How to balance WBL on castors vs non castors ?

[Epic Legand]

This is not a 3.x or PF question, The same problems arise in any of the systems. Castors as a whole are better, this is not much a problem at 5th level, but becomes ever more apparent as you gain levels, and cannot be ignored by 12th. A 10th level wizard has a large number of possible spells memorized. Each one a possible interesting spell. Buy a ring of feather falling ? Or just give up one spell slot? The castor has 25 or more slots, its an easy choice for them. Some will be defensive, others will be attack, yet many will be left over to be problem solving. How to get over the lava pit? How to get the Orc to answer the question? Which coin is the special one? A castor can use his spell slots like magic items, and still gets magic items. A fighter will spend his money on much needed items ( boost saves, AC, to hit ect) Once he has covered the basics, most of his money is spent. The castor, already better, has an ever growing advantage in WBL. This problem is made worse by the Christmas Tree option ( replacing most items with static gains) as it gives you the average item gains but denies you any problem solving items. The castor can still cast invisibility, but you cannot buy that ring with a much smaller pool of money.

I am looking for solutions to this issue, ones you have tried and felt it helped. If you reduce everyone's wealth, it only increases the advantage of the castor. If you increase everyone's wealth, then it becomes " My character is these items", as opposed to skills, feats, powers, ect. This problem only becomes worse as the characters level up, as really interesting items cost way to much, and many of those effects will be covered easily by a castor. I do not feel just using wands and potions covers it at all ether. After all, the castor uses a spell slot which just renews the next day, and still has all his wealth to buy stuff...While the wand using rouge, uses a charge, and loses his wealth permanently, thus further widening the gap. Buying a few of the best value items does not help ether...what prevents the castor from using the same choices?

What do you guys do about this problem?

[Venger]

it's endemic to the system since certain items are necessary for all characters by certain levels if they don't have the ability to cast spells, such as the ability to fly, for example.

mundane characters need wbl far more than casters do, and there isn't really a quick fix to the problem other than giving mundanes more money than casters, but even then, the game's supposed to be cooperative, so if the mundane buys better crap, then it helps everyone out since an ubercharger who can fly, for example, will be able to oneshot an enemy in the air and save the caster some slots.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. since this isn't about a specific table, it doesn't sound like you're having a problem with it, so there's nothing to change.

[Nifft]

If you care about balance between the PCs, then you want to start by requiring that all PCs come from two adjacent tiers (e.g. T1-T2, or T4-T5, or T3-T4, etc.).

Then WBL ought to work itself out by treating all PCs roughly the same.

[Malroth]

I like to balance things by reducing the price/value of magic armors and weapons by 75%, Doesn't help casters one bit but gives mundanes a whole lot more room to buy stuff they need as well as backup situational weapons.

[Epic Legand]

Malroth That is an interesting suggestion, thank you.

Nifft I would love it if every ones choices were of similar power levels, but hate restricting peoples choices that much. 2 games ago there was the guy who insisted on straight fighter, with a Wizard, Druid and Sorcerer also being there ( plus a mixed class HTH guy and a vigilante ). The power scale was wayyyy off.

Venger Thank you for the suggestion, yes more money will help to cover things, but that also turns into "who has the best toys" game :( It is not an easy issue.

[Cosi]

I think the best solution to "balance via gear" is to give out custom no-penalty Weapons of Legacy like candy. No real reason to bother with screw around with WBL.

[Quertus]

If you care about balance between the PCs, then you want to start by requiring that all PCs come from two adjacent tiers (e.g. T1-T2, or T4-T5, or T3-T4, etc.).

Then WBL ought to work itself out by treating all PCs roughly the same.


Nifft I would love it if every ones choices were of similar power levels, but hate restricting peoples choices that much. 2 games ago there was the guy who insisted on straight fighter, with a Wizard, Druid and Sorcerer also being there ( plus a mixed class HTH guy and a vigilante ). The power scale was wayyyy off.

I know. It's getting so annoying that my tier 1 Wizard keeps getting shown up by these Fighters and Monks!

/ obligatory mini-rant about how balance by tier is ineffectual compared with balancing by individual build or character.


I like to balance things by reducing the price/value of magic armors and weapons by 75%, Doesn't help casters one bit but gives mundanes a whole lot more room to buy stuff they need as well as backup situational weapons.

I never considered that. Well, I mean, technically, I ran a Cleric who was able to make gear at greatly reduced prices, to boost the party fighters, if that counts. I'm guessing that your idea would work even better than what I tried.


I think the best solution to "balance via gear" is to give out custom no-penalty Weapons of Legacy like candy. No real reason to bother with screw around with WBL.

Or free custom artifacts, cool minions, etc etc. Whatever the group enjoys. But having the party Fighter found his own Legacy sounds pretty cool.

[ericgrau]

If you increase everyone's wealth, then it becomes " My character is these items", as opposed to skills, feats, powers, ect.

Sorry, but that's how D&D already works. A very large portion of your character's power comes from your items in D&D. It won't work if you try to get rid of items, and your best option if you want to do that is to place a different game.



I do not feel just using wands and potions covers it at all ether. After all, the castor uses a spell slot which just renews the next day, and still has all his wealth to buy stuff...While the wand using rouge, uses a charge, and loses his wealth permanently, thus further widening the gap. Buying a few of the best value items does not help ether...what prevents the castor from using the same choices?

You don't actually "lose your wealth permanently", you got a nice effect for it. Actually charged items are usually a better use of wealth than more expensive permanent items because the permanent item will usually only be used a few times in the character's entire life. Staffs, scrolls, potions and low cost/single use wondrous items are actually really, really good. Wands are ok, but their problem is actually that they often have too many charges to ever use them all in the entire campaign. It's better to buy a used wand with only part of its charges remaining if you can find one. And likewise to sell your own used wand when your level is too high for it to be useful. Or pick spells that may be used very many times like invisibility. The other 4 are usually much more powerful for the gp than permanent items that you usually only use a few times and then sell. Permanent items are the true waste of wealth. If you really want to "lose your wealth permanently" then you will do that the moment you spend it on a permanent item that you won't use very often before you sell it for half. And you lost 10 times more wealth for the same effect. One of the exceptions is your armor, and at high level your weapon, because you can keep on upgrading it. For special effects limited use are usually a better deal because you only pay for what you will use.

If you want to help non-casters the easy way is to give extra WBL. To both casters and non-casters. The non-casters will get stronger equipment, spells and spell-like effects. Casters will get only a tiny bit of stronger equipment, extra spells, and spell-like effects. They can still only cast 1 spell per turn, so it's just extra and not as useful. On that note be careful what special non-core items that you allow. For example a circlet of rapid casting could ruin things. In fact with or without extra WBL it's a common and good idea to ban it for being way too powerful.

I commonly peruse lists of magic items for my characters, sorted by cost to get a lot of cheap ones. Many of which are limited use. It works extremely well in games I've played.

[RoboEmperor]

I make all my spellcasters 100% wealth independent, and they kick some serious ass without any loot.

So much ass that I have to hold myself back even when i don't use a single magic item after their schtick comes online. They need wealth before coming online, but once they're online, wealth be damned.

So... balancing by adjusting WBL is not gonna happen...

I mean, like a wizard casts black tentacles and destroys the encounter. What good would items do for him? No, the only thing items do for wizards is make them harder to kill. So by robbing wealth, the wizard becomes something like, go first and annihilate, or go second and die.

[Vizzerdrix]

Malroth That is an interesting suggestion, thank you.

Nifft I would love it if every ones choices were of similar power levels, but hate restricting peoples choices that much. 2 games ago there was the guy who insisted on straight fighter, with a Wizard, Druid and Sorcerer also being there ( plus a mixed class HTH guy and a vigilante ). The power scale was wayyyy off.

Venger Thank you for the suggestion, yes more money will help to cover things, but that also turns into "who has the best toys" game :( It is not an easy issue.

A 75% cost reduction on weapons makes my mouth water. You could load up a gauntlet with eager and warning, and another with sizing and animated. Both of those would be good for a caster.

[JNAProductions]

You say it's a problem across all editions... I would disagree immensely.

I can't speak for pre-3rd edition, so I won't.

It's a major issue in 3rd, yes.

It's not an issue in 4th (which is a system I like, but I know many don't) because classes were significantly homogenized.

