In thinking about the imbalance between classes, the casters are rightly considered as overshadowing the warriors as they advance in level. The scales tip somewhere around 6th or 7th level. Certainly by 9th or 10th level casters with their 5th level spells can begin to overcome all sorts of mundane obstacles that fighters and thieves can't be compared.
This is even why some people play a variant where level advancement stops at 6th level in the 3.5 system: you keep playing and gaining feats and such, but your raw power tops out around the point where a fighter can still overpower a wizard with a bit of luck and planning (or vice versa).
There's even a new phrase that's been bandied about recently: linear fighter, quadradic wizard. This comes about because of two factors: wizards gain more spells at each level, and those spells also gain power as the wizard gains levels. Fighters, on the other hand, have a relatively linear progression of feats and extra attacks which don't scale to the same degree.
So this seems relatively fixeable by taking a closer look at the spell tables for wizards, and capping spell power at each level. I'll focus on the spell advancement here, rather than limiting fireball to 5d6 damage (at least as a third level spell, 4th level fireball might do 7d6 damage).
So what if we found an advancement chart that looked more like this one:
Clearly the idea here--gaining one new spell of the highest level--lose a bit of elegance at 19th level when you need a number higher than two in the chart. Each new character level brings the wizard a new spell, so a system like this still lets a spellcaster advance in power. Its just not to the same extent as other editions where the caster has 5+ spells of each of the first five spell levels. A 20th level magic user in first edition AD&D has 32 spells, an illusionist has 30 and a cleric has a whopping 49 (though only the magic user can use spells past 7th level). And this is in the era before clerics had spells that would let them fight as well as a fighter. Third edition wizards have 36 spells at 20th level which are evenly spread out. Of course, the table would have to be modified for Sorcerers and Bards who are stronger and weaker casters respectively.
If this was the only change you made to a D&D game before 4th edition, I think it would stall that tipping point to some extent. Wizards would still be playing the resource management game at higher levels, where the thieve's ability to detect traps, open locks, and climb walls might make wizards think twice about wasting spell slots on low-level spells like find traps, knock, and spider climb.
Of course, earlier editions had other restrictions to help reign in wizards, including spell components, lengthy spell memorization times, and slow casting times which could result in wizards losing their spells before they were able to get them off. In 3rd editions, without reigning in scroll creation, a system like this wouldn't help as much there. Its not perfect, but something to consider for a reimagined or re-designed older edition of the game.
This is even why some people play a variant where level advancement stops at 6th level in the 3.5 system: you keep playing and gaining feats and such, but your raw power tops out around the point where a fighter can still overpower a wizard with a bit of luck and planning (or vice versa).
There's even a new phrase that's been bandied about recently: linear fighter, quadradic wizard. This comes about because of two factors: wizards gain more spells at each level, and those spells also gain power as the wizard gains levels. Fighters, on the other hand, have a relatively linear progression of feats and extra attacks which don't scale to the same degree.
So this seems relatively fixeable by taking a closer look at the spell tables for wizards, and capping spell power at each level. I'll focus on the spell advancement here, rather than limiting fireball to 5d6 damage (at least as a third level spell, 4th level fireball might do 7d6 damage).
So what if we found an advancement chart that looked more like this one:
|
Level
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
|
14
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
15
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
16
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
17
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
|
18
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
|
19
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
|
20
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
Clearly the idea here--gaining one new spell of the highest level--lose a bit of elegance at 19th level when you need a number higher than two in the chart. Each new character level brings the wizard a new spell, so a system like this still lets a spellcaster advance in power. Its just not to the same extent as other editions where the caster has 5+ spells of each of the first five spell levels. A 20th level magic user in first edition AD&D has 32 spells, an illusionist has 30 and a cleric has a whopping 49 (though only the magic user can use spells past 7th level). And this is in the era before clerics had spells that would let them fight as well as a fighter. Third edition wizards have 36 spells at 20th level which are evenly spread out. Of course, the table would have to be modified for Sorcerers and Bards who are stronger and weaker casters respectively.
If this was the only change you made to a D&D game before 4th edition, I think it would stall that tipping point to some extent. Wizards would still be playing the resource management game at higher levels, where the thieve's ability to detect traps, open locks, and climb walls might make wizards think twice about wasting spell slots on low-level spells like find traps, knock, and spider climb.
Of course, earlier editions had other restrictions to help reign in wizards, including spell components, lengthy spell memorization times, and slow casting times which could result in wizards losing their spells before they were able to get them off. In 3rd editions, without reigning in scroll creation, a system like this wouldn't help as much there. Its not perfect, but something to consider for a reimagined or re-designed older edition of the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment