Hey folks
I was planning for my next campain to make the level progression class dependent.Figthers, Monks and Rogues get the fast track. Full casters and Summoners get the slow track. And everybody else get the middle one.
Pehaps Some classes like Barbarian and Magus need to have their own track, but you get the idea?
So is this a bad step backwards towards AD&D or can it work?
I am going to try something like this:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pkw6?A-lessened-magical-campaign
Similar but not... Separate Xp rates gets rough, and KILLS squishy casters at early lvls. Don't know if this is helpful, and I'm sorry if its not.
I am going to try something like this:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pkw6?A-lessened-magical-campaign
Similar but not... Separate Xp rates gets rough, and KILLS squishy casters at early lvls. Don't know if this is helpful, and I'm sorry if its not.
Bah. Hundreds of thousands of AD&D campaign casters survived a *much* steeper XP difference. The "balancing out" of the progression tracks was always something that bothered me about the d20 mechanic...
This is not AD&D. The way things like saving throws and skills work has changed and being in a better class no longer makes up for being lower level in important ways.
The difference will be somthing like 1-2,5 level.Assuming they get the same level of treasure i dont think the saves will be a problem. The skills is pehaps an issue. But then again skills are not the most powerfull stuff in the game, so that will be fine.
|
The martial classes are already the strongest at low levels.
The full casters are the most vulnerable at their lowest levels.
Are you just trying to get the casters killed early so you do not have to deal with spell casting later?
I briefly posted about changing rogues and clerics back to 1/2 and 2/3 THAC0. Others pointed out to me the thief 1/2 THAC0 rate was not so bad since they leveled up so quick with so little exp. The same way others pointed out those save differences, BAB will also be effected. Almost every 3/4 BAB caster will now have a very poor chance to hit when they need so much more exp to level up.
Will you be giving the casters more scrolls beyond their regular expected treasure to make up for the fact they would have less spells per day while the martials have even more feats and extra, extra HP?
The martial classes are already the strongest at low levels.
The full casters are the most vulnerable at their lowest levels.
Are you just trying to get the casters killed early so you do not have to deal with spell casting later?I briefly posted about changing rogues and clerics back to 1/2 and 2/3 THAC0. Others pointed out to me the thief 1/2 THAC0 rate was not so bad since they leveled up so quick with so little exp. The same way others pointed out those save differences, BAB will also be effected. Almost every 3/4 BAB caster will now have a very poor chance to hit when they need so much more exp to level up.
Will you be giving the casters more scrolls beyond their regular expected treasure to make up for the fact they would have less spells per day while the martials have even more feats and extra, extra HP?
I think that the relative powerlevels usually tip in favor of the full casters around level 7, the summoner from level 8 but he dont have the slow start the others have. I dont undestand why you wanted to nerf the Rogue. The cleric i can see but i dont think hitting them on the BAB(what you call THACO, yes?) is the way to go.
In my experience, the full casters dont need help to be great but Figthers, Monks and Rogues do.I plan to let treasure follow the middel track sort of so yes in a way they will have a chance for more scrolls, if that is how they want to spend it.
The vulnerabillity of the low level casters(i assume you talk about the wizard and sorcerer here because cleric, druid and summoner is not) is in my experience a team issue just like the figthers bad will save is.
I guess the biggest problem with this (besides making casters stay longer in their weak early levels) is multiclassing.
Hey folks
I was planning for my next campain to make the level progression class dependent.Figthers, Monks and Rogues get the fast track. Full casters and Summoners get the slow track. And everybody else get the middle one.
Pehaps Some classes like Barbarian and Magus need to have their own track, but you get the idea?
So is this a bad step backwards towards AD&D or can it work?
So how does my Fighter 2/Bard 3/sorcerer 7 character stack up?
That's the problem, with the combined XP track, you can just pick any class at any level. Different XP tracks will change this hugely, unless you plan to ban multi-classing.
Well multiclassing i guess that will that some considerration. This.. ehh..
That will have to depend i guess but most likely they will go in to the middel track unless it is a one level dip to change track of your wizard. Figther/rogues and the like will stay in the fast track.
also prestige classes will here represent a problem but i guess that i will have to calculate a level progression for them, if a player want one.
The idea here is not to punish the full casters or suck up to the figthers. But mastering magic and swinging a sword is pehaps not skills that should be advanced at the same speed.
Very few encounters will fall apart if one of the weak 3 is a level or 2 ahead i think but it will make playing one of those classes alot more fun( i think) and delaying the reality bending a littel is not gonna hurt the story in the long run.
I dont think a under equipped level 10 Figther will make his over equipped level 8 wizard body look bad. And the normal equipped Paladin is also gonna look god at level 9 in that group.
Honestly, I think its a poor way to address this. The system is far more standardized then it was in previous editions. If you are levels behind you will have serious issues with Save Throws, Your own save dcs, Skill DCs, and hit points. The problem isnt pure power, its flexibility.
