Balance. Why do we need it?

[Psyren]

Meanwhile Feanor cut down somewhere in the vicinity of a dozen Balrogs with a sword.

Didn't this guy make a bunch of artifacts? He'd hardly be mundane in a D&D sense.

So did Gandalf, in the other direction. But fine, we can lower the bar from whomping on them effortlessly for days to just winning, which opens the field to a lot of characters. Hurin & Turin from The Silmarillion; Lancelot, Gawain, Owain, Percival, Bors, and Yvain (who to be fair is basically another iteration of Owain) from Arthurian myth; basically the entire main cast of Water Margin (although the mages in that are a cut above); basically the entire main cast from Romance of the Three Kingdoms; the list goes on.

The depiction of wizards as people who are specifically better in a fight than actual warriors isn't anywhere near universal in fantasy, particularly if they get ambushed.

And no one ever said "spellcasters can't ever be defeated." I certainly didn't. Hell, that doesn't even happen in D&D, outside of TO theorywank forum posts or extremely high-OP games anyway, starring Schrodinger's Wizard.

Rather, what I'm saying is that, on average - if you tell somebody who doesn't know much else about the game that this class over here gets magic powers and this one doesn't, they're going to conclude that the former is probably going to have capabilities the other lacks. It would be exactly the same if you said "this one's a mutant" or "this one's a shapeshifter" or something.

There's also plenty of fictional warriors who have no divine origin but are still utterly terrifying, starting with most of the later additions to the Arthurian myths.

How many of them outclassed Morgan Le Fay or Merlin?

[Zanos]

I honestly don't think the "vast majority" think that at all. Quite the opposite, I think most people hear "wizard" and assume he is going to be more capable (in general) than the guy with a pointy stick.

You're just frankly wrong, then. Even in the context of 3.5 the designers assume that class levels were relatively equivalent, since 1 class level = 1 CR.

Is there anyone here that even shares this viewpoint? I mean I played cRPGs before I got into tabletop, but the assumption of everyone I've ever played with was that two characters that were intelligently built from separate classes were intended to be roughly equivalent in power at the same level.

[death390]

This is certainly true in 3.5, but I don't think that it's an inevitable feature of the fantasy genre. Look at wuxia. Look at mythology. Look at what "peak human" means in the DC universe. I think that "strength via muscles" can do some pretty amazing things if the system allows for it.

was that a blanket anyone can sig because this is beautiful statement. one that i whole heartedly agree with. its why i am trying to get my DM to allow Tome of Battle into our games so that my mundane group can have more things to do.


and while i'm talking about ToB, it is probably the best thing for mundanes since magical weapons. look at these abilities that mundanes are allowed to use, it is as close to wuxia as DnD has gotten. THIS is what a fighter should have been. i say that barbarians and other full martials should get to choose between the 3 base initators and get 1/2 of the stances and maneuvers. paladins/ rangers/ delayed caster martials should get a 1/4. this would enable those martials some extra to do while not overshadowing the as written initators AND dump the fighter period.

this would bring so much more balance to dnd mundanes.

Edit; a short list of just lvl 1 stances effects.
Dazzle createurs around you. (for martial dancers?)
fire resistance based on a skill.
enemies are -4 to hit against your allies.
heal 2hp per sucessful attack. (the power of my faith keeps me alive)
+2 AC vs one for -2 vs others.
ignore difficult terrain. (chargers ftw)
concealment while moving. (for the sneaky)
count as flanking from all angles even side by side as long at you and an allay are adjacent to the same creature. (rouges anyone?)
+2 to strength checks AND +2 AC vs taller foes. (i may be short but by gods i know how to take out those tallfolk)
+1 to ATK and DMG per crit (lets go critfishing!)
+2 bonus on will saves +4 vs fear for (you can not cow usWE ARE NOT AFRAID!)
+1 damage on charge/ initiator lvl (follow me men INTO BATTLE!!!)

[Psyren]

You're just frankly wrong, then. Even in the context of 3.5 the designers assume that class levels were relatively equivalent, since 1 class level = 1 CR.

(No u)

That's not what CR means, this isn't a PvP game. 6 class levels means "this class, along with level 6 WBL, can handle CR 6 encounters" (i.e. monsters.) It does not mean that a druid 6 has - or is meant to have - equivalent capability to a fighter 6.

Is there anyone here that even shares this viewpoint? I mean I played cRPGs before I got into tabletop, but the assumption of everyone I've ever played with was that two characters that were intelligently built from separate classes were intended to be roughly equivalent in power.

You're hedging with "intelligently built" but yes, I do fail to see why anyone would think a wizard 20 should be equal in power to a fighter 20.

