Nerf casters but in a non-disruptive way


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So an idea came upon be in another thread.

Basically, to make a "quick fix"(in that you don't need to adjust spells and what not) for the versatility of casters implement the following house rules.

implement limited magic from unchained. This involves spells always being cast at lowest CL and DC possible.

then implement overclocking to restore these to normal CL and DC. except remove spellcraft and turn it into 7 skills one for each school. you use those skills in the same way as spellcraft but only for spells in schools tied to that skill. item creation is tied to the items aura.

this way the wizard has to focus his skill points down into various schools of magic to be competent at them.

sorcerers and other non int casters would be bumped to 4+int mod skill points. (or effectively all non-int casters gain 2 extra skill points.)

casters can still focus down that one thing they were good at before, but now they're simply not as versatile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, it changes nothing besides installing a featpoint-tax for casters?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guru-Meditation wrote:
So, it changes nothing besides installing a featpoint-tax for casters?

Sounds good in theory. ;)

All this back and forth about game balance lately is funny, in our home game we have implemented zero changes.

GM style matters a lot.

Longer adventuring days leads to more conservative casters, in that scenario everything seems balanced, at least for our group.

But to answer the question, I think that looks good.

Still doesn't fix disparity between casters and non-casters, but a nice start.

Maybe introduce an additional GP cost to every spell equal to level of spell? Just say it burns gems/gold as part of casting?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Flaw#1: This seems to only be applicable to wizards. What about the other casters? Do you expect a cleric or a sorcerer to spend their 4 skill ranks in spell-school-craft? I'd rather put my 2 extra ranks in other skills.
Flaw#2: Many spell effects are not dependent on CL, mostly only the duration of the spell. The spells them selves won't get any worse, haste will still do what it does and last 5 rounds, summon monster will barely be effected and those that do depend on CL will just stop scaling. This means that some spells won't be cast at certain levels, like fireball when 5d6 won't cut it, but at level 5 it will be as good as normal.
Flaw#3: DC's can be avoided, as in, you can play a wizard and not have a single spell that uses a DC in your spell book and still be effective.

All in all, it doesn't really do anything except adding 2 skill ranks to clerics and sorceres. You can't make an easy fix on spells, you need to rewrite them or remove some of them.


Rub-Eta wrote:
All in all, it doesn't really do anything except adding 2 skill ranks to clerics and sorceres. You can't make an easy fix on spells, you need to rewrite them or remove some of them.

I'm not sure why removing some spells wouldn't be an easy fix. It may not be outsourceable since every GM will have a different opinion of what spells need go to, but any GM can set a book limit for spells to get the list small enough to go over himself. If the CRB list alone is too big for a GM to go over he probably shouldn't be GMing.

Paizo Employee

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like we have this under control in our group, mostly due to talking out other issues rather than player-facing rules changes.

Nobody Likes Save-or-Suck
We have a save-or-suck mutual disarmament. I'm happy to tone down enemies' save-or-suck effects as long as the casters don't throw them around all the time.

Everyone ends up having more fun this way, in my experience, even the casters. While, simultaneously, you remove one of the most annoying aspects of caster power.

Combats Need to Keep Moving
If a player uses an ability that grinds combat to a halt, it's not necessarily "broken," but it's definitely impolite.

So you don't summon a bunch of creatures and make everyone wait to resolve their attacks. And you don't buff people who are having a hard enough time with the math already.

It takes time to teach players to think this way, but it's definitely worth the up-front cost. Combats run way faster, new players slip in more easily, and effects that warp action economy are discouraged.

What's Left?
So casters in my games mostly end up doing out-of-combat problem solving, healing, and blasting. I think it's a pretty balanced and enjoyable experience, but others may disagree.

Cheers!
Landon


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

hmmm, and here i thought it would recede into the abyss since no one replied.

@ the Flaws
1) it's applicable to everyone in about the same way, so if your cleric wouldn't put any ranks in spellcraft, then your wizard probably wouldn't either.
2) duration is important, it's the difference between something lasting into multiple combats or not. yes your shiny new spell levels would be more useful then than later, that's the point. your new spells would be more powerful, just like they already are with a higher DC.
3)not really until late game, most ways to avoid saves on your spells don't happen consistently for several levels. so your save or dies are going to be uner unless you put in the skill points.

@ featpoint tax, it's only spreading the "love" since casters don't seem to have any sort of tax placed on them anywhere in the game.

Grand Lodge

My thoughts on your solution:

You would dilute the knowledge skills. Bards would become the only person sitting at the table with any knowledge skill. My Wizard often gets shown up by the bard as is, but he's not always at the table. I'm fine in investing a lot of skill points into knowledge as its thematic, but I wouldn't have the option under your suggestion.

Universalist Wizards now have to specialize in certain forms of magic? Seems counter intuitive to me. Workaround: Grant Wizards more skill points than Sorcerors, but restrict them to Spellcraft only.

Unfortunately, the end result is this would force specialization more, and casters would dump more stats to boost INT even more (Poor Pallys, their casting would suffer the most as a MAD class and they certainly don't have the skill points to invest in Spellcraft). On a positive note, the Empyreal Sorcerors ranks would swell.

Divine Casters are still using an INT skill to figure out if they can cast at full power.

Sorcs would specialize more in 1 type of magic (most already do). Since every spell not "in school" is cast at minimum level, just buys scrolls for everything. Wait, they already do and have items that allow this without burning the scroll, leaving Wizards even further far behind.

All mages would take Skill Focus: Spellcraft[SCHOOL NAME] so races like halfelf would be more common.

