PDA

View Full Version : Simple spellcaster nerf



purplearcanist
2007-09-16, 08:00 PM
Make it so that the modifier bonus (int for arcane spellcasters, wis for divine spellcasters, plus charisma for both) also determines the highest level of spells that can be cast, in addition to bonus spells.

Ex: With an Int of 15, a Wis of 9, and a Cha of 12, you can't cast divine spells, and you can only cast arcane spells of 1st level or lower.


(can't improve w/ enchancement to get higher level spells.) Make charisma determine save dc's.

Get rid of or reduce the power of too powerful spells. (ex: divine power, polymorph)

Use the aspect of nature variant for druids (from unearthed arcana).

What do you think?

AKA_Bait
2007-09-16, 08:03 PM
Way too big a nerf. Only characters with insane mental stats could cast upper level spells if I understand you correctly.

purplearcanist
2007-09-16, 08:07 PM
Way too big a nerf. Only characters with insane mental stats could cast upper level spells if I understand you correctly.

But aren't those the things that make spellcasters so powerful?
Plus, you can still use the upper level spell slots for lower level spells.
Or multiclass.

Tengu
2007-09-16, 08:08 PM
Reminds me of a basic spellcaster class I invented some time ago. It was basically a sorcerer with cleric and druid spells on his list apart from the arcane ones, but the class used wisdom for maximum spell level known, intelligence for bonus spells and charisma for spell DCs.

And yes, your changes are too much of a nerf. A character would need 20 in unbuffed charisma and wisdom/intelligence to cast level 5 spells. Why not just limit spellcasters to bards or something if you want to do it so badly?

Solo
2007-09-16, 08:09 PM
But aren't those the things that make spellcasters so powerful?
Plus, you can still use the upper level spell slots for lower level spells.
Or multiclass.

Why not just get rid of upper level spells in that case?

Machete
2007-09-16, 08:10 PM
Why not just get rid of upper level spells in that case?

Wizards without getting handed 9th level spells in their repetoire like candy?

BLASPHEMY!

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-16, 08:13 PM
Normally the limit on level of spells is by attribute value, not bonus.

Even used that way, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to cast 9th level spells if item-based enhancements don't count and 19+ scores in two attributes are required...

Riffington
2007-09-16, 08:21 PM
Speaking as someone who thinks spellcasters are overpowered: No.

Now you're practically requiring spellcasters to twink out their prime stat. This nerfs the half-assed ones (who weren't the problem to begin with) and encourages everyone to reach for the insane mental stats. Find another way.

Ways I've toyed with (but ended up never adopting) include:
*capping the attribute bonus to save DC's.
*making all spells take twice the time to cast (full round for standard action spells, 2 rounds for full round spells, etc).
*Giving Fighters and Barbarians the free feat "Mageslayer" or "Iron Will" at 3rd level.

martyboy74
2007-09-16, 08:23 PM
You'd have to have a 28 in your casting stat to get 9th level spells. That leaves...lemme see...there's gotta be something...don't fail me now google...ah ha! Atropals, Uvaduams, Elder Titans, Ha-Nagas, and Leshays would be the only things in the SRD capable of casting 9th level spells. Tose are all epic. Every single one of those is massively epic. Hell, the strongest dragon could only cast fifth level spells.

Bosh
2007-09-16, 08:29 PM
Reminds me of a basic spellcaster class I invented some time ago. It was basically a sorcerer with cleric and druid spells on his list apart from the arcane ones, but the class used wisdom for maximum spell level known, intelligence for bonus spells and charisma for spell DCs.

I homebrewed the same thing, but wisdom for bonus spells, intelligence for number of spells known and charisma for DCs. That way there's no one mental stat that casters NEED and they can customize a bit more while getting nerfed.

excrtd
2007-09-16, 08:30 PM
The way I am reading it you would need a 28 in your casting stat and in cha. So two stats with a 28. And your enhancement bonus does not apply for the purposes of casting higher level spells.

purplearcanist
2007-09-16, 08:33 PM
I think one ability score for spell level would *probably* be a more balanced nerf for spellcasters.

But please think of how weak the fighter is compared to the spellcaster.

At level 1, it is balanced, but from then on, the spellcaster gets too powerful.

This is supposed to curve that power.

Solo
2007-09-16, 08:57 PM
Wizards without getting handed 9th level spells in their repetoire like candy?

BLASPHEMY!

Or at all, in this case.

Mewtarthio
2007-09-16, 10:25 PM
I think one ability score for spell level would *probably* be a more balanced nerf for spellcasters.