[CharonsHelper]

You're hedging with "intelligently built" but yes, I do fail to see why anyone would think a wizard 20 should be equal in power to a fighter 20.

Because they're both the same CR?

Because they take them same exp?

Because each player at level 20 gets one of them?

etc.

The difference in performance isn't measured between (casters) vs. (muggles + gear).

It's (casters + gear) vs. (muggles + gear).

The gear ought to cancel out.

Not inherently.

Theoretically they could be balanced at WBL (they aren't - but theoretically).

If items didn't boost spells but only the underlying character chassis then they would benefit martials more.

After all - I'd argue that it's not

"(casters + gear) vs. (muggles + gear)".

Instead it's

"([casters x gear]+ spellcasting) vs. (muggles x gear)"

Now - in D&D (especially 3.x) the "spellcasting" part of the equation is big enough at high levels that "muggle" being higher than "caster" doesn't matter much. But that's not an inherent part of any system which used a similar framework where gear matters more to martials than to casters.

[Psyren]

Because they're both the same CR?

Because they take them same exp?

Because each player at level 20 gets one of them?

etc.

All of that just means they can handle level 20 threats (with level 20 wealth.) Not that they should be equal in power/capability. I mean, the moment you have different roles for them that becomes impossible.

PHB for instance says:

Clerics are masters of divine magic, which is especially good at healing. Even an inexperienced cleric can bring people back from the brink of death, and an experienced cleric can bring back people who have crossed over that brink.

Unless Fighters can do the same, they're clearly not equals, and that's just one example.

[Zanos]

(No u)

That's not what CR means, this isn't a PvP game. 6 class levels means "this class, along with level 6 WBL, can handle CR 6 encounters" (i.e. monsters.) It does not mean that a druid 6 has - or is meant to have - equivalent capability to a fighter 6.

It's not a PvP game, but enemies can and do have class levels. According to the CR system, a Fighter 20 with NPC wealth is the same challenge as a Wizard 20 with NPC wealth, and even with WotC optimization that isn't true.

Unless Fighters can do the same, they're clearly not equals, and that's just one example.

The expectation isn't that every character has the same capabilities, it's that they contribute the same amount.

[death390]

also has anyone seen much crossover fiction staring d20 wizards vs other settings.

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8096183...the-Natural-20

this follows a d20 wizard who gets teleported to the wizarding world (thanks to some death eaters) and goes to hogwarts. now he is obviously not able to do alot of what the other wizards can. but at the same time he is way above their power scale overall (guy even lists out the wizards stat sheet) he actually LACKS versatility due to his limited nature and the discrepancy between their magics (think arcane vs divine but not divine). overall a great read and adequately shows how dnd doesn't mesh well with alot of other fiction.

[Psyren]

It's not a PvP game, but enemies can and do have class levels. According to the CR system, a Fighter 20 with NPC wealth is the same challenge as a Wizard 20 with NPC wealth, and even with WotC optimization that isn't true.

That guideline doesn't account for optimization at all. A Wizard 20 with Read Magic in every single slot is still CR 20 under that rule of thumb, regardless of how craptacular he is in practice. It's worse than useless as the absolute benchmark you're trying to use it for.

The expectation isn't that every character has the same capabilities, it's that they contribute the same amount.

1) Where is "equal contribution" explained in the rules? My PHB doesn't seem to mention it.
2) Even if it was, how much a character contributes is a function of many factors besides class power, including both player and GM skill.

[Gnaeus]

See, this is what makes this topic so hard to discuss. What does "best in combat" even mean to you? What would you be okay with a mage doing in a fight that a fighter cannot do, and vice-versa? (I'm assuming here that you actually want to avoid homogeneity between the classes - I certainly do - but that may not be the case.)
.

For me, it would depend on what you mean by “mage”.

If you mean a 3.5 wizard who can do anything in the world, I would want him to be inferior to a fighter in combat. At least unless the combat was specifically geared to the wizards strengths (like a Enemy demon that could be banished, or ritual casting where the wizard could set up the battlefield or spend time or resources for the win.)

If you mean a narrowly typed wizard, I would think it’s ok for them to be better at fighting than the fighter if there are other drawbacks and that’s basically their thing. So, I’m cool with summoning a demon better than a fighter if it’s time consuming and either resource consuming or risky. Otherwise, Conan like, I would expect them to be summoning things an equal level fighter could beat. Or if you mean something like a shapeshifter, I’m fine with a wizard turning into a dragon that’s better than a fighter, if they can’t do it all the time and there are risks about it (like it takes time, or you could run out of mana, or if you stay polymorphed too long you might not be able to change back.) Or if you mean some kind of combat wizard who doesn’t do much but fight, like warmage, they should be approximately equal to fighter. Maybe better against magic vulnerable targets or worse against magic resistant ones.

