PDA

View Full Version : Magic and Pathfinder



ProudGrognard
2013-10-21, 01:09 PM
The wall of text begins...

I have been Roleplaying in and around DnD for almost 20 years now. It was the first system I learned and I have gone most of its editions. It has shaped my RPGing habits, and it is the system I always default to. To me, Pathfinder is the best iteration of the game. You may disagree, and you would be fully in the right to do so. I am not stating an ontological position here, just stating a preference.

However, the legacy issues that PF has to deal with, who by the way are inherent to most 3.5 clones, I feel need and should be addressed. So I have been wondering what to do with the issue of magic. You probably know what I am talking about: The Goddamned Batman wizards and magic classes, the need for gishes and the complains about the poor, poor fighter.

Again, I have heard nice and reasoned arguments why this should be so. Again, I respectfully disagree, though you may enjoy the game any way you like. If you like that way, read no further. If you don’t though, let us continue the (one sided so far) discussion.

The old man start his futile attempt to make a point

To try and address the shortcoming, we must first describe it. As I see it, magic is the biggest source of imbalance - crunch and fluff wise- in the game for three reasons. First of all, magic has been tied to strongly with specific classes. Healing means cleric and only recently have other classes got any access to it. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, magic means versatility. A magic-user, whatever his actual class, is much more versatile in a vastly greater type of situations. This is why the ranger can be better than a rogue, or a wizard can deal with most situations, if prepared (and scrolls and wands make being prepared easy). Finally, it is easy to be good at a magic using class. Melee characters and even skill monkeys usually need two or three good stats in order to be very effective. A magic user (wizard, sorcerer, even a druid or a cleric) actually needs one.

Finally, he seems to be getting somewhere

So my question is, how to address these issues, provided we agree they are issues. I have thought a bit on the matter and I would like to share them.

First of all, one could overhaul the whole class system. This is what Monte Cook did in his Arcana Unearthed books and I believe he did a splendid job. However, making a UA-Pathfinder mash up would require massive work. Some of the problems would also remain. Plus, we are not talking about PF anymore, and I am loathe to go the “Just use another system”. I like PF. However, I would pay good money for a good AU/PF merging.

The second is to take lots and lots of baby steps and actually tweak the existing classes. I am thinking that classes like the Summoner and the Alchemist manage to have a strong theme while not having the problem at the same level. I am of course very aware of the many horrible, horrible things one could do with a summoner in particular. But the vanilla class is actually quite nice and can easily be fixed.
I am thus thinking that a nice solution would be to break the magic classes to more… let us call them themes. No magic using class should have a massive spell list, or easy access to a lot of spells. A good rule of thumb would be that each class should have a strong primary role and a good secondary one. The alchemist, again as an example, has a strong theme and pursues it elegantly. Why not split the magic user accordingly? The enchanter, the conjurer, the elementalist (evocation-based) can all acquire their own thematic development. The summoner can be refluffed to the archetypical artificer, who controls a golem he/she has created. And so on.

Secondly, these classes would have dedicated, incompatible spell lists. Some spells would be quite similar but it would be difficult for different traditions to learn from each other. That way, arcanists would still remain good at what they do, but within their own niche(s).

Thirdly, all spellcasting classes would cast based on two stats. Wizard-born classes like the fictional enchanter would use Int for knowing spells but Cha for calculating effect. The elementalist could have Int and Wis ( and having a Will strong enough to become a mage is a staple of fantasy). And so on and so forth.

Finally, healing can become both more limited and more widespread. True healing spells would belong to few classes. But the Heal skill could be revamped to become much more useful. Most healing happens after combat. Why not enable the Heal skill to do it? Plus, the Second Wind mechanic from the 4th edition could be imported, in some shape or form. Not to mention possible feats like “True doctor: Patients in your care regain twice the hps with each rest” and “Strong constitution: You regain hps twice as fast”. As written, the Heal skill would enable a warrior with the latter feat under the ministration of a healer with the former to regain 6hps per level each night. Not too bad at all…

So, these are my long, rambling thoughts. What do you think?

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-10-21, 04:46 PM
I hate to rain on your parade, Mr. Grognard, but while I agree the things you mention are problematic and need to be fixed, I disagree on your reasons why they're problematic and how to fix them.


So I have been wondering what to do with the issue of magic. You probably know what I am talking about: The Goddamned Batman wizards and magic classes,

As is mentioned every time the "nerf the wizard"/"buff the fighter" discussion arises, the problem with magic is the spells themselves, not the classes.

