I've read quite a bit in recent days about the lack of balance between fighters and casters and while I personally feel that each class has its role to fill and that it is up to the GM to make sure balance is maintained, through loot distribution, or encoutner make up.
Has anyone discussed the idea of using class based xp tables? It's been awhile but I seem to remember in AD&D there were differing xp tables for each class.
I always took the higher xp needed for casters to represent the more intensive study it took to become skilled as a magic user.
Anyway just a thought.
I don't think that's a good idea.
AD&D had ways of balancing fighters and wizards, but some of those methods were unfun, required bookkeeping or lots of DM fiat, which is now frowned upon.
I think someone should make a list of those balancing methods, then put an "X" beside ones we can't use anymore, and replace those.
(For instance, a pet peeve of mine is trying to restrict spells learned by a wizard. The restrictions in 3.x and Pathfinder are far smaller. IMO, those restrictions are unfun and subject to tons of DM fiat. If the spells are balanced, such restrictions aren't needed. If the spells aren't balanced, then balance them!)
Hi Clark.
This has been discussed before. I seem to remember that some people have non-casting martials use the fast XP column, full casters use the slow XP column, with others using the medium XP column.
For example, if you are using an AP that takes you to level 16 (890,000+) with the medium track, the non-casting martials would be level 17, with the full casters being level 14.
Not sure how successful this technique works out in actual game play. Would the PCs all have level 16 wealth, or according to their actual leves? Not sure.
You couldn't use such a technique if you don't award XP though!
Hope that helps.
Kimera757 wrote: I think someone should make a list of those balancing methods... Just to get us started, and in no particular order:
1. Easy-to-interrupt spellcasting: Staggered initiative, loser declares actions first, 1 point of damage disrupts spell, no concentration check allowed.
2. Mobility: Spellcasters stand in place; fighters can move and attack.
3. Spell Availability: By DM fiat, but mostly seized from other casters' spellbooks taken as loot. The Demonomicon of Iggwilv from "Tsojcanth" had a couple of new planar binding type spells, and it was considered an artifact.
4. Saving throws vs. spells: Essentially static DCs, insteading of scaling with spell level/casting stat. A high-level fighter would basically only fail a save on a roll of 2 or 3 or less, regardless of how awesome the caster was or how powerful the spell.
5. Staggered level progression: very fast for thieves (rogues), very slow for wizards. [X]
6. Fewer spells per day. And no Int bonuses to spells prepared.
7. Acquisition of higher-level spells delayed 1 level (7th at 14th instead of 13th, etc.).
8. Frail casters: Low cap on Con bonus to hp, d4 HD for wizards, no favored class bonus.
9. Leadership as a class feature: fighters automatically got ARMIES. Thieves (rogues) became crime lords. Wizards sat in a tower and maybe had an apprentice.
10. Retirement: In 1e, 10th-14th was considered "high level." The really problem spells barely came on line by then, and some never did.
Of these, the only one I'd throw out immediately is the staggered level progression. A 10th level fighter PC should be equal to a 10th level wizard PC or a CR 10 monster. That's what "level" is supposed to mean.
Bear in mind that, to my mind, the biggest problems aren't necessarily the combat-related ones; it's the disparaty in narrative control. In 1e, the wizard could still teleport and so on, but the fighter's automatic noble title and armies meant that he also had a larger influence on campaign events by RAW, not by DM fiat.
Multiclassing doesn't work the same way in PF as it did in 2e, so I don't think that would work well.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
- Easy-to-interrupt spellcasting: Staggered initiative, loser declares actions first, 1 point of damage disrupts spell, no concentration check allowed. (it should be easier to interrupt a spell, but not that easier IMHO)
- Mobility: Spellcasters stand in place; fighters can move and attack.
- Spell Availability: By DM fiat, but mostly seized from other casters' spellbooks taken as loot. The Demonomicon of Iggwilv from "Tsojcanth" had a couple of new planar binding type spells, and it was considered an artifact.
- Saving throws vs. spells: Essentially static DCs, insteading of scaling with spell level/casting stat. A high-level fighter would basically only fail a save on a roll of 2 or 3 or less, regardless of how awesome the caster was or how powerful the spell.[X]
- Staggered level progression: very fast for thieves (rogues), very slow for wizards. [X]
- Fewer spells per day.
- no Int bonuses to spells prepared.[X]
- Acquisition of higher-level spells delayed 1 level (7th at 14th instead of 13th, etc.).[X]
- Frail casters: Low cap on Con bonus to hp, d4 HD for wizards, no favored class bonus. I lke the 1d4 but not the other 2.
