And I think I've realized why.
DMs: We need to quit being so slavish to the rules. It's time to ad hoc the insane. It's time to allow the unbelievable. It's time... to throw the nonmagical people a bone.
Mr. "I Can Bend the Universe"
Alright, I understand why high-level spellcasters are perceived as rocking ten times harder than all non-spellcasters. For crying out loud, they can do anything! A Wish spell is a blank check to break the game, and what good is 150 HP when your cleric can recover that much in a single Heal spell six times a day? Sure, Mr. Fighter Man, you get four attacks and can deal 1d8+10 damage with each of them to a single guy, so that's 4d8+40... assuming even your crappy bottom two hits connect. More likely, that's 2d8+20, and the cleric could do near that much at level 4. A high-level Wizard can turn a man's blood into acid, and a high-level Cleric can ring up God on a red phone and direct his smiting fist.
Disintegrate, a 6th level spell, deals 40d6 damage. That's an average of 140 damage. If we're going wide dispersal, Cone of Cold (a 5th level spell) deals 20d6 (avg. 70) to a 120-foot cone. Even if everyone in that space passes their reflex save for half damage, that's instant death to almost everything level 3 and lower in an ENORMOUS radius. When it comes to almost anything, spellcasters rule the day.
...right?
The Basic Realization
So how do we balance THAT out? I mean, either you have magic or you don't, right? There are some "nice" 4th level Ranger spells, especially in the complete books, but nothing anybody is going to crap their pants over. How can a Fighter compete with a Wizard!?
It's simple, and it all comes down to one basic realization: Wizards and Sorcerers warp physics by training the mind. Clerics and Druids warp physics by training the soul. It's time that Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians and Rangers are allowed to warp physics by training the body.
It's that simple, isn't it? Now, I know what you're saying. No, your Fighter cannot throw a strength-based fireball into a crowd of enemy soldiers, and your Barbarian can't fly. But they should be allowed to do things that are as impressive because of their incredible training.
Here's the How
Okay, easily said, and probably not agreed upon in full by most anyone. That's okay. I'm going to proceed to show you what I mean by telling you how what I suggested can be accomplished. There are a few steps.
Step 1: Allow the Impossible
DMs, tear the word "impossible" out of your dictionary. If the strong, agile Fighter wants to run up the wall, backflip over someone and impale the guy on his spear, don't tell him "that's impossible." Tell him to start making checks. If the Rogue wants to spring from the shadows and snap the unsuspecting guard's neck, don't tell him that the coup de grace rules don't work that way. Tell him the checks and the penalties involved, and let him get to it.
Yes, this requires you to be flexible and (shock and horror!) to ad hoc all sorts of checks and penalties. I know a lot of you are cringing at the thought of this right now. How ever will you get buy without an annotated table stating clearly what is possible and what it entails? Well, figure it out. Flexibility is the hallmark of a great DM.
Step 2: Throw Some Things in the Trash
You see that Epic Level Handbook? I know, it cost a fortune. I bought one too. I want you to do something. Tear out the pages that detail incredibly high-CR monsters. Three-hole punch them, waterproof them, and put them in a nice binder. Then throw the rest of that book in the trash.
Perhaps I'm being a little overdramatic here, but I cannot express to you how incredible it is to me that you need to roll a 150 on a swim check to go up a waterfall. As far as I'm concerned, 40 is plenty. If you have a +20 on a skill check and roll a natural 20, there should be no reason you can't bend the rules of space and time a little. That's approximately 10 higher than any Olympic champ in the history of mankind has done on anything. If you roll a huge jump check, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to run up the ramp, jump off the tower and hurl your weapon the rest of the way to where that damn Wizard is taunting you with his hoity-toity fly spell. Tune those enormous DCs down, down, down. You'll encourage less ridiculous twinking that way as an added bonus, because there will be no need to have a +140 on something at level 20. Of course, if you DO get a 160 on a check at level 20, you should get a blank check to rule the universe as far as the confines of that skill is concerned. Let that Ranger hide so well that he, for all regular purposes, is actually invisible.
The next thing you need to throw in the trash is the absolutely insane number of feats that nobody should have to take. I'm talking about any feat that grants you the ability to do something that anyone with enough training could be reasonably assumed to be able to do. Instead, I move that those things be turned into regular combat maneuvers. Heck, if you want to (and I encourage it) write some combat maneuvers of your own and give them prerequisites. There are plenty of things that would require you to have +X base attack bonus or have XX strength to do that should NOT require a feat slot.
The final thing to throw in the trash is the crazy number of prerequisites on certain feats. I'm looking at Whirlwind Attack and a few others here. Take your white out and make those things obtainable. If my Fighter wants to swing in a circle and hit everything, he shouldn't need to be really good at dodging. If people want to add capabilities to their characters, let them.
Step 3: Let the Non-Magical Guys Use Their Resources
What does your Fighter have going for him that the Wizard doesn't? Tons of hit points, a huge base attack bonus and a pile of bonus feats. So let him really use them. Maybe a Ranger can't disintegrate a dragon, but there's no reason he can't take a -10 or -20 to his attack roll in order to try and blind the dragon by shooting it in the eyes (and, of course, you needn't apply the dragon's enormous natural armor bonus to that AC.) If rules for called shots don't exist, then make some up. Ad hoc them. Experienced combatants can disable or destroy certain parts of an enemy instead of just hacking away at some ephemeral "hit points," so let them do it.
And if a feat doesn't exist but your character has an idea for something they want their character to do, either let them do it without a feat (see above about allowing the impossible) or allow them to create the feat out of whole cloth. Work with them to determine some reasonable prerequisites. Don't "pad" feats with unnecessary prerequisites just to make them hard to attain. Fighters should be able to do almost anything they want that discipline and training could glean. Just because there's no "armor focus" or "armor specialization" feats doesn't mean your Fighter shouldn't be able to get more out of his full plate than the Cleric.
Let your Rogue substitute sneak attack damage for all manner of crazy things, like crippling an opponent or making them bleed, and let them do it without a feat. Let them do it just because they really could. If your rouge wants to substitute 8d6 sneak attack damage in order to make the guy's voice stop working, let him do it even though you know there's no physically possible way of doing that. That's 8d6 damage. That's roughly the equivalent of having a house dropped on you. If he's giving that up for some other purpose, let him perform his specialty. Take where the line is drawn and drag it several miles in the direction of allowance.
Perfect Game Balance?
