Tier Spread for Large groups.

[Malkav]

What do you do to balance your players?
Do you let them suffer if someone is playing a tweaked out wizard and someone else is playing a straight X?

I am wondering because when I run for large groups, two of the 7-8 players will be optimized out the yin-yang. The other 5-6 players are always doing less and getting more frustrated.

[Cog]

Have you given any of the suggestions in JaronK's tier thread a try?

[Amphetryon]

With more than 5 players, balance issues are more encounter-related than tier-related, IME. I tend to reflexively discourage low Tier 5 anyway, but with that many players, the action economy is the biggest detriment to fun. Using piles of mooks rather than 1 - 2 Boss Monsters tends to ameliorate both problems in that play environment, generally.

[KoboldCleric]

Have you talked to the 2 optimisers about taking it down a notch by either not using their full potential at every opportunity or starting with low-tier classes?

I'm in a similar situation currently (swd20 game as the only optimiser) ... so I made a very knowledge/defense oriented character. Heavy use of lightsaber deflection extended to protect the party, bard-like party buffs, and decent ranks in over 30 knowledge skills the DM can make use of in throwing us plot hooks.

I still got to make a powerhouse character who always has a variety of options in and out of comabt (which I wanted) but in a way that let's the other players take the spotlight (which everyone else wanted) ... so win/win.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

Squish the tiers down, obviously.

It takes surprisingly little effort (imo) to take a 6 to 1 spread and make it closer to 4- to 3+ as long as you trust your players to build what you tell them. Alternatively, build the party yourse

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Honestly, outside of following suggestions in the original tier thread, my general trend as a player, at least, is to play a war weaver so that everyone who is playing a lower tier melee-type so that I can at least support them. For a group with greater than 5 people, I'd exclude other higher tiered casters from them until I can support everyone.

As a DM, I generally talk with everyone and see what they want to do with their character, and help them build it so they can survive my style of encounters.:smallbiggrin:

[Godskook]

What's the group playing?

What's 'optimized' in your group?

What are your players like?(Cooperative, or stubborn?)

[LordBlades]

The way we handle such things in my group is have a pre-game talk about power level. We agree upon a power level for the game and try to build chars that are 'around there'.

From my experience, if you're more than 1 tier on either side of the average power level, issues start to appear.

[NecroRick]

I think hands down the easiest way to balance the Tier 1 classes is to make them play from level 1. Enjoy your 4hp. Don't cast both your spells at once.

I think the only reason people play even half the monstrosities that get tossed around on these boards is because they never had to play them from low level.

[Darth_Versity]

In my group I'm the only optimiser so we work on a simple idea. Before I make a character I have to either tone it down (which I hate) play a support role (war weaver for the win) or work in larger restrictions (last time I had to use core only)

It may seem harsh, but the game is their for everyones fun, not just mine and making a good character with restrictions is also fun. Just talk to your players, if they have even a little maturity they'll understand

[ArcanistSupreme]

For the ones that like to optimize, suggest a lower tier than the group average. From there, they could optimize as much as they want, but with the weaker chassis they'd only end up a little above average. They still get to play they're hyper-optimized characters, the other players don't feel overshadowed, and everyone goes home happy.

[Godskook]

I think hands down the easiest way to balance the Tier 1 classes is to make them play from level 1. Enjoy your 4hp. Don't cast both your spells at once.

I think the only reason people play even half the monstrosities that get tossed around on these boards is because they never had to play them from low level.

Yeah no.

My favorite character was:

Rogue 1/Wizard 4/Daggerspell X/Unseen Seer Y

And I started playing him at level one. Lost the first campaign at level two, and rebooted into another at level 6.

I'd play almost every build I've proposed from level 1 onward, *ESPECIALLY* the monstrosities, cause they tend to do far better than straight builds at most levels. The problem is always around level 6, where more 'normal' builds are starting to get good, but monstrosities haven't gotten enough prestige class levels to sew their sides together.

[mint]

My group is laaaarge. Or maybe not so large. But 5-8 players on a given session though. So kinda.
In one of my first games, there were two savvy players who had optimized chars, both tier 3. They were combat monsters.
I happened to be playing a tier 1 char. Once I had wrapped my head around the game I played my caster well. Though I didn't use any overt RAW cheese.
Main thing was that I could sometimes help the group side-step a combat. Solve problems with scrying and teleport for example.
Over time the players with tier 2-4 chars came to want to do some optimizing on their chars too, either they learnt or asked for help. And they approached the optimized tier 3 chars.
But what happened was that the DM built combat around challenging this increasingly dangerous party and combat became really brutal.
He did refrain from using many monsters with full attacks that would outright kill anyone though. But conversely we would face stuff that could sometimes withstand the ridiculous attack suite the swordsage shifter brought to bear late in the game.
In combat, I did not have the same presence as some of my party members did. I helped, debuffed and killed. But in a lot of encounters I would think to myself that I would have to go nova to sustain the normal combat output of some of my party members.
Not at all saying my tier 1 char was not a beast but it really struck home that tier 1 doesn't mean you are best at everything ever. Just really, really good at more than one aspect of the game.
Of course, there are exceptions and caveats that go with that statement but... meh

I think it was a pretty big deal that the whole group became interested in doing at least some optimization. Possibly, that's the main reason why my large group had an enjoyable game in spite of tier differences.

