PDA

View Full Version : The Big Book of Fix-it



Ashheart
2008-04-20, 07:17 PM
I'm not sure if this thread belongs here or on homebrew so if it has been place wrongly; let me know.

The idea is this: There are a lot of books we gamers use, and most of them are splat.With the DMG and the later introduction of Complete Warrior, WotC gave new base classes and prestige classes.
While these have become a great addition to the game, many of them are broken, either in the under- or overpowerd sense of the word.

This Book will be our little efford to correct that mistake.

The plan I had is this: Let's make a list of the 20 most broken classes (chosen by popular vote), then compile a list of fixes, making some new ones along the way.The basis for comparison should be the PHB in my oppinion, since it is the most basic book. Using ToB for instance will make Fighter an underpowerd class, which would be kinda odd.

With this tool we could make going Soulknife 20 a good option, or make Master of the Sevenfold Veil a little less overshadowing.

So to begin with: Does anyone have a submission to the broken class list?

Ashheart
2008-04-20, 07:18 PM
save for the list

MeklorIlavator
2008-04-20, 07:21 PM
If your paragon of balance is the core rulebooks, this list is doomed. Seriously, of the 4 most broken base classes, 3 are in the PHB(Wizard, Cleric, Druid), with the artificer being the only one not found there. It also contains 2 of the worst regard classes out there(fighter and monk), with only the Complete Warrior Samurai and the Soulknife below them.

For a quick rule of thumb:
Full Casters beat everything else, and this will be your greatest challenge if you want to create balance withing the game using the rules instead of player/dm agreements.

Gralamin
2008-04-20, 07:48 PM
Agreed with MelkorIlavator. If we are going to fix the classes we want one class as a balanced point. I would say Psychic Warrior or Rogue.

Chronos
2008-04-20, 08:21 PM
And I think the first priority ought to be to balance core, before even considering any splatbooks. For some things from splatbooks, the proper way to balance it might be to just ban it altogether, but most things in core should probably remain in some form or another (you have to have wizards in some form for it to be a fantasy game, for instance).

Pirate_King
2008-04-20, 11:01 PM
wouldn't this technically go into homebrew? Anyhow, most of the imbalance comes from the breakability of the magic system in general, rather than specific classes, and that's something to limit or expand depending on the campaign in question.

Aquillion
2008-04-20, 11:12 PM
The real issue is balancing casting itself. I don't think there's any perfect way of doing this.

First, I should say that it isn't necessarily bad for casters to be powerful. Not every class has to be equally powerful at all things; I think that a generalist wizard should generally outshine almost everyone in terms of versatility, and should be able to do amazing things with their highest-level spells. (A rogue or bard should be able to compete for versatility, but they do get UMD.)

But this should be balanced with drawbacks that ensure that other people have roles as well; the mage should have to depend on the rest of their team, relying on (say) the rogue to avoid ambushes or traps and the fighter to protect them from melee, just as the rest of the party relies on the mage when they need a wall removed or time stopped.

I think that the most core problem with fighters vs. casters was expressed in something someone else mentioned in discussion of the ToB: Fighters can't do much with standard actions; they need full-round actions to full attack. By comparison, mages can absolutely rewrite reality with standard actions.

I think this is backwards. One of the most basic tropes of magic is that spellcasting takes time; you need to chant your mystic words or whatever, while the guy with a sword standing near you might reach you before your spell finishes. For this reason, I think that the situation should be reversed; full attacks should be standard actions, and the 'default' spell casting time should be full-round, with only a few spells faster than that. This also gives a chance to improve blasting spells; some of them could be left as standard actions, making 'run-and-gun' mages viable options.

Of course, changing full attacks to standard actions would require radical rebalancing from the ground up, so perhaps simply adding a [fighter] feat that grants pounce would be simpler; while not quite as major a change, it would end up with the same effect.

I would also remove defensive casting and most other abilities that let you avoid provoking an attack of opportunity when casting. A wizard should have to rely on the rest of the party to keep them safe (and with the previous change, making most spells full-round actions, they wouldn't be able to just cast while retreating, either.)

Finally, I would give most casting classes two key stats, one for spells known and one for improving spell DCs. The benefit a spellcaster gets from their current unified casting stat is just too big; forcing them to increase two stats to improve their casting would help a great deal and make most casters less SAD. Of course, this has the unfortunate side-effect of hurting gish casters (who certainly don't need the hit), so perhaps gish-specific base classes would still have one stat for both.

A few other broken spells might also have to be fixed, but I'd oppose reducing overall caster progressions. 9th-level spells are an important part of the game's flavor and, as I said, I see nothing wrong with wizards being overpowering when they cast their spells. Magic is powerful by nature, and telling the players that their opponent is a "legendary archmage" should always strike more fear into them than saying that he's a "legendary swordsman". But it's possible to have things like that, and still set it up so that success on the party's part requires major contributions from everyone; wizards can have extremely powerful abilities, and still rely on fighters and rogues to survive.

I've posted elsewhere that I don't think that wizards really render rogues as obsolete as some people claim they do (I completely disagree with the assertion that summons can find traps effectively, say -- that only works when every trap in your universe is a generic pit or tripwire trap, which isn't the case even in core.) The fact that most people consider rogues a balanced class (i.e. not obsolete at higher levels the way melee classes often are) backs this up -- even if people can put together theoretical builds and strategies to render rogues obsolete, in practice wizards are perfectly happy to rely on them, and they work smoothly. The problem is mostly with melee.

FlyMolo
2008-04-20, 11:15 PM
I like this idea, and +1 to Ashheart.

I assume the thing you're looking for is something like:

Soulknife: HD increase, full BAB
Psychic Warrior: Full BAB (See also, duskblade.)

Something like that? The above two look alright, although you could leave PsyWar alone and take Duskblade down to medium. It all depends where you leave the power bar.

Cleric should be wizard BAB. Really, there's no reason not to. No ASF, longer spell list, Turning, in exchange for metamagic? Not bad.

