The best balanced 1st-party splatbook for 3.5

[Particle_Man]

To complement the other thread, what 1st-party 3.5 splatbook is the one that is best balanced? The splatbook that has stuff that is not too powerful and not too weak?

I think that Tome of Battle is a contender. Its three base classes are tier 3/4 and while a few maneuvers (and a few prestige class abilities) need the loving touch of the editor's pen, overall I would say it is well done.

Note, you can add your thoughts on best-balanced 3rd party stuff too, as long as you also add your thoughts on the best-balanced 1st party splatbook.

[noce]

Maybe PHBII.
Beguiler and Duskblade are both good and flavourful, and balanced.
Dragon Shaman is quite crappy, frankly.
There are many useful feats in the book, too.

[Beheld]

Spell Compendium. It rebalances a bunch of stuff and has a pretty consistent internal balance.

Maybe like, Complete Mage for feats and PrCs? Not that there isn't garbage in their, but probably better than a lot of books.

[Dagroth]

I actually like Complete Champion. If the Devotion Feats were 3/day and not recharged by Turn Attempts, it would be nearly perfectly balanced. Nothing too powerful (Knowledge Devotion is a bit strong, but could be rebalanced by increasing the result needed for the higher bonuses) and nothing too weak.

[GilesTheCleric]

I'd say that in general, the Eberron books are the best-balanced. It seems like the designer(s) actually had a cohesive, specific idea in mind, and attempted to create it in mechanical terms. There's so many fewer things that seem out-of-place, tacked on, or otherwise inconsistent. Perhaps that's purely a result of it being a new setting that's not beholden to decades of old fluff and content, but regardless, I think they're the most self-consistent books.

[LordOfCain]

Voting for Tome of Battle as well. Only unbalanced things: Iron Heart Surge, just needs some clarification, White Raven Tactics, just needs some limits, and d2 Crusader.

[Troacctid]

I'm gonna say Dragon Magic. Basically everything in it is at a reasonable, fair power level. It manages to have a lot of content without any of it being significantly underpowered or overpowered.

Monster Manual V is also very good.

Strongly disagree with Tome of Battle; it is definitely overpowered at low levels.

[Doctor Awkward]

Expanded Psionics Handbook.

[Aetis]

Expanded Psionics Handbook.

[Particle_Man]

I must admit to seeing surprise for the Expanded Psionics Handbook. While the system of psionics is well done in the book, the base classes vary in Tiers quite strongly, from the Psion to the Soul Knife.

[Efrate]

ToB, MMV, and complete adventurer maybe? I'm AFB right now but C. Adv is coming off as not too terrible if memory serves.

[Mordaedil]

I must admit to seeing surprise for the Expanded Psionics Handbook. While the system of psionics is well done in the book, the base classes vary in Tiers quite strongly, from the Psion to the Soul Knife.

Being varied in tiers isn't actually a bad thing. It's a lot more balanced than every other implementation of psionics before, certainly.

Just a shame that the graphics designer decided that psychics should have glowing weird eyes, for some reason.

[frogglesmash]

Just a shame that the graphics designer decided that psychics should have glowing weird eyes, for some reason.

What's wrong with glowing eyes?

[Thaneus]

Being varied in tiers isn't actually a bad thing. It's a lot more balanced than every other implementation of psionics before, certainly.

Just a shame that the graphics designer decided that psychics should have glowing weird eyes, for some reason.

Glowing eyes is a typical Display for Visual described manifestation. If you dont like it, just use another like swarming morphing ectoplasma on the arms while manifesting or crackling energy current around you.

Something like this. In the book it states the Displays can be personalized as you like, heck you can do it for each power differently.

As for me is follow suit with Expanded Psionics Handbook :smallsmile:

[Mordaedil]

Glowing eyes is a typical Display for Visual described manifestation. If you dont like it, just use another like swarming morphing ectoplasma on the arms while manifesting or crackling energy current around you.

Something like this. In the book it states the Displays can be personalized as you like, heck you can do it for each power differently.

As for me is follow suit with Expanded Psionics Handbook :smallsmile:

Ah, glowing while manifesting is fine, but the art of every PC in that book have them have these weird eyes at any given time, which seems like a weird way to show your character as psychic. While manifesting would be fine.

[jywu98]

XPH is the best honestly, given it introduces a whole new subsystem that is relatively balanced. ToB also comes to mind.

[weckar]

Complete Arcane would have my vote. It is well written and doesn't bring anything bizarre to the table while also being internally balanced.

[Efrate]

CArc has Initiate of the sevenfold veil, mage of the arcane order, and sublime chord. Its base classes are fine but its PrCs go from bonkers to almost useless.

[Beheld]

CArc has Initiate of the sevenfold veil, mage of the arcane order, and sublime chord. Its base classes are fine but its PrCs go from bonkers to almost useless.

Every book with pro's is going to have useless prcs in it. But none of the ones you mentioned are useless or bonkers.

[Particle_Man]

What's wrong with glowing eyes?

Indeed, it is how I signalled that the wandering monster was no ordinary dire bear. ;)

[neriractor]

How about complete scoundrel? Is pretty well balanced and gives interesting options to a ton of different character archetypes.

[Troacctid]

How about complete scoundrel? Is pretty well balanced and gives interesting options to a ton of different character archetypes.

It's fine, but Dragon Magic is better.

[Jormengand]

I can't agree with XPH - its balance ranges from "Better than full casters in some ways" to "Loses to a competently-played Warrior", and the prestige classes go from "Full-bab 9/10 manifester who is outright immune to several schools of magic" and "Leadership but better: the class, now with 8/10 manifesting" to "Guy who does relatively trivial fire damage" and "Manifester who gets free powers but drastically reduced power points and is therefore practically strictly worse than whatever you entered from." The fact that you practically cannot fail to enter Slayer or Thrallherd but Pyrokineticist requires eight ranks in a skill you probably neither have nor will ever use is just the icing on the cake.

In any case, spell compendium wins my vote given what it is - spells are unbalanced in general, but few of the spell compendium ones are particularly horrible. Aside from that I can also agree with dragon magic.

[weckar]

Here's probably a relevant question: "What is balance?"

[Cosi]

Complete Warrior might be the most internally balanced. The base classes suck, but they suck pretty equally.


It's fine, but Dragon Magic is better.

What? That book is terrible. The PrCs are all trash you won't touch with a ten foot pole (a grand total of none of them grant full casting), the Dragonpacts are a tragic failure that could have fixed some of the Sorcerer's problems, the base class is bad, and it gave us arcane spellsurge. It gave you a bunch of optional ways to make casters worse (which you can just ignore), and then a spell that is awesome (which you can take without touching anything else if you want it).

It also has all the problems with bloat that later splats tend to, fitting seven PrCs into 25 pages. I will say that providing continuing support for a whole bunch of random resource management systems was a pretty good idea. More books should have done that. If you just looked at the way it's divide up, it's actually pretty well laid out. But the content that actually fills that layout is crappy.

[Dagroth]

The PrCs are all trash you won't touch with a ten foot pole (a grand total of none of them grant full casting),

Actually, I think there shouldn't be any PrC that gives full casting and majorly better benefits than just single-classing for a T1 class.

PrCs should be like Specialization. "Here, with this PrC you give up this... but you get this and this!" A PrC should focus a character, not just make it more powerful.

Of course, classes like Cleric & Sorcerer (and, to a lesser extent, Favored Soul) have no special benefit to single classing and that should be addressed. But for a Wizard, you're giving up bonus Metamagic Feats. If you get benefits that hugely outweigh that, then you shouldn't get full-casting as well. If you're giving "something different, but only slightly better", then full casting is okay.

Now many PrCs go the opposite way and give meh benefits while not giving full casting. While others (I'm looking at you, Abjurant Champion) give "OMG! Benefits! and full casting too!"

Now, Multi-classes PrCs that you can't just Feat-tax your way in to (like requiring both Divine & Arcane spellcasting, or requiring "lay-on-hands" and Evasion" should have full or 9/10 casting.

Incantatrix is broken because it gives such a huge number of benefits with only a tiny drawback that the only reasons not to take the class as a Wizard are that you were going for a very specific build or the class is banned.

Lastly... no class, PrC or Base-class, should be front-loaded. If everyone thinks low-level adventuring is super-tough, then there needs to be a fix for all adventurers, not all (or even most) classes. Give PCs +5 base hit points. Give PCs +1 BAB just because they're PCs. Stop front-loading classes (and get rid of multi-classing penalties) and everything takes care of itself.

[Cosi]

Actually, I think there shouldn't be any PrC that gives full casting and majorly better benefits than just single-classing for a T1 class.

I disagree for a variety of reasons.

The most obvious reason is that practically, full casting PrCs are already have much better class features than non-full casting PrCs do. Even "fair" full casting PrCs like Mage of the Arcane Order or Loremaster grant better class features than classes like Acolyte of the Skin or Green Star Adept. Of course, you could nerf the Mage of the Arcane Order down to 5/10 casting or something. But in generally I think nerfs are worse than buffs for the game. If the problem is that Mage of the Arcane Order is much better than Green Star Adept (but not itself broken), then you should buff Green Star Adept.

The second practical reason is that while PrCs do grant casters more power, it is generally less power than they get from simply casting good spells. The difference between a Wizard/Divine Oracle and a Wizard (or even a Wizard/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil) and a Wizard is probably smaller than the difference between a Wizard abusing planar binding and a Wizard not doing that (or even a Wizard that casts stinking cloud and one that casts fireball instead). As such, bumping Wyrm Wizard or Mindbender up to full casting is unlikely to be problematic in a world where Wizards are not themselves problematic.

So practically, the power Wizards get from PrCs is simply not all that much of a concern, both relative to existing PrCs and relative to the raw power of the Wizard.

But there are also theoretical problems.

Primary among these is the fact that the benefits gained from a PrC level that gives up casting are constant, while the cost of that level of casting is variable. Going from 5th level to 6th level without gaining the associated level of Wizard casting costs you a 3rd level spell slot and a 2nd level spell slot (plus a caster level, and some spells known, and other various sundries). On the other hand, once you get to 15th level that forgone caster level is costing you access to 8th level spells (and the associate 8th level spell slot or slots), and a 5th level spell slot (plus all those sundries from before). Obviously, those costs are not equal, but whatever benefit the PrC gives you is the same as it once back at 6th level. Obviously, this is imbalanced at some point.

There are solutions to this of course. You could ignore the problem and brand it as "power now for power later", but that breaks if campaigns end before benefits are accrued or start after they lapse. You could give a scaling benefit, but that's a very hard target to hit. If you're willing to abandon the notion of charging people caster levels for their abilities, you can force people to give up spell slots -- a (largely) constant cost -- for the constant benefits their levels give them. That does, of course, present the problem of requiring that PrCs be revised wholesale.

