How would you rate the various classes and class combos differently in the PnP version of D&D?

Philhelm

Obviously, the pen-and-paper version of D&D is a completely different animal from the BG version. How would your ratings of the various classes differ?

I would think that dual-classing would be much more rare since the character would be much more vulnerable in PnP while leveling the second class. Multi-class characters would more noticeably trail behind the pure classes as far as spell and skill progression. Casters would be somewhat less powerful since they would not be able to rest as often as in BG. With random stats and hit points, Warrior classes would be a bit safer with their D10 hit points, especially since some classes may struggle to get a 15+ Con through random stat rolls.

Which classes would be more powerful and useful? Which classes less so?

PK2748

Dual class much less common not just because of vulnerability but because the stat rolls are extremely unlikely. With material components and rest rates and depending upon finding new spells which can be very difficult in pen and paper, mages are much less powerful. Druids and Clerics are more powerful and Rogues much more necessary

Philhelm

That's a good point about the Mage vs. Priest classes. It isn't all that much of a hassle to gather spells in a video game, while the Cleric and Druid get theirs automatically.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

Assuming that the PnP game is less combat-focused than BG (generally a safe assumption, I think), I'd expect a slight increase in the power of Thieves, since they would be able to apply their skills more broadly, and a notable increase in the power of Mages (subject to spell availability), Clerics, and Druids, as they get all sorts of utility spells that solve the non-combat problems PnP groups have to deal with.

Philhelm

Kaigen said:

Assuming that the PnP game is less combat-focused than BG (generally a safe assumption, I think), I'd expect a slight increase in the power of Thieves, since they would be able to apply their skills more broadly, and a notable increase in the power of Mages (subject to spell availability), Clerics, and Druids, as they get all sorts of utility spells that solve the non-combat problems PnP groups have to deal with.

I agree about Thieves, Clerics, and Druids, but disagree about Mages.

Thieves would certainly be able to shine more from a roleplay perspective. I won't comment on Druids, since I never play them and am not as familiar with their ins and outs, but I suspect that they would be held in higher regard in PnP.

I think that the Cleric would be one of the best classes, at least at lower levels, due to having a decent HP roll, healing and buffing spells, and the ability to wear any armor. I also think that if the character is roleplayed properly, and you have the right kind of DM, the Cleric could open up doors that some of the other classes can't. The Cleric could try to get aid from his church, he could tend to the local villagers and gain their trust and admiration, or perhaps there are some locals who worship the same deity and would be willing to help the Cleric in some capacity.

I think that the Mage would be weaker in PnP, even if the campaign wasn't all combat. Eventually, combat will happen, and you have a squishy character with only d4 HP, and I'm sure most people won't manage to get 15-16 Con through a legit roll. In addition, he has no armor, a poor weapon selection, and only a few spells to cast. If he wants more spells, he will need to find, buy, steal, etc. additional scrolls. I'll ignore casting components, since I'd imagine that most DMs don't require that. Obviously, the Mage's power will increase exponentially, but getting there might be a problem when there is no ability to reload in PnP.

illathid

Having played more than a few mages in PnP, I have to disagree. I have to actively tone down my characters to keep them from breaking the game just by using spells as they are written.

Philhelm

illathid said:

Having played more than a few mages in PnP, I have to disagree. I have to actively tone down my characters to keep them from breaking the game just by using spells as they are written.

Admittedly, I've never played a Mage in PnP, but I would think they would be more powerful in Baldur's gate due to easier gold and scroll access, not to mention unlimited resting.

I suppose it mostly depends on the DM, and how generous he is with encounters, treasure, and general mechanics, as well as the frequency in which the players are able to get games in and advance their characters. For instance, I've had some DMs make us roll for our level 1 HP, which makes things a bit more dicey. I couldn't imagine not at least having a base of 4 HP with a Mage, and that alone would make a Fighter more attractive during character creation.