Lord Tataraus
2008-04-20, 11:17 PM
I'm not sure if this thread belongs here or on homebrew so if it has been place wrongly; let me know.

The idea is this: There are a lot of books we gamers use, and most of them are splat.With the DMG and the later introduction of Complete Warrior, WotC gave new base classes and prestige classes.
While these have become a great addition to the game, many of them are broken, either in the under- or overpowerd sense of the word.

This Book will be our little efford to correct that mistake.

The plan I had is this: Let's make a list of the 20 most broken classes (chosen by popular vote), then compile a list of fixes, making some new ones along the way.The basis for comparison should be the PHB in my oppinion, since it is the most basic book. Using ToB for instance will make Fighter an underpowerd class, which would be kinda odd.

With this tool we could make going Soulknife 20 a good option, or make Master of the Sevenfold Veil a little less overshadowing.

So to begin with: Does anyone have a submission to the broken class list?

Paizo's way ahead of you. (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG)

EvilElitest
2008-04-20, 11:22 PM
wouldn't this technically go into homebrew? Anyhow, most of the imbalance comes from the breakability of the magic system in general, rather than specific classes, and that's something to limit or expand depending on the campaign in question.

Hey why is my name in your sig?


Anyways, i think that the Expanded Psionics hand book should be a point of balence. Maybe ToB
from
EE

Nebo_
2008-04-20, 11:25 PM
Hey why is my name in your sig?


Because your enormous ego needs stroking.

Balancing from the PHB is doomed to fail. Find another standard.

EvilElitest
2008-04-20, 11:31 PM
Because your enormous ego needs stroking.

my ego is fine the way it is thank you very much


Balancing from the PHB is doomed to fail. Find another standard.
Which is why i said ToB or EPH
from
EE

Chronos
2008-04-21, 12:31 AM
Of course, this has the unfortunate side-effect of hurting gish casters (who certainly don't need the hit), so perhaps gish-specific base classes would still have one stat for both.Or maybe you could make the gish-type base classes have save DCs based on Strength. If I'm channeling a spell through my sword, then it makes sense that hitting you harder with the sword would make it harder to resist the spell.

And I agree 100% that spellcasting needs to be riskier, and that things like casting on the defensive basically remove the entire mechanic of spell disruption that's supposed to be part of the game. Something also needs to be done about casters who just take a 5-foot step before casting, though.

FlyMolo
2008-04-21, 12:41 AM
Or maybe you could make the gish-type base classes have save DCs based on Strength. If I'm channeling a spell through my sword, then it makes sense that hitting you harder with the sword would make it harder to resist the spell.

I really like that, actually. Strength DCs makes sense.


And I agree 100% that spellcasting needs to be riskier, and that things like casting on the defensive basically remove the entire mechanic of spell disruption that's supposed to be part of the game. Something also needs to be done about casters who just take a 5-foot step before casting, though.
You mean besides the spiked chain?

Kioran
2008-04-21, 01:00 AM
I thought about it. I also read about pathfinder. However, I do not believe 3.5 D&D,while being a very nice game, can be balanced. You know, unless you make everyone ridiculously overpowered, but then the game becomes incredibly lethal. ToB/Übercharger might be more powerful martial options, but they´re also much more capable of killing each other faster (exception: Crusader, since that guy becomes also several times harder to kill). That´s the way it happens with all classes, as is. 2nd Edition is a much better stab at balance than 3rd. Keeping both all the old tropes and unified advancement, as well as removing most of the casters drawbacks put the system seriously out of whack.

For my fix/rework, I wouldn´t start with classes. I would start with the combat system (kill full attacks, start inserting additional options based on move and swift actions for Martial characters), rework the caster system (Two stat-casting, 6 lvls of spells instead of 9, more powerful low lvl spells which scale better, less powerful high lvl spells), and the take a stab at the classses. That´s when one might actually accomplish something. Oh, and rework Feats. And Skills. Argh.
Well, anyway, if one wants to keep monster PCs and unified progression, the advances of 3.x, and keep the whole shebang balanced, then it´s necessary to rework a lot of other aspects of the game.

John Campbell
2008-04-21, 01:00 AM
Yes, because the spiked chain is ridiculous.

I've been wondering how many problems it would fix just to replace every instance of "Casting Time: 1 standard action" with "Casting Time: 1 round".

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-21, 01:04 AM
How to balance D&D, in one easy step:
1) PLAY SOMETHING ELSE

D&D has it's good points, but balance is not one of them. Every aspect of it that is possible to be out of whack is. Class imbalance, marital/caster imbalance, broken skills, no coherent power level for feats, spells that break the game, and things that just plain don't work. Almost any system would have better rules than you could come up with using D&D as the base. Sorry.

Ashheart
2008-04-21, 08:55 AM
Ok, it's just great to see this kind of reaction, even if the main theme I read here is that this thread is doom to fail.
I understand that D&D is dreadfully unbalanced, I play the game, believe me I know the kind of builds and combo's can ruin a game from the get go.

But I also believe that if you want to play the game, totally reworking the spell, combat, skill and feat systems will....well change the game you play.
That's not just talking about fixing a game, that's building a new game from scratch.

When you focus on something as basic as the core classes, you can fix a lot of the problems talked about above without changing the entire game.
If, for instance, Wizards beat fighters 10 times out of 10, either give the fighter more, or the wizard less, instead of talking about changing combat or magic.Such a change would affect every class, while a single fix would just change 1 class.

I do find the idea of choosing a single class, or collection of classes as the bases for this Fix handbook, a really good idea.But I still think PHB should be used as the balancing point.So what class could be this balancing point?
Out of all the classes in the PHB, I think we should choose 3 to be the "basis" for balancing.

So does anyone have any idea's about these most banlanced classes?

Again, thanks for posting.

Squash Monster
2008-04-21, 11:06 AM
If your paragon of balance is the core rulebooks, this list is doomed. Seriously, of the 4 most broken base classes, 3 are in the PHB(Wizard, Cleric, Druid), with the artificer being the only one not found there. It also contains 2 of the worst regard classes out there(fighter and monk), with only the Complete Warrior Samurai and the Soulknife below them.Nitpicky corrections: 3 of the 5 most broken classes: Archivist is up there too. And fighter is actually really good when played well. Perhaps Monk and Paladin would be a better pair.