[JaronK]

I think hands down the easiest way to balance the Tier 1 classes is to make them play from level 1. Enjoy your 4hp. Don't cast both your spells at once.

I think the only reason people play even half the monstrosities that get tossed around on these boards is because they never had to play them from low level.

So you've never seen a Wizard who finds Color Spray and Glitterdust then? At those levels, NOTHING has defenses against such spells.

JaronK

[Dalek-K]

That's why you make something that does ;)

[Amphetryon]

That's why you make something that does ;)

That reads as uncomfortably close to "it's not super-powerful because the DM can houserule around it," and may or may not result in a monster that ganks the party because their biggest gun - the Wizard, in this case - got hit by a DM's stealth-nerf.

[Bob the DM]

I find the easiest way to balance player power is always in game on the DM side. Insure you know what your pc's are capable of and make sure you add chalanges/encounters that keep everyone entertained. If you have a combat heavy game and a single charcter like a wizard is much more powerful then the rest of the group, have 2 npcs charge past the fighter and power attck him to paste. If every combat starts with the wizard casting very powerful spells and then bleeding at -2hp, they will quickly learn not to draw that much attention so quickly. The wizard in my current game has quickly learned that having the fighter/cleric doing small damage for 2 turns and then comming in and finishing off half the npc's with an AOE spell is much more fun then starting off with the same spell and taking the bad guys down to 2/3 or 1/2 hp and then spending the next 4 rounds bleeding out as the fighter types struggle to finish the encounter. Every time the wizard makes that mistake, I remind him that he's walking out with a giant sign that says "I'm a wizard, kill me first". Since they also fight npc groups that have casters, he realizes his mistake, as as soon as the pc's identify the squishy power caster, they do the same. There's no hard feelings and he seems to like the challange of staying alive after he turns on the "neon 'Wizard' sign".

Out of combat, all the pc's have different goals/motivations and I encourage them to flesh out their characters, so there's almost always something for everyone to do. Combat is the easiest thing to balance, so as long as the game has plenty of non combat time and lots of options to try, you should be fine.

[Amphetryon]

I find the easiest way to balance player power is always in game on the DM side. Insure you know what your pc's are capable of and make sure you add chalanges/encounters that keep everyone entertained. If you have a combat heavy game and a single charcter like a wizard is much more powerful then the rest of the group, have 2 npcs charge past the fighter and power attck him to paste. If every combat starts with the wizard casting very powerful spells and then bleeding at -2hp, they will quickly learn not to draw that much attention so quickly. The wizard in my current game has quickly learned that having the fighter/cleric doing small damage for 2 turns and then comming in and finishing off half the npc's with an AOE spell is much more fun then starting off with the same spell and taking the bad guys down to 2/3 or 1/2 hp and then spending the next 4 rounds bleeding out as the fighter types struggle to finish the encounter. Every time the wizard makes that mistake, I remind him that he's walking out with a giant sign that says "I'm a wizard, kill me first". Since they also fight npc groups that have casters, he realizes his mistake, as as soon as the pc's identify the squishy power caster, they do the same. There's no hard feelings and he seems to like the challange of staying alive after he turns on the "neon 'Wizard' sign".

Out of combat, all the pc's have different goals/motivations and I encourage them to flesh out their characters, so there's almost always something for everyone to do. Combat is the easiest thing to balance, so as long as the game has plenty of non combat time and lots of options to try, you should be fine.

From the general consensus of discussion on Arcane spells, AoE damage spells are almost the least powerful option available. A truly optimally played Tier 1 has defensive prebuffs cast before the combat starts, changes the battlefield in some way that doesn't immediately make him the logical target in round 1, then has a sammich unless the party starts to struggle. He's not preferentially targeted because he's not presenting as dangerous, and is usually a harder target with miss chances stacked high plus other defenses.

YMMV, but you should be aware that the above is the default assumption when most talk about high-powered casters.

[Rejakor]

I've found I notice power differences less than a lot of GMs, as my fights tend to be big, long, and messy. Multiple threats, multiple goals, time limits, moving/strange terrain, hordes, custom crazy monsters, hordes with custom crazy monsters that look the same as the hordes mixed in, true 'oh ****, they've got rocs' moments... mixed and matched to taste.

So generally it's more 'holy ****, get it, get it, it's going to pull the lever!' 'hold this goddamn doorway until I can close off this goddamn ritual and get my goddamn spell component pouch back from that monkey!' and less like 'well, bob the wizard killed it in the surprise round. again'.


