Pathfinder - Class balance

[Balor01]

So ... I'm thinking of making Pathfinder classes semi-balanced for my campaign. I'd appreciate Playgrounds opinion on it.

These classes get only 1/2 levels in respect to other. When Fighter is lvl 20, these classes are lvl 10 and can not go further.
Sorcerer
Wizard
Cleric
Druid

Normal advancement up to level 18.

Barbarian
Bard
Paladin
Rogue
Ranger

These two classes get max hp every round and get +2 levels over other party members. This bonus remains at all times up to level 20.

Fighter
Monk

[Kudaku]

When would the +2 level for monks and fighters kick in? Is it a +2 to level cap, or would a fighter start at level 3 when the other classes are level 1?

[Balor01]

When would the +2 level for monks and fighters kick in? Is it a +2 to level cap, or would a fighter start at level 3 when the other classes are level 1?

Yes. This bonus would be party-level-dependant. If party started at lvl 6, this would mean that tier 1s are lvl 3, others are lvl 6 and monks and fighters are lvl 8.

[iDesu]

Wouldn't this make the bard a better sorcerer than the sorcerer? The bard would be level 16 when the sorcerer is level 8, right? So the bard gains access to sixth level spells when the sorcerer finally gains access to fourth level spells. I'm not quite sure on how the leveling up would go, but it looks like the bard would always have more powerful spells than the sorcerer.

[Balor01]

I was also thinking of 2/3 levels approach. When Bard is lvl 15, Sorcerer is lvl 10. Pehaps level cap for tier 1s would be then set at 13. "Tier 2s" are capped at 18 and 1s at 13.

[watchwood]

Eh, it's really not a great way to do it.

If you really want to balance out casting classes that way, just use different experience charts for them. See the slow/medium/fast progression charts on the srd.

[eggynack]

Wouldn't this make the bard a better sorcerer than the sorcerer? The bard would be level 16 when the sorcerer is level 8, right? So the bard gains access to sixth level spells when the sorcerer finally gains access to fourth level spells. I'm not quite sure on how the leveling up would go, but it looks like the bard would always have more powerful spells than the sorcerer.
That's what I was thinking too. The sorcerer gets a better list, so that might even things out, but half progression seems like a bit too much. I've seen a fix that maxed them at 6th level spells, which is probably better for this, so that might be worth considering. As is, why put casters in the game at all if you're just going down the crazy nerf route? I'd probably just ban them, and any other class that doesn't fit the game's power level, and move on with my life. That might just be a me thing though.

[Balor01]

So fast advancement for tier 3s, medium for 2s and slow for 1s?

[Drachasor]

I say thee, NAY!

This is not the way to do it at all. It leaves a huge mess. How do you overcome spell resistance? Hit Points are all out of whack! Etc, etc, etc.

Just ban classes or have them require to take levels in other classes -- let them use their full character level as their Caster Level. So for every level a Wizard gains as a Wizard, they must take a level in another class (but other casting classes are fine). With Bards you might say for every two levels they must do this...I guess.

Or allow normal advancement, but elimnate 6th+ level spells (but not spell slots). This is not perfect, but still a better quick-fix.

Edit: Though in actual fact, I'd favor going with a Tier-3 solution. That sorts out the problem fairly well.

[Beardbarian]

Or just balance the party?
Seriously, you want to penalize a player that want to be a cleric/wizard/druid just because the system is bad balanced?

[Balor01]

I say thee, NAY!
Just ban classes or have them require to take levels in other classes -- let them use their full character level as their Caster Level. So for every level a Wizard gains as a Wizard, they must take a level in another class (but other casting classes are fine). With Bards you might say for every two levels they must do this...I guess.
Do multiclass penalties apply here? And what if he is taking wizard/cleric combo for an example?


Or allow normal advancement, but elimnate 6th+ level spells (but not spell slots). This is not perfect, but still a better quick-fix.

This is utterly useless in below lvl 10 games. Tier 1 casters need to be nerfed hard from the start.

@Beardbarian
Go cry over not being able to minmax/break stuff somewhere else.

[Kudaku]

Yes. This bonus would be party-level-dependant. If party started at lvl 6, this would mean that tier 1s are lvl 3, others are lvl 6 and monks and fighters are lvl 8.

So... If a party starts out at level 1 I could choose between playing a first level barbarian or a 3rd level fighter with maxed out HP each level?

I get what you're trying to do, but I don't think you're going about it the right way.

The fighter's problem is that he's a hammer. He's not bad at beating nails, but he struggles when there is a problem that doesn't need to be beaten in.
A wizard, on the other hand, is a toolbox. Given preparation time and a clever player, he can find a solution to most problems.

Adding levels to the fighter means he becomes a bigger hammer, but he's still a hammer - the solution isn't to give him level increases but to give him abilities that allow him to remain relevant outside of combat.


@Beardbarian
Go cry over not being able to minmax/break stuff somewhere else.

I think you lost the right to tell people to get lost when you posted a thread on a public forum asking for opinions. Beardbarian raises a valid point.

[Drachasor]

Do multiclass penalties apply here? And what if he is taking wizard/cleric combo for an example?