In other news, I would like to direct attention here:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=968062

EvilElitest
2008-04-21, 11:13 AM
I actually support the OP, find what is broken and fix it
from
EE

Kioran
2008-04-21, 11:19 AM
But I also believe that if you want to play the game, totally reworking the spell, combat, skill and feat systems will....well change the game you play.
That's not just talking about fixing a game, that's building a new game from scratch.

Not quite, but almost. Anything this complex isn´t built from scratch, but more like a different 4th Edition than a fix, yes.....



When you focus on something as basic as the core classes, you can fix a lot of the problems talked about above without changing the entire game.
If, for instance, Wizards beat fighters 10 times out of 10, either give the fighter more, or the wizard less, instead of talking about changing combat or magic.Such a change would affect every class, while a single fix would just change 1 class.

I do find the idea of choosing a single class, or collection of classes as the bases for this Fix handbook, a really good idea.But I still think PHB should be used as the balancing point.So what class could be this balancing point?
Out of all the classes in the PHB, I think we should choose 3 to be the "basis" for balancing.

So does anyone have any idea's about these most banlanced classes?

Again, thanks for posting.

One can do a little improved balancing just by altering a few minor rules and the base classes, yes. It doesn´t fix the game, not nearly, but it might allay some of the worst problems. The classes to look at:

Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue

These classes are actually balanced and quite interesting, at least for core. Some of the easier (and needed) fixes:

- Improving the Martial classes and Skillmonkeys skills (so skills can at least compete to utility spells)
- Make the caster MAD by introducing two caster stats
- Give non-caster some additional abilities which allow them to use standard, move and swift actions in a meaningful manner, especially later on, in the higher lvls.

Things is, though, you will not succeed at total balance. If you can accept that, then you have at least part of your work cut out for you.

Inyssius Tor
2008-04-21, 11:27 AM
When you focus on something as basic as the core classes, you can fix a lot of the problems talked about above without changing the entire game.
If, for instance, Wizards beat fighters 10 times out of 10, either give the fighter more, or the wizard less, instead of talking about changing combat or magic.Such a change would affect every class, while a single fix would just change 1 class.
But it's not just that wizards beat fighters 10 times out of 10. It's that wizards and archivists and clerics and druids and artificers and sorcerers and favored souls and shugenja and wu jen (and maybe dread necromancers) beat fighters and barbarians and rogues and samurai and paladins and rangers and monks and swashbucklers and knights 10 times out of 10.

~EDIT~ Also beaten 10 times out of 10: the ninja and the marshal.


I do find the idea of choosing a single class, or collection of classes as the bases for this Fix handbook, a really good idea.But I still think PHB should be used as the balancing point.So what class could be this balancing point?
Out of all the classes in the PHB, I think we should choose 3 to be the "basis" for balancing.

The problem is that all the full casters in the PHB (and everywhere else) are ridiculously overpowered, and the non-casters (including the paladin, by the way) are just very underpowered.

Rogue is considered a paragon of balance, as is the psychic warrior (but PsyWar isn't in the PHB).

You should probably throw out all the melee characters that aren't found in the Tome of Battle (and even then, casters generally win everything). If you don't take that route, you're going to have to fix magic. Sorry, but it's that simple.

~E~ And to be a tiny bit more helpful--Kioran has a point. You may not have to overhaul the entire magic system, just every individual caster.

Lord Tataraus
2008-04-21, 11:29 AM
Things is, though, you will not succeed at total balance. If you can accept that, then you have at least part of your work cut out for you.

I disagree with this statement completely. You can achieve true class balance...everyone is a fluffy bunny with no combat ability or social skills and all classes are based off a nerfed version of the commoner class. At that point everyone sucks at everything just as hard as everyone else so you have achieved class balance. Of course, this usually has the unwanted side-effect of being wholly un-fun.

wadledo
2008-04-21, 11:34 AM
I give you:PERFECTION! (http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/Ultimate_Classes)
Well, I've done my good deed for the day.

Chronos
2008-04-21, 11:46 AM
I thought about it. I also read about pathfinder. However, I do not believe 3.5 D&D,while being a very nice game, can be balanced. You know, unless you make everyone ridiculously overpowered, but then the game becomes incredibly lethal.You're assuming that the only way to balance fighters with wizards is to make the fighters more powerful. But there's also the option, so often neglected by people trying to balance classes, of making the wizard less powerful. Making spells disruptable (in a practical sense, not merely a theoretical one) would be a good step in this direction.

EvilElitest
2008-04-21, 11:49 AM
don't play D&D, "Graduate" yourself to Exalted :smallcool:
from
EE

The_Werebear
2008-04-21, 12:05 PM
Ahh... My friends and I started a project like that. Eventually, we realized that changes aren't sufficient, and have torn the system to scraps, from which we are building a new one.

Still, if something like this can be pulled off, more power to you.

Hyudra
2008-04-21, 12:29 PM
K, as a standard of balancing classes:

A truly 'balanced' class has a 50% chance of beating a threat of their challenge level.
Now, that's kind of tricky, as there's three factors that need to be addressed.

The first complication is that characters will do better against different challenges. We remedy this by positing a list of challenges that range from traps to various enemy types, perhaps even including an RP challenge or something.

The second complication is that some characters (bard, marshal) are better in a group. One or two challenges would likely involve 'you fight alongside a group of NPC allies against an equally sized team.'

Lastly, we need to cover the span of levels. My personal opinion is that 1-3 are too low, and that a commoner can trump equal level challenges by sheer luck of dice. Above level 15, balance goes out the window, and I think that's too difficult a task for anything less than an army of playtesters & designers.

So we set up a gauntlet of challenges ranging from level 4-15, then record the success ratios. Range it from a scale of "Guaranteed Failure / 0" to "Gauranteed Victory / 10". You're aiming for a 50% mark of successes to failures.

