PDA

View Full Version : Fluff to balance mechanics?



Myrmex
2009-06-23, 12:47 PM
I'm making a campaign world for D&D 3.5 where arcane casters are purged by the Church with holy fire. I've given the non-casters and semi-casters (paladin, ranger) some boosts to damage and attack (the two weapon fighting tree is now a single feat, I've cut down the number of skills to around 25, feats that gave static bonuses now scale), but I haven't taken any steps towards introducing ToB level casterness to martial classes. Of course, increases in damage aren't really what non-casters need, they need new mechanics to do stuff like fly or borrow time from the future so they can hurt you more right now.

I'm wondering, though, could I just make casting socially risky, so that players are hesitant to throw spells around? Getting hunted by an inquisitorial squad 5 levels higher than you with access to all your spells, and more (gg Archivist), seems like it could keep casters in check.

All clerics must be of The Church (at least nominally), otherwise they are forbidden from performing miracles within Church lands (everywhere, for now). This means that clerics will be obligated to prepare healing type spells, since they are presumed to spend their time tending their flock, as well as under obligation to tithe and jump through Church hoops. Basically, clerics will have their WBL docked.

Psions are under no such restrictions, since I've never found psionics to be that abusive, and the Church thinks psionics is a gift. And I've also never run a psionic heavy campaign.

Anyway, I guess what I'm asking is- does giving casters out of combat headaches by making it riskier for them to solve every problem with magic balance out their ability to end fights in a couple turns?

I also plan on having long days, as I've instituted a sort of healing surge mechanic with the heal skill and some feats.

Anyway, your thoughts and experiences on this sort of thing?

Artanis
2009-06-23, 01:02 PM
The way to balance casters' ability to do anything they want is to take away their ability to do anything they want. If done thoroughly enough, it sounds like your idea might just work.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-23, 01:05 PM
It works, in my experience. In our Middle-Earth games (MERP and RM), the PCs rarely used magic - at least powerful magic - because of the chance of the Enemy noticing it. The table basically had an option for a Nazgūl to come after you if you cast a spell, so...

In our Dark Sun games, the PCs basically avoided using arcane magic unless they were already in mortal danger, since using arcane magic and not being an authorized defiler of the local Sorcerer-King means you're going to be killed or imprisoned (by people who know very well how to imprison arcane spellcasters).

I don't think it works out that great in D&D, though, since D&D spellcasters don't really have any other options. Firing bolts for 1d8 damage per round (provided you don't move) is pretty pathetic. It's unfair to the players of casters, since they're basically forced to sit out fights and similar scenes until they really have to use magic. If you contrive of an explanation that only limits spellcasting outside of combat, though, you may be on to something.


Also, if you think psionics is less of a problem than magic, you just don't understand the powers well enough. In fact, psionics is horribly overpowered if there's few encounters per day, since the psions can go nova and use as many PP as they can on all their powers. This is what happened in our Dark Sun campaign, and everyone was constantly astounded by the psion's power because we were used to one encounter per day, but hadn't combined psions with it.

bosssmiley
2009-06-23, 01:08 PM
OK. So far, so good. But how are you going to implement this magic-fearing society mechanically? If there are no mechanics to model reaction you're laid open to the charge of screwing over the arcane casters by DM fiat, especially if clerics and psions have (relatively) free rein.

Will there be a penalty to reaction checks for being a known arcanist (or dressing/acting like one)?
Will there be wizards licenses or casting taxes? Or is there just a blanket ban on wizardry?
What anti-arcanist wards are in place in this society?
Is there going to be a %age chance (set or variable) that the local Witchsmeller Pursuivant and his inquisitorial henchchumps sense arcane casting in the vicinity?
What about sorcerers born with magic in their blood? How are they perceived? Are they unfortunate souls who must resist the temptation of their innate sinful powers? Or are they accursed and hated by the gods?

You might want to look up Dark Sun for a view of a society that bans and persecutes arcane casting outside the hierarchy, or possibly the Known World/Mystara setting's nation of Glantri for a country that goes to the other extreme (a magocracy where clerics, and dwarves, are illegal. This has some obvious-in-hindsight repurcussions when a post-war plague hits). WFRP, Ars Magica and Mage are also good source material.


I also plan on having long days, as I've instituted a sort of healing surge mechanic with the heal skill and some feats.

Sounds interesting. Any notes you can post on it?

Justin B.
2009-06-23, 01:12 PM
In my experience, social factors are some of the best ways to limit arcane power abuse.

Simply stated, some of the useful tools for creating abuse can easily be eliminated because there is no powerful arcane study. When a character writes Arcane Thesis: Orb of Fire, and Energy Admixture on his sheet, you can go "Wow, those are neat tricks, how long did you spend studying them? Because there's certainly no one around to give you access to that kidn of advanced arcane information."

Sure, they can still have them if you allow it and they spend the time to research it or have it written into their backstory, but those things bring further roleplay to the game, which is always good. (In my opinion.)

kamikasei
2009-06-23, 01:14 PM
All clerics must be of The Church (at least nominally), otherwise they are forbidden from performing miracles within Church lands (everywhere, for now). This means that clerics will be obligated to prepare healing type spells, since they are presumed to spend their time tending their flock, as well as under obligation to tithe and jump through Church hoops. Basically, clerics will have their WBL docked.

That seems odd to me. The cleric is getting his spells directly from his deity, after all. If the deity sees fit to grant them, why would the Church forbid him to use them? Why wouldn't the Church use its powerful divine emissaries as the ass-kicking warrior-chaplains they're so good at being? (Not least because they don't actually need to prepare cure spells, unless you mean that they're expected to load up on restorations and remove diseases.)

