Giving good things to martial characters

[Promethean]

I'm trying to find and/or come up with some house-rules to off-set the linear vs quadratic problem some of the martial classes face. Any help or suggestions would be welcome.

One idea that was kicked around was changing how things like haste, flurry of blows, snap kick, and rapid shot work. The idea was to make it so that any feat/spell/item/whatever added a full attack routine to classes with the BAB. So a 8 level monk with Flurry wouldn't have +6/+1 normal: +6/+4/-1 flurry, They'd have +6/+1 normal: +6/+4/+1/-1 flurry. With haste he'd have +7/+7/+2/+2 normal: +7/+7/+5/+2/+2/+0 flurry.

Would this be a broken/overpowered change?

[zlefin]

what sources are you willing to use? which ones would your group find unacceptable?
how much complexity do they tolerate?

The list of partial fixes for that kind of problem is very long, and more info would be needed to guide you to the one that best works for your group.

offhand what you describe probably isn't completely broken, but it's likely to warp things in weird ways. It may end up helping casters quite a bit more than intended. At any rate, it could also lead to the rolling far too many dice problem.

[jintoya]

Another thing to ask;
what prompted you to make this change?
Is there a specific player who feels left behind, or are you trying to just balance everything?

[Promethean]

what sources are you willing to use? which ones would your group find unacceptable?

Any published books are allowed and Dragon/Dungeon on a case by case. The group doesn't really care too much about balance as long as everyone's having fun. The only reason homebrew isn't typically allowed to players is because it gets a bit too crazy even for us. We however will make special exceptions if something sounds like a cool idea and everyone's on board.


how much complexity do they tolerate?

We'd like to keep it as simple as possible, but my group should be very forgiving as long as combat remains fast.


offhand what you describe probably isn't completely broken, but it's likely to warp things in weird ways. It may end up helping casters quite a bit more than intended. At any rate, it could also lead to the rolling far too many dice problem.

The "too many dice" situation isn't normally a problem. We use online dice rollers anyway and can program them beforehand.

[zlefin]

hmm, by your description you're using 3.5

generally speaking using Tome of Battle [or the pathfinder similar equivalents, I forget the name of the one like ToB, but there's also Spheres of Might] is good for cutting down on the disparity, but I don't know how your group will feel about the complexity/time to think for using it. Though generally it can play quite fast; but it's definitely not as simple as some others.

One simple boost would be to use the Pathfinder version of Martial classes where available; that gives a straight boost to them, and most of the thought is in building char so they should still be simple enough and play fast in practice. They're also available online for free.

[ayvango]

Try to reduce iterative penalty. Normal penalty is -5 for each iterative. Flurry penalty is -3. So you could do more attacks with the same BAB. Let snap kick work as secondary attack. Made secondary attacks iterative too, but with greater penalty -7.

For example lets use monk with 11 BAB, flurry and snap kick: primary attack at 11, 8, 5, 2. Snap kick treated as secondary attack (1/2 Str bonus to damage, 1/2 Str bonus to attack roll) with normal base and inferior increments: 11, 4. Improved multiattack feat will decrease iterative penalty for secondary attack, so snap kick would become 11, 6, 1. Improved flurry (monk class feature) would decrease iterative penalty further: 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1. Haste spell just gives solid +2 base attack bonus. So it shifts all iterative higher: 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1 for primary and 13, 8, 3 for secondary.

But be careful with such variants, some builds rely on number of attack rather then its accuracy, so you would boost such builds too much.

Normally monks had bonus feat on 6th lvl and 4 flurry changes:
1st lvl: -2 x 1 flurry
5th lvl: -1 x 1 flurry
9th lvl: -0 x 1 flurry
11th lvl: 0 x 2 flurry

How could I rework it:
1st lvl: incorporate snap kick feat reworked as secondary attack (half bonuses and damages) at best AB.
5th lvl: bonus feat (switched with 6th lvl)
6th lvl: flurry (iterative penalty is now only -3)
9th lvl: improved snap kick (iterative penalty is -5 now, effectively add another kick)
11th lvl: improved flurry (iterative penalty is now only -2).

At the 20th level monk would get +15 BAB and following iteratives:
primary: 15, 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1
secondary: 15, 10, 5
total 10 attacks.

Normally 20th level monk has only 5 attacks: 15, 15, 15, 10, 5, all of them - primary.

[tiercel]

I suppose part of the question here is to what degree do you just want to make melee better, versus how much do you want to address nonspellcaster vs spellcaster “linear vs quadratic/exponential” disparity.

I ask because, depending on the exact change, merely buffing melee may just make gish and CoDzilla archetypes stronger. (Also, almost any fix that involves giving melee “only” more numbers isn’t really addressing the linear-quadratic problem; melee really needs more options, presumably, which tends to mean some kind of gish-like capability, and why ToB is likely to come up a lot in a 3.5 discussion on this topic.)

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think nerfing spells and caster PrC's is more important than buffing martials.
One quick fix I liked was that for any caster PrC with full casting progression by RAW, unless it's impossible to enter without losing 1 or more CL (like most hybrid ones such as Arcane Trickster), the first level of that class now does not advance CL. If the class already loses CL at some point on its own, then I didn't touch it. If the PrC doesn't appreciably increase the user's power compared to the base class or has so many crippling pre-reqs that what you get isn't particularly worth it anyway, then I'd make exceptions upon player request. I allowed the Druid to not lose any CL to Holt Warden, for example.