The other theoretical problem is that demanding people give up their casting prowess for PrCs creates skewed incentives. We would like people to play a wide variety of different characters, in terms of both fluff and crunch. But if you force people to choose between power and variety, some people will choose power (indeed, it is in many ways the rational choice), and characters will therefore be more boring. This is amplified by the total dearth of abilities provided to most full casters (we can observe that the Druid gets abilities, and consequentially is less likely to PrC). Given that PrCs are generally very small power ups, it may be better overall to accept a small power boost for Wizards and Clerics to increase the variety of characters.

This too is fixable. You could make PrCs perfectly balanced against base classes (but this is very hard). You could force people to PrC (but this is not very fun). You could give base classes more class features (but then you've increased the cost of PrCs, and don't need to worry that they are too appealing).


Lastly... no class, PrC or Base-class, should be front-loaded. If everyone thinks low-level adventuring is super-tough, then there needs to be a fix for all adventurers, not all (or even most) classes. Give PCs +5 base hit points. Give PCs +1 BAB just because they're PCs. Stop front-loading classes (and get rid of multi-classing penalties) and everything takes care of itself.

I largely agree, but I would tweak the position somewhat. Classes should not be front-loaded, but characters should be. This achieves two things that are desirable. First, it accounts for the fact that classes can be reasonably expected to start out with a larger package of abilities than they get at each level. Second, it gives more breathing room at the bottom to avoid Commoner v Cat scenarios. I would suggest starting somewhere between 3rd and 5th level, or giving out free NPC levels to PC classed characters.

[Mehangel]

I will also vote that the best balanced 1st-party splatbook for 3.5 is Tome of Battle. That is not to say that books like Dragon Magic or Complete Scoundrel aren't also good, but I find that nearly everything in Tome of Battle is balanced against itself, and in a good way.

[Dagroth]

I disagree for a variety of reasons.

The most obvious reason is that practically, full casting PrCs are already have much better class features than non-full casting PrCs do. Even "fair" full casting PrCs like Mage of the Arcane Order or Loremaster grant better class features than classes like Acolyte of the Skin or Green Star Adept. Of course, you could nerf the Mage of the Arcane Order down to 5/10 casting or something. But in generally I think nerfs are worse than buffs for the game. If the problem is that Mage of the Arcane Order is much better than Green Star Adept (but not itself broken), then you should buff Green Star Adept.

The second practical reason is that while PrCs do grant casters more power, it is generally less power than they get from simply casting good spells. The difference between a Wizard/Divine Oracle and a Wizard (or even a Wizard/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil) and a Wizard is probably smaller than the difference between a Wizard abusing planar binding and a Wizard not doing that (or even a Wizard that casts stinking cloud and one that casts fireball instead). As such, bumping Wyrm Wizard or Mindbender up to full casting is unlikely to be problematic in a world where Wizards are not themselves problematic.

So practically, the power Wizards get from PrCs is simply not all that much of a concern, both relative to existing PrCs and relative to the raw power of the Wizard.

But there are also theoretical problems.

Primary among these is the fact that the benefits gained from a PrC level that gives up casting are constant, while the cost of that level of casting is variable. Going from 5th level to 6th level without gaining the associated level of Wizard casting costs you a 3rd level spell slot and a 2nd level spell slot (plus a caster level, and some spells known, and other various sundries). On the other hand, once you get to 15th level that forgone caster level is costing you access to 8th level spells (and the associate 8th level spell slot or slots), and a 5th level spell slot (plus all those sundries from before). Obviously, those costs are not equal, but whatever benefit the PrC gives you is the same as it once back at 6th level. Obviously, this is imbalanced at some point.

There are solutions to this of course. You could ignore the problem and brand it as "power now for power later", but that breaks if campaigns end before benefits are accrued or start after they lapse. You could give a scaling benefit, but that's a very hard target to hit. If you're willing to abandon the notion of charging people caster levels for their abilities, you can force people to give up spell slots -- a (largely) constant cost -- for the constant benefits their levels give them. That does, of course, present the problem of requiring that PrCs be revised wholesale.

The other theoretical problem is that demanding people give up their casting prowess for PrCs creates skewed incentives. We would like people to play a wide variety of different characters, in terms of both fluff and crunch. But if you force people to choose between power and variety, some people will choose power (indeed, it is in many ways the rational choice), and characters will therefore be more boring. This is amplified by the total dearth of abilities provided to most full casters (we can observe that the Druid gets abilities, and consequentially is less likely to PrC). Given that PrCs are generally very small power ups, it may be better overall to accept a small power boost for Wizards and Clerics to increase the variety of characters.

This too is fixable. You could make PrCs perfectly balanced against base classes (but this is very hard). You could force people to PrC (but this is not very fun). You could give base classes more class features (but then you've increased the cost of PrCs, and don't need to worry that they are too appealing).



I largely agree, but I would tweak the position somewhat. Classes should not be front-loaded, but characters should be. This achieves two things that are desirable. First, it accounts for the fact that classes can be reasonably expected to start out with a larger package of abilities than they get at each level. Second, it gives more breathing room at the bottom to avoid Commoner v Cat scenarios. I would suggest starting somewhere between 3rd and 5th level, or giving out free NPC levels to PC classed characters.

Actually, I agree that Green Star Adept and Acolyte of the Skin are under-powered... But that's not my point.

If a PrC gives significantly better abilities than (effectively) 2 Bonus Metamagic Feats (what a Wizard would be giving up... and what a Sorcerer should get)... then it should not have full casting. Perhaps 9/10 or 8/10 Casting.

I could see GSA & AotS being 8/10 or possibly (but doubtfully) 9/10 (and Dragon Disciple being 7/10 or 8/10) casting with the 10th level not advancing casting... you would have to choose between gaining the capstone or gaining more spells.

I also think that all pure-caster PrCs should always advance caster level, even on levels they don't advance spell-casting. Practiced Spellcaster should be for true multi-classers and classes (& PrCs) that get slowed or lowered spell-caster level progression. For example, an Ur-Priest, Suel Archanamach, Paladin or Monk/Sorcerer would make use of Practiced Spellcaster to improve their caster level... but a Wizard 6/Green Star Adept 5/Master Transmogrifist 5 should have a CL of 16 even if they only have spells as a 14th or 13th level Wizard.

[Cosi]

If a PrC gives significantly better abilities than (effectively) 2 Bonus Metamagic Feats (what a Wizard would be giving up... and what a Sorcerer should get)... then it should not have full casting. Perhaps 9/10 or 8/10 Casting.

Why not? Losing caster levels is very difficult to balance, PrCs are a fairly small percentage of caster power, and giving abilities at every level is better for both player experience and game play diversity. Why should the balance point for the Wizard be 80% dead levels?

[Jormengand]

I think the point is that wizard 20 should still be an option, and it isn't when there are full-casting PrCs which also give you a bunch of neat stuff. That is, there should be a trade-off for the extra neat stuff you get from PrCs. And losing one or even two caster levels isn't terrible (you can certainly get away with losing one or two manifester levels to get slayer or thrallherd, and I don't think anyone would hesitate to lose a level or two to take ten levels of incantatrix, say. Loremaster is a tougher sell.).

[Cosi]

I think the point is that wizard 20 should still be an option, and it isn't when there are full-casting PrCs which also give you a bunch of neat stuff.

But why? Is there some inherent reason why Wizard 20 being viable is more important than Wizard 10/Mindbender 10 or Wizard 10/Green Star Adept 10 being viable? As I see it, the goal is versatility of characters, and the solution "all PrCs that advance casting advance it fully" maximizes the number of viable builds without unacceptable power increases.

[Jormengand]

Wizard 20 being viable isn't more important than wizard 10/greenstar adept 10 being viable. They should both be viable. But making all PrCs progress casting fully (and thereby making wizard 20 absolutely pointless) isn't the answer. It might be part of the answer, alongside "Give wizard real class features of its own", but as-is, classes shouldn't be able to do everything the wizard does, and more.

[Beheld]

Wizard 20 being viable isn't more important than wizard 10/greenstar adept 10 being viable. They should both be viable. But making all PrCs progress casting fully (and thereby making wizard 20 absolutely pointless) isn't the answer. It might be part of the answer, alongside "Give wizard real class features of its own", but as-is, classes shouldn't be able to do everything the wizard does, and more.

If you make classes give up casting levels, then 99.9999999% of them aren't worth taking (at the level they give up casting, so probably level 1 of the PrC?) and then no one ever PrCs except when it's broken like Incantatrix, and then it's still broken and the game is broken. So either you have no PrCs, or you have broken PrCs, or you have people choosing to make their characters weaker in order to pay for RP benefits.

[Troacctid]

In any case, a balanced prestige class offers meaningful tradeoffs so that taking it is not just obviously better than not taking it, or vice versa. In that respect, the prestige classes in Dragon Magic are very well balanced IMO.

[Cosi]

Wizard 20 being viable isn't more important than wizard 10/greenstar adept 10 being viable. They should both be viable. But making all PrCs progress casting fully (and thereby making wizard 20 absolutely pointless) isn't the answer. It might be part of the answer, alongside "Give wizard real class features of its own", but as-is, classes shouldn't be able to do everything the wizard does, and more.

If you don't give PrCs full casting, they either have to be game breakingly absurd (like a hypothetical 8/10 Incantatrix) or they are worthless (like most partial casting classes) -- and even then, you have all the fixed benefit/variable cost problems. What's more, you are generally forcing people to choose between concept and power, which is a bad choice no matter which option they pick. The game where Wizard 20 is worthless, but there are a bunch of broadly viable Wizard builds is way better than the current state of the game, and is massively more achievable than the vision of people who want partial casting to dominate.

The choice is between "Wizard 20 is clearly better than PrC builds" or "PrC builds are clearly better than Wizard 20". It seems obvious to me that the second is the better choice.

[Dagroth]

Why not? Losing caster levels is very difficult to balance, PrCs are a fairly small percentage of caster power, and giving abilities at every level is better for both player experience and game play diversity. Why should the balance point for the Wizard be 80% dead levels?

A PrC shouldn't be "Wow, why wouldn't everyone take this? It's so much better than going straight Wizard!" A PrC should be "This will make my character different and cool... it's worth giving up a level of spells."

PrCs should offer abilities that you can't get by going single-class (whatever)... but they shouldn't be so good that single-class (whatever) is always the worse decision.