But please think of how weak the fighter is compared to the spellcaster.

At level 1, it is balanced, but from then on, the spellcaster gets too powerful.

This is supposed to curve that power.

Um... The Fighter's generally considered a very poorly-designed class. It's kinda the epitome of weakness. Solving balance issues by bringing casters down to Fighter levels would be like solving disparity by outlawing all forms of interpersonal trade.

Ramza00
2007-09-17, 12:15 AM
if you don't like the casters, play E6 variant of D&D instead, casters can still be good but it is the casters who are thinking working all day that excel. (incarnum also rocks)

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=202109
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206323
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=919827

Kurald Galain
2007-09-17, 02:28 AM
Another interesting nerf would be outlawing the concentration system. In earlier editions, when you got hit by something, you lost whatever spell you were casting. In third ed, you get to make a rather easy con check instead.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-09-17, 04:16 AM
Consider taking the Big 3 power classes out of the game so there are No Clerics, Druids or Wizards. Make the Big 3 PRCs after level 5 which require 8 ranks spellcraft and arcane or religion depending on the path chosen along with Skill Focus feats for those two skill. No level 9 spells until the game goes Epic and level 22 at the earliest delaying other Epic spells to level 26+.

The Spellcaster variant is one fix.

Just using Favored Souls, Psions, Shamans, Shugenka, Sorcerers, Warmages and Wilders with their limited known spells/powers addresses most of the abuses by limiting spell options.

Overlard
2007-09-17, 06:13 AM
One group I know of are about to increase casting times of each spell to (spell level / 2) standard actions. So 0, 1st & 2nd level spells are unaffected, but you're looking at 4 rounds to cast a 9th level spell.

I think it needs some kinks hammered out of it (it won't have any effect on out-of-combat spells, amongst other things), but it could possibly work.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-17, 07:41 AM
It does make Time Stop rather funny. Spend four rounds to gain three rounds, wheeee!!!!

What about Quicken...

Overlard
2007-09-17, 07:47 AM
It does make Time Stop rather funny. Spend four rounds to gain three rounds, wheeee!!!!
The DM isn't a big fan of timestop anyway...


What about Quicken...
IIRC, that would bring it down to a single standard action to cast. That's as fast as any spell can be.

Saph
2007-09-17, 08:17 AM
I think one ability score for spell level would *probably* be a more balanced nerf for spellcasters.

But please think of how weak the fighter is compared to the spellcaster.

At level 1, it is balanced, but from then on, the spellcaster gets too powerful.

This is supposed to curve that power.

I hate to break this to you, but this is a really, really bad idea. If anything, it would actually make spellcasters stronger.

The enchanter wizard I'm playing right now is currently level 11. Taking into account items, she had the following Int scores at these levels:

Level 1: 18 Int (+4)
Level 2: 18 Int (+4)
Level 3: 18 Int (+4)
Level 4: 19 Int (+4)
Level 5: 21 Int (+5)
Level 6: 21 Int (+5)
Level 7: 21 Int (+5)
Level 8: 22 Int (+6)
Level 9: 24 Int (+7)
Level 10: 24 Int (+7)
Level 11: 24 Int (+7)

So at every level my Int modifier was at least one point above the highest level of spell I could cast. As I gain levels my Int will keep rising as I get better items, raise it at every level divisible by 4, and in the really high levels, get a Tome of Clear Thought.

So this does nothing to penalise the high-ability-score casters (who are the ones who are the real problem in the first place) and cripples the poor players who don't optimise and choose not to max out their casting stat. Effectively you're making casters stronger, by forcing everyone to optimise them more heavily. It also cuts down on the number of effective high-level casters in the game, which makes the remaining ones even more powerful (they now have fewer rivals).

Bad idea.

- Saph

Tengu
2007-09-17, 10:01 AM
stuff

Read his rules more carefully:

1. To cast a spell of a certain level, you need sufficient charisma apart from your casting star.
2. Stat boosts from items do not count.

The idea is bad, but not for the reasons you mentioned.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-17, 10:05 AM
That nerf is more punishing than the schedule they followed for Pink Floyd's album The Wall. If you wanna put a damper on the casters, make it a will & word system. You cast a number of spells per day, and they can be any spell you want (or any spell from arcane lists), and you can also keep casting after that number, but you take some kind of damage (CON, hp, death) for doing it.

Indon
2007-09-17, 10:08 AM
Hmm... lessee if I can think up a more palatable, but comparably restrictive, variant...