This would likely be a community effort in which we proposed & streamlined the gauntlet, then reported our success rates with builds & brief feedback for each of the challenges. ("The spiked chain fighter got eaten alive by the advanced dire wolves. He couldn't match them for damage output."). In a truly efficient process, we'd also collectively rate the builds based on quality.

Houseruled fixes & reworked classes would again go through the gauntlet.

Telonius
2008-04-21, 12:34 PM
Ok, it's just great to see this kind of reaction, even if the main theme I read here is that this thread is doom to fail.
I understand that D&D is dreadfully unbalanced, I play the game, believe me I know the kind of builds and combo's can ruin a game from the get go.

But I also believe that if you want to play the game, totally reworking the spell, combat, skill and feat systems will....well change the game you play.
That's not just talking about fixing a game, that's building a new game from scratch.

When you focus on something as basic as the core classes, you can fix a lot of the problems talked about above without changing the entire game.
If, for instance, Wizards beat fighters 10 times out of 10, either give the fighter more, or the wizard less, instead of talking about changing combat or magic.Such a change would affect every class, while a single fix would just change 1 class.

I do find the idea of choosing a single class, or collection of classes as the bases for this Fix handbook, a really good idea.But I still think PHB should be used as the balancing point.So what class could be this balancing point?
Out of all the classes in the PHB, I think we should choose 3 to be the "basis" for balancing.

So does anyone have any idea's about these most banlanced classes?

Again, thanks for posting.

Hm, looks like the internet ate my post. Anyway, best-designed classes in the PHB are (IMO) Barbarian and Rogue. Exception: 20th level Rogue, no reason to take that level. After that, it's a tossup between Fighter and Ranger.

The problem with "taking things away from the Wizard" is that the only thing that the Wizard has, is spells. If you're going to decrease the Wizard's power, you have to muck around with either the magic system as a whole (necessitating a rewrite), or individual spells (which gets incredibly time-consuming).

Pirate_King
2008-04-21, 12:50 PM
Hey why is my name in your sig?


s'my name first.

I rather like Aquillion's action-change fix. Seems simple, I'll probably try applying it in my next campaign. Mostly when I play spell casters or allow casters to be played, we've just RP'd them in such a way that they aren't super-killer optimized, it's worked so far because I don't really know the best optimizations and I just pick spells I like, or what fits the character in question.

sonofzeal
2008-04-21, 01:06 PM
The problem with "taking things away from the Wizard" is that the only thing that the Wizard has, is spells. If you're going to decrease the Wizard's power, you have to muck around with either the magic system as a whole (necessitating a rewrite), or individual spells (which gets incredibly time-consuming).
Remove the ability to pay gold for extra spells in the spellbook. Voila, much more balanced Wizard.


Honestly, I think the best way to balance everything is to reorganize content, and set a different array of classes as the "base" ones.

Barbarian/Fighter -> Warblade
Bard -> Artificer
Cleric -> Cleric
Druid -> Druid
Monk -> Swordsage
Paladin -> Crusader
Ranger -> Warlock
Rogue -> Factotum
Sorcerer -> Psion
Wizard -> Wizard

Now, balance works out much better than it did before. At low levels the ToB classes dominate combat, and the Factotum and CoD are almost essential. At mid levels the Wiz/Psion start catching up in combat usefulness, and at high levels they supplant the Factotum for utility and the CoD matches (or even beats) ToB for martial pwnage, but there's no overwhelming disparity. And the Artificer is potent the whole time.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-04-21, 01:20 PM
Can I vote for a class that shouldn't be what it is? I often like turning PrCs into base classes, but the spellthief is so antithetical to what a base class is supposed to be that it really needs to be relegated to PrC status.

On the issue of balancing magic in general, I agree that would help. I don't think the magic classes themselves particularly need balancing (although there's no harm in tweaking); I think it's the spells themselves that need balancing. Here is my project-in-progress to create a balanced Spell Book (http://lucasbuchanan.com/Dungeons & Dragons).

TS

Telonius
2008-04-21, 01:25 PM
So the Wizard only gets to learn two new spells per level, period, with no other spells ever added to the book? Well, that would radically cut down on the Wizard's power potential. You would still have all the level zero spells, and 41+Int bonus other spells known by level 20 (compared to 9 zero-level and 34 total other-level for the Sorcerer). Still plenty of room for game-breakage, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Ashheart
2008-04-21, 01:26 PM
Ok everyone, now this is going somewhere!

Wadledo; I know the Ultimate classes, and have used them before (once or twice) nut I'm still not confinced that the balance there is better.I would use them as possible fixes, but let's not copy someone work without looking into it on a class by class basis.These are posibilities, but first we have to figre out a system for reverence.

This is where Squash Monster comes in with this gleemax thread.Also a good way to find out where the problems are, but not really a way of fixing them.Let's use this (if anyone can figure out the table...) as a guideline.

Though I like Hyudra's idea a lot, when it comes to figuring out which fix works best. Man, that's a good idea! Using a system of standerd challenges to figure out the system of balance is a huge idea, but I believe it can work.

If there anyone here who would be willing to help me playtest the PHB classes using Hyudra's system? We would need to figure out the challenges based on something like 4 different types: Casters, Skillmonkeys, Melee and Ranged combat.
Then we would have to test the classes at 3 or 4 dfferent levels, and use the different builds like specialist wizard when we figure out general balance.

As a starting point, I agree with Kioran; The most balanced classes are Barbarian, Ranger and Rogue.

How does this sound to everyone? Is this making sense? And is there anyone who would give up a few hours sometime to help me with the balancing and testing?

As always, thanks for posting.

Prometheus
2008-04-21, 01:31 PM
Maybe the biggest problem is not finding a fix, but whose fix to use. So system replace the old classes with news ones, while others tweak them with different empasis'. Still more, change the way the basic rules go, and go from there.

