PDA

View Full Version : Question on the Power Three



PerasThorngage
2007-06-06, 03:42 PM
Howdy All,

I have been contemplating the power three for a while trying to figure a way to slightly balance the vancian system with the rest of the classes.

Now I understand that there cant be any "true" balance as the difference between a fighter/barbarian and a wizard or cleric is just too large. However I do wonder if there is a way to balance it slightly to make spells still interesting and powerful, but not the end all and be all of life.

Also I'd like to note that I enjoy the point system used by the psionics books , but alot of my players are used to the vancian already and so I'd like to stick with it if I could.

Ideas I had:
1: Deal subdual damage equal to the spell level or the spell level x2? Make it so this damage cannot be healed through magic and requires rest.

2: Spell levels 1-3 take a standard action, 4-6 a full round action, 7-9 take 2 rounds of spell casting to take effect.

3: Change all casters to spells known classes and remove the uber druid/wizard/cleric spell lists.

4: Some combination of the above choices?

Any suggestions I would appreciate, and once again thanks for any constructive advice (please try to avoid the ITS HOPELESS GAME OVER MAN GAME OVER style of respone :) )

Friendly neighborhood DM

lord_khaine
2007-06-06, 03:48 PM
actualy, if your players isnt fiendish powergamers then you can get a semblance of balance by making sure the party gets 4-5 encounters spread out over the day, so that short-medium duration buffs will have to be recast.

if you besides that make sure to give your players diverse opponents shifting betveen few strong--> many weak, and casters(or ranget)/melee then maybe the primary casters will remain the top in the powerline, but it wont matter because everyone gets something to shine against.

barawn
2007-06-06, 03:51 PM
Any suggestions I would appreciate, and once again thanks for any constructive advice (please try to avoid the ITS HOPELESS GAME OVER MAN GAME OVER style of respone :) )

Friendly neighborhood DM

One suggestion I've posted elsewhere is a bit simple: put a cap on the number of spells known per day, period. Regardless of level. You'd have to tweak it to figure out where to put it (somewhere around 10-20 is going to be right). Max number of spells at any given level is still given by the spell slots.

Spells stay interesting and powerful, but full spellcasters are much less flexible.

Matthew
2007-06-06, 03:55 PM
Here is my seven point list:



1) Many Spells Descriptions, effects and related Feats 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)

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.

lord_khaine
2007-06-06, 03:58 PM
ohh and btw, you dont have to allways give them 4 encounters straight in a row, just make sure they know, that there might come a lot of encounters really fast, and that they cant blow all their spells on one fight, then rest 8 hours to restore them.

Dausuul
2007-06-06, 04:06 PM
I'm currently playing an arcane caster in an 18th-level campaign. With a divine caster cohort, no less. My character and his cohort are the only casters in the party, yet they do not regularly outshine the other characters, simply because of the builds I chose. The arcane caster is a blaster and utility sorceror--very little in the way of save-or-lose/save-or-die magic--and the divine caster is a favored soul specializing in healing and party-wide buffs.

I'd suggest a revamp along those lines. Nix all prepared casters, to bring the sheer number of spells available to the PCs into a manageable range. Scrap all save-or-die spells; either scrap save-or-lose spells, or modify them to grant a fresh saving throw each round to throw off the effect, a la hold person. Scrap divine power as well, and change divine favor and righteous might to a touch range instead of personal, which encourages the divine caster to use them on the party fighter instead of him- or herself. Then just get rid of the obviously broken stuff like polymorph and celerity, and you're more or less set.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-06, 04:35 PM
Another suggestion is to pick up a copy of Arcana Evolved, which balances its spellcasting very well. Of course, you might not want to go pick up a new book, but what it does for spellcasters is . . .

1)A new spell list, that focuses on more buff and utility than on save-or-lose. Damage dealing spells are a bit better in variety, and thus worth actually using, although the fact that use can use elemental damage types to ignore energy resistances annoys me somewhat. but I digress.

2)Simple/Complex/Exotic Spells:
Spells are broken down into three groups at each spell level. Most spellcasting classes only get simple spells, and the primary spellcasting class gets complex. Feats can be used to expand you spell knowledge, and they generally allow you to modify your spells in some way as well (fire mage, for example, allows you to augment the damage of spells, and gives you access to one-step-better fire spells).