Okay. In order for a spellcaster to cast a spell, they must have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma all of 10+The Spell's Level. Shifting reality ain't easy, you know.

And ability enhancing items count.

I think that allows for high-level spells to still be in reach while discouraging min-maxing of a single trait.

kme
2007-09-17, 10:52 AM
The greatest problem with casters are their high DC save or die/lose/suck and no save spells.Aside from those there is only a couple of really problematic spells.
so:
Ban overpowered no save spells.
Give them elite array on the beginning (so max int/cha/wis is only 15).
Ban gray elfs and other races that have +mental stat and no LA.
Ban tomes that boost abilities.
And you can also make items that give enchantment bonus on stats harder to get.

With that you will have much less problems.But if you wish you can also:
Make teleport casting time 5 rounds.
Make dimension door only personal spell.
Maybe ban some metamagic rods like quicken.

With spells such as polymorph you just come to the reasonable agreement with players about what forms they can get.

Saph
2007-09-17, 11:02 AM
Read his rules more carefully:

1. To cast a spell of a certain level, you need sufficient charisma apart from your casting star.
2. Stat boosts from items do not count.

The idea is bad, but not for the reasons you mentioned.

Aagh! You're right, that's even worse!

Now to be an effective caster you have to twink out BOTH your spellcasting stat AND charisma as well. Suddenly every caster in the game is going to have to start off with incredibly high mental stats, or they're crippled beyond an early level.

- Saph

CASTLEMIKE
2007-09-17, 11:51 AM
Sounds like a high level game. Standard point buy or random rolling by stat is good for casters. Like the real world just wanting isn't enough to give you the natural ability. Most commoners want to be wealthy aristocrats. Just because your PC wanted to be a wizard doesn't mean he was born with a high intelligence with random rolling. He ended up with his best ability being charisma or wisdom or dexterity or strong physical attributes and weak mental attributes.

Limiting races to core. Removing a handful of spells. Limiting the availabiliyt of magic scrolls of level 4 and higher (Using standard demographics there just aren't the NPCs available in game to be making this stuff and the few who do exist should have standing back logs of orders). No Magic stores helps a lot. Graduate magic item availabiltiy by required level to craft it. Most magic available is wonderous items, potions and scrolls followed by wands and magic armor, shields and weapons. Next step up is Rods followed by Rings and Staffs. If PCs aren't taking the feats why are the NPCs?

You control what magic is available in campaign and how long it takes to acquire it if they want to purchase it. A grand house is 5,000 GP and takes time to build or buy why should acquiring a magic item take less time.

PCs need to take feats to craft items like Meta rods which require high caster level and the feat to make them.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-17, 11:55 AM
If PCs aren't taking the feats why are the NPCs?
If PCs aren't taking levels in Commoner or Adept, why are the NPCs?

Simple answer: Because it suits what the particular NPCs need and want at the time.


A grand house is 5,000 GP and takes time to build or buy why should acquiring a magic item take less time.
Acquiring that house through purchase, however, takes considerably less time than building it.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-09-17, 12:14 PM
Acquiring that house through purchase, however, takes considerably less time than building it.

That is not necessarily true using magic and standard core rules.

Kaelik
2007-09-17, 12:33 PM
And while we are at it. Let's Limit Fighter Feats to Core, and No barbarian variants, and no races but core for melee. And make it hell on them to get magic items. And we can remove Power Attack. And make Sneak Attack progression dependent on Wisdom Modifier. And we can nerf the entire game to death. But just because we can doesn't mean we should.

NPCs take Crafter Feats because some people make a living making and selling magic items. Why are Experts making Masterwork Weapons? Because that's there job. By your logic everyone should have to smith their own weapons and armor. Specialization leads to civilization. Some people's job is to kill the encroaching enemies, others job is to provide them with the means to do so.

Simple Spellcaster nerfs can be done. But they have to be done right. And most on this thread aren't. Personally if I were going to limit spellcasters, the easiest way is to just say, no Druid/Wizard/Cleric/Archivist/Artificer. If I wanted to expand on that, I'd make every caster have two attributes like a Favoured Soul. Or maybe remove Duskblade and Beguiler also. If I wanted to nerf them even more, I'd make them all PrCs that you could get into about level 4-6 with the right builds.

Taking away parts of the game (items, races, whatever) for one type of character and not another is not the best system. Taking away clearly overpowered classes is something most any group can agree to.