(More fundamentally, it seems odd to me for a church to penalize divine casters as much as arcane. This sort of thing is usually done with priests censoring wizards, or something along those lines.)


Psions are under no such restrictions, since I've never found psionics to be that abusive, and the Church thinks psionics is a gift. And I've also never run a psionic heavy campaign.

That's a breath of fresh air :D


Anyway, I guess what I'm asking is- does giving casters out of combat headaches by making it riskier for them to solve every problem with magic balance out their ability to end fights in a couple turns?

Not entirely. The restriction means it's as bad for them to use non-abusive spells as abusive, and that when they do venture to use magic they might as well go all-out. The game isn't balanced around very occasional use of magic; it assumes you'll be throwing spells around each encounter, it just underestimates how useful many of those spells will be. Limiting that has the effect more of making wizards Experts 90% of the time and extra broken the other 10% because they're desperate and have nothing to lose.

The real key to balancing casters is judicious houseruling of certain spells and effects coupled with open discussion between DM and players of what they want from the game. That won't make casters perfectly balanced, but it will hopefully keep their contribution from overshadowing everyone else and damaging the fun at the table.

(That said, a magic-is-socially-troublesome setting is perfectly viable and worthwhile, it just won't solve all your balance concerns. Be aware of knock-on effects to things like magic item availability, though, which can hurt non-magical classes too.)


Also, if you think psionics is less of a problem than magic, you just don't understand the powers well enough. In fact, psionics is horribly overpowered if there's few encounters per day, since the psions can go nova and use as many PP as they can on all their powers.


I also plan on having long days

Psions have fewer powers overall, fewer which are seriously abusable, and those are mostly less abusable than the worst spells anyway. Their set powers known make them easier for a DM to anticipate. What you bring up is a well-known caveat of the system that the OP will have addressed anyway.

Set
2009-06-23, 01:23 PM
Balance should be handled mechanically, IMO.

If certain spells are a problem, find what makes them a problem, and nix that. (For instance, shapechange, by itself, isn't a problem. A badly written monster that has spellcasting as an Ex ability *is* a problem.)

If spellcasting *as a whole* is a problem, then make an adjustment to spellcasting, as a whole.

Options;

1) All 'standard action' spells now take a Full-Round Action to cast (and go off at the end of the round). No more 'I ready an action to interrupt him' or 'I ready an action to counterspell' or 'I hope I get an AoO to break his concentration,' because the spellcaster is locked in place, casting his little heart out, and your fighter can wait until his turn on the initiative track, charge over and beat the fool down. Just like in 1st and 2nd edition. :)

2) Perhaps all spellcasting requires a Spellcraft check, and can fail (or even Wild Surge on a 1).

3) All spellcasting comes with some kind of cost.

3.1 - Perhaps each spell cast requires a Fortitude save with an increasing penalty depending on the level of the spell cast. On a failed roll, the spell *can* still succeed, but the caster becomes Fatigued (or can choose to fail the spell to avoid being Fatigued).

3.2 - Perhaps each spell cast causes a point of nonlethal damage per spell level, so that a caster is forced to very carefully ration his casting. Note that, under your setup, only divine casters would be able to heal hit point damage, which means that an arcanist who isn't working under the auspices of the church is going to be hosed!

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-23, 01:35 PM
Balance should be handled mechanically, IMO.

That's only true of game systems. The actual rulebooks and supplements for a game - one in which "balance" has any currency, anyway - should present relatively balanced material. At the table, balance means something else altogether, and can absolutely be - in fact, it inescapably is - a combination of mechanics and roleplay.

Sliver
2009-06-23, 01:42 PM
How about spellcasters always having some sort of restriction on their spellcasting, something like once per hour or so.. And then, in battle they go into battle mode and the restriction is temporarly surpressed.

Justin B.
2009-06-23, 01:44 PM
That's only true of game systems. The actual rulebooks and supplements for a game - one in which "balance" has any currency, anyway - should present relatively balanced material. At the table, balance means something else altogether, and can absolutely be - in fact, it inescapably is - a combination of mechanics and roleplay.

Quoted for Truth and Justice. Seperation of fluff and mechanics is a great concept when dealing with optimization (though somewhat limiting to the specific character concepts you can play) but when it comes down to character interaction, there are certain factors that mechanics simply can't handle as well as the fluff.

In this case, the fluff can handle balance much much easier than any mechanic could ever possibly do. (Not to say that better mechanics couldn't help significantly.)

Artanis
2009-06-23, 01:45 PM
Balance should be handled mechanically, IMO.

There's on small problem with this: people have been trying to do this for a very long time, and it's very, very hard to do. Even if it is more or less successful, stuff tends to get through anyways.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-23, 03:44 PM
Psions are under no such restrictions, since I've never found psionics to be that abusive, and the Church thinks psionics is a gift. And I've also never run a psionic heavy campaign.
"No, ye lordship, that was not a Fireball I cast, but an Energy Ball, for I am a psion, not a sorcerer."

Bluff, a class skill.

Doc Roc
2009-06-23, 03:51 PM
I think this is a categorically bad plan, as it punishes the people who are there to mesh with the world and doesn't really affect psionics. That seems bizarre to me. Further, it seems like an eminently avoidable effect, with the simple purchase of invisible spell from cityscape, a feat made for just this purpose. :S

hamishspence
2009-06-23, 03:52 PM
Ranks in Knowledge Arcana granting circumstance bonuses to Sense Motive, if the somatic, verbal, and material component use is present, and noticed.