3)Spells Readied:
All spellcasters have two lists of spell/day. One is the number of spells they can cast in a day, the other is the number of spells they can have readied at one time. A spellcaster casts spontaneously from his list of readied spells.

There are some other nifty things, but that is the big three.

Diggorian
2007-06-06, 06:25 PM
We use the Vitalized Spell points found in Unearthed Arcana and here (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantMagic.htm). It works pretty well for keep Wizard's powerful but not Uber, although we've only played with it up to level 10 so far.

In a nutshell, casters get X spell points depending on their class and level in it. Different levels of spells cost different points to cast, higher level more points. When ya spend 1/2 your points your Fatigued, 3/4 spent points makes ya Exhausted. You recover from these conditions as normally. An hour rest gts ya 1/3 of your points back, a second hour for 2/3, another six for the last third.

Spells per day is eliminated cause ya cast as ya go.

A further variation we put on the whole deal is making it Mental Fatigue and Exhaustion. Instead of Str & Dex, it's Int and Wis or Cha (depending on what the class casts from).

barawn
2007-06-06, 07:50 PM
We use the Vitalized Spell points found in Unearthed Arcana and here (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/variantMagic.htm). It works pretty well for keep Wizard's powerful but not Uber, although we've only played with it up to level 10 so far.

Spell points aren't a Vancian magic system (note - it's Vancian, not vancian - Vance was the guy's last name).

The "max spells per day" limit that I mentioned was a cross between a Vancian system and an MP-type system. I think it's a decent compromise, actually.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-06-07, 06:11 AM
If you want to keep it simple just use Sorcerers or UA Spellcasters, Favored Souls and Shamans with No Clerics, Druids, Wizards or Archivists in your game.

Matthew
2007-06-09, 08:30 PM
Have you looked at the Spontaneous Divine Spell Casters (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/spontaneousDivineCasters.htm) Variant?

Gavin Sage
2007-06-09, 09:01 PM
A couple ideas I've been thinking over to balance casting:

1) Make most spells into Full Round Actions at the least, exception for blasting because people think that bit sucks.

2) Increase Saving Throws. Give people a good, medium, and bad saves not just the good or bad. Make save or loose/suck/die spells riskier to expend slots on. Set DCs on them not by Int/Cha/Wis.

3) DM so that Wizards have trouble learning spells in the first place. Nor learning upper levels automatically. (Oh you want Time Stop, sorry thats serious magic I heard a mage next town over had it but his spellbooks were carried off by a red dragon. Slay it and you might find the spell)

Diggorian
2007-06-10, 02:09 PM
3) DM so that Wizards have trouble learning spells in the first place. Nor learning upper levels automatically. (Oh you want Time Stop, sorry thats serious magic I heard a mage next town over had it but his spellbooks were carried off by a red dragon. Slay it and you might find the spell)

I've used similar scarcity methods in my games to limit spell availability.

Also I've considered expanding Spellcraft's usage to learning new spells without a copy of them by experiementation; instead of just automatically choosing them. Further, Knowledge Arcane check must be made to have even heard of a spell.

Spellcraft DC = 20 + twice the spell level, takes 1 day per spell level, no retires but can take 20. So Time Stop, for example, is DC 38 check after nine days of 'crafting' it from scratch. Fail and it can never be learned. Taking 20 takes 180 days (about 6 months in game).

Karsh
2007-06-10, 02:26 PM
Spellcraft DC = 20 + twice the spell level, takes 1 day per spell level, no retires but can take 20. So Time Stop, for example, is DC 38 check after nine days of 'crafting' it from scratch. Fail and it can never be learned. Taking 20 takes 180 days (about 6 months in game).

Unfortunately, a level 17 Wizard has 20 ranks in Spellcraft, +9 from 28 INT, so take 10 and bam, you got it. (18 base INT +4 from levels + 6 headband) Not to mention that unless you're just being plain unfair, they could go find the biggest magical library to research in and get a circumstance bonus to their check. One way or another, that wizard auto-passes your spellcraft DC.

I personally like the system where after casting a spell, the caster must make a fortitude save vs. DC 10+spell level cast or become fatigued. This repeats until they fail a save vs. fatigue while exhausted and they pass out.

