I have an idea how to balance Martials and Casters, at least for my own games. It can be done in two ways and I'm looking for opinions which of the two is the better option and why.
First method involves letting Martials level up twice as fast as Casters.
Second method involves all PCs gaining their class features twice as fast, with spellcasting (or equivalent) being the exception.
What do you think?
Option one: Level up martials twice as fast as casters.
When your martials are tenth, casters are 8th if you use xp. If you advance the party at appropriate intervals, the casters are 5th when the martials are 10th.
At martials 12th level, casters are 10th.
Generally, the casters stay about two levels behind if you use slow, medium, or fast experience tracks. This means fewer hp, worse saves, worse BAB (which does matter, we do have clerics and druids and whatnot). It might make balancing encounters harder, it might not, depends on the abilities of the caster players.
Option two: Double speed of class feature acquisition
First, are skill points a class feature? Saving throws? Need to be specific here.
Next, what about things like rage and bardic performance? These are already gained at every level. Does a barbarian gain twice as many rage rounds at each level?
What about what happens at 11th level? If people are getting their capstones at 10th, what happens at 11th (since getting class features at double speed means capstones should appear at 10th, not 20th).
It might also bear scrutiny for classes with bonus feat progressions (I'm thinking rangers and monks in particular) to see what happens when feats that are meant for higher levels suddenly become available at lower levels. I don't know that it will cause a lot of trouble, but bears investigation.
And again, balancing encounters: now higher level abilities (e.g. mighty rage, greater rage, bardic performances, druidic wildshape options) come online sooner. None of these are spellcasting, but all could have potent effects. Double the speed of increases on bardic performances? Yes please. Same with rage.
My simple suggestion is to cap all spell acquisition at 6th spell level. Anytime a class would gain a higher spell level, they instead receive a free metamagic feat.
Caster superiority doesn't start kicking in until later levels with lots of broken spells. At very low levels, I'd even say the martials have a pretty clear advantage.
Option one: Level up martials twice as fast as casters.
When your martials are tenth, casters are 8th if you use xp. If you advance the party at appropriate intervals, the casters are 5th when the martials are 10th.
At martials 12th level, casters are 10th.
Generally, the casters stay about two levels behind if you use slow, medium, or fast experience tracks. This means fewer hp, worse saves, worse BAB (which does matter, we do have clerics and druids and whatnot). It might make balancing encounters harder, it might not, depends on the abilities of the caster players.
We don't use XP, so it's the "casters 5th when martials 10th" variant. And even if we used XP, I don't feel like 2 levels apart makes a signifficant enough difference.
Quote:
First, are skill points a class feature? Saving throws? Need to be specific here.
By class features I mean things that are listed under "Class Features" in the class description.
Quote:
Next, what about things like rage and bardic performance? These are already gained at every level. Does a barbarian gain twice as many rage rounds at each level?
Yes.
Quote:
What about what happens at 11th level? If people are getting their capstones at 10th, what happens at 11th (since getting class features at double speed means capstones should appear at 10th, not 20th).
Multiclassing.
Quote:
It might also bear scrutiny for classes with bonus feat progressions (I'm thinking rangers and monks in particular) to see what happens when feats that are meant for higher levels suddenly become available at lower levels. I don't know that it will cause a lot of trouble, but bears investigation.
I'm not worried. It's meant to make Martials strong.
Quote:
And again, balancing encounters: now higher level abilities (e.g. mighty rage, greater rage, bardic performances, druidic wildshape options) come online sooner. None of these are spellcasting, but all could have potent effects. Double the speed of increases on bardic performances? Yes please. Same with rage.
Yes, none of these are spellcasting, so unless this somehow enables some kind of extreme cheese that would make a Martial more broken than a Caster (without heavy optimization, mind you), I don't see a problem. We don't use XP or wealth by level anymore, so adhering strictly to CRs, ELs or APLs is unnecessary for us.
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
That doesn't really answer my question.
What question is that?
The one in the OP.
Melkiador wrote:
My simple suggestion is to cap all spell acquisition at 6th spell level. Anytime a class would gain a higher spell level, they instead receive a free metamagic feat.