Under this solution I see fewer viable builds making the class so uninteresting, no one would want to play it (more than once anyway). I believe a half-elf empyreal sorceror Evoker with Dazing Metamagic would still dominate the table easily.

or,

You could simply have Stat modifying items only provide temporary bonuses (never permanant). This would reduce caster spells per day, but melees would still get full effect from theirs with a few exceptions (barbarians wouldn't get extra rage from a CON belt, for example).

or, remove headbands entirely meaning less spells at lower DC's.

or, make every spell a full round cast.

or, remove metamagics like Quicken and Dazing.

or, institute a system like Acadamae Graduate, whereas a caster must make a CON check after each spell is cast or become fatigued/exhausted.

I hope I didn't come across too negative, I just think there are less destructive ways to balance the classes.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Grey_Mage wrote:

My thoughts on your solution:

You would dilute the knowledge skills. Bards would become the only person sitting at the table with any knowledge skill. My Wizard often gets shown up by the bard as is, but he's not always at the table. I'm fine in investing a lot of skill points into knowledge as its thematic, but I wouldn't have the option under your suggestion.

Universalist Wizards now have to specialize in certain forms of magic? Seems counter intuitive to me. Workaround: Grant Wizards more skill points than Sorcerors, but restrict them to Spellcraft only.

i had a more complicated version where your chosen school gave you a bonus or not-need a check, and opposition schools rolled at -10 but didn't take up 2 slots, but i thought this catered to wizards a bit too much

Unfortunately, the end result is this would force specialization more, and casters would dump more stats to boost INT even more (Poor Pallys, their casting would suffer the most as a MAD class and they certainly don't have the skill points to invest in Spellcraft). On a positive note, the Empyreal Sorcerors ranks would swell.

the idea is casters are too versatile, you don't need any meaningful cost to pick up a third level fireball even if you didn't have a single evocation spell until then, now they have to wonder if they should pick up fireball since they didn't pick evocation as one of their maxed skills.

Paladin's and 1/2 casters mostly have their spell's limited magic boosted as new spell levels have a much higher CL, and most are buffs so they might not need to boost them, it's a character choice

Divine Casters are still using an INT skill to figure out if they can cast at full power.

yep makes them a bit more mad, which is good

Sorcs would specialize more in 1 type of magic (most already do). Since every spell not "in school" is cast at minimum level, just buys scrolls for everything. Wait, they already do and have items that allow this without burning the scroll, leaving Wizards even further far behind.

wizards? wizards are top tier past sorcerer due to their versatility

All mages would take Skill Focus: Spellcraft[SCHOOL NAME] so races like halfelf would be more common.

they'd take it as much as they do in my game where we have limited magic and overclocking, almost never, still a lame feat expenditure, but they can do it, actually put soem strain on what casters use their feats for. this is as much a problem as wizards always getting metamagic feats.

Under this solution I see fewer viable builds making the class so uninteresting, no one would want to play it (more than once anyway). I believe a half-elf empyreal sorceror Evoker with Dazing Metamagic would still dominate the table easily.

the same number of builds are viable, they just got nerfed, this doesn't even remotely deal with a lot of spells. it's simply tries to make it so wizards and other cannot do everything just because

or,

You could simply have Stat modifying items only provide temporary bonuses (never permanant). This would reduce caster spells per day, but melees would still get full effect from theirs with a few exceptions (barbarians wouldn't get extra rage from a CON belt, for example).

or, remove headbands entirely meaning less spells at lower DC's.

except for scarred witches

or, make every spell a full round cast.

nerfs spells arbitrarily not on actual power

or, remove metamagics like Quicken and Dazing.

possible, but a very narrow confiend fix

or, institute a system like Acadamae Graduate, whereas a caster must make a CON check after each spell is cast or become fatigued/exhausted.

why does a caster even care if their exhausted or fatigued?

I hope I didn't come across too negative, I just think there are less destructive ways to balance the classes.

not too much, just this is a nerf, it doesn't destroy how top tier wizards work, it just tries to make it so they can't do everything all at once day to day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with spell casters are the spells, not the casters them selves or their ability to cast them. Making it eat up more feats/skill ranks doesn't mean anything to them, as they'll go to that length and still be as powerful as they are in the normal system. It's not a fix, just a minor inconvenience.

Seperating the spellcraft skill to specific schools will also result in a bigger diversity between spell schools. Why ever bother with enchantment and not just go full conjuration? People are already doing this and it would only be enforced harder.

Atarlost wrote:
I'm not sure why removing some spells wouldn't be an easy fix. It may not be outsourceable since every GM will have a different opinion of what spells need go to, but any GM can set a book limit for spells to get the list small enough to go over himself. If the CRB list alone is too big for a GM to go over he probably shouldn't be GMing.

I'm not talkng about removing some spells, even limiting spells to CRB only won't fix this. As I said, you can't just make an easy fix and think it'll work.

It's not the size of the lists that is the problem, it's specific spells and their effect on the game that casters can create but martials can't. The difference between a caster and a martial is great due to this. This IS the problem and therefore it's what needs to be fixed, not something else surrounding the spells.
Removing them isn't a fix, it's a cripple as now not even the casters will be able to create their effect in any way (again, the problem isn't the effect, it's the power of the effect and theefore fact that being able to create it makes for a huge difference in influence of a character's class). More spells needs to be rewriten rather than be removed, as some absolutly needs to be in the game but are currently too powerful. This means that a DM needs to go through every spell, evaluate them and maybe rethink them. Potentially, a re-design of every spell is required, that's going to take a long time and isn't an easy fix.


Convert everyone over to Spheres of Power . It would be disruptive to a game already in progress, but implementing it at the start of a game wouldn't be. No need for a skill tax that doesn't benefit non-casters in the slightest and makes skills worse for everyone since now all the 2+Int classes now have to pick up the slack.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

this is an attempt to nerf their versatility i should make that clear, but yeah spheres of power would also work.


If you nerf caster versatility without buffs to non-casters then you're left in an equally bad spot where non-casters just don't have the character space to pick up the slack.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

that's what my other thread is for.

Grand Lodge

On the fatigue concern:

In another homebrew thread, I elaborated on my own vision with the same goal as yours.

