Lend me your opinions! I would like to play with the concept of scaling class experience levels...
Come back with me to a time when magic-users received, effectively, a diminishing experience penalty! Back in 1e(and continuing to 2e) magical power was balanced vs. "mundane" abilities to receive more hit-die, use better items, and scale their thacos more rapidly. Although this system kind of fell apart as this penalty diminished greatly at the higher levels(and fighters capped out in experience), I felt the system at least delayed the onset of power creep.
How would a modified system reflecting this concept look in Pathfinder? I can think of at least two ways. One: increasing, directly, the amount of experience individual classes require to achieve a higher level. Starting with the most powerful classes, apply an experience "penalty" in the form of higher experience requirements. Wizards and Sorcerors would require +x% more experience to achieve each level than their peers.
Two: Arrange scaled levels by category, mostly according to power, that would delay the onset of high level magic. This would be reflected(not calculated) in a table which would look something like:
_______________________________2_______3______4_______5______6
Rogue, Monk_____________________2,500___6,500___12,500__21,000__32,000
Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger__________3,000___7,500___14,000__23,000__35,000
Bard, Druid______________________3,250___8,000___15,500__25,000__38,000
Cleric__________________________3,500___8,500___17,000__27,000__41,000
Wizard, Sorceror, Paladin__________3,750___9,000___18,500__29,000__44,000
These numbers were selected off-hand to illustrate the concept, but by no means reflect where they should actually be(didn't want to give anyone sticker shock!).I think there's little disagreement that Wizards/caster classes become wildly powerful at high levels; indeed, this is the way it should be, and makes a certain kind of sense. By pushing that power back a few levels, the doomsday clock for many campaigns is at least set back an hour or two.
A few additional caveats:
The new school/domain/bloodline subsystems would nicely fit into this new paradigm as well, with a bit of adjustment. Domain powers, for example, would grant their capstone powers a bit earlier. 8th level abilities would get moved to 6 or 7, 6th level to 4th or so, 4th to 2 or 3, etc. Bloodlines and schools would receive a similar treatment, all relative to the adjusted experience scale, keeping those extra abilities roughly where they would normally be granted, according to party level. Also these abilities could now scale in uses per day with character level, to account for the loss in spell slots/levels.
As for multi-classing...I have a few ideas and would like to hear suggestions. Making up experience differentials and using split-experience multi-classing are two ways.
|
It would be easier to assign slow/med/fast to different classes.
Once a PC decides to multiclass he uses the slow progression and moves to the minimum xp for his new class level on the slow chart. With xp as currency for magic item creation the actual numbers are not an issue, just where they are on their individual xp tracks.
Would fix a lot of issues with this game.
Specifics aside, I don't feel BAB has that much impact on overall power levels.
kyrt-ryder: XP cap is a consideration...but the idea is that wizards WILL overtake fighters eventually. this has always been inevitable and, as i said, makes a certain kind of sense. i'm just thinking to push mind-bending power back a level or four.
Ya...multi-classing. I already struggle with 3.x multi-classing, moreso with PF than ever. Either a character would be forced to "make up" the differential in experience between say, a Rogue leveling from 5 to 6 and a Fighter leveling from 5 to 6(in this instance, 1000xp, a pittance!), or they would be required to select a multi-class discipline at L1, and split the experience in half between the two. Also like 1/2e, you would have to apply an HP penalty of sorts as well as limiting skills/level and feats in some way. 1e averages the results of both hit die at each level, or otherwise grants a single HD per multiclass level. I am yet unsure if this would completely break the game with abilities the way they are. A Rogue/Wizard progression would look like this(using my somewhat gentle numbers)
Rogue/Wizard
1/1
2/1 5000
2/2 7500
3/2 13000
3/3 18000
4/3 25000
4/4 37,000
5/4 42,000
5/5 58,000
6/5 64,000
6/6 88,000
So this character would be leveling into 5th level spells when a single class wizard would be receiving 7th level spells. A single-class fighter would be approaching 9th level.
Aux: Considered that, but pushing all multi-class combinations into the "slow" bin would make a rogue/fighter level as fast(or slow) as a wizard/cleric, which is arguably a deeply more powerful combination. And yes, using the Slow/fast XP is an option, and I merely used the slow as a baseline for illustrative purposes. The actual "categories" and specific XP numbers are irrelevant.
|
|
Maybe assign a value rating for each lass. Say a fighter is +1, rogue is +1, Druid is +2, etc.
