44 réponses à ce sujet

[BCH]

I'm contemplating making several changes to classes in my VPnP module, to make classes more balanced and make some more attractive to players.  I figured it would be a good idea to mention these changes here, in case anyone sees a situation where "if you do that, then the X class is obsolete" or something similar. 

I'm considering:

1.  Making Hide and Move Silently class skills for Barbarians.  (This has a Conan-esque feel to me, and I hope it will make the class more interesting without adding to the areas where Barbs are already strong.)

2.  Giving Fighters one bonus feat every level from 10 to 20, instead of just even levels.  (So there is more of a reason to stick with Fighter instead of heading straight for Champion of Torm.)

3.  Giving Bards 8 skill points per level.  (Actually 7, since every Bard maxes out Perform, right?  This seems like it will make them more balanced with Rogues.  I figure they are no threat to the popularity of the Rogue class, since very little compares with the utility of Sneak Attack.)

4.  Giving Shifters Move Silently as a class skill.  (I can't figure out why they have Hide but not Move Silently.)

5.  Giving Red Dragon Disciples extra arcane spells per day on the odd-numbered levels like a Pale Master gets.  (This has the interesting effect of making the RDD go back and take a level of Bard or Sorcerer every now and then, so they can add and drop spells.)

6.  Adding the Eldritch Knight prestige class from PnP D&D:
http://www.d20srd.or...ritchKnight.htm

[Mystery X]

By giving barbarians Hide and Move Silently, they start to encroach on areas in which rangers shine. "Barbarians are brave, even reckless warriors, and their great strength and heartiness makes them well suited for adventure." That doesn't suggest stealth. It is the rangers who "are skilled stalkers and hunters who make their home in the wilderness." Not that you have to stick with the NWN descriptions of the classes, but it's a good place to start if you are trying to make each class unique. Conan-like characters can be achieved easily within the given rules with a multi-class Barbarian / Rogue.

If you have Fighters with a lot of extra bonus feats, exclusive of how much more powerful they get, everyone who plays a Fighter is probably going to have pretty much the same Fighter- they will all have all the combat-oriented feats. If you think CoT is an encroachment on the Fighter, maybe it makes more sense to increase the requirements for taking it. (Requirement of Divine spellcasting ability? 5 ranks of a non-class skill tied to Wis or Int or Cha- such as Persuade or Spellcraft? A feat or two not normally on the combat-maximized Fighter's list- Iron Will maybe?)

I think the Bard Song and Sorceror spells actually balance the Bard pretty well against the Rogue.

If you give something to RDD, I'd think you should take away something as well. Those ability score adds are pretty sick. Now that I have discovered the RDD, I have the urge to add it to any character concept now.

I played a Shifter once, and having Move Silently would have been nice.

[philty_]

Hi BCH,

while I applaud attempts at bringing more balance to classes, I do believe the original ones are not so imbalanced - except for the Monk: Some classes are actually meant to be a support to others - a solo Rogue will have a hard time

1. Barbarians - as above, I do not think H & MS  are typical Barbarian class-skills. But the only time I played a Barbarian was a half-orc to become RDD, so I do not usually play this class.

2 The Fighter thing is ok. I can speculate on how many builds (pre-epic, as I do not count such builds...) incldue just 4 levels of fighter...

3 I dont see a problem with that, but then I dont see the need to change Bards at all. This changes is actually marginal only.

4 Never tried Shifter, but I see the point. Conversely, I never understood why Monks get Listen but not Spot as skill (I think they should).

5 Am not familiar with EK, read too little about them.

Monk is actually the only inclusion I'd advise to you, they get too many feats for free (all those immunities, SR, concealment, Cleave, AC bonus from Wis and from every 5 levels,  etc...). I do believe Monks who choose Focus Unarmed should be able to choose Specialization too, but I think some feats could be removed (Cleave and the immunities except for Mind Spells at higher levels). But these are my thoughts.

EDIT: Oh, maybe Clerics too! My idea of a Cleric is that of a Healer who has powers against Undead and some other evil. In NWN they seem to be the best melee AND the best Mages around! They have a spell that makes them like fighters BA-wise and another instant Death that is NOT considered Death-sell (so no immunity against). VERY unbalanced IMO...