Elaboration:
Basically, all spells require a CON check (similiar to Acadamae Graduate) or caster become magically fatigued/exhausted. I think a DC of 12 + Spell level seems about right, but not tested.

-Magical fatigue/exhaustion lasts 12 hours and isn't dispelled by magical curative effects, instead the current duration is halved.

-Magical Fatigue/Exhaustion imposes the -2/-6 on concentration and casting CON checks in addition to the normal STR and DEX checks.

-Failing a check while Fatigued imparts untyped damage (like d3 x Spell Level) on the caster. The same while Exhausted is similar but d6 x Spell Level)

-Both normal and magical fatigue/exhaustion reduces movement rates by 25/50%.

The thought was to add Constitution to casters, as they are essentially channeling external forces through themselves and make them more of a MAD class. Also casting while weakened means they suddenly can't run away anymore if things go bad and they have to prioritize offensive spells more or casting that get out of jail free card like Dimension Door or Invisibility or else risk casting when they are low on HP.

I originally envisioned spells becoming "trivial" bypassing these requirements as casters leveled, but I think it would pair nicely with the "Limited Magic" option as you described it. They could cast at minimum level for free, but I'd move the DC to 15 + SL to cast full strength.

The limiting factors that can be adjusted by campaign would be length of the fatigue vs length of the workday.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

dem scarred witch doctors dough...

another idea i had was firstly this order int > wis > charisma > int

your required stats to cast a spell is based on your stat, your bonus spells per day are based on the next stat in the order, and your bonus to DC is based on your 2nd stat in the order.

makes casters MAD.


alexd1976 wrote:

All this back and forth about game balance lately is funny, in our home game we have implemented zero changes.

GM style matters a lot.

Longer adventuring days leads to more conservative casters, in that scenario everything seems balanced, at least for our group.

Indeed, not that the disparity is greatly lessened, but our sessions have been longer adventuring days for almost 20 years. The problem of casters that nova all their spells in a single encounter get screwed because our gaming sessions are always 2 to 3 encounters per day. There never is a safe zone that PCs can hide and rest between encounters. "Resting" only occurs at the end of a gaming session, and never played "live" in game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

sorry if this is blunt, but people keep bringing this up, and it's basically, your casters suck at being casters that doesn't mean that casters are balanced well against martials.

for instance, I had a martial, a bloodrager, in one of my games, tries to solo the BBEG who was a gish fighter/cleric. the rest of the team got feared and were running away for a few rounds. the one other guy that didn't was taking cover. why? the BBEG was firing arrows from behind a resetting trap, but the character charged anyway and died. that was someone playing a martial poorly, I don't think it's good evidence that martials suck.


I can see and appreciate finding ways to nerf wizard, since its the most powerful and versatile of all classes, however, my table is an exception to that due to which classes the players tend to choose. Although I mostly GM, when I play, its never a full caster, I prefer martials or half-casters, because those are the themes I prefer. I never play the most optimum or most effective class (I am more into the back story and roleplaying options and care nothing for top tier). And of the players that usually run casters, one always runs a psionicist, and the rest only ever play sorcerers or clerics. I don't think a single player has run a wizard in over 10 years - I can't remember the last time anyone played a wizard at my table.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i'm the same way (always GMs prefers backstory then find mechanics) but i really can;t bare to play a martial with no casting, i usually get either half or 2/3 casters. sometimes i play clerics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Several years ago our group implemented three rule changes to stop the problems with the game which arise when casters get access to higher level spells and soon start to totally outclass the Martials. We have no complaints.

1) The big change is that characters cannot rise above 10th level (basically we use E10 rather than E6). This effectively stops player characters from getting 6th to 9th level spells. A few spells, most notably Heal, have been reduced to 5th level whilst some 5th level spells (e.g. Teleport) have been banned because they cause major problems. We allow major villains to go as high as 14th level.

2) Ban defensive casting. If you want to cast whilst adjacent to someone you must take the attack of opportunity.

3) If you take a 5 foot step and then cast a spell in the same turn you are subject to attacks of opportunity in the square that you left.

Rules 2 & 3 makes it much more dangerous for casters to get into the front line; they cannot step away from attacks of opportunity and then cast (it's basically going back to AD&D).

The game doesn’t stop at 10th level though because we also allow experience points to be used to purchase feats, ability increase points, hero points, extra spells per day and extra spells known. All classes can also spend experience to increase their class level for the purpose of certain higher level class abilities (e.g. more sneak attack, advanced Rogue talents, higher level bloodline powers, etc.).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Grey_Mage wrote:

Unfortunately, the end result is this would force specialization more, and casters would dump more stats to boost INT even more (Poor Pallys, their casting would suffer the most as a MAD class and they certainly don't have the skill points to invest in Spellcraft). On a positive note, the Empyreal Sorcerors ranks would swell.

the idea is casters are too versatile, you don't need any meaningful cost to pick up a third level fireball even if you didn't have a single evocation spell until then, now they have to wonder if they should pick up fireball since they didn't pick evocation as one of their maxed skills.

Paladin's and 1/2 casters mostly have their spell's limited magic boosted as new spell levels have a much higher CL, and most are buffs so they might not need to boost them, it's a character choice

Divine Casters are still using an INT skill to figure out if they can cast at full power.

yep makes them a bit more mad, which is good

These are both very wrong. Casters are not too versatile. Martials aren't versatile enough. Nobody should be sitting out scenes. The problem with casters is that they have access to effects that shouldn't exist at all, not that they have access to a variety of effects. Niche protection means that at a table of five three are playing Angry Birds in every noncombat scene. Unless you're from Roxio that's a bad thing.