- Leadership as a class feature: fighters automatically got ARMIES. Thieves (rogues) became crime lords. Wizards sat in a tower and maybe had an apprentice.[X] (I dislike this, those are thing that should be obtainined by the fighter/rogue action not by class features. and what if the fighter do not care about armies, he would be much weaker than a guy with an army)
This is what I think about kirth´s changes.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ClarkKent07 wrote: I've read quite a bit in recent days about the lack of balance between fighters and casters and while I personally feel that each class has its role to fill and that it is up to the GM to make sure balance is maintained, through loot distribution, or encoutner make up.
Has anyone discussed the idea of using class based xp tables? It's been awhile but I seem to remember in AD&D there were differing xp tables for each class.
I always took the higher xp needed for casters to represent the more intensive study it took to become skilled as a magic user.
Anyway just a thought.
I'd be very very wary of basing your opinions from the collective ventings of this or other messageboards. Because quite frankly,almost all you get are ventings from people with problems. You don't get to hear that much about tables that simply work. Much of this game you're only going to learn by going the long haul and playing, not by taking lessons in Theorycraft.
From my experience in Pathfinder, casters really only run away with the game when the DM's let them. And that's usually from allowing corner interpretations or not being properly strict with the use or acquisition of magic. I've played PFS to 10th level with some good GM's and in these games, the non-caster has pretty much equal chance to be the star of the moment, because it's all circumstance. I generally see casters as enabling the martials to get their job done, rather than dominating the play field.
Also remember, that at that level, if your PC is enjoying a phenomenal success, it's most likely because your buddies helped you get there. The PC's that don't work together at that level, tend to die quickly.
Nicos wrote: This is what I think about kirth´s changes. Those aren't my changes, Nicos. That's how 1st edition worked. The changes (to what you're used to as a "baseline") happened in the switch to 3rd edition.
Levels are also tied to saves and skills, so if you are not at the right level you will fail certain checks that you could make otherwise. Using different leveling charts would force you to make up a lot of houserule to keep things working properly.
PS: Don't fix something that is not broken. Every table is different, and a lot of us like to theorycraft, but that does not mean what we discuss are real problems, and they are definitely not a problem for everyone.
Just to check, "Theorycraft" is being used in this thread to mean "playing casters to their potential," as opposed to "playing them as support for the martials in carefully railroaded adventures"?
I suspect the biggest of those was Saving Throws. Possibly the easy-to-interrupt part in second place.
I don't remember analyzing any of this in detail when 3.0 came out, but the saves were a big reason blasting was more common in 1/2E. Most saves were made, but you still got half damage. Save or suck spells just didn't work most of the time.
I think "easy to interrupt" might be a little too unfun.
Either method would be hard to add back into PF. It would change the game pretty drastically.
As far as XP goes, IIRC the wizard needed more xp at lower levels but caught up by mid levels, just as he was starting to become powerful.
Some of these methods added up to "Most wizards die at low levels, but at high levels they rule." I don't think that's a good balancing mechanism. It's too dependent on a specific playstyle. One where you always start characters at 1st level. Fine for PFS style games, but not as useful for home AP types.
Multi-class could get tricky if each class used its own XP chart. Would a pure rogue (fast XP) who took a level of bard (medium XP) get kicked to the medium XP track? In 2nd edition, you had to multi-class from the beginning of your career and each class gained levels at different rates.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote: Just to check, "Theorycraft" is being used in this thread to mean "playing casters to their potential," as opposed to "playing them as support for the martials in carefully railroaded adventures"? No it means basing your conclusions on spreadsheet calculations as opposed to actual play. Theorycraft magicians hardly ever have to deal with weird quirks of environment, setting, or particularly inventive foes. If they're Wizards, they always have the right spell prepared.
I assume that the "railroaded adventure" snark is supposed to be some trumpeting for sandbox play? Frequently the problem with sandbox play is that you don't have the luxury of planning your important encounters the way you do with a prepared campaign. So a lot of the subtle things that can define the character of an encounter get left by the wayside, and you wind up doing your battles in the equivalent of flat planes with hardly any obstructions at all. Then it's not really surprising that encounters start tilting massively in favor of the spellcasters.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
@ Wraithstrike - I actually agree with you for the most part. I have never personally had any issues while DMing, but I attribute a great deal of that to the way I design encounters and how/what loot is available.
