorcerers).

On the other hand if they make horribly bad choices then feel free to allow for the players to switch around feats or classes. No one should be stuck playing with a character that they have no fun playing.

And as you play, every player should start realizing what's bad, what's good and what's just crazy. So long as you play with people who aren't *******s, you should be fine.

Raltar
2009-05-31, 03:56 PM
Any examples?

We'll go with Arrowmind, Hawkeye, Hunter's Mercy, Lion's Charge, Rhino's Rush, Arrow Storm and Blade Storm to name a few.

Weimann
2009-05-31, 04:23 PM
If you're worried about "overloading" yourself and your players, I wouldn't fear allowing base classes from those books, especially if you allow the prestige classes and feats- those are more likely to be confusing. If you're worried about "overpowering" things, I still wouldn't fear allowing those base classes. The "Tome of Battle" effect, where the base classes essentially replace existing classes, hardly happens outside of that one book.This helped me a lot. I was afraid there might be some kind of "power progression" in terms of extra rule books, but if there isn't, I see no reason to not allow them either :)
It sounds like you, as a potential DM, need to be introduced to the "Rule of Cool." As long as something is significantly cool enough to the DM, it is allowable, screw the other rules. It's next door neighbors are the Rule of Stupid and the Rule of Hilarity, I think you can guess what they're like.Oh, believe me, as a fledgeling GM who is about to embark on my first game of Exalted this coming Saturday, I've been thoroughly introduced to the Rule of Cool :)

In fact, what I was worried about was rather that DnD might not lend itself to that particular rule as well as Exalted does (where, for example, hitting head shot every time is hardly rare, but neither seldom renders and particular benefits), in that the cooler presitge classes might be blatantly overpowered. But I believe you've put my worries to rest on that account :)
As far as advice for what books to stick to for the first time, it depends on your audience. I, for one, like seeing a bunch of mechanics come together to form something strangely coherent, so I've enjoyed stacking splatbooks from roughly day one. On the other hand, if it appears that your group just wants to roll the dice and attack the darkness, they might not be interested in looking at more books than they need.

So, do your players like reading, researching, and discovery?Well, I really only have the books right now. After summer, it's possible I'll live in a totally new place, due to university and similar, so I have no idea who I might play with then, or even if I will at all.

But your advice is noted, and thanks a lot for it!
Simply tell the players before you begin playing that you reserve the right to nerf something if you feel that they are overshadowing the rest of the party.

That way you will be in the best possible situation. You won't restrict player choices too much and if something overpowering happens then at least the players shouldn't feel too cheated.This sounds like good advice to me as well. It's probably a wise choice in general; "do what you want, but if it turns out to be just too much, I might adjust it to keep it in line". It's a healthy approach.