Divine casters are already very MAD. Cleric power is an illusion. They're a party tax. The "powerful" things they do are things most players find boring chores so anything that makes their sideline in bashing heads or summoning weaker or their party slot tax role more expensive will make them unplayable while filling the nigh-mandatory healer role. Any cleric nerf is really a martial nerf in disguise because martials need clerics. If people can't enjoy playing clerics that competently fill another role while handling their healing role at minimal cost it will be martials that will suffer stat drain and curses and negative levels and die pointless stupid deaths to disease because no one wants to play a cleric.


Magic is fickle and impossible to truly understand, if it was reliable it would be a science.

Every time a spell is cast the player rolls a d12 to see if the magic is with them this time. The result is the highest level spell they can cast at that moment (before metamagic effects are taken into account). In other words if they rolled a "4" and were trying to cast a 5th level spell like: Flamestrike then the spell would fizzle, however a quickened Magic Missile would work just fine. Every time the roll is successful subtract one from the next roll. Every time the roll results in failure add two to the next roll.

No feat, power, spell, item or ability of any kind can add a bonus to the roll. The penalty/bonus resets back to zero every full moon (or other magically significant event).


Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Magic is fickle and impossible to truly understand, if it was reliable it would be a science.

Every time a spell is cast the player rolls a d12 to see if the magic is with them this time. The result is the highest level spell they can cast at that moment (before metamagic effects are taken into account). In other words if they rolled a "4" and were trying to cast a 5th level spell like: Flamestrike then the spell would fizzle, however a quickened Magic Missile would work just fine. Every time the roll is successful subtract one from the next roll. Every time the roll results in failure add two to the next roll.

No feat, power, spell, item or ability of any kind can add a bonus to the roll. The penalty/bonus resets back to zero every full moon (or other magically significant event).

Clever, but there are two problems. First, magic as science is quite popular and is implicit in the wizard fluff. Second, it makes being a fighter more dangerous.

Alice (fighter): That crit took off two thirds off my HP.
Bob (cleric): Okay. Garak the Cleric moves over to Fighty McFightington and cast Heal.
Eve (GM): Roll for maximum level.
Bob: 1d12=4.
...
Eve: The orc barbarian hits McFightington again for 2d4+16 damage.
Alice: I'll just go roll up yet another character.


1) If you want to make it predictable roll the d12 first and then decide what spell to cast.

2) Channel positive energy is meant for in combat healing.


Boomerang Nebula wrote:

1) If you want to make it predictable roll the d12 first and then decide what spell to cast.

2) Channel positive energy is meant for in combat healing.

1) That doesn't fix the problem. In any urgent situation there's a minimum adequate spell on anyone's list of spells known or prepared. Anything below that isn't going to work. If you need to get the party out of a disaster there is no spell under level 4. If someone has taken serious damage heal is the only thing that keeps pace with damage. If someone drops it's Breath of Life now or nothing.

2) You're kidding, right? 1d6 per 2 levels is spitting in the wind. And you heal your enemies because pure casters aren't practical under your system and battle clerics can't afford charisma, especially when they can't afford to gamble on buffs unless they're absolutely critical. Even divine favor isn't safe to use since it raises your failure chance for the next battle.


Bandw2 wrote:
makes casters MAD.

This have been tried before, and it sucks, I'm sorry but I won't be nice about this. Now Wizards are MAD and Clerics are unplayable.

Bandw2 wrote:
this is an attempt to nerf their versatility i should make that clear

And yet all your suggestions do nothing about it. If you want to nerf the versatility of a caster you need to change what makes the casters versatil, not anything around that (DCs, CL and such).

Personally, I don't see their versatility as the problem, rather the excessive and risk free power of some spells.


Atarlost wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:

1) If you want to make it predictable roll the d12 first and then decide what spell to cast.

2) Channel positive energy is meant for in combat healing.

1) That doesn't fix the problem. In any urgent situation there's a minimum adequate spell on anyone's list of spells known or prepared. Anything below that isn't going to work. If you need to get the party out of a disaster there is no spell under level 4. If someone has taken serious damage heal is the only thing that keeps pace with damage. If someone drops it's Breath of Life now or nothing.

2) You're kidding, right? 1d6 per 2 levels is spitting in the wind. And you heal your enemies because pure casters aren't practical under your system and battle clerics can't afford charisma, especially when they can't afford to gamble on buffs unless they're absolutely critical. Even divine favor isn't safe to use since it raises your failure chance for the next battle.

Sorry for the slow response.

1) I don't understand why you think there is a problem. In the spirit of the opening post I proposed a mechanism for limiting the power of casters. You seem to be arguing that achieving what I set out to do is a problem.

2) Our group usually plays adventure paths and my experience is that channel positive energy is generally quite effective, but not so effective that clerics never cast healing spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The other way to go is explore other systems. See how magic works in GURPS, Shadowrun, Rolemaster (which began as an alternate combat and magic system for D&D), Savage Worlds, WOD, WHFRP, and see what works for you.

It's totally cool to be a fan of more than one system. The Devs play other RPGs I am sure it helps with inspiration for PF.


Boomerang Nebula wrote:

1) I don't understand why you think there is a problem. In the spirit of the opening post I proposed a mechanism for limiting the power of casters. You seem to be arguing that achieving what I set out to do is a problem.

2) Our group usually plays adventure paths and my experience is that channel positive energy is generally quite effective, but not so effective that clerics never cast healing spells.

1) There are good and bad methods of limiting casters. Increasing uncertainty across the board is a bad method. If a reaction has a failure rate you may as well not have it. Uncertainty is the enemy. Uncertainty makes it harder for the GM to make challenging encounters that aren't TPKs and makes the players more risk averse to the detriment of following the story. The right way to nerf casters is to leave the reactions intact because they are as likely or in some cases more likely to benefit the martials than the casters and nerf the offensive spells. Adjusting saving throws is a good solution. Removing broken stuff from the spell list is another good solution. Changing the way save DCs are calculated so that powerful classes of spell like save or puppet and save or die have lower DCs than weak classes of spell like save or take modest damage is a good solution. Anything that prevents the casters from supporting the martials is a stealth nerf to the martials.