Matthew
2007-06-10, 02:26 PM
20 + Twice the Spell Level? I'd suggest three times if you want to keep things linear. That Level 20 Wizard is going to have a Spell Craft of something like 30+, meaning at least 40 by taking ten.

[Edit] Damn, Ninja'd... oh well, at least I'm not the only one who spotted that potential problem.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-10, 02:59 PM
Yep, let's make low level wizards suck more. That'll balance the high level wizard. You do realize the implications here:

:vaarsuvius: That guy's casting a spell. *makes DC 16 spellcraft check to identify a spell being cast* It's a magic missile.

:elan: Magic Missile, what's that do?

:vaarsuvius: *fails DC 22 knowledge arcana check* I do not know, I've never heard of it.

EDIT- :elan: think, think, think of what magic missile does

Illiterate Scribe
2007-06-10, 03:03 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm Sanity rules make life a lot more difficult for casters - it almost goes the other way then, with ToB on the very top (although druids are still up there).

Maxymiuk
2007-06-10, 04:19 PM
The wizard:

1) Limit them to 5th level spells. Spread out the spellcasting progression over 20 levels. 6th+ level spells become Epic.

or

2) Force them to specialize. And I mean, restricted to one school sort of specialize. Difficult to apply to divine casters - hmm, maybe limit them to domain spells and healing?


The cleric:

1) As the wizard

or

2) Severely limit their spell selection. Hmm... maybe restrict them to healing and domain spells only?


The druid:

1) As the wizard

or

2) Force them to choose between wildshape and spellcasting. Restrict spellcasting somewhat, though I don't have any concrete ideas how.

Diggorian
2007-06-10, 04:22 PM
20 + Twice the Spell Level? I'd suggest three times if you want to keep things linear. That Level 20 Wizard is going to have a Spell Craft of something like 30+, meaning at least 40 by taking ten.

Three times spell level would be better. Time Stop Spellcraft DC 47. Can still take 20 and get it but it'll cost a lot of time.

In Skjaldbakka's example, being able to identify the spell would ofcourse no longer require the Knowledge Arcana check to have heard of it. The Spellcraft check I propose would be for learning to copy that effect witnessed.

My thinking is much as PC's dont automatically know what every monster in the MM is, nor should they know of every spell available, although their players might.

Lower level wizards can avoid this difficulty of 'Spellcrafting' new spells because they dont face as much scarcity as their higher level elders. Lower level spells like Magic Missle could be far more common in scroll form if not in the repertoire of their masters.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-10, 04:23 PM
Here is the fix I use for my games.

the gentleman's agreement (or Karma):

If you whip out broken combo X, enemy spellcasters will start whipping out broken combo X. The more you break the game, the more the game breaks you.

The result is, crazy broken stuff doesn't get used, unless it is the only way to survive, because neither the players nor the DM want escalation to happen.

EDit- actually, this applies to fighter-types too.

Matthew
2007-06-10, 04:37 PM
Three times spell level would be better. Time Stop Spellcraft DC 47. Can still take 20 and get it but it'll cost a lot of time.

In Skjaldbakka's example, being able to identify the spell would ofcourse no longer require the Knowledge Arcana check to have heard of it. The Spellcraft check I propose would be for learning to copy that effect witnessed.

My thinking is much as PC's dont automatically know what every monster in the MM is, nor should they know of every spell available, although their players might.

Lower level wizards can avoid this difficulty of 'Spellcrafting' new spells because they dont face as much scarcity as their higher level elders. Lower level spells like Magic Missle could be far more common in scroll form if not in the repertoire of their masters.
Hmmn. I'm pretty sure they shouldn't be able to 'take 20' to learn a Spell. taking 10, sure, but taking 20 seems odd.

Skjaldbakka: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's how most reasonable games are run in practice. However, this is all theoretical RAW thinking for tightening up the system.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-10, 05:12 PM
I think Monte Cook did a pretty good job with casters in AE. I pretty much use magisters, witches and mageblades in tabletop games I run.

Diggorian
2007-06-10, 05:24 PM
Hmmn. I'm pretty sure they shouldn't be able to 'take 20' to learn a Spell. taking 10, sure, but taking 20 seems odd.

