Makin' casters MAD...

[Xaotiq1]

I could SWEAR that there was a thread about this either here, or on another forum; but my search checks are rolling solid 1's.

So, the idea is to harken back to AD&D 2nd edition, but leaving out the class specific bits so that mental ability scores worked in the following ways:

INT: This stat would control the highest level of spell, and how many spells of each level that character could learn. Yes, this means that all casters would have that particular limitation. Wizards and archivists would be able to have any number of full pages in a spellbook; but only a certain number of them would be available for memorization.

WIS: WIS would determine the number of bonus spells, if any, a character receives.

CHA: Charisma would determine how hard spells are to resist as well as affecting their ability to penetrate SR.

The question is how, if at all, would this affect the game for full casters? Specifically the big 4 (Wiz, Sor, Clr, Dru). I know it will make things harder on partial casters; especially those that are already MAD. Thoughts?? :)

[INoKnowNames]

I've toyed with the idea of this as a way to help balance casters, but honestly I don't see it making -too- much of a difference. 100 nukes or 10 nukes, Nuclear Warfare is still hard to combat. The spells themselves are to blame.

[Flickerdart]

It would do the same thing all magic quick fixes do - encourage T1 casters to only learn and prepare the best spells, because they have fewer slots to spare and the likelihood that their spells work is reduced. A wizard with five spare slots might prepare one Polymorph and four fun spells like Resilient Sphere or Secure Shelter. A wizard with one spare slot is going to prepare Polymorph, and now you've changed the likelihood of him casting Polymorph from 20% to 100% without actually making it any less of a god spell.

[Feralventas]

To cast a spell, you must succeed on a Spellcraft Check, DC10+3x Spell Level.
This makes Int an important stat, as it becomes your magical To-Hit stat. INT is also your bonus-spells/bonus slot stat.

To Learn and Prepare a spell, you must have a Wisdom Score= 10+ The spell level

The DC keys off of Charisma.


It's not hard to make a skill check, but it helps.

Edit after reading Flickerdart's post.

You might consider making different schools of magic key off of different stats.

Evocation and Necromancy off of Constitution.
Illusion and Enchantment off of Charisma.
Divination and Abjuration off of Wisdom
Transmutation and Conjuration off of Intelligence

[ryu]

So mostly just things that won't matter overmuch at low levels when things have horrible saves anyway and a minor drain on WBL at high levels? Okay. It won't really do much to the people who understand wizards at high OP. It will however only make the game harder for the poor blaster who is confused and still learning about life.

[Kioras]

Fixes that you have to be careful of are ones that are bypassed with system knowledge and end up badly punishing the less astute players in your campaign.

Either nerf the spells themselves, ban the classes, or just limit the spells that are available. Even if this means trimming down the spell lists to just a modified SRD and DM approval for any outside spells.

[Xaotiq1]

Wasn't looking to make this a fix; I was just curious as to the possible effect, which Flickerdart has touched on.

Hm, I'm not sure about different schools attached to different scores. That's one of the things that got folks so riled up about 3.0 psionics.

Well, I'll see what other input rolls in.

[Gnome Alone]

You might consider making different schools of magic key off of different stats.

Evocation and Necromancy off of Constitution.
Illusion and Enchantment off of Charisma.
Divination and Abjuration off of Wisdom
Transmutation and Conjuration off of Intelligence

I kinda think trying to fix casters is hopeless, cuz of the above-mentioned issue of the spells themselves, but this idea is so freaking cool.

[Brookshw]

Make them work off a separate xp to level chart.

[Flickerdart]

I kinda think trying to fix casters is hopeless, cuz of the above-mentioned issue of the spells themselves, but this idea is so freaking cool.
Fixing casters is hopeless because there's nothing wrong with casters. They all have rubbish BAB, low HD, bad skill lists, and terrible class features (if they get any at all, cough sorcerer cough). It's the spells that make them ridiculous. Fix the spells.

[JHShadon]

Make them work off a separate xp to level chart.

Like in the Elder Scrolls games?

Edit: I think I misunderstood, did you mean they need more xp to level than a fighter?

[137beth]

The optimization floor would fall through the ground and come out on the other side of the world. The biggest advantage to low-optimization wizards is that they can try several new spells a day, and learn over time which are better. Now they'll have more trouble doing it.

This change also weakens the weakest spells: blasting spells are made worse by reduced fewer spells per day. The spells dependent on saving throws are made worse by lower save DCs. The no-save debuffs, BFCs, buffs, and utility spells are as powerful as ever.