2) So you're admitting that even channel focused clerics still need to cast healing spells. Most tables don't have channel focused clerics. Battle clerics can't afford the charisma for selective channel at sane point buys and lots of people won't play other builds, either because they don't like summoning or wish they were playing a fighter but someone needs to heal. Then there are oracles of any mystery other than life who don't channel at all. Some misguided (and soon to be permanently blind or deaf) parties try to get away with druids who also do not channel at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A healing spell does not need to exactly negate damage spelled be worthwhile if you take 50 but it healed 25 and are still standing upright the cure spell was worth it and 'effective'


Atarlost wrote:


2) So you're admitting that even channel focused clerics still need to cast healing spells. Most tables don't have channel focused clerics. Battle clerics can't afford the charisma for selective channel at sane point buys and lots of people won't play other builds, either because they don't like summoning or wish they were playing a fighter but someone needs to heal. Then there are oracles of any mystery other than life who don't channel at all. Some misguided (and soon to be permanently blind or deaf) parties try to get away with druids who also do not channel at all.

Unfortunately, I think you are right about this last bit.

The game presents 29!! classes for you to choose from, but if you don't have one of these two in the group, you are kinda screwed.

IMO, that is a problem with the system.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I actually thought of a more refined and less derp system.

basically yes split spellcraft up, or just make 7 other "skills". they're only skills in that they let you put skill points in them(it is unaffected by stats), they are rarely used in rolls but instead act as your maximum caster level in that school of magic. This way the class still needs to spend skill points on improving their magic and can't really do them all at once without forgoing all other types of skills.

you can't cast a spell unless you have the requires minimum caster level to cast a spell of that level. so if you have 4 points in evocation, you can't cast fireball.

this way no random rolls are used and your character is consistent and fun to play but still is not as versatile.


Bandw2 wrote:

I actually thought of a more refined and less derp system.

basically yes split spellcraft up, or just make 7 other "skills". they're only skills in that they let you put skill points in them(it is unaffected by stats), they are rarely used in rolls but instead act as your maximum caster level in that school of magic. This way the class still needs to spend skill points on improving their magic and can't really do them all at once without forgoing all other types of skills.

you can't cast a spell unless you have the requires minimum caster level to cast a spell of that level. so if you have 4 points in evocation, you can't cast fireball.

this way no random rolls are used and your character is consistent and fun to play but still is not as versatile.

What about something even simpler? A Wizard, for example, chooses one school in which he has full caster level progression. At 5th level and every 4 levels (9, 13, 17), he chooses another school in which he then has level -4 CL. And so on, kind of like Weapon Training.

Or, even simpler, choose one (or two) school(s) at full CL, and all other schools are at half CL.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

I actually thought of a more refined and less derp system.

basically yes split spellcraft up, or just make 7 other "skills". they're only skills in that they let you put skill points in them(it is unaffected by stats), they are rarely used in rolls but instead act as your maximum caster level in that school of magic. This way the class still needs to spend skill points on improving their magic and can't really do them all at once without forgoing all other types of skills.

you can't cast a spell unless you have the requires minimum caster level to cast a spell of that level. so if you have 4 points in evocation, you can't cast fireball.

this way no random rolls are used and your character is consistent and fun to play but still is not as versatile.

What about something even simpler? A Wizard, for example, chooses one school in which he has full caster level progression. At 5th level and every 4 levels (9, 13, 17), he chooses another school in which he then has level -4 CL. And so on, kind of like Weapon Training.

Or, even simpler, choose one (or two) school(s) at full CL, and all other schools are at half CL.

because then the wizard still has as many skill points as a rogue. :P


What about this idea: Casters are linear. Prepared full casters can cast a number of spell levels equal to their level + their casting stat modifier or their level, whichever is lower. Spontaneous full casters would probably get 2x or 1.5x their level, and 2/3 casters would get 1/2 their level or something. The highest-level spells available to cast would be the same. If I was a 5th level Cleric with a +4 to wisdom, I could cast 9 spell levels a day, at a maximum spell level of 3. That means I could either burn 3 3rd level slots in one battle, or be able to use many more spells, but of a lower level. Casters would have to choose between stopping power and staying power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's impossible to "nerf" casters non-disruptively without changing the entire system and spell list.

Making it hard or impossible to cast from your limited spells or cause additional miss chances beyond spell saves; which just ruins the fun of a class. Being incredibly unreliable is boring.

I would make martials better and quit trying to make the gaming experience for casters worse; because I guarantee you I haven't seen a solution yet which both "nerfs" casters and is somehow "non-disruptive". Just making a class worse is not a solution.


Martials need to be better. The current bar set by casters is so high, that martials need to be legendary in order to reach it. Mind Control, Teleportation, are superhero level powers. No amount of adding to fighters keeps them from sucking when 4 casters all cast dominate person or a similar on him/her in the 1st round of combat.

I usually just play the rules as written. As my group went back through the years and recounted our most memorable characters more of them were martials than casters so there is something not quantifiable there at work for my group.

I sometimes make a few changes when I would want to limit magic power.
Here are some.

Fatigue line effects mental stats as well as physical. (Kirth I believe does this as well)

Wizards and Sorcerers MUST have some specialization. I usually use three tiers. There are two Primary Schools, three secondary schools and the rest. They can use 0 - 3rd level spells from all schools. 4th - 6th level they can only use universal and their secondary/primary school spells. 7th - 9th they can only use universal and primary schools.
Sometimes I change it to lose a school at each new spell level but this is more bookkeeping.

Divine are similar except spell lists are not organized into schools but instead spheres of influenced based mostly on domains. They get all domains of their deity. 2 at first adn the others at later levels. They van cast all 0 - 3rd level spells on spell list. 4 - 6th level within any sphere of power they have chosen (9 Larger list of spells than current domains) and 7th - 9th within only their 2 primary spheres of power chosen.

