Fluff to balance mechanics?

[Myrmex]

I'm making a campaign world for D&D 3.5 where arcane casters are purged by the Church with holy fire. I've given the non-casters and semi-casters (paladin, ranger) some boosts to damage and attack (the two weapon fighting tree is now a single feat, I've cut down the number of skills to around 25, feats that gave static bonuses now scale), but I haven't taken any steps towards introducing ToB level casterness to martial classes. Of course, increases in damage aren't really what non-casters need, they need new mechanics to do stuff like fly or borrow time from the future so they can hurt you more right now.

I'm wondering, though, could I just make casting socially risky, so that players are hesitant to throw spells around? Getting hunted by an inquisitorial squad 5 levels higher than you with access to all your spells, and more (gg Archivist), seems like it could keep casters in check.

All clerics must be of The Church (at least nominally), otherwise they are forbidden from performing miracles within Church lands (everywhere, for now). This means that clerics will be obligated to prepare healing type spells, since they are presumed to spend their time tending their flock, as well as under obligation to tithe and jump through Church hoops. Basically, clerics will have their WBL docked.

Psions are under no such restrictions, since I've never found psionics to be that abusive, and the Church thinks psionics is a gift. And I've also never run a psionic heavy campaign.

Anyway, I guess what I'm asking is- does giving casters out of combat headaches by making it riskier for them to solve every problem with magic balance out their ability to end fights in a couple turns?

I also plan on having long days, as I've instituted a sort of healing surge mechanic with the heal skill and some feats.

Anyway, your thoughts and experiences on this sort of thing?

[Artanis]

The way to balance casters' ability to do anything they want is to take away their ability to do anything they want. If done thoroughly enough, it sounds like your idea might just work.

[Tsotha-lanti]

It works, in my experience. In our Middle-Earth games (MERP and RM), the PCs rarely used magic - at least powerful magic - because of the chance of the Enemy noticing it. The table basically had an option for a Nazgûl to come after you if you cast a spell, so...

In our Dark Sun games, the PCs basically avoided using arcane magic unless they were already in mortal danger, since using arcane magic and not being an authorized defiler of the local Sorcerer-King means you're going to be killed or imprisoned (by people who know very well how to imprison arcane spellcasters).

I don't think it works out that great in D&D, though, since D&D spellcasters don't really have any other options. Firing bolts for 1d8 damage per round (provided you don't move) is pretty pathetic. It's unfair to the players of casters, since they're basically forced to sit out fights and similar scenes until they really have to use magic. If you contrive of an explanation that only limits spellcasting outside of combat, though, you may be on to something.


Also, if you think psionics is less of a problem than magic, you just don't understand the powers well enough. In fact, psionics is horribly overpowered if there's few encounters per day, since the psions can go nova and use as many PP as they can on all their powers. This is what happened in our Dark Sun campaign, and everyone was constantly astounded by the psion's power because we were used to one encounter per day, but hadn't combined psions with it.

[bosssmiley]

OK. So far, so good. But how are you going to implement this magic-fearing society mechanically? If there are no mechanics to model reaction you're laid open to the charge of screwing over the arcane casters by DM fiat, especially if clerics and psions have (relatively) free rein.

• Will there be a penalty to reaction checks for being a known arcanist (or dressing/acting like one)?
• Will there be wizards licenses or casting taxes? Or is there just a blanket ban on wizardry?
• What anti-arcanist wards are in place in this society?
• Is there going to be a %age chance (set or variable) that the local Witchsmeller Pursuivant and his inquisitorial henchchumps sense arcane casting in the vicinity?
• What about sorcerers born with magic in their blood? How are they perceived? Are they unfortunate souls who must resist the temptation of their innate sinful powers? Or are they accursed and hated by the gods?

You might want to look up Dark Sun for a view of a society that bans and persecutes arcane casting outside the hierarchy, or possibly the Known World/Mystara setting's nation of Glantri for a country that goes to the other extreme (a magocracy where clerics, and dwarves, are illegal. This has some obvious-in-hindsight repurcussions when a post-war plague hits). WFRP, Ars Magica and Mage are also good source material.

I also plan on having long days, as I've instituted a sort of healing surge mechanic with the heal skill and some feats.

Sounds interesting. Any notes you can post on it?

[Justin B.]

In my experience, social factors are some of the best ways to limit arcane power abuse.

Simply stated, some of the useful tools for creating abuse can easily be eliminated because there is no powerful arcane study. When a character writes Arcane Thesis: Orb of Fire, and Energy Admixture on his sheet, you can go "Wow, those are neat tricks, how long did you spend studying them? Because there's certainly no one around to give you access to that kidn of advanced arcane information."