The classes with the fewest entries in their Special column are more powerful than ones with a nearly full Special column. Limiting lists thematically doesn't guarantee balance--beguiler/dread necromancer/summoner/alchemist > warmage/healer because the themes of "mental magic" and "play with the dead" are more broad and useful than "burn things" and "heal people." Even if you changed things up so a dread necromancer were more "undead leader" and less "necromancer supreme" while the warmage is more "mage who can do war things like troop transport and creating cover" and less "one-note blaster," a beguiler or summoner would probably be more powerful than a warmage or healer because the former get powerful open-ended spells like illusions and summons while the latter get more narrowly-defined effects.

Clerics and druids knowing every spell on their list is a problem because they can cherry-pick powerful spells; a cleric who can cast from its entire list beguiler-style is broken beyond belief, while a paladin or ranger who could do the same would actually be more interesting and balanced and would only be hard to deal with for bookkeeping reasons. You cannot balance the wizard by giving him only one spell/day/level and requiring dozens of checks to cast it if the spell, once cast, is on the order of wish or shapechange, and conversely a wizard who casts Melf's acid arrow and Tenser's floating disk instead of glitterdust and sleep is fairly balanced even without any extra checks on his casting.

You mentioned Arcana Unearthed as a point of comparison. Note how the spell changes for that system were the most important part of balancing magic: even though the spells go up to 10th level, the spell preparation scheme is more generous than Vancian casting, magisters can access a ton of spells while having more class features than a D&D wizard, more classes are partial casters, and there are more ways to boost spells like spell templates and heightening spells, the game is more balanced in play because the spells themselves are weaker (less effective healing, weaker and fewer 1st-level offensive spells) or nonexistent (no save-or-dies, no true resurrection) than in D&D. Using the changed classes and casting system with standard D&D spells would make them much more powerful and using the standard D&D classes with the new spells would make them much weaker; again, it's all down to the individual spells.

Now, that isn't to say that you shouldn't break the broad casters into more thematic ones; even a balanced wizard or cleric would be a pain to build and play with all the spells that need to be juggled, it's kind of weird to have very broad magical classes and very narrow martial ones, and the more limited classes are more diverse and flavorful. It's just that the "turn the wizard into the beguiler, summoner, warmage, etc." approach doesn't solve the root problem.


the need for gishes

This is a need because 3e multiclassing doesn't work for casters. Implement a fix for caster multiclassing (several versions of which have been posted and evaluated over the years) such that a simple wizard 10/fighter 10 is as competent and valuable as a wizard 5/fighter 1/eldritch knight 10/bladesinger 5, and all of the "patch" classes and PrCs like mystic theurge and duskblade are no longer necessary.

Of course, doing this goes against PF's strong preference for single-classed characters, but I personally think that it's a bad idea to make a different multiclass-combo-replacement class or PrC for every possible concept when you could create a versatile, functional multiclassing system instead, but that's a matter of taste.


and the complains about the poor, poor fighter.

The fighter is weak completely independent of the magic system, because feats are too few and too weak to give interesting options and handle level-appropriate challenges in and of themselves. If you remove magic that lets you do cool things, that doesn't make the fighter awesome, it just means that you've gone from "fighters don't get nice things" to "no one gets nice things." The philosophy behind martial classes in general, and the feat system in particular, need to be revised to make martial classes anywhere as interesting or useful as even mid-tier casters.


Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, magic means versatility. A magic-user, whatever his actual class, is much more versatile in a vastly greater type of situations. This is why the ranger can be better than a rogue, or a wizard can deal with most situations, if prepared (and scrolls and wands make being prepared easy).

Magic means versatility, but versatility does not mean universal competence. A wizard currently is better than a rogue at stealth and forced entry, but he doesn't need to be, thematically. Invisibility and knock are just flat-out better than Stealth and Disable Device, but it could easily be the other way around, for instance invisibility might be useless in combat because you can see motion blur if they move too quickly and you can hear them just fine while knock might take forever to cast and make a loud knocking sound to alert guards and nearby monsters...or you could even combine the spells with the skills, such that all invisibility does is let you make Stealth checks as if you were concealed and all knock does is let you make Disable Device checks in a single round without thieves' tools.

You can see this with your suggestion for weaker healing spells and a better Heal skill: there's no reason why the Heal skill has to be near-useless, feats have to so rarely give you better natural healing/fast healing/DR/etc., and spells do everything, it just happens to be that way and could be easily changed without any thematic issues.

