{kjd-exp} Limiting spellcasters

Erol K Bayburt <ErolB1.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 05:23:07 +0000, Keith Davies
><keith.davies.TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
>>Erol K Bayburt <ErolB1.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> As for boosting "everyone else," my preference would be the suggestion
>>> I made upthread: Extend non-epic progressions to level 30 or so. That
>>> would work better with a modified "casters must multiclass after level
>>> 6" (or level rule, rather than requiring multiclassing from the
>>> beginning, so that 9th level spells come in at a character level of 28
>>> (or 26).
>>
>>I did consider something like this. The main thing that caps non-epic
>>to twenty levels is spell access, I think. If you halve the rate of
>>spellcasting gains, you end up with 9th-level spells around 35th level
>>(33rd, actually; Wiz17/otherstuff16), and still have only a 10-point
>>difference in BAB at the highest level. 20-point if you were to do
>>Wiz/Sor or the like, but then you've got a *LOT* of mojo to work with; I
>>expect it would work out fine.
>
> I'm inclined more and more toward this solution myself, albeit without
> forcing multiclassing on low-level casters. As I said, waiting until
> level 6-8 to start forced multiclassing will still delay 9th level
> spells until levels 26-28, and IMHO that's enough.

Possibly so. Mileage varies, etc.

I'm just exploring the idea here, so I'm not particularly attached to
any particular start point. Let me know how it works.

> The BAB difference wouldn't be a problem, but I worry a bit about the
> divergence in the difference between "good" and "poor" saves.

Yeah, I'm not really happy about that. OTOH, you'd have lots of feats
available, and I allow 'Improved Reflexes' (which you can take twice) to
improve your base Reflex save to the next better save progression:

Good : HD/2
Medium: HD/2.5
Low : HD/3

(with a +2/+1/+0 bonus if your best save here; you don't get the bonus
more than once)

Weirdly enough, I'm embroiled in a conversation at Paizo's forum about
large differences in bonuses.

>>> Thus by the time the casters get their 9th level spells, fighters
>>> would be boosted by an extra 10 levels of fighter-stuff, rogues by an
>>> extra 10 levels of rogue-stuff, and so on. And you could keep the
>>> flavor of "roguey casters, fightery casters" etc. Or a caster might
>>> take a modified or home-brewed "prestige class" that doesn't add "+1
>>> level of spellcasting ability" but instead gives low-level extras for
>>> "lots of mojo but not as big."
>>
>>See above. Halving progression in caster classes[1] would spread things
>>out over twice as many levels, I think it would give (it would require!)
>>variation among caster builds, and do a lot to balance the power between
>>caster and noncaster. Also, it might help limit the feeling that you
>>simply *can't* afford to lose a caster level -- the difference between
>>"Wiz18" and "Wiz17", vs "Wiz9/Ftr9" and "Wiz8/Ftr10", or "Wiz18/Ftr18"
>>and "Wiz17/Ftr19" (or some such) doesn't seem as bad.
>
> I see these things as features, rather than bugs

Absolutely. I like the characteristics shown here.

> In addition the "+2 levels = x2 power" treadmill *annoys* me wrt to
> characters above level 8 or so. So slowing down the rate of power
> increase after this point is also something I see as a feature.

Especially since the doubling really applies to casters, and not nearly
so much to noncasters. Linear attack bonus (more or less; I find the
attack bonus is generally close to $coefficient * $base_attack_bonus,
though the coefficient varies by character), linear hit points (close
enough), linear skill ranks (close enough), linear AC (more or less),
versus exponential (geometric!) spell power.

>>[1] or even all classes, though as I said noncaster classes often work
>> well enough together that I don't think there'd be enough difference
>> to matter, it just brings them closer to the casting class power
>
>
> Of course it helps that the game I'm thinking of applying this to is a
> "Elseworlds" version of the BD&D Mystara/Known World setting. And so
> extending non-epic progression to level 30 or a bit higher is a nod to
> the BD&D rules that give "mortals" a progression to level 36 before
> they have to go "immortal."