So will this make the game perfectly balanced? No. This is just part of the solution. But I think you'll find that this makes nonmagical characters so much more fun to play that nobody gives a damn, and the best part is that it doesn't steal the spellcasters' thunder. The main point here is to make high-level nonmagical characters more fun to play and to do it in a way that makes sense. This is a step in the right direction, and your Fighters and Rangers will thank you for it.
Sorry, that just slipped out. But seriously, most of this stuff is what I've been thinking forever and wondered why no one else had thought of it.
Example: A few weeks back I was reading a thread on Coup de Grace and the rules of the action. Apparently some player's rogue wanted to step up behind an evil overlord, grab him in surprise and put a dagger to his throat and threaten to kill him. Then if things didn't go his way, he would slit the throat of the king.
While that just about sent everyone into hysterics! Cries of how CdG didn't work like that, how a dagger only did 1d4 damage and therefore couldn't kill someone, how the rogue could never grapple the king resounded through the thread. They started trying to come up with all sorts of feat combos and rules interpretations to decide how that should work, and I sat there shaking my head.
To me it seemed so simple: If the rogue wants to grab someone and put a knife to their throat, let him do it! Make it a grapple check with the king getting a serious penalty because he's being taken by surprise. If the rogue then wants to slit the throat, let him do it. Who cares if the dagger does 1d4, or if he can't hit the AC of the king, or if the CdG rules "don't work like that." It was for a flavourful game and an enhancement to the story that the player and DM were trying to make.
Apologist, you have nothing to apologize for here. You have some resounding logic.
I agree that spellcasters dominate the game easily, which is (as you correctly pointed out) inherent in the game mechanics.
Allowing ad hoc actions have become easier with Action Points, which are actually designed to allow these sort of actions on a limited basis, assuming your DM will allow them to not just give a bonus on rolls.
Savage Worlds, a system that really favours the non-magical people over mages, is built around the basis "Fun! Fast! Furious," and therefore the system is often abbreviated FFF. It's equivalent of Power Attack is called Wild Attack (more damage, less Parry [equivalent of AC]), and Whirlwind Attack could be mimicked by taking the Multi-action penalty (-2 to ALL rolls for each action beyond your first two).
Called shots are a built-in mechanic, as are throwing sand in your opponents face or jumping skyscrapers... assuming you roll well enough any of this could happen.
I haven't read much about this 4th edition that's supposed to come out soon (somewhere in 2008, IIRC), but I sincerely hope that Wizards will look at Savage Worlds for it's mechanics on "Combat Tricks" which is a simple Agility/Smarts check (in D&D it'd either be a dex or int check, depending) to outsmart/move faster than your opponent to gain minor advantages in combat.
However, D&D remains my clear favorite of the two systems because of one simple thing; the ability to take 10. In savage worlds there's no mechanic like that. You roll the dice (a dice varying from d4 to d12 plus 1d6, take best result; allowing for explosive dice) and if you hit DC 4 (after modifiers for the difficulty of the task, you succeed. No matter how trained you are, there's still that small chance you'll fail at something you've done a billion times... and that bugs me.
Again, excellent article!
The wizard is shooting fireballs. I don't expect to compete with that, and as long as we are on the same team I wont try. The fighter is like a lineman in football. He doesn't get the glory, but if he misses an attacker then the QB(wizard) is done. He is just as important, and the wizard knows that. I guess I am like this because when I was a player nobody ever cared about how much damage someone else did, and unless there was a "bad dice" day the chances of us dying were not good. I remember one battle where my fighter rolled about 3 or 4 crits in a row. Nobody complained, they were happy because we were greatly outnumbered and I probably saved the party.
P.S. As long as everyone can stay alive fighting the same CR creatures then it is balanced enough.
Another side benefit from allowing non-magical characters to attempt the "impossible" is more intelligent play. This might scare a few DM's out there, but maybe if you could make a climb check at -20 to fight normally with one hand while climbing, you might get more intelligent tactics, with the rogue or monk scaling a wall to get into a flanking position. Maybe the fighter's Jump and Ride skills let him jump onto the dragon and stab it in the spine with a short sword while clinging with his other hand and legs. If the option is there to do cool stuff, cool stuff will happen.
If the strong, agile Fighter wants to run up the wall, backflip over someone and impale the guy on his spear, don't tell him "that's impossible." Tell him to start making checks.
This is already possible by the rules. Do a Tumble check and attack.
If the Rogue wants to spring from the shadows and snap the unsuspecting guard's neck, don't tell him that the coup de grace rules don't work that way. Tell him the checks and the penalties involved, and let him get to it.
No, this is a sneak attack. For all purposes in dealing with normal people (low level npcs) this is equivalent to instant death, i.e. coup de grace. Clearly it should be harder to kill someone that is more powerful.
What I'm trying to say is: the d&d combat system is an abstraction. You can flavorfully describe your actions any way you like, but the mechanics are still the same.
If you start winging it with the mechanics I think you are on a slippery slope. Like your example of the rogue substituting 8d6 sneak attack to effectively silence his foe. This may be cool once, but what do you do when the rogue use this tactic to incapacitate every spellcaster from now on? Or the ranger blinding the dragon? A -10 penalty to attack to virtually have an "I win" seems like a good deal at higher levels.
So while you are bashing the rules for being to strict and inflexible, by doing it your way you actually create more rules. And these are rules that have no play testing, and thus are likely to be highly unbalanced.
First, I've read some very strong arguments against Called Shots. I can't find the particular link I was looking for, but some of the arguments were that:
If you give extra damage for hitting an unarmored part of the body, you have to give extra damage for hitting anyone unarmored.
Sometimes it renders armor worthless. For example, you try to hit the BBEG in the eyes by shooting through his full plate's face slit. The face slit is a Fine creature, giving it +8 to AC, but there's no armor there, so it gets -2 to AC anyway.
And sometimes it has both problems. A character is wearing a breastplate, so you swing for his legs. The legs are a Small creature, giving them +1 to AC. It's actually easier to hit the legs, and you're asking for extra power on that attack?
Also, when I showed him this thread, a friend of mine pointed out that Fighters and Rogues aren't the only ones who can have high Str and/or Dex scores-- in fact, the only characters who pretty much always won't are Wizards and Sorcerers. Cleric, in particular, can use Divine Power.
Your ideas on skills are a really good start, though I think there are a few problems.
Problem 1-----------------------------
I don't think you can simply play it on the fly, it would be unfair on both the casters (who have clear-cut guidelines on when and how they can bend reality) and the non-casters (who would resent the inconsistency). The problem then would be to provide some guideline DCs by comparing the effect achieved to a spell.
