Nerfing spellcasters

[illiteratebarb]

I'm designing a campaign that I want the players to be able to go to higher levels, also I want them to be able to be any base class they want. That being said we all know what happens with spell casters at higher levels, I come to you guys looking for effective ways to write into storyline stuff that would hinder the spell casters ability to make the rest of the party useless while still allowing them to have fun playing.

Currently I have written in that arcane spell casters are outlawed and very feared, that being said finding material components for spells will be difficult, also every time they wanna change spells they'll have to find a time to learn it from. So they'll only get the spells they take when they originally make their character.

[HolyDraconus]

Steal from Dragonlance and make casters have to use a stam/con system. Or just flat out use Dragonlance's mages. None of them are as broken as a wizard cleric or druid.

[illiteratebarb]

I'll look into it thank you!

[ryu]

I would really recommend keeping the party in the same general band of utility of classes instead of trying push classes that are on different levels of utility. Using limits in the way you suggest won't be much of an effective limiter for people who know what they're doing, and will quickly turn into a game of finding the powerful tactic you missed. This is assuming the players wanted to play the high level of power and weren't willing to compromise to begin with. If that assumption is wrong you don't need to bother with limitations anyway. That said party of casters is a legitimate and fun way to play. Very mentally challenging if you want to get the most out of it, but it comes with some of the most detailed and exciting fights in the game if both sides are similarly competent.

[Necroticplague]

An idea I've presented before: gut the utility of any indavidual spell. Any spell that produces more than one effect is split up into multiple spells.

[Triskavanski]

Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use

I think I should bring this up. If you're going to make it annoying to be an arcane caster, you might as well just ban the arcane casters.

And since Divine Casters use a lot of similar components for their spells as far as I know, I'd figure it would be the same here too.

[daremetoidareyo]

I would really recommend keeping the party in the same general band of utility of classes instead of trying push classes that are on different levels of utility. Using limits in the way you suggest won't be much of an effective limiter for people who know what they're doing, and will quickly turn into a game of finding the powerful tactic you missed. This is assuming the players wanted to play the high level of power and weren't willing to compromise to begin with. If that's the case you don't need to bother with limitations anyway. That said party of casters is a legitimate and fun way to play. Very mentally challenging if you want to get the most out of it, but it comes with some of the most detailed and exciting fights in the game if both sides are similarly competent.

I'm in Ryu's camp. There is no guarantee that this campaign is the one that will get to high levels. Initiating a PC caster vs. DM balancer cold war around casting is not going to help with getting you to those high levels. It will deplete enthusiasm, the major ingredient in such an endeavor. Just ban the ugliest core spells (or enforce hard to find components for them) and limit a person to a single contingency and many problems are solved. Druids can only wildshape into forms that they have seen in real life.

There is also a fluff fix beyond social prohibition. Perhaps your game world has a naturally occurring ore that is priced like adamantine that radiates an AMF, thus making some people and locations impervious to magical manipulation. Such a substance would be quite helpful to certain mundanes.

You're smart. You can handle a high level caster. The opportunity to handle such a beast is the reward for facilitating a fun campaign that can actually have characters get past the mid levels.

[illiteratebarb]

All great points! I like the varying point of views from you all.

I agree that we shouldn't sacrifice the fun of the game just so the campaign doesn't get broken. I would hate to make playing a spellcaster boring and pointless. Breaking larger spells into smaller spells is a great idea, I love the idea of magic nulling ore too. Also good to know about the druids wild shape ability.

[Troacctid]

My standard solution is to just ban high-level spells. Casters don't really need nerfing in the early game. Cutting off anything above 5th or 6th level will cap the insanity at a more reasonable level.

Also, buff the non-casters so they don't suck so bad.

[Ravens_cry]

Honestly, the best way to 'fix' spellcasters is to talk to the players about what you feel is 'broken' about spellcasters, and how you would prefer not to see that. A more mechanical fix, especially for druids and clerics, is having personal buff spells also give a bonus to the party. That way when CoDzilla goes on a rampage, the Fighter is right there with him. You might have to beef up encounters a little, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

[Flickerdart]

Having magic-nullifying metal is like having sword-nullifying monsters - you are telling the player "sorry, you can't play the character you came here to play." If that's okay with you and your play group, go for it.

The high-level spells thing is a trickier one - there are plenty of high-level spells that don't break the game, and honestly kind of suck. Letting casters use those is fine. Problem spells exist in the lower levels too - alter self is level 2.

My quick fix would be to ban all PHB spells and use only the Spell Compendium. There are still nasty things in there, but nothing on the level of gate or shapechange.

[daremetoidareyo]

Having magic-nullifying metal is like having sword-nullifying monsters - you are telling the player "sorry, you can't play the character you came here to play." If that's okay with you and your play group, go for it.

The high-level spells thing is a trickier one - there are plenty of high-level spells that don't break the game, and honestly kind of suck. Letting casters use those is fine. Problem spells exist in the lower levels too - alter self is level 2.

My quick fix would be to ban all PHB spells and use only the Spell Compendium. There are still nasty things in there, but nothing on the level of gate or shapechange.

The game is replete with sword nullifying monsters. DR/magic is a thing. Super high AC is another thing casters worry about minimally. Having some people nope out of magic through mundane materials rather than magical equipment is totally a fine permutation on the game. No-one suggested that every entity be outfitted in such gear, just some. Allowing PCs to access anti-magic in a way that doesn't break the budget means that they can have a team of all mundanes rather than conforming to necessary party roles. Further, it makes casters need mundanes to handle the problems that magic cannot, thus reversing the obligation of needing a caster to operate at high levels, where instead, casters need people who don't switch off in antimagic fields. You need just enough to bloody and bruise the PCs.

[ComaVision]

Replace spellcasting with spheres of power.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think I should bring this up.
Aww, people remember!


My standard solution is to just ban high-level spells. Casters don't really need nerfing in the early game. Cutting off anything above 5th or 6th level will cap the insanity at a more reasonable level.
More specifically, reduce them to a 6th level caster PROGRESSION, otherwise they'll be just as strong at lower levels. To compensate for lower spells/day, give a 1st level spell at 1st, and either an extra spell/spell level or bonus Reserve feats to low- BAB classes like Wizard and Sorcerer. It's the closest thing you'll get to a quick and easy fix.

Or you could come up with Beguiler-style thematically limited casters for all occasions, but that takes a lot more work. I'm sure it's been done before, though...http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?317861-Fixed-List-Caster-Project-(3-5)

[Troacctid]

More specifically, reduce them to a 6th level caster PROGRESSION, otherwise they'll be just as strong at lower levels. To compensate for lower spells/day, give a 1st level spell at 1st, and either an extra spell/spell level or bonus Reserve feats to low- BAB classes like Wizard and Sorcerer. It's the closest thing you'll get to a quick and easy fix.

No. The progression stays the same. Casters don't need to be nerfed at low levels.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No. The progression stays the same. Casters don't need to be nerfed at low levels.
Not at like 1-3 maybe, but their domination is well established by 11-12. Plus, your method leaves a huge hole in advancement.

[ryu]

Not at like 1-3 maybe, but their domination is well established by 11-12. Plus, your method leaves a huge hole in advancement.

You missed the other half of his intentions. He also said to buff the mundanes such that they suck less. While he and I disagree on the ideal balance point it seems pretty clear we both consider say... fighter to consider itself lucky to be an NPC class if that as it was made at base.

[Segev]

If your concern is the power discrepancy, then just be generous with magic items for those who seem to fall behind. Insofar as handling high-level spells goes, it's mostly a matter of keeping track of what you EXPECT them to have, and then making sure the adventure REQUIRES it. Where high-level enemies are to be found, consider that they will expect their foes to have whatever typically-used tactics the party has, and will defend against them. One way to help yourself with this is to build, if not an "anti-party," than at least a series of foes who use, individually, similar tactics to the PCs and come after the PCs for various reasons. Watch what the players do to defend themselves, and have your more clever bad guys use similar (or superior, due to better resources, if your game runs that way) tactics and strategies.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You missed the other half of his intentions. He also said to buff the mundanes such that they suck less. While he and I disagree on the ideal balance point it seems pretty clear we both consider say... fighter to consider itself lucky to be an NPC class if that as it was made at base.
Well, duh. You want a t3 warrior like a Swprdsage or Totemist with a t3 caster like a bard, or Warpriest (PF), or Hunter (PF)... You know, with their 6th level progressions. It's not a perfect fix, but I defy you to come up with something with a better effort:impact ratio. Especially since the OP wanted all base classes to be available.

[ryu]

Well, duh. You want a t3 warrior like a Swprdsage or Totemist with a t3 caster like a bard, or Warpriest (PF), or Hunter (PF)... You know, with their 6th level progressions. It's not a perfect fix, but I defy you to come up with something with a better effort:impact ratio. Especially since the OP wanted all base classes to be available.

A wizard and a bard are whole lot closer at the mid levels than a wizard and a fighter. Close enough that they'd still happily share a party. It's when the lowest step on the food chain start trying to party with the highest that problems start.

[Tvtyrant]

I personally have been thinkibg of running a campaign where the caster class are cut down to Warlock, Dragon Fire Adept, Warmage and Shadowcaster. This would be for a tier 4 game with the other classes being Marshal, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Rogue, Scout, and Hexblade.

To fix the issues with mundane healing all potions of spell level 1-3 can be made with alchemy.

[daremetoidareyo]

I personally have been thinkibg of running a campaign where the caster class are cut down to Warlock, Dragon Fire Adept, Warmage and Shadowcaster. This would be for a tier 4 game with the other classes being Marshal, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Rogue, Scout, and Hexblade.

To fix the issues with mundane healing all potions of spell level 1-3 can be made with alchemy.

you mean warlock, DFA and warmage. shadowcaster is the monk of casters

[Tvtyrant]

you mean warlock, DFA and warmage. shadowcaster is the monk of casters

I do not know where you are getting that from. It is easily the strongest out lf that list, it just has a sadly horrible mechanic. A high level Shadowcaster is much, much stronger than the other listed classes, it just hasnto go through 8 levels of crying to get there.

[Troacctid]

Not at like 1-3 maybe, but their domination is well established by 11-12. Plus, your method leaves a huge hole in advancement.

There's no hole in advancement. You keep getting spell slots and spells known, you just don't get higher-level spells.

I think it's fine to have powerful spells at high levels, and I think it's important for mid-level spells to be available at mid-levels. I also want to support theurges and partial-casting prestige classes; delaying spell progressions makes losing caster levels even more painful than it already is, so multiclass casters are disproportionately affected by your nerf. On the other hand, capping the maximum available spell levels actually makes it more palatable to lose caster levels, because you can still count on reaching your highest-level spells before the endgame, so there's less pressure.

[ryu]

There's no hole in advancement. You keep getting spell slots and spells known, you just don't get higher-level spells.

I think it's fine to have powerful spells at high levels, and I think it's important for mid-level spells to be available at mid-levels. I also want to support theurges and partial-casting prestige classes; delaying spell progressions makes losing caster levels even more painful than it already is, so multiclass casters are disproportionately affected by your nerf. On the other hand, capping the maximum available spell levels actually makes it more palatable to lose caster levels, because you can still count on reaching your highest-level spells before the endgame, so there's less pressure.

Alternatively take all the lost spell levels you want after already getting your top level. Optimization with that limit in place is all about how many neat abilities you can cram into like nine levels.

[Aleolus]

If your group is willing to try a somewhat complicated new mechanic, I have an idea.

Throw out spells per day, and instead introduce a fatigue mechanic that works something like this;
Every time a caster tries to cast a spell they roll a Fortitude save (DC =10 + Spell level + Number of active spells that caster has cast + Number of previous spells they have cast in the past X rounds). The caster gets to add their casting stat (Int for Wizards, Wis for Clerics/Druids, Cha for Sorc/Bard) to that save. If they succeed, the spell is cast no problem, but if they fail they take a step along the winded path (Winded, Fatigued, Exhausted, unconcious).

If you go with this route you would probably want to give your Wizards full simple weapon proficiency, and give Sorcs and Wizards a d6 HD and 3/4 BAB, so they have options beyond "I try to cast a spell" and "I ineffectively shoot my crossbow"

[ryu]

If your group is willing to try a somewhat complicated new mechanic, I have an idea.

Throw out spells per day, and instead introduce a fatigue mechanic that works something like this;
Every time a caster tries to cast a spell they roll a Fortitude save (DC =10 + Spell level + Number of active spells that caster has cast + Number of previous spells they have cast in the past X rounds). The caster gets to add their casting stat (Int for Wizards, Wis for Clerics/Druids, Cha for Sorc/Bard) to that save. If they succeed, the spell is cast no problem, but if they fail they take a step along the winded path (Winded, Fatigued, Exhausted, unconcious).

If you go with this route you would probably want to give your Wizards full simple weapon proficiency, and give Sorcs and Wizards a d6 HD and 3/4 BAB, so they have options beyond "I try to cast a spell" and "I ineffectively shoot my crossbow"

Reserve feats and bought items to lower DCs by directly lowering the number you need to cast in a day and space out hard cast spells. Also there's a sleeping bag item that gets you a full nights rest in one hour.

[Boci]

One idea I adapted from molten_dragon was to use the spell point system, but with the following tweaks (it only really effects wizards):

1. Spell cost is (spell level squared) rather than the values given in the book.

2. A wizard must still ready spell slot and expend them when they cast a spell. In effect, a wizard must have the spell slot available (the matrix set out in her mind) and sufficient spell points (the fuel to realize the matrix) to cast a spell.

[Beheld]

If you don't want to play a game with 7-9 spell effects, maybe you should just play a game at level 12 or lower?

Or are you going to nerf all the CR 13 Glabrezu's with Greater Teleport, Power Word Stun, and Reverse Gravity? And the the Balors with Greater Teleport, Power Word Stun, Insanity, Blasphemy, Firestorm, and Implosion?

Seems like if you don't want to play a high level game, it's a lot easier to just not play a high level game than it is to redesign all the monsters.

[Tvtyrant]

If you don't want to play a game with 7-9 spell effects, maybe you should just play a game at level 12 or lower?

Or are you going to nerf all the CR 13 Glabrezu's with Greater Teleport, Power Word Stun, and Reverse Gravity? And the the Balors with Greater Teleport, Power Word Stun, Insanity, Blasphemy, Firestorm, and Implosion?

Seems like if you don't want to play a high level game, it's a lot easier to just not play a high level game than it is to redesign all the monsters.

This seems kind of silly to me. It takes a fraction of a second to say "these do no exist in any form whatsoever." If the creature is included it doesn't use those powers, done.

[Troacctid]

If you don't want to play a game with 7-9 spell effects, maybe you should just play a game at level 12 or lower?

Or are you going to nerf all the CR 13 Glabrezu's with Greater Teleport, Power Word Stun, and Reverse Gravity? And the the Balors with Greater Teleport, Power Word Stun, Insanity, Blasphemy, Firestorm, and Implosion?

Seems like if you don't want to play a high level game, it's a lot easier to just not play a high level game than it is to redesign all the monsters.

A lot of monsters have unique abilities. It's not a problem in my eyes.


Alternatively take all the lost spell levels you want after already getting your top level. Optimization with that limit in place is all about how many neat abilities you can cram into like nine levels.

Right, that too, essentially giving up spell slots a la Archmage.