Sure, they can still have them if you allow it and they spend the time to research it or have it written into their backstory, but those things bring further roleplay to the game, which is always good. (In my opinion.)

[kamikasei]

All clerics must be of The Church (at least nominally), otherwise they are forbidden from performing miracles within Church lands (everywhere, for now). This means that clerics will be obligated to prepare healing type spells, since they are presumed to spend their time tending their flock, as well as under obligation to tithe and jump through Church hoops. Basically, clerics will have their WBL docked.

That seems odd to me. The cleric is getting his spells directly from his deity, after all. If the deity sees fit to grant them, why would the Church forbid him to use them? Why wouldn't the Church use its powerful divine emissaries as the ass-kicking warrior-chaplains they're so good at being? (Not least because they don't actually need to prepare cure spells, unless you mean that they're expected to load up on restorations and remove diseases.)

(More fundamentally, it seems odd to me for a church to penalize divine casters as much as arcane. This sort of thing is usually done with priests censoring wizards, or something along those lines.)

Psions are under no such restrictions, since I've never found psionics to be that abusive, and the Church thinks psionics is a gift. And I've also never run a psionic heavy campaign.

That's a breath of fresh air :D

Anyway, I guess what I'm asking is- does giving casters out of combat headaches by making it riskier for them to solve every problem with magic balance out their ability to end fights in a couple turns?

Not entirely. The restriction means it's as bad for them to use non-abusive spells as abusive, and that when they do venture to use magic they might as well go all-out. The game isn't balanced around very occasional use of magic; it assumes you'll be throwing spells around each encounter, it just underestimates how useful many of those spells will be. Limiting that has the effect more of making wizards Experts 90% of the time and extra broken the other 10% because they're desperate and have nothing to lose.

The real key to balancing casters is judicious houseruling of certain spells and effects coupled with open discussion between DM and players of what they want from the game. That won't make casters perfectly balanced, but it will hopefully keep their contribution from overshadowing everyone else and damaging the fun at the table.

(That said, a magic-is-socially-troublesome setting is perfectly viable and worthwhile, it just won't solve all your balance concerns. Be aware of knock-on effects to things like magic item availability, though, which can hurt non-magical classes too.)

Also, if you think psionics is less of a problem than magic, you just don't understand the powers well enough. In fact, psionics is horribly overpowered if there's few encounters per day, since the psions can go nova and use as many PP as they can on all their powers.

I also plan on having long days

Psions have fewer powers overall, fewer which are seriously abusable, and those are mostly less abusable than the worst spells anyway. Their set powers known make them easier for a DM to anticipate. What you bring up is a well-known caveat of the system that the OP will have addressed anyway.

[Set]

Balance should be handled mechanically, IMO.

If certain spells are a problem, find what makes them a problem, and nix that. (For instance, shapechange, by itself, isn't a problem. A badly written monster that has spellcasting as an Ex ability *is* a problem.)

If spellcasting *as a whole* is a problem, then make an adjustment to spellcasting, as a whole.

Options;

1) All 'standard action' spells now take a Full-Round Action to cast (and go off at the end of the round). No more 'I ready an action to interrupt him' or 'I ready an action to counterspell' or 'I hope I get an AoO to break his concentration,' because the spellcaster is locked in place, casting his little heart out, and your fighter can wait until his turn on the initiative track, charge over and beat the fool down. Just like in 1st and 2nd edition. :)

2) Perhaps all spellcasting requires a Spellcraft check, and can fail (or even Wild Surge on a 1).

3) All spellcasting comes with some kind of cost.

3.1 - Perhaps each spell cast requires a Fortitude save with an increasing penalty depending on the level of the spell cast. On a failed roll, the spell *can* still succeed, but the caster becomes Fatigued (or can choose to fail the spell to avoid being Fatigued).

3.2 - Perhaps each spell cast causes a point of nonlethal damage per spell level, so that a caster is forced to very carefully ration his casting. Note that, under your setup, only divine casters would be able to heal hit point damage, which means that an arcanist who isn't working under the auspices of the church is going to be hosed!

[Tsotha-lanti]

Balance should be handled mechanically, IMO.

That's only true of game systems. The actual rulebooks and supplements for a game - one in which "balance" has any currency, anyway - should present relatively balanced material. At the table, balance means something else altogether, and can absolutely be - in fact, it inescapably is - a combination of mechanics and roleplay.

[Sliver]

How about spellcasters always having some sort of restriction on their spellcasting, something like once per hour or so.. And then, in battle they go into battle mode and the restriction is temporarly surpressed.

