{kjd-exp} Limiting spellcasters

In article <slrngj6mps.t56.keith.davies DeleteThis @kjdavies.org>,
Keith Davies <keith.davies DeleteThis @kjdavies.org> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I've seen comments before about how the full spellcasters (especially
> wizards, druids, and clerics -- the latter two are fullcasters with
> *more* stuff) are overpowered at high levels. I'm prepared to believe
> this; fighters, rogues, and monks tend to be the poor cousins once you
> get past a certain point (opinions vary as to what point).
>
> What if spellcasters were to be limited to no more than half their
> levels in a spellcasting class (half plus one; you can lead off with a
> spellcasting class, so you can have a Wiz1, Wiz1/Ftr1, but not a Wiz2)?
>
> I raised this question in an IRC channel I'm in, got back a few
> responses and reasons why it's bad:
>
> * it makes spellcasters weaker
>
> (um, that's rather the point)
>
> * it makes encounters unbalanced, because encounters are designed on the
> expectation of the higher-level spells!
>
> (if this makes the spellcasters too weak, what does it do to the
> *non*-spellcasters?)
>
> * it's dumb that some classes are limited this way and others aren't
>
> (okay, apply the same rule to all classes -- Ftr10/Bbn10 is allowed,
> but Ftr20 and Bbn20 aren't.)
>
> OTOH, I can see various benefits to this.
>
> * mixed-class builds become more common (required, if this rule is
> applied to all classes). You'd start seeing build-based differences
> in characters of the same 'primary class' (for instance, I'd expect to
> see a lot of differences between different types of 'clerics').
>
> * PC-driven magic, or at least spellcasting takes a lesser role in the
> game (design goal).
>
> * Spellcasters have the ability to be tougher and more versatile
> *without* resorting to magic, rendering the non-spellcasting abilities
> meaningless.
>
> I haven't really taken a lot of time to think about this, I figured I'd
> toss it out here to see what others come up with.
>
>
> Thoughts, questions, comments?

High level magic is fun. If you need to balance the classes, pump the
fighters.

One of the ways in which it's more balanced IOC is we have a larger base
party facing larger encounters. The fights take longer to crunch, but
you have more decision making going on. It tends to be harder to deploy
artillery when you may also need to defend against incoming skirmishers.

There are usually 3 areas where magic users are considered unbalanced:

1) raw damage dealing power
2) all or nothing spells
3) more options

I think I'd favor toning down 2 and making sure fighters get more access
to 1 and 3. Being a fighter doesn't mean you don't have magic. Shoot,
one of the funnest things about being a crafting mage is gearing up the
party.

- Allen

- Allen

Keith Davies wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've seen comments before about how the full spellcasters (especially
> wizards, druids, and clerics -- the latter two are fullcasters with
> *more* stuff) are overpowered at high levels.

I agree: Clr and Drd are probably the "best" classes in the game.
Wiz is a bit weaker, but still "better" than the others.
If we assume a certain value for "best" and "better"...

> I'm prepared to believe
> this; fighters, rogues, and monks tend to be the poor cousins once you
> get past a certain point (opinions vary as to what point).

I believe this too.

> What if spellcasters were to be limited to no more than half their
> levels in a spellcasting class (half plus one; you can lead off with a
> spellcasting class, so you can have a Wiz1, Wiz1/Ftr1, but not a Wiz2)?

Or you could just say max. levels in Clr, Drd, Sor, Wiz is 11.
Otherwise studying magic (or developing in the case of Sor) would
only be possible as a part-time activity, which is counter-intuitive
to me.

> I raised this question in an IRC channel I'm in, got back a few
> responses and reasons why it's bad:
>
> * it makes spellcasters weaker
>
> (um, that's rather the point)



> * it makes encounters unbalanced, because encounters are designed on the
> expectation of the higher-level spells!
>
> (if this makes the spellcasters too weak, what does it do to the
> *non*-spellcasters?)

If caster classes are restricted to 10th level and don't have
6th-9th level spells, monsters should have the same restriction.
Applied to supernatural abilities too - SR is another issue.