For example, the only reason not to take Church Inquisitor if you're a Cleric is... well, you can't meet the Alignment or Fluff requirements.

At least with Divine Oracle, there's a "dumb feat" tax and lower BAB. With Church Inquisitor it's "well, you've reached 4th level, time to be a Church Inquisitor" if you're LG or LN.

The only reason not to take Contemplative if you're a Cleric is... you're busy taking a different PrC, or you absolutely don't want the weak BAB (which you can cast a spell to ignore).

Sacred Exorcist? Same problem as Church Inquisitor! Heck, if you're a Sorcerer then finagling a way to get Knowledge Religion is worth the hassle so you can go Church Inquisitor!

Then you have Stormlord, which again at least has "dumb feat" taxes (though why Great Fortitude when Lightning Reflexes is more appropriate?)


So, I guess if there were enough of a "dumb feat" tax, I could see a PrC having full casting and slightly better abilities... but I'm generally against overly-burdensome "dumb feat" taxes.

[Dagroth]

If you don't give PrCs full casting, they either have to be game breakingly absurd (like a hypothetical 8/10 Incantatrix) or they are worthless (like most partial casting classes) -- and even then, you have all the fixed benefit/variable cost problems. What's more, you are generally forcing people to choose between concept and power, which is a bad choice no matter which option they pick. The game where Wizard 20 is worthless, but there are a bunch of broadly viable Wizard builds is way better than the current state of the game, and is massively more achievable than the vision of people who want partial casting to dominate.

The choice is between "Wizard 20 is clearly better than PrC builds" or "PrC builds are clearly better than Wizard 20". It seems obvious to me that the second is the better choice.

So a Wizard 10/Green Star Adept 10 (assuming GSA was 8/10) with a caster level of 20 and spellcasting of Wiz18 wouldn't be as powerful as, if not more powerful in many ways than, a Wizard 20? A Wizard 10/Incantatrix 10 (assuming Inc was 7/10) with a caster level of 20 and spellcasting of Wiz17 wouldn't be as powerful, if not more-so than a Wizard 20?

I contend that such options provide the kind of balance that makes the decision to go "concept over power" not such a big deal.

[Cosi]

In any case, a balanced prestige class offers meaningful tradeoffs so that taking it is not just obviously better than not taking it, or vice versa. In that respect, the prestige classes in Dragon Magic are very well balanced IMO.

Options people don't take don't have any effect on game balance. I don't think anyone is rushing to be a Wyrm Wizard or a Pact Bound Adept even in games that ban all other PrCs. Those may be "balanced" in some abstract sense of "fairness", but they are not practically meaningful.


A PrC should be "This will make my character different and cool... it's worth giving up a level of spells."

This cannot be true. If you give up a level of casting, that is a variable cost. It requires an immense effort to get that to be balanced for every PrC (essentially, you have to re-write all PrCs to give scaling abilities when they knock your caster level), at which point you could just write some Wizard abilities at have done. Declare that Wizards get Mage of the Arcane Order abilities for free from 6th to 15th, then Archmage abilities for free from 16th to 20th.


So a Wizard 10/Green Star Adept 10 (assuming GSA was 8/10) with a caster level of 20 and spellcasting of Wiz18 wouldn't be as powerful as, if not more powerful in many ways than, a Wizard 20? A Wizard 10/Incantatrix 10 (assuming Inc was 7/10) with a caster level of 20 and spellcasting of Wiz17 wouldn't be as powerful, if not more-so than a Wizard 20?

20th level is cheating because you don't lose 9th level spells for giving up even three levels of casting. Having stinking cloud while other people have cloudkill is absolutely underpowered.

[Beheld]

So a Wizard 10/Green Star Adept 10 (assuming GSA was 8/10) with a caster level of 20 and spellcasting of Wiz18 wouldn't be as powerful as, if not more powerful in many ways than, a Wizard 20? A Wizard 10/Incantatrix 10 (assuming Inc was 7/10) with a caster level of 20 and spellcasting of Wiz17 wouldn't be as powerful, if not more-so than a

I have to question why we care what a level 20 character looks like when the decision is being made at level 6. The choice isn't between 18th level wizard or 20th the choice is between getting EBT and wall of stone or not.

[noob]

Do the monster manual 1 counts as a splatbook?

[Troacctid]

Do the monster manual 1 counts as a splatbook?
Yes, but Monster Manual V is definitely more balanced.

[Beheld]

Do the monster manual 1 counts as a splatbook?

I assume that is core and therefore not splat. I do agree that if it were accepted as a splat it would be more balanced than any other book.

[Dagroth]

20th level is cheating because you don't lose 9th level spells for giving up even three levels of casting. Having stinking cloud while other people have cloudkill is absolutely underpowered.

So you're saying that Sorcerers are always underpowered compared to Wizards.


I have to question why we care what a level 20 character looks like when the decision is being made at level 6. The choice isn't between 18th level wizard or 20th the choice is between getting EBT and wall of stone or not.

Actually, as I have basically implied, I don't think PrCs should give up caster levels at level 1.

If GSR were a 8/10 PrC, it should give up caster levels at 5th & 10th (because, as I said, it should be a tradeoff between "do I get the capstone, or another level of spellcasting?")

So, let's assume most PrCs can be taking starting at 6th character level.

A Wizard to goes GSR (8/10) will have the exact same casting power as a regular Wizard up to level 9. Then he has to decide if he wants to slightly slow his caster progression to continue the class. Assuming he does, his Caster Level (under my proposed system) is still 10, his spells known and per day are as a 9th level Wizard. He's in the same boat as a Sorcerer, with slightly fewer spells per day but some nifty class abilities from GSR. Then he reaches level 14. He has to decide "do I want the Living Construct package & DR, or do I want 8th level spells right now instead of next level."

As an added bonus, it makes GSR a realistic option for a Bard, Hexblade or Duskblade... all of whom would get more out of the melee-centric bonuses GSR gives.

You are acting like I'm trying to cripple Spellcasters... A one level drop in spellcasting ability is not that significant. Especially when you're talking T1 classes who already overpower most things of equal CR after 5th level.

[Cosi]

So you're saying that Sorcerers are always underpowered compared to Wizards.

Yes? Is that controversial?


Actually, as I have basically implied, I don't think PrCs should give up caster levels at level 1.

That's the same as not giving up caster levels, except no one finishes PrCs.


You are acting like I'm trying to cripple Spellcasters... A one level drop in spellcasting ability is not that significant. Especially when you're talking T1 classes who already overpower most things of equal CR after 5th level.

This is not true unless you are doing fairly cheesy things. The Wizard that just lays down BFC is merely "good", not "broken". Also, there are plenty of monsters that are just casters. The Trumpet Archon is a CR 14 monster that is a 14th level Cleric and also an Archon.

[Beheld]

Yeah why not just write 4 level long prcs with no lost casting levels if that is your goal?

[noob]

Fatespinner is a 4 level prc with a bunch of flavorful effects that are quite worth the trade of one feat.
There is supposedly a fifth level but it is a trap(lose a caster level and gets a capstone that can have an use only if you are a npc(one time per day lower the save of one single target or boost it instead)).
fatespinner is a fair trade unless you plan to go in epic levels or are planning feat combos.(if you go in epic levels you need either straight wizard or a prc that progress caster level at each level and go to level 10)
Short prcs allow the players to take more prcs and thus make more choices and grab the effects they wants.

[Dagroth]

So you're saying that Sorcerers are always underpowered compared to Wizards.


Yes? Is that controversial?

Okay, would a Sorcerer with almost no limit to spells known, but slightly fewer spells per level per day be underpowered compared to a Wizard of equal level?

Is a Level 5 Wizard with Caster Level 6 really that much less powerful than a Level 6 Wizard?

In terms of a campaign, is a Wizard who misses one caster level and gains a bunch of other cool abilities really that much less powerful than a Wizard who doesn't miss a caster level?


This is not true unless you are doing fairly cheesy things. The Wizard that just lays down BFC is merely "good", not "broken". Also, there are plenty of monsters that are just casters. The Trumpet Archon is a CR 14 monster that is a 14th level Cleric and also an Archon.

A monster that is a 14th level Cleric is not as powerful long term as a 14th level Cleric PC. In fact, as I mentioned with Cleric PrCs, the only advantage the Archon has is stat bonuses (many of which the Cleric can make up with magic items... the Archon doesn't have PC WBL).

------

So the flip-side is to have all caster PrCs to be full-casting all the way through. No matter how powerful the benefit (like Rainbow Servant or Incantatrix)?

How do you intend to balance a Beguiler 10/Rainbow Servant 10 who is a 20th level Caster and can spontaneously cast every Cleric Spell (except the Evil ones) there is?

Do you put a ridiculous Feat Tax on every PrC so the weaker ones (like GSR & Acolyte of the Skin) can be taken at 6th level, but the more powerful ones can't be taken until 8th or 11th?

Do you make GSR's Feat Tax Combat Casting while Dragon Disciple's would be Great Fortitude & Lightning Reflexes?

Again... everyone talks about how Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards... but instead of even hinting that Wizards should be less powerful it's always "give melee more options". They did that and it still doesn't matter! I'm not even saying that PrCs should deny the highest levels of Wizard Power... just slow it down slightly.

[Beheld]

Okay, would a Sorcerer with almost no limit to spells known, but slightly fewer spells per level per day be underpowered compared to a Wizard of equal level?

Is a Level 5 Wizard with Caster Level 6 really that much less powerful than a Level 6 Wizard?

In terms of a campaign, is a Wizard who misses one caster level and gains a bunch of other cool abilities really that much less powerful than a Wizard who doesn't miss a caster level?



A monster that is a 14th level Cleric is not as powerful long term as a 14th level Cleric PC. In fact, as I mentioned with Cleric PrCs, the only advantage the Archon has is stat bonuses (many of which the Cleric can make up with magic items... the Archon doesn't have PC WBL).

------

So the flip-side is to have all caster PrCs to be full-casting all the way through. No matter how powerful the benefit (like Rainbow Servant or Incantatrix)?

How do you intend to balance a Beguiler 10/Rainbow Servant 10 who is a 20th level Caster and can spontaneously cast every Cleric Spell (except the Evil ones) there is?

Do you put a ridiculous Feat Tax on every PrC so the weaker ones (like GSR & Acolyte of the Skin) can be taken at 6th level, but the more powerful ones can't be taken until 8th or 11th?

Do you make GSR's Feat Tax Combat Casting while Dragon Disciple's would be Great Fortitude & Lightning Reflexes?

Again... everyone talks about how Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards... but instead of even hinting that Wizards should be less powerful it's always "give melee more options". They did that and it still doesn't matter! I'm not even saying that PrCs should deny the highest levels of Wizard Power... just slow it down slightly.

