Balancing Blaster Wizards (Design Philosophy)

[Talakeal]

(This thread is about my own system, link in sig, but it is conceptual and close enough to D&D or similar fantasy adventure games that you don't need any specific knowledge).


One of my players is unhappy with playing a wizard in my system.

In short, spells are powerful, but limited, you get to cast a dozen or so each mission. (The equivalent of D&D's 4-6 encounter adventuring day).

There is a feat that, each time it is taken, allows you to choose one spell to cast an unlimited number of times.

Spells that require a roll to hit deal roughly as much damage per round as a martial character would.

There are spells that don't require a roll to hit, but they typically deal less damage, are situational, and aren't available to every school.

My player doesn't like using ranged to hit roll spells because there are too many penalties, primarily cover and shooting into close combat.

At the same time, they don't like using melee to hit roll spells because they are a delicate little cloth wearer and don't want to get close to the monsters. (This isn't an innate part of the system, but rather part of the player's build and the wizard "class fantasy").



So then, my player:

Doesn't want to take a damaging spell as an unlimited cast because they feel like they would be doing no better damage than a martial archer and less than a martial melee.
Doesn't want to take a non-damage spell as an unlimited cast as there are no utility spells that are useful every round in every combat.
Doesn't want to cast damaging spells using spell slots because spell slots are better spent on utility spells when the situation is right.
Wants me to buff damaging spells so that casting a damaging spell (in combat) is always as useful as casting the optimal utility spell for that situation.


My philosophy is:

A "batman" wizard is balanced against a martial character by their limited number of spells, otherwise they are clearly superior to other characters.
A "blaster" wizard has much greater utility than a martial character, and so should not be able to exceed a martial character when it comes to dealing consistent damage in combat. (Equal is ok, as are spikes.)
An archer needs to have situational penalties or lower consistent damage; otherwise there is no reason to ever make a martial character who is constrained in only being able to deal damage while adjacent to the enemy.



Thoughts?

[JNAProductions]

The main thing that strikes me is that ranged combat is only superior if you have a front line or distance advantage.

If you have a front line of brutes to hold enemies back, ranged combat is better.
If you can start the combat from 400' away, ranged combat is better.
If you only have ranged peeps and get swarmed by melee mooks, you should be at a heavy disadvantage.

I'd be hesitant to put too many penalties on ranged combat, especially if the game is supposed to have teamwork.

[Pauly]

It depends a lot on HP, especially HP bloat as PCs/enemies level up.

A martial cans wing his or her sword all day. A blaster wizard only gets a limited number of shots.
Going on 4-6 fights and 12 spell spots that means wizards get to cast 2-3 spells per encounter. If a martial typically only swings their sword or looses an arrow 2 or 3 times an encounter then that seems roughly balanced.

Assuming a blaster wizard/martial comparison the aim should be comparable damage per encounter or comparable damage per adventuring day not comparable damage per attack.

The trouble is of course if the caster’s damage output per turn is set too high to offset their limited number of actions per encounter then it inevitably leads to the 5 minute adventuring day.

[Xervous]

One interesting detail you’ve overlooked is that archers generally get shafted (pun intended) in terms of options even when compared to melee martials. Trip, disarm, grapple and the like have their own valuations and may just suck. Good, situational or bad they only tend to present as special options for archers, rather than baseline ones. Many games (D&D like or war games) implement some mechanics that either penalize ranged units in melee, or are only available to melee units for use in melee.

An important question to ask on the ranged / melee topic is whether the system expects melee only, and ranged only units to avoid getting caught in pinch points (and how frequently at that).

Conversations on build resources split across combat and noncombat investments are extremely hard to settle. Even within a campaign the valuations will vary adventure to adventure.

The phrasing of archers having to deal with downsides is a little vague. It’s far better to observe that ranged gameplay has easy to access counterplay and interaction. Melee exists in a binary of CAN or CANNOT attack, they are all or nothing on positioning. Ranged units interact with cover and range intervals at the very least. They have more available targets generally, but those targets have a greater say in how vulnerable they are.

The GM needs to take action for cover and positioning to matter, the balance of ranged units is partly tied up in tactics.


On blaster wizards: hard to quantify because of variable resting patterns.


Edit: my opinionated closing note is that anything built to only do straightforward damage all day deserves to be underwhelming. Mix in a curse that increases damage on the target and transfers to nearby enemies on death? Mix in an attack that imposes conditional damage if the victim does or doesn’t do X? That’s where things get interesting. It’s not direct apples to apples anymore, and it makes things play and feel differently. Opportunity attacks accomplish this, a conditional free attack for melee that provides a tradeoff to encourage enemies staying in melee or avoiding certain actions in melee.

[Talakeal]

It depends a lot on HP, especially HP bloat as PCs/enemies level up.

A martial cans wing his or her sword all day. A blaster wizard only gets a limited number of shots.
Going on 4-6 fights and 12 spell spots that means wizards get to cast 2-3 spells per encounter. If a martial typically only swings their sword or looses an arrow 2 or 3 times an encounter then that seems roughly balanced.

Assuming a blaster wizard/martial comparison the aim should be comparable damage per encounter or comparable damage per adventuring day not comparable damage per attack.

The trouble is of course if the caster’s damage output per turn is set too high to offset their limited number of actions per encounter then it inevitably leads to the 5 minute adventuring day.

This is more or less the same logic my player is operating off of.

Of course, for the price of a single feat, you can now cast said direct damage spells all day every day, and still have the same full suite of utility spells. This is how it currently stands, and such a character is already, arguably, better than a martial.

If the damage of the spells was balanced off of limited casts per day so that they could do a days worth of damage in a few rounds, but then still had the option for unlimited casting of the high damage spell, as well as full utility, that is, imo, a grossly OP character.


Basically; my player feels that a wizard's direct damage spells need to be either as plentiful as arrows OR as powerful as the (more limited) utility spells.

One interesting detail you’ve overlooked is that archers generally get shafted (pun intended) in terms of options even when compared to melee martials. Trip, disarm, grapple and the like have their own valuations and may just suck. Good, situational or bad they only tend to present as special options for archers, rather than baseline ones. Many games (D&D like or war games) implement some mechanics that either penalize ranged units in melee, or are only available to melee units for use in melee.

That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered.

I don't believe it holds true in my system, as there are a few melee only maneuvers, and a few ranged only maneuvers, but most can be used in either case.

Spells, of course, have a full suite of metamagics that dwarf them both.

An important question to ask on the ranged / melee topic is whether the system expects melee only, and ranged only units to avoid getting caught in pinch points (and how frequently at that).

Pardon my ignorance, what exactly is a "pinch point"?

[Xervous]

Pardon my ignorance, what exactly is a "pinch point"?

Generally, a pinch point is a region where something might hurt you if you don’t avoid it, like getting your fingers hurt by the gears in a manual hedge clipper or closing the drawer on your fingers.

In terms of games, it’s a place (typically outside the intended use case) where something undesirable and potentially avoidable happens. For a melee only character it could be flying monkey archers. For a ranged only character it could be surrounded on all sides by kobolds, or automatons that always teleport adjacent to the archer. In other words, I’m talking about a time when the X only character will be wishing they could also do Y where X and Y are a pairing of MELEE/RANGED.