Of course honestly this has never been a problem. Because my groups know to match optimization levels to the other people in the party, so I never really have a problem.

tainsouvra
2007-09-17, 12:51 PM
What do you think? Please don't take this the wrong way, but you shouldn't be messing with the core classes like this without a lot clearer idea of what you're trying to accomplish. It sounds like you've heard "spellcasters are too powerful" and are looking for a way to tone them down, in other words you perceive a nebulous problem somewhere and are throwing out the first solution that seems related.
Never do this!
Find specific problems and address them specifically, blanket solutions made without a clear idea of the problem just tend to create new problems, often worse than the first problem.

I'll give you an example based on your suggestion. With your stat-bonus idea, spell level 4 would probably be the highest anyone can get, and even then only by min-maxing their stats...so, naturally, players will start looking for loopholes to make spell levels 0-4 worth using on their min-maxed 16th-level characters. Trust me, you do not want to encourage this!

Your idea strongly encourages massive stat optimization and a munchkin-esque approach to magic. I really doubt that's what you had in mind. Wait until you know what precise problems spellcasters are causing in your adventures, then address them specifically. Never throw out massive blanket solutions based on a generalization you haven't actually investigated. It's a doomed enterprise.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-17, 12:55 PM
You'd honestly be better off just cracking open the PHB (and SC and any other spell book you're allowing) to the spell summaries section and banning everything suspicious sounding. Less of a headache, more likely to work.

Matthew
2007-09-17, 12:58 PM
How about deducting the Spell Level of any Spell from your Initiative Score? That was a major handicap for Spell Casters in AD&D. Also, dump the Concentration Skill; if a Spell Caster gets hit in combat, his Spell fizzles out, end of story; alternatively, use fixed percentages or an Atribute check of some kind.

purplearcanist
2007-09-17, 02:39 PM
Hey Matthew, I like your nerf. Here is a new idea, post on what you think:

Ditch concentration. If a spellcaster gets hit when casting a spell, the spell is disrupted.

Make it so all spells with a casting time of 1 standard action can be cast as a full round action. (Maybe reduce the # of spell levels it requires?) Quicken spell instead makes a spell have a casting time of 1 standard action. Also, while casting or concentrating on a spell, the caster loses their Dex bonus to AC. This makes it more likely to disrupt a spellcaster's spell.

Get rid of or reduce the power of overpowered spells, like divine power.

Use the aspect of nature variant for druids.

Also, make it so that all prepared spells have unlimited uses, if you reached the spell level, but every time you cast a spell, add the level to a culmulative precentage and you fail if you roll that precent or lower, sort of like the armor for arcane spellcasters.

What do you think now?

tainsouvra
2007-09-17, 02:53 PM
Ditch concentration. If a spellcaster gets hit when casting a spell, the spell is disrupted.
[also, the increased casting times] Please reconsider. You are still looking for nerfs rather than specific solutions to specific problems, and this particular nerf is another that is likely to bite you in the backside in the long run.

Think carefully about what your change will encourage PC's to do--they will focus on spells that debuff their enemies or buff them and their allies as both less resistant to disruption, at the expensive of quick-and-flashy combat casting. These buff/debuff effects also happen to be some of the most powerful tools in a spellcaster's arsenal, and the basis of such powerhouses as CoDzilla and the batman wizard. You are encouraging your players to take overpowered strategies with your change.

You will, in effect, train your players to use strategies that have proven themselves more powerful than run-of-the-mill play. I don't think that's what you had in mind.
Get rid of or reduce the power of overpowered spells, like divine power. Are you sure you understand what it is that makes a spellcaster overpowered? Until you pinpoint that, your changes are shots in the dark. So far, they look likely to backfire, so I'd strongly recommend better research before you propose changes.

Edit:
Also, make it so that all prepared spells have unlimited uses, if you reached the spell level, but every time you cast a spell, add the level to a culmulative precentage and you fail if you roll that precent or lower, sort of like the armor for arcane spellcasters. That is quite likely to make spellcasters more powerful, because they will have more castings of their highest-level spells available. Why would you ever want to do this?

Matthew
2007-09-17, 03:46 PM
Hey Matthew, I like your nerf.

Heh, it's just basically AD&D transposed back onto 3e.


Here is a new idea, post on what you think:

Ditch concentration. If a spellcaster gets hit when casting a spell, the spell is disrupted.

Contrary to Tainsouvra, I think that this is a good idea.