But some classes definitely could use buffs, sure.

Fighters I gave: 4+Int skill points and a wider skill list; learning a few ToB maneuvers and gaining their own readied pool (4 readied over the 20 levels) with the unique property that they can still use non-readied maneuvers 1/encounter and get to ignore the cap of 3 maneuvers learned via Martial Study; and a couple other minor abilities like being able to pierce some damage reduction.

Monks got: full BAB; faster AC bonus (+1 at levels 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 20); Ki Strike (magic) actually gives a +1 enhancement to unarmed strikes every 4 monk levels; Monk can use Wis instead of Con for bonus hp on Monk HD (trying to reduce their multiple ability dependence) and at level 3 (a few levels in to make it unappealing as a dip to clerics/druids) can use Wis in place of Con for Fort saves; buffed wholeness of body to make it basically equal to Lay on Hands; at level 7 Monks can apply flurry of blows to any attack action including spring attacks, strike maneuvers, and charges; and buffed Perfect Self....probably more, Monk needed a lot of help...
Oh, and Amulet of Mighty Fists was reduced to 2x the cost of weapon enhancements and lets you apply special properties w/o a +1 first, so a level 20 monk can affordably have +5 unarmed strike w/ +5 of properties.

Rogues got: d8 HD; good Will save progression (like Monk, to make Wis a dump stat so Rogues are less MAD, plus Rogues have the worst saves in the game by RAW); ability to sneak attack concealed enemies (but not total concealment)...b/c Rogues being bad in the dark and in smoke clouds is dumb....; and giving them the benefit of Darkstalker feat as a class feature would be a good idea, too. Oh...and Evasion applies to Reflex: Partial saves, just as Mettle does for Fort/Will Partial.

[HouseRules]

I think nerfing spells and caster PrC's is more important than buffing martials.

I will add "Spell Level" to "Effective Character Level" and be done with nerfing spell casters.

[Aotrs Commander]

I gave fighters a feat EVERY level instead of every other level (and said those on the 3rd-on odd levels could be any feat, not fighter feats) - we also switched to PF feat every odd level, isnbtead of every 3rd, which helped as well. Fighters also get some special "you have to have this many levels of Fighter (no warblade, your I-can-have-the-fighter-stuff class feature doesn't let you have those, youve got enough stuff of your own)" buff to a few feats. For Barbarian and rogue, I basically just stole PF's range power and rogue tricks and pasted 'em in; Monks I added a fair few extras (no least they are now full bab, and flurry/decisive strike get extra attacks on either full or STANDARd (which means a monk can now walk up to you and punch you several times...)

TWF got buffed to full off-hand damage (which, considering the amount of TWFs we tend to have just makes the logistics easier...)

That has pretty much been fine for our group's paradigm, though milage, of course, always varies. Heck, we had a Fighter and Epic and he did fine with just the extra feats; he was never irrelevant.

[Promethean]

I think nerfing spells and caster PrC's is more important than buffing martials.

I've never found this to be a good solution in any game.

Hard nerfing a player's favorite class because it's possible for them to overshadow other players, regardless of if that particular player does it, always leads to frustration all around in my experience. I'm not looking to buff martials because anyone is being particularly overshadowed in my games, my players are very good about that. I just wanted to set up a crazier than normal campaign and have everyone try out some of the crazier builds they've thought of, but never really had a chance to play.

This is all more of preparation to make sure no one is potentially left out when the the spell-casters are allowed to ham it up.

The one exception to this stance is removing Wish and Miracle from the spell lists. Rings of 3 wishes, called Genies, and other such happenings are all still possible. In fact I buffed the luck dagger and ring of 3 wishes to Always have 3 wishes when found(they have 3 wishes per owner, can only have 1 owner at a time, and disappear to distant lands unknown when the last wish is made). Supernatural Wish and Killer Gnome's Shadow Miracle have convinced me these things shouldn't be spells however.

[Falontani]

How are your martials under-performing?
My group is near epic and my casters are usually falling behind damage wise unless I allow the use of a specific (usually broken) spell.

Although I admit the two melees in my group are truly devastating and wouldn't be where they are without the help of their caster friends.

Regardless:
Fighter could get a heavily modified spell as a 1/day ability every odd level after first: level 3 they get a 1st level transmutation spell that may only target themselves. It's duration (If there is one) is 1 round per fighter level. At 5th give them a second level spell, and so on. If you select the same spell twice you get it 3/day, and a third time makes it at will once per combat.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Umm...I nerf casters because they break the game. Not because they overshadow others...that's kind of unavoidable unless you make everyone basically the same, like in 4E.

But the PrCs that give all the casting progression plus all kinds of other goodies? Yeah, they need to be nerfed or banned. And the really overpowered spells? Yeah, they do, too. Don't worry, there's literally hundreds of others to choose from, possibly thousands, that I leave alone.

