Over/underpowered Classes

[Daz]

Krushnak: That's all well and good but in game terms what could a nobleman of Khitai with maxed-out social skills and high charisma do that any other class from Khitai who says they're a noble and maxed-out social skills and high charisma couldn't do?

You're focusing too much on one aspect of the noble class, the respect that is given to people who have a noble title and not enough on all of the other aspects of the class. After all a character that's a level 1 noble/level 4 thief has blood that's just as purple as a character that's a level 5 noble so what's the point of taking the other four levels of noble. Aside from the cool RP benefits of having purple blood (which you can get by just having your first level be noble) there's very very few things that give a noble an edge.

Hell, a sorcerer with high charisma, makes out social skills and Hypontism sorcercy style can beat the Noble at his own game (social interaction).

 

[Ichabod]

Ichabod, the problem is, you say the classes are unbalanced - the social or knowledge-based characters are underpowered. Ok, fine, but then you advocate giving the combat-oriented classes more skill points.

Where did I say that the social classes are underpowered? I said noble is underpowered as a PC in what I feel would be a typical campaign. Well, I suppose if noble is the only social class (ignoring Temptress), then I am saying it's underpowered.

I'm advocating giving the weak "fighter" classes more skill points so that they measure up to barbarian. That wouldn't be the only thing I'd do as it would make noble even less desirable.

Skill points are a balancing factor for classes like noble, for instance. If you go and give combat classes more skills, then the classes will be even MORE unbalanced!!

I don't think nobles get anywhere near as many skill ranks as they should. In fact, to answer Daz's recent question about how to improve noble in his Viking campaign, my first thoughts would be:

A. Quick and dirty option - Jack up noble skill ranks to where you feel they balance out with other classes, maybe to 8 per level. While this would allow them to either max out more skills or diversify into more areas, it's not an exciting option. Could additionally expand their class skill list to give more places to sink ranks into, but there's some line where the class flavor gets lost. Listen and Swim might be two thematic options for that campaign.

B. Compromise - Give them good Fortitude saves, which seems particularly appropriate to Daz's campaign and bump their skill ranks some. Not that this is much better than A, but it's seems elegant to me and more flavorful.

C. Major upgrade - Daz has to come up with regional features for Viking nobles unless they are mentioned in some other book, but one could accelerate the regional feature gains to 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, etc. Either leave the rest of the abilities where they are or slide a bit to fill gaps. Alternatively, give them some generic bonus feats, like at 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th. Mix and match with either and/or B. This is if you feel the class is really undesirable but becomes much messier.

D. Ignore - Ignore the noble class and treat nobility as a function of feats. Either have a "I'm A Noble" feat that is prereq. for social abilities that rolls together the first level noble specials or have the social abilities be feats that just require Charisma or something.

Also, if you discover you're underpowered in a fight, then multiclassing is for you. Multiclassing is not a bad thing - multiclassing is a GOOD thing! It's definitely to be embraced. There is absolutely no problem with taking a level or two in Noble, then a couple in Soldier to get some combat prowess, some Scholar to get some knowledge skills and magic, on to Thief to get some stealth, then back to Noble! There's nothing wrong with switching EVERY level! Of course, single-classing is fine too, just be prepared to embrace your limitations - lack of personal fighting prowess for scholars/nobles, lack of non-combat skills for barbarians/soldiers/pirates.

So, the answer to the problem is to multiclass into a better class so that the character isn't as weak? I'm not disputing that the game heavily encourages this, primarily in that there's a reasonable argument for every character starting off as a thief. Rather than coming up with workarounds, however, seems like anyone playing the game a lot can expend some time ahead of time to just fix any root problems.

By the way, I'm not saying the noble should be better in combat necessarily but that the noble should just be better, mainly in being less narrow. In some campaigns, narrow PCs are perfectly fine. In others, narrow characters are better as NPCs, which is what I see in the noble (and the favorite terrainers).

Rewriting the game to any extent takes a bunch of effort, but the benefits are usually lasting. I certainly wouldn't recommend much monkeying around with the rules if you don't plan on playing protracted campaigns, but I've been playing in one campaign for about three years and would expect the next one to be as long. So, I see trying to make constructive changes as a small investment, which is why I've offered our group to work on trying to correct anything we don't like when, in however many years, we reboot.

Also, Daz, your comment about armor hit a chord with me as well. While I haven't penalized the noble or soldier for this in my attempts to rate classes, medium and heavy armor just aren't viable in our campaign. The most lethal rolls in our campaign are climb and swim checks. This takes away one of the primary comparative advantages of these classes. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a way or even a reason to specifically address this feature of your campaign, but it may be a factor in how far you make any changes.

