General Class rebalance thread (emphasis on repping the underrepped classes, esp. non-kits)
caruga
Member Posts: 375
EDIT: 27/june added barbarian.
..................... added word on Kensai.
For completeness, here are the existing class rebalance threads (I've also posted on a few of these, and won't be duplicating any of it here).
Choose kit when dual-classing
Barbarian (this thread)
Kensai (Kai) (this thread)
Wizard slayer
Cavalier
Wild mage
Druid (shape-changing)
Spellcasters (AOE indicator)
Wizard (specialization sub-classes)
Wizard (cantrips)
Sorcerer (kits)
Sorcerer (charisma)
Priest and mage (kits)
Rogue
Rogue (backstabbing)
Assassin
Monk
Now for my first suggestion, which addresses non-kit fighters.
They are currently outdone by every one of the kits except wizardslayer (which I think should be buffed, see thread above). Suggestion:
Restore the old proficiency bonuses, but then, allow fighter-kits to only reach high mastery, leaving GM a pure fighter (and maybe ranger) exclusive. A +1.5 attack per round and +1 damage is tempting competition with the kits.
EDIT: Perhaps also modify the item "gauntlets of weapon mastery" so that it actually forces +1 point in mastery for the currently wielded weapon, allowing them to access proficiencies they normally can't (does nothing for a GM pure fighter, freeing their hands to wear something else).
My next suggestion will discuss barbarian; i'll be back later to post it (note to self).
EDIT: here.
Post edited by caruga on
4
Comments
(Thinks to self: is it worth doing a similar thing for new race suggestions: probably not?) Think i've fixed it.
i think it shows some desperate need to finally organize forums.
Tell me if I'm wrong (I only have 3rd ed. manuals) but there's only version of the fighter and his various kits in the manuals... in which case all the rebalance speculation is moot if one were to simply follow the manuals verbatim?
I'm a notorious inveterate rules lawyer, and I like D&D-based videogames to follow the written rules as faithfully as possible within the boundaries of (potential) engine limitations. That's why I'm allergic to house rules :-)
It all comes down to what you mean with "rebalancing". Classes and kits are generally house ruled in BG, and bringing them closer to P&P is often a rebalancing (as per the mod Rogue Rebalancing, which is also awesome).
The house rules are either there to compensate for a fallibility of the campaign as they've made it, or because of an inadequacy with the ruleset. As a lawyer, perhaps you can tell me in detail which it is?
Your reasoning is taking for granted that house rules are inherently good (as in, positive) AND well designed, and that as such they are per se balanced. I would argue that whereas AD&D rules are tried and true for they have been thouroughly play tested before release, BioWare's house rules aren't. They had only a limited time to test them against the time and effort TSR put toward testing the whole AD&D rules system, which is supposed to hold together well and work. Hadn't it worked, it wouldn't have survived for long.
Is it perfect? Nope, there is no such thing as a perfect rules system. However, as I have already stated in the "How true to D&D rules should BG:EE be?" thread in the General section, if a game is based on AD&D rules (and advertised as such), it should follow them. If you want to do something different that is perfectly fine, but then don't say you're based on AD&D and don't borrow rules from it.
House rules are something I conceive only when strictly necessary to accomodate the DM's design needs in P&P campaign, for what he created would clearly not work well with the existing rules. In Baldur's Gate, this situation never occurs: everything would be perfectly feasible with P&P rules. In fact, mods that bring the game closer to P&P (such as aTWEAKS and Rogue Rebalancing) make the game significantly more challenging and balanced. Rogue classes become a viable and interesting alternative to wizards and fighter with Rogue Rebalancing, and monsters don't need to cheat to be a challenge for you with aTWEAKS.
In fact, most liberties BioWare had taken with the rules in the development of Baldur's Gate are absolutely gratuitous. There is no reason to group the thieving skills "Move Silently" and "Hide in Shadows" into a single skill named "Stealth" (this was in fact changed in BG2), or to apply slightly different racial and stat-based adjustment to thieving skills. Nor does it make any sense to nerf grand mastery, or to remove abilities from monsters only to equip them with overpowered undroppable rings that grant them other gratuitous immuinities and abilities in order to make them challenging.
You said this: from which it ensues that house rules are inherently good and at least better designed than the actual rules system, as they are there to correct its flaws.
Touché, @Tanthalas.
Fair enough :-)
yes, i'm looking at you @ForumModerators and @Developers.
Alright, time to discuss barbarian as promised.
I'm not going to say that the barbarian is a bad class, or that you can't make a strong build out of it. But I am saying that for both tanking and damage output purposes, it is beaten by the fighter classes, berserker kit in particular. There's no reason to ever pick a barbarian except for roleplaying reasons.
A barbarian just gets peppered with holes, those hp drain in seconds, especially when surrounded. But I'm willing to bet that a regular fighter in full plate has them beat for defense even in 1v1 melee.
I think the ideal would be to aim to make it hard for a player to conclude which class has the stronger defenses, or else for barbarian to have that niche cornered. I.e. the difference in ac versus hp+damage resistance should be such that whether the barbarian or berserker has the stronger tanking advantage should vary from encounter-to-encounter.
