I’m gearing up to run a homebrew campaign-- probably using Pathfinder and allowing any 3.5 material on a case-by-case DM approval basis. So here’s my dilemma…
When I picture a cool campaign, I have images of Aragorn or Lancelot or Odysseus (or Roy and Belkar, for that matter) playing important roles in their respective stories. In other words, melee-types. And yet, much of what I read on these boards says the rules as written only allow a marginal role for these types of characters.
We’ll probably go past 20th level, and I want both melee-types and spellcasters to feel relevant as we progress. So here’s my question to you: how do I make this happen without rewriting a bunch of rules?
(And if your only input is to say it can’t be done, please don’t bother cluttering up this thread. I’m looking for ideas not discouragement.)
Ideas that I’m wondering about:
Are there certain kinds of magic items I can just leave out of my world?
What kind of point buy levels the playing field?
Would it help to allow masterwork and special materials to give higher bonuses (i.e. steel can be masterworked up to +3, mithril to +4, adamantine to +5, etc.)?
Are there certain feats, classes, prestige classes, etc. from 3.5 that I should allow to give the melee-types a boost at higher levels?
Are there feats, etc. that I shouldn’t allow from 3.5 to avoid making the spellcasters even more powerful?
In general, I’m looking for simple things I can do, so we aren’t all trying to remember a ton of house rules, but I’m open to all suggestions.
(And let’s leave the fighters vs. wizards competition to another thread. I’d like to see both have a place in my world.)
|
It really depends on your players. If they don't have the patience to plan out a wizard, then most likely the wizard will seem underpowered. They might be melee-players that know how to use a two-handed charger for ridiculous damage. Or they might know all the right spells to make the peoples fall down. Without knowing how your players are, you're at risk of nerfing them the wrong way. The best way is to have players who know what can break the game, and choose not to for the sake of fun.
For me the easiest solutions are the following:
Cap ability modifier to Save DCs (I personally like +10)
Every class has all good saves (2+1/2 HD + stat modifier)
This generally brings the save DC vs save math somewhat into balance.
I also prefer to remove the quicken spell metamagic from the game. If casters only have 1 standard action to cast spells then they are more reasonable.
Both are relatively easy changes that don't require too many rewrites to the game other than changing the saves line on stat blocks and possibly reallocating a feat.
I’m gearing up to run a homebrew campaign-- probably using Pathfinder and allowing any 3.5 material on a case-by-case DM approval basis. So here’s my dilemma…
When I picture a cool campaign, I have images of Aragorn or Lancelot or Odysseus (or Roy and Belkar, for that matter) playing important roles in their respective stories. In other words, melee-types. And yet, much of what I read on these boards says the rules as written only allow a marginal role for these types of characters.
We’ll probably go past 20th level, and I want both melee-types and spellcasters to feel relevant as we progress. So here’s my question to you: how do I make this happen without rewriting a bunch of rules?
(And if your only input is to say it can’t be done, please don’t bother cluttering up this thread. I’m looking for ideas not discouragement.)
Ideas that I’m wondering about:
Are there certain kinds of magic items I can just leave out of my world?
What kind of point buy levels the playing field?
Would it help to allow masterwork and special materials to give higher bonuses (i.e. steel can be masterworked up to +3, mithril to +4, adamantine to +5, etc.)?
Are there certain feats, classes, prestige classes, etc. from 3.5 that I should allow to give the melee-types a boost at higher levels?
Are there feats, etc. that I shouldn’t allow from 3.5 to avoid making the spellcasters even more powerful?In general, I’m looking for simple things I can do, so we aren’t all trying to remember a ton of house rules, but I’m open to all suggestions.
(And let’s leave the fighters vs. wizards competition to another thread. I’d like to see both have a place in my world.)
The usefulness of a character depends more on the player than the class.
It would be easier if we knew of past issues.I hate giving blank statements about things because a lot of things are group specific. I will tell you that around 15th level the game turns into what is called Rocket Tag, so it is hard to expect a 20th level game to remain balanced at all. At that level they can take on CR 26ish monsters as boss fights because the room between the floor(players) and the ceiling(boss) are not as far apart as they are earlier in the game.
Would it help to allow masterwork and special materials to give higher bonuses (i.e. steel can be masterworked up to +3, mithril to +4, adamantine to +5, etc.)?
If you are looking for expanding masterwork weapons, The Black Company Campaign setting has some cool masterwork rules as well as some sweet looking feats.
I played a campaign with 3.0/3.5 rules, and the party tank was an essential member. Even at high levels (we went to 21st), he was MVP now and then.
He was dependent on magic items to be mobile and make a difference, but he wasted a good number of BBEGs the old-fasioned way; he ran up and whacked them nice and hard. It usually worked!
