Balancing the tiers with cold hard cash

[molten_dragon]

This is a spinoff from my "the gold piece value of being a wizard" thread.

In that thread I calculated that a wizard's spellcasting ability over the course of 20 levels would cost roughly 2.4 million GP to replicate with scrolls and UMD. I also floated the idea that an extra ration of gold to lower-tier classes could be used to help balance the tiers. Enough people thought the idea might have some merit that I wanted to put it out there to get some feedback.

Does this seem like something that could work? If so, how much would you give each tier to help them catch up to tier 1?

And how do you flavor it in game terms? Do members of other classes get some sort of monthly (or per-level) stipend for X reason (maybe the fighter gets a military pension and titles to some lands, the rogue is out running con games or robbing people, the monk runs a martial arts school, etc.).

Or do you simply give everyone 4 times wealth by level from encounters and require that the higher your tier, the more you give away for Y reason (maybe the cleric has to give most of his to support his church, the wizard has to pay off his student loans from wizard's college, and the druid has to pay for lobbyists to make sure the king passes environmentally friendly legislation).

The idea seems crude, but it's one of the few I could see actually having a possibility to work. WBL-mancy is a real balancing factor, as a few threads have proven by having a level 1 commoner with unlimited money beat a level 20 wizard.

[Eldan]

You know what I'd actually do? It would be a lot of work, but... if we can already calculate te gold piece value of class features, why not let people spend gold on getting more class features? Instead of just walking around as a christmas tree of magic items on a largely irrelevant chassis, the monk could buy sneak attack and a high BAB and the barbarian could walk around with shapeshifting and 6+int skill points.

[OldTrees1]

Qualitative differences cannot be solved by quantitative means.

[molten_dragon]

Qualitative differences cannot be solved by quantitative means.

Why not? The means exist in-game to purchase most abilities that a class gets.

If you want your fighter to cast spells like a wizard, he can do it as long as he's got the money to buy the scrolls and his UMD is high enough (and if it isn't, he can buy that too).


You know what I'd actually do? It would be a lot of work, but... if we can already calculate te gold piece value of class features, why not let people spend gold on getting more class features? Instead of just walking around as a christmas tree of magic items on a largely irrelevant chassis, the monk could buy sneak attack and a high BAB and the barbarian could walk around with shapeshifting and 6+int skill points.

Yeah, I may work on coming up with the GP equivalents for the other Tier 1 casters. Shouldn't be too hard.

[OldTrees1]

Why not? The means exist in-game to purchase most abilities that a class gets.

If you want your fighter to cast spells like a wizard, he can do it as long as he's got the money to buy the scrolls and his UMD is high enough (and if it isn't, he can buy that too).


If there is a qualitative imbalance between abilities in the game (casting vs non casting), giving more of the same (or merely more casting in your Fighter+scrolls example) will not fix the qualitative imbalance. This quantitative proposal will not create a non caster that can compete with casters.

[molten_dragon]

This quantitative proposal will not create a non caster that can compete with casters.

How exactly is a fighter that can cast spells like a wizard not able to compete with other casters? He's got the same spellcasting ability as a wizard, a better BAB, more feats, and more HP.

[OldTrees1]

How exactly is a fighter that can cast spells like a wizard not able to compete with other casters? He's got the same spellcasting ability as a wizard, a better BAB, more feats, and more HP.

A WBL caster is not an example of a non caster regardless of whether it can compete with a Classed caster or not. All you did was turn everyone into a Wizard(or Cleric depending on the scroll preference).

So rather than address the imbalance, you homogenized everyone into the more powerful side of the imbalance. Stranding players that preferred the qualitatively different abilities that happened to be on the weak side of the imbalance.

[molten_dragon]

A WBL caster is not an example of a non caster regardless of whether it can compete with a Classed caster or not. All you did was turn everyone into a Wizard(or Cleric depending on the scroll preference).

So rather than address the imbalance, you homogenized everyone into the more powerful side of the imbalance. Stranding players that preferred the qualitatively different abilities that happened to be on the weak side of the imbalance.

It's not about making everyone a caster. That was simply an example. The point is to give non-casters more magic items, which will narrow the power gap between them and the casters. Non-casters are already glowing christmas trees of magic anyway, I don't see what the harm is in making them glow a little brighter.

