I have seen mention in various threads that spellcasters are better than non-spellcasters. That is not a surprise or epiphany of any sort, as spells give a character exclusive options. This is also something that is definitely not unique to Pathfinder.
In many campaigns it is a non-issue and gaming goes on without complaint, at least at the lower character levels. It is at the higher levels that the caster/non-caster disparity grows ever wider. Again, nothing new. Even the earlier versions of D&D had this problem.
But what can we do about it? Some people will change the spells. Other people will change the spellcasting classes around, or perhaps alter the magic system. Some people might choose to put a level cap on the campaign. Those ideas can certainly be fun and viable.
The idea that I have started mulling around in my head is "Initiation Levels". Wizards do not learn magic in a short amount of time. Clerics and Druids have to be initiated into their orders and only after a while do they start casting spells.
So, what I am getting at, is that the different types of spellcasters can have a sort of tax that represents the investment that is made in order to start getting those powers.
For lesser caster such as a Ranger or Paladin, I would limit it to a feat (which can be the character's 1st-level feat). A multiclassed character would need to spend the feat to gain a level in that class, and would need to spend the feat for each class if multiclassing into a class that requires this. For example, if a character were somehow two classes that required a feat (as it is a 4th level spellcaster), both classes would require a feat first. This is stated in case more 4th level caster classes become available in a campaign.
For a moderate caster such as a Bard, Inquisitor, or Magus, I would require a level in an Initiate Class. This level would give them their hit points and skill points as normal, and they would have a spell casting as about half of 1st level. A Bard would cast only 0-level spells and know 3 0-level spells. A Magus would cast two 0-level spells.
For a full caster such as a Cleric, Druid, Oracle, Witch, and Sorcerer, it might be better to require two levels. Learning to use these powers should require more devotion. The first level would be able to cast one cantrip, the second level can cast two cantrips. In the case of the Sorcerer or Oracle, they would know two cantrips at the first level, and three cantrips at the second level.
The result is that by having a tax this might help to simulate some of the devotion needed to enter a given class. It also helps to give the non-spellcaster classes a bit of a head start.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This system doesn't look like it solves the problem at all. This "initiate" tax is catastrophic for low-level characters, making them unfun both for their players and the rest of the party that has to cover for these nearly-useless characters. On the other end, it only serves to delay the dominance of spellcasters at high levels; they'll be a bit later to the party, but they still have exclusive access to game-changing abilities and will overshadow in spite of the tax.
To put it succinctly, "demoting" a 4th level wizard to 2nd level spellcasting makes him incompetent and unplayable, while demoting a 20th level wizard to 18th level spellcasting is a minor nuisance at best.
Ok, yeah I was thinking about how unfun the lower levels are. You are quite right.
As the higher levels are where it matters, maybe a Tier Tax is more in order. So to get 5th and 6th level spells you get a dead level, and 7th to 9th level spells you get another dead level. Or maybe slow down the spell level progression; maybe a part of the problem is that it is all being packed into just 20 levels.
Dont enforce dead levels. If you really want to go down this path, rather enforce multiclassing. Like, max 3/4 levels can be full casters or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This solution is no solution at all. Feat taxes suck for martials, and it'd suck even worse for casters since you're essentially taxing them for functioning at all, not even for full capacity.
The best fix for spellcasting is to revamp spells in general and boost skills so mundanes bring something to the table too. But that's a lot of work.
A better fix might be enforcing specialization, but that's also undesirable.
Which is the main issue with nerfing spellcasters without rewriting the system. Either you don't fix the problem, you make casters unplayable, or you just make them un-fun, none of which are optimal solutions.
You guys are right, which is why I present ideas for you to poke holes in. I love getting constructive criticism. The idea presented is a way to make spellcasters more rare, but forced multiclassing is a better way.
The problem is higher level spellcasters. A possible solution might be a max spellcaster level of 10 + Stat bonus for Spellcasting attribute. For example, 18 INT can be level 14 Wizard. For those that want even lower magic it could be dropped to a base of level 5.
But what to do after you hit that cap? I guess it really is forced multiclassing, just later. ;)
I think that part of the problem is that each caster level is worth so much exponentially. At lower levels it is not as noticeable, but at higher levels, wow!
I think Rynjin is right, the fix is to find something cool for non casters. But that is the elusive question. Talents that emulate badassery is probably the way to go. But that leans more towards Mythic. But then again, so does casting powerful spells.
The problem isnt specifically higher level casting. Its the fact that spells can more or less do ANYTHING. Its not just numerical power, or what level x spell comes at or, what character level you get it, its more fundamental then that.