Good advice above, too. If everyone's having fun, you're doing it right. Try sticking with core (and the awesome APG) at first, and if something seems to be a recurring problem, tweak it in a way that everyone can live with. I doubt you'll need to very much.
Go back to 1E rules and let melees make full attacks and move.
Make all spellcasting at least a full attack action. exception: Make Evocation standard actions...it's the school of battle, after all, and it should be the fastest one to cast.
Restrict ability scores. 1 and 2E did this...4E does this. 1E, the only score easy to raise was Str, and to a lesser extent Dex (Gauntlets). I propose that enhancement bonuses and inherent bonuses for the mental ability scores simply not exist. You advance by level and by age. Guess what? It won't hurt your campaign much at all. Starting with a 20, they can still reach a 25, and a 28 with age.
restrict hit points. Pathfinder gave wizards +3 hp/level...d6 hd, Toughness feat, and +1 Hp/favored class. That's a LOT of hit points. Restrict Con bonuses for casters to +2, partial casters to +4,and unlimited for non-casters.
Give out bonuses for NOT having magical ability. Spell Resistance would be an excellent starter. D@D seems to have some sort of pathological aversion to the idea that those without magic could be anti-magical.
Restrict strength boosters to melee classes. Mages get wands and staves, melees get Str and Con boosters.
Let Weapon using classes elevate their weapons and armor for xp, and not count against WBL. A cleric's spell list doesn't count against his, nor a sorcs, and most DM's hand-wave the wizard. That spell list is worth 300k in gold. Equalize things.
Give Melee classes better saves. They don't have magic, they rely on themselves. It's another aspect of being resistant to magic.
===Aelryinth
Aelrynth, I like your suggestions and the 2E feel.. but what about multiclass? Ho would you set the max con bonus?
|
You could always simply ask your players not to play a spell casting class, or limit what they're allowed to play based upon the ideals of the campaign to not include anything with full progression.
It could be an interesting change up and you can easily overcome the challenges of having no spell casters from the start of the campaign.
Aelrynth, I like your suggestions and the 2E feel.. but what about multiclass? Ho would you set the max con bonus?
I, too, am loving that list of suggestions! I'm listing the thread to not lose track of 'em now. (good work, A!!!)
Regarding Multi-class, though - the answer is *already* in what A listed out above. Award HP boons according to the class that was just leveled up into most recently.
Ie: Fighter --> Barbarian = still "non-caster" and so no max limit on HP increases.
Fighter --> Wizard = caster status, so NOW, moving forward (or at least for that 1 taken level - not sure which, but to be more 2e-like I'd say even 1 level will fully nerf the con bonuses) he gets HP increases as though a "full caster". I suppose a "partial caster" status could *also* be permanently crafted onto that, but I think even that is going to be a LOT of bonus for them. I'd rather see a "can you cast the best/most stuff?" be the test and if "yes" is the answer, you're now a +2 max - have fun, thanks for playing! [seriously - casters and getting the crazy con bonus is NUTS!!!! Always was for me - that's what Feats like Toughness and Improved Toughness were for, IMO.]
The only thing I'd wonder about is Paladin/Ranger-type casters ... I mean, they're *barely* casters, yet they'd be limited to a +4 max hp boon/level as a "half-caster" right? I'm wondering if that's too little in their case ... It works fine for a bard, though.
I also note that Rogues being "non-casters" would also be eligible for full on "unlimited" hp gains. I'm not sure if that's a good, or a bad thing, but it's something worthy of note.
In reply to the posters who asked what sort of players I'm working with...
One of our players tends to make damage-oriented spellcasters that routinely do more damage than our melee characters. In one of our last battles (at 5th level), he was doing more HP damage per round than our 2-handed, power-attacking fighter, OR our paladin-- and this was in a battle against undead where the paladin ought to have outclassed everyone.
Another player always gets the saves on his spells jacked through the roof, so that battles usually end when he says they do.
As a player, I usually end up playing utility players or healers with these guys, and it doesn't seem to matter if the melee characters are there or not.
Aelrynth, I like your suggestions and the 2E feel.. but what about multiclass? Ho would you set the max con bonus?
Max Con bonus has always applied by hit dice.
If you're going to use old multiclass rules, just assign the bonus by hit die, add, divide.
Thus a f/wiz with 18 con would get d10+4 + d6 +2,averaging out to (2-16 +6)/2, or d8+3. With a 24 Con, it'd be d10+7 + d6+2, etc.
If you're trying to keep true to the spirit of non-casters with best Con, then simply rule that levels in any primary casting class restrict your Con bonus to +2, and in secondary casting classes (Pal, Rgr, etc) to +4, use the lower of the two.
There's no game out there that doesn't give the melee tanks more hit points then the spellcasters and archers.
==Aelryinth
|
I think the entire premise of your question starts with a fallacy.