That said, if people are lower in power, I have just flat out in the past handed them stuff. Yeah, you can silence people you stab. Call it 'throat-cutting'. Oh, and you can have something that lets you add your dex and int to grapple checks and you can make escape artist checks as a free action that leave your foe prone. Call it 'clever wrestling'. /shrug None of my players have ever had a problem with me doing that, probably because I haven't made anyone more powerful than the people they were lagging behind previously doing it. Just enough to catch up to within an acceptable ratio.

Metagaming the world so that encounters hose the stronger characters and leave the weaker ones alone is not only... less good and less realistic.. it's just dickish. If you really don't want to make the weaker guys stronger, just ask the stronger guys to tone it down. And know the mechanics well enough to suggest to them how to tone it down (how about we make colour spray and sleep level 2 and glitterdust and web level 3? They really belong in those spell levels anyway) without nerfing them into the ground (you are too powerfulz, so every time you cast spells you have to make a 50% roll or they do something that I say they do and not you).

[Ravens_cry]

In a larger group, I would surmise lower tiers would be more viable as the whole idea behind the tier system is who has the most options. A small group needs characters who can do a lot of things well, while larger groups could inversely allow a niche player to be viable.
That is how I see it anyway.

[Rejakor]

That's not how the tiers work.

Higher tiers aren't more specialized, they're just better. Lower tiers are often more specialized, and still worse at what they do than the higher tiers are at what they do (warblades hit harder than samurai and can take more punishment, and can do other things other than hit hard and take punishment - buffed sorcerers can hit even harder and take even more punishment, all the while flying and reshaping continents with their minds).

EDIT: Sorry, misread what you said. My point is still the same, though. There's nothing that the lower tiers can do that the higher tiers can't do better, and even in a large group if someone is getting 30% of the facetime due to being able to do more stuff, and some guy is getting 5% of the facetime, it's just as noticeable if in a smaller group some guy was getting 45% of the facetime and another guy was getting 10%.

[Ravens_cry]

Potentially. But in a small group, you have use that flexibility in order for the group to survive. In a larger group, a character with a lot of options, like a wizard, can take a more specialized role and characters with more specialized roles by default can do their shtick without being overshadowed. In a group without a rogue, you need to have a player cast knock, while in a group with a rogue, they can just use Open Lock.

[Rejakor]

The problem isn't usually that the wizard is casting knock (although sometimes it is), it's that certain more general categories (like gathering information, or getting around the place, or combat) get completely subsumed by the more powerful characters, and the more powerful characters fill in all the roles not specifically filled by others, so they get more screen time - less than in smaller groups, but still way more than Jim the Rogue.

Plus there's the knowledge that if the wizard WANTED to he COULD cast knock.. if your job is 'saving the wizard paltry spell slots so he can own face harder in combat'... is that really a good job to have?

[Bob the DM]

As the DM, I always just customized my threats and leave options open. Against hordes of undead zombies, everyone gets to have fun as they just keep comming until one side is dead, but I refuse to believe that a good DM cn't make combat dangerous for all involved. I'm assuming this is a combat discussion now. It doesn't matter if the wizard blows things up, or just sits back and modify's the battlefield and tries not to die, as long as their power is on par with everyone else, that's good. As the DM, sometimes you do the whole combat on real rolls, and sometimes you just roll the dice and pretend any number comes up. Do the pc's know if the npc fighter has a +7 or +9? Does the npc fighter have blind sight? Sure, why not. If the fighting in you're game is the focus (either as a constant dungeon grind/roadside attack each game, or as the endpoint that the whole session builds to), it is really easy to balance things since you are the uber-god and you're only job as dm is to ensure that everyone has fun. There's no reason that some of the npc's in the encounters can't be more powerful than others. Have the smaller ones go after the less "optimized" heroes and really challange the super powerful. If the characters are powerful, then they're probably well known and npc's will likely know their strengths with a little research and play accondingly. If the pc's overpower each other it will be easier to take out the important pieces as oppossed to a group that works in unison and is "balanced" accross the board by the players. If you keep havimg the group narrowly survive or send npcs that have been build like the pc's are, the problem should correct itself.

[Curmudgeon]

For the ones that like to optimize, suggest a lower tier than the group average. From there, they could optimize as much as they want, but with the weaker chassis they'd only end up a little above average. They still get to play they're hyper-optimized characters, the other players don't feel overshadowed, and everyone goes home happy.
I commend this suggestion. I typically play Rogues, and coexist comfortably with most Tier 1 & 2 characters. I like the challenge.

The DM still (always!) needs to scrutinize individual spells for reasonable interpretation. For example, a low-level spell like Shatter can be abused if the DM isn't paying attention, as with a Wizard player who says "I Shatter the Cleric's spell component pouch!" This is wrong, probably for 2-3 reasons:

Did the Wizard make the Spot DC to see the pouch (a Fine object) when they first had line of sight to it? That's DC 20 if within 10', or a more difficult check at greater distance, and also if distracted (such as in combat).
If not, it's impossible for them to Spot something without the required move action retry. If you can't see a target, you don't have the required line of sight.
If the DM lets the Wizard player assume anything neither liquid nor gas is "solid" for Shatter they're not paying attention. That's a chemical definition and makes no sense in a setting just barely getting into alchemy. Any of "rigid, not flexible", "without interior voids", or "composed of a single substance" for a definition of "solid" would prevent targeting a pouch.

