Fighters levelling faster than wizards?

[Callum]

I was wondering if anyone had attempted to use Pathfinder's different character advancement rates to deal with the much-discussed linear fighter, quadratic wizard issue? (This approach would hark back to earlier versions of the D&D rules, of course.) If so, did it work out?

On a related note, has anyone ever drawn up a table showing where they think each level of fighter, wizard, cleric, etc., line up in terms of power levels (for 3.5 or Pathfinder)?

[Eldariel]

AD&D did this. Though Fighters were pretty high up on the curve actually (then again, back then Fighters actually had things going on for them that weren't general property, such as extra bonus HP from Con and extra attacks and bonuses to weapon use; and weapons themselves were more useful). But yeah, it does kinda work. Haven't tried the PF method though (never knew there was one TBH).

[Gorfnod]

Where is this different character advancement located?

[zimmerwald1915]

It's in the Core Rulebook, where it talks about the Slow, Medium, and Fast advancement tracks. It's meant to be used for different campaigns, but the OP is proposing to use, for example, the Slow advancement track for casters and Medium track for martial types within the same campaign.

[Ravens_cry]

I was going to mention the AD&D thing, but I was beat to it.
All I can say is "Try it, see how it works out, tell us how it went."

[Ryulin18]

Since I started DMing in 2010, I always thought Fighters and melee classes should level faster. It just makes sense.

A stat list or reference to the different level speeds would be helpful.

[Oscredwin]

The question for different advancement rates is different benchmarks. What level fighter should be in the same party as a level 1 wizard? A level 5 wizard?A level 10 wizard?

[hymer]

Continuing Oscredwin's line of thought, what happens to multiclass characters? Prestige classes? Gestalt? Is it to be based on tiers?

[Eldariel]

The question for different advancement rates is different benchmarks. What level fighter should be in the same party as a level 1 wizard? A level 5 wizard?A level 10 wizard?

The fundamental issue here is that once a Wizard hits the break point (5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 depending on who you ask and whether the strongest of spells are being deployed), it doesn't matter what level a Fighter is; he won't really have much business adventuring with the Wizard far as scale of contribution goes.

Fighter's scaling after the first ~6 levels or so is largely magic items (on 6 you get the full scale charges, dungeoncrashing & co. into play). Thus, the way a Fighter gets stronger is by getting more wealth, not by gaining more levels (for Wizards the inverse is true). Now, it's certainly true that a level 20 Fighter has more HP, more attacks and does more damage than a level 10 Fighter but those are really not the metrics a Fighter needs to grow in, if trying to contribute in the same way a Wizard does. Indeed, no number of levels solves those discrepancies. As such, you can see the obvious issue with solving Fighter's problems by making them level faster.

[Emperor Tippy]

It really doesn't work. At the levels where fighters are competitive with wizards, doubling the fighters level (or even increasing it that much) will be overpowering. At level 20 though a wizard could solo a level 1,000 fighter that only had level 20 WBL without any problem.

[rmg22893]

One of the primary issues of Fighters, at least in my opinion, is that their damage dice are largely locked in at character creation, due to their need to specialize in one type of weapon. Aside from iterative attacks and damage increasing feats, the only real sources of damage progression they have are strength increases and Power Attack. Meanwhile a caster is going from 1d6 to 2d6 to 3d6 to nd6 at n caster level. I think that a homebrewed feature of the fighter that would allow their weapon's damage dice to naturally progress over leveling would somewhat mitigate the huge gap between casters and fighters.

[Tengu_temp]

This only makes playing a spellcaster more frustrating at low levels, and still keeps them overpowered at high levels. Besides, how do you handle multiclassing?

[Eldariel]

One of the primary issues of Fighters, at least in my opinion, is that their damage dice are largely locked in at character creation, due to their need to specialize in one type of weapon. Aside from iterative attacks and damage increasing feats, the only real sources of damage progression they have are strength increases and Power Attack. Meanwhile a caster is going from 1d6 to 2d6 to 3d6 to nd6 at n caster level. I think that a homebrewed feature of the fighter that would allow their weapon's damage dice to naturally progress over leveling would somewhat mitigate the huge gap between casters and fighters.