Because it implies some failures as part of the process and doesnt go with the pass/fail mechanic? I'm inclined to agree, no more take 20. Thanks for the input.

BTW, you arent Matthew Rees whom I played with some years back in East Lansing are you?

AE? Arcana Unearthed? I may take a look at it, although I've avoided many of these problems mentioned by just forbidding any arcane caster that prepares spells. The history of my campaign (see my sig link) includes a high level wizard that ruled the world for an era. With his eventual overthrow, Arcane magics are strongly stigmatized as corrupting.

Skjaldbakka
2007-06-10, 05:28 PM
Arcana Evolved is the most recent edition, which included the Ritual Warrior (tome of battle uses a lot of things that are very much like combat rites, which is ritual warriors do).

I summarized the good parts of AE spellcastering a few posts up.

Matthew
2007-06-10, 05:56 PM
Because it implies some failures as part of the process and doesnt go with the pass/fail mechanic? I'm inclined to agree, no more take 20. Thanks for the input.

Yep. No problem.


BTW, you arent Matthew Rees whom I played with some years back in East Lansing are you?

Nope, afraid not.

Gavin Sage
2007-06-10, 08:46 PM
Following the conversation I have a question. For the idea of a Spellcraft DC, would that be to learn the spell on its own or for any sort of learning for it? Since I worry about if someone doesn't want to be an optimization monkey, didn't have an 18 Int to start, and heaven forbid the DM never provide a Int boosting item, being locked out of spell levels.

Diggorian
2007-06-10, 09:15 PM
Following the conversation I have a question. For the idea of a Spellcraft DC, would that be to learn the spell on its own or for any sort of learning for it?

To learn the spell from scratch: no scroll, no friendly that knows the spell, no other person's spellbook. Those instances already are covered by spellcraft as is.

Skyserpent
2007-06-10, 10:10 PM
Heheheh... Th33

ask a ninja aboot it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qvtbkz5HY_o

heheh...

Takamari
2007-06-12, 07:21 AM
Skjaldbakka has it with the gentleman's agreement, IMHO. We are all smart people here and I can almost promise that nobody will ever agree on a fix. I love to play the cleric and the wizard. I find them much more versitile and fun to play.

I've been accused of ubering my casters. My clerics always have a divine favor, divine power, righteous might, brambles/spikes if using a wooden weapon, greater magic weapon, vestments of faith, superior resistance, etc. My wizards are along the same line. Anything that I can cast that I can get to last for a day of travel or 24+ hours that is as good or better than a magic item=I have.

I've never used persistant spell or divine metamagic cheese, nor have I focused on save or suck/save or die spellcasters. The OP is a friend of mine, one of my gamemasters, and one of my players. I told him that if he increased the casting time on spells, I'd never play a caster again. Look, the wizard is casting a spell, I hit him, make a DC 15+damage concentration check for each attack, etc.

While I agree that the power three are THE POWER THREE, they are only game breaking if the player breaks them, or the game master allows them to be broken. Instead of buffing himself and going all out in melee, the cleric buffs the fighter. If you want to play a beat stick cleric, say so, so another player doesnt' get shafted by playing an obviously inferior fighter type.

The number of spells available to the power three is overwhelming. Either limit that to some extent: You may only draw from the PHB and Spell Compendium. Anything else, you have to look for. I straight get rid of some spells: Shivering Touch, Mordie's Disjunction, Ray of Dizziness, etc. I'm not trying to say that everything is fine, just that if the player uses disgression and some fair play sense, then nothing need to be fixed with the "power three"

However, I've said before that the melee classes need some love. ToB did wonders, but if not everyone ownes it, it is really hard to say: "You want to play a fighter, do you? Fighters = warblade/swordsage." I've read some varients of the fighter and paladin that I like. The OP showed me a varient fighter that is alright, except for the smells like p**** auras, lol. I think that melee classes just need scalable feats.

I guess that my ultimate point is that the best way to deal with the power three is to deal with the player. If your players try to break the class then they just ruin everyone elses fun. I can think of several much more entertaining things to do with my time than sit at a table and watch the cleric/wiz/druid zilla win D&D.

EDIT: It is 6:30 in the morning and I've had no quality sleep. Please pardon any spelling or grammar errors. Thanks!