[Troacctid]

Wouldn't it be more practical to assign a larger share of loot to the party members who are falling behind in actual play, rather than prescribing the amount beforehand? Spellcasters are only T1 in theory, remember. In practice they often fall much lower when players aren't trying to break the game or don't know how--and even if they do end up T1 or T2, the gap between tiers doesn't become apparent until high levels.

[OldTrees1]

It's not about making everyone a caster. That was simply an example. The point is to give non-casters more magic items, which will narrow the power gap between them and the casters. Non-casters are already glowing christmas trees of magic anyway, I don't see what the harm is in making them glow a little brighter.

So the Martial character that is playing a Tier 4 class will never reach a higher Tier unless they stop playing as a Martial character and start playing as a caster? They can play a Tier 4 with higher numbers or play a WBL caster but that's it?
This is why I said your fix will not fix the Tiers. It may or may not be beneficial, but it will not balance the Tiers.

[molten_dragon]

So the Martial character that is playing a Tier 4 class will never reach a higher Tier unless they stop playing as a Martial character and start playing as a caster?

Not what I'm suggesting. A martial character can use magic items to be a better martial character and contribute better to a party without becoming a caster.

[OldTrees1]

Not what I'm suggesting. A martial character can use magic items to be a better martial character and contribute better to a party without becoming a caster.

Really, that is what you were suggesting? Your title and your opening post were most misleading.


Balancing the tiers with cold hard cash

I also floated the idea that an extra ration of gold to lower-tier classes could be used to help balance the tiers. Enough people thought the idea might have some merit that I wanted to put it out there to get some feedback.

Does this seem like something that could work? If so, how much would you give each tier to help them catch up to tier 1?


The idea seems crude, but it's one of the few I could see actually having a possibility to work. WBL-mancy is a real balancing factor, as a few threads have proven by having a level 1 commoner with unlimited money beat a level 20 wizard.

Yeah it definitely sounds like you thought that larger numbers (of wealth) could cause a character to move up Tiers. While this is true, it comes at the cost of mimicking something other than your low Tier class(the Fighter must mimic a Wizard in order to compete).

[molten_dragon]

Really, that is what you were suggesting? Your title and your opening post were most misleading.

Yeah it definitely sounds like you thought that larger numbers (of wealth) could cause a character to move up Tiers. While this is true, it comes at the cost of mimicking something other than your low Tier class(the Fighter must mimic a Wizard in order to compete).

I don't share your pessimism that the only way for a melee character to use magic items to keep up is to become a caster.

[OldTrees1]

I don't share your pessimism that the only way for a melee character to use magic items to keep up is to become a caster.

1) I assume you are familiar with the world changing techniques that define Tiers 1&2. That they can flatten empires with a trick or two.
2) I also assume there is no obscure "flatten empire" magic item that does not duplicate a spell being cast.
3) From these two assumptions, I have to assume that you are not assuming a Tier 1/Tier 2 caster when you are talking about rebalancing the tiers.

So if you are talking about casters that self-nerf to Tier 3, then you are correct that even commoners can keep up given enough +skill items, +weapons and necessary magic items.

[Daishain]

Can't be done, at least not without changing other things.

Three issues:

1.) Almost no matter how many bazillion magic items a fighter is loaded up with, a well prepared wizard could still achieve the same things the fighter can, usually with greater efficiency. To beat said fighter in a straight fight, all it takes is one Mordenkainen's Disjunction, though many many other options exist if our wizard wants that loot to survive.

2.) The people making the more powerful magic items in question are all high level spellcasters of one variety or another. the wealth you give to lower tier classes will just end up right back in the hands of the tier 1 and tier 2 classes, negating the effort.

3.) Without drastically rewriting the setting, you have no appropriate reason for the other classes to have access to significantly more funds.

[Hamste]

1) I assume you are familiar with the world changing techniques that define Tiers 1&2. That they can flatten empires with a trick or two.
2) I also assume there is no obscure "flatten empire" magic item that does not duplicate a spell being cast.
3) From these two assumptions, I have to assume that you are not assuming a Tier 1/Tier 2 caster when you are talking about rebalancing the tiers.

