Super-Simple Tier Balance Fix

[Dark Destiny]

Aim: find the simplest possible rule change to balance the different class tiers in 3.5. What does the playground think of this fix?

Access to tier 1 classes is restricted to character levels 4 and up. Wizard 20 is not a valid build. Rogue 3/Wizard 17 is valid. Thus, wizards gain access to 9th level spells at character level 20.

Access to tier 2 classes is restricted to character levels 3 and up. So you can build a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 18, again gaining 9th level spells at character level 20.

Access to tier 3 classes is restricted to character levels 2 and up. So your Ninja 1/Dread Necromancer 19 gains 9th level spells at character level 19, one level before sorcerers or wizards.

Tiers 1-3 are thus similar to prestige classes; entering these classes at all requires significant prior experience.

[TheIronGolem]

Seems like it only keeps Caster Supremacy from being a thing at the very lowest levels, which is where it's the most manageable and least likely to surface anyway. At high levels, it's still in full force, and even in the middle levels you're really just kicking the can down the road. Also, why restrict Tier 3?

[Troacctid]

Forced multiclassing would bring down casters' power levels, but it could also hurt more than it helps by locking players out of the characters they want to play.

[ComaVision]

I don't know what is the "best" fix, or even the simplest, but I let my players gestalt T4-T6 classes with another T4-T6 class. Only one player has taken me up on the offer so far but he's doing all right. It probably only makes him high T4 at best but it works for my group (which gravitates around low T3).

[Dark Destiny]

The restriction to tier 3 is mostly there for continuity, but also serves to give tier 4 classes a chance to shine.

At high levels, the advantages of tier 1 classes are not eliminated but they are attenuated. A 17th level tier 1 class has fewer spells per day, fewer relevant feats, and a lower caster level than a 20th level.

I don't think this change would hurt roleplaying much unless your campaign ends at level 3. Most character concepts would work fine if the character has prior experience with something else, and it can be something thematically similar to your eventual tier 1 or tier 2 class. A druid can begin as a ranger or adept, a sorcerer as a warlock or warmage, and so on.

[ComaVision]

I don't think your suggestion is a good fix. Mostly because it doesn't address the problem. T1/T2 scale in power way faster, and they still scale just as fast. You're just not letting them start that until later.

Something like making every third level not progress spellcasting (maybe every fourth level for T2) would cull the scaling better, and bring better balance. I think you'd find a lot of resistance with that though. Spellcasters want their L9 spells.

[OldTrees1]

Easier fix:
Allow Tier 1-2 classes but do not allow the abuses that make them Tier 1-2.
Allow Tier 5-6 classes but allow gestalt to cover weak areas.

[Troacctid]

Easier fix:
Allow Tier 1-2 classes but do not allow the abuses that make them Tier 1-2.
Allow Tier 5-6 classes but allow gestalt to cover weak areas.

Those don't sound easier at all. In fact, they sound pretty difficult. They would take a ton of system mastery to implement and are hard to concisely explain to the players.

[Curmudgeon]

If you want to force multiclassing as a way to downgrade the power of full spellcasting, your simple delay makes this a fix only for low levels. If you want to address the issue at all levels, you could instead do something like this:


Tier 1 class levels can only be taken in a 1:3 ratio to other classes.
Tier 2 class levels can only be taken in a 1:2 ratio to other classes.
Tier 3 class levels can only be taken in a 1:1 ratio to other classes.
Tier 4+ class levels have no restrictions.

So if you want a Tier 1 level, you have to wait until level 4 to establish the necessary ratio; that matches your starting limitation. But you'll have to wait until level 8 for your next level in that Tier 1 class, which keeps the re-balancing as an ongoing thing.

[ComaVision]

@Curmudgeon

First, I'd argue that strictly makes them bad choices, rather than balancing them. Second, how would that interact with prestige classes?