[Ravens_cry]

# Did the Wizard make the Spot DC to see the pouch (a Fine object) when they first had line of sight to it? That's DC 20 if within 10', or a more difficult check at greater distance, and also if distracted (such as in combat).
# If not, it's impossible for them to Spot something without the required move action retry. If you can't see a target, you don't have the required line of sight.
This I agree with. It's already a neat trick, having to work for it is no biggie.


If the DM lets the Wizard player assume anything neither liquid nor gas is "solid" for Shatter they're not paying attention. That's a chemical definition and makes no sense in a setting just barely getting into alchemy. Any of "rigid, not flexible", "without interior voids", or "composed of a single substance" for a definition of "solid" would prevent targeting a pouch.
[/LIST]
Eh, but the rules were meant for people who do live in such a society, not the characters. The rules, including the spell descriptions, don't exist in-universe and unless the rules are using jargon, the definition is the dictionary one. Unfortunately, these words have multiple meanings.

The problem isn't usually that the wizard is casting knock (although sometimes it is), it's that certain more general categories (like gathering information, or getting around the place, or combat) get completely subsumed by the more powerful characters, and the more powerful characters fill in all the roles not specifically filled by others, so they get more screen time - less than in smaller groups, but still way more than Jim the Rogue.

Plus there's the knowledge that if the wizard WANTED to he COULD cast knock.. if your job is 'saving the wizard paltry spell slots so he can own face harder in combat'... is that really a good job to have?
They are only subsumed if said players choose to subsume them. Just like an excellent role player should try to avoid the spot light if they are encouraging another player who is weaker at it to do more of it, a wizard or other high tier characters player should , in my view concentrate on the things ONLY they can do if they are in a large group. This is the whole idea behind the Batman wizard, however much self-congratulatory, chest pounding bafflegab it may hide behind. In a small group, the wizard doesn't need to because there is no one to potentially show-up. It's all about the gentlebeings agreement of D&D: We are all working together to have fun. You may play differently, but I find a meta-cooperative spirit makes a game go smoother even if the characters have differences in-game.
And yes, I do enjoy this, just like I enjoy playing a mêlée type who is not a spell-buffed cleric, even though such a cleric may be just as good, or better at it.

[Godskook]

Eh, but the rules were meant for people who do live in such a society, not the characters. The rules, including the spell descriptions, don't exist in-universe and unless the rules are using jargon, the definition is the dictionary one. Unfortunately, these words have multiple meanings.

To be fair, by default we should assume that the most common usage of a word is the one being used unless the context indicates otherwise. Checking Merriam Webster yields that Curmudgeon's definition choice is the most likely.

[ericgrau]

I'm more worried about the "tweaked out" part than the "wizard" part. I've never ever seen a problem with wizards and fighters in the same group, but once you get into heavy optimization that changes a great deal. It's a matter of whether or not your particular group matches the online highly optimized build threads with 4 PrCs and multiple semi-cheesy tricks or etc. A little is ok though, as is doing your best without exploiting loopholes or digging out the 0.5% super strong stuff out of 20 books or etc. If it took any less than that this wouldn't be a problem I never ever see in person. At the same time groups I've played in each have maybe 1 or 2 people who know what to look for and while their characters are a little stronger than normal they always have a list of options to which they say "Haha, no, I'll never use that."

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I'm more worried about the "tweaked out" part than the "wizard" part. I've never ever seen a problem with wizards and fighters in the same group, but once you get into heavy optimization that changes a great deal. It's a matter of whether or not your particular group matches the online highly optimized build threads with 4 PrCs and multiple semi-cheesy tricks or etc. A little is ok though, as is doing your best without exploiting loopholes or digging out the 0.5% super strong stuff out of 20 books or etc. If it took any less than that this wouldn't be a problem I never ever see in person. At the same time groups I've played in each have maybe 1 or 2 people who know what to look for and while their characters are a little stronger than normal they always have a list of options to which they say "Haha, no, I'll never use that."

This... this right here bugs me.:smallannoyed: Four pretsige classes is not a bad thing, nor is it necessarily cheesey. If you want REAL UTIMATE POWER, you general using cheese like Planar Shepard, Incantatrix, or Shadowcraft Mage: one really, really strong prestige class on an already amazing base class.

More prestige class does not necessarily mean more cheese, just more work. My favorite example of this, as I have already mentioned in this thread is Wizard 3/War Weaver 5/Spellguard of Silverymoon 5/Abjurant Champion 5/Something else 2, where this could honestly easily be, say, Divine Oracle or Archmage. Its core power is sharing wizard buff spells to everyone in the party: no need for mass versions. The good stuff comes online at ECL 5-6, when you are sharing your highest level stuffs with everyone. After that, there's a delay in power until Spellguard 4, when you get to share personal buffs with everyone (given certain conditions, of course). Abjurant Champion is there so no one needs to buy armor or shields, and the last two levels could be commoner, honestly, but it would probably be better to grab something new.