I don't feel like that would be the solution. It would make full casters equal in spell power to half-casters which isn't really what I want. Sure, for a few levels Wizards, Clerics, Druids, etc. will have higher spell progression, but ultimately Bards, Summoners, Warpriests, etc. will catch up. And lets not forget some (if not all) of the half-casters get higher level spells earlier, so they could potentially become better than full casters in the end.
Quote:
Caster superiority doesn't start kicking in until later levels with lots of broken spells. At very low levels, I'd even say the martials have a pretty clear advantage.
Well, I'm thinking about buffing casters a bit, so that might turn out to not be an issue.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
If you treat the party as being the level of the full casters it works well enough.
With my variant rule, the full casters still have higher level spell slots than the half casters to go with their free metamagic feats. And they will have a lot more higher level spells known and preparable. The benefit is that you cut the spell progression off before you get to most of the really game breaking spells, without completely nerfing full casters.
Both rules won't balance the game, but break it. The second one is closer to better, but you make all martials with casting just strictly weaker than martials. You make full casters practically useless under both scenarios. There are more sensible approaches to this, like E8 or E6; your solution invalidates a ton of classes as either fun or useful.
Having martials increase in level faster wouldn't fix anything. The problem with martials vs spellcasters is that the latter gets tons of tools to affect a campaign at higher levels while the former does not. The problem is a "difference of kind," not a "difference of scale." You can't fix that just by making martials stronger.
In addition, your suggestion creates additional problems and abuse cases.
Disclaimer: I'm not really interested in alternatives to my houserules. I've already considered your suggestions and came to the conclusion that I still want to try my ideas.
Also, just to be clear, when I say "Caster" I mean a T1 or T2 class. Martial is just a shorthand for non-T1-2 classes.
Skeld wrote:
That makes multiclassing difficult. What does a Fighter/Wizard use?
Not sure I understand. What do you mean use? And in context of which houserule?
For the first one it's quite simple. PCs would have effective levels, Casters would gain one class level per EL, while Martials would gain two.
For the second, everyone gains effectively 2 levels worth of their class features for one class level (except spellcasting, which is progressing normally).
Speaking of multiclassing, I thought of a 3rd method. Casters and Martials progress normally, but Casters are required to multiclass into at least one other class (prcs don't count for that purpose, but they cound as a Caster if they progress a Caster's spellcasting)) and you can't have more Caster levels than half your character level.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Both rules won't balance the game, but break it. The second one is closer to better, but you make all martials with casting just strictly weaker than martials. You make full casters practically useless under both scenarios. There are more sensible approaches to this, like E8 or E6; your solution invalidates a ton of classes as either fun or useful.
Well, I won't know for sure unless I try it. But I hear ya. I will consider some buffs for casters. Later, though, when I have this figured out.
Cyrad wrote:
Having martials increase in level faster wouldn't fix anything. The problem with martials vs spellcasters is that the latter gets tons of tools to affect a campaign at higher levels while the former does not. The problem is a "difference of kind," not a "difference of scale." You can't fix that just by making martials stronger.
I understand that, but it's not my goal to "fix" anything. I'm just working on a balance for my own games. IMO turning Martials into essentially Casters misses the point, that's why I'm going the route of making Martials more powerful and thus more fun, leaving greater versatility for Casters.
Neither suggestion will do much to balance martials versus casters. That's what I'm saying. It will just create problems while doing little to accomplish what you want.
In your own campaigns, you could enforce a 1:1 caster to martial level distribution thing - requiring 1 martial level for every caster level you take. Perhaps a 2:1 for 2/3 casters, so you max out at Fullcaster 10/Martial 10 or 2/3 Caster 13/Martial 7. It puts a little oomph back into PRCs.
If you do the thing everyone else suggested - Martial 10 or Caster 5, you should consider upping caster HD to a d10/d12 and BAB to full, or allowing twice as many hit dice (continuing regular BAB/HD/save progression), since casters are be default squishier than martials. This will disproportionately affect certain caster types, especially 3/4 BAB ones, since they often have a martial component.
Neither option would "balance martials and casters" as it's basically just number increasing and ignores what creates an imbalance between martials and casters.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
I understand that, but it's not my goal to "fix" anything.
Then don't repeatedly say you're trying to balance it, because trying to balance something via houserule is also called trying to fix it...
Old AD&D2E had this option for classes, then in 3.X editions the ECL and CR arrives then the whole point went to crash...