[Madfellow]

Aim: find the simplest possible rule change to balance the different class tiers in 3.5. What does the playground think of this fix?

Access to tier 1 classes is restricted to character levels 4 and up. Wizard 20 is not a valid build. Rogue 3/Wizard 17 is valid. Thus, wizards gain access to 9th level spells at character level 20.

Access to tier 2 classes is restricted to character levels 3 and up. So you can build a Paladin 2/Sorcerer 18, again gaining 9th level spells at character level 20.

Access to tier 3 classes is restricted to character levels 2 and up. So your Ninja 1/Dread Necromancer 19 gains 9th level spells at character level 19, one level before sorcerers or wizards.

Tiers 1-3 are thus similar to prestige classes; entering these classes at all requires significant prior experience.

Or you could save yourself the trouble and play 5th. :smalltongue:

[Aegis013]

Aim: find the simplest possible rule change to balance the different class tiers in 3.5. What does the playground think of this fix?


Easier fix:
Allow Tier 1-2 classes but do not allow the abuses that make them Tier 1-2.
Allow Tier 5-6 classes but allow gestalt to cover weak areas.

It probably is one of the best solutions, but it doesn't really fit the OP's premise on the T1-2 range. I'm not crazy about his fix either, though.

Using point-buy at various amounts based on tier can effect it too. If you make the T1-2 point buy so low it's hard to even get a decent casting stat, you can restrict them very slightly. It's not really any better of a solution though.

[Curmudgeon]

@Curmudgeon

First, I'd argue that strictly makes them bad choices, rather than balancing them. Second, how would that interact with prestige classes?
No, those aren't bad choices. People will still want a Cleric dip just because the class is front-loaded with power; they'll just have to wait until level 4 to get that juicy power fix. I'd still add several Cleric levels to my Rogue with the Sacred Outlaw multiclassing feat.

Anything involving Tier mechanics requires a numerical assessment for all the classes used, including PrCs.

[(Un)Inspired]

I don't know what is the "best" fix, or even the simplest, but I let my players gestalt T4-T6 classes with another T4-T6 class. Only one player has taken me up on the offer so far but he's doing all right. It probably only makes him high T4 at best but it works for my group (which gravitates around low T3).

Oh man I would love to play a gestalt warlock/hexblade

[Rubik]

Easier fix:
Allow Tier 1-2 classes but do not allow the abuses that make them Tier 1-2.Not allowing casters to cast spells is not a good way to fix them (unless by "fix" you mean "neuter").

[OldTrees1]

Not allowing casters to cast spells is not a good way to fix them (unless by "fix" you mean "neuter").

There is a difference between "not allowed to cast", "not allowed to cast spells with game breaking applications", and "not allowed to cast in a game breaking manner".

[Nightraiderx]

wouldn't it just be easier to give spell caster's bard spell progression and have them stop at 6th?
bard spell progression +1 extra slot per level of spell

[Sliver]

How about instead of making a strong class weaker, make the weaker ones stronger, while trusting the players that picked a strong class to not be jerks about it?

[ben-zayb]

How about giving spells a very long cooldown (one use per level up, once per week, or once per day per spell level?), then give casters better reserve feats and more options where they can expend spell slots. You could also dial up the casting time such that it looks more like Ritual Magic.

Alternatively, make spellcasting more dangerous, like having a chance to... [REDACTED]

[illyahr]

There is a minor flaw in the reasoning here. There is nothing inherently wrong with the tier system (other than some discussion on where one tier ends and another begins). The tier system is just a way of rating classes. The problem is with the classes/class features/spells themselves.


How about giving spells a very long cooldown (one use per level up, once per week, or once per day per spell level?), then give casters better reserve feats and more options where they can expend spell slots. You could also dial up the casting time such that it looks more like Ritual Magic.

I do something like this. Casting has a cooldown of a number of rounds equal to half the spell level of the spell cast rounded down. You can spam level 0 and 1 spells. Level 2 spells make you pause for a round before you can cast again, etc.

