So, we all know that there is is a power disparity between the combat classes and casters (even with Pathfinders fixes), and a lot of groups try and fix this by bringing the casters down to the full BAB classes power range. I, personally, don't have any issue with the power level of casters (though I will admit I don't run past the mid teens often), but I DO have a problem with them overpowering everyone else. I'm starting a new campaign, and I was tossing around ideas to keep the balance longer.
Before I get into that, let me tell you I do have a few house rules in place.
Fighters pick their highest bonus to a non physical stat and can add that number+1 in class skills. So, a fighter with Int 10 (+0), Wis 12 (+1), Cha 8 (-1) can take his Wis bonus (+1)+1 in additional class skills, for 2 more class skills.
If you have full BAB progression, or are a Monk, you can move 5 feet for each attack you have and still full attack. So, a fighter with +15, +10, +5 (15th level) can move 15 feet and still full attack. A monk with +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3 (also 15th level) can move 30 feet and still full attack.
I am thinking of doing a half gestalt for the fighting classes, so every even level a fighter gains, he gains a level in another combat class. I obviously need to limit the options, or I will have fighters creeping past the wizards, at the high end (Or wont I?). So, what I'm thinking is, Barbarian, Cavalier, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, or Ranger will get one level of one of the other listed classes at the even levels. Pathfinder puts a lot into you keeping your first class straight through, so I don't think there will be too much of an issue keeping this work.
My question is, do you see a hole in this? is there a point where it will fall apart, or where the fighter will become the tier one class over the wizards now tier two status? I would think a Fighter 20/Paladin 10 would do his job VERY well, but a level 20 Wizard is obviously a beast it it's own right. Lastly, what if a player wants to stay single classed? I am inclined to say no, because the progression would be:
Wizard: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Fighter: 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21*, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30
*If I allow straight fighter progression, this is where the capstone ability comes into play, and where a forced multiclass would occur. The next level is also where a Wizard gets 8th level spells, the level before where the Wizard got 7th level spells.
I know that's the same level progression of the Fighter/Paladin, but they would get access to the high level abilities and feat earlier as a single classed 'gestalt.'
Should I hold it off and start it at level 6 instead of 2? That makes the progression:
Wizard: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Fighter: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28
This has the split right at where E6 stops progression, where the caster creep starts. This also has the capstone (If I allow single class gestalt) to hit right when the Wizard gets 8th level spells.
As I write this out, it actually makes sense to me to allow single class gestalt, because those over 20 levels, which would be 1-10 or 1-8 of another fighting class, give things like BAB and saves, but the low level abilities and spells they get really won't matter in a epic level game like that, if I even made it that high.
Am I missing anything?
I will go on the record as saying your assertion that " we all" think casters are over powered is not even remotely accurate. However with that being said if you goal is to install house rules to close the gap you believe to be there, you have covered all of your bases. This will certainly boost melee classes. The 15 feet of movement with a full attack alone will render most casters into pudding in fairly short order. Much less 10 more levels worth of abilities to bring to bear. My suggestion is to throw together a one shot with some friends and play test it. There is no better way to assess if you have hit the balance you are looking for.
If you have full BAB progression, or are a Monk, you can move 5 feet for each attack you have and still full attack. So, a fighter with +15, +10, +5 (15th level) can move 15 feet and still full attack. A monk with +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3 (also 15th level) can move 30 feet and still full attack.
Would that mean a fighter could charge 15ft into a full-round attack at 15th level?
Yup! thats the way I read it.
I will go on the record as saying your assertion that " we all" think casters are over powered is not even remotely accurate. However with that being said if you goal is to install house rules to close the gap you believe to be there, you have covered all of your bases.
OK, fair. Sorry. I've been playing DnD since the early 80s, and Pathfinder since shortly after it came out, and while I think PF does a good job of re-balancing the classes, I still think Wizards are the god class, and everyone I play with/talk to and most people I see post feel the same way. I was working under the assumption that the majority of the community feels that way. It does in the gamers I can draw sample from.