Having a think about this I made climbing at double base speed (like a climbing run, such as Fezzick and the Man in Black's pursuit on the cliffs of insanity) to be roughly comparable to the 2nd level spell spider walk, and as such require the character to beat the normal climb DC by 15. Another one I considered was escaping an apparently inescapable magical bond, such as force cage (7th level spell), which I made to be beating the save DC by 25.
You would need to assemble a set of tables showing these sorts of heroic actions to provide guidance for the GM, to ensure consistency, and for the players, to allow them a clear idea of what they can expect to do. A bit of work but not a big problem.
Problem 2 ----------------------------------------------
Casters have skills as well. You need to be careful about which skills can be used in this way or it does very little to redress the balance between the classes. I think this means in practice restricting it to Appraise, Balance, Climb, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Tumble, Use Rope. Skills casters have to cross-class into.
Problem 3 -----------------------------------------------
The skills solution impacts the Paladin and the Fighter barely at all, as they have poor skill lists and low points. Unfortunately it is the Paladin and Fighter who are most impacted by the lack of a step-shift in power from low to high level. The Rogue and Monk who suffer least in this respect are the two classes the bonus impacts most.
Combat Feats --------------------------------------------
I think you are right to look at feats but wrong in the solution you offer. Turning feats into combat maneuvres doesn't help. If you look at the minimum level at which a non-human fighter can achieve a particular combat feat you find (in the PHB and apologies if I counted wrong):
33 feats that can be gained at 1st level
2 feats that can be gained at 2nd level
5 feats at 4th level
2 feats at 6th level
3 feats at 8th level
2 feats at 11th level
1 feat at 12th level
That's like having a primary spellcaster whose spell list has 35 1st level spells, just 13 spells spread over 2nd to 6th levels, and no spells of 7th to 9th level. So at levels 13+ all they get is the ability to cast more low level spells. Making access to the low level spells easier doesn't balance that.
All it really needs a set of feats that kick in between 8th and 16th level (maybe even a few at 16+) that match well with spell-casting abilities of the same level. There is nothing wrong with the pre-requisites, if anything there aren't enough abilities with a very high pre-req.
But I think you are spot on with the your analysis and it was a problem I deliberately tried to resolve in developing my own non-caster classes by giving them abilities at level 11-20 which showed the same step-shift as spell casters do (and I rewrote my fighter variant by adding 11 new fighter bonus feats with prereqs of +8, +12, +16, +20 base attack bonus, inspired largely by your article).
In conclusion, splatbooks fix everything.
To me it seemed so simple: If the rogue wants to grab someone and put a knife to their throat, let him do it! Make it a grapple check with the king getting a serious penalty because he's being taken by surprise. If the rogue then wants to slit the throat, let him do it. Who cares if the dagger does 1d4, or if he can't hit the AC of the king, or if the CdG rules "don't work like that." It was for a flavourful game and an enhancement to the story that the player and DM were trying to make.
Exactly. What's funny is that with the rules for concealment, IIRC, your rogue would not even be able to hide in a dark room, wait for the mayor of Townsville to walk in, and sneak attack him unless he spent an action to turn on a light. Ridiculous. I think it's a mechanical bias against mortality: the publishers want it to be more difficult to kill people.
Apologist, you have nothing to apologize for here. You have some resounding logic.
a·pol·o·gist /əˈpɒlədʒɪst/ [uh-pol-uh-jist]
–noun 1. a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.
Apologizing means never having to say "I'm sorry" ;). /end grammarwhoring
Over all, that style of play lets everyone be creative and have tons of fun without buying the "rule book of the week" from wizards. Hell, I can't even follow half the "take this feat and that combined with x magical item" arguments anymore. Too freakin' complicated half the time and you usually have to own about a half a dozen books to find the appropriate feats. Not to mention that to go that route you have to burn feat slot after feat slot on worthless stepping stones to do one maneuver that your player wants to use in one very specific situation.
As for fighters being random guys that swing swords, I would argue that there's a lot more to swinging a sword that just flailing about untrained. Why is it so difficult to assume that the 10th level fighter is just as well versed at his game as the 10 level wizard is at his. We should be talking about a highly trained killing machine who knows swordplay, bow-work, and the anatomy of the things he's trying to kill so he can so so more efficiently, battlefield tactics and so on. He's a professional, a Delta Operator for the fantasy medieval setting. Not a picture of Joe blow with a sword.
Way to go on thinking outside the box on this post.
If you start winging it with the mechanics I think you are on a slippery slope. Like your example of the rogue substituting 8d6 sneak attack to effectively silence his foe. This may be cool once, but what do you do when the rogue use this tactic to incapacitate every spellcaster from now on? Or the ranger blinding the dragon? A -10 penalty to attack to virtually have an "I win" seems like a good deal at higher levels.
For the first part, if the Rouge is capable of dealing an 8d6 sneak attack against a spellcaster he's probably capable of killing it outright. More importantly, I believe Silence is a 3rd level spell. If a 5th level Wizard can incapacitate every spellcaster (and in a radius if I remember correctly,) why can't a 15th level Rouge do it?
For the second part, Blindness/Deafness is a 2nd level spell. Again, a 3rd level cleric can throw it out nonstop. Why can't a ranger that can -hit- a dragon at a -10/-20 penalty blind him in one eye? Dragons have tons of hit dice, and therefore ample access to Blind Fighting and all other manner of attacks. Plus, high-level dragons have access to spellcasting, spell-like abilities, breath weapons and high listen modifiers. Blinding them is hardly an "I win."
But your criticism also brought up something that I did forget to say, and something that definitely needs to be stated: don't remove saving throws from the equation. The dragon who gets hit by the Ranger's -10 attack should still get a Fortitude save to resist being blinded, as should the spellcaster that the Rogue is trying to silence. If dying from massive damage requires a fortitude save, so should almost all applications of specific damage as well.
If you give extra damage for hitting an unarmored part of the body, you have to give extra damage for hitting anyone unarmored.
Sometimes it renders armor worthless. For example, you try to hit the BBEG in the eyes by shooting through his full plate's face slit. The face slit is a Fine creature, giving it +8 to AC, but there's no armor there, so it gets -2 to AC anyway.
And sometimes it has both problems. A character is wearing a breastplate, so you swing for his legs. The legs are a Small creature, giving them +1 to AC. It's actually easier to hit the legs, and you're asking for extra power on that attack?
As to the first point, I don't suggest tacking on extra damage for bypassing armor unless you use variants that make armor add damage reduction. That would be ridiculous, yes.
