Asymetrical character creation?

[Lans]

Was there anything in the character creation rules that states DMs should use the same character creation rules for all the players?

Asking because one of the suggestions for balancing different tiers of play was a house rule to have players use different PBs, and I'm wondering if that is actually a house rule.

[exelsisxax]

Yeah, that's a houserule. And it doesn't work in the basic conception: a monk with nothing but 18s is still just a grunt that the casters carry around so they don't have to spend spell slots doing damage.

[Biggus]

Yeah, that's a houserule. And it doesn't work in the basic conception: a monk with nothing but 18s is still just a grunt that the casters carry around so they don't have to spend spell slots doing damage.

That's true up to a point, but some low-tier classes like Monks and Paladins have serious MAD issues, especially compared to some of the full casters like Druid and Wizard. You'll never get the classes all the same tier without rewriting them pretty much from scratch, but having different PBs for different tiers is a step towards that.

[Particle_Man]

I would say it would at least take time for a zero point buy wizard to overshadow a 96 point buy monk. :smallsmile:

[HouseRules]

I would say it would at least take time for a zero point buy wizard to overshadow a 96 point buy monk. :smallsmile:

With 8 starting INT score, the wizard has to wait until they are level 8 to use Cantrips with their 10 INT score!

Edit: it could be better than E6 if there is not magic-mart!
Explanation:
Level 1: 8 Primary Ability (INT or WIS or CHA) score
Level 4: 9 Primary Ability score
Level 8: 10 Primary Ability score (Cantrips (arcane), Orisons (divine), or Talent (psionic))
Level 12: 11 Primary Ability score (1st level spell)
Level 16: 12 Primary Ability score (2nd level spell)
Level 20: 13 Primary Ability score (3rd level spell)

[Particle_Man]

Exactly! Now the monk is carrying the wizard! :smallsmile:

[Lans]

Yeah, that's a houserule. .

So its actually in the rules that characters have to use the same creation method?



And it doesn't work in the basic conception: a monk with nothing but 18s is still just a grunt that the casters carry around so they don't have to spend spell slots doing damage

That depends on what you mean by casters. I don't think its going to put Monk and Paladin on the same page as wizards and clerics, but I think it could put close to the same page as Sword Sage and Crusader, and other mid tier classes.

I also think it might be able to close gaps between mid tier and high tier classes outside of really high op

[HouseRules]

So its actually in the rules that characters have to use the same creation method?
No, the suggested different point buy required by class tiers is a suggestion, thus a house rule.
The class tiers are also not codified by the game rules itself, so dungeon masters don't always follow those suggested guidelines from JaronK.
There are no rules that prevent the dungeon masters from using different creation method.
Different point buy is not different creation method exactly.
Different Creation Method would be someone use 3d6 and another uses 4d6 drop low.


That depends on what you mean by casters. I don't think its going to put Monk and Paladin on the same page as wizards and clerics, but I think it could put close to the same page as Sword Sage and Crusader, and other mid tier classes.

I also think it might be able to close gaps between mid tier and high tier classes outside of really high op

Obviously, the tiers themselves are arbitrary defined by JaronK and have modifications by community pressure.
Attempt to close the gap in the tiers seems to be possible at the lower levels with these different creation methods, but there are too many caveat.
The primary caveat is Multi-Class from a low tier class to a high tier class totally screw you method.
Start as a level 1 monk, and level 2-19 are all wizard is an example of screw the different creation method.

[Crichton]

Start as a level 1 monk, and level 2-19 are all wizard is an example of screw the different creation method.

Exactly this. If you are going to use this (very misguided) houserule, you're also going to have to pretty much ban multiclassing, or I, and anyone else really, would just do this.

I can't stress enough how much I think it's a bad idea to use this type of asymmetrical stat method. As a player, I would absolutely hate it, probably enough to leave your game. Just make one set of creation rules/options as the 'toolbox' you give your players, and then let the players all use the same toolbox to build the characters they want.

[pabelfly]

I'd balance characters in-game instead. Easier to account for player optimization and less likely to start arguments about who gets more points for poimt buy or whatever.

[Particle_Man]

One balancing method I have heard of embraces multiclassing. Every level of a full caster/manifester/etc. must be followed by a level of a non-caster. Mind you, you have to limit or ban some prestige classes too, but it seems to work for some games.

[farothel]

I'd balance characters in-game instead. Easier to account for player optimization and less likely to start arguments about who gets more points for poimt buy or whatever.

I agree. Besides, countering casters isn't all that hard. Just throw them against something with Spell Resistance (a Drow campaign is very good for that). A lot of spells won't work against the enemy (or not reliably), so they will have to focus more on buffing their team mates and then let them do stuff. They can still participate, but the others also have their moments to shine.