I had not throught about the multiclassing aspect and agree that it would be problematic.
and I guess I am a bit "old school" or backwards in that I grew up with the "you might suck at level one, but you'll rip at level 9" attitude for wizards.
Thanks for all the discussion from all though!
Marius Castille wrote: Multi-class could get tricky if each class used its own XP chart. Would a pure rogue (fast XP) who took a level of bard (medium XP) get kicked to the medium XP track? In 2nd edition, you had to multi-class from the beginning of your career and each class gained levels at different rates. I wouldn't do it, but I'd say each level would be treated seperately: If you wanted a level of rogue, you'd look at the fast chart to see how many it would take to get from your current level to the next. If you wanted a level of wizard, you'd look at the slow chart.
That would work fine if you played them out. If you were making a higher level character, I'm not sure how you'd balance it. It would take different amounts of XP to get a 5Fighter/5Wizard, depending on the order. And saying Make a 10th level character defeats the purpose.
ClarkKent07 wrote: @ Wraithstrike - I actually agree with you for the most part. I have never personally had any issues while DMing, but I attribute a great deal of that to the way I design encounters and how/what loot is available.
I had not throught about the multiclassing aspect and agree that it would be problematic.
and I guess I am a bit "old school" or backwards in that I grew up with the "you might suck at level one, but you'll rip at level 9" attitude for wizards.
Thanks for all the discussion from all though!
I grew up with 1 & 2E, but never really got into that part of the old school attitude.
Sometimes we started games at higher levels. We never really had a high death rate. If someone died, he didn't start over at 1st, but came in around the level of the others (roughly the same XP, maybe some less).
The idea of balancing classes by having them suck for half the game then rule for the other half never made any sense to me.
LazarX wrote: No it means basing your conclusions on spreadsheet calculations as opposed to actual play. Theorycraft magicians hardly ever have to deal with weird quirks of environment, setting, or particularly inventive foes. If they're Wizards, they always have the right spell prepared. In actual play with an impartial referee, their greater narrative power, especially at higher levels, is telling. If the DM is putting "weird quirks" that only apply to them, that somehow don't hinder martials ("Oh, there are no walls or pits. But the whole universe is an antimagic field forever") then that leads to the next point.
LazarX wrote: I assume that the "railroaded adventure" snark is supposed to be some trumpeting for sandbox play? Frequently the problem with sandbox play is that you don't have the luxury of planning your important encounters the way you do with a prepared campaign. So a lot of the subtle things that can define the character of an encounter get left by the wayside, and you wind up doing your battles in the equivalent of flat planes with hardly any obstructions at all. Then it's not really surprising that encounters start tilting massively in favor of the spellcasters. It means everyone obligingly sticks to the storyline so the DM can keep spending all his efforts hindering the casters and coddling the martials, instead of reacting to a changing storyline. It means the casters don't use most of their game-changing spells except when they're sure it's OK and won't actually affect the big picture. It means casters use blasting and support spells and refrain from doing anything unsportsmanlike.
It makes no sense to me to create a game that has to be artifically balanced by the rigid kinds of conformity I'm describing. If it were designed so that everyone had more or less the same narrative abilities by RAW, then those sorts of things wouldn't be needed. Scoff at it all you like, but sandbox play is what you get if casters' spells work as advertised, and if the DM and caster players don't play with invisible handcuffs. If you don't like that, nerf the spells. If you do, empower the martials. Or do a little of each.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Nicos wrote: This is what I think about kirth´s changes. Those aren't my changes, Nicos. That's how 1st edition worked. The changes (to what you're used to as a "baseline") happened in the switch to 3rd edition. I see, then you forget that several spells had drawback, like haste that make people older.
Nicos wrote: I see, then you forget that several spells had drawback, like haste that make people older. Didn't forget, but didn't consider it a balancing factor, as many of those drawbacks (haste is one the few exceptions) applied to the caster.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote: It means everyone obligingly sticks to the storyline so the DM can keep spending all his efforts hindering the casters and coddling the martials, instead of reacting to a changing storyline. It means the casters don't use most of their game-changing spells except when they're sure it's OK and won't actually affect the big picture. It means casters use blasting and support spells and refrain from doing anything unsportsmanlike.
It makes no sense to me to create a game that has to be artifically balanced by the rigid kinds of conformity I'm describing. If it were designed so that everyone had more or less the same narrative abilities by RAW, then those sorts of things wouldn't be needed. Scoff at it all you like, but sandbox play is what you get if casters' spells work as advertised, and if the DM and caster players don't play with invisible handcuffs. If you don't like that, nerf the spells. If you do, empower the martials. Or do a little of each.