[nedz]

The only real fix is to have the whole party within 1 tier of each other, but even then since Player > Build > Class you still won't have balance — though at least there are no mechanical reasons for this.


Using point-buy at various amounts based on tier can effect it too. If you make the T1-2 point buy so low it's hard to even get a decent casting stat, you can restrict them very slightly. It's not really any better of a solution though.

Monk 1 / Wizard 19, or similar, kind of breaks this.

[TheIronGolem]

How about instead of making a strong class weaker, make the weaker ones stronger, while trusting the players that picked a strong class to not be jerks about it?

While I'm not crazy about the OP's method in particular, I'll point out that truly fixing classes is more heavy lifting than most DM's should be expected to take on, and so coming up with alternate solutions is not an unreasonable thing to do.

[Psyren]

Or you could save yourself the trouble and play 5th. :smalltongue:

Yeah, if you need restrictions like this to keep your players from trying to abuse something (and 3 levels of a random other class won't stop them), then I agree, just play a different game.

[Sam K]

I think alot of these suggestions fail to consider if the "balanced" classes would be fun to play and encourage people to make the game fun for others. For example, the "cooldown" on higher level spells would cut down caster power significantly, but also make pure casters pretty boring in a fight: you open with one mid level spell and then you can go pick up the pizza because you won't be able to cast another one that fight. Personally, I think it would encourage divination and drone warfare: take everything out from a distance, before they are aware that you're even there. Actually quite characterful for a wizard, but not the best team play.

As for "removing everything game breaking", that pretty much means all transportation spells (because Tippyverse), all save or lose/fail/die/become a newt, most divinations, much of the battlefield control, everything that breaks the action economy. What you're left with isn't a wizard, it's a warmage. Which brings me to my next point:

There is actually a T5 version of the cleric and sorceror: healer and warmage. If you're playing a lower power game, use those (and maybe give them access to some scrolls for the odd spell outside of their limited field of expertise), just use those instead. They are fairly balanced with other T4-5 classes, and match the stereotypes of arcane and divine casters pretty well. If they seem to limited, you can always expand their spell lists a little bit:iIt's much easier to scale up a weak class than it is to tone down a T1 class.

[Sliver]

While I'm not crazy about the OP's method in particular, I'll point out that truly fixing classes is more heavy lifting than most DM's should be expected to take on, and so coming up with alternate solutions is not an unreasonable thing to do.

Only if you are acting under the assumption that classes need to be fixed. Now, I'm not saying that they are balanced and everything is on the same power level. What I am saying is that any attempt to make the casters more balanced compared to the mundane classes simply cripples the casters to the point that they are a viable choice only to a handful of players.

That's why I suggest that simply letting players that choose to go for non T1-T2 classes pick up a fix they like, if they want to and it's balanced and whatnot, while trusting your group. Trust your T1-T2 players to not overshadow everybody else just because it's a possibility, instead of telling them that now they can only cast their favorite spell once in every blue cheese.

If T1-T2 are really that much of a problem at your table, why not tell that to your players and ban the classes altogether, or allow a per-case dip, instead of crippling the class just so you can say "hey, I'm not reducing your options."

[TheIronGolem]

What I am saying is that any attempt to make the casters more balanced compared to the mundane classes simply cripples the casters to the point that they are a viable choice only to a handful of players.

Any attempt? Come on, now. I don't deny that overly heavy-handed nerfs exist, but it's not like you're crippling clerics if you ban Divine Metamagic and stacking Nightsticks.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I thought the community had come to the conclusion (quite some time ago) that there is -no- simple fix to be made that can "cure" the "tier problem."

The simplest, though quite probably least elegant, solution to the tier imbalance is to simply ban the entire T1 and T2 portions of the listing. The gap between NPC class and T3 isn't half as big as the one between T3 and T2. I know that sounds exaggerated but I'm dead serious.