Slowing down power level is denying it. It's denying them power at every level that people actually play.

My solution would be to nerf Incantatrix, prevent early entry to Rainbow Servant, then make GSR and Acolyte of the skin full casting, and then, they would all be pretty much the same power. Maybe Acolyte is still too weak, so it won't be picked, but people can pick other classes instead or you can upgrade it I guess, if you really want an Acolyte of the skin in your life.

[Cosi]

Is a Level 5 Wizard with Caster Level 6 really that much less powerful than a Level 6 Wizard?

6th level is a bad example, because both Wizards cap at the same spell level. At 7th level? At 13th level? Yeah, being a level behind is a serious disadvantage.


In terms of a campaign, is a Wizard who misses one caster level and gains a bunch of other cool abilities really that much less powerful than a Wizard who doesn't miss a caster level?

That can't be balanced unless the abilities scale, because a lost spellcasting level costs you more as your level increases. You could balance spell slot costs.


So the flip-side is to have all caster PrCs to be full-casting all the way through. No matter how powerful the benefit (like Rainbow Servant or Incantatrix)?

Yes. Well, some stuff would need to be nerfed, but in general things should be full casting. It's easier to make them both balanced and appealing that way.


How do you intend to balance a Beguiler 10/Rainbow Servant 10 who is a 20th level Caster and can spontaneously cast every Cleric Spell (except the Evil ones) there is?

If you don't allow early entry (which you probably shouldn't, because it is dumb and makes balance harder for no real reason), the Beguiler/Rainbow Servant gets Cleric Spell Access at 16th level. It's good then, probably even overpowered, but that's the level where people have greater planar binding, so it's not a huge worry. Also, others will get their own PrC crap to bring them up some. Rainbow Servant is also less than ideal a lot of the time between when you get your first Prestige Domain and when you get Cleric Spell Access. Overall, probably fine, but the power curve needs smoothing.


Do you put a ridiculous Feat Tax on every PrC so the weaker ones (like GSR & Acolyte of the Skin) can be taken at 6th level, but the more powerful ones can't be taken until 8th or 11th?

I don't think imbalance between PrCs is that much of a concern. Mage of the Arcane Order is probably better than Green Star Adept, but they're both ultimately "some cool thematic stuff to add to your Wizard". I imagine some people will pick Green Star Adept because they think it is cool and it fills a niche, even if there are options that are "better", as long as it's pretty close.


Again... everyone talks about how Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards... but instead of even hinting that Wizards should be less powerful it's always "give melee more options". They did that and it still doesn't matter!

Tome of Battle failed because it didn't go far enough. What did martials get out of combat? Scent and healing, plus the Shadow Hand teleports. Flight at 15th level. They should have gotten things like "your shadow walks around and smacks people or spies for you" or "earthquake but huge". Even in combat the high level options are mediocre.

[Dagroth]

Slowing down power level is denying it. It's denying them power at every level that people actually play.

My solution would be to nerf Incantatrix, prevent early entry to Rainbow Servant, then make GSR and Acolyte of the skin full casting, and then, they would all be pretty much the same power. Maybe Acolyte is still too weak, so it won't be picked, but people can pick other classes instead or you can upgrade it I guess, if you really want an Acolyte of the skin in your life.

If you were playing a 5th level Duskblade and GSR & Dragon Disciple were both 8/10 PrCs (and DD didn't require spontaneous casting)... would you take either one? All the way to level 10?

If your answer is "yes"... then why should it be any different if you're playing a Wizard and Incantatrix was a 8/10 PrC?

[Beheld]

If you were playing a 5th level Duskblade and GSR & Dragon Disciple were both 8/10 PrCs (and DD didn't require spontaneous casting)... would you take either one? All the way to level 10?

If your answer is "yes"... then why should it be any different if you're playing a Wizard and Incantatrix was a 8/10 PrC?

I would never play a Duskblade in the first place? I mean, I don't know what class features Duskblades have, but it sounds like I would take 4 levels of GSR and 4 levels of Dragon Disciple, but again, I would never play Duskblade because that's giving up power for garbage that isn't worth it.

[zergling.exe]

Can we stop arguing about PrCs and argue about book balance? Make a new thread if you want to talk about PrCs.

[neriractor]

I would never play a Duskblade in the first place? I mean, I don't know what class features Duskblades have, but it sounds like I would take 4 levels of GSR and 4 levels of Dragon Disciple, but again, I would never play Duskblade because that's giving up power for garbage that isn't worth it.

Well, if you prefer power over all else, and your measure for power is wizard then yes, anything that is a downgrade from wizard would seem like a worthless underpowered optionTM, is one of the subjective things about balance that people seem to gloss over when arguing.

[Dagroth]

Well, if you prefer power over all else, and your measure for power is wizard then yes, anything that is a downgrade from wizard would seem like a worthless underpowered optionTM, is one of the subjective things about balance that people seem to gloss over when arguing.

Yeah, hard to argue with the guy who says "Wiz 20 or death!". I think he'd be disappointed in Wiz 18+Clr 16 casting!

[Beheld]

Yeah, hard to argue with the guy who says "Wiz 20 or death!". I think he'd be disappointed in Wiz 18+Clr 16 casting!

I would prefer Wizard 11 to Wizard 9/Cleric7.

Have you ever played at level 20 ever?

[Thaneus]

Normally i would not interfere in such obvious 1st WW situation where both side throw grenades and bullets at each other but have no effect because of being in cover in the trenches, but it is all about the view of YOUR game.
When you change the point of view to the actual power even some of the worse PrC out there have from the perspective of a commoner it is still ridicules strong, not in the spheres of godly magic but still insanely powerful.
If YOUR game revolves more about political play and less demon-slaying there is more value in PrC and other classes then for hack and slashing (yes i know a wizard can this and that and stuff) but basically a shifted priority.
I understand the Powergamer who say: "Pff why would I take this Perc with a 100dmg 120' AoE with reflex halve? and it needs a full round to cast? blegh crap **** when i loose 2 CL" and player who goes more about role playing: "man he can eradicate a town or armys in less then 2 minutes... that's insanely powerful". When the 90% interaction is with normal ppl and character and the toughest guy around is the leading guild wizard (level 8) and the kings guard captain (level 9) and the rest of town is all level 1 commoner or expert then these skills of mass destruction become a whole other dimension of a threat or help.
When jumping around dimensions and slaying angels and demons alike the story is a whole other matter again.

I hope i get this through with those examples... there is fun to play a "crap" PrC/Class on its own when the party and the world is in tune with it.

[Cosi]

If you were playing a 5th level Duskblade and GSR & Dragon Disciple were both 8/10 PrCs (and DD didn't require spontaneous casting)... would you take either one? All the way to level 10?

Probably not because the Duskblade doesn't get the ability to use their channeling on extra attacks until 13th level because the people who wrote it were morons (it really, really should have been "channel on as many attacks as you get" from 1st level).


Well, if you prefer power over all else, and your measure for power is wizard then yes, anything that is a downgrade from wizard would seem like a worthless underpowered optionTM, is one of the subjective things about balance that people seem to gloss over when arguing.

The only time the power of PrCs matters is in the hands of power gamers. If you are picking your options for flavor reasons, then you don't lose anything if the PrC gives full casting. In fact, that's better for the game because you aren't hurting the ability of power gamers to succeed at their goals.

[Dagroth]

I would prefer Wizard 11 to Wizard 9/Cleric 7.

Have you ever played at level 20 ever?

I ran the Savage Tide adventure path. The party succeeded without ever needing 9th level spells.

My most recent character was a level 14 Crusader/Cleric/Divine Disciple with +2 ECL, casting as a 11th level Cleric with 15 DR/Magic (great in a dungeon, since very few monsters overcome it) & DMM-Persist. The most effective character in the party was the level 16 Half-Elf Duskblade.

A previous character was a Beguiler/Favored Soul/Mystic Theurge/Dread Witch who focused on Intimidation & Fear.

My group doesn't play High-OP... because it's boring. It's too easy making a 15th level Wizard and basically control the game. Uber-chargers are dull and unimaginative.

We've all done the "cosmic power" thing. We've played "Epic Level" style games in the late 70's/early 80's back when we were kids and being "bad-ass" was "important".

[Cosi]

My group doesn't play High-OP... because it's boring. It's too easy making a 15th level Wizard and basically control the game. Uber-chargers are dull and unimaginative.

So to be clear, things you don't like shouldn't be in the game? If you don't want to play it, it doesn't belong in D&D? Because if that's not what you're saying, why does it matter to you if Incantatrix is 8/10 or 10/10 or 4/10, when you aren't playing for power?

[JNAProductions]

So to be clear, things you don't like shouldn't be in the game? If you don't want to play it, it doesn't belong in D&D? Because if that's not what you're saying, why does it matter to you if Incantatrix is 8/10 or 10/10 or 4/10, when you aren't playing for power?

No, he's saying that things that 100% pure benefit are bad design. If you're going for pure power, which gets dull fast, there's no reason to consider ANYTHING else. In a better system, there'd be tradeoffs.

[Dagroth]

So to be clear, things you don't like shouldn't be in the game? If you don't want to play it, it doesn't belong in D&D? Because if that's not what you're saying, why does it matter to you if Incantatrix is 8/10 or 10/10 or 4/10, when you aren't playing for power?

Things I don't like aren't in my game. For example, most of Eberron.

Things that upset game balance shouldn't be in the game at all. I can't think of anyone who believes that Incantatrix is balanced compared to almost any other PrC, much less just not taking any PrC. There are extremely few people who believe that Acolyte of the Skin & Green Star Adept are balanced compared to other PrCs, much less just not taking any PrC.

Is it wrong to think that such balance could and should exist?

[neriractor]

The only time the power of PrCs matters is in the hands of power gamers. If you are picking your options for flavor reasons, then you don't lose anything if the PrC gives full casting. In fact, that's better for the game because you aren't hurting the ability of power gamers to succeed at their goals.

Touché my friend, that is a really good answer for my argument, you beat me fair and square.

[Cosi]

No, he's saying that things that 100% pure benefit are bad design. If you're going for pure power, which gets dull fast, there's no reason to consider ANYTHING else. In a better system, there'd be tradeoffs.

Is it wrong to think that such balance could and should exist?

Yes, in an ideal world, there would be reasonable trade-offs between PrCs and straight Wizard. But we don't live in that world. So we have to choose.