It's not an issue in 5th, because classes are pretty well balanced. It ain't perfect, but it's good.

Now, that doesn't make this thread any less valid or important for 3rd edition, but don't claim every system is as broken as 3rd is. They're not. (And once you leave D&D, they get even less broken! :P)

[Fizban]

Spellcasters are expected to buy most of the same defensive items non-caster are supposed to: if they're getting away with long duration buffs rather than level appropriate items, no more long duration buffs. This can be accomplished a couple of ways: reduce durations across the board (no more level scaling on anything longer than round/level, no 24 hour "Superior Resistance") -and while you're at it, cut some of the just lol better buffs (Conviction? Banned.), or dramatically slash spells per day (to say, one per spell level per day max or two for Sorc, now that buff routine is literally all you can cast). Only one of these should be in effect unless you have other problems you need to fix (like having too many casters overall or too high of a power level on them).

Assuming you don't have that problem, then the big one is: non-casters are expected to fight with a weapon, which is expected to fill nearly half their WBL. Solution: casters require a "weapon" worth nearly half their WBL. Say, in order to cast spells of X level you need a level X wand/staff/holy symbol, and 'dey expensive. You don't *lose* anything, you still get your slots and spells known, you just can't use them without your device. Maybe let them do stuff up to Y level without, if you want to involve disarms or lost items.

And then they'll whine about nerfed into the ground, right before turning around and claiming a spellcaster with no spell slots is still worth infinity fighters.

If you have a pair (not more than two) casters who are properly buffing the whole party and not themselves, they shouldn't need a slot nerf since they're doing what is expected of them and deserve some spells for themselves, but the duration nerf is still pretty important if you're seeing reams of buffs at all times.

[Mato]

What do you guys do about this problem?I just acknowledge the rules assign a monetary value to spellbooks, material components, and various focuses so casters have to spend part of their wealth on their ability to cast spells. One of the most powerful classes ever printed, the wizard, is largely affected by this.

[EldritchWeaver]

Pathfinder has the Automatic Bonus Progression (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/automatic-bonus-progression/) rules, which cut down the WBL by half and give instead the required bonuses for free. So both casters and martials get the benefits and can use the item slots for more fluffy stuff.

[ngilop]

one thing I have been tossing about in my head is how a huge chunk of any umundane character's wealth is tied up in the tool needed to do his job. while almost 100% of a caster's wealth is extras.


I thought about having spell books need special ink that cost a certain amount per spell level or the need for some type of elixir to bring the innate spell to the forefront ( for sorcerers and the like) Having holy symbols only bale to channel so much divine energy a day (i.e. a set number of spell levels) so a cleric, druid or what not has to buy more than 1 holy item to cast all their spells.


But I am not sure of a formula that would not be too much or not enough.

A caster should put as much of their wealth, I feel, as a fighter would into his main weapon and main armor plus a cloak of resistance.

[bean illus]

I've been shouted down every time I've said this, but I'll try again since Nerfs are being mentioned

To reduce caster overpowering I have limited the max number of spells by reducing them by one.

Of course it's not a perfect fix. But it's a simple fix. And the good part is,

It barely changes play at all below E8. And it has some use up to about E13.

But of course, it doesn't fix the issue in the last third of the game.

[Quertus]

one thing I have been tossing about in my head is how a huge chunk of any umundane character's wealth is tied up in the tool needed to do his job. while almost 100% of a caster's wealth is extras.

I thought about having spell books need special ink that cost a certain amount per spell level or the need for some type of elixir to bring the innate spell to the forefront ( for sorcerers and the like) Having holy symbols only bale to channel so much divine energy a day (i.e. a set number of spell levels) so a cleric, druid or what not has to buy more than 1 holy item to cast all their spells.

But I am not sure of a formula that would not be too much or not enough.

A caster should put as much of their wealth, I feel, as a fighter would into his main weapon and main armor plus a cloak of resistance.

Hmmm... Str boost item vs Int boost item, that's easy to set as equal. Harder for archers who need both Str & Dex, but, then, they always get the shaft.

Con boost and Resistance for both. Still on the same page.

Eager Warning locked gauntlet +1? Same cost for either class.

Level 3: +1 weapon, vs cost of wands / scrolls to keep going all day long / to have the right spell at the right time, plus the cost of buying scrolls (and ink) to add spells to your spellbook? Difficult to evaluate.

Level eh 15ish: +1 Keen Vorpal blade (ah, good old 3.0) vs cost of wands / scrolls to keep going all day long / to have the right spell at the right time, plus the cost of buying scrolls (and ink) to add spells to your spellbook, plus cost of Str boost / extradimensional space to carry all these books, plus metamagic rods? Difficult to evaluate.

A Fighter really only needs a +1 weapon to hit incorporeal creatures. Everything else is just extras.

[King of Nowhere]

It't caster, not castor.



I like to balance things by reducing the price/value of magic armors and weapons by 75%, Doesn't help casters one bit but gives mundanes a whole lot more room to buy stuff they need as well as backup situational weapons.

That's a potential option for reducing the amount of whealt spent on basic gear. I'll consider it if I start a new campaign.

Personally, I gave increased wealth (it was part of the setting) and it worked pretty well at reducing differences. true, it makes characters more gear-dependent, but they already are. If everyone has the same super gear, then the character can shine.

Re: all those ideas to make requirements for casting: I don't like those, because they seem just annoying to have at a table. They do not really stop you from casting, they just put more paperwork. I've seen a poster with a signature of "you cannot and should not try to balance a bad mechanic by making it annoying to use", and this seems such a case.


I've been shouted down every time I've said this, but I'll try again since Nerfs are being mentioned

To reduce caster overpowering I have limited the max number of spells by reducing them by one.


What do you mean by, reducing them to one? One spell per day (I hope not:smallconfused:)? One extra spell granted by stat modifier per day? One buff spell active at the same time? One less spell per spell level per day? Please clarify.

[Florian]

What do you guys do about this problem?

The PF Automatic Bonus Progression has already been named. Cuts WBL in half, but also frees all characters from having to go straight for the "big six" and stick to cookie-cutter builds, allowing to generally go for more wondrous items, loot more, shop less. Been using that for a while now and it works great.

Put a bit more pressure on casting classes by making heavier use of debuffs, poison, disease and stuff like curses, charms, dominate and possession, also make it a habit to use area dispel when possible and feasible. Being on the defensive will get pretty expensive real fast. It´s one thing to have a Wand of CLW, a totally different thing to constantly counter the aforementioned things.

[bean illus]

What do you mean by, reducing them to one? One spell per day (I hope not:smallconfused:)? One extra spell granted by stat modifier per day? One buff spell active at the same time? One less spell per spell level per day? Please clarify.

I was referring to max number of spells per day per level. Instead of wiz getting 6 spells per day of each level, they get 5.

Again, this in no way truly fixes any balance issues. But it does trim the very top off the primary casters power, during the fun levels between 7- 13ish, with one easily understood rule.

In terms of wbl, what it does is gives the casters something to do with their gold.

[Vertharrad]

Has anyone tried getting rid of bonus spell slots from high ability scores and/or items like rings of wizardry? This might help a lot. Along with dumping egregious spells.

[Zancloufer]

There are a few magic items (usually AC or Weapon based) that I always thought where Bonus squared times 1kgp but where actually 2kgp per bonus squared. Never changed it after I realized my oversight.

That does go a LONG way to helping mundanes get nice weapons and better AC with stuff likes Rings of Deflection, items of natural armour and +2 Flaming swords being almost half cost.

[bean illus]

Has anyone tried getting rid of bonus spell slots from high ability scores and/or items like rings of wizardry? This might help a lot. Along with dumping egregious spells.

The inherent build theory in 3.5 demands bonus slots for high ability scores. Hence my somewhat tangential option of capping Max spell per day.

which, seems to me to force the caster to spend wbl on either offense or defense items.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The inherent build theory in 3.5 demands bonus slots for high ability scores. Hence my somewhat tangential option of capping Max spell per day.

which, seems to me to force the caster to spend wbl on either offense or defense items.

Huh? I have no idea what this "inherent field theory" is.

That said, bonus spells usually amount to 1 per level except for your lower spell levels. 2 per level, at most, outside of TO thought experiments. It's pretty close to Bean Illus suggestion in practice.

