A simple fix to balance fighters vs. casters ?

[Dandu]

Wizards are more balanced when they are casting damage spells. It's when they start tearing apart the fabric of reality that the Fighters start feeling left behind because then the wizards are playing an entirely different game. Kind of like what Matter-Muncher Lad feels when he's in a team with Dr. Strange, Thanatos, and the God-damn Batman.

 

[Meatboy]

Probably the easiest fix for making non casters on par with casters is to skew treasure tables in favor of non casters.
I would challenge any one here to find a literary or mythological example of warrior hero who, through skill of arms alone, stands with high level caster types. Usually the non casters need some kind of "edge" to be useful in books and what not. This usually comes in the form of some kind of uber background/heritage or the fact that they are the bearer of some mythic artifact.

One just has to look at the Drizzt series. Those guy roll with a party of only warrior types yet still manage to get stuff done. But all of them are totally rocking heavy magic items. Jar Laxl (sp?) is a master of this and shows up casters who underestimate him quite often.

So really the easiest fix is to make sure non casters get the gear they need to do the job. When Xzrkeyrix the Fire Master shows up the Fighter damn well better have something that protects him from fire....

 

[Dandu]

I would be interested in participating in a playtest where fighters get full WBL and spellcasters get 25-50% WBL.

 

[kitcik]

I would be interested in participating in a playtest where fighters get full WBL and spellcasters get 25-50% WBL.

I think he means "give them items so uber it is like they are spellcasters" which, of course, is blah, at least to me.

I still think the best thing to do is have longer casting times allowing for interruption by other than readied actions, and nerf concentration.

 

[billd91]

Rather than increasing the damage martial classes do, which is already significant compared to the casters, I think a better balancing mechanism would be to increase the unreliability of the encounter-ending/controlling spells. In 1e/2e, save difficulty wasn't based on the level of the spell nor ability modifier of the caster. It was inherent to the power of the target. I wouldn't want to go completely back there, but improving the defenses of targets may be of use.

Instead of the weak save being based on 1/3 level (or HD), make all saves based on 1/2 level like the strong save, just give the strong save the +2 bonus.

Cap PC stat and monster HD bonuses to save DCs. 1e/2e didn't have any stats over 25. I'd consider going to 26 for PCs to get to the next even number. I'd also keep HD from contributing more than +10 to a monster's special ability DC.

For controlling spells, build in 2 saves - maybe the first failure dazes for a round, the second failure brings on the whole effect. All controlling enchantment spells in which the save is failed thus generate at least some effect, but perhaps not the whole enchilada. And there's an inherent delay in charm/dominate effects being able to swing the target's impact on the fight.

 

[Arrowhawk]

I think he means "give them items so uber it is like they are spellcasters" which, of course, is blah, at least to me.

I still think the best thing to do is have longer casting times allowing for interruption by other than readied actions, and nerf concentration.

First, to the OP...balance is an illusion. Balance suggests a empircal comparison which is nigh impossible in a PnP RPG. The best you can talk about is "fairness" and that is subjective. D&D 1e was never meant to be "balanced." The DM was supposed to make balance irrelevant. As D&D has evolved, it has moved towards this concept of balance...which is ultimately going to be an albatross arounnd its neck. You can't balance things that do not all conform to some unit of measurement. What exactly would that be in a PnP game? Damage? Only about 1/3 of my campaigns require actual killing to earn experience.

So what happens is D&D is forced to a balance powers and feats and actions so that no choice is any more or less "powerful" than any other. You see this with MMORPG's. Take a game like City of Heroes. All 1st tier attacks are balanced along the same scale: Recharge, Damage, Endurance. This means that power can feel different, but all be equally effective. In other words, the mathmatical DPS is nearly identical. You can't do this with D&D...without fundamental changes: enter 4e.

However, I do agree that when class ability/power is too out of whack, it can make it difficult for characters to operate in the same campaign. That having been said, I think kittyitch's idea is a very very good one. By forcing a caster to take 4 rounds to cast Fireball, you basically require that caster to rely on the burly types to protect her. It also means that in a 1v1 fight, a caster is not going to be able to pull out the heavy artillary and simply blast the fighter into oblivion. Similarly, you allow defensive spells and utility spells a shorter time so that survival is easy, victory is not.

I think this is really the best way and the least game breaking way to mitigate the imbalance. Too bad WotC didn't adopt it, play test it, and give us a strong guidelines for setting those casting times.

 

[Visigani]

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!



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

You're misunderstanding.


You can't have a Fighter-Wizard... you already have a Wizard so the Wizard's sphere of influence... macro-tools is already handily covered. Giving the Wizard the ability to do all kinds of crazy things is fine and dandy. However, it's Damage that tends to kill the overwhelming vast number of opponents. Reducing their HP until they fall over dead.

See, it's difference spheres of influence... Damage achieves one thing... Macro Tools achieve another. If you completely removed the Wizards ability to cause damage he may still be able to kill things and handily, but he would have to be much more judicious on the whole with what he did because spells and abilities that deal HP damage wholesale tend to come much cheaper than say... a mass insta death spell.


Leave the Wizard with his primary focus on the macro tools... if the Fighter has damage and is the primary damager he'll have a significant place at the table because his ability to kill will be much more efficient than the wizards and less costly to the group overall.

 

[Dandu]

Leave the Wizard with his primary focus on the macro tools... if the Fighter has damage and is the primary damager he'll have a significant place at the table because his ability to kill will be much more efficient than the wizards and less costly to the group overall.

He will be indispensable in the same way that a company cannot do without janitors.

 

[Meatboy]

I think he means "give them items so uber it is like they are spellcasters" which, of course, is blah, at least to me...

Well I just went back to the source material on that one. Namely books and mythology. Warrior type heroes always need something to go up against world shaking magic in the stories. Often this comes in the form of uber items when it doesn't come from such items it seems to come from the form of a unique heritage, like demi-god, chosen one, or child of prophecy. Unless you can convince your DM to make the warrior character one of those things listed above a few bad ass items are the easiest fix. Heck what's Perseus without his shield, Aragorn without Narsil, Huma sans Dragonlance, Arthur without Excalibur. High level guys need high level stuff.

 

[Ashtagon]

One thing I noticed in an examination of 1e/2e save tables is that fighters start with the worst saves in all areas, but end with the best saves in all areas. There's no way to replicate this exactly in 3e using the usual templates, but I would be strongly tempted to allow the fighter a number of daily save re-rolls equal to his class level. That way, by 20th level he will probably choose to routinely roll twice.

Re-roll for this purpose means any/all (as the player desires) of the following:

* When asked to roll a save, simultaneously roll two dice and pick the best one.
* One round after a failed save, re-roll one die, as long as the character is not actually dead (some GM adjudication may be needed here regarding 'permanent' effects).
* If you attempted a re-roll in a previous round and failed, as long as you have attempted a re-roll each and every previous round consecutively (and failed, presumably), you may spend another re-roll to attempt the save again.

Other classes that in 1e/2e used the fighter save table could also have this feature, but perhaps with 1/2 or 1/3 as many daily uses.