Eh, damage isn't really hard to come by on physical types. Iteratives go a huge way and feats cover the rest; you don't really even need magic weapons for damage on the few stronger physical builds. Casters don't really compete in terms of damage either; a caster's Meteor Swarm frankly does less damage (assuming a non-massive number of targets) than a Fighter's autoattack, and consumes a finite resource to boot.

Damage is not the problem in the system (though the combat system could of course use some restructuring, but for quality-of-life, rather than balance reasons; and well, internal balance reasons within physical damage builds).


This only makes playing a spellcaster more frustrating at low levels, and still keeps them overpowered at high levels. Besides, how do you handle multiclassing?

Well, multiclassing is easy; just tie the XP multipliers to the levels themselves (so when you're leveling a level of Wizard you get less XP than if you were leveling a level of Fighter). Doesn't solve the actual problems at hands though.

[nedz]

I've been considering a market based approach to levels for a while, but its hard to calibrate the numbers.
The basic concept is that levels of higher tier classes cost more, because they are worth more.
It can be done but bear in mind that the xp tables are quadratic already.

As for calibration:
What level Wizard is balanced against a 10th level Fighter ?
What level Wizard is balanced against a 15th level Fighter ?
What level Wizard is balanced against a 20th level Fighter ?

I suspect that your wizards are going to be leveling very slowly since the answers to the above questions are going to be about the same.

[Glimbur]

It really doesn't work. At the levels where fighters are competitive with wizards, doubling the fighters level (or even increasing it that much) will be overpowering. At level 20 though a wizard could solo a level 1,000 fighter that only had level 20 WBL without any problem.

To be fair, it is better (though harder) to judge characters by their contribution to the party, rather than by performance in a duel. A level 20 wizard is also better to have in a party than a level 1000 fighter with level 20 WBL, so this is just me being picky.

[Blisstake]

One of the primary issues of Fighters, at least in my opinion, is that their damage dice are largely locked in at character creation, due to their need to specialize in one type of weapon. Aside from iterative attacks and damage increasing feats, the only real sources of damage progression they have are strength increases and Power Attack. Meanwhile a caster is going from 1d6 to 2d6 to 3d6 to nd6 at n caster level. I think that a homebrewed feature of the fighter that would allow their weapon's damage dice to naturally progress over leveling would somewhat mitigate the huge gap between casters and fighters.

Actually, damage is the one area where fighters usually have the advantage (at least against single targets.) Most damage dealing abilities from casters are subject to spell resistance, saving throws, and energy resistance which can leave the damage much lower than it would be in theory.

The problem is the rest of a caster's utility when compared to the fact that fighters can really only do one thing. Personally, I don't think it's as much of a big deal in Pathfinder, since fighters/barbarians/paladins actually are the best at fighting, unlike the times when animal companions and polymorph abilities completely invalidated them.

[Lapak]

I've been considering a market based approach to levels for a while, but its hard to calibrate the numbers.
The basic concept is that levels of higher tier classes cost more, because they are worth more.
It can be done but bear in mind that the xp tables are quadratic already.Thinking about this, the idea of applying the 3e experience formulas to fighters and the 2e experience formulas to casters could be a start. For fighters, the level needed for each experience level increases by a constant amount; for wizards, the experience needed for each experience level doubles.

[nedz]

Thinking about this, the idea of applying the 3e experience formulas to fighters and the 2e experience formulas to casters could be a start. For fighters, the level needed for each experience level increases by a constant amount; for wizards, the experience needed for each experience level doubles.

In 2E the tables were exponential at first, and linear (much) later.

It may help to think about spending XP to buy a level rather than arriving at a pre-determined target.

There is also the issue of multi-classing, which 2E handled quite differently.

Its actually quite hard to work out what the values should be.

[Emperor Tippy]

It really doesn't work. The reason fighters are so much weaker than wizards has nothing to do with feat selection, skill points, saves, attack bonus, ac, or anything else that fighter levels provide. They are weaker because they are so much less versatile.