Modifié par philty , 21 septembre 2011 - 03:16 .

[Elhanan]

I like the suggested fixes of 3.5, and eliminate Restricted Skills; making them all Cross-class, and offer Bards 6 Skill Pts each Lvl. Between them, I prefer the latter.

My recommendation is not to mess with the other guidelines too much, as most can be achieved by Multi-class designs. This leaves the control in the Players hands rather than having to make notes on House rules.

[HipMaestro]

You know...even feat-starving clerics and forcing them to split abilities between WIS & another significant ability, they are still essentially an automatic to most all non-arcane builds.  There are few non-arcane builds that wouldn't benefit from cleric levels.  It would be a unique experience to play on a server where they aren't such an obvious choice for multiclassing.  The only server I've played that negated most of their boni was one with artificially-enhanced monster spell saves and SRs where NO caster had any chance, but that was not specifically a balance measure for cleric, just all casters in general.   Clerics were still the best to use in a melee or zen build.

Interesting that cleric was not mentioned in your initial post.  I would have thought it would make the top of the list.

[_Guile]

All classes were given flaws for a reason, so there would be no super class / build.

The entire reason TSR gave each class a weakness (usually combat related) was so that they didn't become too big for their britches, requiring PCs to seek assistance / interact with other players, so that the game could be more socialable than a one man army show, where one build could solo all day long.

Unfortunately, some builds can still solo an entire module, depending upon the module.  However, on action servers, the builder usually builds the module to encourage group play, as soloing on some action servers is next to impossible without great gear!  I have found that low magic worlds only amplify the power of Arcane & Divine Casters.

A cleric in a low magic world is going to definitely be a powerful character, especially a wizard/sorcerer with Epic Warding which grants +20/50 Damage Reduction, whoosh!  Casters are by far the most powerful builds there are, period, and the only time that isn't true, is when the module builder specifically makes them extremely weak by lowering magic or nerfing the heck out of spells.

Modifié par _Guile, 21 septembre 2011 - 05:41 .

[Shadooow]

BCH wrote...

I'm contemplating making several changes to classes in my VPnP module, to make classes more balanced and make some more attractive to players.  I figured it would be a good idea to mention these changes here, in case anyone sees a situation where "if you do that, then the X class is obsolete" or something similar. 

I'm considering:

1.  Making Hide and Move Silently class skills for Barbarians.  (This has a Conan-esque feel to me, and I hope it will make the class more interesting without adding to the areas where Barbs are already strong.)

2.  Giving Fighters one bonus feat every level from 10 to 20, instead of just even levels.  (So there is more of a reason to stick with Fighter instead of heading straight for Champion of Torm.)

3.  Giving Bards 8 skill points per level.  (Actually 7, since every Bard maxes out Perform, right?  This seems like it will make them more balanced with Rogues.  I figure they are no threat to the popularity of the Rogue class, since very little compares with the utility of Sneak Attack.)

4.  Giving Shifters Move Silently as a class skill.  (I can't figure out why they have Hide but not Move Silently.)

5.  Giving Red Dragon Disciples extra arcane spells per day on the odd-numbered levels like a Pale Master gets.  (This has the interesting effect of making the RDD go back and take a level of Bard or Sorcerer every now and then, so they can add and drop spells.)

6.  Adding the Eldritch Knight prestige class from PnP D&D:
http://www.d20srd.or...ritchKnight.htm

1) would rather improve his rage so it gives ab/dmg/disc/conc/hps and optionally fear immunity, barbarian doesnt have these skills per DnD rules but he has Survival skill which would be very nice to implement (you could seen usage of this skill in IWD2)

2) no need, fighter has weapon specialization, really its the best choice for Zen archer clerics, no need to improve him further, not every class have to shine pure, fighter is the best MC class

3) Bard is the most powerfull class if combined with RDD and full BAB class, he doesnt need more skill points, he gets up to +15bonus to all skills and +15 to combat skills if he use curse song on enemy (which decrease his discipline, concentration, spot, listen...)