By oddest coincidence, requiring a split in caster levels from first
level means they (can) hit their capstone spells (9th level, IOW) at
33rd or 35th level.

Gah, my Rules Cyclopedia is buried right now or I'd look to see when
wiza... erm, 'magic-users' get the ninth-level spells. I don't think it
was *quite* that high.


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.

Keith Davies wrote:
> Erol K Bayburt wrote:

<snip>

> Weirdly enough, I'm embroiled in a conversation at Paizo's forum about
> large differences in bonuses.

I think as long as the smallest bonus basically /works/, weak saves
and poor BAB, the gap to the larger ones doesn't matter; they're just the
automatic saves and free damage.


>> In addition the "+2 levels = x2 power" treadmill *annoys* me wrt to
>> characters above level 8 or so. So slowing down the rate of power
>> increase after this point is also something I see as a feature.
>
> Especially since the doubling really applies to casters, and not nearly
> so much to noncasters.

Nope. The standard Fighters /can/ go a fair fight against a pair of
Fighters two levels lower, right up through 20th level, though some
breakpoints mean it's not a smooth ride.
The damage rate (stacking item effects, hit rates, and number of
attacks) and HP (ever higher Con) are usually enough to make them match
up.

Spellcasters are better than the grunts, and magic is trumps so
everyone tends to rely on them for a lot of things, but they're not all
that much better.


<snip>

> Gah, my Rules Cyclopedia is buried right now or I'd look to see when
> wiza... erm, 'magic-users' get the ninth-level spells. I don't think it
> was *quite* that high.

1/3/5/7/9/11/15/18/21. The jump after 11 was to leave more out of the
4-14 Expert set, I guess. Yep, it only went to 6th level spells. Well,
that and OD&D only had the 6 spell levels, pre-greyhawk.

Basic Wizards rather ruled the world though, people just didn't mind
so much back then, what with many very cool items only being usable by
the lesser classes.

--
tussock

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

tussock <scrub.DeleteThis@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> Erol K Bayburt wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Weirdly enough, I'm embroiled in a conversation at Paizo's forum about
>> large differences in bonuses.
>
> I think as long as the smallest bonus basically /works/, weak saves
> and poor BAB, the gap to the larger ones doesn't matter; they're just
> the automatic saves and free damage.

Interesting perspective. I'd like to think about it, but it seems
reasonable.

Mind, the difference between hard DCs and good saves is currently
*silly*, to put it mildly.

A Wiz18 is not unlikely to have a save DC in the high 20s, a *good* save
has a base of +11 at 18th level (average 21 save result -- not enough).
With a +5 resistance item and +10 from the relevant score (base 18 plus
a +6 item) you're looking at a total bonus of +22; you'd succeed on a 7+
(70% of the time).

Given your thesis, this is too much tuning needed for the *good* save to
*probably* succeed. For a poor save (+6, +5 for the resistance item, +4
or so -- 14-15 score, +4 item) you might have only +15 or so, succeed on
12 or higher (55% of the time...) still more tuning than I like to get
it, though.

I think the high ability scores have a much greater impact on save DCs
at high level than the designers expected (I was surprised when I
realized you could get really close to 30 in an ability score).

It's still workable, I think, but if you want the poor saves to have a
reasonable chance of success without the tuning described you're going
to have to find a way to reduce the save DCs, reasonably.

I've decided I like your idea (poor means you stand a decent, but not
necessarily *good*, chance of getting away with it, good means you
almost certainly will -- this'll also take a lot of the sting out of
high-level spellcasters), but I'm not sure quite how to bring it about.

Your idea of using casterlevel/3 as the base rather than the spell level
has merit, but I do still like having spell level involved in the save
DC.

>>> In addition the "+2 levels = x2 power" treadmill *annoys* me wrt to
>>> characters above level 8 or so. So slowing down the rate of power
>>> increase after this point is also something I see as a feature.
>>
>> Especially since the doubling really applies to casters, and not nearly
>> so much to noncasters.
>
> Nope. The standard Fighters /can/ go a fair fight against a pair of
> Fighters two levels lower, right up through 20th level, though some
> breakpoints mean it's not a smooth ride.

