melee/magic balance [Archive] - Wizards Community

melee/magic balance [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
BevisIscariot
01-23-07, 10:22 PM In the game I DM for, we've had a lot of problems with spellcasters overpowering the melee classes, especially at higher levels -- and I've come across others experiencing the same problem all over these boards. So . . . this is what I've done: get rid of the attack penalties on the extra attacks that characters get once they acquire a +6 BAB. This obviously benefits the melle classes the most, but there weren't any epnalties associated with extra atacks in 2nd ed. and that seemed to work out just fine. So far it's worked miracles in my game -- the classes seem much more balanced now and everybody's having a better time. Any thoughts, pro or con?
Seerow
01-23-07, 11:32 PM It doesn't change anything really.

It makes melee types deal more damage, but that's not their problem, it never has been. Their problem is mobility, versatility, weakness to everything spellcasters can do, among other things.

In short, you fixed nothing.
BevisIscariot
01-23-07, 11:55 PM I agree there's more wrong than just damage, but damage helps -- every little bit helps. Spellcasters can dish out tremendous damage -- now my melee characters can dish out a decent amount too. Saying it doesn't change anything is, well, a little ridiculous -- but everybody's entitled to their opinion.
Seerow
01-24-07, 12:15 AM Oh, it changes something. It changes the damage melee deals from Superior to Ridiculous.

But in terms of balance, it doesn't really help.

The only way a Caster can outdamage a Warrior with spells is by going Nova, which he can only do once, maybe twice in a day. And even that requires a fair bit of optimization and twinking metamagic effects, and likely expensive items (Metamagic Rods come to mind) to pull off what a mediocre melee build is doing round-to-round.

What you've done is made Power Attack and its ilk exponentially more potent, and made full attacks a death sentence to most characters.

What it doesn't fix is the innability of most fighter-types to actually COMPLETE a full attack, because everyone else on the battlefield outstrips them in mobility every-which-way.
BevisIscariot
01-24-07, 12:50 AM I appreciate your feedback, but I still disagree. None of the melee characters in my campaign have a lot of trouble simply getting all their swings in on a full attack -- but because of damage reductions and the super high ACs the opponents get at high levels, either their damage is insignificant or they don't hit at all. Meanwhile, the spellcasters often need only get through some pitiful touch AC with spells that ignore the damage reduction.
Seerow
01-24-07, 01:02 AM Spell Casters deal with Spell Resistance, Saves, and Energy Resistance.

Melee Warriors deal with AC and DR.

Spell Casters actually have to deal with more than your average melee warrior to deal damage.
mrmagos
01-25-07, 02:56 PM Spell Casters deal with Spell Resistance, Saves, and Energy Resistance.

Melee Warriors deal with AC and DR.

Spell Casters actually have to deal with more than your average melee warrior to deal damage.

This is true.

The deficiency is not with the warrior's abilities necessarily, but how they are equipped. Every warrior should have at least one each blunt, piercing, and slashing weapon to get past those types of DR, and at higher levels they should be magical, with the greatest enhancement on their primary weapon. If a character can "see" their attacks aren't effective (e.g. "You swing your longsword with great might, and connect! However, what would normally be a telling blow to most creatures, it merely bounces off the monster's skin, with seemingly no effect."), they can experiment with other weapon types. For warrior classes, DR should be an annoyance at best.

If the issue is with them hitting with subsequent attacks during a full attack action, then they need to focus on boosting attack bonuses by putting their ability point increases in the relevant ability, obtain feats to boost attack bonuses, and/or by magical means. If your warriors are using these valuable resources elsewhere, that's fine; the game isn't all about combat. They just need to be reminded that it is a trade-off.

FYI, the biggest damage-dealers that I've seen are Rogues and Arcane Archers (or archers in general, for that matter), not spellcasters. If you want to see your warriors deal more damage, you can try putting your spellcasters in situations where they have to conserve spells.

I do disagree with it, but in the grand scheme of things it isn't overwhelmingly unbalanced. I believe what you've really accomplished is made combat shorter and more survivable for the characters.
Seerow
01-25-07, 05:21 PM Arcane Archers suck. Any straight Ranger will beat them.

Other than that, I agree.
BevisIscariot
01-25-07, 11:05 PM This is true.