This reduces the ability to do everything but in play I see high level casters still very effective.

The final piece is this, and it is perhaps the most important, I let certain spells be cast within different schools. Someone wants healing to be in necromancy and can explain how that works for their character... GREAT, they have cure spells that are officially school necromancy. Someone wants mage armor to be abjuration... sure. Sometimes this changes some aspect of the spell, but oh well. If players can argue it, cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:
The problem with spell casters are the spells, not the casters them selves or their ability to cast them. Making it eat up more feats/skill ranks doesn't mean anything to them, as they'll go to that length and still be as powerful as they are in the normal system. It's not a fix, just a minor inconvenience.

As a fantasy RPG, I want my magic to do things that are pretty magical. Most spells aren't a problem to me. The problem is in the ease with which magic can be used. It's far too convenient and cheap when it should involve more trade-off. Wands are a primary culprit when it comes to cheap utility. They should be curtailed. Plus, it's too easy to cast in a fight and too hard to disrupt the casting. The standard action is convenient and easy from a game rule and usability perspective, but it contributes to the relative undisruptability of the caster. I'd make a lot more spells, particularly the save or sit spells, full round to cast.

Rub-Eta wrote:

It's not the size of the lists that is the problem, it's specific spells and their effect on the game that casters can create but martials can't. The difference between a caster and a martial is great due to this. This IS the problem and therefore it's what needs to be fixed, not something else surrounding the spells.

Totally not a problem, at least not as far as I'm concerned. When the spells are game changing, they change the game for everybody, and when that's the case, it doesn't really matter which specific character does it. The whole party ultimately benefits (or suffers).

That said, I think the rules could use more explanation about the pros and cons of certain spells and how they affect the game, like the description of power in Champions (well worth looking into if you have a copy around). And GMs should be encouraged to delete spells from lists that they don't want to have to deal with.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

It's impossible to "nerf" casters non-disruptively without changing the entire system and spell list.

Making it hard or impossible to cast from your limited spells or cause additional miss chances beyond spell saves; which just ruins the fun of a class. Being incredibly unreliable is boring.

I would make martials better and quit trying to make the gaming experience for casters worse; because I guarantee you I haven't seen a solution yet which both "nerfs" casters and is somehow "non-disruptive". Just making a class worse is not a solution.

I actually think my latest system might be the best way, you can ultimately still focus down specific schools and keep skill points for other stuff or you canspend all your skill points to keep up, or you can try to generalize and get skills and multiple schools.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:


What about something even simpler? A Wizard, for example, chooses one school in which he has full caster level progression. At 5th level and every 4 levels (9, 13, 17), he chooses another school in which he then has level -4 CL. And so on, kind of like Weapon Training.

Or, even simpler, choose one (or two) school(s) at full CL, and all other schools are at half CL.

Something like this would be my preference, since I think the biggest problem with wizards is the "I have a spell for that" problem. If wizards had to specialize in a school, it would limit the number of game breaking spells a single wizard can access, and would give a chance for other classes to shine.

However, you would probably need to go through the spell lists to make sure all schools were equally viable, to ensure that every wizard isn't identical in their spell lists. Not every school is equally powerful, nor does every school have the same number of spells each level available to it.


Atarlost wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:

1) I don't understand why you think there is a problem. In the spirit of the opening post I proposed a mechanism for limiting the power of casters. You seem to be arguing that achieving what I set out to do is a problem.

2) Our group usually plays adventure paths and my experience is that channel positive energy is generally quite effective, but not so effective that clerics never cast healing spells.

1) There are good and bad methods of limiting casters. Increasing uncertainty across the board is a bad method. If a reaction has a failure rate you may as well not have it. Uncertainty is the enemy. Uncertainty makes it harder for the GM to make challenging encounters that aren't TPKs and makes the players more risk averse to the detriment of following the story. The right way to nerf casters is to leave the reactions intact because they are as likely or in some cases more likely to benefit the martials than the casters and nerf the offensive spells. Adjusting saving throws is a good solution. Removing broken stuff from the spell list is another good solution. Changing the way save DCs are calculated so that powerful classes of spell like save or puppet and save or die have lower DCs than weak classes of spell like save or take modest damage is a good solution. Anything that prevents the casters from supporting the martials is a stealth nerf to the martials.

2) So you're admitting that even channel focused clerics still need to cast healing spells. Most tables don't have channel focused clerics. Battle clerics can't afford the charisma for selective channel at sane point buys and lots of people won't play other builds, either because they don't like summoning or wish they were playing a fighter but someone needs to heal. Then there are oracles of any mystery other than life who don't channel at all. Some misguided (and soon to be permanently blind or deaf) parties try to get away with druids who also do not channel at all.

1) While I admire your enthusiasm I think you are being overly dramatic. Other games systems have more fickle magic and it works better than the D&D based system in my opinion and does not result in TPKs. I like some of your suggestions for limiting the power of casters, especially removing problem spells, that seems like a good solution to me.

2) I design balanced characters, so I tend not to rely on any one ability anyway. However I suspect you are correct in that a channel focused cleric would not be sufficient to meet the party's healing needs in every circumstance.


MMCJawa wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:


What about something even simpler? A Wizard, for example, chooses one school in which he has full caster level progression. At 5th level and every 4 levels (9, 13, 17), he chooses another school in which he then has level -4 CL. And so on, kind of like Weapon Training.

Or, even simpler, choose one (or two) school(s) at full CL, and all other schools are at half CL.

Something like this would be my preference, since I think the biggest problem with wizards is the "I have a spell for that" problem. If wizards had to specialize in a school, it would limit the number of game breaking spells a single wizard can access, and would give a chance for other classes to shine.

However, you would probably need to go through the spell lists to make sure all schools were equally viable, to ensure that every wizard isn't identical in their spell lists. Not every school is equally powerful, nor does every school have the same number of spells each level available to it.