As to the second parts, this is one area where I would depart from the rules for the sake of game balance and usefulness. My ad hoc rules generally make the penalty on eyes, the throat and groin -20 just because strikes against those areas are so tactically potent.
Also, when I showed him this thread, a friend of mine pointed out that Fighters and Rogues aren't the only ones who can have high Str and/or Dex scores-- in fact, the only characters who pretty much always won't are Wizards and Sorcerers. Cleric, in particular, can use Divine Power.
This is a real problem. I don't have a solution to this. The Cleric and Druid are pretty hardcore broken, so... yeah. I'm really open to suggestions here. The only thing I'd say is that the Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian and Paladin have high BAB compared to the others, so when it comes to hitting higher ACs or taking large penalties they'll still be the best at it. Unfortunately, this doesn't address Divine Power, Bless, etc. that let the Cleric and Druid hit even *harder* and *more accurately* than the fighter, so... this is a really good point.
Still, I think the Cleric and Druid are more likely to be slinging spells than going melee anyway. Just because they can.
Problem 1-----------------------------
I don't think you can simply play it on the fly, it would be unfair on both the casters (who have clear-cut guidelines on when and how they can bend reality) and the non-casters (who would resent the inconsistency). The problem then would be to provide some guideline DCs by comparing the effect achieved to a spell.
Having a think about this I made climbing at double base speed (like a climbing run, such as Fezzick and the Man in Black's pursuit on the cliffs of insanity) to be roughly comparable to the 2nd level spell spider walk, and as such require the character to beat the normal climb DC by 15. Another one I considered was escaping an apparently inescapable magical bond, such as force cage (7th level spell), which I made to be beating the save DC by 25.
You would need to assemble a set of tables showing these sorts of heroic actions to provide guidance for the GM, to ensure consistency, and for the players, to allow them a clear idea of what they can expect to do. A bit of work but not a big problem.
This is a good point, but I think it can mostly be left up to individual DMs instead of making a big list of stuff everyone's going to argue over. It's one of those things I see better as a set of house rules that takes into account the DM's style of story, the level of roleplay and the composition of the party.
But yes, consistency on the matter is important.
Problem 2 ----------------------------------------------
Casters have skills as well. You need to be careful about which skills can be used in this way or it does very little to redress the balance between the classes. I think this means in practice restricting it to Appraise, Balance, Climb, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Tumble, Use Rope. Skills casters have to cross-class into.
Here I actually disagree. Caster's specific skills rarely have opportunity for abuse outside of their specific uses, and the athletic skills are the most fudgeable in this manner. Why would you bother trying to make crazy Jump checks when you have a Fly spell?
Problem 3 -----------------------------------------------
The skills solution impacts the Paladin and the Fighter barely at all, as they have poor skill lists and low points. Unfortunately it is the Paladin and Fighter who are most impacted by the lack of a step-shift in power from low to high level. The Rogue and Monk who suffer least in this respect are the two classes the bonus impacts most.
This is, again, a very good point. As others have suggested, expanding lists of class skills is one solution. The other part of the solution, I think, is to introduce more bonus feats for Fighters (who get a lot of feat slots) and allowing stuff with the high Base Attack Bonus (large penalties for impressive attacks) that Fighters and Paladins will excel at. Other than that, I don't feel too bad for Paladins; they can dish out huge damage to evil people by the end of the game and have ridiculous saves. They don't need a ton of help IMO.
Combat Feats --------------------------------------------
I think you are right to look at feats but wrong in the solution you offer. Turning feats into combat maneuvres doesn't help. If you look at the minimum level at which a non-human fighter can achieve a particular combat feat you find (in the PHB and apologies if I counted wrong):
33 feats that can be gained at 1st level
2 feats that can be gained at 2nd level
5 feats at 4th level
2 feats at 6th level
3 feats at 8th level
2 feats at 11th level
1 feat at 12th level
That's like having a primary spellcaster whose spell list has 35 1st level spells, just 13 spells spread over 2nd to 6th levels, and no spells of 7th to 9th level. So at levels 13+ all they get is the ability to cast more low level spells. Making access to the low level spells easier doesn't balance that.
All it really needs a set of feats that kick in between 8th and 16th level (maybe even a few at 16+) that match well with spell-casting abilities of the same level. There is nothing wrong with the pre-requisites, if anything there aren't enough abilities with a very high pre-req.
Again, good points and I agree. Adding more high-level feats that allow your fighter to exploit those high-level feat slots are a good solution. I still think that a lot of feats could be made combat maneuvers, which would free your fighter up to work for those awesome chain feats later on in levels.
Sounds like someone needs to get his hands on... splatbooks! *theme music* A lot of what you're recommending has been done for you. If you want your fighter to jump up a wall, you can use psionics. Get Wild Talent, then Up the Walls (IIRC). He can run across horizontal surfaces by being cool. Tome of Battle is great for what you want; almost (note emphasis) supernatural tanks. If the ranger wants to hide so well that's he's invisible, he can take Martial Study and get Cloak of Deception. If the barbarian wants to backflip over someone and impale them, get him to take any of the Tiger Claw maneuvers that do just that. A fighter isn't a martial adept, which is what you seem to think he is. He's just Bob who has been swinging this sword so damn many times that he is always going to hit with it. Rangers aren't swordsages capable of being unseen in the middle of an empty room, they're people who can shoot people pretty well and have camouflage patterns painted on their face.
In conclusion, splatbooks fix everything.
This is purely a matter of taste, of course, but I don't like Splatbooks a lot. In my opinion, they're mostly expensive and tend to do a lot of stuff that I could have done for free. Other than that, I don't like the flavor a lot of them have and I don't like the game balance issues a lot of them bring to the table. I don't like pretty much forcing every member of my sizable gaming group to buy a series of new books in order to fix the problem, or, failing that, having a whole big section of my group sharing one vital book at character creation and level up time. That's a REAL headache.
Plus, and this is, again, just a personal pet peeve, but I can't stand having to take some kind of magical or psionic ability just to do what I think my Fighter should be able to do anyway. That's probably just me, but I despise having to do it.
Sorry to everyone who feels that their argument got shortchanged or misrepresented. It wasn't my intention to offend or attack anyone, nor to ignore arguments. Here's hoping for another round of good conversation on this matter.
That said, I must humbly agree with White_Whale that changing mechanics is a slippery slope. It’s true the rules aren’t perfectly balanced, but that certainly won’t end if you beef up fighters and rangers. Instead, I try to look for ways that the system already allows heroes to “warp physics by training the body”, as The_Apologist said.
