Ffordesoon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was originally written as a post in this thread, but, well, look at it. No way were these ideas going to be considered seriously when there's arguing to be done. Which would be a shame, as I think these are interesting suggestions which are worthy of consideration and critique.
If you're tired of hearing about the caster-martial disparity, join the club. But it is a real problem, and fixing them without turning the game into 4e presents some fascinating design challenges worth discussing.
A couple of reasonably elegant ways to limit the narrative power of casters without making them annoying to play have occurred to me. I doubt the first one originated with me, so feel free to tell me from whence I accidentally swiped it. The second one is also a swipe, but I'll acknowledge it when we get to it.
----
1. A "doomsday clock" system. Basically, caster PCs have a certain number of spels they can cast in their life - let's say a hundred. The player or the GM keeps a running tally of all the spells cast (excluding cantrips - that's just mean), and the PC functions as normal until they hit the magic (tee hee) number. When they're done casting the hundredth spell, they keel over dead. And no, nothing can bring you back once it happens - the caster dies permanently.
There are, of course, dials one can adjust here - it could be five hundred spells instead of one hundred, the GM could wind the clock back a smidge for every spell cast that's useful to the whole party, or it might be that only high-level or especially powerful spells count toward the total. A GM who's a great bookkeeper could say you age with every spell you cast, but how much you age is dependent on the level of the spell - a Level 1 spell ages you a day, a Level 2 spell ages you a week, and so on. A fiendish GM might crank up the nastiness - maybe every spell ages you a year, and you take the attendant age penalties, or you get fifty spells a life, or whatever.
The effect here is chiefly psychological - spider climb doesn't seem as immediately attractive as letting the martials carry you when it moves you one step closer to permanent death, does it? At the same time, the concept in its vanilla form doesn't impede the fun one can have playing a caster while they're alive. For me, it also makes casters more narratively interesting, hews more closely to spellcasting as it's commonly portrayed in fantasy fiction (dangerous, limited, rare), and avoids the "Reed Richards Is Useless" logic problem 3.x casters inadvertently embody.
2. This is, perhaps, a more fundamental shift, since it challenges an assumption going back to the very first incarnation of D&D. At the same time, it makes so much sense that I'm shocked I haven't seen any games try it before (and I might have; my memory is far from perfect).
The idea? Every class starts out as a martial. All classes can choose to gain Level 1 spells at Level 11 (or 10, but there are nine spell levels) and every level thereafter. Or maybe Magic-User is just a prestige class.
Weird, right? But it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. In fact, I'll explain just how much sense it makes by outright telling you where I stole the idea from - Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic. If you've played KOTOR, you know that the design masterstroke of the game was in denying you the ability to start as a Jedi. You had to hustle for that Jedi merit badge. And when you finally got your lightsaber, you felt like a Jedi. Jedi = Space Wizard.
(Yes, yes, Jedi are technically the ultimate level dippers, but in terms of the narrative role they occupy? Space Wizards.)
Casters dominate at high levels anyway, new players tend to find casters intimidating, and there's really no narrative reason why Joe Palooka should have access to any magic more powerful than cantrips (and I hasten to add the proviso that cantrips should be buffed to at least 5e levels, 'cause they are straight-up useless in 3.x/PF). So gate Joe Palooka's initiation into wizardry until he can really appreciate it.
----
Any thoughts?
DM_Blake |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
100 spells? A 10th level sorcerer could blow through that in 3 days of hard adventuring. That's not even considering how many spells he burned through to reach 10th level.
Sure, I get it, the idea is to motivate him to NOT burn through his 30+ spells per day, but then he's just a weak commoner with 10d6 HP.
I think you've overbalanced it way too far in the wrong direction. Frankly, if you set the "dial" too low, you ruin the class and it's unplayable. Set it too high, and it has no effect. My expectation is that the fine line between the two extremes doesn't really exist - if that line is 250 spells, then at 250 the class is unplayable and at 251 the class is unaffected. This will, of course, be perception, and where that line is will vary from game to game and player to player.