You can buff PrCs, and accept that people will look at the trade-offs between Wizard/Knight Phantom and Wizard/Green Star Adept rather than Wizard and Wizard/Green Star Adept. Honestly, that seems fine. You're looking at one less viable option (Wizard 20), in exchange for making dozens of PrCs more viable. If your concern is promoting trade-offs, that seems like a really good deal, particularly for the effort spent.

On the other hand, if you want to balance partial casters with Wizard 20, you have to solve all those problems I mentioned earlier (like the fact that you are paying a variable price for a constant reward), and you get only one more viable build out of that. How many balanced partial caster PrCs can you name? Not "I'd play this if I didn't care about power" but "I think this and Wizard 20 to be equally powerful over the course of a campaign".

Also, the whole "pure power is dull" thing is kind of annoying. It's the whole "role-playing versus roll-playing" canard all over again. But really, this is not all that much power. We're not talking about shapechange or planar binding here. We're talking about abilities like "construct immunities" and "DR 10/adamantine". Is "you have shapechange" and "you have shapechange and are also immune to critical hits" really the difference between "interesting" and "dull"?

[Dagroth]

So then what's the difference?

Why is it important to get 8th level spells at 15th character level instead of 16, if you get some other abilities you wouldn't have? Why is it so important to get 9th level spells at 17th character level instead of 19th, if you'd get a number of advanced abilities and metamagic feats (i.e. an Incantatrix with 8/10 casting advancement)?

Show me the CR 17 challenge that your party will fail to beat if you don't have 9th level wizard spells.

Heck, show me the CR 19 challenge that your party will fail to beat if you don't have 9th level wizard spells.

[Cosi]

Why is it important to get 8th level spells at 15th character level instead of 16, if you get some other abilities you wouldn't have? Why is it so important to get 9th level spells at 17th character level instead of 19th, if you'd get a number of advanced abilities and metamagic feats (i.e. an Incantatrix with 8/10 casting advancement)?

If you think it is easy to balance partial casting PrCs to Wizards, name some balanced partial casting PrCs. The fact that optimized builds rarely touch them would seem to suggest that it is very difficult to do this, particularly in conjunction with the inherent problems in such a scheme (variable cost, constant benefit).


Show me the CR 17 challenge that your party will fail to beat if you don't have 9th level wizard spells.

"The Party" is supposed to beat CR 17 challenges easily. A challenging fight for a 17th level party would be something like a Balor and some demonic minions. Given that the Balor alone has an at-will, no-save stun and can summon another Balor, that seems pretty nasty for a party without full casters.

[Dagroth]

If you think it is easy to balance partial casting PrCs to Wizards, name some balanced partial casting PrCs. The fact that optimized builds rarely touch them would seem to suggest that it is very difficult to do this, particularly in conjunction with the inherent problems in such a scheme (variable cost, constant benefit).

"The Party" is supposed to beat CR 17 challenges easily. A challenging fight for a 17th level party would be something like a Balor and some demonic minions. Given that the Balor alone has an at-will, no-save stun and can summon another Balor, that seems pretty nasty for a party without full casters.

1) I've already said that the partial casting 5/10 classes need to be buffed to 7/10 at least. I'm not even claiming that there are currently any "well balanced" PrCs... though there probably are.

2) Of course optimized builds rarely touch them, because there are unbalanced full-casting PrCs out there to grab! If none of the PrCs were unbalanced full-casting with maybe one or two that offered full-casting and some special thing with a equal drawback (I don't know it that well, but Master Specialist might fill the bill).

3) No-Save Stun? Huh, I can think of a couple of ways to get around that without needing 9th level spells... Summon another Balor? Huh, I can think of a couple of ways to stop that without needing 9th level spells. I dare say that a party composed of all Tier 3 characters at level 17 could beat a Balor, if they were playing a "fight demons" game.

Come on, where's the CR 19 encounter that can't be beat without 9th level spells? Heck, most mid-OP 17th level parties without 9th level spells can beat CR 19 encounters.

[Beheld]

3) No-Save Stun? Huh, I can think of a couple of ways to get around that without needing 9th level spells... Summon another Balor? Huh, I can think of a couple of ways to stop that without needing 9th level spells. I dare say that a party composed of all Tier 3 characters at level 17 could beat a Balor, if they were playing a "fight demons" game.

"If for some reason we are fighting this specific thing, and we build our characters for it, and know in advance we are fighting it, we can totally beat this creature that we are supposed to be able to beat without having that information!"


Come on, where's the CR 19 encounter that can't be beat without 9th level spells? Heck, most mid-OP 17th level parties without 9th level spells can beat CR 19 encounters.

A level 1 Commoner can beat everything in the MM with a Candle of Invocation. There's "can't" and there's "won't."

In practice, your Tier 3 party and/or several spellcasting levels behind casters will lose. The fact that at level 17 you can cast Greater Planar Binding and have 50 Pit Fiends fight whatever monster we pull out for you is not relevant to the fact that no one is going to lose spellcasting levels at level 5 or 10, and if you postpone them out to level 17 then who cares because no one will ever get that high (and when they do, the game is a joke.)

[Cosi]

1) I've already said that the partial casting 5/10 classes need to be buffed to 7/10 at least. I'm not even claiming that there are currently any "well balanced" PrCs... though there probably are.

So if in all the printed PrCs, you can't find an example of one that's balanced, why should we expect to produce enough balanced PrCs to generate a diverse set of viable builds? If we're going to go to the effort of crawling every single PrC to figure out a way to solve the problem of giving it a balanced amount of casting progression, wouldn't it be simpler to just give Wizard 20 more abilities?


2) Of course optimized builds rarely touch them, because there are unbalanced full-casting PrCs out there to grab! If none of the PrCs were unbalanced full-casting with maybe one or two that offered full-casting and some special thing with a equal drawback (I don't know it that well, but Master Specialist might fill the bill).

If people are making trade-offs between Incantatrix and Shadowcraft Mage, why is that inherently worse than making trade-offs between Wizard and Incantatrix?


3) No-Save Stun? Huh, I can think of a couple of ways to get around that without needing 9th level spells... Summon another Balor? Huh, I can think of a couple of ways to stop that without needing 9th level spells. I dare say that a party composed of all Tier 3 characters at level 17 could beat a Balor, if they were playing a "fight demons" game.

It's actually a no-save AoE daze effect (at-will blasphemy). If you are so confident this can be done, you should do it, or at least be more specific than "I can totally figure out how to do this". Run up a party of characters with abilities less powerful than 9th level spells that can consistently beat:

1. A Balor.
2. A CR 20 Dragon (your choice of CR 20 dragon from the SRD).
3. A 20th level Wizard.
4. A pair of Nightcrawlers.
5. Eight Trumpet Archons.

[Dagroth]

So if in all the printed PrCs, you can't find an example of one that's balanced, why should we expect to produce enough balanced PrCs to generate a diverse set of viable builds? If we're going to go to the effort of crawling every single PrC to figure out a way to solve the problem of giving it a balanced amount of casting progression, wouldn't it be simpler to just give Wizard 20 more abilities?

If people are making trade-offs between Incantatrix and Shadowcraft Mage, why is that inherently worse than making trade-offs between Wizard and Incantatrix?

It's actually a no-save AoE daze effect (at-will blasphemy). If you are so confident this can be done, you should do it, or at least be more specific than "I can totally figure out how to do this". Run up a party of characters with abilities less powerful than 9th level spells that can consistently beat:

1. A Balor.
2. A CR 20 Dragon (your choice of CR 20 dragon from the SRD).
3. A 20th level Wizard.
4. A pair of Nightcrawlers.
5. Eight Trumpet Archons.

1) So to balance the game we should... make the pre-eminent Tier-1 class even more powerful? :smallconfused:

2) Trading off between two overpowered choices when there are dozens of choices in total is not game balance. Making as many of the choices as possible balanced without being overpowered is game balance.

3.1) Blasphemy is a Sonic spell, so easily beaten by Silence. Casting Silence on your melee types protects them completely. Also beaten by Iron Heart Surge (in a non-broken way). Greater Spell Immunity (8th level Cleric spell). Spell Like Abilities provoke Attacks of Opportunity & Mage Slayer prevents casting defensively. Even Spell Resistance (5th level Cleric spell) gives you a 45% chance of ignoring the spell when cast by a 17th level Cleric.

Oh, and unless your DM is just throwing random stuff at you... you're not going to just run into a Balor unless you've been fighting Demons for at least a few levels.

What 9th level spell (besides Wish) beats At-Will Blasphemy better than the examples I've given?

3.2) Dragons can be tough unless your party also all flies (easy to do) but Energy Immunity (6th level Cleric/Druid Spell) makes the breath weapon of evil dragons pointless. Heck, even a good Resist Energy coupled with Protection from Energy can reduce the damage quite a bit.

3.4) The saves on the Nightcrawler's abilities are laughable to a well-equipped Level 17 party. A Cleric that is half-way prepared to help his party fight undead makes a Nightcrawler (or two) an easy enemy. The only thing that makes them dangerous is the Swallow Whole ability and Freedom of Movement is considered one of the most important things to have after 15th level (and often sooner).

3.5) That would be a tough fight because of numbers... unless you've got an Evil Cleric (& evil party) who can just Blasphemy them. :smalltongue:

I skipped the Wizard encounter because the moment I start taking it apart people are going to scream that the Wizard "would be more prepared than that" or "would have better spells prepared", etc.

Note that I'm not even reaching for the cheese.

[Particle_Man]

One balancing factor house rule I heard of is to require one non-caster level for every caster level one has. So one would be, for instance, a wizard 5/rogue 5 rather than a wizard 10.

That might make Green Star Adept more tempting, since one can't advance too many caster levels anyhow.

[Beheld]

1) So to balance the game we should... make the pre-eminent Tier-1 class even more powerful? :smallconfused:

2) Trading off between two overpowered choices when there are dozens of choices in total is not game balance. Making as many of the choices as possible balanced without being overpowered is game balance.

3.1) Blasphemy is a Sonic spell, so easily beaten by Silence. Casting Silence on your melee types protects them completely. Also beaten by Iron Heart Surge (in a non-broken way). Greater Spell Immunity (8th level Cleric spell). Spell Like Abilities provoke Attacks of Opportunity & Mage Slayer prevents casting defensively. Even Spell Resistance (5th level Cleric spell) gives you a 45% chance of ignoring the spell when cast by a 17th level Cleric.

Oh, and unless your DM is just throwing random stuff at you... you're not going to just run into a Balor unless you've been fighting Demons for at least a few levels.

What 9th level spell (besides Wish) beats At-Will Blasphemy better than the examples I've given?

