| 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?