[MisterKaws]

You could just make it so that the non-casters get either martial adepts(for the meatshields), or psionic rogue(for thieves), or something like that. The easiest way to balance casters is not by nerfing them, but by bringing the non-casters to the same power level, seriously, eternal blade deals so much damage it can only be compared to an all-out mailman, and that's without even trying to do theoretical optimization.

[137beth]

My quick fix would be to ban all PHB spells and use only the Spell Compendium. There are still nasty things in there, but nothing on the level of gate or shapechange.

It's also worth pointing out that this approach benefits beginner players, because it steers them away from the high density of trap spells in the PHB. The PHB isn't just home to Gate and Shapechange, it also has Meteor Swarm, Symbol of Death, and Hold Portal.

My group tried this approach (though we also banned Ice Assassin), and the results were mixed. In a game with as many authors as 3.5, there are a fair number of redundant spells. In the situations where a core spell is redundant with a supplement spell, banning that particular PHB spell has no noticeable impact. On the other hand, some splatbook authors actually seemed to have checked the core rules before writing splatbook spells, so not everything in core can be reproduced (as easily) with the SpC. What we found was that some capabilities of spellcasters were nerfed, but others weren't, and what got nerfed was seemingly random and very uneven. Arguably that is a good thing (since many specific spellcasting capabilities don't need nerfing), but it turned a big chunk of the game into figuring out which splatbook spells substitute for the core mainstays.

Ultimately, the fix you suggested worked, but it isn't as good as a comprehensive rewrite (which you acknowledged by calling it a "quick fix").

Admittedly, I'm biased, since I prefer T2 play over T3-4, so most wide-sweeping nerfs to the magic system (not counting bans of the classes that can learn too many spells in one build) seem excessive to me. My preference is just to ban the most egregiously versatile spells (the polymorph series, the planar ally series, Ice Assassin, miracle, and eliminate ways of bypassing xp costs for planar binding/gate/wish), as well as the most egregiously versatile classes (the T1s). My preference, however, does not fit the requests made by the OP.

[ryu]

You could just make it so that the non-casters get either martial adepts(for the meatshields), or psionic rogue(for thieves), or something like that. The easiest way to balance casters is not by nerfing them, but by bringing the non-casters to the same power level, seriously, eternal blade deals so much damage it can only be compared to an all-out mailman, and that's without even trying to do theoretical optimization.

Now see this I can agree with. Even if casters are still ultimately more powerful this is a much more interesting play environment. If everyone is reasonably versatile and powerful, everyone is powerfully relevant in all situations. The strategy comes more from synergistic tacts and knowing your enemy than simple brute force.

[Andezzar]

A lot of monsters have unique abilities. It's not a problem in my eyes.The problem is that now only the DM has many of the "broken" spells. If he uses them and the players have no way of countering them it won't be much fun for the players and the DM (unless he enjoys the power trip). If the DM does not use those abilities, the monsters become a lot less scary and also much more alike.

I agree with Beheld, if you do not want those abilities you should not play at levels where those abilities are to be expected.

D&D is not LotR. Many obstacles of the books can easily be circumvented by a couple of spells (not all of them high level:

Influence of the One Ring - Protection from Evil
Getting to Mordor - (greater) Teleport, Overland flight, etc.
Destroying the Ring - disintegrate


The point is magic in D&D is a lot more powerful than in LotR and the opposition is made accordingly. Taking that tool away from one side, will not help game balance.

[Troacctid]

Are you suggesting that the only way to have a balanced encounter is for the party to fight a monster with the exact same capabilities they have? Should I never use the Tarrasque, because players don't have any way of getting regeneration 40 and a spell-immune carapace? Are ghosts off-limits because PCs aren't permanently incorporeal? Are Ravids unfair because the players don't get free animated objects every round? Should I only use monsters with 20+ HD against epic-level parties?

No? Then what's the problem with monsters having powerful abilities that PCs don't have?

[Andezzar]

No? Then what's the problem with monsters having powerful abilities that PCs don't have?Monsters having different powerful abilities is not a problem but monsters having powerful abilities and the PCs not having abilities of similar power level is.

Just look at a dragon. The PCs do not have to have wings and a breath weapon, but if they have no means of getting to the dragon, mitigating the AoE damage and dealing damage to the dragon it will be a very one sided battle.

[Flickerdart]

...but it turned a big chunk of the game into figuring out which splatbook spells substitute for the core mainstays.
Honestly, this seems to be more a problem of attitude than anything. Given that wizards and sorcerers are basically "spell list + commoner," changing the spell list means you're looking at different classes. Would you crack open Magic of Incarnum and try to build a cleric out of an incarnate?

[ryu]

Monsters having different powerful abilities is not a problem but monsters having powerful abilities and the PCs not having abilities of similar power level is.

Just look at a dragon. The PCs do not have to have wings and a breath weapon, but if they have no means of getting to the dragon, mitigating the AoE damage and dealing damage to the dragon it will be a very one sided battle.

And besides most of the things that just got mentioned are things PCs can totally have access to without a whiff of interpretation required. Abilities that PCs aren't allowed to have even in principle are rare, and I do mean RARE. I take no issue with enemies have abilities I don't. Enemies that play by entirely different rules or that can have things I'm simply not allowed to touch aren't kosher.

[Spider_Jerusalem]

Well, if you actually use the bookkeeping and the disadvantages of full caster classes, they might be REALLY nerfed.

Ok, you can twist the laws of physics on a whim, but hey, did you just cross a river with that unprotected spellbook? Oh, well...

Yes, you might be technically able to open Gates to call all the heavens to your aid, but is that what Heironeous REALLY wants? I mean, it's only a giant, you're supposed to appease the god of heroes by giving him a fair fight, right?

(Yeah, those are not the best examples, but you get the idea)

[Flickerdart]

Yes, you might be technically able to open Gates to call all the heavens to your aid, but is that what Heironeous REALLY wants? I mean, it's only a giant, you're supposed to appease the god of heroes by giving him a fair fight, right?
I realize that you admit these are not the best suggestions, but playing your player's character for him is a terrible move.

[ryu]

I realize that you admit these are not the best suggestions, but playing your player's character for him is a terrible move.

I think he's trying to refer to disobedient summons or divine consequences. Neither are really applicable, but it's not straight character taking.

[stanprollyright]

If you want a more balanced game without high-level magic, play E6.

For a low-magic 20-level game, ban all 9th level casters and let them play bards and duskblades and warlocks. Let caster classes mix and match ACFs as well as Arcane Disciple and Sword of the Arcane Order, allowing them to swap class features for expanded spell lists.

You could also remove all spells above 6th or 7th level that aren't "Mass X" "Communal X" or "Greater X" but let them keep their spell progressions and high-level spell slots to be used on lower level spells with metamagic. Give out Heighten Spell for free so they can still have reasonable DCs.

[Spider_Jerusalem]

I realize that you admit these are not the best suggestions, but playing your player's character for him is a terrible move.

Oh, I didn't mean playing the character for the player. The point is: wizards have power because they mess with dangerous dark arts. Clerics only have power because they are te representatives of their gods. I realize a lot of people just ignore the "danger" part of "dangerous dark arts" and just treat casters like guys who shoot lasers, no strings attached.

I see no problem in tier 1s wielding more power than other characters, the problem is when it actually comes for free.

That said, I think the "costs" of wielding supernatural power should be used as plot hooks, not as handcuffs to bring their power down. A wizard should get powerful enemies who were impressed by their power (and might want to keep that power from increasing). A high level cleric has a powerful enough aura that he should be targeted by enemies of his faith just for existing.

[ryu]

Oh, I didn't mean playing the character for the player. The point is: wizards have power because they mess with dangerous dark arts. Clerics only have power because they are te representatives of their gods. I realize a lot of people just ignore the "danger" part of "dangerous dark arts" and just treat casters like guys who shoot lasers, no strings attached.

I see no problem in tier 1s wielding more power than other characters, the problem is when it actually comes for free.

That said, I think the "costs" of wielding supernatural power should be used as plot hooks, not as handcuffs to bring their power down. A wizard should get powerful enemies who were impressed by their power (and might want to keep that power from increasing). A high level cleric has a powerful enough aura that he should be targeted by enemies of his faith just for existing.

The reason people are so nonchalant with magic is that it's usually written with little mechanical risk or with risk that's totally easy to work around given five minutes of time to think about the problem for the first time.

That said I'm totally fine facing similarly competent enemies. Actually the game would be boring if they weren't similarly competent. I don't wizard for the purposes of dominating the game. I wizard to turn the game into four-dimensional chess with three separate boards where all competitors must move in such a way as to also solve a rubix cube as they battle for strategic edge.

[Anthrowhale]

W.r.t. Spell Compendium instead, there are still a few landmines.

As written:
Consumptive Field + Greater Consumptive Field (infinite caster level anyone?)
Planar Bubble (all metamagics for free? 10 rounds for 1?)

With metamagic: Absorption means you never run out of spells.

[Boci]

Oh, I didn't mean playing the character for the player. The point is: wizards have power because they mess with dangerous dark arts. Clerics only have power because they are te representatives of their gods. I realize a lot of people just ignore the "danger" part of "dangerous dark arts" and just treat casters like guys who shoot lasers, no strings attached.

I see no problem in tier 1s wielding more power than other characters, the problem is when it actually comes for free.

That said, I think the "costs" of wielding supernatural power should be used as plot hooks, not as handcuffs to bring their power down. A wizard should get powerful enemies who were impressed by their power (and might want to keep that power from increasing). A high level cleric has a powerful enough aura that he should be targeted by enemies of his faith just for existing.

No, by the fluff magic isn't dark, and 3.5 largely made it risk free. You are free to houserule this, but in my experience "vague alteration to fluff that gives me a free pass to screw your character over" typically isn't received well, unless the DM already has some good will with the players.

[Zanos]

Oh, I didn't mean playing the character for the player. The point is: wizards have power because they mess with dangerous dark arts.
Nothing about arcane magic is particularly dangerous by RAW other than having a d4 and not being able to wear armor, and even that is fungible. You know all the effects your spells will have. I guess you could screw up a demon binding, but it's pretty hard to kill yourself by accident with magic if you're playing a wizard to their int score.

[Flickerdart]

Oh, I didn't mean playing the character for the player. The point is: wizards have power because they mess with dangerous dark arts. Clerics only have power because they are te representatives of their gods. I realize a lot of people just ignore the "danger" part of "dangerous dark arts" and just treat casters like guys who shoot lasers, no strings attached.

I see no problem in tier 1s wielding more power than other characters, the problem is when it actually comes for free.
Where are you getting the whole dark arts thing? There are characters that get powers from demons (warlocks) and the plane of Shadow (shadowcasters) but wizards are basically software engineers. The worst thing their spell can do is fail to compile.


That said, I think the "costs" of wielding supernatural power should be used as plot hooks, not as handcuffs to bring their power down. A wizard should get powerful enemies who were impressed by their power (and might want to keep that power from increasing). A high level cleric has a powerful enough aura that he should be targeted by enemies of his faith just for existing.
You clearly have good intentions, but "your class features make this plot" turn into "this is a game about things that happen to the party's spellcasters" pretty darn quick. And then you have to put in plots about the fighter and the rogue and hey, you're not actually balancing anything out anymore.

[stanprollyright]

Where are you getting the whole dark arts thing? There are characters that get powers from demons (warlocks) and the plane of Shadow (shadowcasters) but wizards are basically software engineers. The worst thing their spell can do is fail to compile.

Yup. Magic is very much a stand-in for technology in D&D.

[Boogastreehouse]

*

I'll read the thread later when I have time, sorry if this has been covered, but for now I'll just throw in my two cents.

Spellcasters should not be nerfed. Yes they're not balanced, but that's a big part of the tactics of the game. In chess, a queen is more powerful than a bishop, but working together they become even more effective. No one talks about nerfing or banning queens in chess.

A fighter is more effective with a wizard backing her up, and a wizard is (slightly) more effective with a fighter backing her up.

One way to keep wizards from dominating as much is to monitor the amount of downtime. A party shouldn't get used to the idea of facing one encounter in a dungeon, and then backing off to rest. Keep them aware that danger could follow them out and attack them while they're trying to rest. Wizards will conserve their spells and give other players a chance to do things.

At higher levels, you just have to make sure that there are things for every party member to do. Make sure the low-tier fighters and friends have magic items that let them be versatile, and really describe the setting so they can look for features to exploit. They won't ever be as versatile as the wizard, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you're a fighter or a wizard, having the opportunity to come up with a clever way to knock the monster off the bridge or to cause a cave-in is more satisfying that being the most powerful person at the table, and anyone playing any class can access that fun.

*

[Curmudgeon]

Casters don't really need nerfing in the early game.
Got to disagree on that point. Some low-level spells are way out of line compared to what other effects are available to characters at the same ECL. Glitterdust, for example, provides a -40 adjustment to Hide at character level 3, counteracting Epic levels of skill acquisition in stealth.

Specific spell house rules to deal with level-inappropriate spells:

Arcane Lock adds +10 to the Open Lock DC; it doesn't make that skill ineffective.
Glibness's boost to Bluff checks is +2/level, maximum +20.
Glitterdust's penalty to Hide is -2/level, maximum -20.
Guidance of the Avatar's boost to skill checks is +2/level, maximum +20.
Pass without Trace adds +2/level, maximum +20, to the Survival DC with Track feat; it doesn't make tracking impossible without magic.
Snow Walk adds +2/level, maximum +20, to the Survival DC with Track feat; it doesn't make tracking impossible without magic.

[Troacctid]

Got to disagree on that point. Some low-level spells are way out of line compared to what other effects are available to characters at the same ECL. Glitterdust, for example, provides a -40 adjustment to Hide at character level 3, counteracting Epic levels of skill acquisition in stealth.

Specific spell house rules to deal with level-inappropriate spells:

Arcane Lock adds +10 to the Open Lock DC; it doesn't make that skill ineffective.
Glibness's boost to Bluff checks is +2/level, maximum +20.
Glitterdust's penalty to Hide is -2/level, maximum -20.
Guidance of the Avatar's boost to skill checks is +2/level, maximum +20.
Pass without Trace adds +2/level, maximum +20, to the Survival DC with Track feat; it doesn't make tracking impossible without magic.
Snow Walk adds +2/level, maximum +20, to the Survival DC with Track feat; it doesn't make tracking impossible without magic.


We'll agree to disagree then. I have trouble seeing Arcane Lock and Pass without Trace as overpowered. And if Glitterdust is overpowered, I'm pretty sure it's not because it gives too much of a penalty to Hide checks.

[ryu]

Okay lets be real. Glitterdust is a logically powerful thing against hide. Hide is meant to be used when you're not already noticed for the most part especially at early levels. Having a marking effect that punishes failure is a logical step. This makes sense because successfully making stealth work means a free round for whoever on your side can pull it off. This is nasty at low levels and easier to do at high levels unless the enemy was prepared against it. It's high risk for extreme rewards. Far more real than anything the fighter does for a while. I'd argue that's a good skill up to tier 3 to low tier 2.

[Zanos]

And for what it's worth, I don't really nerf anything until it becomes a problem. I don't like to spend time fixing stuff that will never come up.

[Beheld]

This seems kind of silly to me. It takes a fraction of a second to say "these do no exist in any form whatsoever." If the creature is included it doesn't use those powers, done.