I think it's an intriguing idea for a novel. I am qualified to say so because I literally (pun intended) used this exact idea in my novel. Although it didn't sell so well so maybe I was the only one truly intrigued by the idea after all.
Forcing all casters (even paladins and bards and such?) to begin after 10 levels of pure martial might be a more interesting idea, but what about ability scores? That fighter with an 18 INT and an 8 STR is going to really, really, REALLY suck for the first 10 levels. Alternatively, that wizard with the ability scores that let him survive for 10 levels as a fighter is going to be impossible to use at level 11 for anything but crappy low-level buffs - he definitely won't have DCs to affect any CR 11 monsters with his low INT and low-level spells, and he won't be blasting them for much with his 1d4+1 Magic Missile or his 1d4 Burning Hands or his Color Spray that doesn't even stun a single enemy because they can all easily make their DC 13 Will saves.
I'm afraid neither of these ideas is likely to fix the problem, though you might be onto something with both ideas: they're both aimed at forcing (motivating) the casters to have/use fewer spells, or no spells, for most of their adventuring careers. That's not a bad idea, I just don't think these solutions are what it takes to make that idea work.
Ffordesoon |
@DM_Blake:
First of all, I will say upfront that I don't believe the disparity can be solved in 3.x/PF without altering the way the game plays on a fundamental level. Caster dominance is baked into the system, and published adventures assume the presence of a caster from first level. You'd have a very hard time running any of the PF APs as written under these systems, because the APs aren't designed to take alterations on this scale into account.
The second idea is better in an F20* game of its own, I'll cop to that. Perhaps they both are, but I think the first one could be ported into Pathfinder with a fair amount of work. Or 5e/13th Age, both of which I personally like more than Pathfinder. Any F20 game could theoretically harbor the first idea, though some are better fits than others. The caster-martial disparity extends to most of them, so I suppose it's wise to treat these ideas as system-neutral.
I will say, however, that if I were running a PF game and planning on using the first idea, I would restrict the countdown to the really high-level spells - Level 6 or Level 7 through Level 9. I'd also probably have Level 8 spells make the tally go up by three, and Level 9 spells would add somewhere around five. That's assuming that we're counting to one hundred, mind. If the number were 1000, I'd add 30 for Level 8 and 50 for Level 9. One must be consistent with these things.
I'd also rule that wish could only be used once, full stop, and that wishing for more wishes would result in a death both immediate and as ignominious as I could make it. But then, I'd houserule that into any F20 game with wish in it. :)
Oh, and Scribe Scroll wouldn't be a thing. Perhaps not wands, either. I forgot to mention those in my first post.
In any case, don't get stuck on the number in the first idea. The point is the psychological effect of the number, not the number itself.
@Milo v3:
1. Discounting the obvious mistake I apparently made in choosing the number 100, it adds an interesting narrative wrinkle (to me, anyway), a reason for martial PCs to be there beyond "We're also in the party," a risk associated with casting spells that currently isn't there, a character arc for casters that mirrors character arcs in fantasy literature, and a blanket reduction in the narrative power of casters. Among other things. If you don't believe it adds to the game, though, that's fair enough.
2. D20 Modern did that? Huh. I own the core rulebook for that system, but I haven't read it yet. I'll have to give it a look.
Thank you both for your input! :D
Anyone else?
* - F20 is Robin Laws' elegant abbreviation for "fantasy RPGs where you roll a d20 to resolve tasks and fight dudes and generally do D&D-y things," if you've never heard the term before.
buzzqw |
remind me of DCC magic (dungeon crawl classic)
"...No player is ever quite sure if the wizard will succeed on his next spell attempt. A successful roll means the wizard not only casts the spell, but retains it for casting again in the future. A failure means the wizard loses the spell – and a roll of 1 can result in a spell failure or the corruption of the caster. Conversely, a natural 20 is a critical success, and grants the most powerful result on the table."