Falling – The max damage anyone can take for falling is 20d6. Forget feather fall, a barbarian can fall roughly 15’ per HD without any fear of dying. By 12th lvl, he can literally skydive without a parachute.
Jumping – Why drop 15k on boots of flight when you can leap over your enemies? A barbarian who uses jump as a dump skill is guaranteed to clear a medium creature by 9th-lvl. A fighter can do it by 12th, and a monk will clear their entire threat range by 15th. Give that fighter an improved ring of jump, and by 20th-lvl he can jump at the end of turn one and not land until turn four. All three classes beat the world record long-jump by 11th-lvl.
Balance – By 12th-lvl, a rogue or ranger can take a charge action across a rope with no chance of falling. Not impressed? Imagine the rope is tied to an arrow which, last round, was shot into a flying enemy. Now charge..
.. or Climb up said rope at a rate of 5 feet/second.
I know at this rate I’ll never catch up with wish, but is that a bad thing? If nothing else, I’m trying to who that within the system are already some physics-bending builds. I know there are more than just these (for instance, if you beat a spot check by over 20, you practically are invisible), but alas I’m out of time.
This is purely a matter of taste, of course, but I don't like Splatbooks a lot. In my opinion, they're mostly expensive and tend to do a lot of stuff that I could have done for free. Other than that, I don't like the flavor a lot of them have and I don't like the game balance issues a lot of them bring to the table. I don't like pretty much forcing every member of my sizable gaming group to buy a series of new books in order to fix the problem, or, failing that, having a whole big section of my group sharing one vital book at character creation and level up time. That's a REAL headache.
Oh, sure. But in an average group, only two people are going to want the book, because the arcanist and divine caster are already magical. And if you have enough time to prepare, you can get one copy of each book and share it around. Basically, I'm saying that Wizards has already thrown the nonmagical people a bone by printing Book of Nine Swords.
Plus, and this is, again, just a personal pet peeve, but I can't stand having to take some kind of magical or psionic ability just to do what I think my Fighter should be able to do anyway. That's probably just me, but I despise having to do it.
Fair enough. I can understand wanting to have your fighter run up walls from pure skill instead of psionic powers. But it's easy to reflavour the feat. Instead of it being psionic, it means that your fighter has really good balance and is generally kickass. If you don't like having to spend a feat for it, then you can houserule it in, but be prepared for the casters to ask why they can't either. When the wizard is under the effects of Tenser's transformation, he's going to be just as physically perfected as the fighter. If he can't use the ability, then why can the fighter? The cleric can use divine power to be a powerful warrior because a god is helping him out. Why can't he do it? So you aren't throwing the nonmagical people a bone, you're throwing everyone a bone.
Conan RPG.
Seriously. I think you'll find a lot of what you want there. Combat maneuvers that only require things like a certain BAB or "free" feats that become available at a certain BAB or with other combinations.
Now that Conan 2E came out at GenCon, you might find a few 1E used books floating out there, or you might pick one up on pdf. It's well worth considering. (mmm, adding base reflex save to initiative by default...)
And you want to see magic take one in the shorts? Look at their rules for corruption... or consider the Black Company Setting's pass at magic.
points to consider.
very well written indeed, and your answers to the comments on sneak attack and blindness was what I was thinking myself.
What a spellcaster can do to a foe for free, should be possible for a fighter or ranger, not having to be a "Tome of Battle martial adept".
I dislike TOB for many reasons, one of them is that it is making a wider gap between fighters and the rest of the classes, as TOBs are very powerful, specially the Weapons Amplitude compared to wasting two feats to learn how to use the special martial weapon with +1 for example the "ugly-club-of-demon-death", the Warblade picks it up, shakes it a little in the morning and then is as proficient as the fighter who spent his whole adult life wielding it.
Its not that this is wrong, but a fighter should also not have to waste feats to get a proficiency to use a weapon like that.
And, the martial maneuvers has turned DnD's fast-paced combat system into a time-consuming orgy of card-flipping, stance-changing, maneuver-reloading mess.
I really like your ad hoc style of DMing, thats how I've done it for the past 30 years, and my players love it, most of the time. My players are used to me saying "roll and d20 and then we can discuss it", which basically means.
They roll 1-10 (failed), 11-14 (probably not, but lets talk) 15-18 (probably, but convince me), 19-20 (Ok, do it).
This is for things like "OK, I toss a rope around a treebransh, then swing myself out to the ship on the river and then I jump and cut the sail with my sword, sliding down and land on the deck."
Bottom line is, "We play DnD to have fun. I've we want a combat simulation, we can play SquadLeader, if we want cardflipping, we can play MtG".
Quick note, hands down I have found the easiest "called shot" mechanic. You can call your shot every time. If you forget to call it then too bad. "Eyes to Blind, Hands or feet to disable, or pierce amulet with magic arrow." you should try to call your shots every time. On a crit that triggers a massive damage save failure either kills you for vital shots like heart, or disables you like hand or wing or eye.
In my current sea-faring game, the group's fighter (a minotaur) took Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Anchor) so he could wield a giant anchor one-handed. I based the damage dice off a Large Dire Pick. He then paid for a custom made Keen Adamantine Anchor. Combine that with Rhino Hide armor and an already devastating charge attack, and you have a character that is standing toe-to-toe in damage output with a splatbook heavy warmage.
I'm pretty sure when he takes Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, GWF, GWS, and several of the PHB2 Fighter Feats, that he won't be bemoaning his pathetic ability to influence combat. Oh... and he's still the party's meat shield.
Our other combat character: a Dwarven Ranger who focuses in Mounted Combat. Sure, he had to take some splatbook material, but apparently Wild Plains Outrider gives you a full attack while mounted (within certain limitations, of course), and a two-handed Adamantine Dwarven Waraxe full attack is nothing to sneer at. Combine that with an almost profane Track ability...
Right now, we only have one Arcane Character, and honestly he doesn't deal more damage, on average, than any other party member (and he's no slouch, the other characters are just that good). It's as much a matter of player ability as rules set.
Are there some fixes that need to be made for the fighter? Probably. I even have some ideas myself. However, they can easily compete with any class out there, if the player knows what they are doing.
However!
I wouldn't view it as a fix or even a hint of a fix because anyone can make a homebrew rule on a spot. I am not looking for a game that will make me make up homebrew rules on the spot to help someone out, I am looking for a game where it is largely unneeded and when it happens, it's just for flavor or a crazy stunt. But I salute your good effort.
Apologist,
very well written indeed, and your answers to the comments on sneak attack and blindness was what I was thinking myself.