At that point you are basically just removing like 50-60% of the CR 13+ Monsters and then telling the party to fight against only the big HP with no abilities. You are so drastically cutting the MM (and cutting all the monsters with those abilities such that they become basically non-functional for their CR and don't reflect their theme at all) that you might as well just be playing level 11 with slightly higher numbers.

Again, it seems like you just really don't want to play higher level games, I wonder why you view pretending you are while still playing at level 17 as better alternative. I don't claim to be playing Epic games because my DM allows me to have slightly more spell slots than a level 20 Wizard.


Honestly, this seems to be more a problem of attitude than anything. Given that wizards and sorcerers are basically "spell list + commoner," changing the spell list means you're looking at different classes. Would you crack open Magic of Incarnum and try to build a cleric out of an incarnate?

Or in the alternative, he got punched in the face by a Mummy or Wight and had a medusa stare at him and picked up a cursed item and someone cast a spell on him, and thus he realized that Remove Curse, Remove Disease, Restoration Spells, Stone to Flesh, Break Enchantment all lack core replacements, and that maybe if he wanted to ban Gate and Shapechange, he could just ban Gate and Shapechange instead of Banning Gate and Shapechange and Remove Curse and Restoration.

[Troacctid]

Again, it seems like you just really don't want to play higher level games, I wonder why you view pretending you are while still playing at level 17 as better alternative. I don't claim to be playing Epic games because my DM allows me to have slightly more spell slots than a level 20 Wizard.

It seems like you're somehow under the assumption that high-level spells are the only thing that you get at high levels, and everyone other than a full caster simply has blank spaces in their class advancement tables beyond ECL 12. Which to be fair is basically true in Core.

[Beheld]

It seems like you're somehow under the assumption that high-level spells are the only thing that you get at high levels, and everyone other than a full caster simply has blank spaces in their class advancement tables beyond ECL 12. Which to be fair is basically true in Core.

Well if you are nerfing Energy Drain, but not a Shadow Dragon's Breath weapon, then I don't know why you would do that, since it seems basically pointless, so you also have to nerf high level monster abilities that are based on similar high level concepts.

As far as the PCs go... yes? Rogues get more damage and the same things they could have taken at level 10, but more of them. Paladins get more uses of Remove Disease and Smite evil per day. Fighters get more feats they could have taken 7 levels ago. Only Druids get actual class features, and those are obviously pretty minor and don't keep up with monsters really. 98% of PrC abilities cap out at level 15, and then you start over again at level 6.

You can certainly halt advancement at any point, e6, e8, e10, e12, e14, and e16 are all perfectly viable ways to play the game, I just don't know why people insist on pretending they aren't doing that by adding +1 to some numbers and saying they are playing the same game as level 20 characters.

[Curmudgeon]

I have trouble seeing Arcane Lock and Pass without Trace as overpowered.
What's your difficulty? Both are low-level spells which make a (nonmagical, of course) skill, even bolstered to Epic levels, entirely useless. If those aren't overpowered, then there ought to be a couple of low-level skills which would make some spells, even bolstered to Epic levels, entirely useless.

[Beheld]

What's your difficulty? Both are low-level spells which make a nonmagical skill, even bolstered to Epic levels, entirely useless. If those aren't overpowered, then there ought to be a couple of low-level skills which would make some spells, even bolstered to Epic levels, entirely useless.

So does knock, so does fly. It might be time to admit that epic uses of a skill are not epic because no one should be able to do it before then, but because you get it on a specific resource schedule and from spending a specific character resources (skills) and not because it has an epic tag. That you can't lockpick a lock at level 25 shouldn't bother you, because you should be able to walk through the door. You should have been able to walk through the door 15 levels ago.

[nedz]

Admittedly, I'm biased, since I prefer T2 play over T3-4, so most wide-sweeping nerfs to the magic system (not counting bans of the classes that can learn too many spells in one build) seem excessive to me. My preference is just to ban the most egregiously versatile spells (the polymorph series, the planar ally series, Ice Assassin, miracle, and eliminate ways of bypassing xp costs for planar binding/gate/wish), as well as the most egregiously versatile classes (the T1s). My preference, however, does not fit the requests made by the OP.
You would like my houserules because basically this is what I did.

Got to disagree on that point. Some low-level spells are way out of line compared to what other effects are available to characters at the same ECL. Glitterdust, for example, provides a -40 adjustment to Hide at character level 3, counteracting Epic levels of skill acquisition in stealth.

Specific spell house rules to deal with level-inappropriate spells:

Arcane Lock adds +10 to the Open Lock DC; it doesn't make that skill ineffective.
Glibness's boost to Bluff checks is +2/level, maximum +20.
Glitterdust's penalty to Hide is -2/level, maximum -20.
Guidance of the Avatar's boost to skill checks is +2/level, maximum +20.
Pass without Trace adds +2/level, maximum +20, to the Survival DC with Track feat; it doesn't make tracking impossible without magic.
Snow Walk adds +2/level, maximum +20, to the Survival DC with Track feat; it doesn't make tracking impossible without magic.

and more or less this - though the details were slightly different.

We'll agree to disagree then. I have trouble seeing Arcane Lock and Pass without Trace as overpowered. And if Glitterdust is overpowered, I'm pretty sure it's not because it gives too much of a penalty to Hide checks.
The problem is they circumvent the skill system. Why bother investing skill points in open lock if you can just spam Knock. Glitterdust is overpowered because of Blindness 1 round per level.


Currently I have written in that arcane spell casters are outlawed and very feared,
I once played in a game like this. The problems were generally hand waived because PCs are special. At best the party become outlaws, or operate circumspectly.

that being said finding material components for spells will be difficult,
Eschew Materials FTW

also every time they wanna change spells they'll have to find a time to learn it from. So they'll only get the spells they take when they originally make their character.
Sorcerer ?

Use the Tier system:
Either Ban T1s - or maybe T1s and T2s.

You also have to fix a couple of dozen spells - lists of the problem spells exist: just refer to the handbooks.

Or run E6 - if you want a grittier game.

[Troacctid]

Well if you are nerfing Energy Drain, but not a Shadow Dragon's Breath weapon, then I don't know why you would do that, since it seems basically pointless, so you also have to nerf high level monster abilities that are based on similar high level concepts.
No, I don't? :smallconfused:

NPCs can have abilities that PCs can't. It's allowed. I hardly ever see players complain that they can't take the Skeleton template, or that they need to take a +8 level adjustment to be Greenbound when an NPC only gets +2 to CR. This is because they have different needs balance-wise.


Only Druids get actual class features
Now that's just factually incorrect.


98% of PrC abilities cap out at level 15, and then you start over again at level 6.
15 is a higher level than 12.


What's your difficulty? Both are low-level spells which make a nonmagical skill, even bolstered to Epic levels, entirely useless. If those aren't overpowered, then there ought to be a couple of low-level skills which would make some spells, even bolstered to Epic levels, entirely useless.

The problem is they circumvent the skill system. Why bother investing skill points in open lock if you can just spam Knock.
Yeah, I'm not convinced that those spells are what's making those skills useless.

[Beheld]

No, I don't? :smallconfused:

To the extent that you are not the person suggesting banning higher level spells on monsters... No? But I really wonder why you thought I was saying that you have to do so to be consistent with what the other person said.

[torrasque666]

So does knock, so does fly. It might be time to admit that epic uses of a skill are not epic because no one should be able to do it before then, but because you get it on a specific resource schedule and from spending a specific character resources (skills) and not because it has an epic tag. That you can't lockpick a lock at level 25 shouldn't bother you, because you should be able to walk through the door. You should have been able to walk through the door 15 levels ago.
Knock obviates the need for a skill. Arcane Lock makes it flat out not work.
Fly still leaves room for scent to track, while Pass Without Trace flat out says "you're not a magician? well too bad." when it comes to tracking.

​These are level 1 and 2 spells.

[stanprollyright]

Sorry guys, but the entire point of magical spells in a fantasy world is to be more powerful than mundane abilities. The balancing factor is that spells are a limited resource with limited applications that can be easily disrupted. You only have so many spells per day so you have to ration them, especially at low levels. You don't know what spells you'll need today, and you don't always Know your whole spell list, so you pick generalized options that are less good than specific spells for specific circumstances. You have to rest for 8 hrs and spend another hour preparing; you have all the necessary components; you have to succeed on concentration checks to cast while distracted; you can be disrupted and lose the spell with a readied action; you can't cast in an antimagic field or a silenced area; spells only last for a certain amount of time. Mundane skills and attacks have none of those restrictions. You can sneak around and hit things with a weapon all day with no penalty, no way to be disrupted, and no material cost. A caster may cast one spell to trivialize an encounter, but he can only do that a few times per day, and usually relies on someone else to finish the job (i.e. kill the neutralized monster).

The balance issues lie in high level casters getting enough spells per day that they no longer need to ration them; their spells get so powerful that they no longer even compare to mundane options; their durations are so long as to be nearly constant; and concentration bonuses get so high they become negligible.

[Segev]

No, the point isn't to be "more powerful than mundane abilities." It's to do things that are MAGICAL.

Yes, there's a balance factor of limited spells/day (though, arguably, that's not much of a limit at higher levels), but the truth is that that AT BEST balances the variety of things spells can let you do, not the power of them. Generally speaking, making "mundane" characters able to do epicly heroic things on par with high-end spells is a good way to bring things up to par. The trouble is that it's hard for many DMs to run games at that power level, as there are so many near-absolute options that it's hard to plan for them all. "Rocket tag" is the general feeling when it gets to the point that whoever fails the first save loses/dies. And that can be an issue at higher level.

[Beheld]

Knock obviates the need for a skill. Arcane Lock makes it flat out not work.
Fly still leaves room for scent to track, while Pass Without Trace flat out says "you're not a magician? well too bad." when it comes to tracking.

​These are level 1 and 2 spells.

My point is that Fly completely obviates the skill Jump. Or alternatively, Epic Balance. Knock and Arcane Lock do two different things to Epic Open Lock.

There are two lessons to learn here:
1) Skills are not like class abilities, spells, and magic items. They are supposed to be very minor. Investing in a skill is never supposed to be as good as investing class abilities in the same thing. 23 Ranks in a skill is still "less" investment than a level 5 class ability, not just a level 3 spell, but actual class abilities too. Paladins can get a flying mount that completely obviates Jump and Epic Balance uses.
2) The PHB is the balance starting point, the Epic Level Handbook is not. The PHB balance point is not always the best point to balance the game at (Planar Binding, Gate, Wish, Shapechange) but it is the starting point. The Epic Level Handbook is a joke written by crazy people. If your balance standard starts by claiming that nothing that can be taken when you are Epic can be given before Epic, you have to start by banning all flight, because the Epic Balance Skill gives that. If you claim that anything that is just flat better than an Epic ability can't exist pre-Epic, then you have to ban all fighter feats that give more than +2 to hit, +4 damage, or any feat that gives damage bonus to any range, because Epic Weapon Focus and Epic Weapon Specialization exist and are really bad.

The winning move here is to recognize that a) Skills are a different resource than spells and other class features that are supposed to provide less than those class features, b) The fact that Epic skills are obviated or surpassed by lower level effect is either totally fine because of "a" or a sign of bad balance in the Epic Handbook, which is fine, because that is filled with bad balance that we don't let destroy our lower level games.

[Red Fel]

Sorry guys, but the entire point of magical spells in a fantasy world is to be more powerful than mundane abilities.

There is a difference between "This is the way things are" and "This is the way things ought to be." Magical spells are more powerful than mundane abilities. That doesn't mean they ought to be, and it certainly doesn't mean that the whole point is to be.

As Segev says, the point of magic is to do magic. Throw a fireball. Teleport. Do magical stuff. That doesn't mean that Wizards were intended to be superior to Fighters, it means that they are capable of different things. The unfortunate end result, and ensuing status quo, is that Wizards can do anything Fighters can do, generally better; it does not, however, mean that this was the intended and inevitable outcome of magic.

It's why a lot of fixes focus less on "nerf casters" and more on "buff mundanes." Giving people more options - for example, let the Monk engage in better Wuxia leaping-and-flying shenanigans, let the Fighter find ways to use his techniques to locate hidden enemies, let the Barbarian's rage protect his mind from illusions or mind control - goes a long way to narrowing the gap, without taking away the feeling of high heroics.

[torrasque666]

My point is that Fly completely obviates the skill Jump. Or alternatively, Epic Balance. Knock and Arcane Lock do two different things to Epic Open Lock.

...

The winning move here is to recognize that a) Skills are a different resource than spells and other class features that are supposed to provide less than those class features, b) The fact that Epic skills are obviated or surpassed by lower level effect is either totally fine because of "a" or a sign of bad balance in the Epic Handbook, which is fine, because that is filled with bad balance that we don't let destroy our lower level games.
That's not my point. My point is that these simple spells are basically "no, you can't play" buttons for non-casters. Just as was brought up upthread, "you can't play" buttons are not good, they are not fun for those they deny. I'm not saying skills should be equal to spells or class features. I'm saying spells that take this thing that a character invested in and say "**** you" to are bad spells on both ends of the spectrum, whether they are used by players or NPCs.

[Segev]

I will say that "buff non-casters" is a lot HARDER to do than nerfing casters. It may not be any easier or harder to BALANCE, but it's easier to remove than to create.

The real trouble with the naïve "nerf casters" threads tends to be that they don't really tackle the problematic elements. They go after spells that look like they "win fights," but miss entirely the ones which invalidate other classes or take challenges and turn them into cakewalks.

They also sometimes make the mistake of trying to create nuissances and tedium to hamper spellcasters, which usually just makes spellcasters less HELPFUL to the party without really impeding the true powergamer.


It is, I think, EASIER to buff non-casters in a balanced way, if only because you can tackle specific deficiencies they have and try to find a way to give it to them. But making that feel "natural" can be...problematic. And it does require a willingness to heavily apply rule zero and house rules. The EASIEST way is to simply hand out magic items to the non-casters to shore up their obvious weaknesses. Make sure they have items to cover all the essentials (there are a few threads which list essential abilities, but I always lose track of the links, so I can't offer them here; sorry). Flight, death ward, ability to fight at range, and other such things are all essential, so if your non-casters can't do them, make sure to provide them a way. Even if it means violating the wealth-by-level curve for them, or giving them "unfair" amounts of item-values. Make sure to have a gentleman's agreement with the table so that those playing innately "better" characters understand that you're not playing favorites, but are giving people "more" to make up for deficiencies. (And be willing to help those who feel they're getting the short end of that stick, too, by giving them things not to shore up their non-existent weaknesses, but to have fun with. A Rod of Wonder for the right player who doesn't need a more critical item can be a lot of fun for him.)

[stanprollyright]

There is a difference between "This is the way things are" and "This is the way things ought to be." Magical spells are more powerful than mundane abilities. That doesn't mean they ought to be, and it certainly doesn't mean that the whole point is to be.

As Segev says, the point of magic is to do magic. Throw a fireball. Teleport. Do magical stuff. That doesn't mean that Wizards were intended to be superior to Fighters, it means that they are capable of different things. The unfortunate end result, and ensuing status quo, is that Wizards can do anything Fighters can do, generally better; it does not, however, mean that this was the intended and inevitable outcome of magic.

D&D didn't invent "Linear Warriors, Quadratic Mages." Even with your examples: fireballs are inherently better than arrows because they affect an area, and teleporting is inherently better than running. Magic is stuff that is not possible which is inherently superior to stuff that is possible. That's why it's magic. If it wasn't strictly better than mundane-ity no one would use it, in-world or out-of-world.