This will certainly boost melee classes. The 15 feet of movement with a full attack alone will render most casters into pudding in fairly short order.
This is a rule I've actually been using for years, and it really doesn't tilt the scales the way you think it does. The fighter doesn't get that 15 feet of movement until 15th level, and by then the Wizard has 8th level spells. I have yet to see this rule paste a caster. Their minions/summoned demons? Yes. But 15th level, a caster never needs to actually be in range of combat to be effective, and if the caster IS nearby, he's a flying, invisible caster.
Much less 10 more levels worth of abilities to bring to bear. My suggestion is to throw together a one shot with some friends and play test it. There is no better way to assess if you have hit the balance you are looking for.
The 10 level disparity would only occur at 20th level, and I never run that far, to be honest. I included it for completeness, but I don't expect it to see play. More likely is W13 along side F17 or F18, depending on the progression I choose to follow.
We will be play testing it in the new campaign I'm starting, with the players starting at level one. We all agree that casters are more powerful that full BAB classes, so we're going to try this. We've also agreed that if the full BAB classes appear to be passing the full casting progression classes, we will turn the gestalt off, and adjust for future campaigns. The goal is to keep it level until the mid teens.
Atarlost, that's another way to come at it that I certainly don't disagree with.
That said, I don't want to take from the tier one classes in any way. I just want to buff the other classes up to tier one.
I also posted this to RPG.net, and that was brought up there as well. I'm still working that out in my brain, but my initial suggestion is the same type of 1/2 level gestalt with fighter or monk, or a straight 1/3 gestalt with Sorcerer.
I see the flaws in this as well, but I can't figure out what to add to a fighter, while keeping it a fighter, to allow it to deal with a full caster.
I will say this. A lot of groups leave it alone, and if it is not an issue in your game don't mess with it. Every group is different, and when you come up with a fix it should be group specific. A "fix" for one group is a rules exploit for another group.
It seems your gestalted fighters don't have any answer at all to the flying wizard with windwall or at extreme range. Better to get rid of the spell. You could introduce common flying mounts, but that would remove non-flying outdoor encounters almost entirely from the game.
Nor do even gestalted fighter bosses have a way to defend themselves from scry and fry other than to hire a caster, who unless of that one sorceror archetype that casts with wisdom will be either far smarter or far more charismatic than them and tend to become the leader.
You also don't help rogues, who need help more than any of the proper martial classes.
Boots of flying work wonders. Scry and Fry isn't all that tough at most levels. And if you combine with a class that has good saves and/or immunties it will be pretty easy to survive the first attack and murder a caster. Not sure what you are saying about leadership, but people respect those who lead from the front line, not from the back. Arcane casters dont last long on the front lines.
Also, Gecko, you realize there are other beatsticks besides straight fighters, and they happen to be really scary. If you combine a pouncing barb with a TWF ranger, prepare for everything to die on round one.
A "fix" for one group is a rules exploit for another group.
In our group, around campaigns end, say, 13th level (When our last campaign ended), the disparity was pronounced. I'm looking for something not to fix thinks at level 20, but, say, 8-13. Maybe just allowing Antagonize will be enough. ;)
If you combine a pouncing barb with a TWF ranger, prepare for everything to die on round one.
I guess casters in my games are overly cautious, because they avoid melee range at all costs, whenever possible, and I don't see a well built melee PC or NPC getting that close regularly enough for it to balance things out. I am intrigued by this though. How would you, personally, build that?
If you combine a pouncing barb with a TWF ranger, prepare for everything to die on round one.I guess casters in my games are overly cautious, because they avoid melee range at all costs, whenever possible, and I don't see a well built melee PC or NPC getting that close regularly enough for it to balance things out. I am intrigued by this though. How would you, personally, build that?
Casters(wizards, sorcs, and witches) are right to be cautious of melee. That is a good way to die. I don't even pick up touch spells when I play them.
My casters have some barrier or difficult terrain as PC's and NPC's. There is never an open straight line to them.What were the specific issues in your game that are causing problems?