Have 1-5 xp tracks. Once a pc adds another class they add their ratings. A pure fighter would use track 1 (fastest) while a fighter (+1) and rogue (+1) would use track 2. If it was a fighter/druid the track would be 3 (1 + 2). Wizard would use track 4, so if he added another class he would hit 5.
The actual numbers are not really relevant as long as track 1 is faster than track 2, etc.
OR you could tweak the spells/level progression of the full casters. The method used would be different, but the results would be the same.
In fact, if I remember correctly, wizard did not receive the ability to cast spells from a new spell level every other level back in 2E. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that wizard received the ability to cast 6th level spell at 12th level instead of 11th level.
I know it's not a big deal, and I'm not saying that this is the table we should use. What I'm saying is, for some reasons, I believe one of them would be elegance, 3.X's full casters (cleric, druid, sorcere and wizard) gained the ability to cast spells from a new spell level every other level. Ok, it may look more pretty like this, but we all know what are the consequences of such "pretty" tables.
I have said, in other thread, that PF was not bold enough to mess with the "CORE" of the core classes and this is a perfect exemple of what I was trying to say. I understand they did that for the sake of backward compatibility and I forgive them (because backward compatibility is the main reason why I play Pathfinder), but I would really like to see, in Ultimate Magic (but it's too late for that I believe) or Ultimate Combat, new variant rules for campaing with lower/higher magic. In other words, it would be fun if Pathfinder gave us some tools to run campaing that do not fit in the mold created by 3.X. Who knows, maybe they could, afterward, make APs that would use such variant rules. That would be awesome! (;
Nice OP by the way!
I cast Raise Dead on the Scalar Experience thread !
I'd recommend for multi-class that you just figure out the XP increase per level and do it that way.
If you're a Wiz4 and you want to gain a level of fighter, it takes the amount of XP to get from Ftr4 to Ftr5. As a Wiz4Ftr2 wanting another level of Wizard, it takes the same XP as going from Wiz6 to Wiz7. It always takes the same marginal XP as if you were just gaining levels in the appropriate class.
Honestly, I don't think this was an effective solution or a good idea in previous editions, so I'm not sure why we'd resurrect it.
Being a level or two higher doesn't fix imbalances between classes; at best, it slaps some cheap wallpaper on the problems and tries to cover them up.
Gotta agree with Dire Mongoose in part. I do not think this would help those that find problems with power disparity.
I for one, do not think there needs to be any adjustment, but for those that do, this does not resolve thier issues. DireMongoose put a good responce in the inflammatory version of this thread. Unfortunately, I am late for work. and no time for cut n paste.
Greg
Just hope that inflammatory title goes away on the other thread. IT does not promote disscussion.
I'm not against separate XP charts, but I don't think it is the best way to solve the problem. As others have pointed out, a level or two may not matter, while it creates some headaches, especially with multi-classing. I'm also one of those folks who doesn't like mixed level parties, and doesn't even use xp. I just decide the whole party levels when it seems appropriate for the campaign.
I think the best way to prevent higher level problems is to limit ability scores. Basically make it tougher to have super high ability scores, and easy to raise your lowest scores.
I think the best way to prevent higher level problems is to limit ability scores. Basically make it tougher to have super high ability scores, and easy to raise your lowest scores.
For what it's worth, along these lines in a game I'm currently running I gave what I see as the weaker / more MAD classes more/better stats than the stronger / SAD classes.
I wouldn't say it's a perfect fix but I think it's one of the more effective ones that's also easy on the GM.
|
Repost from other thread:
I had actually considered that as a way to capture an old school feel to classes when they first released the different XP charts.
The way I did it was
Full caster = Slow progression
Half caster = mid progression
Non caster = fast progression
For multi classing you only change progression if you have more than one tier of separation, in which case you split the difference, otherwise you take the progression of your highest level class. So for example a fighter 3 bard 1 would be on fast progression, but a fighter 1 bard 3 would be on medium progression. A fighter/wizard however no matter what level would be mid progression.
or another example, a cleric 5/paladin 1 would be a slow progression while a paladin 5/ cleric 1 would be a medium progression character, while a cleric/rogue would be a mid progression character.
A fighter/Rogue would always be a fast progression character, while a cleric/wizard would always be a slow progression character.
PrCs do not change your progression track.
Multiple XP scales can make things a little bit trickier on the GM as well. With everyone using the same XP scale, and crafting no longer costing XPs, you can pretty much count on the party leveling up all at the same time. And since the GM hands out XP, that means when the GM is comfortable handing out enough XP to level up the characters.
