[3.5] How to balance noncasters and casters...

[arguskos]

Punch the caster's player when they get uppity. Suggestions for method?






This is a joke a friend of mine suggested. Real men obviously use Nerf guns.

[Optimystik]

The problem isn't just that casters overshadow noncasters as the game goes on, but that the noncasters become increasingly ineffective against monsters of appropriate CR without magical support.*

So the game itself makes melee irrelevant, unless your DM just decides to toss out challenging encounters, and omit some monsters entirely.

*or Tome of Battle.

[arguskos]

The problem isn't just that casters overshadow noncasters as the game goes on, but that the noncasters become increasingly ineffective against monsters of appropriate CR without magical support.*

So the game itself makes melee irrelevant, unless your DM just decides to toss out challenging encounters, and omit some monsters entirely.

*or Tome of Battle.

And I am all sorts of aware of this. The thread point was to poke fun at folk who actually think that out of game behavior is an appropriate method of handling in-game balance issues.

Also, yes, you are totally right, and you'll hear no disagreements from me.

[Pluto]

Make the players scrounge up all the spell components their characters use, out-of-game.


If this doesn't deter them, make the players eat the components.

[Optimystik]

And I am all sorts of aware of this. The thread point was to poke fun at folk who actually think that out of game behavior is an appropriate method of handling in-game balance issues.

Also, yes, you are totally right, and you'll hear no disagreements from me.

I know, I just wanted to clarify the issue. A lot of people think that "Well, if nobody plays casters, D&D will be fine" - but the monster manual(s) assume that the party has magical support as early as CR 3 (shadows.)

[AmberVael]

Make the players scrounge up all the spell components their characters use, out-of-game.


If this doesn't deter them, make the players eat the components.

Somehow, I see Eschew Materials becoming insanely popular in that game.

I would add in "you have to use verbal and somatic components too."

The fun part would come in when you don't let them cast the spell if they use the wrong components. And if they use components for the wrong spell, they end up casting a spell they didn't want to cast.

[Volkov]

Kill the party caster's player and burn the body, then dump his ashes at sea....What? It works. And yes, I know this from experience.

[Optimystik]

The fun part would come in when you don't let them cast the spell if they use the wrong components. And if they use components for the wrong spell, they end up casting a spell they didn't want to cast.

Well, verbal components are open to interpretation, since the language of magic or whatnot isn't spelled out anywhere. But Nonverbal Spell solves the speaking issue, or using the spell's name as its verbal component like the Giant does. The somatic components are either described in the spell itself ("tracing a symbol in the air with your finger...") or similarly open to interpretation.

I know I'm taking this thread far more seriously than I should be

[Grumman]

My solution: everyone who feels left out plays casters. Rogue? Unseen Seer. Scout? Swiftblade. Fighter? Jade Phoenix Mage. Spellthief? Ultimate Magus.

[graeylin]

Actually, i think a little of the unbalance does fall squarely on the assumption by many players and DM's that magic spells are Disney-esque "point and shout" and some wonderful effect happens.

Making a spellcaster, from level 1, provide for spell components, even if it's just 'out of the game flow' or flavor, helps remind them that sometimes, you can't just point and pop.

Honestly, how many times have you actually played in a game where protection from evil actually used the chalk circle (or powdered silver circle)? In my career, once 3.0 came along, most of these things went the way of having candles lit, and cobwebs handy, and bits of fleece and pearls of at least 100gp value.

I am not saying this will balance the scales, but it can't hurt to remind the mages that they need hands free, clear voice, spell components, and a bit of time here and there to actually cast their spells.

[Optimystik]

Making a spellcaster, from level 1, provide for spell components, even if it's just 'out of the game flow' or flavor, helps remind them that sometimes, you can't just point and pop.

Honestly, how many times have you actually played in a game where protection from evil actually used the chalk circle (or powdered silver circle)? In my career, once 3.0 came along, most of these things went the way of having candles lit, and cobwebs handy, and bits of fleece and pearls of at least 100gp value.

I am not saying this will balance the scales, but it can't hurt to remind the mages that they need hands free, clear voice, spell components, and a bit of time here and there to actually cast their spells.

I take it you missed Vael's post about Eschew Materials...

There are also a number of PrCs that remove the need for traditional material components entirely, such as Blood Magus and Geometer.