[Red Fel]

D&D didn't invent "Linear Warriors, Quadratic Mages." Even with your examples: fireballs are inherently better than arrows because they affect an area, and teleporting is inherently better than running. Magic is stuff that is not possible which is inherently superior to stuff that is possible. That's why it's magic. If it wasn't strictly better than mundane-ity no one would use it, in-world or out-of-world.

Again, not true.

Say you're a scrawny, spindly Wizard. You can't endure a cross-country trek; you're a wuss. So you teleport or fly. Even assuming that the spell took hours to cast, instead of rounds; even assuming that you could only cover the same amount of distance in the time it would take to march; you would still do it, because you're not physically up to the trek.

Say you're a Sorcerer with lots of charm, but the manual dexterity of a drowsy elephant, and you get home to discover you've lost your keys. Now, a Rogue could pick that lock, but with your fumbling fingers, you're more likely to sire offspring with it than open it. So you cast Knock. And it doesn't matter whether the spell takes a single round or the amount of time it would take to actually pick the lock; you'll do it, because picking the lock simply isn't an option for you.

Say you're a Druid. For whatever reason, that means you can't wear a nice, safe suit of metal plate. But you really want to wade into combat and smash some faces. What do you do? Turn into a big, hairy animal with a thick hide.

Not all magic has to be strictly superior to be desirable. For some, it's enough that it's a reasonable alternative. Magic can be desirable just because it lets you do what you're incapable of doing, not necessarily because it lets you do what nobody is capable of doing.

[Beheld]

That's not my point. My point is that these simple spells are basically "no, you can't play" buttons for non-casters. Just as was brought up upthread, "you can't play" buttons are not good, they are not fun for those they deny. I'm not saying skills should be equal to spells or class features. I'm saying spells that take this thing that a character invested in and say "**** you" to are bad spells on both ends of the spectrum, whether they are used by players or NPCs.

And my point is that they totally are not at all that. Rogues are not defined by their Open Lock skill they probably won't even take because they have better things to take. Rogues can walk through the wall or teleport through the crack in the door, anyone can break the door down. Pass Without trace is a single target spell that you have to cast multiple times to actually use at all. How many level 1 spells do you expect them to spend to duplicate just the track avoidance benefits of the flight spell? Or owning a warbat?

No one is telling the Rogue they can't play the game because they can't use one skill that is one of the worst skills they could have taken but maybe didn't. Just like no one is telling the fighter he can't play when they cast Windwall. Not being able to do one thing is not the end of your characters existence or at least, not a real character like a Rogue, a Druid, a Wizard, a Cleric, ect. To the extent that it is true of a Fighter, that is a flaw in the Fighter concept and the fighter class.

[Flickerdart]

Or in the alternative, he got punched in the face by a Mummy or Wight and had a medusa stare at him and picked up a cursed item and someone cast a spell on him, and thus he realized that Remove Curse, Remove Disease, Restoration Spells, Stone to Flesh, Break Enchantment all lack core replacements, and that maybe if he wanted to ban Gate and Shapechange, he could just ban Gate and Shapechange instead of Banning Gate and Shapechange and Remove Curse and Restoration.
This seems like a great opportunity to ban garbage Core monsters of the "if you fail this saving throw, you don't get to play anymore" type.

[Segev]

When I have made efforts at making improvements to non-casters, I have, amongst other things, thought about what it is they do in the traditional narrative.

They are specialists.

Warriors are more capable in violence and strength and prowess. Rogues are more skilled in specialized areas.

Mages, in D&D 3e in particular, can invalidate these specialties by using magics that do the same thing, sometimes better and with less effort. This is a problem when it happens.

The solution I like to try to pursue is to make magic not simply override or "do perfectly" what a specialist might do with skill or prowess. Instead, it gives a significant boost to extant capability, in some fashion.

The example I like to use for this is that a wizard who is capable of summoning an angel to fight for him and then buffing it should still find it superior to buff his fighter companion, because (for some reason) the fighter is just a better receptacle for the buffs. He is more efficient, longer lasting, or gets more oomph out of it, and winds up being stronger, once buffed, than the angel (similarly buffed).

That isn't a complete solution, but it's a design paradigm that I think is useful to keep in mind and for which to aim when trying to improve non-casters. Make them not merely better at what they do (though definitely do that), but make them better at USING the effects of the spellcasters' spells than the casters themselves are, at least when it comes to their area of expertise.

Perhaps knock merely enacts a Pick Locks check with a specific DC, but can give a bonus to a rogue using the mundane skill check (perhaps by the rogue telling the sorcerer where and how to apply the magic of the knock spell most effectively). Perhaps fly is nice and all, but a high Balance check while flying can improve your maneuverability class and enable feats without penalty which a mere unskilled application of the spell cannot replicate. Perhaps Jump checks can add speed or power to flight maneuvers.

That sort of thing.

[Beheld]

This seems like a great opportunity to ban garbage Core monsters of the "if you fail this saving throw, you don't get to play anymore" type.

While you may personally hate Cockatrices, Basilisks, and Medusas, that opinion is not universal. And I'm not sure I've ever heard of anyone (aside from people post hoc generating excuses for banning the PHB spells) who ever contended that ability damage, disease, and poisons, and negative levels "prevent you from playing the game." So far we are removing Shadow Dragons, all Demons, all Devils, all monsters that use invisibility and illusions, and all monsters that do any kind of ability damage or negative levels. Anything else you want to remove? I think there might be one or two more monsters that have any abilities at all for you to ban. Since apparently your goal is to reduce this to only piles of HP.

[Flickerdart]

I think there might be one or two more monsters that have any abilities at all for you to ban. Since apparently your goal is to reduce this to only piles of HP.
I was going to suggest we ban monsters with corrosive attitudes, but I can see that won't go over well.

[Triskavanski]

Yeah, one of my games we're playing Mythic.

We've got three players that are constant, A bard, a sorcerer, and my centaur lance weapon master.

While there are fights I can completely dominate, there is a lot where I can provide nothing to the party. But fights are only a single portion of the game, and despite being he smartest character in the group. (14 int, while everyone else as 10) Once we get out of combat, my ability to provide IC becomes very little.

There are times where I have to, out of character, poke the ones that have spells, cause I can't do anything there myself. Its really annoying. If you want a point in time where spellcasters are OP, its when you're constantly running into magic things that require stuff like Detect magic, spell craft and knowledges, normally not afforded to a lot of the mundane classes.

[Segev]

One game I've seen - Battle Dragons - modeled its petrifying gaze mechanics as a special damage track. Like nonlethal damage, these attacks accumulated "damage" that, when it finally exceeded the current hp of the victim, caused the victim to turn to stone.

If you wanted to make attacks less "save or die," you could try modeling them that way. Maybe they do damage over time, as well, slowly turning you to stone as they erode your hp.

[Beheld]

I was going to suggest we ban monsters with corrosive attitudes, but I can see that won't go over well.

This forum is ****ing hilarious.

[Flickerdart]

Once we get out of combat, my ability to provide IC becomes very little.
This seems like less of a "nerf casters" problem and more of a "boost mundanes" problem.

[Triskavanski]

Exactly what I feel should happen.

[N0RKS]

Make spellcasters actually pay attention to their material components. If they don't have sulfur and bat guano they can't cast fireball, where are they going to find bat guano? Well they'd better find some or find someone to sell them some or they aren't going to be casting fireball.

[stanprollyright]

Again, not true.

Say you're a scrawny, spindly Wizard. You can't endure a cross-country trek; you're a wuss. So you teleport or fly. Even assuming that the spell took hours to cast, instead of rounds; even assuming that you could only cover the same amount of distance in the time it would take to march; you would still do it, because you're not physically up to the trek.

Say you're a Sorcerer with lots of charm, but the manual dexterity of a drowsy elephant, and you get home to discover you've lost your keys. Now, a Rogue could pick that lock, but with your fumbling fingers, you're more likely to sire offspring with it than open it. So you cast Knock. And it doesn't matter whether the spell takes a single round or the amount of time it would take to actually pick the lock; you'll do it, because picking the lock simply isn't an option for you.

Say you're a Druid. For whatever reason, that means you can't wear a nice, safe suit of metal plate. But you really want to wade into combat and smash some faces. What do you do? Turn into a big, hairy animal with a thick hide.

Not all magic has to be strictly superior to be desirable. For some, it's enough that it's a reasonable alternative. Magic can be desirable just because it lets you do what you're incapable of doing, not necessarily because it lets you do what nobody is capable of doing.

You don't think Rangers would teleport if they could? Or Rogues would cast Knock given the ability? Or Fighters would turn into a big hairy beast? (in fact, there's a great PrC (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/classes/bear-warrior/index.html) that lets them do just that) They're more efficient options that require less investment and are better than anything you could do in real life. The issue isn't that magic is too powerful, it's that casters are. No one would bat an eye if the gish became a better fighter than the fighter a few times a day, or the illusionist was better at stealth than the Rogue due to invisibility, or could open locks with magic. The issue is that, eventually, you can do all of it all the time. The issue isn't that wildshaped druids are better fighters than fighters, it's that the druid can be a better fighter than the fighter with a companion who is also a better fighter than the fighter, and then turn around and be a better sneak/scout than the Rogue, and THEN can heal and buff and fly and BFC and summon an army, all in the same day with the same build. You know why Beguiler, Warmage, and Dread Necro are all tier 3? Because they're specialized. They have the same spells as the core casters, with better chassis, better casting mechanic, better class abilities, and more skills, but they are forced to specialize in a certain area of magic, which makes them inferior to general casters.

[daremetoidareyo]

While you may personally hate Cockatrices, Basilisks, and Medusas, that opinion is not universal. And I'm not sure I've ever heard of anyone (aside from people post hoc generating excuses for banning the PHB spells) who ever contended that ability damage, disease, and poisons, and negative levels "prevent you from playing the game." So far we are removing Shadow Dragons, all Demons, all Devils, all monsters that use invisibility and illusions, and all monsters that do any kind of ability damage or negative levels. Anything else you want to remove? I think there might be one or two more monsters that have any abilities at all for you to ban. Since apparently your goal is to reduce this to only piles of HP.

Those are all monsters that are totally inappropriate as random encounters. Specifically requisitioned to kill a cockatrice? That is a chance for the PCs to do some research and figure out how to approach the problems. I like my games to be a bit more tactical, though, and it probably has a lot to do with anti-magic bias: mundanes are just more fun to me.

[Beheld]

Make spellcasters actually pay attention to their material components. If they don't have sulfur and bat guano they can't cast fireball, where are they going to find bat guano? Well they'd better find some or find someone to sell them some or they aren't going to be casting fireball.

If you make material components annoying, then people will take Eschew Materials and be one feat less powerful. They will still be basically identical characters.


Those are all monsters that are totally inappropriate as random encounters. Specifically requisitioned to kill a cockatrice? That is a chance for the PCs to do some research and figure out how to approach the problems. I like my games to be a bit more tactical, though, and it probably has a lot to do with anti-magic bias: mundanes are just more fun to me.

You can also just close your eyes and stab a lizard to death. You shouldn't have to know you are going up against an enemy to be able to fight an enemy at all, Being a CR X challenge means that if a level X party runs into it by chance they should be able to win. Lots of monsters even specifically have the ability to not appear as the monsters they are. Certainly not Basilisks, but if you say you should never run into something with negative levels or con drain without knowing in advance that is what you are facing, I have to wonder where vampires hang the sign that proclaims they are vampires in advance so the party is never surprised by negative levels and Con Drain. And how much less fun is a game where vampires aren't allowed to pretend to be not vampires.

[Flickerdart]

Make spellcasters actually pay attention to their material components. If they don't have sulfur and bat guano they can't cast fireball, where are they going to find bat guano? Well they'd better find some or find someone to sell them some or they aren't going to be casting fireball.
Making spells tedious to cast doesn't actually make spellcasters weaker, just incredibly annoyed. It will lead to people refusing to use non-problematic spells like fireball and focusing more on hideously broken ones like planar binding.

[dascarletm]

Snip
Exactly!

You don't think Rangers would teleport if they could? Or Rogues would cast Knock given the ability? Or Fighters would turn into a big hairy beast? (in fact, there's a great PrC (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/classes/bear-warrior/index.html) that lets them do just that) They're more efficient options that require less investment and are better than anything you could do in real life. The issue isn't that magic is too powerful, it's that casters are. No one would bat an eye if the gish became a better fighter than the fighter a few times a day, or the illusionist was better at stealth than the Rogue due to invisibility, or could open locks with magic. The issue is that, eventually, you can do all of it all the time. The issue isn't that wildshaped druids are better fighters than fighters, it's that the druid can be a better fighter than the fighter with a companion who is also a better fighter than the fighter, and then turn around and be a better sneak/scout than the Rogue, and THEN can heal and buff and fly and BFC and summon an army, all in the same day with the same build. You know why Beguiler, Warmage, and Dread Necro are all tier 3? Because they're specialized. They have the same spells as the core casters, with better chassis, better casting mechanic, better class abilities, and more skills, but they are forced to specialize in a certain area of magic, which makes them inferior to general casters.

It's not, they are not they better, it's they should not be better. In a game with perfect balance, the wizard who specializes in being sneaky, should be as effective (perhaps in different ways) than the rogue who specializes in being sneaky. Ideally they would have different utility/methods/weaknesses to their stealthiness.

The difference between being a spellcaster or mundane should be stylistic, and from game design, probably mechanically as well. In an ideal world both would have equally as interesting mechanics.

[Segev]

Make spellcasters actually pay attention to their material components. If they don't have sulfur and bat guano they can't cast fireball, where are they going to find bat guano? Well they'd better find some or find someone to sell them some or they aren't going to be casting fireball.As others have reacted, this is exactly the kind of "make it annoying/tedious" solution that doesn't really accomplish anything.

Powergamers will find a way around it without making it a big deal. Non powergamers will play it straight, and wind up being accused of derailing the game because they keep having to redirect to acquire these items.

In truth, tracking material components isn't going to slow down a caster, unless the DM goes out of his way to make it so. It doesn't slow down archers very much, if at all.


You don't think Rangers would teleport if they could? Or Rogues would cast Knock given the ability? Or Fighters would turn into a big hairy beast?
You ignored the significant part of the post to which you were responding. The "even if it took just as long to cast the teleportation ritual as it would take a hardy mount to traverse the distance" bit for teleport isn't trivial. The ranger wouldn't bother casting the ritual; he can ride his horse. And if he's got a faster horse, he may even beat the scrawny wizard there. But the scrawny wizard teleports because it's less taxing, physically.

The sorcerer CANNOT pick the lock. Even if casting knock took twice as long as the average rogue's lockpicks, the sorcerer would use knock because it's all he has.

Yes, spells as written ARE better than non-magical solutions. That is a problem. That doesn't mean it's how it should be, nor that spells would be useless if it weren't the case.

[Red Fel]

Precisely what Segev said.

Have you ever read the Discworld series of books? Much of what wizards do in those books via magic requires roughly the same investment of time and energy as it would if you were to actually do the thing you were trying to do. That's part of why more people aren't wizards, and part of why magic isn't used to solve every problem. (Only one reason, though.)