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=8530
somehow wizards are bounded to supernatural, capricius, forces... and pay with own sanity/body
BHH
Milo v3 |
@Milo v3:
1. Discounting the obvious mistake I apparently made in choosing the number 100, it adds an interesting narrative wrinkle (to me, anyway), a reason for martial PCs to be there beyond "We're also in the party," a risk associated with casting spells that currently isn't there, a character arc for casters that mirrors character arcs in fantasy literature, and a blanket reduction in the narrative power of casters. Among other things. If you don't believe it adds to the game, though, that's fair enough.
2. D20 Modern did that? Huh. I own the core rulebook for that system, but I haven't read it yet. I'll have to give it a look.
1. I actually didn't even notice the 100. The fact simply is that your making it so "If my character does the only thing he can do, aka if I play my character, he gets closer to death." It works in literature and mummy the cursed (which is a game that can have you get closer to death the more magic you use iirc) follow different psychologies. In literature, you don't have to deal with a player getting bored or annoyed and feeling he is being punished every time he uses his class features. In mummy, it's valid because the major themes of the whole game focus around you starting super-powerful and gradually losing power since your amount is finite until you eventually die. But this isn't a situation like that, the mage is a player, that has to contribute to the group not at plot-specific times but All the time.
2. D20 modern has it so none of the basic classes are magical (one for each ability score), and then has all magic classes Advanced Classes... which I think you can enter at level 6 or 7... But they only go up to level 5 spells, since advanced classes only have 10 levels.
First of all, I will say upfront that I don't believe the disparity can be solved in 3.x/PF without altering the way the game plays on a fundamental level.
Have you checked out spheres of power or akashic mysteries? Those two magic systems don't really have any disparity issues, still feel like proper magic, and are PF magic systems which slot into AP's without issue.
Boomerang Nebula |
Neither really fixes anything, nor addresses the main issues.
How so?
The issue as I see it is that full casters are too powerful and versatile. The system works fine if they only use the full extent of their powers occasionally, but as per the current rules they can do it every day! This trashes the CR system, makes most martial classes pointless, creates silly magic marts, makes most APs too easy and most encounters trivial. Limiting casters improves the overall game.
Boomerang Nebula |
Another idea: caster's have to physically wrestle with nature in order to memorise new spells. This limits how many spells casters get back per day to 1d4 plus their strength bonus. It will have no effect at low levels, a moderate effect at mid-levels and a profound effect at high levels (where full casters break the game).
Ffordesoon |
@Milo v3:
1. All fair points. I think there's a great idea here, but it needs refining for exactly the reasons you mentioned.
2. I own both books, but haven't read through either yet. Will check them out.
@Boomerang Nebula:
Thanks! Though I will say that I think these folks are correct to point out that both ideas are underdeveloped. I started this thread because I thought the ideas were good raw material that needed molding, not because I thought they could be slotted into every game as is. I would think very carefully about introducing the Doomsday Clock into a preexisting game, as it's best if everyone knows the score ahead of time. I would also caution you against not enforcing the rule once it's been agreed upon - I think it's important to follow through on promises made to your players, especially if they're as punitive as this. But you're welcome to do as you like.
@Cyrad:
I, too, must ask "How so?" Not because I think you're wrong, necessarily, but because I want to know how the idea can be improved.
Thanks for commenting!
Ffordesoon |
Another idea: caster's have to physically wrestle with nature in order to memorise new spells. This limits how many spells casters get back per day to 1d4 plus their strength bonus. It will have no effect at low levels, a moderate effect at mid-levels and a profound effect at high levels (where full casters break the game).
I dunno. That sounds like exactly the kind of player-punishing AD&D-style limitation on casters I was attempting to get away from with my ideas. What's the player getting out of it?
(Yes, I realize you could ask the same thing of the Doomsday Clock. That's one of the flaws in the idea I'm hoping to correct.)
Atarlost |
I dunno. That sounds like exactly the kind of player-punishing AD&D-style limitation on casters I was attempting to get away from with my ideas. What's the player getting out of it?
(Yes, I realize you could ask the same thing of the Doomsday Clock. That's one of the flaws in the idea I'm hoping to correct.)