Multiclass penalties in the sense of the +1hp or +1 skill point? I'd say anyone can get a partial progression class for free as favored.

I don't see a Cleric 10/Wizard 10, even with Caster level 20 in both classes, as being overpowered at 20th level.


This is utterly useless in below lvl 10 games. Tier 1 casters need to be nerfed hard from the start.

I wouldn't say most people would think a 2nd level caster overpowers other 2nd level classes, generally speaking. And not at 3rd either. If you think differently, please share why.

Granted things would get more difficult between 5th and 10th level with this. You could possibly move 4th level spells to 5th level spells and 5th level spells to 7th level spells. There'd be no natural 4th or 6th level spells then, just empty slots. That would slow things down a good bit.

Though like I said, I'd sooner advise modifying classes like the Dread Necromancer, the Tome of Battle Classes, the Beguiler, and other Tier 3 classes to use. If you want to use Tier 4 and 5, let them Gestalt with NPC classes or some such.

Though this might be easier if you gave some detail on the major problems you see with class balance. In particular on how it interferes with your game.

[Perseus]

So ... I'm thinking of making Pathfinder classes semi-balanced for my campaign. I'd appreciate Playgrounds opinion on it.

These classes get only 1/2 levels in respect to other. When Fighter is lvl 20, these classes are lvl 10 and can not go further.
Sorcerer
Wizard
Cleric
Druid

Normal advancement up to level 18.

Barbarian
Bard
Paladin
Rogue
Ranger

These two classes get max hp every round and get +2 levels over other party members. This bonus remains at all times up to level 20.

Fighter
Monk

I'm throwing my hat into the ring of E6. It balances stuff out pretty well without a ton of rule changes.

Edit: E6 may be be default a D&D rule change but it works just as well with Pathfinder.

[Balor01]

@Drachasor
Well it depends A LOT on the players. But I do tend to DM for a very optimized players.

Lvl2 wizard has access to lvl 1 and 2 spells. Lets look just at core: Grease, Sleep, Cause Fear, Enlarge Person and for an example lvl 2 Glitterdust are all encounter-deciding spells. Not to mention illusions. Illusions re-direct enemy fire, elude and hamper NPCs in a way it is almost brootal.

While melee just smashes, more or less. And the thing is I always have players who want to play monk/ranger/fighter, so I'd prefer to balance these out a bit.


I don't see a Cleric 10/Wizard 10, even with Caster level 20 in both classes, as being overpowered at 20th level.

Well then you never played with optimized AND smart players.

Take for an example tarrasque meeting a party with lvl 2 spells. They just cast minor image and lure the badass death machine away, no problem. That is, if you play fair as a GM. Setting them in a wice "hurr durr, Mr. T. will now stomp the city" or "there is no exit from the walley, covered in force walls at the top", "I gave him Blindsight just for LuLz" ... I just do not do that.

@Perseus
Eeeh in E6 casters are still utter badasses and poor monk still a sucky.

[Kudaku]

I'd say that depends on the monk and the build. For instance Tetori, Martial Artist and Quinggong all help out a great deal.

[Drachasor]

@Drachasor
Well it depends A LOT on the players. But I do tend to DM for a very optimized players.

Lvl2 wizard has access to lvl 1 and 2 spells. Lets look just at core: Grease, Sleep, Cause Fear, Enlarge Person and for an example lvl 2 Glitterdust are all encounter-deciding spells. Not to mention illusions. Illusions re-direct enemy fire, elude and hamper NPCs in a way it is almost brootal.

You need to be level 3 before you get 2nd level spells. Enlarge person is a nice buff, but I wouldn't call it "encounter-deciding". Sleep and other control spells usually are bigger factors. That said, they are quite limited at how often they can do this and saves mitigate this to an extent.

This sorts itself out quite well if you toss a few encounters at them, realistically split up enemies, etc.


While melee just smashes, more or less. And the thing is I always have players who want to play monk/ranger/fighter, so I'd prefer to balance these out a bit.

Trying to bring things down to the level of the Monk is going to be nigh-impossible. Do the players who play these classes dislike the Tome of Battle?


Take for an example tarrasque meeting a party with lvl 2 spells. They just cast minor image and lure the badass death machine away, no problem. That is, if you play fair as a GM. Setting them in a wice "hurr durr, Mr. T. will now stomp the city" or "there is no exit from the walley, covered in force walls at the top", "I gave him Blindsight just for LuLz" ... I just do not do that.

Given the Tarrasque's desire to consume consume consume, I do not see how this would work for more than a couple minutes MAX and probably less than that. That's assuming it never manages to rush it -- at which point one has to wonder how it doesn't notice the party.

[Perseus]

@Drachasor
Well it depends A LOT on the players. But I do tend to DM for a very optimized players.

Lvl2 wizard has access to lvl 1 and 2 spells. Lets look just at core: Grease, Sleep, Cause Fear, Enlarge Person and for an example lvl 2 Glitterdust are all encounter-deciding spells. Not to mention illusions. Illusions re-direct enemy fire, elude and hamper NPCs in a way it is almost brootal.

