What are some tricks to make the lower-tier classes shine?
For example: How do you make a Rogue useful when the wizard can just cast "Find Traps", "Detect Secret Doors", "Knock", "Invisibility", and lots of other spells that do what Rogue does better than Rogue can.
I'm interested in both actual experience (Things that did/didn't work) and theorycrafed solutions (Things that should/shouldn't work) which promote/reward use of the weaker classes.
My experiences with successful rogues has been two characters: "Crimson" Cade Hardilock, halfling pirate hunter. And Nicorai Pitwalker, tiefling guide to the lower planes. Both success stories are inextricably connected to magic however. Because "Magic(tm) IS better."
Lots of cheap magical items (Goggles of Minute Seeing, Eyes of the Eagle, Vest of Escape, Ring of Jumping, Ring of Climbing, Boots & Cloak of Elvenkind). Let the rogue find them all, and he is appropriately skilled until mid-level, and can compete with the wizard at low/mid levels.
Get a bunch of low-level wands. There are tons of spells that still have creative uses. Grease, feather-fall, shield, expeditious retreat, spider climb, vanish, negate aroma, touch of the sea, and more.
This all comes within the price-range of a mid-level character's starting/expected budget. Especially if you have a friendly caster with relevant feats.
Grab Trap Spotter to find the "Who the heck put a trap HERE?!" experiences that might be otherwise missed.
And more important than anything; PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THE OTHERS ARE PLAYING. If there is a debuffer caster, then archery goes from being the worst idea ever to pure win, as the enemies stumbles around blinded/stunned/denied dex in another manner. If there are multiple melee combatants, go for dual-wield and set up a flank.
Building a good rogue is like making a souffle. You need to be really attentive, and do it right, or you get a disaster.
The only way to make low tiers better is to buff the low tiers. Anything else either won't work at all, or is a complete waste of time to even attempt to do.
To elaborate from my own point of view, any attempt to "force" them into importance without changing the underlying mechanics of those classes ends up feeling artificial, arbitrary, and annoying.
What are some tricks to make the lower-tier classes shine?
For example: How do you make a Rogue useful when the wizard can just cast "Find Traps", "Detect Secret Doors", "Knock", "Invisibility", and lots of other spells that do what Rogue does better than Rogue can.
I'm interested in both actual experience (Things that did/didn't work) and theorycrafed solutions (Things that should/shouldn't work) which promote/reward use of the weaker classes.
A wizard can do a lot of things, but it can do all of them all the time, and every time he prepares a spell like knock he is not casting a spell that could be more useful.
I think posting actual issues is easier to deal with than theorycraft issues. Knock is a theorycraft issue.
|
The problem isn't the class. I've got a rogue in my campaign right now that is close to useless. But when this player was absent for a few times and someone else played his character for him, he was indispensable. If the wizard is doing the rogue's job, either the wizard isn't being kept busy enough, or the wizard is compensating for an ineffective player.
|
Whenever we have a Rogue in the party the Cleric never prepares "Find Traps", he's now free to prepare something else instead HOORAY!
Niche protection should also be in the hands of the players. If you have a Rogue, Fighter, Wizard and Cleric then they should be finding their own niches and not stepping on the other player's toes.
Also "Find Traps" only gives you a bonus to your Perception checks for 1 minute a level.
Assuming you're level 4. That means you gain a +2 bonus to find traps for 4 minutes.
Assuming a room that is 20 x 20 feet it means you don't even have time to take a 20 (since it's a Move Action to make a perception check, that means it takes 1 minute to check 1 square for traps. You can check a whole of 2 squares with a huge bonus of +2!)
In conclusion: Rogues can do it better than a Wizard or a Cleric and she can do it all night long.
|
A agree with Dudemeister on find traps not being that much of an advantage. Find traps effectively gives the caster the Trapfinding special ability that rogues get at 1st level, but it only gives it for one minute/level. A caster is limited to a certain number of castings per day, and every find traps they memorize fills a slot that could otherwise be spent on any number of other useful spells. Plus find traps doesn't let the caster disarm the trap. A rogue, by comparison, can search for traps as often as they want and disarm whatever they find.
