[D&D 3.5] New campaign

[The Troubadour]

Hey there, guys! So, I'm going to start a new 3.5 campaign at the request of my players - only, I'm a bit rusty with 3.5. :-) So I'd like to ask your thoughts on something: if I restrict the rules material - feats, prestige classes, etc. - to just the 1st PHB, the 1st DMG, and "Complete Warrior/Adventurer/Arcane/Divine", what are the things I should watch out in terms of game balance? I'm not worried about "PCs vs. DM" balance, I'm worried about balance within the party, so that one PC isn't underpowered (or not too underpowered at least), another isn't overpowered, etc.

[SetArk]

Well.. There's a lot of supp that can be used, but i would say.. NEVER ALLOW THEN TO READ TOME OF BATTLE D:
If u allow it, you will regret that D:

[Ceaon]

The basic imbalances are still present. Full casters are able to dominate, warriors may start to suffer around level 6-9 and become obselete in the high teens. Basically, the tier list applies.

[limejuicepowder]

Well.. There's a lot of supp that can be used, but i would say.. NEVER ALLOW THEN TO READ TOME OF BATTLE D:
If u allow it, you will regret that D:

This guy might just be trolling (I kind of doubt it though). ToB is perfectly fine, and fits very well especially when more then 1 person is playing a full caster (wiz, cler, sorc, psion, etc).

Unless you have a player that likes cheese, I wouldn't worry about restricting books at all. For most players, allowing other books, at worst, just adds more flavorful options, and it won't lead to nonsense. Are you're players reasonable, or prone to mega-powergaming?

[Eldan]

It matters a lot on how savvy your players are in the rules.

As a general guideline, it is Prepared Casters > Spontaneous Casters > Utility classes > Melee combatants, with a few exceptions. This problem becomes more and more intense at higher levels. How early it starts usually depends on how much your players optimize. A good fighter can usually keep up with a blaster caster for quite a while, but a well-played druid or wizard can dominate pretty much from level 1, if he really tries.

Now, as for overpowered things: in core, that's really only certain spells. Look out for anything that makes a caster more versatile. Summoning and calling allows you to not only get another meat shield, but also access to spells you might not have prepared. The Candle of Invocation is broken all on it's own. Never let your players set up a wish-loop either (which is where you wish for an item that gives more wishes), but that one's pretty obvious.

Another thing: divine casters profit the most from new books, in general. Why? These books contain new spells. A sorcerer needs to learn them from his spells known. He'll get a handful the next time he levels up. The wizard needs to put them in his book. He'll learn a handful next time he goes to town. The cleric learns all of them the next time he prepares spells.

[SetArk]

Actually i mean it.. I've had some bad experiences with ToB ... It may be because my group, got in the fever of combos --
Its ridiculus how they turned the swordsage into an killing machine far better than any other assasin/stealth class..
The worst problem with ToB is that if u go Literal, for all the manuevers, u could possibly, turn off the sun because of some poorly explained maneuvers...

[chaotician375]

Actually i mean it.. I've had some bad experiences with ToB ... It may be because my group, got in the fever of combos --
Its ridiculus how they turned the swordsage into an killing machine far better than any other assasin/stealth class..
The worst problem with ToB is that if u go Literal, for all the manuevers, u could possibly, turn off the sun because of some poorly explained maneuvers...

I disagree with this, in my experience the ToB material, while powerful, isn't nearly as bad as people think. If anything it brings martial characters to a point where they can compete with casters at higher lvls. I haven't seen a power that lets you turn the sun off if interpreted wrong. All that considere, the warblade is broken with that swift action recovery mechanic:smalleek:

[Gray Mage]

On the overpowered side, watch out for the wizard, sorcerer, cleric and druid. Mind their spell selection and take care so they don't trivialize encounters or generaly step on other caracter's toes. Also it's a good idea to watch out for DMM [divine metamagic] abuse from your cleric, but if you don't allow or simply limit Nightsticks (an item from libris mortis, I think) it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

On the underpowered side there's the melee classes. Depending on the player's optimization level, it might be a problem, the Monk class in particular. Looking for some handbooks, alternative class features or multiclassing is a possible solution, in short having these players optimize more. Another good solution is using the Tome of Battle book. The classes from that book are pretty good outside of the box, so you/your players won't have to work too hard to make effective characters. The only problem is that if compared to other unoptimized melee chars they might seem OP, but that's mostly the other melee classes being underpowered if not optimized.