While melee just smashes, more or less. And the thing is I always have players who want to play monk/ranger/fighter, so I'd prefer to balance these out a bit.



Well then you never played with optimized AND smart players.

Take for an example tarrasque meeting a party with lvl 2 spells. They just cast minor image and lure the badass death machine away, no problem. That is, if you play fair as a GM. Setting them in a wice "hurr durr, Mr. T. will now stomp the city" or "there is no exit from the walley, covered in force walls at the top", "I gave him Blindsight just for LuLz" ... I just do not do that.

@Perseus
Eeeh in E6 casters are still utter badasses and poor monk still a sucky.

About E6...

Not really. The casters don't get into the broken spells (level 4 and above) and the mundanes stay relevant. Sure they have level 3 spells but not a crazy amount of them per day. Plus BAB is very very important (the way that 3.5 developers thought it was in their game... but after a certain level..err 7 it wasn't anymore) in the game, a level 6 Fighter is a threat to everything (including casters) in the game that is level 6 or below. Casters have nice spells but they can't do all the broken or crazy things with them.

Most people think balance is wizard vs. fighter. This isn't really the case though.

The balance problems with D&D/PF come from the fact that there are classes (example: Fighter) who just can't keep up with the game itself. The Fighter is broken in a bad way because he stops being useful at a level in which the game as a whole is just really winding up to get seriously started (7th level) while the casting classes (example: wizards) grows exponentially better and better (level 4's are a huge power boost) to the point they eclipse the game itself.

Casters are good at low level, hell with unlimited cantrips they can go all day long. But casters aren't the real champions of the low levels, mundanes tend to win out depending on how high the TO and Cheese is allowed.

Mundanes are good at low level, they are a threat to anything within their challenge rating though sometimes they won't have the necessary abilities to take that threat down... They can at least help the party in some way without being a movable block of meat and bones.

The Monk is good up till level 6, in 3.5/PF the usually dipping is 1, 2, 4, or 6 depending on the build. In Pathfinder the Monk gets to make his maneuvers along with his flurry of blows use a full BAB (why not just give him full BAB at this point? sigh). The Monk isn't really all that sucky at low levels.

Balance between the classes is well.. mostly balanced, a fighter is scared of the wizard, who is in turn scared of the fighter.

Balance between the game and the classes is well... mostly balanced, the PCs may have to run every so often but that is more placing reality into the game than a balance issue. (edit: also if you listen to WotC on what to throw at parties, well you will have a TPK unless high optimization is going on in your group).

Also the DM doesn't really have to worry about rocket tag.

I'm not saying "omg you better do this" but what I'm saying is that if you want to play a balanced D&D game (or houseruled version as is Pathfinder... Wonder if I should start calling is officebrewed since it is homebrew made in an office...) the the easiest and most direct way to do this is to use the E6 rules.

===

Edit:

On big T: Technically Big T has a pretty good wisdom score, after the first image spell I think it will realize that the meal keeps tricking it with the same ability over and over and then just eat the party. Also from the d20pfsrd....

"Although far from intelligent, the tarrasque is smart enough to understand a few words in Aklo (though it cannot speak). Likewise, it isn't mindless in its rampages, but instead focuses on targets that threaten it, and is difficult to distract with trickery."

Bolded by me.

[Psyren]

If you truly care about balance above all else, Pathfinder isn't really the system for you.

Having said that, there are certain ways to capture the feel of T1 classes without leaving T3. For example, instead of "Wizard/Witch" you could have a Hexcrafter Staff Magus as the only choice for primary Int caster. Instead of Sorcerer, you could have a Magician Sound Striker Bard as the only choice for Cha caster. Instead of Cleric, you could have a Preacher Inquisitor, and so on. The PF Ranger can be enhanced with the Mystic Ranger abilities from 3.5 to make a "druid" and so on.

[Sylthia]

@Drachasor
Well it depends A LOT on the players. But I do tend to DM for a very optimized players.

Lvl2 wizard has access to lvl 1 and 2 spells. Lets look just at core: Grease, Sleep, Cause Fear, Enlarge Person and for an example lvl 2 Glitterdust are all encounter-deciding spells. Not to mention illusions. Illusions re-direct enemy fire, elude and hamper NPCs in a way it is almost brootal.

While melee just smashes, more or less. And the thing is I always have players who want to play monk/ranger/fighter, so I'd prefer to balance these out a bit.



Well then you never played with optimized AND smart players.

Take for an example tarrasque meeting a party with lvl 2 spells. They just cast minor image and lure the badass death machine away, no problem. That is, if you play fair as a GM. Setting them in a wice "hurr durr, Mr. T. will now stomp the city" or "there is no exit from the walley, covered in force walls at the top", "I gave him Blindsight just for LuLz" ... I just do not do that.

@Perseus
Eeeh in E6 casters are still utter badasses and poor monk still a sucky.

Sleep requires a save in PF, so it's not the encounter ender it used to be. Grease is best in enclosed spaces, and is not as great out in the open. Also if you are doing 3-6 encounters per day, low level wizards won't be able to spam these spells since endless scrolls and wands are a bit expensive yet.