Detect secret doors is "better" in that it is automatic, but it still runs in to the same problems as find traps. To prepare and cast it uses up resources (the slot) and you will have a limited number of them per day. Rogues don't share that limitation.
Knock is a great way to quickly get through most doors but it runs into the same limitations as the first two spells. Plus, anyone who wants to protect something valuable would have to account for the knock spell. Arcane lock would effectively negate the bonus provided by knock, making it a straight caster level check to open the door. You could also put more than two locks on the door, forcing the caster to expend even more resources to open it. A rogue just needs a little bit of time and a good set of re-usable thieves tools.
Same for invisibility. Limited castings, limited duration. Good for a few encounters but no replacement for a high stealth skill.
I guess the best "trick" I can think of is to just put more traps/secret doors/locks/places you need to sneak through in the adventure than the caster has spells. Or at least enough to make the castings a noticeable drain on resources. If there is no rogue in the party and the caster is trying to help out then be nicer to them. If the caster is trying to outshine the party rogue then don't.
|
|
Also I wonder where this preponderance of Adamantium bolts are coming from? Is there some international lock-smith consortium buying up what is presumably the rarest mineral on the material plane to make locks from. If so, it's probably run by a rogue.
In any case, every class has a niche where it shines, and spell-casters are versatile, but every niche they don't have to cover is a moment to shine doing what they do best (battle-field control, area damage and weirdo spells).
I've never run or been in a party that felt like they were segregated by tiers. Players just made sure not to step on each others toes, just one of those polite unspoken rules of the game that makes it fun.
Also I wonder where this preponderance of Adamantium bolts are coming from? Is there some international lock-smith consortium buying up what is presumably the rarest mineral on the material plane to make locks from. If so, it's probably run by a rogue.
In any case, every class has a niche where it shines, and spell-casters are versatile, but every niche they don't have to cover is a moment to shine doing what they do best (battle-field control, area damage and weirdo spells).
I've never run or been in a party that felt like they were segregated by tiers. Players just made sure not to step on each others toes, just one of those polite unspoken rules of the game that makes it fun.
Fighting the locksmith consortium sounds like a funny campaign idea. An adamantine bolt on a door is dumb Why not just get a better door and bar it with iron.
Set up a campaign where magic is highly regulated by the governments or play one in the Mana Waste. Alkenstar looks to be a prime place to set up a high fantasy/ low magic game. By having the chances for failure or outright inability to use the spells to that rob some classes of their slots then the problem becomes less of an issue for you and your players if they prefer the wizard-less game or so it would seem.
For example: How do you make a Rogue useful when the wizard can just cast "Find Traps", "Detect Secret Doors", "Knock", "Invisibility", and lots of other spells that do what Rogue does better than Rogue can.
Great! I hope you didn't need those spell slots to do something another class couldn't do! And I hope you're not in a situation where casting spells is impractical or otherwise peril-inducing, and I don't mean Anti-Magic.
With a rogue's non-artificial stealth bonus they can sneak even when creatures with true-seeing or see invisibility are around.
Rogues also can have access to invisibility via UMD, potions, rings, the wizard in question, etc. Invisibility helps the rogue get off a sneak attack or more if its greater invisibility.
With the find traps spell it adds the same bonus temporarily, the same amount a rogue gets permanently from the trapfinding ability.
When the wizard finds the trap he can't do more than anyone else about the trap.
The rogue is in short built for these kind of things. But instead of merely temporarily thing its a more all-the-time kind of deal.
The main point for a wizard getting these kinds of spells is to fill the gaps of missing party members and/or useless party members. There are better spells to spend slots on otherwise that can't be duplicated by class features.