I realize that the encounters define how much experience ought to be rewarded, but as a GM I tend to hand out 'plot' XP based on what the characters need to continue.
Did they play smart this session but are still at risk of being overwhelmed in coming encounters? Slip em the extra 300 XP they need to level up so they have a fighting chance in the next session. Did they 'disarm' all the traps at level 2 by just walking right in to them? Maybe they could use another session at their current level to learn how to better work as a team before combats get increasingly lethal.
I think the best way to prevent higher level problems is to limit ability scores. Basically make it tougher to have super high ability scores, and easy to raise your lowest scores.
There's another thread on the forum where that idea was implemented by making all ability score increases based on the point buy system.
So rather than an item that gives +4 strength, the item gives 8 points towards strength. Someone with a 12 gets to 16 but someone with a 16 only gets to 18. You get a point to put in a stat at each level, so it's easier to boost a lower stat.
Two of the upgrades I was happiest to see in 3.0 were a shared experience table for all classes and the removal of true level drain. One of the upgrades I was happiest about in Pathfinder was that magic item creation no longer involved XP expenditure. Now, in PF, it is finally possible to hand out levels rather than experience points, without messing up the balance or fairness of the game, and that's a wonderful advantage! I'd hate to give that up.
I agree with Dire Mongoose that a small level difference won't solve the caster/hitter problem. In addition, it can have other detrimental effects. For example, in a 15th level party the Fighter might have about 180 HP, and the Wizard 120, but if the Wizard is only level 12 they'll likely have about 90 HP. Yes, the Wizard is only casting 6th instead of 8th level spells, but they still have plenty of game-changing effects. They've just become more of a glass cannon.
I'd approach it from the other end: take the wizard's and cleric's spell progression lists and just insert a copied a line or two at higher levels (I'd recommend 10th -- in 1e you didn't get 6th level spells until 12th, and at 10th wizards get a bonus feat so it's not a "dead level" -- and maybe again at 15th). You'd still get 9th level spells -- but at 19th level, instead of 17th. Maybe smooth out the lower-level progression to cover the gaps.
This addresses the power disparity to a small extent but maintains XP progression, hp, saves, etc.
I'd approach it from the other end: take the wizard's and cleric's spell progression lists and just insert a copied a line or two at higher levels (I'd recommend 10th -- in 1e you didn't get 6th level spells until 12th, and at 10th wizards get a bonus feat so it's not a "dead level" -- and maybe again at 15th). You'd still get 9th level spells -- but at 19th level, instead of 17th. Maybe smooth out the lower-level progression to cover the gaps.
This addresses the power disparity to a small extent but maintains XP progression, hp, saves, etc.
I like that idea.
|
|
Thinking back on the whole issue of class balance/xp tracks from earlier editions has gotten me thinking.
As much as I would like to use some older edition xp tricks/tracks I don't think it solves the problem. I have a slow track xp system in my home game, but I only use it for multiclass characters (gestalt classes) due to the sheer flexibility those combos provide, caster or non-caster.
In older editions it was ok to have a thief a few levels higher than everyone else -since the thief as a class was not very good.
With a shift in making each class viable at equal levels I have to go back to the main issue of what is the problem? What is the disparity which exists or was enhanced in the 3rd edition d20 system? I have to always return to: Spells and the DC system.
The casting classes on their own hold no special power or ability which puts them ahead of other classes. While the rogue and fighter saves suck compared to other classes I wouldn't say that makes them unplayable. The issue is the power of spells and how they have changed:
Unrestricted saves/use (exception of Sleep, et al)
No drawbacks
So I would go back and recant what I said about different xp tracks for different classes. I would use them for special cases (gestalt multi-class or something weird), but they are not needed and will not fix anything - neither will padded/slowed spell access.
In the end they have access to the same resource: the spells. It may be a delaying tactic but it does not change the end result.
So DC manipulation - don't know if you need capped stats, or capped DCs (by spell level), and the actual spell power/results/risks are the issue - IMO. The classes are fine on their own (saves, hp, skills, etc).
Sorry for the threadjack.
My general thought is that this is more of a philosophical problem than a mechanical one.
Assuming you're the GM, you can adjust the game's spotlight any way you want: if you want rogues to get more "star" time, build that into your adventure design. Put in more traps to disarm, put in more big, solo brutes (with SR) for the rogue to flank and sneak attack. Put in more situations where sneaking in to the enemy's lair is the optimal choice. Heck, a relatively-pedestrian ring of invisibility can make a rogue a real encounter-breaker. Let the wizard go "Flash! BANG!" ... they make a great distraction while the rogue is actually getting things done.