I don't think that's a flaw that can be corrected. Irreversible character death is pretty much the harshest player punishment the game rules can inflict.
Blackwaltzomega |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
*cracks knuckles*
1. You get what you get.
Extra spell slots for a high casting stat? Gone. You get what it says you get on your character sheet. At 20th level, 18 casting stat or 50, a wizard with a school and cleric get 45 spells per day and cantrips. Sorcererer gets 54. You cannot get extra spells per day through stats.
2. Farewell, CoDzilla!
If you have 9th-level spells, you get 1/2 BAB and d6 hit dice. Druids pass Wild Shape to a full BAB martial class designed around the power to transform and rely on their summons and animal companions. Clerics lose armor proficiencies and gain some more real class features to further separate them from the War Priest. All of the strongest casters are now considerably squishier rather than claiming to be squishy when they actually aren't. Polymorphing yourself into a horrible monster and trying to do the martial's job for them is no longer the domain of high casters, although some mid-casters can take a crack at it.
3. Minionmancy is not a toy.
Summons. Constructs. Undead minions. Well hey, if we can summon a horde of angels to sort it out, why learn BMX skills? Who needs Fighty McGee when you have golems?
Not so fast, bucko. Summons, undead minions, and constructs should have a number of inherent risks to using them. One blown check to keep control might turn the party's backup into a new encounter, and NPC wizards might not be the only ones that run a high risk of dying to their own constructs going awry at a bad time.
Casters need precautionary spells or preparations to effectively use summoning or command their undead or construct minions, and woe betide them if those preparations are messed with by the enemy. Minionmancy is now a high-risk high-reward play style rather than one of the first options any caster thinks of to solve a great number of problems.
Let's not even get into binding.
4. "What's a guy gotta do to get a sno-cone in this town?!"
Simulacrum is not a spell. Blood Money is not a spell. Magic Jar is not a spell.
5. Completely from Concentrate.
Implement 5th Edition's Concentration mechanic, where a number of buff spells require the caster to concentrate on maintaining them and only one spell can be concentrated on at a time, although you can still cast other spells while concentrating.
You can fly, be invisible, climb walls, and all that good stuff, but you don't have the power to keep ten different buffs running simultaneously. Pick ONE, and do that while focusing on other things. If you are hit, make a fort save or a concentration check or lose the spell. Ignoring the BBEG's minions to pin him down isn't such a smart idea if the Hold Monster you're using to take him out of the fight might go poof when a minion hits you with a thrown rock.
6. You've heard of Scry'n'Fry, now get ready for Track'n'Smack!
Hey, you know what would be fun? If there was a much better reason to employ tracking skills and investigation than "the local wizards are lazy buttheads who won't take ten minutes out of their day to tell you who did it and where they live."
Scrying becomes far easier to block, and teleport has additional countermeasures that aren't higher-level than the teleport spell itself. But on top of that, things like Locate Object, Find the Path, and Discern Location cannot be done as effectively through spells but DO become things mundane trackers can gain as extraordinary abilities at higher levels.
Just like you don't go to a fighter to bring your rogue back from the dead, you don't go to the wizard to sniff around and find something specific, you go looking for a ranger.
7. The three pillars are for EVERYONE.
Interaction, combat, and exploration. Take steps to make every class have viable options it can make use of in all three categories. These do not need to be 1:1 balanced, and indeed probably should not be.
The Ranger is a Combat/Explorer specialist with fewer options in Interaction. The Bard is a master of Interaction with good combat abilities and some OK exploration abilities. So on and so forth. Everyone's got something they can do when the party needs to fight, explore, or influence their world. Nobody's playing games on their iPhone while waiting for the next combat because they can't do much else.
Have some fun with this. Martials are, as a rule, in killer shape compared to casters. Let's say they acquire natural climb and swim speeds after a certain level! Now the wizard might be able to fly up over the castle walls, but the fighter can climb them no problem, and the rogue can swim through the moat to infiltrate from below. Nobody ever needs to toss over a spider climb to the martials unless they're in need of some of the ways spider-climb breaks the laws of physics like standing on the ceiling. But for scaling even tricky surfaces? Going for a swim? Nah, the martial's got this. Go ahead and buff yourself to keep up, castypants.