Once again, it comes down to the individual spells. A cleric's spells let him out-fight a fighter and out-infiltrate a rogue, a bard's music lets him be almost as good at fighting as a fighter and almost as good at lock-picking as a rogue; both are magic, yet the bard's magic merely makes him better while the cleric's makes him best.


Finally, it is easy to be good at a magic using class. Melee characters and even skill monkeys usually need two or three good stats in order to be very effective. A magic user (wizard, sorcerer, even a druid or a cleric) actually needs one.

Easy as far as attributes go, certainly, but prepared casters generally require a lot more player skill to play effectively than martial types. A well-played wizard blows a fighter out of the water, but a badly-played wizard is practically useless while a badly-played fighter is merely less powerful than normal.

This discrepancy in ease of play might actually contribute to play imbalance, I think; if newer players start with martial characters for the simplicity and "graduate" to casters once they can handle the complexity, then by default in a mixed group of experts and newbies the more powerful classes are played by the more skilled players (who use already-versatile spells even more creatively) and the weaker ones by the less skilled players (who use already-limited skills and feats less competently), and that can make newbies want to try to break things with the casters because they see the casters doing that and being so much more effective than their own PCs.

Making a bunch more simple casting classes like the warlock or binder and a bunch more complex martial classes like the ToB classes while removing the "Accounting 101" prepared casters like wizard and cleric and the "hit things, hit more things, repeat" martial classes like barbarian and swashbuckler can not only help spread the skill around but also ensure that "magic" isn't seen as the perfect solution to everything because you no longer have the best classes being magic classes and the worst ones being martial classes.

---------------------

Whew. Sorry for that wall of text. In summary:

1) Fix the spells before you fix the classes.

2) Bring nonmagical stuff up as much as you bring the magical stuff down.

3) Ensure that "magic" and "nonmagic" both have a range of capabilities instead of having magic > nonmagic.

And if that looks like a massive undertaking for you, well, there's a reason PF is still imbalanced even though most if not all of 3e's problems were well-understood long before PF was published.

Vadskye
2013-10-21, 07:22 PM
PairO'Dice is absolutely correct. It seems like your proposed changes address almost everything except the spell system itself, when spells are actually the heart of the problem.

ProudGrognard
2013-10-22, 01:11 AM
Actually, I think PairO'Dice and I agree in more things that we disagree.

Fixing the spells was something I wanted to put in there, but didn't , in the assumptions that "We all know some spells cause problems". I am very much for the idea that spells that enable a wizard to be better in stealth than a rogue should go. That is part of the theme of versatility I keep talking about.

Bear in mind, however, that the rationale behind these spells was and is that 'A mage gave up a slot to be just as good as the rogus this one time". Put that way, it makes sense. It is when this ability is put together with cheap scrolls and wands that things become problematic.

As for the thematic casters, I am not sure that they are more powerful than a full blown wizard. The casters you mention are from 3.5, not PF, and I do not believe they are as powerful as a straight up caster. They may be more powerful in their specific theme ( a summoner is better than a conjurer in summoning, but not generally, he cannot be better in stealth than a rogue).

As for the summary: I agree with most of the suggestions in the end. I just continue to believe that before fixing the spells, the classes themselves should be reexamined.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-10-22, 01:30 PM
Put that way, it makes sense. Bear in mind, however, that the rationale behind these spells was and is that 'A mage gave up a slot to be just as good as the rogus this one time". Put that way, it makes sense.

Well, it doesn't, not really, for three reasons.

1) They're not "just as good as" the rogue, they're "better than," by design. And any version of the spell that will see use in play as intended will be "better than," no matter how you create them. If knock is an auto-win, it's obviously better, and thus better-than. If knock just lets you make a Disable Device/Open Lock check, something the wizard likely hasn't invested in, no one will take it. If knock lets you roll Spellcraft instead of Open Lock, the wizard can actually unlock things with it...and probably be better than the rogue, because Spellcraft uses a more important stat to him, he can buff his skill checks natively, and so on.

No matter how you slice it, any spell intended to make the wizard as good as the rogue for one action is highly likely to either be better than the rogue or not be used at all, and hitting the mark with every such spell is nigh-impossible. So yes, the spells themselves are problematic if you follow that particular design guideline.

