PDA

View Full Version : Balancing Batman



TempusCCK
2007-11-14, 06:47 PM
I've been doing some thinking on the balance of casters and non-casters, and I'm not sure if this idea has been thought up yet, but I'm going to put it out there anyway.

If a character dies for the most basic of spells to bring him back costs 5000GP in material components. If you bring them back with a wish or miracle, you lose a certain amount of EXP.

Money and EXP being both very valuable resources, therefore, making it difficult for character to come back to life.

However, a Wizard can throw around Fingers of Death and Disintegrate for next to nothing.

What I propose is this, because characters coming back to life is so derned expensive and/or time consuming by using magic, why the hell is the instant taking of life so derned easy?

Save or Die, Save or Suck and Save or Lose spells can be easily balanced, or easily a little less broken, by adding in a costly material component that will discourage a Wizard to throw them out willy-nilly.


This is my idea, discuss!

Reinboom
2007-11-14, 06:55 PM
Uhm, expensive material components? He's batman! He owns a mansion, has a multibillion dollar corporation to his name.. oh.. wait..hm..

Things that exceed taking life over making life are not proportionate. Even in the real world, it's easy enough to do such with say, finding a makeshift weapon.
Effective costs to distance, however, yes.

I somewhat agree on the basis of: the fighter had to pay for his (uber) sword! Why shouldn't the wizard?

However, there's going to be a lot of debate on whether that is to the nature of D&D, or where that cost is...

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-14, 06:57 PM
You know what Batman where every ability costs money or XP is called?

Artificer.

That considered, look at the problems inherent in the artificer to see the problems inherent in your idea (and the idea of managing power levels by giving them costs based on permanent resources in general).

Mike_Lemmer
2007-11-14, 07:03 PM
I somewhat agree on the basis of: the fighter had to pay for his (uber) sword! Why shouldn't the wizard?

However, there's going to be a lot of debate on whether that is to the nature of D&D, or where that cost is...

Judging by the wizards' use of items to cast spells in 4E, I'd say the Official Answer will be, "Yes, yes he should."

Illiterate Scribe
2007-11-14, 07:07 PM
You know what Batman where every ability costs money or XP is called?

Artificer.

That considered, look at the problems inherent in the artificer to see the problems inherent in your idea (and the idea of managing power levels by giving them costs based on permanent resources in general).

That said, the artificer isn't exactly the most managed of classes, even in the field of economics ...

TempusCCK
2007-11-14, 07:07 PM
Uhm, expensive material components? He's batman! He owns a mansion, has a multibillion dollar corporation to his name.. oh.. wait..hm..

Things that exceed taking life over making life are not proportionate. Even in the real world, it's easy enough to do such with say, finding a makeshift weapon.
Effective costs to distance, however, yes.

I somewhat agree on the basis of: the fighter had to pay for his (uber) sword! Why shouldn't the wizard?

However, there's going to be a lot of debate on whether that is to the nature of D&D, or where that cost is...

Yes, but what we're talking here is magic, the fighter has to move up and take a swing to kill someone, the wizard can just end life as long as he has spellslots, with little to no danger to himself if he does it right. The cleric, to undo the wizards evil, has to pay out the bum and waste all sorts of time and resources.



You know what Batman where every ability costs money or XP is called?

Artificer.

That considered, look at the problems inherent in the artificer to see the problems inherent in your idea (and the idea of managing power levels by giving them costs based on permanent resources in general).



I'm not saying give all Wizard abilities a high material component cost, I just think that if he's going to be able to kill someone with a few words and gestures, A few thousand Gp worth of smashed up rubies is a fair price.

Magic can bring life back instantly at an extremely high cost, while it can also instantly take it for nothing. that's not balance.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-14, 07:08 PM
That said, the artificer isn't exactly the most managed of classes, even in the field of economics ...

Exactly. Like I said, examine the issues with the artificer, as they are pretty much the issues of a Batman with power limited by permanent resources.



I'm not saying give all Wizard abilities a high material component cost, I just think that if he's going to be able to kill someone with a few words and gestures, A few thousand Gp worth of smashed up rubies is a fair price.

Magic can bring life back instantly at an extremely high cost, while it can also instantly take it for nothing. that's not balance.

Nitpick: Please don't make it look like something I said was instead SweetRein's quote by not including my name in the quote and posting it right after a quote by SweetRein. Thanks.