3.2) Dragons can be tough unless your party also all flies (easy to do) but Energy Immunity (6th level Cleric/Druid Spell) makes the breath weapon of evil dragons pointless. Heck, even a good Resist Energy coupled with Protection from Energy can reduce the damage quite a bit.

3.4) The saves on the Nightcrawler's abilities are laughable to a well-equipped Level 17 party. A Cleric that is half-way prepared to help his party fight undead makes a Nightcrawler (or two) an easy enemy. The only thing that makes them dangerous is the Swallow Whole ability and Freedom of Movement is considered one of the most important things to have after 15th level (and often sooner).

3.5) That would be a tough fight because of numbers... unless you've got an Evil Cleric (& evil party) who can just Blasphemy them. :smalltongue:

I skipped the Wizard encounter because the moment I start taking it apart people are going to scream that the Wizard "would be more prepared than that" or "would have better spells prepared", etc.

Note that I'm not even reaching for the cheese.

Don't tell me about how you would so totally hypothetically know exactly what you were facing in advance and then beat it with your hypothetical counters, run and actual test of your assumptions, or let me run one, whatever.


One balancing factor house rule I heard of is to require one non-caster level for every caster level one has. So one would be, for instance, a wizard 5/rogue 5 rather than a wizard 10.

That might make Green Star Adept more tempting, since one can't advance too many caster levels anyhow.

Do you also throw the entire monster manual in the trash when you start playing and never use it again?

[Cosi]

1) So to balance the game we should... make the pre-eminent Tier-1 class even more powerful? :smallconfused:

Well, yeah, actually. Consider what happens if you buff partial casting PrCs to full casting:

People who make their decisions based solely on power won't change their behavior because partial casting PrCs are not as good as e.g. Dweomerkeeper even if they give full progression. Their behavior didn't change, so this has no effect on imbalance.

People who make their decisions based solely on flavor won't change their behavior because they don't respond to power incentives. This doesn't have any inherent effect on balance, but if they were playing partial casters, it reduces imbalance because they are now closer to the power gamers.

Some people who make their decisions based on a mix of flavor and power will switch away from more powerful caster PrCs to (previously) partial caster PrCs because they can now justify the sacrifice in efficiency. This has an undetermined effect on imbalance, based on whether the equilibrium was closer to full caster PrCs or somewhere below it. In general, it seems reasonable to assume this reduces imbalance because the average power level is probably below that of full casting PrCs.

Some people who make their decisions based on a mix of flavor and power will switch away from non-casters to (previously) partial caster PrCs because they can now build casters that do what they want. The effects of this are indeterminate, but it likely reduces imbalance because their characters will move closer to the average power level of a group that includes full casters.

It does not seem at all unreasonable that this change, which at first appears to be very much "the rich get richer", would reduce the overall imbalance between characters.

Now you could achieve the same effect by reducing casting progression, but that is much harder to balance. To the point that it seems easier to simply provide Wizards with some new class features and reach the desired equilibrium that way.

Of course, you may be upset about imbalance between casters and non-casters, but "what should be done with caster PrCs" is not the place to address that. Solve problems where they arise, not in unrelated parts of the system. You want to make Fighters balanced with Wizards? Change Fighters and/or Wizards, not Wizard PrCs ("Wizard" and "Fighter" used throughout this as synonyms for "Caster" and "Non-Caster").


2) Trading off between two overpowered choices when there are dozens of choices in total is not game balance. Making as many of the choices as possible balanced without being overpowered is game balance.

What is overpowered? Why are Wizards overpowered, rather than Fighters being underpowered?


3.1) Blasphemy is a Sonic spell, so easily beaten by Silence. Casting Silence on your melee types protects them completely. Also beaten by Iron Heart Surge (in a non-broken way). Greater Spell Immunity (8th level Cleric spell). Spell Like Abilities provoke Attacks of Opportunity & Mage Slayer prevents casting defensively. Even Spell Resistance (5th level Cleric spell) gives you a 45% chance of ignoring the spell when cast by a 17th level Cleric.

That would be effective, except for the thing where the Balor also gets greater teleport and greater dispel magic at will.


Oh, and unless your DM is just throwing random stuff at you... you're not going to just run into a Balor unless you've been fighting Demons for at least a few levels.

That's fallacious. The Balor's CR doesn't go up if you haven't been fighting demons before, so you shouldn't have to assume that to beat it.


What 9th level spell (besides Wish) beats At-Will Blasphemy better than the examples I've given?

shapechange can give you immunity (by assuming a form with the [Evil] subtype), and some offensive options. Spells like wail of the banshee or weird are AoE save-or-dies that take out both the Balor and its buddy.


3.2) Dragons can be tough unless your party also all flies (easy to do) but Energy Immunity (6th level Cleric/Druid Spell) makes the breath weapon of evil dragons pointless. Heck, even a good Resist Energy coupled with Protection from Energy can reduce the damage quite a bit.

resist energy and protection from energy both last 10 mins/level, allowing the dragon to simply wait out your protection. It's more mobile than you, and can simply strafe you down if you don't have some way of forcing it to battle (of course, once you do force it to battle, it's still stronger than you and still has 5th to 7th level spells). If you employ energy immunity, it might simply use breath weapon substitution -- which is from the same book.

All this saying nothing of the possibility of fighting a metallic dragon that could just use its non-energy breath weapon.


3.4) The saves on the Nightcrawler's abilities are laughable to a well-equipped Level 17 party. A Cleric that is half-way prepared to help his party fight undead makes a Nightcrawler (or two) an easy enemy. The only thing that makes them dangerous is the Swallow Whole ability and Freedom of Movement is considered one of the most important things to have after 15th level (and often sooner).

Between the two of them, the Nightcrawlers walk in with an average of half a dozen Dread Wraith minions, plus deeper darkness, haste, and greater dispel magic support. You can probably expect to lose a couple of party members and/or be down a decent chunk of CON before it starts throwing around save-or-dies.

Of course, you very likely can't prepare for all of these at the same time. Maybe you get some lee-way for this being a boss fight, but I don't think that's guaranteed at all.


I skipped the Wizard encounter because the moment I start taking it apart people are going to scream that the Wizard "would be more prepared than that" or "would have better spells prepared", etc.

Try making a good faith effort instead.

[Dagroth]

You keep tossing out the idea of full-caster progression PrCs which I am saying would be either only slightly better than just going Wiz 20... or would have some other strong limitation to counteract any strong abilities it got besides full-caster progression.

It is the general consensus (not complete agreement, just general consensus) that Wizards are over-powered. A group of 4 Wizards after 11th level makes hash of any encounter that a standard party with only 1 Wizard would find tough and a party of only Tier 3 classes would find very challenging.

Wizard PrCs are actually part of the problem. Especially when you say that even losing one caster level is a significant drop in power.

If you want to make all the classes the same, go play 4th edition.

3.1) Every time the Balor is Greater Teleporting, he's not Blaspheming. And a Balor is easier to beat if your party has been fighting Demons for awhile and has geared up for fighting Demons. So you're right, a Balor's CR doesn't go up... but he's certainly harder to beat with a party that's focused on fighting Dragons or Undead.

PaO can give you the Evil subtype. No need for Shapechange. There are plenty of Save-or-Dies that are not 9th level, and the rest of your party can keep any other demons busy for a round or two, right?

3.2) A three hour wait time is pretty-much a separate encounter. Unless the Dragon knows when the party cast their buffs, he can't anticipate when he should come back. He's got to go well outside of Long Range (so more than 1000' yards), which means that the party will have enough time to put up another set of buffs while he's coming back. If it's indoors, he can't get away far enough to have the party's buffs run out.

3.4) Unless the Nightcrawlers know well before the party arrives, the undead minions aren't there at the beginning of the fight... heck, they might not arrive until after one or both are destroyed! 1-10 rounds can be the entire fight with a well-made party.

[Cosi]

You keep tossing out the idea of full-caster progression PrCs which I am saying would be either only slightly better than just going Wiz 20... or would have some other strong limitation to counteract any strong abilities it got besides full-caster progression.

Yes, that's a solution. But that solution is effort intensive. What's more, it only gets you one additional viable build -- Wizard 20. You're better off spending that effort fixing Fighters, or just pocketing it and watching TV.


It is the general consensus (not complete agreement, just general consensus) that Wizards are over-powered.

Argument ad populum.


A group of 4 Wizards after 11th level makes hash of any encounter that a standard party with only 1 Wizard would find tough and a party of only Tier 3 classes would find very challenging.

A party of four 11th level characters is supposed to easily beat a CR 11 encounter.


3.1) Every time the Balor is Greater Teleporting, he's not Blaspheming.

The point is that the Balor is more mobile than you are. You have no way of forcing it to battle, so you have to engage on its terms.


PaO can give you the Evil subtype. No need for Shapechange. There are plenty of Save-or-Dies that are not 9th level, and the rest of your party can keep any other demons busy for a round or two, right?

The rest of your party can't keep the Balor busy, because they are permanently dazed.


3.2) A three hour wait time is pretty-much a separate encounter. Unless the Dragon knows when the party cast their buffs, he can't anticipate when he should come back. He's got to go well outside of Long Range (so more than 1000' yards), which means that the party will have enough time to put up another set of buffs while he's coming back. If it's indoors, he can't get away far enough to have the party's buffs run out.

If you're preparing enough defensive buffs to last the whole day, you probably don't have enough offensive firepower to be much of a threat. In any case, you haven't really addressed what's supposed to happen when you manage to engage with something that is stronger than you, tougher than you, gets more attacks than you, and is also a high level Sorcerer.


3.4) Unless the Nightcrawlers know well before the party arrives, the undead minions aren't there at the beginning of the fight... heck, they might not arrive until after one or both are destroyed! 1-10 rounds can be the entire fight with a well-made party.

Sure, if you're willing to give up your buffs, the Nightcrawlers might not have their minions (of course, they can burrow and have 60ft Tremorsense, so they probably have the advantage of surprise and can wait for their minions to show).

[Beheld]

And a Balor is easier to beat if your party has been fighting Demons for awhile and has geared up for fighting Demons. So you're right, a Balor's CR doesn't go up... but he's certainly harder to beat with a party that's focused on fighting Dragons or Undead.

1) You clearly have no idea what high level play would actually look like, because everything you describe is low level play applied to high level monsters.

2) If you have to have several levels of advance knowledge of what you are going to face, you are going to lose in actual play. You don't get that. Balor's have Greater Teleport, you could fight one that had no intention of fighting you and didn't know you existed one round ago.

[Dagroth]

Cosi, I never said it was a CR11 encounter. In fact, I specifically implied it would be a higher CR encounter by saying that a party of 4 Tier 3 characters would be very challenged. Yet a party of 4 Wizards would curb-stomp said challenge.