[Crake]

With 8 starting INT score, the wizard has to wait until they are level 8 to use Cantrips with their 10 INT score!

Edit: it could be better than E6 if there is not magic-mart!
Explanation:
Level 1: 8 Primary Ability (INT or WIS or CHA) score
Level 4: 9 Primary Ability score
Level 8: 10 Primary Ability score (Cantrips (arcane), Orisons (divine), or Talent (psionic))
Level 12: 11 Primary Ability score (1st level spell)
Level 16: 12 Primary Ability score (2nd level spell)
Level 20: 13 Primary Ability score (3rd level spell)

You're forgetting tomes and +2/4/6 ability score items. By level 4 they will likely have gotten their hands on a +2, by level 7-8 they'll have a +4, and by level 10-12 they'll have a +6, assuming they're dedicating roughly half their WBL into the item. So by level 9 they'l have 14, still not quite able to cast their highest level spells, but level 12, they'll have a 17, which lets them cast their max level spell slots up to 14th level (7th level spell slots). If they can squeeze in a +1 tome before 15 (should be easy enough), then they'll be able to manage out an 18 by the time 8th level spells come around, and a 19 with their stat boost at 16th, allowing them to cast 9th level spells by the time they roll around at 17th level.

This is made even easier by a +int race like grey elf, the poor con can be cancelled out by going a necropolitan created in a desecrated area with a shrine, by a dread necromancer 8/UA necromancer 1 with corpsecrafter, and if you manage to get a +5 tome by the end of it, you're looking at 26 int all up, honestly not half bad.

And the lack of a magic mart can be negated by just taking craft wondrous item, collegiate wizard, and elven generalist.

[heavyfuel]

the poor con can be cancelled out by going a necropolitan

Ah yes, the ever-present assumption that all games are played in Faerun (or whatever setting happens to have the most benefitial setting specific choice). I'm sure it's not gonna be long before someone mentions a Cleric of Mystra so they can cast in an AMF. :smallbiggrin:

[Crichton]

Ah yes, the ever-present assumption that all games are played in Faerun (or whatever setting happens to have the most benefitial setting specific choice). I'm sure it's not gonna be long before someone mentions a Cleric of Mystra so they can cast in an AMF. :smallbiggrin:

Uhh, Necropolitan comes from the book Libris Mortis, which is a book in the core setting.

[HouseRules]

You're forgetting tomes and +2/4/6 ability score items. By level 4 they will likely have gotten their hands on a +2, by level 7-8 they'll have a +4, and by level 10-12 they'll have a +6, assuming they're dedicating roughly half their WBL into the item. So by level 9 they'l have 14, still not quite able to cast their highest level spells, but level 12, they'll have a 17, which lets them cast their max level spell slots up to 14th level (7th level spell slots). If they can squeeze in a +1 tome before 15 (should be easy enough), then they'll be able to manage out an 18 by the time 8th level spells come around, and a 19 with their stat boost at 16th, allowing them to cast 9th level spells by the time they roll around at 17th level.

This is made even easier by a +int race like grey elf, the poor con can be cancelled out by going a necropolitan created in a desecrated area with a shrine, by a dread necromancer 8/UA necromancer 1 with corpsecrafter, and if you manage to get a +5 tome by the end of it, you're looking at 26 int all up, honestly not half bad.

And the lack of a magic mart can be negated by just taking craft wondrous item, collegiate wizard, and elven generalist.

You could go to the magic mart when it is forbidden? Wow, never knew that.

Tomes requires 3rd level spell access to create, and so do ability score items.
Therefore, the earliest you could access them is level 12 (with +2 int races), or level 20 (without +2 int races).

[Rynjin]

The best way to balance out weak classes is to make them less weak. If you have an issue with how poorly a class performs, make a homebrewed version of the class that's better.

[heavyfuel]

Uhh, Necropolitan comes from the book Libris Mortis, which is a book in the core setting.

You're right I got confused there.

So instead of having the game played in Faerun, the game has to have a city called Nocturnus. What I'm saying is that anything that is setting specific can't be taken for granted. This goes double for Necropolitan which explicitly require DM approval some random organization's approval.

So you must invest ranks in Knowledge (Local) to even have a chance of knowing if such city exists. If it exists and if you pass the Knowledge check to know it exists, you have to write a letter pleading this unknown organization for you to become a Necropolitan.

There are three "ifs". If it exists, and if you know of it, and if they accept you, you can become a Necropolitan. Hardly a given.