In short, pay attention on the extreme Tiers (1 and 6, and to a lesser extent the 2 and 5 too) and you won't have many problems.

[The Troubadour]

Thanks for the comments, guys! :-)

So, it seems the party will be a Barbarian, a Druid or Ranger and a Sorcerer, and it will have possibly two other PCs. Any specific suggestions for such a set-up?

[Flickerdart]

Nothing* in any splatbook will imbalance your game further that the Player's Handbook does already. Feel free to allow whatever. In fact, the Magic Item Compendium and the Tome of Battle will both do a great deal for balance. If you have more sources for spells (the PHB2, the Spell Compendium) feel free to blanket ban all PHB spells to avoid most of the system's stinkers.

Barbarian is a pretty capable face-beater in Core. If you open up splat support, they can Intimidate really well, but you need things like Imperious Command from Drow of the Underdark. They have Pounce from Complete Champion and a bunch of other solid options (check out the Cityscape Web Enhancement) that make Barbarian 20 an actually viable build.

Druids are really strong. They are best kept away from the Monster Manual 2, but even in Core, their pet alone is basically a second Barbarian minus some bells and whistles.

Rangers, on the other hand, are really weak. Spell Compendium gives them some toys, and there are a bunch of ACFs like Wildshape Ranger or Mystic Ranger to make them stronger. A Wildshape Mystic Ranger with Sword of the Arcane Order is almost 2/3 of a Druid for the first ten levels of the game, and then falls behind again.

Sorcerers are strong, but they need to be built well. Splatbooks open up options that remove some of the suckitude they got branded with, and make gishing viable.

In a party of five, you'll want at least two spellcasters, though. The system expects them to buff the melee.

*Things like Pun-Pun and other TO builds don't count. Things like Planar Shepherd also don't count because the Druid is already vastly more powerful. Things like StP Erudite don't count because psionics is just casting. Things like Artificer...well, Artificer is new, to be fair. But it's pretty much the only truly new way to break the game.

[The Troubadour]

Well, I'm restricting sourcebooks partly for my sake as well, not just balance's - I mean, it's been a while since I've DMed 3rd/3.5, and many of the most popular sourcebooks (like "Dungeonscape" and "Tome of Battle") are from after my time, and I really, really want to keep things simple for everyone. :-)

I'd also prefer to avoid homebrewing, if at all possible, but I'm not entirely averse to it. Are there any good homebrews for the martial classes around these forums?

Also, let's assume I keep the game's complexity at the following level:

Races allowed: PHB I only.
Base classes allowed: PHB I only.
Prestige classes allowed: DMG I and "Complete Warrior/Divine/Arcane/Adventurer" only.
Feats allowed: PHB I and II and "Complete Warrior/Divine/Arcane/Adventurer" only.
Spells allowed: PHB I only.

How well would the game work?

[Soup]

Well, I'm restricting sourcebooks partly for my sake as well, not just balance's - I mean, it's been a while since I've DMed 3rd/3.5, and many of the most popular sourcebooks (like "Dungeonscape" and "Tome of Battle") are from after my time, and I really, really want to keep things simple for everyone. :-)

I'd also prefer to avoid homebrewing, if at all possible, but I'm not entirely averse to it. Are there any good homebrews for the martial classes around these forums?

Also, let's assume I keep the game's complexity at the following level:

Races allowed: PHB I only.
Base classes allowed: PHB I only.
Prestige classes allowed: DMG I and "Complete Warrior/Divine/Arcane/Adventurer" only.
Feats allowed: PHB I and II and "Complete Warrior/Divine/Arcane/Adventurer" only.
Spells allowed: PHB I only.