Still, interesting concept.

kamikasei
2009-06-23, 03:54 PM
"No, ye lordship, that was not a Fireball I cast, but an Energy Ball, for I am a psion, not a sorcerer."

*lord's sage whispers in his ear*

"Well, then you won't mind if we gag and bind you before your next demonstration, so."

Doc Roc
2009-06-23, 03:58 PM
You do know that psionics has display components, neh?

kamikasei
2009-06-23, 04:03 PM
You do know that psionics has display components, neh?

Ones pretty much trivial to eliminate, though. - but not to imitate for a non-psion, so yeah, good point.

hamishspence
2009-06-23, 04:03 PM
And they are a bit different from arcane ones. Though it is possible a not very experienced mage-hunter might not know about it.

a mage using appropiate feats, Still, Silent, Eschew Materials, might be hard to tell from a psion.

scsimodem
2009-06-23, 04:05 PM
Sounds a little overboard to 'balance' out arcane casters. If you're having a problem with arcane casters, here's a few questions.

1. Is it really a problem?
Achieving ideal game balance shouldn't be the primary objective of messing around with a tabletop game unless you're playing competitively. If the wizard is 'technically' more powerful, it can still work. I played a wizard who used what some friends of mine called 'dirty magic' (think 'dirty fighting'), that is, using spells for things the designers clearly never intended, but were viable given the current mechanical effects of the spell. I didn't overshadow the other characters because they each had their own talents and I spent almost as many spells beefing them up as I did killing stuff. Also, the other players had me as a 'get out of jail free card.' If the situation seemed hopeless, I usually had a plan (and I justified it with knowledge skills, such as tactics). The DM also liked it because it encouraged the other players to be creative with what they had and allowed him to throw 'impossible' encounters at us just to see how we would un-impossible them.

2. How do the arcane casters in your party feel?
If you have arcane casters in the party, ask them how they feel about this. Work with the party members and, as mentioned earlier, try not to make it sound like you just hate arcane casters and want to be able to smack them with the nerf bat by DM fiat whenever you feel like it.

3. Does the feel of the world flow naturally?
If the arcane caster rules seem arbitrary and contrived, then you destroy willing suspension of disbelief and remind everybody of what it really is: a set of circumstances designed to reign in arcane casters. Make sure your church has a good reason for reigning in arcane casters that doesn't coincide with your own. In a world I played in, arcane casting was heavily regulated after a war involving massive numbers of casters on both sides nearly wiped out civilization.

As for my honest opinion, I think you should follow the Wheel of Time model of caster forbiddence, treating divine casters as female channelers and arcane casters as male channelers. Male channelers can still operate in Wheel of Time, so long as they don't draw too much attention to themselves. Most peasants are too afraid of them to fetch help, and are just as afraid as the help they would have to fetch. Many will take the side of the caster if he helps them. Same goes for Solars in Exalted. I say use these examples.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-23, 04:25 PM
*lord's sage whispers in his ear*

"Well, then you won't mind if we gag and bind you before your next demonstration, so."

Still, Silent Spell.


You do know that psionics has display components, neh?
Suppressible on a DC 15 Psicraft check.

Doc Roc
2009-06-23, 04:29 PM
technically DC 15+power level, but due to the augment system that's really almost a meaningless difference.

kamikasei
2009-06-23, 04:31 PM
Still, Silent Spell.

To pretend to be a psion four levels lower than you are.


Suppressible on a DC 15 Psicraft check.

Ah, but the psion could simply not suppress them, and thus prove he's a psion. (Also, it's DC 15+level Concentration.)

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-23, 04:36 PM
To pretend to be a psion four levels lower than you are.

What's the problem? You avoid execution, don't you?



Ah, but the psion could simply not suppress them, and thus prove he's a psion. (Also, it's DC 15+level Concentration.)
There's probably an easy way to mimic the manifestations, such as with a Major/Minor Image spell.

Just toss up a Major Image, and project an aura about yourself as you fire off an image of an Energy Ball.

Raum
2009-06-23, 05:41 PM
I'm wondering, though, could I just make casting socially risky, so that players are hesitant to throw spells around?
- snip -
Anyway, I guess what I'm asking is- does giving casters out of combat headaches by making it riskier for them to solve every problem with magic balance out their ability to end fights in a couple turns? Depends on the group. Will they find the limitations fun? Will they role play them? Or will they look for loopholes? Forge a permit and cast whatever... And, if they will look for loopholes, is that the type of game you want?

It will work for some groups, won't work for others.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-23, 05:52 PM
I'm making a campaign world for D&D 3.5 where arcane casters are purged by the Church with holy fire.
...
I'm wondering, though, could I just make casting socially risky, so that players are hesitant to throw spells around?
You could always make all arcane spellcasters tainted (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/taint.htm).

Yukitsu
2009-06-23, 06:02 PM
I've seen a DM try this, ending the campaign with swathes of dead inquisitors and a much higher than average EXP acquisition curve.

Lamech
2009-06-23, 06:12 PM
You could always make all arcane spellcasters tainted (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/taint.htm).
NO! NO! NO! Oh dear god, NO!
"Oh hi Mr. Dragon whats your fort save again? 203? Wow... thats low. Will? 197? Thats worse. Phantsmal Killer."
Never under any circumstances allow the tainted PrC's. It won't end well. I exagerate, but those save DC's can be pumped HIGH.