[ben-zayb]

A 75% cost reduction on weapons makes my mouth water. You could load up a gauntlet with eager and warning, and another with sizing and animated. Both of those would be good for a caster.
And Spellblades. And Luckstealers.

[Fizban]

Has anyone tried getting rid of bonus spell slots from high ability scores and/or items like rings of wizardry? This might help a lot. Along with dumping egregious spells.
Jiriku's grandly named Philosopher's Stone (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?210623-3-5-Magic-Remix-The-Philosopher-s-Stone) tweak list includes this*, along with the duration slashing I mentioned, drastically reducing ranges, limits on metamagic reduction, and a prohibition on casting more than one spell per round, and a SR: yes always clause.

It's basically the most cost efficient caster fix anyone's ever written- most "fixes" are far to preoccupied with maintaining the status quo on. . . all of those things, while mildly limiting this or that. Like it says on the tin, it can't, won't, and doesn't try to fix "everything," but if you want to slash casting power then you need to do it at the root, then after that you can add your own list of individual effects to remove or alter on top of the simple changes.

As for weather I've tried it, well, no- because I haven't had any casters that needed reigning in and was prepared for their spells as written in the first place. As always the first rule applies: if you don't have a problem you shouldn't be trying to fix it. But, if you do have problems with buff stacks and casters never being in range of anything because all their spells have 100'+ range while monster abilities are usually 30'-60', then cutting slots and duration and range will drag things back towards tactical wargame.

*And cutting that bonus 1 slot per spell level should not be underestimated. Wizards have a base of 1 spell per day when they get a new tier of spells, same with Clerics. Even with specialization/domain slot counted for 2 base, +1 is still a 50% increase in their top level spells as soon as they get them. Druids, incidentally, lack the spec/domain slot, which would hurt more if they didn't get 2/3 of the clr/wiz max thanks to the ability score bonus normalization.


But I am not sure of a formula that would not be too much or not enough.

A caster should put as much of their wealth, I feel, as a fighter would into his main weapon and main armor plus a cloak of resistance.
The outline of the formula's already right there: 1/2 WBL. Find the cost at each spell level, round it into a nicer number, then maybe turn it into a formula. WBL calculation is madness: it's (supposedly) based on average treasure from the tables, the tables are mostly but not quite full of things with formulas, but there's two different main formulas, and other made up prices, and you're supposed to gain multiple items of different types, and none of these line up with the smooth spell level progression.

So just forcing those numbers, ignoring 1st and 2nd level spells (which fall before magic weapons are expected) and remembering this is an intentional nerf so no reason to be stingy: 1st and 2nd level spells require no catalyst. 3rd-6th level spells require a catalyst of rank 1-4 worth 4,500gp per rank, and 7th-9th level spells require a greater catalyst of rank 1-3 worth 55,000gp per rank.

Regarding crafting: people will expect casters to be able to craft their own casting items, and they should be allowed to do so. Indeed, unless the DM wants Ollivander to be an important vendor, they ought to be able to upgrade their stuff innately. Of course the same applies to non-casters and their weapons, so. . . While crafting feats don't entitle characters to more WBL (especially not compared to other PCs), plenty of groups believe this to be the case, and letting people craft casting items at half cost is fine as long as weapons are also being crafted at half cost for the same party.

[heavyfuel]

I like to balance things by reducing the price/value of magic armors and weapons by 75%, Doesn't help casters one bit but gives mundanes a whole lot more room to buy stuff they need as well as backup situational weapons.

I'm sure every character in the game is helped by animated +1 mithral light shield, especially when "Magic Vestment" exists.

Also, +1 eager weapons of warning.

Or even +1 robes of heavy fortification.

It helps mundanes more than it helps casters, but it helps casters so much more than one bit.

[Fizban]

On the topic of overpowered weapon/armor abilities with price cuts working for everyone- you can just, ya know, remove those effects. Just because the MiC writers were shall we say, unaware enough, to canonize multiple stacking initiative bonuses in the same book, doesn't mean the DM needs to. Having the PCs always go first is a terrible idea to begin with, weather its because they're allowed to always get surprise rounds or because they're allowed ridiculous magic items.

As for Heavy Fortification, eh, not that much of a game-changer. Immunity to sneak attack doesn't mean anything when most monsters don't have sneak attack, and immunity to crits doesn't matter when "wizards never get hit" or "wizards die in one hit." Its a very specific game where a caster having crit immunity is anything more than a reduction in randomness- Evasion or Freedom of Movement is much more significant.

[Seto]

"Castor" means "beaver" in French. I actually scratched my head and wondered about beaver characters and their WBL before opening the topic, reading the OP and understanding my mistake :smallbiggrin:

[heavyfuel]

On the topic of overpowered weapon/armor abilities with price cuts working for everyone- you can just, ya know, remove those effects. Just because the MiC writers were shall we say, unaware enough, to canonize multiple stacking initiative bonuses in the same book, doesn't mean the DM needs to. Having the PCs always go first is a terrible idea to begin with, weather its because they're allowed to always get surprise rounds or because they're allowed ridiculous magic items.

As for Heavy Fortification, eh, not that much of a game-changer. Immunity to sneak attack doesn't mean anything when most monsters don't have sneak attack, and immunity to crits doesn't matter when "wizards never get hit" or "wizards die in one hit." Its a very specific game where a caster having crit immunity is anything more than a reduction in randomness- Evasion or Freedom of Movement is much more significant.

Even if they don't stack, +5 from Warning is plenty, especially if it's almost free.

Wizards don't get hit, sure. But Clerics and Druids do, and Fortification is quite important for them to reduce randomness.

[Fizban]

Which is why you get rid of Warning instead. And then when they try to spam Sign and Nerveskitter you get rid of those too. Or just phrase the rule as "no initiative boosters outside of this whitelist" and then only allow on those that you feel have appropriate costs/maximum bonuses. One cannot simply rules-lawyer their way out of a DM that has a defined goal.

Cleric and Druids in melee- maybe. Or maybe the game is already set at a power level where they can't afford to try and do melee at the same time. And Greater Magic Weapon/Vestment abuse to double-dip enhancement and other abilities is one of the things fixed by duration/spell slot/both-cuts, if one is attacking the problem from multiple angles (price cuts and caster nerfs both), as is Luminous Armor assuming it isn't simply removed as well.

[heavyfuel]

Which is why you get rid of Warning instead. And then when they try to spam Sign and Nerveskitter you get rid of those too. Or just phrase the rule as "no initiative boosters outside of this whitelist" and then only allow on those that you feel have appropriate costs/maximum bonuses. One cannot simply rules-lawyer their way out of a DM that has a defined goal.

Cleric and Druids in melee- maybe. Or maybe the game is already set at a power level where they can't afford to try and do melee at the same time. And Greater Magic Weapon/Vestment abuse to double-dip enhancement and other abilities is one of the things fixed by duration/spell slot/both-cuts, if one is attacking the problem from multiple angles (price cuts and caster nerfs both), as is Luminous Armor assuming it isn't simply removed as well.

Initiative boosters aren't a problem. You can give them to NPCs even more easily than PCs can get them. My argument is that weapons being cheap help casters as well as mundanes.

What you're arguing is a complete revamp of the system, and this might be a good thing, it's hardly what OP suggested or what my argument is about

[GrayDeath]

It't caster, not castor.




QFT.

These things are not balanced with things not bearing the same name either, but WBL wont help there ^^

http://www.gns.de/binary.ashx/select=E0E0E0/24441/image.jpg


On a more serious note: most things have already been said, let me just reiterate that its not easy to do so, and WBL adjustments ALONE wont do it, but it is possible.

[Florian]

QFT.

Yeah, but it´s still an incredibly funny typo. Around here, a "Castor" is a special sort of container used to transport and store radioactive waste material, like spent uranium rods. The rate that caster vs. mundane balance discussions can turn really toxic fast and meltdown from there, the typo really amused me.

[GrayDeath]

I know (probably living in the same country then ^^). Which is why I posted a picture of some castors above.

And yes, the Irony is not lost to me. Just wanted people to see one. :smalltongue:

[Quertus]

Having the PCs always go first is a terrible idea to begin with, weather its because they're allowed to always get surprise rounds or because they're allowed ridiculous magic items.