How well would the game work?

Every base class printed in the first cycle of the Complete Series as well as PHBII is weaker than their PHB1 counterparts.
What they do offer is different archetypes. It's a lot simpler playing certain characters, for example a gish by selecting a Duskblade or Hexblade instead of going Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight.

I really wouldn't worry about the other base classes unbalancing your game. Sure you might have to learn some new mechanics, such as invocations, but most of the stuff from these early books are fairly simple.

[Flickerdart]

You'll want to allow alternate class features as well. The weaker classes get a lot more mileage out of those. The only problematic one is Abrupt Jaunt, a Conjurer ACF from CMage.

[Dalek-K]

Deleted by me

[Flickerdart]

Amended as the quoted post has also been amended.

[Dalek-K]

Given that you were not, in fact, quoting my post (or responding to it) I am uncertain as to what elicited this line or who it was directed at. However, I feel like I ought to point out that saying "no disrespect" does not, in fact, make things not disrespectful.

Yeah I'm on my phone and got things wrong, I was about to send you a pm though. I was refering to the other person and actually felt I was being a bit to mean -_-.

And the no disrespect thing is just that, you say it but it doesn't mean that since you are meaning it in a disrepectful way.

Flickerdart. I'm sorry

SetArk I'm not sorry but I don't make it a habit to be mean or rude.

[Fluffy_1.0]

If you're concerned about balance, may I suggest e6 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html)? Then allow anything that isn't pure cheese and you should be golden.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Actually i mean it.. I've had some bad experiences with ToB ... It may be because my group, got in the fever of combos --
Its ridiculus how they turned the swordsage into an killing machine far better than any other assasin/stealth class..
The worst problem with ToB is that if u go Literal, for all the manuevers, u could possibly, turn off the sun because of some poorly explained maneuvers...

Iron Heart Surge is the exception, not the rule. Plus, if you go by literal, it only works on things with durations measured in rounds, not minutes, hours, days, years, indefinite etc.

As for the swordsage...

Assassin/stealth weaker than swordsage: Basic rogue, basic ranger, spellthief, lurk.

Assassin/stealth classes roughly balanced with swordsage: Beguiler, factotum, psychic rogue, wildshape ranger, maybe mystic ranger, maybe mystic ranger with SotAO.

Assassin/stealth classes stronger than swordsage: Wizard with right spells, sorcerer with right spells, druid with right spells/Wild Shape form, maybe mystic ranger with SotAO, wildshape mystic ranger with SotAO, maybe wildshape mystic ranger without SotAO.

[The Troubadour]

Guys, please, let's not start a ToB discussion in this thread. :-)

Thanks again for the help, guys! So, the general consensus is that even if I restrict the books available, it still won't help the inherent disparity in the classes' power/versatility level, right? Bummer. :-( Still, I remember some of the worst things in the books (in terms of game balance) were spells, so maybe I'll just be stricter with spell selection. And assuming I do allow for variant class features, which ones are good? The ones in "Unearthed Arcana"?

By the way, is there an official version of the Bladesinger from "Complete Warrior" that isn't terrible, or something? I remember the version printed in the base 3.0 splat was missing features; did it happen again in CW?

[Yahzi]

it still won't help the inherent disparity in the classes' power/versatility level, right?
That imbalance goes right back to 1E. The fact that fighters get an extra hit die and wizards get to bend reality to their will is a central feature of D&D. If that bothers you, then you should be playing a different game.

Some things you can do to help:

Fighters get 29 point buy, free feats every level, good saves in everything, everybody loves them, and Leadership means they can summon 1d10 1st level fighters once per day.

Wizards get 21 point buy, nobody trusts them, magic is scary, spells cost time and money to learn and no one ever sells you new ones, and Planar Binding is likely to bring your name to the attention of powerful forces that want to kill you.

With all that, playing a fighter will be more fun, and playing a wizard will require a little more caution and effort. But it won't stop wizards from bending reality to their will.