Better, IMO, would be to make it clear that “wizard” beats “fighter”, then make a “hero” class with parity with “wizard”. And a limited T5 hedge mage class with parity with a fighter.

[Zanos]

That guideline doesn't account for optimization at all. A Wizard 20 with Read Magic in every single slot is still CR 20 under that rule of thumb, regardless of how craptacular he is in practice. It's worse than useless as the absolute benchmark you're trying to use it for.

Actually he isn't, because the CR system provides guidelines for reducing CR based on creatures being caught in unfavorable circumstances, including being wounded, unprepared, or in a disadvantageous environment.

It doesn't say anything about ad hoc adjustments for having levels in a bad class, though, unless it's unassociated class levels. I suppose you could consider Fighter so bad that it doesn't even complement itself.

1) Where is "equal contribution" explained in the rules? My PHB doesn't seem to mention it.
2) Even if it was, how much a character contributes is a function of many factors besides class power, including both player and GM skill.

1) I assume you are a Real Human Being who speaks Human Languages and eats Human Food, so when I used my Human Keyboard to write down a concept like "equal contribution", your Human Brain knows what I'm talking about. Less facetiously, this isn't a RAW discussion.
2) Sure, but irrelevant, because it's not what we're discussing.

[Nifft]

2) Sure, but irrelevant, because it's not what we're discussing.

Absolutely right.

Additionally, though, those things are independent variables.

Basically it's (muggle + player skill + gear) vs. (caster x player skill x gear)

Being a caster gives you geometrically more opportunities to display your player skill, because you have better tools: the school of Illusion, for example. The school of Transmutation, as a second example (stone shape, etc.). And of course the school of Conjuration (fabricate, minor creation, monster summoning, etc.).

[Psyren]

Actually he isn't, because the CR system provides guidelines for reducing CR based on creatures being caught in unfavorable circumstances, including being wounded, unprepared, or in a disadvantageous environment.

It doesn't say anything about ad hoc adjustments for having levels in a bad class, though.

That's not a "circumstance" though. Choosing what spells to prepare is inherent to the class. By your own logic, their CR is 20 no matter what they've actually prepared, because PC class levels are all that matter.

1) I assume you are a Real Human Being who speaks Human Languages and eats Human Food, so when I used my Human Keyboard to write down a concept like "equal contribution", your Human Brain knows what I'm talking about. Less facetiously, this isn't a RAW discussion.

Oh, I know quite well what you're talking about - but your assertion, that classes were meant to "contribute equally," is not only unsupported, it's not even defined.

My personal view is that classes contribute more or less depending on the circumstance, not that they're expected to be "equals." Even if a given circumstance comes up less often, when it does you'll be happy to have class X there to deal with it.

2) Sure, but irrelevant, because it's not what we're discussing.

It is relevant, because it shows that guideline is useless as holy writ.

[Peat]

See, this is what makes this topic so hard to discuss. What does "best in combat" even mean to you? What would you be okay with a mage doing in a fight that a fighter cannot do, and vice-versa? (I'm assuming here that you actually want to avoid homogeneity between the classes - I certainly do - but that may not be the case.)

In these circs I'd take it to to mean hitting other people with sharpened pieces of metal. There's an argument for all forms of conflict that ends in pain and death, but I don't think any class should really be the straight up best there.

The existence of CoDZilla is a lot more troublesome to this than any wizard, unless there are options on the Summon Monsters list we're expecting to outfight an equal levelled fighter (no idea if there are.

Although, honestly, while D&D without classes would feel wrong, I simply far prefer non-class based systems.

"Complete newbies" are the ones getting their characters built for them anyway, so I'm not really seeing the issue where they're concerned. Even if they're not though, they'll learn how to optimize eventually - just like we all did - and until then, the DM can hand them magic items that cover any glaring deficiencies in their character. Even new players can topple giants, smash skeletons, and yes, slay dragons, with a little help from the people they're playing the game next to.

They don't get them built at the tables I've played with. And lord knows I've heard enough stories about DMs who can't be trusted to help, or to hand over the items needed to cover deficiencies. Its the reason I'm making myself absent from my group's current Scion game.

Which is why balance is important. Balance helps cover up the cracks at tables that aren't great all round but still offer a fun game if no one's straining the rules all that much. Which is most tables I've been at.

