PDA

View Full Version : Class balancing without changing the RAW



Bosh
2007-06-20, 03:07 AM
Was reading a thread on the other board about having a campaign with the players starting as NPC classes and an idea came into my head about how to rebalance D&D without changing the RAW. Its not perfect by any means but I think it would work fairly well:

Have all of the players start as 6th level Commoners or 6th level Commoners/1st level whatever and then let the players take levels in whatever they want and don't factor in the Commoner levels for multiclass xp penalties.

That way the meleers and skill monkies get a bit of things that they can use (BaB +3, more feats, a much easier time getting high ranks in skills once they gain a few levels, +2 to all saving throws, which makes save vs. die/suck spells that much less powerful) while the casters wouldn't get much that they could use since they don't get any caster levels. Fighters would be especially helped since they could qualify for good feats with high BaB requirements a lot faster than casters would be able to get good spells.

Also it would allow you have have characters start off without too many high fantasy or complicated abilities (good for new players) without them being so fragile that large rats can do TPKs and unless your players have a good grasp of D&D mechanics you could give casters a much-needed nerf without them realizing that they're being nerfed and whining about it :)

Tengu
2007-06-20, 03:23 AM
Would you treat those characters as level 7, or 1, in terms of gaining experience, wealth-by-level, et cetera? I actually think something in between would work best, maybe 4?

Apart from that, nice idea.

Inyssius Tor
2007-06-20, 03:28 AM
You know, that's actually an original approach. Woo hoo!

What about hit-dice, though? Every character would have an extra 6d4 + (6 * Con) hp...

Tengu
2007-06-20, 03:29 AM
Ah yes, another question - do you get 4* skill points at your first Commoner level, or at your first PC class level?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-06-20, 03:31 AM
There are two issues I think you need to deal with.

First you have to consider how to treat them with respect to WBL and appropriate encounter levels and earning experience points.

Second, the skill intensive characters will lose a lot of skill points when they do not start out with their first level in their "real" class.
(2+int)x9 and all relevant skills being cross class is not going to make anyone versatile and skilled.

Other than that it sounds ok. :smallsmile:

Bosh
2007-06-20, 03:56 AM
Would you treat those characters as level 7, or 1, in terms of gaining experience, wealth-by-level, et cetera? I actually think something in between would work best, maybe 4?

Apart from that, nice idea.

Well I don't use wealth by level tables and I make the party gain levels whenever I feel like it but I think that if you're doing it by the book a commoner level should cound as about half of a regular level.


What about hit-dice, though? Every character would have an extra 6d4 + (6 * Con) hp...
Yup, that would give all of the characters a nice cushion of survivability and hopefully make TPKs a bit less common without giving your characters too much raw power.


Ah yes, another question - do you get 4* skill points at your first Commoner level, or at your first PC class level?
I would have that be at the first Commoner level since that would give players less of an incentive to take a dip into rogue just for the first level bump of skill points.


Second, the skill intensive characters will lose a lot of skill points when they do not start out with their first level in their "real" class.
(2+int)x9 and all relevant skills being cross class is not going to make anyone versatile and skilled.
But losing skill points and not having relevant skills compared to what? Class balance in D&D is comparative, not absolute, so the skill monkies wouldn't loose anything compared to the other classes. I think this system would work in their favor overall since they could crank a lot of skill points into the few skills that they want to specialize very quickly and be better able to compete with caster utility spells.

Also despite nerfing casters I think that this could make low level casters more fun to play since you would have a bit more survivability thanks to the commoner levels and be able to do SOMETHING after your spells run out at low level.

I also think that this would give a good feel to games by having your characters feel capable from the get go, not have to run away from small groups of goblins but not be able to do the really cool stuff and lobbing fire balls around in the first adventure.

Jack Mann
2007-06-20, 04:09 AM
This helps fighter types, admittedly. It moderately inconveniences casters. It kicks skill monkeys in the teeth.

Yes, casters are behind on their spells, but everyone is going to be behind on their class features, except for the fighter who doesn't have level-dependent class features. Skill monkeys lose out on three times their normal allotment of skill points per level, which is a lot for them.