Arguably, the cheesiet thing about that build is either sharing personal buffs via Spellguard or the two levels of early entry via Sanctum Spell (which, might I add, has the double punch of allowing 6th level buffs into you war weaving).

[ericgrau]

Four PrCs was just an example. If everyone is using 4 PrCs or if it's not done for power reasons then it's no longer a power disparity problem. Power disparity is the main point; don't care if one way of getting there could also be used for good.

[Boci]

The DM still (always!) needs to scrutinize individual spells for reasonable interpretation. For example, a low-level spell like Shatter can be abused if the DM isn't paying attention, as with a Wizard player who says "I Shatter the Cleric's spell component pouch!" This is wrong, probably for 2-3 reasons:
[LIST]
Did the Wizard make the Spot DC to see the pouch (a Fine object) when they first had line of sight to it? That's DC 20 if within 10', or a more difficult check at greater distance, and also if distracted (such as in combat).

I though you only needed to make spot checks for hidden things. I can't see the rules which say I need a spot check to target a pouch hanging from a belt.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Four PrCs was just an example. If everyone is using 4 PrCs or if it's not done for power reasons then it's no longer a power disparity problem. Power disparity is the main point; don't care if one way of getting there could also be used for good.

And someone can go Druid 20 and still outshine a Monk 2/Psychic Warrior 6/Swordsage 2/Slayer 10.:smallsigh:

[Curmudgeon]

I though you only needed to make spot checks for hidden things. I can't see the rules which say I need a spot check to target a pouch hanging from a belt.
From the Spot skill description:
Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it. And earlier, from Table 4–3: Difficulty Class Examples at the start of the Skills chapter:

{table=head] Difficulty (DC) | Example (Skill Used)
Very easy (0) | Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)[/table]

If you can't make your Spot check to see something in plain sight, it's (pretty obviously) difficult for you to see it.

[Boci]

From the Spot skill description: And earlier, from Table 4–3: Difficulty Class Examples at the start of the Skills chapter:

{table=head] Difficulty (DC) | Example (Skill Used)
Very easy (0) | Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)[/table]

If you can't make your Spot check to see something in plain sight, it's (pretty obviously) difficult for you to see it.

So where are you getting DC: 20 to spot a fine item? Size bonuses give a bonus to hide checks, not a penalty to spot checks.

[Rejakor]

I'm seeing an uncomfortable amount of people saying things like 'it's the fault of the players for not metagaming'. Uh, sorry? If your wizard has three spells in his spellbook, Colour Spray, Animate Rope, and Obscuring Mist.. and he's about to go into a sunken dungeon filled with goblins to retrieve a magical elven stone... you think he's a cheater if he prepares colour spray more times than animate rope or obscuring mist?

These characters are people, doing incredibly dangerous things, with fates worse than death if they fail. Humans (and by extension other humanlike creatures like changelings or orcs) are not rational all the time so maybe this wizard REALLY REALLY LOVES mist and rope, and so he prepares colour spray only a few times, but is it really okay to blame players for doing what their character would do?

In the real world, effective tactics get used because people want to succeed. Are you saying that an Int 22 wizard, or a Wis 25 druid would be too dumb to know that some spells are better at defeating foes than others?

As for sending stronger foes after spellcasters, directing stronger attacks at stronger players etc.. yeah.. that's fine.. when it makes sense. But then combat happens and due to unexpected, in-game, it suddenly makes a lot of sense for your glabrezu nar demonbinder to gank the rogue so he can sneak up on the wizard from behind. And now you're like 'uhhhhhhhhhh what can I do here so that the rogue doesn't instadie'. And your players will notice. They really will. They are not dumb, even if they don't say much about it.

So, y'know, as long as you're willing to metagame the **** out of your world, that kind of works, for a while. But when you start inventing antimagic locks so that your rogue can feel like his existence isn't worthless... that's the point at which you start to cross the line between 'believable' and 'not believable'.


Why is no-one talking about setting a power level? I often do. I go 'this is going to be a high powered game, bring high powered characters'. Or 'this is going to be a low powered non-magic game, gritty, so keep that in mind'. And then if necessary I simply adjust numbers on character sheets. It's pretty easy to do while keeping the flavour intact. The dude is still faster than he is strong, he just has 17 dex not 22, and 14 str not 19. I mainly prefer to adjust upwards, though. DnD at lower levels especially can do with a bit of adjusting upwards in the rogue and meatshield department. Horizontal power helps immensely. Give the rogue more things he can do, and suddenly he can do more things and gets more facetime and the wizard is not the king of everything and leaving the rogue feeling superfluous. That's actually really important, so i'll say it again.

