Extending base half casters to full

[Mike Miller]

To start, I made a list of base class casters that only made it up to less than level 6 spells, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?540022-list-of-base-casters-with-less-than-level-6-max). Yes, this excludes Bard, but Bard already has at least one PrC to get 9ths. I arbitrarily chose under 6th level spells in the first thread because I wanted to exclude bard.

Would these classes be more appealing in general if their casting progression was closer to the wizard or sorcerer progression for the full 9 levels of spells? Are the spells not enough reason to stick to the classes? Are the classes merely not interesting enough or don't have enough useful abilities to warrant staying in them for the duration?

To negate the "the classes become wizards/clerics/etc" argument by extending their progression, consider their repertoire of spells to be lesser by some means (having a defined list, stricter spells known, or some other limiting factor). This is merely a thought exercise and I don't actually have plans to implement it. I have always been bothered by the seemingly randomly chosen max spell level of some classes.

[Nifft]

Would these classes be more appealing in general if their casting progression was closer to the wizard or sorcerer progression for the full 9 levels of spells? High-level spells are the most powerful, most useful, and most interesting tools that PCs are allowed to touch.

Slapping 9th level spells on to anything makes that thing more appealing.


Are the spells not enough reason to stick to the classes? Are the classes merely not interesting enough or don't have enough useful abilities to warrant staying in them for the duration? Who isn't picking the non-caster classes? (Aside from people who know better, of course -- but that's a vanishingly small minority of players.)


To negate the "the classes become wizards/clerics/etc" argument by extending their progression, consider their repertoire of spells to be lesser by some means (having a defined list, stricter spells known, or some other limiting factor). This is merely a thought exercise and I don't actually have plans to implement it. I have always been bothered by the seemingly randomly chosen max spell level of some classes. If you want a cheap & easy fix to improve the bad-casters, give them Duskblade progression. You'll need to figure out level 0 and level 5 spells for those bdd-casters, but that's Ranger is done for you (check Mystic Ranger) and the others shouldn't be too hard.

[Vaern]

Higher level spells would make them more appealing as far as power goes, but most of those classes are simply not meant to be casters. Spells aren't meant to be a primary feature to classes like the paladin and ranger. They add a bit of utility, but their main purpose is to add flavor to a class that is primarily meant to focus on weapons rather than magic. Just looking at the spell lists, although they are very limited, they do a good job of adding color to the image of the holy warrior and the woodsman. They may not be top tier, but they do have their own unique appeal and don't need their spell progression extended to 9 levels any more than a fighter does.

Also, I'd go ahead and add the bard to that list anyway. While there is a prestige class that gives them spell progression up to 9th level, there are still no bard 7/8/9 spells for them to choose from without a bit of homebrewing. Since they are limited to the sorcerer/wizard spell list, saying that a bard with 9th level spells is basically just a sorcerer isn't entirely inaccurate.

[Lazymancer]

High-level spells are the most powerful, most useful, and most interesting tools that PCs are allowed to touch.

Slapping 9th level spells on to anything makes that thing more appealing.
I'm assuming you are talking about rate of getting new spells, rather than actual 9th level spells - which are rarely used in-game. The distant hope of getting them is hardly sufficient to justify anything.


Would these classes be more appealing in general if their casting progression was closer to the wizard or sorcerer progression for the full 9 levels of spells? ... consider their repertoire of spells to be lesser by some means (having a defined list, stricter spells known, or some other limiting factor).
I will speak only about Paladin, Ranger and Hexblade. And I'd say - yes. Even if they get to choose from 3 quality spells for each spell level and have 1 spell slot at each spell level, that would be a significant impact (though, I would consider 5 and 2 to be better option).


That said, the real problem is the Vancian casting system - which needs a rehaul.

[Mike Miller]

Who isn't picking the non-caster classes? (Aside from people who know better, of course -- but that's a vanishingly small minority of players.)
If you want a cheap & easy fix to improve the bad-casters, give them Duskblade progression. You'll need to figure out level 0 and level 5 spells for those bdd-casters, but that's Ranger is done for you (check Mystic Ranger) and the others shouldn't be too hard.
Anyone could be picking them although I guess I am considering a mix of flavor and power. If it was just flavor then there wouldn’t be any issue. If it was only power then yea, probably a big overhaul is in order. If the player is trying to catch both though, I would wonder if these classes would be higher in the “acceptable choices to stick with” category. For example, comparing straight wizard vs. straight spellthief, those extra features are interesting if the spellthief then also has a closer to even spell power (even if the number per day and/or spells known are nerfed….but that would be part of homebrew that I’m not really interested in developing).


Higher level spells would make them more appealing as far as power goes, but most of those classes are simply not meant to be casters. Spells aren't meant to be a primary feature to classes like the paladin and ranger. They add a bit of utility, but their main purpose is to add flavor to a class that is primarily meant to focus on weapons rather than magic. Just looking at the spell lists, although they are very limited, they do a good job of adding color to the image of the holy warrior and the woodsman. They may not be top tier, but they do have their own unique appeal and don't need their spell progression extended to 9 levels any more than a fighter does.