Trying to paste something onto the existing spell system isnt going to work. That system has certain foundations that are built into it and trying to staple on a tax, or a penalty for choosing the 'better' options isnt a way to balance things.
For me I am actually rebuilding magic as a whole that I will introduce when my current campaign finishes. Basically, I am using the genius guide to the Riven Mage as the foundation for the new magic system.
It is a point based system where you know a few basic spells, (that knowledge goes up slowly) that have basic effects, and you get greater effects out of them by pouring more power into them. The key here is the drastically paired down spell system, but a class designed to work within that system. A wizard for instance as written would be kind of crummy with riven magic, because the whole basis for the class is he knows lots of spells, thats what he does, but a riven mage has other things they can do to make use of the more basic 'riven spells'.
In my project I am creating archetypes for all of the 6 level caster classes to use riven magic, and expanding it slightly to some of the things I think are 'needed' in a typical adventure. But in general, riven magic is much more linear in its progression then vancian magic is, which prevents the issues the op is concerned about. By expanding and adding to that foundation, I can make a much more balanced magic system, and honestly, the idea of a 'mana pool' appeals to me alot more then the structure of vancian magic anyway. The whole encyclopedia of different spells that all do different specific things seems kind of silly from a thematic point of view.
Not that some of that wont be available, there will still a small number of wizards and clerics in my world, but the only access to their abilities will be through consumables (scrolls), players and the vast majority of npcs will be riven magic only.
I think Rynjin is right, the fix is to find something cool for non casters. But that is the elusive question. Talents that emulate badassery is probably the way to go. But that leans more towards Mythic. But then again, so does casting powerful spells.
Mythic had the right idea, IMO.
I wouldn't say give the martial characters the Tiers (and the immortality that comes with it) but some of the abilities could easily be translated into the base classes and give those characters a bit more utility, along with high skill bonuses doing the same.
If Acrobatics had a Cloud Step-esque feature at a +30 bonus or something, that'd be great. If Climb and Swim gave the resultant Speed, that'd go a long way.
If Barbarians got Seven League Leap as a class feature, or Fighters got access to an Army/Organization, or Rogues could steal very concepts (magic or class features) they'd be a lot more competitive.
Kolokotrini, that sounds like a pretty cool system. The spells would be more fair if they were also built on a spell point system. I have seen some pretty good implementations of it in the past. Elements of Magic comes to mind, it had some really good ideas. I cannot quite define what turned me off from it, however. Maybe it just felt forced sometimes, as it was trying to still keep the existing spells viable.
I backed the Kickstarter for a spell point system that appears to be modular by Drop Dead Studios. I have to wait a while for it, though. :/ It appears like it will be cool, but I have bought many things over the years hoping that it will be cool, and it is, but my picky (and seemingly fickle) preferences find things "wrong" with them.
Those are some cool ideas, Rynjin. One way to implement it would be to have those special features as feats, but I think that class features is better (because you still want incentive to be pursuing a given class).
I like that Pathfinder tries to make every level count, but an artifact of the D&D magic is that every level counts even more for spellcasters. We have definitely seen some improvements, however! In earlier editions, the warriors had multiple attacks to look forward to, and well, that was about it. At least with feats they can have some tricks. It would be better if the class abilities were more powerful than feats, however. Maybe 1-1/2 feats or even double feats. But as many people have already pointed out, pouring on the feats is not the answer, but I am meaning cool things that are class-ability worthy. Maybe multiple attacks without an attack penalty. Or making multiple attacks while moving instead of having to limit it to a full-round action. Like move + full attacks. Or "Blender Time" if you want to do full attacks + full attacks. :D
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
One idea I've kicked around is to give all casters a bit of MAD:
All arcane spell maximum level and bonus spells/day trigger off Int.
All divine spells are similar but Wis.
All save DCs/ability scores used in spellcasting are Cha based.
So every caster needs at least two stats: Cha plus Int or Wis.
The idea is Int or Wis determines how well you understand your magic, while Cha determines how powerful each spell is.
This doesn't address the narrative power of casters at high levels, but it slows down the "my wizard has a 36 Int/7 Cha so everything he does is uber" issue.
Kolokotrini, that sounds like a pretty cool system. The spells would be more fair if they were also built on a spell point system. I have seen some pretty good implementations of it in the past. Elements of Magic comes to mind, it had some really good ideas. I cannot quite define what turned me off from it, however. Maybe it just felt forced sometimes, as it was trying to still keep the existing spells viable.