Give the rogue more things he can do, and suddenly he can do more things and gets more facetime and the wizard is not the king of everything and leaving the rogue feeling superfluous.

You can metagame the world to give the rogue more things he can do, but why not just give him more things he can do, personally? That seems to make a lot more sense than making the world contain a suspicious number of antimagicked doors.



They are only subsumed if said players choose to subsume them. Just like an excellent role player should try to avoid the spot light if they are encouraging another player who is weaker at it to do more of it, a wizard or other high tier characters player should , in my view concentrate on the things ONLY they can do if they are in a large group. This is the whole idea behind the Batman wizard, however much self-congratulatory, chest pounding bafflegab it may hide behind. In a small group, the wizard doesn't need to because there is no one to potentially show-up. It's all about the gentlebeings agreement of D&D: We are all working together to have fun. You may play differently, but I find a meta-cooperative spirit makes a game go smoother even if the characters have differences in-game.
And yes, I do enjoy this, just like I enjoy playing a mêlée type who is not a spell-buffed cleric, even though such a cleric may be just as good, or better at it.

Again, your role as DM is to challenge the party. If some guys are 'holding back' to let the rogues or melee shine or whatever, then you're never challenging the party. Because the instant stuff gets into trouble, the mage goes 'solid fog! lingering flame! empowered enervation! MORDENKAINEN'S ASS-WHIPPING' thus removing any real sense of danger from the game. If you send something that really stretches him, it could kill one of the squishy noncasters by accident. I have seen this happen.

I have no problem with people playing noncasting melee types. I've rebuilt fighting classes (only at specific levels and for that specific character) to give them abilities, immunities, and options on par with those a t2 spellcaster brings to the table from their class, and those guys had a lot of fun. But right out of the box only certain archetypes of melee guy (lockdown, charger, a few odd things like the zhentarim terrorist and the jack b quick duelist) can even keep up with t2 casters, much less equal them/be as useful as them. I tend to give the fighting types a little bit of an edge in terms of combat, usually via special attack types (disarming punch, immediate action attack, spell-parrying, rolling advance, etc), extra actions, immunities, and per encounter or per day wild cards ('kill every m*****-f***** in the whole damn room', 'heroic surge (2 turns at once)', 'shrug off', 'loyal steel') etc etc. I'm a bit braindead right now, the options are usually better, and better named, than that, but the basic idea is that the wizard is a toolbox and the fighter is a jackhammer. And it works pretty well. A rogue is an electric powerdrill, with a concealed set of tiny tools in the grip.


EDIT: Oh, and. Again. Realism. If the wizard is playing a power hungry, smart, ********, and he could have learned colour spray, but instead decided to learn Create Whiffle Cheese Pie, he is not being an excellent roleplayer. He's being either a bad roleplayer, or metagaming. Metagaming destroys suspension of disbelief. If something in the rules creates a problem, fix the rules. Don't force people to metagame and call them *******s if they don't.

[Curmudgeon]

So where are you getting DC: 20 to spot a fine item? Size bonuses give a bonus to hide checks, not a penalty to spot checks.

size modifier

The bonus or penalty derived from a creature's size category. Size modifiers of different kinds apply to Armor Class, attack rolls, Hide checks, grapple checks, and various other checks.
That's covered under "various other checks". Whether you express it as a bonus to Hide checks or a penalty to Spot checks, it's all the same size modifier: +/- 4 for every size category difference.

[Boci]

That's covered under "various other checks". Whether you express it as a bonus to Hide checks or a penalty to Spot checks, it's all the same size modifier: +/- 4 for every size category difference.

No it isn't the same. By RAW, it is no harder to spot an unhidden small character than it is to spot an unhidden medium character.

[The Rabbler]

EDIT: Oh, and. Again. Realism. If the wizard is playing a power hungry, smart, ********, and he could have learned colour spray, but instead decided to learn Create Whiffle Cheese Pie, he is not being an excellent roleplayer. He's being either a bad roleplayer, or metagaming. Metagaming destroys suspension of disbelief. If something in the rules creates a problem, fix the rules. Don't force people to metagame and call them *******s if they don't.

The word you want there is versimilitude.

Nitpicking aside, I play in a group that regularly has over 10 members at any given day. I am probably the most experienced optimizer at the table, though another player comes pretty close, but just about everyone else I play with doesn't understand how to optimize at all. We have a player who consistently plays fighter/rogues so he can be good at fighting, get some feats, and have some skill points to mess around with. The DM isn't as bad as some of the players, but he used to think that clerics are garbage. He challenged me to make a strong cleric once. I showed him a CoDzilla. He doesn't think that anymore.

Now that you know about my group, I'll explain what I generally do keep the power levels balanced (because my DM really isn't all that great at it). Firstly and most importantly, I suggest things to people. While it may sound simple, I find that explaining why a warblade is much better than a fighter makes them more likely to use warblade and therefore make a better character.

Secondly, I build characters that have the potential to solo encounters but spend most of their time helping out the party so that the rest of the group has their time to shine whilst I make sure no one gets killed. Even if it means going nova sometimes.