[Biggus]

Some simple changes which can benefit martial types:

All iterative attacks at -5

Removing XP penalties for multiclassing, as it's more often useful for martial types than casters

Allow Leadership but restrict it to characters with a minimum BAB instead of a certain level, or to characters with at least 6 levels in a full-BAB class



But the PrCs that give all the casting progression plus all kinds of other goodies? Yeah, they need to be nerfed or banned. And the really overpowered spells? Yeah, they do, too. Don't worry, there's literally hundreds of others to choose from, possibly thousands, that I leave alone.

Also this. I have a short list of outright broken spells which I ban, and another short list of spells which are nerfed or just very strictly interpreted. Likewise a handful of PrCs. You don't have to take all the casters' cool toys away to give martial types a fighting chance, just the really stinky cheese.

[HouseRules]

Nerf everything that scales with Hit Dice (with the exception of Base Attack Bonus) by making them scale with BAB.
That would balance the game somewhat.
The only hard thing is that most magical monsters need to be re-stated.

[Anthrowhale]

I will add "Spell Level" to "Effective Character Level" and be done with nerfing spell casters.

I like the simplicity of this.

You end up at ECL 20 with character level 13 and spell level 7 on a wizard/cleric/druid. That's a hefty nerf, but given a choice between playing a 20th level fighter and 13th level wizard many people would still choose the wizard.

[Inchhighguy]

Some simple ones:

*Give bonus points equal to BAB to be used to add to any roll, once a round

*Action points equal to base attack A five foot step is "1", a swift action is "2",move action costs ''3" and a full action costs "4" and a full round action costs "5". Or something like that.

I like swift action 1, move action 2 and full action 3. So a 1st level fighter (Str+3, master work sword+1, weapon focus+1, BAB+1) could take THREE full attack actions in one round: one normal, two bonus. It's even more fun with movement: taking three bonus move actions a round.

This gives martial characters a lot more to do each round.

[QuadraticGish]

I like the simplicity of this.

You end up at ECL 20 with character level 13 and spell level 7 on a wizard/cleric/druid. That's a hefty nerf, but given a choice between playing a 20th level fighter and 13th level wizard many people would still choose the wizard.

Doesn't the rule kind of hit gishes as well as Rangers and Paladins?

[Anthrowhale]

Doesn't the rule kind of hit gishes as well as Rangers and Paladins?

Sure, but it's not clear this is unbalancing.

Would you rather be a level 20 fighter or a level 16 Ranger/Paladin/Duskblade? It's not that easy of a decision, particularly when everyone has ECL 20 wealth.

[GrayDeath]

I will add "Spell Level" to "Effective Character Level" and be done with nerfing spell casters.

Now THAT is a honest to God simple, intruiging version, thank you!

Will be trying it out soonish.

How would you in that circumstance rate Initiators/Invoacation/Incarnum Users? My go would be half what spells would reduce (so y Level 7 Maneuver or Greater Invocation user would add 4 to his Character level instead of 7-8)?

[Biggus]

Sure, but it's not clear this is unbalancing.

Would you rather be a level 20 fighter or a level 16 Ranger/Paladin/Duskblade? It's not that easy of a decision, particularly when everyone has ECL 20 wealth.

I'm a bit puzzled by this. JaronK's tier system has Paladins and Fighters as both tier 5, and the Retiering the Classes thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?568771-Retiering-the-Classes-A-new-home) has Paladins, Rangers and Fighters all as tier 4. How does making high-level Paladins four levels lower than Fighters make them more balanced?

[MisterKaws]

Don't give more damage to martials. That's the only thing they don't lack at all.

Give them versatility instead. Usually just being nice to them with magic items will significantly reduce the gap between casters and martials, because they don't depend so much on the former.

This is specially noticeable in high-level low-magic campaigns: the enemies have overestimated CR compared to their actual difficulty, and if any half-optimized caster goes there, they just break it. That's why I prefer high-magic campaigns: that way, I can be nice to the martials, maybe even give them above-ECL treatment.

Or maybe even go beyond and give the Wizard a custom runestaff with your fighter's favorite buffs, that sort of thing which promotes teamwork.

[Anthrowhale]

I'm a bit puzzled by this. JaronK's tier system has Paladins and Fighters as both tier 5, and the Retiering the Classes thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?568771-Retiering-the-Classes-A-new-home) has Paladins, Rangers and Fighters all as tier 4. How does making high-level Paladins four levels lower than Fighters make them more balanced?

There are two responses to this.
1) If you look more closely at the most recent one you'll see that it makes sense. Ranger variants with ACFs are actually rated as Tier 3, with the Duskblade. Also, if you look at the recorded votes, Fighter (with all variants) is one vote away from Tier 5 (10 votes for 5 vs. 11 for 4) while a Paladin (with all variants) is more comfortably in Tier 4 (2 votes for 5 vs. 7 votes for 4). A Ranger (without variants) is also more comfortably in Tier 4 (2 votes for 5 vs. 5 votes for 4).

2) A proposed modification for balance need not be perfect to be useful.

[Promethean]

Here's another idea that's being kicked around.

Pathfinder has a lot of fighter/combat feat chains that are improved versions of a lower level feat. Would it be a good idea to simply have characters replace the existing feat with the upgraded version when they meet the prerequisites?