You can't say "Just become a necropolitan" when there are three monumental "ifs" standing between you and the template.

[Crake]

You're right I got confused there.

So instead of having the game played in Faerun, the game has to have a city called Nocturnus. What I'm saying is that anything that is setting specific can't be taken for granted. This goes double for Necropolitan which explicitly require DM approval some random organization's approval.

So you must invest ranks in Knowledge (Local) to even have a chance of knowing if such city exists. If it exists and if you pass the Knowledge check to know it exists, you have to write a letter pleading this unknown organization for you to become a Necropolitan.

There are three "ifs". If it exists, and if you know of it, and if they accept you, you can become a Necropolitan. Hardly a given.

You can't say "Just become a necropolitan" when there are three monumental "ifs" standing between you and the template.

Necropolitans are setting neutral, so "if it exists" is basically a non-factor, because we're talking in a vaccuum here, so the question of "if it exists" can be applied equally to literally anything, even core material, thus becomes a non-factor for such a discussion.

If you know about it ultimately comes down to a knowledge check or some research if your character is looking for a way to become undead to alleviate the pains and aches they feel daily from having 6 con, so again, not really a factor.

If they accept you is meaningless, because if they don't accept you, you just do research and reverse engineer the ritual yourself, hire the help of a skilled necromancer who can ensure you're a hearty undead by the end of things, and just do it yourself.

Or, you know, if you start the game above level 3, like 90% of games seem to do, you can just write it in your backstory and be done with it. I mean, you wouldn't get away with that in my games, cause they all start at level 1, but it seems like most people here prefer to start at higher levels.

[NomGarret]

The primary caveat is Multi-Class from a low tier class to a high tier class totally screw you method.
Start as a level 1 monk, and level 2-19 are all wizard is an example of screw the different creation method.

What if you built in more ASIs for the lower tier classes? That would take care of the dipping problem, and the discrepancy is more of a problem at higher levels, anyway.

[heavyfuel]

Necropolitans are setting neutral, so "if it exists" is basically a non-factor, because we're talking in a vaccuum here, so the question of "if it exists" can be applied equally to literally anything, even core material, thus becomes a non-factor for such a discussion.

If you know about it ultimately comes down to a knowledge check or some research if your character is looking for a way to become undead to alleviate the pains and aches they feel daily from having 6 con, so again, not really a factor.

If they accept you is meaningless, because if they don't accept you, you just do research and reverse engineer the ritual yourself, hire the help of a skilled necromancer who can ensure you're a hearty undead by the end of things, and just do it yourself.

Or, you know, if you start the game above level 3, like 90% of games seem to do, you can just write it in your backstory and be done with it. I mean, you wouldn't get away with that in my games, cause they all start at level 1, but it seems like most people here prefer to start at higher levels.

I wouldn't say "This particular city with this particular group of people exists in every game" falls in the same category as "Barbarians exist in every game", but ok.

I'd say it's definitely a factor. A little known society requires a Knowledge Check of what? 20? I'm not saying it's impossible to beat this DC by level 3, but it's hardly a given either.

If they don't accept you, you don't get the template. There's no reverse engineering it. The only to get the template is going through this ritual which 100% requires your plea to be accepted. The DM allowing you to reverse engineer is another colossal "if".

Starting beyond level 3 means nothing. Don't DMs veto backstories they deem too improbable? Have you ever played in a game where you could claim to be the absolutely best friend of an epic level wizard-king and gain all the benefits of it? I don't think so.

[Crake]

I wouldn't say "This particular city with this particular group of people exists in every game" falls in the same category as "Barbarians exist in every game", but ok.

I'd say it's definitely a factor. A little known society requires a Knowledge Check of what? 20? I'm not saying it's impossible to beat this DC by level 3, but it's hardly a given either.

If they don't accept you, you don't get the template. There's no reverse engineering it. The only to get the template is going through this ritual which 100% requires your plea to be accepted. The DM allowing you to reverse engineer is another colossal "if".

Starting beyond level 3 means nothing. Don't DMs veto backstories they deem too improbable? Have you ever played in a game where you could claim to be the absolutely best friend of an epic level wizard-king and gain all the benefits of it? I don't think so.

The city and denizens of Nocturnus are entirely system agnostic and aren't even defined anywhere in LM, and in fact only mentioned twice in the entire book, once in the starting description of necropolitan, and once as a passing mention of examples of undead society, so it's really not at all like it's required to be played in some very specific setting, or city.

And everything can be reverse engineered, I'm not sure what you're talking about, that's exactly what research checks are for. I mean, the absolute worst case scenario is that you use the savage species rituals to become a necropolitan instead of the ritual of whatever it's called.