Narrative ability? Can you define that term? While I wait for that I'll continue. I've played PFS with characters so far up to 11th level with mixed groups. We didn't have to make a gentlemen's agreement to "nerf" our casters, or "buff" our warriors. We play in a lot of varied environments where pretty much all sorts of things could happen, as influenced by player action and the randomness of dice.
What I really need you to define are the terms "artifically balanced by the rigid kinds of conformity" and "casters' spells work as advertised" and how do planned adventures factor as you see it?
honestly i think there are two major dispairities...one, is the options a wizard can have at his disposal. potentially a trick for everything.
So spellcasters should be more specialized, just as a fighter doesnt have the skills do do so many things, and doesnt have the features of other classes, neither should a wizard thru spells.
this may mean certain spells like that perform the functions of other classes need to be either removed or another suggestion: start using spell schools more, you get one as your major school, and one as your minor (scales at half the speed) and your LOCKED OUT of the rest of the schools.
Second problem, high level play often devolves into who goes first and laying down the big bad spell. This is twofold problem, one is how saves work, the other is how damage scales.
simply put, a wizard shouldnt completly outstrip other classes for damage, it should be more i think, but not quite so much. another idea, possibly included is distance related to damage. to maximize damage of a spell you need to be closer to the location you cast it on.
Now for saves, i think a revision is needed. it needs to be closer to that of hit/AC. Obviously some creatures that have a higher Spell AC while others have higher physical AC. and your DC for the spell is more like your chance to hit. a wizard would have full caster BAB while a fighter would have something like 1/2 or 3/4 caster bab, and the reverse as it is now.
i may try to clean this up eventually if i have hte time/will
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
w01fe01 wrote: honestly i think there are two major dispairities...one, is the options a wizard can have at his disposal. potentially a trick for everything.
Only if you're Schrodinger's Wizard, or walk around with empty slots and plenty of time on your hands. If you are preparing spells to trump the rogue, those are slots that don't go into the job that you're supposed to be doing as a wizard. Otherwise you are limited by the spells you actually have prepared, and your fore knowledge in their selection. You're not going to have fifteen minutes to prepare fly if you find yourself in a gully with a suddenly impending avalanche.
combat situations and non combat situations are different, not to mention many casters have the abiltiy to sacrifice a memorized spell for a different one.
the trick for everything argument is largely non combat related, tho there are some combat related ones (spells that do combat maneuvers for example)
then there are divine spellcasters, sorcerors (more limited sure) and such.
my main point is a wizard should fill the roll of a wizard, any other roll should be very limited and secondary, like a class trying to put skill points into a feature they wouldnt normally use, like fighter and use magic device.
but thats also the idea where a secondary spell school comes in, take, for instance, that knock spell that unlocks things...should be in a school seperate from one thats dealing damage, and with the limitations it scales at half speed. so you end up maxing at 4th or 5th level spells with your minor school.
i know people like options, but if we are seriously talking about class disparity then this is one of those things.
That's the thing -- casters who are reacting to avalanches aren't playing to their potential. To see what a caster can do, you have to play with someone who's willing to actually be proactive and push the story along their own way. All this "Shroedinger" crap is nonesense, because it's based on an assumption that's only true for "gentleman's agreement" handcuffed casters who passively react to circumstances. If they're on the offensive and coming at things obliquely, they have the tools to decide how to go about things, and a much better handle on what spells they'll need.
Expample: You have this big dungeon all detailed, and somewhere in it is the Key of Agzumon that opens the Prison of Doom where you plan to stash the PCs' friend ("the Essential NPC") as a hostage. And probably you made the Prison of Doom magic-proof, because everyone has to do that do every prison to keep out the casters who want to just teleport in.
In most campaigns, the fighter player says, "let's do this!" and they all file into the big dungeon. And the wizard and cleric have no idea what's in there, so, yeah, they can't possibly prepare spells for everything.
But say the wizard's player thinks ahead a little bit. "Look, if we piss off Sauron, he's bound to want to keep us under control, and either kill us or exert leverage to keep us under control. The Essential NPC is an easy way to do that, so let's stash him in a Magnificent Mansion until the trouble is over. In fact, if he's amenable, I'd like to sequester him as well. And we know Sauron is up to something over on the far side of the world, and my vision spell and the miracle from Pete's god says it's something about an undead army. So I say Pete loads up on anti-undead spells, and we go over there and crash the party!