What a spellcaster can do to a foe for free, should be possible for a fighter or ranger, not having to be a "Tome of Battle martial adept".
Or maybe your fighter/ranger should just be a martial adept. Those classes suck. Everyone notices. Ad hoccing a bunch of random stuff is dangerous. ToB works.
I dislike TOB for many reasons
We're on.
one of them is that it is making a wider gap between fighters and the rest of the classes
Which classes? Fighters and fighters? It makes the gap between fighters and spellcasters smaller.
as TOBs are very powerful, specially the Weapons Amplitude compared to wasting two feats to learn how to use the special martial weapon with +1 for example the "ugly-club-of-demon-death", the Warblade picks it up, shakes it a little in the morning and then is as proficient as the fighter who spent his whole adult life wielding it.
Its not that this is wrong, but a fighter should also not have to waste feats to get a proficiency to use a weapon like that.
The fighter should play a warblade. You're saying "I don't like class A, because it is the same as class B except it fixes problem Z. B should have Z fixed too!" Just because fighters are terrible doesn't mean warblades are bad in any way.
And, the martial maneuvers has turned DnD's fast-paced combat system into a time-consuming orgy of card-flipping, stance-changing, maneuver-reloading mess.
1. It's way simpler then spellcasting. In my gaming group, the warblade takes the shortest turns, now that we have 3 spellcasters and a warblade. That might just be the players, though.
2. "I full attack" is fast paced, and boring. I'd rather have slow & fun then boring & fast.
I really like your ad hoc style of DMing, thats how I've done it for the past 30 years, and my players love it, most of the time. My players are used to me saying "roll and d20 and then we can discuss it", which basically means.
They roll 1-10 (failed), 11-14 (probably not, but lets talk) 15-18 (probably, but convince me), 19-20 (Ok, do it).
This is for things like "OK, I toss a rope around a treebranch, then swing myself out to the ship on the river and then I jump and cut the sail with my sword, sliding down and land on the deck."
Use Rope, Jump, attack, damage. It's unrealistic if they can do it even if they have no ranks in those skills. It devalues other players' investment in those skills.
Bottom line is, "We play DnD to have fun. I've we want a combat simulation, we can play SquadLeader, if we want cardflipping, we can play MtG".
Bottom line is, full-attacking every round isn't fun.
The high skill checks are there because swimming up a waterfall is something incredibly hard to do for a human. In game terms you can get items and feats to improve your skill points a lot, meaning that one can possibly hit 150 but it won't be something that happens every day.
You talk about someone hitting 150 on his hide check should practically be invisible. That'd be rather unfair. You can only hide in plain sight with the equally named ability that only a few classes obtain, such as the assassin. Giving it to anyone who manages to hit 150 is harsh. Besides that, being invisible is equivalent to having +20 on your hide modifier if you're walking and +40 if you're standing still, so even invisible people can be spotted.
There is one rule in d20 modern that I've started to love: If you get more damage than your constitution score, you have to roll a fortitude save equal to the damage or you'll die. Granted, I don't think d20 modern damage reaches as high as D&D damage does, but the rule creates lethal situations and tactics that are likely to work. The rogue can jump out of the shadows and sneak attack someone now, but chances of that person dying are slim if he's of the same EL as the rogue. What the victim will do in the next turn is call out for help and the rogue failed. With this little addition, the rogue will most likely kill him with a slight margin of error. Granted it needs some fine tuning for D&D.
I don't think balance should be much of an issue in D&D. It's about the fun in playing you have. I love meleers such as the fighter. I am the first to charge the monster and use my tactical feats to mess up their formation (or bull rush them closer together to make the wizards' AoE more successful). I love that the fighter has a few options (such as sundering, disarming, tripping, bull rushing, charging, etc.) that he can perform all day long. In fact, something that any class can do but likely the fighter will be much better at.
Maybe they should make more of those, that can be improved with feats but used without them.
If it can be done for 10gp with no save, why can't a ranger shoot an arrow at a dragons eye?
When debates start on the D&D message boards about which class is the best/worst, the Cleric, Druid, Wizard and Sorcerer always come out on top. And who's always on bottom? The poor Fighter and Ranger. I was astounded to hear this when I came to the message boards, because nonmagical characters almost always dominate the games that I run.
And I think I've realized why.
DMs: We need to quit being so slavish to the rules. It's time to ad hoc the insane. It's time to allow the unbelievable. It's time... to throw the nonmagical people a bone.
Mr. "I Can Bend the Universe"
Alright, I understand why high-level spellcasters are perceived as rocking ten times harder than all non-spellcasters. For crying out loud, they can do anything! A Wish spell is a blank check to break the game, and what good is 150 HP when your cleric can recover that much in a single Heal spell six times a day? Sure, Mr. Fighter Man, you get four attacks and can deal 1d8+10 damage with each of them to a single guy, so that's 4d8+40... assuming even your crappy bottom two hits connect. More likely, that's 2d8+20, and the cleric could do near that much at level 4. A high-level Wizard can turn a man's blood into acid, and a high-level Cleric can ring up God on a red phone and direct his smiting fist.
Disintegrate, a 6th level spell, deals 40d6 damage. That's an average of 140 damage. If we're going wide dispersal, Cone of Cold (a 5th level spell) deals 20d6 (avg. 70) to a 120-foot cone. Even if everyone in that space passes their reflex save for half damage, that's instant death to almost everything level 3 and lower in an ENORMOUS radius. When it comes to almost anything, spellcasters rule the day.
...right?
The Basic Realization
So how do we balance THAT out? I mean, either you have magic or you don't, right? There are some "nice" 4th level Ranger spells, especially in the complete books, but nothing anybody is going to crap their pants over. How can a Fighter compete with a Wizard!?
It's simple, and it all comes down to one basic realization: Wizards and Sorcerers warp physics by training the mind. Clerics and Druids warp physics by training the soul. It's time that Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians and Rangers are allowed to warp physics by training the body.
It's that simple, isn't it? Now, I know what you're saying. No, your Fighter cannot throw a strength-based fireball into a crowd of enemy soldiers, and your Barbarian can't fly. But they should be allowed to do things that are as impressive because of their incredible training.
Here's the How
Okay, easily said, and probably not agreed upon in full by most anyone. That's okay. I'm going to proceed to show you what I mean by telling you how what I suggested can be accomplished. There are a few steps.