2) From a class- and spell-design perspective, when building a rogue, you choose skills and feats and other things once, for the long haul. Investing points in Open Lock or Disable Device means that lockpicking and trap-disabling is now a Thing You Can Do, and by investing those resources you've declared that you want to be the Trap Guy in the party. If you don't run into many traps, you've wasted all those resources. If you do run into many traps, but those traps are too difficult for you and the party wizard always needs to use knock, you've wasted all those resources.

The existence of a knock spell that is better than a rogue and essentially an auto-win against certain locks encourages DMs who really really want to protect things to either not put in many locks (because they're easily overcome) or to put in lots of very difficult locks (because you want to lock more things away than the wizard has knock spells and you don't want him saving knocks for the hard locks while the rogue handles the easy ones). It's the same thing that happens when a caster gets invisibility: a DM who can't deal with PCs sneaking around easily and wants to catch them won't put in guards with low Spot (because they don't have a chance against invisibility) and the guards he does put in will have ridiculously high Spot, extra senses, or other ways of dealing with invisibility...and a plain ol' rogue with Hide will have no chance against those guards without invisibility.

So the fact that in one instance a caster can blow the rogue away and overcome challenges the rogue can't encourages the DM (and adventure designers) to account for this, and they either make the rogue feel useless because his resource investment was wasted or make the rogue feel useless because he can't do the thing he invested in doing.

2) From a character perspective, if a rogue can UMD wands of knock and be more successful at opening doors than he could if he invested in Open Lock and accompanying skill boosters, he likely will, because no one wants to miss cool loot or be stuck in a room or whatever because of a botched roll. More likely, though, it'll be that he picks up the wands at mid level when he can afford them and wastes his existing investment in Open Lock. Any time one character resource can make another resource irrelevant and the same character can get access to both of them, one of them will be wasted, and that's never good design.[/spoiler]

TL;DR: A spell to make a wizard "just as good as the rogue" will make the wizard and a rogue better than a baseline rogue, and it'll screw parties over in the long run.


It is when this ability is put together with cheap scrolls and wands that things become problematic.

Scrolls and wands are a problematic thing to keep and a problematic thing to get rid of. It's a very bad thing that buying some scrolls and wands means you can ignore spells-per-day limits on key utility spells and fill your slots with more general spells, thus making you much more powerful and flexible overall, but it's a good thing that pseudo-casters like UMD rogues and artificers can use them to duplicate casters' abilities and get some Nice Things.

Fixing the former issue while keeping the latter benefit requires overhauling the magic item system. One possible solution: Introduce some kind of attunement system, so all items have a weaker effect anyone can use and a stronger effect only someone attuned to the item can use and so everyone can have a limited number of attuned items at once. Then, change spell-completion and spell-trigger items so they must be attuned and work like runestaffs (instead of giving you an extra spell at the cost of a charge, you sacrifice a spell slot to spontaneously cast the spell in the staff) and turn UMD into a class feature for roguish types that grants a certain number of "virtual" spell slots you can use to activate those items. Ta-da, casters get the same number of spells per day as before but can swap a few spells out for versatility, appropriate noncasters can still use those items without casting.


As for the thematic casters, I am not sure that they are more powerful than a full blown wizard. The casters you mention are from 3.5, not PF, and I do not believe they are as powerful as a straight up caster.

I didn't say they were. I specifically said that the classes with the fewest entries in their Special column (i.e. cleric, sorcerer, wizard) are more powerful than ones with a nearly full Special column (i.e. beguiler, warmage, dread necromancer)--the notable exception being the druid, but we all know they can be incredibly overpowered--and that breaking the former into thematic casters would help, it just wouldn't go far enough or fix the underlying problem.


As for the summary: I agree with most of the suggestions in the end. I just continue to believe that before fixing the spells, the classes themselves should be reexamined.

As a thought experiment, let's whip up a quick cleric fix. Instead of preparing off the general list in most of his slots and having one slot per level for his domains, let's swap that around so most of his slots come from one of his two domains and he gets one general cleric spell per level. Bam, we've just drastically dropped the cleric's power and versatility level by restricting his per-day versatility! Isn't that great?

Except...he still can prepare any of the game-changing or game-breaking spells from the cleric list, he just gets a lot fewer of them per day. Even having access to much fewer spells at a time, the spells he can access via his domains (like divine power from War, control weather from Air, slay living from Death, shapechange from Animal, etc.) are still problematic ones, and even dropped down a tier or two a Knowledge/Trickery cleric still makes a rogue feel small in the pants and a Strength/War cleric does the same to the fighter.