Thats kind of the problem. The library of existing spells is simply too vast, it can do too much, and classes like the wizard and cleric can take advantage of all of it. The system I am working on has a very simple and short list of 'riven spells'. It simply tosses out the over whelming majority of what magic can do right now. But it also is intended for classes that have lots of other interesting things to do besides cast spells (6 level casters, 4 level casters, and druids). You cant do this sort of thing with wizards and clerics, or you end up with a really lackluster class.
Why would you? It's mostly a myth in PF.
Pizza Lord, that suggestion does have some merit to it. I have read novels where magic tired out or even hurt the caster. Hit Point damage is how that would be done, especially since we do not track Fatigue Points. Star Wars d20 did that by having Force powers reduce hit points (in its case it was Vitality Points, but still the same concept).
Longer spellcasting times = less backlash. Hmmmm, something to consider anyway. If a spell takes longer, it gives enemies more opportunity to screw the spell up.
This does make a caster think about it more. Do I cast this spell and trump X skill? Clerics would have a very distinct advantage in this sort of system. :D
Why would you? It's mostly a myth in PF.
What is a myth? That spellcasters > non-casters?
Casting spells may also cause subdual damage. Iirc some of DnD fictions like dragonlance described spellcasters as drained after casting spells, but in the actual game this mechanic doesn't exist. It can also take extra exp drain as spell level increase & use exp to craft like it used to be so resource (exp) management would be important, rather than exceeding other classes' skills/talent/feat/power with a single low/mid level spell or two for no cost.
Sometimes the problem can be that you require magic to fight magic. A solution to increase the strength of your martials and skill-monkeys is to allow certain skills to oppose certain magics.
For example there are various afflictions in the game which it specifies requires a particular spell to remove. You could make it possible for a heal check to "duplicate" spells, but only for the purposes of removing afflictions. Then it's just a matter of setting the DC at the right level, (which I would need more time to figure out).
Sense motive allows you to detect enchantment effects on people, you could allow a diplomacy/intimidate/bluff type check to break these spells.
Perception could be used to oppose illusion effects. Escape artist could oppose a lot of battle-field control. Etc.
This isn't a finished system and it would take work to balance it properly. Honestly I've never been worried enough about the disparity to take the time to calculate all these ideas, but it's been in the back of my mind for a while.
Design Manager
|
Shuck out spells like Wish and Miracle and call it a day. I find that with the exception of those "god spells" there really isn't too much variance in what a character contributes to the party unless you start deviating pretty widely from the standard expectations of game progression. Paladins and Cavaliers can still scale their damage up into the 1000+ range, there are still doors where a Rogue built for the purpose can have a better chance of bypassing the wards than a wizard, etc.
Wish, Miracle, Create Demiplane, etc. were just concepts that shouldn't be available in the 1-20 range.
Sometimes the problem can be that you require magic to fight magic. A solution to increase the strength of your martials and skill-monkeys is to allow certain skills to oppose certain magics.
For example there are various afflictions in the game which it specifies requires a particular spell to remove. You could make it possible for a heal check to "duplicate" spells, but only for the purposes of removing afflictions. Then it's just a matter of setting the DC at the right level, (which I would need more time to figure out).
Sense motive allows you to detect enchantment effects on people, you could allow a diplomacy/intimidate/bluff type check to break these spells.
Perception could be used to oppose illusion effects. Escape artist could oppose a lot of battle-field control. Etc.
This isn't a finished system and it would take work to balance it properly. Honestly I've never been worried enough about the disparity to take the time to calculate all these ideas, but it's been in the back of my mind for a while.
That is really good idea. It would need some work, but I really think you are onto something regarding magic dependency.
Atarlost: I don't take the idea as directly using skills for saves or such, but to work out some way to set skill DCs to defeat the effects once they are in place. It may require some finesse, but it's better than REQUIRING break enchantment for things.
Pizza Lord, that suggestion does have some merit to it. I have read novels where magic tired out or even hurt the caster. Hit Point damage is how that would be done, especially since we do not track Fatigue Points. Star Wars d20 did that by having Force powers reduce hit points (in its case it was Vitality Points, but still the same concept).
Longer spellcasting times = less backlash. Hmmmm, something to consider anyway. If a spell takes longer, it gives enemies more opportunity to screw the spell up.
This does make a caster think about it more. Do I cast this spell and trump X skill? Clerics would have a very distinct advantage in this sort of system. :D
Yeah, I was going to point out that d20 Star Wars thing. Non-lethal damage in PF also has the feature of healing 1 point /level/hour. I think it makes a decent half-step from real damage. Even 1 point per spell level, or 1 per caster level minus stat bonus, would be interesting.