Awesome idea, similar to the 1st edition illusionist for instance.


Bandw2 wrote:

So an idea came upon be in another thread.

Basically, to make a "quick fix"(in that you don't need to adjust spells and what not) for the versatility of casters implement the following house rules.

implement limited magic from unchained. This involves spells always being cast at lowest CL and DC possible.

then implement overclocking to restore these to normal CL and DC. except remove spellcraft and turn it into 7 skills one for each school. you use those skills in the same way as spellcraft but only for spells in schools tied to that skill. item creation is tied to the items aura.

this way the wizard has to focus his skill points down into various schools of magic to be competent at them.

sorcerers and other non int casters would be bumped to 4+int mod skill points. (or effectively all non-int casters gain 2 extra skill points.)

casters can still focus down that one thing they were good at before, but now they're simply not as versatile.

I don't think that really addresses the problem with Casters.

The problem isn't the low level spells, it's the high level spells which are so powerful even at the minimal DC and CL because they are such high level.

Versatility wasn't the problem was it? That's what makes them interesting.

What was the problem was surely how Black Tentacles could be used every time to immediately take all the challenge out of the fight.

One thing I do is I encourage higher level casters to take things like Mnemonic Enhancer to encourage them to choose more lower level spells than one super-dooper high level spell.

Another thing you can do is make them cast defensively more often, or at least the possibility that they may have to cast defensively. For example if there are invisible melee creatures around or guys hiding in alcoves with crossbows and ready actions targeting the wizard.

See cast defensively is 15 + DOUBLE the spell level, that makes low level spells pretty easy but higher level spells disproportionately difficult to cast defensively.

One houserule you could implement is Cast Defensively DC is 15+ spell-level-SQUARED.

This would end up giving 1st level spells a slight advantage, as 1-squared is lower than double of 1.

Second level spells would be just as hard as before (still quite hard to beat).

Third level spells would be 3 higher on the rolls, this is getting very difficult, moderate risk of spell loss.

fourth level spells would be 8 points harder, probably going to lose such a spell, quite a waste of a turn and a spell slot.

5th level spells would need a 15 higher roll! We're into the realm that even with vast amounts of wealth on boosting concentration checks only a natural-20 roll can be a success.

I think 6th level spells might be impossible to achieve a concentration check on even with a natural 20.

Does this ban the use of high level spells?

No, they can still use them, but they REALLY have to work for them. They need to be extremely cautious for snipers, invisible enemies and other traps that are triggered by casting. All the spells that apply out of combat still work. They could find obvious work around like being invisible or spells that make them appear to be doing nothing. But at least that puts some breaks on their abuse.

You can also start taxing their spell budget. For example if a powerful magical force is accosting them with Scrying attempts then every day they'd need to cast http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mage-s-private-sanctum in their base every 24 hours, and so, take away one of their awesomely powerful level 5 spells.

So it doesn't hit quite as hard as "no you just can't do anything, neener" they can do something but you have to up the ante outside of combat, to use up Caster's great power at higher level.

And in combat, persuade them not to take all-powerful area-destroying spells and give them a reason to take things like Dismissal, which are useless against the typical mobs that regular level 9 combatants deal with but vital for getting rid of an all powerful summoned creature. So if you're fed up of your wizard breaking every encounter with Lv5 summon monster, have them have to FACE summoned monsters so powerful that they utterly depend on a wizard being able to use a level 5 Dismissal spell.

This is the challenge for GM's, they really have to know the counters.

But this isn't going to work if the player controlling the wizard plays dumb, and I've seen this. They will refuse to acknowledge their party defence role.

The wizard who is totally in love with the POWER of utterly dominating combat with their powerful offensive spells and then they play chicken, refusing to accept that they should be instead taking defensive and countering spells and daring the GM to call their bluff and cause a likely TPK.

The GM really needs to take the top level casters to the side and tell them, the game WILL be balanced to limit their ridiculous power at high levels, they are put On Notice that if they neglect defensive and countering spells that keep their entire party alive to instead be so aggressive that the other players are left completely marginalised, then they are breaking the game.

Don't let one player's lust for power make you choose between Overpowered steamrolling and TPK.


MMCJawa wrote:

Something like this would be my preference, since I think the biggest problem with wizards is the "I have a spell for that" problem. If wizards had to specialize in a school, it would limit the number of game breaking spells a single wizard can access, and would give a chance for other classes to shine.

However, you would probably need to go through the spell lists to make sure all schools were equally viable, to ensure that every wizard isn't identical in their spell lists. Not every school is equally powerful, nor does every school have the same number of spells each level available to it.

This can be balanced by GM with the spellbook. GM can have a lot of say on whether the spell they want to put in the spellbook can even be there. You could refuse to give them any source of the spell for them to copy into their spellbook in the world and mandate that they don't pick certain spells on levelling or that they must pick other spells on levelling which are vital for the story progression.

And of course, you can do the semi-evil thing of GM of targeting the Wizard's spellbook. Of course, you'd never actually totally destroy the book but in the ensuing drama it "just so happens" that the few all powerful world breaking spells were defaced in the book so no more of them and you won't give them any other source.

Remember, you don't even need to houserule to control wizard spell options, their spellbook is the absolute limit on what spells they can prepare or even spontaneously cast through their bonded item. Get into that spellbook.

I'm not convinced specialisation and then ignoring it will work. They'll just pick the school with the one all powerful spell you are fed up of them spamming over and over.


Like Bill Dunn above, I want my magic to be magical - wondrous and special.

To that end, my campaigns tend to be low-magic - magic items are rare; learning new spells do not occur automatically at level up; and there are times and places where any arcane caster must make a spell-craft check in order to cast a spell (they have to craft the magical energy beyond what the spell normally calls for).

In short, I make it a pain to be an arcane caster. Hopefully worth it, especially at higher levels, which is where the payoff is.