The costly ones are more easily restricted - but casters can be plenty powerful without those spells.

[graeylin]

no, i saw the eschew materials post/suggestion, but
1) it costs a feat to take it, unless the DM is giving it away free. Most mages hate to waste feats.
2) and it only covers the cheap material components... yes, the bit of fleece is covered, but probably not the powdered silver for a 3 foot circle. and it's up to the DM how much a miniature cloak would cost, for example, or a handful of crystal marbles. Perhaps those are just a touch more than a gold piece to craft...

[Runestar]

There aren't really any must-have feats a mage absolutely has to take anyways. Spending them on filler feats would be a waste, but they won't have too great an impact on his power level at the end of the day.

[Optimystik]

no, i saw the eschew materials post/suggestion, but
1) it costs a feat to take it, unless the DM is giving it away free. Most mages hate to waste feats.

If it's a choice between "spend a feat" and "cast no spells," what do you think mages would do?

Spells > feats, this basic lesson is taught by the fighter class.

2) and it only covers the cheap material components... yes, the bit of fleece is covered, but probably not the powdered silver for a 3 foot circle. and it's up to the DM how much a miniature cloak would cost, for example, or a handful of crystal marbles. Perhaps those are just a touch more than a gold piece to craft...

If the DM decides to houserule uncostly components to be costly then that's fine - but it's still a houserule. He might as well ban casters entirely and save himself the trouble of digging through the PHB.

[DragoonWraith]

Actually, i think a little of the unbalance does fall squarely on the assumption by many players and DM's that magic spells are Disney-esque "point and shout" and some wonderful effect happens.

Making a spellcaster, from level 1, provide for spell components, even if it's just 'out of the game flow' or flavor, helps remind them that sometimes, you can't just point and pop.

Honestly, how many times have you actually played in a game where protection from evil actually used the chalk circle (or powdered silver circle)? In my career, once 3.0 came along, most of these things went the way of having candles lit, and cobwebs handy, and bits of fleece and pearls of at least 100gp value.

I am not saying this will balance the scales, but it can't hurt to remind the mages that they need hands free, clear voice, spell components, and a bit of time here and there to actually cast their spells.

Spell components are, and always have been, a joke. No, literally, they're Easter Eggs and failed attempts at humor. The pricey ones have some bit of balance in them, but the negligible ones are very literally, as I've said, a joke.

Making spellcasters keep track of them does not limit their power. What it does do is make them utterly unfun to play without Eschew Materials. Which means you're either instituting a feat tax (a poor choice no matter what the situation is), or you're punishing the player who wants to play a caster by making it less fun to play.

Both are terrible options.

[JaronK]

Make the players scrounge up all the spell components their characters use, out-of-game.

If this doesn't deter them, make the players eat the components.

Then your players play a Shadowcraft Mage and sit there giggling at you.

JaronK

[Starscream]

Joke answer: multiply the amounts of all spell components needed by 100. "How many bushels of bat guano did you end up buying? And you wonder why the other party members are keeping their distance?"

Serious answer: tier system, partial gestalt fix. According to those rules, a tier 1 or 2 character does not gestalt, a tier 3 or 4 character can gestalt with an npc class, a tier 5 or 6 character can gestalt with another tier 5 or 6 class.

Myself, I like to change it around a bit. Experienced optimizers know that the difference in power between a tier 1 class and a tier 2 = Big, the difference between tier 3 and tier 4 = Huge and the difference between 5 and 6 is the difference between "Weak" and "Unplayable".

So I rule that a tier 1 can gestalt with commoner, expert, aristocrat or warrior. A tier 2 can gestalt with any class of tier 6. A tier 3 can gestalt with one of tier 5, and a tier 4 can gestalt with another tier 4.

Works pretty good for a high powered, but fairly balanced game.

[Bibliomancer]

That mainly applies if everyone is an experienced player. Otherwise, inexperienced players naturally gravitate to the easier classes, allowing more experienced players to support them with buffs and provide a logical set-up for the game.

Interestingly, even experienced players sometimes want to play tanks. The most competent optimizer in my campaign prefers playing melee builds. One of the reasons that casters are more powerful is that effort in equals power out for almost all of the classes. Fighter low effort = low power, wizard high effort can equal high power, but low effort equals power on par or below the fighter.

As a result, the proposed tier system, while interesting, won't always work.