Reducing levels of the 'better' classes doesnt address this problem, its just makes those classes less likely to succeed at what they try to do and it doesnt help the fighter deal with out of combat situations or have more versatile options, it doesnt help the monk be more focused as a class and combine its abilities effectively, and it doesnt help the rogue be more self reliant in combat or less squishy.
What it does do is make the 'better' classes less likely to be able to do things successfully. And as the mystic theruge shows pretty frequently, having lots of options does not make up for the fact that your options are lower levels (and thus likely to be resisted by enemies of appropriate CR). And consistent failure (at least for me as a gamer) isnt fun. Its tantamount to not doing anything and can be really frustrating at the table.
Honestly, I think its a poor way to address this. The system is far more standardized then it was in previous editions. If you are levels behind you will have serious issues with Save Throws, Your own save dcs, Skill DCs, and hit points. The problem isnt pure power, its flexibility.
Reducing levels of the 'better' classes doesnt address this problem, its just makes those classes less likely to succeed at what they try to do and it doesnt help the fighter deal with out of combat situations or have more versatile options, it doesnt help the monk be more focused as a class and combine its abilities effectively, and it doesnt help the rogue be more self reliant in combat or less squishy.
What it does do is make the 'better' classes less likely to be able to do things successfully. And as the mystic theruge shows pretty frequently, having lots of options does not make up for the fact that your options are lower levels (and thus likely to be resisted by enemies of appropriate CR). And consistent failure (at least for me as a gamer) isnt fun. Its tantamount to not doing anything and can be really frustrating at the table.
Hmm you sir sound very convincing.
I personally dont think being a level behind is destroying the powerfull classes, but you are rigth it wont help with the issues you present for the weaker ones.I will go back to the drawing board. Thanks for the feed back all.
Edit: For spelling
If you want my advice, particularly for the 3 classes you mention, the answer lies in the Book of Nine Swords from 3.5. Merge some of the Warblade abilities into the fighter, merge some of the sword sage into the rogue and some into the monk where appropriate. OR Drastically cut down on what the other classes with significant supernatural abilities can do (I recommend looking at the super genius guide to the riven mage for a guideline on that effort if thats the direction you want to go).
Thanks i will look in to that.
I am thinkin about making tha Adept the only spell caster(pehaps with some options regarding spell list or somthing). This may cut down on the number of players that want to play a caster but i hope it can give a more Sword and Sorcery feel to the game. The Forgotten Realms kind of world is not always what i want.
Thanks i will look in to that.
I am thinkin about making tha Adept the only spell caster(pehaps with some options regarding spell list or somthing). This may cut down on the number of players that want to play a caster but i hope it can give a more Sword and Sorcery feel to the game. The Forgotten Realms kind of world is not always what i want.
Why are you so against casters? I've never experienced a problem with them other than that if a caster is a jerk he can derail a campaign with less chance to die than a fighter
On top of that, casters are something the game was built around, these classes are mostly on par with eachother to the extent that if you want to build something then the results are built around your own ability to scratch out a character.
Thanks i will look in to that.
I am thinkin about making tha Adept the only spell caster(pehaps with some options regarding spell list or somthing). This may cut down on the number of players that want to play a caster but i hope it can give a more Sword and Sorcery feel to the game. The Forgotten Realms kind of world is not always what i want.Why are you so against casters? I've never experienced a problem with them other than that if a caster is a jerk he can derail a campaign with less chance to die than a fighter
On top of that, casters are something the game was built around, these classes are mostly on par with eachother to the extent that if you want to build something then the results are built around your own ability to scratch out a character.
I am not against casters, in general. But for my next campain i am fantasising about somthing where small dudes in dresses dosent rule the world.
|
Maybe just bring back some of the weaknesses of casters that have been all but eliminated since 3.X became the Caster Edition. For example:
taking ANY damage automatically disrupts a spell, and the caster loses that spell slot.
Or the increase of study time required to memorize spells to 10 minutes per spell level per spell. Why shouldn't a high-level caster nova the hell out of things since it only takes him a single hour of study to fully replenish his spells?
Have you ever looked at E6? I honestly think that would be the best fit for you based on what you actually want to accomplish. Give the fighter, monk and rogue manuevers from tome of battle and then cap the game at level 6, and casters dont rule the world, while the martial types have more interesting things to do.
Instead of putting classes on different XP scales, you could try figuring out what level you want the most powerful classes to be when the weakest class reaches 20th level. Then grant the weaker classes bonus levels at the apprpriate points. For example, if you want partial casters to reach 17th or 18th level level and full casters to reach 15th level when the non-casters reach 20th level, you could have the full casters advance normally, partial casters gain an extra level every 6 levels, and non-casters gain an extra level every 3 levels.
This system would work with multiclassed characters and characters with prestige classes because you could pro-rate them appropriately.
I read about somebody who used this approach: All pure casters had to dip a different class every third level, 3/4 casters every fifth level.
Seriously though, it's part of the game, and I have never experienced an issue with it.