I don't follow WBL. I don't follow monster stat blocs as written. I've basically been doing my own form of automatic progression, allowing players to affect creatures that would be immune or have too high a DR without needing to acquire that +3 or better weapon.

And I keep looking for a better solution. Spheres of Power is the most recent to catch my attention, but I want to see it in play before I make my group have to use it. (There are those who like the OP nature of magic in Pathfinder at higher levels. Or, heck, even at 3rd level when Fly comes online.)

I'll keep following these threads to see what others are doing, and what works, what doesn't, and why.


I see a lot of people saying martials need to be better and shouldn't nerf casters... isn't the solution to this problem within wizard?

Wizard has so many buffing spells, so many zoning spells, the wizard can be so damn good for buffing and zoning to enhance martial player's capability.

The real trick is to get wizard to stop trying to be a blaster and start being the party booster.

I'm hesitant to try to changing the rules to fix it, it introduces too much chaos into the system every aspect you try to change. I think the real trick is to try to condition your player to not be such a blaster by things like having the enemies target the wizard with far more aggression when he uses offensive spells, by the logic that is't not clear what the wizard's role it if he is just doing something to his allies but it's the allies who are kicking the most ass.


OP - sounds too complicated.

Want to try a very different yet simple way of nerfing casters? Make it where casters cannot cast spells on themselves.

The result? Casters can still do crazy things, but they don't have the super-defenses on 24/7.


Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Something like this would be my preference, since I think the biggest problem with wizards is the "I have a spell for that" problem. If wizards had to specialize in a school, it would limit the number of game breaking spells a single wizard can access, and would give a chance for other classes to shine.

However, you would probably need to go through the spell lists to make sure all schools were equally viable, to ensure that every wizard isn't identical in their spell lists. Not every school is equally powerful, nor does every school have the same number of spells each level available to it.

This can be balanced by GM with the spellbook. GM can have a lot of say on whether the spell they want to put in the spellbook can even be there. You could refuse to give them any source of the spell for them to copy into their spellbook in the world and mandate that they don't pick certain spells on levelling or that they must pick other spells on levelling which are vital for the story progression.

And of course, you can do the semi-evil thing of GM of targeting the Wizard's spellbook. Of course, you'd never actually totally destroy the book but in the ensuing drama it "just so happens" that the few all powerful world breaking spells were defaced in the book so no more of them and you won't give them any other source.

Remember, you don't even need to houserule to control wizard spell options, their spellbook is the absolute limit on what spells they can prepare or even spontaneously cast through their bonded item. Get into that spellbook.

You can of course do this, but to some extent it feels like micromanagement. I would rather the rules not require the GM to micromanage to that degree, especially since it also weakens NPCs. I mean if you are going to have a "whoops something ate part of your spellbook", than why not just ban the spells to begin with?

enforced school specialization would allow a player a wide variety of choices of what direction he wants to take his PC, and what role he wants. While minimizing the ability of a 9th level arcane to practically solve every problem and fill any role of every other pc class


MMCJawa wrote:
I mean if you are going to have a "whoops something ate part of your spellbook", than why not just ban the spells to begin with?

Uhh who says they'd find any spellbook at all? Unless there was a very narrow circumstance where your crew happened to catch a wizard/magus as they were preparing their spells they'd have no reason for them to have their spellbook on their person. They could have hidden it in a dimensional space, used some magic item to hide it or just buried it somewhere or his lakeys back at his base of operation had orders to (in event of his death) take his spellbook away so it could not be used. If you can even find their base of operation.

And I don't really see much necessity.

If I was to bring wizard/sorcerer spells into my campaign I have them delivered by a Sorcerer.

The big limitation of sorcerer is the limited spell list that you can't be a man for all seasons. But when making NPCs you can easily make a man for each season. Want to have a spell like Volcanic Storm? Well then that's just one of the only 4th levels spells that Level 8 Sorcerer knows. And he can cast 4 of them in one combat! That makes for a heck of a fight, damn good reason to shut him down ASAP.

But defeating him won't necessarily give you his spells.

And before you think Blood Transcription will work around this and the player didn't care about casting a spell with evil descriptor, the player may be hesitant considering they would inevitably contract any and all diseases and poisons the sorcerer had.

"enforced school specialization would allow a player a wide variety of choices of what direction he wants to take his PC"

But... that doesn't make sense.

You're ruling out whole other schools.

This I find adds needless complexity, it just makes it harder to balance what spells should be available as level by level, different schools of spells have different problems yet at lower levels all the spells are generally fine.

"While minimizing the ability of a 9th level arcane to practically solve every problem and fill any role of every other pc class"

9th level spells are endgame stuff.

And really they could pick any of the obvious schools and you've just made the overpowered spells you don't want to see spammed even more powerful and spammable.

Solve any problem is... not a problem.

Problem solving is the name of the game, almost, it's about giving the team problems and the characters each finding their solutions.

Things like the spell Salvage... that's obviously there to be a plot device to bring the party up from their lowest ebb, just when their prized ship is sunk and all seems to be lost, that's the spell to whoop out. That's probably what the homebrew should be, much more control over what spells the wizard can get.

Say they have an epic fight at level 16 and barely escape alive but their prized ship and all their possessions sink with it to the bottom of the sea. As a result of their encounters they all level up to 17 but that's the point where the GM has to say "no, you aren't going to take a stupid blasting spell, you're going to take Salvage as your levelling up spell and don't be an idiot".

Simplistic hands-off approaches like schools limitations don't help for such circumstances. See while Salvage is situation-ally a good spell it is Transmutation, same school as Form of Dragon III, to turn into a Huge dragon. Many people have said "yeah, you should look through all the schools and make sure there aren't problems"

I have looked, there are problems.

All the schools have ultra-powerful spells that need to be handed out with extreme caution.

I don't see how schools specialisation helps reduce the high level potency of Wizard and other casters.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Nerf casters but in a non-disruptive way All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.