Potential cure for high powered mages...

[Theodoxus]

Yes, yet another thread.. omgwtfbbqkthxbyestfu already. yup.

I was reading the various threads on broken spells, such as timestop - when something jumped out at me, and I had an epiphany. Spellcasters outstrip warriors, quickly. Not necessarily on a damage basis, since 10d6 isn't that impressive vs a two hander power attacking uber strong gorrilla-man, but more with how a spellcaster can completely control the tide of battle. Ok, those aren't the epiphany I was talking about (it's what everyone complains about all the time)

The epiphany is this: what if learning spells cost xp? The more fundamental the change to the universe, the more xp you'd have to expend. Simply manipulating energy is pretty easy, non-taxing, even if it looks impressive - so evocation spells would require minimal xp cost to learn; while spells that transmute, conjure, or instill magical properties into others would cost more to learn. It'd be a bit like scrollcrafting in reverse - though not just based soley on level.

My initial thought was simply double the amount of xp it takes to level up as a spellcaster - divine or arcane. In most literature, it takes a long long time to get to the point where you can cast the greatest magics - where young mages who rush ahead in their learning get burned by those who take the proper methodical way. But I realized quickly that it wasn't the Evocation specialists or the Warmages that people gripe about - as noted in my opening statement.

With this system, it boils down to 'how badly do you want to cast Time Stop - badly enough to loose 25000 xp?' - I mean, at this point, the numbers are completely aribtary, but it wouldn't be too difficult to figure out a proper scale.

Thoughts?

[Tellah]

If it took twice as long to level a caster, you'd have the opposite problem pretty quickly, and all but the gimpiest non-casters would outshine the casters. I think your solution goes a bit too far, and I can't imagine a player who would want to play a caster under those conditions.

[Batman]

That doesn't sound like it'd be very fun. For anyone involved, really.

[InaVegt]

I've been toying with reintroducing the AD&D 2E's experience system for a while.

For this you'd have to have to rate classes in terms of power, as objective as possible. Then you multiply it by some figure and that's the base leveling cost (BLC).

Next step is to simplify the system be just subtracting the leveling experience (LExp) from your experience when leveling.

Now the amount of LExp is BLC X ECL.

So, i'd say we give classes a rating of 4-7 we then multiply it by 200 and we've got the BLC of that class

Next we need to figure out the experience level (EL) for purpose of balancing encounters, this should be calculated in the same way as standard classes.

[Arbitrarity]

But then casters just stay down a few levels, until the greater XP needed and the greater XP gained stay balanced!

Hmmm... actually, not too bad.

[Emperor Tippy]

As EE said and it becomes moot once you reach those high levels. If I got a made to level 20 under your system and everyone else was level 40 (and I somehow managed to survive till then) I could pretty much gain a level per day.

Just piss off enough Inevitable's so that they keep coming after you at least 4 times per day, and slaughter the whole pack 1 after the other). Or go and slaughter all the level 20 fighters and even level 25 fighters wandering around.

[Theodoxus]

EE and ET, you've missed what I was saying - it wouldn't be 2x the XP for a mage to level up, it would be essentially spending additional XP to get additional spells. The new spells per level would have to be bought from your XP pool. A more lenient rule would be to allow any scroll encountered to be scribed without an XP cost - this would free the DM to essentially give the mage any spell he felt was good for the campaign, and still allow the player to 'buy' any spell he really wanted, just with an additional cost.

The reasoning is essentially the same as for magic item creation. An XP cost associated to help slow the progress of the magic using player. However, the magic item creation feats are rarely taken because 1) they kinda suck, 2) metamagic so much more useful and 3) magic items tend to be easily obtained in game through npcs - why should a pc expend their own xp when they can just spend a little more gold for the same item and not slow their own progress.

Because players tend to bypass this balancing measure, I felt it would be a good idea to add another one.

Of course, the ultimate balancing act, especially for wizards, would be for the DM to carefully monitor which spells his players have access to, not have any spells that are 'broken' available in the game via npc/scroll/ etc., such that the only way for a player to obtain one of these spells is by researching it (which takes time and money, and is rather boring for the rest of the party.)