Example: two-weapon fighting becomes Improved two weapon fighting for a fighter at 6th level with 17 dex without taking an extra feat slot. It's upgraded again at Lev 11/Dex 19, again without taking an extra slot.

Feats without a lower level equivalent feat would be unaffected. So you wouldn't replace combat expertise with improved bull-rush for example, but would instead take Greater bull rush if you had BAB +6.

[Sereg]

Make full attack into a standard action. Cap penalties for iteratives at -5. Give force effects hardness and hp that can be overcome. Apply wound penalties based on percentage of total hp lost. Create feats to rip teleports out the air, charge as an immediate action, attack casters through their minions, alter the weather by waving, create earthquakes with a stomp, screen as a sonic attack, travel between any two points on the planet with a single jump, swim through rock, etc

[Biggus]

There are two responses to this.
1) If you look more closely at the most recent one you'll see that it makes sense. Ranger variants with ACFs are actually rated as Tier 3, with the Duskblade. Also, if you look at the recorded votes, Fighter (with all variants) is one vote away from Tier 5 (10 votes for 5 vs. 11 for 4) while a Paladin (with all variants) is more comfortably in Tier 4 (2 votes for 5 vs. 7 votes for 4). A Ranger (without variants) is also more comfortably in Tier 4 (2 votes for 5 vs. 5 votes for 4).

2) A proposed modification for balance need not be perfect to be useful.

OK, so averaging the votes, we get 4.5 for Fighter, 4.2 for Paladin, and 4.3 for Ranger. All three are in the bottom half of tier 4. So for being 0.2-0.3 tiers higher, the Paladin and Ranger get penalised 4 levels, while the Wizard, Cleric and Druid are over 3 full tiers higher and get penalised 7 levels.

No, a modification does not need to be perfect, but if it creates nearly as many problems as it solves, it's probably not the best way.


Here's another idea that's being kicked around.

Pathfinder has a lot of fighter/combat feat chains that are improved versions of a lower level feat. Would it be a good idea to simply have characters replace the existing feat with the upgraded version when they meet the prerequisites?

Example: two-weapon fighting becomes Improved two weapon fighting for a fighter at 6th level with 17 dex without taking an extra feat slot. It's upgraded again at Lev 11/Dex 19, again without taking an extra slot.

Feats without a lower level equivalent feat would be unaffected. So you wouldn't replace combat expertise with improved bull-rush for example, but would instead take Greater bull rush if you had BAB +6.

I already do this for 2WF, and use PF's infinitely more sensible version of Power Attack, which between them make 2WF a viable strategy again (it still has the disadvantage that you have to spend twice as much on weapons, but it's not a complete waste of time for anyone who doesn't have bonus damage any more).

[gogogome]

Umm...I nerf casters because they break the game. Not because they overshadow others...that's kind of unavoidable unless you make everyone basically the same, like in 4E.

But the PrCs that give all the casting progression plus all kinds of other goodies? Yeah, they need to be nerfed or banned. And the really overpowered spells? Yeah, they do, too. Don't worry, there's literally hundreds of others to choose from, possibly thousands, that I leave alone.

So you're saying WotC's attempt to add customization options and remove dead levels with PrCs needs to be nerfed or banned?

I rather just beef monsters up so that PCs have to use all of their goodies to survive let alone kill the monsters instead of nerfing or banning everything to something worse than core only. After all, it's more fun to play in a game where you can do more stuff and do unique stuff only your character can do, but to each his own i guess. I'll never understand why there are DMs who think less options is more fun or why there are DMs who insist using power crept T5s like fighters as the balance point to the point they use absolutely nothing as written because everything is too op compared to the fighter and needs to be nerfed.

I mean, just ask any player: do they like using PrCs that lose caster levels? And the answer will be a unanimous no. So why would you house rule to make the game less enjoyable to the players? Because it's too OP (wotc didn't think so) compared to a fighter?

[tiercel]

Doesn't the rule kind of hit gishes as well as Rangers and Paladins?

What stood out to me — especially in a game that never exceeds ECL 20 — is that the fix nerfs Bards very nearly as hard as it nerfs T1 casters.

It is an intriguing house rule in its simplicity, but I can’t help but think it would need to be complicated a *little*

[Biggus]

What stood out to me — especially in a game that never exceeds ECL 20 — is that the fix nerfs Bards very nearly as hard as it nerfs T1 casters.

It is an intriguing house rule in its simplicity, but I can’t help but think it would need to be complicated a *little*

Yeah, I think it'd have to go something like this to actually balance things:

Spell level......0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ECL increase..0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 2

This would make a L.20 Fighter equivalent to a L.19 Paladin or Ranger, L.17 Bard or L.14 full caster. For fixed-list casters like the Healer and Warmage you'd probably need a slightly modified table.

[Anthrowhale]

No, a modification does not need to be perfect, but if it creates nearly as many problems as it solves, it's probably not the best way.

My internal measure here is around where I would tradeoff.

I could easily imagine choosing to play a gish class instead of a fighter under such a rule. For example, an L16 Battle Blessing Paladin vs. L20 Fighter seems pretty even to me. The Fighter has +4 to hit, x3 feats, and 25% more hp while the Paladin has a mount, divine grace, and the ability to use swift actions to cast a modest selection of spells.