Casters are at best one spell level behind. Six commoner levels are, at most, +2 ECL for the abilities of the various characters. If you send a CR 7 monster against your Commoner 6/X 1 party, they're going to die, and die horribly. You might as well try boosting casters by sending harder monsters at them. Yes, it makes things harder for them, but it also makes things harder for the other members of the party. This hurts them, but it doesn't nerf them as much as it does the skill monkeys, say, and only a bit more than it hurts the ranger or the barbarian.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-06-20, 04:11 AM
But losing skill points and not having relevant skills compared to what? Class balance in D&D is comparative, not absolute, so the skill monkies wouldn't loose anything compared to the other classes. I think this system would work in their favor overall since they could crank a lot of skill points into the few skills that they want to specialize very quickly and be better able to compete with caster utility spells.


A 1st level fighter has 8 skill points.
A 1st level rogue has 32 skill points.

A Com 6/Fht 1 has 20 skill points.
A Com 6/Rog 1 has 26 skill points.

So not only is this an absolute nerf for the most skill intensive class, but it also shifts relative balance.

And that is even before considering that 18 of these skill points only have half the desired effect.

Furthrmore, skills are not just opposed rolls between characters. You are actually making it harder to beat the DCs listed in the skill descriptions or forcing the skilled characters to focus on very few skills.

Bosh
2007-06-20, 04:25 AM
This helps fighter types, admittedly. It moderately inconveniences casters. It kicks skill monkeys in the teeth.

Yes, casters are behind on their spells, but everyone is going to be behind on their class features, except for the fighter who doesn't have level-dependent class features. Skill monkeys lose out on three times their normal allotment of skill points per level, which is a lot for them.

Casters are at best one spell level behind. Six commoner levels are, at most, +2 ECL for the abilities of the various characters. If you send a CR 7 monster against your Commoner 6/X 1 party, they're going to die, and die horribly. You might as well try boosting casters by sending harder monsters at them. Yes, it makes things harder for them, but it also makes things harder for the other members of the party. This hurts them, but it doesn't nerf them as much as it does the skill monkeys, say, and only a bit more than it hurts the ranger or the barbarian.

Well it depends on what kind of skill monkey you want to play. If you want to play a higher specialized skill monkey its very helpful (for example you could have twelve ranks in your best skill when the wizards get their second level spells instead of six ranks) it doesn't help jack of all trades skill monkies but if you give your character the feat from races of destiny feat that lets you only pay one rank for cross class skills and have decent intelligence you'll be able to have your skills COMPETE much better with casters' utility spells than would otherwise be the case.

As far as sending a CR 7 monster against a commoner 6/1 whatever party, that would just be silly. Why would anyone do that?

What I think you're missing is that class balance is relative, never absolute. Of course a rogue 10 would be a hell of a lot more powerful than a commoner 6/rogue 4 but that's not the point since there wouldn't be any PC rogue 10's in that campaign. I think that a commoner 6/rogue 6 would be a hell of a lot more able to compete with a commoner 6/wizard 6 than a rogue 9 would be able to compete with a wizard 9.

Bosh
2007-06-20, 04:26 AM
You are actually making it harder to beat the DCs listed in the skill descriptions or forcing the skilled characters to focus on very few skills.
Harder compared to what?

Tobrian
2007-06-20, 04:51 AM
Have all of the players start as 6th level Commoners or 6th level Commoners/1st level whatever and then let the players take levels in whatever they want and don't factor in the Commoner levels for multiclass xp penalties.(snip)

Also it would allow you have have characters start off without too many high fantasy or complicated abilities (good for new players) without them being so fragile that large rats can do TPKs and unless your players have a good grasp of D&D mechanics you could give casters a much-needed nerf without them realizing that they're being nerfed and whining about it :)

So much for heroic fantasy.

Tell you what: Why don't you take up playing Harnmaster? It's exactly what you're looking for. And it's a good game, solid rule mechanics, etc. But with a very low-magic, Dark-Ages-to-early-medieval-times setting, not the high-fantasy stuff of D&D.


OT: I swear if I have to read the word "nerf" one more time today I'm going to kick someone in the teeth. :smallyuk:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-06-20, 05:08 AM
Well it depends on what kind of skill monkey you want to play. If you want to play a higher specialized skill monkey its very helpful (for example you could have twelve ranks in your best skill when the wizards get their second level spells instead of six ranks) it doesn't help jack of all trades skill monkies but if you give your character the feat from races of destiny feat that lets you only pay one rank for cross class skills and have decent intelligence you'll be able to have your skills COMPETE much better with casters' utility spells than would otherwise be the case.

