Balancing class tiers with unequal point buy

[Meijin]

Hello, all. Here's an idea I've had floating around, and I'd like to know the community's thoughts on the subject.

Most people agree that the classes of D&D 3.5 are wildly unbalanced in terms of power level. While not everyone agrees with particular "tier" designations for particular classes, a cleric is almost unarguably stronger than a favored soul, a samurai, or a paladin, for example.

In many groups, this is fine. Everyone either plays classes of the same approximate tier, or deliberately adjusts their level of optimization to create roughly equal characters, or enjoys games in which not necessarily everyone is of equal power. However, I am interested in what it might take to help equalize different classes. Normally, when someone says "I want to play a fighter who can keep up with a sorcerer," she or he is told "just play a warblade," which is sometimes fine, but I am interested in seeing what it would take to make specifically the fighter (in that example) close to balanced.

My first idea is unequal wealth distribution, along with an out-of-game agreement prohibiting swapping wealth. A 5th level Paladin with the gear of a 15th level character can almost certainly win a fight against a 5th level cleric, for instance, as well as contribute more to the average adventuring day. However, this requires poorly-justified prohibitions on wealth pooling, and many people don't love the idea of all of a character's power coming from an external item.

Thus, I came to the idea of unequal point buys for ability scores. Perhaps a certain point-tier system could be invented, assigning different accepted point buys to different classes or tiers of classes. This way, if a group wants to create a (more) balanced party with a wide range of classes, it can be done. Ideally, each point buy should be able to be increased or decreased to group taste, but I'm not sure if this works linearly or not. There should also be rules for increasing stats above 18, so that weaker classes can have use for potentially huge numbers of points.
For instance, suppose the system is designed with a base of giving a fighter a 40 point buy when a wizard has a 30 point buy. Now say a DM wants to play a higher or lower powered game. The simplest way to do this might be to just give or take an extra 10 points from everyone's buy. But point buy power may not scale linearly: you might get diminishing returns above a certain point. Or maybe the difference between a 22 and a 24 stat is even greater than one between a 10 and a 12. Conversely, extremely low point buys for casters could make even casting any spells at all difficult. So it would be important to consider how to scale increases and decreases to the default point buy.

So my list of questions is:
1-Does the system of variable point buys to partially balance different classes seem, in principle, workable? Pros and cons? How about GP balancing? How would different levels of play change this?
2-How would you price point buys for stats above 18? My default assumption (for the next question) is that every point above 18 costs 4 more than the last, so 19 costs 20 points, 20 costs 24 points, and so on. Perhaps with some clause that says a certain number of your other scores must be at least at a certain number first, to prevent extreme min-maxing.
3-What point buys for ability scores would serve as good benchmarks for some staple classes to keep them pretty equal? For example, lets say we are building 1st, 5th, 10th and 20th level Wizards, Sorcerers, Duskblades, Rangers, Barbarians and Fighters (as rough representatives of different tiers of play). What point buys would you give them each, in order to create as close to balanced parties at each level as possible? Any other classes you think would be helpful to consider here as representative?
4-Same exercise but for GP balancing. What percentage of the wealth by level would you want to add to take away from each of those classes at each of those levels, in order to create a balanced party (assuming each character hangs on to his or her wealth).
5-How would you suggest scaling up or down these point buy values for higher or lower powered games? Linear increases, or some other function?
6-Suppose you were building a party of 4 characters for some competitive event. Assume an intelligent, reasonable DM, who bans anything really abusive/cheesy. Under what system of extra gold/attribute points would you be willing to take some characters from lower classes?

Have at it, guys, and sorry for the long post!

**Edit: I was inspired by the competitive scene for the game Axis and Allies, in which (in some versions) the allies objectively have a large advantage over the axis, and competative players wanted to balance it. So they usually "bid" starting rescources: one player might be willing to take Axis in exchange for enough extra starting money to build 4 tanks, for example, while another player might say she was willing to play them for less, with the lowest bidder getting the Axis.**

[Nifft]

There is no point buy bonus that will make a Fighter equal to a Wizard.

There is no ability array that will make a CW Samurai as effective as a PHB Druid.

[ryu]

To put it another way you can give me half the usual point buy and give the fighter an arbitrarily high amount to work with and I'll still be more generally useful out of the gate thanks to utility. It won't even be long before the fighter is incapable of realistically winning in a fight against me and that's supposed to be the one thing they can do well. The difference between tiers isn't a numbers game for all we label them with numbers.

[rigsmal]

There is no point buy bonus that will make a Fighter equal to a Wizard.

There is no ability array that will make a CW Samurai as effective as a PHB Druid.

While this is true, I have minimal issues with a 60-point monk playing alongside a 25-point wizard. This might be what the OP is referring to.

[Bucky]

A 26 pb Fighter can hang just fine with a -3 pb Wizard. Wizards aren't so scary when they don't have the Int to cast anything but cantrips.

The samurai, though, would have trouble matching the Druid's animal companion even if the Druid went all the way down to -6 pb.

[Nifft]

While this is true, I have minimal issues with a 60-point monk playing alongside a 25-point wizard. This might be what the OP is referring to. I'm guessing you're talking about low levels (below 10).


A 26 pb Fighter can tangle just fine with a -3 pb Wizard.

The samurai, though, would have trouble with the Druid's animal companion even if the Druid went all the way down to -6 pb.

Nope, still not balanced. Wouldn't even be balanced in a dead-magic setting where spells didn't work.

Three guesses as to why.

[angelpalm]

I would allow players to use pathfinder classes and any non-broken 3rd party archetypes/feats so that they still feel relevant from levels 1-15.

Also I would ban or tone down the obviously borked prc's for tier 1 classes and allow them to use alternatives that might be some what less crazy while still giving them the flavor or play style they wanted.

But yes I echo everyone else's sentiments, pb and wealth are pretty meaningless to those upper tier characters. And throwing money and stats at martial characters won't make them feel any less relevant when all they can do is full attack. That is why I love Dreamscarred press and Tome of Battle, because you the fighter(or warblade) get to do more than just be a poor excuse for an animal companion/familiar. You get to actually have options to interact with the campaign which of course means you get to join in on the fun, which is what gaming is all about.

Sphere's of Power is also a good alternative method to use to bring casters down in overall power while still making them fun to play, although it is for pathfinder it shouldn't be hard to make it work for 3.5.

[RoboEmperor]

A wizard with 8 all stats except int, which is 14, will still outperform a fighter with 18 across the board.

Actually a wizard with 8 all stats INCLUDING INT will still outperform a fighter with 18 across the board after some wealth.

You can't balance d&d with gp or pb. The spellcasters will completely annihilate mundanes during their downtime with spells like Planar Binding.

Playing in similar optimization levels regardless to class is the only way d&d functions. Trying to make the game balanced in the hands of Power Gamers is impossible, because even mundanes can break the game with stuff like ubercharging.

Also casters are SAD, meaning all that extra PB just goes to useless stats like dex, str, or a noncasting mental stat. Although nice to have it is completely unnecessary.

[ryu]

A wizard with 8 all stats except int, which is 14, will still outperform a fighter with 18 across the board.

Actually a wizard with 8 all stats INCLUDING INT will still outperform a fighter with 18 across the board after some wealth.

You can't balance d&d with gp or pb. The spellcasters will completely annihilate mundanes during their downtime with spells like Planar Binding.

Playing in similar optimization levels regardless to class is the only way d&d functions. Trying to make the game balanced in the hands of Power Gamers is impossible, because even mundanes can break the game with stuff like ubercharging.

Also casters are SAD, meaning all that extra PB just goes to useless stats like dex, str, or a noncasting mental stat. Although nice to have it is completely unnecessary.

After maxing int priorities are dex and con. Dex for touch attack spells. Con for not having to waste a feat for good scaling HP or turn into an undead. Neither of which are actually NECESSARY mind, but a wizard with them in addition to maxed int will be significantly more effective and safe all else equal.

[angelpalm]

You don't even really need Con if you are allowed to take Faerie Mysteries Initiate.

Of course you don't care too much for anything if you are a druid. You could take that lame Vow of Poverty feat and literally give all your gold to your 1000 pb fighter/thief allies and they would still suck compared to you. Just running around using natural spell and flanking enemies with your Warbeast animal companion or your Greenbound Summoned monstrosity already outpaces pretty much ANYTHING they could ever do without any gear what so ever. Could take two levels in unarmed Swordsage and get a better ac in all forms with a few maneuvers and still get your 9th level spells. All while rocking a 0 pb. Not that it matters because you are playing an Anthropomorphic Bat with a +6 to wisdom anyways :smile:

[Lazymancer]

Most people agree that the classes of D&D 3.5 are wildly unbalanced
Classes are not "unbalanced". This is a buzzword that shifts the responsibility from the inconsistency between the expected (declared) gameplay and the actual gameplay - caused primarily by the incorrect (but profitable) assumptions about role-playing - to the class design. [here be rant about scripted adventures, level-appropriate encounters, greedy corporations ruining everything they touch, and damn kids that don't get off my lawn]


However, I am interested in what it might take to help equalize different classes.
First and foremost, the paradigm is wrong. Equalizing classes is not what you need. Allow Fighter to have a mercenary company, let Rogue run guild of thieves or join the elections for the post of mayor - most of the problems will be solved.

This, however, requires you to abandon the storytelling and do some work on rules for the activities outlined above.


Thus, I came to the idea of unequal point buys for ability scores.
You aren't the first. And - as it had been pointed out already - this doesn't work (unless pointbuy is really disproportionate - and even then only at early levels).


Now say a DM wants to play a higher or lower powered game
Pointbuy doesn't actually affect it.


2-How would you price point buys for stats above 18? My default assumption (for the next question) is that every point above 18 costs 4 more than the last
There are two ways: 3rd edition and PF.


In 3rd edition the price to increase stat by 1 is the existing modifier of the stat, while PF uses the modifier you'll get after increase.

So, in 3e (18 - 16 points):
19 - 20 points
20 - 24 points
21 - 29 points
22 - 34 points
23 - 40 points
24 - 46 points
...

While in PF (18 - 17 points):
19 - 21 points
20 - 26 points
21 - 31 points
22 - 37 points
23 - 43 points
24 - 50 points
...
I consider PF to be better.


6-Suppose you were building a party of 4 characters for some competitive event. Assume an intelligent, reasonable DM, who bans anything really abusive/cheesy. Under what system of extra gold/attribute points would you be willing to take some characters from lower classes?
As I said - the question is what I'm allowed to do with the gold. I can run pretty competitive character of NPC class (Noble, for example) up until level ~8, if I get to cover my bases with the hired muscle. Afterwards, I'd need some actual rules for large-scale enterprises (which we don't have RAW) and the international diplomacy/finance.

If we are talking regular D&D, I'd say triple (or quadruple) the expected WBL for T4/5 and give access to scroll store. Though, I'll need to run some numbers before I can say it with certainty.

[Hal0Badger]

PB (and GP) are just vertical increases. A higher PB or GP does not change the martial combat from " I full attack/Charge" norm.

What those martial classes need is a horizantal increase in a meaningful and fun way.

[emeraldstreak]

There are already plenty of ways to setup martial types to great damage. Increasing their stats further has no effect as they one-shot the monsters anyway, nor does it award them the reality-bending power of casters.

[Gnaeus]

You may have just come up with this, but it’s as old as the tier system itself. JaronK discussed and IIRC endorsed it in early tier posts.

I think it works better than most people give it credit for. In most games, numbers do matter, and giving your fighter the points for high int and charisma and so he can get solid diplomacy and UMD is not meaningless for utility. It is best implemented in conjunction with nerfs or gentlemen’s agreements on the most broken spells, because they are right, once polymorph and planar binding are in play it only matters that the wiz has enough int to cast them.

I don’t like the unequal gold distribution. I mean it works great if your LG wizard volunteers to use his gold to make items for the Paladin. But forcing the neutral wizard to take a smaller share of rewards when he is doing as much or more for the party is problematic to me from an RP perspective

[Goaty14]

You don't even really need Con if you are allowed to take Faerie Mysteries Initiate.

You don't even really need Int if you take Lost Tradition (BaB).

[Bucky]

What those martial classes need is a horizantal increase in a meaningful and fun way.

Giving them both extra cash and UMD as a class skill work here. It won't bring them up to T1 unless the amount of cash is truly excessive - like using a 9th level scroll every fight - but they can at least do a decent T3 impression with a golf bag of wands for most of their careers.

[Meijin]

Alright. I can fully understand that at higher levels you just aren't going to meaningfully help close the power gap.
But I would like a bit more explanation than some respondents are giving as to why no amount of point difference helps things at all even at low to mid levels. You could be right, I just want to see how. I'm most interested in about levels 1-8.
I'm assuming casters have enough points to cast all their spells.
But if we open up buys well above 18, it (perhaps naively) seems like you could create some balance. Consider a ranger at level 5 with +30 to all stats. I fail to see how he automatically contributes so much less than a wizard with an 8 in everything but INT and a 14 INT in an average day of adventuring. Yes, there are still some scenarios where a particular spell is more powerful than anything he can do. But with the ability to auto-hit and auto-kill most monsters, make any save thrown at him, virtually never die to hit point damage, smash most mundane obstacles with his bare hands, and blow any skill check out of the water, I'd probably rather have the ranger on my side most of the time. Now, +30 to everything might be extreme, but if you agree that, with so many points, the ranger can be close to as powerful as the wizard, what's the right number of pluses. And if you still think that the wizard is easily and obviously better than this ranger, that's fine, but I would love some explanation.