The Bard is only modestly harder hit---they reach level 15 with 5th level spells.

A high end clericzilla 13 probably beats a Fighter 20, but it's much closer.

This would also make Rogues remain relevant, even in the presence of Beguilers.

[Promethean]

Yeah, I think it'd have to go something like this to actually balance things:

Spell level......0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ECL increase..0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 2

This would make a L.20 Fighter equivalent to a L.19 Paladin or Ranger, L.17 Bard or L.14 full caster. For fixed-list casters like the Healer and Warmage you'd probably need a slightly modified table.

I have many problems with this nerf besides the "balance".

It destroys a lot of cool builds people can make by giving casters 8 levels to work with for PRCs and dips. It takes away abilities that are iconic to some of the core classes. It effectively punishes people for wanting to play a casting class. I would much rather give more options to a martial class, like cool feats and new ways to use skills or maneuvers, than punish a player because they had the audacity to like sorcerers.

Yes. I get that I don't have to use it if I don't like it, but I think this highlight the problem I have with this line of thinking in general. No, the core classes aren't very "balanced", but I don't find that to be a problem. I find playing them fun. I like that each class has specialties that shine through if the players are allowed to play them to their fullest by their DM. If anyone is feeling overshadowed, then I believe the DM can change the situation with Roleplay without having to resort the the twin hammers of Ban and Nerf.

Example: A big bad has locked himself in his fortress. Under normal situations the party wizard could crack that sucker open like an egg, so the DM sets up some AMF arrays. Rather than have the wizard be a Nth level commoner for the encounter, he set up deliberate weaknesses and gaps in the Array so that they can split up and solve things dynamically. The non-magical parts of the party inside disabling traps, solving puzzles that control AMFs, and fighting enemies, while the magic assisted party raises heck outside, cracking into the weak-points of the defenses, and assisting the inside group whenever the get an AMF down.

That little stroke of genius is how one my DMs had an Optimized wizard and a Non-Op fighter coming to Each-Others rescue throughout a module.

This and many other reasons is why I don't feel balance is actually very important in a game where everyone is having fun.

[mabriss lethe]

Improve mundane action economy. Here are some off the cuff ideas that are in no way better for balance, but might prove useful. Allow multiple attacks as part of a standard action. Make "full attack" into something else, maybe a mini-stock trooper ability. Sacrifice A.C. for hit and/or damage. (Possibly removing or altering Charging as a result) give standard combat more active and reactive uses for swift/immediate actions. Maybe allow a dodge. Something like "when attacked as an immediate action make a reflex save vs -something- if successful take no damage from the attack" Maybe make twf key off of swift actions.

[exelsisxax]

Tome of Battle.

Give extra point-buy for each class level. 0 for casters, 1 for martials, 5 for monk, etc.

Give TWF, power attack, and pathfinder vital strike to everyone with full BaB

More skill points for all noncasters.

Feats that aren't taxes on martials or gravy for casters.

[Biggus]

I could easily imagine choosing to play a gish class instead of a fighter under such a rule. For example, an L16 Battle Blessing Paladin vs. L20 Fighter seems pretty even to me. The Fighter has +4 to hit, x3 feats, and 25% more hp while the Paladin has a mount, divine grace, and the ability to use swift actions to cast a modest selection of spells.


This isn't really a fair comparison, as you're including the effect of one of the best Paladin feats in the game. Include the effect of three of the best Fighter feats and it would look different.

Also, a 16th-level Paladin gets very few spells per day: only 1 each at spell levels 3 and 4 before adding in the effect of a high Wisdom score, and probably 2 each including that.

You seem to have a higher opinion of Paladins than most people do. Some people consider them lower down the tier rankings than Fighters, because several of the Paladin's abilities, including their primary special attack, only work against evil creatures, while Fighters can fight all alignments equally well.

Personally I agree with the retiering the classes conclusion: Paladins do have the edge over Fighters, but only slightly. Certainly not enough for Paladins to lag 4 levels behind Fighters at high levels.


I have many problems with this nerf besides the "balance".

I think you've misunderstood my intent. I don't use the rule I suggested and I have no intention of doing so. It was written in response to the people who were saying that "add highest current spell level to ECL" is a good method of balancing the classes, which I strongly disagree with. I was only saying that IF you're going to try to balance the classes by increasing ECL in relation to spell level, the table I posted would be a much fairer way of doing it than a 1-for-1 reduction.


It destroys a lot of cool builds people can make by giving casters 8 levels to work with for PRCs and dips. It takes away abilities that are iconic to some of the core classes. It effectively punishes people for wanting to play a casting class. I would much rather give more options to a martial class, like cool feats and new ways to use skills or maneuvers, than punish a player because they had the audacity to like sorcerers.

Yeah, these are a lot of the reasons I don't intend to use it myself. I don't try to make all the classes exactly equal, as doing so would involve rewriting the game to a huge extent, and would run the risk of the classes becoming too similar and losing their interesting quirks, as many people felt happened in 4E.