Fair enough, on later consideration I realize I'd overlooked that some
of the linear advances actually do have geometric effects. Not as much
as spellcasters (lower coefficient, if you will), but still there.

>> Gah, my Rules Cyclopedia is buried right now or I'd look to see when
>> wiza... erm, 'magic-users' get the ninth-level spells. I don't think it
>> was *quite* that high.
>
> 1/3/5/7/9/11/15/18/21. The jump after 11 was to leave more out of the
> 4-14 Expert set, I guess. Yep, it only went to 6th level spells. Well,
> that and OD&D only had the 6 spell levels, pre-greyhawk.
>
> Basic Wizards rather ruled the world though, people just didn't mind
> so much back then, what with many very cool items only being usable by
> the lesser classes.

Yeah, AD&D and especially 3e did a lot of "let things mundanes can do be
done by everyone"... it makes some sense, but leaves the nonmundanes
able to do things the mundanes can, *and* things they can't.

If you're going to have things available to only some characters, you
should probably have other things available to the ones who don't have
access to those first things.


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.

"tussock" <scrub.DeleteThis@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:ghoc2d$ugn$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> Erol K Bayburt wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Weirdly enough, I'm embroiled in a conversation at Paizo's forum about
>> large differences in bonuses.
>
> I think as long as the smallest bonus basically /works/, weak saves
> and poor BAB, the gap to the larger ones doesn't matter; they're just the
> automatic saves and free damage.
>
>
>>> In addition the "+2 levels = x2 power" treadmill *annoys* me wrt to
>>> characters above level 8 or so. So slowing down the rate of power
>>> increase after this point is also something I see as a feature.
>>
>> Especially since the doubling really applies to casters, and not nearly
>> so much to noncasters.
>
> Nope. The standard Fighters /can/ go a fair fight against a pair of
> Fighters two levels lower, right up through 20th level, though some
> breakpoints mean it's not a smooth ride.
> The damage rate (stacking item effects, hit rates, and number of
> attacks) and HP (ever higher Con) are usually enough to make them match
> up.
>
> Spellcasters are better than the grunts, and magic is trumps so
> everyone tends to rely on them for a lot of things, but they're not all
> that much better.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> Gah, my Rules Cyclopedia is buried right now or I'd look to see when
>> wiza... erm, 'magic-users' get the ninth-level spells. I don't think it
>> was *quite* that high.
>
> 1/3/5/7/9/11/15/18/21. The jump after 11 was to leave more out of the
> 4-14 Expert set, I guess. Yep, it only went to 6th level spells. Well,
> that and OD&D only had the 6 spell levels, pre-greyhawk.
>
> Basic Wizards rather ruled the world though, people just didn't mind
> so much back then, what with many very cool items only being usable by
> the lesser classes.
>

I always thought 'magic users' balanced out in OD&D simply because it was so
easy to get killed at lower levels. I only played a few times, but I
remember it was extremely frustrating for me to play a magic user because
they kept dying, and at a much faster rate than those of my friend who
prefered the fighter. I suppose it didn't help that we were all about 8 and
our DM was basically out to kill all our characters.
> --
> tussock
>
> U'm iuel p jyx yn chycyipwlaf kyd blvlr ebyg ghpw kyd'rl sdbbp slw.

Shawn <shawn520 RemoveThis @telus.com> wrote:
>
> "tussock" <scrub RemoveThis @clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:ghoc2d$ugn$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>> Basic Wizards rather ruled the world though, people just didn't mind
>> so much back then, what with many very cool items only being usable
>> by the lesser classes.
>>
>
> I always thought 'magic users' balanced out in OD&D simply because it
> was so easy to get killed at lower levels. I only played a few times,
> but I remember it was extremely frustrating for me to play a magic
> user because they kept dying, and at a much faster rate than those of
> my friend who prefered the fighter. I suppose it didn't help that we
> were all about 8 and our DM was basically out to kill all our
> characters.

