High Level Feats (especially) for Fighters

[Roman]

The incompleteness in this approach is that weapons are balanced for both multiplier and range. So if this feat lets you reduce the axe critical from x3 to x2, it should let you reduce the sword critical from 19-20/x2 to 20/x2.

It could be two separate feats one doing each. Alternatively, there could also be a feat to 'halve the threat range'.

 

[Roman]

There is, in fact.

Consider a fighter's primary gains: BAB, Hit points, and Feats. These all progress linearly through the levels, so a 10th-level fighter has about double the gains that a 5th-level fighter does. (2 attacks instead of 1, +10 instead of +5, double the hit points, etc.)

Consider a spell-caster's primary gains: More spells, more damage per spell. # of spells doesn't advance linearly, in fact when you see a 'magic-point' style system, to balance with the base wizard, it needs to increase dramatically, a.la 'Elements of Magic's' progression: 2, 3, 5, 9, 14, 22, 30, 40, 52, 66... This is because the core classes progress towards a point where, at 20th level, the caster can cast 4 spells at each level (rather than, say, a pyramid-style where they can cast 8 1st-level spells but only 1 9th-level spell). Using that as an equality-point, we see that the 10th-level wizard is about 4.7 times 'stronger' in terms of number/quality of spells cast compared to a 5th-level wizard. Since the 'damage per spell' has also increased (Fireball is now 10d6 instead of 5d6, for example), the 10th-level wizard has become significantly more powerful compared to a wizard of half his level.

When you draw out an attempt at a 'balance curve' for the classes, you'll wind up finding that the fighter is, in fact, more powerful than the wizard at low levels, and that there is a point where they are near equals, and that there is a point where the wizard has become stronger. Where you declare that point to be depends on your assumptions about how to draw the curve.

Does this mean the game isn't 'balanced'? No, not at all - it means that these two classes are not perfectly balanced against each other at each level; they ARE balanced over the course of an extended-play campaign in which it is reasonable to expect the player who wants to become the world-shaping wizard to slog through some levels of very weak power ("Shoot, I've already cast my one spell for the day!") to 'earn' the right to have the world-shaking power later in the game. There are other balancing factors as well, among them the idea that the fighter can deal his damage all day, while the wizard still has the 'I ran out of spells' problem.

I'm sure a number of people will disagree with that; I'm not trying to start a controversy, merely to offer a possible explanation why the initial poster's group finds the fighter to be so strong, and the arcane classes weak, while other posters observe the opposite: both may be true, depending which level you do the analysis at.

Yes, I suspected it has to do with the level the characters are at, but you dug deeper into the root of the matter.

 

[LostSoul]

In the university wargamers club, where I game, virtually everybody considers arcane spellcasters to be grossly underpowered

From what I've seen it depends on how many encounters per day you have - if you typically have only one or two encounter each day, the wizard can blow all his spells right then and there.

If you play in the assumed setting - a dungeon - then it's balanced. Otherwise things can get out of hand.

The fighter needs to have special equipment as well. Nothing's worse than a 20th-level Fighter against a Flying 7th-level Wizard with Greater Invisibility and a Wand of whatever if the Fighter can't see invisible creatures or fly himself.

 

[Roman]

From what I've seen it depends on how many encounters per day you have - if you typically have only one or two encounter each day, the wizard can blow all his spells right then and there.

If you play in the assumed setting - a dungeon - then it's balanced. Otherwise things can get out of hand.

I dunno... we play in a variety of settings (dungeons and wilderness) and 7th level wizards tend to run out of spells before a single major combat is over...

The fighter needs to have special equipment as well.

Reducing fighter's reliance on special equipment would indeed be desirable.

 

[shilsen]

One way of dealing with this issue is to cull special abilities from some fighter-oriented PrCs (those not already seeing use in the campaign, of course) and converting them into higher level feats for fighters. The Exotic Weapon Master's weapon stunts, for example, could make useful feats for fighters in general, while the Master Thrower's tricks would be great for a ranged weapon fighter specifically.

Another option (this one in response to Roman's comment about fighters and special equipment) is to take the Kensai's ability to imbue weapons with magical abilities and make that available to high level fighters.

 

[GrayIguana]

I like the idea of swapping things from PRCs like the Exotic Weapon Master. Has anyone done this in their campaigns? How did you like it?

 

[Someone]

I was just going to suggest the same thing, to eliminate the Exotic weapons master and maybe master thrower prestige classes and use their special abilities as additional chooses for fighters of level 11+ (maybe one pick every unevel level from 11 to 19?) I doubt it would unbalance anything.

 

[Caliban]

I think the cause of the discrepancy is because most board posters don't actually play by most of the rules of DnD, if they play at all. They insert a lot of house rules into their game to enhance roleplaying. However these house rules tend to enhance arcane spellcasters but they blame the system rather than looking at their gaming style.

I have to completely disagree with this one. I've played two arcane spellcasters myself, a wizard from 1st level to 11th, and asorcer from 1st level to 7th level. I've seen a friends go from 1st level to 12th and 15th level with sorcerers. This is all under core rules, with no house rules that affect their spellcasting (other than having certain powerful spells banned).

In every case, the arcane spellcaster was seen a powerhouse, both in and out of combat, even at low levels. (Granted, at 1st thru 3rd you aren't the damage dealer, but you can still have a large effect on combat.)

It's just a matter of knowing what spells to select and how to use them appropriately.

 

[the Jester]

I find this thread very interesting, as I've found high-level combat monsters to outpower casters in at least some cases. The powerhouse in the game right now has a few psychic warrior levels, but he's a high-level charge/bull rush monkey who deals hundreds of points of damage in a round.

 

[LostSoul]

I dunno... we play in a variety of settings (dungeons and wilderness) and 7th level wizards tend to run out of spells before a single major combat is over...

That's why the "dungeon" is a balancing factor between spell-casters and skill/feat-based PCs. Fighters and Rogues can go all-out all day long, as long as they have the HP; and even if they are suffering from damage, they still haven't lost any of their punch. Wizards and Sorcerers (and Clerics and Druids, to a lesser degree) have to manage their resources each day.

In your typical "dungeon", you will come across more than just one or two encounters before you are able to rest in safety. And that's one of the balancing factors right there.

"Dungeons" aren't always holes in the ground, or castles, or mazes, or whatever. They are sets of encounters that are closely linked to each other. You could consider a hostile wilderness to be a "dungeon", or a city where hostile factions are all around you a "dungeon".

The point is this: the more often you can rest/fewer encounters per day, the stronger spell-casting classes become in relation to the others.