There are better spells to spend slots on otherwise that can't be duplicated by class features.
Sure, but:
Generally, a party with two wizards, one of which is burning some of his spell slots to be a poor man's rogue > a party with a rogue and a wizard.
Mechanically, if for whatever reason of campaign design you absolutely must have a rogue (90% of your encounters are traps, whatever), you're still probably better off having that player make an Arcane Trickster, which ultimately has basically all of the non-magical skillmonkey power of a full rogue, and is most of a wizard.
In my experience, the only effective way to bring up the usefulness of weaker/niche characters is to actually bring up their usefulness, or to limit the better options. Here are the things I've tried and found successful, in that vein.
1) Everyone, in character generation, agrees to make roughly same tier classed characters, possibly excepting the players that you know either can't or won't optimize at all. The GM adjusts challenges appropriately.
2) You actually go ahead and just flat out give the lower-tiered characters more stuff. An easy one that I've used that doesn't involve you jacking around with class abilities is to award stat points accordingly. Maybe your wizards have to build off 15 point buy but your monks get to have something like 16s across the board. Mathematically, the latter is a 60! point buy but I assure you that the monk won't end up totally dominating the game despite it.
Look,
I don't get this.As a wizard, you don't know when a trap or secret door will come around. So how will you ever be able to find them using one of your spells? You simply don't have enough spells to keep them running and make sure you don't miss any.
A rogue on the hand can select Trap Spotter at second level and make sure he doesn't miss any traps (if he has good perception anyway). And I'm sure a high perception will find more secret doors then a spell.
Not to mention the fact that the wizard has wasted many spells if there turns out not be a secret door or trap, or noting interesting behind them. Ever considered letting him waste his spells a few sessions? Or give him a challenge he can't make?
"Ow look a locked door. I'll open it with knock." says the wizard.
Two seconds later. "Ow, I've found the cleaning closet, anyone needs a broom?"
I think the OP is worried about theory craft issues, but all of them don't show up in every game. I think he should go ahead, and play and deal with the issues as they come up.
I kinda think that thread applies here as well. Why does the wizzie player want to overshadow the rogue player? Does the ranger focus on using cure wands as the cleric stands idle? My group tries to let everyone into the spotlight. Whether it is RP moments or it is combat or it is crafting. If someone is designed for a niche...why would you try and hamper their enjoyment? *shrugs*
Greg
...The GM adjusts challenges appropriately.
.
..
+1.
Nuf Sed.
GNOME
|
What are some tricks to make the lower-tier classes shine?
For example: How do you make a Rogue useful when the wizard can just cast "Find Traps", "Detect Secret Doors", "Knock", "Invisibility", and lots of other spells that do what Rogue does better than Rogue can.
I'm interested in both actual experience (Things that did/didn't work) and theorycrafed solutions (Things that should/shouldn't work) which promote/reward use of the weaker classes.
Since the title of the OP asked for campaign setting solutions;
Short, short version? Pick the spells that violate niche protection and either eliminate them entirely or limit them in such a way that they are not viable means of making any particular class feel useless.
Why would such limitations make sense in a campaign setting?
1) There's a god of thieves, and s/he is no more or less a god than the god of magic. They had a little chat about uppity wizards crafting spells that made the god of thieves worshippers feel like chumps, and the god of magic agreed that such spells weren't really appropriate for reality-manipulating wizards, who should be shaking the earth and cracking open the heavens to rain fire down upon the hoi-polloi, these 'detect traps' and 'open doors' spells.
Terribly common, really. Not the sort of thing that a will-worker should be boasting about, being able to one-up a street urchin at the ability to pilfer pockets and pry open boxes...