[NichG]

Putting aside the specific player, I would say:

- Martials shouldn't be defined as not having utility. They should just have different kinds of utility.
- Rather than making numbers balance and using limited ammo per day as an extra factor, I'd rather focus design on the decisions someone has to make during an encounter, and have classes be differentiated by the different sorts of decisions they're making.
-- Ideally the structure of combat is paced in such a way that characters built around versatility and correct decision making are too busy doing other things to want to do their standard pewpew.

So for example, the questions that a melee player has to answer are:
- Can I take out this enemy before they take me out, given that we will be exposed to each-others full force?
- How can I get to or be where I need to be in order to actually deploy my damage?
- Where should I focus fire?

A ranged blaster normally is answering very similar questions, except that they swap 'how do I position myself so as to not draw fire?' in place of the first question. So that's not all that different really, maybe not the best line to draw between classes especially if a melee fighter can also pick up a bow and use it competently.

As an example of one alternative: I might make the blaster different by having their damage have a different profile over time, which requires a bit more intelligent target selection and coordination with the rest of the party. For example, a ranged blaster with a one-two punch sort of setup: the first round they can start a targeting sequence on a specific enemy (dealing no damage), and in the second (and third, and fourth...) rounds they do 3x the per-round damage that a sword or bow based character would deal but only to that target (so basically 50% more damage on average by the second round, and 100% if they can continue on the same target on a third round). Or even they do a single pop at 4x, but then they need to put up the targeting sequence again. Or even just simply something like 'if they pull off the targeting sequence and it isn't invalidated, they auto-hit with their followup at 2x normal' so its beneficial for them to prioritize the enemies that are hardest for the others to hit, but they're not doing more damage on average against an easy-to-hit enemy. On the one hand, their average damage is significantly higher, but on the other hand they suffer the costs of 'that enemy still gets an extra action to damage/kill/etc us or to negate my targeting effect' as well as the issue that someone else dropping that enemy or making the enemy an invalid target in the mean time means they wasted their charge-up. You could make this gentler by e.g. letting them tag multiple potential targets as they level (from which they still need to pick one) or letting them get abilities that permit them to swap targets when one becomes invalid, at the cost of a damage reduction down to the normal per-round damage of a per-round attacker (which still means they wasted an action, so this is effectively half-normal-DPR when they misjudge).

Another example would be spells that create suppressive fire zones by creating 'turrets' that can stack action economy as the fight progresses, but can't move. So for example the spell could create a fixed turret with a 90 degree any cone of fire out for 120ft, which each round can attack a target within that cone for 'normal DPR' damage, including the round that its summoned. However, the caster can keep summoning turrets up to an eventual maximum of 4 or 5. But since the turrets are fixed, if enemies are mobile, they can prevent that buildup by moving in such a way that the turrets can't layer - if they can afford to cede that ground, and if someone else isn't pinning them in place somehow.

That's a simple pattern, but the idea is to create interesting decisions which can be made correctly or incorrectly, and let that modulate the effective power so it can either be weaker or stronger than another character based on how well the player understands making that particular kind of decision. The important thing is what kinds of considerations and decisions the abilities introduce in order to be used well. Then when those decisions are made correctly, its fine if it results in something more powerful than a minimal decision baseline (which would e.g. be an archer plinking away from safety).

[Spore]

My two cents but only because I recently got into Dark Souls/Elden Ring and spells are viable in these games but often only as a supplement. First of all, spells use ressources so their damage must always be higher than an arrow or a sword.

Secondly, you have to have the time to actually cast it. Some sort of reverse initiative (fastest person goes last, but can attack casters making their powerful spell fail). Thirdly adjust the majority of spells to be at medium range, the range that can easily be traversed if no hindrances are in the way. Long range spells get "penalties" from that, either your hit rolls, less damage, or no side effects above a certain threshold (say a fireball does not inflict burning status).

Lastly give the player options to "protect" their casts. Be it other defensive spells that reduce incoming damage and dont allow for interruption. Maybe an incantation circle that makes spells almost instant. And of course give rider effects to your blasts. Fireballs do more damage on burned victims, acid does periodic damage, cold slows and lightning staggers (halves actions each turn with a chance).

Part of why I never/always see Fireballs in D&D is because they are easy and boring. Roll damage, apply damage, done. There is nothing interesting about them.

[Talakeal]

First of all, spells use ressources so their damage must always be higher than an arrow or a sword.

Out of curiosity, do you value versatility at all?

Because IMO, even if spell slots are more limited than swords, a sword is just a sword all day long, while a spell slot can do practically anything.

[King of Nowhere]

(This thread is about my own system, link in sig, but it is conceptual and close enough to D&D or similar fantasy adventure games that you don't need any specific knowledge).


One of my players is unhappy with playing a wizard in my system.

In short, spells are powerful, but limited, you get to cast a dozen or so each mission. (The equivalent of D&D's 4-6 encounter adventuring day).

There is a feat that, each time it is taken, allows you to choose one spell to cast an unlimited number of times.

Spells that require a roll to hit deal roughly as much damage per round as a martial character would.

There are spells that don't require a roll to hit, but they typically deal less damage, are situational, and aren't available to every school.

My player doesn't like using ranged to hit roll spells because there are too many penalties, primarily cover and shooting into close combat.

At the same time, they don't like using melee to hit roll spells because they are a delicate little cloth wearer and don't want to get close to the monsters. (This isn't an innate part of the system, but rather part of the player's build and the wizard "class fantasy").



So then, my player:

Doesn't want to take a damaging spell as an unlimited cast because they feel like they would be doing no better damage than a martial archer and less than a martial melee.
Doesn't want to take a non-damage spell as an unlimited cast as there are no utility spells that are useful every round in every combat.
Doesn't want to cast damaging spells using spell slots because spell slots are better spent on utility spells when the situation is right.
Wants me to buff damaging spells so that casting a damaging spell (in combat) is always as useful as casting the optimal utility spell for that situation.


My philosophy is:

A "batman" wizard is balanced against a martial character by their limited number of spells, otherwise they are clearly superior to other characters.
A "blaster" wizard has much greater utility than a martial character, and so should not be able to exceed a martial character when it comes to dealing consistent damage in combat. (Equal is ok, as are spikes.)
An archer needs to have situational penalties or lower consistent damage; otherwise there is no reason to ever make a martial character who is constrained in only being able to deal damage while adjacent to the enemy.



Thoughts?

I assume that feat to cast a spell for free has limitations? I don't think you'll let your wizard cast banshee's wail all day.

And it's very hard to judge. my experience in balance to the table is that only the table is qualified to assess it. there are too many variables. really, when i was less experienced I tried to get advice from the forum for balance; I got a worse deal than I could have done myself. there is just too much stuff that only applies to your table that you intimately know, and nobody else here knows.
so the best advice on how to balance I can give on this forum is: don't trust forums in regard to balance.

So, once established that I cannot tell you what to do, I can give you an additional factor to consider: can the fighter get buffed to increase his damage? Can the wizard do the same?

because using buffs correctly makes a world of difference.

[Kane0]

Sounds like your player doesn't want to (overly) risk his magic not working, but also doesn't want to be penalized in damage/effectiveness for deciding that.

Assuming your system is actually balanced and he hasn't legitimately hamstrung himself through no fault of his own, you may just need to plant the foot and say no, with the appropriate explanation from both the in game and out of game viewpoints.