Part of the GM's job is to give everybody something interesting to do, and by extension, that means having ways to "keep score" beyond "number of hit points knocked down." To a well-played rogue, actually KILLING a foe should be considered a dull and inelegant solution to a problem!
-The Gneech
My general thought is that this is more of a philosophical problem than a mechanical one.
Assuming you're the GM, you can adjust the game's spotlight any way you want: if you want rogues to get more "star" time, build that into your adventure design. Put in more traps to disarm, put in more big, solo brutes (with SR) for the rogue to flank and sneak attack. Put in more situations where sneaking in to the enemy's lair is the optimal choice. Heck, a relatively-pedestrian ring of invisibility can make a rogue a real encounter-breaker. Let the wizard go "Flash! BANG!" ... they make a great distraction while the rogue is actually getting things done.
Part of the GM's job is to give everybody something interesting to do, and by extension, that means having ways to "keep score" beyond "number of hit points knocked down." To a well-played rogue, actually KILLING a foe should be considered a dull and inelegant solution to a problem!
-The Gneech
+1
|
|
I would agree with the spotlight/adjust game philosophy for older editions. I think its the GMs job to help provide opportunities for different PC classes to shine.
I don't think philosophy helps when you are dealing with an imbalanced point buy system and a broken (I said it) DC system. When people – not everyone – but some gamers and groups take issue with concrete mechanical problems the philosophy argument doesn't really help solve the problem.
I'm not sure that different XP tables for different classes works that well in 3.X, especially in PF. Putting aside the caster/martial controversy, multi-classing becomes a headache, and the base system isn't really built for varying levels. I actually like the old systems where some classes moved faster than others (and others had a tough time going up in levels). It made balancing a headache, but things were more fast and loose back then. :)
But, I'm putting that aside for a moment. What this idea inspired in my head is an answer to a frustration regarding the rapid advancement that characters seem to meet and the formulaic method of how it works. A friend of mine refers to it as '1 to 20 in two weeks', or, as an extreme example, in a one-shot quick campaign, I strongly suspect my character has shot up three levels in one day (a special case, since it's a deliberate powergame scenario with a ton of extra xp).
Regardless, coming from the old editions, I liked the fact that the first levels went quick and then things slowed down. It gave folks time to build characters and relationships, etc., as well as riding out the 'sweet' spot (lvls 5-12) for a long time.
Granted, this was when folks stuck with the same characters for years, and the appeal of the current faster progressions means you get to try out more characters.
So, anyways, what about simply increasing the level cost on the sweet spot levels/high levels? Would that allow folks to enjoy their characters longer, and allow DMs to keep the group in a range that they're comfortable with?
Mostly idle speculation (I have a player that nearly blew a gasket when I told him I wanted to use the medium progression, because it was 'too slow', so I doubt I'll implement it). Just an idea to be tossed out there.
. . .a broken (I said it) DC system.
Could you please state what you believe is broken about the DC system?
By the way, I'm trying to imagine how vector or tensor experience would work.
|
|
I imagine it has to do with the fact that the base DC is 10 and the base saving throw can be anywhere from 0 to 40.. . .a broken (I said it) DC system.Could you please state what you believe is broken about the DC system?
What TOZ said.
Plus - Magic Missile gets a fixed damage cap but the only thing hindering other low level spells (like Charm Person) are a slightly lower DC, i.e. Charm Person useful at mid to higher level play while MM is not. They do this with many spells.
|
Aux, do you think the base DC should be lowered, or should the base save be raised? Maybe 5 instead of 10, or make the Good progression the new Poor and introduce a Good that starts at 3 and scales up higher than 12?
This is of course supposing we reduce HD bloat or tie saving throw progression to CR, as well as disallowing multiclassing to build saves up to ridiculous numbers.
By the way, I'm trying to imagine how vector or tensor experience would work.
'vector experience' means xp with different value towards different classes, such as xp for disarming traps counting only/more towards rogue levels. AD&D for multiclass was somewhat like that. Mathematically use either all classes as orthogonal dimensions, or the four basic food groups (martial, subterfuge, divine, arcane) as orthogonal (fighter [1,0,0,0>, paladin [1,0,1,0> etc.)
'tensor experience' just gets ugly, but could imply "synergy xp" (or the opposite) for having the right class combos. Really, it's just higher dimensionality vector xp with space spanned by multiclass combos rather than classes.
ps: sorry for hijacking, just couldn't resist that question...
|
|
Aux, do you think the base DC should be lowered, or should the base save be raised? Maybe 5 instead of 10, or make the Good progression the new Poor and introduce a Good that starts at 3 and scales up higher than 12?