I found that having the all-rogue and the all going first alpha strike parties were nice changes of pace from the normal parties, personally. I found them much more entertaining and memorable than more boring, cookie-cutter parties. To each their own.


Or just phrase the rule as "no initiative boosters outside of this whitelist"

White list? Geez, man, live a little! To paraphrase, "There are more things in dungeons and dragons, Fizban, than are dreamt of in your white list."

So, if you have a character who is grossly underpowered, through horrible build or lack of player skills, how do you fix the situation, if you have limited yourself to a white list?

[Fizban]

White list? Geez, man, live a little! To paraphrase, "There are more things in dungeons and dragons, Fizban, than are dreamt of in your white list."
I'm not sure if this is condescending or just pretentious. No duh there are more things than what would go on the whitelist, that's why its a whitelist. The reason one would use a whitelist is specifically because they know the scope of something is large enough that playing whack a mole is a waste of time. The obvious implication is that I somehow am missing or failing to understand some mystifying scope of the system that can only be expressed by aping a famous line- so is that an insult?


So, if you have a character who is grossly underpowered, through horrible build or lack of player skills, how do you fix the situation, if you have limited yourself to a white list?
How is this even a question? Do you have any idea how. . . I don't even have a word for it. Banal? Oversaturated? Hive-mind-ish? How disgustingly common it is for you people to see the very concept of actually taking charge of game balance and just immediately throw up your arms and start wailing "Oh how could you possibly understand anything when you disagree with meeeeeee?!"

No ****, games that don't need nerfs don't need nerfs. I literally already said that in this thread. If you can't understand the difference between knowing when and how to change things to reach a desired result and whatever your straw vision of oppressive nerf despots, maybe go check your false absolutism. Shockingly enough, when the topic calls for reducing caster power, I will make suggestions that involve reducing caster power. And if the topic actually calls for increasing the power of something, gee what happens?


As always, who's arguing with who? I say "hey, if this thing is a problem, don't use it," and people argue with it because. . . ? I'm not the one who brought up initiative boosters. I stated the obvious solution if initiative boosters are a problem, which happens to apply weather or not you intend to cut prices on magic weapons to address the thread topic- and if initiative boosters are a problem for anyone, they're a problem for everyone. And I'd love to see someone "explain" how choosing to not use a particular game element is a "total revamp of the system," except not really because there's nothing to explain- it's just bs.

As for magic weapons boosting casters- sure, when those "magic weapons" are granting abilities that have nothing to do with being a weapon. If one thinks initiative boosters area great idea but don't want to discount them as part of magic weapons, maybe have them not be magic weapons?

[heavyfuel]

And I'd love to see someone "explain" how choosing to not use a particular game element is a "total revamp of the system," except not really because there's nothing to explain- it's just bs.

Is not "a particular element" though.

Your suggestion was reworking specific items, spells, and classes. In your own words:
attacking the problem from multiple angles

"From multiple angles" can't, by very definition, mean "a".

[Endarire]

Our current campaign has one non-caster (a Swordsage who might soon change his build) in a party of casters (Warmage/Full CastEr PrC, Bard/Healer/Mystic Theurge, Druid/Planar Shepherd of Lamannia, Cleric, Paladin, Scout/Mystic Ranger/Chameleon) who has felt dissatisfied regarding his character, not due to wealth by level, but because of rules interpretations that disfavored him.

In this campaign, the GM has given us mostly consumable items (potions, scrolls, wands, staves) for our wealth and it's worked well. Getting a +2 WIS amulet at level 7 was a wonderful boon but having no Wilding Clasp to use it in Wild Shape due to GM's rulings made it a toggle. It's useful for low-level bonus spells at the day's start.

One fix I haven't seen yet in this thread is the GM's encouragement toward characters, regardless of tier, who don't rely heavily on permanent items. Usually these are characters of tiers 1-3. If something is a specific problem, talk within the group about it.

While lots of theoretical changes have been proposed, power reductions for characters on the basis of theory alone are generally not fun. By the default 3.5 rules, a Human Druid who starts with 18 WIS and gains 1 WIS point every 4 levels gets some bonus spells per spell level (and more if he has enough +WIS from items). Even then, as was stated, this character only gets +1 or +2 bonus spells per spell level, and having to choose what to prepare in a party setting and 'real game' can be quite the consideration. Is today likely a travel day? If so, prepare Feathers and Wind at Back. Is today a day to be a healer? Prepare Vigor spells. How many spell slots do you allocate for buffs (like Primal Instinct or Resist Energy) or utility spells (like Scrying)? These are serious considerations that I've not noticed discussed enough on forums in 'real games.'

Even a Focused Specialist Wizard who starts with 18+ INT and puts all his level bonuses into INT (or a Sorcerer who starts with 18+ CHA and puts all his level points into CHA) still faces the problem of running out of ammo/spells/fun stuff to do, but they generally have it worse than Druids who have a long-term Polymorph-like effect that is Wild Shape (which I know was changed to no longer be derived from Polymorph) plus an Animal Companion. (As a long-term Wizard player, I felt the pain that was being only as useful as my correct spell preparations.)

Also remember that D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are meant to be team games and are generally discussed in this context. Everyone is meant to be enjoying the game and helping each other. The Warmage and Bard listed earlier have been the combat MVPs due to the Warmage's highest output and the Bard's +4d6 Dragonfire Inspiration and lots of mid-fight healing. This has been contrary to typical 'forum logic' to quote the GM, but no one has likely been trying to steal the stage and solo the game. Part of that is the GM using fewer, tougher fights (normally a max of 2 each game day with occasionally more) and putting the campaign on a tight time limit.

[Jack_Simth]

I like to balance things by reducing the price/value of magic armors and weapons by 75%, Doesn't help casters one bit but gives mundanes a whole lot more room to buy stuff they need as well as backup situational weapons.
... yeah it does. As noted by many, there's lots of ways casters can use armor and weapons at little-to-no penalty.

Perhaps:
Make "prevents spellcasting while equipped or held and for 24 hours thereafter" a selectable item drawback that grants a 50% discount on the crafting cost of the item? Tweak numbers to taste.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I don't try to tweak WBL based on class or tier; figuring out fractions of non-caster-ness, judging wealth dependence by class and build, and so forth are more trouble that I want to bother with. Instead, among my standard set of houserules that I use for my PbPs and most RL games is the following:


Any sources granting resistance bonuses to saves, deflection bonuses to AC, or enhancement bonuses to attack rolls, ability scores, AC, or natural armor no longer do so, including racial traits, class features, feats, spells, powers, soulmelds, etc. Items whose only benefit is granting those bonuses no longer exist, and item prices are reduced appropriately to account for removed bonuses, including not needing to pay for a +1 before putting special abilities on weapons and armor.

Instead, to mimic the Big Six bonuses and grant more all-around competence, everyone gains +1 to all ability scores at each even level and adds half their BAB as an untyped bonus to AC that applies to touch and flat-footed AC. (These ability score bonuses replace, not add to, the normal +1 to one score every 4 levels.)

This does a couple things to help noncasters. First, an extra +10 to each stat over 20 levels works out to the equivalent of a +5 weapon, +5 armor, +5 cloak of resistance, and so forth, but (A) it's free, so the more of those that you needed (i.e. the more MAD your class is), the better off you are; (B) they're gained at predictable intervals instead of "whenever you can scrape together the gold to add a +1 to your magic sword," so you don't have to worry about prioritizing purchases or lagging behind the party at any point; and (C) because they're stat bonuses, they boost things like skill checks and hit points, things you might want to boost anyway but don't usually have the gold for (or can't find a good item for), so e.g. martial classes who don't prioritize Int and don't have high base skill points can be a little more well-rounded.

Second, noncasters tend to be want lots of fairly high stats while casters want one or two really high stats, so letting fighters get +5 to Str and +5 to Con over 20 levels (for instance) but not letting wizards get +5 Int from levels and also +6 from a headband of intellect helps improve poor saving throws, lower save DCs, and so forth to even the playing field a bit.

And finally, no one wants to have to spend tons of gold on boring mandatory bonus items, so implementing the above rule while leaving normal WBL in place allows people to spend more money on fun and useful items, instead of the usual situation where (as someone mentioned upthread) noncasters have to spend gold staying on the bonus treadmill while casters can pick up whatever items they want.