Let's do another thought experiment: we'll change the wizard into the AD&D magic-user, who learns random spells, has a cap on spells known per spell level, is much more vulnerable to interruption in combat, and so forth. Okay, we've made the changes, let's roll up a sample magic-user's spells...roll roll roll, come on sleep...darn, got an unseen servant...okay, for our magic-user we've rolled up mount, magic aura, animate rope, and unseen servant. Fairly accurate to AD&D rolls, actually, and he's not going to dominate in combat any time soon. Time to break out the crossbow!

Let's assume our magic-user somehow makes it to 9th level despite having very few combat-useful spells thanks to lots of coddling and protection from the party (also very like AD&D). For his random spells at 9th level, he rolls...fabricate, dominate person, feeblemind, and teleport. Uh oh. Looks like the randomness in spell generation didn't help because he still ended up with game-changing spells, the class-based penalties to casting in combat don't matter much because his spells are plenty useful out of combat (if not outright more useful than in combat), and the only thing we accomplished was making it suck more for the player to get his character to that point which might make him more inclined to abuse make good use of those spells after feeling powerless for so long or might have cause him to think more creatively because he didn't have much to work with (also very like AD&D :smallamused:).

So because we left the spells the same and changed the class, everything is the same or worse. Once again: overpowered spells on an underpowered class are still overpowered, it just might be overpowered less frequently.

ProudGrognard
2013-10-22, 03:05 PM
The thing is, I do not disagree with you. There are spells that need to be fixed. The way PF has fixed things is not good. Save or fail is not a good recipe.

With that in mind, a caster with a smaller spell list will make identifying problematic spells far easier. And he will not have access to all of them.

Also bear in mind that what I am suggesting here is not the Ur-fix of all fixes. I am just proposing a way that magic can be changed.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-10-22, 04:48 PM
Also bear in mind that what I am suggesting here is not the Ur-fix of all fixes. I am just proposing a way that magic can be changed.

Granted. As you pointed out, overhauling all the spells and/or all the classes is far too much work unless you're building a new system from scratch that you intend to end up looking a lot like D&D.

I'm just trying to point out that the common attitude of "Yeah, there are some spells that need to be fixed or banned, I guess. Now on to fixing the classes!" is backwards. Trying to fix classes whose class features boil down to the ability to pick a bunch of spells off a certain list can't work unless the spells they can choose from work in the first place, and putting X amount of effort into fixing spells will go a lot further than putting X amount of effort into fixing classes.

SassyQuatch
2013-10-23, 04:23 AM
Fixing spells can take a long time, but that is mostly because of the sheer number of spells and not as much due to the changes needed.

Casting time is one fairly easy fix. Martial classes gain a lot of relative power when the wizard can't throw out a "I win" spell before the fighter has a chance to get into range. Even with very few changes to spell effects the balance shifts as soon as a spell casting takes one or more rounds.

The second large fix is to have spells support skills, not replace them. The locked chest for example: if instead of knock opening the lock you apply either a bonus to the skill check or are able to "soften" the lock, reducing the DC, skills just went from useless to important again. Unless the mage has invested skill points in being a type of trickster there is a better use of the spell to support the thief, who went from being an extra to being the star of the scene. Same if invisibility was a boost to stealth skills, or if true seeing a bonus to perception checks vs certain forms of concealment. The rogue is better than the mage again, and the sentry isn't automatically blindsided just because he isn't a caster.

Two fixes that would take some time, but far less than rewriting every spell in it's entirety. Yhe results boost mundanes greatly, and in general don't completely remove options from the casting classes.

DwarfInTheFlask
2013-10-23, 08:16 AM
This might not help much at all, in fact I am sure it won't be of much help but here is my input.

Did anyone else like the near organic growth of the main player in Skyrim? The same style is used in GTA 5 I believe where the more you use a skill or ability the more it grows with you. It also allowed you to drop a play style and move onto something else with almost no penalty to it.

You could start out playing a Mage type character but want to swing a big sword so picked up a sword and threw on dragon plate and went to town on baddies. This didn't remove the magic you could cast but there were realistic penalties for such a thing.

You wear robes and the like because they have the best naturally occuring enchantments that further your Magicka Regen and reduce the costs of schools you might favor more then others. Where as heavy or even light armor didn't have those bonuses and had penalties to moving around silently.

You could play a Thief or Assassin type character and throw on heavy armor, the penalty is that you make more noise, you tire faster and you weight more and thus cannot carry as much stuff.

