'Just Because' Warning: This post isn't trying to change =anything=, nor is any form of request
While the constant, progressive nerfing in spell magic has been a thorn in my side for years (and the reason for me to rather stick to 3.0's magic in my games), it's only proper to take a moment to reflect that, at least in writers and editors' best intentions, they try to "make the mage classes more survivable, but taking some power in return". Let's take a peek at how have the mage classes evolved:
History of Spellcasters throughout different editions
2E
Magic was actually magic back then. The Mage, however, was the least survivable of all character classes (always a 1-hit kill at level 1), the lowest-advancing XP-level-wise, and the one with the steepest progression curve... but the one with the potential to become the single most powerful character in the party if they lucked out to live long enough. THIS was the magic of legends, the one you saw in tales like The Monkey's Paw (where wishes granted REAL wishes), The Last Unicorn (actual polymorph), or the Excalibur 80's movie (with Merlin's miracles).
3.0
The Wizard remains largely unchanged and the Sorcerer is added. The most powerful spells are watered down (most notably Wish and Shapechange) while the rest remain mostly untouched. In trade for this, crafting magical items becomes easy and attainable starting level 3. Spellcasters willing to devote the required gold and XP were able to become true action heroes by level 8.
3.5
The big magic nerf, the magic items that spellcasters used to build as a luxury to become action heroes now become necessary to barely being able to do half of what they used to do without them. "Mages" become de-facto downgraded to "alchemists" by function if not by title, unless all the player cares about is hack&slash... which is sadly the case regarding the vast majority.
Pathfinder
Magic remains largely as unmagical as in 3.5, now going as far as to kill all shape-shifting spells in the name of leaning towards the lowest common denominator (really, I'd have prefered you guys to remove shape-shifting magic altogether from the game than the sorry versions you left in their stead). Mage classes, however, become sordidly more survivable than ever with the large oomph coming from Pathfinder's love, which removes some of their chronic dependancy on magic items from standard 3.5 (a step in the right direction certainly).
Sure, survivability is great, but I'd gladly trade the class' survivability and early-game item creation in exchange for REAL magic, or at least I'd trade ALL ATTACK SPELLS in the evocation school for having the Shape-shifting spells back as they were in 3.0. I don't care for hack&slash or blowing shyte up. I want to explore the bottom of the ocean as a dolphin, grant a Wish, and occasionally polymorphing a Unicorn into a human for a month and a day to give her the human experience without needing a magic item. Now, certainly this post is just a long, boring dissertation and not any form of request. I don't even use PF's spells anyway (as mentioned above), but I still felt like sharing my thoughts on how spellcasters tend to grow larger each time, but at the cost of magic growing weaker each time.
Yes, PFRPG magic is very sad. It has lost all it had mystic and fantastic. But that's because the game has lost its primary goal. Before the balance of the game was based on the unique and irreplaceable roles of each class. Now they want balanced so that all classes will be equally powerful in combat. It is not my classic D&D, certainly.
Oh, I've seen too many editions :(
|
Oh, wow, you've hit a nerve here I didn't know I had!
As some background, I've only played AD&D through gold box games as a kid, and Baldur's Gate. I've read through 3.0 rules books, but my first session ever was actually the introductory session of 3.5 in my new group. So I don't have the gameplay experience you have.
But I love magic in novels, the unknown nature of it, and wonder it produces.
I come at D&D things from two angles:
System Design: I love math, and do a lot of unconscious and conscious theoretical optimization as I learn the game system. While I hope my tone and posts are little more socially friendly than Crusader of Logic's, his system analyses of the game usually match what I see. There are obvious weaknesses in the system that need to be solved if balance between characters and between challenges is important. (I know, I know, "balance" here needs to be defined!)
Player Fun: my beliefs on what makes D&D "fun" are:
- Players have situations where their character shines head and shoulders above the rest - they are the "go to guy" for a particular situation (that occurs reasonably often).
- Players have something useful to do in most circumstances.
- Players are not forced to "power build" in order to have the above options with any class
- No player should feel they are "useless" for significant portions of the game, whether that be roleplay vs. combat or level 3 play vs. level 16 play.
Fron a storytelling standpoint, I want magic to truly be magical. Rather than having magic reduced to some rote magical spells of well defined and regimented scope and power, I want it to be fantastical. At the same time, imposing real world limits on most skill uses and melee actions and abilities makes it "not fun" for non-spellcasting characters in a game with this kind of magic.
How do we introduce the fun and fantastic wonder of powerful magic without ruining the ability of non-spellcasting characters to matter in the game?
There's a lot I don't like about 4th edition, mostly the cookie-cutter feel of character differences in the game, but one item I think is a good idea is splitting in combat spells from out of combat spells. I'm not even sure we need different spells, maybe we just need two different effects for the same spell - one effect is the "in combat" use for a spell - and the other is the out of combat use for a spell.
Some concrete examples might be useful. This is all just spilled onto the page without analysis or playtesting, but I hope people can look at it and see if it's at least interesting - or not:
Summon Monster: Now it lasts 1 rnd / CL. Maybe, if cast out of combat, it lasts 1 hour/level - but if you enter combat with it effective, you must make a spellcraft (concentration) check to maintain your summoning in the shock of combat - and even if you make that check, its duration is reduced to 1 rnd / hour you had left in its duration. This allows a character to walk around with summoned companions active for significant periods of time, but keeps the in combat utility of the spell within limits.
Animate Rope: This has some uses in combat, but again, some fun out of combat roleplay uses of this spell are severly limited due to concerns over in-combat utility. I would increase the duration as the duration was increased with Summon Monster.
The same sorts of things apply for spells like disguise self, invisibility and image spells. There are lots of out of combat roleplaying uses for these spells that aren't usable because of concerns over in combat utility of these spells if they have long durations. Why not just say the onerous nature of combat changes the magical energies in an area and renders the duration of newly cast or extant spells shorter - down to the "combat duration"? That way the mage strolling through town can spend the whole day lounging about as an invisible observer, and the theif / spy can do the same, but the second he's detected he has only limited time to escape before his disguise wears off?
This gives a lot to spellcasters, to be sure, but I think there are things we can do for meleers on their end to allow both types of characters to be relevent.
I'm not even sure we need different spells, maybe we just need two different effects for the same spell - one effect is the "in combat" use for a spell - and the other is the out of combat use for a spell.
Hmmm, now that looks like an interesting compromise, I like the idea of -in combat- and -out of combat- effects for spells. =)
|
actually would have to agree with you Dogburt (we may not see eye to eye often, but have to admit you have something here) must add that 3.0 wizards gained casting on the defense and removed their CON bonus hitpoint cap + the bonus of metamagic feats, and metamagic items, 3.0 was pretty darn generous in certain respects. I, however, much prefer playing wizards that feel the excitement of powerful spells and the fear of most certain death if not protected.