This is of course supposing we reduce HD bloat or tie saving throw progression to CR, as well as disallowing multiclassing to build saves up to ridiculous numbers.
Just throwing out some ideas here based on your suggestions:
Easiest
Reducing save DCs from 5 to 10 would hit casters directly, but would be the easiest to implement. Just subtract 5 from every spell/SLA save DC. Maybe keep a few intact for the one-trick pony encounters (basilisk).
It would bring things closer in line with a 50/50 rate of success vs. same level target (level 1 wizard vs. level 1 fighter examples). While it doesn't directly change the power of any given spell a reduced rate of success does reduce the over-reliance on SoDs/SoS as being an easy "win" tactic.
Harder
Increasing saves across the board (while reducing some stacking insanities/exploits) would make non-casters more viable in all situations, not just against casters. So special attacks from monsters or situation saves would be easier, and maybe for non-casters they should be. Would require some re-stating of saves but can go to lengths to eliminating x-mass tree effect and facilitating different game play styles (low magic, etc).
Hardest
Reducing HD bloat (and some creature stat bloat) would do a number of good things for the game: non-casters and evokers actually get to make a difference with hp damage; you end up with lower save DCs on the other end due to lower creature stats (instead of increasing saves for PCs).
Since BAB is tied to HD and creature type you would still need to find a way for a creature to generate relevant (to CR) attack numbers. Connecting CR to BAB, saves and skill points makes more sense than anything else. As it stands putting together creatures and trying to hit a mark is not an exact science. If it’s tied to a range within CR you don't need stacked classes and HD for a monster to generate a range.
Since PC level equals CR they are going to get their own range based on their class and stay consistent with the system.
Interesting thought Kirth. Slow it down at higher levels then? Also, been meaning to ask if you think allowing the Wizard a High Arcana at 15th/16th level would be a problem? Not that I expect to play one in your game any time soon. :)
I strongly suspect that my rules will still break down around 15th level (which of course means you can play with them for half again as long as the core rules...), but what happens after that remains to be seen.
Interesting thought Kirth. Slow it down at higher levels then? Also, been meaning to ask if you think allowing the Wizard a High Arcana at 15th/16th level would be a problem? Not that I expect to play one in your game any time soon. :)I strongly suspect that my rules will still break down around 15th level (which of course means you can play with them for half again as long as the core rules...), but what happens after that remains to be seen.
You just stoled my idea Kirth! oO
Don't worry, that's no big deal. :P
My general thought is that this is more of a philosophical problem than a mechanical one.
Strongly disagree. The root problem is mechanical -- embedded in the very mathematics of the game; you're proposing a philosophical patch to that problem. I'd rather fix mechanical problems with mechanical solutions, and apply philosophical solutions to the problems that are, at their root, philosophical.
In other words, I want rules I don't have to actively work against in order to make work at all.
|
By the way, I'm trying to imagine how vector or tensor experience would work.'vector experience' means xp with different value towards different classes, such as xp for disarming traps counting only/more towards rogue levels. AD&D for multiclass was somewhat like that. Mathematically use either all classes as orthogonal dimensions, or the four basic food groups (martial, subterfuge, divine, arcane) as orthogonal (fighter [1,0,0,0>, paladin [1,0,1,0> etc.)
>>snip<<
ps: sorry for hijacking, just couldn't resist that question...
Continuing the hijack, IIRC the old Chivalry & Sorcery game did something like that--primary combatants would get xp based on the enemies they killed or damaged, thief-types got something like half the xp for killing or damaging enemies (except if backstabbing was involved) but got xp scaling with value of loot stolen, and primary casters got squat xp (like 10% or so) for killing or damaging enemies. Primary casters got the majority of their xp for magical research, I think. Basically, it was a mechanical way to enforce a particular style of play, and discourage primary spellcasters from adventuring unless it was for something they needed for their research.
From what I've gathered, people feel that casters are OP because of "I win" spells/effects.
Why not just disallow those spells that have save or die effects?
Sleep, Hold Person, Dominate Person, Flesh to Stone, etc.
If those are the problem, just don't let the spellcasters have them or create your own version of the spell.
Maybe re-write them so the target gets a save every round to break the effect.
|
|
From what I've gathered, people feel that casters are OP because of "I win" spells/effects.
Why not just disallow those spells that have save or die effects?
