A simple fix to balance fighters vs. casters ?

[Arrowhawk]

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.

I'm very curious how this affected the enjoyment of the game for those involved. Was the campaign easier to DM and more fun for the players compared to RPG's where people played more traditional roles?

 

[Dandu]

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.

May you be the first.

 

[Sekhmet]

May you be the first.

It is very, very hard to the DM -and- an intelligent Wizard at the same time without seriously destroying your player's gaming experience.

On one hand, I can prepare my spells normally, which gives me a great advantage over everyone else, but my players would call me out and say that I'm using outside knowledge of the encounters to come to pick the perfect spells for each of them. (Seriously, though, when is having a Dimensional Door or Gaseous Form on hand at all times something a Wizard wouldn't just do?)

On the other, if I chose poorly to give them the illusion that I wasn't preparing for encounters that I knew were coming up, I'd be a grossly ineffective caster - just the same as the ones he's been in a party with prior.

With the first option, I'm preparing general spells that will come in handy during any situation. With the second, I'm intentionally choosing bad spells so that my players aren't dissatisfied with my character stealing the spotlight every encounter. It's a lose-lose situation.

 

[Dandu]

It is very, very hard to the DM -and- an intelligent Wizard at the same time without seriously destroying your player's gaming experience.

Ah, so you are the DM of the group.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

It is very, very hard to the DM -and- an intelligent Wizard at the same time without seriously destroying your player's gaming experience.

On one hand, I can prepare my spells normally, which gives me a great advantage over everyone else, but my players would call me out and say that I'm using outside knowledge of the encounters to come to pick the perfect spells for each of them. (Seriously, though, when is having a Dimensional Door or Gaseous Form on hand at all times something a Wizard wouldn't just do?)

On the other, if I chose poorly to give them the illusion that I wasn't preparing for encounters that I knew were coming up, I'd be a grossly ineffective caster - just the same as the ones he's been in a party with prior.

With the first option, I'm preparing general spells that will come in handy during any situation. With the second, I'm intentionally choosing bad spells so that my players aren't dissatisfied with my character stealing the spotlight every encounter. It's a lose-lose situation.

Educate the players on how to be a good wizard.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

This solves nothing and leave Monks, Rogues, and the like high and dry. I would never use this house rule, I think it overall makes things worse.

I hear you, but I've always thought that Monks should have full BAB. No? And Roques have other areas of expertise, they don't need to worry about fighters and such getting stronger, they already have lots of uses especially outside combat (traps and such).

But of course I do understand that elevating some classes just means that some other class(es) are going to be left behind. In other words, someone always has to be last one.

I know that there are plenty of complicated fixes for full-BABers, but sometimes it's worth considering a simple and nice solution instead of complicated and perfect one.

But anyway, summa summarum:
Melee-characters improve in their ability to hit, but not their ability to cause damage. Lack of options or not, this is something that needs to considered for one minute. Hopefully with an open mind.

 

[Axel]

It's pretty hard to come up with something for a melee character (or archer-fighter: they always get forgotten) that is equivalent to the wizard eliminating 1 enemy/std action with Force Cage (no save), or casting Win the Battle (aka Radiant Assault or Time Stop) and the like, also with a Standard action.

To be effective, a fighter needs ALL their iterative attacks. That means Full Round action, so no running away from the exploding volcano at the same time. A full-caster only needs a Standard action to be effective...an entire move action remains to get the outta Dodge.

In short: they can't be balanced. Characters are in the party to do different things. The "best" solution I've seen so far? Start every campaign at Level 1 (with death-replacement characters 1 level below lowest party member level). It seems to encourage more multi-classing and makes the wizard's player sit through the tedious levels 1-4 before getting any really powerful stuff.

 

[Visigani]

As I mentioned in another one of my posts.... the desire for fighters shouldn't be to increase their damage but to REDUCE the damage of the caster classes.

If you have one guy that can bend the fabric of the universe at the table you don't necessarily need two.

Consider it a toolbox of options... On one hand you have the Multi-Tool Wizard... that can be a screw driver, a mini saw, a pliers, and a host of other things. On the other hand, you have the Hammer fighter. A hammer does one thing, it does it well and it's one thing the Multi Tool cannot duplicate easily.

That should be the desire with melee combatants. Make the sphere of hitpoint damage their own.

Although a wizard can point his finger at something and say 'die" he can only do so so many times per day, and not every wizard at that. A fighter can dish out the hp damage constantly. That should be their sphere. The current implementation of the game has the wizard stepping all over the fighters toes in that regard.

Cleric - Healing, Wizard - Macro Tools, Fighter - Damage, Rogue - Micro Tools. With each providing a secondary aspect... Cleric has a secondary aspect in macro tools and then damage, rogues have a secondary aspect in damage and then macro tools (UMD), fighter has a secondary in healing (by being able to shrug off punishment and therefore not requiring healing) and microtools (i.e. trip, intimidate, disarm, etc etc), and the wizard has a secondary in microtools and damage.


If you decrease the Wizards ability to deal damage and then INCREASE the Fighters microtool abilities you'll find Fighters become a much much more appealing member of the group.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It hasn't been too long since the last thread that covered this, to which my response was as follows.

You can make fighters more powerful by adding tactical options or by fiddling with the numbers to increase their raw power. You can make mages less powerful too. But as long as there are haves and have-nots (with regards to the ability to teleport, read minds, and imprison people's souls) "balance" is going to be hard. At best, you get the fighters feeling useful (truthfully, this has always been the case for most people's games anyway).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

As I mentioned in another one of my posts.... the desire for fighters shouldn't be to increase their damage but to REDUCE the damage of the caster classes.

Damage from wizard-types is not the problem, though.

Reducing damage done by wizards is just making the already-weakest aspect of being a wizard weaker, forcing them ever more into the waiting arms of battlefield control - which is where the wizard really, truly shines to begin with!

then INCREASE the Fighters microtool abilities you'll find Fighters become a much much more appealing member of the group.

This, I think, is really the only viable way to make the Fighter more interesting / useful.