I'm wondering, though, could I just make casting socially risky, so that players are hesitant to throw spells around? Getting hunted by an inquisitorial squad 5 levels higher than you with access to all your spells, and more (gg Archivist), seems like it could keep casters in check.How do these squads get the foul magics? Seems contradictory if they hate it all. And more importantly if the archivists have all those spells, you just shifted the problem to archivists. Oops.

JonestheSpy
2009-06-23, 06:25 PM
I don't think it works out that great in D&D, though, since D&D spellcasters don't really have any other options. Firing bolts for 1d8 damage per round (provided you don't move) is pretty pathetic. It's unfair to the players of casters, since they're basically forced to sit out fights and similar scenes until they really have to use magic. If you contrive of an explanation that only limits spellcasting outside of combat, though, you may be on to something.



One of my solutions to this is to beef up wizard skill points - counter intuitive, I know, as they already get a bunch because of their intelligence. But think of Gandalf and other classic wizards - they don't throw the magic around that much really, but they are incredibly valuable because they know so damn much.

I bump skill points to 4+ int, and add skills like Heal, Spot, Diplomacy, disguise, Sleight of Hand, and a few others to their class list. Kind of make them a non-Dex or STR based skillmonkey.

Still not perfect for a campaing that leans to combat more than anything else, but I think it rounds out the class in a very interesting way, and makes up for other limitations the DM imposes.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-23, 06:31 PM
NO! NO! NO! Oh dear god, NO!
"Oh hi Mr. Dragon whats your fort save again? 203? Wow... thats low. Will? 197? Thats worse. Phantsmal Killer."
Never under any circumstances allow the tainted PrC's. It won't end well. I exagerate, but those save DC's can be pumped HIGH.

Ah...is there no way to cap/fix/nerf that?

Quietus
2009-06-23, 06:35 PM
Ah...is there no way to cap/fix/nerf that?

From what I see, the reason this result happens is that you end up with a tain score, which reduces your constitution/wisdom; With levels of Tainted Sorcerer, you negate the con penalty, and take 1/2 your Taint score as a penalty on Wisdom (instead of the full score). So you can basically get a Taint score of (2*con -1) without going comatose.

And then, you apply your Taint score as your Spellcasting ability, rather than Int/Cha. So if you had, say, a 14 Wis, you can get up to 27 Taint "safely". Of course, this means Wisdom damage = unconscious... and you have to make a Fort save every time you cast a spell or gain more Taint, which means failed Fort save = unconscious... but if you were to pump your Wisdom through the roof as a Wizard/Sorcerer, then replace int/cha with Taint, you could get a very high save DC indeed. It'd just come at the risk of going unconscious the moment something targets your Wisdom or you fail a fort save (10+spell level every time you cast a spell).

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-23, 06:41 PM
From what I see, the reason this result happens is that you end up with a tain score, which reduces your constitution/wisdom; With levels of Tainted Sorcerer, you negate the con penalty, and take 1/2 your Taint score as a penalty on Wisdom (instead of the full score). So you can basically get a Taint score of (2*con -1) without going comatose.

And then, you apply your Taint score as your Spellcasting ability, rather than Int/Cha. So if you had, say, a 14 Wis, you can get up to 27 Taint "safely". Of course, this means Wisdom damage = unconscious... and you have to make a Fort save every time you cast a spell or gain more Taint, which means failed Fort save = unconscious... but if you were to pump your Wisdom through the roof as a Wizard/Sorcerer, then replace int/cha with Taint, you could get a very high save DC indeed. It'd just come at the risk of going unconscious the moment something targets your Wisdom or you fail a fort save (10+spell level every time you cast a spell).

Yeah I know. I was just looking at that. I'm just asking if there is a reasonable way to nerf it:

- remove taint supression
- remove tainted spellcasting, ie DCs are still based on Int/Cha
- cap the taint score at say HD/2

and so on....

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-23, 07:17 PM
Use taint but don't use the tainted PrCs. Easy.

Lamech
2009-06-23, 07:32 PM
Ah...is there no way to cap/fix/nerf that?
Oh no tainted casting. Just strip that feature. The PrC is still decent, if you allow clerics to use wis unmodified by taint for casting. But then you don't lose a whole lot and you get a d8 and switch your save to fort, plus other goodies. Not a nerf.



Yeah I know. I was just looking at that. I'm just asking if there is a reasonable way to nerf it:

- remove taint supression
- remove tainted spellcasting, ie DCs are still based on Int/Cha
- cap the taint score at say HD/2
Removing taint suppression alone won't quite work. Taint gives a +1 to DC per point. So you can still pump DC high... I'm not good with balance, more with finding total brokeness.

I would go with not allowing the PrC's and this only applies to arcanists right? Otherwise I wouldn't have taint drain wis for the purposes of casting.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-23, 08:09 PM
Use taint but don't use the tainted PrCs. Easy.


I would go with not allowing the PrC's and this only applies to arcanists right?

Sounds like a that's the fix.

(Edit: for my question on the taint variant not the OP's question.)

Thanks.