As DM, you have two options:
1. "NO! That's not the storyline! You're supposed to wait for the NPC to get captured and then go through two dungoeons to rescue him!" And, I assume, everyone in your group says, "Yes, sir," and forgets all about their plans and follows the script.
2. "Wow! OK, you know what continent this is happening on, but none of the details. So how are you going about things?" And the preplanned adventure is off the rails and you're improvising left and right. Or, you realized a month ago that the undead army HQ might be important, and pull out those notes.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I read about Kirth´s idea about narrative disparity a couiple of months ago And I think he have a solid point.
For example group A consist of a barbarian, a fighter, a ranger and a cavalier and group B consist of a wizard, a sorcerer, a cleric and a druid.
I am pretty sure Group A would do just fine in combat situations across all the 20 levels, I do not think Group B would be better in that regard. When people talkk about martiacl/caster disparity they tend to think in combat situations, I think combat disparity do not exist or it is so bland that it really do not matters (unless the DM is to lenient with how spell works).
But combat is not all the game, for example If an aventure is aabout travel to the planes group B have the advantage cause they basically have class abilities to do that. Group A need Gm fiat or a lot of gold in magic items.
Group A could be better in combat but group B could easily avoid unnecesary combat (flying, invisibility, teleportation...)
Another example could be a campáing where the PC have to stop an armyof 50,000 orcs, giants, troll etc. Maybe the Dm is planing a big battle, an army of human and elves agisn the army of orcs, the martial group have limited options, they can not just go and kill the entire army. But the caster group can avoid all the plot using magic to cause havoc in that army or just teleport (or fly and be invisible) to kill the army leaders.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
- Spell Availability: By DM fiat, but mostly seized from other casters' spellbooks taken as loot. The Demonomicon of Iggwilv from "Tsojcanth" had a couple of new planar binding type spells, and it was considered an artifact.
- Frail casters: Low cap on Con bonus to hp, d4 HD for wizards, no favored class bonus.
These 2 work fine at my table. Except the cap on CON bonus to HPs, which I don't use. Also, the no favored class bonus is limited to casters of any type.
LazarX wrote: I'd be very very wary of basing your opinions from the collective ventings of this or other messageboards. Because quite frankly,almost all you get are ventings from people with problems. You don't get to hear that much about tables that simply work. Much of this game you're only going to learn by going the long haul and playing, not by taking lessons in Theorycraft.
+10'000. I'll just copy this to a txt file and keep it ready for future use.
Also, let me try again to disabuse people of the notion that "only people who don't play see a martial/caster disparity." It's not only condescending, insulting, and dismissive, but it's quite often false as well. I never saw the disparity on paper. I saw it, glaringly, in actual play. It was pronounced enough in the second half of "Savage Tide" that I was forced to re-assess my initial scoffing at it, and admit that it's really there (unless the DM and players all go out of their way to keep it under the rug all the time).
In retrospect, it maybe appeared a bit in 1e, but back then, the martials were controlling whole countries, and retiring by 12th level, so it wasn't anything to worry about. Fast-forward to 3E, and you're expected to keep adventuring to 20th level (or beyond), you don't get free empires as a class feature, and casters have been buffed considerably. Even then, I blew if off, until years of playing under that system showed me what I'd been ignoring.
So, yes, the DM and players CAN eliminate the problem through various tacit means. But then I started wondering, "Why should they have to work so hard against the system, just to get it to work?"
Neat. Thanks Kirth. Please note that I'm "X'ing" rules and not your suggestions in particular :)
Kirth Gersen wrote: Just to get us started, and in no particular order:
1. Easy-to-interrupt spellcasting: Staggered initiative, loser declares actions first, 1 point of damage disrupts spell, no concentration check allowed.
This worked, I think, and it probably wasn't too terrible.
Quote: 2. Mobility: Spellcasters stand in place; fighters can move and attack. Iterative attacks changed all that. (Well, sort of. I don't know how much a fighter could move, at all, if they were getting 5 attacks per two rounds due to specialization and TWF...)
Quote: 3. Spell Availability: By DM fiat, but mostly seized from other casters' spellbooks taken as loot. The Demonomicon of Iggwilv from "Tsojcanth" had a couple of new planar binding type spells, and it was considered an artifact. This was probably my #1 pet peeve when it came to spell availability. Balanced spells instead, please. (And IME a lot of broken 3e/PF spells were actually balanced in 2e. Invisibility, for one.)
So, I say "X" to this.