On the player > build > class issue of imbalance; there's no solution at all short of completely gutting the system to the point that you may as well start over from scratch *cough* 5e *cough*.

I will admit that it does take a pretty inordinate amount of system mastery and even a bit of real world intelligence-counter intelligence knowledge to be able to play with the T1's and T2's at near-peak optimization levels. Certainly far beyond what the designers intended or expected. That's why it's necessary to either ban them, if you want to keep your fix simple, or comb through their entire spell lists and weed out the problems, if you don't mind the extra work.



As for the OP's proposed fix. Not a chance of it working at mid-to-high level play. It also seriously curtails player creativity when including the T3's. I would be more than a little leery of joining a game with such a rule in place.



Ultimately the single most effective balancing factor for this particular "problem" is to develop system mastery and agree amongst your group where the line for powerful vs too powerful lies. Defining the line between not powerful enough and acceptable is also a good idea but not -as- necessary.

[Coidzor]

I will admit that it does take a pretty inordinate amount of system mastery and even a bit of real world intelligence-counter intelligence knowledge to be able to play with the T1's and T2's at near-peak optimization levels. Certainly far beyond what the designers intended or expected. That's why it's necessary to either ban them, if you want to keep your fix simple, or comb through their entire spell lists and weed out the problems, if you don't mind the extra work.

And that's a daunting proposition just with the PHB in a core-only environment, throw in splatbooks and with the amount of effort you'd be putting into rebalancing the magic system you run into the question of why not just make a game system and have something to show for it. Ok, maybe a bit of hyperbole there, but...

[NichG]

Personally for fixing spells I think its better to whitelist than blacklist. Essentially, come up with a consistent scheme for what spell levels certain kinds of effects come online at minimum, what kinds of effects each class is permitted to have access to, and what the power level of spells should be at each level, and then just make 100-200 spells to replace the existing material for T1/T2 casting classes.

I did that for a campaign and it ended up being pretty successful, in that I had a couple fairly strong optimizers as players and afterwards they said it had been the most balanced take on D&D 3.5 they had played.

I guess you'd say that is in fact 'making a game system' though?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I guess you'd say that is in fact 'making a game system' though?

Not quite, but uncomfortably close.

I'm also wondering how a single classed fighter or samurai would've faired in that game.

[NichG]

Not quite, but uncomfortably close.

I'm also wondering how a single classed fighter or samurai would've faired in that game.

The answer to that question is complicated because 'replacing all spells' wasn't the only change I made.
We had a single-classed fighter, and he did pretty well, but that's because there was a fairly significant change
to how feats worked that ended up making the fighter extra bonus feats class feature much more potent.

The single-classed Samurai would have to get the same treatment as I gave to the core classes for it to
really be a fair comparison, I think. Otherwise it would run afoul of a particular other house rule that pretty much
neuters the only cool thing it gets (you can only a single attribute modifier to a given roll or derived stat, regardless of how many
different sources you would have). I had to make similar adjustments for for the Paladin and Swashbuckler for that reason.

Given the way the updates to the other classes worked (each class got the ability to spend XP to upgrade their class features),
the Samurai would probably gain the ability to upgrade their fear into a general-purpose debuff aura. By spending XP they'd
be able to add both active (e.g. enemy must fail their save) or passive (applies even if the enemy makes the save) effects to
those within 30ft. Sort of an anti-bard. At that point we're no longer talking about something that'd be the same Tier as the
Samurai even if you injected it back into a game with the usual suspects.

[Coidzor]

Personally for fixing spells I think its better to whitelist than blacklist. Essentially, come up with a consistent scheme for what spell levels certain kinds of effects come online at minimum, what kinds of effects each class is permitted to have access to, and what the power level of spells should be at each level, and then just make 100-200 spells to replace the existing material for T1/T2 casting classes.