But honestly, worst case scenario, fine, you can't go necropolitan, you just go some other kind of undead. Necropolitan is simply cited as the kind of undead that comes with the least baggage, which is why it's often used in lieu of other types of undead.

[Particle_Man]

The best way to balance out weak classes is to make them less weak. If you have an issue with how poorly a class performs, make a homebrewed version of the class that's better.

From a dm POV I would rather make the strong classes less strong. Dming tier 1 classes gives me a headache.

[Crichton]

From a dm POV I would rather make the strong classes less strong. Dming tier 1 classes gives me a headache.

Oh, I suppose that's so, but no one likes it when you take away their toys. Nerfing things leaves players feeling shortchanged, cheated, like you've taken something away.

[Blackhawk748]

Oh, I suppose that's so, but no one likes it when you take away their toys. Nerfing things leaves players feeling shortchanged, cheated, like you've taken something away.

I mean, not when you're straight up telling them that this thing is insanely overpowered and it mandates that i build every encounter around this killing my own enjoyment.

If they still get cranky after that, your players suck

[Crichton]

I mean, not when you're straight up telling them that this thing is insanely overpowered and it mandates that i build every encounter around this killing my own enjoyment.

If they still get cranky after that, your players suck

Honestly I feel like it's more a question of knowing your players' optimization ability levels, and setting expectations ahead of time for what level of optimization this campaign is looking for.

For the optimizers around here? Sure, it can be a problem if left unchecked. For the vast majority of players who don't obsess over every possible option? The casters all think something like Meteor Swarm is the most powerful 9th level spell possible.

[heavyfuel]

@ OP

Asymetrical character creation has to take care to not unnecessarily punish multiclass characters.

Should you give less PB to Wizards and Clerics? Ok, say you do. But what happens when everyone starts as a high PB class and then transitions to a full caster? Is a Cleric 6 with horrible stats really better than a Monk 1/Cleric 5 with four 18s?

You can say you'll ban this sort of multiclassing, but then you're also banning 100% legitimate builds, like Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 2/Bladesinger 10/EK 2. You can argue that "nobody takes bladesinger for more than one level", but that's both only true if you're optimizing and beside the point.

So unless you plan on asking your players for their intended character progression so that you can determine what point buy is adequate, it's not going to work very well.

[Biggus]

Start as a level 1 monk, and level 2-19 are all wizard is an example of screw the different creation method.

That's a fair point. Maybe a way round this would be to give low tier/ MAD classes extra ability bumps every few levels instead of as PB? The power differential is much bigger at high levels.

[Crichton]

What if you built in more ASIs for the lower tier classes? That would take care of the dipping problem, and the discrepancy is more of a problem at higher levels, anyway.


That's a fair point. Maybe a way round this would be to give low tier/ MAD classes extra ability bumps every few levels instead of as PB? The power differential is much bigger at high levels.

It would be a start, but a couple extra points in abilities aren't really going to make that much difference, and even less so, as the levels get higher and bonus items and tomes start becoming affordable. Does it really matter that the martial beatstick guy can hit with a couple extra points in strength at level 10 or so, when the casters are calling down fireballs and summoning demons and solid fogs and baleful polymorphs?

[Rynjin]

From a dm POV I would rather make the strong classes less strong. Dming tier 1 classes gives me a headache.

There's quite a few things wrong with this track of thinking, form my perspective.

1.) Top level; people hate to be nerfed. It's why major game companies tend to only nerf things as a last resort when they can't think of another viable solution.

2.) It's harder to effectively nerf than it is to buff, which is why so many nerf attempts end up making something completely worthless, achieving the exact opposite of the stated goal (balancing the game): it's still unbalanced, just in the opposite direction.

3.) You don't try to make every class tier 1. Tier 1 classes are as much an example of bad design as Tier 4 classes. Tier 3 is a good point to shoot for, or Tier 2 at most. You want classes that are flexible and can potentially do ANYTHING but without being able to do EVERYTHING with a single build. That's the issue with T1 classes in general; they don't need builds, their inherent strengths let them achieve any goal with smart play and choices that can be different day to day.

4.) Or 3b depending on your perspective. Once you have chosen T3 as your ideal balance point, you start to realize that the difference between Tier 3 and Tier 1 classes is actually SMALLER than the difference between T3 and T4 based on average play. For example (and I'm using Pathfinder classes here), a party consisting of a bunch of T3 characters and a T1 character (say a party of Investigator, Bard, Inquisitor, and Wizard) has a lot more parity than a party consisting of a bunch of T4 characters and one T3 guy (say a party of Monk, Rogue, Fighter, and Inquisitor).