My method in essence, codifies a quick 'research' method into xp expenditure that will help keep mages' power from running away as quickly from the lowly fighters.

[Starsinger]

And what of Sorcerers? Can they spend XP to learn spells beyond their normal spells known? For that matter, do I have to spend XP to learn the spells I'd learn by virtue of leveling alone?

[PinkysBrain]

One time XP costs are irrelevant in the long term, because of the way the game works you always catch up to your fellow players in the end.

Hoop jumping is never a fix for broken mechanics. Fix the mechanics, don't add hoops.

[Aquaseafoam]

Heres a solution!

Have them use Tome of Battle.

[Zeta Kai]

I personally find the idea of "spending" XP to be extremely obtuse, backward, unintuitive & overall distasteful. To eliminate the concept of using up such an ephemeral resource as memory, I instead am working on the Bio-Mage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42355), a class that never spends XP for anything. Ever.

[Teilos]

There is no cure to make casters balanced easily. Assigning Xp costs to each spell costs huge amounts of time. Forget about that.

If you want to reduce the power of casters there are some more or less sophisticated ways.

Easiest: Stay in the low level area with your campaign.

Very Easy: Low-Magic Campaign: No PC may use a spell level higher than a fourth of her or his character level. => No straight casters

Easy: Forbid all spells which only target self. They include the biggest chease. Then get rid of polymorph and every non core spell has to be aproved by the DM first.

Harder: Check each spell, whether you allow it (works only if you played most of the casting classes yourself, before). For fairness reasons, you would have to do that before the players choose their class.

Hardest-Impossible: Write your own casting system => It will most likely be completly biased and unbalanced.

[jjpickar]

Assigning XP requirements to spells isn't hard for everyone (and if someone else does it for us it won't be hard to use it at all) and certainly less difficult than designing your own magic system. What I see with this is it encourages a player to become a blaster mage in lieu of the extremely costly but win button pushing battlefield control spell casters. I agree its not a perfect fix but even the DMG says that D&D is NOT intended to be played over level 20 (battle control wizards are at LEAST 5 to 7 level higher in effectiveness tan other classes, making a 15 to 13 level wizard the equivalent of a 20 level class).

[Miles Invictus]

It doesn't encourage blasting; it encourages optimization. You can still be an incredibly effective mage even if your spell access is limited to what you get at level-up. Grease, Color Spray, Glitterdust, Scorching Ray, Invisibility, Fly, Dimension Door. That's about half of the spells you will actually get by Wizard 7, and that's more than enough to give your party a supreme edge in battle.

All it will really do is discourage experimentation with other spells. If Grease and Ray of Enfeeblement are winning battles, why am I going to burn precious amounts of XP to learn spells like Magic Missile?

[Tor the Fallen]

All it will really do is discourage experimentation with other spells. If Grease and Ray of Enfeeblement are winning battles, why am I going to burn precious amounts of XP to learn spells like Magic Missile?

Because magic missile would cost less xp to learn?

A system like this would force wizards to choose:
a spell for any situation
OR
a spell for shutting down the competition.

Not both, as it currently is.

[Matthew]

The Experience Point Mechanic I wouldn't use, since it just encourages reactions like that of Emperor Tippy. Spell Casters need to be adjusted across the board if you want to 'balance' them.

1) Many Spells Descriptions and effects need to be adjusted
2) Time taken to learn Spells in the first place needs to be increased
3) Available number of Spell Slots needs to be revised (in most cases)
4) Spell DCs and Saving Throws need to be correlated
5) An end to Wizards' automatically learning 'two spells per level'
6) Spell Slot recovery rate (Spell Caster Primary Resource) needs to be brought into line with Hit Point recovery rate (Non Spell Caster Primary Resource) or vice versa
7) Spells acquired on a similar mechanism to Skill Points and Feats (i.e. Character Points)

[Emperor Tippy]

The Experience Point Mechanic I wouldn't use, since it just encourages reactions like that of Emperor Tippy. Spell Casters need to be adjusted across the board if you want to 'balance' them.