[ryu]

Alright. I can fully understand that at higher levels you just aren't going to meaningfully help close the power gap.
But I would like a bit more explanation than some respondents are giving as to why no amount of point difference helps things at all even at low to mid levels. You could be right, I just want to see how. I'm most interested in about levels 1-8.
I'm assuming casters have enough points to cast all their spells.
But if we open up buys well above 18, it (perhaps naively) seems like you could create some balance. Consider a ranger at level 5 with +30 to all stats. I fail to see how he automatically contributes so much less than a wizard with an 8 in everything but INT and a 14 INT in an average day of adventuring. Yes, there are still some scenarios where a particular spell is more powerful than anything he can do. But with the ability to auto-hit and auto-kill most monsters, make any save thrown at him, virtually never die to hit point damage, smash most mundane obstacles with his bare hands, and blow any skill check out of the water, I'd probably rather have the ranger on my side most of the time. Now, +30 to everything might be extreme, but if you agree that, with so many points, the ranger can be close to as powerful as the wizard, what's the right number of pluses. And if you still think that the wizard is easily and obviously better than this ranger, that's fine, but I would love some explanation.

Literally any challenge based upon utility as opposed to direct combat is generally best done with spells. Now ranger also has some actual spells and class skill love if I remember properly so he might end up being relevant during the 1-8 period on skill use being an okay solution to many problems. At fifth level spells the wizard will generally outpace at combat and everything else.

Fighter on the other hand is useless for anything that doesn't involve shoving sharp and or blunt objects into things, and even then generally has to be well built to be competent there. This change would ease some of how competent the build has to be to be combat effective, but stat bonuses to skills will only get you so much utility when almost nothing is a class skill.

[Gnaeus]

The explanation is that the forum takes a real thing (caster superiority) and overestimates it.

Remember that an ubercharger who can do enough damage to 1 shot any target in game is a tier 4. Because he isn’t versatile. That’s a legitimate criticism, but it glosses over the fact that that is an immensely powerful character who would contribute if not dominate any party below the highest optimization levels.

Many people on the forum believe that a gestalt of all tier 4 and 5 classes is weaker than a wizard. That’s basically saying that a thing that can crush any equivalent cr threat, dominate any skill challenge, with a vast range of low level spells and some very real RAW I win buttons, just loses because planar binding. And there is probably some small subset of games for which that is true.

They rate skill use, including such commonly used things as UMD, diplomacy, scouting and sneaking, at close to 0. They rate item tricks very low. They rate numbers very low. They rate flexible character building, like tier 1 casting, higher than they should. They value nonstandard nukes (like destroying cities with hurricanes or ending armies with earthquakes) highly, when in my experience collapsing a dungeon with an earthquake is unlikely to be rewarded by any GM. It will either be noped for some reason, or they’ll just quit and play a boardgame instead.

Which is not to say that T1s aren’t the best classes in the game. They are. But most games I’ve seen your wizard (especially below teen levels) will not always have the perfect spells prepared. And most games I’ve seen involve enough fights that combat specialists do fine. I’d absolutely rather have an 8th level ranger with all 18s over an 8th level wizard with a 16 int and all 8s in any game I’ve ever been in. The 17 HP 13 AC wiz will need significant defenses just to not die, compared with the 70 hp, 19 AC ranger. Schroedingers wizard can brute force his way through scouting, social encounters, etc with spells. But gimp wizard will need most of his spells selected just to stay alive and fulfill core functions. At standard adventuring functions (entering bad places, avoiding hazards, fighting badguys) the low tiers are still behind the casters. But not so far behind that changing the numbers don’t matter. Again assuming that the DM doesn’t allow the highest levels of abuse from the most abusive spells.

[ryu]

The ubercharger is rendered irrelevant by many things depending on level. Flight, wall spells, most battlefield control, invisibility, miss chances, situational uses of abrupt jaunt, summoned minions, and so on. The great power of versatility is the power to look at a problem, proclaim that you have dozens and dozens and yet more dozens of methods of solving problems of this manner and that only one of them needs to go uncountered to succeed.

[paddyfool]

I came up with a homerule that you can gestalt two different tier 4 or below classes if you want to. Never yet playtested it though. What would worry me most about it would be the temptation for people to just build something still really boring and unversatile, like a fighter//barb ubercharger (rather than, say, a fighter//rogue or barbarian//scout).

[Elkad]

A wizard with 1 point buy gets a 9 Int, takes a race with an Int bonus and does just fine. Grey Elf if he must (or is planning to go Necropolitan). Lesser Tiefling. Aleithian Dwarf for a Con bonus. Primordial Giant for +4 Int. Etc.
He'll be squishy as hell, but other than that it doesn't matter much. At 3rd he has to put 1st level spells in 2nd level slots. At 4th he stats Int and buys a headband and jumps to Int:14, and he's good the rest of the way to 9th level spells. At 7th level he passes the Fighter in capability and never looks back. If the Fighter has straight 18s and splat-dives like mad, maybe 9th before the Wizard passes him.

And that's discounting age penalties.

The only split I can think of that makes a little bit of sense is the 1e/2e method. Full caster levels take far more XP. 50% more than Fighters. (Of course they also charged Paladins even more than Wizards, which was silly).

Except with experience as a river in 3.5, you probably have to go even bigger. 50% XP penalty if your last level was a full caster level at least. At higher levels even that comes apart.
3 16th level fighters and a 12th level wizard vs a CR18 encounter, the Wizard gets triple XP. So even at a 50% penalty, he's still getting 150% of the high level guys and trying to catch up.

[Gnaeus]

The ubercharger is rendered irrelevant by many things depending on level. Flight, wall spells, most battlefield control, invisibility, miss chances, situational uses of abrupt jaunt, summoned minions, and so on. The great power of versatility is the power to look at a problem, proclaim that you have dozens and dozens and yet more dozens of methods of solving problems of this manner and that only one of them needs to go uncountered to succeed.

That’s true. But sizable proportion of fights in most games CAN be solved by damage. A charger, Control tripper, or other decent martial build will likely have encounters they can flat win.

The charger in my campaign before last put out a significant part of our party’s damage. Yeah, my control sorcerer set that up, but there was never a significant fight where he didn’t pull his weight. Our chain tripper in another campaign was consistently awesome. Sure, I polymorphed him practically every single fight. But that was only because having a huge tripper with absurd strength and 30 reach was almost always a good thing to do.

An 8th level wizard with 16 int doesn’t have dozens and dozens of solutions. He has 19. If he specializes. Including level 1s. And he has to start by fixing his awful initiative (because if he loses init he will likely die), his terrible saves, and his 1hit go directly to dead HP. Fail a single reflex save, you die. Even a successful save to an equal level fireball has a decent chance to drop you. Mirror image doesn’t cut it when a single hit from a CR 3 ogre puts you on the floor. A Medusa (CR 7) has a DC 15 stone gaze, +2 init. Ranger has +4 initiative, +10 fort. Wizard has -1 initiative, +1 fort. The ranger is better at scouting than the 8 hp familiar.

Yeah, at level 17, the wizard still ends the world. But at level 8, the ranger isn’t competitive, he’s better. He’s not gonna feel embarrassed at level 10 or 12. At most levels, in most games, hp matter. Saves matter. Numbers matter. And the gold the wizard will need to use to just not die is gold the low tier can use to fix their issues, like flight items, incorporeal counters, etc.

[Nifft]

Now, +30 to everything might be extreme, but if you agree that, with so many points, the ranger can be close to as powerful as the wizard, what's the right number of pluses. And if you still think that the wizard is easily and obviously better than this ranger, that's fine, but I would love some explanation.

There is no +X value at which skills = spells.

There is no +X value at which melee = spells.

There is no +X value at which non-spells = spells.


Using your "extreme" +30 to all stats, we get skill checks of roughly +20 (assuming 5 ranks and +15 from ability score).

Climb +20 is nice, but it's not as good as declaring that you personally gain a Climb speed, nor that you can climb on walls and ceilings without using your hands (alter self or spider climb).

Jump +20 is nice, but it's not as nice as flying. Also, there's a level 1 spell that gives a Wizard +30 on a Jump check (jump).

Swim +20 is nice, but it's not as nice as having a Swim speed (alter self).

Diplomacy +20 is nice, but it's not as nice as charm person or suggestion. Interestingly, Diplomacy might be competitive with magic -- but by using magic you can hit the DCs much sooner than mundane characters, so practically speaking it's more like magic plus Diplomacy is amazingly strong, rather than one or the other.

Sense Motive +20 is nice, but it's not as nice as detect thoughts or zone of truth.


Looking at Epic level skill uses, you get a sense of how far you'd need to go to get level 2 or 3 spell effects:
- Sense Motive DC 100 gives "read surface thoughts", a level 2 spell effect.
- Balance DC 120 gives "balance on clouds", almost as good as a level 3 spell effect.


There is no DC for "I'd prefer if a big, thick stone wall existed right there."

There is no DC for "I'd prefer to disappear from this location and instantly appear at that location."

There is no DC for "I'd like a demon to visit me, and stay imprisoned until I decide we have made a satisfactory bargain."

There is no DC for making a secure, extra-dimensional campsite.

There is no DC for animating undead servitors.

There is no DC for raising the dead.


The most important things that magic can do are often just declaring that the world is different, and having rules support for specifically what that means.

Furthermore, instead of choosing a fixed number of these things to do, I can stock up on magical effects -- even if I didn't prepare jump today, I probably have a scroll of jump, because it's cheap & easy. With one round of extra prep time (including the Move action to draw the scroll out of my Handy Haversack), I've got a better Jump check than the +30 stat Ranger. Same deal with stone shape or wall of stone at higher levels. If the caster level is not crucial, and the effect is even mildly useful, then a Wizard can probably do it a few levels after it first becomes available.


Casters need to beg for fewer favors from the DM.

Casters don't need to ask permission to try something. They have a list of things they can just do.

If you've got a DM who likes player creativity, casters have more ways to engage in active creativity. Illusionists become super-powers.


tl;dr - Anything you can do, Wizards can do better. Wizards can do everything better than you.

[Cosi]

But I would like a bit more explanation than some respondents are giving as to why no amount of point difference helps things at all even at low to mid levels. You could be right, I just want to see how. I'm most interested in about levels 1-8.

Well, first of all, making people's numbers bigger is just kind of a bad strategy. The problem isn't that the Fighter doesn't do enough damage, or that he doesn't get big enough saves. Those are pretty fixable. The problem is the abilities he doesn't have. Theres no amount of Climb bonus you can have that would be better than fly. You could make it work at low levels (like, less than 4th), but then you hit the other problem -- the game is just pretty balanced at low levels. A 4th level Fighter is, relatively speaking, much more useful to his party than a 8th or 12th level one. When your Druid can turn into a bear, your Cleric can cast Persistent divine power, and your Wizard can summon a pet demon, the Fighter's ability to be good with a sword isn't all that useful, even if his bonuses at it are larger than normal. But at 4th level, the rest of the party can't do those things, so even the moderately large bonuses a Fighter gets normally are passable.

If you want to make Fighters more useful, you need to give them abilities. There are a bunch of ways to do that, but one of the easiest really is "play a Warblade". Personally, I like the idea of letting people play ToB/Non-ToB gestalts (e.g. Warblade//Paladin, Crusader//Barbarian). You still need some solution to the near total dearth of non-combat options, but that's easier to solve. If you're willing to put in slightly more effort, you could go with another tried-and-true solution -- give the martials arbitrary magic items that give them whatever abilities they happen to need.

[Meijin]

Thank you all for some really good explanations, both in support and criticism of my initial idea. Not that it matters hugely to your point, Nifft, but when I said a +30 bonus in all abilities, I meant a base score that would produce a +30 bonus, not just having a 30 in each stat. Not that it matters much, and I probably worded it poorly.

I would like to emphasize on point. Lots of people on here seem to be taking my hypothetical to mean the fighter/ranger/shadowcaster/binder/whatever gets 18 in everything, or in most things. That's not what I mean at all. I mean open up the cap, so you can have high enough ability scores to get really astounding effects, like easily punching through feet of solid stone.

I am entirely willing to accept that once levels get high enough no amount of point buy will noticeably close the gap.

That said, I still don't see that a 26 point buy 5th level wizard, barring extremely cheesy optimization, would be more helpful on most adventures than another class with a base score of 70 in each ability score. I'm sorry to be repeating myself, and this may come across as me just being stubborn. But I can't think of many challenges a party of that level would face that the uberstatted character couldn't solve, and I can think of many that the wizard might struggle with, depending on spell selection. In any case, it surprises me that so many people on here think so. I'd be very interested in trying a low level play-by-post short adventure where I get to play such a character, everyone else gets high tier classes, high levels of cheese are banned, and we see how it goes.

In any case, everyone seems very hung up on the comparison of very low and very high tier classes (wizard vs fighter). It may be that these classes are just incomparable and the gap cannot be closed. In that case, thoughts on using this to narrow tier gaps between more comparable classes? Say, a 3rd level cleric vs a favored soul but the FS gets a 50 in every ability score. Or a 5th level paladin vs monk, but the monk gets 70 across the board. Maybe a wizard vs a psion. Are numbers so irrelevant that they can't help bridge even a much smaller gap?

[Marlowe]

What's stopping people from starting out at first level as a low-tier class for the points, and then switch to their "real" class from level 2 onward?

[ryu]

What's stopping people from starting out at first level as a low-tier class for the points, and then switch to their "real" class from level 2 onward?

Presumably a direct intervention of not allowed to do that. Honestly I'm not even sure I'd do it in that case. The point being made was that casting progression and the exponential curve of options is the most valuable thing in the game. Being a step behind in exponential growth for an admittedly large flat bonus is a trade that looks less and less sexy the longer the game goes.

[Meijin]

Marlowe, nothing much, really, except player agreement. This is only a hypothetical for people who want to put together a group of characters more balanced across tier levels. So I assume any such a group would frown on that. Or, assign an approximate power level to your "Plan" going forward for classes and award starting points based on that. It's breakable if you want to.