 

[Krushnak]

i do agree that the noble should have been given 6 skill pts and not 4 but it isnt really a class killer.

Ichabod seriously if your going to play a mainly out in the wilderness and barbaric campaign then nobles shouldnt be as good a choice as a barbarian or borderer. however if your playing a mainly civilised or city based campaign then the barbarian's will be heavily penalised compared to thieves and nobles. if you think this noble class is bad, check out the noble from star wars d20. the only reason to take that class was you got diplomacy as a class skill.

and Daz for your viking game i just wouldnt include nobles if you were playing mythological style vikings, but if you were going for a more realistic feel then i would limit the classes availability and come up with some new regional features for nordheimirs as well as making it's class features like title have a greater impact on gameplay. you will get heavy armour in a viking game, not plate but definately the mixes of various medium armours.

also the aid another and enhanced leadership the noble are pretty cool abilities. especially the enhanced leaderhsip. and if you dont want to be leading warbands or armies you dont have to but then your deliberately missing out on one of your strengths.

 

[Daz]

Well I'd really like nobles in this campaign since I'm going to focus a lot of social interaction despite the setting.

Ichabod: I think I'll go with solution B and add some more appropriate Social Skills like infallible geneological knowledge, challenge (pass will save or fight the noble in a one on one duel even if you outnumber the noble's party heavily), Athing legal loophole master, something poem-related, maybe something that allows them to gain bonuses by giving away large amounts of money, etc.

 

[kintire]

Its an interesting analysis, but I'm not sure I agree with regard to the noble, especially all this "not much use if you are away from your home culture" stuff. Yes, if you are at the other end of the world you may have problems, but Hyboria is actually a pretty cosmopolitan place, and most of the major nations are engaged in both trade and diplomacy together. I think it is reasonable that nobility is respected across a wide area. After all, in Vale of Lost Women we see that an Ophirean noble has been given permission by the king of Stygia to stufy at a university in that nation, and that when Conan rescues his sister he talks about taking her to the southern Stygian border and handing her over, in the confident and unquestioning belief that the Stygians will see her safely home. If Ophirean Nobility is respected in Stygia, I see no reason why it wouldn't be in Turan, Zamora, Shem and even Vendhya, Iranistan or Zembabwei. All are nations that make a lot of money by trading, and irritating the nobility of your trading partners is not a smart move. And of course the Hyborians would reciprocate. I'm not at all convinced that the Noble is that limited. Also, access to heavy armour is an important bonus. Similarly for the Soldier; the low skill points are annoying, but the maxed Parry is very useful, and the feats can be devastating.

I agree about the Borderer though. very situational, and inferior to the Barbarian in all respects. I'm unconvinced by the Nomad too.

 

[applejuicefool]

Krushnak: That's all well and good but in game terms what could a nobleman of Khitai with maxed-out social skills and high charisma do that any other class from Khitai who says they're a noble and maxed-out social skills and high charisma couldn't do?

Umm...pull it off?

 

[argo]

Our GM often comments that when he reads this forum, our group seems to live a completely different lifestyle.

Interesting. I do have to wonder how much your perceptions are colored by your play style.

Matter of fact looking over the whole second page of this thread it seems that quite a few very long posts can be boiled down to "the usefulness of a particular class can be affected by style of a particular campaign"

Well knock me over with a feather. :roll:

Yes, If I absoluetly had to rank the classes Barb would come out on top and Noble on the bottom (I admit it! I house-ruled the Noble class too ) But I don't believe for a second the gap is so wide that any halfway competent game group can't find their footing easily. All this talk about Noble being better suited as a NPC class... Listen, I'm a guy who played a Tech Specalist in a long-running SW game, I know what it means to have a class better suited to a NPC and the Conan Noble isn't it.

Oh, and please don't underestimate the Soldier either. As both a player and a GM I've found a well-played soldier to be startingly effective.

Matter of fact, let me simply say this: after two years of playing with this system on both sides of the GM screen I think the Conan classes about as balanced as any other d20 game I've ever seen and better than most.

Later.

 

[Sutek]

With regards to noble, there's a simple "fix", if you think it needs one and want to call it that:

Allow characters to start progressing on the Noble class at any time.

After all, the Class is meant to really just represent the origins or lifepath of the character and not be precisely literal. If one can become a Soldier out of the blue, why can't someone become Noble? If you look at it as a series of traits tha the player is opting for, and not so strictly "blood line" or inhereitance or something, then it ballances very nicely.

 

[Daz]

I'm looking through the magic system right now trying to Icelandic Sagaize it and I've come across "Gelid Bones."

Incredibly cool spell but isn't it a bit too cheap/easy for a spell that completely incapacitates someone?

 

[Trodax]

I'm looking through the magic system right now trying to Icelandic Sagaize it and I've come across "Gelid Bones."