Need some social influencing? Well, everybody knows somebody. The rogue knows a guy anywhere he goes. Don't ask too many questions, just...a guy. Who gets stuff done. And has useful things. Don't ask where they're from. The wizard's got some pull with this library and that school. The fighter's old army buddies and former subordinates or commanding officers or old clients from mercenary days (or perhaps shipmates from a life at sea, I dunno) remember Ol' Fighty McGee and are useful people to know when you need to learn something from people on the streets or secure passage on a ship pronto. You're not a bunch of smelly hobos who wander around killing things and never making an impression! You've all got people you know and some strings you can pull to try and move the party closer to its goals.
8. "Ah, the five foot step. Very effective unless your opponent has studied his Agrippa...which I have!"
Here's a thought. What if we reduced the number of iterative attacks, but let people make them as a standard action and didn't reduce BAB? The Barbarian only gets two attacks, let's say, but at level 6 that's a thing he has now. Move up to the enemy and double-attack. Monks and Fighters get even more thanks to flurry of blows and the fighter's battle mastery letting him make his four attacks at full power on the move.
The game math will need to be bent a little to adjust to this, but I think you get the point of what I'm saying. Move around freely in a fight. Stand still or suck is dead and buried six feet deep.
9. "I'm not paying for this. I already bought it."
Feats scale with level/bab like spells do. You don't need to keep buying the same damn feat to keep it relevant, it just gets more powerful the higher-leveled you are. Feat taxes are cut down sharply and chaff feats are excised or rolled into other feats to greatly reduce the number you have to chose from but greatly increase the effectiveness of each choice. Feat-heavy styles like Archery exist, but like archery, every single feat is IMPROVING what you can do as an archer rather than the admittance point to basic competence with the fighting style you envision.
I'll be back when I come up with more, but that should be a good start.
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
Cyrad wrote:Neither really fixes anything, nor addresses the main issues.How so?
The issue as I see it is that full casters are too powerful and versatile. The system works fine if they only use the full extent of their powers occasionally, but as per the current rules they can do it every day! This trashes the CR system, makes most martial classes pointless, creates silly magic marts, makes most APs too easy and most encounters trivial. Limiting casters improves the overall game.
Because breaking spellcasters such that they become permanently useless after casting X spells in their lifetime or making a rule so you can't play one as a 1st level character sounds like an incredibly unfun approach to mitigating martial/caster disparity. Breaking classes doesn't really fix anything.
Boomerang Nebula |
Quote:Well, neither option increases the agency of non-casters.I, too, must ask "How so?" Not because I think you're wrong, necessarily, but because I want to know how the idea can be improved.
Not directly. Indirectly non-casters will be thrust into the limelight more because the caster can't or won't short circuit the encounter with magic. But I have no issue with adding some minor abilities to non-casters to make them more interesting after the elephant in the room ( full casters being too powerful and versatile) is addressed. I saw some of your suggestions regarding downtime and other areas which I thought were neat.
Boomerang Nebula |
Boomerang Nebula wrote:Another idea: caster's have to physically wrestle with nature in order to memorise new spells. This limits how many spells casters get back per day to 1d4 plus their strength bonus. It will have no effect at low levels, a moderate effect at mid-levels and a profound effect at high levels (where full casters break the game).I dunno. That sounds like exactly the kind of player-punishing AD&D-style limitation on casters I was attempting to get away from with my ideas. What's the player getting out of it?
(Yes, I realize you could ask the same thing of the Doomsday Clock. That's one of the flaws in the idea I'm hoping to correct.)
You have set yourself an impossible task if you want to: "limit the narrative power of casters" to quote your opening post, while also giving the player a benefit.
Also I don't agree that placing a limitation or reduction on something that applies equally to everyone is the same as a punishment. If my wizard character was uber powerful but your wizard was nerfed into oblivion, that would be a punishment.
Kaisoku |
Yeah... this kind of smacks of handicapping everyone exceptional until we get forced equality.