Make it so all spells with a casting time of 1 standard action can be cast as a full round action. (Maybe reduce the # of spell levels it requires?) Quicken spell instead makes a spell have a casting time of 1 standard action. Also, while casting or concentrating on a spell, the caster loses their Dex bonus to AC. This makes it more likely to disrupt a spellcaster's spell.

This is often suggested and, similarly, I think it's a good idea.


Get rid of or reduce the power of overpowered spells, like divine power.

This certainly has to be part of the solution.


Use the aspect of nature variant for druids.

I'm not overly familiar with Druids, but I think that I have heard this suggested before.


Also, make it so that all prepared spells have unlimited uses, if you reached the spell level, but every time you cast a spell, add the level to a culmulative precentage and you fail if you roll that precent or lower, sort of like the armor for arcane spellcasters.

I think Tainsouvra is right about this. Why reduce the power of Spell Casters only to increase it again?

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-17, 04:33 PM
That is not necessarily true using magic and standard core rules.
:smallconfused:

If you mean by searching for a town with a high enough gold piece limit... Well, it's still no longer than finding a neighborhood with a 5,000 gp house. And guess what? Expensive houses tend to be in towns with high gp limits!

CASTLEMIKE
2007-09-17, 04:59 PM
I was thinking two things.

First magical construction with Fabricate and the Lyre of Building for time requirements to build a house quicker than you can normally purchase one as per your earlier post regarding purchasing a house.

Second just because you want to buy a house doesn't mean there is one necessarily available to be purchased or that an owner is willing to sell you the house he is happy residing in already.

tainsouvra
2007-09-17, 05:14 PM
Contrary to Tainsouvra, I think that this is a good idea. I'm not saying you are wrong in that, for any given build, it's power would decrease--but the effect it would have on which builds are preferred would be contrary to purplearcanist's goal. Let me explain why I wouldn't recommend it: If you are running a game in which the cleric prefers to buff before battle, charge in for melee, then heal after battle...this change only decreases his power very slightly. If you are running a game in which the cleric prefers to focus on healing his comrades during a battle...this change will impact him dramatically and thus encourage him to play the previous style. The buff-charge-heal strategy is vastly more powerful than the healer strategy, but the concentration change hardly affects the former while severely impacting the latter. This already has the major problem of barely weakening an overpowered approach while severely nerfing an underpowered approach, but it gets worse...clerics are likely to realize this is the case, and you'll get more buff-charge-heal clerics. A similar statement could be made about buffing/debuffing wizards vs direct-fire wizards, and with a similar effect on which builds are encouraged.

Now, for the upside--if all your clerics are already buff-charge-heal types, and all your wizards are already buff/debuff types, then it does decrease their power a little without the potential for a major backfire. Their build would be optimal with or without the nerf, so they won't change in response to it.
...it would, however, still be only a small nerf to the tactical spellcaster. It's really only the on-the-spot casting that gets affected by concentration in the first place.

Snapdragon
2007-09-17, 05:45 PM
Instead maybe try:

1. Play 25 point buy stats (for an 18 casting stat everything else averages less than 10).
2. Play 1/4 the wealth-per-level. Fewer rings of Freedom of Movement and casters can be grappled again. Fewer stat raising items -> generally lower stats -> lower save DCs, fewer HPs, lower ACs, lower saves -> casters are more vulnerable. <-also good news for monks, just disallow Vow of Poverty.
3. Greater Dispel Magic to remove Contingency effects. <-weak
4. End of player's action to end of player's action Concentrate. Being in melee with a sword swinger pretty much prevents casting (even getting charged is rough).

Solo
2007-09-17, 05:57 PM
Less magic items hurt non casters more than casters, for the record.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-17, 06:29 PM
First magical construction with Fabricate and the Lyre of Building for time requirements to build a house quicker than you can normally purchase one as per your earlier post regarding purchasing a house.
I thought your poitn was that building a house does take a long time.

(Not exactly sure what kind of progress 100 men make in three days, so I can't really comment on the actual speed, here.)


Second just because you want to buy a house doesn't mean there is one necessarily available to be purchased or that an owner is willing to sell you the house he is happy residing in already.
Same goes for magic items.

Jack Mann
2007-09-17, 06:48 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Wizard spellcasting is not the problem. It never has been. It's the spells themselves that are the problem, not the methods he uses to cast them.

The problem is not that the wizard can cast polymorph so easily. Even it was harder to cast, polymorph would still be a broken, headache-inducing spell. It just wouldn't be cast so often.

If you want to fix wizards, look through the spells and remove or nerf the overpowered ones. A blanket fix like this just doesn't work.