Incredibly cool spell but isn't it a bit too cheap/easy for a spell that completely incapacitates someone?

Yes, it's definitely one of the most cost-effective spells in the game (quite powerful and cheap!). One limitation it does have is that it requires two different Sorcery styles, though. And requires a touch-attack as well, right? (Don't have my book with me, but I think that's the case.)

 

[kintire]

Incredibly cool spell but isn't it a bit too cheap/easy for a spell that completely incapacitates someone?

That's Sorcery for you. Heck, Hypnotism's basic spell allows you to incapacitate someone for no PP cost! The easier spells that achieve this all have their drawbacks however, and as Trodax says the catch with Gelid Bones is it involves getting far closer to your enemies than most scholars will prefer.

 

[samagee]

Personally I feel that balance is for those who lack imagination. It dumbs down a game in order for others to not be alienated. That is all I am going to say on the matter this time.

 

[sbarrie]

Lets imagine a party that does a lot of traveling around (as most Conan parties do) and either has a Noble with 16 Charisma and maxed out social skills or a X Class with 16 Charisma and maxed out social skills. What can the noble do social-wise that Class X can't?

Let's see:

Rank Hath Its Priviledges: Not of much use if you're away from your home culture.

I thought the point of Rank Hath Its Priviledges is that it does still work while away from your home culture.

Nobles believe, and want everyone else to believe, that they're in their position because of the will of the gods, not because of a nebulous social network and luck. They're special, and it's a crime to say otherwise.

If nobles don't treat foreign nobles with similar respect, people will start wondering if there's anything special about being a noble at all. And that just wouldn't do.

RHIP may have been the most used class ability in my last campaign.

Special Regional Features: A mixed bag, but most don't boost the Noble's social skils at all.

No, but it keeps their combat abilities up. They gain attack bonuses with their regional weapon at approximately the rate they fall behind in their base attack bonus.

 

[bjorntfh]

I our campaign we've simply made all the formation combat abilities constant effects (it's really helped) but soldier is still sean as the red headed step child of the classes. No one plans to take more than 4 levels in it ever.

Probably the best bet would be to increase the skill points to 4. Then they would be useful outside of only combat (and in combat the barb still whups them.)

 

[Sutek]

A better class skill list and maybe ore skill points wouldn't hurt, but they should probably have a better BAB progression at higher levels too, or better class features as they level.

Honestly, being able to shoose so many feats is a huge benefit, but most soldiers would be trained in better use of weapons as default training. If they get fomation training, then free feats such as improved unarmed or 2wpn seem logical too.

I'd suggest that better ability with reach weapons would make them more unique.

 

[Clovenhoof]

*bump*

My two copper concerning the class balance. I can't say much about the Noble, except that his usefulness is probably very dependent on the campaign style. However, some thoughts about Soldiers and Borderers:

I don't think the Soldier is underpowered. He has access to a lot of feats a Barbarian simply must not take. The Barb can fight well with any weapon he finds, but the Soldier fights better with one weapon type he specializes in.

Besides, the Soldier class is ideal for multiclassing. A pure-class Soldier will at some point be out of reasonable feat choices because he gets so many. However, it's no problem to fill at least 12 levels of Soldier.
With these 12 levels, you can get Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization, on top of other sweet feats like Web of Death, which the Barb again cannot take. Reflexive Parry is kind of a must-have, but you have enough slots to afford it.

As for the Formation Combat boons, I think it wouldn't unbalance the game to make these "always on", especially as PCs will rarely ever enjoy these benefits as per RAW.

In short, with a Soldier you can build a real blade artist, getting very good at what he does very early on, whereas the Barb gets his real payoff abilities only late in the game (level 14+).

As for the Borderer, they are a kind of Jack-of-all-trades and don't really shine in anything at first glance. His skill selection is very similar to the Barb's and they have the same amount of points, he can fight well with two weapons but not as well as the Soldier, and his defence is only average as well. But the class is very versatile and maybe the one that's balanced best in itself. Still, it can also benefit from multiclassing, depending on the desired combat style.

 

[Ichabod]

I obviously have very different views on what is desirable in a class, so there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing about it, but I'd just note a couple of things.

First, as a general comment on the soldier class, sure, you can build a combat monster who is just better than a barbarian at fighting. The barbarian should be significantly better at everything else with a host of awesome specials and twice as many skill ranks.

Rephrased for emphasis - the soldier sucks at everything besides combat; the barbarian doesn't. Even the wussy cousins of the barbarian, the borderer and nomad, should be far better than a soldier except in pure combat ability.

Second, specific to weapon specialization and the barbarian's drawback, I just don't see the point. It's easy to kill things with Power Attack and a bardiche. Why keep sinking feats into overkill when you could put the feats into other areas?