I don’t agree with a single person on these boards who says that melee-types don’t stand a chance vs. a wizard.
Sure, you can extrapolate any set of scenarios you want, and team the classes up one-on-one at any level, and one would win over the other every time depending on level and circumstances.
But that isn’t what roleplaying is supposed to be about in my mind. It isn’t about “my character is better than yours.”
I’m also of a mind to be inclusive when considering what to allow in my campaign. The only thing I tell my players is, if it’s 3rd party material, then I need to look at it. By and large, WotC and Paizo usually spend time playtesting their material, and its mostly pretty well balanced (the true name section of one of WotC’s books comes to mind as a noted exception to this).
But there are some melee or ranged fighter concepts that don’t require PrC’s. You can create a relatively decent OotBI (Order of the Bow Initiate from Sword & Fist or Complete Warrior) without using that PrC. And at higher levels you literally start blenderizing your opponents with your bow.
A lot of people act like a party full of wizards or clerics could completely dominate any dungeon. And while they would be ok at it (it would be boring in my mind), each different Cleric and Wizard would need to take on an iconic role. You need the meat that ties up the enemy, so that the artillery can bombard unhindered. You need the trap finder and lock picker, so that you don’t get killed before finding the enemy.
Sure, spells CAN do all that. And spells CAN dish out tons of damage (in many cases more damage on a wider scale than a melee guy).
But nothing, and I mean nothing, beats the ability to… an example
In my campaign I am allowing some interesting things. One of the players has a Gnoll fighter. I also liked the idea of racial paragons from Unearthed Arcana (3.5) and so created a gnoll paragon class. He’s 2 levels (2 hit dice) of gnoll, 3 levels of gnoll paragon, and 9 levels of fighter. He’s a two weapon wielder, and gnoll paragon gives him a large stature (large size minus the reach). So he wields a great axe and dwarven war axe. They were ambushed by some Babau demons and in round 2, they were all injured quite a bit. He killed one, cleaved and killed a 2nd, and then used his 2nd and 3rd attacks with his primary weapon, and 1st, and 2nd attacks with his off-hand weapon to kill a third demon.
Or my schizophrenic monk/rogue type character from my friends campaign (schizo in that he has like 6 classes) who finally is very adept at the sneak attack, who was incredibly weak and inept in combat early on, can now do over 40 damage in a single shot if he gets his sneak attack. All the other players are aware of his relatively new combat prowess, and actually maneuver to help him flank and such.
My point is, this isn’t about what is the most powerful or the most usefull. It is supposed to be about what is the most fun.
If your group only has fun as spell casters, well then develop a campaign around a bunch of spell casters.
If your group has fun being a balanced party amongst all the iconic character types, then create a campaign that caters to that.
Have minions that the meat has to kill so that the spell caster can concentrate his kick butt targeted spells on the big baddy. Give the rogue some traps or locks as well.
Don’t make all your minions immune to flanking or sneak attack or have high DR or SR. They are there to be killed after all.
Every combat doesn’t have to last at least 10 rounds. The average combat is actually closer to 3 to 6 rounds (at almost all levels as long as the encounter is scaled correctly.) Sometimes you’ll hit the sweet spot and get an encounter that lasts 10 to 20 rounds that isn’t overpowering or TPK.
One mistake that many DM’s (I myself have made it many, many times, and having gm’d living campaigns—and helped develop a 3rd party one I learned) is they feel they are running against the players. They aren’t. Your dungeon, monsters, minions, big baddy’s are there to be killed—by the players.
I think it is highly possible to feel relevant with any class at any level, as long as the campaign is tailored in a balanced way, with the right attitude by the GM.
|
|
In reply to the posters who asked what sort of players I'm working with...
One of our players tends to make damage-oriented spellcasters that routinely do more damage than our melee characters. In one of our last battles (at 5th level), he was doing more HP damage per round than our 2-handed, power-attacking fighter, OR our paladin-- and this was in a battle against undead where the paladin ought to have outclassed everyone.
Another player always gets the saves on his spells jacked through the roof, so that battles usually end when he says they do.
As a player, I usually end up playing utility players or healers with these guys, and it doesn't seem to matter if the melee characters are there or not.
Without knowing specifics, I can’t get real detailed in my response here.
But see my previous post above.
Secondly, all the other advice you seem to be getting, is from people who agree with your original premise. That there is a problem or power gap between spell casters and melee fighters. I disagree that there is a problem.
However, based on the above quote, your group seems to have players very good at over-optimizing their spell casters, and players that aren’t particularly good at optimizing their melee characters.
If at 5th level your spell casters are dominating as much as they are, then the problem isn’t with the game. The power gap isn’t with the rules, it is with the players. They are creating the power gap in that you have some majorly good min-maxer’s with the spell casters, and some majorly poor min-maxer’s with the melee characters.