Hat-Trick
2009-06-23, 08:51 PM
Something you have to remember is that the class isn't what's imbalanced. It's the play-style. A blaster wizard is usually balanced, because that's what the system is balanced for. The wizards that break the game are "Playing Like D***heads", no offense. The best way to balance said style, is to have a stronger mage. Preferably one loyal to the crown, church, or whatever. By your fluff, he could be a mystic theurge several levels higher than the Players who practices the Theurge arts to "purify" his tainted magic and it may be required by Church law to avoid burning at the stake.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-23, 10:49 PM
Something you have to remember is that the class isn't what's imbalanced. It's the play-style. A blaster wizard is usually balanced, because that's what the system is balanced for. The wizards that break the game are "Playing Like D***heads", no offense. The best way to balance said style, is to have a stronger mage. Preferably one loyal to the crown, church, or whatever. By your fluff, he could be a mystic theurge several levels higher than the Players who practices the Theurge arts to "purify" his tainted magic and it may be required by Church law to avoid burning at the stake.Read the God and Batman guides. They advocate a style of Wizard play that will definitely make the party far more powerful than the designers intended. And the party will love them for it. It's using your abilities to their highest, which means controlling the battlefield, buffing the party, debuffing the enemy, summoning allies, casting a Save-or-X, and blasting. That's about the order of effectiveness advocated by the God guide, and interestingly enough, the most powerful 3 all make the party better. in some cases(Solid Fog, etc) they make the party able to handle things several CRs above their EPL. That's why the Wizard is the most powerful class, and using those abilities is in no way a D*** move. After all, the Rogue is probably going to thank you for casting Grease, even if the spell is the reason the party won without a single other spell being cast.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-23, 10:54 PM
Something you have to remember is that the class isn't what's imbalanced. It's the play-style. A blaster wizard is usually balanced, because that's what the system is balanced for. The wizards that break the game are "Playing Like D***heads", no offense.
And this is why the wizard was given roughly two blasting spells in ever spell level in core, and a many times more battlefield control, save or X, buffing and utility spells.

If the system was balanced for blaster wizards, that means that the wizard was never intended to use most of his spell list. That's crazy talk.

Myrmex
2009-06-24, 12:00 AM
I'd like to thank everyone for their thoughtful responses.

Haven't mentions this yet, so I'll put a bold important right here:
important
My players tend to favor damage spells, as they are old school 2e players. My main plan with limiting casting is to have an actual campaign world that isn't high magic or internally inconsistent since there should be a level 20 mage that fixed all the problems with binding solars.

Basically, I am going to only step up the Inquisition if the magic gets abusive or they're stupid with it like charming the mayor that threw them in prison or dominating the prince or something. I don't want to have to think up contingencies for every possible way they can screw an NPC with magic. If they can charm everyone, why hasn't this done before, and why aren't there magical protections against it?

If they want to fireball (or web or glitterdust or whatever) some wolves in the wilderness, I am fine with that.


Also, if you think psionics is less of a problem than magic, you just don't understand the powers well enough. In fact, psionics is horribly overpowered if there's few encounters per day, since the psions can go nova and use as many PP as they can on all their powers. This is what happened in our Dark Sun campaign, and everyone was constantly astounded by the psion's power because we were used to one encounter per day, but hadn't combined psions with it.

I tend to, and plan on, running endurance sessions. I am implementing a quasi-healing surge system using the heal skill, which a feat or two can make much better, so spell slots don't have to be devoted to healing OoC. I mean psions are that broken because their metamagic system is built in/limited, they can't have ALL the powers, and in general, their powers are slightly weaker than the arcane varieties. Of course, there are broken powers, or at least very abusable, but they are fewer and mostly high level.

I am glad to hear that using magic can be restricted by the threat of overwhelming violence, though I agree that for straight up D&D arcanists, a total ban on all spells is a bad move. I will have to think on how to make arcanists more viable through non-magical means. Perhaps alchemy and throwing alchemists fire. I've got homebrew to make it more powerful.



Will there be a penalty to reaction checks for being a known arcanist (or dressing/acting like one)?
Will there be wizards licenses or casting taxes? Or is there just a blanket ban on wizardry?
What anti-arcanist wards are in place in this society?
Is there going to be a %age chance (set or variable) that the local Witchsmeller Pursuivant and his inquisitorial henchchumps sense arcane casting in the vicinity?
What about sorcerers born with magic in their blood? How are they perceived? Are they unfortunate souls who must resist the temptation of their innate sinful powers? Or are they accursed and hated by the gods?

Nice list. This really helps organize my ideas.

1. There will definitely be penalties to being a wizard/looking like one. Races with an affinity for magic will be treated with great distrust. I'm vaguely modeling the setting on 12 century England, so elves are going to fill the Saracen niche, and gnomes will be jews. Wearing wizard robes in public would be basically like parading through the streets of medieval europe covered in pentagrams and satanic robes.

2. There will be licensing. The Church abhors arcanists, but begrudges that they have uses. The nobility, of course, greatly prizes a court magician. I'm thinking there will be two colleges: the academy that trains war wizards/arcanists devoted to killing stuff (boom magic and control magic). The other college is the Tower, technically devoted to building things for the Church, though they have powerful interests and pursue their own goals.

Licensed arcanists will be expected to check in with a town's authorities upon arrival.

Player Characters will of course get to start play with a license, if they choose.

3. Basically a fearful populace and a Church that is very active in crushing xenos and heretics. Errr.... Higher level casters, pretty much. Technically, the whole campaign world is the demesne of a Pit Lord, and the Church is his institution to facilitate in soul harvesting, but no one knows that. Anything that the Church can't handle will be dealt with the minions or allies of Hell.

While a caster could get out of control for a session or two, flying/teleporting archivists would show up and take care of him.

