I was wondering if anyone had attempted to use Pathfinder's different character advancement rates to deal with the much-discussed linear fighter, quadratic wizard issue? (This approach would hark back to earlier versions of the D&D rules, of course.) If so, did it work out?
If you're looking to delay wizard power creep, delay their spell progression so they get new spells only every third level (like "partial" casters).
There's no need to dive into the complexities of different level advancement when you can just string out spell levels and get a better result.
If you're looking to delay wizard power creep, delay their spell progression so they get new spells only every third level (like "partial" casters).
There's no need to dive into the complexities of different level advancement when you can just string out spell levels and get a better result.
From what I'm reading, he's not trying to gimp wizards. He's saying they already are gimped considering they level slower than fighters.
Yes, simply saying that fighters use the fast track while wizards use the slow track (or whatever) almost certainly wouldn't work. I was just wondering if anyone had tried something like this. You would probably have to end up with a different XP advancement table for each class (like AD&D had).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you will end up with is a nightmare trying to balance the encounters (from a GM perspective). The fighter will have a higher To Hit and Damage but the spellcasters will have a harder time landing spells with saves do to lower DC's. Choosing the right CR will be difficult, with one character feeling its a cake walk while the other is struggling to be useful. Back in the days the classes were balanced by the difference in level progression. Now, the classes are balanced based on same level progression.
The linear vs quadratic has nothing to do with what level these respective classes are at. It has to do with the respective mechanics for each class. Fighters must take down HP to win. Extra levels will not change that. Though extra levels will make it easier and speed it up a bit. Spellcasters can end the combat in 1 round with the correct use of spells. Slower progression will not change that, though it may cause frustration in the fact that the spellcaster must utilize more of their daily arsenal per combat.
You might want to be careful with your assumptions about older editions and speed in leveling. I remember one campaign I was in (1st ed. AD&D); my fighter was 6th level, and the magic-user was 5th. By the time the magic-user got to 8th level, my fighter was ... 7th.
You might want to be careful with your assumptions about older editions and speed in leveling. I remember one campaign I was in (1st ed. AD&D); my fighter was 6th level, and the magic-user was 5th. By the time the magic-user got to 8th level, my fighter was ... 7th.1st? How did that come about?
By the rules. Fighters needed 125,001 xp to get to 8th level. Magic-users only needed 90,001. It was rather frustrating to me to see the magic-user get 3 levels when I just got 1. Fighters eventually caught up at 14th level (1,500,001 xp for both), then advanced more quickly after that.
If you are up for a radical experiment, you could also try a variant of the Grim Tales approach -- limit level in any spellcasting class to no more than half of character level. That means that 1st level characters must begin play as non-casters, and pure non-casters become proportionately more powerful because only they can advance every level in their primary class.
If you are up for a radical experiment, you could also try a variant of the Grim Tales approach -- limit level in any spellcasting class to no more than half of character level. That means that 1st level characters must begin play as non-casters, and pure non-casters become proportionately more powerful because only they can advance every level in their primary class.
That sounds horrible. :\
That sounds horrible. :\If you are up for a radical experiment, you could also try a variant of the Grim Tales approach -- limit level in any spellcasting class to no more than half of character level. That means that 1st level characters must begin play as non-casters, and pure non-casters become proportionately more powerful because only they can advance every level in their primary class.
Heh. My immediate thought was "that sounds great!"
I already play that way. Near everyone in my groups play melee characters, even when they use caster classes. They just use their spells to make themselves better melees.
Just kinda bugs me that trying to make a dedicated caster would result in a worse spell progression and caster level than a bard. A 10th level wizard only gets 5th level spells afterall, so at 20th character level you'd only have a CL 10, level 5 spells, at best.
I like gishes just as well as the next person, but I also enjoy playing casters. Having your casting limited to 1/2 HD would be pretty horrible, and would make playing a dedicated caster basically impossible. If it were just to prevent high level spells from coming into play, giving full caster level and spell slots, but limiting maximum spell level to around 6th or so would be fine (though I'd admittedly miss some 7th level spells), if you got to let save DCs rise with your level so that you could keep your lower level stuff relevant. I'd be fine with 6th level and lower spells forever, if it came with free heighten. :P
There are some interesting responses here - thanks. What I was really trying to get at was that it might be possible to use differing experience point requirements to ameliorate the imbalance between different classes as levels are gained. Levelling was excluded from the original SRD, but has now been included in the PRD, thus opening this option up for discussion.
If it was just a matter of reining in higher-level spellcasters, than AvalonXQ's simple suggestion is great:-
If you're looking to delay wizard power creep, delay their spell progression so they get new spells only every third level (like "partial" casters).
There's no need to dive into the complexities of different level advancement when you can just string out spell levels and get a better result.
However, I was wondering if something finer-grained could be achieved using XP, which could also be applied across all classes. It wouldn't offer a complete solution - you'd still have to change or remove some of the high-level spells, for example - but it might help somewhat, at least up to middling levels.
|
Just a random idea.
Make spells learned outside of leveling gained by spending xp. 50xp per spell level and exotic ones and prohibited schools are 100xp per spell level. Of course provide a cheaper way, like taking extra time, a feat, and npc helpers each reducing it by 20 xp per level.
My wizard would hate this since he is not overpowered and is lvl 7. Maybe start it for lvl 5 spells and higher? Since they tax the mind?