> * it's dumb that some classes are limited this way and others aren't
>
> (okay, apply the same rule to all classes -- Ftr10/Bbn10 is allowed,
> but Ftr20 and Bbn20 aren't.)

Ftr/Brb 10/10 still has high hp and BAB +20...

> OTOH, I can see various benefits to this.
>
> * mixed-class builds become more common (required, if this rule is
> applied to all classes). You'd start seeing build-based differences
> in characters of the same 'primary class' (for instance, I'd expect to
> see a lot of differences between different types of 'clerics').
>
> * PC-driven magic, or at least spellcasting takes a lesser role in the
> game (design goal).
>
> * Spellcasters have the ability to be tougher and more versatile
> *without* resorting to magic, rendering the non-spellcasting abilities
> meaningless.
>
> I haven't really taken a lot of time to think about this, I figured I'd
> toss it out here to see what others come up with.
>
>
> Thoughts, questions, comments?

While it's true that Clr, Drd and Wiz are "powerful",
not everybody likes to play them.

Many players don't like to be told what to do by some god,
they don't want to be tree-huggers or weaklings who are
a dead duck without their spellbook.
Some players want to be able to survive a barroom brawl
at level 1 ...

I thought about something else lately:

1. spell DC depends on caster level instead of spell's level

2. saving throw progression becomes better (good becomes +17,
poor becomes +10 at 20th level)

This way all spells of a high level caster are more difficult to
resist against than those of a low level caster.
But all saves are higher, making spells weaker in general.

LL

Keith Davies wrote:

> I've seen comments before about how the full spellcasters (especially
> wizards, druids, and clerics -- the latter two are fullcasters with
> *more* stuff) are overpowered at high levels. I'm prepared to believe
> this; fighters, rogues, and monks tend to be the poor cousins once you
> get past a certain point (opinions vary as to what point).
>
> What if spellcasters were to be limited to no more than half their
> levels in a spellcasting class (half plus one; you can lead off with a
> spellcasting class, so you can have a Wiz1, Wiz1/Ftr1, but not a Wiz2)?

It's wrong at low level, spellcasters are fine up through 8th at
least, and you're taking the fun of the blaster-mage out of the game there
completely (even if you keep casterlevel higher than raw class levels).
As Ron mentioned, E6 (E8, E10, whatever) does negate all the higher
level problems. If you like those higher level problems though, in
moderation at least, ...

Consider limiting spellcasters by total spell levels per day in
preperation. Carry 30 spells, 60, whatever, but never recover more than
about 20 spell levels each day (that's about 5th level spellcasting).
It's basically EGG's solution for AD&D about higher level casters
being overpowered in the original game, only then it was modeled in much
more detail.

Of course, neither that nor your own solution stops the endless
charges from low level magic items, but whatever. I charge the user
spellpoints for item spells, with one freebie per day, works like an extra
spontanious casting option.


> Thoughts, questions, comments?

Why aren't plants black? Surely it would be more efficient to capture
all the light, unless they're reflecting it back to all their little
buddies, in a strately of using what you can optimally and share the rest
with the underside of the one above. Yes, that'd do it.

--
tussock

U'm iuel p jyx yn chycyipwlaf kyd blvlr ebyg ghpw kyd'rl sdbbp slw.

In article <gh0mgl$6bf$1@news.motzarella.org>,
tussock <scrub.TakeThisOut@clear.net.nz> wrote:

<snip>

> It's wrong at low level, spellcasters are fine up through 8th at
> least, and you're taking the fun of the blaster-mage out of the game there
> completely (even if you keep casterlevel higher than raw class levels).

Take off those caps artificially imposed first in 2e. A Fireball of
20d6 is an awesome thing to behold...and ten Magic Missiles (without
even having to waste a feat!) can be terrifying no matter which side of
the DM's screen you're on. The high-level wizards I've played have
always used up their supply of lethal low level spells before retreating
to the higher levels, if only because the lower levels (used to) have
shorter casting times. That can make a *big* difference when faced by a
wall of charging steel - with or without horses....

Maybe Gygax was on to something when he set up the magic system the way
he did in 1e?

