The Campaign Builder's Guild

Problem
Fighters, without the aid of spells, have a diminishing return with weapon damage the higher level he becomes. At lower levels, with a +4 to hit (18 STR), +1 BAB, +1 Weapon Focus with a mean damage derived from 1d8+4 will take down a fighter at first level after three or so swings (versus HP 10+Con bonus; assume 14 HP for a min/maxxed character).

At higher levels, the return for using that same longsword against himself diminishes significantly without the aid of "buff" spells. That longsword is still dealing out 1d8+Str bonus+Weapon Specialization. Wizards, on the other hand, have spells that increase by die per level; as an example, a 7th level Wizard does 7d6 damage without having to roll to hit (with other potentially devastating offensive spells/defensive spells) whereas that same 7th level Fighter is still doling out the same damage after a successful combat roll.


Solution
Assume that itinerative attacks are removed from the game (as I use a homebrewed hybrid of Star Wars Saga into Fantasy conversion I wrote [for reference: http://deismaar.pbwiki.com/Fourth+Edition]).

Assume that no monsters are in play, only humanoid, classed characters (edited for inclusion)

Assume that all characters multiply the base die for HP at first level by 3 (Fighters get 30 HP, Rogues get 18HP, Rangers get 24 HP, Clerics get 24HP, etc...).

Assume that armor has been standardized, using this table: http://deismaar.pbwiki.com/Alternative+Armor

1/2 BAB (rounded down) becomes a modifier for the number of dice you use with a weapon for all classes.

Example 1: an 8th level Fighter has a +8 BAB. If he uses his longsword, he uses 4d8 for damage (4 is 1/2 BAB). If he uses a dagger, 4d4. If his weapon has multiple dice (as in the case with a Greatsword [2d6]), convert upward to the closest die (2d6 becomes 1d12).

Example 2: a 7th level Rogue uses a Short Sword. His BAB is 5, meaning when he picks up that blade, he uses 2d6 (2 is 1/2 BAB).

Example 3: a 14th level Wizard uses a Heavy Crossbow. His BAB is 7, so he will do 3d8 (3 is 1/2 BAB).


Conclusions
This means a critical hit can potentially be very hairy.

Using the hybrid Saga rules, Rapid Strike/Rapid Shot adds an additional die of damage whenever you strike at a -2

Double Attack and Triple attack feats become very risky, but worth the return if you can successfully strike

Sneak Attack (limited as a Talent in Saga rules) becomes extraordinarily dangerous when paired up with a multiclassed Fighter/Rogue

All classes can begin to see return at higher levels with weapons in low magic games. When and if they do encounter a Wizard, they can have near good as output as an evocation-wielding Wizard.


Thoughts, criticisms? Any are appreciated, and welcomed!

[blockquote=Moniker]Warrior types are underpowered
Remove iterative attacks
Multiply Weapon Damage[/blockquote](I've got an interesting thing going on with shot advantage and multiple attacks in my mech game.) This solution reduces the importance of having a high STR for damage, since it's based mostly on weapons and level.

I'm not too keen on your solution. The problems you are describing stem from the way CON, HP, HD, XP and Weapon damage interactions changed in the transition from AD&D to 3.x.
In AD&D, monsters did not get a bonus to HP from CON, they had a set HD and got a static +/- from 0 to 8 to their HP total. This changed in 3.x when the changed poison to damage ability scores, instead of HP/time. Suddenly every monster had ability scores that previously didn't matter to them.
Fighters were very good at melee combat both because they got a bonus to their HP based apon their level and CON like all characters have got today, and because they leveled up faster than wizards and clerics (literally taking half the XP). Additionally, fighters could specialize in a weapon to the point where they got a +10 bonus to damage, on top of the +4 for it being magical, another +15 damage form other magical sources, and their three attacks per round at their full attack bonus was really impressive. Fighters could go face to face, tooth to claw with every melee monster back then.