Atarlost: I don't take the idea as directly using skills for saves or such, but to work out some way to set skill DCs to defeat the effects once they are in place. It may require some finesse, but it's better than REQUIRING break enchantment for things.
That's right, I would have to calculate some formula for figuring out appropriate skill DCs and I haven't put the time or math into it yet to calculate appropriate values.
As a very rough estimate, I'd probably place the heal DCs as 20 plus (spell level of spell duplicated, as cast by a cleric without using domains*2) as a minimum.
This would mean that a PC of the approximate same level as a cleric would have to be to cast the spell can perform it by rolling an 11 or higher assuming +4 attribute bonus, max ranks in the skill, +3 for a class skill and a miscellaneous +2 that they pull from somewhere.
If you expect a higher degree of optimization from your PCs or find it too easy thematically or want to preserve niche protection or any other such modification raising the base DC to 25 or 30 would seem reasonable jumps.
I'd also probably put in some sort of cost, maybe some attribute damage dealt to the patient, a lengthy time-frame to perform the task or an expensive component such as rare herbs and poultices. (I'd place the GP cost at approximately half the cost of a theoretical potion of the spell duplicated as this seems fair based on WBL calculations).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're looking at a problem that doesn't really exist.
Honestly, in my 30-odd years of playing AD&D and its descendents, I've never seen the problem of spellcasters being overpowered compared to martials.
Sure, they are if you run a two-encounter, 15-minute adventuring day, where a high-level caster can completely nova on the bad guys in every encounter, then rest up for the day, and return fully-charged. But solving that problem is more a question of adventure design than tinkering with the ruleset. You need to force high-level casters to manage their resources: they shouldn't be blasting everything with all thy got in every encounter.
There are many ways to do this. One typical method is to put the PCs on a timeline: they have a limited amount of time to get through the adventure site. Or, maybe they're mobility restricted and simply can't leave/refresh/return. (e.g The entrance sealed, and the whole area is under a dimensional lock efffect so they cant't teleport out.) This puts more pressure on the spellcasters (and other PCs with limited uses-per-day abilities) to hold back on firing their big guns at everything. The casters then have to make strategic decisions on when to blow their highest-level spells, or when they can get by with firing their lower-level ones. This, in turn, lets fighters shine: they can fire their big guns all day without fear of losing them: the only resource a fighter has to manage is her hit points.
Another way is roleplaying in-character. The other PCs don't want to adventure for 15 minutes and then take the rest of the day off-- they WANT to explore this dungeon RIGHT NOW!! ("Whadaya mean you want to rest for the night? The sun rose an hour ago and we just got here! And you really didn't need to disintegrate that manticore-- we could have handled by, y'know, sticking it with swords until it died!")
|
I'm conflicted about the whole high level caster situation. I think that in general they are significantly more powerful than non caster companions. However, I also think that if you have a well designed adventure their spells get used up.
I understand the whole "I want to rest in a dungeon because I'm out of spells" but a random encounter that prevents them from getting a solid 8 hours of sleep will fix that. How long are they going to try to rest for 8 hours solid before the other party members get annoyed and want to move on. Also how many spells is the caster willing to burn on random encounters before they give up on the GM letting them rest.
A level 20 wizard with no spells is cannon fodder.
But then I stated I was conflicted and didn't explain the conflict lol....I think a high level caster should be powerful and scary, if even only initially. No matter how great a sword master you are a dude that can rain magically energy down to demolish an area or summon demons or bend reality is going to be more powerful in a straight up fight. (Usually). Honestly, I've seen fighter and barbarian builds that do so much damage that one round of attacks would destroy a wizard. (And vice versa I suppose).
If you only have a few encounters a caster is going to rain the pain. If you have an encounter heavy situation with several areas where the environment works against the party the caster starts to twiddle away their resources, leaving them on par with other characters for the big bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm conflicted about the whole high level caster situation. I think that in general they are significantly more powerful than non caster companions. However, I also think that if you have a well designed adventure their spells get used up.
But this isnt really a good solution either, because if the spell caster is out of spells, they arent doing anything. And non-participation is pretty much just as bad as dominating the encounter, you have just switched who is dominating. And going back and forth between two kinds of bad isnt good.