2) Unions. The wizard's guild is incredibly well-connected and a mover and shaker of things to be moved and / or shaken. But it's just one guild, and, regardless of the individual power of some of it's alumni, not even *close* to the most numerous, politically influential, most wealthy or most socially adroit of guilds. And so, when the rogues guild and the mercenary guild brought up certain craft issues, of wizard 'scabs' taking good paying jobs from hard-working dues-paying brothers and sisters of the shiv and the scramasax, some collective bargaining ensued, and a Great Accord was reached, whereupon the wizards guild agreed to stop instructing new apprentices in a few spells that were to be declared forbidden knowledge. If someone wants a castle built, the freemasons must be contracted, as the only legal version of wall of stone (or iron) taught in the academies of the continent are of permanant, not instantaneous duration, making them subject to dispel magic, or disruption by anti-magic effects. Similarly, if one wants a trapfinder, one goes to the expeditioners, spelunkers and second-story-man's guild, not to the temple of the goddess of healing, since she's *certainly* not going to be encouraging her clerics to pray for 'find traps' when they should be studying proper lesser restoration or cure moderate wounds spells!
Oh sure, some copies of the old forbidden spells are to be found in treasuries or hidden libraries or ancient tomes, and they are worth a considerable coin to collectors of antiquities, on the black market, since all recognized copies were destroyed, per the Great Accord.
Casting such a spell would, naturally, be foolish. Not only would one be breaking the law, but one would also be invalidated from the *other* concessions made during the Great Accord, the concessions made by the *other* guilds. Concessions not to gouge prices for spell components, or manipulate the markets to create artificial shortages to jack up the costs of bat guano and rose petals and tiny puff pastries. Concessions to honor fair and consistent agreed-upon pricing for magical items, both the purchase and sale of. An explicit agreement from the various rogues, brigands and 'light fighters' guilds to never undertake a commission to steal a spell book (terribly inconvenient, to a wizard, that). The begrudging agreement to stop the ancient practice of sewing shut a wizard's mouth and breaking his fingers during any sort of legal trial or accusation, 'just in case,' from the legalist and gaolers collective (gags and locked cold iron fullplate gauntlets are the worst allowed now, in civilized courts).
A fix I thought of after listening to a few 4e podcasts back in my commuting days is to make skills more relevant in combat. Off the top of my head:
- Allow the rogue to mess up constructs with disable device, maybe even taking control of them if he beats a certain DC.
- Give rogues 12 skillpoints per level (just try it, it's hardly even going to make a difference)
- Make the 1/day talents 3/day
- Have exceptionally high skills mimic spell effects, since the reverse is true. (Beat the climb DC by 10? Spider climb for a round)
- Make Skill Focus give +5/+10.
Arcane tricksters are better off focusing on utility and specialized damage. Carry a variety of no-save touch-AC spell scrolls (Scorching Ray, Acid Arrow, Elemental Touch etc) and hit monsters with weaknesses. Sneak attack damage is the same as the base damage, meaning monsters with weaknesses multiply the ENTIRE damage by 1.5.
Support the party with Haste, Enlarge Person, Grease etc. If you have sufficient UMD, grab some wands with other practical spells such as Feather Step, Remove Fear, etc, and let your ACTUAL divine casters do more useful things on their turns.
You will not SHINE a lot, this is a given. But you will always have something to do. A singleclass rogue quickly finds himself being little more than a glass cannon and a liability for the cleric, since he has to get into flank in order to do virtually any damage, which means "on the wrong side of the monster".
If you grab the magic trait "Magical Knack" you offset all but 1 lost effective caster level, and your specialized damage can be reliable enough as you scale. But as James pointed out, this is all you really can do. You will be lagging too far behind to even consider physical attacks after a while.
I have had fun with arcane tricksters, and while the benefits of being single class now outweighs multi/prestige classing (unlike 3.X) you can still be a decent character. Just need to realize your potential.
|
I find the idea that most of the classes have "tiers" to be highly laughable.
Since the inception of 3.0's classes I have literally played each of the classes AT LEAST once, and most of them more than that.