1) You clearly have no idea what high level play would actually look like, because everything you describe is low level play applied to high level monsters.

2) If you have to have several levels of advance knowledge of what you are going to face, you are going to lose in actual play. You don't get that. Balor's have Greater Teleport, you could fight one that had no intention of fighting you and didn't know you existed one round ago.

Do you do much story-telling in your gaming? You know, where instead of random threats appearing randomly because... random, I guess?

Do you have Dragons randomly attack the party because "well, Dragons can fly and you're in an environment that might have Dragons so of course a Dragon would show up!"

Ever hear of the Savage Tide Adventure Path? Ran that.

Ever hear of the G/D/Q module series? Played that.

What's the difference between a Wizard-20 and a Wizard with a caster level of 20 but spells-per-day of an 18th level Wizard? 4 spells per day, two of which are 9th. And you two are whinging about the power loss!

[Cosi]

Cosi, I never said it was a CR11 encounter. In fact, I specifically implied it would be a higher CR encounter by saying that a party of 4 Tier 3 characters would be very challenged. Yet a party of 4 Wizards would curb-stomp said challenge.

Maybe you could be marginally more specific with your claims "some Wizards can beat some encounter that some group of other characters would be challenged more by" is almost certainly true, but is not particularly meaningful.


What's the difference between a Wizard-20 and a Wizard with a caster level of 20 but spells-per-day of an 18th level Wizard? 4 spells per day, two of which are 9th. And you two are whinging about the power loss!

First of all, 20th level is not the point. The point is like 7th level where they have evard's black tentacles and dimension door and you don't.

Second of all, if it's such a minor deal, why go to the effort of doing the additional work of making sure you haven't made any of the PrCs terrible or broken?

[Beheld]

Cosi, I never said it was a CR11 encounter. In fact, I specifically implied it would be a higher CR encounter by saying that a party of 4 Tier 3 characters would be very challenged. Yet a party of 4 Wizards would curb-stomp said challenge.

They really wouldn't stomp.


Do you do much story-telling in your gaming? You know, where instead of random threats appearing randomly because... random, I guess?

If all your enemies are perfectly telegraphed, then your story is pretty nonsensical.


What's the difference between a Wizard-20 and a Wizard with a caster level of 20 but spells-per-day of an 18th level Wizard? 4 spells per day, two of which are 9th. And you two are whinging about the power loss!

I have repeatedly stated that it doesn't matter what the balance is at level 20 because balance at 20 is nonsense. It's just also true that you have no idea how high level encounters are played with actual high level abilities.

[Dagroth]

Maybe you could be marginally more specific with your claims "some Wizards can beat some encounter that some group of other characters would be challenged more by" is almost certainly true, but is not particularly meaningful.

I think I made myself pretty specific... I'll add a little bold font to clarify.

A group of 4 Wizards after 11th level makes hash of any encounter that a standard party with only 1 Wizard would find tough and a party of only Tier 3 classes would find very challenging.


First of all, 20th level is not the point. The point is like 7th level where they have evard's black tentacles and dimension door and you don't.

Second of all, if it's such a minor deal, why go to the effort of doing the additional work of making sure you haven't made any of the PrCs terrible or broken?

Game balance. Any PrC that doesn't give you spellcasting at every level should give you something to make up for it... and there are things that make up for it on most builds. Maybe DR 10 & Construct Immunities aren't your thing... but then, why are Warforged so popular? Maybe becoming an Outsider isn't your thing... but then, why do all the Polymorph handbooks say being an Outsider is so much better?

[Coretron03]

Maybe becoming an Outsider isn't your thing... but then, why do all the Polymorph handbooks say being an Outsider is so much better?

Because you can use spells to get good effects. If your sacrificing something to make your spells better by sacrificing more power in spells your not actually any better.

[Cosi]

I think I made myself pretty specific... I'll add a little bold font to clarify.

No you didn't. You made a very strong claim, but you don't have any examples to back it up. What's an encounter that an 11th level party should not be able to easily beat, that a party of four 11th level Wizards easily beats which a party of four comparably optimized non-caster easily looses to?


Maybe DR 10 & Construct Immunities aren't your thing... but then, why are Warforged so popular?

Because they don't dock you two a spell level?


Maybe becoming an Outsider isn't your thing... but then, why do all the Polymorph handbooks say being an Outsider is so much better?

Because you get cool abilities without loosing casting?

[Particle_Man]

Do you also throw the entire monster manual in the trash when you start playing and never use it again?

You are engaging in hyperbole. The house rule for pcs worked fine with the monsters as is.

[Coretron03]

You are engaging in hyperbole. The house rule for pcs worked fine with the monsters as is.

I think beheld is reffering to the fact you probably won't be able to fight and win against your averwge monster manual enemies. Probably true because a fighter 5/wizard 5 is useless in melee and has cruddy casting.

[Cosi]

I think there's a tendency on this forum to underestimate the power the CR rules indicate you're supposed to have. People seem to thing "level appropriate" means "a party of four has a fighting chance against a monster of CR = Level", when the rule is actually "a single character has a 50/50 shot against a monster of CR = level".

Also, probably a lot more assumed optimization and monsters played a lot worse.

[Beheld]

You are engaging in hyperbole. The house rule for pcs worked fine with the monsters as is.

With Monsters? Maybe, although, maybe not. But certainly not with CR. If you run all your level 10 PCs against CR 5-6 enemies, sure, but if you run them against CR 10 enemies, then no.

More specifically, yes, I am engaging in hyperbole. I am hyperbolicaly pointing out that you are basically making a rule that requires you to rewrite and rebalance the entire Monster Manual, when it would have been a lot easier to rebalance the 5 PHB classes or 10-15 other classes to the level of CR, and then you can keep using the hundreds of monsters without having to rewrite them all.


Also, probably a lot more assumed optimization and monsters played a lot worse.

Indeed, I don't think I've seen even the barest hint of acknowledgement to how monsters actually end up in conflict with PCs, and how they fight.

[Metahuman1]

I'm gonna say Dragon Magic. Basically everything in it is at a reasonable, fair power level. It manages to have a lot of content without any of it being significantly underpowered or overpowered.

Monster Manual V is also very good.

Strongly disagree with Tome of Battle; it is definitely overpowered at low levels.

Strongly disagree with this sentiment. It gives you the idea that your warrior is in some manner competent at what he's suppose to be a specialist in at low levels rather then having to wait for level 6 or so to be able to actually matter under most circumstance's.

Twenty Kobolts is a threat. Now, however, I'm not worried that 2 of them are going to effortlessly either off me or make me look like a completely useless chump if they let me live.




anyway, Tome of Battle, Hands down, by a long shot for best balanced. Hell, the Crusader is tied for the Psi-Warrior for the perfectly mid tier 3 class, and it comes from a book that doesn't have The Psion in it.

[Jowgen]

I'm gonna say Dragon Magic. Basically everything in it is at a reasonable, fair power level. It manages to have a lot of content without any of it being significantly underpowered or overpowered.

Monster Manual V is also very good.

Strongly disagree with Tome of Battle; it is definitely overpowered at low levels.

I myself concur with this whole heartedly.

[Bakkan]

To complement the other thread, what 1st-party 3.5 splatbook is the one that is best balanced? The splatbook that has stuff that is not too powerful and not too weak?

I think that Tome of Battle is a contender. Its three base classes are tier 3/4 and while a few maneuvers (and a few prestige class abilities) need the loving touch of the editor's pen, overall I would say it is well done.

Note, you can add your thoughts on best-balanced 3rd party stuff too, as long as you also add your thoughts on the best-balanced 1st party splatbook.

The term balanced is meaningless in a vacuum, as are the terms too powerful and too weak. One way of asking the questions that might have an objective answer is "which book contains classes with the smallest spread between the strongest and weakest classes?" To this question, the facetious answer is Dungeonscape, since it contains only a single base class. More useful answers would be Complete Warrior and Tome of Battle, both of which contain classes and prestige classes that within each book fall in a pretty narrow range. Heroes of Horror is another possibility, with two base classes that differ by about one tier (in the JaronK/Jormengand/eggynack system).

I get the impression, however, that this may not be what you are asking, and instead are asking what book contains options that stay closest to some ideal power level or range of power levels. To make these comparisons, a standard by which to measure the books must be established. You could, for instance, say "what book contains options that are closest in power to class X?" where class X is the class that best represents your desired power level. On the other hand, you might ask "what book contains options that are the closest in power to your (the reader's) preferred power level?" In this case, you might get a wide variety of answers from people who prefer different power levels in play, though you might find agreement among many if there is a most common preferred power level.

I would have difficulty answering the latter question as I enjoy playing at a variety of power levels at different times. If forced to choose, I most prefer classes with high degrees of narrative control and so gravitate toward full casters, particularly those without limits on spells known. Thus Heroes of Horror would likely be my vote, as the other books that contain classes capable of Xanatos chess also contain options barely capable of Philip J. Fry checkers.

[Dagroth]

I think there's a tendency on this forum to underestimate the power the CR rules indicate you're supposed to have. People seem to thing "level appropriate" means "a party of four has a fighting chance against a monster of CR = Level", when the rule is actually "a single character has a 50/50 shot against a monster of CR = level".

Also, probably a lot more assumed optimization and monsters played a lot worse.

Huh... DMG page 48 says quite clearly: "A monster’s Challenge Rating (CR) tells you the level of the party for which that monster is a good challenge. A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th-level characters."

[Big Fau]

3.1) Every time the Balor is Greater Teleporting, he's not Blaspheming. And a Balor is easier to beat if your party has been fighting Demons for awhile and has geared up for fighting Demons. So you're right, a Balor's CR doesn't go up... but he's certainly harder to beat with a party that's focused on fighting Dragons or Undead.

Just want to say this: An ambush from a Balor consists entirely of it teleporting into range (40ft for the Blasphemy, Medium for the Greater Dispel Magic) and either mass-debuffing the party during the surprise round or just flat-out stunlocking the party. Silence lasts 1 minute per level, and can't be persisted by any means. The only consistent counter to this is Anticipate Teleportation, and that only works if the Balor teleports within a 60ft radius of the caster. Never mind that the Balor can also summon a second Balor prior to engaging the party.

Either you play "20 Questions with a God" to predict and counter this encounter, or you straight-up lose. And, for the record, getting Daze immunity isn't as important as getting immunity to the rest of the effects (the CL on the Balor's Blaspheme is 20, so an EL15 party is Dazed, Paralyzed, and Weakened; the Weaken alone can potentially eliminate a spellcaster with a low Str score).


