Keeping Spellcasters active for longer


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 73 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Well I haven't used a rust monster since I was in middle school and that was 35 years ago.


Nesterin Elbauthin Marikoth wrote:
(spell component pouch snatching vs spell book stealing)

Lets get on top of this:

(1) this is technique against rookie Wizards.

They don't even know to consider taking extra spell pouches or doing so much to protect the pouch, that rookiness is why they are blowing their great spells on nothing. Hey, if they are here in this thread reading this their message should not be "I better protect my spell pouch so I can waste high level spells" but "I shouldn't be so wasteful of high level spells that my GM ever considers trying to have a soft-nerf."

(2) this is to stop them making a bad choice

This isn't like stealing their spellbook to make them feel useless. This is to STOP THEM FEELING USELESS!

Because when they blow the good spells on nothing, and then don't have those awesome spells for the big fight, that is how they can feel useless. While it is thematically equivalent to taking their spellbook it isn't functionally the same, they are delayed from spellcasting, not unable to prepare any new spells.

(3) There is no interpretation in the original proposition

This is not about a scenario well out of initiative:

"Your spell component pouch is gone"
"I thought this would happen, I ready my backup spell component pouch"

It was enacted for no reason, at a time when it's not really going to change anything

It's more like, when a wizard is about to blow a really good spell on something he will need for later, have his spell component pouch gone via a retro-active sleight-of-hand, they probably won't have a backup pouch. Even if they did, they'd have to ready it.


So now as gm you are deciding when a character is going to be able to use his spells? That's bad gming.

The best way too teach a wizard to conserve his spells is to let him make mistakes. Nothing teaches a wizard to conserve spells like that evocation wizard realizing that he only has force missiles left for the bbeg.


Devilkiller wrote:

Spreading out the mooks so much that a Fireball can only hit one of them seems like it would restrict encounter design more than I'd like. I think we're a little off topic anyhow as far as how to keep spellcasters active longer. Stuff like, "Make resting in the dungeon really risky so that casters conserve spells" might work within the current rules at least to a certain degree. Beyond that various house rules have been suggested, but I think peer pressure from the DM and other players will always be part of the answer if resting would make the caster PC more powerful than not resting.

You can put a time limit on the mission, imply that if the PCs stop the monsters will deploy new defenses or get reinforcements, etc. You could also just ridicule the casters for wanting to go back to sleep 2 hours after they woke up. If the DM is strict about only getting back spells once per day (not once per 8 hours of sleep) that can provide some roleplaying ammo and make camping in the dungeon seem like an even worse idea. I'm not saying that every DM must push caster PCs beyond the resource management limits they're comfortable with, just that these might be ways to do it.

While it is true that spreading does restrict encounter design, things like fireball can restrict it as much in how they can easilly wipe out 4-5 mooks in a single standard action. And I think it's fairly on topic because the "target rich environment" isn't there to use the balls powerful spells so they don't get used until the end-game.

You're right that the short term solution is to give a bail-out for spells, but the long term solution has to be to encourage better pacing of the use of spells. Going back to that short term solution, I'm now thinking scrolls would be the way to go. They aren't that expensive, a 4th level scroll is 700gp. That could be a decent bail out.

Also a great opportunity to introduce blasting spells you'd like to introduce them to.

PS: it's way easier to protect spell pouch and replace it than armoured+weapon users protect from and recover from a rust monster. Plus, plenty of spells (particularly low level) don't have material components. And Scrolls are all inclusive. Just read em. Spell pouch means generally some high level spells are only temporarily unusable.


Mulgar wrote:

So now as gm you are deciding when a character is going to be able to use his spells? That's bad gming.

The best way too teach a wizard to conserve his spells is to let him make mistakes. Nothing teaches a wizard to conserve spells like that evocation wizard realizing that he only has force missiles left for the bbeg.

I agree.

To paraphrase that famous saying: it is better to teach someone how to fish than give them a fish.


Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Mulgar wrote:

So now as gm you are deciding when a character is going to be able to use his spells? That's bad gming.

The best way too teach a wizard to conserve his spells is to let him make mistakes. Nothing teaches a wizard to conserve spells like that evocation wizard realizing that he only has force missiles left for the bbeg.

I agree.

To paraphrase that famous saying: it is better to teach someone how to fish than give them a fish.

You brought this on yourself


Haha, good one!

I thought you might go with the other one I have heard: "set a man on fire and keep him warm for the rest of his life".


Mulgar wrote:

So now as gm you are deciding when a character is going to be able to use his spells? That's bad gming.

The best way too teach a wizard to conserve his spells is to let him make mistakes. Nothing teaches a wizard to conserve spells like that evocation wizard realizing that he only has force missiles left for the bbeg.

You know you're probably right, it's better to have them learn the hard way than try to trip them up or reinforce poor decisions.

Though it might be a good idea to introduce the idea of spell-pouch lifting, just to it occurs to them as a way of dealing with really powerful casters.


Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Mulgar wrote:

So now as gm you are deciding when a character is going to be able to use his spells? That's bad gming.

The best way too teach a wizard to conserve his spells is to let him make mistakes. Nothing teaches a wizard to conserve spells like that evocation wizard realizing that he only has force missiles left for the bbeg.

I agree.

To paraphrase that famous saying: it is better to teach someone how to fish than give them a fish.

Set a fire for a man and he will be warm for one night.

Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.


That's the one. Remind me: was that Terry Pratchett?


Boomerang Nebula wrote:
That's the one. Remind me: was that Terry Pratchett?

Yes, but I don't know if it's something he had a character say in a book or if it was a quip he make in an interview or article or something.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If you want to give casters more longevity consider running an alternate magic system like Spheres of Power. Granting casters more powerful at-will spells alongside Vancian casting will only make your life miserable.

Spheres of Power does at-will spells pretty well - each of the 20 "Spheres" (aka schools) has their at-will powers and some can even obtain more as they up if they invest in it. Destruction grants a 1d6/2 levels blast, Life grants at-will Temporary HP that can only be used on injured creatures and doesn't grant HP over your normal maximum, Time allows single-target Haste of Slow, Warp grants single-classed Close-range teleports, etc. Most of these have low duration or a reduced effect compared to what you can do by spending "spell points" (the spell slot replacement). The only reason the system can do these cool things is because the power ceiling of magic is greatly reduced.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

My group has pretty much totally converted to 5th Edition, so my view on this is seen through that lens.

The cantrips are more powerful, but you know less of them. You also get less spell slots per level (max of 3 or 4 for levels 1-5, max of 1 or 2 for levels 6-9). And no bonus spell slots for high ability scores (they're kind of built in, anyways).

But we almost never run out of spell slots because the cantrips are so useful. Also, the Concentration mechanic in 5th Edition means you can only concentrate on one spell at a time, in general. So you're not spamming spells to super-buff or have multiple battlefield control spells up at once. You generally pick one Concentration spell for a situation, and then use non-Concentration spells and cantrips to supplement what you're doing.


@Mulgar - I've run into encounters with Rust Monsters and Grey Oozes in several published adventures. One of them destroyed a weapon which was part of my PC's backstory, and another destroyed an exotic weapon which the DM gloated might be tough to replace in the mega-dungeon we were stuck in (though he broke down and let me find another one in a level or so)

I'm not really a big proponent of targeting equipment. I was just musing about spreading the suffering around a little. One DM did recently spring some Anti-Magic Zones on us, and I guess those might have been even worse for a caster than they were for my Fighter (the amount of math you need to do to get rid of all your magic gear, buffs, etc is nearly as bad as the loss of power)


OP: To do this RAW, just remind the caster players that they can write scrolls. Helps to be a wizard, of course. Or failing that, buy them.