<snip>

Baird

--
Bumper sticker: "If you can't operate your turn signal,
what makes you think you can drive the rest of the car?"

Personally, I have no problem with the power of spellcasters at higher
level so nothing needs to be changed for me. However, obviously some
people do.

If the problem is they just don't like PCs being "powerful", then I
want nothing to do with them. I find it not to be a sin for a PC to
be "powerful", and they should get over themselves.

If the problem is they are bothered by a discrepancy in power between
spellcasters and non-spellcasters, then I have empathy. The first
thing I'd say is stop looking at just the raw numbers and what's
techincally possible by game mechanics. Campaign circumstances
matter. The power of spellcasters is not their game mechanics (druid
wild shape excepted), but particular spells. Find out what spells
bother you and deal with them. Teleport is a common one. A good
solution is to change the level order. Make Teleportation Circle 5th
level, Teleport 7th level, and Greater Teleport 9th level.
Teleportation Circle means you can only teleport at predetermined
places, not at whim. Teleport still means you can't just teleport
anywhere you want. As a 9th level, Greater Teleport is normal power
for the character level. PCs are expected to be doing such things.
Teleporting is more a means just to get to where the actual adventure
takes place, or an immediate escape from danger, rather than an attack
strategy.

Second, instead of weakening spellcasters, raise non-spellcasters.
Why must everyone be miserable instead of everyone being awesome?
What is it about non-spellcasters that bother you? A personal pet
peeve is the suckiness of heavy armor. Simple - get rid of the speed
penalty. A person trained in wearing heavy armor should be able to
move normally while wearing it. Apply the speed penalty only to those
not proficient in medium/heavy armor. Improve the skill points and
class skills of Fighter. There are plenty of feat combos for good
stuff as long as you aren't pigheaded in sticking with Core, but if
you really want to give the Fighter a bonus feat every level, fine.
Personal bias, consider using Tome of Battle as your warrior base. It
really does increase the power, flexibility, and fun of playing a
warrior. Be a single class martial adept or multiclass; either way
you cannot go wrong.

Gerald Katz

Baird Stafford <baird.RemoveThis@newstaff.com> wrote:
> In article <gh0mgl$6bf$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> tussock <scrub.RemoveThis@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> It's wrong at low level, spellcasters are fine up through 8th at
>> least, and you're taking the fun of the blaster-mage out of the game
>> there completely (even if you keep casterlevel higher than raw class
>> levels).
>
> Take off those caps artificially imposed first in 2e. A Fireball of
> 20d6 is an awesome thing to behold...and ten Magic Missiles (without
> even having to waste a feat!) can be terrifying no matter which side of
> the DM's screen you're on. The high-level wizards I've played have
> always used up their supply of lethal low level spells before retreating
> to the higher levels, if only because the lower levels (used to) have
> shorter casting times. That can make a *big* difference when faced by a
> wall of charging steel - with or without horses....

Thing is, my thesis here is that spellcasters are already too powerful
at higher levels. Or at least, I am trying to address that stated
problem (I'm not saying *I* have a problem with it, just that for those
who do...).

Now, this could be a reasonable mitigation factor. Reduce the maximum
caster class level (limiting spell access) but allow the caster to use
his full character level for effect -- possibly removing the caster
level cap on the spell effects.

This could result in a Ftr10/Wiz1 getting a six-missile /magic missile/
(possibly twice a day!), or an 11-hour /mage armor/. A Ftr10/Wiz10
could have a 20d6 /fireball/ three or four times a day. You wouldn't
see a Wiz20 (with five 20d6 /fireball/s, and five /meteor swarm/s, and a
bunch more things five times a day).

So, increase the raw power available (per spell) but limit the range of
powers available. How's that sound?


Keith
--
Keith Davies You know you're working too much when you
keith.davies.RemoveThis@kjdavies.org receive spam with
keith.davies.RemoveThis@gmail.com "Subject: Erection issues resolved!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ and you go looking for the trouble ticket.

