Regarding the problem with casters being so dominant at higher level.
One thing we house-ruled in a lot of game (and took from 1E AD&D) was having different XP tables for each class. Part of the problem I had when 3E came out was that the Wizard went flying up in levels as fast as the fighter.
If you have a much more lengthy XP progression table for wizards, then you alleviate some of the dominant spell-caster problem by the mere fact that it takes wizards so much longer to get to that level. That's how it worked in 1E AD&D. If you made it to the upper reaches of wizard levels, you were powerful, but it wasn't easy to get there.
Has anyone else tried this in 3.5E? We did some tweaking the numbers to try and hit a good balance, but I'm curious if anyone else ever did this.
If a 10th level wizard and a 10th level figher ar not balanced then adjust there abilities dont go back to giving them different exp charts.
Yeah but by balanced you mean balanced for combat. That's one of my dislikes with 4E* - balance means balanced for combat and nothing else so you homogenize. I don't think that's a great approach to take. Classes can be useful outside of combat and less useful in, and vice versa, and that's not a problem for me.
*Disclaimer: I like 4E.
When 3e first came out, I was miffed by the unification of XP into one chart. As I played 3e, I realized why they did this. A single XP progression allows players to multiclass. As someone who prefers a multiclass character, I now prefer the single class progression.
As far as slower progression for spellcasters, that's why item creation (and certain spells) had an XP cost. If a spellcaster was spending XP on these things, they were progressing at a slower rate. This is why one of my few contentions with PFRPG is the removal of XP costs; they were meant as a means of slowing a spellcaster's (paricularly a wizard's) XP progression without having to add in a whole separate chart to complicate progression should someone with to multiclass.
|
the notion of XP cost for creating magical items is ridiclous, you should learn something form the creation, not forget it...
in AD&D 2nd Edition you earned experience by creating magical items or spells
ok Wizards are powerful in higher levels... could i ask why you don't complain why the fighing lclasses dominate the low levels? considering a wizards almost is killed with a single blow...
magic is powerful and i like that, even then a smart fighter taking the fighter up close to a wizard would be able to kill him rather soon... ok if he stays away he is just some fry potato...
its just tactitcs...
and no i don't like 4.0Ed
the notion of XP cost for creating magical items is ridiclous, you should learn something form the creation, not forget it...
in AD&D 2nd Edition you earned experience by creating magical items or spells
please don't turn this into an "XP cost bad" debate. I've played every iteration of this game but 4e, so I know all of the debates. You dislike the idea; I have no problem with it. Please leave it at that.
ok Wizards are powerful in higher levels... could i ask why you don't complain why the fighing lclasses dominate the low levels? considering a wizards almost is killed with a single blow...
magic is powerful and i like that, even then a smart fighter taking the fighter up close to a wizard would be able to kill him rather soon... ok if he stays away he is just some fry potato...
its just tactitcs...
On this measure, I wholeheartedly agree. I predominately play spellcasters ... wizards mostly. I personally believe the people complaining about high-level casters skip over the early levels and jump right into high-level, so they have no recall about wizards splatting in a strong breeze while the fighter types rule through the mids. If ya don't like your fighter to be overpowered, think like a soldier and use tactics and quit whining about it. Right there with ya, Montalve. ;-)
What I meant by balanced was equally good in their fields. Personally I think a fighter should mop the floor with a wizard in a fight. Even with the wizard slinging spells. I prefer wizards that are more utility belts and less blaster cannons. I believe that a Rogue should not contribute as much to combat as a fighte because a rogues field of expertise lies outside of combat. Sneaking, gathering info, spying, trap disarming. Sure the rogue should be able to contribute to a fight but I would pick another figher by my side any day over a rogue if I knew combat was coming up.
The classes should be balanced to have equal use and effectiveness just in different aspects of the game. They should all use the same exp progression. If one classed is more powerful or unbalanced when all is compared then that class's abilities need reviewed it does not need to get its own exp chart.
Wholehearted agreement here. Too often, games of various systems seem to have moved to "balanced means everyone can do the same thing in combat" (I'm not merely talking 4e either. It's been a trend over the years). Balance should mean "good in some areas, great in a few, lacking in others", and those areas should vary for each individual. Concentrating on "everyone good in combat" weakens the game.
I would like to see a throwback to some of the 2e ideas of differing XP rewards for differing classes however. There are rules for traps, but what about spell or knowledge research or conversion of followers to your religion? These (and points for good thinking and RP) should be highlighted more than combat; infact, I would like to see those rewards as more of the standard rather than the sidenote.