You can’t create a run of the mill Paladin and expect they will be as good as an optimized Wizard.
The same would be true if you created an optimized Paladin which would be better than a run-of the mill Wizard.
But if you forsee this problem persisting in your group, then perhaps you can sit down with those creating melee types (or ask one of the better optimizers to help) and help them optimize.
Or just do as I sneered at in my above post. Have everyone create spell casters and theme them around the various iconic roles.
Aelryinth-- using your CON idea, rogues get a better bonus than Paladins. Would it work better to assign the better bonuses based on what hit die the class gets?
Andrew Christian-- Thanks for adding your perspective. It may be that the group I'm with is simply better at making spellcasters. My goal isn't to gimp the spellcasters, but rather to start off cautiously. It is easier to begin with a few limitations in place, and see how things go. If it seems like the melee guys are pulling ahead, it's not a problem to start giving nice things to the casters later on.
An example of this would be to simply not have any mental stat boosting items in the world at first. Later on, if it seems like that's too harsh, it's easy to bring a few in.
Aelryinth-- using your CON idea, rogues get a better bonus than Paladins. Would it work better to assign the better bonuses based on what hit die the class gets?
Andrew Christian-- Thanks for adding your perspective. It may be that the group I'm with is simply better at making spellcasters. My goal isn't to gimp the spellcasters, but rather to start off cautiously. It is easier to begin with a few limitations in place, and see how things go. If it seems like the melee guys are pulling ahead, it's not a problem to start giving nice things to the casters later on.
An example of this would be to simply not have any mental stat boosting items in the world at first. Later on, if it seems like that's too harsh, it's easy to bring a few in.
Yes, Rogues would get a better Con bonus. Paladins have healing. Paladins can use Cure Wands. Paladins are going to end up with more hit points via class abilities.
Ditto rangers, although you didn't use them. Can't self-heal quite so well, but can use wands without dipping UMD.
+4 Con is still a lot of hit points, and you still have Favored Class and Toughness. remember they still get the Fort Save of a high Con (if you aren't going 4E and letting them use Str bonus instead), they just don't get all the uber hit points.
I don't think you're going to see much abuse in a Rogue with lots of hit points, are you? They have all the hit points they could get now, after all, and you generally don't see Rogues optimize in Con.
==+Aelryinth
I would be careful changing the rules, the players expect the rules to remain the same and grow suspicious of home-brew changes.
But that doesn't mean you can't balance melee vs. wizard. Just as there are infinite ways to personalize a musical score, you have infinite freedom as a GM to personalize the gaming experience without changing the rules.
One way to balance casters with melee classes is to be generous with magic weapons and spell resistant monsters. Encourage your warriors to take the 'disruptive' breed of feats.
Another way is to make long encounters or to not give your party ample resting opportunities. Make a single dungeon crawl last all day, making the spellcasters think twice before blowing all their spells early. If the party tries to rest, throw monsters at them to let them know that getting 8 hours to rest and prepare spells is a luxury they won't often get. Warriors are a sword and spellcasters are guns. Swords will always lose to guns, but guns have finite ammunition. Make your campaign ammunition-sparse.
Although I've never GM'd lvl 20+ so I don't know how well this theory holds up at epic levels.
|
If you want a melee focused campaign, just talk with your players about selecting melee focused character classes. In this way, you get more of the traditional setting that you desire, and don't need to worry about any balance issues.
If your don't want to limit your players, then I'd play the game as written. The balance issues cited on these boards don't accurately reflect the game as played. Often the balance issues are hypothetical in nature, and rarely arise in real play. If issues do arise, they seem to stem from other problems, such as misreading of rules/spells or cheating.
I have played in four campaigns from 1st to mid-20s without melee classes becoming ineffectual or relatively weak compared with spell casters. In fact, spell casters were often envious of the melee characters' abilities to pump out huge damage each round relative to their spells.
In my STAP campaign which just finished, the key damage inflicting characters were a 1) 16 Binder/ 8 Marshal; 2) 24 Ranger; and 3) 24 Wizard. In my epic home brew campaign, the key damage inflicting characters are: 1) 25 Knight; 2) 25 Dread Necromancer and 3) 24 Mystic Theurge. In my Dragonlance campaign, they are: 1) 17 Sword Mage; 2) 16 Fighter; and 3) 17 Druid. In the Red Hand of Doom campaign, they are 1) 6 Ranger; 2) 6 Paladin; and 3) 6 Rogue.
As you see in each case, one or more melee classes were in the top three. Each played a critical role in e party and were not eclipsed by spell casters.
Enjoying the suggestions. And it seems there's a consensus that the balance issues at higher levels aren't as bad as I had feared.