[Curmudgeon]

No it isn't the same. By RAW, it is no harder to spot an unhidden small character than it is to spot an unhidden medium character.
Care to provide a rule citation for that? I've shown that the DC to Spot an unhidden character/object is specific to that character's/object's size.

[Boci]

Care to provide a rule citation for that? I've shown that the DC to Spot an unhidden character/object is specific to that character's/object's size.

No you have not. "various other checks" does not mean anything by RAW. A character's size influences their hide checks, but you are yet to prove that the DC to locate an unhidden creature is in any way linked to their size.

[Bob the DM]

That's why the DM job is so important. You need to create a world that feels real and dangerous. A wizard (especially with the high INT), should be expected to memorize powerful spells and the fighters should have a good selection of feats and weapons. If everyone feels the danger of combat then the wizard won't try to overpower everyone, as it will be safer to let the fighter be the tough guy, and much safer to let the rogue do the sneaky/rogue stuff. If some players want to mix and match classes and prestige classes, that's where the DM comes in for balance. When my players want to take a new class or especially a prestige class, there better be an in game reason/way they learned about the skills let alone the existence of the secret society they're going to join. Then they have to find it, go there and pass whatever initiation it has. That's a very simply and realistic way of keeping any "cheese" you don't like down.

For out of combat interactions, if one person is doing everything then the DM simply needs to direct the flow of conversations/interactions differently. If the wizard drinks a potion of glibness everytime the party needs to get info and the rogue is left out, then don't let the players control the pace. Maybe the person that has the info happens by chance to walk into the very inn you're staying at during breakfast while the wizard is memorizing spells. Or the person they have to smooth talk their way past is well know for his hatered of wizards.

If you're exploring a dead/missing wizard's tower with magical traps, the origional wizard who put them there would likely have felt that another wizard would be who he's protecting his magical cache from, not some simple "burglar" with a toolkit. Why wouldn't it be more dangerous for the wizard to 'magic' his way through.
The fighter feels left out of the conversations? Make sure he knows that with a liberal dose of the intimidate skill and a good cop/bad cop routine is the only way the rogue was able to make the shopkeep tell them where he bought the stolen goods.

PC's will almost always push the envelope of what they can do, as real people would, so it's ALWAYS up to the DM to set the tone that's ideal for the group. Making the NPC's more realistic is the easiest/legitimate way to do it.

That's why, while zombies will just attack everyone mindlessly, the vampire dominates the cleric first, or the hobgoblin fighters double powerattack the guy shooting fire out of his fingers (maybe a trip attack of opportunity is the only thing that will save his wizard friend's life). A Fire Giant might focus on the Barbarian first as it might not see the wizard as a threat, but if the wizard fires a ray that saps the giant's strength, it might change it's mind. NPC magic uses are much more wary of dealing with other casters than a simple "rogue"

At low levels there's less chance to have one pc doing everything and everyone is almost as dangerous as everyone else. At higher levels NPC's should act like real people. As long as you're aware of how the pcs are developing, a good DM should be able to run a game that's fun for all and address these issues as or right before they first come up.

[Curmudgeon]

but you are yet to prove that the DC to locate an unhidden creature is in any way linked to their size.
What does DC 0 to "Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)" mean to you? :smallconfused:

[Boci]

What does DC 0 to "Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)" mean to you? :smallconfused:

That something smaller could recieve a +2 to DC due to an unfavourable circamstance if the DM sees fit, not that someone with a spot modifier of +0 will fail to notice, 95% of the time, a pouch hanging from someone's belt.

[Curmudgeon]

That something smaller could recieve a +2 to DC due to an unfavourable circamstance if the DM sees fit, not that someone with a spot modifier of +0 will fail to notice, 95% of the time, a pouch hanging from someone's belt.
A Spot modifier of +0 means that the character has neither natural ability nor any great interest (expressed in skill ranks) in paying attention to details. What's so hard to understand about that?

Your idea that something Fine (fits in one hand) is only +2 harder to Spot than something Large (fits in a 10' cube), when both are within 10' of you, strikes me as absurd.

[Boci]

A Spot modifier of +0 means that the character has neither natural ability nor any great interest (expressed in skill ranks) in paying attention to details. What's so hard to understand about that?

I've got a spot modifier of +0. I am confident in my ability to notice a pouch hanging from someone's belt at least 50% of the time, probably a great deal more.


Your idea that something Fine (fits in one hand) is only +2 harder to Spot than something Large (fits in a 10' cube), when both are within 10' of you, strikes me as absurd.

As does yours that spotting a pouch from less than 10ft away is a feat equal to that of swimming 15ft in 6 seconds in stormy water.

In any case, absurd or not, their is more RAW behind my interpretation than yours, unless you can produce some text which includes spot as the skills to recieve the +4 modifier per size catagory. If not, then all we know is that there is not mention of a spot check to see something unhidden in the skill entry, and that the DC for something large is 0, which no specific mention of it getting any harder as the size decreases.