I think you cant go back to that point at all, but, you can trhow off the CR chart, make again your monsters (regarding CR) the difficult you want to (I threw a colossal red dragon to a party of four 3rd lvl characters and they won the encounter killing the beast)
how do i did it?
CR 5 stat for red dragon, without modifications and tell them it was a colossal ancient red dragon.
Okay guys and gals, you convinced me that it's a bad idea. Guess I'll just go back to banning Full Casters and instead focus on making Martials/Half-Casters stronger, more fun and balanced with each other.
Thanks ya'll for your help.
There is a more complicated version of my suggestion, that you may prefer. Full casters cannot learn a spell higher level than 1+(1/3 of their level). Half casters cannot learn a spell higher than 1+(1/4 their level). No free metamagic feats in this version, but casters will still strongly want them to take advantage of higher level slots.
And of course you could play around with those equations to make casting less powerful.
Perhaps casters get a smaller, linearly increasing number of spell levels. So perhaps fullcasters can cast a number of spell levels per day equal to 3/4 your level (min 1) + your casting stat modifier (also capped at 3/4 your level). Max spell level is the same as that of a Sorcerer.
Basically, you get a number of spell slots equal to the highest number on the 3/4 BAB chart (minimum 1), and you get bonus spell slots equal to your casting stat modifier, but no greater than your regular spell slots.
You have a spell level chart that looks somewhat like:
*Base + minimum casting stat modifier required to cast your highest level of spells
With this, you won't be casting more than three highest-level slots a day, except at 3rd level, and will always be able to cast at least two spells of your highest level if you put any investment (minimum casting stat modifier+1) into it.
For a 2/3 caster, it would probably be a number of spell levels and max extra slots equal to 1/2 your level. For a 1/2 caster, it would be 1/4 your level.
Wait, whoops. Meant to say "spell levels" instead of "spell slots" in basically all instances. Also meant to have the Min and Max of the 4th row of the 1/2 caster chart be 1 and 2.
As for the concept: You get a bunch of spell levels, that you can prepare or just spontaneously cast. The maximum level of a spell you can cast is determined by regular spell progression, while the number of spell levels you have is 3/4 your level (minimum 1), 1/2 your level (also minimum 1), or 1/4 your level (minimum 1 again), depending on what kind of caster you are. You can get a number of bonus spell levels from a high casting stat, but your number of bonus spell levels cannot exceed your number of regular spell levels. And you have as many spell slots as you want, but you must have enough remaining spell levels to prepare a spell of a certain level. The charts just show off how many spell levels you would be expected to have.
Older editions used an uneven experience level progression as a balancing tool. Maybe take a look at that.
Did they do that more intentionally in 2nd edition? I've only played first and 'zeroth', and our impression is that although the classes level at different rates, it isn't really balanced just kind of random as to which class is more rapid (some powerful classes go up levels quicker and some advance more slowly - there are also weird quick-then-slow progressions).
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
What do you think?
If you want to go the route of "balancing" the classes by delaying caster advancement, there are other methods:
1) Variable character advancement. This is something that 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D used to allow "weaker" classes to gain levels faster than "stronger" ones. IMO, it's a workable concept, but needs to be a bit less binary than your proposal: non-"casters" (barbarian, brawler, cavalier, fighter*, gunslinger, monk, rogue*, slayer, swashbuckler, vigilante*) use fast character advancement, partial "casters" (alchemist*, bard, bloodrager, hunter, inquisitor, investigator*, kineticist*, magus, medium, mesmerist, occultist, paladin*, ranger*, skald, spiritualist, summoner, warpriest) use medium character advancement, and full-casters (arcanist, cleric, druid, oracle, psychic, shaman, sorcerer, witch, wizard) use slow character advancement. Multi-classed characters (but not those using variant multi-classing) use the slowest advancement among their classes; this kicks in when gaining the "slower" class (i.e., a fighter 1 can become a fighter 1/wizard 1 after earning 1,300 XP, but will need to earn an additional 6,200 XP to reach 3rd character level, regardless of whether they become a fighter 2/wizard 1 or a fighter 1/wizard 2).