If the player is actually in a poor position mechanically speaking, or has (appropriate) thematic goals that are not being matched by the mechanics, then it is on you as the game dev to correct that. This will mean getting additional data from the player, and potentially reading between the lines of that feedback to correct a root cause rather than the symptoms.

[Talakeal]

Sounds like your player doesn't want to (overly) risk his magic not working, but also doesn't want to be penalized in damage/effectiveness for deciding that.

Assuming your system is actually balanced and he hasn't legitimately hamstrung himself through no fault of his own, you may just need to plant the foot and say no, with the appropriate explanation from both the in game and out of game viewpoints.

If the player is actually in a poor position mechanically speaking, or has (appropriate) thematic goals that are not being matched by the mechanics, then it is on you as the game dev to correct that. This will mean getting additional data from the player, and potentially reading between the lines of that feedback to correct a root cause rather than the symptoms.

That's how I feel. But "balance" is such a subjective and negative term that I thought it would be best for me to float his opinions by the forum to see if they actually have any merit or are just kvetching.

[Kane0]

That's how I feel. But "balance" is such a subjective and negative term that I thought it would be best for me to float his opinions by the forum to see if they actually have any merit or are just kvetching.

We cannot speak for a system you have tailored yourself. In the end it becomes a question of 'is overall game balance more important than the experience at this particular table, this particular time'

I'm inclined to prioritize harmony in the given instance rather than a theoretical use case, even if I were publishing my own system ironically enough.

[GeoffWatson]

Most wizard players hate balance. To them wizards have to be the best and smartest and most powerful and most versatile.
Other characters can be better at mundane, boring **** like swinging a sword, but that's not really important.
(Unless there's a spell like Tensers Transformation so the wizard can be best at that too.)

[MetroAlien]

sorry for starting with a tangent, but your description reminded me of a browser flash game (remember when those were a thing?)

TL;DR
don't underestimate squishiness/tankiness. I say that because you only talk about damage output in your examples.

basically the game was a turn-based RPG without positioning, distance etc... just click on an action to use it, then the enemy acts.

Wizards dealt elemental damage, flavoured as spells that use mana with each attack, and some utility, like shields, stuns, buffs, debuffs.
Fighters had higher health, flavoured as wearing armour.

This all sounds reasonable, if a bit cliche, by itself.
On paper, the wizard sounds "obviously better" than the fighter, given the higher potential for damage when hitting an elemental weakness and added utility.

In practice, wizards had to use both health and mana potions, and do so more often than the fighters due to having lower health.
This significantly decreased their damage output over multiple turns, making turns a precious resource, which in turn (pun intended) meant it was impractical to "waste" turns on utility spells.

So wizards were weaker, while simultaneously costing more money than fighters, despite potentially dealing more damage with each individual attack.

----

going back to your example,
you say that ranged attacks are "simply better" but is that really the case?
How many ranged hits (not just attacks) can a character get in your system before they are forced into close-quarters combat?

If the answer is closer to 5 than 20, then we're not talking about a primary ranged character. We're talking about a squishier, weaker melee character, who has a situational opportunity to sometimes deal "normal" damage.

You say utility makes wizards "simply better" than a pure martial class,
but are there ample chances for your wizard to use said utility, while gaining the same benefit as dealing damage?

Martial characters are not devoid of utility either.
They can position themselves and use zone of control to manipulate the flow of battle. They can distract enemy rangies and keep enemy assassins at bay through sheer presence.
Basically, the majority of tactics in D&D like games plays around martial characters, rather than pure damage wizards.
And they do all that while also still getting to swing their sword!
For free!
Forever!

Can your wizard get similar utility as a martial character?
Without sacrificing damage output?
without risking more than the fighter in terms of % of health in damage to themselves? (5 dmg to a wizards health is more than 5dmg to the fighter!!!)
Without locking themselves out of other options for the rest of the encounter due to resources?
Without locking themselves out of other options for the rest of the campaign due to level progression?

[Dasick]

Depending on how frequently it happens, having an innate feat to be able to shoot fire out of your hands has it's own advantage over using a ranged weapon - you can't be disarmed and you can't run out of ammo, and you can easily conceal your weapon.

I think there is a deeper issue with how "wizards" are played in role playing games. Chucking fireballs and taking names, with intelligence only really being useful for that modifier. I think it's pretty cool how much the magic users in your system are defined by their utility, and casting the right spell for the situation, and that your player recognizes how powerful the utility spells can be.

None of this would convince your player of being wrong I'd wager though

A possible solution to satisfy "fireball chuckers" would be to add more powerful damaging spells that require several spells or extensive set up to cast. Either through set ups (you use a spell to douse enemies in flammable grease, then you chuck a fireball) or because casting "meteor shower" requires you to cast several specific spells as part of the larger spell ritual. Having to burn through several spell slots will give the unlimited casting feat utility as it would be reducing the number of spell slots you need to burn through and give you a back up. It would also be something that will be denying your player those utility spells that they don't want to burn through.

Another possible solution would be to allow magic users to put temporary enchantments on weapons they use that make the magic user decent enough to deal consistent damage with it or to mitigate certain penalties (depending on school), or give themselves "fireball hands" that allow the player to chuck fireballs for the duration of the cast. If the enchantment lasts a mission, it's using a spell slot for a consistent damage output, which is not the same as using a feat for that. "Why not just be an archer that can cast spells and those enchantments?" - the enchantment should give the magic user decent rolls, but nothing compared to a dedicated martial player, be vulnerable to disenchantment and spell protection and losing that specific enchanted item, it might be just barely enough to last a mission, or be situational or dependent on other spells being cast to really excel and surpass the martial build in terms of damage output.

[MrStabby]

(This thread is about my own system, link in sig, but it is conceptual and close enough to D&D or similar fantasy adventure games that you don't need any specific knowledge).


One of my players is unhappy with playing a wizard in my system.

In short, spells are powerful, but limited, you get to cast a dozen or so each mission. (The equivalent of D&D's 4-6 encounter adventuring day).

There is a feat that, each time it is taken, allows you to choose one spell to cast an unlimited number of times.

Spells that require a roll to hit deal roughly as much damage per round as a martial character would.

There are spells that don't require a roll to hit, but they typically deal less damage, are situational, and aren't available to every school.

My player doesn't like using ranged to hit roll spells because there are too many penalties, primarily cover and shooting into close combat.

At the same time, they don't like using melee to hit roll spells because they are a delicate little cloth wearer and don't want to get close to the monsters. (This isn't an innate part of the system, but rather part of the player's build and the wizard "class fantasy").



So then, my player:

Doesn't want to take a damaging spell as an unlimited cast because they feel like they would be doing no better damage than a martial archer and less than a martial melee.
Doesn't want to take a non-damage spell as an unlimited cast as there are no utility spells that are useful every round in every combat.
Doesn't want to cast damaging spells using spell slots because spell slots are better spent on utility spells when the situation is right.
Wants me to buff damaging spells so that casting a damaging spell (in combat) is always as useful as casting the optimal utility spell for that situation.