I did that for a campaign and it ended up being pretty successful, in that I had a couple fairly strong optimizers as players and afterwards they said it had been the most balanced take on D&D 3.5 they had played.

I guess you'd say that is in fact 'making a game system' though?

It does sound like you homebrewed a complete replacement of the magic subsystem. Or at least the spell subsystem.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The answer to that question is complicated because 'replacing all spells' wasn't the only change I made.
We had a single-classed fighter, and he did pretty well, but that's because there was a fairly significant change
to how feats worked that ended up making the fighter extra bonus feats class feature much more potent.

The single-classed Samurai would have to get the same treatment as I gave to the core classes for it to
really be a fair comparison, I think. Otherwise it would run afoul of a particular other house rule that pretty much
neuters the only cool thing it gets (you can only a single attribute modifier to a given roll or derived stat, regardless of how many
different sources you would have). I had to make similar adjustments for for the Paladin and Swashbuckler for that reason.

Given the way the updates to the other classes worked (each class got the ability to spend XP to upgrade their class features),
the Samurai would probably gain the ability to upgrade their fear into a general-purpose debuff aura. By spending XP they'd
be able to add both active (e.g. enemy must fail their save) or passive (applies even if the enemy makes the save) effects to
those within 30ft. Sort of an anti-bard. At that point we're no longer talking about something that'd be the same Tier as the
Samurai even if you injected it back into a game with the usual suspects.

Hey look. There went that line you were uncomfortably close to. Right back there behind you now.

I'm comfortable calling that, combined with the previous, enough of an overhaul to call it, essentially, a new system.

[The Insanity]

In our games we allow Tier 3 and below classes to gestalt. We also give higher pb but you have to take the Karsite template (which is kinda good if you don't intend on multiclassing into a spellcaster class), it's houseruled to also include manifesting tho.

[Sliver]

Any attempt? Come on, now. I don't deny that overly heavy-handed nerfs exist, but it's not like you're crippling clerics if you ban Divine Metamagic and stacking Nightsticks.

How does that make clerics balanced compared to the low tier classes? They are still far more powerful and versatile than the other, lower tier classes. Taking away one of the things that is possible to abuse doesn't magically balance the classes in the way the OP wants. If you aren't doing an uber-nerf on them, then they are probably still better. If you are, they are so crippled that only a select few players/builds will use them, so simply banning all T1-T2 classes would have been both easier for the DM and achieved the same result of nobody playing them.

[sonofzeal]

Actually, I think forcing T1/T2 to have a few non-caster levels is a perfectly viable way to reign in their power with minimal effort. They're still quadratic vs linear, but "y=2x" and "y=(x-2)^2 +2" stay closer for longer.

The one suggestion I might make would be to stagger non-T1 levels a bit. Say.... T1 have to multiclass out to T6-4 classes at lvls 1, 5, 10, and 15. T2 has to multiclass out at 2, 8, 14. And T3 (if you want to limit them, though I don't think it's necessary) would have to multiclass out at 5 and 15.

This won't really solve anything, but in a normal group that's not too heavily optimized but still showing a gap between low and high tier classes, it'll mitigate things while keeping all classes and concepts viable.

[Coidzor]

Actually, I think forcing T1/T2 to have a few non-caster levels is a perfectly viable way to reign in their power with minimal effort. They're still quadratic vs linear, but "y=2x" and "y=(x-2)^2 +2" stay closer for longer.

The one suggestion I might make would be to stagger non-T1 levels a bit. Say.... T1 have to multiclass out to T6-4 classes at lvls 1, 5, 10, and 15. T2 has to multiclass out at 2, 8, 14. And T3 (if you want to limit them, though I don't think it's necessary) would have to multiclass out at 5 and 15.

This won't really solve anything, but in a normal group that's not too heavily optimized but still showing a gap between low and high tier classes, it'll mitigate things while keeping all classes and concepts viable.