A new problem the fighter faces today stem from the fact that 3.x forces you to use a battle mat with absolute limits on movement and attack range. This is a big problem for humans due to the fact that larger monsters of epic proportions now have a Horrible Rape Radius.
Another is a fighter's defensive abilities. In 3.x he has one good save, competitive AC and a decent amount of HP. In AD&D, fighters had the best saves at the later levels so that they could survive being attacked by magic and bring the hurt with their then impressive combat abilities.

Please due understand that in earlier additions warriors still had problems competing with other characters, especially wizards types, that carry over to this (and probably 4e.) For instance: Spells that shape the battle field and grant no save. Warrior types cannot counter Wall of Force, Force Cage or Stone Shape very well, at which point the mage will hit the Fighter continuously with charms 'till he see the error of his ways.

QuoteSneak Attack (limited as a Talent in Saga rules) becomes extraordinarily dangerous when paired up with a multiclassed Fighter/Rogue

less[/i] dangerous because of the removal of iterative attacks.  You're capped at 1 sneak attack per round, or 2 at most if you're still allowing two attacks per round from double weapons.  You mentioned other feats, etc. to increase attacks, but it seems in the final analysis that Sneak Attack is hobbled, not empowered, especially for the fighter/rogue who presumably relies on multiple attacks to offset the loss of SA damage from his fighter levels.

The main issue I have with this, however, is contained in this line:

QuoteAll classes can begin to see return at higher levels with weapons in low magic games. When and if they do encounter a Wizard, they can have near good as output as an evocation-wielding Wizard.

This is true.  But is it what you really want?  Wizards have a set limit of spells - there's no limit on sword strikes.  On a more basic level, is it really in the interest of the game to give multiple classes big damage dice?  Is there a better way to make the fighter more competitive without seeking to have his sword emulate a lightning bolt?  I'm worried about losing class differentiation here when your aim is to have other classes have "near good as output as an evocation-wielding Wizard."

A few things:  one flaw in your "problem" is that it only examines damage per round.  If you compare wizard vs. fighter damage per encounter or especially damage per day, you'll see them even out much more.  Also, note that this is based heavily on how your DM runs the game.  If it's a 3 day dungeon crawl with limited rest, the fighter will easily outdamage/outsurvive the mage in almost every situation.  If you get one or two combat encounters per day in your campaign, mages will have more advantage in the damage/survivability department.

Also, in your calculation of the "flaws" of the fighter in your problem, I see no mention multiple attacks.  Sure, the Level 10 fighter might still deal out 5-15 damage per hit, but he now gets three attacks per round whereas the Level 10 mage still gets 1 spell/round.  (Maybe that's what the itinerative attacks addresses?  I'm not familiar with that term)

Lastly, it's dangerous to only compare damage dealing when trying to balance classes in combat, because survivability is very important as well.  Should the wizard and fighter have the same damage dealing capacity when the fighter is more than twice as survivable?

It seems to me that you are trying to fix something that isn't broken.  If anything, the issue is that spellcasters are pretty disadvantaged at lower levels compared to fighters, and finally can compete on a damage dealing basis at higher levels.

The per round observation is actually the only observation that matters. Yes a Lvl1 fighter can potentially deal 14400d8+43200 damage in a single day with a long sword. But notice that he can't if he has less than 0Hp. A fighter must kill a monster with a sword before the monster eats him, and this is exceedingly difficult with his puny numbers as presented in 3.x against level appropriate monsters.

I disagree.  Looking at it per round basis only makes several false assumptions...it's looking at the numbers in a vacuum.  Of course a spellcaster is better in the first round of combat for the day.  What about the third encounter that he faces?

A spellcaster's power is balanced against the fact that it runs out, among other things.  Using a per round basis ignores that.

And even at that, I think you could argue that properly kitted fighters can put up competitive per round combat numbers well into the levels.

