Zaq
2009-11-30, 10:25 PM
So, we all know that one of the most sacred rules of optimization is "Thou Shalt Not Lose Caster Levels." (Yes, there are exceptions. Blah blah Malconvoker blah Sandshaper blah blah Swiftblade blah blah blah. I know. Not the point.) Even in the cases of the exceptions, you hardly ever lose more than one casting level. In most cases, the 5/10 progression classes are considered to be complete wastes of space... and compared to a 20th level straight-classed Wizard (or Cleric, or Archivist, or whatever), they are.
But, what if that's not the point?
Wizards and the other full casters are crazy, crazy powerful. No one really disputes this. It's also obvious that they outshine most other classes without even trying. It's possible to intentionally throttle back and let the rest of the party shine, of course, but deep down, everyone knows that you probably could have decided the encounter with a standard action if you really wanted to. However, even people who try to "play nice" in this way still shy away from losing caster levels.
What if we tried combining the two?
Wizards (I'm just going to use wizards as the default example, but I'm talking about all of the crazy full casters) are ridiculously strong... but are they ridiculously strong enough to maintain parity with other classes if they intentionally gimp their spell progression? Sure, a wizard with a bunch of levels in, for example, Mindbender, or Visionary Seeker,or whatever, won't be nearly on par with a wizard who didn't sacrifice any spell levels... but they're still a freakin' Wizard, right? Well, that's what I'm trying to think about. At what point does lost caster level stop making the wizard "less powerful than GOD" and start making them an actual drain on party resources?
Of course, this all depends on the makeup of the party. If you're a wizard in a group with a druid, a psion, a sorcerer, and an artificer (in other words, with other 1st and 2nd tier classes), yeah, losing three or four levels is going to make you have to do some fast talking to justify your share of the loot. But let's say that we have a slightly lower balance point. For the purposes of this thread, how about Tome of Battle? Let's say that the goal is to bring as much to the party as a Warblade or Swordsage. What then? Losing caster levels undeniably weakens the wizard... but the wizard needs to be weakened to begin with. Would a wizard who dives into a 1/2 progression class be about on par with, say, a swordsage? What would have to be true for that to be the case?
Basically, I'm just wondering at what point spells stop being worth enough to carry a character's weight. You want more than 3rd level spells at level 20, sure, but do we really need 9th? Is being a spell level or two behind a straight-classer really so bad when you were already a demigod wizard? Would a wizard who intentionally loses some caster levels still be on par with a warblade? Why or why not?
I'm thinking that if all wizards were required to lose some caster levels... well, it certainly wouldn't balance the game straight up (that'd require, among other things, hand-combing through every spell in the game... and changing more than a few basic assumptions), but I think it would help things. I know that I like playing magical characters, but I hate outshining my friends. I don't have anything specific in mind, but I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't help to take one of these "horrifically weak" PrCs expressly to try to rein in the power. When compared to other classes (again, I like Swordsage as a balance point), are the 5/10 classes really that bad, or is not staying at the top level bad enough that the wizard stops being useful, even if he stops being godly?
But, what if that's not the point?
Wizards and the other full casters are crazy, crazy powerful. No one really disputes this. It's also obvious that they outshine most other classes without even trying. It's possible to intentionally throttle back and let the rest of the party shine, of course, but deep down, everyone knows that you probably could have decided the encounter with a standard action if you really wanted to. However, even people who try to "play nice" in this way still shy away from losing caster levels.
What if we tried combining the two?
Wizards (I'm just going to use wizards as the default example, but I'm talking about all of the crazy full casters) are ridiculously strong... but are they ridiculously strong enough to maintain parity with other classes if they intentionally gimp their spell progression? Sure, a wizard with a bunch of levels in, for example, Mindbender, or Visionary Seeker,or whatever, won't be nearly on par with a wizard who didn't sacrifice any spell levels... but they're still a freakin' Wizard, right? Well, that's what I'm trying to think about. At what point does lost caster level stop making the wizard "less powerful than GOD" and start making them an actual drain on party resources?
Of course, this all depends on the makeup of the party. If you're a wizard in a group with a druid, a psion, a sorcerer, and an artificer (in other words, with other 1st and 2nd tier classes), yeah, losing three or four levels is going to make you have to do some fast talking to justify your share of the loot. But let's say that we have a slightly lower balance point. For the purposes of this thread, how about Tome of Battle? Let's say that the goal is to bring as much to the party as a Warblade or Swordsage. What then? Losing caster levels undeniably weakens the wizard... but the wizard needs to be weakened to begin with. Would a wizard who dives into a 1/2 progression class be about on par with, say, a swordsage? What would have to be true for that to be the case?
Basically, I'm just wondering at what point spells stop being worth enough to carry a character's weight. You want more than 3rd level spells at level 20, sure, but do we really need 9th? Is being a spell level or two behind a straight-classer really so bad when you were already a demigod wizard? Would a wizard who intentionally loses some caster levels still be on par with a warblade? Why or why not?
I'm thinking that if all wizards were required to lose some caster levels... well, it certainly wouldn't balance the game straight up (that'd require, among other things, hand-combing through every spell in the game... and changing more than a few basic assumptions), but I think it would help things. I know that I like playing magical characters, but I hate outshining my friends. I don't have anything specific in mind, but I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't help to take one of these "horrifically weak" PrCs expressly to try to rein in the power. When compared to other classes (again, I like Swordsage as a balance point), are the 5/10 classes really that bad, or is not staying at the top level bad enough that the wizard stops being useful, even if he stops being godly?