Boosting every class to the T3 benchmark reduces resentment and balance issues because anything a T1 character can handle, a decently built T3 character can theoretically handle as well, if not necessarily with as much ease or flexibility.

Putting this all together, buffing a weak class is easier to balance while also making the buffled player feel good but NOT making somebody feel bad by nerfing them and increases party cohesion and eases GM strain over the long term because it normalizes party power levels, making it easier to design challenges for the whole party.

[DeadMech]

Does anything state you have to use the same character generation method for all PC's. No not that I'm aware of. Though that's sorta common sense. Can you house rule it. Absolutely.

I'd probably start by asking your players if they care about the balance issues (or even notice them) before I went about spending a bunch of effort rewriting the game to balance classes or giving some people preferential treatment.

[Crichton]

There's quite a few things wrong with this track of thinking, form my perspective.

1.) Top level; people hate to be nerfed. It's why major game companies tend to only nerf things as a last resort when they can't think of another viable solution.

2.) It's harder to effectively nerf than it is to buff, which is why so many nerf attempts end up making something completely worthless, achieving the exact opposite of the stated goal (balancing the game): it's still unbalanced, just in the opposite direction.

3.) You don't try to make every class tier 1. Tier 1 classes are as much an example of bad design as Tier 4 classes. Tier 3 is a good point to shoot for, or Tier 2 at most. You want classes that are flexible and can potentially do ANYTHING but without being able to do EVERYTHING with a single build. That's the issue with T1 classes in general; they don't need builds, their inherent strengths let them achieve any goal with smart play and choices that can be different day to day.

4.) Or 3b depending on your perspective. Once you have chosen T3 as your ideal balance point, you start to realize that the difference between Tier 3 and Tier 1 classes is actually SMALLER than the difference between T3 and T4 based on average play. For example (and I'm using Pathfinder classes here), a party consisting of a bunch of T3 characters and a T1 character (say a party of Investigator, Bard, Inquisitor, and Wizard) has a lot more parity than a party consisting of a bunch of T4 characters and one T3 guy (say a party of Monk, Rogue, Fighter, and Inquisitor).

Boosting every class to the T3 benchmark reduces resentment and balance issues because anything a T1 character can handle, a decently built T3 character can theoretically handle as well, if not necessarily with as much ease or flexibility.

Putting this all together, buffing a weak class is easier to balance while also making the buffled player feel good but NOT making somebody feel bad by nerfing them and increases party cohesion and eases GM strain over the long term because it normalizes party power levels, making it easier to design challenges for the whole party.

More or less, I agree with all of this and second it as a general proposal for how to approach things





I'd probably start by asking your players if they care about the balance issues (or even notice them) before I went about spending a bunch of effort rewriting the game to balance classes or giving some people preferential treatment.

This is something that absolutely needs to be considered, before any table makes changes for their game. If your players aren't complaining about feeling useless because their fighter or monk is not longer contributing, there's no real reason to theorycraft these changes and then impose them preemptively (and make your players deal with the resulting increase in complexity and confusion when you have to explain to them why they can't just use the normal PHB rules they're familiar with and have access to)

[Particle_Man]

I guess tables vary. My players don’t mind my nerfs. And tables using the alternating caster/non-caster multiclassing rule seem to have fun games. So as usual the answer is check with your group.

[rel]

I have a bit of experience with house rules like this.

You basically have to award your chosen resources by the tier of a build.
This means everyone has to understand the tier system and be confident in building to a tier.
Getting everyone on the same page build / power wise isn't easy even if people know the game pretty well so be prepared to have people assigned the wrong level of resources.

Then you need to try and work out how much of a bonus you want to hand out for each tier. There isn't a right answer here and no matter what you end up picking it probably won't feel right balance wise.

TLDR I haven't been able to get these kinds of houserules to work.

Instead, here is an alternative suggestion:
The most powerful builds tend to be SAD and are not really benefited from high stats in the same way as weaker MAD builds are.
Give everyone very high stats. This helps the weaker builds out a lot more than it helps the stronger builds and so ends up giving the weak builds a buff.

[Crake]

A method you could take similar to how earlier editions did it would be to adjust xp costs for leveling based on character class? Higher tier classes would cost more xp to level up, while lower tier classes would level up faster.

You'd need to use a flat xp system like pathfinder does for this to work though, otherwise the higher level characters would just end up hitting an equilibrium point where they're getting the same amount of xp due to being higher level.

Multiclassing would also cause some issues, though that could be KINDA solved by just making multiclassing gestalt-based instead of stacking on top of each other.