If you are looking at two things, one broken and another a shining example of amazing... why are we breaking the shining example, instead of elevating the broken? Who wants to play with two broken things?
Ok, maybe tweak some things so that they aren't the be-all end-all, however it is far more important to fix the broken and bring them to a similar level.. make 'em exciting to choose to play as well.
I agree with blackwaltzomega, who has basically rehashed all the things I've agreed with in the previous threads on this stuff.
Boomerang Nebula |
Yeah... this kind of smacks of handicapping everyone exceptional until we get forced equality.
If you are looking at two things, one broken and another a shining example of amazing... why are we breaking the shining example, instead of elevating the broken? Who wants to play with two broken things?I agree with blackwaltzomega, who has basically rehashed all the things I've agreed with in the previous threads on this stuff.
I have read much of Ayn Rand's work so I can appreciate the sentiment, but this particular example does not "smack" of anything of the sort. Full casters are not a shining example of anything except maybe: poor game design. Your proposal is to make every class as equally faulty, if you raise every other class in power to be equivalent to full casters you create more problems than you solve. Whereas if you reduce the power of full casters you can still use the existing, well written, adventure paths and you don't have to rewrite every other class which are much better designed than full casters.
Kaisoku |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit my language was rather strong, but my sentiment is firm.
In my experience and opinion, if you bring casters down *and do nothing else* then no-one will be able to deal with the things that the game throws at you.
This game assumes magic is there to deal with things past a few levels in. I've experienced (as DM and player) the travails of just having delayed spellcasting (in Oracle and Sorcerer) in time-sensitive Adventure Paths. As early as 5th level.
Cut off casters at the knees (like 11th character level+ only) and you'll find you can't even play adventure paths any more without some serious outside NPC assistance and hand-holding.
Non-casters *must be fixed* before you can start looking at scaling back casters.
Spellcasters can absolutely be toned back from being "masters at everything", but the proposals were kind of over the top and didn't address non-casters whatsoever.
Boomerang Nebula |
I admit my language was rather strong, but my sentiment is firm.
In my experience and opinion, if you bring casters down *and do nothing else* then no-one will be able to deal with the things that the game throws at you.
This game assumes magic is there to deal with things past a few levels in. I've experienced (as DM and player) the travails of just having delayed spellcasting (in Oracle and Sorcerer) in time-sensitive Adventure Paths. As early as 5th level.
Cut off casters at the knees (like 11th character level+ only) and you'll find you can't even play adventure paths any more without some serious outside NPC assistance and hand-holding.
Non-casters *must be fixed* before you can start looking at scaling back casters.
Spellcasters can absolutely be toned back from being "masters at everything", but the proposals were kind of over the top and didn't address non-casters whatsoever.
I agree that non-caster classes like fighter and rogue should have some added abilities to make them more interesting and more versatile. My experience is that adventure paths work well for 4th level and 6th level casters like rangers and bards respectively. Full casters on the other hand tend to trivialise the encounters and make CR comparisons inaccurate. In our group full casters usually multi class which seems to solve a few problems.
I disagree on your priorities, non-casters don't ruin the game like full casters do. Fixing full casters improves the overall game, fixing non-casters only affects a few classes and makes no real difference to the game as a whole.
To your point: the proposals suggested so far are extreme, the opening post recognises that they could do with some fine tuning, what do you suggest would be more appropriate parameters/ideas?
glass |
The first idea as I see it suffers from the "level limit problem"; depending on the number chosen and the length of the campaign you either hit the cap or you don't. If you don't it does not really change anything, if you do it is crippling.
TBF, it is not quite the same because of the choice element; it is theoretically possible to set a cap that slows down spell casting without being crippling but I have no idea how you'd go about determining that number.
Also, if primary casters (especially wizards) are not casting spells, what on earth are the doing with their turns?
Whereas if you reduce the power of full casters you can still use the existing, well written, adventure paths and you don't have to rewrite every other class which are much better designed than full casters.
