A new House Rule I am contemplating has to do with exp and the "quadratic/linear" mage/fighter issue that many find problematical.
My Idea is to utilize all three exp tracks thereby adding another "balancer" to the mix.
Classes would be divided among the the three tracks giving the more martial characters a faster progression rate than the full casters.
Right now the breakdown looks something like this-
Fast Track
barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, cavalier, ninja, samurai
Medium Track
bard, paladin, ranger, inquisitor, gunslinger, magus
Slow Track
cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, alchemist, oracle, summoner, witch
Thoughts? questions? flames?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A new House Rule I am contemplating has to do with exp and the "quadratic/linear" mage/fighter issue that many find problematical.
My Idea is to utilize all three exp tracks thereby adding another "balancer" to the mix.
Classes would be divided among the the three tracks giving the more martial characters a faster progression rate than the full casters.Right now the breakdown looks something like this-
Fast Track
barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, cavalier, ninja, samuraiMedium Track
bard, paladin, ranger, inquisitor, gunslinger, magusSlow Track
cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, alchemist, oracle, summoner, witchThoughts? questions? flames?
Well it's interesting yet the main problem you might encounter is that while the fighter types shine for much longer I feel it would be harder to challenge a mixed party.
Also why single out the alchemist and summoner yet you have bard and magus at med?
1st edition AD&D did this. It only sort-of worked. You ended up with some very odd situations occasionally.
A new House Rule I am contemplating has to do with exp and the "quadratic/linear" mage/fighter issue that many find problematical.
My Idea is to utilize all three exp tracks thereby adding another "balancer" to the mix.
Classes would be divided among the the three tracks giving the more martial characters a faster progression rate than the full casters.Right now the breakdown looks something like this-
Fast Track
barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, cavalier, ninja, samuraiMedium Track
bard, paladin, ranger, inquisitor, gunslinger, magusSlow Track
cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, alchemist, oracle, summoner, witchThoughts? questions? flames?
Well it's interesting yet the main problem you might encounter is that while the fighter types shine for much longer I feel it would be harder to challenge a mixed party.
Also why single out the alchemist and summoner yet you have bard and magus at med?
Singling out those two was not intentional. Placing the core classes was simple enough... the base classes take a bit more thought. This was just a quick write up. I am open to suggestions.
If its level 1, then that is going to be really hard on the caster players. Since martial tend to dominate at low levels when the wizards only have 1 or 2 low level spells per day. and this will just amplify this problem.
Good. Mission accomplished. Let those nerds suffer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A new House Rule I am contemplating has to do with exp and the "quadratic/linear" mage/fighter issue that many find problematical.
My Idea is to utilize all three exp tracks thereby adding another "balancer" to the mix.
Classes would be divided among the the three tracks giving the more martial characters a faster progression rate than the full casters.Right now the breakdown looks something like this-
Fast Track
barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, cavalier, ninja, samuraiMedium Track
bard, paladin, ranger, inquisitor, gunslinger, magusSlow Track
cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, alchemist, oracle, summoner, witchThoughts? questions? flames?
My thoughts are that its a bad idea for a whole host of issues.
First off the quadratic issue doesnt really take play until very high levels. Depending on the players/characters/group, pure casters only have more situational power then martial casters after around levels 12-14. The disparity for the majority of the game (from level 1 until levels 12-14) is one of narrative power and flexibility of options.
What I mean by this is, that even at 1st level, the fighter, barbarian and even the rogue, have alot of power in the situation that they are designed for. The barbarian with a high strength and 2handed weapon does a TON of damage. When smashing things is the solution, he will rock the house. He has alot of power within the situation that he excels.
The wizard on the other hand, certain can lend aid when smashing things is the solution, with buffs, debuffs, or straight damage spells, but he isnt rocking the house, even when color spray wipes out the enemy with a failed save, that isnt much different then the barbarians ability to kill most cr appropriate enemies with one hit. However the wizard also has lots of other situations he can express that lesser situational power in, with spells like knock, or invisibility, or locate object or what have you. Their abilities (spells) are infinitely more flexible (it is literally infinate since every product pretty much gives us new spells).