Yes, there WERE classes that were under powered, but if you knew how to tweak them with feats and items any class was a viable option.
I played a bard in 3.0 that the party considered to be their most valuable asset. A 3.0 BARD!
Since the inception of 3.5 I think I've only seen a couple classes out of alternate books that I didn't think were balanced. (The montebank! Useless!) I honestly feel that the pathfinder classes are nicely balanced and each of them have the ability to bring something unique to the table.
Now mind you, this is all opinion, and I realize that.
I am curious as to what you think the "tiers" for the classes are.
I can tell you now I will seriously roll my eyes if every top tier class is a caster. I have a friend that practically specializes in breaking fighters, monks and other mundane classes.
PS: I was able to get a level 30 rogue, who I played from a level 2 character, to have a sleight of hand of over 100 the way I build him. Rogues can kick some serious butt.
PPS: I find the "delaying them picking up caster classes" to be a terrible idea unless you have some way of letting the caster have their level 20 ability. I wouldn't play in a game designed that way. Even if I wasn't playing a caster.
I find the idea that most of the classes have "tiers" to be highly laughable.
Since the inception of 3.0's classes I have literally played each of the classes AT LEAST once, and most of them more than that.
Yes, there WERE classes that were under powered, but if you knew how to tweak them with feats and items any class was a viable option.
I played a bard in 3.0 that the party considered to be their most valuable asset. A 3.0 BARD!
Since the inception of 3.5 I think I've only seen a couple classes out of alternate books that I didn't think were balanced. (The montebank! Useless!) I honestly feel that the pathfinder classes are nicely balanced and each of them have the ability to bring something unique to the table.
Now mind you, this is all opinion, and I realize that.
I am curious as to what you think the "tiers" for the classes are.
I can tell you now I will seriously roll my eyes if every top tier class is a caster. I have a friend that practically specializes in breaking fighters, monks and other mundane classes.
PS: I was able to get a level 30 rogue, who I played from a level 2 character, to have a sleight of hand of over 100 the way I build him. Rogues can kick some serious butt.
PPS: I find the "delaying them picking up caster classes" to be a terrible idea unless you have some way of letting the caster have their level 20 ability. I wouldn't play in a game designed that way. Even if I wasn't playing a caster.
Every top tier will be a caster. Using 3.5 splat gives melees a better chance to contribute, but I have yet to see a broken pathfinder only build. <--If the DM plays in hardcore mode
I do agree with you fully about delaying casters though.
I also think if a player is having trouble keeping up the DM should help him adjust the character or try to lessen the other in game issue which varies from group to group.
I find the idea that most of the classes have "tiers" to be highly laughable.
Since the inception of 3.0's classes I have literally played each of the classes AT LEAST once, and most of them more than that.
Yes, there WERE classes that were under powered, but if you knew how to tweak them with feats and items any class was a viable option.
With equal levels of optimization, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer will all by significantly more powerful than Bard, Rogue, and Monk.
I honestly don't understand why people even create "tiers" to compare classes by. In my way of thinking, as well as most gamers I know, that just takes the fun out of playing a class you'd love to take on otherwise. I'd hate to be the DM who tells a player who's worked hours on picking the right feats or spells, writing a great background and motives for the PC that all that hard work was for nothing because the class just isn't worth playing compared to something else. And as a player, if a DM told me that he'd probably end up with dice for teeth before I walked out. Crunching numbers takes the fun out of everything.
I honestly don't understand why people even create "tiers" to compare classes by. In my way of thinking, as well as most gamers I know, that just takes the fun out of playing a class you'd love to take on otherwise. I'd hate to be the DM who tells a player who's worked hours on picking the right feats or spells, writing a great background and motives for the PC that all that hard work was for nothing because the class just isn't worth playing compared to something else. And as a player, if a DM told me that he'd probably end up with dice for teeth before I walked out. Crunching numbers takes the fun out of everything.