[Justin B.]

That's only true of game systems. The actual rulebooks and supplements for a game - one in which "balance" has any currency, anyway - should present relatively balanced material. At the table, balance means something else altogether, and can absolutely be - in fact, it inescapably is - a combination of mechanics and roleplay.

Quoted for Truth and Justice. Seperation of fluff and mechanics is a great concept when dealing with optimization (though somewhat limiting to the specific character concepts you can play) but when it comes down to character interaction, there are certain factors that mechanics simply can't handle as well as the fluff.

In this case, the fluff can handle balance much much easier than any mechanic could ever possibly do. (Not to say that better mechanics couldn't help significantly.)

[Artanis]

Balance should be handled mechanically, IMO.

There's on small problem with this: people have been trying to do this for a very long time, and it's very, very hard to do. Even if it is more or less successful, stuff tends to get through anyways.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Psions are under no such restrictions, since I've never found psionics to be that abusive, and the Church thinks psionics is a gift. And I've also never run a psionic heavy campaign.

"No, ye lordship, that was not a Fireball I cast, but an Energy Ball, for I am a psion, not a sorcerer."

Bluff, a class skill.

[Doc Roc]

I think this is a categorically bad plan, as it punishes the people who are there to mesh with the world and doesn't really affect psionics. That seems bizarre to me. Further, it seems like an eminently avoidable effect, with the simple purchase of invisible spell from cityscape, a feat made for just this purpose. :S

[hamishspence]

Ranks in Knowledge Arcana granting circumstance bonuses to Sense Motive, if the somatic, verbal, and material component use is present, and noticed.

Still, interesting concept.

[kamikasei]

"No, ye lordship, that was not a Fireball I cast, but an Energy Ball, for I am a psion, not a sorcerer."

*lord's sage whispers in his ear*

"Well, then you won't mind if we gag and bind you before your next demonstration, so."

[Doc Roc]

You do know that psionics has display components, neh?

[kamikasei]

You do know that psionics has display components, neh?

Ones pretty much trivial to eliminate, though. - but not to imitate for a non-psion, so yeah, good point.

[hamishspence]

And they are a bit different from arcane ones. Though it is possible a not very experienced mage-hunter might not know about it.

a mage using appropiate feats, Still, Silent, Eschew Materials, might be hard to tell from a psion.

[scsimodem]

Sounds a little overboard to 'balance' out arcane casters. If you're having a problem with arcane casters, here's a few questions.

1. Is it really a problem?
Achieving ideal game balance shouldn't be the primary objective of messing around with a tabletop game unless you're playing competitively. If the wizard is 'technically' more powerful, it can still work. I played a wizard who used what some friends of mine called 'dirty magic' (think 'dirty fighting'), that is, using spells for things the designers clearly never intended, but were viable given the current mechanical effects of the spell. I didn't overshadow the other characters because they each had their own talents and I spent almost as many spells beefing them up as I did killing stuff. Also, the other players had me as a 'get out of jail free card.' If the situation seemed hopeless, I usually had a plan (and I justified it with knowledge skills, such as tactics). The DM also liked it because it encouraged the other players to be creative with what they had and allowed him to throw 'impossible' encounters at us just to see how we would un-impossible them.

2. How do the arcane casters in your party feel?
If you have arcane casters in the party, ask them how they feel about this. Work with the party members and, as mentioned earlier, try not to make it sound like you just hate arcane casters and want to be able to smack them with the nerf bat by DM fiat whenever you feel like it.

3. Does the feel of the world flow naturally?
If the arcane caster rules seem arbitrary and contrived, then you destroy willing suspension of disbelief and remind everybody of what it really is: a set of circumstances designed to reign in arcane casters. Make sure your church has a good reason for reigning in arcane casters that doesn't coincide with your own. In a world I played in, arcane casting was heavily regulated after a war involving massive numbers of casters on both sides nearly wiped out civilization.

As for my honest opinion, I think you should follow the Wheel of Time model of caster forbiddence, treating divine casters as female channelers and arcane casters as male channelers. Male channelers can still operate in Wheel of Time, so long as they don't draw too much attention to themselves. Most peasants are too afraid of them to fetch help, and are just as afraid as the help they would have to fetch. Many will take the side of the caster if he helps them. Same goes for Solars in Exalted. I say use these examples.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

*lord's sage whispers in his ear*

"Well, then you won't mind if we gag and bind you before your next demonstration, so."

Still, Silent Spell.

You do know that psionics has display components, neh?

Suppressible on a DC 15 Psicraft check.

[Doc Roc]

technically DC 15+power level, but due to the augment system that's really almost a meaningless difference.