My personal solution is to give the weakest classes some boosts, and remove a few of the most broken elements from the top end. Full casters are still stronger than martial types if played well, but you don't get the absurd "13th-level Wizard can beat a 20th-level Fighter" situations.


If anyone is feeling overshadowed, then I believe the DM can change the situation with Roleplay without having to resort the the twin hammers of Ban and Nerf.


Depends on the players and the DM. As I said earlier in the thread, I only ban or nerf a handful of the most abusable spells and classes.

For example, I currently have a grand total of 8 spells on my banned list out of the 2000-odd published, things like Greater Consumptive Field, Shivering Touch and Starmantle.



Give extra point-buy for each class level. 0 for casters, 1 for martials, 5 for monk, etc.


I like that, it's a truly simple way to help balance things out. If you calculate the extra points based on both the overall power of the class and also how MAD they are, it could work very well. Monks and Paladins for example are both highly MAD and relatively weak, and Druids largely SAD and very strong. Probably even more than 5 points difference between the extreme ends would work.

[King of Nowhere]

You can't make a general fix for the martial/caster divide because the divide is strongly dependent upon the optimization level of the table.

A table that optimized poorly will have little or no divide. they may even end up with stronger martials, as figuring out how to play those to a modicum of effectiveness is easier than it is for casters.
tables with moderate optimization will have the divide but martials will still be useful, and at high optimization martials are useless.

so you must try to make fixes according to your table.

personally I nerfed casters by going with the general principle that if something screws you up too badly, it must allow a saving throw or an easy immunity. while it worked nicely to prevent the more broken stuff, I actually ended up with casters having a really hard time to deal with a well defended character. on the other hand, they still rule in dealing with multiple foes or in all manner of utility.

[StreamOfTheSky]

So you're saying WotC's attempt to add customization options and remove dead levels with PrCs needs to be nerfed or banned?

I rather just beef monsters up so that PCs have to use all of their goodies to survive let alone kill the monsters instead of nerfing or banning everything to something worse than core only. After all, it's more fun to play in a game where you can do more stuff and do unique stuff only your character can do, but to each his own i guess. I'll never understand why there are DMs who think less options is more fun or why there are DMs who insist using power crept T5s like fighters as the balance point to the point they use absolutely nothing as written because everything is too op compared to the fighter and needs to be nerfed.

I mean, just ask any player: do they like using PrCs that lose caster levels? And the answer will be a unanimous no. So why would you house rule to make the game less enjoyable to the players? Because it's too OP (wotc didn't think so) compared to a fighter?

Is this sarcasm?

If you're actually serious...
1. The concept of "dead levels" is such a joke. Monk gets stuff at every level for example, but it's all weak garbage. And casters never have "dead levels," they get spells at each level up, which is better than most class features.

2. So you make the monsters, who will usually be wailing on the fighters since that's like...their job...more deadly. To rein in the casters. Ok. Sure.

3. That's a gross mischaracterization of what I said. T5 is not my balance point, and I don't ban the vast majority of caster stuff.

4. I've chosen PrC's that lost CL before, as have many others, and still enjoyed it. If you like the focus of the PrC, it can be "worth" losing some raw power, because most people are interested in more than just being as OP as possible. And WotC's view of balance isn't a great standard to use.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Give extra point-buy for each class level. 0 for casters, 1 for martials, 5 for monk, etc.

I like it. Maybe extra points equal to 2 x (tier - 1), so wizards don't get any, ToB classes get 4, and all those Tier 4 classes get 6. Or is this every level? In that case, tier or (tier -1) would probably be fine.

[Biggus]

You can't make a general fix for the martial/caster divide because the divide is strongly dependent upon the optimization level of the table.

A table that optimized poorly will have little or no divide. they may even end up with stronger martials, as figuring out how to play those to a modicum of effectiveness is easier than it is for casters.
tables with moderate optimization will have the divide but martials will still be useful, and at high optimization martials are useless.


This is true, and there are other factors also, like what level you're playing at, how freely available magic items are and whether you have all books available or core only. But even allowing for all this, unless the players are very inexperienced casters start to dominate by around level 7. For example, a Wizard who simply casts Fly then Greater Invisibility has already made it incredibly difficult for martials to kill him.

[HouseRules]

Instead of gaining +1 Ability Score every 4 levels, Gain Tier Point Buy points every level.

Tier 1 Classes gains 1 point buy point every level.
Tier 2 Classes gains 2 point buy points every level.
Tier 3 Classes gains 3 point buy points every level.
Tier 4 Classes gains 4 point buy points every level.
Tier 5 Classes gains 5 point buy points every level.
Tier 6 Classes gains 6 point buy points every level.

Evaluating Multiclass Builds is going to be difficult.

Tier 1: Broken Ability for Every Situation.
Tier 2: Broken Ability for Multiple Situations.
Tier 3 and 5: 1 Broken Ability, DM could always counter it.
Tier 4 and 6: 0 Broken Ability ever.

[exelsisxax]

I like it. Maybe extra points equal to 2 x (tier - 1), so wizards don't get any, ToB classes get 4, and all those Tier 4 classes get 6. Or is this every level? In that case, tier or (tier -1) would probably be fine.

Every level so that it doesn't break from multiclassing.