Nobody said anything about telling someone to not play a game. Crunching numbers helps you understand the game since it is math based. That does not mean a person who can show you the math on the boards opens up excel every time they make a character.
With equal levels of optimization, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer will all by significantly more powerful than Bard, Rogue, and Monk.
While I don't have enough crunch readily at hand, I can absolutely guarantee that there is a focal point in terms of party count that pushes a bard ahead of any other caster.
Using an unreal situation, assume that a bard is nested amongst his 40 closest bow wielding friends, who are instrumental in taking down a BBEG. At first level, assume that the bard is inflicting 11 damage plus the damage equal to the number of bowmen that would have hit without his bardic music. This is obviously NOT a real play scenario, but the point of the bard is that he gets to claim all the damage dealt on account of his hit bonus, as well as all extra damage dealt by his inspiration.
Still, at first level, this bard just tallied... we can say 21 damage in a single action. At 17th level, he gives a +4... so now its over 100 damage from a single use of bardic performance. Did I mention he hasn't acted yet... he could have hasted a handful of these guys... ++damage.
Put a mage in a room alone, he will shine, put a bard in a crowd, he will shine. Tiering strategies tend to be very solo oriented... bards are team players.
Which ties back to the OP. The best way to have a campaign that helps the 'lesser' classes is to let them do their thing, and maybe reduce the caster access to that thing (+1 spell level), or at least make sure that the casters are keenly aware of the time limit in which they can steal everyone's thunder.
A good way to limit spell casters is to throw out 4 to 6 encounters a day (not per session, unless your session is a day). They will run out of spells, leaving the rogue and monk still able to do the majority of their stuff. Make this the norm and mages will have to ration their spells.
A good way to limit spell casters is to throw out 4 to 6 encounters a day (not per session, unless your session is a day). They will run out of spells, leaving the rogue and monk still able to do the majority of their stuff. Make this the norm and mages will have to ration their spells.
Excellent advice.
A good way to limit spell casters is to throw out 4 to 6 encounters a day (not per session, unless your session is a day). They will run out of spells, leaving the rogue and monk still able to do the majority of their stuff. Make this the norm and mages will have to ration their spells.Excellent advice.
I like this alot. What are methods that work to get the PCs to not try and rest between every encounter. (Other than the artificial one of talking to the players out of game). Things like defending a city where the enemies keep coming and there is no time to rest would work. What has worked for others?
Another thing that I am considering is to provide a number of 'backstory' paths from the PCs to choose from. There will be usually 2-3 options per alignment/class/racial combination. Each of the backstories will come with a number of APG traits. The trick is that the 'weaker' classes will get more traits than the 'stronger' ones. I was also considering allotting differing point buy values for the different classes. Instead of telling the players "Rogue is terrible, don't play it", I bring the message that "If you play Rogue, you get all this cool stuff!". Thoughts?
I like this alot. What are methods that work to get the PCs to not try and rest between every encounter. (Other than the artificial one of talking to the players out of game). Things like defending a city where the enemies keep coming and there is no time to rest would work. What has worked for others?
In my particular playstyle, a dungeon (or any kind of location, for what matters) is a 'living thing', not a series of encounters not related from each other; more often than not, creatures are not 'stuck' in their rooms/original places, and when they hear loud sounds rush in to see what's happening. If you lay waste in a room, you have better to move out before somebody comes, and better yet, you have better to finish what you were trying to accomplish before somebody notices the carnage and alerts the compound. Long story short, if my players do not take double care when fighting some foes (...and very often they do not...), they incur in the risk of being literally 'flooded' by waves of monsters - in many cases, most of the creatures near them, in some cases - if an alarm is raised - even creatures far away or an entire dungeon level (for example) !