What even a low level caster can do is express more then situational power, but narrative power. Not only do they act within the situation presented as a challenge, but they can change it, and the party is facing a large group of enemies in an open space with no way to keep them from surrounding the party, a well placed pit, or web could change that. If they are ambushed on a rope bridge, fly, or levitate means that they arent in the precarious position the rogue/fighter are in balancing on the twisting bridge while trying to fend of enemies. That is narrative power. At higher levels, with world shaping spells like wish, or even stuff like teleport and scry, that narrative power goes beyond a single situation and can effect the entire direction of the story, but they have some narrative power from level 1. That is where most of the disparity comes from.
Your change puts casters at a lower level then the pure martials. But that neither eliminates the narrative power of the casters or gives it to martials. All it does is mess with the math of the system, reducing the situational power of casters, which simply increases their chance for failure in given actions. The game operates best when everyone is of the same level. Challenge ratings, save dcs, ac bonuses, attack bonuses all scale according to level. All this change would do is make casters more likely to fail at a given task.
And at least in my opinion it is a terrible way to try and achieve balance. No one likes all or most of their attempted actions to fail, and the truth is, most of those narrative changine powers wouldnt be affected. They might turn up a little later, but they would still be there. Flight, and teleport and all that jazz. And the fighter would still just be swinging a sharp bit of metal.
What level are you starting at?
If its level 1, then that is going to be really hard on the caster players. Since martial tend to dominate at low levels when the wizards only have 1 or 2 low level spells per day. and this will just amplify this problem.
The other issue will be saving throws since the fast track guys will be roughly 2 levels higher than the slow track. So you will have to be careful.
I think this will just make things much harder on you though. How are you going to hand out wealth? What about CR?
This is the initial concept not the final draft. So things are going to be subject to change.
as for wealth... I will deal with it as I always have by ignoring the silly WBL and issuing wealth/treasure as I deem appropriate.As for CR: it is tied to APL not individual levels.
A new House Rule I am contemplating has to do with exp and the "quadratic/linear" mage/fighter issue that many find problematical.
My Idea is to utilize all three exp tracks thereby adding another "balancer" to the mix.
Classes would be divided among the the three tracks giving the more martial characters a faster progression rate than the full casters.Right now the breakdown looks something like this-
Fast Track
barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, cavalier, ninja, samuraiMedium Track
bard, paladin, ranger, inquisitor, gunslinger, magusSlow Track
cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, alchemist, oracle, summoner, witchThoughts? questions? flames?
Seen it. Played it. Doesn't work. Plus, you're fixing a non-problem.
Seen it. Played it. Doesn't work. Plus, you're fixing a non-problem.A new House Rule I am contemplating has to do with exp and the "quadratic/linear" mage/fighter issue that many find problematical.
My Idea is to utilize all three exp tracks thereby adding another "balancer" to the mix.
Classes would be divided among the the three tracks giving the more martial characters a faster progression rate than the full casters.Right now the breakdown looks something like this-
Fast Track
barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, cavalier, ninja, samuraiMedium Track
bard, paladin, ranger, inquisitor, gunslinger, magusSlow Track
cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, alchemist, oracle, summoner, witchThoughts? questions? flames?
well that helps...
why did it not work for you?My players do not think it is non-issue.
I've seen systems where the gain of new spell levels is slowed down so instead of having spell level equal to ((level + 1)/2), they had more like a ((level/3) + 1). They ended up with 7th level spells at level 18 and that was as high as they went. Saves, HP and ect are much better under this system that yours.
I still don't think this is a complete fix. The problem is not with how fast the spell are gained but with the spells. There are to many absolutes... If invisibility gave a buff to stealth rather than completely making you invisible then it wouldn't invalidate the rogue... If sleep reduced Wis and hold person reduced Str or Dex then they wouldn't be the overpowered combat ending spells they are. Their could also be higher level versions of spells without having to add in other things to make them worth the higher level slot, their numbers would be increased and that would be enough. How do you make a single target 7 th level invisibility or hold person or fireball?
Seen it. Played it. Doesn't work. Plus, you're fixing a non-problem.A new House Rule I am contemplating has to do with exp and the "quadratic/linear" mage/fighter issue that many find problematical.
My Idea is to utilize all three exp tracks thereby adding another "balancer" to the mix.
Classes would be divided among the the three tracks giving the more martial characters a faster progression rate than the full casters.Right now the breakdown looks something like this-
Fast Track
barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, cavalier, ninja, samuraiMedium Track
bard, paladin, ranger, inquisitor, gunslinger, magusSlow Track
cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, alchemist, oracle, summoner, witchThoughts? questions? flames?
well that helps...
why did it not work for you?