If you want a melee class that can keep up with the casters longer then gestalt a monk (with the armor restriction on their ac bonus removed), fighter, rogue, Slayer and Elocater (with the manifester level and requirements stripped) together. They still can't compete but they can still contribute and not be a drag on the party.

[nedz]

It really doesn't work. The reason fighters are so much weaker than wizards has nothing to do with feat selection, skill points, saves, attack bonus, ac, or anything else that fighter levels provide. They are weaker because they are so much less focused.

If you want a melee class that can keep up with the casters longer then gestalt a monk (with the armor restriction on their ac bonus removed), fighter, rogue, Slayer and Elocater (with the manifester level and requirements stripped) together. They still can't compete but they can still contribute and not be a drag on the party.

Or sevearly limit the casters, which is what this idea amounts to. Though low level casters aren't overly powerful compared to non-casters.

[Emperor Tippy]

Or sevearly limit the casters, which is what this idea amounts to. Though low level casters aren't overly powerful compared to non-casters.
Severely limiting casters is an incredibly pain. You need to throw out and redesign large swaths of the game.

[Randomguy]

Or sevearly limit the casters, which is what this idea amounts to. Though low level casters aren't overly powerful compared to non-casters.

Really it's limiting spells and spell lists: Beguiler, for example, is pretty balanced. Wizard? not so much.

[Gnorman]

You need to throw out and redesign large swaths of the game.

You say that like that's a bad thing.

[Emperor Tippy]

Really it's limiting spells and spell lists: Beguiler, for example, is pretty balanced. Wizard? not so much.

Beguiler isn't balanced at all. In a PvP sense it is but compared to the monsters it's not. It's either incredibly powerful (enemies aren't immune to mind affecting and/or don't have a True Seeing ability or the like) or almost entirely worthless (enemies are immune to mind affecting and/or do have True Seeing).


You say that like that's a bad thing.
It is. The time investment is immense.

[eggs]

The reason this doesn't work for the Fighter is that all it gets are bigger numbers (and increasing the numbers just makes the parts where the fighter can contribute less interesting).

This could work for the Paladin or Ranger, due to their expanding pools of level-based options and abilities. But increasing their numbers would have the same trouble it would for the Fighter - trivializing the areas where they can contribute. So even where the solution could help to a certain degree, it's a problem better addressed in different ways (the spellcasting's the only thing that really needs modification to keep the classes appropriate).

The Fighter doesn't have the versatility to keep up because it lacks the options to keep up. If you want to fix the Fighter, leave its numbers alone, and give it the tools to play D&D 3.5 - there are plenty of classes that do work that provide easy models.

[Oscredwin]

Beguiler isn't balanced at all. In a PvP sense it is but compared to the monsters it's not. It's either incredibly powerful (enemies aren't immune to mind affecting and/or don't have a True Seeing ability or the like) or almost entirely worthless (enemies are immune to mind affecting and/or do have True Seeing).

Want to nit pick here. People can cast illusions that are out of range of true seeing and capable of effecting the encounter, backup on its way is the obvious one. True seeing only goes out 120', that's far enough for arrows and medium range magic, and charge distance on some very scary things. And honestly, if you have true seeing 120' you're much more likely to believe illusions out 150'.

[Particle_Man]

For what it is worth, I am playing a crusader that was human, reincarnated as a treant, and the DM let me stay as a 12th level crusader (was 13th but, you know, dead), and got the abilities of the treant (But not the racial hit dice) and am still considered a 12th level character for advancement.

My character does not seem to be falling behind the wizard or cleric or bard as far as I can tell.

[navar100]

You say that like that's a bad thing.

It is.


4E

[nedz]

It is. The time investment is immense.

I never said it would be easy, actually I said the opposite.

E6 shows that you don't actually need to add complexity, you just need to work out how to edit what exists.

I'm not sure that fighter is the best example, it is quite dull. But E6 does show that the game is fairly balanced up until that level.

I don't want to turn this into an arguement for E6, I am just using that for comparison.

