[3.P] How does balance change if "magic" is limited but physical things aren't?

[Endarire]

Assumptions
-Tome of Battle and all first party and unupdated legacy material is allowed. (Pathfinder/3.5/3.0)

-All supernatural maneuvers and stances are allowed.

-"Magic" is limited to level 4 and lower abilities. Sanctum Spell and other abilities to lower the effective level of abilities are not allowed.

-"Magic" includes psionics, infusions, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, incarnum, and anything nonextraordinary.

-"Casters" (users of "Magic"), upon leveling up, continue to gain spell slots, spells known, power points, caster levels, and so on so long as their abilities are of level 4 or below. Supernatural maneuvers of higher levels are still allowed as normal.

The Questions
Casters are limited and can't do everything. Martial characters are about as they are now power-wise, What changes?

What if spells were limited to level 5? What about level 6?

[Tyndmyr]

Play E6 or E8. They are what you are looking for.

[Melayl]

Well, casters and melee will be on a more even power level. Probably not completely even, but more even.

I don't know if any magic items will be limited by the lack of higher level spells. Probably not many, if at all.

All in all, it sounds like a fun campaign.

[Gan The Grey]

Play E6 or E8. They are what you are looking for.

No.....how does this answer his question?

[Gralamin]

Assumptions
The Questions
Casters are limited and can't do everything. Martial characters are about as they are now power-wise, What changes?

What if spells were limited to level 5? What about level 6?

It forces casters to play more "Cheesy" builds, exploit metamagic reducers, and to take different prestige classes. They will also tend to get more items.

Full casting progression will no longer be that important - except for caster level, which means you can lose 4 casting levels and still get max level spells. This opens up some interesting tricks that were just not worth it before because of how powerful 9th level spells are.

This will lead to casters still being pretty broken, and I don't think this strategy will work to fix anything notable. If you want to adjust 3.5 balance, you will have to rewrite a large number of spells.

Edit: Also, Mystic Theruges will be common. Very common.

[WinWin]

DMM Clerics and Wildshaping Druids will still own face. Wizards can still lock down encounters...Expect a lot more Focused Conjurers spamming Black Tentacles and Stinking Cloud. The King of Smack psywar build still functions, it just needs to rest more often. Psions have a swath of action economy abuse they can still exploit.

No real change until higher levels. In theory, higher level magical items will not exist without the casters to create them. Many encounters will become more difficult without casters to buff/protect the party. eg. Good luck locking down a Pit Fiend while it blasphemy kites the party into submission.

[Quellian-dyrae]

It does sound like it relegates casting to primarily a multiclass option. Past level 10 or so in a full casting class, you start to see diminishing returns for continuing progression, and there doesn't really seem to be any reason to progress most casters past level 13.

Of note is that psionic characters compare better against other casters than they normally do in this system, since their powers known are level-independent, and they can augment their lower-level powers. Druids, of course, with their other scaling abilities also retain a higher portion of their previous power. Prestige classes that offer only partial casting progression, or even that sacrifice it (such as Master of Many Forms) become a lot more viable.

One way to combat this would be to continue allowing higher level spell slots to accumulate, but allow them to only be used for metamagic (actually, without something like that, many metamagic feats also have their value sharply reduced).

[RickGriffin]

So why are so many people here hostile to questions about balance changes? Maybe I'm exaggerating but still, dismissing a simple (okay complex) question.


It forces casters to play more "Cheesy" builds, exploit metamagic reducers, and to take different prestige classes. They will also tend to get more items.

How is this at all relevant

A person builds cheesily if he is predisposed to building cheese, not because he's backed into a corner by a game variant. "Dominate the gameplay" isn't the only mode of operating that casters have open to them; that's pretty akin to "the GM is not letting me have ninth level spells?! I'LL SHOW HIM"

And saying that is sort of discounting that the other classes who could also cheese might be better or on par with the reduced caster cheese?

There's probably quite a few prestige classes that WOULD become beneficial that were not before because of their reduced caster levels.

Although, Clerics? Would hey have -zilla cheese available to them? Would this actually make them rely on being casters a bit more rather than tanks?

[Gralamin]

How is this at all relevant

A person builds cheesily if he is predisposed to building cheese, not because he's backed into a corner by a game variant. "Dominate the gameplay" isn't the only mode of operating that casters have open to them; that's pretty akin to "the GM is not letting me have ninth level spells?! I'LL SHOW HIM"
First, don't read hostility, or accuse people of such, without any actual evidence. There was no hostility in that sentence.

If you are asking about game balance, you need to take into account multiple levels of gameplay. A person playing a pretty unoptimized spellcasting build will be forced into building a stronger character to still be able to contribute. Similarly, those who play higher optimization casters would be forced to up their optimization to stay where they are. People dislike falling behind, and usually people will play to a level where they feel they are contributing enough, but not overpowering. This forces them to play cheesier builds.

Then, there are people with the dominate the game attitude. Those ones will, of course be forced to use even cheesier means to accomplish their ends.

Finally, there are people who let themselves fall behind. These people will never be a problem in the first place, and are pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.



Although, Clerics? Would hey have -zilla cheese available to them? Would this actually make them rely on being casters a bit more rather than tanks?
They would still be -zillaing, all they need are a few items and a few feats, and a level 4 spell. Easy.

[Rad]

People playing E6 will probably be able to answer your question better. It is a variant system with some history and many people who played it and discussed its merits and tweaks. I'd pose this question on their boards too.
Also, if your goal is to have a game system up to your standards, there is a good chance that it would fit the bill better than something you whip up. If, on the other hand, you want it to be you who came up with your own homebrew system that won't be of use.


A person builds cheesily if he is predisposed to building cheese, not because he's backed into a corner by a game variant.
No, no they don't. Some might, but not all of them. Many people just try to have a character that is able to respond to the campaign's challenges and not behind the rest of the group. These are the people that, according to the arguments made by other posters, your system hinders. Maybe to the point where they'll have to not play the character they want or be significantly behind in power to the rest of the group.
In practice your system might make it so that only the hardcore optimizers can play a caster. You seem to dislike hardcore optimizers, so people are afraid that your system might not do something that you like.


Finally, there are people who let themselves fall behind. These people will never be a problem in the first place, and are pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.
Actually they can be a problem too. There is one active thread on this very topic right now.


And saying that is sort of discounting that the other classes who could also cheese might be better or on par with the reduced caster cheese?
That is definitely possible. In fact I seem to understand that whether this would happen or not, and in what measure, is your original question, right?

[/QUOTE]Although, Clerics? Would hey have -zilla cheese available to them? Would this actually make them rely on being casters a bit more rather than tanks?[/QUOTE]
Eyeballing it, I'd say no, they would have lost most of their bread and butter buffs. Personally, I am afraid that would actually nerf clerics too much as they are now both poor spellcasters and poor fighters. They are a strictly worse option than druid (who can still go D-zilla) and strictly worse than a Wizard as casters. Now you have a new problem class that you have to boos (or nerf everybody else to be on par with it).


"Dominate the gameplay" isn't the only mode of operating that casters have open to them; that's pretty akin to "the GM is not letting me have ninth level spells?! I'LL SHOW HIM"
I fail to see the kinship. They are two different bad things to do. Also, I don't see how they are related to the posts in this thread.

Respectfully

[SigCorps]

Question?...what is E6? Never heard of it.

As for limiting spells it really depends on what players types you have. If they are min/maxers, then yesy they will start pouring on the prestige classes. If they are not then they will either float with it, or not want to play.

Will it even the playing field, yes, but not as much as you may think.

[Fax Celestis]

As for limiting spells it really depends on what players types you have. If they are min/maxers, then yesy they will start pouring on the prestige classes. If they are not then they will either float with it, or not want to play.

Please explain to me how prestige classes equate cheese.

[dsmiles]

I see nothing wrong with limited magic. The campaign will still work, as DnD can be done with high-, average-, or low-magic worlds.

[Glimbur]

-"Magic" is limited to level 4 and lower abilities. Sanctum Spell and other abilities to lower the effective level of abilities are not allowed.

-"Magic" includes psionics, infusions, spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, incarnum, and anything nonextraordinary.

This catches bard song, which doesn't have an explicit level. Incarnum also doesn't have spell levels, but you could limit it to binds you get at 7th character level or lower. Not that that's necessary, a totemist would like the higher binds but does his main damage with the Totem bind from second level anyway.

[RickGriffin]

Please explain to me how prestige classes equate cheese.

Now see this is what I'm talking about.

I suppose maybe I read a bit too much into the other posts last night, but attempting to take advantage of the circumstances in itself is not cheesy, especially if overall the entire operation is less optimal that it would be under normal circumstances. In terms of game balance, the question is not "how would casters try and force their way back to tier one/two" but rather "even if the casters attempt to min/max, how far COULD they actually get (with reasonable effort), and what critical part of their bag of tricks that makes them tier one/two is missing (or not missing)?" By nature of being tier one/two, they have a LOT of tricks, but cutting out five levels I would think excises MOST of them, doesn't it?

Like the above poster who said that the clerics only needed a level 4 spell to make them clericzilla. Does this actually persist into the upper levels where they'd normally have level 6 or 7 spells? If there are higher level cleric spells that make them even better zillas, does the element of these missing drop them to the same level as martial adepts? Still better? Actually worse?