I don't think you can use existing APs with the second idea; as Kaisoku rightly points out, the party as a whole will be considerably weaker.
OTOH, I wonder what happens if you flip it on its head. You can start of a caster or a martial as normal, but from 11th level everyone is a caster.
Maybe pure martial classes would only be 10 levels long. Or alternatively everybody gets something at 11th level akin to 4e's paragon paths in addition to their class.
_
glass.
Scythia |
About idea number one, you weren't watching Maburaho, were you? :P
RDM42 |
Might not work in every campaign, but one I ran had as a central campaign point that every time you cast a spell there was a chance, not a huge one but a decent one, that you would cause a rip in the fabric of space that 'things' would come through. The size and scope of the rift was attuned to the level of the spell, so it wouldn't be CR inappropriate, and it was also adjusted by the amount of castings in quick order. So if you nova in a fight, there was at least a decent chance that at the same time you would make that combat mo difficult. If you frivolously cast for mundane purposes, you might find yourself in combats you weren't planning on.
I think there was also a metamagic feat you could take that would reduce the chance at the expense of using up a high spell slot.
Oxylepy |
Honestly, I have noticed that casters tend to deal less damage overall compared to martial classes. Slap a couple templates on martial characters and casters alike, get your high stats into the 30s, and throw enemies that make their good save on a 5 at them, or where their SR requires an 11 or 12 on the die and suddenly you have martial classes throwing out 50-80 damage, while casters may be doing about the same at the same levels.
Only real issue is the ranged rogue, who can outclass the martial DPR because of sneak attack. Which feels kind of fringe and can always be handled by having them harrassed.
Don't let anyone get too much money, avoid letting them abuse spells, bing bang boom, balanced by higher power level PCs.
Orfamay Quest |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was originally written as a post in this thread, but, well, look at it. No way were these ideas going to be considered seriously when there's arguing to be done. Which would be a shame, as I think these are interesting suggestions which are worthy of consideration and critique.
If you're tired of hearing about the caster-martial disparity, join the club. But it is a real problem, and fixing them without turning the game into 4e presents some fascinating design challenges worth discussing.
A couple of reasonably elegant ways to limit the narrative power of casters without making them annoying to play have occurred to me. I doubt the first one originated with me, so feel free to tell me from whence I accidentally swiped it. The second one is also a swipe, but I'll acknowledge it when we get to it.
I think this is the wrong approach, but I tend to disagree with a lot of the discussion on C/MD, because I think that nearly everyone approaches it from the wrong foot.
Part of the issue is that people expect the game to be the same at all levels of play, and for martials, this is more or less true. Herakles, who is a demigod, isn't doing anything fundamentally different than the mortal Leonidas, King of Sparta. They're both wandering around, kicking ass and taking names. For full casters, though, the increased agency and narrative power means that 20th level play is different from 2nd level play; 2nd level play is generally reactive (you see a monster, what do you do?) while 20th level caster play is generally a sandbox until and unless the GM makes a concerted effort to put limits onto it. Martial play is generally not a sandbox at any level, though....
This wasn't always the case, though. The game as originally designed was supposed to be "theme park ride at low levels, becoming a sandbox as you leveled." FIghters built strongholds, attracted followers, and were generally playing Kingmaker as far back as AD&D. (That was actually one of the notable differences between AD&D and some of the contemporary competitors like Traveller -- in most games, the numbers got bigger but the playstyle didn't change).
The other thing that changed is the effective level caps. After about 12th level (varied by class), the numbers got bigger, but basically nothing else changed, so the difference between a 10th level fighter and a 15th level fighter was minimal,... but there was also no level limit. You didn't hit level 20, get a "capstone" ability, and then say "now what?" 20th level was simply the number between 19 and 21, if you were still having fun playing -- which in turn meant there was less incentive to try to max levels.
I'd like to see C/MD dealt with, not by limiting what casters can do, but by actively embracing the idea that a 15th level character, irrespective of class, is a whole different type of animal than a 5th level character. A 15th level fighter shouldn't just be a better fighter (more attacks, higher bonuses, and more hit points), but actively different.