1) Many Spells Descriptions and effects need to be adjusted
2) Time taken to learn Spells in the first place needs to be increased
3) Available number of Spell Slots needs to be revised (in most cases)
4) Spell DCs and Saving Throws need to be correlated
I agree with all of these for flavor and balance reasons (I'm kind of leary of #4 though.)


5) An end to Wizards' automatically learning 'two spells per level'
I could agree for balance reasons but it breaks flavor. The whole reason that the wizard adventurs is to learn new spelsl and whatrnot.


6) Spell Slot recovery rate (Spell Caster Primary Resource) needs to be brought into line with Hit Point recovery rate (Non Spell Caster Primary Resource) or vice versa
Ok. Give me a spell equilevelent to Heal that renews 150 spell levels per casting :biggrin:

Hit Point Recovery is near instantenous in almost all situations (do to numerous ways to heal) but short of extreme chees (arcane genesis) spells take a day to renew.


7) Spells acquired on a similar mechanism to Skill Points and Feats (i.e. Character Points)
Agreed, D&D should be done on a point based system for numerous reasons.

[JellyPooga]

5) An end to Wizards' automatically learning 'two spells per level'


This made me think...Wizards get 2 spells "learnt" every level they go up right? This is explained as the research that the Wizard does between the previous level and the level he's just gained. What if (like in a fair few games) the Wizard hasn't actually been doing any research? I've been in more than one game where characters have gained at least one level without ever seeing the inside of a library or laboratory or indeed had any time to themselves to think about stuff, let alone do any dedicated research.

Should Wizards be getting their 2 spells per level in these kinds of circumstances?

Just a thought...

Anyhoo, to the OP, whilst it is potentially fixing to a degree to do as you suggest (and it's somethiing I will definitely give some thought), I would tend to think that an xp cost that is fair enough to allow Wizards to actually progress (and gain something) when they gain a level would probably not be enough of a hindrance to "fix" the problem. Afterall, there are only really a few spells that are problematical and a one off xp payment is a small price in comparison to the benefit (just think of Magic Items...who doesn't have one? If the only way to get them was for the owner to pay xp, do you think they'd still pay the cost? I do).

Having said that, I do think that you are on the right kind of lines. Perhaps, in addition to the xp cost (which, as it will probably be agreed by most here, is a minor obstacle at best), perhaps have the time taken to copy/learn a spell much longer - from day/s for 1st level spells to years for 9th level spells. O.k. so Mr.Wizard can go to a demiplane with accelerated time or whatever to speed the process (relatively) on the material plane, but he still has to spend those years on that other plane and anything could happen in that time.
With this sort of increase, when you gain 9th level spells, it's going to be a couple of years at least before you actually get to use the spells you're capable of casting. Also, if you make the time spent learning spells be actually spending time doing research instead of flouncing around the Planes killing demons or whatever it is you're doing, this limitation might actually mean something (like, whilst you're taking the time to research one high powered spell, your Fighter friend is flouncing around the Planes killing Demons, gaining experience while you are not) and may do something towards making the XP cost mean something too.

[Starbuck_II]

Should Wizards be getting their 2 spells per level in these kinds of circumstances?

You aren 't learning other peoples spells (though you can be; all flavor, mechanics are the same): an idea for a spell comes to your mind (and in your spell book for free): sure it acts the same as Melf's Acid arrow, but it is still yours.


Anyhoo, to the OP, whilst it is potentially fixing to a degree to do as you suggest (and it's somethiing I will definitely give some thought), I would tend to think that an xp cost that is fair enough to allow Wizards to actually progress (and gain something) when they gain a level would probably not be enough of a hindrance to "fix" the problem. Afterall, there are only really a few spells that are problematical and a one off xp payment is a small price in comparison to the benefit (just think of Magic Items...who doesn't have one? If the only way to get them was for the owner to pay xp, do you think they'd still pay the cost? I do).

As a crafter of most my stuff: yes, magic items are worth XP because they than cost less gold.

[Teilos]

I am strictly against a general XP penalty for all spells. I would have said that earlier, but I thought first you wanted to adjust individual XP costs for each spell (the reason why I said: it is to much work).