2) No caster classes available at 1st level. This variant essentially forces a caster to multi-class; GM's option of whether "4 level" caster classes are available at 1st level and/or if archetypes that remove casting can be taken (or are mandatory). This makes earlier levels a bit harder (due to the non-existent/reduced magical support), and only defers the point when casters dominate, but could work very well for certain types of campaigns. As an added option, making it a requirement to take the Eldritch Heritage feat to "unlock" the ability to take levels in a casting class could be a possibility (making Cha important for all casters, not just those that have it as their casting stat).
*- even though alchemists, investigators, and kineticists are not exactly "casters" in the fullest sense; also, archetypes that add partial casting to fighter (child of Acavna and Amaznen), rogue (eldritch scoundrel), and vigilante (several) or remove casting from alchemist (metamorph), investigator (sleuth), paladin (warrior of the holy light), and ranger (skirmisher) likewise shift which character advancement chart the class uses.
I'm considering banning T1 Casters as player choices (they still make for good Bosses, BBEGs and antagonists, though), but giving Sorcerer and Oracle the Bard's spell progression (so limited to 6th level spells). Do you think that would drop Sorc and Oracle to T3?
High level martials are not underpowered, they just need to READY AN ATTACK TO DISRUPT A NON-QUICKENED SPELL. It's not that difficult for the martial to force the caster into a concentration check that he cannot make, even on a natural 20. Now your caster has taken damage and lost a spell, without even affecting the martial.
Sure, he's still got quickened spells. But now you're trying to take down a 17th-level martial with 5th-level spells. That is in no way an easy victory.
Unless the caster is a diviner, then all bets are off. I do not want to mess with a high-level divination wizard.
High level martials are not underpowered, they just need to READY AN ATTACK TO DISRUPT A NON-QUICKENED SPELL. It's not that difficult for the martial to force the caster into a concentration check that he cannot make, even on a natural 20. Now your caster has taken damage and lost a spell, without even affecting the martial.
And that somehow magically fixes the fact all Fighters can do is combat?
I'm considering banning T1 Casters as player choices (they still make for good Bosses, BBEGs and antagonists, though), but giving Sorcerer and Oracle the Bard's spell progression (so limited to 6th level spells). Do you think that would drop Sorc and Oracle to T3?
Probably. Although it would also make Bard a generally more powerful character than Sorcerer or Oracle, since Bards have Bardic Performance, which could be a BAB substitute, while Sorcerer and Oracle abilities are keyed for a fullcasting list.
I'm considering banning T1 Casters as player choices (they still make for good Bosses, BBEGs and antagonists, though), but giving Sorcerer and Oracle the Bard's spell progression (so limited to 6th level spells). Do you think that would drop Sorc and Oracle to T3?
Probably. Although it would also make Bard a generally more powerful character than Sorcerer or Oracle, since Bards have Bardic Performance, which could be a BAB substitute, while Sorcerer and Oracle abilities are keyed for a fullcasting list.
Sorry to necro this, but I've been batting around some ideas along these lines. I believe that the spell list differences between Sorcerer and Bard/Magus/Insert 6-level caster here make a drop in spells available more palatable.
The direction I was moving in (which is in a scenario where I have NO prepared spellcasters, which changes context quite a bit) is to give the "full" spellcasters the spells per day of the original class, but the spells known of a six level caster. The sorcerer/oracle would still recieve bonus spells at the same rate.
Looking at levels 6-10 for an Arcane sorcerer (which is where this gets interesting) in this system:
*At 6th level you get three 3rd level spell slots per day. These would only be usable for second level spells, accessible via metamagic, or to cast a spell as a ritual (a house rule that allows one to cast a spell off a scroll without depleting the scroll by dramatically increasing the time needed to cast a spell).
*At 7th level you pick two 3rd level spells, plus Dispel Magic due to the Arcane bloodline. You have double the 3rd level spells per day of the bard/magus/etc., and access to more powerful spells than the bard/magus/etc..
*At 8th level you now have three 4th level spell slots, usable in the same manner as the 3rd level spell slots received at 6th level.
*At 9th level you have an additional 4th level slot, plus you gain Dimension Door from the bloodline.
*At 10th level you now pick two 4th level spells, plus you unlock 5th level spell slots.
This is a nerf, to be sure, but it should be a targeted one - it should slow down the pure power available since it slows down the highest level of spell you can cast, while still leaving many more spells per day with a much better selection of spells than the Six Level casters.