Also, clarifying something that was bothering me. Yes, magic can solve some problems altogether better than high-stats mundane means. A really good jump check isn't as good as fly. But there are other mundane effects it is harder to duplicate with low level magic. For example, Fabricate doesn't come online until 5th level spells, but with a VERY high ability bonus, quite complex crafts can be completed in hours or perhaps a day. Similarly, it may be easier for a mundane character with very high stats to tunnel through difficult materials than a low level spell caster. Extraordinarily high knowledge checks can be more open ended than low level divinations and provide better results. The idea would not be to brute-force replicate magic with mundane abilities, but to allow lower tier characters to hold their own in combat or surpass higher tier ones, while giving them access to a different (probably still more limited) toolkit of things it's more difficult to do at low levels with magic.

[Gnaeus]

Diplomacy +20 is nice, but it's not as nice as charm person or suggestion. Interestingly, Diplomacy might be competitive with magic -- but by using magic you can hit the DCs much sooner than mundane characters, so practically speaking it's more like magic plus Diplomacy is amazingly strong, rather than one or the other.

Sense Motive +20 is nice, but it's not as nice as detect thoughts or zone of truth.


Looking at Epic level skill uses, you get a sense of how far you'd need to go to get level 2 or 3 spell effects:
- Sense Motive DC 100 gives "read surface thoughts", a level 2 spell effect.
- Balance DC 120 gives "balance on clouds", almost as good as a level 3 spell effect.


There is no DC for "I'd prefer if a big, thick stone wall existed right there."

There is no DC for "I'd prefer to disappear from this location and instantly appear at that location."

There is no DC for "I'd like a demon to visit me, and stay imprisoned until I decide we have made a satisfactory bargain."

There is no DC for making a secure, extra-dimensional campsite.

There is no DC for animating undead servitors.

There is no DC for raising the dead.


The most important things that magic can do are often just declaring that the world is different, and having rules support for specifically what that means.

Furthermore, instead of choosing a fixed number of these things to do, I can stock up on magical effects -- even if I didn't prepare jump today, I probably have a scroll of jump, because it's cheap & easy. With one round of extra prep time (including the Move action to draw the scroll out of my Handy Haversack), I've got a better Jump check than the +30 stat Ranger. Same deal with stone shape or wall of stone at higher levels. If the caster level is not crucial, and the effect is even mildly useful, then a Wizard can probably do it a few levels after it first becomes available.


Casters need to beg for fewer favors from the DM.

Casters don't need to ask permission to try something. They have a list of things they can just do.

If you've got a DM who likes player creativity, casters have more ways to engage in active creativity. Illusionists become super-powers.


tl;dr - Anything you can do, Wizards can do better. Wizards can do everything better than you.

1. Strawman begins his skill comparison with crummy skills.

2. Diplomacy is vastly better than charm person or suggestion. It can’t be blocked by basic magics. It hits the Lich or the king as easily as the commoner. It doesn’t wear off. It can’t fail, revealing that you tried to influence the target with dire Magic’s.

3. You are right. Scrolls of jump are a thing. So is Use Magic Device. Actually, jump is on the ranger list too.

Let’s say I have a ranger with all 18s. Spot, listen search, diplomacy, UMD, concentration, hide, move silently, handle animals, knowledge (nature).

There is absolutely a DC for training a giant monster pet. There is a DC for making the king your friend. Hide/move silently are 1 feat away from being a solid stealth character, which your caster sucks at with his -1 move silently. And you will be dead long before you can cast any of those neat spells because -1 spot/listen means you will be surprised a lot.

Most of those things only come into play at high level. And no one argues that it’s anything but a casters game at about level 15+. But let’s look at 10. Yeah, your wizard can teleport. And that’s cool. But he can’t meaningfully engage social encounters without significant risk. He needs a spell every time he wants to scout or find a secret door. He can’t stealth meaningfully, even with invisibility. Animate dead is problematic in many parties and locations, compared with the Rangers pets. Your saves are pathetic and if you get hit once, you’re dead. With only 24 spells/day (fully half of which are level 1 or 2) you can’t do everything. Hell, you need mage armor for your 13 AC, 3-4 nerveskitters for your -1 init. False life and some mirror images and resist energies for your junk HP. Your teleport I guess will serve as your running away spell. You are probably down to a dozen spells or less once you’ve finished the basic task of not dying like a punk. And that’s good, don’t get me wrong. Level 10 wizards don’t suck at any point buy. But you don’t have enough left to contribute to 5 encounters while at the same time covering the Rangers job of searching for secret doors and scouting the next room and negotiating with townsfolk. He’s going to contribute, significantly, encounter after encounter. You need him. That’s parity.

And yes, if the wizard is allowed, not one, but a dozen planar bound pets, all that goes out the window. Planar Binding is better than any low tier trick except for RAW diplomacy. If your DM allows open ended planar bound free pets, all the muggles lose. Flat lose. No argument (except raw diplomacy) comes close. I don’t think that’s common, but draw your own conclusions there.

[Lazymancer]

Now, +30 to everything might be extreme, but if you agree that, with so many points, the ranger can be close to as powerful as the wizard,
Well, yes. Ranger +30 and Wizard 5 are comparable - at the moment. Wizard 5 can do a lot of stuff (breathe water, turn into vapor, create extradimensional space, and just fly around), but "+30 to everything" also allows to do a lot of stuff Wizard can't do (without magic, at least).

However, "bonus to everything" doesn't scale qualitatively - unlike spells. Casters get completely new abilities every spell level: Ranger does practically everything as before, while Wizard also gets teleportation, scrying, and shapeshifting.

Which is why the pointbuy solution doesn't work - not for the whole game (which it should do, if it is a solution).


Many people on the forum believe that a gestalt of all tier 4 and 5 classes is weaker than a wizard.
Yes. I never understood how this (transition to strength-based understanding of Tiers) happened. Tier system was developed primarily for GMs:

this class can blindside you in many ways - some sort of understanding with player will eventually be necessary;
this class can blindside you in few ways - a talk with player might be needed, but you should be able to manage it without explicit metagaming;
this class shouldn't require oversight and you can throw stuff at it without checking beforehand
this class can manage, if supported by group
this class requires attention
no, Truenamer should not be played


I tried pointing this out, but it was simpler for people to ignore it (literally "we already have wrong understanding of Tier system, so it doesn't matter what it actually means") and perpetuate strength-based paradigm of Tiers.

IRL Tier 1 are hardly "strongest" (unless Druid). They are simply the ones with the most options - which doesn't necessarily include the best possible option.



That’s true. But sizable proportion of fights in most games CAN be solved by damage. ...

An 8th level wizard with 16 int doesn’t have dozens and dozens of solutions. He has 19. If he specializes. Including level 1s. ...

Yeah, at level 17, the wizard still ends the world. But at level 8, the ranger isn’t competitive, he’s better. He’s not gonna feel embarrassed at level 10 or 12. At most levels, in most games, hp matter. Saves matter. Numbers matter. And the gold the wizard will need to use to just not die is gold the low tier can use to fix their issues, like flight items, incorporeal counters, etc.
Okay, that's another extreme.
1) Not all games are about fights. Personally, I don't even like fights (both as GM and as a player) - nor level-appropriate encounters. Ranger +30 is always relevant, but not as much as it may seem.

2) Wizard 8 has a lot of solutions - if he is not being forcibly dropped by scripted "adventures" in a locked 10x10 rooms. Options allow creative approach to problems.

3) I fail to see how Ranger +30 (even +300) can somehow be on the level of Wizard 12 (if both are played by competent players without muzzles of railroading) - especially with non-core spells allowed. There are things that can only be solved by magic - while Wizard can (with some difficulty) provide sufficient violence for level-appropriate challenges.

[Lazymancer]

But you don’t have enough left to contribute to 5 encounters while at the same time covering the Rangers job of searching for secret doors and scouting the next room and negotiating with townsfolk. He’s going to contribute, significantly, encounter after encounter. You need him. That’s parity.
Okay. No. Parity would mean that Wizard and Super-Ranger are equivalent. That is not the case. Wizard can replace Super-Ranger (at least, when it comes to level-appropriate challenges), but Super-Ranger can't replace Wizard. I.e. parties need Wizards more than they needs Super-Rangers.

Parity stays at level 5. Maybe 7. If you want Super-Ranger to last until 15+ levels, you'd need to give him Divine Rank 0 at level 11 or somesuch.


You also seem to biased against Wizards. While they are not unlike sports cars (in requiring both specific conditions and competent player for optimal performance), they are not as useless as you claim. To mention the most glaring errors: Wizard can do stealth (for example: Heart of Air/Cloud Wings/Aerial Alacrity + Invisibility + Gaseous Form => Best Scout), Detect Thoughts is not as risky as you made it seem, and quite a few spell slots per day can be saved by the use of pearls/wands.

Also, it's 4 encounters per day, not 5 - if you intend to stick to "WotC-approved" D&D.

[jdizzlean]

or, you could just let people play whatever the hell they want and let it go at that.

the best way around it is to just let people rebuild or insert a new character at the same level their current one is w/ the same accumulated wealth and go on.

it's a game, stop analyzing it to death :)

[ryu]

or, you could just let people play whatever the hell they want and let it go at that.

the best way around it is to just let people rebuild or insert a new character at the same level their current one is w/ the same accumulated wealth and go on.

it's a game, stop analyzing it to death :)

You do realize analyzing games is half the fun right? And that that percentage actually rises with time?

[jdizzlean]

You do realize analyzing games is half the fun right? And that that percentage actually rises with time?

sometimes yes, but beating a dead horse for a thousand eons because you want to make the same point that was made in the last 1000 beatings is just stupid. No one is ever going to agree with you if they have a different viewpoint on the matter. I realize that would probably cut out about half the traffic on this forum, especially when it comes to fighter vs wiz. or tier x vs tier y.

sometimes i think people just read the thread title, ignore everything that is posted in it, and then respond and go from there instead of bothering to read what's already been discussed. Seriously, invest in it fully, or don't bother :p

I will now go back to my small corner, under the stairs, in the deepest sub-basement, and keep my divisive rhetoric to myself :)

[Jormengand]

or, you could just let people play whatever the hell they want and let it go at that.

By attempting to make all classes viable, I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what people here want to do. You know, sometimes games have features and problems which need to be worked on. What's the point in telling people "Your efforts suck and the game is fine" when they don't and it isn't?

[jdizzlean]

all the classes ARE viable, it's the player that makes the difference. in 99.999999991% of games, no one is trying to high OP and rule the world. In the infinitesimal games left over, it's an issue. Everyone agrees martials are beneath casters, and that if you want the power of a caster, play a caster. You are NEVER going to make a fighter equal to anything but a fighter. A fighter 19, wizard 1 is no longer a fighter. that is the fallacy and the greatness of d&d, you can create whatever you want within the system, or go homebrew and come up w/ anything you want to justify whatever mad power scramble you are trying to accomplish. I personally feel that Bard is the most useless class that exists, but i'm sure that anyone on this board that cares could build a bard that would stomp all over me in a game. And that's basically because I don't particularly care how YOUR character is build, just mine.

so i'll say it again, play how you want to play, and stop giving yourself an anuerism trying to make a fighter into a wizard, or whatever. If you hate the weakness of the fighter so much, don't play one. otherwise, ROLEplay a little, and accept the strengths AND the weaknesses.

I play a regular game w/ folks who can rules lawyer me into oblivion, and they don't all play wizard 20. they play what is fun, until it isn't fun, and then they play something else. the game is the important thing, not the characters tier/power/optimization/wealth/spell/x/x/x/x/x level.

[Nifft]

all the classes ARE viable, it's the player that makes the difference.

In my experience, all classes can appear viable because D&D is a team sport and if you've got decent players the PCs support each other.

If one character isn't pulling her weight, that's usually not a huge problem, because someone else is usually over-performing.

That doesn't make the under-performer equal to the over-performer. It means the players don't mind chipping in to help their less-able friend(s).


You know what would help both the over-performer and the under-performer? If they were put onto a level playing field, so both of them could perform well at their chosen jobs.

That's what we're all trying figure out how to to do here.

That's what you're arguing against.

[rel]

A variable point buy reduces the difference in power between tiers and makes a party containing wildly different tier builds more tenable but only at low levels.

Let's say character A has all 18's and character B has all 10's. effectively, one character has a bonus of +4 to everything important.

At level 1 that +4 difference is significant because the total bonus for being good at something is usually between 5 and 10. Your raw stat's are a significant factor into how effective your character is.

At level 10 the bonus in something you are good at is harder to pin down but +20 or +25 is a reasonable ballpark figure. The +4 difference from starting stats is far less relevant when the total bonuses are this high.


Even if you ignore that the true power of higher tier classes is access to non-numeric effects the simple numbers from a differing point buy do not scale as you level so their relevance decays over time.

Now adding a variable point buy onto a variable WBL scale will definitely result in less of a gap between the tiers at all levels of play but actually writing rules to produce the desired results without introducing problems seems difficult.

Specifically you have to find a balance point that works at all levels of play for a good range of player skill while also factoring in crafting, trading and extra wealth generation. That is a big ask for a rule.

[Bucky]

For the reasons rel gave, and to avoid multiclass cheese, it's probably a better idea to give out attribute *bonuses* to characters each time they take a level in a low tier class.

[angelpalm]

Yeah I have seen a few classes in pathfinder that actually gave real stat increases as you leveled up and none of them were overpowered. Not a bad idea.

Edit: Still not a viable fix to make a class really feel like it is worth playing. From what I see, most classes feel good to play when they are in that tier 3 range. Most people that play tier 1 classes still only play them in a way that makes them feel like high tier 3 or tier 2 classes anyways, so imo that is a the best starting point.

[Fizban]

Most people agree that the classes of D&D 3.5 are wildly unbalanced in terms of power level.
Most people are using the wrong definition of power level. It's been said already, though somewhat obliquely, I like to say it directly: there is no such thing as class balance or class power levels. Only an overall game balance, under the purview of the DM.