So maybe all tiers could level equally until about 4th, and then levels of the higher tiers would cost more ?
Calibration beyond this point is where it gets very difficult.

[Emperor Tippy]

I never said it would be easy, actually I said the opposite.

E6 shows that you don't actually need to add complexity, you just need to work out how to edit what exists.

I'm not sure that fighter is the best example, it is quite dull. But E6 does show that the game is fairly balanced up until that level.

I don't want to turn this into an arguement for E6, I am just using that for comparison.
E6 is crap from a game fix perspective, it "solved" the problem by just cutting over two-thirds of the game whole sale.


So maybe all tiers could level equally until about 4th, and then levels of the higher tiers would cost more ?
Calibration beyond this point is where it gets very difficult.
You still seem to be missing the point. Mundane levels don't matter, regardless of the number, in high level play. You could have a million HP, a million AB, a million AC, a million to every save, a million in every skill, and every non supernatural/magical feat in the game and you would still contribute less to the party at level 20 than the wizard does, and the wizard could still kill you with relative ease.

To solve the balance problem you need to make the fighter more versatile. In addition you really should be careful what spells you allow in the game and modify the really broken ones as they appear

[Emperor Tippy]

I never said it would be easy, actually I said the opposite.

E6 shows that you don't actually need to add complexity, you just need to work out how to edit what exists.

I'm not sure that fighter is the best example, it is quite dull. But E6 does show that the game is fairly balanced up until that level.

I don't want to turn this into an arguement for E6, I am just using that for comparison.
E6 is crap from a game fix perspective, it "solved" the problem by just cutting over two-thirds of the game whole sale.


So maybe all tiers could level equally until about 4th, and then levels of the higher tiers would cost more ?
Calibration beyond this point is where it gets very difficult.
You still seem to be missing the point. Mundane levels don't matter, regardless of the number, in high level play. You could have a million HP, a million AB, a million AC, a million to every save, a million in every skill, and every non supernatural/magical feat in the game and you would still contribute less to the party at level 20 than the wizard does, and the wizard could still kill you with relative ease.

To solve the balance problem you need to make the fighter more versatile. In addition you really should be careful what spells you allow in the game and modify the really broken ones as they appear

[nedz]

You still seem to be missing the point. Mundane levels don't matter, regardless of the number, in high level play. You could have a million HP, a million AB, a million AC, a million to every save, a million in every skill, and every non supernatural/magical feat in the game and you would still contribute less to the party at level 20 than the wizard does, and the wizard could still kill you with relative ease.

To solve the balance problem you need to make the fighter more versatile. In addition you really should be careful what spells you allow in the game and modify the really broken ones as they appear

I am not missing the point, far from it.

I am simply trying to explore the balance points, if any.

You seem to be saying that there are none, and that the only fix is to make fighters wizards. You may very well be right.

The ratio you are implying for the relative value of high level fighters against high level wizards is infinite ?

[MukkTB]

E6 is crap from a game fix perspective

E6 is not crap. It identifies a problem some people have and then fixes it for them. Nobody is suggesting everyone switch to E6. D&D RAW works just fine for people who want magic users with PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER. E6 is a variant for the gritty low fantasy types. It succeeds for them.

And to be honest if you want to talk about game fix I feel that you need an entire new system because the ground we're currently standing on is like Swiss cheese.

[willpell]

The quadratic wizard problem ultimately arises from the fact that a wizard simultaneously gains more spells, more powerful spells, and a higher caster level which acts as the variable for all existing spells. A simple solution would be to give a character a fixed number of caster levels, perhaps double the current amount or something inversely scaled by class level (to ameliorate the problem of 1st-level wizards dying to a stiff breeze), which must be plugged into each variable including spells/day and available spell level. This would rapidly cut the wizards down to size; if you got the numbers right they could end up comparable to fighters in power.

[Chained Birds]

Hmm, let's see how it fairs with Wizard on Slow and Fighter on Medium.