I'm not trying to nerf the spellcasters or make them think I'm out to get them-- as a DM, I can enjoy seeing a few well-chosen spells lay waste to my armies of bad guys.
What I'm trying to do is approach the campaign cautiously. Knowing that we'll end up playing in the high levels, I want to avoid allowing something that's going to grow unchecked as the characters progress. In my initial post, I was mostly looking at things I could leave out at the beginning, because that way I can always allow those things to show up later if the spellcasters aren't holding their own (going on the principle that it is easier to give them something later than to take something away that they already have):
Ideas that I’m wondering about:
Are there certain kinds of magic items I can just leave out of my world?
What kind of point buy levels the playing field?
Would it help to allow masterwork and special materials to give higher bonuses (i.e. steel can be masterworked up to +3, mithril to +4, adamantine to +5, etc.)?
Are there certain feats, classes, prestige classes, etc. from 3.5 that I should allow to give the melee-types a boost at higher levels?
Are there feats, etc. that I shouldn’t allow from 3.5 to avoid making the spellcasters even more powerful?
Anyway, thanks for the input. All of these suggestions and opinions are really helpful.
|
|
In reply to the posters who asked what sort of players I'm working with...
One of our players tends to make damage-oriented spellcasters that routinely do more damage than our melee characters. In one of our last battles (at 5th level), he was doing more HP damage per round than our 2-handed, power-attacking fighter, OR our paladin-- and this was in a battle against undead where the paladin ought to have outclassed everyone.
Another player always gets the saves on his spells jacked through the roof, so that battles usually end when he says they do.
As a player, I usually end up playing utility players or healers with these guys, and it doesn't seem to matter if the melee characters are there or not.
5th level is a breakout level for your spell caster. Because now he has huge AOE blasts and other powerful utility spells. The Barbarian and Paladin don't get a similar bump until 6th level, when multiple attacks in a full round action start kicking in (assuming you're using characters who aren't cleave-heavy).
by the time you hit 15/16th level those blasts aren't as strong and most baddies will have significant saves and resistances. However your melee fighters have geared up to get by weaknesses, have had feat progression to get some truly devastating attacks, and have at least four or five attacks in a round.
If you really want to nerf spellcasters in your game, stretch each day into multiple encounters. By the 4th fight or so the wizard has burned everything but a few magic missiles and rays, and the fighters are doing the same consistent damage they always have.
Gonna agree with Andrew that your difference seems to be more in player ability and specific encounters than balance in the classes.
To add to this, I was talking to my Vampire group last night (they also play DnD with other people), about this thread and some others I've read that talk about the power gap.
Their comment was this...
If as a GM you let the party rest and regain spells after every encounter, then the power gap is huge.
But as the poster I quoted above said, if you can force more than one, and most likely 4 or 5 tough encounters into a single day, the spell casters will eventually start sucking wind. They will have to conserve their spells and be efficient. They won't be completely buffed and have all their offensive fire power for every encounter.
Another thing is, if the spell casters ONLY buff themselves and not the melee guys, then I think the players are missing the boat. Why would a group of fighters take a wizard along with them on an adventure, on a consistent basis, if their goal is to get some recognition? Sure, they will get the money... but the Wizard would be the reason.
So two things...
One, part of the buffing and utility is to help the melee guys out, not just be the dominant character at the table.
Two, don't let the party rest and recover spells after every combat.
You have to create a sense of urgency in the adventure. Warn the players, that if they leave for 24 hours (or days if no healing spells available) the bad guys are now going to be prepared for them. There will be ambushes set up, they will all be pre-buffed and all that jazz.
Seriously, if its only one encounter a day, that means they get up around 7 or 8am, memorize spells, eat, get on the road around 9am or 10am, run into an encounter within the hour depending on if they had to run back to town to rest or have teleport/wind walk, and then win the encounter. They are injured and debuffed and all that jazz, so they rest for essentially 24 hours to do this all over again?
As a GM you can't allow this to happen on a persistent basis.
Codzilla-- I've read some of your comments in other threads, so I'm familiar with the argument that you have laid out as to why spellcasters tend to run away with the game. It seems like you've put some thought into this so I'm interested in your opinion here. Specifically, what sort of tweaks could I do so that your all-spellcaster party would be interested in having a few melee-types instead?
For example, a world where magic weapons are common, but mental stat boosting items didn't exist? A world where many of the most common enemies and monsters have spell resistance? A world where full attacks only take a standard action (could rule that the local fighting tradion has developed an extremely mobile technique)? A world with 35 point buy? etc. etc.
|
|
I’m gearing up to run a homebrew campaign-- probably using Pathfinder and allowing any 3.5 material on a case-by-case DM approval basis. So here’s my dilemma…
When I picture a cool campaign, I have images of Aragorn or Lancelot or Odysseus (or Roy and Belkar, for that matter) playing important roles in their respective stories. In other words, melee-types. And yet, much of what I read on these boards says the rules as written only allow a marginal role for these types of characters.