[pabelfly]

The most powerful builds tend to be SAD and are not really benefited from high stats in the same way as weaker MAD builds are.
Give everyone very high stats. This helps the weaker builds out a lot more than it helps the stronger builds and so ends up giving the weak builds a buff.

This is a pretty neat suggestion, I like.


A method you could take similar to how earlier editions did it would be to adjust xp costs for leveling based on character class? Higher tier classes would cost more xp to level up, while lower tier classes would level up faster.

You'd need to use a flat xp system like pathfinder does for this to work though, otherwise the higher level characters would just end up hitting an equilibrium point where they're getting the same amount of xp due to being higher level.

Multiclassing would also cause some issues, though that could be KINDA solved by just making multiclassing gestalt-based instead of stacking on top of each other.

This is a pretty interesting suggestion. If different classes level out at different points you can reach a slight better balance that way too. Wizard 8 is stronger than Fighter 8 for example, but it's slightly more even comparing Wizard 8 to Fighter 10.

[Biggus]

It would be a start, but a couple extra points in abilities aren't really going to make that much difference, and even less so, as the levels get higher and bonus items and tomes start becoming affordable. Does it really matter that the martial beatstick guy can hit with a couple extra points in strength at level 10 or so, when the casters are calling down fireballs and summoning demons and solid fogs and baleful polymorphs?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that different ability scores alone are enough to balance the classes, except perhaps if the full casters have such absurdly low stats they can barely cast spells at all. But the MAD classes don't really work without decent stats, this would be a meaningful step towards making them playable.


A method you could take similar to how earlier editions did it would be to adjust xp costs for leveling based on character class? Higher tier classes would cost more xp to level up, while lower tier classes would level up faster.

You'd need to use a flat xp system like pathfinder does for this to work though, otherwise the higher level characters would just end up hitting an equilibrium point where they're getting the same amount of xp due to being higher level.


How about giving high-tier classes a level adjustment every few levels (one which can't be bought off)?

[tiercel]

It always seemed to me that if you don’t want T1 in a game, the best way is to simply expunge that “tier.” (This kind of thing needs to whole group to be on board with this, of course.)

Instead of PB fiddlry, just something like “all wizards are sorcerers, beguilers, dread necros, or warmages instead; all clerics are favored souls or shugenja; all druids are spirit shamans or Mystic Wildshape rangers” and similar, including PrCs that would back-door a character into T1 (e.g. presumably Ur-Priest etc).

Presumably the same restrictions would apply to NPCs/foes generally, possibly with a unique exception for the campaign BBEG sort of thing.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

The primary caveat is Multi-Class from a low tier class to a high tier class totally screw you method.
Start as a level 1 monk, and level 2-19 are all wizard is an example of screw the different creation method.

That reminds me of an idea I saw a while back. Rather than starting at different, say, point buy values, characters were given extra ability score increases as they leveled up; more for low tiers, less for high tiers. I can't remember the exact distribution or when these increases were given out, though.

EDIT: I think it was something like every four levels, instead of getting +1 to an ability score of your choice, you got +(your average tier during those four levels) to distribute among your ability scores as you saw fit. Could be tweaked further to give relatively more or less power to the upper or lower tiers. You'd start running into problems with prestige classes, but it shouldn't be too hard to guestimate a tier for those, based on the character.

[HouseRules]

That reminds me of an idea I saw a while back. Rather than starting at different, say, point buy values, characters were given extra ability score increases as they leveled up; more for low tiers, less for high tiers. I can't remember the exact distribution or when these increases were given out, though.

One of my House Rules is to give fighters a bonus feat per 1000 xp.
It works well if the fighters could find a level appropriate feat and balanced against a sorcerer.
The problem is trying to find level appropriate feats at high levels.

[Crake]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that different ability scores alone are enough to balance the classes, except perhaps if the full casters have such absurdly low stats they can barely cast spells at all. But the MAD classes don't really work without decent stats, this would be a meaningful step towards making them playable.



How about giving high-tier classes a level adjustment every few levels (one which can't be bought off)?

The reason I dont like this is that its not granular at all, and it would feel jarring to just hit a level where you dont get anything. It would be much more player friendly to instead space out what would be a dead level over several levels instead, and would also remove the option to powergame by only going up to the level just one before the level adjustment

[Quarian Rex]

Asymmetrical character creation can work but you have to address the consistency of which it is applied and the in-game effects of that choice.