DnD 3.5 is designed around the core party of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. Deviating from that, even within the core classes, causes variance, which must be accounted for by the DM. They are not assumed to be using "builds"- rather, they are assumed to not be intentionally crippled, but otherwise stacking/building/comboing/whatever is not required or expected. If the players are "optimizing," it is up to the DM to either compensate or keep them under control. They are assumed to be working together, with the two specific spellcasters using their spells to keep the entire party alive in the face of supernatural threats that could otherwise wipe them out instantly. If the party is not functioning this way, say because they've decided to focus all or nothing on offense rather than caution, then it is up to the DM to compensate.

They are assumed to face a variable number of challenges per day: the much hammered average of four is an average, not a limit, and for every day you fight only a single encounter you should expect to have another day where you face seven if this average is being maintained, with no guarantee as to when encounters happen. They are assumed to face challenges of variable difficulty, with some 20% being potentially quite lethal and the remaining 80% being of little danger if handled competently, barring bad luck- though as with gambling, bad luck will always happen eventually. If the DM is skipping over "weak" encounters or running a hard limit of four per day, then they should expect skewed results.

Encounters are assumed to happen in environments conductive to their monsters but not overly engineered for or against the PCs -if the DM does so, they are directed to award more or less xp. Judging by the name, the expected environment is a dungeon, which is a series of rooms with doorways and corridors that can be held as chokepoints, with a number of traps and locks that must be disabled or bypassed. If the DM is using mostly featureless empty spaces, using few traps or locks or placing them in ways they can be simply ignored, and so on, then they should expect skewed results.

The party is expected to expend resources and take on risk in order to complete encounters. If they are so powerful that, on average (and that's a very broad scope to cover), they do not expend an appropriate amount of resources relative to the encounters they face, then that party is overpowered by definition. Similarly, if their circumstances are so controlled that they are never at risk even when faced with bad luck or powerful foes, then they are also overpowered. In either case, it is up to the DM to adjust the game accordingly.


You should be getting the idea by now. The standard "forum" arguments rely on a mountain of assumptions that are flat contradicted by the DMG. Running the game as anything-goes RAW optimization: nope, DMG explicitly says it's the DM's job to maintain "balance" and pick what's allowed, which means it's their fault if they just dump everything in a pot and expect it to work out. Non-standard party: there's a whole list of example problems with lacking this or that class in the DMG, while PHB2 makes the standard party explicit, and it's the DM's job to compensate. Holy four encounter day making spell slots perfectly line up: failure to understand the meaning of average. Non-casters can't fight anything because they don't have immunities: failure to understand the role of spellcasting in teamwork. Non-casters can't kill anything because it's too powerful: failure to understand teamwork, bonus failure to run the 10-30% of weak encounters the non-casters are meant to handle without spells, which ties back to failure to understand average encounters per day. And on and on.

Since the kind of people who meet on forums to optimize rules are obviously the kind of people who want to play optimized characters, it should be no surprise that they have already changed the balance of the game by using optimized characters and altering party dynamics. They want DMs to compensate by optimizing encounters to re-balance the game rather than limiting their characters, may favor skipping low-risk fights and traps because they find them boring, and after a certain point this becomes a fundamentally different game than the standard. Complaints about power levels and inter-class balance are a problem of this metagame, not the default game.


People have been trying for more than a decade to rebuild the default game in order to fix their metagame, re-writing and "fixing" classes to match their taste- as they should do. Customizing the game to suit your needs is also right there in the DMG after all. Depending on how drastic your metagame is, variable point buys may be enough, or they may not. The only problem is that many or even most of them don't actually realize that they're trying to solve a particular metagame, instead referring to their preferences as if they were absolute results that must inevitably be experienced by all. There is a default game- it's just not no-holds-barred kitchen sink optimization.

And yes, I do have a 60 page document of house rules and homebrew, and even then there's plenty of room where if people just pick stuff without coordinating I'd have to step in to keep the game balanced to where I want it, because that breadth is what makes 3.5 worth it in the first place.

-Edit: oh, and sorry about not supplying any more numbers regarding the questions in the OP. I feel it's more important to establish what's going on first, and writing another version of this essay was actually quite calming as I wait for anger at RL things to cool off. The point is, those numbers just aren't something anyone else can solve for you, not without a fairly massive amount of information about your game. So the only useful answer I can give is the short one: maybe you can do it with just point buy changes, wealth changes, maybe not. I can't actually answer them from my perspective, because I find it far, far easier to preserve game balance by altering the problematic elements directly rather than trying to indirectly shift them via point buy and wealth changes. If I was going to alter stats or magic items, I'd do it directly based on what a given character needs to fit into the game, if for some reason I couldn't just fix their class or build (and if I'm speaking as DM, there's no reason I couldn't unless the player would have trouble adjusting to that method).

[Gnaeus]

Okay. No. Parity would mean that Wizard and Super-Ranger are equivalent. That is not the case. Wizard can replace Super-Ranger (at least, when it comes to level-appropriate challenges), but Super-Ranger can't replace Wizard. I.e. parties need Wizards more than they needs Super-Rangers.

Parity stays at level 5. Maybe 7. If you want Super-Ranger to last until 15+ levels, you'd need to give him Divine Rank 0 at level 11 or somesuch.


You also seem to biased against Wizards. While they are not unlike sports cars (in requiring both specific conditions and competent player for optimal performance), they are not as useless as you claim. To mention the most glaring errors: Wizard can do stealth (for example: Heart of Air/Cloud Wings/Aerial Alacrity + Invisibility + Gaseous Form => Best Scout), Detect Thoughts is not as risky as you made it seem, and quite a few spell slots per day can be saved by the use of pearls/wands.

Also, it's 4 encounters per day, not 5 - if you intend to stick to "WotC-approved" D&D.

Im not biased against wizards. They are one of the 3 strongest core classes. I’m just not so biased in their favor that I think that an 8/8/8/16/8/8 wizard clearly beats an 18/20/18/18/18/18 ranger at level 10.

Ok, you can stack enough spells to be a passable scout for a few minutes a day. Well, almost passable, you still have -1 spot, listen and search. And if you accidentally trip a dispel trap or enter an amf you will likely die. But yeah, you can. And you didn’t have enough spells left to scout when it was one, let alone 3.

So, your plan is to have exactly 4 encounters worth of spells you can contribute to, and hope you never get 5. Ok good luck with that.

Gimp wizard needs muggles. Again, dies in 1 hit, all bad saves, awful initiative. You need to win initiative and one shot every single fight (unlikely with such a low casting stat) or defense buff regularly. It isn’t actually much of a drawback that gimp wizard could poorly do rangers scouting job if he filled his spells known with invisibilities and gaseous forms. Because he would be foolish to do that. I don’t have to check every box a wizard can do, I just have to be able to competently contribute to standard adventuring challenges as often as he can.

Yes, wizard can use pearls and wands. So can a ranger. The ranger wand list has some good spells, and with Cha 18, Int 18 UMD isn’t much of a stretch. If I can swing close to a +19 UMD Muggle has more wand options than wizard does. The difference is that the ranger only has to solve standard muggle problems like flight and incorporeal, while the wizard has to claw his way back from +1 fort and reflex saves and 21 HP at level 10. And also keep spells in hand for SR:no, flight, incorporeal etc with an int that doesn’t guarantee super high save DC. Probably his safest, most reliable combat spells for most fights will be classics like haste or crowd control, at which point, yeah, you need the ranger.

Hell, I’m throwing the wizard a bone just by sticking with ranger. Casters benefit from single classing. Muggles benefit from dipping, and this isn’t a class tier evaluation. I wouldn’t likely play a ranger in a game with high pb for low tier classes. I’d be more likely to be a ranger/Paladin/Marshall/fighter, or a Barbarian/ranger/Marshall/fighter/rogue.

Disclaimer: (again, assuming unlimited planar binding isn’t available due to nerf or gentleman agreement).

[Lazymancer]

Im not biased against wizards. They are one of the 3 strongest core classes. I’m just not so biased in their favor that I think that an 8/8/8/16/8/8 wizard clearly beats an 18/20/18/18/18/18 ranger at level 10.
You've redefined the question. It's not about "beating". It's parity - in being useful.

Also, it would by hypocritical of me to agree with 8/8/8/16/8/8 being optimal for PB 10, if I'm regularly arguing for Con being the first attribute wizard should care about.

At least, make it 8/10/12/12/8/8 - or just standard array (10/11).


wizard needs muggles.
Your argument hinges on Wizard not being able to cover roles of both Wizard and Super-Ranger simultaneously. However, he doesn't need to do it. It's obvious that there will be two Wizards: one covering the regular Wizard role, while the other is replacing Super-Ranger.


wizard could poorly do rangers scouting job if he filled his spells known with invisibilities and gaseous forms
Substituting the problem again: invisibility/gaseous form was for stealth, not scouting. Scouting could be done via scrying or other options.


Hell, I’m throwing the wizard a bone just by sticking with ranger.
Incantatrix. Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil. War Weaver. Anima Mage. Red Wizard. Dweomerkeeper.

No, you are not.


Casters benefit from single classing. Muggles benefit from dipping, and this isn’t a class tier evaluation.
Really? It clearly demonstrates that non-caster classes are not giving high-level benefits.

[angelpalm]

Pretty much. Saying that you have to dip to stay competitive is basically what the op is trying to actively avoid lol.

All the stuff that other classes CAN do, wizard and other high tier class can as well, but they don't HAVE to because they have multiple options to tackle any given situation. Again, stats will never change that. You need real class features that have similar utility and power to spells. This is why people love initiators since it just gives martials their own form of spell casting.

I like ranger but I do think it would be more fun to play the likes of it or Paly with magic at level 1, that is why I suggested to revamp the entire magic system for them to resemble psionics. I am thinking it would be easier to implement than to make them flat out 9th level casters which conflicts with the very nature of their design and function. A good place to start is to look at their respective spell list and see what they can already do and what then see we what can do to improve upon that in small increments. Allowing them to get spells at 1st level would make it necessary to weaken the normal spell effects of course and add more options to what could be done with them once your character reached the proper caster level to invest more power in spell points into them. These so called half caster classes would still need full caster levels however.

[Hal0Badger]

On the subject of un-equal gp distribution:
I would rather give bonuses to certain classes at certain levels, like enhancement bonus to STR or deflection bonus to AC and distrubute the gold equally. Therefore certain classes do not need to buy basic ability boosters, which allows them to get other magic items they need.

You can add weapon abilities to that as well if you wish.

[Gnaeus]

You've redefined the question. It's not about "beating". It's parity - in being useful.

Also, it would by hypocritical of me to agree with 8/8/8/16/8/8 being optimal for PB 10, if I'm regularly arguing for Con being the first attribute wizard should care about.

At least, make it 8/10/12/12/8/8 - or just standard array (10/11).


Your argument hinges on Wizard not being able to cover roles of both Wizard and Super-Ranger simultaneously. However, he doesn't need to do it. It's obvious that there will be two Wizards: one covering the regular Wizard role, while the other is replacing Super-Ranger.


Substituting the problem again: invisibility/gaseous form was for stealth, not scouting. Scouting could be done via scrying or other options.


Incantatrix. Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil. War Weaver. Anima Mage. Red Wizard. Dweomerkeeper.

No, you are not.


Really? It clearly demonstrates that non-caster classes are not giving high-level benefits.

You are arguing that wizard 10 wins over ranger 10. I’m arguing that it doesn’t. As I have from start. As is the point of the excercise. You have to show a clear win. I reject your argument on stats since stats don’t matter for you. You get enough int to cast your spells and a pile of 8s. +2 from levels.

And 2 gimp wizards don’t beat a wizard and a super ranger at 10. You get ambushed one time and you are dead. What’s the 5th level spell for “always knows everything happening around me for the entire adventuring day?” I’ve got about a +17 spot/listen. You have -1. What are they gonna do? Clairvoyance down every path they walk all day? Even that is a worse solution versus things that are hiding. I can eat an ambush full of arrows. You can’t.

Yeah, you can PRC, but it doesn’t help you much. Incantrix for example, gives nothing by level 10 that fixes your problems. It actually makes them worse by forcing bad feat selection and a set of skills you don’t need. IoT7V you have only 1 level of, and that does very little to solve your problems. Which one of those do you think actually changes life for an 8 con, 8 dex wizard at level 10? I’m happy to compare the benefits you get from the listed levels in those classes compared to what I can get from Barbarian 2 (pounce, rage), or Paladin 2 (+Cha to all saves), or Marshall 1 (Diplomacy and UMD of +yes), or rogue 1 (trapfinding, sneak attack, UMD as class skill) Yeah, level 15 you win by even more. So?

Yeah, non caster classes scale poorly. But I don’t see anything in op that says the point is preventing martial characters from multiclassing. It looks to me like he is trying to improve the balance between tier 1 casters and muggles. From rereading the thread it looks like his multiclassing concern was mostly about taking fighter 1 for the good stat array then multiclassing Into a caster. I’m not suggesting anything that isn’t T4-5. We all know how to optimize casters (never lose caster levels) vs. how to optimize muggles (cherry pick classes for benefits).

[Hal0Badger]

On the subject of un-equal gp distribution:
I would rather give bonuses to certain classes at certain levels, like enhancement bonus to STR or deflection bonus to AC and distrubute the gold equally. Therefore certain classes do not need to buy basic ability boosters, which allows them to get other magic items they need.

You can add weapon abilities to that as well if you wish.

[Gnaeus]

On the subject of un-equal gp distribution:
I would rather give bonuses to certain classes at certain levels, like enhancement bonus to STR or deflection bonus to AC and distrubute the gold equally. Therefore certain classes do not need to buy basic ability boosters, which allows them to get other magic items they need.

You can add weapon abilities to that as well if you wish.

I agree, but not for that reason. Saying “for every 2 levels in tier 4-5 classes you get +1 enhancement bonus to a stat” is a meta game solution that does not require IC input. Saying “the fighter needs two shares of treasure to do his job” would piss many PCs off IC.