In these situations, obviously, a caster has no means to 'safe-rest', or even to memorize slots left previously open in the morning. Without the '15-minutes' preparation time, a slot left open is effectively a wasted slot, and a closed iron gate in these circumstances must be opened by somebody capable of doing so quickly (a single check), as opposed to trying to smash it with an adamantine weapon (which, by the way, makes some noise... not very useful for a covert operation) or trying to open it with a slot left open for a potential Knock spell - but still empty and without time to do so...
In short, make the location 'behave' accordingly to the situation, and you will see that a specialist (even a mundane one) is often more appreciated than a 'potential' jack-of-all-trades - especially when you have literally no time to sit down and do as you wish (again, a slot left open in the morning is terribily useful... or a wasted resource, depending on the time at disposal to fill it).
Just my 2c.
Some assorted replies:
While I don't have enough crunch readily at hand, I can absolutely guarantee that there is a focal point in terms of party count that pushes a bard ahead of any other caster.
Keep in mind that the idea of tiers is at least as much about non-combat situations as it is about combat. (Not that a bard is a bad non-combat character.)
A good way to limit spell casters is to throw out 4 to 6 encounters a day (not per session, unless your session is a day). They will run out of spells, leaving the rogue and monk still able to do the majority of their stuff. Make this the norm and mages will have to ration their spells.
Sure, but better caster players already do ration their spells appropriately -- so that solution mostly only works at lower levels of mechanical proficiency wherein the casters don't dominate as much anyway. Also: you can run out of hit points, too.
I honestly don't understand why people even create "tiers" to compare classes by. In my way of thinking, as well as most gamers I know, that just takes the fun out of playing a class you'd love to take on otherwise. I'd hate to be the DM who tells a player who's worked hours on picking the right feats or spells, writing a great background and motives for the PC that all that hard work was for nothing because the class just isn't worth playing compared to something else.
You misunderstand the point of breaking it down that way.
The point isn't: "You should only play Tier 1 classes. Other classes are trash."
The point is: "Ok, I'm DMing a game and one of the players has picked a Tier 1 class, whereas another player has picked a Tier 5 class. Understanding this, I realize that, assuming equal player ability, the first player will have a lot more chance to shine than the second player. I need to make some adjustments or do some work as the gamemaster to help even that out so everyone gets a chance to contribute."
I'm running a game now in which there's both a druid (a higher tier class) and a monk (a lower tier class). Knowing right away that the druid would end up, through no fault of his own or player selfishness, hogging a lot more of the spotlight, I made adjustments to give the monk some extra power and non-combat versatility. (Primarily in the form of a much better stat array.)
If not more encounter; more mooks. Instead of one CR10 that is neutralized with one spell, send 3 CR7 and some distractions and flankers. If some of the baddies can summon or have companions, even better.
These are weak enough for the rogue and monk's skills to be relevant, and their to-hit to overcome their AC. The actual combatants get bogged down wasting half their attacks on things that go down on one or two hits, and the casters can't spam Save or Lose as efficiently.
The point is: "Ok, I'm DMing a game and one of the players has picked a Tier 1 class, whereas another player has picked a Tier 5 class. Understanding this, I realize that, assuming equal player ability, the first player will have a lot more chance to shine than the second player. I need to make some adjustments or do some work as the gamemaster to help even that out so everyone gets a chance to contribute."
...
I guess you edited your post and removed the bit about the druid and the monk, but I have a question about it!
How successful was increasing the Monk's stat array in making the classes more even? What other non-combat bonuses did you grant the monk?
I guess you edited your post and removed the bit about the druid and the monk, but I have a question about it!
How successful was increasing the Monk's stat array in making the classes more even? What other non-combat bonuses did you grant the monk?
Nope! It's still there, it's just that my post is so long that if you're replying it gets chopped.
I've actually been very happy with the way the monk plays out with augmented stats. The full casters in the party have a 20 point buy; the stat array I offered the monk added up to something like 32 points but didn't have any 18s and didn't dump any stats below 10.