4) hmm why not

5) I would give these bonus spells to bard but sorc could get them

6) absolutely, I added this class as well, its a bit overpowered though

[BCH]

Wow, thanks!  That's a lot of good food for thought.  It may take me several posts to make all the replies I want to make.

Regarding change #1, the Barbarian: 

I am also concerned about how Barbarians stack up against Rangers, but I was actually worried that Barbs were not good enough compared to Rangers, sort of the opposite of what Mystery X wrote.  Let me run my thoughts by you, to see if you can point out something I'm missing.

I see Barbarians having 6 perks that makes them distinct from other melee types:  d12 HD, Taunt skill, Rage (a biggie), Fast Movement, Uncanny Dodge, and Damage Reduction.

Comparitively, I see Rangers has having 9 perks: stealth skills and Trackless Step, Search, Set Trap, Spot and Listen, Animal Companions, Druid-like spells, Favored Enemies, Dual Wield, and Animal Empathy.

I figure if Barbs get Hide and Move Silently, it closes the gap a little, but they will never be as good as Rangers in the stealth arena because they lack Spot, Trackless Step, and Search.  Rangers will still be better at stealth than Barbs if they wish to build that way.

I imagine many of you see it differently.  Can you elaborate further?

ShaDoOoW, what is IDW2?  I'm only familiar with the Survival skill in the D20 SRD.

Modifié par BCH, 21 septembre 2011 - 07:03 .

[Elhanan]

One should not equate Skills seperately, for if you did the Bard might be considered OP. Having a good Skill set is a plus, but should not be considered more than a single bonus.

Barbarians are also listed as having two perks that also include penalties: Rage and Taunt. The latter leaves the Barbarian flat-footed, and the former can actually kill the PC if it fades before healing up enough. If one wants to model their PC after Conan, toss in a few lvls of Rogue, as this is what the brigand leader was according to REH materials. IMO.

If one wants to improve the Barbarian in NWN, removing the +12 Attribute restriction seems to help on Aenea.

[Mystery X]

BCH wrote...

Wow, thanks!  That's a lot of good food for thought.  It may take me several posts to make all the replies I want to make.

Regarding change #1, the Barbarian: 

I am also concerned about how Barbarians stack up against Rangers, but I was actually worried that Barbs were not good enough compared to Rangers, sort of the opposite of what Mystery X wrote.  Let me run my thoughts by you, to see if you can point out something I'm missing.

I see Barbarians having 6 perks that makes them distinct from other melee types:  d12 HD, Taunt skill, Rage (a biggie), Fast Movement, Uncanny Dodge, and Damage Reduction.

Comparitively, I see Rangers has having 9 perks: stealth skills and Trackless Step, Search, Set Trap, Spot and Listen, Animal Companions, Druid-like spells, Favored Enemies, Dual Wield, and Animal Empathy.

I figure if Barbs get Hide and Move Silently, it closes the gap a little, but they will never be as good as Rangers in the stealth arena because they lack Spot, Trackless Step, and Search.  Rangers will still be better at stealth than Barbs if they wish to build that way.

I imagine many of you see it differently.  Can you elaborate further?

Barbarians stack well against Rangers, I think, because Barbarian abilities are more focused toward damage dealing, while Ranger abilities are more focused toward some finesse.  If you want a damage-dealing alternative to a Fighter, Barbarian is a good choice.  If you want a character that plays a little more of a chess game, then you have Ranger.

If you still felt that Barbarians need an extra perk, just in keeping with D&D concepts, giving them access to Spot and maybe Search seems more appropriate.  According to their description, Barbarians are supposed to have a 6th sense in detecting danger.  Spot and maybe Search seem to be two skills that fit into that ability to detect danger.

Edit: One other thing to consider: While the Ranger has access to all those skills, it's hard to build a character who can actually make use of all of them.  Animal Empathy, Set Trap (and Craft Trap with it?), Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Listen, Spot, Search- that's 7 or 8 skills for 4 + Int skill points, and that's not even leaving room for Discipline and Concentration.