Look at the magister class from Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. It's actually stronger than the wizard, from a spellcasting standpoint. They can change their spells known daily and then cast spontaneously, and have some special powers to boot. What makes them a balanced class is that their spell list is significantly weaker than the sorcerer/wizard spell list.

You can change the system if you like, but if you don't fix the spells themselves, you haven't addressed the real problem of the full casting classes.

tainsouvra
2007-09-17, 06:52 PM
The problem is not that the wizard can cast polymorph so easily. Even it was harder to cast, polymorph would still be a broken, headache-inducing spell. It just wouldn't be cast so often.

If you want to fix wizards, look through the spells and remove or nerf the overpowered ones. A blanket fix like this just doesn't work. Absolutely right. My thoughts exactly :smallbiggrin:

Kaelik
2007-09-17, 06:52 PM
Instead maybe try:

1. Play 25 point buy stats (for an 18 casting stat everything else averages less than 10).
2. Play 1/4 the wealth-per-level. Fewer rings of Freedom of Movement and casters can be grappled again. Fewer stat raising items -> generally lower stats -> lower save DCs, fewer HPs, lower ACs, lower saves -> casters are more vulnerable. <-also good news for monks, just disallow Vow of Poverty.
3. Greater Dispel Magic to remove Contingency effects. <-weak
4. End of player's action to end of player's action Concentrate. Being in melee with a sword swinger pretty much prevents casting (even getting charged is rough).

Right, because non of that handicaps non-spellcasters. Oh wait.

Matthew
2007-09-17, 06:57 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Wizard spellcasting is not the problem. It never has been. It's the spells themselves that are the problem, not the methods he uses to cast them.

Sure, but he's not talking about just applying a blanket change, he is also saying that individual Spells need to be altered.

Jack Mann
2007-09-17, 07:07 PM
But if you remove/fix the individual spells, there's no need to nerf the spellcasting system.

Matthew
2007-09-17, 07:21 PM
Well, that rather depends. If you nerf all the Spells sufficiently maybe. If you nerf all the Spells somewhat and then alter the Spell Casting System, you should get more or less the same effect.

tainsouvra
2007-09-17, 07:44 PM
Well, that rather depends. If you nerf all the Spells sufficiently maybe. If you nerf all the Spells somewhat and then alter the Spell Casting System, you should get more or less the same effect. Just for clarity, the problem isn't "all the spells" so much as "some key spells"...nerfing all spells keeps the current problems, it just further encourages the use of the broken ones to make up for the nerfing.

Snapdragon
2007-09-17, 08:34 PM
Right, because non of that handicaps non-spellcasters. Oh wait.

1. Constructive criticism, please.

2. Who is tougher, a 17th level wizard with a 10 Con or a 17th level wizard with a 16? 44 hps vs 95 hps. There's a significant difference in what those two would consider to be life-threatening. If you have a whole bunch of stat points (like, 30) and an artificial cap on the maximum stat purchased, it becomes easy to create a character that excels in the archetypical strength of their profession without the corresponding archetypical weakness. In other words, around 25 points the really brilliant, creative, powerful wizard is kinda sickly, weak, clumsy, socially inept, and maybe even lacking in common sense.

3. Solo, the item thing, I'm not sure I disagree with you. At, say 17th level WBL says the PCs should have 340k in gear. That's a +10 weapon, a +10 shield and +10 armor, and 140k for sundries. At 85k, the cleric still needs to make choices about what to have to best affect their role within the party. I guess what I'm coming to is that it's nerfing to give the PCs less money in general. Nerfing the PCs in general is good for a writer because you avoid this:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57110

4. Ultimately it's the GM's job to write a scenario wherein all the players (whatever the characters) can contribute. While nerfing/removing spells can lessen the efficiency of a high level caster, I don't think it's desirable. Story is about conflict and how the characters resolve the problems they face. Removing an ability from a character means removing your ability to tell that story. And why would you want to do that?

Matthew
2007-09-17, 08:47 PM
Just for clarity, the problem isn't "all the spells" so much as "some key spells"...nerfing all spells keeps the current problems, it just further encourages the use of the broken ones to make up for the nerfing.