Also, they can't kill the dragon if the person next to them does it first. And I'm not talking all Magic vs Martial here. The guy who picked the double handed weapon will kill more dragons than the people who picked the bow if neither is optimizing that hard. Tbh, I think that might be more of an issue than the martial-caster disparity. At least that one is obvious. Double-handed weapon Barbarian vs twin weapon fighter is a lot less obvious but last I checked, we all know who's winning there.

I covered this above - mythological "mundanes" are almost all the scions of various deities, or they got buffed by a magic sword or got dipped in the River Styx or some other external explanation for why they can keep up. And the writers of those stories added those details because somebody just flexing enough to keep up with monsters and magic strains even their own disbelief, never mind ours after centuries of such conditioning being reinforced.

A) And? So? Doesn't matter how they get the power. The point is I'm playing a high fantasy game and the fighter classes don't let me do what a high end fighter in myths can do. To me, that's lame. Not saying other people should share that opinion, but it came up so I'm saying it.

B) They're not all semi-divine in the myths (and certainly not modern media). I'd add Corineus and Finn MacCool to some of the others have suggested.

Even limiting myself to your arbitrary "pre-D&D" stipulation there are indeed plenty of powerful magicians lacking the kind of divine origin that Hercules and Cu Chulainn etc have like Prospero, Abeno Seimei, Nicolas Flamel, the Witches of Oz etc. We also have D&D's contemporaries (i.e. mages that were unlikely to have taken direct inspiration from it) like Feist's Pug and Dahl's Matilda. Then of course we have D&D's own influences like Jack Vance.

What I will concede is that D&D drifted from its roots as far as magic having drawbacks and mechanical obstacles to mastering it. It does not present (through the mechanics anyway) a particularly compelling reason why everyone who is smart enough to do so doesn't simply become a wizard, given the obvious strategic superiority of such a choice. But I can rationalize justifications for that discrepancy fairly easily without jettisoning the discrepancy itself.

Its a dividing line drawn to show the influence of the game, independent of any other argument here. Prior to it fictional wizards simply are nowhere near as powerful and versatile. Post that line, there's some pretty nuts ones out there. Making the philosopher's stone and getting immortal life are cool, but its not teleportation, angel summoning, Save or Dies, flying without shapechanging, shapechanging etc.etc. Mythical wizards can match them in certain areas, but none of them have the same breadth. No Gygax, no Harry Potter. I find that kinda cool. And for the small amount of relevance - if people come to D&D expecting wizards to be more useful than fighters, I'm pretty sure that's down to D&D in the first place.

And Feist's Midkemia is heavily based on his own D&D campaign. Wizards like Pug and Moraine are what you get when authors have played D&D.

This has next to nothing with the actual topic mind...

[Cosi]

3rd gave casters a whole pile more defenses. I think that's the biggest visible issue.
1e/2e weren't balanced either, but it felt that way because the world-altering power was offset by frailty.

I don't entirely agree. I think it's less that 3e made casters better, and more that earlier versions of D&D were intentionally designed in a way that made assessing whether a class was overpowered difficult. There was a lot more randomness (which blurs the distinction between a class being good and a character being lucky), a much stronger encouragement of DM intervention (which simultaneously dampens whatever imbalances occur and allows you to explain away the rest), and less encounter guidelines (which make it much harder to decide if some particular character is overpowered or not).

That's not what CR means, this isn't a PvP game. 6 class levels means "this class, along with level 6 WBL, can handle CR 6 encounters" (i.e. monsters.) It does not mean that a druid 6 has - or is meant to have - equivalent capability to a fighter 6.

This is just taking the stance that Wizards are overpowered. Which, fine, that is something you can do, but it doesn't make imbalance good.

You're hedging with "intelligently built" but yes, I do fail to see why anyone would think a wizard 20 should be equal in power to a fighter 20.

Because the opportunity costs are equal? I literally do not understand how any person smart enough to read a book could fail to understand that things with equal costs should be equally valuable. That's what cost is for.

That guideline doesn't account for optimization at all. A Wizard 20 with Read Magic in every single slot is still CR 20 under that rule of thumb, regardless of how craptacular he is in practice. It's worse than useless as the absolute benchmark you're trying to use it for.

Yes, as we all know, if you can find any case where something doesn't work, it's useless. For example, trying to inhale underwater is a bad idea, so no one ever inhales.

2) Even if it was, how much a character contributes is a function of many factors besides class power, including both player and GM skill.

So? Lots of things contribute to whether or not you get lung cancer. That doesn't mean the effects of cigarettes on cancer rates are neutral.

Seriously, have you ever taken a stats class?