The way I did it was to let everyone pick their stats with a 20 point buy, with everyone knowing ahead of time that the slightly weaker classes would end up with better stats; I then looked at the arrays for the lower tier characters and told them, ok, you can raise one of these two 14s to a 16, and you can raise that 10 to a 12, etc. -- producing arrays that had each stat at least as high as they really wanted but ended up more well-rounded. I don't know if this approach would work for you or if it makes sense to just give them more points to spend as they choose.
I mean, it's still a monk, and it still has the narrative limitations it always has relative to a well-played wizard/cleric/druid, but ultimately it's ending up to be a pretty well-rounded and effective combatant, while retaining enough INT/CHR to be a lot more useful in the kinds of non-combat situations in which a monk normally doesn't have much to do. I'm not going to say that alone evens the two classes out, but it's clearly helped a lot.
The other big thing the monk has going:
I have a party of 6 going through Legacy of Fire. They are only 2nd level so far. We have a Monk, Inquisitor, Cavalier, Rogue, Wizard(Trans), and Oracle. They were built with a 12-point buy. It has been challenging thus far, but I have not fudged a single roll. And get this, the Monk has shined -- and shined big time. The two BIG TIME vet players in the group are very surprised with who has had success in the party.
You may say that other than the Wizard we don't have a "top tier" class. And of course the Wizard isn't very top tier at level 1 and 2.
But things of note:
a "very low" point buy
only 1 of 6 is an "A" team classes
no DM fudges
encounters adjusted for the number of players
Published adventure converted to Pathfinder rules/bad guys
Three experienced players "optomized." Three rookies did not.
The results:
A challenging, fun experience for PCs.
And everybody is important.
And regarding comments about keeping the party from resting after every encounter...Legacy of Fire's Howl of the Carrion King has timelines. The timeline is NOT mentioned. The NPCs do things. The PCs can rest just about whenever they want. But if they DO, they will suffer consequences for not pushing themselves past a point. Also, wandering monstors exist throughout the AP.
So the key to not resting after every encounter and making all players feel important: timelines, wandering monsters and encounters with multiple bad guys.
The worst thing you can do to encourage optimization, rest after every encoutner, and make some classes feel less important is to throw single bad guy encounters against the party that are at the highest CR possible. With I knew how to bold that.
The results at 2nd level:
A challenging, fun experience for PCs.
And everybody is important.
The disparity between "tiers" shows up later on, and increases rapidly thereafter. Wait until you guys are 13th level, and see if that monk is anything other than dead weight.
The disparity between "tiers" shows up later on, and increases rapidly thereafter. Wait until you guys are 13th level, and see if that monk is anything other than dead weight.The results at 2nd level:
A challenging, fun experience for PCs.
And everybody is important.
+1 on that -- the very start of Legacy of Fire isn't that mean (and actually a monk in some ways is a great character for as much of it as you've played so far), but if someone told me that they had finished the first book with that group without casualties or DM fudging/mercy I probably would not believe them.
I plan on having casters be relatively scarce (in the sense that casters make up a small fraction of characters with PC classes in the game world). That said, most NPCs they would be dropping loot appropriate for the noncasters and rarely would wands, staffs, robes, etc. show up. Provided I make an effort to not drop 'generic' loot (like rings of protection and such that work well on all characters) in this way, do you think that would/could be enough to keep the less-powerful guys relevant in the 10+ level range. I already decided that the campaign is going to end at 18 instead of 20, and after level 16, it becomes primarily RP with intermittent fights until the final showdown, to somewhat mitigate the impact of 9th level spells.
Is there a reasonable pathfinder tier list someplace?
Here's a discussion of tiers in Pathfinder although there's some disagreement of how they fall out.
Thanks for posting that link!
I ended up reading about E6.
I think I might just use that to fix all the problems. Makes the game grittier, makes more emphasis on role playing easier, and makes it much easier to make a sandbox of quests that they can do, since I can just make them all CR 7ish and they will work.