Quote from: the_takenThe per round observation is actually the only observation that matters. Yes a Lvl1 fighter can potentially deal 14400d8+43200 damage in a single day with a long sword. But notice that he can't if he has less than 0Hp. A fighter must kill a monster with a sword before the monster eats him, and this is exceedingly difficult with his puny numbers as presented in 3.x against level appropriate monsters.

The per-round observation absolutely does matter.  The combat and experience systems of d20 are predicated upon multiple encounters in an adventuring environment.  That's why a "challenging" (CR equal to party level) encounter is estimated to take only 20% of the party's resources - the party is expected to meet with more than one of these encounters before resting.

The fighter can't deal damage if he's dead, but part of the whole point of the fighter is that he's got the armor and hp to keep him alive much longer than a mage in melee.  The very idea of the fighter's combat style is damage over time, which is effective because he is also durable.  It's no wonder you see the classes as unbalanced if you're looking at it with the perspective that per-round damage is the only acceptable metric of effectiveness; you're ignoring one of the fighter's most important advantages (durability in combat) and ignoring the wizard's primary class limitation (a fixed number of spells per day).  The comparison isn't fair because you're negating both the strength of one class and the weakness of another.  Any conclusions you draw from your assumptions are predestined to be flawed.

There is one ineffable truth about third edition (and practically every edition before it): A level 12 Wizard is tremendously more defensively durable than a 12th level fighter and has higher potential burst output than a Fighter.

Generally, it is not as perceived as much because classes aren't really balanced against one another, so much as they are balanced against entries the Monster Manual. The same cannot be said at lower levels. There is a severe imbalance between the Wizard and Fighter (for that matter, caster classes versus non-csting classes) with a diminishing return on investment for melee classes as they rise in level. However, that's for another thread...

The reasons why my gaming group are discussing these options is due to the fact that we've moved towards the hybridized Saga system I cobbled together from the SW Saga books. The players, more often than not, find themselves at odds with other NPCs with classes. Without going into too much detail, everyone is extremely durable and combat is not resolving fast enough (meaning, it's taking more than 2 real game hours to commence with all of the abilities of Nobles, Scoundrels, Soldiers and Force Users [Wizards] over a period of 14 combat rounds). The problem is that the Saga system was not entirely playtested from higher levels, which has become glaringly obvious from playing through it from low levels to high levels. There is a huge discrepancy on return for abilities when no magic is in play. The real reason we've considered the 1/2 BAB as a multiple to increase weapon damage is not only to expedite combat, but also to help "renegotiate" the ability to withstand damage over time.

I'll go ahead and link to my Saga to fantasy conversion, for what it's worth: http://deismaar.pbwiki.com/Fourth+Edition

Ah.  It's hard to really say without going through your conversion as to whether this is balanced or not, but I can surely tell you that it is unbalanced in standard 3.5.

Without looking too deeply, a quick question:  If the problem is the length of combat (either in real time or in rounds) wouldn't the issue be the survivability of characters (NPC and PC alike) and not the weapons vs. spells debate?  Wouldn't it be easier and more effective to lowering HP/AC/DR?

I can look into it more tomorrow.

QuoteThere is one ineffable truth about third edition (and practically every edition before it): A level 12 Wizard is tremendously more defensively durable than a 12th level fighter and has higher potential burst output than a Fighter.

Generally, it is not as perceived as much because classes aren't really balanced against one another, so much as they are balanced against entries the Monster Manual. [/quote]

I think they're balanced, but it really depends on the situation and environment.  Across an open field morning pitched battle?  Sure, the wizard will every time.  A chase through a dark alley at night after a long day in the field?  I'll take the fighter or the rogue.

Lowering AC, DR and HP would be a multi-variate resolution, which we explored but raised entirely too many rules changes to impliment. The easiest and fastest solution we found by using mean numbers by pairing a fighter in a mirror match at level 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 against himself was using the 1/2 BAB mechanic to bring the numbers closer to where they need to be without having to make a tremendous amount of changes.