And if this means that 15th level is more like a superhero comic than it is like the Lord of the Rings, that's fine, and in fact, explicit. If you want something realistic, run with the "realistic" ruleset (levels 1-5). If you want pulp heros, run in the level 4-8 range. And if you want a game at level 18+, accept that your wizards will be Dr. Strange, not Gandalf, and that your fighters will be Captain American and Iron Man, not Sir Galahad.
While there's nothing formally wrong with the doomsay clock idea, for example,... I don't think it fits into the kind of game that most people want from D&D. The idea that magic cumulatively saps your soul is relatively uncommon in fiction (see the movie The Golden Voyage of Sinbad for an example), but also almost never applied to the protagonists or to "good" wizards. And, as Milo pointed out, you're basically punishing the character for doing what the character does. That might be great if you want to play Vampire the Teen Angst, but it doesn't fit the standard generic fantasy tropes that are the reason people play D&D and its clones.
I think the solution, then, is to be more inclusive (one of Pathfinder's strengths), not less. Embrace the anime and then say "if you want gritty realism, that's what low levels are for.... and there's no reason that you need to advance past level 5" Embrace the gritty realism and then say "if you want to play pulp heroes, start at level 6 where these realistic concerns cease to be an issue."
Orfamay Quest |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't this thread premature!
No.
I have yet to see absolute proof of the martial caster disparity!!!
There are lots of things in the world for which the evidence is overwhelming, yet there are a few holdouts waiting for "absolute proof."
No, the moon landings weren't faked.
Yes, the earth is actually older than 6,000 years.
Yes, Barack Obama is actually a US citizen by birth.
No, fluoridated water is not a Communist conspiracy.
... and, yes, caster-martial disparity is real.
KenderKin |
Still premature. The solutions proposed mean good by wands of any sort, and have ramifications beyond fixing anything.
My idea is that the martial are masters of the mundane. They attack with high modifiers to do so....and they do it well.
Casters are incessant rule benders/breakers. But they really are not, because they fit in the game....
The main thing I am seeing is the same reasons (and solutions) to make or play a low magic game.
The default game is RAW, the typical adjustments are to play
Low magic
High magic
which means game style or bad wrong fun..
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
Isn't this thread premature! I have yet to see absolute proof of the martial caster disparity!!!
Lots of opinions, but until the problem is identified proposing solutions is.....
It exists.
Though, I usually don't enjoy discussions about it as I rarely see them as productive. One of my biggest issues with such discussions is that most people approach the problem as a player or a GM, not a game designer. The martial/caster disparity occurs as a result of a game design issue.
Orfamay Quest |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still premature. The solutions proposed mean good by wands of any sort, and have ramifications beyond fixing anything.
... which is why they're proposals. I dislike most of the proposed solutions myself, but even a bad idea can lead to a good idea, whereas empty-headed ignorance can only lead to a career in politics.
My idea is that the martial are masters of the mundane. They attack with high modifiers to do so....and they do it well.
Well, that would be an improvement. One of the C/MD issues that that martials don't actually do "the mundane" very well. If you need to climb the 200 foot Cliffs of Insanity, you want a wizard with spider climb or a druid who can wildshape into a climbing animal, not a rogue. High modifiers are not even in the same league as "doesn't need to make a roll at all."
The main thing I am seeing is the same reasons (and solutions) to make or play a low magic game.
... which was roughly my proposal, except I'd say "highly fantastic" instead of "high magic," because martials are still restricted from using magic. Give them something else interesting to do at high levels (instead of just "attack[ing] with high modifiers") and much of the disparity goes away.
One of the issues with "high modifiers" is that "high" really only means something in relative terms. Having a +25 attack bonus instead of a +5 attack bonus doesn't really change anything when my opponent's AC is 20 points higher than it used to be. The difference between "roll an 8 to hit this dragon" and "roll an 8 to hit this orc" doesn't really show up in the retelling. On the other hand, "force the dragon to make a Reflex save or be incapacitated irrespective of his hit points and armor class" changes the feel of the combat and tactics.