Step 1: Allow the Impossible
DMs, tear the word "impossible" out of your dictionary. If the strong, agile Fighter wants to run up the wall, backflip over someone and impale the guy on his spear, don't tell him "that's impossible." Tell him to start making checks. If the Rogue wants to spring from the shadows and snap the unsuspecting guard's neck, don't tell him that the coup de grace rules don't work that way. Tell him the checks and the penalties involved, and let him get to it.
Yes, this requires you to be flexible and (shock and horror!) to ad hoc all sorts of checks and penalties. I know a lot of you are cringing at the thought of this right now. How ever will you get buy without an annotated table stating clearly what is possible and what it entails? Well, figure it out. Flexibility is the hallmark of a great DM.
Step 2: Throw Some Things in the Trash
You see that Epic Level Handbook? I know, it cost a fortune. I bought one too. I want you to do something. Tear out the pages that detail incredibly high-CR monsters. Three-hole punch them, waterproof them, and put them in a nice binder. Then throw the rest of that book in the trash.
Perhaps I'm being a little overdramatic here, but I cannot express to you how incredible it is to me that you need to roll a 150 on a swim check to go up a waterfall. As far as I'm concerned, 40 is plenty. If you have a +20 on a skill check and roll a natural 20, there should be no reason you can't bend the rules of space and time a little. That's approximately 10 higher than any Olympic champ in the history of mankind has done on anything. If you roll a huge jump check, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to run up the ramp, jump off the tower and hurl your weapon the rest of the way to where that damn Wizard is taunting you with his hoity-toity fly spell. Tune those enormous DCs down, down, down. You'll encourage less ridiculous twinking that way as an added bonus, because there will be no need to have a +140 on something at level 20. Of course, if you DO get a 160 on a check at level 20, you should get a blank check to rule the universe as far as the confines of that skill is concerned. Let that Ranger hide so well that he, for all regular purposes, is actually invisible.
The next thing you need to throw in the trash is the absolutely insane number of feats that nobody should have to take. I'm talking about any feat that grants you the ability to do something that anyone with enough training could be reasonably assumed to be able to do. Instead, I move that those things be turned into regular combat maneuvers. Heck, if you want to (and I encourage it) write some combat maneuvers of your own and give them prerequisites. There are plenty of things that would require you to have +X base attack bonus or have XX strength to do that should NOT require a feat slot.
The final thing to throw in the trash is the crazy number of prerequisites on certain feats. I'm looking at Whirlwind Attack and a few others here. Take your white out and make those things obtainable. If my Fighter wants to swing in a circle and hit everything, he shouldn't need to be really good at dodging. If people want to add capabilities to their characters, let them.
Step 3: Let the Non-Magical Guys Use Their Resources
What does your Fighter have going for him that the Wizard doesn't? Tons of hit points, a huge base attack bonus and a pile of bonus feats. So let him really use them. Maybe a Ranger can't disintegrate a dragon, but there's no reason he can't take a -10 or -20 to his attack roll in order to try and blind the dragon by shooting it in the eyes (and, of course, you needn't apply the dragon's enormous natural armor bonus to that AC.) If rules for called shots don't exist, then make some up. Ad hoc them. Experienced combatants can disable or destroy certain parts of an enemy instead of just hacking away at some ephemeral "hit points," so let them do it.
And if a feat doesn't exist but your character has an idea for something they want their character to do, either let them do it without a feat (see above about allowing the impossible) or allow them to create the feat out of whole cloth. Work with them to determine some reasonable prerequisites. Don't "pad" feats with unnecessary prerequisites just to make them hard to attain. Fighters should be able to do almost anything they want that discipline and training could glean. Just because there's no "armor focus" or "armor specialization" feats doesn't mean your Fighter shouldn't be able to get more out of his full plate than the Cleric.
Let your Rogue substitute sneak attack damage for all manner of crazy things, like crippling an opponent or making them bleed, and let them do it without a feat. Let them do it just because they really could. If your rouge wants to substitute 8d6 sneak attack damage in order to make the guy's voice stop working, let him do it even though you know there's no physically possible way of doing that. That's 8d6 damage. That's roughly the equivalent of having a house dropped on you. If he's giving that up for some other purpose, let him perform his specialty. Take where the line is drawn and drag it several miles in the direction of allowance.
Perfect Game Balance?
So will this make the game perfectly balanced? No. This is just part of the solution. But I think you'll find that this makes nonmagical characters so much more fun to play that nobody gives a damn, and the best part is that it doesn't steal the spellcasters' thunder. The main point here is to make high-level nonmagical characters more fun to play and to do it in a way that makes sense. This is a step in the right direction, and your Fighters and Rangers will thank you for it.
every thing bone said is my vison of 4E i hope you also take into consideration that knowledge as a skill sucks unless you teach the dm a system for studying at magic shops and libraries - jeremy - Azuelle
check out my site at mediforicmonster com
When debates start on the D&D message boards about which class is the best/worst, the Cleric, Druid, Wizard and Sorcerer always come out on top. And who's always on bottom? The poor Fighter and Ranger. I was astounded to hear this when I came to the message boards, because nonmagical characters almost always dominate the games that I run.
And I think I've realized why.
DMs: We need to quit being so slavish to the rules. It's time to ad hoc the insane. It's time to allow the unbelievable. It's time... to throw the nonmagical people a bone.
Mr. "I Can Bend the Universe"
Alright, I understand why high-level spellcasters are perceived as rocking ten times harder than all non-spellcasters. For crying out loud, they can do anything! A Wish spell is a blank check to break the game, and what good is 150 HP when your cleric can recover that much in a single Heal spell six times a day? Sure, Mr. Fighter Man, you get four attacks and can deal 1d8+10 damage with each of them to a single guy, so that's 4d8+40... assuming even your crappy bottom two hits connect. More likely, that's 2d8+20, and the cleric could do near that much at level 4. A high-level Wizard can turn a man's blood into acid, and a high-level Cleric can ring up God on a red phone and direct his smiting fist.
Disintegrate, a 6th level spell, deals 40d6 damage. That's an average of 140 damage. If we're going wide dispersal, Cone of Cold (a 5th level spell) deals 20d6 (avg. 70) to a 120-foot cone. Even if everyone in that space passes their reflex save for half damage, that's instant death to almost everything level 3 and lower in an ENORMOUS radius. When it comes to almost anything, spellcasters rule the day.
...right?
The Basic Realization
So how do we balance THAT out? I mean, either you have magic or you don't, right? There are some "nice" 4th level Ranger spells, especially in the complete books, but nothing anybody is going to crap their pants over. How can a Fighter compete with a Wizard!?
It's simple, and it all comes down to one basic realization: Wizards and Sorcerers warp physics by training the mind. Clerics and Druids warp physics by training the soul. It's time that Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians and Rangers are allowed to warp physics by training the body.