It really seems to me that adding DR (half base attack bonus) plus DR of the armor (per alternative armor rules) combined with the lack of true multiple attacks/round are much more the cause of the issue than damage.

It's like you've increased DR, decreased attack frequency, and then want to increase damage greatly to compensate.  That seems like monkeying around with the rules far more than reducing HP and/or AC.

DR by default prolongs battles, especially with conventional weapons.  DR also does little against magic, but really hinders the fighter.  So you've introduced two mechanics that add a penalty to fighters and give advantage to wizards....From first glance, there's your problem moreso than any fighter vs. wizard issue.

This looks to me like an ugly case of the oblivion effect, which was already glaringly present in D&D and which you appear to be altering but not mitigating.  Why do you need HP improvement at all?  Or scaling damage of any sort?  After all, when you hurl a ball of pure elemental fire at someone, there aren't too many degrees of scorched-to-a-cinder; in the end it all amounts to an ashen smear on the dungeon floor.

Wizards and Fighters aren't unbalanced so long as you play the game as the designers intended (but then, who wants to do that?); as others have already said, it all balances out in terms of overall usefulness throughout an adventure.  However, it is true that a Wizard totally owns a Fighter at higher levels, even if the Fighter begins combat in melee, as the Wizard only needs to get off one good spell to seal the Fighter's fate while for his enemy it is a tedious and disheartening (and let's face it, absurd) battle of attrition. (Not to mention the fact that fighters pretty much become dependent on mages not too long into their career)

Of course, this has nothing to do with reality.  When Sir Leon, brandishing his razor'd sworde of hell-cleaving pow'r, meets Alphonse the Mad Archmage whose hands crackle with unholy fire and who bears a life-ending spell on the tip of his profane tongue, should either of them really be lasting more than a few brutally short seconds in any kind of combat?  The only thing that really matters is how far apart they are.  If Alphonse is at range, he wrenches the warrior's soul from its still-screaming corpse.  If Leon is close, he cuts loose the madman's despoiled bowels in a spray of feculent gore. (Okay, a simplification, but you get the point)

That's pretty much impossible to achieve in d20 without ultimately defeating the purpose of levels in the first place (or at least the HP and damage increases).  As Luminous pointed out in another thread, increasing hit points only really matters if the HP:Damage ratio subsequently increases as well.  Otherwise, it's simply more record keeping to absolutely no positive end.

I think the whole deal with the scale of Wizards' power in D&D is a poorly implemented expression of the whole "wizards are wily, dangerous and not to be trusted" motif of conventional fantasy.  Spellcasters are objectively more uber than mundane classes.  Outside of the delicate intraparty dynamic, a non-caster is toast unless they get really, really lucky, hide in a hole, or kill the mage in his sleep (or have a handful of mage-created arcane items depending from every limb).  To correct that, you'd need to divest a Wizard of most of his casting power and/or remove his scaling damage (again, superheated elemental fire is superheated elemental fire no matter the weather), not give the warrior-types a precariously contrived power-up of kick-assery.

"Increasing returns" are irrelevent.  A sword by any other name still cuts your head off.

I'm convinced that for a lot of people, and certainly for me, the best solution is going to involve a fundamental change to the way we ("we" meaning "D&D players") think about magic users.

The general formula for magic users is as follows: they are generally weak but can exert x force in y different ways, only z times per day. All three variables get bigger as everybody increases in level, until spellcasters can tear reality to shreds (because x is astronomical), can do just about everyone else's job as well (because y is very broad), and the mitigating factor on all this power (z) gets less and less consequential.

And I really believe that this is the formula that's leading us all down a difficult path, and creating the problems you're trying to fix in this thread.

The flavour of the D&D wizard has always been set in the realm of facilitating a player's power fantasies. Any monumental change in the wizard adversely affect his flavour and changes the type of stories you tell with him.
As an alternative, I suggest bringing the power of the warrior types up.

A set of examples of one set of methods can be found here: The Dungeonomicon  WotC Mirror
and here: Races of War WotC Mirror