Sleep, Hold Person, Dominate Person, Flesh to Stone, etc.If those are the problem, just don't let the spellcasters have them or create your own version of the spell.
Maybe re-write them so the target gets a save every round to break the effect.
AIUI, that's only a minor part of the problem. The following is a Reader's Digest version of several thousand messageboard posts over the past few weeks. Mainly what I see described (and I haven't played 3.x at a high enough level to really notice the problem, so I'm going by what others have said) is that 1)most spells are standard actions, so casters can take a full move and cast (unlike fighter-types, who can't take a full move and get their full attack combination), and 2)it's generally not too difficult for a caster to get a spell off while being attacked. Those are the big ones.
The SoS/DoD spells are still an issue, along with things like Fly, but getting back to 1e slower casting/easier distraction would probably go a long way towards leveling the playing field. At least it forces casters to surround themselves with some flavor of meat shield, whether conjured or otherwise.
The SoS/DoD spells are still an issue, along with things like Fly, but getting back to 1e slower casting/easier distraction would probably go a long way towards leveling the playing field. At least it forces casters to surround themselves with some flavor of meat shield, whether conjured or otherwise.
Perhaps addressing the actual levels spells are given could fix a few of these problems. A major complaint is fly, as it skirts a number of traps and tricks, and adds another dimension(literally) to the game. Though my DM recently fixed this in one area by introducing a white dragon guarding the skies, it would surely get dull if every area of the world had a "sky guardian"(though that could be melded into a campaign world as a duct-tape fix). Do we pinpoint those spells which inevitably make a DM's job hell, and nerf them? That seems to be what 4e has done, and honestly the game just feels nerfed all around.
|
|
Perhaps addressing the actual levels spells are given could fix a few of these problems. A major complaint is fly, as it skirts a number of traps and tricks, and adds another dimension(literally) to the game. Though my DM recently fixed this in one area by introducing a white dragon guarding the skies, it would surely get dull if every area of the world had a "sky guardian"(though that could be melded into a campaign world as a duct-tape fix). Do we pinpoint those spells which inevitably make a DM's job hell, and nerf them? That seems to be what 4e has done, and honestly the game just feels nerfed all around.
Isn't the major issue with fly not so much letting casters fly as it is letting them cast spells while flying? For that, a quick & dirty nerf would be to stick a fairly high concentration check requirement on casting while flying, possibly with bonuses for having ranks in the Fly skill (thus eating up some of a wizard's excess skill points; that might be seen as a nerf on sorcerers over wizards, though).
|
|
With relation to Fly (or Teleport + others for that matter) the problem is that the game designed the non-caster classes in a fantasy vacuum.
My biggest beef with 3rd ed is the open ended DC system applying to everything, this gives us exploding DCs, disrupts power balance, etc. That is one problem and with that being said when it comes to all other caster abilities, be it fly, teleport, the ability to summon demons and so on my problem is there is very little in the form of a mechanical/feat/skill counter to any of these abilities from non-casters.
Since all these spells/abilities have had all their drawbacks watered down to non-existence, + exploding DCs the problem is magnified. Non-casters have very few abilities available to deal with the nonsense they would encounter in day-to-day life of living in a fantasy world. Less so vs. enemy spell casters or monsters which use spells frequently.
Disruptive/Spellbreaker/Teleport Tactician feats have the right idea but they are too high in level in requirement, too specialized, too narrow (only fighters) and offer very little for the feat investment they ask for. Disrupting spells of the guy standing next to you isn't going to do squat to the guy doing flyby sorties while being covered heat to toe in buffs.
I think in a world with magic fields of force, summoned demons and flying nasties you would (and should) have class abilities to smack someone hard enough to knock the spells off of them, rage through walls of force or archer/ranger down flying monsters (to ground or hinder flyby attacks) and the game just doesn't really take any of the fantasy elements into consideration for all the non-casters.
So it isn't just that Fly and Teleport have few drawbacks (they have none or vert little) there is also very little in recourse for those who have their feet rooted firmly on the ground. These spells do change the game, when you remove the controls even moreso and when you have little recourse to deal with them - well that's where we start hitting pathetic territory.
Of course this is all just my opnion and I could be wrong (I have been before).
I think in a world with magic fields of force, summoned demons and flying nasties you would (and should) have class abilities to smack someone hard enough to knock the spells off of them, rage through walls of force or archer/ranger down flying monsters (to ground or hinder flyby attacks) and the game just doesn't really take any of the fantasy elements into consideration for all the non-casters.
+100