Going back to replacing characters in party, in general, you aren’t usually replacing the muggle fighter with a second wizard, you are replacing them with a CoDzilla who can do their job. And while the CoD can still easily pull their weight, they are going to have a very hard time outfightering the fighter with 8 con (and for the cleric, 8 str and dex).

Even in a party of gimp wizard, gimp cleric, gimp Druid, superranger, I think that at level 10 the ranger would be valuable enough that you would rather have him than another caster type

[angelpalm]

Um level 10 wizard stomps a mudhole into level 10 ranger lol

5th level spells are nasty. So many game enders that a Ranger simply can't counter. Maybe ranger MIGHT make that will save to keep from getting dominated or magic jar'd but then perhaps ranger put all their points into physical stats so that they don't get obliterated by the summoned beast that the Conjurer Wizard tossed out at ranger the same round that they casually hit ranger with quickened magic missles from 100ft away as they fly about invisible and completely undetected.

[Gnaeus]

Um level 10 wizard stomps a mudhole into level 10 ranger lol

5th level spells are nasty. So many game enders that a Ranger simply can't counter. Maybe ranger MIGHT make that will save to keep from getting dominated or magic jar'd but then perhaps ranger put all their points into physical stats so that they don't get obliterated by the summoned beast that the Conjurer Wizard tossed out at ranger the same round that they casually hit ranger with quickened magic missles from 100ft away as they fly about invisible and completely undetected.

Ranger in this context has all 18s. He didnt put all his points in physical stats. He has all the stats. And it’s not remotely about who can win a fight between the 2 (although invisibility is a minutes/level buff, you have terrible initiative and if one of the 2 will get a surprise round all the odds are on the ranger. Short of pretty high optimization I don’t feel bad about my chances of murdering you before you can get any of those spells off.)

It’s about:
We walk into an ambush, who has the best chance of spotting it. Who doesn’t die round 1 if we don’t.

An enemy caster just cast a fireball. You didn’t know he was going to cast fireball so you didn’t have rest fire prepped. Odds are good if he hits you, you fail your save and average damage kills you.

A Medusa steps out of concealment. Who fails a fort save and dies?

Are you going to cast a spell in every single room we enter, or does it help to have someone who can search for valuables?

Are you going to charm every NPC we meet, or is having someone who can make a diplomacy check without pulling out a dozen scrolls helpful?

You have a summoner and a buffer wizard, I have a ranger and a buffer wizard. Who makes a better target for buffs, the ranger with awesome stats or anything on the Summon monster V list? (By the way, in your combat example, if my ally wizard throws a glitterdust, I’m gonna shoot you dead before you get another round. Your beast + magic missiles aren’t much of a threat given my saves, initiative and hp. I can put out way more damage and take more than you and your summons combined.)

[Cosi]

A 10th level Wizard gets lesser planar binding, and is therefore able to produce forces well in excess of anything a Ranger could do even with all 18s in his stats. He may opt not to do that (indeed, he very likely will), but that means that any imbalance is a result of him restraining himself, rather than the Ranger being superior.

[Lazymancer]

You are arguing that wizard 10 wins over ranger 10.
That's pure combat. I'm saying there is no parity - which includes utility aspect.


I reject your argument on stats since stats don’t matter for you.
No amount of strawmanning will help you.


And 2 gimp wizards don’t beat a wizard and a super ranger at 10.
Wrong example. Super-Rangers are equivalent in usefulness to Wizards if 2 Super-Rangers are no worse than 2 Wizards as a replacement for Super-Ranger+Wizard combo.

And you are trying to reduce everything to combat again.


You get ambushed one time and you are dead. What’s the 5th level spell for “always knows everything happening around me for the entire adventuring day?” I’ve got about a +17 spot/listen. You have -1. What are they gonna do? Clairvoyance down every path they walk all day? Even that is a worse solution versus things that are hiding. I can eat an ambush full of arrows. You can’t.
For the love of god, did you even play D&D? This is Wizard 10. Even if you don't like Teleport, there is Overland Flight to get from point A to point B - and you can sleep in Rope Tricks. Good luck trying to set up an ambush at the height of 4 miles.


Yeah, you can PRC, but it doesn’t help you much. Incantrix for example, gives nothing by level 10 that fixes your problems. It actually makes them worse by forcing bad feat selection and a set of skills you don’t need.
I learn something new every day. Today I learned that Incantatrix is a bad choice for Wizard. Should've taken some levels in Fighter, eh? :smallbiggrin:


IoT7V you have only 1 level of
Why? Did you "make a judgement call" (strawmanned some weird build that I am supposed to defend without even knowing what it is) again?


Which one of those do you think actually changes life for an 8 con, 8 dex wizard at level 10? I’m happy to compare the benefits you get from the listed levels in those classes compared to what I can get from Barbarian 2 (pounce, rage), or Paladin 2 (+Cha to all saves), or Marshall 1 (Diplomacy and UMD of +yes), or rogue 1 (trapfinding, sneak attack, UMD as class skill)
Please, state clearly what this bit is supposed to prove. I don't want to jump to conclusions.


Yeah, non caster classes scale poorly.
Which is part of the whole "tier evaluation" thing you claimed it is not related to.

[angelpalm]

This goalpost is strapped to the space shuttle challenger.

[Lazymancer]

A 10th level Wizard gets lesser planar binding, and is therefore able to produce forces well in excess of anything a Ranger could do even with all 18s in his stats. He may opt not to do that (indeed, he very likely will), but that means that any imbalance is a result of him restraining himself, rather than the Ranger being superior.
I'd rather not touch Planar Binding - as well as Diplomacy - due to the whole nonsense RAW entail.

[Gnaeus]

A 10th level Wizard gets lesser planar binding, and is therefore able to produce forces well in excess of anything a Ranger could do even with all 18s in his stats. He may opt not to do that (indeed, he very likely will), but that means that any imbalance is a result of him restraining himself, rather than the Ranger being superior.

Headdesk. Yes. I know. Which is why I have made the disclaimer multiple times in this 2 page thread that if an army of free planar allies is allowed, nothing else matters except maybe RAW diplomacy. Wizard sits at cave entrance while 20 bound demons act like an adventuring party, you win D&D. Fine. Granted. Let’s all play Arkham horror. Heck, under those conditions, the cleric and Druid aren’t pulling their weight either. Actually, come to think about it, the ranger is probably the second most valuable PC in the party after the planar binder, since he’s the guy who walks in with the army and finds the loot.

Assuming that planar binding is banned, nerfed in some manner to avoid army summoning, or kept off table by agreement, ranger in does fine at 10 under these conditions. If not, ranger is just as useless as every other class in the game that can’t summon infinite outsiders.

[angelpalm]

I like the part where Rangers counter to wizard was having his own wizard :nale:

[Gnaeus]

I like the part where Rangers counter to wizard was having his own wizard :nale:

That was the counter to 2 wizards is better than wizard + ranger. But why wouldn’t the ranger have access to a wizard. My argument isn’t that wizards suck. My argument is that in a typical adventuring party in which casters have vastly substandard point buy, and muggle has vastly better pb, that the ranger can pull his weight. One of the best things that the gimp wizard can do is buff the superranger, which is exactly as it should be.

[Marlowe]

I'm not going to play this game as a Wizard to make the Ranger look good. Wizards have better things to do. Better things they're EXPECTED to do, than hand a buff to some chap with a longbow who should be expected to be able to care for himself anyway.

[Gnaeus]

Wrong example. Super-Rangers are equivalent in usefulness to Wizards if 2 Super-Rangers are no worse than 2 Wizards as a replacement for Super-Ranger+Wizard combo.

And you are trying to reduce everything to combat again.


For the love of god, did you even play D&D? This is Wizard 10. Even if you don't like Teleport, there is Overland Flight to get from point A to point B - and you can sleep in Rope Tricks. Good luck trying to set up an ambush at the height of 4 miles.


I learn something new every day. Today I learned that Incantatrix is a bad choice for Wizard. Should've taken some levels in Fighter, eh? :smallbiggrin:


Why? Did you "make a judgement call" (strawmanned some weird build that I am supposed to defend without even knowing what it is) again?


Please, state clearly what this bit is supposed to prove. I don't want to jump to conclusions.


Which is part of the whole "tier evaluation" thing you claimed it is not related to.

Sorry about inability to match formatting. Firewall won’t let me do this on my computer.

Woah! Not at all. Parity is achieved if R&W equals or exceeds Wx2. No one is trying to replace wizard, or claim that ranger is better than wizard. Wizards do lots of awesome stuff. The point isn’t that superranger replaces wizard. It’s that they carry their weight in the team in a way that does more than them carrying the T1 bags.

I certainly am not. I have repeatedly pointed out the benefits of the Rangers skills to utility. Diplomacy/spot/listen/search etc are all useful.

Yes, I do play D&D, with a DM who has more than an 80 IQ who can plan a decent game. Teleport requires having seen a destination. If he wants to have an ambush he makes 4 mile flight impractical. For example by making the party follow someone, or having us follow a map with cues you can’t see from a mile in the air. Good luck finding the hidden entrance to the dungeon from a mile in the air.

Incantrix is a great PRC. Now tell me what it does at level 10 that solves all the problems I’ve pointed out.

I didn’t make a judgment call. I pointed out that you need 12 ranks in 2 skills to enter that PRC. IIRC, barring major cheese, that’s level +3 max. So you enter at level 10.

It’s not meant to prove anything, other than as pointed out, comparing builds of multiple classes favors the muggle disproportionately over the wizard. That’s why we see muggle builds with 12 classes and T1 builds with 1 core class and a couple PRCs. That’s just how the system works. I’ll let OP weigh in if I’m wrong, but it seems pretty counterintuitive to assume that a system meant to handicap casters and benefit muggles should be interpreted in a way that prevents normal muggle optimized builds.

Wizard>Muggles. No doubt. That’s the purpose of the tier system. Under equal conditions they may beat them as early as L1, or as late as L5. (Depending on sources and optimization). Maybe as late as 10 for high power muggles like ToB. But these are distinctly not equal conditions. You act like wizards never have to make saving throws, or that fights don’t end with damage, or that skills don’t matter. My experience is much different.

[Gnaeus]

I'm not going to play this game as a Wizard to make the Ranger look good. Wizards have better things to do. Better things they're EXPECTED to do, than hand a buff to some chap with a longbow who should be expected to be able to care for himself anyway.

And also better things they are expected to do than find all the secret doors with spells, all the traps with spells, all the social encounters with spells, and do all the scouting with spells, when there is a guy on their team who can do a great job at those things.

[angelpalm]

I'm not going to play this game as a Wizard to make the Ranger look good. Wizards have better things to do. Better things they're EXPECTED to do, than hand a buff to some chap with a longbow who should be expected to be able to care for himself anyway.

Indeed, if a wizard that can end an encounter with a single spell is wasting a round buffing some meat sack then that wizard isn't doing his job.

Literally every situation this dude is crapping out a wizard at that level wouldn't be involved in from the get go. Wizard has an answer to everything period. That is what makes wizard tier 1, ranger doesn't. This isn't hard. God mode ranger with infinite strength, constitution, wisdom, and dexterity still can't deal with all these situations like wizard. Sure that ranger can survive an encounter and kill some stuff but who cares? If that is all a player wants to do that is fine. But the op and this guy are saying that giving out stats and gold is going to somehow fill that missing hole in their little itty bitty mundane heart and that just isn't true. And it will never be, even if this dude throws the goalpost into a wormhole.

Gnaeus:

Like no one is saying that the wizard should be trying to one up every mundane in the group. They might not even have a wizard. The whole thing was to garner appeal for these low tier classes with some kind of lopsided patch that just doesn't address the issue. If you are telling op that his group should do more to make the mundanes feel better by allowing them to do their jobs or spending actions buffing them that is up to them right?

[Gnaeus]

Indeed, if a wizard that can end an encounter with a single spell is wasting a round buffing some meat sack then that wizard isn't doing his job.

Literally every situation this dude is crapping out a wizard at that level wouldn't be involved in from the get go. Wizard has an answer to everything period. That is what makes wizard tier 1, ranger doesn't. This isn't hard. God mode ranger with infinite strength, constitution, wisdom, and dexterity still can't deal with all these situations like wizard. Sure that ranger can survive an encounter and kill some stuff but who cares? If that is all a player wants to do that is fine. But the op and this guy are saying that giving out stats and gold is going to somehow fill that missing hole in their little itty bitty mundane heart and that just isn't true. And it will never be, even if this dude throws the goalpost into a wormhole.

Gnaeus:

Like no one is saying that the wizard should be trying to one up every mundane in the group. They might not even have a wizard. The whole thing was to garner appeal for these low tier classes with some kind of lopsided patch that just doesn't address the issue. If you are telling op that his group should do more to make the mundanes feel better by allowing them to do their jobs or spending actions buffing them that is up to them right?

Balance means different things to different people. Does an 18 Cha let the ranger teleport? No. Does 18 str/dex/com let the ranger fight well enough that he can BE a ranger and not be outclassed by SMV or Druid pet? Yes! Does it make him capable enough at routine adventuring tasks that find traps and detect secret doors aren’t worth preparing? Yes! That’s a huge change! Does it make him good enough at his job that he is an adventurer and not a servant? IMO yes. Can Steven Strange ultimately defeat anyone Captain America can beat? With time and preparation, certainly. Does that mean they couldn’t meaningfully team up? No!

And the gestalt consciousness assumes that wizard player always has the spell he needs to one shot the encounter he is facing. Yeah, if you can, Great. Sometimes you have the wrong spells prepared. Especially if you have crummy save DCs and need to waste an unusually high % of spells to cover some pretty gaping weaknesses. Haste isn’t good because it makes the ranger feel good. It’s good because damage matters in most fights and if you don’t have the right SR no spell prepared or you didn’t expect to be fighting something with particular immunities, buff + competent muggle is a good enough solution to a large subset of problems.