[Gnaeus]

The existence of CoDZilla is a lot more troublesome to this than any wizard, unless there are options on the Summon Monsters list we're expecting to outfight an equal levelled fighter (no idea if there are...

Summon monster? Not really. Although if you optimize summoning and drop a couple creatures per combat they can. Animate dead can pretty easily, especially if you get good monsters to animate and/or can supercharge your undead via methods. Planar binding, though, lets you summon 20 demons each of which is 75% of your fighter. And you do all the heavy lifting before you walk near the dungeon so it costs you 0 spell power. It always comes up in balance discussion because it’s so off the chain. And then there’s gate.

[Psyren]

In these circs I'd take it to to mean hitting other people with sharpened pieces of metal. There's an argument for all forms of conflict that ends in pain and death, but I don't think any class should really be the straight up best there.

The existence of CoDZilla is a lot more troublesome to this than any wizard, unless there are options on the Summon Monsters list we're expecting to outfight an equal levelled fighter (no idea if there are.

Although, honestly, while D&D without classes would feel wrong, I simply far prefer non-class based systems.

A fighter is indeed better at "hitting other people with sharpened pieces of metal" - before buffs are applied. To me that makes him better because he doesn't need the crutch of spells to be skilled, he can rely on natural talent or training. It is however your GM's job to make that distinction matter, by for example fielding monsters that can dispel magical buffs from a less trained/talented gish.

They don't get them built at the tables I've played with. And lord knows I've heard enough stories about DMs who can't be trusted to help, or to hand over the items needed to cover deficiencies. Its the reason I'm making myself absent from my group's current Scion game.

Which is why balance is important. Balance helps cover up the cracks at tables that aren't great all round but still offer a fun game if no one's straining the rules all that much. Which is most tables I've been at.

To clarify - do you mean most of your tables strain the rules, or that most of your tables don't have issues?

A) And? So? Doesn't matter how they get the power.

It does matter, because D&D has a mechanic that represents getting special advantages due to circumstances of your birth - they're called inherited templates, or even a new race entirely. The important thing being that they are completely separate from your class. Hercules would be the son of Zeus (and have many of the same advantages) whether he picked up a gladius, a bow, or a magic wand. Similarly, Clark Kent would have all the powers he has even if he had stayed a bumpkin farmer in Kansas. Those things come from their race, not their class.

B) They're not all semi-divine in the myths (and certainly not modern media). I'd add Corineus and Finn MacCool to some of the others have suggested.

Finn's a god so he's out. As for Corineus, that's a fine example - the stuff he did is definitely within reach of a 3.5 Fighter, never mind a PF one.

And Feist's Midkemia is heavily based on his own D&D campaign. Wizards like Pug and Moraine are what you get when authors have played D&D.

And Prospero/Seimei? Were they D&D characters too? All their power came from their class, not any supernatural birth.

[BassoonHero]

was that a blanket anyone can sig because this is beautiful statement. one that i whole heartedly agree with.

Feel free, and thanks.

I'm a fan of the Tome of Battle; I think that it's the best sourcebook printed for 3.5. At the same time, I wish that it weren't necessary. A common criticism of the book is that it turns fighters into spellcasters. I don't quite agree, but I have to acknowledge the criticism.

Setting aside the Tome's particular flavor and mechanics, the reason it's so successful is that it gives fighters cool abilities. D&D 3.5 is positively squeamish about handing about unusual or extraordinary abilties to fighters even as it piles them on spellcasters. And when it does--as with the Tome of Battle--it insists on some kind of fig leaf. The book is packed with very specific flavor and even a backstory for the whole system, as though the authors felt it necessary to justify at great length why it was okay to let the fighters have nice things this one time. Veteran players and DMs, on the other hand, tend to embrace the new mechanics with open arms while often disregarding the flavor. In fact, the second-most-common complaint I hear about the book is that the flavor reminds people of anime, which they don't like.

In a way, the foundation for the Tome of Battle was laid in the Player's Handbook itself. A range of combat maneuvers are built in from level one, and and at high levels a fighter can execute several in a turn even while dishing out damage. Feats added cool new options like a punch that stuns your opponents or an attack that hit every adjacent opponent. But this promising foundation was compromised by annoying caveats and unnecessary limitations. Sure, you get four attacks per round, but two of them are going to suck. And if you move, you lose three of them anyway. Want to disarm your opponent? You'd better have the right feat, and the ****ty prerequisite feat. Spring Attack? That's three feats, and an ability score requirement. Two-Weapon Fighting? Don't even ask. Defensive mechanics range from bad (shields) to very bad (fighting defensively) to insultingly bad (Two-Weapon Defense). Any deviation from the "default" style of swinging a big sword is punished swiftly and severely.