Modifié par Mystery X, 21 septembre 2011 - 09:25 .

[Magical Master]

1.  Making Hide and Move Silently class skills for Barbarians.  (This has a Conan-esque feel to me, and I hope it will make the class more interesting without adding to the areas where Barbs are already strong.)

2.  Giving Fighters one bonus feat every level from 10 to 20, instead of just even levels.  (So there is more of a reason to stick with Fighter instead of heading straight for Champion of Torm.)

3.  Giving Bards 8 skill points per level.  (Actually 7, since every Bard maxes out Perform, right?  This seems like it will make them more balanced with Rogues.  I figure they are no threat to the popularity of the Rogue class, since very little compares with the utility of Sneak Attack.)

4.  Giving Shifters Move Silently as a class skill.  (I can't figure out why they have Hide but not Move Silently.)

5.  Giving Red Dragon Disciples extra arcane spells per day on the odd-numbered levels like a Pale Master gets.  (This has the interesting effect of making the RDD go back and take a level of Bard or Sorcerer every now and then, so they can add and drop spells.)

6.  Adding the Eldritch Knight prestige class from PnP D&D:
http://www.d20srd.or...ritchKnight.htm

1. As others have said, Barbarians don't need/deserve Hide/Move Silently.  If you want to improve Barbarians, buff their rage (such as changing the STR/CON to be AB/Damage/Temp HP).

2. That would actually encourage CoT *even more.*  Normally any combination of Fighter/CoT would give 10 feats in the epic levels (11 if you do something like an 11/9 or 13/7 split).  If you instead did Fighter 10/CoT 10 pre-epic, you'd get 15 feats in the epic levels now.  Aka, you're better off trying to use those Fighter 11-20 levels in epic levels.  If you want to encourage more fighters not using CoT, give something like a 1 damage increase every 5 levels starting at level 10.  If you want to encourage pure fighters, give something like a 2 AB/2 damage bonus starting at level 10 as long as fighter levels = character level.

3. If anything, 6 skill points max.  Bard song is already brokenly good.

4. Not a bad idea.

5. People already generally only take 10 RDD levels.  I don't see how that would help.  Incidentally, doing something like halving the rate at which they get armor (such as levels 5 and 10 only instead of 1, 5, 8, and 10) might be a good idea.

6. No comment.

[Shadooow]

BCH wrote...

ShaDoOoW, what is IDW2?  I'm only familiar with the Survival skill in the D20 SRD.

Icewind Dale 2 rpg game on infinity engine from bioware, there is Survival skill and its uses, I didnt knew you are familiar with this skill so this game could be very good example of what is it good for. But you are so no prob.

[WebShaman]

I would propose not doing any changes at all. Instead, go to the PnP roots and try to implement them as accurately as possible.

The main problem with changing the D&D system is that it is like a chain reaction - one small change can set off a number of different imbalances, that tend to snowball as more changes get implemented to offset these imbalances.

I would also suggest asking legends of making such changes - like FunkySwerve. The Higher Ground Legendary System and all the changes that they made had to take into account such things. I believe it took the HG team years to get things balanced (correct me if I am wrong here, Funky).

The PRC team implemented a LOT of D&D material from the PnP sources. So there is a lot in there that one can look at, if one is looking for material that is closer to their PnP counterparts.

[Magical Master]

WebShaman wrote...

I would propose not doing any changes at all. Instead, go to the PnP roots and try to implement them as accurately as possible.

Isn't that in itself a change?

[Kail Pendragon]

WebShaman wrote...

I would propose not doing any changes at all. Instead, go to the PnP roots and try to implement them as accurately as possible.

And would that work well for a CRPG? I'm of the opinion that PnP doesn't always have to be the way to go, since it's actually a different game. NWN and PnP are just related, but one should not try to be the other (unless we are talking of closed DMed sessions, with pause, dicebag rolls and stuff used to play PnP overcoming the geographical distance).

The main problem with changing the D&D system is that it is like a chain reaction - one small change can set off a number of different imbalances, that tend to snowball as more changes get implemented to offset these imbalances.