And in practical terms it is more than just numbers. The money he doesn’t need to spend raising to hit, damage, AC, saves and skills is money he can use for flight items, utility wands, etc. WBLmancy is a thing and a string of 18s saves a ton of cash.

[Marlowe]

And also better things they are expected to do than find all the secret doors with spells, all the traps with spells, all the social encounters with spells, and do all the scouting with spells, when there is a guy on their team who can do a great job at those things.

A Ranger cannot do these things. What is the point that you thought you were making?

[Gnaeus]

A Ranger cannot do these things. What is the point that you thought you were making?

A ranger with straight 18s can, pretty easily. May need a 1 level rogue dip for magic traps. (I’d do it with a trait, but not hard in 3.5 either.

[Lazymancer]

Parity is achieved if R&W equals or exceeds Wx2.
What. No.

If Ranger is just as important as Wizard, absence of Ranger must cripple party as much as it will be crippled by the absence of the Wizard. Consequently, we should be comparing parties without Wizard to parties with Super-Ranger.

After we drop the redundant bits, the question boils down to if either R&R or W&W are closer (or superior) in performance to R&W.


Yes, I do play D&D, with a DM who has more than an 80 IQ who can plan a decent game. Teleport requires having seen a destination.
You can use Scrying to take a look at a destination. Scry&Fry.

Also, I'm not impressed by GM planning to make characters do something.


If he wants to have an ambush he makes 4 mile flight impractical. For example by making the party follow someone, or having us follow a map with cues you can’t see from a mile in the air. Good luck finding the hidden entrance to the dungeon from a mile in the air.
Yeah. If GM starts railroading even Craft (basketweaving) can become relevant. However, in usual circumstances, you don't have a compelling reason to walk around. Consequently, most of those ambushes for W&W are simply not relevant.

In other news: wand with Lay of the Land costs 1,5k, while wand of Polymorph would cost you 21k. Also, ruins are much more noticeable from the air.


Incantrix is a great PRC. Now tell me what it does at level 10 that solves all the problems I’ve pointed out.
And as I pointed out - with the Overland Flight; which is just one of many possibilities - those problems aren't actual problems. There are options. You don't like Overland Flight and must somehow end up in close proximity to a source of danger? Magic Jar on Troll works wonders.


I didn’t make a judgment call. I pointed out that you need 12 ranks in 2 skills to enter that PRC. IIRC, barring major cheese, that’s level +3 max. So you enter at level 10.
Which is not relevant to my point that including other classes does not work against Wizard.



Balance means different things to different people.
Unlike early D&D (where party chose their challenges and nobody expected to have some sort of "balance" among PCs), 3e has an objective non-negotiable understanding of "balance".

Once WotC made assumptions as to how the classes should behave at different levels (and made a lot of content that corresponded to those assumptions) post-modernist attempts at redefining the meanings of words ("balance" in this case) can no longer work. We have specific description of how it should be done. And if it does not work, the absence of "balance" is a hard fact, rather than an opinion.

[Gnaeus]

What. No.

If Ranger is just as important as Wizard, absence of Ranger must cripple party as much as it will be crippled by the absence of the Wizard. Consequently, we should be comparing parties without Wizard to parties with Super-Ranger.

After we drop the redundant bits, the question boils down to if either R&R or W&W are closer (or superior) in performance to R&W.


You can use Scrying to take a look at a destination. Scry&Fry.

Also, I'm not impressed by GM planning to make characters do something.


Yeah. If GM starts railroading even Craft (basketweaving) can become relevant. However, in usual circumstances, you don't have a compelling reason to walk around. Consequently, most of those ambushes for W&W are simply not relevant.

In other news: wand with Lay of the Land costs 1,5k, while wand of Polymorph would cost you 21k. Also, ruins are much more noticeable from the air.


And as I pointed out - with the Overland Flight; which is just one of many possibilities - those problems aren't actual problems. There are options. You don't like Overland Flight and must somehow end up in close proximity to a source of danger? Magic Jar on Troll works wonders.


Which is not relevant to my point that including other classes does not work against Wizard.



Unlike early D&D (where party chose their challenges and nobody expected to have some sort of "balance" among PCs), 3e has an objective non-negotiable understanding of "balance".

Once WotC made assumptions as to how the classes should behave at different levels (and made a lot of content that corresponded to those assumptions) post-modernist attempts at redefining the meanings of words ("balance" in this case) can no longer work. We have specific description of how it should be done. And if it does not work, the absence of "balance" is a hard fact, rather than an opinion.

Well, functionally, we, or at least I, are using wizard and ranger as shorthand for gimped T1 caster and supermuggle. It is completely irrelevant whether RR or WW is better as long as RW is superior to either one, the fix is valid.

You can see/hear some creature, of whom you have knowledge, who isn’t protected from scrying (like most important NPCs in a high level game). So no, you can’t teleport to the hidden tomb in the middle of the desert or the enemy wizards lair, because one has no one you know in it and the other has a mindblanked target.

Obviously you aren’t impressed by games that don’t let you do exactly what you want. The DMs job is to make a story. We teleport/fly to mount doom and throw the rings in from 40k feet is a boring story, and it would be a poor DM who allowed it. Fortunately, there are plenty of RAW ways to avoid it. For my part, I’m not impressed by players who value highly the ability to short circuit the game the DM prepared. It doesn’t make wizard better, it makes him worse. “Good” in an adventuring class involves the ability to play Dungeons and Dragons, not the ability to avoid playing Dungeons and Dragons. I can avoid playing Dungeons and Dragons just by not showing up to a game.

It is easy to give good reasons not to travel via teleport or high altitude. Just because your DM can’t be bothered to challenge casters doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

Our current game involves recovering artifacts which do not teleport. One location involved powerful flying predators. We had to walk across a desert following an ancient map to find a location. We have had to track people. We have had investigative missions where we were supposed to determine facts on the ground and be seen by common folk. We had a long term mission which involved tracking a golem across terrain while it homes back to its masters lair (he had mind blank). If you think flight ends overland encounters, your DM has no imagination.

And all that sideline is basically just rebutting your presumption that teleport and overland flight prevent your wizard from ever being ambushed. You could still be ambushed at the dungeon entrance, or inside it. Nor does it help to suggest that WW>WR. Once one party member has a long distance travel method, anyone else having it is of minimal benefit.

3e does not have an objective non negotiable definition of balance. Not even close. The absence of balance among core classes at certain levels I will accept as true. Otherwise, I can give half a dozen definitions of balance, some that 3.5 meets, some that it doesn’t.

[Meijin]

Hi, just wanted to chime in with a few thoughts:
-Everyone keeps on suggesting a "super ranger" (or whatever other low tier class) with 18's across the board. Although that's a fine thing to discuss, I would like to point out that, in my original intention, the ranger would have WAAAY better stats than that. Now, lots of people are saying stats don't matter, and this doesn't impact them, but it may impact things for other people.
-I don't know much about definitions of parity, whatever that means. But I like the idea of comparing characters in at least a small team that someone brought up, for example a ranger and a wizard vs 2 tier one classes. And I think it's fallacious to say that, in order to isolate the importance of the super ranger, you need a party of all super rangers. The intent is that a super ranger will be able to do SOME things a tier 1 build might have difficulty doing so easily, particularly at low levels. The goal isn't to make a ranger who can solo better, it's to make a ranger who can pull some good weight on a higher tier team.
-Again, I have no right to control the discussion, and discussing characters at lv 10 can be interesting. Some people seem to thing good stars help even things a lot at that level. Personally, I think a comparison of a mundane to a tier 1 at level 10 begins to strain credulity, and I am much more interested in possible balancing at lower levels, which people seem to think are less power divergent.
-Flight is pretty good, but a ranger with a +50 Knowledge: Nature and Handle Animal should be able to find and train a pretty nice flying pet, if it's relevant.
-I'm not sure it's entirely fair to write off difficult combats (much harder than level appropriate, more than 4 in a day). First of all, combat is a really big part of any D&D game I've ever played, and seems to be important in most people's games, even if the focus leans more toward other things. And if (although I don't want to take this for granted) it is the case that low/mid level super mundanes handle difficult combats much more easily than tier 1s, I think that's an important argument for the side that says they can be useful. Because it's one more, fairly important, task: sure you can say that a Cleric or Druid at 5th level might have more tools to solve a diplomatic crisis through spells. But having to kill a really tough opponent or survive a gauntlet of hard fights is also a relevant specific sort of situation, I think.

-In summary: feel free to discuss whatever, but my main goal for this thread is a discussion of whether a lower tier class with EXTREMELY good stats (probably well above 18s all around), at reasonably low levels, can reliably be useful in a party alongside some tier-1's and 2's without godly/with gimped stats. I'm not talking about higher levels, nor solo power. Just, you're going to sit down to play a low level D&D campaign, you know nothing else about the campaign, and the guy to your left has a weak-statted high tier character, while the guy to your right has a ranger with base 60-80 in all stats. Do you really anticipate getting so much less use out of the guy to your right? And if not at 1st level, at what level do you think you'd start wishing you just had another cleric/Druid/wizard etc.

Thanks for everyone's interesting responses so far! I'm definetely learning a lot.

[angelpalm]

At lower levels stats still don't matter because spells are a huge issue at then. So then you have to ask yourself, if you are only talking about some level 1-4 game where tier 1 characters AREN'T a problem, why are you giving the other characters such a huge boon if they can already contribute? Stuff like the wizard crafting everything under the sun or the Druid being a bear all day don't even come into play because they don't even have access to that stuff. So again what was even the point?

I mean that is literally why they created E6 because around those few levels, everyone is the most even for the most part.

[ryu]

At lower levels stats still don't matter because spells are a huge issue at then. So then you have to ask yourself, if you are only talking about some level 1-4 game where tier 1 characters AREN'T a problem, why are you giving the other characters such a huge boon if they can already contribute? Stuff like the wizard crafting everything under the sun or the Druid being a bear all day don't even come into play because they don't even have access to that stuff. So again what was even the point?

I mean that is literally why they created E6 because around those few levels, everyone is the most even for the most part.

Well in most cases. Level one druid has a free fighter pet as a class feature, some good crowd control spellcasting, and the ability to stab things reasonably competently for the level. Also more skill points than fighter. Basically druid starts unambiguously superior to any class below t3 and still pretty superior in most honest tests to anything that isn't t1. There's a strong case to be made that druid is the most powerful class at level one with the main competition being an abrupt jaunting fiery bursting elven conjuration specialist with a hummingbird familiar. And the wizard threw away a couple of feats, three schools of magic, and locked in his race choice to compete with what druid 1 just IS. Now it gets much less costly to compete with the druid as levels increase, but that's what an actual tradeoff of being powerful early game but relatively less dominant later should look like.

[Quarian Rex]

Gotta say, Gnaeus' posts have been full of the win in this thread. This has been beautifully illustrating the main difference between practical optimization and (poorly done) theoretical optimization, the later being a pet peeve of mine. Wizards are tier 1, it is known. Playing a wizard to the point that it actually fulfills that tier 1 potential is something completely different, something that can require such a level of tedium that it probably won't be achieved in game.

When looking at actual game situations (like scouting a dungeon) there is a lot of hand-waving and mutterings of 'scry and fry' without actually bothering to think of what that would mean in the context provided. Things like Scrying not affecting locations, only creatures, having a sense radius of 10', only lasting a few mins per cast, etc. Laugh and just say that you'll use Clairvoyance instead? That's only effective out to Long range (meaning you would have to do all of your castings on the doorstep of the dungeon), has no extra magical senses (no darkvision, detect magic, etc.), is limited to 10' perception in darkness, and is completely immobile. How many castings will you need as you inch across the walls of the dungeon, gradually mapping it out, praying to the gods of mercy that an enemy will walk across your field of view.

Once you have sight of an actual creature (how long did that take you?) Scrying can finally come online. Seeing someone can at best be considered second-hand info (you haven't met, you don't actually know their name, or even what they sound like since clairvoyance doesn't include sound) so they now have a +5 to save vs. probably less than optimal DC (since we are talking about comparatively gimped casters). You now get to play a game of temporal Battleship, pinging your target for 10 mins at a shot, a handful of times a day (at the absolute best), semi-randomly over a 24 hr period. Should you actually scry something more interesting than a goblin taking a dump you'd better hope that it is resolved within your viewing window. If the spell cuts out just before the good stuff gets revealed you get to spend another hour recasting the spell and cursing the gods of missed opportunities.

Does this make wizards less effective? Not really. If a wizard has days/weeks/months and a static (and excessively slothful?) target he can acquire levels of intel that would make the average NSA agent burst into apoplectic fits of jealousy. The question is whether the player is willing to grind the campaign to a halt to do this for every obstacle. Will the other players just sit quietly with their dignity in their hands or will they just head out and spend all that time actually adventuring? Trying to squeeze the full tier 1 potential out of a wizard can look a lot like retiring to be an NPC.

All I'm trying to say here is that the next time someone says, "Pfft, wizard haz teh spells, wizard do all the things the bestest", consider what actually has to be done to pull that off and that there are a lot more shades of grey that their statement might suggest.

Back to the OP, I've been digging into this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?539943-World-of-Prime) for the last little bit. In Heroes of Prime he tweaks the hell out of most of the 3.5 classes but also adds PB limits for the classes. Tier 1's tend to get 21 points, mid-casters (and Sorcerers) get 25 and everyone else gets 29. The difference isn't massive but it is significant. Granted, I think that this works best due to some assumptions inherent to the Prime setting (Xp as a tangible resource harvested from the population, exponential increase in leveling Xp, etc.) but it's an idea that's really growing on me.

[rel]

This might have been missed because my post was long so I'll restate it.

the difference between an 18 and a 10 in a stat is a +4 to relevant things.