3.2) A three hour wait time is pretty-much a separate encounter. Unless the Dragon knows when the party cast their buffs, he can't anticipate when he should come back. He's got to go well outside of Long Range (so more than 1000' yards), which means that the party will have enough time to put up another set of buffs while he's coming back. If it's indoors, he can't get away far enough to have the party's buffs run out.

You assume that a Dragon, at CR20, has to scout in person. A single casting of Project Image, cast from 270ft above the party, can not only wreak havoc but outright ignore True Seeing (allowing the Dragon in question to cloak with Greater Invisibility). A high-CR Dragon is a SPELLCASTER foremost; tanking is maybe tertiary at best. This battle isn't an easy one, as the Dragon has enormous tactical advantages over a party that's 5 levels below it. A majority of the fight against it can be simply fighting Summoned/Gated minions while the Dragon is invisible.


3.4) Unless the Nightcrawlers know well before the party arrives, the undead minions aren't there at the beginning of the fight... heck, they might not arrive until after one or both are destroyed! 1-10 rounds can be the entire fight with a well-made party.

This thing has an Int of 20. Invisibility at-will, CL25 Greater Dispel Magic, Summon Undead, you've got the same situation as the Dragon. It just calls out minions then throws a Dispel to break its invisibility and commands the Wraiths to gank the biggest threat during the surprise round.

[Beheld]

Huh... DMG page 48 says quite clearly: "A monster’s Challenge Rating (CR) tells you the level of the party for which that monster is a good challenge. A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th-level characters."

.... Yes. And the CR is "appropriate" enough that a party is supposed to win 100% of the time against four of them a day, with no prior warning besides use of resources today.

An "appropriate" encounter is one the PCs win 100% of the time with a minor resource expenditure so they can move on to the next one.

So if you are treating a fight of your CR like a boss, that you fight one a day, or that you need advance knowledge of, then you are going to lose, because you are going to face four of them.

On the other hand, if you have an encounter with EL equal to Party level +4, that's an encounter the PCs are supposed to have a 50/50 chance against.

[Dagroth]

.... Yes. And the CR is "appropriate" enough that a party is supposed to win 100% of the time against four of them a day, with no prior warning besides use of resources today.

An "appropriate" encounter is one the PCs win 100% of the time with a minor resource expenditure so they can move on to the next one.

So if you are treating a fight of your CR like a boss, that you fight one a day, or that you need advance knowledge of, then you are going to lose, because you are going to face four of them.

On the other hand, if you have an encounter with EL equal to Party level +4, that's an encounter the PCs are supposed to have a 50/50 chance against.

Let's see what the DMG has to say about that...



Challenging EL equals that of party
Most encounters seriously threaten at least one member of the group in some way. These are challenging encounters, about equal in Encounter Level to the party level. The average adventuring group should be able to handle four challenging encounters before they run low on spells, hit points, and other resources. If an encounter doesn’t cost the PCs some significant portion of their resources, it’s not challenging.

Very difficult EL 1–4 higher than party level
One PC might very well die. The Encounter Level is higher than the party level. This sort of encounter may be more dangerous than an overpowering one, because it’s not immediately obvious to the players that the PCs should flee.

Overpowering EL 5+ higher than party level
The PCs should run. If they don’t, they will almost certainly lose. The Encounter Level is five or more levels higher than the party level.

Huh... wrong again.

What's really funny is that you're giving reasons why these CR 20 encounters should win without giving any reason why a Level 20 party would win.

[Cosi]

Huh... wrong again.

How is that not exactly what Beheld said? You're supposed to handle four EL = APL encounters a day. You're supposed to struggle with an individual encounter of above APL.


What's really funny is that you're giving reasons why these CR 20 encounters should win without giving any reason why a Level 20 party would win.

Beheld is defending the position that you can't beat an EL 20 encounter at 20th level with a party without full casters. It is not incumbent upon him to provide reasons such a party would win.

[Beheld]

Let's see what the DMG has to say about that...



Huh... wrong again.

What's really funny is that you're giving reasons why these CR 20 encounters should win without giving any reason why a Level 20 party would win.

????

1) It very specifically says the thing that I said about challenging encounters.

2) I'm not talking about CR 20 encounters and CR, because, if you were capable of keeping track of multiple different posters at once, you would see that I repeatedly said that balance and CR at high levels are meaningless, because the game breaks down. I'm merely pointing out that your explanations of counters and plans and advance warning proves that you see high level as just low level with bigger numbers.

I mean, the reason a level 20 party will win, is because they are literally a bunch of astral projections, and the Balor doesn't know where they are, so even if he does kill them, they will just wake up, travel to another plane if necessary, and then Gate the specific Balor that just killed them into their a circle of the party, and order him to stand still and do nothing while they kill him.


Beheld is defending the position that you can't beat an EL 20 encounter at 20th level with a party without full casters. It is not incumbent upon him to provide reasons such a party would win.

Technically, I'm not, I just said he doesn't seem to understand what high level play looks like. I think CR, balance, the entire game, and the concept of playing it breaks down somewhere between 11th and 15th level.

By level 15, the concept of CR and encounters is meaingless, since you can literally just order an army of Pit Fiends to kill anything you want to fight.

That said, it still matters if you are behind and or bad classes in the 5-10 zone. (Or the 11-14 zone if you don't break the game at level 11 with Glabrezu armies).

[Particle_Man]

More specifically, yes, I am engaging in hyperbole. I am hyperbolicaly pointing out that you are basically making a rule that requires you to rewrite and rebalance the entire Monster Manual, when it would have been a lot easier to rebalance the 5 PHB classes or 10-15 other classes to the level of CR, and then you can keep using the hundreds of monsters without having to rewrite them all.

I didn't make the rule, I discovered it.

Since I don't believe CR is that accurate for monsters anyhow, I don't worry too much about monster CR and can just see what works and what doesn't. I imagine the DMs that use the "half-caster" rule do the same. Since my goal would be not having one member of the party hog the spotlight (while also not having everyone play the equivalent of Tippyverse Wizards (hey if you can engage in hyperbole, so can I, right?) :smallsmile: , that goal is for me easier to achieve by implementing this rule. The wizard doesn't over-shadow the fighter if both are fighter/wizards.

Now if it turned out that the monsters at certain levels of CR are too powerful, sure, I would use less powerful monsters (or power down the monsters, or give the monsters the idiot-ball, etc.), why not? And if that means the party would get less xp, I would give them more xp to make up for it. That seems to me to be easier to deal with as DM than a party of Tippyverse wizards.

That said, the DM that used the rule didn't seem to find any of that necessary, so it may not be.

[Dagroth]

It's amazing how the two of you (Beheld & Cosi) seem to think that just because the game can be broken above Level 15, it must always be broken above level 15.

It's similar to the school of thought of "Anyone can buy a Candle of Invocation..."

The game doesn't have to be "Well, I Gate in a bunch of Solars!" "Well, I Wish for a dozen Seeking Arrows of Solar Slaying!" The mere fact that one of the playtest groups beat a Balor with sub-optimal tactics shows this.

The fact that Adventure Paths like Savage Tides, which take characters up to low-Epic levels, exist and have encounters that aren't meant to be solved with "I Gate in a bunch of Solars".

High Level AD&D is completely playable without an Tier 1 characters at all. If you can't see that, you're the ones playing a game different than the one AD&D was designed to be.

[Beheld]

It's amazing how the two of you (Beheld & Cosi) seem to think that just because the game can be broken above Level 15, it must always be broken above level 15.

It's similar to the school of thought of "Anyone can buy a Candle of Invocation..."

I think you missed something. "Anyone can buy a Candle of Invocation" doesn't mean "so therefore no one should play D&D." It means "So if you make statements on balanced based on the hypothetical maximum of each PC or class, then they are worthless, because the hypothetical maximum is nonsense." Likewise, the fact that the game breaks at or before level 15 just means that it's broken at level 15, it doesn't mean people are bad people for playing level 15.

That said, I don't know why you play level 20 Balors exactly the same as Orcs with (flaming) Greataxes. Seems easier to just play e6.

[Dagroth]

I think you missed something. "Anyone can buy a Candle of Invocation" doesn't mean "so therefore no one should play D&D." It means "So if you make statements on balanced based on the hypothetical maximum of each PC or class, then they are worthless, because the hypothetical maximum is nonsense." Likewise, the fact that the game breaks at or before level 15 just means that it's broken at level 15, it doesn't mean people are bad people for playing level 15.

That said, I don't know why you play level 20 Balors exactly the same as Orcs with (flaming) Greataxes. Seems easier to just play e6.

Again, read existing content. Read the Savage Tide adventure path.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Complete Adventurer. I can't recall anything insanely game-breaking in there. MoMF is a +1 tier to Wild Shape Ranger or Monk, but tier 4 --> 3 isn't that big of a deal. The base classes are on the weak side, but none are unplayably bad like Monk, Soulknife, or Samurai.

Really don't understand some of the ones getting so many votes...
XPH: Better balanced than spellcasting, maybe...arguably... Still has save or die, powers to obsolete entire combat styles or skills, scry-teleport-die, and campaign-wrecking divinations. And it has Soulknife, one of the few classes that makes Monk look not so bad, alongside the Psion.
Tome of Battle: I love the book, but WR Tactics can be chained and abused just as bad as 3.0 Haste and IH surge by RAW is one of the most stupidly OP things ever printed. The classes are fairly balanced against each other, but I don't think that was the intent of this thread...
Spell Compendium: It's a giant freebie grab bag to the most powerful classes in the game (especially for CoDzilla, since they automatically know their whole list, and Archivist, who gleefully plucks from all divine lists). Even if every single spell in it were well-balanced (and not all are), unless they're completely useless duplicates of what existing spells could do, the strongest classes in the game just got stronger and no one else gained much at all.

[Troacctid]

Spell Compendium: It's a giant freebie grab bag to the most powerful classes in the game (especially for CoDzilla, since they automatically know their whole list, and Archivist, who gleefully plucks from all divine lists). Even if every single spell in it were well-balanced (and not all are), unless they're completely useless duplicates of what existing spells could do, the strongest classes in the game just got stronger and no one else gained much at all.
I don't think that's entirely fair—Rangers, Paladins, and Assassins get a huge boost out of it.

[LordOfCain]

Saying Tome of Battle isn't balanced because two out of dozens of maneuvers isn't exactly fair. Plus, those both have REALLY easy fixes: don't let WRT chain and change what IHS effects. Everything else is very balanced and IMHO deserving of the best (not just most balanced) 3.5e book. But I am biased so... take my word with a grain of salt.