The optimization ceiling won't be effected too much. A lot of the best spells won't be affected. At higher levels, a high-op caster can pump up their save DCs if they really want to and still get SoDs off even with lower starting ability scores.
Probably the biggest change to high-optimization (and mid, to some extend) is that with fewer spells per day, the 15-minute work day gets used more frequently. I don't think that that is a positive change.


I maintain that the best way to T3-ify full casters is by chopping up the spell lists along thematic lines (a la beguiler), and re-writing or eliminating the spells that can break the game by themselves.

Fixing casters is hopeless because there's nothing wrong with casters. They all have rubbish BAB, low HD, bad skill lists, and terrible class features (if they get any at all, cough sorcerer cough). It's the spells that make them ridiculous. Fix the spells.


Exhibit A: The Healer. More and better class features than a wizard, possibly better class features than a cleric if you don't count domains. More spells per day than a wizard or cleric, almost as many as a sorcerer despite being a prepared caster, d8 HD and two good saves. Decent class skill list as well.
But it's still tier 5, because before level 17, it's spell list is horrible.

[Person_Man]

To agree mostly with Flickerdart, the "problem" with casters are their spells.

In particular, in earlier editions of the game, casters had fewer spells. This was true both in terms of the number of spells they could cast per day, and the variety of spells they could cast.

Since you had fewer spells per day, and it was generally assumed that the party would grind through the dungeon or whatever until the quest was completed, you generally had to conserve spells and use them only when absolutely necessary.

And although spells would often allow you to win or bypass certain types of encounters, you had fewer different types of spells to choose from. So your role/niches were more strictly defined, and you had to be very careful about which spells you chose to memorize.

The Cleric, for example, was generally considered one of the weakest classes because most of it's magic was healing and protection oriented. (Although from a resource management perspective it was very important, because it was the best healer in the game, and hit points were a lot harder to come by and replace).


This issue can be solved many different ways:


1) Have everyone play as Tier 1-2 casters. It doesn't matter how powerful the group is as a whole - the DM can always make encounters harder - it only matters if some players are amazing while others suck so much that the game isn't fun for them.

2) Ask Tier 1-2 to not use game breaking and encounter winning spells, and/or to focus more on utility, team buffs, etc. If they're not jerks about their awesomeness, there's rarely conflict within the group.

3) Play earlier editions of D&D.

4) Re-write your preferred edition of D&D with entirely new magic rules or classes.


Exhibit A: The Healer. More and better class features than a wizard, possibly better class features than a cleric if you don't count domains. More spells per day than a wizard or cleric, almost as many as a sorcerer despite being a prepared caster, d8 HD and two good saves. Decent class skill list as well. But it's still tier 5, because before level 17, it's spell list is horrible.

Agreed. Also, shameless plug for recently posted homebrew fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318414).

[Brookshw]

Like in the Elder Scrolls games?

Edit: I think I misunderstood, did you mean they need more xp to level than a fighter?

Yes, its a reference to previous editions.

[SassyQuatch]

I haven't used truple-score MAD, but regularly use double-score, spells known and bonus spells, and a spell power stat. With two stats it isn't horribly bad for most low-mid spell level casters since they are generally MAD anyways, just key off of those stats. Low level full casters tend to specialize in either quantity of spells without saves or fewer powerful spells, though it becomes less and less of a problem as you reach higher levels.

The spells indeed are the real problem, but split-stat casting can help to ease the burden a little bit by adding saves to the more broken spells and keeping safer spells more accessible to being spamable.

[lunar2]

i agree with the separate XP to level charts for full casters. if a wizard takes, say, 20% more exp to gain a level of wizard, or any PRC progressing wizard, then the wizard will be somewhat closer to in line with the lower tier characters, since they will always be higher level (assuming you don't let the xp river cancel out this particular reason for being behind on levels).

[ryu]

i agree with the separate XP to level charts for full casters. if a wizard takes, say, 20% more exp to gain a level of wizard, or any PRC progressing wizard, then the wizard will be somewhat closer to in line with the lower tier characters, since they will always be higher level (assuming you don't let the xp river cancel out this particular reason for being behind on levels).

Question: Do you think a level 10 wizard is less powerful than a level 20 fighter?

[lunar2]

i don't know about that, but i'm sure the gap will be closer than wiz 20 to ftr 20.

[ryu]

i don't know about that, but i'm sure the gap will be closer than wiz 20 to ftr 20.

I think its safe to assume that the wizard will not be held back in levels quite that hard. I merely pointed out those specific level points to show that, no, a well played wizard can still do far more. It was pointing out the fact that unless the fighter is using WBL to ape wizards he never stops being a simple brute who hits things with various large large sticks. The wizard outstrips that very early on.