Of course, one thing to remember with these schemes is that the casters won't have their remove curses and break enchantments and death wards on time, so you can't expect them to babysit the party in the same ways at the same points in play.

[ericgrau]

It all depends on your group's optimization level. And I wouldn't give casters a level hit until they get 3rd level spells or it could make them hard to play in all but fairly high OP. So maybe you could allow wizard 5 to start, but then require 3 levels of something else before finishing up wizard. Or wizard 5 / rogue 1 / wizard 3 / rogue 1 / wizard 3 / rogue 1 / wizard 9. Or etc.

At least you kept it simple. Other "fixes" make casters a pain to play for all but the most experienced players, and they can still break the game anyway.


Of course, one thing to remember with these schemes is that the casters won't have their remove curses and break enchantments and death wards on time, so you can't expect them to babysit the party in the same ways at the same points in play.
More for the cleric who will always have band-aid spells available. But even then you do the same thing you do at low level; put up with it and then hire an NPC. I don't think I've ever been cursed anyway. It's more about the lesser restoration and clerics get that at level 3.

[sonofzeal]

Of course, one thing to remember with these schemes is that the casters won't have their remove curses and break enchantments and death wards on time, so you can't expect them to babysit the party in the same ways at the same points in play.

Healer's got just about every "end negative status effect XYZ". With Cleric now being pushed back, they're the first to get access to Freedom of Movement, True Seeing, Death Ward... Gate...

[Coidzor]

Healer's got just about every "end negative status effect XYZ". With Cleric now being pushed back, they're the first to get access to Freedom of Movement, True Seeing, Death Ward... Gate...

That is another hiccup, yes, it might actually fool someone into thinking Healer is worthwhile. :smalltongue:

[Nightcanon]

Easier fix:
Allow Tier 1-2 classes but do not allow the abuses that make them Tier 1-2.

Have Wizards jealously guard their knowledge like Cold War adversaries guard their military secrets. One does not simply buy scrolls from the village magick shoppe to acquire the exact spells that the player wants.
Limit the spells available in your campaign to (for example) those listed in the PH, or a custom list. New spells can be added after discussion between player and DM.
Take a look at Priests of Specific Mythos in 2nd Ed: each deity has a number of spheres of influence depending on portfolio. Their priests get major (all the way up to 7th level) access to a couple of spheres, minor access to others (up to 3rd) level spells and no access at all in still others. So you can cast windwalk or heal or righteous might, but not all 3. Again, restrict existing spells to a minimum list; all clerics don't just get a new 20 every time a new book comes out.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Have Wizards jealously guard their knowledge like Cold War adversaries guard their military secrets. One does not simply buy scrolls from the village magick shoppe to acquire the exact spells that the player wants.

This helps but it doesn't solve the problem and it has the distinct potential to seriously exacerbate the problem if you do it to passive-aggressively limit a player that optimizes beyond your skill to DM. There are a number of ways to ensure that a wizard gets more than enough spells on his spells known list to crush the game under foot with just his level ups and enemy wizards' spellbooks were already primo treasure for a successful encounter and have simply become moreso. If he was already optimizing better than you, bet he can beat your wizard in a wizarding fight and then you're right back where you started.

Better to just be open and honest from get-go. If you're concerned that a player will optimize his T1/T2 character better than your skill can handle, just say so. Reasonable players will voluntarily tone it down to where you -can- handle it so as to have a more entertaining game for himself and the rest of the group or, if it's just too far below where he likes to play, move on to either lower tier classes so he can flex his op-fu muscles or another game where his prefered playstyle is a better fit.


Limit the spells available in your campaign to (for example) those listed in the PH, or a custom list. New spells can be added after discussion between player and DM.