When you look at the most popular combat abilities, it's amazing how many of them simply work around these limitations. The barbarian's lion spiritual totem lets you move and still use your normal attacks. Tome of Battle strikes let you deal level-appropriate damage withot being locked into a full attack, and its counters let you use your martial prowess to defend yourself. A spiked chain build can milk the trip mechanic hard enough that you'll forget it cost you three feats just to get started.

This tells me that the system has a lot of low-hanging fruit to make life easier for fighter-types. The first ones I choose to pluck are:

• Making a full attack a standard action.
• Limiting the iterative attack penalty to -5.
• Removing attacks of opportunity for most combat maneuvers.
• Removing Weapon Finesse and Brutal Throw, making the benefits standard options.
• Eliminating swaths of useless prerequisite feats.

In many cases, fixing these problems merely requires deleting caveats and restrictions, actually simplifying the rules in the process.

Harry Potter and the Natural 20

I quite enjoyed that one myself. His transfiguration lessons were particularly relevant; although in many respects Milo was leagues more powerful than other wizards, turning a toothpick to a needle was hopelessly beyond his abilities. I'm sure that at some point someone has argued that wizards from that universe must be high-level indeed because they casually throw around Polymorph Any Object.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

was that a blanket anyone can sig because this is beautiful statement. one that i whole heartedly agree with. its why i am trying to get my DM to allow Tome of Battle into our games so that my mundane group can have more things to do.


and while i'm talking about ToB, it is probably the best thing for mundanes since magical weapons. look at these abilities that mundanes are allowed to use, it is as close to wuxia as DnD has gotten. THIS is what a fighter should have been. i say that barbarians and other full martials should get to choose between the 3 base initators and get 1/2 of the stances and maneuvers. paladins/ rangers/ delayed caster martials should get a 1/4. this would enable those martials some extra to do while not overshadowing the as written initators AND dump the fighter period.

this would bring so much more balance to dnd mundanes.

Edit; a short list of just lvl 1 stances effects.
Dazzle createurs around you. (for martial dancers?)
fire resistance based on a skill.
enemies are -4 to hit against your allies.
heal 2hp per sucessful attack. (the power of my faith keeps me alive)
+2 AC vs one for -2 vs others.
ignore difficult terrain. (chargers ftw)
concealment while moving. (for the sneaky)
count as flanking from all angles even side by side as long at you and an allay are adjacent to the same creature. (rouges anyone?)
+2 to strength checks AND +2 AC vs taller foes. (i may be short but by gods i know how to take out those tallfolk)
+1 to ATK and DMG per crit (lets go critfishing!)
+2 bonus on will saves +4 vs fear for (you can not cow usWE ARE NOT AFRAID!)
+1 damage on charge/ initiator lvl (follow me men INTO BATTLE!!!)

Amen. Spheres of Power/Might and Dreamscarred Press material makes Pathfinder infinitely more balanced, and Tome of Battle started us down that track so thank god for it.

[death390]

I would argue that 1/2 of iterative attacks should count for fighters as standard not all. But that's a nitpick (odd iteratives, 1 3 5 ect)

And I damn definitely agree on de-prerequisiteing most of the feats ( mostly fighting not just them though) I can understand mobility for aping attack but dodge is useless. All improved combat maneuvers should be rolled into 1 feat and specialized variants to improve them. Ect ect

May god have mercy on those who take two weapon fighting. (Only blocked so badly due to fighter in my opinion. )

Edit: headed into my class now will be away from board for awhile but I shall be back! And don't forget that opportunity cost is not covered in most basic stats classes I was in college level buissness courses before I heard of that term.

[Peat]

A fighter is indeed better at "hitting other people with sharpened pieces of metal" - before buffs are applied. To me that makes him better because he doesn't need the crutch of spells to be skilled, he can rely on natural talent or training. It is however your GM's job to make that distinction matter, by for example fielding monsters that can dispel magical buffs from a less trained/talented gish.

And to me, if its no longer true after CoDzilla has applied their own buffs, its no longer true full stop.

Sure, the GM can (and maybe should) even that one out, but balance is there to lessen the number of times you've got to rely on the GM.

To clarify - do you mean most of your tables strain the rules, or that most of your tables don't have issues?

Most of the tables I've been at offer a fun game if no one's pushing at the game's unbalanced bits too much, but go to hell in a handcart quickly if they are. I guess... maybe 50% of the games end with someone pushing the balance too far?