My philosophy is:

A "batman" wizard is balanced against a martial character by their limited number of spells, otherwise they are clearly superior to other characters.
A "blaster" wizard has much greater utility than a martial character, and so should not be able to exceed a martial character when it comes to dealing consistent damage in combat. (Equal is ok, as are spikes.)
An archer needs to have situational penalties or lower consistent damage; otherwise there is no reason to ever make a martial character who is constrained in only being able to deal damage while adjacent to the enemy.



Thoughts?

Firstly, kudos to you for being open minded about this. Its easy for the creator of a system to see that players have different expectations and think the player is wrong, or to think they don't understand balance - just because they have a different view to you.

There are a few things that I would start by asking/saying:

1) What actually happens in play? Now what could happen or is expected to happen - what actually happens. If there are great utility elements for casters but they don't get used because the players jump to violence every time, or if the utility elements are used but out of a three hour session those utility uses take 6 minutes whilst combat takes 100 minutes then you sense of the importance of things is going to be quite different to that of your players. Balancing utility and combat and then hand-waving away utility will rarely work. One of the other things to flesh out and might be a game style thing, is consequences. Consequences for failure in combat is frequently death. Consequences for not getting a message through in time might be a a big plot twist, but the consequences might not fall on the players... or frequently there is another way to get a message through or another way to circumvent the consequences. DMs tend to give a lot of second chances when it comes to utility rather than "well you didn't find the treasure map. Your characters insead live out their lives in relative obscurity in their local village We will now spend the next 8 sessions playing PnP Farm Simulator". It may be metagamey, but realistically the immediate, experienced dramatic consequences for a failure to be good at something is not always that deep.

2) What does the player want gameplay to be like for them? What is their balance of risk and reward and how does their character choice reflect that? You seem to have a sense of what they want to be good at, but how deep does that go? Damage - yes, but single target or crowds? Do they want some iconic spell they frequently use - or is part of the experience they desire to be picking the right tool for the job? How do they measure success - peak damage, average damage, turns they contributed on?

3) Versatility is cool, but only if people want it. I have played games where I have had a character in mind that focusses on specific things, then the DM gives out loads of magic items to help them do other things... and then argues that my character shouldn't do the tings it was actually focussed at being good at because it was so "versatile". Its a tough call in a class based sysem - each class will have beloved abilities and more peripheral abilities that just don't mean as much to the players. Some features just wouldn't be bought in a point-buy system. Thise are all opportunities - if an ability/capability is of low value to a player but other players feel it encroaches on their role, then it is a grea one to change.

4) Others have mentioned defence, but its worth emphasising a bit more. Not even just defence but a lot of passive abilities. Can speed be related to athletic prowess? Can you use an injury system based on toughness so more delicate characters suffer penalties more easily? Can saves be better for martial characters (I am not saying that things like academic study are not sometimes hard, but the sheer will to keep going in the moment isn't like what is needed to run a marathon - D&D's pushing of will saves to casters for example might be a bit odd). A tweak of the system to allow somewhat debilitating but not catastrophic debuffs more readily might make DMs more comfortable using them and therefore allowing a martial's ability to resist them to come up much more often.

5) If you are using spell slots, measure what isn't done as much as what is. A wizard that has enough spells for 5 encounters and only faces 5 encounters isn't actually going to feel very limited. If the wizard faces 10 encounters but 5 of them are pretty trivial, then they still won't miss their resources much. As long as the marginal value of that extra spell slot is high, the caster can feel that their limitations are meaningful. Wizards tend to be very powerful as whilst they might not be able to turn around every encounter, they can frequently choose which ones to do - dominating encounters is ok if it isn't systematic, but dominating the most epic, fun and generally importnt encounters is an issue. Justifying greater spell power on the basis of limited useage can work for a pretty abstract notion of balance, but realistically not every encounter is as important.

6) Your impact is what you actually do. Any option you might have had for a turn that you didn't actually use has no particular value. Versatility adds power over specialism where doing something more appropriate is better than doing something inappropriate but better. I think that a real balance here is great - to enable both to be viable. I would suggest that most of this is not just about classes but fundamentally about game srtucture. As an example I look to D&D 5e where hitting 0HP is a bit of a big deal (in terms of incapacitated is a powerful status effect) but anywhere else your remaining HP doesn't matter - as a result healing is unlikely to be a great thing to do even if you get massive bonuses to healing. The bonuses from good positioning are modest compared to Ensuring your game has the right balance of rewards

I think that it would be useful to make sure your sustem supports a baseline capability for most classes for different functions - utility, damage, control, crowds... whilst there might be some suplimentary strengths and each would deliver on these roles in their own and very different ways, it would at least ensure there is a cost to specialising. Exchanging being worse at something you were so bad at that you would never do anyway, in exchange for being better at something you would like to do as much as possible is a bit of a trivial no-brainer.


Spells that are better or worse at hitting than martial attacks - even if they use similar mechanics does sound interesting. It may make one option better vs high AC enemies, and others better vs low AC enemies (or whatever equivalent to AC is in your system).

[Talakeal]

Most wizard players hate balance. To them wizards have to be the best and smartest and most powerful and most versatile.
Other characters can be better at mundane, boring **** like swinging a sword, but that's not really important.
(Unless there's a spell like Tensers Transformation so the wizard can be best at that too.)

Lol. True that.

Although in this case it pretty much is the wizard wanting to be better at swinging a sword than the swordsman, its just that the sword happens to also be magic.

don't underestimate squishiness/tankiness. I say that because you only talk about damage output in your examples.[/I]

Absolutely true.

But squishiness is not an innate part of being a spell-caster in my game. Most players do choose to play traditional feeble-bodied robe clad wizards or knights in shining armor, but that isn't a requirement of the system, and a reckless fragile duelist or heavilly armored tank-mage are both possible builds, so I didn't balance offense against defense at this level, although some schools of magic are slanted one way or the other.

The closest thing is that wizards need both their hands free to cast spells at full effectiveness so cannot easily use a shield, but I already balanced their offensive abilities against two handed weapons to account for it.

How many ranged hits (not just attacks) can a character get in your system before they are forced into close-quarters combat?

If the answer is closer to 5 than 20, then we're not talking about a primary ranged character. We're talking about a squishier, weaker melee character, who has a situational opportunity to sometimes deal "normal" damage.

Couldn't give you a precise answer. Could be zero, could be infinity.

Depends so much on numbers, builds, terrain, etc.

But, I will say, the unless you are in 1:1 with a fast, sticky, opponent, you are still going to be able to use ranged attacks in melee, even if it isn't optimal.

You say utility makes wizards "simply better" than a pure martial class, but are there ample chances for your wizard to use said utility, while gaining the same benefit as dealing damage?

There is almost always going to be a spell that is better for the current situation than dealing damage. Whether or not a given wizard knows the right spell or is willing to expend the spell slot...

Martial characters are not devoid of utility either.
They can position themselves and use zone of control to manipulate the flow of battle. They can distract enemy rangies and keep enemy assassins at bay through sheer presence.
Basically, the majority of tactics in D&D like games plays around martial characters, rather than pure damage wizards.
And they do all that while also still getting to swing their sword!
For free!
Forever!

None of that is exclusive to a martial character though.

Wizards can do all of that, often better than a martial.

Most of them don't, however, because they typically have better things to do, both in terms of build choices and how to spend their turns in combat.