We’ll probably go past 20th level, and I want both melee-types and spellcasters to feel relevant as we progress. So here’s my question to you: how do I make this happen without rewriting a bunch of rules?
(And if your only input is to say it can’t be done, please don’t bother cluttering up this thread. I’m looking for ideas not discouragement.)
Ideas that I’m wondering about:
Are there certain kinds of magic items I can just leave out of my world?
What kind of point buy levels the playing field?
Would it help to allow masterwork and special materials to give higher bonuses (i.e. steel can be masterworked up to +3, mithril to +4, adamantine to +5, etc.)?
Are there certain feats, classes, prestige classes, etc. from 3.5 that I should allow to give the melee-types a boost at higher levels?
Are there feats, etc. that I shouldn’t allow from 3.5 to avoid making the spellcasters even more powerful?In general, I’m looking for simple things I can do, so we aren’t all trying to remember a ton of house rules, but I’m open to all suggestions.
(And let’s leave the fighters vs. wizards competition to another thread. I’d like to see both have a place in my world.)
If you actually read the spells and play rule as written, it works out fine.
Every spell has a limiting factor, and melee players are more powerful than you realize in actual combat.
The problem has been overblown.
Make all spellcasting at least a full attack action. exception: Make Evocation standard actions...it's the school of battle, after all, and it should be the fastest one to cast.
I think this suggestion might be all you need. When it comes down to it, one of biggest effects of the high level caster play is that they get to either kill or confound multiple opponents at once with a standard action, where as a fighter-type has to spend a full round action to apply the full effect of his abilities.
If casters who have higher level SoD, debilitating battlefield controls, or other spells that spectacularly change the encounter were all full round casts, then they would have to be slightly more choosy about where and when they cast them, AND might loose them more to damaging effects. I can probably count on one hand the number times I've seen a concentration check for damage due to a full round casting, in the last decade of DnD 3E/3.5/PF.
Its a lot of work, but I bet if you went through the 5th level spells and higher (anything that can't be cast through a wand) and made them Full-round if they seem more powerful than a whirlwind attack, then you will have fixed the perceived problem.
|
|
It depends on how experienced your group is.
If your group already knows the problems with PF balance, then as a DM you need to do things to help out non-casters more.
If your group is completely new, it might be better not to bring up the issue. Ignorance is bliss in some cases. But as a DM, you'll really have to keep an eye on if players feel useful, and how often. If they start noticing the fighter doesn't do anything outside of combat, and when they fight, he's not useful, then you have a problem.
The truth of the matter is that doing damage is the formal act of ending combat. The actual end of combat is when the opponents cannot fight back. Spellcasters do that extremely well. Every level has spells to end combats with 1 spell.
If your players are very keen observers, they will start noticing that spells generally end combat, not damage. And then players might start wondering what's the point of playing melee classes.
Please lets not turn this into another "Wizards vs. Fighters" thread. There is more then enough of that already.
My sand grain of wisdom is that you can deal with most of the balance problems before the game even starts. Limit starting ability scores to 17 max after racial adjustments. I would also limit the minimum ability score to 8 or 10 after racial adjustment.
I would also limit the general ability to buy magic items. They are still available, but you can't go into Magic-Mart and get anything you want at list price. Also, you could probably ditch the +6 stat boost items, and double the price of most of the tomes. Pretty much the idea is that the most extreme caster-as-god tactics require ultra-high casting stats to work as intended.
In my own games I haven't seen the gap between melee and casters be very pronounced, but we tend to run at a lower level of optimization then folks like Codzilla. I also asked the players not to abuse some Save or Die type spells like Hold Person, because coup de grace is a fairly anti-climactic way to end an encounter.
I don't have much experience beyond 15-16th level, so others could probably offer up better advice then I could.
PS In general, never use single monster encounters. If an encounter can be ended or neutralized by a single save-or-suck, it isn't a well built encounter.
|
|
The truth of the matter is that doing damage is the formal act of ending combat. The actual end of combat is when the opponents cannot fight back. Spellcasters do that extremely well. Every level has spells to end combats with 1 spell.
No they don't.
Color Spray is a 15 foot cone with a will save that maxes at 16 if you have a 20 int. You are likely to hit your own if they are near the baddies, and unless your DM is lazy they won't be attacking in tightly packed groups. And even if they only have a 1 for will save it is a 25% they make the save and then be standing right next to your unarmored/low hit point having caster when the next round starts.
Let me know what your other "End of fight" spells are and I will point out the limitations of them.
|
|
Please lets not turn this into another "Wizards vs. Fighters" thread. There is more then enough of that already.