As to your actual response... it doesn't take it for nothing. It has to be able to set a high enough DC (this requires an expenditure of resources), an expenditure of a valuable combat action, the expenditure of a spell slot, and a die roll which must have a result under your DC. And it can be blocked out by spells that make people immune. By contrast, reviving an ally is pretty much guaranteed to work unless they actually don't want to come back or something like that. And Revivify isn't amazingly costly.

Keep an eye on just how bad you want to make save or dies. I mean, if you made it into Trap the Soul, that'd just be awful. Think how much fun your enchanter would have paying 5000 gold to try and charm a monster just to find out that it had Protection from Good cast on it. And then take note of just how few artificers use save or die tactics.

Again, it all comes back to: Look at the artificer.

Goff
2007-11-14, 07:12 PM
Of course nobody reads the posts above...

Ozymandias
2007-11-14, 07:19 PM
To use a metaphor, it's easier to destroy a sand castle than to build one. More applicably, it's considerably less difficult to kill someone than to bring one back from the dead. Of course it's not balanced, but should it be?

Reinboom
2007-11-14, 07:33 PM
To use a metaphor, it's easier to destroy a sand castle than to build one. More applicably, it's considerably less difficult to kill someone than to bring one back from the dead. Of course it's not balanced, but should it be?

That was the point I was trying to get at to, but better worded. Thanks.

I don't think it should cost 5,000 gp for the spell, no. Making it cost a little bit (say, ranging from 50-500 gp in cost, depending on the spell) would work, however.

TempusCCK
2007-11-14, 07:46 PM
To use a metaphor, it's easier to destroy a sand castle than to build one. More applicably, it's considerably less difficult to kill someone than to bring one back from the dead. Of course it's not balanced, but should it be?

Well, when using magic, I believe so. Would you have the spell "Build Sandcastle" cost 10 GP in material components when "Destroy Sandcastle" costs nothing? You're trying to counter the effects of one another with magic, it's not right to have one be difficult and the other be not so difficult.

As for having to pay to make a good DC against the save, however, that certainly doesn't seem to be a deterring factor anyway, because most serioius Batmans are going to do that regardless. What I'm looking for here is, as I've said, a deterring factor.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-14, 07:58 PM
To use a metaphor, it's easier to destroy a sand castle than to build one. More applicably, it's considerably less difficult to kill someone than to bring one back from the dead. Of course it's not balanced, but should it be?

Absolutely not. Killing should be easier than bringing back to life.

olelia
2007-11-18, 10:25 AM
Not sure if you misread that angel but thats exactly what he saying. Its Less difficult, ie easier, to kill someone then it is to bring someone back to life.

Kaelik
2007-11-18, 11:11 AM
Not sure if you misread that angel but thats exactly what he saying. Its Less difficult, ie easier, to kill someone then it is to bring someone back to life.

And what he is saying is that is exactly how it should be, so there is no reason to change it.

sikyon
2007-11-18, 11:38 AM
No you see, killing someone being easier than resurrecting someone -should- be easier.

Why?

Thermodynamics. The universe tends to move towards entropy, and chaos instead of order. A body, soul, whatever, is composed of order. the Universe tends to move towards disorder. It takes more energy to put something together and less energy to break something down. Therefore it should cost more to ressurect someone and cost less to kill someone.

tsuyoshikentsu
2007-11-18, 11:53 AM
Okay, here's why this doesn't work.

First off, you can't make it a GP cost, because Wizards are the best class in the game for making money. (Tied with other spellcasters, of course.) All they need to do is summon a Djinn (Gate, Candle, whatever) and have it create vegetable matter for spices. Spices cost something like 8 GP an ounce, and they can create twenty cubic feet of spices. Even selling at half price, you're basically set -- it would only take about seven pounds to pay for another Candle of Invocation, for instance. This is why D&D's gold piece system is borked.

After that, you just widen the gap between classes like Dweomerkeeper and Runesmith and everyone else.

skywalker
2007-11-18, 12:19 PM
Of course nobody reads the posts above...

...What?


sikyon, think of the cat girls! Please!

Tsuyo, if spices are trade goods, you actually get full market price for them.

I must also support the notion that taking life should be easier than restoring it. In the modern world, it takes one person(even a child) with a gun to take a life, but to save or restore that life, it takes a team of people in a high-tech facility and expensive bills afterwards.

Crow
2007-11-18, 12:22 PM
expensive bills afterwards

That is only because of all the illegal ali- I mean elves, putting a strain on the healthcare system.