Consistency is a big factor and can lead to a lot of problems if handled poorly. Does the party Wizard resemble Stephen Hawking to get a usable Int score while enemy Wizards are built like Super Saiyans (prior to magical buffs) without a loss of spellcasting ability? There will be some bitterness. Any changes you make to the PCs should be applicable tactical info that the PCs can use against others in your world. Anything else tends to feel like an attack on the players (not cool) as opposed to adapting to the reality of your game world (potentially interesting).

You should also figure out what impact your choice will have on the game world as well. Adventuring Wizards in your world might deliberately start with a base 15-16 Int because those additional 6-8 points are just too useful for keeping him alive. Having +3 or +4 in bonuses spread out in AC/ranged attacks/HP/saves can be far more of a life saver than the additional +1 or +2 to spell save DC. Being disabled the first time you get hit by a goblin throwing a potato at you may see single-minded Int stacking to be more limited to ivory tower homebodies (at least at the world building level). Wizard rulers would also be more rare (Charisma is a dump stat yo). Figure out how this change will work with any other house rules you may have as well (if you are tinkering with character generation then you've probably been tinkering elsewhere).

Also realize that any changes you make for 'balance' purposes will have more of an effect on the game world than on the PCs. Altering point-buy based on class doesn't really do anything to lessen the gulf between quadratic Wizards and linear Fighters. That being said, I do think that this kind of thing can work quite well if handled correctly and you actually want the changes that would naturally flow from it.

As an example, I'm a fan of 21 point-buy for full-casters (those with 1-9 spell lists, most High-Caster Spherecasters, etc.), 25 for mid-casters (classes with 1-6 spell lists, mid-Spherecasters/limited highcasters like the Thaumaturge), and 29 for just about everyone else. For alternate magic systems (Shadowcasting, Veil-weaving/Incarnum, etc.) their 'full-caster' equivalent is considered a mid-caster for this and everyone else gets 29. This can be supplemented through multi-classing to get extra points but doing so will never take points away. This works because in my world leveling is an explicitly supernatural act and reserving the potential to actively manipulate reality (spellcasting and such) limits how much of that power can 'ground out' into the characters' physical being. This makes multi-classing a non-problem. If a Wizard multi-classes into Monk of somesuch he has just allowed the supernatural power of leveling to finally flow into his body, all at the low cost of a caster level (*gasp*).

This, combined with other tweaks I've made (tangible XP, altered level progression, etc.) means that there are fewer Wizards in the world since you cannot automatically assume level progression with time, and the investment in a low level Wizard (sponsorship is a common way to gain early levels) can offer a very poor return on that investment, favoring other classes. None of this puts any real hard limits on the PCs (nor do I think that it should) but it does justify the shape of the world and the PCs place in it. That was the kind of change I was looking for, rather than straight class balance, and it works for me.

[Biggus]

One of my House Rules is to give fighters a bonus feat per 1000 xp.


Is this a typo? Surely you don't give Fighters 190 feats by level 20?


The reason I dont like this is that its not granular at all, and it would feel jarring to just hit a level where you dont get anything. It would be much more player friendly to instead space out what would be a dead level over several levels instead, and would also remove the option to powergame by only going up to the level just one before the level adjustment

Well, I was assuming it would apply to all high-tier classes including prestige classes, so if you took a prestige class which continued your casting progression you'd still get the LA at the same place. But you're right, having a completely dead level every few levels would be pretty annoying.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

But you're right, having a completely dead level every few levels would be pretty annoying.

Hmm, maybe make Bloodlines (Unearthed Arcana) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/bloodlines.htm) mandatory for casters, or high tiers in general? Major bloodline for T1, intermediate for T2, minor for T3? Still progresses caster level, some cool abilities, very flavorful as the source of their power. You could make this nerf stronger with the interpretation that bloodline levels count towards ECL, and less impactful with the interpretation that bloodline levels do not count towards ECL (making them effectively instantly bought off LA, soon to be recovered by 'experience is a river').

Actually, I like this idea enough I might make it a permanent houserule in my games. Problem is, it hurts more in the early game, where the gap isn't so wide in the first place, so maybe bump the ECL at which you have to take the levels back.

[Crake]

Well, I was assuming it would apply to all high-tier classes including prestige classes, so if you took a prestige class which continued your casting progression you'd still get the LA at the same place. But you're right, having a completely dead level every few levels would be pretty annoying.

I was more referring to something like gish builds, where you would break off into something else just before the level adjustment level kicks in.

[HouseRules]

Is this a typo? Surely you don't give Fighters 190 feats by level 20?

The fighter need that many feats to balance against the sorcerer.
In other words, if there are enough level appropriate feats, the fighter becomes Tier 2.

