Deciding Power level ((Please help, regards balance))

[Brom]

So, for my homebrew, I'm going over all of the classes I intend to allow as playable classes in my game and rework them, or at least most of them. A few will remain untouched. But I just reached an issue; where does it stop? I want some classes to be weaker (Cleric) and others to be stronger (Paladin) but I don't want them to be more VERSATILE per se. Just more powerful in their own fashions.

I'm trying to figure out what an accurate template is for comparison; what do I compare my class reworks to? Should each type of character (Arcane, Divine, Skillmonky, Meatshield) have their own class that they compare to? Should I work to make my redone fighter kick no more ass in a fight than a Paladin? Can I even HAVE a single class which is going to be so versatile that I can compare to all other classes? And what's the leeway on that? Certainly no class, no matter how versatile, should be as stealthy as a min-maxed Rogue.

I'm just kind of at a loss for what to do, other than rework all the classes and just have them playtested.

[arkanis]

Well you could start by taking a look at the generic class variant: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/cl...ricClasses.htm

That may have some examples or answers you're looking for.

You could also consider reworking the classes or searching for already reworked ones here.

I know one classic example of making Paladins more combat based is to remove their spells and give them a few fighter bonus feats.

Weakening clerics combat-wise, I suppose can be done by merely removing the spells from their spell list which make them so darn versatile in combat (such as Divine Power and Righteous Might) and add other spells you find more appropriate in their place.

Bards are always a good example to look at as the closest thing to a Jack-of-all-Trades.

[Brom]

I was thinking of using either Bards or Druids for my comparisons. A higher level Druid can fill just about any role -- he can tank like a barbarian, stealth like a Rogue, cast spells like a Wizard - though he is inferior in most of those respects to a class devoted to that. Bards can also do that, as they have a large skill list, and with careful spellcasting and the right feats can make righteous melee combatants. I played a melee bard named Ajihad who I loved dearly. Got lucky on my stat rolls, true: I had STR 10CON 12 DEX 16 WIS 16 INT 16 CHA 18, and was a Half-Elf diplomacy spec. But my stats allowed me to do some very scary things in combat when I put my mind to it. My stats and my spells.

[Xefas]

A higher level Druid can fill just about any role... ...though he is inferior in most of those respects to a class devoted to that.

That's the closest thing to actually laughing out loud I've had all day.

Personally, I've found it easier to balance upward to the spellcaster level, and just get rid of the fighter, ranger, monk, barbarian, and paladin (or, rather, reduce them to NPC classes). Then, add the ToB classes plus the Sublime Marshal, and Sublime Ranger (not to forget the Archery Discipline). That'd be enough, but my group is also creating boosted Warlocks, Binders, and Rogues just in case.

However, that makes for some high-fantasy with legendary heroes and what-not. Truly, if you're looking to size downward, Bards, Barbarians, and Rogues would probably be the best place to go for. They're a whole lot weaker than the Wizard, Druid, and Cleric, but certainly not pansies like the Fighter and Monk. If you're looking to balance without buying any supplements, those three might be the best to look.

Also, you may want to take a look at the Fax Paladin.