At level 10 a +4 is not that impressive since you can easily expect to have a +20 to +25 at things you are good at.

Because of this giving a weak build all 18's (effectively +4 to everything) goes a long way to closing the gap at level 1 but doesn't really help at level 10.

[Meijin]

Rel,

Scaling concerns duly noted. Any sort of scaling parameters that you think would work?

For example, if we had mundanes start out at all 18's, but gain 5 points to every stat every level, how long would they stay relevant? Or would you prefer some different system?

[Bucky]

I think even a large-but-sane level of point buy advantage brings some of the classes up a tier, most prominently Paladin but possibly also Monk, Dragon Shaman and Soulknife into tier 4 at low to mid levels by making them competent skillmonkies on top of their normal schtick. Breaking the 18 cap for T6es and giving them very large point buys would definitely pull them into tier 4 in the same level range.

[Jormengand]

I think even a large-but-sane level of point buy advantage brings some of the classes up a tier, most prominently Paladin but possibly also Monk, Dragon Shaman and Soulknife into tier 4 at low to mid levels by making them competent skillmonkies on top of their normal schtick. Breaking the 18 cap for T6es and giving them very large point buys would definitely pull them into tier 4 in the same level range.

Paladin is already T4 with any level of competence. Monk happens to have an all right skill list. Soulknife does not, and no amount of ability score buffing will actually make it good at combat (warrior is better at combat than soulknife. warrior is better at combat than soulknife!)

Ultimately, the problem is still that straight-18s are a +1 or +2 to the things you want to be doing and a +4 to the things you don't want to be doing. That's not that good, on balance. You need to give people real abilities.

[angelpalm]

^ Yup, and again this isn't even a serious problem at lower levels. Ryu pointed out that the real offender is Druid, who at 1st level can pretty much take two actions a round from the get go with their animal companion and no amount of stat allocation is going to give an extra standard action per round. You can say your +1000 in handle animal will make up for it but it really won't.

The E6 rules were specifically made to circumvent all the issues that are being presented in this thread so just use those and call it quits because at the end of the day there will never be some magic number for you to use as far as gold or stats that will ever solve this problem.

[death390]

in my opinion as long as a T1 is not super gimped (as in cant use his schtick) any ammount of point buy does not help T4 or lower. yes some of them can make competent skill monkeys, will eventually be able to 1-shot anything within 10ft (great cleaving w/ reach), and can't be easily killed (+20 hp/lvl +20 to all saves +20 to AC). however that gets just ridiculous. i am a firm beliver that the best skill for a mundane to have is Craft (Alchemy) why? it simulates some level of spellcasting.

spellcasting is both great and terrible for dnd. its great because it is: fun, versatile, nearly limitless. however at the same time it forces the game to be balanced around it. even with the +20 to anything a <=T4 does they still don't have options. wow you built a super ubercharger? ok what else can you do? nothing good job *mocking clapping*. how about you trip master? same boat eh, round of applause to you. and you skill monkey? oh you didn't make use of Craft alchemy and have nothing interesting to contribute in combat. oh well at least you can find every trap moving 5ft at a time (i hope people don't use that rule honestly).

now this does not mean that there is no downsides to T1. they are extremely limited in their resources, and it requires a 1/3 of a total day to reset even when not sleeping.this is to offset the glaring nigh limitless power they control. even still buffing/ direct damage are generally not the best way to go about it. battlefield control, debuffing, ect are almost always the better choice. grease is a simple spell but causing prone to a wide swath? 10x better than +1 to a warriors STR stat. also is 1 spell level less. hell color spray is extremely useful at low levels, compared to magic missile or even fireball its generally better.

and what is a mundane character other than a skill monkey, ranged attack, or melee attack? well a few of them have battlefield control in specific circumstances: tripping, grapple, demoralize (imperious command anyone?), but other than these not much else. grapple is pretty much a single target lock if it works and works less on larger targets. trip is good but limited to number of attacks to sacrifice and 15ft if using a whip (20 if somehow large), and demoralize is useless against those immune to fear.

meanwhile grease is better than trip attacks. there are several single target spells that can lock down a target. and literally a decent number of necromacy/ enchantment that cause fear effects.

so looking at this all that is left for mundanes are skills and damage. admittedly those would be buffed by increased stats but at the same time. skills can be replaced by several spells and there are plenty of high damage spells or worse Save or Die's. and honestly its just not that fun.

[Luccan]

in my opinion as long as a T1 is not super gimped (as in cant use his schtick) any ammount of point buy does not help T4 or lower. yes some of them can make competent skill monkeys, will eventually be able to 1-shot anything within 10ft (great cleaving w/ reach), and can't be easily killed (+20 hp/lvl +20 to all saves +20 to AC). however that gets just ridiculous. i am a firm beliver that the best skill for a mundane to have is Craft (Alchemy) why? it simulates some level of spellcasting.

spellcasting is both great and terrible for dnd. its great because it is: fun, versatile, nearly limitless. however at the same time it forces the game to be balanced around it. even with the +20 to anything a <=T4 does they still don't have options. wow you built a super ubercharger? ok what else can you do? nothing good job *mocking clapping*. how about you trip master? same boat eh, round of applause to you. and you skill monkey? oh you didn't make use of Craft alchemy and have nothing interesting to contribute in combat. oh well at least you can find every trap moving 5ft at a time (i hope people don't use that rule honestly).

now this does not mean that there is no downsides to T1. they are extremely limited in their resources, and it requires a 1/3 of a total day to reset even when not sleeping.this is to offset the glaring nigh limitless power they control. even still buffing/ direct damage are generally not the best way to go about it. battlefield control, debuffing, ect are almost always the better choice. grease is a simple spell but causing prone to a wide swath? 10x better than +1 to a warriors STR stat. also is 1 spell level less. hell color spray is extremely useful at low levels, compared to magic missile or even fireball its generally better.

and what is a mundane character other than a skill monkey, ranged attack, or melee attack? well a few of them have battlefield control in specific circumstances: tripping, grapple, demoralize (imperious command anyone?), but other than these not much else. grapple is pretty much a single target lock if it works and works less on larger targets. trip is good but limited to number of attacks to sacrifice and 15ft if using a whip (20 if somehow large), and demoralize is useless against those immune to fear.

meanwhile grease is better than trip attacks. there are several single target spells that can lock down a target. and literally a decent number of necromacy/ enchantment that cause fear effects.

so looking at this all that is left for mundanes are skills and damage. admittedly those would be buffed by increased stats but at the same time. skills can be replaced by several spells and there are plenty of high damage spells or worse Save or Die's. and honestly its just not that fun.

Problem with Craft (Alchemy), though. You must be a caster to use it. Because, of course, mundanes can't have anything fun.

[death390]

wow i can't believe i never noticed that. **** mundanes have it rough. this is why i play at least a partial caster most of the time.

[Sam K]

-In summary: feel free to discuss whatever, but my main goal for this thread is a discussion of whether a lower tier class with EXTREMELY good stats (probably well above 18s all around), at reasonably low levels, can reliably be useful in a party alongside some tier-1's and 2's without godly/with gimped stats. I'm not talking about higher levels, nor solo power. Just, you're going to sit down to play a low level D&D campaign, you know nothing else about the campaign, and the guy to your left has a weak-statted high tier character, while the guy to your right has a ranger with base 60-80 in all stats. Do you really anticipate getting so much less use out of the guy to your right? And if not at 1st level, at what level do you think you'd start wishing you just had another cleric/Druid/wizard etc.

Thanks for everyone's interesting responses so far! I'm definetely learning a lot.

To put it on the flip side, would that game (a low level ranger with 60-80 in all stats and a regular - lets say elite arry - statted wizard) be fun and interesting to anyone?

[emeraldstreak]

-In summary: feel free to discuss whatever, but my main goal for this thread is a discussion of whether a lower tier class with EXTREMELY good stats (probably well above 18s all around), at reasonably low levels, can reliably be useful in a party alongside some tier-1's and 2's without godly/with gimped stats. I'm not talking about higher levels, nor solo power. Just, you're going to sit down to play a low level D&D campaign, you know nothing else about the campaign, and the guy to your left has a weak-statted high tier character, while the guy to your right has a ranger with base 60-80 in all stats. Do you really anticipate getting so much less use out of the guy to your right? And if not at 1st level, at what level do you think you'd start wishing you just had another cleric/Druid/wizard etc.


That's an empty question. The most powerful character on a table isn't tier1, but the character of the best optimizer on the table (should he wish so) or the character of the second-best optimizer should the best optimizer decide to play with something less powerful because he feels so, or the characters of the third-best optimizer should...you get the drift.

[Gnaeus]

Paladin is already T4 with any level of competence.

Ultimately, the problem is still that straight-18s are a +1 or +2 to the things you want to be doing and a +4 to the things you don't want to be doing. That's not that good, on balance. You need to give people real abilities.

This just is not true.

18 int opens doors for muggles they can’t normally access.

Like the ability to use any magic item in the game via UMD? Undervalued in tier ranking in general, in practice you are going to have wand chambers in your bow and melee weapon. 18 int and Cha means that any muggle class can pack max ranks in UMD and emulate a caster with some success.

Like the ability to play I win on social encounters in a way a Cha 8 Druid can never hope to match? 18 int and Cha means +12 -+ 19 unbuffed diplomacy.

Like the ability to actually use your offensive spells? Under these rules the Paladin and Ranger actually have higher spell DCs than the full casters.

Like the ability to actually be good in combat? For a typical muggle, you can’t pump both strength and dex. An elite array TWF ranger sucks. He can’t do his freaking job. He is worse than the Druid pet. Give him straight 18s and that all changes. He has the attack +s to actually be able to not flurry of misses. He wins initiative more often, does more damage, and his AC and HP and saves are high enough that he can actually stand next to the enemy without fear of death. (Not suggesting that TWF ranger is a good choice, but at least it’s now functional). More than that, the melee muggle now has the stats to engage in ranged combat and vice versa. You will still want to specialize, but the ability of your archer to pull out a 2H sword and go to town with 18 str is immense by itself. It significantly reduces the chances to get shut out of combats.

Like the ability to actually use class abilities! Elite array Paladin 10 might be 17 str, 10 dex, 14 con, 8 int 13 wis, 12 Cha. He has 1! Skill point/level. 79 HP. Fort +10, will +5, reflex +4. If he needs to pick up a bow, +10/5 to hit, +3 damage. 10 point lay on hands. 4 turn attempts.

Superpaladin has 6 skill points/level. He can max UMD, Ride, Handle Animal, Diplomacy, concentration and know religion or spot. His saves are Fort +15, Will +11, reflex +11. 99hp Bow skill +14/+9, +5 damage. 40 point lay on hands. 7 turn attempts for powering feats. Number changes of that level create qualitative differences in how a class functions!

Number changes matter for the Druid, too. With 3 skill points per level, you get concentration, handle animal, and one more. So I guess you can pick between knowing about nature, knowing about spells, or not being surprised. Druids suffer the least of the T1s, but they still suffer. Your 8 con means less than 40 hp, so no wildshaping into melee brutes and wading into combat for you. This hurts, because Druids list isn’t full of no SR, no save spells, and your save DCs are pretty bad too. So you are likely a bird or bat, control caster/Summoner, with only 19 spells/day (only 5 of level 4-5). And you’d better be packing some defenses because your best save is worse than the paladins worst save. Unlike the wizard, a fireball won’t likely just kill you, but a slightly above average roll will still put you down.

Again, not saying Druid sucks. They are awesome and even that one brings a lot to the table. But I feel that I could play that Paladin next to that Druid and have a lot to contribute. And since OP has clarified that he was thinking of higher than all 18s, and since (as previously mentioned) Paladin 10, unlike Druid 10, is pretty unoptimized compared with a Paladin multiclass, so it only gets better for me.

If, as op suggested, my stats were closer to 60 than 18, I’ve actually got more 1&2 level spells than the Druid does. With save DCs in the 30s. My +25 initiative means I always go first. I hit 95% of the time doing +25 damage/hit. I have more than 200 HP, all skills, and fail saves on 1. I have a ton more WBL, since I no longer have any need for stat boosters, save boosters, armor, and only minimal need for weapons (since I crush most DR with raw damage). Feat wise I guess I still need darkstalker. Battle Blessing. Dragon Mount. Sword of the Arcane Order. Practiced Spellcaster. (Or replace battle Blessing and dragon mount with DMM Quicken) Is there ANY good reason I shouldn’t be packing a couple of fully charged level 4 wands, like SNA IV and Polymorph? None I can see. You now have basically only 4 3s, 3 4s, 2 5s and wild-shape to exceed all that. Honestly at this point I’d say the Paladin or ranger is actually the better caster.


To put it on the flip side, would that game (a low level ranger with 60-80 in all stats and a regular - lets say elite arry - statted wizard) be fun and interesting to anyone?

Yes!


I think even a large-but-sane level of point buy advantage brings some of the classes up a tier, most prominently Paladin but possibly also Monk, Dragon Shaman and Soulknife into tier 4 at low to mid levels by making them competent skillmonkies on top of their normal schtick. Breaking the 18 cap for T6es and giving them very large point buys would definitely pull them into tier 4 in the same level range.

I’d say it kicks all of them up a tier. The tier 5s can now do their jobs competently, and the tier 4s can now afford more than 1 trick.

[angelpalm]

Best part is how even the OP already said that this is for lower level since even they agree that by level 10 the point buy won't really help much.

Also stinky druids have their own version of diplomacy with animals. They will let the Sorcerers, Bards, or even the Clerics who casts Divine Insight and Guidance of the Avatar deal with people.

Anyways, you know where none of this is really a problem even at level 10? Pathfinder, using Path of War :biggrin:

Play a lore warden/martial master/myrmidon Fighter with a minimum of 3 levels in Warder with Ordained Defender. You get to change some of your skills to run off of Wisdom through the selection of inquisitions. Then if want to you can take their very awesome Mage Hunter prestige class and become a 6th level caster but still be great at melee, in fact you will basically be the person that keeps enemy casters in check. You can even go into this prestige class as early as level 6. You will be bad at combat and can focus on whatever else you want to do.