No, that's not really balance, I think. That's just two different
points of imbalance over time.


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 wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>>> Weirdly enough, I'm embroiled in a conversation at Paizo's forum about
>>> large differences in bonuses.
>>
>> I think as long as the smallest bonus basically /works/, weak saves and
>> poor BAB, the gap to the larger ones doesn't matter; they're just the
>> automatic saves and free damage.
>
> Interesting perspective. I'd like to think about it, but it seems
> reasonable.
>
> Mind, the difference between hard DCs and good saves is currently
> *silly*, to put it mildly.

Yes it is. Saves in AD&D *worked* at high level, so the nasty spell
effects were mostly something to throw at massed mooks (which is /fun/,
damnit). Now everyone's nerfing the cool old spells, rather than just
fixing the saves.

<snip: numbers>

> I think the high ability scores have a much greater impact on save DCs
> at high level than the designers expected (I was surprised when I
> realized you could get really close to 30 in an ability score).

The toughest spells in old editions had -4 to saves, which still left
the weaker saves working more often than not by the time you're facing
high level spells, 8+ at worst with a good ring. 3e gives top
spellcasters about +4 over their opponent from the stat, and matches the
base save bonus with the spell level. It's more like a -10 to the save in
the old editions, which was reserved for one or two things in H4.

IMO, 3e works well enough with a DC 15 for most saves, 20 for spells
and effects that are traditionally hard, 10 for cantrips, alchemy, and
other weak effects.

<snip>
> Your idea of using casterlevel/3 as the base rather than the spell level
> has merit, but I do still like having spell level involved in the save
> DC.

Yes, though casterlevel already dominates dispels, damage, and SR
checks. It's potentially more interesting if you can use something else
for some part of the equation.

So, brainstorming, limit spell level by the stat mod rather than
stat-10 (still workable from a 15, just), and use 10+spell level only.
DCs then run from 11-19, +2 with Imp.Focus, weak saves are still only +10
for some end-game monsters (+20 for capstone outsiders and dragons) and
might be as low as +12 for a PC.
Bit tough? Worked before 3e. Casters had to be a bit clever about how
they killed the monsters; disintegrate the roof supports rather than the
cultist, dominate a mook to get information, blind enemy spellcasters
with thick clouds, split opposing forces with a wall of force, ....

--
tussock

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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:51:19 GMT, Keith Davies
<keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org> wrote:

>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.

If you're playing 'semi-random loot,' you can fix that with a bit of
DM bias. Namely, ensuring that the items handed out actually
compensate for the gap.

Then item creation rears it's head, but this is *somewhat* mitigated
in that magic items obtained via that method cost a portion of the
spellcaster's personal power.

(Note: invoking "ye olde custom magicke shoppe," either literally or
metaphorically, breaks this idea completely.)

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:55:46 -0800 (PST), 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.

Meh. It's all somewhat relative. *Personally,* I'm not interested in
playing Amber; others may be.

Kaos <kaos.TakeThisOut@xplornet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:51:19 GMT, Keith Davies
><keith.davies.TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> If you're playing 'semi-random loot,' you can fix that with a bit of
> DM bias. Namely, ensuring that the items handed out actually
> compensate for the gap.
>
> Then item creation rears it's head, but this is *somewhat* mitigated
> in that magic items obtained via that method cost a portion of the
> spellcaster's personal power.

The XP cost for item creation is so low that it's hardly worth tracking.
You might not level quite as quickly, but unless you're doing a *lot* of
enchanting you're not going to be far enough behind to matter... and if
you *are* enchanting that much, you're likely rolling in so much money
that you can afford to make up the differences pretty easily.

At least, that's what I've heard from everyone I know to have played a
wizard or cleric based around item creation. I found the same when I
tried it, to the point where I was going out of my way to blow my cash.