TempusCCK
2008-04-21, 01:35 PM
I support full round casting for spells, Like, all spells. You'd still have concentration attempts to keep from loosing a spell in melee, but it would seriously keep the wizard from dominating the battlefield, and it would increase the ability fo fighters to contribute, even if it just is a "Smash that guy so he doesn't mess up my wizard." Also, decreasing the duration of alot of buff spells. All day mage armor, all day mindblank, etc. etc. It's really quite lame when you think about it, for a first level spell the wizard can have the equivilent of a breastplate with no ACP, and if he's smart it'll be on a scroll anyway.

Or... we can make it have a 10 minute per level duration, then you can A) Metamagic it, or B) Cast the Greater Version that functions for 30 minutes.


Gah, I'm just spewing now, but that's the idea anyway.

sonofzeal
2008-04-21, 01:51 PM
So the Wizard only gets to learn two new spells per level, period, with no other spells ever added to the book? Well, that would radically cut down on the Wizard's power potential. You would still have all the level zero spells, and 41+Int bonus other spells known by level 20 (compared to 9 zero-level and 34 total other-level for the Sorcerer). Still plenty of room for game-breakage, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.
Glad you like it! It's part of something I posted ages ago, about how to rebalance classes by selectively removing unnessesary class features. Here's the full list:


1) Wizards can no longer expand their spellbook beyond the 2-per-level (same restriction as the Psion's been under all along), and abilities that reduce Metamagic cost are cut.

2) Druids can no longer use Natural Spell, and do not gain the Extraordinary abilities of their new form, such as Pounce or Improved Grab (I think this might actually have been errata'd, but I'm not sure; they keep changing it and I've lost interest in staying current).

3) Psions, Wilders, and Erudites are no longer immune to ASF (even though they aren't arcane).

4) Clerics and Spirit Shaman have their BAB reduced to 1/2; Divine Power increases it to 3/4.

5) Archivists cannot learn divine spells from Domain lists, the Divine Bard list, or similar sources. Cleric and Druid spells are still fine.

6) Artificers lose their Metamagic Spell Trigger and Metamagic Spell Completion class features, and the feats "Exceptional Artisan", "Extraordinary Artisan", "Legendary Artisan", and "Wand Mastery" are cut.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-04-21, 02:14 PM
1) Wizards can no longer expand their spellbook beyond the 2-per-level (same restriction as the Psion's been under all along), and abilities that reduce Metamagic cost are cut.

The first half of this statement is just silly. The potential to have a library of spell books is why wizard lovers love wizards; if you restrict wizards to an effective list of spells known you might as well just ban wizards and replace them with psions. If it weren't for the few stupidly broken spells, the potential library of spell books wouldn't be a balance issue. Fix the spells, don't gimp the class.

The second half of this statement I agree with wholeheartedly. When I DM I simply don't allow items or character options that grant the benefit of metamagic without using up higher level spell slots, period.

TS

Chronos
2008-04-21, 02:30 PM
The second half of this statement I agree with wholeheartedly. When I DM I simply don't allow items or character options that grant the benefit of metamagic without using up higher level spell slots, period.I think my rule would be that those things still exist, but you can only use them if you could ordinarily cast a spell of the un-discounted level. For instance, if you can cast 6th level spells, then you can use a Rod of Maximise on a fireball. The rod's still useful, since it's letting you use a 3rd-level slot for the fireball, but you can't cast maximised fireballs any earlier than you could otherwise. No metamagic at all (beyond those few which naturally have no adjustment) could be applied to a 9th-level spell, since you don't have slots higher than that.

sonofzeal
2008-04-21, 03:21 PM
The first half of this statement is just silly. The potential to have a library of spell books is why wizard lovers love wizards; if you restrict wizards to an effective list of spells known you might as well just ban wizards and replace them with psions. If it weren't for the few stupidly broken spells, the potential library of spell books wouldn't be a balance issue. Fix the spells, don't gimp the class.
I do see your point, the ability to add to a wizard's spellbook is one of the things that makes the class so great. But that's exactly the problem - as it stands, the class is TOO great, and overshadows all other full-casters. And the chief offender there is that it's not only a full-caster with the best spell around, it also gets far more access to that spell-list than anyone else. There are a few obvious spells that could be nerfed (lower PAO durations one step, add a will-save to Gate's domination ability, cut Assay Spell Resistance entirely, raise Time Stop's casting time to 1 round), but the Wizard will still stand alone as a dominant force even among other full casters, as long as they have that enormous spell-list and that special access to it. So, to bring them back in line with other full-casters, you either need to drastically reduce the spell-list, or take out that one little clause and leave them with 2/level spells, which is really the same restriction the Psion's been under all along. Personally I think the latter way is more elegant and less work for everyone.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-04-21, 04:01 PM
I do see your point, the ability to add to a wizard's spellbook is one of the things that makes the class so great. But that's exactly the problem - as it stands, the class is TOO great, and overshadows all other full-casters. And the chief offender there is that it's not only a full-caster with the best spell around, it also gets far more access to that spell-list than anyone else. There are a few obvious spells that could be nerfed (lower PAO durations one step, add a will-save to Gate's domination ability, cut Assay Spell Resistance entirely, raise Time Stop's casting time to 1 round), but the Wizard will still stand alone as a dominant force even among other full casters, as long as they have that enormous spell-list and that special access to it. So, to bring them back in line with other full-casters, you either need to drastically reduce the spell-list, or take out that one little clause and leave them with 2/level spells, which is really the same restriction the Psion's been under all along. Personally I think the latter way is more elegant and less work for everyone.

What about divine casters? Clerics and druids have more spells per day than wizards without even the restriction of having to pay for their spells. Personally I enforce a "divine spells known" house rule, but I'm curious as to why you omitted mentioning divine casters in your list of class fixes.

Anyway, I can see how you and other people see the wizard class as broken but fixing the spells is a much better solution than "fixing" the wizard class; fixing the spells fixes all caster classes while "fixing" the wizard only fixes the wizard. If it even does that. If we relegate the wizard class to a list of spells known, the problem spells are still there and even more likely to be used. Players with limited spell resources will be more careful to choose the best, so all that would really result is that less of the balanced spells will be used.