[Karnith]

Sleep requires a save in PF, so it's not the encounter ender it used to be.
For the record, it allowed a save in 3.5. PF kept the Sleep spell intact, as best I can tell.

[eggynack]

Sleep requires a save in PF, so it's not the encounter ender it used to be.
Sleep in 3.5 requires a save as well. In fact, the two spells appear identical. The reason the spell is touted so much is that it's basically a save or die that you can cast at first level. The one round casting time can be problematic, but that issue is mitigated by the spell's medium range. That's actually the main reason why people still talk about sleep despite color spray being right there. Color spray is a standard action, can hit any number of creatures in its area, and scales far better than sleep does. The only downside is that you have to stand fifteen feet from your enemies, and that can make all the difference. The point of all of this jabbering is that sleep is just as much of a campaign ender in PF as it is in 3.5, unless I'm missing some crucial component of the PF version.

[Jormengand]

Tier 1 casters need to be nerfed hard from the start.

Make any wizard you like at first level and my generic greatsword-using fighter will utterly destroy you, potentially in one hit. Up to about level 3-5, the tier system is flipped end-to-end because fighters can do things and wizards can't. What you need is for casters to get a boost in the first 2-3 levels and then a nerf for pretty much the rest of the game. That's the thing about wizards; they are amazing, cosmos-shattering blobs of awesome, so long as they can survive being utterly terrible for several levels at the start.

[iDesu]

Make any wizard you like at first level and my generic greatsword-using fighter will utterly destroy you, potentially in one hit.

Hummingbird familiar with easy metamagic, fell drain, and scribe scroll swapped out for improved initiative? Not that this is a good build, you'll just come back as a wight within the next day. Still not too bad because this trick is very focused, counted by quite a few creatures, and really not that helpful against creatures with multiple HD. The best bet would still be along the lines of spells like color spray.

[Karnith]

Make any wizard you like at first level and my generic greatsword-using fighter will utterly destroy you, potentially in one hit.
Human specialist conjurer (abrupt jaunt variant) wizard 1, with the Fell Drain and Easy Metamagic (Fell Drain) feats, and trading out Scribe Scroll for Improved Initiative with the Martial Wizard variant. Fell Drain Sonic Sonic Snap is, for this guy, a level 1 spell that bestows a negative level, no-save, no attack roll. It's an insta-kill against first-level characters. Abrupt Jaunt means that he dodges hits until you die.

EDIT: Swordsage'd.

But, more importantly, PvP discussions aren't really relevant to a class's worth, because 1-on-1 combat situations aren't very common in campaigns. Wizards bring power to the table (e.g. Sleep, Color Spray) as well as utility (e.g. Charm Person, Disguise Self, Silent Image) starting at level 1. They're far from terrible at low levels.

[Jormengand]

Hummingbird familiar with easy metamagic, fell drain, and scribe scroll swapped out for improved initiative? Not that this is a good build, you'll just come back as a wight within the next day. Still not too bad because this trick is very focused, counted by quite a few creatures, and really not that helpful against creatures with multiple HD. The best bet would still be along the lines of spells like color spray.

Still, even optimising through the roof (and bearing in mind I have little idea what half of that does) it pretty much comes down to the initiative roll.

[Karnith]

Still, even optimising through the roof (and bearing in mind I have little idea what half of that does) it pretty much comes down to the initiative roll.
Just like every level 1 fight. But the Wizard has the edge. Between Improved Initiative and a Hummingbird familiar he has a bonus of +(8 plus Dex modifier) to initiative checks.

EDIT: As noted below, this is a 3.5/3.P build, of course. But in both 3.5 and PF, 1-on-1 combat performance is meaningless when it comes to actual adventuring competence, and wizards have a number of ways to contributing both in combat and out starting at level 1.

[Sylthia]

Sleep in 3.5 requires a save as well. In fact, the two spells appear identical. The reason the spell is touted so much is that it's basically a save or die that you can cast at first level. The one round casting time can be problematic, but that issue is mitigated by the spell's medium range. That's actually the main reason why people still talk about sleep despite color spray being right there. Color spray is a standard action, can hit any number of creatures in its area, and scales far better than sleep does. The only downside is that you have to stand fifteen feet from your enemies, and that can make all the difference. The point of all of this jabbering is that sleep is just as much of a campaign ender in PF as it is in 3.5, unless I'm missing some crucial component of the PF version.

My mistake, I haven't played 3.5 for a while, but in my experiences with PF it is not the gamebreaker people make it out to be. With a wizard with 18 Int, it's a Will DC 15, so against a Wis 10 enemy with a poor Will save it works 70% of the time and much less often against anyone else. If the party has at least 3-4 encounters per day, that pretty much represents the wizard's entire contribution to the fight.

[Erik Vale]

Human specialist conjurer (abrupt jaunt variant) wizard 1, with the Fell Drain and Easy Metamagic (Fell Drain) feats, and trading out Scribe Scroll for Improved Initiative with the Martial Wizard variant. Fell Drain Sonic Sonic Snap is, for this guy, a level 1 spell that bestows a negative level, no-save, no attack roll. It's an insta-kill against first-level characters. Abrupt Jaunt means that he dodges hits until you die.