5th Level Wizard (23000) VS 6th Level Fighter (23000)
7th Level Wizard (53000) VS 8th Level Fighter (51000)
9th Level Wizard (115000) VS 10th Level Fighter (105000)
11th Level Wizard (235000) VS 12th Level Fighter (220000)
13th Level Wizard (475000) VS 14th Level Fighter (445000)

So just a 1 level difference between the two. Not very major.

Now let's do Wizard on Slow and Fighter on Fast!

5th Level Wizard (23000) VS 7th Level Fighter (23000)
7th Level Wizard (53000) VS 9th Level Fighter (50000)
9th Level Wizard (115000) VS 11th Level Fighter (105000)
11th Level Wizard (235000) VS 13th Level Fighter (210000)
13th Level Wizard (475000) VS 15th Level Fighter (425000)

So now we've got a 2 level difference. I don't see this changing much balance wise.

[Emperor Tippy]

The ratio you are implying for the relative value of high level fighters against high level wizards is infinite ?
Pretty much. Take something relatively simple like flight. Fighters can't get it under their own power and without it they pretty much totally lack the ability to do anything to an entity with flight. Or teleport, if the fighter get's the wizard within attack range then the wizard is promptly a thousand miles away. Then you have force effects, what is the fighters defense against a Forcecage being put around him? Then you have stuff like Foresight+Celerity+Time Stop, which means that the fighter will simply never get to act.

Fighters are great melee damage dealers and tanks. The problem is that that is all that they are. Making them better melee damage dealers and tanks doesn't do anything. They need more varied options and counters to the wizards tricks.

Some of it can be faked with magic items but then you run into the problem that a commoner with the same magic items would be pretty much just as good as the fighter is.


E6 is not crap. It identifies a problem some people have and then fixes it for them. Nobody is suggesting everyone switch to E6. D&D RAW works just fine for people who want magic users with PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER. E6 is a variant for the gritty low fantasy types. It succeeds for them.
From a game fix perspective it is. I never said it wasn't fun or that it wasn't a good system. It's just that any fix to any problem that cuts out 2/3rds of the material and removes about 90% of the options can't be called a good fix.


And to be honest if you want to talk about game fix I feel that you need an entire new system because the ground we're currently standing on is like Swiss cheese.
The underlying system is fine. To fix D&D you need to go through and rewrite specific abilities (usually with minimal tweaks). The problem is that there are thousands of such little tweaks that you have to go and make if you want to solve the balance issues.

Just as one example, in a balanced game it should not be possible to get other classes characters/abilities. Summoning, gate, Ice Assassin, Simulacrum, Shapechange, Illithid Savant, Leadership, Thrallhead, etc. should all be cut or significantly altered. It also should not be possible to get spell casting early; there should be a flat rule that you can't get a 9th level spell slot without having at least 17 HD.

That's just for starters.


The quadratic wizard problem ultimately arises from the fact that a wizard simultaneously gains more spells, more powerful spells, and a higher caster level which acts as the variable for all existing spells. A simple solution would be to give a character a fixed number of caster levels, perhaps double the current amount or something inversely scaled by class level (to ameliorate the problem of 1st-level wizards dying to a stiff breeze), which must be plugged into each variable including spells/day and available spell level. This would rapidly cut the wizards down to size; if you got the numbers right they could end up comparable to fighters in power.

No, it pretty much solely comes from exponentially increasing versatility. You will note that what makes all of the traditionally considered broken spells so broken is how much versatility they offer. Shapechange is an excellent example, as is Ice Assassin, as is Time Stop (you get 5 choices instead of 1, 10 when combined with Shapechange), as is Gate, as is Wish.

[Callum]

There are some interesting responses here - thanks. What I was really trying to get at was that it might be possible to use differing experience point requirements to ameliorate the imbalance between different classes as levels are gained. Levelling was excluded from the original SRD, but has now been included in the PRD, thus opening this option up for discussion.

However, I was wondering if something finer-grained could be achieved using XP, which could also be applied across all classes (not just fighters versus wizards). It wouldn't offer a complete solution - you'd still have to change or remove some of the high-level spells, for example - but it might help somewhat, at least up to middling levels.