Specialized training helped overcome this but the tree had many steps you HAD to take before then, and multiple levels you could take to further a specific skill over another.

If you had a similar system in PF or D&D I think there would be more balance to the martial and magic system as Martial Characters could pick up spells just not have as much Magicka (Spell slots?) as a Mage who specializes.

But yes it comes down to spells, the spells in the Elder Scrolls games are much weaker then D&D and PF. But maybe we could find a balance to them.

johnbragg
2013-10-23, 10:18 AM
Fixing spells can take a long time, but that is mostly because of the sheer number of spells and not as much due to the changes needed.

Casting time is one fairly easy fix. Martial classes gain a lot of relative power when the wizard can't throw out a "I win" spell before the fighter has a chance to get into range. Even with very few changes to spell effects the balance shifts as soon as a spell casting takes one or more rounds.

So, as a quick, meat-cleaver fix, all 3rd+ level spells have a casting time of "1 full round"? 4th+?


The second large fix is to have spells support skills, not replace them.

So, numbers. Rule-of-thumb--No 1st level spell should make a 5th level rogue's skill superfluous.

1st level spells"Jump" basically does that. So +10 at CL 1, +
20 at CL 5, +30 at CL 9 is too much.

"Disguise Self" is +10, and duplicates a 5th level skillmonkey's Disguise ability. But there's a cap on how much Disguise you ever need, because it quickly shades into Bluff. (Even if you polymorph into the Duke, you're going to be rolling a lot of Bluff checks. If your Disguise doesn't need Bluff checks, +10 is all you're going to really need.)

Maybe 1st level spells should add Caster Level +5? A Disguise Self at CL 1, assuming you take 10 on the check, gets you a 16 to pretend you're totally not that guy the guards are looking for. The guards are Taking 10, so you're beating their Spot check. So a 1st level Guard with 4 ranks in Spot waves you on unless he has Skill Focus(Spot) or a 14 Wisdom or something.

A Jump spell at CL 1 adds 5 feet to your running long jump. 10 feet at CL 5.

So 1st level spells can add 5 to a check plus Caster Level.

2nd level spells A flat +20 sounds about right. The 3.0 splatbook Guidance of the Avatar gave +20 to any check, and was rightly dropped from 3.5 But +20 to one skill sounds right. "Knock" adds +20 to Open Locks, so the wizard can blow open "Simple Lock DC 20" on his own, but he needs the Rogue for "Good Lock DC 30" or "Amazing Lock DC 40". Maybe Knock could also add +10 to the Disable Device check vs magical traps?

3rd level, Glibness gives the Bard +30 to Bluff. There's a reason that no one's put that on any other spell list. Maybe it should move from a spell to a Bard class feature? No, one-spell fixes make the list too long.

So, proposed fix:
1st level spells: Add 5 plus Caster LEvel to the skill check, use untrained.
2nd level spells: Add 20 to the check.
3rd level spells: Only with extreme caution should 3rd or higher level spells duplicate skill checks.

ProudGrognard
2013-10-23, 10:43 AM
The above are fine and dandy. I, however, argued for a grander view of versatility than that. Making the rogue superfluous is only part of the problem. Even being able to help moderately in all situations is too much, IMO.

That is why I had my sights aimed at large spell lists and easy scrolls.

johnbragg
2013-10-23, 12:00 PM
The above are fine and dandy. I, however, argued for a grander view of versatility than that. Making the rogue superfluous is only part of the problem. Even being able to help moderately in all situations is too much, IMO.

So you don't want to hear about the "Friendship is MAgic" spell, range:touch, gives ally a 1/2 CL boost to any one skill check?


That is why I had my sights aimed at large spell lists and easy scrolls.

Taking away scrolls and wands goes too far for most people, but I've thought about making scrolls be an unstable magic item, having a lifespan measured in days. So they're not just off-the-shelf items you can buy, or hold in your HAversack in case you need them. They're created for a particular reason, and if they aren't used they go "poof" or perhaps "boom" after their clock runs out.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-10-23, 12:22 PM
This might not help much at all, in fact I am sure it won't be of much help but here is my input.

*snip*

We have this in D&D/PF already. It's called "multiclassing." :smallamused:


Casting time is one fairly easy fix. Martial classes gain a lot of relative power when the wizard can't throw out a "I win" spell before the fighter has a chance to get into range. Even with very few changes to spell effects the balance shifts as soon as a spell casting takes one or more rounds.