Which actually means D&D (and all derivations) tend to be the best game, largely because everyone's too disorganised to ever get much beyond level 3 or so. All the various White Wolf super games though, they tend to be ugly. I'd love to play a 10th level D&D game with my current group, but I wouldn't be putting too much effort into the character back story, if you get me.

It does matter, because D&D has a mechanic that represents getting special advantages due to circumstances of your birth - they're called inherited templates, or even a new race entirely. The important thing being that they are completely separate from your class. Hercules would be the son of Zeus (and have many of the same advantages) whether he picked up a gladius, a bow, or a magic wand. Similarly, Clark Kent would have all the powers he has even if he had stayed a bumpkin farmer in Kansas. Those things come from their race, not their class.

I get that.

I still think its bad, annoying and illogical game design. And since I'm not trying to persuade anyone to think different, but rather sharing an example of how people's expectations can jar with D&D, I'll leave it there.

Finn's a god so he's out. As for Corineus, that's a fine example - the stuff he did is definitely within reach of a 3.5 Fighter, never mind a PF one.

Finn is presented as a human in the stories. His probable mythological origin is neither here nor there.

And Prospero/Seimei? Were they D&D characters too? All their power came from their class, not any supernatural birth.

Not why I brought it up and I made that pretty explicit.

[ryu]

I would argue that 1/2 of iterative attacks should count for fighters as standard not all. But that's a nitpick (odd iteratives, 1 3 5 ect)

And I damn definitely agree on de-prerequisiteing most of the feats ( mostly fighting not just them though) I can understand mobility for aping attack but dodge is useless. All improved combat maneuvers should be rolled into 1 feat and specialized variants to improve them. Ect ect

May god have mercy on those who take two weapon fighting. (Only blocked so badly due to fighter in my opinion. )

Edit: headed into my class now will be away from board for awhile but I shall be back! And don't forget that opportunity cost is not covered in most basic stats classes I was in college level buissness courses before I heard of that term.

It's okay. He used it wrong anyway where absolute cost would've been the correct choice of phrase. Absolute cost is the resources put into obtaining the thing directly. This is your twenty levels XP and class picking freedom. Opportunity cost has to do with whatever your second choice would be if you either aren't allowed to pick the first choice for some reason, or simply change your mind. The opportunity costs of two vastly different options are likely different for the simple fact that in a system with a countably small number of classes, which class you're explicitly not picking may well effect what your second choice is. On the other hand the absolute cost of any two classes is manifestly always equal in this system because leveling up takes the same XP. In single classing anyway, which was the scenario he brought up.

[Nifft]

And I damn definitely agree on de-prerequisiteing most of the feats ( mostly fighting not just them though) I can understand mobility for aping attack but dodge is useless. All improved combat maneuvers should be rolled into 1 feat and specialized variants to improve them. Ect ect

May god have mercy on those who take two weapon fighting. (Only blocked so badly due to fighter in my opinion. )

I'd like to see feats that improve with level, instead of chains that lock you into one ever-more-expensive style.


For example:

Weapon Focus [General, Fighter]
Benefit: Choose one weapon type with which you are familiar. You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with weapons of this type.

BAB +8 or higher: you gain another +1 bonus to attack rolls (+2 total).
Fighter level 4 or higher: you also gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls.
Fighter level 8 or higher: you gain another +2 bonus to damage rolls (+4 total).
BAB +12 or higher: you also gain a +4 bonus to critical hit confirmation rolls.
Fighter level 12 or higher: you also gain a +4 bonus to opposed Disarm checks.

Combat Expertise [General, Fighter]
Prereq: Int 13
Benefit: At the start of your turn, you can trade BAB for defense up to -5 (etc.). When you reach level 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, you may choose to gain one of the following benefits for which you qualify:

* Improved Disarm: ...
* Improved Feint: ...
* Improved Trip: ...
(Prereq: Dodge feat) Defensive Strike: ...
(Prereq: Dodge feat) Karmic Strike: ...
(Prereq: Dodge feat) Melee Evasion: ...
(Prereq: BAB +6) Riposte: ...
(Prereq: BAB +6) Improved Expertise: ...
(Prereq: BAB +6, Dodge feat) Combat Cloak Expert: ...
(Prereq: BAB +12, Dodge feat) Whirlwind Attack: ...

Two-Weapon Fighting [General, Fighter]
Prereq: Dex 15
Benefit: You can attack with both weapons for a mere -2 to each attack this turn.

If your BAB is +6 or higher, you get a second attack with your off-hand weapon, at -5.
If your BAB is +11 or higher, you get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, at -10.