First: The main advantage of a wizard compared to a sorcerer is the bigger number of spells he knows. If you create a XP penalty for learning spells then you will delay the wizard a little bit and he will have fewer spells. You will make him a worse sorcerer and thats all. As the system is right now, you already have to spend quite big amounts of gold to get decent numbers of spells.
=> Making the wizard worse will only make some other caster class replace him.
And all wizards will concentrate on the few powerfull spells and leave aside all the other nice innocent spells.

Second: If you play a wizard from level 1 to 20, then there is quite a long time, in which the wizard will suck or be similar powerfull compared to other characters. Hence, there is realy no reason to hurt low level wizards even more. If you want to balance, then improve him in low levels and balance him in high levels.

[Matthew]

I agree with all of these for flavor and balance reasons (I'm kind of leary of #4 though.)
Yeah, the 'Save or Suck' aspect will always be a problem, but if you want to model conan shaking off the effects of an Enchantment, then Saves and DCs need to be correlated.

I could agree for balance reasons but it breaks flavor. The whole reason that the wizard adventurs is to learn new spelsl and whatrnot.
See, I have never been on board with that flavour. Wizards get Spells from Adventuring when they capture Spell Books or encounter other Arcane information, which should require study separate from the levelling up process. More worryingly, the Wizard can spend the entire level having nothing to do with one school of magic and still suddenly understand the use of one of its spells. So, this change wouldn't be a flavour problem for me (after all, the Wizard can still research Spells).

Ok. Give me a spell equilevelent to Heal that renews 150 spell levels per casting :biggrin:

Hit Point Recovery is near instantenous in almost all situations (do to numerous ways to heal) but short of extreme chees (arcane genesis) spells take a day to renew.
Heh, yes. this is the potential flaw in this approach. However, it wouldn't be a Spell empowering Spell Slots, it would have to be a Hit Point using Mechanic to be consistant... Spell Slots restoring Hit Points is one thing, but Spell Slots restoring Spell Slots is a no no. If you allowed Hit Points to restore Spell Slots (not inconceivable), it would have to be on the same ratio, but I would just steer clear. The point is how the resource self replenishes.

Agreed, D&D should be done on a point based system for numerous reasons.
Heh, it does seem increasingly to be the only sensible solution.

[Starsinger]

I think, the comment about spell slots recovering like hit points, was meant to be about natural recovery not that you should be able to recover spell slots via a spell. Y'know, a 20th level wizard restores 20 spell slots per night's rest.

[Talya]

The obvious cure is to start every campaign at level 1, and don't pull any punches, and make stuff go after the squishiest targets first, when appropriate. Only one wizard in a thousand is gonna survive to cast 5th level spells...

[Emperor Tippy]

If you did that I would do my 1 encoutner per day and then retreat. Per RAW you should level in 13 days. With how fast yo ulevel yo ucna reach level 20 in under a year if you fight enough random CR approaprite encounters.

[Talya]

If you did that I would do my 1 encoutner per day and then retreat. Per RAW you should level in 13 days. With how fast yo ulevel yo ucna reach level 20 in under a year if you fight enough random CR approaprite encounters.

I'm mostly joking, but it still wouldn't help. ;)

1st encounter:

The CR 1/2 Orc charges the wizard. He rolls an 18, confirmation roll 7. Oh, that's a crit!

He rolls...4d4+8 damage, for....18.

What's your hit points again? 6?

I'm sorry.

[ghost_warlock]

I can't help but notice that the OP talks about "spellcasters" and basically every post since then has focused entirely on the wizard. Maybe it was just being used as an example, but many posts have concerned themselves entirely with spells known and, essentially, spellbooks.

So what about CoDzilla? They don't have to spend gold to add to their list of spells known. They don't have to keep a spellbook, or worry about said spellbook being destroyed. They can craft magic items and use metamagic feats, too. And wear armor. Clerics have "Divine" feats (spend turn attempts for X-effect; e.g., Divine Metamagic). Druids have "Wild" feats and Natural Spell.

Seriously, gimping the wizard will in no way "balance" casters vs. non-casters, it'll just make CoDzilla more powerful.