Sure but you will only be maxing a few skills at the cost of all your other class skills. (Being human helps of course)

Of course if you will have them facing of against 1st level encounters it is not a problem or if all npc's with class levels also have 6 levels of commoner.

My main concern is that you are not only shifting balance between skills and spells, but this will also give skilled characters less of an advantage compared to more melee oriented types.


On another note, I think 6 levels of commoner might be a bit much. Casters generally win, but not necessarily at low levels.

Sir Giacomo
2007-06-20, 05:25 AM
Hi,

great idea, Bosh!

Maybe to avoid the problems for the skill monkey classes, everyone after X commoner levels will get as the first real pc class level the usual first level benefits, i.e. lvl 6 commoner/lvl 1 rogue will then receive the usual 4x skillpts/lvl for the 1st rogue level.

If you do not like commoner: I once had the idea to make a "truly" magic-poor campaign by allowing to take only up to half your character level in full spellcaster classes.
So, a 10th level character wizard would have 5 levels of wizard, and a mixture of rogue and fighter levels (without multiclass restrictions).

That way, you will also not have problems with the ECL since they cover also multiclass characters.

- Giacomo

Bosh
2007-06-20, 06:02 AM
Hmmmm, well this got me thinking that the massive difference in skill points that people get depending on what class they choose first is something that I don't like. It seems wrong that a 1 fighter/1 rogue should be so much different from a 1 rogue/1 fighter.

Also balance works on the margin in D&D. Any additional level would about balance vs. any other additional level (within reason).

If you're using factional BaB, I think that 6 skill points and a dice of backstab balances nicely with an extra third point of BaB and a feat.



Oh and as far as this being a set-up for low powered campaigns I don't see that at all. I was planning on using this for a more high powered campaigns since I could use this system to start the players off as farm boys or whatever and have the 6 levels of commoner be a power-boost with them getting up to commoner 6/whatever 5 as fast as characters get up to 5th level in normal games.

Bosh
2007-06-20, 06:14 AM
Hmmm or let people start off with a stack of levels in expert or any NPC class. A party in which everyone had a big stack of expert levels would be fun to play with I think, especially in a more combat-light campaign.

Rad
2007-06-20, 07:48 AM
forcing some levels in an NPC class could make some difference. If everybody goes expert then you'll quickly find that everybody has skills, and likely loaded them on spot and listen so skill-monkeys are not that helped. If you let fighters take warrior levels though they'll hardly be able to pass on some nice BAB.
Casters could grab some adept levels, but they are not useful for later use. They can get some more low-level spells which will let them do more on low levels and become increasingly useless later on.

As Giacomo said, multiclassing stops casters

Hope this helps

Sutremaine
2007-06-20, 05:14 PM
If you do not like commoner: I once had the idea to make a "truly" magic-poor campaign by allowing to take only up to half your character level in full spellcaster classes.
So, a 10th level character wizard would have 5 levels of wizard, and a mixture of rogue and fighter levels (without multiclass restrictions).
Where do PrCs fit in? Are only the levels that advance casting considered full caster levels, or does it depend on the progression of the class as a whole?

Indon
2007-06-20, 05:24 PM
If you send a CR 7 monster against your Commoner 6/X 1 party, they're going to die, and die horribly.

I'm pretty sure the guy's talking about giving them six commoner levels for free, since he refers to them fighting 'large rats'.

Personally, I'd go with Jack Mann's inadvertent advice and have those 6 levels of Commoner give an effective +2 level adjustment, so that a Commoner 6/XXX 1 is an ECL 3.

Ceridan
2007-06-21, 03:20 AM
Bosh, did you get your idea from Rollfrenzy's post for a archer cleric build?

Jack Mann
2007-06-21, 03:26 AM
I'm pretty sure the guy's talking about giving them six commoner levels for free, since he refers to them fighting 'large rats'.

Personally, I'd go with Jack Mann's inadvertent advice and have those 6 levels of Commoner give an effective +2 level adjustment, so that a Commoner 6/XXX 1 is an ECL 3.

Actually, he'd recommended that they count as half.

