C&C class balance now that the 4th printing it out

[daddystabz]

I'm trying to get into a new C&C campaign soon either online or face-to-face and I'm wondering how class balance is in C&C from low to mid to high levels. Do mages pretty much own everyone at the high levels of play?

[Treebore]

With my house rules and how I plan encounters? Not so much, but they definitely appear to have a big impact. All the spell casters do, whether mage, cleric, druid, or Illusionist. Spell Casters are like dealing with modern day heavy weapons, find them and take them out fast. Do that and you likely win, but that is where groups find out the fighter types are very important, they are the infantry that protects those big important pieces.

[GameOgre]

Mages rock but keep an eye on those nasty spells that often unbalance the class. I think spell control is the best way to keep those perky mages from the God Complex.

[serleran]

Higher level caster play, primarily for wizards and illusionists, who do not automagically obtain all available spells, becomes a critical factor. Clerics do not typically have many damage spells, and the ones they do have (sound burst, for example) often tend to hurt the party equally. Like all play, strong tactics are needed and that is where the other classes really shine. Fighters are great at corralling creatures so the wizard can nuke them.

[Omote]

Spellwise, I think Wizards are pretty powerful at very low level if they have the sleep spell. I think that flattens out a bit at levels 3-4. At 5th level the big damage spells come into play. While these spells still do relatively low damage, there is no spell damage cap in C&C. In your campaigns, if you do not have a way to deal with 24d6 damage fireballs, conside the Wizard to be battlefield dominat. But, like most other things, that is relative. if a 24th level wizard is met on the field of battle by a 24th level fighter, if the fighter goes first in initiative, that wizard might may very well get has ass killed! As always, it depends on tactics, timing and how the GM runs the game.

With the right GM, I think the Illusionist is extremely powerful (at all levels)l. If the GM doesn't let players make assumptions with illusion spells, then the illusionist is rather weak (at all levels). A special note on what Serleran mentioned, if you are a CK who gives out lots of spells to the Wiz/Ill, then they will be incrementally better IMO. If the wiz/ill do not have lots of access to learning new spells, well they are definitely not as powerful.

Druids, well they have some neat spells, but I do not have a ton of experience with them at low levels. At higher levels, I would say that druids are very well balanced to the rest of the classes.

Clerics, I just don't know about. I think that they are a but underpowered all the way throughout their career. Sure, they have spells which are unique only to the cleric class, and are the best healers in the game, but magicwise, they are underpowered (if you do not taking healing HP into account). Clerics are fine as the 2nd tier fighters but fall quickly behind figthers at 10th level.

~O

[dachda]

Clerics, I just don't know about. I think that they are a but underpowered all the way throughout their career. Sure, they have spells which are unique only to the cleric class, and are the best healers in the game, but magicwise, they are underpowered (if you do not taking healing HP into account). Clerics are fine as the 2nd tier fighters but fall quickly behind figthers at 10th level.
~O

I agree, and unfortunately the CKG gives very few new abilties to clerics after 13th level compared to the other classes, especially the druid. Not even their BtH improves much.

[KaiserKris]

Clerics, I just don't know about. I think that they are a but underpowered all the way throughout their career. Sure, they have spells which are unique only to the cleric class, and are the best healers in the game, but magicwise, they are underpowered (if you do not taking healing HP into account). Clerics are fine as the 2nd tier fighters but fall quickly behind figthers at 10th level.
~O

I agree, and unfortunately the CKG gives very few new abilties to clerics after 13th level compared to the other classes, especially the druid. Not even their BtH improves much.

I think the C&C cleric really ought to have a 3/4 BtH progression, and could probably use the domain powers that have been homebrewed by some people (Omote comes to mind) as well.

[Zudrak]

Clerics, I just don't know about. I think that they are a but underpowered all the way throughout their career. Sure, they have spells which are unique only to the cleric class, and are the best healers in the game, but magicwise, they are underpowered (if you do not taking healing HP into account). Clerics are fine as the 2nd tier fighters but fall quickly behind figthers at 10th level.
~O

I agree, and unfortunately the CKG gives very few new abilties to clerics after 13th level compared to the other classes, especially the druid. Not even their BtH improves much.

I think the C&C cleric really ought to have a 3/4 BtH progression, and could probably use the domain powers that have been homebrewed by some people (Omote comes to mind) as well.

Hmm. I had been using the domain powers in my campaign, but did not think of the BtH prog getting a tweak. Very interesting. *thumbsup*

[LordSeurek]

I think the C&C cleric really ought to have a 3/4 BtH progression, and could probably use the domain powers that have been homebrewed by some people (Omote comes to mind) as well.

I allow domains as well in my games, but find whenever I play one in anothers game (and I am usually the guy who always plays the cleric), they are reluctant to add it in.

Never thought of the 3/4 BtH progression.

L.S.

[KaiserKris]

I think the C&C cleric really ought to have a 3/4 BtH progression, and could probably use the domain powers that have been homebrewed by some people (Omote comes to mind) as well.

I allow domains as well in my games, but find whenever I play one in anothers game (and I am usually the guy who always plays the cleric), they are reluctant to add it in.

Never thought of the 3/4 BtH progression.

L.S.

My view about it is that, with the classic four-person fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue party, I find that you virtually always need a second person to get into combat, taking and dishing out hits. Clerics are supposed to be warrior priests, and a 1/2 BtH is pretty lackluster for that. The following is a 2/3 BtH progression, with 3/4 numbers in parantheses. Overall, I think I like the 3/4 BtH progression, as it makes the cleric a rather better frontline fighter. Keep in mind that fighters, say, also get weapon specialization, extra attacks and combat dominance, which the cleric does not, as well as a better weapon selection. In my games, I have a simple method for armour penalties as well, which is reduced for fighters and knights. Medium armours inflict a -1 penalty to all Dex skill checks/saves, and heavy armours inflict a -2 penalty to Dex skill checks/saves and also reduce movement by 10. So there's not really any massive fear of the fighter being made useless by making the cleric BtH a bit stronger.

Cleric:
Level 1: +1 (+1)
Level 2: +2 (+2)
Level 3: +2 (+3)
Level 4: +3 (+3)
Level 5: +4 (+4)
Level 6: +4 (+5)
Level 7: +5 (+6)
Level 8: +6 (+6)
Level 9: +6 (+7)
Level 10: +7 (+8)
Level 11: +8 (+9)
Level 12: +8 (+9)
Level 13: +9 (+10)
Level 14: +10 (+11)
Level 15: +10 (+12)
Level 16: +11 (+12)
Level 17: +12 (+13)
Level 18: +12 (+14)
Level 19: +13 (+15)
Level 20: +14 (+15)

[LordSeurek]

Makes sense Kris. I'll save this for when I run again, maybe tweek a bit, maybe use as is. I am all about house ruling things if they make sense to me, which I do. Others I game with (when they run) would rather things kept as is as to not bog down the 'simplicity' of the ruleset.

L.S.