Good idea, bad example. It's a well documented and nearly indisputable fact at this point that the worst of the game's unbalancing spells, with a handful of exceptions, are all in the PHB. In particular the polymorph line and anything with (calling) in its header are particularly difficult to work with though some of the better divinations can also be daunting to someone who doesn't know how to handle intel


Again, restrict existing spells to a minimum list; all clerics don't just get a new 20 every time a new book comes out.

The problem with this idea, and it's a fairly minor one in one sense but a grand one in another, is that what -should- be on that list is horribly subjective. I know how to handle virtually anything on the sorc/wiz list 8th level and below and Emperor TIppy can handle pretty much anything you can throw at him while, at the same time, the other DM in my group is new to the system and could be tripped up quite easily by skillful use of summon monster 5 or speak with dead.


TL;DR: these are fair, and fairly common, ideas but there's -still- no -easy- fix for the tier "problem."

[ericgrau]

Once you get into it limiting spells available and everything else a wizard has is actually a bit complicated.

[Ssalarn]

There is a difference between "not allowed to cast", "not allowed to cast spells with game breaking applications", and "not allowed to cast in a game breaking manner".

The second and third options mentioned there are the big items.

1) "not allowed to cast spells with game breaking applications" - Start assembling a list of these. Things like simulacrum, wish, etc. can just be banned or converted into "epic rituals" that involve huge consumption of time and access to incredibly hard to obtain material components. If you miss one, that's cool, just add it to the list as it's discovered. Just make sure your party knows about this up front.

2)"not allowed to cast in a game breaking manner" - My first house rule is "Once the GM has made a decision on something, that's it for the session. Save the rules-lawyering for out of game time". The sub-clause to this is "If you're using a spell in a way that clearly either breaks intent or tries to take advantage of ambiguous wording and I tell you it doesn't work, it doesn't work". The blatantly game-breaking spells should already be culled via part 1, so this should just serve to cover the things like "No, Ironheart Surge doesn't let you blot out the sun. You may use it to temporarily eleviate the penalties of your light-blindness though".

[Nightcanon]

.....
Better to just be open and honest from get-go. If you're concerned that a player will optimize his T1/T2 character better than your skill can handle, just say so. Reasonable players will voluntarily tone it down to where you -can- handle it so as to have a more entertaining game for himself and the rest of the group or, if it's just too far below where he likes to play, move on to either lower tier classes so he can flex his op-fu muscles or another game where his prefered playstyle is a better fit.
....

TL;DR: these are fair, and fairly common, ideas but there's -still- no -easy- fix for the tier "problem."
Hi Kelb
I agree with pretty much all that- especially the bit about there being no easy fix. My problem with the OP idea is that it just shunts the problem back a few levels. The killer wrt high tiers is power + versatility. A fix therefore needs to address the versatility issue with with wizards & clerics. Removing the assumption that spells can be bought like smartphone apps, so you can chose form the whole list (and from the whole internet's optimisation forums) seems to me to be a key part of this, and requiring a degree of specialisation in the same way that mundanes are specialised by dint of their fixed feat selections seems to be a good way to do this . I totally agree that discussion with players is important- lay out how you want your world to be (a visit to a magical library is a rare and awe-inspring event, not a rainy afternoon browse in the village wizard's store), explain why you want to limit some of the stuff that casters can do- spells that can auto-win any situation, routine use of the 15-minute adventuring day etc. Ask what they are building towards- if it's shapechange + everything in their stack of bookmarked monster manuals, maybe that's not such a good idea, and it's best to say that at the outset rather than ban when the player is expecting their capstone. You can have nice things, just not all the nice things.

[nedz]

That is another hiccup, yes, it might actually fool someone into thinking Healer is worthwhile. :smalltongue:

But it's very worthwhile — you get to be the DM's girlfriend.:smalltongue:

[Troacctid]

Honestly I think shunting the problem back a few levels would help significantly if your fix is aimed at mid levels. However, the problem immediately resurfaces at high levels, and a different problem--the "I can't play the class I signed up to play" problem--emerges at low levels.