Sure, I meant all the troublesome Spells.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-17, 09:02 PM
2. Who is tougher, a 17th level wizard with a 10 Con or a 17th level wizard with a 16? 44 hps vs 95 hps. There's a significant difference in what those two would consider to be life-threatening. If you have a whole bunch of stat points (like, 30) and an artificial cap on the maximum stat purchased, it becomes easy to create a character that excels in the archetypical strength of their profession without the corresponding archetypical weakness. In other words, around 25 points the really brilliant, creative, powerful wizard is kinda sickly, weak, clumsy, socially inept, and maybe even lacking in common sense.
Around 25 points, the really musclebound, strong fighter is mediocre in his toughness, clumsy, not too bright, socially inept and lacking in common sense.

It goes both ways.


3. Solo, the item thing, I'm not sure I disagree with you. At, say 17th level WBL says the PCs should have 340k in gear. That's a +10 weapon, a +10 shield and +10 armor, and 140k for sundries.
+10 equivalent weapon is 200,000 gp. +10 equivalent armor and shields are 100,000 gp each. Or are we assuming all parties have an item crafter that makes items for their teammates while charging them wholesale?


At 85k, the cleric still needs to make choices about what to have to best affect their role within the party.
Once again, this doesn't just affect the spellcasters. So it's hardly a spellcaster nerf.


I guess what I'm coming to is that it's nerfing to give the PCs less money in general. Nerfing the PCs in general is good for a writer because you avoid this:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57110
Not quite seeing how Wealth By Level really addresses the issue described there.

Snapdragon
2007-09-18, 12:34 PM
Around 25 points, the really musclebound, strong fighter is mediocre in his toughness, clumsy, not too bright, socially inept and lacking in common sense.

Which is why the really strong ones tend to be orcs, barbarians, or both.



+10 equivalent weapon is 200,000 gp. +10 equivalent armor and shields are 100,000 gp each. Or are we assuming all parties have an item crafter that makes items for their teammates while charging them wholesale. Once again, this doesn't just affect the spellcasters. So it's hardly a 'uniquely'spellcaster nerf.

Either way, the objest is lowering ability -> widening high end challenge range. Unless this is meant for arena-style combat, flexible challenge for broader story seems the goal. Nerfing the spellcasters is just a method.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-18, 04:23 PM
Either way, the objest is lowering ability -> widening high end challenge range.
I was under the impression the goal of nerfing spellcasters was to bring them into balance with the other lower power classes. Not providing bigger challenges for the party.

Snapdragon
2007-09-19, 02:08 PM
I was under the impression the goal of nerfing spellcasters was to bring them into balance with the other lower power classes. Not providing bigger challenges for the party.

But to what end? Arena-style combat? Cut down on rounds of prep, outlaw wands or any of another dozen methods. Much easier to change the rules of the fight than the rules of the game.

And not bigger challenges, wider. The idea here is that, while some of us have more time than others for this hobby, we're all limited by commitments to the real world. Thus, rules and character structures that allow for easy adaptation of alternate scenarios should prove more satisfying for long term play. For example, "you see a 10' x 10' room with a Balor guarding a chest." If you've never played that scenario before (ok, needs a bigger room), you'll get the same kind of enjoyment whether it's an orc or ogre or what have you. And enjoyment is why we're all here.

Jack Mann
2007-09-19, 11:32 PM
But to what end? Arena-style combat? Cut down on rounds of prep, outlaw wands or any of another dozen methods. Much easier to change the rules of the fight than the rules of the game.

And not bigger challenges, wider. The idea here is that, while some of us have more time than others for this hobby, we're all limited by commitments to the real world. Thus, rules and character structures that allow for easy adaptation of alternate scenarios should prove more satisfying for long term play. For example, "you see a 10' x 10' room with a Balor guarding a chest." If you've never played that scenario before (ok, needs a bigger room), you'll get the same kind of enjoyment whether it's an orc or ogre or what have you. And enjoyment is why we're all here.

The classes should be close enough that something that challenges one class should challenge another. The problem is that at higher levels, something that the fighter can handle is easy stuff for a full caster, and something that challenges a full caster will typically cut through a fighter. This is particularly bad in the case of CoDzilla, because you can't even mix it up. If it's something that can be solved best with combat, well, clerics and druids are better at it than fighters. It's the sad truth. Outside of an anti-magic field, any sort of enemy you throw at your fighter a cleric or druid can take down much more easily.

A lot of people talk about balance problems as though it's all the DM's fault for not building encounters properly. Bull. If the encounter is easy enough for the fighter or the monk, it's probably too easy for the casters. If it's hard enough for the casters, the fighter's in trouble.

And it's not just the casters' design, either. The monsters at high CRs are too difficult for Joe McMelee to engage directly, let alone do much against when he hits. It's not just that the fighter isn't scaled right with the full casters, it's that he's not scaled right with the monsters at high levels.