It's that simple, isn't it? Now, I know what you're saying. No, your Fighter cannot throw a strength-based fireball into a crowd of enemy soldiers, and your Barbarian can't fly. But they should be allowed to do things that are as impressive because of their incredible training.
Here's the How
Okay, easily said, and probably not agreed upon in full by most anyone. That's okay. I'm going to proceed to show you what I mean by telling you how what I suggested can be accomplished. There are a few steps.
Step 1: Allow the Impossible
DMs, tear the word "impossible" out of your dictionary. If the strong, agile Fighter wants to run up the wall, backflip over someone and impale the guy on his spear, don't tell him "that's impossible." Tell him to start making checks. If the Rogue wants to spring from the shadows and snap the unsuspecting guard's neck, don't tell him that the coup de grace rules don't work that way. Tell him the checks and the penalties involved, and let him get to it.
Yes, this requires you to be flexible and (shock and horror!) to ad hoc all sorts of checks and penalties. I know a lot of you are cringing at the thought of this right now. How ever will you get buy without an annotated table stating clearly what is possible and what it entails? Well, figure it out. Flexibility is the hallmark of a great DM.
Step 2: Throw Some Things in the Trash
You see that Epic Level Handbook? I know, it cost a fortune. I bought one too. I want you to do something. Tear out the pages that detail incredibly high-CR monsters. Three-hole punch them, waterproof them, and put them in a nice binder. Then throw the rest of that book in the trash.
Perhaps I'm being a little overdramatic here, but I cannot express to you how incredible it is to me that you need to roll a 150 on a swim check to go up a waterfall. As far as I'm concerned, 40 is plenty. If you have a +20 on a skill check and roll a natural 20, there should be no reason you can't bend the rules of space and time a little. That's approximately 10 higher than any Olympic champ in the history of mankind has done on anything. If you roll a huge jump check, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to run up the ramp, jump off the tower and hurl your weapon the rest of the way to where that damn Wizard is taunting you with his hoity-toity fly spell. Tune those enormous DCs down, down, down. You'll encourage less ridiculous twinking that way as an added bonus, because there will be no need to have a +140 on something at level 20. Of course, if you DO get a 160 on a check at level 20, you should get a blank check to rule the universe as far as the confines of that skill is concerned. Let that Ranger hide so well that he, for all regular purposes, is actually invisible.
The next thing you need to throw in the trash is the absolutely insane number of feats that nobody should have to take. I'm talking about any feat that grants you the ability to do something that anyone with enough training could be reasonably assumed to be able to do. Instead, I move that those things be turned into regular combat maneuvers. Heck, if you want to (and I encourage it) write some combat maneuvers of your own and give them prerequisites. There are plenty of things that would require you to have +X base attack bonus or have XX strength to do that should NOT require a feat slot.
The final thing to throw in the trash is the crazy number of prerequisites on certain feats. I'm looking at Whirlwind Attack and a few others here. Take your white out and make those things obtainable. If my Fighter wants to swing in a circle and hit everything, he shouldn't need to be really good at dodging. If people want to add capabilities to their characters, let them.
Step 3: Let the Non-Magical Guys Use Their Resources
What does your Fighter have going for him that the Wizard doesn't? Tons of hit points, a huge base attack bonus and a pile of bonus feats. So let him really use them. Maybe a Ranger can't disintegrate a dragon, but there's no reason he can't take a -10 or -20 to his attack roll in order to try and blind the dragon by shooting it in the eyes (and, of course, you needn't apply the dragon's enormous natural armor bonus to that AC.) If rules for called shots don't exist, then make some up. Ad hoc them. Experienced combatants can disable or destroy certain parts of an enemy instead of just hacking away at some ephemeral "hit points," so let them do it.
And if a feat doesn't exist but your character has an idea for something they want their character to do, either let them do it without a feat (see above about allowing the impossible) or allow them to create the feat out of whole cloth. Work with them to determine some reasonable prerequisites. Don't "pad" feats with unnecessary prerequisites just to make them hard to attain. Fighters should be able to do almost anything they want that discipline and training could glean. Just because there's no "armor focus" or "armor specialization" feats doesn't mean your Fighter shouldn't be able to get more out of his full plate than the Cleric.
Let your Rogue substitute sneak attack damage for all manner of crazy things, like crippling an opponent or making them bleed, and let them do it without a feat. Let them do it just because they really could. If your rouge wants to substitute 8d6 sneak attack damage in order to make the guy's voice stop working, let him do it even though you know there's no physically possible way of doing that. That's 8d6 damage. That's roughly the equivalent of having a house dropped on you. If he's giving that up for some other purpose, let him perform his specialty. Take where the line is drawn and drag it several miles in the direction of allowance.
Perfect Game Balance?
So will this make the game perfectly balanced? No. This is just part of the solution. But I think you'll find that this makes nonmagical characters so much more fun to play that nobody gives a damn, and the best part is that it doesn't steal the spellcasters' thunder. The main point here is to make high-level nonmagical characters more fun to play and to do it in a way that makes sense. This is a step in the right direction, and your Fighters and Rangers will thank you for it.
every thing bone said is my vison of 4E i hope you also take into consideration that knowledge as a skill sucks unless you teach the dm a system for studying at magic shops and libraries - jeremy - Azuelle
check out my site at mediforicmonster
Or, as an alternative, just give them all bonus feats at levels 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 19 and 20 of a martial/no-magic class (which stack only with other no/low magic class levels).
Or give the martial classes +1 stat point every 2 levels instead of 4, starting at level 6.
Or +4 skillpoints per level (they study skills when the casters study magic).
No need to obliterate the rules. Just add to the classes. Then you won't paint yourself in a corner when you spoon out the potential exploits to your group.
There is one rule in d20 modern that I've started to love: If you get more damage than your constitution score, you have to roll a fortitude save equal to the damage or you'll die. Granted, I don't think d20 modern damage reaches as high as D&D damage does, but the rule creates lethal situations and tactics that are likely to work. The rogue can jump out of the shadows and sneak attack someone now, but chances of that person dying are slim if he's of the same EL as the rogue. What the victim will do in the next turn is call out for help and the rogue failed. With this little addition, the rogue will most likely kill him with a slight margin of error. Granted it needs some fine tuning for D&D.
There is already a rule similar to that in D&D. when a medium character takes 50 points of damage in a single blow they must save or die. for small creatures the damage is forty, and for large creatures 60. the damage continues to change by 10 for every size category.