EDIT: Swordsage'd.

But, more importantly, PvP discussions aren't really relevant to a class's worth, because 1-on-1 combat situations aren't very common in campaigns. Wizards bring power to the table (Sleep, Color Spray) as well as utility (Charm Person, Disguise Self, Silent Image) starting at level 1. They're far from terrible at low levels.


Before this devolves into a 3.5 discussion, note the pathfinder tag on the top. It's bad enough some threads aren't noted so sometimes it'll take a few posts to tell if it's PF or 3.5 but there is really no excuse.

However, on the broken call, I present a Strix wizard with Metamagic Mastery [Acid Splash], Reach Spell [for said splash], eventually crafting wand's and crafting new wands from half used wands [or more than, with Hedge Mage or Spark of Creation].

To be countered by any full BaB build with a Bow with the Distance Enchantment [Or at lower levels a composite bow and Flight/Iron Tipped Distance arrows for 1 range incriment,or just take the range penalty to do more damage than the mage.] until level 5 where wands enter play, which the DM can stop hard by noting the 'You shouldn't allow recharging of wands' in the item creation section.

Another Wizard is a gamebreaker note is using Sarmasan [spelling might be wrong] to get Early Planar binding for Noble Efreeti/Viziars.

[eggynack]

Make any wizard you like at first level and my generic greatsword-using fighter will utterly destroy you, potentially in one hit. Up to about level 3-5, the tier system is flipped end-to-end because fighters can do things and wizards can't. What you need is for casters to get a boost in the first 2-3 levels and then a nerf for pretty much the rest of the game. That's the thing about wizards; they are amazing, cosmos-shattering blobs of awesome, so long as they can survive being utterly terrible for several levels at the start.
This is inaccurate. Other people have pointed out ways to get a wizard to win in this arena fight, so I won't even start. However, as Karnith mentioned, the tier system has absolutely nothing to do with PvP. Even at first level, the fighter is still fighting monsters, while the wizard is fighting encounters. While the fighter is slashing away at goblins one at a time, the wizard can just color spray them all at once, or set up a silent image to get them to leave, or anything really. Wizards have options. Granted, the tier system isn't quite so pronounced at levels one through five, but it still exists, and the fighter is achieving parity at best.

Meanwhile, the idea that casters are fragile is mostly just true for wizards. It's not even true for wizards, because abrupt jaunt makes the wizard one of the classes that's able to endure the most at first level, but that's getting away from the point a little. Instead of looking at wizards, how about we look at druids. Between the animal companion, and their surprisingly good chassis, I'd argue that the druid is actually better built for enduring punishment than a fighter. Riding dogs are crazy tanks at first level, and a good mix of first level BFC (entangle, spore field, and impeding stones, depending on preference. They're all pretty great) can stop encounters in their tracks.

With that said, let me leave you with this: in the right hands, a wizard is never terrible. They're not terrible at first level, and they're the opposite of terrible at level twenty. There's never a point in their entire careers where you need to give them a buff, because even if they're not the best class in the game at first level, they're far from the worst. If any plan you make towards balancing the game involves buffing wizards, that's a plan that you should scrap immediately, because wizards are crazy. Seriously, they get prestidigitation as a 0th level spell, and that spell is fantastic. If your game is purely made of combat, the fighter probably won't feel a tier difference until somewhere between level two and five. However, if you have a campaign with anything else in it, that anything else is a thing that the fighter's class features have virtually nothing to contribute to. Meanwhile, there's always a spell. Always.

Edit: I'm talking about 3.5, not out of some kind of confusion, but because that's the game with the tier system. Pathfinder doesn't have a single, community accepted, tier system, so if you're talking about tiers flipping around, you're talking about 3.5. Still, most of this stuff is applicable to PF, even if not all of it is.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Jormengand's point remains that a Pathfinder wizard gets, at most, six[1] spell slots, but a much more reasonable number is three[2]. After that, they're down to Acid Splash or a heavy crossbow. Sure, a super high-op controller can end six encounters a day, but what about a normal, mid-op wizard who thinks Magic Missile is totally the way to go? Every single one of fighter's attacks average[3] more damage than a magic-missile spamming Wizard will do in the entire day[4], even if all he's doing is power attacking with a greatsword. If you give a first-level fighter two free levels, then that's just widening the gap. I'm not contesting that wizards are earth-shattering demigods at high levels, but without the use of a few very specific battlefield control spells they're very weak at low levels.

Calculations:
[1]1 base, 2 from 20 INT, 1 from specialization, and two from the sin mage specialist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/arcane-schools/paizo---arcane-schools/classic-arcane-schools/thassilonian-specialist), which requires removing two schools not of your choice completely from your spell list.

[2]1 base, 1 from INT anywhere between 11 and 20, and 1 from specialization.

[3]2d6 greatsword (averages 7) + 3 power attack + 6 from 18 STR = 16 damage per hit.

[4]3 missiles times a max of 5 (1d4+1) damage per missile equals 15 damage total.