I understand the whole "I want to rest in a dungeon because I'm out of spells" but a random encounter that prevents them from getting a solid 8 hours of sleep will fix that. How long are they going to try to rest for 8 hours solid before the other party members get annoyed and want to move on. Also how many spells is the caster willing to burn on random encounters before they give up on the GM letting them rest.
Aside from that simply becoming irritating and distracting from the story after a while eventually casters become capable enough where preventing this would have to be really really contrived. Eventually the wizard is capable of creating a rest area that cant have random encounters, or simply teleporting back to home base and returning to the dungeon after his rest.
Either way this promotes a dm vs player mentality where the player is actively trying to circumvent the dms intentions, and the dm is deliberately trying to hamper a specific member of the party.
A level 20 wizard with no spells is cannon fodder.
But then I stated I was conflicted and didn't explain the conflict lol....I think a high level caster should be powerful and scary, if even only initially. No matter how great a sword master you are a dude that can rain magically energy down to demolish an area or summon demons or bend reality is going to be more powerful in a straight up fight. (Usually). Honestly, I've seen fighter and barbarian builds that do so much damage that one round of attacks would destroy a wizard. (And vice versa I suppose).
Which is the whole problem. The wizard can summon demons and warp time and space. The fighter is really good with a sharp bit of metal. The fighter has situational power sure, he can stab things really well. The wizard has narrative power, he can change the shape of the game. Originally the fighter and the rogue had narrative power baked into the class. They got armies and theives guilds as they leveled up. But DM's balked at the idea that players simply 'get' that kind of narrative power (an army can really mess with your story line if used correctly) so it was first diverted to a feat (leadership) and is almost universally decried But they LEFT IN the world shaping power of the cleric and wizard. Either everyone gets the chance to shape the game world as part of their class or no one gets it. In a game where the fighter is just a guy with a sword, the wizard shouldnt be what a pathfinder wizard is.
If you only have a few encounters a caster is going to rain the pain. If you have an encounter heavy situation with several areas where the environment works against the party the caster starts to twiddle away their resources, leaving them on par with other characters for the big bad.
Again, its not a good way to balance things. Especially since in pathfinder this isnt really true anymore. All but 2 classes have per day resources. The vast majority of non 9-level spell casters are just as hampered by that long encounter day as the wizard and cleric are. Paladins are out of smites and lay on hands, barbarians are out of rage, bards are out of song, cavaliers are out of challenges, ninjas are out of ki, inquisitores are out of bane and judgement, everyong but the plain fighter and rogue run out of key abilities just like the wizard does. Its pretty much only the straight fighter that benefits (relatively speaking) from a long encounter day. Lots of other martial or partially martial characters get hosed right along with primary casters.
I personally favor the reduction of spell level advancement. For me, though, it is tied to a desire to change the game to encounter based adventuring days. A short rest will fully, or nearly fully, recharge the casters along with others. The trade off is in retarding spell casting advancement.
Now, we have experimented with enforced multiclassing briefly; I think it is a decent solution. My friend ran a fairly long bit of campaign in a small group enforcing 1/2 full caster class level. It seemed to work well for a low magic game. I lean more toward 2/3 level in casting classes.
But I am also looking for a grittier game; I plan on implementing some sort of vitality/wounds damage system. As a result, I will need to address mass damage spells, and will probably narrow the scope of area spells. Also, I shy away from access to hundreds of spells for main casters, but have difficulty with how to limit it without crippling their utility.
In the end, these changes might put casters on a par with powerful martials in rollicking melees....hopefully.
/rambling
For the first few levels, martials are more powerful then casters. I think it is around 10th level where casters become more powerful, and by 15th level they are clearly more powerful.
Here are my very simple fixes:
No starting ability score above 17 (perhaps even less for lower point buys)
7th,8th,9th level spells take a full round action to cast.
A few low level spells that cause paralysis should be reduced to stun.
A few spells that last for days per level should be knocked down to hours per level or even less - looking at you dominate person!
Count crafted gear the same as found or purchased gear when calculating WBL.
Beyond this there may be a spell here or there that is too powerful, but it is a lot harder to break the game if you follow the above restrictions.
EDIT: And one more thing, often GM's will attempt to increase the challenge of encounters by giving monsters max hp. This just makes it more difficult for martial characters, while having almost no effect on casters because the "most powerful" spells are the save or suck/die type, not direct damage.
I think this is a bad idea so I'm going to hide the topic.
I rather like it. But you don't have truly mundane characters in that system (because truly mundane can't compete with magic). Even in Pathfinder the system assumes heavy magic item use, so mundanes have to rely on gear to do special stuff (and can't really afford to refuse).