Balancing Hero & Wizard Through the Experience System

[larsdangly]

It is well established that I refuse to pay attention to any contribution to 'white room' debates that requires a trip to the magic item store.

But you are right that your Kung Fu master might prefer to do something with XP other than raise ST or DX the extra point that is required to simultaneously have Toughness, wear cloth and take advantage of UC V. But that is his or her choice!

[TippetsTX]

TBH, the only way to truly balance wizards and heroes at higher 'levels' in TFT is to implement a system where the XP costs for spells also escalate. Heroes are often paying 3 to 4 times as much to acquire advanced talents vs the flat 500 XP that wizards always pay for spells.

But as others have pointed out, there are other factors beyond the strictly quantitative that dictate 'balance' between character types.

[hcobb]

I have a house rule to reduce wizard IQ brute forcing all of the spot rolls:

https://www.hcobb.com/tft/wizards_dran.html#Life

Do you allow a fighter with Unarmed Combat I to just practice it until they get to UC V?

Wizards can either re-research high level spells, find a teacher who is willing to divulge it, or study a lot of books.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I think most people feel that wizards are probably slightly more capable than heroes at the low levels and much more capable at the high levels. This leads to parties that have lots of wizards in them, though the game's designer obviously imagined that most characters would be heroes and wizards would be rare.

Would it be a good idea to give wizards fewer attributes at any particular level of experience? If so, how many?

Golly gee David, I nearly started a thread with this exact same title a few days ago. Only thing is, the intent was going to be 180 degrees from yours. I buried the idea until I saw this, but what I almost proposed was giving starting wizards an extra attribute point, following my contention that if there's any imbalance, it's that wizards at the beginnings of their careers are so "anemic".

I guess we come from very different backgrounds as far as the campaigns we've been in. In my experience the heroes/fighters always lived longer and advanced more quickly than the wizards. Few people wanted to play wizards, or never wanted more than one in any party. Perhaps our battles just ran longer than yours, resulting in (a) a wizard so low on ST a thrown rock could kill her (that actually happened) or (b) the wizard survived by hanging back and staying out of trouble, but gained fewer XP in the process. Wizards seemed like the drummers for Spinal Tap -- every tour we needed to break in a new one.

But putting all that aside, I more want to address the premise in the original subject line, because it seems to have gotten lost from the start:

Is it a good idea to adjust your game balance through a tweak in the XP system? I think it is, whether you're going to use it to dial the magic up or down.

A group could have all kinds of house rules to adjust the balance in favor of certain character types. We all know that can get messy, become a lot of work, and make it hard on new players who not only have to learn the RAW, but also the exceptions to those rules used by the group they've joined.

But to adjust something as broad as the power balance between wizards and non-wizards, it could most easily be accomplished by just giving one or the other 33 starting attribute points. Or if you wanted a more extreme change, maybe 34 points.

This is simply the equivalent of giving a starting PC an XP credit equal to the cost of their first AP increase. Now remember, that character will hit their plateau for future attribute increases that much earlier by simply following the XP rules as is. No further house rules are necessary, and there's nothing to remember. You still follow the XP to attribute conversion table exactly as you were going to. It just gives whatever you think the "weaker" PC is a head start. In the end, it doesn't in any way alter what different 38 point characters can do, even if one did have to survive one less adventure to reach that level.

So if you feel a balance correction is needed, this has to be the most elegant and expedient way you could go about it.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

TBH, the only way to truly balance wizards and heroes at higher 'levels' in TFT is to implement a system where the XP costs for spells also escalate. Heroes are often paying 3 to 4 times as much to acquire advanced talents vs the flat 500 XP that wizards always pay for spells.

But as others have pointed out, there are other factors beyond the strictly quantitative that dictate 'balance' between character types.

This particular imbalance (or shift in the balance) is completely a result of the Legacy Edition rules. Recall until now, a wizard had to increase their IQ first to learn an additional spell, while increasing any attribute cost the same for both heroes and wizards.

And while this would supposedly help out wizards, it really does nothing for a brand new starting wizard, which is where I think some help is needed. The main benefit is to more advanced wizards, and they really didn't seem to need the help!

It gives me strong, strong reservations about using the new XP rules should I ever get a group started again. In principle it sounds like a good idea, exchanging "experience" for "learning", but this implementation of it seems like a gamey tax shelter (or XP shelter) to me. I'd rather revamp the entire learning/memory/knowledge system than use the new XP rules.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

[...] wizards at the beginnings of their careers are so "anemic".

[...] it could most easily be accomplished by just giving one or the other 33 starting attribute points. Or if you wanted a more extreme change, maybe 34 points.

I'm arguing wizards are more powerful than fighters at high levels. You're arguing they're weaker than fighters at low levels. It's not clear whether one of us is right, or both, or neither, but it seems likely there is a difference in slope. And a difference in slope can be corrected in several ways, but giving an initial boost or penalty to one of the classes is definitely not one of them.

[larsdangly]

Wizards at low and even moderate XP 'levels' have one clear deficit compared to fighters: it costs them ST to use their capabilities, and they quickly run out. So, they will seem highly capable for a brief period, and then completely spent and vulnerable. This is why people who play Death Test universally agree that it is a disadvantage to bring wizards along. They do a great job for 1 or 2 rooms, and then are dead weight (or simply dead).

[hcobb]

Problem with Death Test is that nothing is hidden.

But I will run a party of four starting human wizards through DT2 and video it.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Wizards at low and even moderate XP 'levels' have one clear deficit compared to fighters: it costs them ST to use their capabilities, and they quickly run out. So, they will seem highly capable for a brief period, and then completely spent and vulnerable. This is why people who play Death Test universally agree that it is a disadvantage to bring wizards along. They do a great job for 1 or 2 rooms, and then are dead weight (or simply dead).

Wizards running out of ST is more of a problem in DT and DT2 than in a typical campaign adventure, due to the time constraints the Thorsz puts on his labyrinth.

[hcobb]

Spoiler: The huge number of humanoid encounters shall be my powerstones.