My sand grain of wisdom is that you can deal with most of the balance problems before the game even starts. Limit starting ability scores to 17 max after racial adjustments. I would also limit the minimum ability score to 8 or 10 after racial adjustment.
I would also limit the general ability to buy magic items. They are still available, but you can't go into Magic-Mart and get anything you want at list price. Also, you could probably ditch the +6 stat boost items, and double the price of most of the tomes. Pretty much the idea is that the most extreme caster-as-god tactics require ultra-high casting stats to work as intended.
In my own games I haven't seen the gap between melee and casters be very pronounced, but we tend to run at a lower level of optimization then folks like Codzilla. I also asked the players not to abuse some Save or Die type spells like Hold Person, because coup de grace is a fairly anti-climactic way to end an encounter.
I don't have much experience beyond 15-16th level, so others could probably offer up better advice then I could.
Or if you don't want to do the limits, just make people deal with the effects of the negative scores they give themselves.
And spells like hold person are as much save=fail as save or die. If you have multiple enemies, it isn't that effective a spell when you consider it gets to attempt the save again each round.
|
|
Please lets not turn this into another "Wizards vs. Fighters" thread. There is more then enough of that already.
My sand grain of wisdom is that you can deal with most of the balance problems before the game even starts. Limit starting ability scores to 17 max after racial adjustments. I would also limit the minimum ability score to 8 or 10 after racial adjustment.
I would also limit the general ability to buy magic items. They are still available, but you can't go into Magic-Mart and get anything you want at list price. Also, you could probably ditch the +6 stat boost items, and double the price of most of the tomes. Pretty much the idea is that the most extreme caster-as-god tactics require ultra-high casting stats to work as intended.
In my own games I haven't seen the gap between melee and casters be very pronounced, but we tend to run at a lower level of optimization then folks like Codzilla. I also asked the players not to abuse some Save or Die type spells like Hold Person, because coup de grace is a fairly anti-climactic way to end an encounter.
I don't have much experience beyond 15-16th level, so others could probably offer up better advice then I could.
This is fine as long as everybody is on the same page. But the problem often comes up when players start pushing the envelop more and more.
This also shows there's a problem that needs to be addressed. If the balance was there already, all the people involved wouldn't have to make sacrifices for the sake of the game.
Personally, I'm generally okay with this. But once in a while, the question comes up "why am I not using the most of my character's ability?", and then I get pissed off for a few days. In my experience, I've noticed other people (players and DMs) think this from time to time.
|
|
Please lets not turn this into another "Wizards vs. Fighters" thread. There is more then enough of that already.
My sand grain of wisdom is that you can deal with most of the balance problems before the game even starts. Limit starting ability scores to 17 max after racial adjustments. I would also limit the minimum ability score to 8 or 10 after racial adjustment.
I would also limit the general ability to buy magic items. They are still available, but you can't go into Magic-Mart and get anything you want at list price. Also, you could probably ditch the +6 stat boost items, and double the price of most of the tomes. Pretty much the idea is that the most extreme caster-as-god tactics require ultra-high casting stats to work as intended.
In my own games I haven't seen the gap between melee and casters be very pronounced, but we tend to run at a lower level of optimization then folks like Codzilla. I also asked the players not to abuse some Save or Die type spells like Hold Person, because coup de grace is a fairly anti-climactic way to end an encounter.
I don't have much experience beyond 15-16th level, so others could probably offer up better advice then I could.
Or if you don't want to do the limits, just make people deal with the effects of the negative scores they give themselves.
And spells like hold person are as much save=fail as save or die. If you have multiple enemies, it isn't that effective a spell when you consider it gets to attempt the save again each round.
A caster usually has to cast a spell twice at most in order for it to affect that target. It's not even because of optimization, just that PF gives lots of bonuses without increasing the defense against spells much.
It also leads to weird situations where that the entire enemy force goes after the spellcaster instead of other characters first. A caster can take out a party. A non-caster can take out 1 character at a time.
|
|
Or if you don't want to do the limits, just make people deal with the effects of the negative scores they give themselves.And spells like hold person are as much save=fail as save or die. If you have multiple enemies, it isn't that effective a spell when you consider it gets to attempt the save again each round.
A caster usually has to cast a spell twice at most in order for it to affect that target. It's not even because of optimization, just that PF gives lots of bonuses without increasing the defense against spells much.
It also leads to weird situations where that the entire enemy force goes after the spellcaster instead of other characters first. A caster can take out a party. A non-caster can take out 1 character at a time.
As I said, name the spells and I will show you the limitations.
A caster only has so many spells a day, and each spell takes time to cast. A failed spell can leave them completely vulnerable, since they don't have as many hit points or as much armor as other classes.