The deficiency is not with the warrior's abilities necessarily, but how they are equipped. Every warrior should have at least one each blunt, piercing, and slashing weapon to get past those types of DR, and at higher levels they should be magical, with the greatest enhancement on their primary weapon. If a character can "see" their attacks aren't effective (e.g. "You swing your longsword with great might, and connect! However, what would normally be a telling blow to most creatures, it merely bounces off the monster's skin, with seemingly no effect."), they can experiment with other weapon types. For warrior classes, DR should be an annoyance at best.

If the issue is with them hitting with subsequent attacks during a full attack action, then they need to focus on boosting attack bonuses by putting their ability point increases in the relevant ability, obtain feats to boost attack bonuses, and/or by magical means. If your warriors are using these valuable resources elsewhere, that's fine; the game isn't all about combat. They just need to be reminded that it is a trade-off.

FYI, the biggest damage-dealers that I've seen are Rogues and Arcane Archers (or archers in general, for that matter), not spellcasters. If you want to see your warriors deal more damage, you can try putting your spellcasters in situations where they have to conserve spells.

I do disagree with it, but in the grand scheme of things it isn't overwhelmingly unbalanced. I believe what you've really accomplished is made combat shorter and more survivable for the characters.

I've been using it for a while now and you're right on all three counts at the end there: it doesn't seem to cause an imbalance, combat encounters don't take as long and the characters don't die as often -- in my book, those are all pros. As far as the DR stuff is concerned, yeah, you're right: my players could maximize better, but they've never been power gamers; they're kind of old fashioned about things. We only use the core classes, no PrCs, and even though multiclassing is an option nobody ever does it. Maybe we played 2nd ed. too long. Finally, most of the DR problems that arise with our melee characters don't revolve around bludgeoning, slashing, etc. -- usually it's because a weapon has to be good aligned or it's one of those DR no matter what you've got situations. Meanwhile, the casters (who have high int & wis scores) have a lot of spells, a lot of scrolls and a few good wands. They can definitely nova more than once or twice or a day -- more like once an encounter (at maybe 4 encounters a day) before they rope trick it and hide and start all over. (Aside: as a DM, I hate rope trick)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BevisIscariot 01-23-07, 10:22 PM	In the game I DM for, we've had a lot of problems with spellcasters overpowering the melee classes, especially at higher levels -- and I've come across others experiencing the same problem all over these boards. So . . . this is what I've done: get rid of the attack penalties on the extra attacks that characters get once they acquire a +6 BAB. This obviously benefits the melle classes the most, but there weren't any epnalties associated with extra atacks in 2nd ed. and that seemed to work out just fine. So far it's worked miracles in my game -- the classes seem much more balanced now and everybody's having a better time. Any thoughts, pro or con?
Seerow 01-23-07, 11:32 PM	It doesn't change anything really. It makes melee types deal more damage, but that's not their problem, it never has been. Their problem is mobility, versatility, weakness to everything spellcasters can do, among other things. In short, you fixed nothing.
BevisIscariot 01-23-07, 11:55 PM	I agree there's more wrong than just damage, but damage helps -- every little bit helps. Spellcasters can dish out tremendous damage -- now my melee characters can dish out a decent amount too. Saying it doesn't change anything is, well, a little ridiculous -- but everybody's entitled to their opinion.
Seerow 01-24-07, 12:15 AM	Oh, it changes something. It changes the damage melee deals from Superior to Ridiculous. But in terms of balance, it doesn't really help. The only way a Caster can outdamage a Warrior with spells is by going Nova, which he can only do once, maybe twice in a day. And even that requires a fair bit of optimization and twinking metamagic effects, and likely expensive items (Metamagic Rods come to mind) to pull off what a mediocre melee build is doing round-to-round. What you've done is made Power Attack and its ilk exponentially more potent, and made full attacks a death sentence to most characters. What it doesn't fix is the innability of most fighter-types to actually COMPLETE a full attack, because everyone else on the battlefield outstrips them in mobility every-which-way.
BevisIscariot 01-24-07, 12:50 AM	I appreciate your feedback, but I still disagree. None of the melee characters in my campaign have a lot of trouble simply getting all their swings in on a full attack -- but because of damage reductions and the super high ACs the opponents get at high levels, either their damage is insignificant or they don't hit at all. Meanwhile, the spellcasters often need only get through some pitiful touch AC with spells that ignore the damage reduction.