[Soup]

Guys, please, let's not start a ToB discussion in this thread. :-)

Thanks again for the help, guys! So, the general consensus is that even if I restrict the books available, it still won't help the inherent disparity in the classes' power/versatility level, right? Bummer. :-( Still, I remember some of the worst things in the books (in terms of game balance) were spells, so maybe I'll just be stricter with spell selection. And assuming I do allow for variant class features, which ones are good? The ones in "Unearthed Arcana"?

By the way, is there an official version of the Bladesinger from "Complete Warrior" that isn't terrible, or something? I remember the version printed in the base 3.0 splat was missing features; did it happen again in CW?

Just ban some of the more troublesome spells such as the Polymorph line. There's been plenty of threads about houserules for 3.5, try searching for them.

You don't have to alter every class, especially if most of you are relatively inexperienced with 3.5. A couple of staples are Druids being forced into Shapechange variant from PHBII or banning Natural Spell and Clerics not being allowed to stack Night Sticks.

[prufock]

Nothing* in any splatbook will imbalance your game further that the Player's Handbook does already.

While the PHB is pretty unbalanced, I personally think that immediate action spells are counter to your argument. Not only can you cast wish, now you can do it on someone else's turn!

To the OP:
I allow any WotC material in the games I run, but I tack on 2 clauses.
1) I must approve your character. Anything broken won't be allowed.
2) Your build must make sense on a personal, party, and setting level.

These 2 clauses weed out pretty much all potential problems. I don't like to restrict the players. I've never had to do so.

[The Troubadour]

To the OP:
I allow any WotC material in the games I run, but I tack on 2 clauses.
1) I must approve your character. Anything broken won't be allowed.
2) Your build must make sense on a personal, party, and setting level.

This is pretty much what I do in all games I run, and what I'm going to do with this one as well. I'd just like to be prepared for what may come my way - two of the players are old hands at optimization (one of them goes even further into munchkinization territory), and my 3.5 savvy isn't what it used to be.



You don't have to alter every class, especially if most of you are relatively inexperienced with 3.5. A couple of staples are Druids being forced into Shapechange variant from PHBII or banning Natural Spell and Clerics not being allowed to stack Night Sticks.

Oh, hey, those sound like simple solutions! Thanks! :-)



That imbalance goes right back to 1E. The fact that fighters get an extra hit die and wizards get to bend reality to their will is a central feature of D&D. If that bothers you, then you should be playing a different game.

I DID want to run a different game, but the majority wanted D&D 3.5. ;-)

[Kol Korran]

Thanks again for the help, guys! So, the general consensus is that even if I restrict the books available, it still won't help the inherent disparity in the classes' power/versatility level, right? Bummer. :-(

trying to fix all the possible abuses will drive you mad, and smarty players might still find loopholes. the thing i highly suggest is quite simple but it has worked fine for me and a few other groups i know.

talk to your players before hand. explain to them that there are inherent abusable flaws in the system, and that you can't map them all out. instead of that, come to a gentleman's agreement (you guys sound mature enough):

you can choose what you want, and i'll go over it and see if i can spot any problems. if i don't and the ability will be problematic in game i won't nerf it the first time it works, but after that i may. we'll talk it out and come to something that is fun enough for all. agreed?"

as to the gap between melee and casters, it all really depends on how much of optimizers are your players. a good min maxer can make a mere fighter more terrifying than a muddled wizard build. this may happen and works well in most groups to some degree. if your players are ok and not attention hoggers this may work out well.

really, it's more about the players than fixing the rules.

[Flickerdart]

While the PHB is pretty unbalanced, I personally think that immediate action spells are counter to your argument. Not only can you cast wish, now you can do it on someone else's turn!
How are you casting Wish as an immediate action again?

[The Troubadour]

talk to your players before hand. explain to them that there are inherent abusable flaws in the system, and that you can't map them all out. instead of that, come to a gentleman's agreement (you guys sound mature enough):(...)

Wise words, friend! Wise words, indeed.

Thanks again for all the help, everyone! :-)