Paying everyone's way when traveling, squandering it on minor items of
convenience (such as a cloak with /endure elements/ on it, just to stay
comfortable while traveling), throwing enchantments on (certain)
comrades' gear as a gift, handing out scholarships to the Academy of
Wizards. I couldn't get rid of the money and XP fast enough to fall
behind.

> (Note: invoking "ye olde custom magicke shoppe," either literally or
> metaphorically, breaks this idea completely.)

If you have a way to produce something and a market for it, you will
find it created for sale -- either sale by the PCs, or sale to the PCs.
Regardless of method of 'production' (mining dungeons and selling the
loot counts here).


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.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 06:28:10 +0000, Keith Davies
<keith.davies.RemoveThis@kjdavies.org> wrote:

>Kaos <kaos.RemoveThis@xplornet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:51:19 GMT, Keith Davies
>><keith.davies.RemoveThis@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> If you're playing 'semi-random loot,' you can fix that with a bit of
>> DM bias. Namely, ensuring that the items handed out actually
>> compensate for the gap.
>>
>> Then item creation rears it's head, but this is *somewhat* mitigated
>> in that magic items obtained via that method cost a portion of the
>> spellcaster's personal power.
>
>The XP cost for item creation is so low that it's hardly worth tracking.
>You might not level quite as quickly, but unless you're doing a *lot* of
>enchanting you're not going to be far enough behind to matter... and if
>you *are* enchanting that much, you're likely rolling in so much money
>that you can afford to make up the differences pretty easily.
>
>At least, that's what I've heard from everyone I know to have played a
>wizard or cleric based around item creation. I found the same when I
>tried it, to the point where I was going out of my way to blow my cash.
>
>Paying everyone's way when traveling, squandering it on minor items of
>convenience (such as a cloak with /endure elements/ on it, just to stay
>comfortable while traveling), throwing enchantments on (certain)
>comrades' gear as a gift, handing out scholarships to the Academy of
>Wizards. I couldn't get rid of the money and XP fast enough to fall
>behind.


My own 10th level Cleric-with-a-bit-of-Wizard-Abilities (via ANYSPELL
from the Spell Domain giving 1st & 2nd level Arcane spells) is the
Item Creation Person in our group. Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Wand,
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Scribe Scroll. She slowly falls behind
the other players in XP, but the additional magic items in the party
more than makes up for this. If she is a level back then she pretty
much holds even in XP, and since the other players miss a game session
here and there she actually keeps up pretty well overall.

She has gone for "lots of little items" rather than "a few big items".
Quite a few were made paying the +50% premium to add something to an
existing item in the same body slot. So she almost always has
something useful to do, but almost never has anything overpowering.
It's been working out quite well so far. She has "buff the party" and
"healing" as her main duties. (She has now converted the entire party
to worship of her deity, so she makes Wands of FAITH HEALING instead
of CLW, and spells like RECITATION are at maximum effect.) She is NOT
good in melee, but she is extremely useful overall and doesn't
overshadow the others for "Center Stage time". And when she hits 11th
level and gets GREATER ANYSPELL (up to 5th level arcane spells) she'll
have a whole raft of new items she'll be able to build.

Of course, building a spellbook of arcane spells is a significant
expense. (Our arcane caster is a Warmage, so she can't borrow
anything from within the party.) Scribing scrolls to have various
utility arcane spells available at all times (instead of just those
very few daily Spell Domain spell slots) likewise takes up a lot of
her free time. There is no lack of "magic-item-creation things to
do". It's more a matter of available cash and available free time.





>> (Note: invoking "ye olde custom magicke shoppe," either literally or
>> metaphorically, breaks this idea completely.)
>
>If you have a way to produce something and a market for it, you will
>find it created for sale -- either sale by the PCs, or sale to the PCs.
>Regardless of method of 'production' (mining dungeons and selling the
>loot counts here).
>
>
>Keith
>--
>Keith Davies You know you're working too much when you
>keith.davies@kjdavies.org receive spam with
>keith.davies@gmail.com "Subject: Erection issues resolved!"
>http://www.kjdavies.org/ and you go looking for the trouble ticket.