If you combine a pouncing barb with a TWF ranger, prepare for everything to die on round one.I guess casters in my games are overly cautious, because they avoid melee range at all costs, whenever possible, and I don't see a well built melee PC or NPC getting that close regularly enough for it to balance things out. I am intrigued by this though. How would you, personally, build that?
Do you not play in confined spaces, or with movement buffs, or movement enhancing equipment? Casters at our table are forced Into melee at least every couple sessions at much lower level no matter how careful. I can certainly see the disparity becoming prevalent to a group if the dm never tries to smash the glass cannons. 15 feet of movement with a full attack in our game would get casters slaughtered unless they were very savvy in spell selection and had great party members that assisted in their defense.
Not being obtuse, just wondering if you could save yourself some mechanical heavy lifting by changing your tactics.
What were the specific issues in your game that are causing problems?
My problem is, by the time the story it's the climactic end/battle/whatever, the Wizard can do everything the fighter can do, better, AND can do so much more the fighter is non effective in comparison.
Do you not play in confined spaces, or with movement buffs, or movement enhancing equipment? Casters at our table are forced Into melee at least every couple sessions at much lower level no matter how careful. I can certainly see the disparity becoming prevalent to a group if the dm never tries to smash the glass cannons. 15 feet of movement with a full attack in our game would get casters slaughtered unless they were very savvy in spell selection and had great party members that assisted in their defense.
Not being obtuse, just wondering if you could save yourself some mechanical heavy lifting by changing your tactics.
See, that's part of my problem. Occasionally, the battlefield favors the fighter. Far more often, it favors the caster.
Are casters sometimes at a disadvantage? Yes. FAR less than they have they upper hand. Realistic to fantasy? Yes. Suckage for the players of non casters? Also yes.
Really, to quote someone in my cross post, at high level, Casters play Exalted and fighters play GURPS. Wizards play a much higher high fantasy than fighters do. Cutting through walls, wrestling giants, etc., is what I need to add to high level fighters.
Your rule biases monk. Monk flurry = TWF. A fighter/15 with GTWF has 13/13/8/8/3/3/ also, and could run 30 and attack, too.
A simpler solution is just to give the Vital Strike line of feats for free. This gives a decently effective standard action that increases by level and scales nicely with weapon size. If you do something like allow enhancement bonuses to multiply with the Vital Strike, the damage quickly becomes quite respectable.
For fighters, just give them some non-combat feats. I suggest 'advanced training'...every level they do not get a bonus feat, give them a feat that can be spent on save buffing stuff or skill buffing feats. Feats that add skills, feats that buff skills, etc. etc.
as for move and full attack, that's another argument, but restricting it to 1' per BAB point makes decent sense. Note everyone can move 5' and full attack, so it won't actually be useful until level 10...
==Aelryinth
Your rule biases monk. Monk flurry = TWF. A fighter/15 with GTWF has 13/13/8/8/3/3/ also, and could run 30 and attack, too.
I was not clear. I only let fighters move by their BAB, TWF or not. Monks can move by their flurry, which purposely gives them more move, because Monks are the worst class in the Core book, if not the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience is that high level noncasters experience the greatest disadvantage not in combat, where they are generally capable of holding their own if well built and fairly optimized (optimization is a lot more important for melees, who can't generally afford to waste meta resources like feats). Their disadvantage comes in RAW outside of combat. Spells, especially the higher level ones, are devastatingly effective on many noncombat objectives and obstacles. Personally I rectify this with two things:
1. I make rulership and human intelligence gathering a very large part of the high level 'endgame'
2. I give rogues huge advantages in the human intelligence subgame and moderate advantages in rulership and fighters huge advantages in rulership and moderate advantages in human intelligence.
Point 1 is an emphasis in style, point 2 requires some house rules, frequently largely lifted from previous editions of the game.
See this I agree with.
What were the specific issues in your game that are causing problems?My problem is, by the time the story it's the climactic end/battle/whatever, the Wizard can do everything the fighter can do, better, AND can do so much more the fighter is non effective in comparison.
Do you mean everything literally as in do more damage in melee also, or he just has a lot more options?
