A simple fix to balance fighters vs. casters ?

[xigbar]

As stated above, increasing an already existing option potency is less preferrable to giving more options. Funnily enough, direct numerical damage is the only place a Fighter or Barbarian, and other full BAB classes can beat a caster, but, quite simply, there are are more effective ways to end an encounter than damage, which the casters have exponentially more than the brutes.

 

[Dandu]

Yeah, you know, I've always felt that anyone who uses these terms unironically was not really worth talking with. Essentially, they've got some divide in their head that, at the table, just doesn't ever really exist for me - like you can't be both an effective character and an interesting / realized one.

Rather like saying one can either be good at art, humanities, or science, but not two at the same time and definitely not all three.

 

[Greenfield]

You want to balance the classes? That's easy.

Give all casters D10s for hit points, and grant them armor and weapon proficiencies as class features.

Then give all fighter classes a caster progression.

See? Easy as pi. (as in, trying to decipher all the digits of the ratio of a circle to it's diameter.)

I once played a game called Runequest. Some of you might remember it. Spells and weapons were all skill proficiencies, and everyone ended up being a fighter/mage/cleric/rogue.

 

[Dandu]

That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Balance should not be about making people the same, it should be about making everyone's contributions equally valuable.

 

[TheEvil]

Ultimately, balance is not about all characters being equally useful in all situations, it is about everyone having their time in the sun, which is up to the GM to ensure, provided that the players have made characters that are a reasonable fit for the campaign.

 

[Dandu]

Very true, and let me add that it is easier for the GM to do this if rules work with him instead of against him.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I have heard of players who simply want to play a character to hit things really hard and really well.

I've not known any, but I've heard of them.

With that said, if someone wants to be a Fighter, and they know what they're getting into, than let them. No need to make adjustments, no need to gimp anyone else down. If you want to swing a sword, do hp damage, and that's what you do, than that's what you do.

But anyone who is about to start this sort of character needs to be filled in as to what is likely going to happen as players level. The Cleric, the Wizard, the Rogue, they are going to want to have fun with their characters, and unless other players are willing to use their turns making the Fighter look better, he's going to fall to the side.

As long as he's told this in advance, and still agrees, then that's what it is.

I personally think if anyone wants to be a Fighter who happens to be interesting and has options, they should play a Psychic Warrior.

 

[Sekhmet]

One of my regular gaming buddies thinks Fighters are an absolute necessity, claiming they have a great amount of options because they're only limited in daily use by their hitpoints.

It doesn't help that we've never had an intelligent person playing a caster in the same party as him.

 

[Croesus]

I'm going to disagree with the majority and say this is worth considering. In fact, my group used a similar house rule the last couple years we played 3.x - of course, we combined the rule with a rule that eliminated iterative attacks, which we found to be a pain for some players.

I would argue that damage output is a real problem in 3.x, given the huge boost to hit points that many monsters received due to Con bonuses. Just look at the number of hit points giants have vs. their 1E and 2E counterparts. I once saw a 10th level fighter take on a single hill giant one on one. One round later, the fighter was running for this life.

While spellcasters can deal damage to multiple opponents, e.g., fireball, their overall damage output tends to fall behind the potential output of the fighters at higher levels (depending on the AC of the opponents, of course). Boosting fighters damage output even more can help make fighters more useful in combat.

This doesn't address the issue of options, but I've played with many players who don't want to have a dozen different options every round, who just want to have fun pounding the stuffing out of things. I say, if it works for your game, go for it.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I think each group needs to determine for themselves what is (or is not) fun. If a rule (or class, feat, spell, etc.) inhibits the player's (and the group's) enjoyment then that group ought to determine whether they should fix, replace, or eliminate said rule.

If the OP finds that this change to the rules makes for a more enjoyable experience for his player and his group, then, by all means, implement the change. If not, then don't. I am not sure increasing the fighter's damage capacity would be of any real benefit in the campaigns that I run, however. My campaigns tend to feature more lower-CR creatures to make up the EL rather than one or two, higher-CR creatures. As such, I think that the fighter's increase in damage would often result in the fighter doing excess damage, thereby negating any actual benefit to the increased damage capacity.

Re: Balance and 3.5 - I have found that I most enjoy the game when all characters are Tier 2, 3, or 4. For me, balancing the fighter with the wizard is not what I am interested in. Rather, I would prefer to balance the fighter against the rest of Tier 4 and the wizard against the rest of Tier 2. That brings their power level more in line with my -- and my group's -- comfort zone.