Can your wizard get similar utility as a martial character?
Without sacrificing damage output?
without risking more than the fighter in terms of % of health in damage to themselves? (5 dmg to a wizards health is more than 5dmg to the fighter!!!)
Without locking themselves out of other options for the rest of the encounter due to resources?
Without locking themselves out of other options for the rest of the campaign due to level progression?

Depends on how you build the character.

As I said in the OP, for (the equivalent of) a single feat, a wizard can choose a spell to be able to cast unlimited times.

With this feat, they deal ~ the same damage as a martial character without losing out on any of the above without sacrificing any of the utility or resources of their other spells.

IMO this is a balanced trade off, but my player, on the other hand, thinks I should balance a caster to be significantly better at damage dealing than a martial to balance out the spell slots lost without this feat.

Depending on how frequently it happens, having an innate feat to be able to shoot fire out of your hands has it's own advantage over using a ranged weapon - you can't be disarmed and you can't run out of ammo, and you can easily conceal your weapon.

For sure.

A possible solution to satisfy "fireball chuckers" would be to add more powerful damaging spells that require several spells or extensive set up to cast. Either through set ups (you use a spell to douse enemies in flammable grease, then you chuck a fireball) or because casting "meteor shower" requires you to cast several specific spells as part of the larger spell ritual. Having to burn through several spell slots will give the unlimited casting feat utility as it would be reducing the number of spell slots you need to burn through and give you a back up. It would also be something that will be denying your player those utility spells that they don't want to burn through.

A dedicated evoker is basically going to out-damage everyone as is because they have so many different direct damage spells that they will almost always have just the right spell for the occasion. Whether or not they are willing to expend the spell slot on any given round though, that is the question.

Another possible solution would be to allow magic users to put temporary enchantments on weapons they use that make the magic user decent enough to deal consistent damage with it or to mitigate certain penalties (depending on school), or give themselves "fireball hands" that allow the player to chuck fireballs for the duration of the cast. If the enchantment lasts a mission, it's using a spell slot for a consistent damage output, which is not the same as using a feat for that. "Why not just be an archer that can cast spells and those enchantments?" - the enchantment should give the magic user decent rolls, but nothing compared to a dedicated martial player, be vulnerable to disenchantment and spell protection and losing that specific enchanted item, it might be just barely enough to last a mission, or be situational or dependent on other spells being cast to really excel and surpass the martial build in terms of damage output.

Those are already options in my system.

We cannot speak for a system you have tailored yourself. In the end it becomes a question of 'is overall game balance more important than the experience at this particular table, this particular time'

Maybe not in specifics, but we can certainly try and quantify just how valuable things like power, versatility, and endurance / consistency stack up against one another as a general design principle.

I assume that feat to cast a spell for free has limitations? I don't think you'll let your wizard cast banshee's wail all day.

There are limitations, but not that one.

My system doesn't use vancian casting, rather a set number of casting attempts per mission, and more powerful spells are less likely to go off successfully. So unlimited attempts to cast banshees wail aren't innately more powerful than infinite attempts to cast magic missile.

The actual limitations are that you have to wait until the previous spell's duration expires before casting it again and that spells which simply create resources out of thin air are intelligible.

Not that this has too much bearing on this discussion.

So, once established that I cannot tell you what to do, I can give you an additional factor to consider: can the fighter get buffed to increase his damage? Can the wizard do the same?

because using buffs correctly makes a world of difference.

Both characters can get buffed. I will say that buffer wizard + buffed fighter is probably a more effective combo than self buffed wizard and unbuffed fighter though.

- Martials shouldn't be defined as not having utility. They should just have different kinds of utility.
- Rather than making numbers balance and using limited ammo per day as an extra factor, I'd rather focus design on the decisions someone has to make during an encounter, and have classes be differentiated by the different sorts of decisions they're making.

-- Ideally the structure of combat is paced in such a way that characters built around versatility and correct decision making are too busy doing other things to want to do their standard pew-pew.

So for example, the questions that a melee player has to answer are:
- Can I take out this enemy before they take me out, given that we will be exposed to each-others full force?
- How can I get to or be where I need to be in order to actually deploy my damage?
- Where should I focus fire?

A ranged blaster normally is answering very similar questions, except that they swap 'how do I position myself so as to not draw fire?' in place of the first question. So that's not all that different really, maybe not the best line to draw between classes especially if a melee fighter can also pick up a bow and use it competently.

This is all true.

I am not making the stupid "guy with a pointy stick vs. guy who can rewrite reality by will alone" argument you often see in these threads, but I will say that they are fundamentally different sorts of utility. Violence is the ultimate form of conflict resolution, and swordsmen and gunslingers make for really cool action heroes and fun gameplay, but at the end of the day, each school of magic allows you to rewrite 1/15th of all natural laws; that is a whole different level of utility than can conceptually be attributed to a weapon skill.

Note that I am talking about skills here, not characters. There are very few things a wizard can do that a martial simply can't, but they aren't all based around skill with a weapon.

Most characters can do both melee and ranged, but are typically only specialized in one. Likewise, all casters have atleast one form of direct damage, although they aren't all optimal for all situations.

Generally, a pinch point is a region where something might hurt you if you don’t avoid it, like getting your fingers hurt by the gears in a manual hedge clipper or closing the drawer on your fingers.

In terms of games, it’s a place (typically outside the intended use case) where something undesirable and potentially avoidable happens. For a melee only character it could be flying monkey archers. For a ranged only character it could be surrounded on all sides by kobolds, or automatons that always teleport adjacent to the archer. In other words, I’m talking about a time when the X only character will be wishing they could also do Y where X and Y are a pairing of MELEE/RANGED.

I see.

I would say its really more of a spectrum than a singular point, and that most players will be feeling "the grass is always greener" in any encounter where their build isn't optimal, but obviously some are more extreme than others.

This bears further thought.

Firstly, kudos to you for being open minded about this. Its easy for the creator of a system to see that players have different expectations and think the player is wrong, or to think they don't understand balance - just because they have a different view to you.

There are a few things that I would start by asking/saying:

1) What actually happens in play? Now what could happen or is expected to happen - what actually happens. If there are great utility elements for casters but they don't get used because the players jump to violence every time, or if the utility elements are used but out of a three hour session those utility uses take 6 minutes whilst combat takes 100 minutes then you sense of the importance of things is going to be quite different to that of your players. Balancing utility and combat and then hand-waving away utility will rarely work. One of the other things to flesh out and might be a game style thing, is consequences. Consequences for failure in combat is frequently death. Consequences for not getting a message through in time might be a a big plot twist, but the consequences might not fall on the players... or frequently there is another way to get a message through or another way to circumvent the consequences. DMs tend to give a lot of second chances when it comes to utility rather than "well you didn't find the treasure map. Your characters insead live out their lives in relative obscurity in their local village We will now spend the next 8 sessions playing PnP Farm Simulator". It may be metagamey, but realistically the immediate, experienced dramatic consequences for a failure to be good at something is not always that deep.

2) What does the player want gameplay to be like for them? What is their balance of risk and reward and how does their character choice reflect that? You seem to have a sense of what they want to be good at, but how deep does that go? Damage - yes, but single target or crowds? Do they want some iconic spell they frequently use - or is part of the experience they desire to be picking the right tool for the job? How do they measure success - peak damage, average damage, turns they contributed on?