4. There may be a few inquisitors out there that can sense arcane magic, but those will be a select group. For the most part, most are ignorant of the details/finer points of arcane magic, even those within the Church. If you are muttering and waving your hands, you would likely be mistaken for an arcanist. Or if fireballs shoot out of your eyes or weird events happen around you. Other than that, no, I don't plan on having anyone actively seeking arcanists before they reveal themselves.

In bigger towns, there will be magic proof cages and carts for transporting and keeping more dangerous mages. For arcanists that aren't that powerful, simply knocking them out, then removing some fingers and a tongue until their trial will be all that Inquisitors will do.

5. Sorcerers are going to be seen as witches. The smart ones learn to conceal their gift or live in the woods. Others use their gifts surreptitiously to advance their career goals. A few enter the magic schools for additional training.


You might want to look up Dark Sun for a view of a society that bans and persecutes arcane casting outside the hierarchy, or possibly the Known World/Mystara setting's nation of Glantri for a country that goes to the other extreme (a magocracy where clerics, and dwarves, are illegal. This has some obvious-in-hindsight repurcussions when a post-war plague hits). WFRP, Ars Magica and Mage are also good source material.

Thanks, I will look into these.


Sounds interesting. Any notes you can post on it?

Sure. Once per day, someone may attempt to heal you for 1d8 HP at a DC 25 heal check. One feat allows you to heal others a number of times per day equal to your wisdom modifier + the amount you beat DC 25 by. Without optimization, that's basically 1d8+your level. With optimization, it could be a bit more.

There's another feat (fighter bonus feat) that lets you add your "martial level" to HP from heal checks, which is basically your BAB for martial classes (archivists, wizards of the tower, cloistered clerics don't get one, rangers and barbarians get a -4 penalty to theirs). Martial level also determines the way bonuses scale for some feats.


How do these squads get the foul magics? Seems contradictory if they hate it all. And more importantly if the archivists have all those spells, you just shifted the problem to archivists. Oops.

They are granted the power by their All-Deity. Archivists are basically clerics with wizard mechanics, except they have to find spells on scrolls not on caster lists. Basically it lets me control exactly what spells are on the PC archivist's list while putting what needs to be on opposing caster lists.


That seems odd to me. The cleric is getting his spells directly from his deity, after all. If the deity sees fit to grant them, why would the Church forbid him to use them?

For the same reasons any church forbids another religion from proselytizing- competition for followers.

Cuthbert, Heironeous, and Pelor are seen as "aspects" of the Over-God or All-Deity, and they are the only "legal" deities. If you decide to play a halfling cleric of Yollanda, you will be under similar scrutiny known arcanists are under.


Why wouldn't the Church use its powerful divine emissaries as the ass-kicking warrior-chaplains they're so good at being? (Not least because they don't actually need to prepare cure spells, unless you mean that they're expected to load up on restorations and remove diseases.)

"Cleric" is going to come in three flavors- warpriest, monk, and archivist. The warpriest will basically be a divine bard/gish who gets to use immediate actions to put buffs up, the monk will be the cloistered cleric, but with more domains, and the archivist will be the archivist. Since there won't be any divine metamagic, I'm not really worried about the cloistered cleric usurping the role of warpriest

Divine casters in this setting are supposed to be devout. This doesn't mean going dungeon crawling for gold to buy sharper swords to go do a bigger dungeon crawl for more gold.


(More fundamentally, it seems odd to me for a church to penalize divine casters as much as arcane. This sort of thing is usually done with priests censoring wizards, or something along those lines.)

It's a bureaucratic administration lorded over by an Arch Fiend. He takes pleasure in paving the road to Hell with good intentions and paper work.


Balance should be handled mechanically, IMO.

I really like D&D spells, because they're so fun. You can solve ANY problem, ever, with one! And I think that's what my players really enjoy, too. However, I don't want to take this away and give them a 4e system where everything feels more or less the same.

Xenogears
2009-06-24, 01:40 AM
[QUOTE=Myrmex;6354359]Technically, the whole campaign world is the demesne of a Pit Lord, and the Church is his institution to facilitate in soul harvesting, but no one knows that./QUOTE]

Will one of the players be playing a blue-haired dragon boy named Ryu or have you never played BoF2? Cuz thats basically the big reveal of that game....not to say your copying it but as soon as I read that line I got flashes of the game running in my head.

Myrmex
2009-06-24, 01:52 AM
Will one of the players be playing a blue-haired dragon boy named Ryu or have you never played BoF2? Cuz thats basically the big reveal of that game....not to say your copying it but as soon as I read that line I got flashes of the game running in my head.

I don't know what BoF2 is, sorry.
My friends and I have come to the conclusion that all the places where peasants grovel in dirt huts have to be planetary backwaters no one cares about, or soul farms.

only1doug
2009-06-24, 02:02 AM
I don't know what BoF2 is, sorry.
My friends and I have come to the conclusion that all the places where peasants grovel in dirt huts have to be planetary backwaters no one cares about, or soul farms.

BoF= Breath of Fire, Ordinary looking boy turns out to be able to turn into a dragon during fights. (because he is really a baby dragon who changed shape to a boy to save himself from danger and is subconciously usinghis full power to save himself when the boy shape isn't going to survive).

BoF2 = sequal

I liked the games but was always irritated by the fact that you could only remain in dragon form for a short time. its your natural form, but theres a time limit, huh?

Myrmex
2009-06-24, 02:22 AM
I, um, oh.
I'm gussing it's a jrpg?

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-24, 04:53 AM
Use taint but don't use the tainted PrCs. Easy.

T, we are in teh internet, so please avoid using common sense, ok?

