Capping plusses for balance?

[Belial_the_Leveler]

How would the following work for improving game balance?


1) Attack bonus is capped at (2x unmodified BAB) + strength modifier.
2) AC is capped at 20 + (3/2 unmodified BAB) + dexterity modifier.
3) Ability scores are capped at 2x (your lvl1 ability rolls + level increases + LA).
4) Attack damage is capped at 10x max base weapon damage.
5) Spell level + unmodified metamagic level capped at ability modifier.
6) Total spell effects a caster can have active at a time may not exceed their ability modifier.

[The Glyphstone]

3) + 5) means 7th level spell slots are the highest anyone will ever be allowed to use, with a natural 18, +2 racial, and 5 level increases by level 20. Not sure if that's intentional, or if you mean to stack temporary boosts over that (making the ultimate possible stat a 25/31 instead of a flat 25).

[fishyfishyfishy]

{{Scrubbed}}

[eggynack]

Not much at all. You're mostly just working with a bunch of basic numbers stuff here, and numbers stuff that actually seems to mostly hit mundane characters at that. The only thing that seems like it would have any positive impact on balance is the metamagic rule, and even that seems negligible.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

#1 means that lvl 20 fighter is capped at around +53 attack while lvl 20 wizard is capped at +30 or so.

#2 means that lvl 20 fighter is capped at around 60 ac while lvl 20 wizard is capped at 45 or so.

#3 means lvl 20 fighter with rolled/bought 18 STR and +5 via levels caps 46 STR while a wizard that rolled/bought 12 and never increased it caps at 24 STR.

#4 means normal longswords cap at 80 dmg while the 1d2 crusader caps at 20. Large, heavy greatswords cap at a whopping 240 dmg. This is per individual attack.

#5 means you need score of 28 for 9ths - venerable caster with racial bonus does it naturally. Normal casters need inherent bonuses but can still do it naked. Max possible INT of 46 (see #3) allows for 18th lvl spells pre-metamagic-reducers but you need to work for it.

#6 means you can't stack ungodly number of buffs + boosting magic items (items are sp too). 13 different buffs is plenty. No christmass tree imitations.

[Urpriest]

A lot of monsters are going to violate 2), and 3) makes racial bonuses irrelevant for PCs and monsters alike. 4) means a 20th level rogue isn't supposed to sneak attack with a dagger, which is kind of an odd choice. In general 3) doesn't do what you think it does, and needs to be rephrased. 6) similarly shouldn't say spell-like, since spells are not spell-like. 6) also leads to hilarious situations where you buff the buffs off of an enemy, but that would be tricky to build around.

In general, these involve retrofitting a lot of monsters, which is probably going to be a pain for you.

[eggynack]

Yes, and none of that particularly impacts balance. High tier casters don't give a crap about attack bonus or damage, they care very little about AC, and they can deal with the ability score stuff just fine. The limit on buffs, as well as most of those other things, actually, hit melee fellows a lot harder than they hit casters. Casters don't need to be Christmas trees of any kind to be awesome, and melee classes are the ones that care about hitting folk.

[StoneCipher]

This breaks melee more than it does casters which means you have widened the gap between the two.

[Telonius]

What problems are these rules supposed to solve? #1 institutes a restriction that hurts melee more than it hurts casters. #2 puts the cap farther out than most characters are ever going to get anyway, and doesn't bother the casters (who are busy with creating miss chance). #3 would prevent infinite-ability cheese, but doesn't affect most characters otherwise. #4 takes a nice thing away from melee. #5 ensures that almost all spellcasters will be venerable, and makes half-casters like Ranger and Paladin even more MAD than they are. #6, again, is going to impact melee combatants more than casters; and will probably make most Incarnum characters illegal.

[ramrod]

Why do this at all? Trying to place hard caps on characters will always result in even poorer class balance and players will still find ways around it, or won't find ways around it and suffer for it (dagger sneak attack example above).

If players are optimising out of the wazoo, just match them. As long as your party has a reasonable level of balance then it doesn't matter. It's like playing a higher level in a game. You're doing a lot more damage but if the enemies have more HP it takes just as long to kill them. If your spell casters are over optimised and are doing too much damage, up spell resistance, saves and use creatures with immunity (or be truly evil and give enemies spells or spell like abilities that turn their own spells against them. There are feats that do the same thing for sneak attacks as well.

Get creative. Mundane limits on the players will only make them sulk, it's another thing that they have to track (and you have to track that they are following your new rules as well) and it will be less enjoyable all around. There are better ways of going about it :)

[Belial_the_Leveler]

1) The rules weren't made for monsters - only PCs. I suppose they could be modified to include Level Adjustment.


2) The attack/AC cap is meant to prevent casters from easily meleeing better than noncasters and making it relatively easier to buff noncasters for melee. Also, it makes harder to land rays, orbs and other touch spells. Miss chance is easily negated by greater blind fight + ghost touch anyway.

3) The ability cap and requirement for spells does hurt casters. Assume 32 point-buy. To get high-level spells and metamagic, a caster needs an array like 18/14/14/12/8/8. That would severely limit what forms they could shapeshift to for one thing. It also limits their HP and AC further, making casters squishy.

4) Partial casters have no problems with their casting. 4th level spells are castable with base score of 12 and a +6 item - which pally doesn't have 18 charisma anyway?



Rule #6 will be modified.

[Urpriest]

1) The rules weren't made for monsters - only PCs. I suppose they could be modified to include Level Adjustment.

A big part of the philosophy of 3.5 is that PCs are just another type of monster. Your rules are by default general, and need to key off something specific that's more commonly a PC trait if you want to change that.



2) Also, it makes harder to land rays, orbs and other touch spells.

Could you explain that one? You haven't yet instituted a minimum AC as far as I can see.



4) Partial casters have no problems with their casting. 4th level spells are castable with base score of 12 and a +6 item - which pally doesn't have 18 charisma anyway?


While previously they were castable with a base score of 12 and a +2 item. You don't make it impossible, but you certainly make it much more expensive. And remember, this isn't a PF thread Paladins don't cast off Cha.