TS

Tequila Sunrise
2008-04-21, 04:09 PM
I think my rule would be that those things still exist, but you can only use them if you could ordinarily cast a spell of the un-discounted level. For instance, if you can cast 6th level spells, then you can use a Rod of Maximise on a fireball. The rod's still useful, since it's letting you use a 3rd-level slot for the fireball, but you can't cast maximised fireballs any earlier than you could otherwise. No metamagic at all (beyond those few which naturally have no adjustment) could be applied to a 9th-level spell, since you don't have slots higher than that.

That's certainly better than RAW.

Zocelot
2008-04-21, 04:23 PM
There's also the possibility that instead of spending hours rewriting 3.5e from the ground up, we can just let WotC do it for us with 4e. At least playtest 4e before we decide to rewrite everything.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-04-21, 04:30 PM
There's also the possibility that instead of spending hours rewriting 3.5e from the ground up, we can just let WotC do it for us with 4e. At least playtest 4e before we decide to rewrite everything.

I have excess mental energy now. 4e doesn't arrive for more than a month. You do the math.

TS

sonofzeal
2008-04-21, 04:30 PM
What about divine casters? Clerics and druids have more spells per day than wizards without even the restriction of having to pay for their spells. Personally I enforce a "divine spells known" house rule, but I'm curious as to why you omitted mentioning divine casters in your list of class fixes.
I did, actually. You'll notice that lower down on that list is a Wild Shape nerf for Druids, and a BAB nerf for Clerics. The difference between them and arcane spellcasters, though, is that the divine spell lists are absurdly limited in comparison. Core-only wizards get 42 3rd level spells, while Clerics only get 31 and Druids get a mere 22. Wizards also get substantially more variety within their spell lists. The problem with CoDzillas isn't that they can demolish everything with the right spells, its that when well-played they're better in melee than melee characters, AND have some utility spells on the side. Still, their options are generally limited - they're good within their strengths, but the spell list is fairly solidly centred on support spells. That's why I think it's unfair to force the same Spells Known restriction on divine casters.


Anyway, I can see how you and other people see the wizard class as broken but fixing the spells is a much better solution than "fixing" the wizard class; fixing the spells fixes all caster classes while "fixing" the wizard only fixes the wizard. If it even does that. If we relegate the wizard class to a list of spells known, the problem spells are still there and even more likely to be used. Players with limited spell resources will be more careful to choose the best, so all that would really result is that less of the balanced spells will be used.

TS
Well, people are going to choose the best either way, and they might be more likely to opt for non-cheesy spells first rather than risk DM wrath and be stuck with a nerfed list, while a traditional Wizard whose DM cracks down on Time Stop abuse is merely out some gold. And I agree, some spells need to be tampered with either way. But... well, Sorcs use those same spells, and I hope you'll agree that there's a serious disparity in power between Wizards and Sorcs. No, the Wizard mechanic IS a problem, and needs to be dealt with. Other approaches might be removing the familiar, removing the bonus spells, or making metamagic'd spells take longer to cast same as the Sorc. Still, I think targetting spellbook additions gets to the root of the problem much better.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-04-21, 04:56 PM
I did, actually. You'll notice that lower down on that list is a Wild Shape nerf for Druids, and a BAB nerf for Clerics. The difference between them and arcane spellcasters, though, is that the divine spell lists are absurdly limited in comparison. Core-only wizards get 42 3rd level spells, while Clerics only get 31 and Druids get a mere 22. Wizards also get substantially more variety within their spell lists. The problem with CoDzillas isn't that they can demolish everything with the right spells, its that when well-played they're better in melee than melee characters, AND have some utility spells on the side. Still, their options are generally limited - they're good within their strengths, but the spell list is fairly solidly centred on support spells. That's why I think it's unfair to force the same Spells Known restriction on divine casters.
My bad, I meant specifically why you omitted mentioning the divine unlimited spell list access. Now I know why and I see why we're never going to agree. I don't have a problem with clerics and druids having 3/4 BAB (though I also don't think they need it); I have a problem with their unlimited access to spells. Partly because of all the splat books available that not only give them more broken options to choose from but also blur the already vague line between arcane and divine magic. Partly I see unlimited divine spell access a problem because I see spells lists in general as needlessly restrictive ways to pigeonhole characters into narrowly traditional archetypes. I realize that this is a departure from RAW but I see no reason why a cleric of Olidammara shouldn't be able to cast Cat's Grace--and yet he can't by RAW. I mentioned that I restrict all divine casters to lists of spells known but I didn't mention that I also don't force my players to stay within their class' spell lists. So divine casters don't have quite as much versatility as before (though they still get more spells per level than wizards plus free cures, inflicts or SNAs), but they get to be much more unique and appropriately spelled-up by their deities.


Well, people are going to choose the best either way, and they might be more likely to opt for non-cheesy spells first rather than risk DM wrath and be stuck with a nerfed list, while a traditional Wizard whose DM cracks down on Time Stop abuse is merely out some gold. And I agree, some spells need to be tampered with either way. But... well, Sorcs use those same spells, and I hope you'll agree that there's a serious disparity in power between Wizards and Sorcs. No, the Wizard mechanic IS a problem, and needs to be dealt with. Other approaches might be removing the familiar, removing the bonus spells, or making metamagic'd spells take longer to cast same as the Sorc. Still, I think targetting spellbook additions gets to the root of the problem much better.
I've never seen a big difference in power between the sorc and wizard. The ability to change spells on a day to day basis is great, but in practice I've never seen the "Batman" wizard work out as well as so many online threads seem to assume. Even with divination spells, plans go awry, the wrong spells get memorized...**** just generally happens.

I wouldn't object to class tweaks like taking away the wizard's familiar, removing the full round metamagic casting time for spontaneous casters, giving sorcs bonus heritage feats, getting rid of the sorc's ever-annoying spell level delay that doesn't really do anything, but turning the wizard into a spells known caster is a HUGE and unnecessary gimp that completely destroys the class' fluff and role play appeal.