However, this misses my point. My point is that the caster isn't as hurt by this as it seems at first. Certainly not as much as the skillmonkey (who is now only a little bit better than the unskilled classes). Raising the CRs more than +2 will make things harder on the entire party. So, you've really only set the wizards and sorcerers back one level of spells. It hurts, but not as much as it hurts the poor skill monkey, who's behind on his skills and his class features.

brian c
2007-06-21, 10:48 AM
Eh, give them a choice between Commoner, Expert and Aristocrat. Rogues would take expert for the skill points, socially oriented characters would take aristocrat.

Or, for a slightly different idea, open up all the NPC classes (ie including Warrior and Adept) and make characters take 4 or 6 levels in one of those. That way spellcasters do get a little bit, but melee types have full BAB from Warrior and skillmonkeys have lots of skills from Expert. This wouldn't be as big of a change as a forced 6 levels in commoner, but I think it would still shift game balance towards melee just a little bit (in other words, away from casters). NPC levels would count as 1/2 level each, so basically your ECL is PC class level + 3

Draz74
2007-06-21, 01:22 PM
Eh, give them a choice between Commoner, Expert and Aristocrat. Rogues would take expert for the skill points, socially oriented characters would take aristocrat.

Or, for a slightly different idea, open up all the NPC classes (ie including Warrior and Adept) and make characters take 4 or 6 levels in one of those. That way spellcasters do get a little bit, but melee types have full BAB from Warrior and skillmonkeys have lots of skills from Expert. This wouldn't be as big of a change as a forced 6 levels in commoner, but I think it would still shift game balance towards melee just a little bit (in other words, away from casters). NPC levels would count as 1/2 level each, so basically your ECL is PC class level + 3

Why would anyone ever take Commoner?
Casters would mostly end up as Experts and Aristocrats, maybe sometimes Adepts.

Rad
2007-06-21, 04:44 PM
Why would anyone ever take Commoner?
Casters would mostly end up as Experts and Aristocrats, maybe sometimes Adepts.

there is no need to have them take levels in commoner. The point is that fighters have their full BAB due to warrior levels, skillmonkeys have full ranks thanks to expert and casters cannot advance in their spells per day or caster level at all. At most they get something for their familiar (stacks with adept) and access to a couple of divine spells. Adept night still be too good, but at least skills are not that taxed.

Yakk
2007-06-21, 05:16 PM
There is a problem:
Low level casters are already worse off than low-level melee.

It is only in the mid to high levels that casters start getting worse.

So... What if you forced a character to take all even levels as "racial" levels, and started people off at L 2?

Human Racial:
All saves poor. 4 skill points/level. d6 HD. +3/4 BaB.
Can spend skill points on any class skill the character posseses.

Elven Racial:
Reflex save good. 4 skill points/level. d4 HD. +3/4 BaB.
Has a skill list.

Dwarf Racial:
Fort save good. 2 skill points/level. d8 HD. +3/4 BaB.
Has a skill list.

Halfling Racial:
Reflex and Will save good. 2 skill points/level. d4 HD. +3/4 BaB.
Has a skill list.

Etc.

This means that at L 20, a Warrior has +15 BaB, while a Wizard is casting at L 10 -- it impacts game balance more later on, and less at the start.

ECL of these characters would be about (character level) + (1/2 race level).

You could also throw in some racial advantages with your race levels as you gained levels.

Bosh
2007-06-22, 02:45 AM
Eh, give them a choice between Commoner, Expert and Aristocrat. Rogues would take expert for the skill points, socially oriented characters would take aristocrat.

Or, for a slightly different idea, open up all the NPC classes (ie including Warrior and Adept) and make characters take 4 or 6 levels in one of those. That way spellcasters do get a little bit, but melee types have full BAB from Warrior and skillmonkeys have lots of skills from Expert. This wouldn't be as big of a change as a forced 6 levels in commoner, but I think it would still shift game balance towards melee just a little bit (in other words, away from casters). NPC levels would count as 1/2 level each, so basically your ECL is PC class level + 3

That could work, was thinking of doing something with everyone starting out as experts, which could be interesting and could allow for a lot of flexibility with non-combat roles, which would make fighters etc. be a lot less pigeon-holed.