3) Versatility is cool, but only if people want it. I have played games where I have had a character in mind that focusses on specific things, then the DM gives out loads of magic items to help them do other things... and then argues that my character shouldn't do the tings it was actually focussed at being good at because it was so "versatile". Its a tough call in a class based sysem - each class will have beloved abilities and more peripheral abilities that just don't mean as much to the players. Some features just wouldn't be bought in a point-buy system. Thise are all opportunities - if an ability/capability is of low value to a player but other players feel it encroaches on their role, then it is a grea one to change.

4) Others have mentioned defence, but its worth emphasising a bit more. Not even just defence but a lot of passive abilities. Can speed be related to athletic prowess? Can you use an injury system based on toughness so more delicate characters suffer penalties more easily? Can saves be better for martial characters (I am not saying that things like academic study are not sometimes hard, but the sheer will to keep going in the moment isn't like what is needed to run a marathon - D&D's pushing of will saves to casters for example might be a bit odd). A tweak of the system to allow somewhat debilitating but not catastrophic debuffs more readily might make DMs more comfortable using them and therefore allowing a martial's ability to resist them to come up much more often.

5) If you are using spell slots, measure what isn't done as much as what is. A wizard that has enough spells for 5 encounters and only faces 5 encounters isn't actually going to feel very limited. If the wizard faces 10 encounters but 5 of them are pretty trivial, then they still won't miss their resources much. As long as the marginal value of that extra spell slot is high, the caster can feel that their limitations are meaningful. Wizards tend to be very powerful as whilst they might not be able to turn around every encounter, they can frequently choose which ones to do - dominating encounters is ok if it isn't systematic, but dominating the most epic, fun and generally importnt encounters is an issue. Justifying greater spell power on the basis of limited useage can work for a pretty abstract notion of balance, but realistically not every encounter is as important.

6) Your impact is what you actually do. Any option you might have had for a turn that you didn't actually use has no particular value. Versatility adds power over specialism where doing something more appropriate is better than doing something inappropriate but better. I think that a real balance here is great - to enable both to be viable. I would suggest that most of this is not just about classes but fundamentally about game srtucture. As an example I look to D&D 5e where hitting 0HP is a bit of a big deal (in terms of incapacitated is a powerful status effect) but anywhere else your remaining HP doesn't matter - as a result healing is unlikely to be a great thing to do even if you get massive bonuses to healing. The bonuses from good positioning are modest compared to Ensuring your game has the right balance of rewards

I think that it would be useful to make sure your sustem supports a baseline capability for most classes for different functions - utility, damage, control, crowds... whilst there might be some suplimentary strengths and each would deliver on these roles in their own and very different ways, it would at least ensure there is a cost to specialising. Exchanging being worse at something you were so bad at that you would never do anyway, in exchange for being better at something you would like to do as much as possible is a bit of a trivial no-brainer.


Spells that are better or worse at hitting than martial attacks - even if they use similar mechanics does sound interesting. It may make one option better vs high AC enemies, and others better vs low AC enemies (or whatever equivalent to AC is in your system).

I will reply in more detail later, but two things:

1: When I say utility / versatility, I don't just mean out of combat stuff. Summons, buffs, terrain manipulation, mind control, etc. are all utility effects that have tactical in combat benefits.

2: My game is not class based. I am comparing martial skills vs. magic skills, not whole characters. Although, as I said above, most people do tend to stick to classic archetypes.

[gbaji]

Well. This is one of the reasons why I'm not a huge fan of Vancian style magic systems. It artificially creates very different use/balance points for magic verus non-magic combat (and utility for that matter).

I much prefer some form of mana cost system for spellcasting (and I knew a guy who implemented such a system for 1e D&D waaaay back in the day). If you think about it, a melee characters ability to perform in combat is more or less gated by an expendable stat: HPs. The longer they are in combat, the more damage they do, and the more damage (encounter balance specific) they will take. And as their HPs wane, they must require some sort of healing to offset it, which comes from some sort of magic (or something with a "cost" anyway). Which becomes a very scalable granular resource.

Spells are trickier. Especially spells with slots and levels attached. Tie them to mana points, which act similarly to HPs and must be regained similarly to HPs, and a lot of the problems with balance disappear (or at least are somewhat more easily balanced). Instead of having a specific number of specific type/power/utility spells, you have a whole list of spells you "know" or "have memorized", and just cast them. More powerful spells cost more mana and/or take more time to cast. Just as more powerful melee attacks may have some costs associated with them which may likely be paid for via more HPs lost (higher damage usually means less defense in melee combat, right?).

Yeah. More of a game system concept than a mere adjustment. But this kind of system allows for much greater flexibility for spell casters, which can allow them to make better choices "on the fly" about spell use. IME the biggest frustration for primary spell casters (especially arcane casters in D&D) is the requirement to prepare spells ahead of time. And yes, in that system, there is a balance in that if you have the right spells prepped you are godlike, but if you have the wrong ones, not so much. It's the reason they came up with sorcerers in the first place, but even that is tied to "X spells of Y level" dynamics. You have to balace spells a bit differently in a mana point system, but it's quite doable. Again though, that's likely a bigger change than you are looking for.

[Dasick]

I was thinking about this in "math" terms

So a spellcaster has about a dozen spell attempts per mission, there are 4-6 encounters per mission.

Which means that the spellcaster has about 2-4 spell attempts per encounter, which can fail. Within those 2-4 spell attempts the caster has to output enough damage to match what the martial characters are doing throughout the combat encounter. If that isn't happening, it's an issue of balance. If that can be happening, but the player isn't choosing to do so, then it could be an issue of communication.

Is it possible that the caster is cagey with the spell attempts because they can (and frequently do) fail? Because if all of your damage output per fight is going to be 2-4 rolls, it's pretty easy to blow two rolls. Whereas if the ranged martial character has a couple dozen arrows, that's more consistent

"Another possible solution would be to allow magic users to put temporary enchantments on weapons...blah blah blah"
"Those are already options in my system."

Which leads me here. Seems like there are already options for spellcasters to output similar levels of damage to other builds. But for some reason the wizard player isn't using those options. Does the player know about it? It could be that players are coming in with ideas from other RPG systems, namely pathfinder and dnd, and what playing a wizard feels like there, whereas your rulebook does mention that you want it to be more of a low magic kind of system.

[NichG]

This is all true.

I am not making the stupid "guy with a pointy stick vs. guy who can rewrite reality by will alone" argument you often see in these threads, but I will say that they are fundamentally different sorts of utility. Violence is the ultimate form of conflict resolution, and swordsmen and gunslingers make for really cool action heroes and fun gameplay, but at the end of the day, each school of magic allows you to rewrite 1/15th of all natural laws; that is a whole different level of utility than can conceptually be attributed to a weapon skill.

Note that I am talking about skills here, not characters. There are very few things a wizard can do that a martial simply can't, but they aren't all based around skill with a weapon.

Most characters can do both melee and ranged, but are typically only specialized in one. Likewise, all casters have atleast one form of direct damage, although they aren't all optimal for all situations.

Sounds like the equivalent of a 'weapon skill' should be a 'spell skill' rather than a school of magic skill then. E.g. 'rapier' and 'magic missile' are the same sorts of thing, rather than like 'rapier' and 'transmutation'.