[Rejakor]

Now that you know about my group, I'll explain what I generally do keep the power levels balanced (because my DM really isn't all that great at it). Firstly and most importantly, I suggest things to people. While it may sound simple, I find that explaining why a warblade is much better than a fighter makes them more likely to use warblade and therefore make a better character.

This I agree with. Directing someone towards a better class that better creates their concept while giving them a power level closer to the group is a fantastic way to solve this problem. As the DM I generally take it one step further and just HAND them stuff that mechanically iterates their concept to the power level of the group, but doing it this way, if there's a class/combo/build that actually works for it isn't bad at all.


Secondly, I build characters that have the potential to solo encounters but spend most of their time helping out the party so that the rest of the group has their time to shine whilst I make sure no one gets killed. Even if it means going nova sometimes.

This isn't.. THAT bad, but it's still, in my mind, bad. It means that the party is never in any real danger of dying, because you're holding back. Anything that dearly challenges the party is still something you can deal with with a quick nova, likely with resources still left over, even though you're not optimizing as hard as you can.

Also, the other players know that you're holding back, at least the more perceptive ones, and that affects them either consciously or unconsciously in terms of their roleplaying potential.

There are a lot of tropes and fantastic situations that only really occur in game if the party can be challenged right to their limit. And that can only happen if people can't hold back and still win, and if there aren't people who get instadied by things that challenge the stronger members of the party.

That is why having a party at about the same power level, maybe a bit lower for the people who can really squeeze that little extra bit out of their mechanics, is generally a good thing.

Again, you can have parties with different power levels, it's just usually a good idea to make sure everyone is cool with it first, and structure the party dynamic accordingly.


That's why the DM job is so important. You need to create a world that feels real and dangerous. A wizard (especially with the high INT), should be expected to memorize powerful spells and the fighters should have a good selection of feats and weapons. If everyone feels the danger of combat then the wizard won't try to overpower everyone, as it will be safer to let the fighter be the tough guy, and much safer to let the rogue do the sneaky/rogue stuff. If some players want to mix and match classes and prestige classes, that's where the DM comes in for balance. When my players want to take a new class or especially a prestige class, there better be an in game reason/way they learned about the skills let alone the existence of the secret society they're going to join. Then they have to find it, go there and pass whatever initiation it has. That's a very simply and realistic way of keeping any "cheese" you don't like down.

Again, this can be done, by a skilled DM, in a way that isn't obvious, and so doesn't ruin the party's enjoyment. But, again, people do notice things like this a lot more than you'd think, even if they don't let on, or don't realize they noticed. There is also a power level limitation on this sort of thing. If someone is playing an optimized wizard, whether on purpose or just because they picked the spells that looked good (i've had players come to the table for the first time and pick colour spray, glitterdust, grease... teleport as their first 5th level spell... generally they take a few damage spells but stop preparing them in all but a very few slots after the first few encounters.. as it's clear that the area debuffs and buffs/BFC are far more effective), in a party with someone playing an unoptimized rogue who put all his skill ranks into open lock and disable device and not tumble and UMD, and uses his crappy frost daggers to miss for 1d4+(sometimes)4d6-3(13 points of damage), if he's really lucky he gets to full attack and miss 3 or 4 times... or the fighter who thinks Toughness is a really good feat and is using a longsword and a shield at level 10 with absolutely no way to get extra damage, and his AC isn't even that good because the wizard uses greater mage armour, and shield when he has time to buff, or is polymorphed into a troll. Or uses any of a dozen splatbook spells that give extra bonuses to AC, or is a Ascetic Mage, or is levitating and therefore is immune to melee combat... or simply has a Shield Guardian or summoned monster to be a hp-wall. If the gap is too big, when you metagame the world to provide things the rogue can do, it becomes obvious, no matter how good you are at doing it. And even so, the more optimized characters (even the optimized jack of all trades fighter vs a very unoptimized weak evocation wizard) will just so clearly be better at what they're doing and still get more facetime in spite of your efforts... that it will affect what is going on.



At low levels there's less chance to have one pc doing everything and everyone is almost as dangerous as everyone else. At higher levels NPC's should act like real people. As long as you're aware of how the pcs are developing, a good DM should be able to run a game that's fun for all and address these issues as or right before they first come up.

You can, yes. But I feel that it's better for the versimiltude, and for the group, if you just set a power level. Out of game. Don't metagame the world, don't kill players who you think are 'using cheese', don't set up awkward encounters where the foes match off against party members according to strength level, and don't use aoe abilities at all. Just be like 'this game is going to be lowish power, so no wizards or CoDzillas or anything, tier 3 would be a good tier to aim for'. And then if someone builds a Toughness Fighter, step in and talk to them about what they're trying to build and then make them a Stone Power Warblade, or a Frostrager Barbarian or something if they hate maneuvers for some illogical reason. Or just give them a few extra abilities based on their concept that make them actually viable in the group and not a hindrance/waste of space.