The_Cheeseman

Spellcasters in PnP are MUCH more powerful, just because they have a lot more options. Spells in video games are almost exclusively combat-related, whereas in PnP there are tons of spells available that can almost entirely circumvent fighting and solve many problems without serious effort. A creative player can easily break a vast number of scenarios that the GM designed with just a couple of well-used non-combat spells.

Think about it. What if you could cast "Fly" on your entire party and just skip all the combat in the Cloakwood? Or Phase through the walls in a dungeon rather than solve the puzzle on the sealed door. It gets ridiculous at higher levels when you can simply use divination/scrying spells to learn exactly what you need and where to find it, then teleport directly to the macguffin and back completely uncontested.

You quickly learn that, in PnP, combat spells are for newbs.

PK2748

Apparently a lot of people have GMs of limited imagination. Spellcasters have never been particularly challenging to control. Things like teleport demand well known destinations and flying creatures draw lots of attention. Every spell a caster gets after creation is also more or less gift from the GM and every spell has limitations and a counter. I'm sure in a game with a lazy or generous GM mages are powerful but I think it's anything but a given

Jarrakul

@PK2748, it's true that a good GM can limit the power of spellcasters substantially just by thinking more about how to deal with their shenanigans, but in my experience, spell scarcity is not a good balancing factor. While allowing players free access to every spell is obviously over the top, I've found that restricting them severely creates the opposite problem, where mages become entirely useless for no fault of the player's. Which, quite honestly, is very poor GMing. Unfortunately, there seems to be little or no middle ground between "useless" and "incredibly powerful" for mages, because the moment spells aren't incredibly scarce, even if they still aren't super common, the mages will get one or two good spells and milk them for all they're worth. Which, again, doesn't have to make them incredibly broken, but it is going to put them above most of the other players unless there's some serious GM "unfairness" going on (whether that's actually unfair is a subject of some debate, which I shall not go into here).

The above only really applies to mid- and high-level mages, though. Low-level mages are pretty bad. Sleep is still great, but being one-shotted by a kobold because it was smart enough to attack you and not the fighters is less great.

DevardKrown

thinking about Broken Mechanics i also would assume that the "Kensai" quickly falls off the radar.
want to go Kensai> mage ? guess what it says no armor and you totally not wearing that robe or Ioen Stone..
Kensai > Thief ? ...good luck finding a Shield amulet or Convincing your group to pay a mage their total loot to recharge it. and if i was a GM i would kill that sucker off at 2.999 999 million xp :P


also if you can manage the Ability requirements Low Level Dualclass would be become more Interesting.
also dualclassing would need a Story arc , like finding your Faith , or a Teacher for them Magics , resulting in losing time , maybe even not going on that Epic adventure the rest of your party goes without you.

and Lastly all Spell caster would work "Different" , the spell choice aside you cant just fling all your spells at a group of Hobgoblins and then walk back to your tent and take a 8 Hour Nap , rinse and repeat for 5 days..spells become a valuable resource.

BelgarathMTH

Another thing that makes mages less powerful in PnP is that you can't just rest at will. Resting in hostile areas involves setting watches against wandering monsters, and is very dangerous. Most DM's won't allow it more than once every 24 game hours, and most players don't want to do it while they're in a dungeon or in the middle of an adventure, because it becomes tedious and breaks immersion in the story, excitement, and fun.

Magic is supposed to be a precious resource with very limited availability per play session or per adventure. When playing a mage, I used to have to really agonize over whether my party needed one of my precious spells or whether they could handle whatever encounter without magic. My non mage-playing friends didn't even like having a mage in the party, much preferring clerics and their healing spells as more useful to smooth gameplay.

I think I got them to appreciate having a mage a bit more over time, because we had a good DM who often upped the numbers of monsters in some encounters to the point where he knew my Sleep spell would be needed to avoid a TPK, thereby giving me a rewarding feeling for being a mage and being at the play session.

The quality of the DM is everything in PnP.

EDIT: I see now that @DevardKrown kind of just said the same thing.