My players do not think it is non-issue.
I think that as things progress you will find it very hard to provide challenge to the high tiers while not wiping the low. Basicly for average party level the fast tier will eat through enemy's while the low tiers can't hurt them.
Also if bard is mid tier the other lvl 6 casters should be as well. Especially magus since it's a melee class.
All in all I'd day try it and see you can always adjust.
the basic problem with the OP's proposed solution is that it is the same one that 3rd ed 'solved' when it did the opposite: up till then, each character class had its own experience progression chart, so relative power was supposed to be equal at equal amounts of xp.
So, a thief (no rogues yet) could be easily be 5 levels 'above' a magic-user (no wizards either). Druids effectively stopped at (I think) 13th level, since they suddenly needed millions more xp to reach the next level, etc. Divine magic stopped with 7th level spells, and they were much more limited anyway than arcane.
The effect of this was simple: martials dominated up to level 11 or so while wizards (I'll call them by their current name) were a total liability until level 7. After level 11 or so, wizards took over. The only real way to have characters that were effective (note I don't say 'have fun' - that is/was achievable regardless of class/level/etc) was to play fighters at low level, get them killed off/retired at L11 and then play a wizard.
Rogues (ditto) were still pretty rubbish even when 5 levels higher than the rest (although in 2nd ed, Bards were amazing - full wizard casting up to 6th level spells, but using the thief xp progression therefore being better wizards than wizards were!)
3rd ed tried to even out the playing field, with the result that full casters dominated earlier and more totally.
So, your proposed 'fix' is simply to make full casters suck for longer, yet they will still dominate at higher levels because changing level progression doesn't address the actual problem!
This is getting rather long and boring, so I'll end here but add a follow-up post if anyone wants to hear what 'the problem' actually is (in my not-very-humble-opinion).
Another solution to a problem that doesn't exist. . . my level 16 party the two casters spent the last two encounters struggling to have any effect on them while the fighters tore through everything.
This entire "martial disparity" only exists in a slim number of games with permissive DMs who don't use foes with SR and who interpret rules in a very player friendly way (see the sno-cone wish machine thread for one example).
If you really feel this is a problem you need to look at what type of encounters you are using and what you are doing that is letting casters run rough-shod over your plot instead of simply saying "well, lets just make them lower level than the rest of the party".
Because, let me fill you in on a secret here:
That seems so simple and obvious, yet it took the people publishing the game until 3rd edition to realize this kind of tiered experience chart was 1. complicated, 2. ineffective, 3. not fun
I would say bringing it back as a house rule isn't a great solution.
Another solution to a problem that doesn't exist. . . my level 16 party the two casters spent the last two encounters struggling to have any effect on them while the fighters tore through everything.
This entire "martial disparity" only exists in a slim number of games with permissive DMs who don't use foes with SR and who interpret rules in a very player friendly way (see the sno-cone wish machine thread for one example).
If you really feel this is a problem you need to look at what type of encounters you are using and what you are doing that is letting casters run rough-shod over your plot instead of simply saying "well, lets just make them lower level than the rest of the party".
Because, let me fill you in on a secret here:
** spoiler omitted **That seems so simple and obvious, yet it took the people publishing the game until 3rd edition to realize this kind of tiered experience chart was 1. complicated, 2. ineffective, 3. not fun
I would say bringing it back as a house rule isn't a great solution.
it is only no fun for you. My players and I never had a problem with it.
as it stands it looks as if I need to work on it a little more.But this was a fun little tweak to play around with for a bit.
it is only no fun for you. My players and I never had a problem with it.
as it stands it looks as if I need to work on it a little more.
But this was a fun little tweak to play around with for a bit.
Did all of your players have fun?
What classes were they playing?
Was the mage who was 5th level have fun playing next to an 8th level barbarian fighting creatures who should have almost always made their saves and whose SR he could not penetrate?
@Nathaniel
First off, while I have no idea how Damian ran this houserule of his, the only way I could see it working is if the party faced challenges based on the level of the mages (or possibly APL rounding down), if you're pitting un-houseruled martials against creatures of similar CR with lower level casters you're just setting them up for the slaughter.