Toliudar
2007-11-18, 01:01 PM
That is only because of all the illegal ali- I mean elves, putting a strain on the healthcare system.

You have a healthcare system now? Did I miss something?

Frosty
2007-11-18, 01:21 PM
Make al spells have an exp cost. Being a level or two lower will be painful enough.

Woot Spitum
2007-11-18, 01:47 PM
Bringing someone back from the dead is supposed to be expensive. This is D&D, not an MMO. Raisign the cost of killing things hurts other classes more than wizards, because the other classes are more dependant than wizards are on killing things. Wizards have lots of other options. Wizards can do everything, and they are good at everything.That's why they're unbalanced. If wizards were more like psions, (having to choose what sort of powers they have to give up) they would be much more balanced.

Sstoopidtallkid
2007-11-18, 02:38 PM
Yeah, could you imagine if you could get all cantrips and 1st level spells, but after that you had to choose 3(ish) schools? You could still make Batman, but at least now it would be harder, and the wizard wouldn't be so overpowered. You could probably reduce the cost of scribing spells, and make them get more spells per level, but their options would be more limited. You could be a blaster or a buffer, not both and a time-manipulator, too.

Just my $.02

mostlyharmful
2007-11-18, 03:14 PM
The only full arcane caster that casts spells for free is the sorc. The wiz gets 2 per level for free in one book. Any beyound that must be paid for in time and huge stacks of money, any copies or protections on the book which holds all their power must be paid for, in huge stacks of money. Then they need caster level and spell save boosters, to overcome all the absolute protective spell and magic item wards that most high level (where Save or Die spells are an issue) characters are plastered with. And this isn't even touching the fact that we're trying to balence a guy that hits things hard against someone who makes the laws of nature sit up and beg.

Sstoopidtallkid
2007-11-18, 03:32 PM
To be fair to WOTC, they are trying to create a world where the laws of physics sit down and shut up on command, a few imbalances are to be expected. However, all casters need to be nerfed. A lot. Make druids lose spellcasting progression so they can only reach 6th or 7th, give them ranger-level animal companions, and take 'em down an HD. I don't really know what to do with wizards, they need to be re-worked from the ground up to not be insane at high levels, without making them die early on. Clerics, eliminate the armor, drop them a HD, and do something to their spells. Really, the spell lists are more overpowered than anything. By level 15, nothing can stand in the way of a pissed-off caster except another caster.

Woot Spitum
2007-11-18, 04:14 PM
To be fair to WOTC, they are trying to create a world where the laws of physics sit down and shut up on command, a few imbalances are to be expected. However, all casters need to be nerfed. A lot. Make druids lose spellcasting progression so they can only reach 6th or 7th, give them ranger-level animal companions, and take 'em down an HD. I don't really know what to do with wizards, they need to be re-worked from the ground up to not be insane at high levels, without making them die early on. Clerics, eliminate the armor, drop them a HD, and do something to their spells. Really, the spell lists are more overpowered than anything. By level 15, nothing can stand in the way of a pissed-off caster except another caster.
Also to be fair, a lot of these unbalanced things are put into the game in order to encourage people to play as the complicated, book keeping intensive casters.

Baskineli
2007-11-18, 06:12 PM
Really, the spell lists are more overpowered than anything. By level 15, nothing can stand in the way of a pissed-off caster except another caster.

It should be this way.

In Tolkien world (yes, D&D is not a Tolkien world, but it is close enough), you have about 10 casters alltogether, and hundreds of thousands of skilled fighters. The whole point of being a caster is that casters try to reach the ultimate power, while fighters don't - and if they do, they do it by other means like building a kingdom.

Don't forget that in D&D world there are way less casters than fighters. Playing and being a caster is more complicated that playing a fighter, and if you completely balance them, nobody will want to play a caster anymore.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-18, 06:14 PM
That isn't really true. ToB is out there, and it serves as an example on how to balance things out. Sure, a caster is somewhat more powerful than a ToBber, but it's not by THAT much.

tyckspoon
2007-11-18, 06:17 PM
It should be this way.

In Tolkien world (yes, D&D is not a Tolkien world, but it is close enough), you have about 10 casters alltogether, and hundreds of thousands of skilled fighters. The whole point of being a caster is that casters try to reach the ultimate power, while fighters don't - and if they do, they do it by other means like building a kingdom.