Funkyodor
2007-09-20, 01:13 AM
I agree that specific spells that were not thought out well and should be reviewed and corrected individually using house rules (Shivering Touch being ability damage instead of ability penalty, Maximizing non-damaging spells, Shadow Evocation doing everything Evocation can do, etc...). But also a mechanic that needs to be adressed is the single casting stat compared to the multi-combat stats. Any class that has full casting progression, i.e. Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Sorceror, etc needs to have thier casting stat modified to prevent astronomical save DC's. I suggest that having their primary stat be used to determine the maximum spell level they can cast as normal, but for save DC use the average of Primary stat & other mental stat. And for bonus spells use the average of Primary stat & third mental stat. So for a Sorceror it could be CHA for Maximum spell level possible, AVG(CHA+INT) for Save DC modifier, and AVG(CHA+WIS) for bonus spells. At the same time I was considering having combat attack bonus equal to AVG(STR+DEX). It lowers the importance of single stat bonus gear, gets alot of classes away from SAD, and clears up massive attack bonus and save DC manipulation. [/RANT]

Shatteredtower
2007-09-20, 05:07 PM
Ditch concentration. If a spellcaster gets hit when casting a spell, the spell is disrupted.I figure a system that gives the typical 5th level caster a 10-50% chance of losing the spell if struck is good enough. Most people won't cast at all with odds like that, for the same reason wizards don't wear a standard suit of leather armor.

Let's consider a different angle instead: any event that would require a successful Concentration check to cast a spell now requires a Concentration check to maintain the spell's duration.

The idea I've just presented is not a viable solution as presented. It doesn't address the use of magic items that grant a buff, for one thing, and it should. It does open the option to fix Combat Casting, however: making it a prerequisite to casting on the defensive to maintain spells. (Spells being cast that round can be cast on the defensive as normal.)

If the DC is 10 + damage dealt + level of every spell you're maintaining (or even every non-permanent spell), buffing to the gills is generally a bad idea, but only if the spellcasters join you in the fray. There are three ways to exploit that:

1. Hire NPC casters to buff your team up, then teleport in to battle without them. Not really such a big problem, since it cuts into your budget and puts you in a reliant position.
2. The buffing members of the party stay away from the fight. This might give the noncasters a deciding role in the outcome of any conflict at any level, but it comes at the cost of splitting the party. What you gain doesn't sound likely to be worth what you're risking.
3. Do your buffing with potions, scrolls, and wands. Hiring casters is cheaper, but at least you're not reliant on a remote power source. Effects from potions and wands tend to be far more easily dispelled than the same spells cast by a party member, and the problem tends to get worse as you gain levels. The real problem may be scrolls, but that's easily fixed if you factor spellcasting from these items into the Concentration DC to maintain spells every time you're struck.

Many players and DMs are going to find such a system too much hassle, though those who prefer blast magic systems might like it. Even so, it needs a lot more work before I'd recommend the idea to anyone.

kme
2007-09-21, 07:36 AM
^^
Well, if wizard is already being hit that means that his buffs aren't saving him, and wizard can just evade being hit by staying behind.

Shatteredtower
2007-09-21, 11:00 AM
^^
Well, if wizard is already being hit that means that his buffs aren't saving him, and wizard can just evade being hit by staying behind.In which case the spellcaster doesn't get to participate in the encounter -- and staying behind, if it splits the party, sometimes makes for a poor defensive move.

kme
2007-09-22, 04:58 PM
I meant behind a meatshield or just slightly behind so to avoid being attacked, not 5 kilometers behind.

Shatteredtower
2007-09-29, 12:43 PM
Sorry. Missed this last week.


I meant behind a meatshield or just slightly behind so to avoid being attacked, not 5 kilometers behind.Then he's still in play -- and a viable target for ranged attacks, tumblers, and other surprises.

Hecore
2007-09-29, 04:55 PM
I think a much better nerf (that someone else on this forum suggested) would be to force wizards to learn certain spell paths. As it is now spellcasters can alter reality, summon powerful demons, kill someone with a touch and stop time itself. If a caster had to make a choice at the 3rd spell level on what kind of magic they wanted to master you could prevent the batman wizard and even weaken blasters to some degree, making them more on par with the melee classes.

For example, you could take the Time path to learn Haste, Blink, Sending, ect. leading up to a capstone spell like Time Stop. Obviously spells would need alteration, more spells for certain paths would have to be created, and so on, but I think this would be the best solution.