Quote: 4. Saving throws vs. spells: Essentially static DCs, insteading of scaling with spell level/casting stat. A high-level fighter would basically only fail a save on a roll of 2 or 3 or less, regardless of how awesome the caster was or how powerful the spell. As someone who played psionicists frequently, I have to agree. In my last 2e game, I had a psionicist who could dish out Id Insinuation (basically the daze condition in 3.x/PF) 60% of the time for 1d4 rounds, or maybe 1d4+1 rounds. Not that great; saving throws at low levels were pretty bad, and my own PC would probably fail a save against Sleep 85% of the time.
BUT
My success percentage would never go down. A dragon had a 60% chance of getting knocked out. It didn't matter if it was Infyrana. Magic Resistance meant nothing; psionics wasn't magic. A 16th-level wizard would only survive combat with my level 2 psionicist/level 2 rogue because they could cast Mind Blank.
I don't think save DCs need to be static though, but I think the value of saving throws needs to keep up. (In other words, I like that my wizard's Hold Monster spell might work better against a fighter than a priest, but I don't think a 70% chance of taking out a fighter for an entire combat with one action is good for the game... even when I'm playing a wizard.)
It doesn't help that saving throw values are not very predictable, being based on ability scores and gear. (My last Pathfinder character was a 15th-level druid. He had a Fort save of +18, Reflex of +9, and Will +19. His druid levels were only giving +9 Fort, +5 Ref, and +9 Will. The rest came from stats, stat boosting items, and of course the Cloak of Resistance. Had I been a fighter, there's no way I could get a Will save anywhere near that high.)
Quote: 5. Staggered level progression: very fast for thieves (rogues), very slow for wizards. [X] Yeah, I agree on the X.
Quote: 6. Fewer spells per day. And no Int bonuses to spells prepared. I agree on fewer spells per day, but not at low levels. I don't care much one way or the other about Int bonuses to spells prepared.
Quote: 7. Acquisition of higher-level spells delayed 1 level (7th at 14th instead of 13th, etc.). Either way.
Quote: 8. Frail casters: Low cap on Con bonus to hp, d4 HD for wizards, no favored class bonus. X. I'm tired of seeing "paranoid wizards".
Quote: 9. Leadership as a class feature: fighters automatically got ARMIES. Thieves (rogues) became crime lords. Wizards sat in a tower and maybe had an apprentice. X. That's impinging on campaign styles.
I think a lot of 3.x's overpowered defensive spells were overcompensations for how weak wizards were (and this is in 3.x, when wizards are quite powerful).
Quote: 10. Retirement: In 1e, 10th-14th was considered "high level." The really problem spells barely came on line by then, and some never did. That would help. I doubt the playtesters had ever seen much in the way of 12th-level wizards in 2e, much less in 3.0.
OK, having also rejected a lot of the old 1e methodology, here's what I've personally done in my home game:
1. Moved/removed/nerfed certain spells. Find the Path, for example, is now a ranger class feature, not a spell. That gives the ranger an appropriate boost to tracking at higher levels, and at the same time prevents his niche from being eaten by a cleric. Detect magic has a range of touch, so it's useless for finding magic traps and in-place trap spells. Teleport and scrying are blocked by X thickness of stone, logically accounting for the existence of both castles and dungeons in the campaign setting. Etc.
2. Gave martials more stuff to do outside of combat, and more interesting stuff to do in combat.
3. Shifted the spellcasting mechanics somewhat (but not all the way) back towards the 1e mode, and also enhanced the martials' mobility and ability to play bodyguard and intercept attacks. This meams that a fighter + a wizard cooperating >> either one alone, or two of one and none of the other.
4. Hard-coded more narrative power into the martial classes. Rangers eventually learn to track their way across the planes and lead others safely through them, and ultimately track down their own personal demi-plane. Fighters eventually get political clout so they can directly affect world affairs. Rogues gain large networks of contacts and "friends-of-friends."
Just for the record, I run a game weekly and see all the problems Kirth describes clear as day. At 18th level, who really had more power, a wizard or a Barbarian? In pure combat terms, possibly the Barbarian. But out of that? Who can teleport hundreds of miles? Who can visit the Plane of Fire? Who can create their own Demi-plane? Who can alter the very fabric of space and time? And who can do completely different things tomorrow, at virtually no cost?
1E and 2E casters needed (IIRC) 15 minutes per caster level to prepare spells (e.g. memorizing a single 4th level would take an hour). In practice, this ended up being as much a hindrance to the entire party as to the cleric or wizard herself (because you had to wait for casters). Not sure how palatable this would be as a balancing tool but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