Regardless, if you want a balanced 3.X game, the answer is right here on the homebrew section of these boards: Play Epic 6. It's a system in which levels only go up to 6, and then every time one would gain half a level after that, you gain a feat instead. Casters get third-level spells, and almost all have to specialize.

There are two E6 compendiums: Rizban's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273643) and Gnorman's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250820). Personally, I prefer Gnorman's, but they both do a lot for game balance without changing the game too much.

[Person_Man]

Earlier editions of D&D did something similar, where different classes required varying levels of xp to gain each level. It was a mess. I would highly suggest avoiding it. If you want balance that badly, just white list classes from the Tiers allowed.

[genesaika]

I haven't played past level 12 in a long time, but I don't understand the issue here. If your casters are op why doesn't the dm adjust the encounters to counter that? Throw more high will monsters, design encounters that stop or weaken magic?

Let's say your group is going to fight a bandit group whose base is in a ruined stronghold. This bandit leader is superstitious so he has enslaved a group of casters and locked them in the basement, forcing them to keep an anti magic field around the base.

This little adventure makes all that op magic useless, makes your mundanes shine, and gives a good reason for it.

If your casters have a problem with you giving them hard challenges or working against their casting, tough luck they can get over it and if not I wouldn't want them at my table.

This is a game about having fun and As dm it's your job to make sure that it is. If someone can't handle not being demigod like, they don't need to be there.

Just recently I made a few simple encounters with adepts and warriors, my casters were almost useless against the adepts because of the will saves so my ranger was the only person who could really kill them. Simple, not out of place, effective.

So why exactly isn't the dm doing their job? I don't know maybe I'm wrong.

Also, isn't most of this game played at low to mid levels? There are no npcs that should be over level 18 really, and those are like archmages. Why are we passing judgment on issues based on a small part of the game?

[Psyren]

Let's say your group is going to fight a bandit group whose base is in a ruined stronghold. This bandit leader is superstitious so he has enslaved a group of casters and locked them in the basement, forcing them to keep an anti magic field around the base.

This little adventure makes all that op magic useless, makes your mundanes shine, and gives a good reason for it.

This is bad in the other direction - now the casters are completely useless and their players have nothing better to do but play xbox until this particular encounter is over. It hurts the mundanes too, as now they have to leave the base to heal, lose all their buffs etc.



Just recently I made a few simple encounters with adepts and warriors, my casters were almost useless against the adepts because of the will saves so my ranger was the only person who could really kill them. Simple, not out of place, effective.

Did your casters use spells that targeted other saves? Or spells that don't require a save at all? Stacking the deck with high-will enemies isn't much of a solution if your casters change tactics - and they will eventually, if one strategy routinely proves to be ineffective.

[genesaika]

This is bad in the other direction - now the casters are completely useless and their players have nothing better to do but play xbox until this particular encounter is over. It hurts the mundanes too, as now they have to leave the base to heal, lose all their buffs etc.



Did your casters use spells that targeted other saves? Or spells that don't require a save at all? Stacking the deck with high-will enemies isn't much of a solution if your casters change tactics - and they will eventually, if one strategy routinely proves to be ineffective.

Why aren't your casters attempting to work around the problem?

You simply keep up with them.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying every combat should be will heavy enemies. Just that you should be giving them a diverse assortment of things to fight hand encounters so that your group doesn't feel like without magic they are useless.

[genesaika]

@Psyren
Also, your arcane casters are genius level people and your divine casters are extremely good looking and good talkers.

You are telling me that by taking away their magic these people have nothing left that they can do? Why can't they think outside the combat stats? Maybe your party finds some bandits in a hall and the wizard throws down some marbles then makes some noise getting those bandits to come check it out. When they fall the party jumps out and kills them. Or your cleric decides to make friends. Maybe they take the clothes of those bandits they killed and use them As disguises.

If your players are useless without combat stats something is wrong.

[Perseus]

@Psyren
Also, your arcane casters are genius level people and your divine casters are extremely good looking and good talkers.

You are telling me that by taking away their magic these people have nothing left that they can do? Why can't they think outside the combat stats? Maybe your party finds some bandits in a hall and the wizard throws down some marbles then makes some noise getting those bandits to come check it out. When they fall the party jumps out and kills them. Or your cleric decides to make friends. Maybe they take the clothes of those bandits they killed and use them As disguises.

If your players are useless without combat stats something is wrong.

You do realize that these combat stats are actually character stats and that they indeed define what a PC should be able to do? By going outside these stats you are either metagaming or horrid at roleplaying.

I was recently playing a 6 wis 6 int 6 cha character... I couldn't do it cause I kept coming up with awesome plans and such. I needed to change my character because I couldn't roleplay my character even if that character was an uber charger awesome express of death

Roll playing and roleplaying are both based around your attributes. Also D&D is primarily a fighting game with a social rules tacked on. If you take the combat out of the game then you should really get a better system for social interaction.

Also look at the disguise rules and let me know how well a non cha based character will be... The answer is not very... Unless the DM is being super nice and unrealistic. The game isn't made for characters to go outside their ability scores or area of expertise.

But hey my DM tends to go with RAW than fudging everything.