Same logic applies. D&D Wizards would be using spells to solve their problems even if it took the same amount of effort that it takes to do the thing non-magically, because when you give a man a hammer, every face looks like a nail. What makes magic "strictly superior" is the fact that it generally takes less effort to do things magically. This is not an inherent function of magic, but a function of the Vancian magic system. Again, it's the difference between "This is how things are" and "This is how things ought to be."

It would be effortless to rewrite spells so that they took the same time/effort as a mundane task. "Magical" does not automatically mean "easier and faster." It means "magical."

[Zanos]

I seem to recall a very specific thread that involving a PC "derailing a game" for bat guano.

In any case, at their core, limited use abilities should be more powerful than abilities that are usable at will, and that includes magic. I won't pretend for a second that a wizard or a sorcerer with good spell selection is anywhere close in strength to a fighter, but that design component does remain. Stuff you can only do a couple of times should be more powerful.

[Triskavanski]

Aye, Which is annoying when you get things that are only a few times per day and not really all that powerful. Like Esoteric Scholar Rogue talent. The not unchained version there is pretty much on permanent detention list. Even when it became unchained, it still wasn't all that great either.

Its an ability that actually gets weaker the higher your level, and doesn't scale to the environment around it. Since like monsters quickly become higher than a dc 20 knowledge check.

[Flickerdart]

In any case, at their core, limited use abilities should be more powerful than abilities that are usable at will, and that includes magic...Stuff you can only do a couple of times should be more powerful.
Spell slot count is not really a meaningful restriction for two reasons:

Casters get so many spells. The way the game scales their slots, "a couple of times" very quickly becomes "every round in every encounter for the day." In the meantime, the fighter is going all "eat my at-will sword attacks!" but the enemy dragonalso has at-will sword attacks, and the fighter runs out of HP before the wizard runs out of spells.
Casters get really good spells that last a long time, giving them strategic-level agency. It doesn't matter how many times per day you can cast planar binding or animate dead because you can take a week off at some point in your career and roll out with a whole bunch of muscle on Monday.


There's certainly a way to balance per-day abilities (such as the barbarian rage, or the 4e psion's ability to augment at-will powers with daily PPs) but it's very important to keep in mind all the factors that are involved.

[Triskavanski]

One more thing to add flick, is that casters often can gain access to items that allow them to have even more spells per day, like pearls of power, wands, scrolls and the like. The last two doesn't even need a UMD check to cast them. (Provided its on their list.)

[Troacctid]

Knock obviates the need for a skill. Arcane Lock makes it flat out not work.
Fly still leaves room for scent to track, while Pass Without Trace flat out says "you're not a magician? well too bad." when it comes to tracking.

​These are level 1 and 2 spells.

I don't think I've ever seen a PC cast Arcane Lock or Pass without Trace. Who even cares about locking doors and preventing people from tracking you? Those are niche spells on the level of Repel Vermin or Stone to Flesh. And I don't see how they make Open Lock and Track worthless, either. Oh, there's a situation where NPC enemies can't use their skills? So what? Why do we care about protecting the NPCs' niches? They're NPCs.

Certainly you can't be complaining that an NPC might use the spell to make a lock unpickable or make themselves untrackable, since there are a zillion other ways to do that without magic. Anyone with a fly speed leaves no footprints to follow. A door that is barred has no lock to pick. If you were expecting to be able to use your Track feat in every encounter, you might want to sit down next to that guy who invested max ranks in Forgery and Profession (Sailor), because I have some bad news to give you both.

[Beheld]

Spell slot count is not really a meaningful restriction for two reasons:

Casters get so many spells. The way the game scales their slots, "a couple of times" very quickly becomes "every round in every encounter for the day." In the meantime, the fighter is going all "eat my at-will sword attacks!" but the enemy dragonalso has at-will sword attacks, and the fighter runs out of HP before the wizard runs out of spells.
Casters get really good spells that last a long time, giving them strategic-level agency. It doesn't matter how many times per day you can cast planar binding or animate dead because you can take a week off at some point in your career and roll out with a whole bunch of muscle on Monday.


There's certainly a way to balance per-day abilities (such as the barbarian rage, or the 4e psion's ability to augment at-will powers with daily PPs) but it's very important to keep in mind all the factors that are involved.

Spells slots aren't a huge limiter on combat spells, or long duration buffs, or minion effects, but they are a huge limiter on utility effects. The difference between being able to unlock one door, and the ability to unlock 500 doors is pretty big. The difference between being able to stone shape a couple times a day and being able to break through infinity walls of stone or carve a tunnel out of the dungeon after the collapse is pretty significant. Most non-casters don't have enough meaningful utility effects because the designers really didn't want the players to have access to utility as class features aside from spells, and the only time it happens is when it slips by like Wildshape, but that doesn't mean that having at will utility is not significantly better than otherwise. Augury as a spell with no material component would still be so situational that you would almost never prepare it, but having it as an at will SLA, it could plausibly be used hundreds of times in one day.

Part of the problem is that the Druid has the best ability to tunnel out of the dungeon and the Wizard with Alter Self has the second best, and the Fighter is third. But that's a problem with Alter Self and the fact that Fighters have to force together what non-zero utility effects they get from rules not intended for that purpose. And part of that problem is that Fighter is a terrible class concept that doesn't come with any obvious out of combat utility, but you can easily imagine a world in which martial characters have a theme, and the martial EarthWarrior or whatever is the best burrower.

[dascarletm]

I'm not sold on balancing points between limited and at will abilities. There is really no way to balance them unless you force X encounters that last Y rounds a day. Unless your campaign is super railroaded you're not going to be able to force that.

If you quantify your at will ability to = 5 usefulness points, and you quantify your 3/day ability to cast <Insert Name> to = 15, you better hope that you average 9 rounds of combat a day. Any less and at will is strictly weaker, more and 3/day is sitting around being useless.

[Zanos]

Spell slot count is not really a meaningful restriction for two reasons:

Casters get so many spells. The way the game scales their slots, "a couple of times" very quickly becomes "every round in every encounter for the day." In the meantime, the fighter is going all "eat my at-will sword attacks!" but the enemy dragonalso has at-will sword attacks, and the fighter runs out of HP before the wizard runs out of spells.
Casters get really good spells that last a long time, giving them strategic-level agency. It doesn't matter how many times per day you can cast planar binding or animate dead because you can take a week off at some point in your career and roll out with a whole bunch of muscle on Monday.


There's certainly a way to balance per-day abilities (such as the barbarian rage, or the 4e psion's ability to augment at-will powers with daily PPs) but it's very important to keep in mind all the factors that are involved.
Restoring hit points is typically easier than restoring spell slots. In any case, I was more contesting the direction of the thread heading towards "magical and mundane abilities should be equally powerful." If you make them equivalent, but magic can only be used a limited number of times, then one of these options is clearly worse.

But yes, as printed, the tremendous variety of spells allows casters to generally ignore the majority of constraints, probably starting with rope trick.


I'm not sold on balancing points between limited and at will abilities. There is really no way to balance them unless you force X encounters that last Y rounds a day. Unless your campaign is super railroaded you're not going to be able to force that.

If you quantify your at will ability to = 5 usefulness points, and you quantify your 3/day ability to cast <Insert Name> to = 15, you better hope that you average 9 rounds of combat a day. Any less and at will is strictly weaker, more and 3/day is sitting around being useless.
Things are allowed to have varying degrees of usefulness based on the situation.

[Flickerdart]

Restoring hit points is typically easier than restoring spell slots.
The difference is that the wizard can restore his own spell slots, but the fighter needs a babysitter to restore his hit points (or else needs to burn piles of gold on inefficient healing potions).

[Barstro]

In any case, at their core, limited use abilities should be more powerful than abilities that are usable at will, and that includes magic.

While this statement is true, it becomes moot when parties stop adventuring for the day when the magic user is out of slots (even if it's 9:00 am and the mundanes are ready to go).

[ryu]

The difference is that the wizard can restore his own spell slots, but the fighter needs a babysitter to restore his hit points (or else needs to burn piles of gold on inefficient healing potions).

If it's long term you're no longer talking potions. Much more efficient to buy a nice belt that does the job.

Edit: Also who actually cares what time of day it is when you stop and make camp? It's a much more effective measure to talk about what you actually accomplished in the time you used.

[Beheld]

While this statement is true, it becomes moot when parties stop adventuring for the day when the magic user is out of slots (even if it's 9:00 am and the mundanes are ready to go).

The points is that if you have an at will ability you can use it more times before the Wizard runs out of spells. If you can cast Augury at will as an SLA, then you can just do that every time you see an intersection, and the Cleric will not be doing that.

[Triskavanski]

Restoring hit points is typically easier than restoring spell slots. In any case, I was more contesting the direction of the thread heading towards "magical and mundane abilities should be equally powerful." If you make them equivalent, but magic can only be used a limited number of times, then one of these options is clearly worse.



What of options that can only be limited times per day, and are still worse than magical things that are easier to restore? (as in, actually able to restore though the day with the right item. Magic can be, mundane 1/day typically are not)

[ryu]

What of options that can only be limited times per day, and are still worse than magical things that are easier to restore? (as in, actually able to restore though the day with the right item. Magic can be, mundane 1/day typically are not)

Yeah those are just awful. Not many people here are seriously claiming that mundanes were ever well designed.

[Zanos]

What of options that can only be limited times per day, and are still worse than magical things that are easier to restore? (as in, actually able to restore though the day with the right item. Magic can be, mundane 1/day typically are not)
I'm not really sure what you're asking me here. Care to rephrase?

[ryu]

I'm not really sure what you're asking me here. Care to rephrase?

He's talking about mundane abilities limited to a set and small number of times per day that are harder to refresh than spells and also suckier than spells. Like I said, awful.

[Zanos]

Oh. They exist, yes. They should be stronger.

[Triskavanski]

The Rogue of course is the one that show cases them the most. If they're small enough I'll post the whole thing. I'm also going only post a few too.



Assault Leader (Ex) Once per day, when the rogue misses with an attack on a flanked opponent, she can designate a single ally who is also flanking the target that her attack missed. That ally can make a single melee attack against the opponent as an immediate action.

So spend a talent, that when you suck, you can try to have someone else make up for your suck once a day. Cause.. Reasons?

Camoflague - Once per day you can find plants to put on you. Can't find plants any other time to put on you. Your brain just can't handle that. Luckily, If I remember correctly, the Unchained rogue is actually capable of looking for plants to stick on him more than once.


Esoteric Scholar (Ex) Once a day, a rogue with this talent may attempt a Knowledge check, even when she is not trained in that Knowledge skill.

This one. This one right here. This is what I herald as the worst talent ever. You can't even make the argument that it would be for flavor for a character who is a knower of things. Heck You can't even make the argument really that its for an NPC, unless the GM really couldn't decide if Bob the Farmer knew about something that it was important enough to give bob this talent. The Talent also becomes increasingly weaker as you level, due to the DC of everything increasing, and you're really not going to have more than a 5% chance of succeeding on a check. The Unchained version of this feat does remove the once per day, (Which by raw, if a rogue takes this normal version, he can only ever make a single knowledge check per day), but it keeps the whole untrained aspect. As in, it only does something if you're not trained in something.

Why not give the Rogue the Bardic knowledge ability? There is at least Three Archetypes of bard that steal from the Rogue. (Negotiator, Archaeologist, Sandman) but a rogue getting Bardic knowledge (Or at least something that gets stronger if you do put skill points into it.) was just too much?:smallfurious:

[Spider_Jerusalem]

You clearly have good intentions, but "your class features make this plot" turn into "this is a game about things that happen to the party's spellcasters" pretty darn quick. And then you have to put in plots about the fighter and the rogue and hey, you're not actually balancing anything out anymore.

Hmm, that's actually a good point there. I guess you're right.

[Beheld]

The Rogue of course is the one that show cases them the most. If they're small enough I'll post the whole thing. I'm also going only post a few too.

I think I discovered your problem. You need to find the path to a ruleset that isn't obsessed with once per day or rounds per day abilities.

[Triskavanski]

What are you even talking about?

[Beheld]

What are you even talking about?

Pathfinder loves giving people super use limited abilities that are really weak. If you are complaining about use per day abilities that are worthless, it's probably because you are playing a system that prefers those over useful abilities.

[Triskavanski]

No, I don't see that being the case here.

Argument was made "Spell Casting is powerful because its limited. Thats why unlimited abilities of martials can't ever be on level of limited Spell casting. HP is easier to gain back."

To which I point the martial based once per day things that are no where near the level of a spell, and are often far more limited.


Mundanes vs Spellcasters is kinda like this..

Imagine them both trying to empty a swimming pool, that fills up every day. The water represents the 'stuff' the party needs to meet and overcome And the Mundane has a Table Spoon, while the spell caster has a gas powered pump and a teaspoon. In early levels, The wizard is only able to get enough fuel to run that pump for a a minute or two, and then will have to use the teaspoon. The Mundane on the other hand is always using the table spoon, considerably larger than the tea spoon. Per three seconds the Pump gets a gallon out, and the spoons get their respected amount of water out of the pools.


Later on, the Wizard begins being able to run that pump for an hour at a time before having to switch back to his teaspoon. That one hour, the wizard pumps 120 gallons of water out of there. At rate that the mundane is going, in that hour alone, the wizard was able to do more work than what the mundane could do in a full day.

And the Wizard still has 23 hours left of just using the teaspoon. (His Atwill sucky ability of using a crossbow)

For it to be really balanced here, Both characters should on average be able to pull about the same amount of water from the pool (Workload of the party) by the end of the day, This is kinda what it should be with an At will vs Limited. Or something... I kinda ad a bit of a too long didn't write. Maybe did.

[ryu]

And if optimization occurs the wizard just picks up the whole pool tips it upside down and shakes it, while the fighter gets to use the pump for a bit.

[Beheld]

No, I don't see that being the case here.

Argument was made "Spell Casting is powerful because its limited. Thats why unlimited abilities of martials can't ever be on level of limited Spell casting. HP is easier to gain back."

To which I point the martial based once per day things that are no where near the level of a spell, and are often far more limited.

No one is talking about how abilities are balanced. We are talking about how they should be balanced. Combat effects for an at will class probably shouldn't be much weaker than what a Wizard is doing, because a Wizard will have a combat spell for every round of combat. But they should probably be limited in some other way, IE, to a guy with a hammer, every problem is a nail, versus to the guy with a lot of power tools and a single limited battery life, he always wants to use the battery on the tool that is most effective.

Passive defensive capabilities of at will users should be basically about the same power as what you would expect a Wizard/Cleric/Druid to have up all day + less than what a Wizard might cast as a buff for one fight, since you can have it up for all fights, even when surprised, instead of only some fights a day. Part of that can of course come in the form of more HP, or more AC, but some of that should come in other ways. I think if Rogues could just Greater Blink at will past level 10 as part of their class, that would be fine. Evasion is a useful defensive ability to have too.

But utility for an at will user has to be carefully rationed. If something is a 1st level spell that is just the absolute best first level utility spell, then a level 10 Wizard might cast it 4-10 times. He could even spend 10k gold and cast it 10 more times every day. But if it is that useful, if someone has that spell at will, they might use it 200 times in a day, depending on what it does. (The example I used was SLA Augury, but it could also be a spell that creates objects, or something else.)

The point is that when balancing at will abilities, you have to actually take into account that if you can use it more often, you will. Warlocks can't eldritch blast more rounds that there are in combat, so the damage and effects should probably be increased. But if Warlocks can Augury, they can do that 200 times. If they can cast stoneshape, they can do that 200 times, ect.