[Âmesang]

I've yet to truly test her out, but my sorceress/archmage has only spent a (relatively) small percentage of her wealth on magical items; and even then only a few that are particularly potent (+1 oerthblooded dagger, portable hole, circlet of persuasion, "necklace of Charisma") while the others are fairly benign (quill of scribing, wondrous writing set, scrolls of magic circle against evil, knowstone of glamour costume). Another significant portion was spent on her spells (whether unusual, non-Player's Handbook spells, or independently researched unique spells), membership fees to various guilds and organizations (Guild of Wizardry, Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, &c.), and a lot of (very fancy) mundane equipment to allow the noble-born mage to look absolutely fabulous.

I feel it gives her a very AD&D feel, more like the famous NPC archmages than a typical PC, which feels… wholesome, in a way? …but I won't deny it leaves glaring holes in her defenses… but, that's where her spellcasting comes in, giving her a fairly healthy amount of offense, defense, utility, and flavor; after all, she still has quite a few spells at her disposal that can last an entire day, as well as a contingent heal and a stasis clone.

The only item she has of any extraordinary value is a WORLD OF GREYHAWK®-inspired cubic gate tied to the material planes of Aerth, Earth, Oerth, Uerth, and Yarth; the sixth-side is shattered an inoperable (perhaps once leading to Learth?).

…this reminds me of wanting to create an AD&D-based 3e fighter who'd put ranks into Use Magic Device and take the Leadership and Landlord feats to obtain a keep and a small army; not that I'd expect to get a lot of use out of 'em, but it'd be nice to have him achieve the rank of "lord" similar to the old days; probably have him take Wild Cohort to give him a better-than-average mount, too.

[Crichton]

I'm seeing a lot of responses to the OP here that advocate for various methods of decreasing the abilities of casters, but very few that take the opposite - and I'd say, superior - approach: increase the abilities of your mundanes. It's probably too much to ask to find ways to make a mundane equal to a well-optimized caster, but I don't think it's unreasonable to find ways to boost mundanes that bring them up close to the level of a moderate optimization level caster. Some have called for discounts on items or increases in overall party wealth, and those could maybe help, but as others point out, they also help the caster classes.

But still, rather than just nerfing the "too powerful" wizards, let's allow them to have their fun, lest we discourage the players who chose those classes. We should never discourage players from their class choices. Rather, let's find ways to add to the mundanes who are struggling (on a case by case basis, not across the board), to ensure our players are all having fun, and contributing to the party. Whether that's giving those players increased wealth, or discounts, or feats/features matter less than that we work with our players to make sure they are having fun, and feel useful to the party.

Nerfing our wizards and other casters feels more like a punishment, and just transfers the original problem to them. If the mundanes are feeling weak or left-out, punishing the casters doesn't fix that problem, it just changes who it applies to.

[Mechalich]

I'm seeing a lot of responses to the OP here that advocate for various methods of decreasing the abilities of casters, but very few that take the opposite - and I'd say, superior - approach: increase the abilities of your mundanes. It's probably too much to ask to find ways to make a mundane equal to a well-optimized caster, but I don't think it's unreasonable to find ways to boost mundanes that bring them up close to the level of a moderate optimization level caster.

The general understanding of 3.X D&D is that Tier 1 characters, well-optimized and played with a modicum of skill, break the game. This consensus extends to accepting that the majority of published modules and monsters get absolutely annihilated by Tier 1 - Tier 2 parties with little effort. The is especially true at higher levels when some of the more abusive tricks involving powerful spells like Polymorph and Planar Binding come online.

Additionally, with WBL specifically the nature of the caster mechanism in D&D makes it easier for caster players to deliberately horde wealth. For instance, rather than deplete limited use items the party can rest more often in order to refill spell slots instead, an option that simply is not available to classes that don't have /day mechanics. Healing is a simple example. A party of all mundanes uses wands to heal up outside of battle. A party of all casters can 'rest until healed' by having the divine casters dump every spell slot into Cure spells over eight hours, then rest again to prep a proper adventuring loadout and thereby save considerable amounts of money on wands over time. This is dumb and involves considerable metagaming but there are absolutely players that will operate this way unless the GM takes a strong stand.

[Crichton]

The general understanding of 3.X D&D is that Tier 1 characters, well-optimized and played with a modicum of skill, break the game. This consensus extends to accepting that the majority of published modules and monsters get absolutely annihilated by Tier 1 - Tier 2 parties with little effort. The is especially true at higher levels when some of the more abusive tricks involving powerful spells like Polymorph and Planar Binding come online.

Additionally, with WBL specifically the nature of the caster mechanism in D&D makes it easier for caster players to deliberately horde wealth. For instance, rather than deplete limited use items the party can rest more often in order to refill spell slots instead, an option that simply is not available to classes that don't have /day mechanics. Healing is a simple example. A party of all mundanes uses wands to heal up outside of battle. A party of all casters can 'rest until healed' by having the divine casters dump every spell slot into Cure spells over eight hours, then rest again to prep a proper adventuring loadout and thereby save considerable amounts of money on wands over time. This is dumb and involves considerable metagaming but there are absolutely players that will operate this way unless the GM takes a strong stand.

In my experience "well optimized" and "played with a modicum of skill" are very different things, especially when we're talking about what's actually taking place at the table. Most players, aside perhaps from us few who lurk around these forums discussing optimization all the time, don't make characters that we here would consider "well-optimized."
As for your second example, how often do you play an entire party of just mundanes? And even if you do, that solves the entire balance problem the OP asked about. If there aren't casters in the party, balancing power levels between caster PCs and mundane PCs isn't an issue at that table.

Additionally, the ability to use CLW or other such basic spells is probably not the balance issue the OP had in mind. If that was all the difference there was, it would be less of an issue.

As for my table, if it becomes a problem, the two steps of making the casters track all their spell components and buy the ones that cost ahead of time and at full price, as well as giving the mundanes more useful equipment in the loot, or discounts on the type of stuff they'd use, and not the caster oriented equipment, helps substantially, without making the players of caster classes feel attacked, oppressed, or singled out.

I stand by my assertion that penalizing some players is never the solution to balance issues. Helping players be better at contributing, whatever their character, and enabling all players to have fun and feel involved, is.

Edit for clarification: that's not to say the dm shouldn't screen the character development choices of both the casters and mundanes, to make sure they're not doing something that will break the game or the players' fun. That includes vetoing casters trying to break things, and helping mundanes avoid trap options that would make their character frustratingly weak or useless.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Nerfing our wizards and other casters feels more like a punishment, and just transfers the original problem to them. If the mundanes are feeling weak or left-out, punishing the casters doesn't fix that problem, it just changes who it applies to.

You're looking at the wrong problem. Nobody was asking how to make players running a non-caster feel like they're keeping up with casters. The question was how to redress the actual, measurable difference in capability between the two.

The simple fact is that removing options from casters is immensely easier and faster. Not only that but it also makes casters easier to deal with at the table. The alternative, boosting non-casters, requires writing new abilities that you have to balance against the arbitrary point of reference that represents your table's ideal power level without making non-casters feel like they're more inherently magical than the players of such classes want them to be.

To the point of feels though, if you clearly explain to the group why you're nerfing spellcasters and the would-be caster players feel like they're being punished then they need to bite the bullet and get over themselves. If you're finding this step necessary (I don't) then odds are pretty good that the casters at your table have done something to make it necessary. Even if they haven't, trying to make the game more fun for everyone by making things more balanced -and- a little simpler (read; easier to plan for and run) isn't wrong. If they're too concerned with having their toys taken away to see that you're doing what you think is best for the whole group, that's a "them" problem that they need to deal with.

[Crichton]

You're looking at the wrong problem. Nobody was asking how to make players running a non-caster feel like they're keeping up with casters.

You make some fair points, and I heartily agree with some of what you say below, but I think this is very much part of what is implied in the initial post's question. Strictly speaking, it was a question of how to balance WBL, or how to adjust WBL to help balance the gains and abilities of different characters. I think it's fair to assume that if such a problem exists at the table, then mundanes are already feeling left behind by the casters, and they need some help.