The point is that fighters have their full BAB due to warrior levels, skillmonkeys have full ranks thanks to expert and casters cannot advance in their spells per day or caster level at all
Giving casters a much needed nerf but also giving them some flexibility to play with.


Low level casters are already worse off than low-level melee.
No they're not.
Sleep and wolf/dog animal companions are massively powerful at low levels and clerics are great at very low levels since you can't afford any other means of healing.
In any case a bunch of NPC class levels would make casters be able to do stuff besides cast and do it decently at the low levels of this sort of campaign.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-22, 02:54 AM
Hmm, what if you forced casters to take 6 levels commoner, fighter to take 6 levels warrior, and skill monkeys to take 6 levels aristocrat, then allowed whatever multiclass they wanted from there?

Bosh
2007-06-22, 06:08 AM
Hmm, what if you forced casters to take 6 levels commoner, fighter to take 6 levels warrior, and skill monkeys to take 6 levels aristocrat, then allowed whatever multiclass they wanted from there?
That sounds like overkill...

Merlin the Tuna
2007-06-22, 07:24 AM
That sounds like overkill...It also sounds completely out of whack fluff-wise; even if you're doing the "Hey you're regular dudes NOWAITYOU'REHEROES!" campaign, the mages are likely to be aristocrats and the skill monkeys would tend towards commoners.

Bosh
2007-06-22, 04:32 PM
It also sounds completely out of whack fluff-wise; even if you're doing the "Hey you're regular dudes NOWAITYOU'REHEROES!" campaign, the mages are likely to be aristocrats and the skill monkeys would tend towards commoners.

I'm not sure why people are thinking that slapping on a bunch of NPC levels makes for a low powered game. Starting at first level the wizards can get killed by house cats, if anything this sort of thing would fit more for a high powered game where the players start out relatively hard to kill despite not having all of the high fantasy abilities.

Matthew
2007-06-26, 07:07 PM
This doesn't really seem to address the balance problems in D&D, let alone work as a RAW answer.

Bosh
2007-06-26, 10:09 PM
This doesn't really seem to address the balance problems in D&D, let alone work as a RAW answer.
How so?
Hmmm the forum won't let me enter a message that is less than ten character, strange...

Matthew
2007-06-26, 10:50 PM
Well, mainly because Player Characters are prohibited from taking NPC levels in the DMG (as far as I am aware, though mine is a 3.0 DMG), unless through means of the 'Apprenticeship' Variant, so exactly how RAW this is seems open to question to me. The DMG provides plenty of guidance for altering the game to suit your playstle, but it's not really considered RAW.

The problems of balance in D&D are not between Fighters and Rogues, but Wizards, Cleric, Druids, Sorcerers and everybody else (in the Core Books). So seeking to balance things out by creating another variable seems ill advised to me. Add to this the fact that Classes are not unbalanced until around level 5+ and you have actually made things more unbalanced at lower levels.

Limiting the power of the Full Spell casting Classes seems easier to do. The Spontaneous Divine Spell Caster in Unearthed Arcana is rather an interesting fix, but for the most part it is a matter of limiting access to the more broken Spells and Feats.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, you may find it works great for you.

DSCrankshaw
2007-06-26, 11:07 PM
Isn't this how d20 Modern works? Except that the d20 Modern base classes are a lot better than the Commoner class, but still, none of the base classes get FX (shorthand for any magic/psionics/whatnot), and you can't take an advanced class that does until 4th level. And even then, it's only ten levels and there are no spells above 5th level.

Bosh
2008-08-20, 02:50 PM
*necro*

I'm going to run something like this past my group as a possibility for an upcoming campaign.

Probably something like this:
1. Everyone starts with five levels of expert and one level of whatever.
2. Relatively high point buy. This plus the above allows the players to feel relatively powerful without me having to deal with the headaches of players with bunches of class abilities in 3.5ed.
3. WBL guidelines will be thrown right out.
4. Balance should be a good bit better than normal, if only because players have a bunch of levels in the same class :)
5. XP gain will work as normal.
6. Lots of critters at or above party CR will be thrown at them. Players will be given lots of opportunities to use their skills to even the odds in creative ways. Frontal assaults will result in squishy death. Ambushes, trickery, use of terrain, running away a lot, etc. will be encouraged.

Roland St. Jude
2008-08-20, 07:48 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread Necromancy violates the natural order - please don't do it.