Keith Davies <keith.davies.TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Now, this could be a reasonable mitigation factor. Reduce the maximum
> caster class level (limiting spell access) but allow the caster to use
> his full character level for effect -- possibly removing the caster
> level cap on the spell effects.
>
> This could result in a Ftr10/Wiz1 getting a six-missile /magic missile/
> (possibly twice a day!), or an 11-hour /mage armor/. A Ftr10/Wiz10
> could have a 20d6 /fireball/ three or four times a day. You wouldn't
> see a Wiz20 (with five 20d6 /fireball/s, and five /meteor swarm/s, and a
> bunch more things five times a day).
>
> So, increase the raw power available (per spell) but limit the range of
> powers available. How's that sound?

What'dya do with Druid 10 / Wizard 10?

(Possibly: Assume they're already horribly crippled by MAD.)

--
Matthew Miller

Keith Davies wrote:
> Now, this could be a reasonable mitigation factor. Reduce the maximum
> caster class level (limiting spell access) but allow the caster to use
> his full character level for effect -- possibly removing the caster
> level cap on the spell effects.

I'd rather have different classes give different plusses to spellcaster
level, like different classes give different plusses (BAB) to fighting.
So non-caster classes add +.5 (like wizard BAB), casters of the other
type (divine vs arcane) give +3/4, and casters of the same kind give +1.

Matthew Miller wrote:
> What'dya do with Druid 10 / Wizard 10?

My suggestion would lead to druid with 10th level spell selection but
divine caster level 17, and similarly for wizard.

Hadsil <forumite.RemoveThis@netzero.com> wrote:
> Personally, I have no problem with the power of spellcasters at higher
> level so nothing needs to be changed for me. However, obviously some
> people do.
>
> If the problem is they just don't like PCs being "powerful", then I
> want nothing to do with them. I find it not to be a sin for a PC to
> be "powerful", and they should get over themselves.

This is me, do you think *I* have a problem with it? Understanding
things from a tiered perspective (Justin's 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20,
option, and my 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20 option both work) makes it
pretty clear that high-level characters clearly should kick copious ass.

Personally, I think the noncasters are *underpowered*, as described
below.

I'm mostly just exploring the idea; I have different plans in the works
for my game.

> If the problem is they are bothered by a discrepancy in power between
> spellcasters and non-spellcasters, then I have empathy. The first
> thing I'd say is stop looking at just the raw numbers and what's
> techincally possible by game mechanics. Campaign circumstances
> matter. The power of spellcasters is not their game mechanics (druid
> wild shape excepted), but particular spells. Find out what spells
> bother you and deal with them. Teleport is a common one. A good
> solution is to change the level order. Make Teleportation Circle 5th
> level, Teleport 7th level, and Greater Teleport 9th level.
> Teleportation Circle means you can only teleport at predetermined
> places, not at whim. Teleport still means you can't just teleport
> anywhere you want. As a 9th level, Greater Teleport is normal power
> for the character level. PCs are expected to be doing such things.
> Teleporting is more a means just to get to where the actual adventure
> takes place, or an immediate escape from danger, rather than an attack
> strategy.

This is one approach.

> Second, instead of weakening spellcasters, raise non-spellcasters.

Which is what I've been doing for myself. As above, I'm mostly just
exploring options here.

> Why must everyone be miserable instead of everyone being awesome?
> What is it about non-spellcasters that bother you? A personal pet
> peeve is the suckiness of heavy armor. Simple - get rid of the speed
> penalty. A person trained in wearing heavy armor should be able to
> move normally while wearing it. Apply the speed penalty only to those
> not proficient in medium/heavy armor.

I long ago changed it so that the inherent speed hit is only suffered by
those nonproficient. Those proficient with the armor can still take a
speed hit because of weight.

> Improve the skill points and class skills of Fighter. There are
> plenty of feat combos for good stuff as long as you aren't pigheaded
> in sticking with Core, but if you really want to give the Fighter a
> bonus feat every level, fine.

Possibly, but to my mind the problem here is more a dearth of good
high-level feats, than insufficient number of feats.

> Personal bias, consider using Tome of Battle as your warrior base.