Seerow 01-24-07, 01:02 AM	Spell Casters deal with Spell Resistance, Saves, and Energy Resistance. Melee Warriors deal with AC and DR. Spell Casters actually have to deal with more than your average melee warrior to deal damage.
mrmagos 01-25-07, 02:56 PM	Spell Casters deal with Spell Resistance, Saves, and Energy Resistance. Melee Warriors deal with AC and DR. Spell Casters actually have to deal with more than your average melee warrior to deal damage. This is true. The deficiency is not with the warrior's abilities necessarily, but how they are equipped. Every warrior should have at least one each blunt, piercing, and slashing weapon to get past those types of DR, and at higher levels they should be magical, with the greatest enhancement on their primary weapon. If a character can "see" their attacks aren't effective (e.g. "You swing your longsword with great might, and connect! However, what would normally be a telling blow to most creatures, it merely bounces off the monster's skin, with seemingly no effect."), they can experiment with other weapon types. For warrior classes, DR should be an annoyance at best. If the issue is with them hitting with subsequent attacks during a full attack action, then they need to focus on boosting attack bonuses by putting their ability point increases in the relevant ability, obtain feats to boost attack bonuses, and/or by magical means. If your warriors are using these valuable resources elsewhere, that's fine; the game isn't all about combat. They just need to be reminded that it is a trade-off. FYI, the biggest damage-dealers that I've seen are Rogues and Arcane Archers (or archers in general, for that matter), not spellcasters. If you want to see your warriors deal more damage, you can try putting your spellcasters in situations where they have to conserve spells. I do disagree with it, but in the grand scheme of things it isn't overwhelmingly unbalanced. I believe what you've really accomplished is made combat shorter and more survivable for the characters.
Seerow 01-25-07, 05:21 PM	Arcane Archers suck. Any straight Ranger will beat them. Other than that, I agree.
BevisIscariot 01-25-07, 11:05 PM	This is true. The deficiency is not with the warrior's abilities necessarily, but how they are equipped. Every warrior should have at least one each blunt, piercing, and slashing weapon to get past those types of DR, and at higher levels they should be magical, with the greatest enhancement on their primary weapon. If a character can "see" their attacks aren't effective (e.g. "You swing your longsword with great might, and connect! However, what would normally be a telling blow to most creatures, it merely bounces off the monster's skin, with seemingly no effect."), they can experiment with other weapon types. For warrior classes, DR should be an annoyance at best. If the issue is with them hitting with subsequent attacks during a full attack action, then they need to focus on boosting attack bonuses by putting their ability point increases in the relevant ability, obtain feats to boost attack bonuses, and/or by magical means. If your warriors are using these valuable resources elsewhere, that's fine; the game isn't all about combat. They just need to be reminded that it is a trade-off. FYI, the biggest damage-dealers that I've seen are Rogues and Arcane Archers (or archers in general, for that matter), not spellcasters. If you want to see your warriors deal more damage, you can try putting your spellcasters in situations where they have to conserve spells. I do disagree with it, but in the grand scheme of things it isn't overwhelmingly unbalanced. I believe what you've really accomplished is made combat shorter and more survivable for the characters. I've been using it for a while now and you're right on all three counts at the end there: it doesn't seem to cause an imbalance, combat encounters don't take as long and the characters don't die as often -- in my book, those are all pros. As far as the DR stuff is concerned, yeah, you're right: my players could maximize better, but they've never been power gamers; they're kind of old fashioned about things. We only use the core classes, no PrCs, and even though multiclassing is an option nobody ever does it. Maybe we played 2nd ed. too long. Finally, most of the DR problems that arise with our melee characters don't revolve around bludgeoning, slashing, etc. -- usually it's because a weapon has to be good aligned or it's one of those DR no matter what you've got situations. Meanwhile, the casters (who have high int & wis scores) have a lot of spells, a lot of scrolls and a few good wands. They can definitely nova more than once or twice or a day -- more like once an encounter (at maybe 4 encounters a day) before they rope trick it and hide and start all over. (Aside: as a DM, I hate rope trick)