[King of Nowhere]

I find that another thing helping martials a lot is to have above-average wbl. if the fighter can afford that cloak of resistance +5, the wizard is much less scary. if the fighter can afford the winged boots and something to see invisibility without having to sacrifice a magic weapon for it, he'll cover some of his major weaknesses.
Sure, casters also get stuff from gold, but utlimately mundanes benefit more. Possible exception for monks, that don't have all that much stuff to buy in the first place.

[Gnaeus]

You can't make a general fix for the martial/caster divide because the divide is strongly dependent upon the optimization level of the table.

A table that optimized poorly will have little or no divide. they may even end up with stronger martials, as figuring out how to play those to a modicum of effectiveness is easier than it is for casters.
tables with moderate optimization will have the divide but martials will still be useful, and at high optimization martials are useless.

I don’t agree with this AT ALL.

1. The lower the opti-fu of the martial, the more likely they are to be surpassed in their area of expertise purely by accident. A power attacking Barbarian beats a druid’s Wolf. But a low op monk or TWF Ranger does not!

2. The lower the opti-fu of the martial, the more likely they are to have unpatched holes that make them useless in fights. Like an inability to effectively fight invisible, or flying, or swarms, or undead, or incorporeal, or high AC or DR. A wizard 10 has a dead minimum of 16 different level 2+ spells to deal with different situations. A fighter 10 just hits things better than a fighter 1.

3. The difficulty in fixing problems in build is Wildly different. If I like Drax, and I build a low op TWF Barbarian, I’m boned. I can’t fix that without retraining rules and a ton of time/money. A CoD can try different spells every day until he happens across the awesome ones. A wizard gets 2 new chances per level to be awesome completely by accident, + any scrolls or Spellbooks he may come across. You don’t need to be high op to stumble across (Confusion or greater invisibility or enervation or D Door or Polymorph) to cast those core spells and then realize they do cool stuff, you have to be stupid not to. The muggle without the opti-fu to realize on sight that power attack>monkey grip in virtually every low op scenario isn’t going to have a day when he takes shock trooper instead of monkey grip and goes “oohhhhhhhh”.


I find that another thing helping martials a lot is to have above-average wbl. if the fighter can afford that cloak of resistance +5, the wizard is much less scary. if the fighter can afford the winged boots and something to see invisibility without having to sacrifice a magic weapon for it, he'll cover some of his major weaknesses.
Sure, casters also get stuff from gold, but utlimately mundanes benefit more. Possible exception for monks, that don't have all that much stuff to buy in the first place.

That isn’t really true either. First off, the monk thing is way off base. They have MORE need for WBL to fix their problems than others, and their stuff usually costs more (bracers of armor versus armor. Amulet of MF vs weapon costs). But aside from that casters can buy all the same stuff muggles do and more. A wizard can use money to expand spells known. Any caster can grab a dozen scrolls of highly situational spells and have them on hand when needed. And that’s assuming that the classes have equal access to spend money and spend it at the same rates. Item crafting is a thing. Being the guy who can teleport to the market is a thing. Trading spells may be a thing.

It’s true that casters are less dependent on WBL to do their basic jobs than are mundanes. And high WBL does disproportionately benefit some muggles, like rogues who can UMD to mimic casters. But a cleric will want to buy roughly the same stuff as the fighter and then caster toys on top of that.

[Segev]

The easiest thing to do at a given table is to throw WBL concerns out the window and give magic items that shore up weaknesses.

There was a semi-codified version of this in 1e and 2e AD&D, built in with various magic items being X-class-only. Fighters were about the only ones who got near-universal access to weapons and sentient weapons, and the lists of special powers and abilities these could come with got nuts at times. Often with only a nod towards a theme and barely a glance towards what kind of weapon it was.

So: identify what your martials are lacking in compared to your casters. Then, see if you can find magic items that would help them catch back up, and arrange to give them to them. Best if you can arrange variants that only work for their classes, or which are expressly given to THEM with story significance, such as a personal reward. It's less likely the party wizard will demand it be sold for "equal shares" if the paladin's new Cloudstrider Boots, Smoking Bottle, and Helm of Clear Vision were personal gifts from the storm giant princess he rescued while the party took down the evil dragon that had taken her prisoner.

[King of Nowhere]

I don’t agree with this AT ALL.

1. The lower the opti-fu of the martial, the more likely they are to be surpassed in their area of expertise purely by accident. A power attacking Barbarian beats a druid’s Wolf. But a low op monk or TWF Ranger does not!

2. The lower the opti-fu of the martial, the more likely they are to have unpatched holes that make them useless in fights. Like an inability to effectively fight invisible, or flying, or swarms, or undead, or incorporeal, or high AC or DR. A wizard 10 has a dead minimum of 16 different level 2+ spells to deal with different situations. A fighter 10 just hits things better than a fighter 1.