Or instead of a 'weapon skill', it could be a 'martial school' skill. So e.g. the Aikido skill would encompass grappling, counter-grappling in response to grabs, counter-disarm in response to weapon attacks, general balance, reactive movement (e.g. rolls), and general ability to avoid being harmed or forced prone when falling, as well as even some social uses like de-escalation negotiation.

[Kane0]

Oh yeah, is all his damage output dependant one roll, or fewer rolls than the weapon equivalent? Putting a limited resource like a spell attempt into something that can fail entirely on a poor roll is a pretty good incentive to try something else that is more reliable.

To use a 5e equivalent, its like choosing to cast bless or cure wounds over guiding bolt. Guiding bolt is a good spell with solid damage and utility, however youre using an action and casting on an attack roll that can miss and be entirely wasted. While there is no guarantee that bless or cure wounds will have an equal or greater impact, they wont be a complete waste of your casting and turn.

[gbaji]

I was thinking about this in "math" terms

So a spellcaster has about a dozen spell attempts per mission, there are 4-6 encounters per mission.

Which means that the spellcaster has about 2-4 spell attempts per encounter, which can fail. Within those 2-4 spell attempts the caster has to output enough damage to match what the martial characters are doing throughout the combat encounter. If that isn't happening, it's an issue of balance. If that can be happening, but the player isn't choosing to do so, then it could be an issue of communication.

This also assumes we're measuring a "mission" in terms of encounters. The issue can come up with utility as well. Rogues can search for traps as many times as they want. Fighters can bend/break things as often as they want. This applies to pretty much any utility ability. But casters (assuming we're talking about "pure" spell casting class like situations) are stuck either being left out of that entirely, or using utility spells to do this, but then detracting from their combat encounter capabilities.

No other classes are reduced in terms of combat capability because they used their non-combat utility abilities. I mean, we could suppose that if those abilities carried risks (like being damaged if you fail), then they do take HP resources maybe, but then that's often translated into spell capability anyway in terms of healing. So... Same deal. But there's no real correlation to spending a spell slot to bypass that trap, or levitate someone up over a wall, or whatever other utility spells you might use. And yeah, you would think most spell casters would see the value in spending spell slots more or less trivializing some obstacles that might otherwise be extremely diffciult and/or dangerous, but some just don't.

Which leads me here. Seems like there are already options for spellcasters to output similar levels of damage to other builds. But for some reason the wizard player isn't using those options. Does the player know about it? It could be that players are coming in with ideas from other RPG systems, namely pathfinder and dnd, and what playing a wizard feels like there, whereas your rulebook does mention that you want it to be more of a low magic kind of system.

That does seem to maybe be the case here. My understanding of the game system is that it's very flexible in terms of spell casting versus other abilities. There's no need to be a "glass cannon" spell caster, but apparently this one player insists on playing that trope anyway. And to be honest, it's sometimes tricky to get long time "wimpy robed wizard" players used to the concept that "Um... yeah. You have spells if you take these sets of skills, none of which preclude you also taking some non-combat utility skills/abilities, nor some combat skills/abilities, nor maybe wearing some armor maybe, or having good HPs, etc..."

So this could very well just be a failure of imagination by the player. I don't know how much time/effort I'd spend bending to a player really really wanting to play a character type that doesn't really fit into the game system itself. Maybe just point out to the player that there's nothing preventing them from taking a few skill points in <some weapon skill> and putting on some armor, and then going in and fighting in addition to their spell casting? Ok. So maybe they'll have a few fewer spells per day. Maybe. Not sure of the specifics, but assuming there's some tradoff here. But trying to play a pure spell caster in a game system that doesn't require that to be a spell caster just seems silly.

I play a RQ varient in my regular game. I have a number of characters who are primarily arcane type spell casters. Every single one of them has some pretty decent combat skills as well. Heck. One of them is very very skilled at fighting (and that spell system really is designed more for "combat buffs" instead of "direct damage magic" anyway). Sorcerers in RQ are basically folks with some combat enhancement magic, and a ton of utility spells as well. You *can* play a "robed wizard" type character, but you actually really do have to go out of your way to do that and make it work.

And what's better than having a character who can stand in the back of the party and cast spells at the enemy? A character who can do that and *also* kick butt against any enemy who decides to run up and attack them. Why artificially limit yourself?

[Talakeal]

To clarify, "magic missile" is the generic term in my system for spells which require a roll to hit and then deal damage. There are eight of them across various schools, and they are more or less the equivalent of the direct damage cantrips in 5E.

Sounds like the equivalent of a 'weapon skill' should be a 'spell skill' rather than a school of magic skill then. E.g. 'rapier' and 'magic missile' are the same sorts of thing, rather than like 'rapier' and 'transmutation'.

Or instead of a 'weapon skill', it could be a 'martial school' skill. So e.g. the Aikido skill would encompass grappling, counter-grappling in response to grabs, counter-disarm in response to weapon attacks, general balance, reactive movement (e.g. rolls), and general ability to avoid being harmed or forced prone when falling, as well as even some social uses like de-escalation negotiation.

The three combat skills are melee, unarmed, and marksmanship and cover all weapons of those types.

Individual spells and individual weapons are both specialties within the skills.

Your idea for Aikido is interesting, but I think it works better in a game like FATE with less concrete rules about what falls under a different category and less tied into the other mechanics of the system.

I was thinking about this in "math" terms

So a spellcaster has about a dozen spell attempts per mission, there are 4-6 encounters per mission.

Which means that the spell caster has about 2-4 spell attempts per encounter, which can fail. Within those 2-4 spell attempts the caster has to output enough damage to match what the martial characters are doing throughout the combat encounter. If that isn't happening, it's an issue of balance. If that can be happening, but the player isn't choosing to do so, then it could be an issue of communication.

Is it possible that the caster is cagey with the spell attempts because they can (and frequently do) fail? Because if all of your damage output per fight is going to be 2-4 rolls, it's pretty easy to blow two rolls. Whereas if the ranged martial character has a couple dozen arrows, that's more consistent

Which leads me here. Seems like there are already options for spell casters to output similar levels of damage to other builds. But for some reason the wizard player isn't using those options. Does the player know about it? It could be that players are coming in with ideas from other RPG systems, namely pathfinder and dnd, and what playing a wizard feels like there, whereas your rulebook does mention that you want it to be more of a low magic kind of system.

This is all more or less correct, but do keep in mind that martial characters can also miss their attacks, and there are ways to build for more endurance (such as the feat which allows you to cast a spell an unlimited number of times which this character has).

A caster who isn't tied to a single spell is in a pretty bad spot casting the same thing every round, but they have the luxury of choosing precisely the right spell for the right situation, and there are plenty of situational spells that damage enemies without needing a roll to hit and minimal chance of failure.

Well. This is one of the reasons why I'm not a huge fan of Vancian style magic systems. It artificially creates very different use/balance points for magic verus non-magic combat (and utility for that matter).

I much prefer some form of mana cost system for spellcasting (and I knew a guy who implemented such a system for 1e D&D waaaay back in the day). If you think about it, a melee characters ability to perform in combat is more or less gated by an expendable stat: HPs. The longer they are in combat, the more damage they do, and the more damage (encounter balance specific) they will take. And as their HPs wane, they must require some sort of healing to offset it, which comes from some sort of magic (or something with a "cost" anyway). Which becomes a very scalable granular resource.