The simple fact is that removing options from casters is immensely easier and faster. Not only that but it also makes casters easier to deal with at the table. The alternative, boosting non-casters, requires writing new abilities that you have to balance against the arbitrary point of reference that represents your table's ideal power level without making non-casters feel like they're more inherently magical than the players of such classes want them to be.

I don't know about your first assertion. I don't think casters need to be made "easier to deal with at the table." Unless you have an annoyingly unprepared player who takes forever looking up his spells and abilities during his turn (in which case he's probably not some over-optimized power player already), casters aren't that much harder to deal with at the table than any others.

As for the second, I'm not advocating the homebrewing of entirely new mundane classes or abilities. Mostly, in answer to the OP, I'd advocate for the discounting of specific equipment for mundanes who need help, and for heavily weighting the loot that drops from baddies in favor of mundane friendly items, so that casters get less help from loot, and have to spend their gold on the specifics they want or need. Perhaps even dropping mundane specific items that you know some of your mundane players want, and then not counting it towards their WBL.
As for other abilities, things like bonus feats for classes that don't already get them, or combining feat trees into a single feat, can help to some degree.

None of this will make a vanilla fighter equal to a crazy powerful wizard, but it will help them stay relevant. And if you have a crazy powerful over-optimized (for the rest of your party) wizard, you should have already had some guidance on them to help balance everyone overall.



To the point of feels though, if you clearly explain to the group why you're nerfing spellcasters and the would-be caster players feel like they're being punished then they need to bite the bullet and get over themselves. If you're finding this step necessary (I don't) then odds are pretty good that the casters at your table have done something to make it necessary. Even if they haven't, trying to make the game more fun for everyone by making things more balanced -and- a little simpler (read; easier to plan for and run) isn't wrong. If they're too concerned with having their toys taken away to see that you're doing what you think is best for the whole group, that's a "them" problem that they need to deal with.

Much of what you say here I'd agree with.
Sounds like this already isn't a problem you have at your table. Why is that? What have you done before and during your campaign to prevent this becoming an issue? Are there insights from that that you can share, to help the OP out here?

Most of what I'm advocating for is taking a proactive role in the development of your players' characters, to prevent them from making character choices that they, and you, will regret later. I strongly suggest a Session Zero, to help everyone get on the same page with their goals for their characters, and also to set down your expectations for overall optimization and power levels for your campaigns.

With some planning ahead of time, you won't have to play catch-up with these things later.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You make some fair points, and I heartily agree with some of what you say below, but I think this is very much part of what is implied in the initial post's question. Strictly speaking, it was a question of how to balance WBL, or how to adjust WBL to help balance the gains and abilities of different characters. I think it's fair to assume that if such a problem exists at the table, then mundanes are already feeling left behind by the casters, and they need some help.

They're feeling left behind because the casters -are- leaving them behind. The real difference in capability is expressing itself and they're taking note. This happens because the issue wasn't dealt with ahead of time.



I don't know about your first assertion. I don't think casters need to be made "easier to deal with at the table." Unless you have an annoyingly unprepared player who takes forever looking up his spells and abilities during his turn (in which case he's probably not some over-optimized power player already), casters aren't that much harder to deal with at the table than any others.

No offense intended but I have to assume this is a voice of inexperience. I'd -much- rather deal with a caster noob that's muddling through than an experienced player who has a rock-solid grasp of his prep'ed and known spells when that's made up of the most broadly applicable spells and silver-bullets. Even a sorcerer that only has broadly applicable spells can be a royal pain in the butt to plan encounters around. Contrast this with a non-caster (there's nothing "mundane" about well built ones) where the array of abilities they have is sharply limited to the abilities he's built for and the general mechanics shared by all characters. When you then start to account for spell combos things get just plain silly. It's doable but there's simply no getting around the fact that being able to deal with -anything- that a spellcaster could sling at you takes a dramatically deeper degree of system mastery than does dealing with a non-caster.

Cutting caster options simplifies the game, period.


As for the second, I'm not advocating the homebrewing of entirely new mundane classes or abilities. Mostly, in answer to the OP, I'd advocate for the discounting of specific equipment for mundanes who need help, and for heavily weighting the loot that drops from baddies in favor of mundane friendly items, so that casters get less help from loot, and have to spend their gold on the specifics they want or need. Perhaps even As dropping mundane specific items that you know some of your mundane players want, and then not counting it towards their WBL.

As has already been pointed out in this very thread, cutting costs on things that are generally melee oriented helps the casters -less- than the non-casters but it does still help them. Then you have to consider exactly what criteria do you use to determine whether a thing is intended for melee characters vs what's generally useful to any characters, e.g. an initiative weapon or potions of combat buffs. You -can- choose not to count it against their WBL but how treasure actually gets distributed is up to the party. You can't help running the risk of the casters exceeding WBL too without explicitly asking them not to do so which, of course, feels a -lot- more like specifically targeting them than simply preemptively nerfing them because it is.



As for other abilities, things like bonus feats for classes that don't already get them, or combining feat trees into a single feat, can help to some degree.

That helps -some- but not nearly enough. There're basically no feats or even feat chains that even begin to keep up with even gear for the most part, much less spellcasting. There's also no getting around the fact that giving them more options for any given action makes your job as a DM more complex. If you're not at the limit of your abilities yet, that's fine. If you are, it's anathema.


None of this will make a vanilla fighter equal to a crazy powerful wizard, but it will help them stay relevant. And if you have a crazy powerful over-optimized (for the rest of your party) wizard, you should have already had some guidance on them to help balance everyone overall.

One man's average play is another's god-awful over-powered. Your suggestions here might just cut it for some tables but it will fall well short for others. The fundamental problem is that casters reach a place where non-casters simply can't reach long before reaching the darkest depths of optimization possibility, even if you employ the melee positive suggestions from this thread. There comes a point where it's nerf or nothin'.



Much of what you say here I'd agree with.
Sounds like this already isn't a problem you have at your table. Why is that? What have you done before and during your campaign to prevent this becoming an issue? Are there insights from that that you can share, to help the OP out here?

Our table simply acknowledges that the difference exists and that someone who wants to play a fighter or a barbarian is -choosing- to up the difficulty for himself. Between this and the fact that casters simply choose not to step on non-casters toes, the imbalance simply isn't a problem that needs solving at our table. If somebody decides their character just isn't working out like they'd hoped, they can ask the DM (me as often as not) for a rebuild quest ala PHB2 or simply retire the character and roll up something one level lower.


Most of what I'm advocating for is taking a proactive role in the development of your players' characters, to prevent them from making character choices that they, and you, will regret later. I strongly suggest a Session Zero, to help everyone get on the same page with their goals for their characters, and also to set down your expectations for overall optimization and power levels for your campaigns.

With some planning ahead of time, you won't have to play catch-up with these things later.

I get where you're coming from and I agree that someone with great system mastery would do well to help his fellow players -if- they want the help but there's only so much you can do. Expectations differ from person to person and DMing is a -lot- of work already. It's important for everyone to temper their expectations and compromise.

On a final note; I have the impression that most groups find the ideal power level somewhere below the maximum capability of non-casters or at least much closer to that point than to the extreme of spellcaster ability. If that's the case, it's much easier to preemptively nerf the most egregious of caster abuses than to try and make it so non-casters can keep up with them. That is, essentially, what tweaking the WBL rules is after all. I just don't think it's the most efficient way to handle it. "Celerity and its variants aren't available" is much easier to swallow than "Timmy's sword is almost as cheap as one of bob's highest level spells." I tend to see such adjustments as the DM acknowledging either his own limits or the limits of the system rather than any kind of attack on spellcasters. *shrug*

[Crichton]

snip



Some valuable insights and constructive feedback, all of which are appreciated.

When you start getting into higher levels, casters are always going to be more powerful than mundanes. It's just the way the game is built, from the ground up. That has to be acknowledges from the start. There are some ways to help mitigate that, to a degree (and that's what this thread, among many others, is all about), but that difference is going to become an issue at mid to high levels, no matter what you do. As you said, that fact needs to be accepted by those who choose to play mundane characters, and it needs to be accepted all the way back at level 1, so they aren't surprised or disappointed later.

In the same way, though, placing limits on casters also needs to happen all the way back at level 1, before characters are rolled and plans made. Retroactively nerfing or outright removing large chunks of a casters features is much more likely to result in hurt feelings or conflict than planning it out from the start.