You would need to playtest to see how it works out, but I predict it will only be effective in a certain level range.

Also, a side effect is that theurge classes get way better. All your Wizards will be Arcane Tricksters or Eldritch Theurges or whatnot because they qualify for free.

[nedz]

Also, a side effect is that theurge classes get way better. All your Wizards will be Arcane Tricksters or Eldritch Theurges or whatnot because they qualify for free.

Wizard
(LA +1) / Beguiler 2 / Wizard 3 / Ulitmate Magus 10
Cleric
Healer 1 / Warlock 2 / Cleric 3 / Eldritch Disciple 10
Sorcerer
Half Fey 2 / Sorcerer 18
Druid
Ranger 3 / Druid 17

Most Gishes will be unaffected, also

Rogue 2 / Bard 4 / Druid 4 / Fochlucan Lyrist 10 (Though there are better ways of doing this)
etc.

[incarnate236]

Why not consider some adaptation of the different XP levels used in 2nd Edition?

If I remember correctly it was 2500 for Lvl 2 Wizard but only 1250xp for Rogue. Perhaps a similar adaptation could be made more in line with the tier ratings.

This could be justified easily to players in that the skills of a rogue seem much easier to master than bending the fabric of reality.

[Nightcanon]

Why not consider some adaptation of the different XP levels used in 2nd Edition?

If I remember correctly it was 2500 for Lvl 2 Wizard but only 1250xp for Rogue. Perhaps a similar adaptation could be made more in line with the tier ratings.

This could be justified easily to players in that the skills of a rogue seem much easier to master than bending the fabric of reality.

I made a table once that compared where you would be at a given level of xp in various class 'careers' in 2nd ed. Of the top of my head you are right for requirements to level up from 1 to 2 for thief and wizard. 2501 xp puts you at level 3 thief and level 2 wizard. Fighter levelled up at 2000xp, clerics at 1500 I think- but the curves did very odd things after that.
One 'plus' of the 3.5 system is the ease with which you can multiclass, which would be more complex if levels cost different amounts of xp to buy. You could introduce a multiplier to what you next level costs, but then you get into issues with challenge ratings and xp earnings from encounters.

[torrasque666]

I made a table once that compared where you would be at a given level of xp in various class 'careers' in 2nd ed. Of the top of my head you are right for requirements to level up from 1 to 2 for thief and wizard. 2501 xp puts you at level 3 thief and level 2 wizard. Fighter levelled up at 2000xp, clerics at 1500 I think- but the curves did very odd things after that.
One 'plus' of the 3.5 system is the ease with which you can multiclass, which would be more complex if levels cost different amounts of xp to buy. You could introduce a multiplier to what you next level costs, but then you get into issues with challenge ratings and xp earnings from encounters.

Just go with how Pathfinder set aside its 3 paths of Experience. Fast was approximately 2/3rds of normal while slow was about 1.5 times normal. Give Wizards and other T1/T2 characters the Slow advancement and keep them on it. If at any point a character takes a level of a tier higher than they started they are irrevocably move to the path for that tier. T5s I would allow to gestalt, while also taking Fast Path, with T3/T4 getting Normal Path and no gestalt.

How does that sound?

[Extra Anchovies]

The problem with XP tracks is that it gets wonky when multiclassing. Remember, classes have tiers but builds do not. Nor do players. And Player > Build > Class. Just have a gentlemen's agreement between DM and players (and among the players) that no player will intentionally overshadow the others on a regular basis, nor will they break the DM's campaign. If a PC accidentally keeps overshadowing another, it's that PC's player's job to dial back the power a bit. It's the only way to prevent tier imbalance from affecting gameplay without limiting classes too much.

Granted, tier imbalance will still often show itself (such as if you have a wizard, druid, factotum, and monk), and that is when you bring the lower-tiered characters up rather than dragging the high tiers down (e.g. by letting the monk retrain into unarmed swordsage).