Speaking for my experience, taint (Oadv + partially modified HoH), as well as sanity* or even ditry tricks like violet rain, wild or impeded magic and so on work, help balance and don't annoy caster players if you keep in mind one thing: they shouldn't be a constant, at least, not all together.

Conuter-example: a charger melee. A charger melee one shots a lot of enemies, but if the enemy is out of reach, you are screwed. Well, in these situation you could use your imagination (a battle jump from a trained Asperi), spellcaster support, or simply change tactic. For spellcaster, these "hampering machanics" should work in similar fashion.

This is my experience, of course. To have an idea of how a setting can work in this way take a look on oriental Adventures Rokugan. The design mindset behing OAdv is very good and I always took it as a guide and suggestion.

And Jaded Weapon and Iaijutsu abuse FTW!



*how sanity? think about what spell could be harmful for the spellcaster's mind. I guess transforming in anotehr creature can be at best stressful, and bend time too.

Whoops, we just "fixed" a little bit polymorph and celerity and timestop. Are used? maybe. Are spammed? no.

Eurantien
2009-06-24, 05:25 AM
Personally, I always found the best way to limit arcane casters was to simply speak to the player before the campaign and ask him not to completely take over. Long days also help - casters will eventually run out of spell slots. When not DMing, I usually play a caster, and I try not to be unreasonable about it. If you've got an acquiescent player, you can manage a world like the one you've described and it'll be fun for everyone, as casters won't take over but will have lots of opportunity to roleplay and deal with obstacles.

Edit: Another thought. Couldn't you have some effect in place, at least in certain areas consecrated by the church, that force casters to take concentration checks when casting, like they'd have to do in really bad weather?

Irreverent Fool
2009-06-24, 07:37 AM
Stop saying 'basically'.

I always like the idea that arcanists are generally distrusted at best and hunted down at worst as an element of a campaign. I've never managed to make it work, though. In my experience it ends up as one of the previous posters said: a ramp in XP and a lot of dead inquisitors. Your ideas have merit. That is all. Carry on.

obnoxious
sig

Heliomance
2009-06-24, 07:47 AM
Fluff is a very good way to balance. In my DM's campaign world, the Wilderness is highly distrusted, to the point that openly being a Druid will likely get you thrown out of town. Our Druid was very careful never to cast Druid-only spells or wildshape in front of peons.

Myrmex
2009-06-24, 12:06 PM
Stop saying 'basically'.

:(


I've never managed to make it work, though. In my experience it ends up as one of the previous posters said: a ramp in XP and a lot of dead inquisitors.

Hmm, good point.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-24, 12:21 PM
Hmm, good point.

If your idea of "in-character consequences" is "someone tries to kill you," you're forced to either effectively dole out XP and treasure, or to throw unfairly dangerous encounters that they have no chance of beating at the PCs.

Of course, "in-character consequences" can be so much more interesting than that.

Hat-Trick
2009-06-24, 12:25 PM
In the case of people trying to kill you, those people aren't added on to the XP, they replace the XP.

Lamech
2009-06-24, 12:37 PM
On psionics... there are some nasty low level powers. Bestow power + cost reducers, would be the big one. They have a bunch of action gainers so they can nova, and they have this wonderful rope trick like spell. So be careful or you may end up with a really dead boss, in round one.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-24, 12:40 PM
In the case of people trying to kill you, those people aren't added on to the XP, they replace the XP.

Replace the XP for what?

Why would the PCs not get experience for overcoming enemies (a challenge) in a game that grants XP for overcoming enemies (challenges) ? And you've still got the issue of throwing magic items at the PCs all the time.

Artanis
2009-06-24, 12:44 PM
Replace the XP for what?

Why would the PCs not get experience for overcoming enemies (a challenge) in a game that grants XP for overcoming enemies (challenges) ? And you've still got the issue of throwing magic items at the PCs all the time.

Replace the XP from normal encounters. Instead of, say, 1000XP worth of Orcs, they wind up fighting 1000XP worth of Wizard-hunters.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-24, 12:51 PM
Replace the XP from normal encounters. Instead of, say, 1000XP worth of Orcs, they wind up fighting 1000XP worth of Wizard-hunters.

So the actual content of the campaign or adventure is replaced with essentially random encounters with witch-hunters? What sort of logic is this? If they use a spell on the way to a demon-haunted crypt, they fight some witch-hunters and find that the crypt is demon-free? If they use a spell while searching for the evil thieves' guild, they fight witch-hunters instead of evil thieves?

Myrmex
2009-06-24, 04:25 PM
If your idea of "in-character consequences" is "someone tries to kill you," you're forced to either effectively dole out XP and treasure, or to throw unfairly dangerous encounters that they have no chance of beating at the PCs.

Of course, "in-character consequences" can be so much more interesting than that.

As 2e players, I think they're canny enough to avoid, or at least have lost enough characters to accept, the consequences.

Doug Lampert
2009-06-24, 04:53 PM
Stop saying 'basically'.

I always like the idea that arcanists are generally distrusted at best and hunted down at worst as an element of a campaign. I've never managed to make it work, though. In my experience it ends up as one of the previous posters said: a ramp in XP and a lot of dead inquisitors. Your ideas have merit. That is all. Carry on.

You're both assuming that the PCs (a) win and (b) do so at a cost comparable to a normal encounter of given loot/XP value.

Both are most likely untrue in a reasonable world. Wizard hunters who are tied in with the world's ruling class and a universal church are unlikely to be pushovers and will have plenty of magic available to make sure they hit with an APL + 10 or so CR group, by surprise, in an ambush, with all their buffs up and with you most likely unprepared.