Aye, getting it right is difficult.

[Elhanan]

For myself, there are only a few needed changes for NWN1: Haste, Dev Crit, and offensive use of Heal/ Harm. There may be more, but these are ones I see that are critical issues. But these are not really class related; just expoits waiting to happen. IMO.

AFAIK, these were also forced upon NWN1 from 3E designs, so PnP may not always be the best source for tailoring. Food for thought....

As for classes, granting the Bard 6 Skil pts is one of the better fixes that have been addressed elsewhere. And lifting the cap from Rage would make the Barbarian more appealing, as might fixing the death penalty.

[WebShaman]

No, it is not a change to the D&D system (not in the sense that it deviates from the PnP roots).

NWN is a change to the D&D system - trying to get it closer to the PnP roots I do not consider a change, not really. It is more along the lines of realigning the game to be closer to the PnP ruleset.

Now, one may ask "why wasn't this done by the Devs?" sort of along the lines of what Kail is suggesting.

I disagree with Kail here vehemently. I KNOW it is possible to translate PnP rules accurately over to a CRPG game (especially when there is a DM Client and MP Clients available ingame).

So why wasn't it done?

Simple : zots.

Zots are imaginary units that represent time x resources. A company only has a finite amount of zots, limited by the resources and time that is available to make the product in question.

Thus, as a game system gets more and more complicated (as D&D has), it becomes a question of more and more zot investment to accurately portray it as a CRPG model.

So what we see, is instead a set of implementations that deviate from the original PnP rules accordingly. And what we have witnessed for the NWN example, is a huge Community effort (being that they have more zots that they can invest into the game) to bring the game closer to that which the Community wishes.

Which, of course, benefits all of us.

[WebShaman]

As for changes to the CRPG system that is NWN as it differs from it's PnP counterpart - rest.

Resting needs to be evaluated differently.

Resting (which is really another description for recharging) in NWN is horribly broken. In the click of a button, your <insert character here> is recharged fully in a short amount of time.

I feel that NWN handles this extremely poorly (and I think the Community thinks so as well, when one considers all the different changes that were made to Rest that exists as CC for the game).

In the vanilla NWN, there is *NO* expenditures or risk involved when you press the Rest button. None. In other words, you get free recharging just about when and where you wish.

It is the single most imbalancing element ingame that I am aware of.

I mean, oh yeah, you just click and rest 8 HOURS...and the whole world goes into timestop mode, waiting for you to awake.

It gets even more silly in MP - that 8 hours (or more, whatever) passes for the character in question...but doesn't for anyone else! O_o

Talk about slipstreaming through the timestream!

[MrZork]

Since this topic is potentially huge, I'll just comment on one thing.

IMO, the notion of 5 or 6 + INT bonus skill points for bards would be useful. Bards are supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades class and they have a really good skill set in terms of class skills. But, when it's pretty close to mandatory to max out perform, concentration, and spellcraft (at least for actual casting bards), the 4/level comes up too short. I think more than 6 is too much because there should remain some incentive to put points into INT, and no largely skill-based class should start out being able to max every useful skill at every level.

[EDIT: I had a longer post originally, then realized I had drifted into another thread's topic.]

Modifié par MrZork, 25 septembre 2011 - 04:24 .

[Kail Pendragon]

WebShaman wrote...

I disagree with Kail here vehemently. I KNOW it is possible to translate PnP rules accurately over to a CRPG game (especially when there is a DM Client and MP Clients available ingame).

Apart DMed closed sessions I still have to see NWN be made to play anything similar to PnP. It's probably zots, aye; it might take too much resources to set it to work so. And it's also about the main target audience which possibly wants to play something different from PnP.

[BCH]

Regarding change #1: Barbarians

People have made a lot of good points about this, and I think I made the mistake of sounding like I think these changes are necessary, when I don't think they are necessary at all, just potentially desirable for my VPnP game.

So while I've not decided whether or not to make any changes to the Barb class, I have definitely been given a lot to think about here.

Regarding change #2: Fighters

Magical Master wrote...