[RoboEmperor]

This is the game.
1. Mundanes kill stuff
2. Spellcasters control the battlefield so mundanes don't die while killling stuff.

Giving mundanes 30 to all stats accomplishes absolutely nothing except make the encounters ridiculously too easy.

Now the problems of d&d 3.5 is
1. Spellcasters don't need mundanes. 100% spellcaster party works just fine thanks to druids, clerics, and reserve feats.
2. Level 5 spells lets spellcasters solo the entire game.

Giving mundanes 30 to all stats accomplishes absolutely nothing here. They still can't solo the game while spellcasters can.

With optimization spellcasters can solo the game as early as level 8 with some down time, and some people here might be able to do this even earlier. Giving mundanes 30 to all stats accomplishes absolutely nothing here.

Also there is a thing called "Ubercharging". Mundanes can already one shot everything in the game. Giving 30 to all stats doesn't change anything.

So you see why your attempt at balance with point buy doesn't work right? Mundanes already one shot everything, spellcasters can solo the game, and giving mundanes 30 to all stats change none of these facts. Low levels mundanes have a role to play and giving them 30 stats makes them just walk over everything, and mid levels they are one shotting everything even without your stat increases.

[Lans]

Instead of comparing low tier martial classes and wizards, why don't we try something thats a little more apples to apples.

How does a Warrior/Soulknife/Fighter with 18s in his starting stats compare to a Warblade/Crusader/Barbarian/Ranger with all 8s?

What about Divine mind vs Psychic Warrior/Ardent/psion/wilder?


Magewright/adept/Shadowcaster vs Wizard/cleric/sorcerer/favored soul

Savant, expert, aristrocrat vs Factotum, incarnate

Totemist and wildshape ranger vs Druid







So my list of questions is:
1-Does the system of variable point buys to partially balance different classes seem, in principle, workable? Pros and cons? How about GP balancing? How would different levels of play change this? Yes, but it only goes so far. A commoner won't be able to compete with a wizard, but it might be able to hang with a barbarian.



2-How would you price point buys for stats above 18? My default assumption (for the next question) is that every point above 18 costs 4 more than the last, so 19 costs 20 points, 20 costs 24 points, and so on. Perhaps with some clause that says a certain number of your other scores must be at least at a certain number first, to prevent extreme min-maxing.

I would consider upping the cost by 1 more every other number.

[angelpalm]

I find it amusing that Ranger is being lumped in with the other martial characters when it's one of the few that have the ability to become more relevant to casters and the game in general through it's two wonderful variants, one being the Wildshape that you can use creatively with some select prestiges classes to become fairly awesome, and then of course the Mystic Ranger that makes it a real spellcaster. Of course if this was uber ranger with a bijillion points in all stats you could be a Mystic Ranger with Sword of the Arcane order and just decimate everything lol.

[Gnaeus]

Instead of comparing low tier martial classes and wizards, why don't we try something thats a little more apples to apples.

How does a Warrior/Soulknife/Fighter with 18s in his starting stats compare to a Warblade/Crusader/Barbarian/Ranger with all 8s?

What about Divine mind vs Psychic Warrior/Ardent/psion/wilder?


Magewright/adept/Shadowcaster vs Wizard/cleric/sorcerer/favored soul

Savant, expert, aristrocrat vs Factotum, incarnate

Totemist and wildshape ranger vs Druid.

Clear Advantage: warrior/soulknife/fighter. All 18s is better than: improved initiative, precise and point blank shot, mobility, weapon focus, improved toughness, skill focus everything and all the +save feats, put together. The ranger is too crippled to cast and has less skills than the warrior. The others are too weak to hang in melee. They might have more options than the fighter, but if you can’t hit things or take a hit those options mostly involve dying.

I’d say adept is worse than Paladin/ranger at this comparison. Paladin and Ranger just get more from a better stat array. Still, adept has some good spells, and the familiar could benefit from the extent a skill points and hp. I could maybe see it as some kind of mutant magus, with familiar sneaking up and delivering high DC bestow curse. Id still probably take him over cleric. Magewright has an awful list for adventuring and gets little else. I’m not an expert on shadowcaster.

Wildshape ranger I think is actually worse than regular ranger in this comparison. Why give away your bonus feats so that you can wildshape into something with worse stats than you? Just buy a flight item and call it a day. Never used incarna but I’d happily play a straight 18 daevic over a Druid through mid levels.

Savant gains a lot. I’d happily pick him over crippled factotum. Aristocrat is now a fully functioning martial with rogue skills. He’s good. Expert? Probably depends on availability of UMD and how social skills work. Factotum really hurts with low stats. Again, can’t really evaluate incarnate.

I’d take the divine mind over gimped psywar clearly. He suddenly is actually good at fighting. And gimpy psywar isn’t. As a MAD class, this is a really good comparison for DM. Like paladin v T1 caster, I’d be willing to play a DM in a game with psion or wilder happily through mid levels. I think we would all contribute. Can’t evaluate ardent.

[Lans]

@ Gnaeus At What point buy do you think it becomes a closer call



I find it amusing that Ranger is being lumped in with the other martial characters when it's one of the few that have the ability to become more relevant to casters and the game in general through it's two wonderful variants, one being the Wildshape that you can use creatively with some select prestiges classes to become fairly awesome, and then of course the Mystic Ranger that makes it a real spellcaster. Of course if this was uber ranger with a bijillion points in all stats you could be a Mystic Ranger with Sword of the Arcane order and just decimate everything lol.

Those variants tend to be discussed separately from the standard ranger

[Gnaeus]

@ Gnaeus At What point buy do you think it becomes a closer call

For which ones? For some I think it already is a close call. Like, I think Ranger/Paladin is probably still better than Wizard or cleric in normal play at 8 (if muggle has all 18s and T1 has all 8s except for a moderate casting stat). By 10 I’d play either and somewhere in the tweens I’d put solid advantage caster? (With above disclaimer re Binding)

For Warrior/fighter/soulblade v ToB/ranger/Barbarian (and actually many others) it comes when the higher tier PB lets them do their job. An all 8 ranger can’t skillmonkey or cast, and an all 8 crusader can’t hold up in combat. I’d consider all 18s fighter over all 12s or standard array warblade, but probably not all 18s warrior.
(Really, if well built, vanilla fighter can outdamage equivalent pb wb. But he has less tactical flexibility. With high pb, better saves and ac more or less compensate for having some counters, high Dex allows better ability to shift melee/ranged and better crowd control, and more and better skills helps with regard to the WBs few bits of out of combat utility.)

Given all 60s id play pretty much any of the pc classes through about 16-17 (until 9s come into play). I’m going to look a lot like a caster after about 9-11 though, using almost all my WBL to power UMD while relying on my absurd HP, saves and skills just to keep me safe and give me surprise and initiative. Any class abilities my monk or soulknife levels give me are just gravy at that point. +25 initiative +30 UMD stealth and perception make anyone really good at rocket tag.

Hell, all 60s vs all 8s, monk v T1? Why not at 20? Sure, at that point you’ve got unlimited cosmic powah. But I’m the guy who can tell the idiot savant sorcerer to stop shooting fireballs at the red dragon. If the T1 is actually playing the int 8 or wisdom 8, and not cheating with metagame knowledge/tactics, I’d argue they still have real problems. Cleric will have no knowledges, Druid will have nature, wizard likely arcana and maybe 1-2 others at lower ranks from where he’s been pipping int every 4 levels. Who can actually tell them which spells to cast on that outsider? This guy has +35 in all knowledge skills. Is the cleric gonna be casting divine guidance on round 1 of combat just to know which spells not to use?

[Peat]

I think the answer to this depends a lot on the type of game you're playing.

In a game that favours T1 full caster shenanigans... you probably haven't balanced it. The caster only needs one stat to cast with and if they have enough time, prep and gumption to be always having the right spell at the right time, then the non full caster is still short of the spells needed to compete. About the only thing super stat guy has going for him is more UMD use.

In a game where the GM throws lots of combat encounters thick and fast, and uses some anti-magic tricks aggressively, I think things might tilt the other way. If the full caster has to spend a lot of time and resources protecting himself, and enemies are able to provide a challenge to the pumped up martial they probably will, then its too much. They most likely become one trick monkeys cowering at the rear of the party.

Somewhere in between it might work.

[ryu]

I think the answer to this depends a lot on the type of game you're playing.

In a game that favours T1 full caster shenanigans... you probably haven't balanced it. The caster only needs one stat to cast with and if they have enough time, prep and gumption to be always having the right spell at the right time, then the non full caster is still short of the spells needed to compete. About the only thing super stat guy has going for him is more UMD use.

In a game where the GM throws lots of combat encounters thick and fast, and uses some anti-magic tricks aggressively, I think things might tilt the other way. If the full caster has to spend a lot of time and resources protecting himself, and enemies are able to provide a challenge to the pumped up martial they probably will, then its too much. They most likely become one trick monkeys cowering at the rear of the party.

Somewhere in between it might work.

Any scenario involving specifically tailoring your enemies to screw with particular members of a party over others is already ceding that those members are stronger. If you'd truly balanced anything you could select enemy specialties and matchup based utility more or less at random and you'd still see all types of character considered balanced relevant without being dominant in all scenarios. The simple method of achieving this state is to only allow one given tier in the game and have enemies roughly balanced for that tier. This in effect creates six entirely different games all of which are reasonably balanced.

[rel]

Setting the game to a single tier by having everyone build to it works but it requires a fair bit of system mastery from everyone involved.

[ryu]

Setting the game to a single tier by having everyone build to it works but it requires a fair bit of system mastery from everyone involved.

Depends on what tier you pick. Building a t1 to play with other t1s that are expected to put in effort is some work. There's entire classes that are so easy to hit a standard for t3 you can get there picking options at random. Basically the closer to the center of the spectrum your tier is the easier it is to reach a standard level of power. The lower tiers have the issue that you may accidentally become as competent as the tier above expections if you know some about what you're doing, but not enough to know what people mean by expected tier effectiveness. Stuff like bubs the commoner for instance.

[Nifft]

Setting the game to a single tier by having everyone build to it works but it requires a fair bit of system mastery from everyone involved.

I do that.

Just restrict the class palette to the desired tier.

[rel]

*shrugs* in my experience agreeing to build to a tier requires knowing what you are doing and the weaker the tier, the harder it is. The results can be good but things can also go wrong in a big way

[ryu]

*shrugs* in my experience agreeing to build to a tier requires knowing what you are doing and the weaker the tier, the harder it is. The results can be good but things can also go wrong in a big way

I mean it can be hard to have something resembling a game in a t6 environment but t3 and up are generally pretty much exactly as labeled excepting a few extremely specific well known examples like PRCs that enhance casting progression, list versatility or both.

[Gnaeus]

Any scenario involving specifically tailoring your enemies to screw with particular members of a party over others is already ceding that those members are stronger. If you'd truly balanced anything you could select enemy specialties and matchup based utility more or less at random and you'd still see all types of character considered balanced relevant without being dominant in all scenarios. The simple method of achieving this state is to only allow one given tier in the game and have enemies roughly balanced for that tier. This in effect creates six entirely different games all of which are reasonably balanced.

This would be a decent response if it wasn’t reacting to a post that says that T1 casters win if given sufficient time to always have the exact right spell prepared.

Putting time constraints on adventures is not unfairly targeting T1s. Any more than playing in an open sandbox is unfairly targeting T5s. If, as you say, T1s are inherently the absolute top of the game world, intelligently played enemies will spend time and effort coming up with hard counters for their biggest threats. A DM with an optimized T1 party pulling random encounters off a chart is unlikely to make for a fun game, with or without the presence of a ranger at any stat point. (And we are obviously talking about pretty optimized T1s through this entire discussion, since an 8 dex invoker throwing scorching rays and disintegrates isn’t beating a high stat T4 at any level)

You don’t have to break down the tiers as you suggest. You don’t have to use the power of the DM to specifically target T1s in order to be fair to T5s. You have to do it to tell a decent story. If I had an all T1 party, you better believe my quests would involve time constraints. My bosses would use intelligent methods to not be scry and died. Anti magic or dispel traps would be a thing when they make sense (so, whenever there are intelligent spell casting enemies). Teleport and commune would be useful but not overwhelming tools within the existing rules framework, and some kind of houserule would be in place to keep 50 planar bound demons from storming the dungeon, because that game isn’t just tier unbalanced, and unbalanced within even T1, it’s also boring AF.

If I DMed a game with T1s and T4 supermen in exactly the same way I would DM the game with an all T1 party, the supermen will do fine. Yeah, that does involve a little DM work making sure your campaign doesn’t get steamrolled, but it’s work you should do anyway.

[Peat]

Any scenario involving specifically tailoring your enemies to screw with particular members of a party over others is already ceding that those members are stronger. If you'd truly balanced anything you could select enemy specialties and matchup based utility more or less at random and you'd still see all types of character considered balanced relevant without being dominant in all scenarios. The simple method of achieving this state is to only allow one given tier in the game and have enemies roughly balanced for that tier. This in effect creates six entirely different games all of which are reasonably balanced.

I wasn't talking about specifc tailoring, I was talking about GMs and groups having particular play styles that favour certain classes that will affect this attempt to balance. Or any attempt to balance. Accidental tailoring if you will.

Trying to balance a system with so many options and such open ended usage is probably a fool's errand. The only sensible way to do it is for each group to apply their own patch - everyone in a tier range, the op-fu guys taking the weaker tiers and the laid-back ones the higher ones, gentlemen's agreements over spotlight and shenanigans, and so on and so on.

Could this particular patch work for someone's group? I'm dubious about it working for everyone but for some groups, sure.