Don't forget that in D&D world there are way less casters than fighters. Playing and being a caster is more complicated that playing a fighter, and if you completely balance them, nobody will want to play a caster anymore.

Casters might be relatively rarer among the wider population of the world, just as any people with PC classes at all are supposed to be, but in adventuring parties they exist 1:1 with fighters: The 'standard' adventuring group is 1 wizard, 1 fighter, 1 cleric, 1 rogue. And those adventuring groups certainly encounter an abnormally high number of evil spellcasters to fight. If they were really at a Tolkienish level of rarity, one adventuring group would manage to exterminate all of them fairly soon. (Huh. That's probably why all successful wizards are paranoid bastards, come to think of it. Otherwise some XP-hounds would have come along and offed them for an adventure.)

Thoughtbot360
2007-11-18, 06:50 PM
That is only because of all the illegal ali- I mean elves, putting a strain on the healthcare system.

Actually, the Elves are putting money into the healthcare system while being unable to benefit from it themselves. Its a long story.


On the subject of the thread, my opinions on the resurrection vs. Insta-killing debate are this: If you can not kill someone, and kill him good, why are you fighting at all? I mean, if someone brings your enemy back, than you are superfluous. Also, if you can bring someone back from the dead, then why protect them? You can throw up your little "but its expensive to raise someone!" argument, but really, the fact that the possibility of ressurection exists means that people will try to find ways to make it cheaper. Also, what is 5,000 gp in diamonds? Don't diamonds become cheaper if we mine a lot? Can't currency inflate? What do the Gods need with diamonds? Can't society and the development of new magical spells eventually circumvent these silly barriers to mass public resurrections?

In short, if we want the dramatic impact of death to have meaning, shouldn't we ban Resurrection outright? For fluff that the immortal soul is both too abstract and too powerful for even magic to influence it, even with the consent of the soul in question? Thats a kind of feel-good justification for it. It also means that any soul-sucking monsters are now extinct or simply replace "kills your soul, destroying all chance of ressurection" with the humble, but now just as effective without ressurection: "kills you. kills you hard."

*to the music of the Mr. Ed theme*
A horse is a horse, of course, of course
Unless it breathes fire and eats your soullllll....

But seriously, I don't care how rich you are, doesn't it just kill the drama to bring back the player (or for that matter, the highly important NPC the players were supposed to escort but failed miserably at?). I mean, every problem can't just be fixed with a little money and a quick spell. And besides, taking away the threat of death can kill the game

Now, instant death, I understand critics of Save or Die. Either instant death is no fun. Whether its a player that gets zapped, or if its the monster its still no fun for the fighters who didn't beat the wizard in initiative and didn't get a turn before the wizard throw up a save-or die. The fact that wizards might easily have higher dex and nothing better to get than Improved initiative compounds the problem.

Zeful
2007-11-19, 02:14 AM
Well the best way to balance Batman is to remove his ability to circumvent his inherant class restrictions. Remove that silly blessed book, it's the cause of a lot of it. Don't let them get enemy wizard's spellbooks (or don't have them fight wizards). And enforce the class's restrictions: Two spells a level, gp cost to scribe more than that and one-hundred pages in spellbooks.
Another thing is to look carefully at every single spell you allow in the game and ban or accept each one on a case by case basis.
and to prevent narcolepsy strategis, give the BBEG more defences, more minions, more powerful minons and give the players less allies, less powerful allies and a smaller resource pool. If the players comlpain, point out it was their fault because they stayed in the wizard's Rope Trick/MMM all day so they can nova on one encounter a day.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-19, 02:21 AM
The OP does bring up an important issue with casters, compared to fighters. Casters don't really need their WBL. A level 20 wizard with naught but his spellbook is still going to knock the socks off of a level 20 fighter with level 20 WBL.

Changing the game to make it so casters need magic items (or some other use for large sums of cash), or making the fighter less reliant on magic items, is a move in the right direction.

This idea is probably a bad one, but what if spellcasters don't have spells per day? What if they can only cast spells from scrolls, wands, and staffs, and their 'spells per day' are only usable for purposes of making magic items?

Sorcerer doesn't work with this model, but what so you think about a wizard like this? It wouldn't work at all at level 1 and 2, but aside from that.

TheOOB
2007-11-19, 02:26 AM
Lets see, remove preparation spellcasting, no other class can remake their ability list every day, remove most of the blatently overpowered spells, give non-casters selectable special abilities they can use(ala ToB), give casters class abilities that scale with levels so they lose something for PrCing.