2.  Giving Fighters one bonus feat every level from 10 to 20, instead of just even levels.  (So there is more of a reason to stick with Fighter instead of heading straight for Champion of Torm.)

2. That would actually encourage CoT *even more.*  Normally any combination of Fighter/CoT would give 10 feats in the epic levels (11 if you do something like an 11/9 or 13/7 split).  If you instead did Fighter 10/CoT 10 pre-epic, you'd get 15 feats in the epic levels now.  Aka, you're better off trying to use those Fighter 11-20 levels in epic levels.  If you want to encourage more fighters not using CoT, give something like a 1 damage increase every 5 levels starting at level 10.  If you want to encourage pure fighters, give something like a 2 AB/2 damage bonus starting at level 10 as long as fighter levels = character level.

This is something I never thought of, not even close, and is precisely the reason I posted this here!  Thanks to Magical Master and everyone else who commented on change #2.

I will have to give a lot more thought to it, but adding a little bonus AB, AC, and damage for characters who take a lot of levels of Fighter - especially characters who only take levels of Fighter - is really tempting to me.  I'm not keen on a bonus that vanishes suddenly if you take a level in another class, but like I said, I have a lot of thinking to do on this.

Regarding change #3: Bards

Again, lots to think about here, thanks for that.  I'm leaning now toward giving them only 6 (or possibly 7) skill points per level.

Regarding the differences between NWN and PnP D&D

I think one of the differences that struck me most strongly when I started playing NWN was not just the ease and power of resting, but the abundance of healing potions and healing kits.  We never had access to that kind of healing in tabletop D&D, at least not in the groups I was in.

But then again, we didn't take damage anywhere near as much or as often as one does in NWN, because we could easily take 15 minutes or more to micro-manage our actions each combat round.  It was a lot easier to avoid damage from many sources that way.

From my perspective at least, adding abundant healing items like that (and powerful rest mechanics) may have been something the devs had to do to balance out the "increased deadliness" of NWN combat.  At least, that's how it looks from my perspective.

[Magical Master]

BCH wrote...

I will have to give a lot more thought to it, but adding a little bonus AB, AC, and damage for characters who take a lot of levels of Fighter - especially characters who only take levels of Fighter - is really tempting to me.  I'm not keen on a bonus that vanishes suddenly if you take a level in another class, but like I said, I have a lot of thinking to do on this.

Er, aren't the bolded parts contradictory?  On one hand, you're very tempted to give pure fighters a special bonus so they aren't as far behind...but on the other hand, you want that bonus to be available to non-pure fighters?

[BCH]

Magical Master wrote...

BCH wrote...

I will have to give a lot more thought to it, but adding a little bonus AB, AC, and damage for characters who take a lot of levels of Fighter - especially characters who only take levels of Fighter - is really tempting to me.  I'm not keen on a bonus that vanishes suddenly if you take a level in another class, but like I said, I have a lot of thinking to do on this.

Er, aren't the bolded parts contradictory?  On one hand, you're very tempted to give pure fighters a special bonus so they aren't as far behind...but on the other hand, you want that bonus to be available to non-pure fighters?

They absolutely are contradictory, which is one reason why I still have a lot of thinking to do on this.

[WebShaman]

As I suggested - I wouldn't try to do changes without knowing what changes they will cause.

Otherwise, it is like trying to dam the flood by sticking your finger in the hole. With each new hole, you find you quickly run out of fingers...

[Elhanan]

RE: Fighters - Personally, I do not believe more Feats are required for the class, as many, many designs simply take as few lvls as needed already. Instead, to encourage a majority or pure build, perhaps offering a single bonus for doing this would be easier to implement and balance with the other classes, and bonus XP for questing as a single class.

On Aenea, a pure build is called a Paragon of the class, and there is a reward at 40th for achieving this title, plus the hourly bonus XP already given for anyone remaining single or dual classed. Sunjectively, some bonuses seem better than others, but for now I am leaving the specifics for server debates. What I really like is that every class is offered something as a reward for trying a Pure class design. and the bonus XP offered for each indv character that avoids the triple class or higher designs.