Secondly, just a brief note: a 5th level slow track should only need a couple of encounters in a party with an 8th level fast track (considering that there's only a 1,000 exp gap between when one becomes 8 on fast track and when one becomes 6 on slow track.
All that being said... this houserule pretty much mandates that multi-classing not exist, and I personally hate how PF hurt multi-classing already, so I can't say I'm a fan of this method.
considering the abuses I have seen multiclassing put through... I have no issue with that side effect.
I like it and have instituted a similar list.I think Barbarian should be middle tier though..as in most cases he ends up being more powerful than straight fighter.
For multi-classing,the way I handle it is just to use the slowest classes advancement.
If a fighter wants to lvl up into wizard,as soon as he does his exp is raised to the base amount on the slow track appropriate to his char lvl.
He now uses that advancement rate.
Same thing goes for other classes.
It makes it less likely for a wizard to decide to take up fistfighting..but why would he.
It also makes it more common for players to decide to start out as a non-magical fast advancement class and then study magic later...it creates the kind of character evolution that I think is cool.
What level are you starting at?
If its level 1, then that is going to be really hard on the caster players. Since martial tend to dominate at low levels when the wizards only have 1 or 2 low level spells per day. and this will just amplify this problem.
The other issue will be saving throws since the fast track guys will be roughly 2 levels higher than the slow track. So you will have to be careful.
I think this will just make things much harder on you though. How are you going to hand out wealth? What about CR?
This is the initial concept not the final draft. So things are going to be subject to change.
as for wealth... I will deal with it as I always have by ignoring the silly WBL and issuing wealth/treasure as I deem appropriate.
As for CR: it is tied to APL not individual levels.I realize that but at the lower levels (say 1-10) I think you will have trouble making an encounter that will challenge the fast track guys but not instantly kill the slow track guys. Just seems like a lot of work for you as the dm.
I'm curious though. What is the problem you're player are having? Are they finding the tier ones are dominating combat? If so I think you would be better fixing that by handing out lots of martial gear to buff them up (or doing the static bonus that was suggested earlier) but make tier one gear rarer.
If the problem is Tier 1's are dominating out of combat because of versatility (which is the one I usually run into)I think it would be easier to fix by limiting available spells for prepared casters and maybe just removing some of the more problematic spells that will end encounters, and maybe removing the ability to craft or scribe scrolls which would remove the casters ability to always have the right spell on hand for the right situation
Looking at a theoretical party at this point...
I will examine them at certain "benchmark" exp/level divisions.Lets go with the "classic" Party.
Fighter (Fast)
Wizard (Slow)
Rogue (Fast)
Cleric (slow)
At Zero Exp they are all starting out at the same level.
APL is 1
CR of encounters should range from 1/2 to 2
At 15,000 exp:
Fighter: level 6
Wizard: level 5
Rogue: level 6
Cleric: Level 5
(hmm... the division does not seem that great to me)
APL: 6
Cr should be 5 to 7
At 105,000 exp:
Fighter: level 11
Wizard: level 9
Rogue: Level 11
Cleric: Level 9
(ok now the division is "bit" more pronounced)
APL: 10
Cr should be 9 to 11
At 635,000 exp:
Fighter: level 17
Wizard: level 14
Rogue: level 17
Cleric: level 14
(ok now the division is evident)
APL: 16
Cr should be 15 to 17
And at 3,600,000 exp:
Fighter: level 21 (using the Core rules for advancing beyond 20)
Wizard: level 19
Rogue: level 21
Cleric: level 19
(a consistent 3 to 4 level spread is not really that disparate)
APL: 20
CR should be 19 to 21
I fail to see your issue with this.
So, your proposed 'fix' is simply to make full casters suck for longer, yet they will still dominate at higher levels because changing level progression doesn't address the actual problem!
This is getting rather long and boring, so I'll end here but add a follow-up post if anyone wants to hear what 'the problem' actually is (in my not-very-humble-opinion).
I'm not familiar with this 'full casters suck at low levels' principle you claim.
Usually right from level one the wizards and clerics are pretty much MVP, while the martial tends to be a more expensive (gets a full party share) alternative to mercenary hirelings. (Or a less effective alternative to a Druid.)
EDIT: that being said, I am curious to hear your analysis of 'the problem.'
Well, one person was interested. To avoid derailing this thread, I'll make a new one.