Also, I'd go ahead and add the bard to that list anyway. While there is a prestige class that gives them spell progression up to 9th level, there are still no bard 7/8/9 spells for them to choose from without a bit of homebrewing. Since they are limited to the sorcerer/wizard spell list, saying that a bard with 9th level spells is basically just a sorcerer isn't entirely inaccurate.
They aren’t needed, I agree. I just wonder if it would make them more interesting to use and possibly more interesting for longer. Take paladin, for example. Many paladins are very one dimensional. Perhaps with more options via spell power they could be more diverse. Some could be gishy and others could be chargers, etc.
I suppose bard could be added to the discussion too. I probably left them out at least in part on personal bias. I just don’t see them changing much with the extra spell levels.



I will speak only about Paladin, Ranger and Hexblade. And I'd say - yes. Even if they get to choose from 3 quality spells for each spell level and have 1 spell slot at each spell level, that would be a significant impact (though, I would consider 5 and 2 to be better option).

That said, the real problem is the Vancian casting system - which needs a rehaul.
There is certainly the argument for an overhaul, although I’m not sure if it would stop at the casting system. I’m thinking smaller arena changes though. I do agree that it would help the (primarily) martials have a bit more to do, even with a very limited selection/use.

[Grod_The_Giant]

My suggestion is progression up to 5th level spells (a la Duskblade) for full BAB classes, up to 6ths for medium (as the Bard), and to 7ths for low BAB classes.

[angelpalm]

Give them progression similar to psionic classes in pathfinder such as the Marksman. Even though it only gains 4th level powers it starts off being able to know powers at 1st level even if it doesn't start with one. I believe there was a nice way to reflavor psionics to be some sort of rune casting for your campaigns. Use spell points or something along those lines and maybe even give some classes the option to rechoose their powers/spells know from day to day to keep them fresh(to simulate the likes of a paladin praying for their spells?).

You could make some of the spells that exist scale better with level and merge them with higher level spells so to remove redundancy and make better use of the spell points/power point conversion?

I think one of the main issues is a lot of those classes don't even get spells until 4th level so this would give the players more toys to use at the start of a game.

[Psyren]

To negate the "the classes become wizards/clerics/etc" argument by extending their progression, consider their repertoire of spells to be lesser by some means (having a defined list, stricter spells known, or some other limiting factor). This is merely a thought exercise and I don't actually have plans to implement it. I have always been bothered by the seemingly randomly chosen max spell level of some classes.

I'm not sure it's negated at all. Take Druid and Ranger - if you gave a Ranger 9th-level spells, which ones would they get? Presumably your goal is not to make them "Druid, but with a bow" but now you've got your work cut out for you in terms of curating a whole other 9th-level list for a class with a very similar theme. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem that doesn't actually exist.

[ottdmk]

I think giving the "half-casters" new, higher-level spells would be tricky. A simpler measure I've always liked is simply giving them full caster level starting at 4th. It mostly helps with durations, but making it harder for full casters to dispel is also nice. And having more casters around who can cast a full dispel keeps the full casters honest. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

It's also elegant: Class Level = Caster Level is much easier for newer players (and DMs) to grok than trying to remember who has 1/2 and who has -3/-4 etc. Especially once you factor in boosts and penalties.

Pathfinder experimented with this for the Bloodrager class and found it didn't impact balance any to just give them full caster level, so I would recommend rolling this out for all the other 4th-level casters. You can do this by powering up PF's Magical Knack Trait if you want to track it some how, without costing them a feat tax.

[Cosi]

I'm not sure it's negated at all. Take Druid and Ranger - if you gave a Ranger 9th-level spells, which ones would they get? Presumably your goal is not to make them "Druid, but with a bow" but now you've got your work cut out for you in terms of curating a whole other 9th-level list for a class with a very similar theme. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem that doesn't actually exist.

This is kind of true, but not completely.

Basically, there is a problem here -- the Ranger is not as good as the Druid. Now, you can argue about how the problem should be defined ("the Ranger is underpowered" vs "the Druid is overpowered"), and you can argue that you don't care about the problem ("the point of the game is to have fun", "the DM can fix it", "it's part of the concept"), but the problem does exist.

However, I don't think OP has put enough thought into what a solution should do. They've (implicitly) answered one of the questions ("what balance point should we target") by suggesting a buff that would bring Rangers, Paladins, and Bards fairly close to Sorcerers, Dread Necromancers, and Artificers, but that's only half the question. The other half is "what is a Ranger supposed to do". So we thing that the Ranger should be brought up towards the Druid. Fine (aside: I agree that this is the direction to move). But what does a Ranger do? I mean that conceptually. What kind of solutions does a Ranger bring to the table? What are the Druid-tier versions of those solutions? I don't necessarily think you can't solve this problem by giving Rangers 9th level spells, but just saying "give Rangers 9th level spells" is putting the cart before the horse.