Making spells into full-round actions helps with spell interruption, but there are two issues to be careful of. First of all, this does nothing against out-of-combat spells, so utility spells, some control spells, some buffs, and similar spells that can affect combat while not being cast in combat time aren't really affected by the change.

Second of all, multi-round cast times are, well, boring. "I continue chanting for the third round in a row :smallsigh:" is just as uninteresting as "I full attack...again... :smallsigh:" except you don't even have the excitement of rolling dice when casting the long spell. This isn't a D&D-specific problem, either, it's a player engagement issue that crops up any time that the action cost of a certain ability is longer than 1-2 rounds of play. It can work with spells like channeled pyroburst, where the casting time is variable based on the power of the spell and you can choose when to release it so the player has to stay at least somewhat engaged, but that would require rewriting a bunch of spells again.


3rd level, Glibness gives the Bard +30 to Bluff. There's a reason that no one's put that on any other spell list. Maybe it should move from a spell to a Bard class feature? No, one-spell fixes make the list too long.

You're right that spot-fixes aren't the right approach here, but glibness in particular is actually easy to fix, once you realize that the spell is basically written backwards. Bluffs that are "too incredible to consider" impose +20 DC, so glibness is basically intended to grant +10 to Bluff like disguise self or the starting tier of jump and then also make bluffs more believable, as can be seen with the part that makes your bluffs harder to detect magically. Problem is, rolling it all into one +30 bonus makes easy bluffs almost impossible to detect. Simply change that to "Glibness grants a +5 bonus and even bluffs at 'hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk' level only impose a +5 DC increase" and the problem is gone.


Taking away scrolls and wands goes too far for most people, but I've thought about making scrolls be an unstable magic item, having a lifespan measured in days. So they're not just off-the-shelf items you can buy, or hold in your HAversack in case you need them. They're created for a particular reason, and if they aren't used they go "poof" or perhaps "boom" after their clock runs out.

Unfortunately, this still screws over characters who use scrolls but cannot craft them, such as UMD rogues, and it adds the danger of explosions happening in their backpacks on unknown timers. As I mentioned before, you need to consider the needs of casters (getting more spells) and noncasters (getting spells at all) separately when dealing with spell-storage items.

DwarfInTheFlask
2013-10-23, 12:27 PM
Yes but the Multiclassing system is not that good, you're forced to incorporate a full level of some other established class such as a Wizard who's fluff is years of study, especially when your RP has no story of why you suddenly have a Wizard's spell book.

I am talking about organic growth not pasting templates for each class.

johnbragg
2013-10-23, 12:36 PM
Unfortunately, this still screws over characters who use scrolls but cannot craft them, such as UMD rogues,

This would unfortunately eliminate the UMD rogue--items would be either designed for anyone to use (the blacksmiths' Gloves of Resist Fire) and periodically bring back for recharging, for a fee; or purpose-built and used quickly. ("We know that this dungeon has a Fire Trap because CHARNAME recognized the runes before we set it off, but we're low level chuds who can't cast Dispel MAgic, can you help us out? I know you've got a cushy gig as Town Wizard so you don't have to go risk death in smelly dungeons, but could you get us a scroll?" And/or, they ARE high enough level to cast Dispel Magic, and the wizard spends a day preparing them before they go.)


and it adds the danger of explosions happening in their backpacks on unknown timers.

I don't see the explosions actually going off much--everyone in the campaign world just knows that's how scrolls work, you don't just find them and stick them in your backpack.


As I mentioned before, you need to consider the needs of casters (getting more spells) and noncasters (getting spells at all) separately when dealing with spell-storage items.

Unfortunately those two are in direct contradiction to each other. I think the charged-wondrous-item route is a good balance--a Key of Opening, at twice the cost of a Wand of Knock, which anyone can use. (Although it is a very suspicious item to have in town, which is something most campaigns underestimate.)

Although is that just kicking the problem out through the front door, and bringing it in through the side door? Eh, it's at least a lot more expensive than spending 1000 gp on 40 1st level scrolls and having the entire SRD ready to go.


Yes but the Multiclassing system is not that good, you're forced to incorporate a full level of some other established class such as a Wizard who's fluff is years of study, especially when your RP has no story of why you suddenly have a Wizard's spell book.

(Oberoni Fallacy Ahead): In better campaigns, this can be accomodated. My fighter, who was employed by a merchant exploration house, paid his way through a level of Wizard's Academy when he realized that Shield would make him a lot better double-weapon light-armored beatstick than Fighter 3 would. (Then took fighter 3 at 4th level and enjoyed the stat boost.)