As for me, I'm of the strong opinion that the nerfhammer gets wielded way too often, or at least prematurely. If that's the only way to make sure everyone's going to have a good time, then by all means, go for it. But it should be the last tool in the DM's belt, not the first. That's an ideological view on my part, and I'll stand by it as such.

That said, I'm back to lauding the importance of setting up expectations in Session Zero, or in some other way, before the campaign starts, so all the players are working from the same set of ideas from the start. That may, or may not, involve offering input into character choices. As you say, not everyone wants input. But it's the DM's job to at least keep an eye on what character choices are being made, to ensure things are on track with the expectations laid down from the start. The way I prefer to see that happen is to require players to ask for approval for most, if not all options that come from outside the core ruleset. Typically I tell players that, more than likely, anything they bring will be approved, but they'll have to explain why they want it and how it will be used. Gives the DM a chance to veto anything that's gonna cause problems, and keeps players from expecting to come in with some wild crazy scheme and get pissed when it gets denied.

Basically it all comes down to the fact that it's far less effort to lay down some guidelines to avoid problems than it is to try to fix every problem that comes up because you didn't lay out the expectations from the start.

[Quertus]

I'm not sure if this is condescending or just pretentious. No duh there are more things than what would go on the whitelist, that's why its a whitelist. The reason one would use a whitelist is specifically because they know the scope of something is large enough that playing whack a mole is a waste of time. The obvious implication is that I somehow am missing or failing to understand some mystifying scope of the system that can only be expressed by aping a famous line- so is that an insult?


How is this even a question? Do you have any idea how. . . I don't even have a word for it. Banal? Oversaturated? Hive-mind-ish? How disgustingly common it is for you people to see the very concept of actually taking charge of game balance and just immediately throw up your arms and start wailing "Oh how could you possibly understand anything when you disagree with meeeeeee?!"

No ****, games that don't need nerfs don't need nerfs. I literally already said that in this thread. If you can't understand the difference between knowing when and how to change things to reach a desired result and whatever your straw vision of oppressive nerf despots, maybe go check your false absolutism. Shockingly enough, when the topic calls for reducing caster power, I will make suggestions that involve reducing caster power. And if the topic actually calls for increasing the power of something, gee what happens?

Sorry, no offense intended. Just trying to say that "variety is the spice of life", in a "nothing wrong with meat and potatoes, but there are other foods" kinda way. Not sure if that's condescending or pretentious.

...as a lead-in to my actual question, which was: when you have limited yourself to a white list, how do you restore balance to an underperforming character / player? My experience is with "oppressive nerf despots"; assuming you to not be such, I asked how you resolve what I perceive as a problem inherent to white lists.

Again, I find it best to balance the performance of the individual characters, and to be able to give "totally overpowered" options to a character, if that's what it takes to make them balanced with the rest of the party (either because of their poor build, or their lack of player skills).

So, when you're limited to a white list, and therefore taken away my easy tool of handing out high-op options, how do you solve the problem of the underperforming character?


In my experience "well optimized" and "played with a modicum of skill" are very different things,

So true, in more ways than one.


When you start getting into higher levels, casters are always going to be more powerful than mundanes.

My signature character, the academia Wizard for whom this account is named, would like you to know that the Fighter and Monk were the MVPs of his epic level party. Not that I would argue that Quertus wasn't powerful, mind you, but he was well-played as a tactically inept academic, while the muggles were... very well built, well-played, sufficiently versatile killing machines.

[Epic Legand]

Thank you for all the time you have spent trying to answer my question (Except the time spent bashing my poor spelling, that's a waste:). Some of you refaced the Christmas tree ( removing many items and giving static bonus ) I had said I strongly disliked it. Let me explain why a bit. I never make vanilla characters. I do not follow the expected path, ether by design or taste. Thus taking away my choices and giving me the expected bonuses only works if I WANTED the expected average magic items buy ins. I would always chose teleporting boots before upgrading my weapon to +2 for example. Mostly because the boots gave me a choice to do things I could not do elsewise, while a +2 sword mostly did the same thing as a plus one, just a bit better (Yes I know flaming or keen is a smarter choice). The suggested Philosopher's Stone is a very interesting choice. I was not at all familiar with it.

I tried ( am trying) my own house rules fix in the new campaign I just started. I spoke about the issue to all players, and suggested my fix, and why. This allowed them all to make choices before picking roles. Everyone liked the suggestion with no outliers.

Basic campaign : Drow underdark campaign, starting level 10, 25 character points. PF rules with any 3 things you might want from 3.5 ( I banned a few things, like divine metamagic ). As the guy with the best system mastery in our group, when I say something has to much potential for abuse, the group tends to agree with me.

I said that all teir 1 or 2 CASTERS are limited to spending no more then 75% of their levels in their primary class. So no 1st level wizards, you have to wait till 2ed to take level 1 of wizard. This means you can be a 10 level Magus, but max out at a 7th level cleric or sorcerer( In a 10th level game), you don't lose the other levels, you just have to spend them on something else...So now the Sorcerer might want 3 levels of antipalidin. These house rules were aimed at making suboptimal choices better. Maybe you wanted to play a 1/2 dragon, but that was always a bad choice for the wizard, now, its a valid choice. Also, some prestige classes become better choices, when they do not advance your CASTER level, your not so far behind as you might be in a normal game. These rules are wide spread, meaning opponents also have to work with them. Monster levels and CR are unaffected. Also, when referring to the limit, I meant real levels, not what you gain from a ring, or practiced CASTER.

Since I am starting the game at high level, I knew the CASTER/ martial issue would become apparent sooner.

We have only had 2 sessions, not enough time to tell if it will fix things. At the time of character creation, everyone told me they liked the change, it made for some interesting choices. We have 2 party members who always chose very low teir characters, ( straight class fighter for example). I hope this rule will reduce the amount they feel left behind.

Side note: I must admit to struggling with not misspelling every other word just as a petty revenge :) You are all taking the time to read and answer my questions, so thanks.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Thank you for all the time you have spent trying to answer my question (Except the time spent bashing my poor spelling, that's a waste:). Some of you refaced the Christmas tree ( removing many items and giving static bonus ) I had said I strongly disliked it. Let me explain why a bit. I never make vanilla characters. I do not follow the expected path, ether by design or taste. Thus taking away my choices and giving me the expected bonuses only works if I WANTED the expected average magic items buy ins. I would always chose teleporting boots before upgrading my weapon to +2 for example. Mostly because the boots gave me a choice to do things I could not do elsewise, while a +2 sword mostly did the same thing as a plus one, just a bit better (Yes I know flaming or keen is a smarter choice).

That's exactly why the "take out +X items, give inherent bonuses" approach is, I feel, better for the game. It's generally more optimal to take the boring +X items that help basically all the time over more situational items, but situational items are more fun and give you more options; whenever you choose to buy a +X item you're losing out on options and whenever you choose to buy a fun item you're losing out on bonuses, so the "choice" between the two is an unfair one. It's precisely players like you who don't want +X items that benefit from that change, since you can still choose the more interesting items like you would otherwise but now you're not getting penalized for it.

It's also easier from the DM side when building NPCs. You shouldn't have to go through the monotony of equipping all your NPCs with appropriate Big Six items and then hope to have enough left over for some interesting items to make them more of a challenge, an issue exacerbated by the lower NPC wealth by level. If you can instead just bump up their stats to start with and jump right into the interesting items, it's a lot faster and simpler.

[Florian]

I never make vanilla characters.

But exactly that is the reason to use the ABP? It removes all the "bland but necessary" items from the game (by moving that into the progression), so you can focus on only the stuff that really interests you.