And when I said that "dominate the gameplay" is not the only operating mode that a caster has, what I mean is, if they become LESS effective at scry-and-die or one-shotting anything important, does this mean that playing a caster means that you COULD focus more on utility, normal battlefield control or evocation (last one not likely) and it not be a suboptimal choice?

[SigCorps]

Please explain to me how prestige classes equate cheese.

If the Dm is limiting magtic to make martial characters more usefull, then yes Min/Maxing your caster to bring yourself back to the front is cheese.

Do I think prestige classes are cheese, mostly no. There are a few combinations that can take the fun out of the game for others, if your character can dominate every encounter.

Then again I am a role player more then a technical player. When I see someone taking one leve in this class and two over here and this prestige class, the that one, to make a super character...that is cheese. But thats just my 2 cents.
I have had player who min maxed a druid like that. To take an already tier 1 class and then to take a few prestige classes to knock it up even farther was a tad much. While that was my fualt for letting him do that, he was also the first I have ever seen min/max like that. I limit certain combinations now.

[Gnaeus]

Personally, I think it would probably be more helpful than harmful. You could even be a bit more generous, and write up a spell list of 4-6 lower power spells per level after 4 that the casters still get (so at 17th level, the Wizard can pick from a short list with Meteor Swarm, Energy Drain or PW Kill but not Time Stop, Gate or Wish) without making yourself too open to abuse.

[Fax Celestis]

If the Dm is limiting magtic to make martial characters more usefull, then yes Min/Maxing your caster to bring yourself back to the front is cheese.

Do I think prestige classes are cheese, mostly no. There are a few combinations that can take the fun out of the game for others, if your character can dominate every encounter.

Please explain how taking a prestige class automatically puts you in the Munchkin Camp.

EDIT: Let me explain myself: What is the difference between having a person who takes Rogue 10/Wizard 10 and calls himself an assassin, and someone who takes Rogue 10/Assassin 10 and calls himself an assassin? They both have sneak attack, they both have Intelligence-based spellcasting...just one's class features are better at letting him do what his character professes himself to be: assassination.

Granted, some prestige classes are some of the most broken things in the game (Iot7FV, Incantatrix, I'm looking at you). However, these are exceptions and not rules. 95% of the time, a character that takes three levels here, four there, one here, another two there is only building a specific concept that the rules don't really cover very well.

[Pechvarry]

OP, I would consider adding 2 things to your model:
-Don't touch spell slot progression. Let it continue on up to 9th level. Spells to use those slots simply don't exist.
-Give full caster base classes some bonus feats for metamagic (particularly later in their career).

This provides dedicated casters a slew of slots with nothing better to use them on but metamagicked versions of their normal spells. No new, campaign-exploding elements are introduced, but the existing options continue to get better.

You should also look into whether or not spontaneous casters continuing to gain new spells known will unbalance them, as well as keeping a very close eye on metamagic reducers (simply stating you can't reduce a spell below its base level helps a lot to cut out a lot of stacking cheese).


---


Please explain how taking a prestige class automatically puts you in the Munchkin Camp.

Err, in the bit you quoted, he said they're mostly not cheesy but a few can ruin the game for others. You agree with him:


Granted, some prestige classes are some of the most broken things in the game (Iot7FV, Incantatrix, I'm looking at you).

[SigCorps]

Aye that is what I meant, most are fine, but there are a few folks who take it to the extreme. Taking one is not cheese, whent he player starts diving in to several trying to come up with "god ability A" then I call that min maxing.

[erikun]

The Questions
Casters are limited and can't do everything. Martial characters are about as they are now power-wise, What changes?

What if spells were limited to level 5? What about level 6?
Well, if you're talking about cheese-builds, they might adjust their focus a bit but not change much. More Grease, Web, and Solid Fog. Higher level play would focus more on no-save spells or maximizing caster level, because spellcasters would be at an equilivant of -5 to all DCs (the difference between 9th level and 4th level spells).

Blasting is even less practical, because your spells are limited to 10d6 damage (along with the above reduction of saving throws). Metamagic becomes useless without heavy metamagic reduction, as even a +2 modifier is a heavy tax on your limited 4th level spell slots.

You will probably see far more multiclassing (gish or theurge) and far more prestige classes which lose caster levels. Most spellcasters get nothing beyond 10th level except a few spell slots and greater chance with Dispel Magic.

Psionics fares much better. They are still able to spend PP up to their manifester level and get the CR-appropriate save DC while doing so. They are just incapable of learning any powers of 4th level or higher.

Monsters with higher level spell-like abilities become incredibly dangerous. Even something as simple as scrying requires (relatively) high-level spells to detect and counter.