[genesaika]

You do realize that these combat stats are actually character stats and that they indeed define what a PC should be able to do? By going outside these stats you are either metagaming or horrid at roleplaying.

I was recently playing a 6 wis 6 int 6 cha character... I couldn't do it cause I kept coming up with awesome plans and such. I needed to change my character because I couldn't roleplay my character even if that character was an uber charger awesome express of death

Roll playing and roleplaying are both based around your attributes. Also D&D is primarily a fighting game with a social rules tacked on. If you take the combat out of the game then you should really get a better system for social interaction.

Also look at the disguise rules and let me know how well a non cha based character will be... The answer is not very... Unless the DM is being super nice and unrealistic. The game isn't made for characters to go outside their ability scores or area of expertise.

But hey my DM tends to go with RAW than fudging everything.

By combat stats I'm mostly talking about offense, defense, and spells. I'm considering skills non combat for the most part.

And yes I do realize that disguise is based on charisma, I had made the assumption people would also realize that. I wasn't give catch all examples, but examples of what different characters might do.

Edit: also separating the stat block was my attempt at avoiding comments like yours, but I guess you can't avoid it

[Big Fau]

Let's say your group is going to fight a bandit group whose base is in a ruined stronghold. This bandit leader is superstitious so he has enslaved a group of casters and locked them in the basement, forcing them to keep an anti magic field around the base.

Problem: Any casters capable of casting Anti-Magic Field are of high enough level to cast Dimension Door, Teleport, Plane Shift, and several other teleportation effects. Any casters capable of blanketing an entire base are likely well into the Epic levels, and thus capable of combating deities. Even in Pathfinder. Paizo did virtually nothing to high-level magic, so your little bandit leader would need to be a spellcaster of equal or greater power to do what you described. Which means he is capable of soloing the entire party by virtue of being a spellcaster of immense power.

The problem with spellcasting at almost every level (beyond 5th, and even then) is that the answer to it is almost always another Voodoo Shark. Noncasters just can't solve the same problems spellcasters can.

[genesaika]

Problem: Any casters capable of casting Anti-Magic Field are of high enough level to cast Dimension Door, Teleport, Plane Shift, and several other teleportation effects. Any casters capable of blanketing an entire base are likely well into the Epic levels, and thus capable of combating deities. Even in Pathfinder. Paizo did virtually nothing to high-level magic, so your little bandit leader would need to be a spellcaster of equal or greater power to do what you described. Which means he is capable of soloing the entire party by virtue of being a spellcaster of immense power.

The problem with spellcasting at almost every level (beyond 5th, and even then) is that the answer to it is almost always another Voodoo Shark. Noncasters just can't solve the same problems spellcasters can.

It was something I came up with on the spot without double checking the rules. Maybe it's an item, or this base was once the center of a great kingdom.

[Big Fau]

It was something I came up with on the spot without double checking the rules. Maybe it's an item, or this base was once the center of a great kingdom.

An item of antimagic field is a paradox. And the base's history has very little to do with it being blanketed by an AMF (if you'd go that far, just call it a dead magic region and leave it at that).

It still doesn't solve the problem, and it creates new ones in the process (spellcasters actually have a way of dealing with AMFs/DMZs, but noncasters lose so much power that they won't stand a chance against bog-standard MM beatsticks). Hence the Voodoo Shark. Fact is that casters are just better at everything. A 3rd level Wizard can tank better than the Fighter can for an entire dungeon, assuming the players don't spend more than 30 minutes looting the body/searching for traps. A 10th level Cleric is nigh unkillable by comparison to a 10th level Fighter, and a 20th level Druid is an entire adventuring party in one class.

[eggynack]

I haven't played past level 12 in a long time, but I don't understand the issue here. If your casters are op why doesn't the dm adjust the encounters to counter that? Throw more high will monsters, design encounters that stop or weaken magic?

Let's say your group is going to fight a bandit group whose base is in a ruined stronghold. This bandit leader is superstitious so he has enslaved a group of casters and locked them in the basement, forcing them to keep an anti magic field around the base.

This little adventure makes all that op magic useless, makes your mundanes shine, and gives a good reason for it.

If your casters have a problem with you giving them hard challenges or working against their casting, tough luck they can get over it and if not I wouldn't want them at my table.

This is a game about having fun and As dm it's your job to make sure that it is. If someone can't handle not being demigod like, they don't need to be there.

Just recently I made a few simple encounters with adepts and warriors, my casters were almost useless against the adepts because of the will saves so my ranger was the only person who could really kill them. Simple, not out of place, effective.

So why exactly isn't the dm doing their job? I don't know maybe I'm wrong.

Also, isn't most of this game played at low to mid levels? There are no npcs that should be over level 18 really, and those are like archmages. Why are we passing judgment on issues based on a small part of the game?
I'm just going to respond to this post, and say that it represents all of your posts. Such is the way of the world. First of all, enemies with a high will save aren't going to stop most wizards. I suppose it stopped your wizards, so hooray for you, but a good amount of the time you're casting spells that always work. There's a surprising amount of them, especially in conjuration and transmutation. If a wizard is preparing nothing but will save or lose spells, that's just not a smart move.