Spells are trickier. Especially spells with slots and levels attached. Tie them to mana points, which act similarly to HPs and must be regained similarly to HPs, and a lot of the problems with balance disappear (or at least are somewhat more easily balanced). Instead of having a specific number of specific type/power/utility spells, you have a whole list of spells you "know" or "have memorized", and just cast them. More powerful spells cost more mana and/or take more time to cast. Just as more powerful melee attacks may have some costs associated with them which may likely be paid for via more HPs lost (higher damage usually means less defense in melee combat, right?).

Yeah. More of a game system concept than a mere adjustment. But this kind of system allows for much greater flexibility for spell casters, which can allow them to make better choices "on the fly" about spell use. IME the biggest frustration for primary spell casters (especially arcane casters in D&D) is the requirement to prepare spells ahead of time. And yes, in that system, there is a balance in that if you have the right spells prepped you are godlike, but if you have the wrong ones, not so much. It's the reason they came up with sorcerers in the first place, but even that is tied to "X spells of Y level" dynamics. You have to balace spells a bit differently in a mana point system, but it's quite doable. Again though, that's likely a bigger change than you are looking for.

Agreed. My system is not vancian, and is actually a bit more fluid than most spell-point systems.

I will say that I don't see why HP is necessarily a melee resource though; as unless they are very smart of very sneaky, everyone takes damage sometimes.

Oh yeah, is all his damage output dependant one roll, or fewer rolls than the weapon equivalent? Putting a limited resource like a spell attempt into something that can fail entirely on a poor roll is a pretty good incentive to try something else that is more reliable.

Direct damage spells require a roll to hit and then roll for damage. They are almost exactly as effective as an equally skilled archer attacking with a bow.

[NichG]

The three combat skills are melee, unarmed, and marksmanship and cover all weapons of those types.

Individual spells and individual weapons are both specialties within the skills.

Your idea for Aikido is interesting, but I think it works better in a game like FATE with less concrete rules about what falls under a different category and less tied into the other mechanics of the system.

The broader point is just that the difference in versatility between martial and magical options is a matter of choosing the level of abstraction for both of them, not something unavoidable because of thematic constraints. I could for example make a breakdown that causes martial stuff to be way more versatile than magic stuff but have it still feel like martial and magical stuff respectively thematically, by changing how I set that level of abstraction.

E.g. under magic if instead of using schools in the D&D sense, I had a skill for 'each kind of effect': a skill for causing damage, a skill for healing, a skill for changing the shape of material, a skill for creating material, a skill for summoning, a skill for movement, etc, then that wouldn't reduce what 'magic as a whole' is capable of, but it would mean that becoming an all-rounder who can arbitrarily rewrite the laws of reality means a lot of horizontal investment.

Similarly, if at the same time instead of organizing martial stuff by specific effect, but instead by competencies like 'sword: this lets you do anything one might do with a sword - parry, counter, strike, feint, disarm' (much less if you expand that to a fantasy context with stuff like sending out vacuum blades or cutting the un-cuttable or honing the edge so that you can divide a boulder with a stick or other such things), then I'd have weighted things to make the martial stuff more versatile than magic in the end, at least with the metagame bound of asking about investment into a single solitary skill.

So like, if you have one thing where there's a skill to a category and multiple things you can do under it (a school and its spells), you can organize other things the same way to make it easier to have parity in versatility - e.g. pick as the martial skills things where it makes sense for there to be multiple different things you can do under them, which can all be quite specific to the same level that spells within a school of magic are quite specific and not just 'narrate how the spell school helps you solve this problem' that you'd get if you went full FATE.

[icefractal]

It sounds like part of the issue is that if a blasting spell is balanced for unlimited use then it's weak-sauce in limited use. And the other spells that can be taken with the unlimited use feat get around this by not being repeatable for credit in most situations.

So maybe the answer is that blasting spells should have X effect when taken with the unlimited use feat, and X+Y effect when they're using up a slot.

Of course, given prior info about your group, chances are high that this wouldn't make the player in question happy because really he wants the "big" effect every round. But it would at least make them more worthwhile in general usage.

[Talakeal]

It sounds like part of the issue is that if a blasting spell is balanced for unlimited use then it's weak-sauce in limited use. And the other spells that can be taken with the unlimited use feat get around this by not being repeatable for credit in most situations.

So maybe the answer is that blasting spells should have X effect when taken with the unlimited use feat, and X+Y effect when they're using up a slot.

Of course, given prior info about your group, chances are high that this wouldn't make the player in question happy because really he wants the "big" effect every round. But it would at least make them more worthwhile in general usage.

IMO they can already do that by picking exactly the right spell for the job at hand; for example a fire spell against a flammable target, a poison spell against someone with a low fortitude, a psychic spell against someone with low willpower, an aoe spell against a tightly packed group, etc.

[Kane0]

IMO they can already do that by picking exactly the right spell for the job at hand

But is he? Is he a 'just fireball' mage, and/or is that all he *wants* to be while you keep pointing to things that arent fireball and saying 'all this stuff addresses your problems with fireball not being as amazing as you want it to be' ?

[Talakeal]

But is he? Is he a 'just fireball' mage, and/or is that all he *wants* to be while you keep pointing to things that aren't fireball and saying 'all this stuff addresses your problems with fireball not being as amazing as you want it to be' ?

If he wants to just be fireball guy, that is absolutely fine, build fireball guy.

But then that swings back around to the initial question, why does fireball guy deserve to be inherently better than sword guy or arrow guy?

[Anonymouswizard]

Most wizard players hate balance. To them wizards have to be the best and smartest and most powerful and most versatile.

Ah, ye olde Mage* philosophy. Although to be fair to Mage (both Ascension and Awakening) they never expected willworkers to form parties with anybody but other mages, so it might be better to call it the Monte Cook philosophy. But yeah there's pretty good arguments for wizards not teaming up with other character types, and honestly all-mage games can be fun when you get to start at the cosmic level.

Of course that's not to say that magicians shouldn't be in mixed groups, but IMNSHO they should always be 'Xs who also do magic'. When you're not playing an all-mage setup it can be very tempting to fall upon magic as a character's 'thing', leading to disappointment when magic isn't the optimal solution.


So going to the player, he's a combat mage. What does this mean? If they served in a war then in addition to their magic they probably know how to set up a camp, do basic field medicine, have the stamina to march for extended periods, and possibly even have knowledge of tactics, strategy, and logistics. If they trained to be a monster hunter they should have a decent knowledge of biology (to help use the optimal spell), probably tracking skills, maybe even some social skills to gather information from weaknesses. If they've gone all-in on casting spells, only get a dozen a mission, and have to sit around being useless when they don't have a relevant spell, then I'd argue that feeling useless when their spells are no better than a warrior's bow is pretty justified (if at least partially their own fault).

How do you balance a blaster wizard? The same way you balance a Big Stupid Fighter: make them more than just a wizard.

* Which amusingly does come down pretty hard on damage spells. Dice pools for casting raise pretty slowly, and you generally lose out on the extra damage weapons grant. IIRC they can also be resisted, whereas guns ignore Defence. Probably better to just turn your enemies into fire hydrants instead.