[Lans]

One of my House Rules is to give fighters a bonus feat per 1000 xp.
It works well if the fighters could find a level appropriate feat and balanced against a sorcerer.
The problem is trying to find level appropriate feats at high levels.



The fighter need that many feats to balance against the sorcerer.
In other words, if there are enough level appropriate feats, the fighter becomes Tier 2.

Are you keeping them to the fighter bonus feat list or are you letting them take anything they qualify for?





4.) Or 3b depending on your perspective. Once you have chosen T3 as your ideal balance point, you start to realize that the difference between Tier 3 and Tier 1 classes is actually SMALLER than the difference between T3 and T4 based on average play.


This is not something I see in in 3.5, T3 and T4 seem largely the same in what they can do, with T3 just being better. Compare Warblade to Barbarian, they are really close to what they can do, just the Warblade has a small bag of tricks to pull from.

Now, it might be the case that the gulf between the bottom of tier 3 and the top of tier 3 is fairly large, or that certain Tier 3 classes have tricks that let them be Tier 2. Such as Warmage expanding its spell list.


It would be a start, but a couple extra points in abilities aren't really going to make that much difference, and even less so, as the levels get higher and bonus items and tomes start becoming affordable. Does it really matter that the martial beatstick guy can hit with a couple extra points in strength at level 10 or so, when the casters are calling down fireballs and summoning demons and solid fogs and baleful polymorphs?


Maybe more than you'd think, but I'm more interested whether it makes the fighter or Barbarian a feww steps closer in balance to the warblade or totemist. Or even Divine Mind to PsyWarrior or Psychic Rogue.

[HouseRules]

Are you keeping them to the fighter bonus feat list or are you letting them take anything they qualify for?
Everything they qualify for. It's about buffing up to "tier 2".

About Tier's there are issues:

Tier 1 is Broken Everywhere
Tier 2 is Broken in Specialization
Missing Tier is Overpowered Everywhere
Tier 3 Upper is Overpowered in Specialization
Tier 3 Lower is Competent Everywhere
Tier 4 Upper is Competent in Specialization
Tier 4 Lower is Incompetent Everywhere
Tier 5 Upper is Incompetent in Specialization
Tier 5 Lower is Underpowered Everywhere
Tier 6 Upper is Underpowered in Specialization
Tier 6 Lower (Commoner) is Useless Everywhere

[Quertus]

Balance to the table. Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, was in a party where the Monk was MVP, and the (3.0) Fighter was beheading everything.


Honestly I feel like it's more a question of knowing your players' optimization ability levels, and setting expectations ahead of time for what level of optimization this campaign is looking for.

For the optimizers around here? Sure, it can be a problem if left unchecked. For the vast majority of players who don't obsess over every possible option? The casters all think something like Meteor Swarm is the most powerful 9th level spell possible.

Balance to the table. 3e gives you the option to make useless Fighters, and übercharger builds, and anything in-between. 3e gives you the ability to make Playground Determinator Wizards, and Quertus, and camping mages, and anything in-between.

Thankfully, 3e lets you build characters who are balanced with Wizards who think that Meteor Swarm is the best spell ever, without any house rules.


That's a fair point. Maybe a way round this would be to give low tier/ MAD classes extra ability bumps every few levels instead of as PB? The power differential is much bigger at high levels.

+1 this.


It would be a start, but a couple extra points in abilities aren't really going to make that much difference, and even less so, as the levels get higher and bonus items and tomes start becoming affordable. Does it really matter that the martial beatstick guy can hit with a couple extra points in strength at level 10 or so, when the casters are calling down fireballs and summoning demons and solid fogs and baleful polymorphs?

I mean, I still see muggle half-ogre builds, even when starting at such levels, so… their players certainly think so?


2.) It's harder to effectively nerf than it is to buff, which is why so many nerf attempts end up making something completely worthless, achieving the exact opposite of the stated goal (balancing the game): it's still unbalanced, just in the opposite direction.

Lot of good stuff in your post; just curious if you can expand on this bit - do you have any idea why nerfing is harder?


I'd probably start by asking your players if they care about the balance issues (or even notice them) before I went about spending a bunch of effort rewriting the game to balance classes or giving some people preferential treatment.

+1 this. Don't waste your effort - or, worse, make the game worse - trying to fix a non-issue.

Really, this is probably the most important thing in the thread. I probably shouldn't have responded to anything else, just to emphasize this fact.


Give everyone very high stats. This helps the weaker builds out a lot more than it helps the stronger builds and so ends up giving the weak builds a buff.

Just like weaker characters are usually more item-dependent, and suffer more in "low-magic" campaigns. Sounds reasonable.