So if you are talking about casters that self-nerf to Tier 3, then you are correct that even commoners can keep up given enough +skill items, +weapons and necessary magic items.

Well there is The Cube which you can build with enough money. That was pretty flatten empire style and didn't duplicate a spell. You can get some pretty awe inspiring stuff with enough money, the problem is there is no real versatility with money and it takes a lot of book shifting and item designing to get the good items you need and even then the casters still probably beat you out.

[OldTrees1]

Well there is The Cube which you can build with enough money. That was pretty flatten empire style and didn't duplicate a spell. You can get some pretty awe inspiring stuff with enough money, the problem is there is no real versatility with money and it takes a lot of book shifting and item designing to get the good items you need and even then the casters still probably beat you out.

Which version of The Cube are you referring to (since the full build is classified last I knew)? The levitating block of stone or the one with Prismatic Walls and Spell Clocks?

The first can flatten but not an empire. It is too weak for that.

[ben-zayb]

Wouldn't it be more practical to assign a larger share of loot to the party members who are falling behind in actual play, rather than prescribing the amount beforehand? Spellcasters are only T1 in theory, remember. In practice they often fall much lower when players aren't trying to break the game or don't know how--and even if they do end up T1 or T2, the gap between tiers doesn't become apparent until high levels.
How logical is this IC-wise in a "merc" type of party, though? "Instead of, using it to hire or tempt more better people, let's give a large portion of our bounty to the most incompetent member of the party!"

[Extra Anchovies]

Well there is The Cube which you can build with enough money. That was pretty flatten empire style and didn't duplicate a spell. You can get some pretty awe inspiring stuff with enough money, the problem is there is no real versatility with money and it takes a lot of book shifting and item designing to get the good items you need and even then the casters still probably beat you out.

The Cube? What's that? I have not heard of this before.

[Fax Celestis]

How logical is this IC-wise in a "merc" type of party, though? "Instead of, using it to hire or tempt more better people, let's give a large portion of our bounty to the most incompetent member of the party!"

So much this.

[AvatarVecna]

This wouldn't work in a realistic game world because casters are required to make magic items; in a Tippyverse situation, the first time a rogue tried to use a scroll of wish, they'd get their ass handed to them on a silver platter by a primary caster, who would then go on to make sure that all casters in the world didn't make magic items simulating powerful spells for anyone but themselves. Can't have the mundanes thinking they stand a chance, after all.

[Hamste]

The Cube? What's that? I have not heard of this before.

A pvp build that uses a commoner and money to win. The exact specifications are kept secret but people do have theories about how it was made (not sure which ones are confirmed, but the landlord feat, spell clocks and spell traps have all been suggested as used in the build). I heard its only loss was apparently from the commoner dying from old age.

I was referring to the second one and hadn't heard about the stone one at all though it sounds pretty funny.

[Troacctid]

How logical is this IC-wise in a "merc" type of party, though? "Instead of, using it to hire or tempt more better people, let's give a large portion of our bounty to the most incompetent member of the party!"

Exactly as logical as it would be if you did the same thing based on the characters' tiers. If you assume players act this way, you can't realistically use individual wealth as a balancing factor at all; the criteria you base it on will always be irrelevant because the party is effectively working from a shared pool of funds.

Edit: That being said, giving better gear to the weaker party members makes a lot of sense from an action economy perspective. If you put all your eggs in one basket, you lose your numbers advantage.

[molten_dragon]

This wouldn't work in a realistic game world because casters are required to make magic items;

Realism has never been one of my priorities with D&D.

[OldTrees1]

A pvp build that uses a commoner and money to win. The exact specifications are kept secret but people do have theories about how it was made (not sure which ones are confirmed, but the landlord feat, spell clocks and spell traps have all been suggested as used in the build). I heard its only loss was apparently from the commoner dying from old age.

I was referring to the second one and hadn't heard about the stone one at all though it sounds pretty funny.

The stone one was an educated guess I had read on this forum. I had not heard of the old age loss.

[AvatarVecna]

Realism has never been one of my priorities with D&D.

Fair enough; I just thought it should be mentioned.