Even if you win or escape one or more characters will likely be dead, and the loot may well be minimal since they had plenty of time and allies available to cast GMW on otherwise non-magic weapons prior to the strike or they could just be summoning things with teleport powers and throwing them at the party. Summoned monsters aren't worth any XP on their own, you have to beat the guys who sent them, and those guys aren't even being inconviencenced until you come to them in the high temple of whatsis.

If I tell my players, "you can do X, but it will probably get your characters killed" they are strangly reluctant to do X, almost as if they believed I'd TPK their asses if they do something that stupid.

Why in the WORLD, in any world, would wizard hunters added to the setting specifically to make some behavior unprofitable come in level appropriate encounters with standard levels of loot?

Random832
2009-06-25, 08:14 AM
You're both assuming that the PCs (a) win and (b) do so at a cost comparable to a normal encounter of given loot/XP value.

Both are most likely untrue in a reasonable world.

Technically the CR - and thus the loot/XP value - are determined based on the expected cost of the encounter, so if (b) is not true you are already bending the rules. It certainly does make sense for them not to be level-appropriate encounters, but that means that if the players do prevail their XP awards should be higher.

The "summoned monsters aren't worth XP" rule you mention is probably based on the assumption that the people summoning them are part of the same encounter.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-25, 08:54 AM
The "summoned monsters aren't worth XP" rule you mention is probably based on the assumption that the people summoning them are part of the same encounter.

Yeah, that one is pretty specific. It goes "if someone uses summon monster or a similar spell during combat, the summoned creature does not have its own CR and is not worth XP, since it is an ability of the summoner."


Both are most likely untrue in a reasonable world. Wizard hunters who are tied in with the world's ruling class and a universal church are unlikely to be pushovers and will have plenty of magic available to make sure they hit with an APL + 10 or so CR group, by surprise, in an ambush, with all their buffs up and with you most likely unprepared.

Okay, so you're going with the other scenario I already mentioned: completely and ridiculously unfair encounters. How is this a good or fair way of limiting magic? Why would anyone ever play a spellcaster? You might as well ban the classes. "Well, if you were one, you'd be dead already."

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-25, 03:51 PM
Yeah, that one is pretty specific. It goes "if someone uses summon monster or a similar spell during combat, the summoned creature does not have its own CR and is not worth XP, since it is an ability of the summoner."Then defeating the monster counts as 'overcoming' the Summoner, and you get XP for beating him. Either you're facing the monsters or the summoner. Either way, you deserve XP.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-25, 04:11 PM
Then defeating the monster counts as 'overcoming' the Summoner, and you get XP for beating him. Either you're facing the monsters or the summoner. Either way, you deserve XP.

My point was that you only don't get XP for the summoned monster if we're actually talking about a character present in the fight actually using an action to cast summon monster or the like. If we're just talking about monsters summoned "off-screen" and sent against the PCs, they definitely are worth the usual XP (unless, of course, they just disappear mid-combat, in which case you'll just have to adjudicate the percentage of XP the encounter was worth from the full amount.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-25, 04:33 PM
My point was that you only don't get XP for the summoned monster if we're actually talking about a character present in the fight actually using an action to cast summon monster or the like. If we're just talking about monsters summoned "off-screen" and sent against the PCs, they definitely are worth the usual XP (unless, of course, they just disappear mid-combat, in which case you'll just have to adjudicate the percentage of XP the encounter was worth from the full amount.You'd be surprised how many people thnk that a Malconvker summoning a bunch of Fiendish Tigers from 1000' away, sending them running at you, and walking away, shouldn't grant XP. :smallannoyed:

Doug Lampert
2009-06-25, 04:46 PM
Okay, so you're going with the other scenario I already mentioned: completely and ridiculously unfair encounters. How is this a good or fair way of limiting magic? Why would anyone ever play a spellcaster? You might as well ban the classes. "Well, if you were one, you'd be dead already."

Because it's perfectly possible to play a lawbreaker WITHOUT taking on the entire USArmy or the entire Church inquisitor staff.

Don't get caught. Don't use obvious magic in front of churchmen. Or surrender peacefully and try to get off on a technicality. But real world and any reasonable fantasy world governments REALLY REALLY frown on random bandits killing their enforcers, and in this case the entire POINT of the law from a Roleplaying POV is to nerf spellcasters, to ballance them with RP restrictions. If all you're doing is giving them extra patrol encounters at the ordinary rewards and risks and intervals you have COMPLETELY FAILED at the alleged goal.

How is it hard to notice that if you want your players to NOT do something outright rewarding them for doing it is probably a bad plan? How realistic is a world where someone can get away with REPEATEDLY murdering the local authorities, and the authorities are perfectly capable of hunting them down with overwhelming force, yet never bother to do so?

You are destroying setting versimilitude in order to ALSO destroy the alleged purpose of the restriction. Brilliant! What is GOOD about using patrol encounters where the PCs have a 4:1 edge in these cases?

If your PCs at level 1 decide to walk up to the local King and kill him do you make sure that ALSO has nothing but "fair" patrol encounters? Because that would actually be MORE reasonable and likely than what you're suggesting.

DougL

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-25, 05:35 PM
You are destroying setting versimilitude in order to ALSO destroy the alleged purpose of the restriction. Brilliant! What is GOOD about using patrol encounters where the PCs have a 4:1 edge in these cases?

I never agreed that they're a good idea to begin with.