[kamikasei]

Still, Silent Spell.

To pretend to be a psion four levels lower than you are.

Suppressible on a DC 15 Psicraft check.

Ah, but the psion could simply not suppress them, and thus prove he's a psion. (Also, it's DC 15+level Concentration.)

[Pharaoh's Fist]

To pretend to be a psion four levels lower than you are.

What's the problem? You avoid execution, don't you?

Ah, but the psion could simply not suppress them, and thus prove he's a psion. (Also, it's DC 15+level Concentration.)

There's probably an easy way to mimic the manifestations, such as with a Major/Minor Image spell.

Just toss up a Major Image, and project an aura about yourself as you fire off an image of an Energy Ball.

[Raum]

I'm wondering, though, could I just make casting socially risky, so that players are hesitant to throw spells around?
- snip -
Anyway, I guess what I'm asking is- does giving casters out of combat headaches by making it riskier for them to solve every problem with magic balance out their ability to end fights in a couple turns?

Depends on the group. Will they find the limitations fun? Will they role play them? Or will they look for loopholes? Forge a permit and cast whatever... And, if they will look for loopholes, is that the type of game you want?

It will work for some groups, won't work for others.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I'm making a campaign world for D&D 3.5 where arcane casters are purged by the Church with holy fire.
...
I'm wondering, though, could I just make casting socially risky, so that players are hesitant to throw spells around?

You could always make all arcane spellcasters tainted.

[Yukitsu]

I've seen a DM try this, ending the campaign with swathes of dead inquisitors and a much higher than average EXP acquisition curve.

[Lamech]

You could always make all arcane spellcasters tainted.

NO! NO! NO! Oh dear god, NO!
"Oh hi Mr. Dragon whats your fort save again? 203? Wow... thats low. Will? 197? Thats worse. Phantsmal Killer."
Never under any circumstances allow the tainted PrC's. It won't end well. I exagerate, but those save DC's can be pumped HIGH.

I'm wondering, though, could I just make casting socially risky, so that players are hesitant to throw spells around? Getting hunted by an inquisitorial squad 5 levels higher than you with access to all your spells, and more (gg Archivist), seems like it could keep casters in check.

How do these squads get the foul magics? Seems contradictory if they hate it all. And more importantly if the archivists have all those spells, you just shifted the problem to archivists. Oops.

[JonestheSpy]

I don't think it works out that great in D&D, though, since D&D spellcasters don't really have any other options. Firing bolts for 1d8 damage per round (provided you don't move) is pretty pathetic. It's unfair to the players of casters, since they're basically forced to sit out fights and similar scenes until they really have to use magic. If you contrive of an explanation that only limits spellcasting outside of combat, though, you may be on to something.

One of my solutions to this is to beef up wizard skill points - counter intuitive, I know, as they already get a bunch because of their intelligence. But think of Gandalf and other classic wizards - they don't throw the magic around that much really, but they are incredibly valuable because they know so damn much.

I bump skill points to 4+ int, and add skills like Heal, Spot, Diplomacy, disguise, Sleight of Hand, and a few others to their class list. Kind of make them a non-Dex or STR based skillmonkey.

Still not perfect for a campaing that leans to combat more than anything else, but I think it rounds out the class in a very interesting way, and makes up for other limitations the DM imposes.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

NO! NO! NO! Oh dear god, NO!
"Oh hi Mr. Dragon whats your fort save again? 203? Wow... thats low. Will? 197? Thats worse. Phantsmal Killer."
Never under any circumstances allow the tainted PrC's. It won't end well. I exagerate, but those save DC's can be pumped HIGH.

Ah...is there no way to cap/fix/nerf that?

[Quietus]

Ah...is there no way to cap/fix/nerf that?

From what I see, the reason this result happens is that you end up with a tain score, which reduces your constitution/wisdom; With levels of Tainted Sorcerer, you negate the con penalty, and take 1/2 your Taint score as a penalty on Wisdom (instead of the full score). So you can basically get a Taint score of (2*con -1) without going comatose.

And then, you apply your Taint score as your Spellcasting ability, rather than Int/Cha. So if you had, say, a 14 Wis, you can get up to 27 Taint "safely". Of course, this means Wisdom damage = unconscious... and you have to make a Fort save every time you cast a spell or gain more Taint, which means failed Fort save = unconscious... but if you were to pump your Wisdom through the roof as a Wizard/Sorcerer, then replace int/cha with Taint, you could get a very high save DC indeed. It'd just come at the risk of going unconscious the moment something targets your Wisdom or you fail a fort save (10+spell level every time you cast a spell).