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-10-23, 12:38 PM
Yes but the Multiclassing system is not that good, you're forced to incorporate a full level of some other established class such as a Wizard who's fluff is years of study, especially when your RP has no story of why you suddenly have a Wizard's spell book.

I am talking about organic growth not pasting templates for each class.

Fluff aside--and note that only wizards and monks have the "long training backstory" problem, other classes can be picked up as you go or be chosen for--they work as close to the same as it's possible for a class-based system and a points-based system to do so.

Start using a sword and armor on a caster with some penalties while retaining all existing magic? Check.

Choose robes over armor because robes have more relevant enchantments and armor has check penalties? Check.

Armor on a rogue works, barring ACP, proficiency, and carrying capacity? Check.

You have to take abilities in a certain order and could specialize very significantly in one area? Check check check.

That sort of thing works in Skyrim because (A) it's single-player, so if you start lagging behind because you picked up new low-tier skills instead of advancing your existing ones it's okay if the game doesn't keep ramping up the difficulty, (B) it's designed from the ground up with the assumption of more horizontal rather than more vertical character growth and doesn't have the power growth curve and expected countermeasure capabilities of D&D, and (C) it's a video game, so balancing "backstab ability that makes you better at killing things" with "spell that makes you better at killing things" is the extent of things and you don't need to balance open-ended game-changing magic.


This would unfortunately eliminate the UMD rogue

That's not good. Not because "UMD rogue" is an archetype that must stick around (though it has been a thing in some form or another since 1e) but because I can't really endorse a solution to the problem that makes it harder for noncasters to access necessary spells.


Unfortunately those two are in direct contradiction to each other.

Not necessarily. See the solution I mentioned above, where casters can substitute spells using wands and scrolls and such (more spells available, without having more spells per day) and rogues and other UMDers have virtual slots they can use to activate them (duplicating necessary spells). That's not the only solution by any means, and it does restrict UMD to roguish types again instead of leaving it for everyone, but the bottom line is that it's possible (if annoying) to change items to be usable by both groups without overpowering either one.



I think the charged-wondrous-item route is a good balance--a Key of Opening, at twice the cost of a Wand of Knock, which anyone can use.

Yes, as long as you can't just load up on tons of eternal wands. I still think the drop-spell-X-for-spell-Y approach is the best one when it comes to abilities that flat-out duplicate spells.

DwarfInTheFlask
2013-10-23, 12:47 PM
I am aware but still

If I started as a Fighter then for level 2 took Wizard, then level 3 took Fighter, and 4th level Wizard, etc.
So a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is still not gonna be that good.

Also I will admit being a newbie I don't quite get all the nuances of the multiclassing. At lvl 20 if you took it in wizard would you get the same Spells Per Day as a lvl 20 wizard or a lvl 10?

I just prefer a game system that suits itself to my style of play.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-10-23, 01:00 PM
If I started as a Fighter then for level 2 took Wizard, then level 3 took Fighter, and 4th level Wizard, etc.
So a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is still not gonna be that good.

No, but that's what the "multiclassing patch" prestige classes are for--taking levels in bladesinger, eldritch knight, abjurant champion, or something else to keep advancing both your fighting and your casting will help with that, and you can end up as powerful as an effective fighter 17/wizard 17 depending on the build.


Also I will admit being a newbie I don't quite get all the nuances of the multiclassing. At lvl 20 if you took it in wizard would you get the same Spells Per Day as a lvl 20 wizard or a lvl 10?

Level 10.


I just prefer a game system that suits itself to my style of play.

That's perfectly fine. It's just that trying to retrofit that style to D&D wouldn't work too well, and wouldn't solve the issue of casters vs. noncasters in any case.

DwarfInTheFlask
2013-10-23, 01:04 PM
Actually it would, it would reduce the spells powers or at least give access to everyone fairly easily. If all you had to do was get a Tome and you learned a spell, you would just need enough spell slots or magicka to meet minimum requirements to cast it and of course possess enough to use as fuel. It gives the caster's a finite resources they have to manage that is not as easily exploitable as spell slots, with metamagic you can do a lot with a little.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-10-23, 01:31 PM
Actually it would, it would reduce the spells powers or at least give access to everyone fairly easily.

Reducing the spells' power level would require the big spell re-write no one wants to do in addition to the actual class/multiclassing changes. Giving everyone access to magic doesn't fix the fighter et al. so much as get rid of them and turn everyone into a caster of some variety.