Absolutely. My biggest beef with Bo9S is that it finished marginalizing
fighters, though my initial vocal one was that the powers didn't seem
reasonable *in form* for low-level characters -- my sword catches fire
when I use it simply because I'm *that* *damn* *good*... at first level.
That didn't seem right to me, even though I was fine with the net effect
(+d6 bonus damage).

> It really does increase the power, flexibility, and fun of playing a
> warrior. Be a single class martial adept or multiclass; either way
> you cannot go wrong.

Other than the above, I really, really like Bo9S. Even if (or perhaps
*because*) my Swordsage and the Warblade would make the DM cry.

Well, I wasn't much fond of the complete non-OGC nature of Bo9S. I plan
to mine it fairly heavily for nifty abilities in my tiered advancement
system, but otherwise have no plan to use it IMC as written because I
can't readily (re)publish material.


Keith
--
Keith Davies You know you're working too much when you
keith.davies.RemoveThis@kjdavies.org receive spam with
keith.davies.RemoveThis@gmail.com "Subject: Erection issues resolved!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ and you go looking for the trouble ticket.

Werebat <ranpoirier.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts, questions, comments?
>
> My first response is: E6. Check it out.

I have, I like it in principle. I don't think it would fly with my
current group.

> My second is that in a standard D&D game, yeah I suspect it might cause
> problems as higher-level adventures will (generally) assume the presence
> of higher-level magic in the PCs arsenal.

Perhaps somewhat, but I've got little problem with (now more scarce)
magic items filling that hole. Give them the magic thingummie of
ultimate power (or of a seventh-level spell they can't cast), a
near-artifact of limited use, to defeat the ubermonster, and we're okay.

Noncasters must have magic items to fill the power gap between them and
casters at high level[1]; casters have the power *and* get magic items.

[1] as I've said, I believe the problem is 'noncasters not powerful
enough', not 'casters too powerful'... but I thought I'd see how it
looked solving it the other way.


Keith
--
Keith Davies You know you're working too much when you
keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org receive spam with
keith.davies.DeleteThis@gmail.com "Subject: Erection issues resolved!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ and you go looking for the trouble ticket.

Allen Wessels <awessels.DeleteThis@EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <slrngj6mps.t56.keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org>,
> Keith Davies <keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts, questions, comments?
>
> High level magic is fun. If you need to balance the classes, pump the
> fighters.

Responded several times now, that's my preferred approach, but I thought
I'd look into the other option here.

> One of the ways in which it's more balanced IOC is we have a larger base
> party facing larger encounters. The fights take longer to crunch, but
> you have more decision making going on. It tends to be harder to deploy
> artillery when you may also need to defend against incoming skirmishers.

And watch out for smashing your own skirmishers. "Friendly fire ain't",
and all that.

> There are usually 3 areas where magic users are considered unbalanced:
>
> 1) raw damage dealing power
> 2) all or nothing spells
> 3) more options
>
> I think I'd favor toning down 2 and making sure fighters get more access
> to 1 and 3. Being a fighter doesn't mean you don't have magic. Shoot,
> one of the funnest things about being a crafting mage is gearing up the
> party.

The occasions I play a wizard, I usually end up with at least a little
item creation ability. In fact, in the past I've been considering
changing wizard and sorcerer so the wizard no longer has metamagic feats
on their bonus list (just item creation, and perhaps the more general
[Spell] feats such as Augment Summoning), while sorcerers get metamagic
feats (but not item creation feats) and [Spell] feats as bonus feats
every five levels, and don't have to pay extra time to use them (but do
need to use higher-level slots).

IOW, I like spellcaster power and would rather see fighters with more
options and damage mojo.

Hmm. Actually, if I do what I mentioned in my response to Baird (use
character level for spell effect (removing caster level caps on effect),
and class level for spell access) it may become worthwhile taking a few
levels in a casting class, without having to pursue it all the way to
make it useful. Ftr15/Wiz5 probably has a couple of 20d6 /fireball/s
per day and four 10-missile /magic missile/s (10d4+10 force damage, four
times), plus a few second-level spells.