[Epic Legand]

I am not going to justify my opinion on what I like or do not like. I understand if YOU prefer the bonus system, please respect my right to have an opinion on what I enjoy or do not. It's not a theory for me, I got to play with that system for 10 months, It was everything I feared it would be. When I made the original post, I asked if other people had faced this challenge, and tried different ways around it. If your advise is limited to " try the ABP, it does what you want already" I can only assume you did not read my post, or for some reason, did not understand my position. Lets do some basic comparison. Character A has 60K of gp, while Char B has 20K and automatic progression. Char B has similar total bonuses to A IF A had taken all the standard choices, and B used remaining wealth to buy expected items. ....In that scenario, both characters are roughly equal, and it is simpler to just use automatic progression. I never suggested I was interested in that choice, in fact I stated the exact opposite. I already explained how given the CHOICE I would pick the lower static bonus, and chose more interesting items. For me, and people who prefer non cookie cutter characters, the ABS only reduces choices, and greatly removes the ability to select interesting items. Since the caster still retains the same ability to reproduce those effects with built in class features, this FURTHER increases the disparity between martial vs caster. Put another way... casters get 11 points for magic spells, plus 10 points for wealth, while martials get 4 points for skills, and 10 points for wealth. You get 21 vs 14 . Now take away 7 from both. You get 14 vs 7. The disparity only increases. instead of one being about 50% better then the other, now one is 100% better then the other. These rough numbers are not meant to reflect any real world game stats, they are only used to highlight why the ABP is the opposite of what I am looking for. I have been gaming for 37 years, please have enough basic courtesy to either make a useful suggestion ( I have seen several I liked ) or say you have no idea. But suggesting the exact opposite of what I asked for seams unhelpful.

[Nifft]

I am not going to justify my opinion on what I like or do not like. I understand if YOU prefer the bonus system, please respect my right to have an opinion on what I enjoy or do not. It's not a theory for me, I got to play with that system for 10 months, It was everything I feared it would be. When I made the original post, I asked if other people had faced this challenge, and tried different ways around it. If your advise is limited to " try the ABP, it does what you want already" I can only assume you did not read my post, or for some reason, did not understand my position. Lets do some basic comparison. Character A has 60K of gp, while Char B has 20K and automatic progression. Char B has similar total bonuses to A IF A had taken all the standard choices, and B used remaining wealth to buy expected items. ....In that scenario, both characters are roughly equal, and it is simpler to just use automatic progression. I never suggested I was interested in that choice, in fact I stated the exact opposite. I already explained how given the CHOICE I would pick the lower static bonus, and chose more interesting items. For me, and people who prefer non cookie cutter characters, the ABS only reduces choices, and greatly removes the ability to select interesting items. Since the caster still retains the same ability to reproduce those effects with built in class features, this FURTHER increases the disparity between martial vs caster. Put another way... casters get 11 points for magic spells, plus 10 points for wealth, while martials get 4 points for skills, and 10 points for wealth. You get 21 vs 14 . Now take away 7 from both. You get 14 vs 7. The disparity only increases. instead of one being about 50% better then the other, now one is 100% better then the other. These rough numbers are not meant to reflect any real world game stats, they are only used to highlight why the ABP is the opposite of what I am looking for. I have been gaming for 37 years, please have enough basic courtesy to either make a useful suggestion ( I have seen several I liked ) or say you have no idea. But suggesting the exact opposite of what I asked for seams unhelpful.

It's a matter of degree.

Group A - Many people say: "I want to be effective and unique." For those people, automatic bonuses of some kind or another which remove the need for Big Six items and such are a boon. I don't know about the Pathfinder one in specific, but I've seen auto-bonus systems which seem to do a reasonable job of removing tedious items from D&D.

Group B - A few people say: "I want to be unique instead of effective." It's difficult to look at these as a group, because there might be a very good reason why the character is partially self-nerfed -- or it might be simple ignorance on the part of the player. It might be a character that's not effective in one of the usual ways, but actually does help the party significantly in unusual ways, for example in an unusual campaign where exploration & social maneuvering are more important than combat -- or it might be that the player thinks the usual things are irrelevant, but in fact those things are going to be relevant, and the player is setting him- or herself up for frustration. As an outside observer, it's difficult to know which of those is going on.

Group C - A very small number of people say: "I want to be unique by being ineffective." Those people seem to be trying to fail, so I'm not really worried about helping them succeed. If their groups are okay with that sort of ... practical joke character, I guess? Then power to 'em. Except they'll reject the power because it might make them effective. But you get my drift. I've seen people who claim that role-playing is the opposite of optimization, and therefore the only good character is a character who is bad at his or her job. IMHO that's a very silly opinion -- adventurers ought to be really good at their jobs, because their jobs are hellishly dangerous, and if you're not good at your job then the whole team could die.


It sounds like someone assumed you might be in Group A, and you are not.

So, help us help you by narrowing down what you're seeking.

"Not cookie-cutter" describes the majority of PCs, a lot of good ones and some few bad practical joke ones, so it's a useless distinction.

What positive thing are you hoping will distinguish your character?

[noob]

Now I want to play awakened beavers.

[upho]

For me, and people who prefer non cookie cutter characters, the ABS only reduces choices, and greatly removes the ability to select interesting items.For what it's worth, if we're talking about PF Unchained's automatic bonus progression (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/automatic-bonus-progression/) system, I totally agree. It's awfully limiting, and reduces the number of mechanically effective unique/odd-ball non-caster builds otherwise possible. It's pretty much the same issue as games with less than standard WBL and no compensating mechanics typically struggle with.


It's a matter of degree.

Group A - Many people say: "I want to be effective and unique." For those people, automatic bonuses of some kind or another which remove the need for Big Six items and such are a boon. I don't know about the Pathfinder one in specific, but I've seen auto-bonus systems which seem to do a reasonable job of removing tedious items from D&D.

/snip/

It sounds like someone assumed you might be in Group A, and you are not.That doesn't have to be the case. At all. Because while there may certainly be various homebrew systems which are actually good or even great, IMO PF's automatic bonus progression system (see link above), which is what the OP has played with and which has been recommended by other posters, is not. At least not once a player has become moderately experienced at PC building, and especially not if the player enjoys builds with less intuitive mechanical combos and/or unusual focuses/combat roles.

In short, I believe the PF variant is way too specific and inflexible in how it spends half the PC's WBL, thereby enforcing cookie-cutter builds to a larger extent than otherwise. To me, it appears the designers made incorrect assumptions not just about to which extent different PCs and players share preferences, but also to which extent they share mechanics. Big Six isn't applicable to every PC, not even to every non-caster, and it's definitely not applicable to every PC at every level in the specific manner the system dictates. So in comparison to a standard game, which for example allows for changing item slots, stacking items and improving the inherent standard bonuses of unique items, players who are at least somewhat competent at building their non-casters may very well find the Unchained system actually decreases the maximum potential mechanical effectiveness of their PCs.

@ Epic Legand: Regardless of whether you introduce price adjustments to help mitigate M/CD problems, I really recommend not using the Unchained system for improving item flexibility or fighting the christmas tree effect.

I personally use the system from Steelforge book 1 by Dreamscarred Press. This basically makes all generic item bonuses (ability, armor, natural armor and weapon enhancement, resistance, deflection and skill competence (up to +10)) slot-independent and removes the stacking costs for putting them on an item which also provides another effect. It makes some items a bit cheaper, notably stuff similar to +6 belt of physical prowess, but most importantly makes all the other normally over-priced stuff a lot more interesting, aside from allowing for far fewer magic items having to be worn/used simultaneously. And it benefits non-casters more than casters.

It has worked great in my games, and it has resulted in the PCs having quite a few interesting items they would've been unable to use, or which would've made them weaker, if using the standard rules.

[VisitingDaGulag]

Actually charged items are usually a better use of wealth than more expensive permanent items because the permanent item will usually only be used a few times in the character's entire life. Staffs, scrolls, potions and low cost/single use wondrous items are actually really, really good.This is correct. This is why, after you've made all casters nerfed down beyond tier 3 territory, you have to nerf 1shot spell items because they essentially put any character into that tier 1-2 range that you spent so much time nerfing.


Just because the MiC writers were shall we say, unaware enough, to canonize multiple stacking initiative bonuses in the same book, doesn't mean the DM needs to.I say give all monsters a surprise round, and optimize their initiative. Let the PCs struggle to go 2nd rather than 3rd.


The simple fact is that removing options from casters is immensely easier and faster. Not only that but it also makes casters easier to deal with at the table. The alternative, boosting non-casters, requires writing new abilities that you have to balance against the arbitrary point of referenceWell said.


To the point of feels though, if you clearly explain to the group why you're nerfing spellcasters and the would-be caster players feel like they're being punished then they need to bite the bullet and get over themselves.Yup all balancing needs to be open and done before a single PC has even mentioned what they want to play. Thus they can't claim favoritism because you don't even know who you are favoring.