Like I said, I don't think we're going to agree on this.
TS

sonofzeal
2008-04-21, 05:14 PM
Like I said, I don't think we're going to agree on this.
TS
Yeah, probably. And there's still the other approach I mentioned, which is to compensate by using the best of the other classes printed - ToB instead of Fighters, Monks, and Paladins, Psions instead of Sorcs, etc. Really, the only major change in flavour there is Ranger -> Warlock, but I can't think of a better alternative. That way, it doesn't matter so much if Wizards can add to their books, or Clerics can cast off their full list, since the rest of the power curve has been shifted to compensate. CRs will necessarily increase, but any competent DM should be able to cope and find a party that's more balanced across the board.

FlyMolo
2008-04-21, 05:43 PM
Good in theory, and ranger is a silly class(Place!), and I like warlocks better.

but any competent DM should be able to cope I saw this and had three thoughts: (In no particular order.)

1)Umm, Straw DM fallacy...

2)The word idiotproof should never be used.

3)Yay templates! Seriously, if your players are powergaming, find a template you really like and apply it to every monster they fight(Winged is fun! Extra Arms is cool too. No template for that, since the only change is extra arms) Or rather arbitrarily make all the commoners a weird race. Sahaugin, fr'instance. And don't worry about narrative continuity, you've got powergamers. They're like termites, just knock the damn wall out and build a new one.

sonofzeal
2008-04-21, 06:18 PM
Good in theory, and ranger is a silly class(Place!), and I like warlocks better.
I saw this and had three thoughts: (In no particular order.)

1)Umm, Straw DM fallacy...
Well, I was basing this off of my personal experiences, where problems come less from player power and more from disparity of power between party members. If all the PCs are reasonably uber, then it's easier to make encounters that don't just revolve around half the party twiddling their thumbs while the mightly CoDzilla tears the thing to shreds, or whatnot. Tweaking the power curve so everyone's around the same level generally makes things easier for DMs, whether that tweak is up or down.


2)The word idiotproof should never be used.
I do believe I avoided that word.


3)Yay templates! Seriously, if your players are powergaming, find a template you really like and apply it to every monster they fight(Winged is fun! Extra Arms is cool too. No template for that, since the only change is extra arms) Or rather arbitrarily make all the commoners a weird race. Sahaugin, fr'instance. And don't worry about narrative continuity, you've got powergamers. They're like termites, just knock the damn wall out and build a new one.
If the whole party is powerful, there's dozens of options that can help balance things. I mean, half the art of DMing is tailoring encounters to the party level, so just do what you've always done and gradually ramp things up until they pose a credible threat. My personal favorite is this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases), which raises CR by 1 but generally raises lethalness of melee brutes by a lot more.

Pirate_King
2008-04-21, 07:12 PM
I don't like the idea of limiting a wizards library so much; it's a big part of my gish's character to try and learn a new spell from casters that he meets. If a DM is keeping track of this thing, there's still a limit; I can't learn whatever spell I want, but I always have the chance to add something new to my spellbook.

Gorbash
2008-04-21, 07:24 PM
Cleric should be wizard BAB. Really, there's no reason not to.

With Divine Power, what would be the point...?

Eldariel
2008-04-21, 07:31 PM
Divine Power (and all spells that modify BAB) are really spells that should be banned anyways. BAB is basically the main class feature of the martial classes and casters can just pick it up with a spell, which pretty much obsoletes the whole classes. Spells that obsolete classes = bad. So ban Divine Power and any other spells and equipment that affect your BAB, or make them come with an insane price, such as having to lose all your spellcasting.

Gorbash
2008-04-21, 07:39 PM
Like Tenser's Transformation. Good point...

EvilElitest
2008-04-21, 08:28 PM
I have to say, i really support the OP on this, good job i'm eagerly watching

Just one recommendation, don't use the CW Samerai or Even the OA Samerai, Complete Samerai by Mongoose is a much better version taht isn't totally generic
from
EE

Aquillion
2008-04-21, 08:36 PM
Honestly, I think the best way to balance everything is to reorganize content, and set a different array of classes as the "base" ones.

Barbarian/Fighter -> Warblade
Bard -> Artificer
Cleric -> Cleric
Druid -> Druid
Monk -> Swordsage
Paladin -> Crusader
Ranger -> Warlock
Rogue -> Factotum
Sorcerer -> Psion
Wizard -> WizardOne of these things does not fit.

I think most people would say that a well-built Ranger can actually be as strong or stronger than a warlock; in an actual game (not messageboard fights where everyone casts Wind Wall on their first action) archery is quite effective at dealing reliable damage. Rangers also get 6 skill points per level and several abilities to back this up. They get some good spells in splatbooks, too. And while a gimped animal companion isn't great, it's better than nothing. Basically, they're decent skill-monkey types with full BAB and effective ranged damage -- nothing wrong with the ranger. If you really think they need to be made better, just swap their animal companion progression with the druid; this would make rangers extremely powerful.

Bards are pretty good, too. They get 6 skill points per level, a decent skill list, UMD, diplomacy, and enough casting ability to serve as useful support (and to use several items without requiring UMD checks.) They probably don't need to be replaced.

Likewise, rogues are generally considered balanced... they've got decent damage potential with sneak attack,. high skills, a decent skill list (including UMD and diplomacy), and so on. I wouldn't even say that they're completely beaten by Factotums unless you let the Factotum use Iaijutsu focus (which is a bit cheesey); without that, they're going to beat the Factotum for damage pretty easily, while still having all the important skills.

Skill-monkey types in general tend to do fine. It's the pure non-TOB melee classes that kinda suck. It's much harder for magic to overshadow diplomacy (no, dominate person is not a universal substitute) or passive danger-sense skill checks like Listen and Sense Motive than it is for magic to overshadow combat.

(Technically, depending on how absurd you let Diplomacy be, even skill checks can overshadow combat. But that doesn't happen too often.)