A *useful* multiclass caster. The Clr10/Wiz10 could now be a viable
character too (though Clr11/Wiz9 or Clr9/Wiz11 would probably be better)
-- *lots* of good mojo.

Hrm. It looks like this solution would still want *some* casting
ability; a wholly noncaster character would likely still be at a
disadvantage. Perhaps some kind of benefit (SR, maybe? As long as you
don't *use* spells, spells have less purchase against you?)


Keith
--
Keith Davies You know you're working too much when you
keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org receive spam with
keith.davies.DeleteThis@gmail.com "Subject: Erection issues resolved!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ and you go looking for the trouble ticket.

LL <Lorenz.Lang.TakeThisOut@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've seen comments before about how the full spellcasters (especially
>> wizards, druids, and clerics -- the latter two are fullcasters with
>> *more* stuff) are overpowered at high levels.
>
> I agree: Clr and Drd are probably the "best" classes in the game.
> Wiz is a bit weaker, but still "better" than the others.
> If we assume a certain value for "best" and "better"...

Power and versatility, say.

>> I'm prepared to believe
>> this; fighters, rogues, and monks tend to be the poor cousins once
>> you get past a certain point (opinions vary as to what point).
>
> I believe this too.

IMO, noncasters are too weak, casters aren't too strong. The problem
lies in the difference in ability and effect.

>> What if spellcasters were to be limited to no more than half their
>> levels in a spellcasting class (half plus one; you can lead off with a
>> spellcasting class, so you can have a Wiz1, Wiz1/Ftr1, but not a Wiz2)?
>
> Or you could just say max. levels in Clr, Drd, Sor, Wiz is 11.
> Otherwise studying magic (or developing in the case of Sor) would
> only be possible as a part-time activity, which is counter-intuitive
> to me.

Possibly, though I'm sure people disagree about the cutoff point.

>> * it makes encounters unbalanced, because encounters are designed on the
>> expectation of the higher-level spells!
>>
>> (if this makes the spellcasters too weak, what does it do to the
>> *non*-spellcasters?)
>
> If caster classes are restricted to 10th level and don't have
> 6th-9th level spells, monsters should have the same restriction.
> Applied to supernatural abilities too - SR is another issue.

Possibly. Though I like the idea of monsters that *need* nonmagic
solutions, so this might not be a problem for me.

>> * it's dumb that some classes are limited this way and others aren't
>>
>> (okay, apply the same rule to all classes -- Ftr10/Bbn10 is allowed,
>> but Ftr20 and Bbn20 aren't.)
>
> Ftr/Brb 10/10 still has high hp and BAB +20...

Yep. Which is why I didn't bother with the 'must multiclass' limitation
for noncasters -- little direct effect. The Ftr10/Bbn10 actually has
*more* hit points (but same BAB and possibly worse AC).

>> Thoughts, questions, comments?
>
> While it's true that Clr, Drd and Wiz are "powerful",
> not everybody likes to play them.

I like playing clerics, but that's mostly because I like playing
clerics. I usually gimp myself in some fashion or another (my cleric of
Kord has levels in Barbarian and refuses to wear heavy armor because
it's for wimps).

> Many players don't like to be told what to do by some god,
> they don't want to be tree-huggers or weaklings who are
> a dead duck without their spellbook.
> Some players want to be able to survive a barroom brawl
> at level 1 ...
>
> I thought about something else lately:
>
> 1. spell DC depends on caster level instead of spell's level

Possibly; tussock's suggested dumping spell level from save DC and make
it a flat casterlevel/3.

> 2. saving throw progression becomes better (good becomes +17,
> poor becomes +10 at 20th level)

What are the formulae here, please? I've got a 'medium' save that's
equal to 1+level/2.5 (+9 at 20th level), I can see 3+level/1.5 (which
would be +16 at 20th level).

> This way all spells of a high level caster are more difficult to
> resist against than those of a low level caster.
> But all saves are higher, making spells weaker in general.


Keith
--
Keith Davies You know you're working too much when you
keith.davies.TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org receive spam with
keith.davies.TakeThisOut@gmail.com "Subject: Erection issues resolved!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ and you go looking for the trouble ticket.