[Lhurgyof]

You might want to look into Dark Sun; in that game world Wizards are feared and arcane magic is completely outlawed. The sorcerer-kings rule the city states and rightly so do not want any competition.
So, they make sure any arcane casters are killed. Even the good preservers are mistaken for evil defilers.

[Barstro]

The points is that if you have an at will ability you can use it more times before the Wizard runs out of spells. If you can cast Augury at will as an SLA, then you can just do that every time you see an intersection, and the Cleric will not be doing that.

Agreed. My point, however, is that "per day" becomes the same thing as "at will" when a party rests for the day once a spellcaster is out of spells. Part of what makes spellcasters arguably OP is that they never seem to enter encounters when they are out of spells. They seem to spam as much as they want and then rest to recharge. Lather, rinse, repeat.

For all I know, spellcasters ARE balanced. I've never had a DM actually enforce all the rules associated with casting high level spells or have smart enemies attack the party when they tried to rest.

[Beheld]

Agreed. My point, however, is that "per day" becomes the same thing as "at will" when a party rests for the day once a spellcaster is out of spells. Part of what makes spellcasters arguably OP is that they never seem to enter encounters when they are out of spells. They seem to spam as much as they want and then rest to recharge. Lather, rinse, repeat.

For all I know, spellcasters ARE balanced. I've never had a DM actually enforce all the rules associated with casting high level spells or have smart enemies attack the party when they tried to rest.

And my point is that your point is wrong, so I don't know why you agreed with my point, and then restated the point you just agreed was wrong. Per day and at will are still different things even if the party rests when the Wizard is out of spells. That was my entire point.

[Necroticplague]

D&D didn't invent "Linear Warriors, Quadratic Mages." Even with your examples: fireballs are inherently better than arrows because they affect an area, and teleporting is inherently better than running. Magic is stuff that is not possible which is inherently superior to stuff that is possible. That's why it's magic. If it wasn't strictly better than mundane-ity no one would use it, in-world or out-of-world.

"Rain of arrows" type archery can cover an area as well, a sufficiently fast dash or leap is frequently indistinguishable from a teleport. There's absolutely no reason stuff that isn't possible has to be better than stuff that does. I can't cause lacerations to form by laying my hands on someone, but that magic option is inferior to just shooting them.

As for why magic would be used: Assuming magic and mundanity were equal, some would pick one, some would pick the other. That seems pretty self explanitory.

[Andezzar]

Agreed. My point, however, is that "per day" becomes the same thing as "at will" when a party rests for the day once a spellcaster is out of spells. Part of what makes spellcasters arguably OP is that they never seem to enter encounters when they are out of spells. They seem to spam as much as they want and then rest to recharge. Lather, rinse, repeat.As soon as the caster has four encounter ending spells, at will and per day are functionally the same, unless the the DM exceeds the recommended number of encounters per day.


For all I know, spellcasters ARE balanced. I've never had a DM actually enforce all the rules associated with casting high level spells or have smart enemies attack the party when they tried to rest.What rules about casting high level spells are you talking about? But yes, if the players get away with the five minute adventuring day, it is not a problem with the rules but with the DM. Ambushes in the night however are mainly a thing of low level play.

[Beheld]

As soon as the caster has four encounter ending spells, at will and per day are functionally the same, unless the the DM exceeds the recommended number of encounters per day.

Unless those spells have limited area or targets, having saving throws that the enemies can make, can be gotten out of by enemies using abilities, or some monsters have immunities to some of them, in which case, that is very far from at will.

[Red Fel]

Unless those spells have limited area or targets, having saving throws that the enemies can make, can be gotten out of by enemies using abilities, or some monsters have immunities to some of them, in which case, that is very far from at will.

Clearly, we have different definitions of "encounter ending." My definition, for example, is, "If I cast this spell, this entire encounter is trivialized."

It seems that your definition is, "If I cast this spell, this encounter might be trivialized, unless I'm wrong about a bunch of things." Which isn't actually an encounter ending spell, if you think about it.

[Barstro]

What rules about casting high level spells are you talking about? But yes, if the players get away with the five minute adventuring day, it is not a problem with the rules but with the DM. Ambushes in the night however are mainly a thing of low level play.

Expensive materials, Hard (impossible) to find materials given the setting, the fact that BBEGs should have anti-magic up all over the place. No DM I've been with (granted, I don't game much) ever tried to do OotS #627 on a caster.

I don't think ambushes should be limited to low level play. A BBEG who hears about a party decimating his minions should have safeguards up to know when/where they are. If a party decides to hole up in a room in the castle at 10:00am until spells are ready at 6:00am the next day, people should be sent to mess with it. I'm not saying that would actually balance anything, just that I've never seen it actually happen to even show if it would tip the scales even a little bit.

[Andezzar]

Expensive materials, Hard (impossible) to find materials given the setting, the fact that BBEGs should have anti-magic up all over the place. No DM I've been with (granted, I don't game much) ever tried to do OotS #627 on a caster.Then you are playing with uninventive DMs or those that purposely pull their punches.


I don't think ambushes should be limited to low level play. A BBEG who hears about a party decimating his minions should have safeguards up to know when/where they are. If a party decides to hole up in a room in the castle at 10:00am until spells are ready at 6:00am the next day, people should be sent to mess with it. I'm not saying that would actually balance anything, just that I've never seen it actually happen to even show if it would tip the scales even a little bit.Sure, if they continue to do this after Rope Trick and other safer resting methods are available, they can still be ambushed and deserve to be, but usually the party does not do that after level 3. There are also scrolls and wands as a last resort, should the spell slot indeed be depleted.

[Beheld]

Clearly, we have different definitions of "encounter ending." My definition, for example, is, "If I cast this spell, this entire encounter is trivialized."

It seems that your definition is, "If I cast this spell, this encounter might be trivialized, unless I'm wrong about a bunch of things." Which isn't actually an encounter ending spell, if you think about it.

Okay, then name a single "encounter ending spell" that isn't calling magic. My point is that you are ignoring the actual drawbacks to the spells that actually exist. Yes I agree, if the Wizard got spell called "No Save Daze for 5 rounds all creatures in sight that you want, also you count as having true-seeing for the purpose of your sight when casting this spell, also you can see through walls and smoke." That would be great. And if he had four a day, it would be effectively at will.

But since what he actually gets is a whole bunch of spells with saving throws, or conditional effects, or effects that don't end encounters like Solid Fog, or single target no save, not particularly encounter ending effects, there are apparently no encounter ending spells under your definition.

[Segev]

Then you are playing with uninventive DMs or those that purposely pull their punches.

Sure, if they continue to do this after Rope Trick and other safer resting methods are available, they can still be ambushed and deserve to be, but usually the party does not do that after level 3. There are also scrolls and wands as a last resort, should the spell slot indeed be depleted.

The adventurers have climbed up a rope to nowhere in my ballroom after slaughtering my guards. Time to send in the elite squads to make sure they don't come back. We'll open with greater dispel magic to shut down the rope trick or magnificent mansion in which they're hiding.


I'm not one to advocate harassing the PCs with unrealistic levels of force, but if you're doing a 15 minute adventuring day in a powerful evil force's home, they know where you are and can do something about it.

[Beheld]

The adventurers have climbed up a rope to nowhere in my ballroom after slaughtering my guards. Time to send in the elite squads to make sure they don't come back. We'll open with greater dispel magic to shut down the rope trick or magnificent mansion in which they're hiding.


I'm not one to advocate harassing the PCs with unrealistic levels of force, but if you're doing a 15 minute adventuring day in a powerful evil force's home, they know where you are and can do something about it.

You can pull the Rope in. Presumably you cast Rope trick in a location where everyone is dead, maybe you even passwall + stoneshape and cast Rope Trick inside the wall. If they can't see you they can't know where you are.

[Andezzar]

The adventurers have climbed up a rope to nowhere in my ballroom after slaughtering my guards. Time to send in the elite squads to make sure they don't come back. We'll open with greater dispel magic to shut down the rope trick or magnificent mansion in which they're hiding.


I'm not one to advocate harassing the PCs with unrealistic levels of force, but if you're doing a 15 minute adventuring day in a powerful evil force's home, they know where you are and can do something about it.Sure, if they do that directly next to their last victims, opposition with access to see invisibility and dispel magic would probably use those. But trying to find the spell somewhere in the whole dungeon/open field/city/whatever will be a lot more difficult.

Speaking of rope trick, I used to think that you could cast dispel magic one the "window" to get rid of the spell, but now I am not so sure. The spell is on the rope. The rope can be pulled into the extradimensional space, so it is no longer on the plane where dispel magic is cast.
And I made a mistake, rope trick only becomes useful from level 9 onwards, not 3. A rod of extend spell reduces the level to 5.

[stanprollyright]

"Rain of arrows" type archery can cover an area as well, a sufficiently fast dash or leap is frequently indistinguishable from a teleport. There's absolutely no reason stuff that isn't possible has to be better than stuff that does. I can't cause lacerations to form by laying my hands on someone, but that magic option is inferior to just shooting them.

As for why magic would be used: Assuming magic and mundanity were equal, some would pick one, some would pick the other. That seems pretty self explanitory.

OK, given the choice between playing two characters who are equally competent in all areas, would you choose the one who can wear armor and has twice as much health or the one with magic that isn't really magic because all it does is duplicate mundane effects?

Would you devote your life to a specific deity and do everything to garner their favor, knowing that if you fail you will be stripped of your power - or would you just take a class and devote some energy towards learning how to do some mundane skill?

Would you sell your soul or make a pact with a demon or otherwise tamper with dark forces if the power you'd gain is no more potent than what you'd get from going to the gym?

Would you spend every waking moment learning, practicing, memorizing spells - or would you just buy some lockpicks and get your buddy to show you how to use them?

Would you walk around in combat unarmed and unarmored so that you essentially duplicate what you could do with a regular weapon, but only a few times a day?

[Anlashok]

snip

So about half of these are strawmen (insofar as that the poster asked you to assume they're equal and you're then presenting scenarios where they're clearly unequal).. and the other half are purely fluff questions. So they don't really have anything to do with the point.

I guess if we have to play this inane game. Yeah. People play fighters and monks as is right now, so I don't see why you'd stop seeing wizards if they were just as good (like the person you were replying to suggested) or dramatically inferior (as your disingenuous comments imply he intended).

[Segev]

"Powerful evil forces" tend to have means of examining their evil lairs of magical malevolence more thorough than "did the easily-duped lackeys see them and live long enough to tell about it?"

If you're level 9+, and you're camping extradimensionally in a BBEG's home, he'll have the means to find you. Scry would be my first go-to. See invisible + scry could find your extradimensional interface. If the bad guy doesn't have somebody with Extradimensional Spell, he just needs to find the doorway, anyway, to be able to start flooding it with magically-conjured nonmagical substances (water and lava seem like good ideas).

Even a persistent volley of arrows would suffice. There are a number of ways to combat this tactic. It's not invulnerable.

Most require that the PCs be somewhere worth scrying out, though, so it's good for most dungeon crawls.

[Necroticplague]

OK, given the choice between playing two characters who are equally competent in all areas, would you choose the one who can wear armor and has twice as much health or the one with magic that isn't really magic because all it does is duplicate mundane effects? Errrr....I think you'
re confused. If they're 'equal in all areas' , why can one wear armor and have twice as much health? That doesn't sound 'equal in all areas'.


Would you devote your life to a specific deity and do everything to garner their favor, knowing that if you fail you will be stripped of your power - or would you just take a class and devote some energy towards learning how to do some mundane skill? Depends on which seems easier or comes more naturally to me.


Would you sell your soul or make a pact with a demon or otherwise tamper with dark forces if the power you'd gain is no more potent than what you'd get from going to the gym? Because going to the gym is a lot of time and effort that I don't really have/are willing to spare.


Would you spend every waking moment learning, practicing, memorizing spells - or would you just buy some lockpicks and get your buddy to show you how to use them? Because I have a better memory for spells than I do fingers for lockpicks.


Would you walk around in combat unarmed and unarmored so that you essentially duplicate what you could do with a regular weapon, but only a few times a day?
Why does magic inherently have to be only a few time per day? Any reason magic couldn't use more at-will or encounter based systems? And similarly, why does magic have to mean unarmed and unarmored?


You seem to be taking a bunch of points about magic as it currently is, and saying that's how it has to be, and then getting some points wrong on that. Of course the idiotic idea of 'squishy limited use mage' would go away if we were getting rid of the 'god-for-moments mage'.

[stanprollyright]

So about half of these are strawmen (insofar as that the poster asked you to assume they're equal and you're then presenting scenarios where they're clearly unequal).. and the other half are purely fluff questions. So they don't really have anything to do with the point.

I guess if we have to play this inane game. Yeah. People play fighters and monks as is right now, so I don't see why you'd stop seeing wizards if they were just as good (like the person you were replying to suggested) or dramatically inferior (as your disingenuous comments imply he intended).

My point is that magic has significant drawbacks and if magic and mundanity were equivalent, magic would be strictly inferior because of them. Casters have less BAB, less health, less skills, armor restrictions, alignment restrictions, weapon restrictions, can only use their powers X number of times a day, must be rested for 8 hrs, their effects can be disrupted or dispelled or antimagicked away, and in some cases you have to literally sell your soul to a demon or a deity. It's not a straw man, it's how magic works. "Equal" and "balanced" are far from the same thing.

[Andezzar]

The description of rope trick gives no indication that mundane objects (whether created magically or not) can be moved into the extradimensional space. Transdimensional spell would work though.

[Beheld]

"Powerful evil forces" tend to have means of examining their evil lairs of magical malevolence more thorough than "did the easily-duped lackeys see them and live long enough to tell about it?"

If you're level 9+, and you're camping extradimensionally in a BBEG's home, he'll have the means to find you. Scry would be my first go-to. See invisible + scry could find your extradimensional interface. If the bad guy doesn't have somebody with Extradimensional Spell, he just needs to find the doorway, anyway, to be able to start flooding it with magically-conjured nonmagical substances (water and lava seem like good ideas).

Even a persistent volley of arrows would suffice. There are a number of ways to combat this tactic. It's not invulnerable.

Most require that the PCs be somewhere worth scrying out, though, so it's good for most dungeon crawls.

Scrying gives a saving throw and takes 1 hour to cast. It grants a +5 bonus to the save for them being on another plane, and another +5 bonus for the bosses lack of knowledge or having been told by a minion you let escape about you. If you don't let any enemy escape, he can't scry you at all.

If he already had Scry prepared that day (because he can't re prepare spells in less time than you) then he can cast it, and it takes one hour to cast it, and you get a +10 bonus to the save.

If you fail the save, he sees the inside of a rope trick, and the stone surface outside the door. He does not automatically know where you are, you could be inside any room you cleared, or inside any wall adjacent to any room you cleared, or you could have left, and he has no idea.

Result: Nopers, Scrying is a bad way to detect the PCs who came in, killed your guards, then disappeared. The "Best" system is to cast see invis, walk around looking, and hope you can find the entrance. But if they used StoneShape, then you probably can't.

[Necroticplague]

My point is that magic has significant drawbacks and if magic and mundanity were equivalent, magic would be strictly inferior because of them. Casters have less BAB, less health, less skills, armor restrictions, alignment restrictions, weapon restrictions, can only use their powers X number of times a day, must be rested for 8 hrs, their effects can be disrupted or dispelled or antimagicked away, and in some cases you have to literally sell your soul to a demon or a deity. It's not a straw man, it's how magic works. "Equal" and "balanced" are far from the same thing.

If magic and mundanity were equivalent, magic wouldn't have those drawbacks (because having those drawbacks makes them non-equivalent, assuming mundanity doesn't have the, by definition).

[stanprollyright]

If magic and mundanity were equivalent, magic wouldn't have those drawbacks (because having those drawbacks makes them non-equivalent, assuming mundanity doesn't have the, by definition).

Then you're implying a world that makes no sense and has no verisimilitude, where the laws of physics and thermodynamics work normally for some and differently for others. Magic isn't the result of years of study and sacrifice or the intervention of powerful otherworldly forces, it's just something that some people can do and it has no net effect on how the world works. Some people are double jointed, some people have red hair, and some people can shoot lasers out of their fingers, no big deal.

[Anlashok]

if magic and mundanity were equivalent, magic would be strictly inferior because of them.

Take a moment to consider how utterly nonsensical this statement is.


Then you're implying a world that makes no sense and has no verisimilitude

So your entire concept of verisimilitude is predicated on the concept that one class is really trashy compared to another "because magic"?


where the laws of physics and thermodynamics work normally for some and differently for others
Hey, that's already how the game works.


Magic isn't the result of years of study and sacrifice or the intervention of powerful otherworldly forces
I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested changing the fluff behind magical classes. So, again, pretty non sequitur and nonsensical.

[stanprollyright]

Take a moment to consider how utterly nonsensical this statement is.

Maybe you'd find the sense in it if you quoted the whole sentence.


So your entire concept of verisimilitude is predicated on the concept that one class is really trashy compared to another "because magic"?

What I said was "equivalent" is not "balanced."


Hey, that's already how the game works.

Sure is. But there's verisimilitude in the way it works; there are internally consistent rules for how magic works. Performing magic isn't something anyone can do; it requires some mix of devotion, sacrifice, talent, and otherworldly intervention or else it doesn't work. It also requires some sort of serious stamina reserves that at-will abilities do not, as well as a certain amount of mental acuity. Magic has never been for the faint of heart.


I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested changing the fluff behind magical classes. So, again, pretty non sequitur and nonsensical.

The crunch exists to reflect the fluff. Wizards are squishy and crappy warriors because they presumably spend most of their time studying magic. Clerics and Paladins can do fluffy RP things in-game that their deities are not OK with and they might lose their powers.

[Andezzar]

Then you're implying a world that makes no sense and has no verisimilitude, where the laws of physics and thermodynamics work normally for some and differently for others. Magic isn't the result of years of study and sacrifice or the intervention of powerful otherworldly forces, it's just something that some people can do and it has no net effect on how the world works. Some people are double jointed, some people have red hair, and some people can shoot lasers out of their fingers, no big deal.A world where magic is just as effective as mundane means of doing things has no less verisimilitude than one where magic is much more powerful than mundane means. Both are just postulates from the author. Verisimilitude breaks down when the world isn't shaped by those postulates i.e. despite D&D style magic existing the world still looks much like in LotR and not similar to the Tippyverse.

Magic can be just a different way of doing things and not inherently more powerful, but usually in RPGs the rules make it more powerful.


What I said was "equivalent" is not "balanced."Do you know what equivalent means? It means of equal value. If both abilities are equally effective at completing a task and one of them has some drawbacks attacked to it, they cannot be equivalent. If one is more effective at the task but has drawbacks, those drawbacks may reduce the effectiveness to a value equal to the other ability, but our point is that the drawbacks do not achieve that.

If the drawbacks did achieve that, you would have another problem. No one is incentivised to use the classes with drawbacks unless the increased effectiveness is necessary. If it is necessary those people that do not play magically skilled characters feel useless - just as it can be right now.


Sure is. But there's verisimilitude in the way it works; there are internally consistent rules for how magic works. Performing magic isn't something anyone can do; it requires some mix of devotion, sacrifice, talent, and otherworldly intervention or else it doesn't work. It also requires some sort of serious stamina reserves that at-will abilities do not.Where do you get that? Learning a skill also requires talent and devotion. Only there may be less outside influence. But wizards do not have to cope with that either. Anyone (with INT 10+) can just start being a wizard.


The crunch exists to reflect the fluff. Wizards are squishy and crappy warriors because they presumably spend most of their time studying magic. Clerics and Paladins can do fluffy RP things in-game that their deities are not OK with and they might lose their powers.That may be the intention, but the crunch does not reflect the fluff. A wizard or a cleric can be the better fighter, and at least the wizard does not have to cope with some entity telling him what to do and what not to do.

[dascarletm]

Things are allowed to have varying degrees of usefulness based on the situation.
Yes, but to be balanced they need to roughly be as useful on average over their career. Hence why I don't think daily limits are great balancing factors. They are also not great mechanically. It equates to either 100% useful or 0% useful.

Snip

In that case they aren't equally competent in all areas EDIT: This has been covered

[Zanos]

I think we could reduce the starting age of spellcasters to solve verisimilitude problems. The default rules assume it takes a lot of effort to become a level 1 wizard and not much to become a level 1 fighter. If we assume that both characters spent the same amount of time training or studying, equal competency becomes easier to swallow.

[Segev]

An imperfect solution that would at least slow down the "quadratic wizards" problem would be to borrow from 2e and earlier the idea that not every class has the same XP requirements.

Seal the slow, medium, and fast progressions from Pathfinder, and put full casters on the Slow progression, "tier 3" classes on the Medium progression, and Fighters and Rogues and the like on the Fast progression. You can even break it down for multiclassing by just looking at how much XP it takes to go from Level N-1 to Level N in the target class and requiring only that much to go from Level N-1 Wizard to Level N-1 Wizard/Level 1 Fighter, as an example.

[Barstro]

An imperfect solution that would at least slow down the "quadratic wizards" problem would be to borrow from 2e and earlier the idea that not every class has the same XP requirements.

I think that would make multi-classing difficult.

An annoying workaround would be to force an XP cost for each spell. Sure, you can be pretty powerful, but it will take you a long time to become more powerful, OR you can not cast so many spells.

While I think that such a tax would do the job, I do not endorse it as a solution.

[Flickerdart]

I think we could reduce the starting age of spellcasters to solve verisimilitude problems. The default rules assume it takes a lot of effort to become a level 1 wizard and not much to become a level 1 fighter. If we assume that both characters spent the same amount of time training or studying, equal competency becomes easier to swallow.
I've always been a supporter of a similar approach.

Becoming a warrior is easy - pick up a pitchfork and aim it towards the other guy. But a fighter is a PC class, not a rando off the street. He is die-hard veteran and hero. A level 1 fighter has not only survived a war or two, but thrived. He is Master Sergeant Kickass, and his boot has your face's name on it.

On the other hand, becoming a wizard is really freakin' hard. Like any esoteric craft, a would-be spellcaster must apprentice himself to a master for years, cleaning up in the study and bringing eye of newt before he's even allowed to take a crack at the most basic spells.

When a level 1 party rolls out, Master Sergeant Kickass meets Apprentice Rincewind, not Gandalf.

This way, magic can still be more powerful than physical effort, just not level-for-level. As the saying goes, there are no old, bold fighters - the mages that sit around in their dusty towers are simply more likely to reach high levels, and thus amaze with earth-shaking feats, than their mundane counterparts who don't have big stone walls and steep steps to protect them from life's unpleasant surprises. The few who do attain great power are often not seen as mortal in the first place. When someone in-universe says "golly gee, magic sure is better than swinging a sword" there's an implied follow-up: "except of course for the legendary hero Awesomeguy who cleft a mountain in twain just because he thought the words 'cleft' and 'twain' were funny" because Awesomeguy's story goes just as far beyond sword-swinging as Gandalf's goes beyond cantrips.

[Zanos]

Sweeping nerfs to spellcasters generally aren't a good idea. A blaster and a battlefield control wizard aren't very similar in strength, and the nerfs typically invalidate builds that were already suboptimal.

Having less HD in general is particularly crippling, considering that without a good CL you won't be able to penetrate SR, cause enemies to fail saves, and you'll fail a lot of saves and probably die if you get hit at all. So now the best caster builds are still serviceable because they can circumvent these mechanics, but everything else is in the dumpster.

The "perfect" solution is to rewrite or ban every problematic spell.

[Magesmiley]

Well, one thing that I do in my games is play the opponents appropriate to their intelligence. That means that if they can pick out the casters who are doing bad things to the monsters or making their life tough, they target the casters. Yes, this sometimes means that the casters become the concentrated target of multiple monsters. Tough. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.

An extension of this might be to have some sort of a visible aura to make those who manipulate magic easy to identify, and thus easily identifiable.

Another idea I've toyed with is to place a general XP cost on all spellcasting. Spell level * Caster level, specifically (with players free to choose a lower caster level than the maximum, down to the minimum to cast the spell). Payable when the spell is cast. Reserve feats would require an XP cost equal to the level of spell powering it each time they were used. And apply a similar cost to use spell-like abilities. The background fluff for justifying this is that the caster has to sacrifice a bit of their life-force to power the spell. Or perhaps that magic is toxic to manipulate. Etc.

[Flickerdart]

Well, one thing that I do in my games is play the opponents appropriate to their intelligence. That means that if they can pick out the casters who are doing bad things to the monsters or making their life tough, they target the casters. Yes, this sometimes means that the casters become the concentrated target of multiple monsters. Tough. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
This seems workable in a game where rocket tag doesn't exist, but unfortunately D&D 3.5 is not one of those games.


Another idea I've toyed with is to place a general XP cost on all spellcasting. Spell level * Caster level, specifically (with players free to choose a lower caster level than the maximum, down to the minimum to cast the spell). Payable when the spell is cast. Reserve feats would require an XP cost equal to the level of spell powering it each time they were used. And apply a similar cost to use spell-like abilities. The background fluff for justifying this is that the caster has to sacrifice a bit of their life-force to power the spell. Or perhaps that magic is toxic to manipulate. Etc.
This sounds incredibly tedious, and only likely to drive players away from okay options like fireball and towards encounter or campaign breakers like planar binding. After all, if you have to pay for every spell with life force, you really want the biggest bang for your buck. This is, incidentally, the opposite of what you actually want casters to do - a good caster nerf should encourage spellcasters to use weaker spells more often. You seem to equate "weaker" with "lower spell level" but that's hilariously untrue.

[Necroticplague]

Then you're implying a world that makes no sense and has no verisimilitude, where the laws of physics and thermodynamics work normally for some and differently for others. Magic isn't the result of years of study and sacrifice or the intervention of powerful otherworldly forces, it's just something that some people can do and it has no net effect on how the world works. Some people are double jointed, some people have red hair, and some people can shoot lasers out of their fingers, no big deal.

I'm not sure how that follows. Please, could you explain it a bit more? How does the fact magic being weaker than it's current god-like state, but being able to be used more often, lack any sense? Works well for quite a few other RPGs. Heck, even DnD has some caster classes based around the concept that fit in pretty well (warlocks,

Though I would like to point out, what you mention in the last part is already the case. The pacts that make a warlock can be inherited, sorcery is simply in the blood, favoured souls simply have an innate connection they can use, no need to be as stuck up as clerics or studious as archivists. Magic is already power that for some people, is simply a part of them. Heck, for warlocks, it doesn't even make them much more powerful than mundanes.

[Triskavanski]

Here's my slew of annoying complicated mechanics to nerf casters..


To cast a spell they must be able to stack a number of objects on the table within six seconds or less. the number of objects they stack is equal to the spell level.

While they're attempting to stack, in addition to make any concentration check, they must be able to stack the items while the table is shaking.

While they're casting they have to recite the chorus of a popsong on the top ten list. In klingon.

:D

[Troacctid]

An annoying workaround would be to force an XP cost for each spell. Sure, you can be pretty powerful, but it will take you a long time to become more powerful, OR you can not cast so many spells.

While I think that such a tax would do the job, I do not endorse it as a solution.


Another idea I've toyed with is to place a general XP cost on all spellcasting. Spell level * Caster level, specifically (with players free to choose a lower caster level than the maximum, down to the minimum to cast the spell). Payable when the spell is cast. Reserve feats would require an XP cost equal to the level of spell powering it each time they were used. And apply a similar cost to use spell-like abilities. The background fluff for justifying this is that the caster has to sacrifice a bit of their life-force to power the spell. Or perhaps that magic is toxic to manipulate. Etc.

This sounds positively miserable. XP costs are one of the worst mechanics in the game, consistently hated by players and just generally unfun, and you want to make them a centerpiece of the campaign? It's also a giant whammy of a nerf to Warmages, who are disproportionately affected, since they rely heavily on casting a spell every round in combat at the maximum caster level, and it's a nerf to Bards, Healers, Paladins, Warlocks, Dragonfire Adepts, Factotums, Psychic Warriors, and various other classes that really don't need nerfing. Furthermore, it's extra bookkeeping and extra math, which slows the game down and is generally annoying.

TL;DR just say NO to xp costs.

[Beheld]

I just hold a Tire Iron up menacingly and ask the player if they really really want their Wizard to cast a spell, or if they maybe want to not do that. And then they change their mind, and the entire party dies to a CR appropriate encounter because it turns out that monsters are compete will real classes, not NPC classes like Fighter/Ranger/Paladin.

We have never had any caster/mundane disparity in any game I DM.

[turbo164]

The adventurers have climbed up a rope to nowhere in my ballroom after slaughtering my guards. Time to send in the elite squads to make sure they don't come back. We'll open with greater dispel magic to shut down the rope trick or magnificent mansion in which they're hiding.


I'm not one to advocate harassing the PCs with unrealistic levels of force, but if you're doing a 15 minute adventuring day in a powerful evil force's home, they know where you are and can do something about it.

Why send elite guards when you can send a goody bag? :smallwink:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17942480&postcount=1

[Triskavanski]

The only time I've ever really seen it myself, is like what i previously mentioned with my mythic campaign, and mostly because we don't have a nice flow of the party (Due to one person at least not really paying attention) or every single enemy casting some sort of Will save spell if they're a caster.

It may be something that just pops in more when you have a small party, rather than a big party.

[Flickerdart]

I think it's important to make sure we have the same goals before we can establish any sort of productive dialogue. As such, I will volunteer a few requirements; feel free to chime in with your own or contest them, as long as we are on the same page.


The overall goal of nerfing casters
By definition, a caster nerf makes casters weaker, without outright banning them. But how are casters powerful? It's commonly understood that spellcasters in D&D 3.5 are more powerful and more versatile than their counterparts, who have access to less or no magic, when the table reaches certain optimization levels. This flows from three fundamental facts about the game.

Casters have many options
As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.

Whether using spells known or spells memorized, a spellcaster has an additional block of abilities on top of what a typical character has (some skills, some feats, a handful of class features, and magic items). On the most powerful casters, these abilities are not specialized - while a fighter has very little to do outside of a fight, a wizard can contribute oodles in and out of combat. Furthermore, many casters have the ability to dynamically alter these spells to fit situations they expect to face. As a result, the caster's likelihood of having a solution for the job goes up compared to, say, a fighter's. This wouldn't be a problem if the solutions weren't perfect, but...