Casters are great, but they are neither over nor underpowered in an adventure path, module, or properly run game that follows RAW.
|
|
stuff about my spellcasters rock
You forget, that color spray requires a saving throw. At 1st level, the best you'll get is a DC 17 saving throw. Difficult for a level 1 encounter badguys, sure, but they can make it. Assume 1 out of every 4 make it.
Now you have a guy who isn't color sprayed who can walk up and attack your perhaps 6 hp guy (because with most point buy systems, you aren't getting an INT of 20 and a CON of even 16) and have a 50/50 of knocking him out in one shot.
Second, what if the bad guys win initiative? Or, gasp, surprise your group and win initiative? Then its an easy TPK, because your wizards all have 4 to 6 HP's.
Thirdly, if you want to play in a game where everyone plays a color spray only Wizard, be my guest. To me, that would be beyond boring.
|
|
A caster usually has to cast a spell twice at most in order for it to affect that target.
Ok, but between castings? Is the guy the spellcaster fighting gonna stand around and pick his nose? Or is he gonna attack the spell caster who doesn't have anyone standing between (fighters?) him and the bad guy?
And what if the bad guy is undead? Color spray doesn't work. It would be interesting for a DM to throw a skeleton encounter against a Wizard who took 4 color sprays and has nothing but his staff or dagger to fight against a skeleton with.
What if the bad guy wins initiative and runs up and tags your low HP wizard for 8 damage? Longswords with a decent Strength tend to do 6 on average.
So even by 5th level, your optimized wizard still needs help, and the badguys don't necessarily die because of a fire ball.
And yeah, if I'm a badguy and someone is whipping fireballs or scorching rays at me from behind the fighters, I'm gonna try and take him out. He represents a real danger.
Why do you think that many war stories (movies and games) deal with having to go take out an artillery battery that is pinning an army down on the beach?
Go take out the artillery, and make it a fair battle.
This also includes ranged missile guys. You go stop the guy from raining death down with impunity, whether it is spells or arrows.
You guys who are so pro-spellcaster do nothing but spout what a spellcaster is capable of if every roll goes their way.
But if you look at the law of averages, the 1st level group of spellcasters loses to a group of orc scouts 9 times out of 10.
|
|
A caster usually has to cast a spell twice at most in order for it to affect that target.Ok, but between castings? Is the guy the spellcaster fighting gonna stand around and pick his nose? Or is he gonna attack the spell caster who doesn't have anyone standing between (fighters?) him and the bad guy?
And what if the bad guy is undead? Color spray doesn't work. It would be interesting for a DM to throw a skeleton encounter against a Wizard who took 4 color sprays and has nothing but his staff or dagger to fight against a skeleton with.
What if the bad guy wins initiative and runs up and tags your low HP wizard for 8 damage? Longswords with a decent Strength tend to do 6 on average.
So even by 5th level, your optimized wizard still needs help, and the badguys don't necessarily die because of a fire ball.
And yeah, if I'm a badguy and someone is whipping fireballs or scorching rays at me from behind the fighters, I'm gonna try and take him out. He represents a real danger.
Why do you think that many war stories (movies and games) deal with having to go take out an artillery battery that is pinning an army down on the beach?
Go take out the artillery, and make it a fair battle.
This also includes ranged missile guys. You go stop the guy from raining death down with impunity, whether it is spells or arrows.
You guys who are so pro-spellcaster do nothing but spout what a spellcaster is capable of if every roll goes their way.
But if you look at the law of averages, the 1st level group of spellcasters loses to a group of orc scouts 9 times out of 10.
What if a party of all fighters fought only against fliers that go beyond the range of bows?
Or if fighters only went up against giants all the time, eating AoOs and getting grabbed and not being able to do anything.
I can do this too. In fact, I didn't even start it.
|
|
What if a party of all fighters fought only against fliers that go beyond the range of bows?Or if fighters only went up against giants all the time, eating AoOs and getting grabbed and not being able to do anything.
I can do this too. In fact, I didn't even start it
At what level. Fly potions are cheap and every melee character I've ever seen keeps a few along with the invisibility and cure potions.
And Fighters take feats to improve AC against AoE or to avoid them then charging. Not to mention having the high CMD to avoid being grabbed.
Fighters literally get a feat at every level in Pathfinder. They can do a lot of things.
Remember that I started this discussion with the intention of running a campaign from 1st level all the way up past 20th without leaving the melee classes on the sidelines feeling unneccessary. Like I said, I like the image of a heroic melee-oriented character or two playing an important role in the campaign. I'm just trying to figure out what sort of adjustments to make to allow that to happen.
I appreciate all the good suggestions and ideas that people have been bringing up to provide better balance.
Let's try to avoid the arguments (isn't that what the melee vs wizard thread is for?), and focus this thread more on practical tweaks to the game that will bring about my goal of a balanced campaign. Thanks.