Additionally, at BAB +____ you choose a style:

* Two-Weapon Defense -> Improved Two-Weapon Defense
* Two-Weapon Pounce -> Two-Weapon Rend

[Psikerlord]

Balance vs monsters doesnt matter. The GM can always add more monsters, using nastier ones, or change powers/stats etc.

What is critical however is a rough intra-party balance for a campaign (doenst matter for a one shot). If you have one or two PCs that dwarf the others in power, your campaign will end early. It will end early either because (i) the other players get jack of playing second fiddle to the OP PCs, or (ii) the GM will accidentally TPK the party by trying to challenge the OP PCs, killling the weaker ones first, then overwhelming the OP one(s).

So to answer the OP, a rough intra party balance is important to keep your game going. Party vs monster balance on the other hand is not an issue.

[digiman619]

Combat Expertise [General, Fighter]
Prereq: Int 13
Benefit: At the start of your turn, you can trade BAB for defense up to -5 (etc.). When you reach level 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, you may choose to gain one of the following benefits for which you qualify:

* Improved Disarm: ...
* Improved Feint: ...
* Improved Trip: ...
(Prereq: Dodge feat) Defensive Strike: ...
(Prereq: Dodge feat) Karmic Strike: ...
(Prereq: Dodge feat) Melee Evasion: ...
(Prereq: BAB +6) Riposte: ...
(Prereq: BAB +6) Improved Expertise: ...
(Prereq: BAB +6, Dodge feat) Combat Cloak Expert: ...
(Prereq: BAB +12, Dodge feat) Whirlwind Attack: ...

Seriously? You're proposing remaking feats to scale and do cool stuff and you stil keep Dodge? Dodge is of the definititive bad feats that one only picks because it's a prerequisite for things that actually matter.

[Nifft]

[/INDENT]

Seriously? You're proposing remaking feats to scale and do cool stuff and you stil keep Dodge? Dodge is of the definititive bad feats that one only picks because it's a prerequisite for things that actually matter.

Why are you assuming that a re-worked Dodge won't also do cool stuff?

[digiman619]

Why are you assuming that a re-worked Dodge won't also do cool stuff?

Because you didn't provide an example of what it could do, and we're already seeing that not taking it is blocking off significant aspect of other, more valid feats and are therefore still a tax.

[Nifft]

Because you didn't provide an example of what it could do, and we're already seeing that not taking it is blocking off significant aspect of other, more valid feats and are therefore still a tax.

Dodge

Low Options:
- Combat Reflexes
- Mobility
- Combat Archery
- Deceptive Dodge
- Shot on the Run

High Options:
- Sidestep
- Elusive Target
- Combat Tactician
- other cool stuff



Spring Attack
Prereq: BAB +4, Dex 13 -- does not require Dodge

Automatic: Spring Attack -> Bounding Assault -> Rapid Blitz

Options:
- cool stuff
- more cool stuff

[digiman619]

Dodge

Low Options:
- Combat Reflexes
- Mobility
- Combat Archery
- Deceptive Dodge
- Shot on the Run

High Options:
- Sidestep
- Elusive Target
- Combat Tactician
- other cool stuff



Spring Attack
Prereq: BAB +4, Dex 13 -- does not require Dodge

Automatic: Spring Attack -> Bounding Assault -> Rapid Blitz

Options:
- cool stuff
- more cool stuff

I was thinking about this and realized that there was already a d20 book that tackeld this idea: Monte Cook's Iron Heroes had Mastery feats that scaled like that. I'd give a link to the book to show what I mean, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have an SRD, and getting a copy will cost about $15-20 dollars, so it's a bit much to ask to prove a point.

[AvatarVecna]

I'd like to see feats that improve with level, instead of chains that lock you into one ever-more-expensive style.

I'll second this. The the Feats that come up and character optimization discussions are the ones that either scale with your level or grant more options. Knowledge devotion scales with skill bonus, item familiar scales with skill ranks, Power Attack skills with base attack bonus and grants more options as you level, combat reflexes scales with dexterity and opens up some really nice options few some of the only useful feet trees in the game, every metamagic feat current number of options that scales with your level, crafting Feats Grant benefits that scale the more base money you have, and so on
Non-scaling Feats that get mentioned a lot are usually Feats that grant particularly interesting new ability rather than just a bonus., like darkstalker, robilar's gambit, martisl study/stance, steadfast determination, rapid sho, cleave, and so on. The only non scaling feet I can think of that doesn't Grant an interesting ability but rather just ran to a static bonus is improved initiative, because initiative is a number that doesn't really scale much with your level normally so the bonus from improved Initiative continues being worth the Feats lot for quite some time.