Which leads to another possible solution: Make it so all non-ToB characters either have skills or magic. This might sound extreme, and could threaten to 'water down' the value of skills... but it makes sense. One of the reason fighters are an awful class is that they have nothing to do outside of combat. Give them at least 4 skill points / level and a few useful skills (listen and spot, say -- those are important on a battlefield) and they'll be much better. I'd give fighters all good saves, too, and just handwave it as them being tough and determined or something.

Pirate_King
2008-04-22, 07:58 AM
One of the reason fighters are an awful class is that they have nothing to do outside of combat.

...isn't that why they call them fighters? I mean, it's pretty much what they do. I mean,for what other reasons do you think they're an awful class?

Jayabalard
2008-04-22, 08:15 AM
I have excess mental energy now. 4e doesn't arrive for more than a month. You do the math.Math indeed. That would probably be a better use of your excess mental energy.

Telonius
2008-04-22, 08:50 AM
Like Tenser's Transformation. Good point...

Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round/level

You become a virtual fighting machine—stronger, tougher, faster, and more skilled in combat. Your mind-set changes so that you relish combat and you can’t cast spells, even from magic items.

You gain a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, a +4 natural armor bonus to AC, a +5 competence bonus on Fortitude saves, and proficiency with all simple and martial weapons. Your base attack bonus equals your character level (which may give you multiple attacks).

You lose your spellcasting ability, including your ability to use spell trigger or spell completion magic items, just as if the spells were no longer on your class list.

Material Component
A potion of bull’s strength, which you drink (and whose effects are subsumed by the spell effects).


Tenser's Transformation is actually not all that bad. It temporarily (rounds/level) turns your Wizard into a Fighter-ish thing. It's for the wizard who wants to make like Asterix once in awhile. But you can't cast while you're under the effects. You can have either a caster or a fighter, but not both. With Natural Spell you get both a caster and a fighter, all the time. Divine Power gets you both a caster and a fighter (who, by the way, was already wearing full plate). It's only rounds per level, but it's a fourth level spell. Transformation is a 6th-level. If Divine Power had the same restriction as Transformation - can't cast while it's active - it would be much less open to abuse.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-22, 09:03 AM
At low levels the ToB classes dominate combat, and the Factotum and CoD are almost essential. At mid levels the Wiz/Psion start catching up in combat usefulness,

Why do people keep spreading the myth that low-level wizards are ineffective in combat? They have several save-or-lose spells available from level one, and one-shotting an ogre with a sleep spell is nothing to sneeze at.

Also, the artificer really doesn't belong there (because it's overpowered), and neither does warlock (because it's considerably weaker than, oh, a rogue).

Jayabalard
2008-04-22, 09:16 AM
Why do people keep spreading the myth that low-level wizards are ineffective in combat? They have several save-or-lose spells available from level one, and one-shotting an ogre with a sleep spell is nothing to sneeze at.It's probably related to a difference in play style, specifically a difference in the number of encounters per day and opponents per encounter between your play style and the people who believe that low level wizards are less effective than low level melee based characters.

Eldariel
2008-04-22, 10:11 AM
It's probably related to a difference in play style, specifically a difference in the number of encounters per day and opponents per encounter between your play style and the people who believe that low level wizards are less effective than low level melee based characters.

It's mostly that fighter-types aren't ineffectual by comparison on the early levels, so since Wizards don't absolutely destroy all other classes by comparison, people consider them to be poor. It's just preconceptions and the need to create balance in their minds; somehow people want justice through having the broken classes have weak levels, and go to great lengths to keep themselves in the illusion that that's the case.

If we're honest to ourselves, we'll see that the first 5-6 levels of the game are the best balanced as after that, martial classes progress linearly while magical classes explode exponentially (they get more spells per day, more spells known, more powerful spells and their present spells increase in power and duration, and they get more metamagic abilities).

sonofzeal
2008-04-22, 10:54 AM
Why do people keep spreading the myth that low-level wizards are ineffective in combat? They have several save-or-lose spells available from level one, and one-shotting an ogre with a sleep spell is nothing to sneeze at.
The problem is that at low levels (and I'm thinking 1-3 here), even a well-made Fighter can carve through 10-15 goblins or take out Ogres without backup, and while Wizards still have the occasional Save-or-Lose, they'll only have a handful and the DCs are low. At that level, Martial characters in my experience are much more dominant and much more reliable. What kills them at high level is that spellcasters and enemy HP progress exponentially, while attack bonuses progress linearly and damage output rarely even does that. I'm running a lvl3-4 game and gaming in two more, and in every single one the melee brute is the dominant force in combat while the spellcasters mostly plink from range because they lack the appropriate spells and don't want to waste the ones they do have on a fight the brute's probably going to tear through anyways.


Also, the artificer really doesn't belong there (because it's overpowered), and neither does warlock (because it's considerably weaker than, oh, a rogue).
Ahem (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=968062). CharOp ranks Artificers (just barely) below Wizards, and Warlocks noticably above Rogues and far above Rangers and Scouts. The potential for infinite flight alone is more or less worth it, but really it's the only ranged-combat class I can think of that's any good. Have any better suggestions?

Telonius
2008-04-22, 12:05 PM
Rogues have (if I'm not mistaken) a bigger potential damage output than Warlock. The problem is that there is so much that can foil a sneak attack. This can be mitigated with spells (Gravestrike and similar), but it's still a pain. I would put Warlock slightly above Rogue just because of the versatility.

Aquillion
2008-04-22, 01:07 PM
...isn't that why they call them fighters? I mean, it's pretty much what they do. I mean,for what other reasons do you think they're an awful class?Well, there's the fact that they're not actually that good at fighting; a cleric, druid, high-level wizard or what have you is much more effective.

But more than that, how many characters do you really make with the background of "spends every waking minute training for combat, strictly scorns absolutely all other pursuits?" There are some, yes, but overall the idea of a character who is good at nothing but fighting is not that common. Most 'fighters' in literature have more to contribute than just hitting things repeatedly.