Second of all, as has been noted, base spanning AMF's aren't a thing. They're not a thing in spell form, and they're not a thing in item form, so you're basically down to epic magic of some kind. Actual AMF's, which work as an emanation from the caster with a ten foot radius, don't actually do that much to stop wizards. There are a decent number of spells that just work, whether you're dealing with an AMF or not. The orb of x line is particularly notable, but just about any instantaneous conjuration is going to work out, and those tend to be great.

Third of all, as I've mentioned, wizards don't start being great at high level. The general consensus is that they start outshining the fighter at somewhere from level two to five. There really isn't much that can challenge a wizard that won't also completely crush a fighter. It's just the way the game works. A base wide AMF won't even hit a druid all that hard, given that he can still rock the bear having part of his class features. Bears are sweet before items, so bringing the other melee guys down to mundane items can put the druid in a decent situation. You're basically getting to a point of parity, rather than a point of overturning, and that parity stops existing the second you decide to actually let the casters play the game.

[Psyren]

@Psyren
Also, your arcane casters are genius level people and your divine casters are extremely good looking and good talkers.

You are telling me that by taking away their magic these people have nothing left that they can do? Why can't they think outside the combat stats? Maybe your party finds some bandits in a hall and the wizard throws down some marbles then makes some noise getting those bandits to come check it out. When they fall the party jumps out and kills them. Or your cleric decides to make friends. Maybe they take the clothes of those bandits they killed and use them As disguises.

If your players are useless without combat stats something is wrong.

Perseus covered the disguise side of things so I'll go to your other example, the marbles being thrown near the guards.

Sure the now powerless wizard could do something like that. The problem is that there are no rules for what happens at that point. Certainly the guards will hear the sound, but the rest becomes DM fiat. Do they investigate? Do they ignore it? Do they sound the alarm? If they investigate, do both of them go, or does only one go while the other keeps an eye on his partner?

Obviously the party would prefer the option that gets both guards disabled quietly - but if the other options are just as realistic, then it ruins their suspension of disbelief if things keep going their way. And the opposite is just as bad - if things go against them, they feel cheated because the DM is deciding what happens instead of the neutral arbiters that are the dice and the rules.

I personally think that a character who has access to magic can be just as challenged and forced to be creative as one who doesn't. It just requires a little more creativity on the DM's part. In your bandit fortress, instead of using his casters to transform the battlefield into an uninteresting dead magic zone, I would counter the party's spells in more specific ways - Forbiddance effects to prevent them from teleporting around the complex or summoning backup, magical traps and alarms, alignment-detecting checkpoints etc. The casters would have to use their powers to counter these sorts of defenses, while the mundanes could focus on the combat side of things. And yes, there might be a section where the rogue needs a mundane disguise to get the party through since all the magical ones won't work - that's a similarly easy situation to design.

D&D and PF are rules-heavy systems - the appeal to a rules-heavy system is consistency. I know that if I cast a spell, this will happen.
It's basically a freeform exercise. And

[navar100]

I just recently played a new Pathfinder campaign. By independent character creation, both the magus and wizard had Color Spray and Grease.

The adventure had mostly undead, so Color Spray went out the window. The magus had to attack with his scimitar. The wizard used his crossbow. There were a few times where we did fight non-undead. Color Spray was cast. Oh noes! Bad guys made their saving throws! Color Spray did not end the counter after all. Call the gaming police! We must have been doing something wrong that the spellcasters did not win everything all the time every time.

The Grease spell, however, was effective. Zombies slipped and fell. Orcs slipped and fell. However, there were still a few other zombies the rest of us needed to deal with. There were still a few other orcs the rest of us needed to deal with. Plus, we still had to deal with the zombies and orcs that were on the ground anyway. When Grease did its job, the rest of us did not resent it. We were quite happy Grease did its job to make the fight a bit easier for us.

Spellcasters are allowed to be functional. Their spells are allowed to be good enough to have an effect to make the combat easier for the party. There was nothing needed "to be nerfed right from the start".

The rest of us: Flame Oracle, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin

[Person_Man]

An item of antimagic field is a paradox.


3.5 RAW disagrees. Bulwark of Antimagic is a +1 tower shield with an 1/day Anti-Magic Field. 27,580 gp. Draconomicon pg 118.

[Psyren]

To be fair, a spell of antimagic field is a paradox too. After all, the spell emanates from you, therefore you are inside the field, therefore the spell generating the field should be suppressed, but if it's suppressed then the emanation should function just fine etc. etc.

[Big Fau]

3.5 RAW disagrees. Bulwark of Antimagic is a +1 tower shield with an 1/day Anti-Magic Field. 27,580 gp. Draconomicon pg 118.
Honestly, I view that item as WotC not fact-checking their work. Activating that item creates an AMF around the bearer, but that AMF negates the Bulwark's effect (which shuts off the AMF, which allows the AMF to resume, which shuts the item off again, and it repeats until the duration ends).

And even then, an item that duplicated AMF that could cover the area of an entire base is well within the Epic-level item pricing.