3. The difficulty in fixing problems in build is Wildly different. If I like Drax, and I build a low op TWF Barbarian, I’m boned. I can’t fix that without retraining rules and a ton of time/money. A CoD can try different spells every day until he happens across the awesome ones. A wizard gets 2 new chances per level to be awesome completely by accident, + any scrolls or Spellbooks he may come across. You don’t need to be high op to stumble across (Confusion or greater invisibility or enervation or D Door or Polymorph) to cast those core spells and then realize they do cool stuff, you have to be stupid not to. The muggle without the opti-fu to realize on sight that power attack>monkey grip in virtually every low op scenario isn’t going to have a day when he takes shock trooper instead of monkey grip and goes “oohhhhhhhh”.


Regardless of any theory, I've been in several low-op table, and I consistently observed a lower martial-caster divide.

the thing is that casters are much more complex for the casual players than people give them credit for. what you assume is the "easy" strategy already requires system mastery. in fact, every single newb I saw playing a caster would pick up weapon-related feats and not use his spells except in rare cases; they ended up being less useful than the twf barbarian. I've been there. that's for point 1

For point 2, low-op tables - the ones where you have the twf barbarian - don't use invisibility or fly or any of that stuff. if they do, the wizard cast epurate invisibility and then goes back to hitting the thing with a crossbow. if you put a chasm across their path, the wizard would maybe remember he has a fly spell, but that's it.

For point 3, it is true that if with practice you actually learn to play better, you can always change spells, but you can't change feats. You can either ask the DM to be flexible because you realize you really suck (most DM would let retrain with no cost if there was a good reason), or you get a new character. doesn't really affect the discussion.
It's also worth noting that it's much easier to help a new barbarian. You tell him "get power attack and a greatsword", and it's done; he'll learn how to make the best of it by hiself. you have to pick the spells for the caster, and then tell them when to use them.

But really, a wizard that uses spells other than fireball, or a druid that remembers to use the animal companion, are actually equivalent optimization-wise to a barbarian with a greatsword. Actually, it's easier to come up with the barbarian with greatsword, and it requires remembering less stuff. experienced people really underestimate how much system mastery is required to even remember that you could try solve the problem with spells.

Or maybe I'm just trying to rationalize my tabletop experience. But regardless, I can guarantee you this: in at least three groups of new players, I have seen martials outshine casters. In two groups, the martials learned two-handed fighting before the casters learned that they can do more than blasting/healing. In no cases I saw something different.

Also ask this yourself. assume to give a +10 to all stats to martials to help them. See how that works at different optimization levels.




That isn’t really true either. First off, the monk thing is way off base. They have MORE need for WBL to fix their problems than others, and their stuff usually costs more (bracers of armor versus armor. Amulet of MF vs weapon costs). But aside from that casters can buy all the same stuff muggles do and more. A wizard can use money to expand spells known. Any caster can grab a dozen scrolls of highly situational spells and have them on hand when needed. And that’s assuming that the classes have equal access to spend money and spend it at the same rates. Item crafting is a thing. Being the guy who can teleport to the market is a thing. Trading spells may be a thing.

It’s true that casters are less dependent on WBL to do their basic jobs than are mundanes. And high WBL does disproportionately benefit some muggles, like rogues who can UMD to mimic casters. But a cleric will want to buy roughly the same stuff as the fighter and then caster toys on top of that.

Again, I'm talking by experience.
Yes, casters can still buy plenty of goodies with the gold, but none of that will make as great a difference as being able to fly, teleport and see invisibility with a martial. Not having to sacrifice half your gold just to have contingencies for those kind of encounters makes all the difference. if the wizard used that money on a greater rod of quicken, you dont mind.
as for monks, yes, they are more expensive as far as getting weapon enhancement, AC bonus and stuff. but after you get that, I don't really know what extra to give them.

Anyway, we may argue in circles all we want, but I have seen it happen every single time at every table that had new players. The most I can concede is that you either had experienced players that agreed to play low-op, or you had very different new players than I.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Again, I'm talking by experience.
Yes, casters can still buy plenty of goodies with the gold, but none of that will make as great a difference as being able to fly, teleport and see invisibility with a martial. Not having to sacrifice half your gold just to have contingencies for those kind of encounters makes all the difference. if the wizard used that money on a greater rod of quicken, you dont mind.
as for monks, yes, they are more expensive as far as getting weapon enhancement, AC bonus and stuff. but after you get that, I don't really know what extra to give them.

Anyway, we may argue in circles all we want, but I have seen it happen every single time at every table that had new players. The most I can concede is that you either had experienced players that agreed to play low-op, or you had very different new players than I.

I agree w/ you on more WBL helping mundanes more than casters. (On a similar note...higher point buy helps non-casters, who are MAD, much more than it does casters, who are SAD) But i also disagree w/ you about monks not needing money as much. In my experience, they need it the most of any class. The more expensive weapon enhancements...and finding creative ways to deal w/ various DR, plus higher costs for AC, make a huge difference. It really can't be overstated that by RAW, an amulet of mighty fists is TRIPLE the cost of a normal weapon enhancement. Weapon enhancements are already quite pricey.
Plus they're MAD, so they need more stat boosting items.

I don't see much point in debating it anyway since you try to give more WBL in your games anyway and simply don't see how it's helping the monk when it really is. In the end, you're helping monks whether or not you realize it, so it's all good...

(And in my last game, everyone had high stats and high wealth, and the casters were actually complaining about how often their spells would be saved against....I also did like using enemies w/ SR. :) )