Casters' options are powerful at doing anything
I am a druid, I have special abilities that are more powerful than your entire class!

A rogue can roll a check to pick a lock, but a wizard can say "the lock opens" and the lock opens. A fighter can hit a guy and deal HP damage, but a wizard can hit a guy and cause him to die instantly. There are drawbacks to this power (uses per day) but the nature of the game prevents this from being a concern. For instance, the DMG recommends a rather limited number of encounters per day, even at-will powers are restricted by the HP their owner has remaining, and asking the party to roll 30 times per session to open locks would be tedious and mind-numbing. Plus, 3/4 of the party still has nothing to do while the rogue rolls the checks, which leads me to my next point.

Casters enjoy gratuitous role protection
Aiyaah! Magic must defeat magic!

Ah, role protection. Thou shalt not find traps if thou art not a rogue (or cast detect traps). Thou shalt not get +2 to damage unless thou art a fighter. But spellcasters...spellcasters get a whole load of wonderful exclusives. Alchemy! Must be a caster. Magic item crafting! Show your CL at the door. Identifying the loot you find needs, you guessed it, spells. If you want to place a condition on someone, magic is the best way. Against most monsters, you need magical help, or else a magic item Macy's with a really generous return policy. This is actually the most important of the problems, because...

Why don't we just ban them?
This seems obvious - if spellcasters are so awful, get rid of them! Except we can't, not without changing much of the game's other content such as monsters that relies on casters being in the party. It turns out that the problem is not only that casters are too good, but that mundanes are too crappy. We can't even really ban some of the problematic spells, since "summon demons and make deals with them" and "turn into a dragon" are iconic things spellcasters do in stories.

But we can make them terrible and nobody will want to play them!
That's the same as banning.

I have a quick fix that...
Your quick fix probably involves an additional cost based on spell level, right? All it will do is burn out low-optimization players. If your butt fell off whenever you cast a 4th level spell, you would prefer casting a really good 4th level spell rather than a crappy 4th level spell, and even the lower-op players would start casting polymorph and not ice storm.

Here's the funny thing about nerfs - when people have something, and you take it away, they get upset. Calling them entitled isn't going to fix anything, it will only deepen DM-player conflicts. In order to get people to do what you want (in this case: adopt less optimal caster strategies) it is much more efficient to give new things rather than take things away.

Are we all caught up? Good. Here's my proposal for a caster nerf: buff them.


No, you're not dreaming. I am indeed suggesting that in order to make casters weaker, we should give them more stuff. I say this with confidence because the real objective is not to make casters weaker, but less disruptive to the game.

Consider two players, Bobby Beginner and Eric Expert. They both build wizards. Bobby fills his slots with fireball and Eric fills his with crazy metamagicked spells that transform the target's atoms into tiny sharks or bears or whatever. In comes a wizard nerf - when you cast a spell, you lose a bunch of HP. Bobby's wizard immediately dies. Eric doesn't care - he casts one spell per encounter, and his sharks do the rest for him.

But imagine if instead, we gave both wizards something new - the ability to, say, recover a slot of a spell that was used more than once in a combat. Golly gee, says Bobby, now I get more fireballs per day! Eric thinks it over - he typically doesn't prepare the same spell more than once, but a freebie is a freebie. He decides to prepare doubles of one of this spells. Now Eric's problem solving breadth has actually gone down, and the DM knows what to expect.

Now that we have a sensible objective, let's take a step back. What is a balanced spellcaster? Here are some things balanced spellcasters do or are:

They use abilities from a limited, thematic set (beguilers, dread necromancers, warmages) that has well known weaknesses
They cast many weak spells (fireball) every combat, rather than relying on encounter-ending uberspells (glitterdust)
They do "castery" things rather than mimic what the rest of the party is doing
They save their slots for battle, using skills to solve out-of-combat problems just like their friends
They have limited or no strategic-level powers that their allies lack (teleport, animate dead during downtime)


As such, we would like our fixed casters to do the following:

Select spells that focus on one area (such as illusions, or damage, or summoning, but nothing so broad as "transmutation")
Select spells that stick to the caster's niche (countering the supernatural abilities of the enemy, and granting the party an edge with their own supernatural abilities)
Be comfortable with burning many slots in combat, but not out of combat


So the question we should be asking ourselves is, how do we encourage casters to behave in these ways?


The first principle (related spells) could be encouraged by granting a bonus when a caster has many spells with the same descriptor. Why do you need so many ice damage spells, sorcerer? Well, it turns out that for every ice spell I learn, I get 2 cold resistance. Sweet! When you encounter a cryohydra, you're less effective offensively, but better defensively.

The second principle is probably the trickiest. It is best solved by raising the mundanes to be good at what they do; if the fighter is actually awesome at fighting, the cleric might not want to 'zilla.

The third principle could be encouraged by giving casters bonuses for casting in battle more than out of battle. Something like, designate X slots you have, at the beginning of a CR-appropriate encounter, those spell slots refresh, but they can't be used when you're not fighting, and DM determines which spells are appropriate for this bonus.

[Segev]

Another thought I once had for adjusting spellcaster mechanics was meant not to nerf them, but to enforce spell slot rationing. It doesn't work as anything but a game construct for PCs, but...

If you examine the character advancement rules, it is expected that roughly 12-15 encounters of the appropriate CR will get a PC from one level to the next.

It is expected that a PC will get into roughly 4 encounters per day. This translates to between 3 and 4 adventuring days per level. Splitting the difference, we can call it 3.5 adventuring days per level.

Spellcasters normally have spell slots per day. Instead, we now have spellcasting PCs have spell slots PER LEVEL. Take their spells/day and multiply them by 3.5. That is the total number of spells they may have for the entire level.

Prepared casters do not have to prepare all of the spells they have at once; they can leave some empty. They require 8 hours of rest (or their daily divine preparation time) to sit down and prepare additional spells (this replaces the normal rules that would allow a wizard who leaves some slots free to take extra time to prepare an incidentally-useful spell in a spare slot).

It doesn't matter if they use these spells in downtime or on screen. He has a limited number that he will not recover until next level. It is a matter of playtesting to determine if spells left un-cast between levels roll over or are simply replaced by the new allotment. I'd err towards the former, though, as I expect that the more usual situation will be that the wizard and even sorcerer will be "starving" for spell slots by the time he levels.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't think it's necessary to remove all of a caster's noncombat options. Things like scrying and animating dead are classic magical rules, and the game is better with them present. What you DO need, though, is for those options to be:
Limited, so that a single caster doesn't have all of them.
Unable to replace classes' main shticks- no spell to be sneaker than the Rogue, no spell to be a better tracker than the Ranger, and so on.
Not significantly more powerful than what anyone else can do.

The first is easily solved with fixed lists, in the vein of the Dread Necromancer. That can also help with the second, since you can steer clear of problem spells.

The third is tricky. Yes, there are spells that are too good, but the BIGGER problem is that mundane options are too weak. That's a lot harder to fix then just writing a few thematic spell lists, but ultimately leads to a more rewarding game when it works.

My recommendation? Buff skills. Buff skills into that stratosphere. Skills are universally available, the single most common (and often only) non-combat ability, and almost universally underpowered. (Or totally dysfunctional, coughDiplomacycough.) A rewrite that increases access (by combining skills, granting many more skill points, whatever) and power (boosted skill tricks, lower DCs for epic uses, whatever) would give mundanes a significant bonus, much smaller than the comparative boost to casters.

Imagine a system where you gain badass normal abilities at 9 skill ranks and superhuman ones at 15. Climb scales into climbing as easily as walking into Spiderman. Jump goes father, lets you take actions mid-leap, lets you jump MILES. Sense Motive lets you read minds, then deduce someone's actions from afar. Spells start to look a bit less special then.

[Beheld]

They save their slots for battle, using skills to solve out-of-combat problems just like their friends
They have limited or no strategic-level powers that their allies lack (teleport, animate dead during downtime)

...
Be comfortable with burning many slots in combat, but not out of combat


So the question we should be asking ourselves is, how do we encourage casters to behave in these ways?

Yeah I hate it when my PCs have out of combat abilities. I want to make everyone fight combats and the be completely useless outside of that!

The problem isn't that Fighters lack interesting things to do outside of combat so we should stop using a fighter class, and we should make martial classes tied to a theme that grants them out of combat abilities to use. The problem is 100% that other people can do anything out of combat at all. Thank god we decided to stop them from doing out of combat things.

Get on the rails you filthy PCs, if you want to find out something better hope I the all mighty DM want to tell it to you to lead you down the railroad. Want to bypass an encounter with stealth? HA, please, this is combat the combatting, you will fight things and like it.

[Magesmiley]

This sounds incredibly tedious, and only likely to drive players away from okay options like fireball and towards encounter or campaign breakers like planar binding. After all, if you have to pay for every spell with life force, you really want the biggest bang for your buck. This is, incidentally, the opposite of what you actually want casters to do - a good caster nerf should encourage spellcasters to use weaker spells more often. You seem to equate "weaker" with "lower spell level" but that's hilariously untrue.

In general, lower spell-level effects are less effective than higher-level ones. This is mainly why it is viewed that taking less than full progression prestige classes is a suboptimal choice. It isn't perfect to lump by level, but it makes for a good general rule on how to weight spells.

My suspicion is that casters would only use magic when they absolutely have to. Period. And then when they did, use the cheapest ones that could yield the effect that they want. Do I use the 2nd level spell that eats 6 xps or the 4th level one that costs me 28? Do I need to burn the fireball at caster level 10 for 30 xps, or is level 5 for 15 enough?

Those that use their spells frivolously would find themselves lagging behind the other characters in the party, level-wise, which is would also be a power balancer.

Using spells less means relying on non-casters more, which makes them more effective. It also would reduce the frequency of the one-encounter day that a lot of caster players favor.

[Zanos]

Yeah I hate it when my PCs have out of combat abilities. I want to make everyone fight combats and the be completely useless outside of that!

The problem isn't that Fighters lack interesting things to do outside of combat so we should stop using a fighter class, and we should make martial classes tied to a theme that grants them out of combat abilities to use. The problem is 100% that other people can do anything out of combat at all. Thank god we decided to stop them from doing out of combat things.

Get on the rails you filthy PCs, if you want to find out something better hope I the all mighty DM want to tell it to you to lead you down the railroad. Want to bypass an encounter with stealth? HA, please, this is combat the combatting, you will fight things and like it.
I agree that using resources to solve out of combat challenges is appropriate, but I suspect you could have phrased it more pleasantly had you put a modicum of effort in.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In general, lower spell-level effects are less effective than higher-level ones. This is mainly why it is viewed that taking less than full progression prestige classes is a suboptimal choice. It isn't perfect to lump by level, but it makes for a good general rule on how to weight spells.

My suspicion is that casters would only use magic when they absolutely have to. Period. And then when they did, use the cheapest ones that could yield the effect that they want. Do I use the 2nd level spell that eats 6 xps or the 4th level one that costs me 28? Do I need to burn the fireball at caster level 10 for 30 xps, or is level 5 for 15 enough?

Those that use their spells frivolously would find themselves lagging behind the other characters in the party, level-wise, which is would also be a power balancer.

Using spells less means relying on non-casters more, which makes them more effective. It also would reduce the frequency of the one-encounter day that a lot of caster players favor.
The issue is that the most disruptive spells are also the most efficient ones. If I only get one spell, why would I cast Orb of Force and contribute to the fight when I can cast Solid Fog and end it? And blasters are inordinately affected by caster level restrictions-- CL 5 Haste verses CL 10 Haste isn't much of a difference, but CL 5 Fireball is literally half as effective as the CL 10 version. If your fix hurts non-problem playerstyles more than problematic ones, you did something wrong.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah I hate it when my PCs have out of combat abilities. I want to make everyone fight combats and the be completely useless outside of that!
I'm curious how you read what I wrote and came to the conclusion that I want everyone to be useless outside of combat.


In general, lower spell-level effects are less effective than higher-level ones. This is mainly why it is viewed that taking less than full progression prestige classes is a suboptimal choice. It isn't perfect to lump by level, but it makes for a good general rule on how to weight spells.
That's technically true, but remember that you are not trying to nerf all spells, just the worst offenders. And the worst offenders are all unusually good for their level, meaning that level-based penalties make them better to use and not worse.


My suspicion is that casters would only use magic when they absolutely have to. Period.
Your suspicion is correct, but since nobody plays a caster to not use magic, nobody will play casters.

[ryu]

I'm curious how you read what I wrote and came to the conclusion that I want everyone to be useless outside of combat.


That's technically true, but remember that you are not trying to nerf all spells, just the worst offenders. And the worst offenders are all unusually good for their level, meaning that level-based penalties make them better to use and not worse.


Your suspicion is correct, but since nobody plays a caster to not use magic, nobody will play casters.

Alternatively artificer happens. Dude literally doesn't cast spells. He crafts items and activates them.

[Triskavanski]

Playing a caster in another game once before, We were like level 3 or so. I had a number of different kinds of rays, and sneak attack. My design for my character was simple. Cast rays to defeat monsters by dealing lots more damage than a ray of frost would normally do. It was easy, Simple even. We started off in a prison, I had my spells being a spontaneous caster, and was able to bust my lock to free myself. Then found where the keys were, and between them was a rather large sleeping troll or something. (I forget exactly)

Well! I thought, I could easily blast that troll and get the keys, only having to spend a single spell to do so. Or maybe I could use my sneaking abilities (cause I was good at that) to sneak into the room and get them.

But no, being a more weak willed player at the time, I fell inline more with the fighter who was basically "SPEND ALL YOUR SPELLS TO FREE US MAGIC PEASENT" And so I did, and we went through the rest of the dungeon with him just charging along. That wasn't the bad part really. Okay, so he never ever stopped to let me recover my spells I used to free his sorry ass from the prison, when I could have not spent them got the keys and got him out. But He was also annoyed I was no longer contributing to the game, which was now a gauntlet run of slaughtering monsters.

Now that I'm older and more strong willed, much to many peoples dismay, especially if the GM was "To cast spells you have to spend XP" I would be like "Nope!"

There was another game where the GM had it all spells had their normal duration but only worked if they concentrated. No one played magic then. (A lot of other ones were removed too.)



I feel that Pathfinder is a game about doing things. Which is more doing, the guy who spends 6 seconds picking a lot, or the guy who spends 10 minutes picking a lock. Think about every movie you watched where someone picks a lock. How long does it take them to pick the lock? Typically closer to 6 seconds. In the case of Sherlock Holmes he spends about 30 seconds trying, before watson kicks in the door like a barbarian. You've got the princess bride where Indigo is trying to break down the door and get in, and can't. Then Andre, who has more strength, slams it open with one blow.

This is particularly why the Archeoloist was my go to archetype for skill monkey rogue over actually being a rogue. His ability to pick locks was six seconds, he could disable devices faster, and so much more.

What I'm seeing a lot of here is trying to make it where people have less doing. (Granted, I would like to see longer casting time on some spells. It was always a great thing when Lina Inverse began casting the full version of dragon slave, needing the rest of the team to guard her while she did it, However she could cast smaller versions of it faster.) I feel its wrong to have less doing. I think there should really be more doing.

Mundane skills need buffs. A Person who starts getting crazy high ranks in a skill should be able to start doing crazy things with it. Like in 3.5 when you could start to 'balance' on water. Doesn't need to get that crazy, but I hope you get the idea.