Barbarian and berserker are like cousins (with one being unable to dual-class), but to distinguish them more, I think the berserker should be more about damage at the price of defense (higher ac penalties and damage bonuses when enraged, than what they get now--this would offset that full plate they get to wear), and the barbarian should be more about hardiness (lasting a ridiculously long time even when the hits rain down).
Right now, an enraged barbarian with 2 points in two-handed weapons and 2 points in two-handed sword, deals the same damage as an enraged berserker with 2 points in two-handed weapons and 5 points in two-handed sword. A berserker also has the advantage of being able to get the full bonus of a strength potion and have it stack with his rage bonus, whereas a half-orc strength 19 barbarian would cap out before then.
What it really comes down to, is whether the extra hp of a barbarian (an extra 0-2 per level, and another +1 or +2 per level when enraged) and the damage reduction (10, 15 or 20%) are worth the tradeoff of an extra 15-30% chance of being hit.
While I'm not very good at formulas for calculating probability, I think the answer in nearly all cases is: no, it is not worth the trade-off. And from subjective experience when playing these two classes, the berserker definitely seems to remain standing _much_ longer in a fight, when clad in full plate versus a barbarian in an ac 2 scalemail or splintmail.
Suggested fixes (not steadfast about these, feel free to suggest better ones):
1. I recommend removing the armour class penalty from barbarian rage, or making it -1 instead of -2; it seems excessive when they're already forced to wear weaker armours. Possibly also remove the saving throw penalty. (Furthermore if barbarians could wear full plate but it disabled rage, I'm willing to bet they'd choose full plate over rage--what does that tell you?).
2. another +1 con just for choosing this class; max 20 con as a starting half-orc barbarian.
3. The damage resistance bonuses should be the same but I don't see the need of staggering them: -1% damage per level from level 1 (so that BG1 barbarians get some love).
I actually think more is needed before there is a marked increase in HP. I just think mathematically, ac generally wins, especially when taking into account more than one opponent or fast-hitting/hasted opponents; it takes a LOT of hp to really compensate for a lack of ac, an amount that probably looks silly on paper.
Fighters are overpowered!
1. Allow Kensai to attain that rank as well.
2. Create a new 'ultimate mastery' rank. I know it's not in the ruleset, but I feel like proficiency points are largely a done deal in BG2 for fighters on a subsequent playthrough--i.e. decide which weapons you'll use and pick accordingly.
Right now there's no reason to pick a fighter over a berserker. With Kensai it's a little less obvious because you have to balance a very different playstyle.
I think non-archers missile users are weaker in BG2 because of the increased walkspeed of enemies closing the distance. Firing off 1 or at most 2 arrows before you have to switch to sword is pretty ineffectual (though might still be more meaningful in BG1 with enemies being easier to hit and kill).
I don't really agree with that assessment.
- Yeah, Archers are hands down the best ranged attacker in the game (probably better to say, non-magical ranged attacker), but although Fighters are only second best, that still puts them above all the other classes using ranged attacks. So it is still worth something.
- While Archers are the best ranged attackers, as soon as enemies enter melee ranged they are notably weaker than a Fighter. So while ranged Fighters are weaker at range than Archers, on the other hand they are far more versatile and outdo Archers at close range as both tank and damage dealer.
- The increased walk-speed of enemies in BG2 doesn't bother my ranged attackers much because I still have melee characters to draw their attention.
My point being he has to be one or the other, and an archer in the back or a berserker in the front seems better than a fighter in either position--and the 'versatility' of a fighter being able to do both has little strategic value across the campaign, and can only be rightly chosen for subjective playstyle preference-reasons, and never tactical/power advantage reasons. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'd like there to be more reasons than that to choose the 'generalist' pure fighter class.
p.s. anyone have commentary on the barbarian assessment I did? Don't know if it was overlooked or what but noone has commented.
Yeah, but if we start analyzing classes like that its just a slippery slope:
- Is there a reason to use a Druid in this game? Less healing than a Cleric, worse spell progression than a Cleric, less offensive capability than a Mage.
- Forget about Fighters being useless when compared to Berserker's or Kensai's, dual Kensai -> Mage or Berserker -> Mage outshines them all.
- The only good Ranger is an Archer, the rest will always be sub-optimal.
We'd be here all day.
kensai:
I would not be at all surprised if noone else gives a damn, but I really dislike any ability that removes die rolls and makes things non-random; randomness makes things unpredictable, fun, and addictive. Hence, I dislike the Kai ability in its current incarnation, and have avoided the class because of it.If, instead of its current behaviour, it simply doubled the die roll--same damage output on average but with randomness--I would find the class a lot more fun to play. Fixed results make me cross.
I.e. instead of rolling 10's with a 1d10 weapon, make the weapon 1d20 for the duration of Kai.
I don't know why but it makes all the difference to me... but like I said, I'm guessing noone else cares enough that this would even get volunteered for approval. Heck, might as well just mod it in myself if it is, as I say, effectually the same result.