Perhaps this doesn't mean as much to other posters, but the bias is obvious to me. Maybe this is because, at a recent gaming session, the DM considered integrating a house rule where divine casters couldn't be negatively affected by their own spells "because it's a divine spell!" At the time, the spell in question was entangle, but could easily be extended to earthquake and several other spells. Fortunately, we players nixed the idea (even the druid casting entangle in the first place).

[Matthew]

True indeed. All the above applies to Clerics as to Wizards, the only additional change would be in forcing Clerics to learn Spells as Wizards do.

Also, though this falls under the purview of 1), it deserves its own number:

8) Spell Casting Times need to be addressed and in many cases increased.

Spell Slot Recovery and Hit Point Recovery need to be brought into line. Whether that means 1 Hit Point and 1 Spell Slot per day or 100 Hit Points and 100 Spell Slots per day doesn't really matter, so long as both resources recover at similar rates.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

I've been thinking about the casting time thing myself. You'd see less wizard ownage if their precious high level spells actually took multiple rounds to cast. But that also might weaken them a little. Here's my present train of thought-

Every spell's casting time is equal to the spell's level/2, with a minimum of 1 and no half turns, always rounded up. So, a level 1 or 2 spell would only take one turn, while a level 7 or 8 would take 4 turns, and a level 9 or epic spell would take a whopping 5 turns. Quickened spells halve the time required, always rounded down, with level 1 and 2 spells being the only ones that can become immediate actions as per normal quickened spells. 9th level spells may be quickened at the expense of another 9th level spell slot- and this is the only instance where that is allowed.

Basically, now the casters actually need a tank to protect them in order to do their best stuff. As a bonus to help the casters out a little after this substantial nerf, I'll also remove the experience cost from any magic item creation that doesn't involve spells that ordinarily would require an experience cost (such as a wish). I'll be introducing this system as soon as Thursday to my players. Any thoughts on it?

[Arbitrarity]

Yay! Scrolls of wish are now 4.5K!

I mean... Yeah. Doesn't work that well, IMO. 2 rounds, maybe, but 4? Just screws everyone over. A tank to protect them? Nuh-uh, no moron goes after the tank when the wizard prepares to MEGA OWN them. They'll never get a spell off in combat, and fireball takes 2 rounds to cast. Activation items will OWN, and everyone will get a staff (Auto-standard activation? Yes PLEASE!)

Ahhh, I see, misread, sorry :(. Thought you said the other way round. So a scroll of magic missile costs 12.5 gp to craft, and no XP. Riiight. Sorry again.

"Stop the progression"? So... how does moving 5 ft stop someone, unless they're charging?

[Viscount Einstrauss]

No, I'd slow activation stuff down too. I also allow players not presently involved with a task that didn't take a full action/move their maximum the turn before take an automatic five foot step to stop the progression of someone else once per round, so protection-based tanking is indeed viable.

And since a scroll of wish would require the wish spell, it would still cost experience. I had that addendum for a reason, and even specifically cited wish.

[Jade_Tarem]

Actually, I think that's a fantastic system, VE, and I'd use it myself if not for the fact that the group powergamer would murder me in my sleep. I'd thought about using it before (the Baldur's Gate games actually used this system, although the specifics don't quite agree. Ninth level spells took forever to cast while, say, magic missile could be cast almost instantly).

It doesn't balance the casters, but it does suddenly necessitate the need for melee combatants and other, non-casting classes in combat, thus allowing them to do stuff in combat before the caster mops the floor, which is half of the solution and thus a better fix than a number of things. The one and only downside is that combat becomes slightly more boring for the casters when they have to do the same thing for four straight rounds. On the other hand, improved control over their familiars would give them something to do...

Suggestion 1: Do the material-components-are-harder-to-find thing, for the really strong spells.

Suggestion 2: Lower everyone's saves - or scale the spell DC's so that the higher level spells are harder to resist than 10 + spell level + modifier + feats. No, I'm not kidding. When I spend 5 rounds casting a 9th-level spell I want it to actually do something, and by that point the rest of the party does too.

[Caelestion]

+1 to DC and +1 to breach SR for each round you're casting, beyond the normal limits. Gives the wizard a reason to be casting while the battle rages around him, in best Sinbad or Conan style.