[HouseRules]

I had my own idea of extending half casters by looking for a full casters of similar theme.



Full Caster Spell Level
Spell Source


0th
Cleric's 0th


1st
Cleric's 1st


2nd
Paladin's Unique 1st


3rd
Cleric's 2nd


4th
Paladin's Unique 2nd


5th
Cleric's 3rd


6th
Paladin's Unique 3rd


7th
Cleric's 4th


8th
Paladin's Unique 4th


9th
Cleric's 5th


10th
Cleric's 6th


11th
Cleric's 7th


12th
Cleric's 8th


13th
Cleric's 9th



A similar relationship exist for Rangers and Druids. Of course, this trend works well for classes with max 4th Spell Level.

For those with max 5th Spell Level, then it goes like so



Full Caster Spell Level
Spell Source


0th
Adept's and Adept's 0th


1st
Adept's 1st


2nd
Healer's Unique 1st


3rd
Adept's 2nd


4th
Healer's Unique 2nd


5th
Adept's 3rd


6th
Healer's Unique 3rd


7th
Adept's 4th


8th
Healer's Unique 4th


9th
Adept's 5th


10th
Healer's Unique 5th


11th
Healer's Unique 6th


12th
Healer's Unique 7th


13th
Healer's Unique 8th


14th
Healer's Unique 9th



Why is the uniqueness reverse in this case? Well, Half Casting Classes have some reduce spell level spells. Some of Paladin's 4th Level Spells are Cleric's 6th Level. Similarly, Some of Adept's Spell may be reduce spell level, but I did not bother to find them all. Thus, the Uniqueness guarantees that a spell would not enter the list twice at two different spell level.

Finding a Half Caster class and a Full Caster class that are thematically similar would be the task. Of course, my example are not necessary the best ones, but my rule could easily extend Half Casters.

P.S.: Sorry for resurrecting a 7 month old post.

[Kayblis]

This seems to be a solution in search of a problem that doesn't actually exist.

This phrase defines my opinion of OP's suggestion.

You see, D&D is a game about working with different toolsets. Each class has a different set of skills, be it spells or class features, that make them different from eachother. Giving 9th level spells to everyone and their mother is missing the point of a class system as a whole. Next you'll complain that Monks are not picked enough, so you give them 9th-level spells and it becomes "another one of those casters" because giving high spell progression is somehow a balancing tool for you.

Not to mention, if the Paladin has 9ths, the Cleric becomes a straight-out ****ty Paladin. Getting everything another class has and keeping all the goodstuff you have is not "balancing". The game is unbalanced, but that solves nothing.

[HouseRules]

Well, the Paladin's 9ths in my version, not the OP, has Cleric's 5ths. They are weaker than the Half Caster or original version of Paladins, where some of their Paladin's 4ths are Cleric's 6ths.

May of those classes with 6ths are 9ths in disguise.
1sts include thematic 2nds.
2nds include thematic 3rds.
3rds include thematic 5ths.
4ths include thematic 6ths.
5ths include thematic 8ths.
6ths include thematic 9ths.

"Summon Monster 9" as a 6th level spell Summoner!

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm with Psyren and Kayblis. The difference in relative capability between classes is only a problem if you're laser-focused on that single aspect of character development and interaction with the game world.

Building perfectly viable characters who are rangers and paladins that hold up to the higher levels is well within the realm of possibility unless the GM gets in the way.

[HouseRules]

I'm more in the line of "If Healer has 9ths but are Tier 5", then increasing classes to full casting does not significantly increase their power. It may increase versatility.

If weak magic is more readily available, then people would not use "Vancian or Rare Magic" as an excuse to support broken spells.

[Mike Miller]

OP here, my original intention was to make more classes viable options due to the problem as I saw it at the time of writing the original post: certain classes are selected less frequently due to their spell capability. I admit I probably didn't put enough thought into it. However, since then I have come to the see a different solution.

I just work with the players as a whole group and individually to create characters that can engage each session in a meaningful way. So far so good.

[Goaty14]

If weak magic is more readily available, then people would not use "Vancian or Rare Magic" as an excuse to support broken spells.

Never have I ever heard that argument. Even if I did, having a bunch of adepts in every nook and cranny of the setting wouldn't make me think twice about that excuse. The PCs are *supposed* to be rare and unique.


OP here, my original intention was to make more classes viable options due to the problem as I saw it at the time of writing the original post: certain classes are selected less frequently due to their spell capability. I admit I probably didn't put enough thought into it.

Or maybe certain classes just suck. Handing a paladin a pile of spells doesn't make any of it's class features better, nor does it keep the theme of being a divine warrior. Heck, some spell-less classes (i.e Meldshapers, Initiators, Binders) get selected more than you or I would like to admit.

[HouseRules]

There is a difference between overpowered yet balance, and broken. Players only need to be the former, but not the later.