Nevermind that if you play in a game where people lose their stuff (ironically, we don't, and I'd still never bother sinking the feats into specializing), Versatility is way better than specialization.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I obviously have very different views on what is desirable in a class, so there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing about it,

It's cool. You don't necessarily need to agree with each other after a discussion. The idea is to exchange information and insight, at least for me. I don't view such discussions as arguments.

the soldier sucks at everything besides combat

That's true. (just like in real life *hur hur*)

That's what PCs travel in parties for. Ideally, there is a specialist for everything. A Soldier doesn't need to be self-sufficient in the wild, because that's what the Wilderness classes are for. He doesn't need to be good at traps or ancient lore, because that's the Thief's and Scholar's domain. A Soldier has to fight.

I agree with you that it may be boring in the long run, if you can only wait for the next fight and can only tag along between encounters. That's why I, personally, would recommend the Soldier mainly as minor multiclass. Many classes (like Thief, see other thread) can benefit from some extra feats the Soldier has to offer.

However, combat should not always be just about dealing raw damage -- sometimes there should be opponents that have to be dealt with in some other way. Bull-rushed off a cliff, tripped or disarmed -- all these nice manoeuvres that work so much better with the appropriate feat, which the Soldier is much more likely to have.

And I also agree with you that, personally, I prefer versatility over specialization. Which is why I chose to play a Barbarian instead of a Soldier or some other class. Even back in D&D days, my fellows couldn't understand why I refused to ever take Weapon Focus or similar feats. (Though then it was the other way round, I didn't want to specialize because you never knew what weapon you'd find next.)

Last not least, I would like to add how funny I find these expressions like "the Barbarian's wussy cousins" or the Soldier as "red-headed stepchild". =)

 

[Axerules]

Nevermind that if you play in a game where people lose their stuff (ironically, we don't, and I'd still never bother sinking the feats into specializing), Versatility is way better than specialization.

And I also agree with you that, personally, I prefer versatility over specialization. Which is why I chose to play a Barbarian instead of a Soldier or some other class. Even back in D&D days, my fellows couldn't understand why I refused to ever take Weapon Focus or similar feats. (Though then it was the other way round, I didn't want to specialize because you never knew what weapon you'd find next.)

I have the same opinion. In D&D or Midnight (where I'm a player and not the GM), it is rare that I play a fighter. I'd rather play a barbarian and choose to be versatile. I remember one of my fellow players asking me "What are the feats of your fighter?" when I said I would be play the "muscles" in the party. I answered : "strength 22 in rage". To use every weapon you can get is better than to be limited IMO.

 

[treeplanter]

Bump

My analyses of the classes:

The fierciest:

Barbarian: The most "versatile" characters. Since he get less feats than most other combatant I find him more boring. Most barbarian will end up with the fithing madness fighting style. One archetype I like is an Hyborian barbarian/Borderer character (mainly because it differ from the standart fighting madness). I think versatility should NOT apply to exotic bow. Having the best dodge defense and uncanny dodge make it the most dangereous and hardest to kill melee character.

Borderer: I really like this one. Skill very similar to barbarian. Combat style allow you for more flexibility. I think this guy really excel if you give importance to movement. With the fleet-footed feat and in your favored terrain and armed with a Bow the Borderer will outmatch ANY opponent. And when you get the no penality for difficult terrain it s a massacres. Also the best of the 3 tracker since he can track at full speed (wich is quite necessery to catch someone back!)

Nomads: Your favoured terrain are more limited than borderer (tough personnaly I allow Nomad to select other terrain than Plain and desert as the second one) but you get the mobility chain wich is cool. Also you get some bonus feat wich are always nice . Born to the saddle if a tricky ability. Personnaly we have not used it a lot but I tend to rule that the Nomad always have a "better" horse. To sum it whatever your character if you encounter a mounted Nomad and you re not you re better get ready to negociate.

Overview: Combat wise if the barbarian engage in melee he shoud be superior to both the Borderer and Nomad Unless in their favoured terrain wich would be quite even. Range wise the Borderer and the Nomad should both be quite superior to the Barbarian thanks to their feat and if you don t apply versatility to bow. Also I think that the Bossnian Hyrkanian and Shemite are all superior to Race that have barbarian has favoured class. Track wise their is no real competition. Mounted wise well you could make your barbarian and your borderer a mounted combatant but it will just take longer than the Nomad. and Nomad will have a better horse.

So in the end I don t think their is a huge imbalance between these classes. By huge imbalance I mean so huge that the DM can t balance thing. So unless your campain is monster-pop-pop-in-your-face I don t think anyone should be complaining here.

it s late i ll post my tough on the other another day