To do this non-RAW, change the rules to stop them casting their spells so rapidly. Full casters are too good anyway, so this is no bad thing (YMMV). Depending on how hard you want to swing the nerf bat, you might:
* increase spell casting times to 1 full-round action
* require a 1-round cooldown (no spellcasting more than cantrips) after casting your highest level spells
* introduce fatigue (temporary Str penalty or similar) for casting your highest level spells

and so on


Mudfoot wrote:

OP: To do this RAW, just remind the caster players that they can write scrolls. Helps to be a wizard, of course. Or failing that, buy them.

To do this non-RAW, change the rules to stop them casting their spells so rapidly. Full casters are too good anyway, so this is no bad thing (YMMV). Depending on how hard you want to swing the nerf bat, you might:
* increase spell casting times to 1 full-round action
* require a 1-round cooldown (no spellcasting more than cantrips) after casting your highest level spells
* introduce fatigue (temporary Str penalty or similar) for casting your highest level spells

and so on

Surely just the higher level spells would become full round casting time.

Daze as a full round action is too much. And touch spells lose too much viability.

Conventionally, there aren't any spells that are "full round action" to cast, they go straight from 1 standard action to 1 round casting time, which means they do nothing but cast for their turn, they are still casting when all their allies and all the enemies take their turn and and the spell isn't actually in effect till the beginning of their next turn.

I think what could get a "Full round action" effectively would be to put in some requirement that a move action must be spent in order to get higher level spells to work. I know you originally said all spells should be full round casting but some are barely worth a standard action such as Daze and some simply will not work due to how the spell is phrased such as Raven's Flight, you finish casting the spell... and have no move actions to do anything and immediately turn back into original form.

But how can there be a clear and consistent rule? Just say "the following spells need a move action to ready"?

Some spells are definitely a good idea to be 1 round casting time, like all the death effects. It is too much to leave a fully stocked, locked and ready to fight badass with only 1 save from being totally dead. I mean totally dead, not even breath of life can bring them back, and many magic items can grant that. To have it that a wizard can run right up to within 40ft of them, moving out of cover to zap them, it gives the target no chance to play the game.

But for such a spell to be telegraphed with their full round of casting it and not moving and then all your allies get a chance to either dodge it or take the wizard down. Of course, this is where mounts are so important for Wizards.


Yes, it'll need some thought. It's a matter of how much work you want to put in and how much of a problem the spells are. The principle is to make the casters work for their spells; instead of doing move+cast each round, it'll be more like move+startcasting; finishcasting+move; move+cantrip; cast.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think messing around with the action economy is just going to be confusing and jam everything up. It looks super awkward, and it really punishes casters. It's basically making every single caster to use a heavy crossbow. That would be like making every single ranged character use a heavy crossbow. Kind of silly, right?


SmiloDan wrote:
I think messing around with the action economy is just going to be confusing and jam everything up. It looks super awkward, and it really punishes casters. It's basically making every single caster to use a heavy crossbow. That would be like making every single ranged character use a heavy crossbow. Kind of silly, right?

Not really though.

Resolve against full AC to only deal 1d10 damage is not very good, especially when you're starting from such low BAB.

Realise this is compared to things like Boneshatter which does something like 7d6 and can leave them exhausted.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I believe the intent of the OP was an improvement to spellcasting. Reducing their casting to once every 2 rounds is probably not an improvement. Taking twice as long to do something in a fast-paced environment is generally not considered an improvement. For example, most modern firearms are not breech-loading flintlocks. They're now semiautomatic or fully automatic. I'm not a gun expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I imagine they improved gun technology to make guns more accurate, more potent, and with a quicker rate of fire.


And more reliable. XD That's usually considered an important feature.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Exactly! :-D


Based on what the OP wants, I'd say simply give out more base low level spells and fewer high level ones.

Double the base number of spells per day of 1st and 2nd level spells, 3rd and 4th level spells per day stay the same, everything 5th and higher are cut in half.

Now your casters can basically go all day at low levels but have to be a bit more careful to pick their spots for their universe shattering high level abilities.

51 to 73 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Keeping Spellcasters active for longer All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules