It would seem that PfRPG is balanced from the assumption that each encounter, on average, will last 5 rounds. From that assumption it is possible to mathematically determine the impact of spell loss to a caster relative to the impact of action loss for a non-caster.
Even so, if you do calculate it to "about 5 rounds, roughly" multiplied by the traditional 4 encounters per day, you get a loose "about 20 rounds, roughly" answer.
Fine.
So a mage should be able to cast 20 spells?
What about a level 1 mage? Should he have 20 spells?
A 10th level wizard gets 20 spells (not counting any INT bonus). But what if he prepares some non-combat spells, like Alarm, Mount, Identify, Arcane Lock, Locate Object, Magic Mouth, Rope Trick, Explosive Runes, Tongues, Tiny Hut, Gentle Repose, Water Breathing, or many others I didn't name. Should this wizard still get 20 combat spells too?
No, these guys have to choose the right time to cast the spells they have, and conserve some of their combat spells for future combats (even if it is the 4th encounter of the day, you never know what the DM, or the gods, or the fates, have planned).
So calculating it down to exact number of rounds, or even "about 20 rounds, roughly", doesn't really help the discussion.
Even if it did, failing a critical spell, or losing it for any other reason, means we fail to kill/incapacitate that monster this round so the combat goes on one extra round, bumping us up to "about 21 rounds, roughly", at least for today.
And, now we have 1 fewer spell with which to face our 21-round day because we lost one for whatever reason.
Given that, a count of expected rounds/day becomes even less meaningful.
So we have no recourse but to speak in more abstract terms, like this:
Any caster who loses a spell for any reason has lost a non-renewable resource in terms of this adventuring day. Further, the difficulty of the current encounter increases because the caster tried to be effective but failed. Increased difficulty means increased risk. Increased risk means more need to handle that risk by expending more resources. All of which leads to consuming resources at a further accelerated rate that ultimately began by losing a spell. All of which is conducive to shortening the adventuring day regardless of how long or short it would have otherwise been.
Which is why losing a spell is a significant hardship to the caster who loses it and to his adventuring companions who rely on the caster being useful, and to the players who rely on adventuring to have fun, and on DM who relies on having his players adventuring to have fun.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Crazy Talk.
I'm not sure how you can honestly say that a Fighter who misses with his best attack equates to a Wizard losing his best spell. Sure, both PCs lose an action, but the Fighter can use his best attack again on the following round, whereas the Wizard has to wait till the following day to recoup his best spell.
It's apples and oranges, no matter how much fuzzy math you want to use to prove your theory.
|
That is not the case with me. I am against any aditional chance for spells to fizzle or have deminished effects simply because I know how annoying it is for those spells to either not do what they need to or to be an altogether waste of time.
I predominatly play clerics, and after the low levels, when I have the spells to do it, I prepair according to what I think will be needed. I typically have one or more lesser restorations, delay/neutralize poison, remove paralysis, and the like. Clerics in particular have many either touch or very close range spells, meaning they must be in combat to really use them. That means I already face many problems with spell failure. I know for a fact that by the rules, having to cast defensively is not some rare occurance. (It may be for arcanists, but that is not all casters and there is a lot less times where the entire party depends on single spells working). If my fighter gets paralyzed, I only have the one chance to get over there and get him working again. If I cast my spell than wait to move up, than the dm is going to have to let pass that either the fighter doesn't get coup de graced or the rogue mr fighter was flanking with is now alone, going to likely get ponned and now I have to both save the fighter and blow the next 2 encounters worth of my spells to heal both of them up, and probably use more spells to make sure I don't die before this fight is over. Either way, that wizard that was on the back 9 tossing their arcane bombs is in a lot of trouble.
In the spell point system, infinitely better in my opinion, this sort of problem, in fact just about every problem with spellcasting, is solved. There really isn't any case were that one spell you absolutely need is gone, you can just try again next round, just losing a few of your spell points. Unless it is the last fight for that day, you might be low on spell points.
|
One funny thing I've noticed in these endless arguments:
People telling the fighter fans to "get over it" always seem to list a zillion magic items fighters should have to compensate for their lack of built in class abilities, but the same people go on about "wasting spell slots".
Let's see. Wizards get an ability, for free, at first level that makes the whole "spell slot" argument moot: Scribe Scroll. If a wizard (or cleric, druid or sorcerer) doesn't have a bunch of scrolls written, boo freaking hoo if they run out of spell slots. For one feat and some gold (xp cost is gone now), spell casters can have the ability to almost never run out of useful spells. If your DM doesn't give you time to scribe in your downtime, maybe you need a new DM.
Let's play the "in MY game" card: In MY game, I've never seen a spell caster without an ample supply of scrolls.
Sheesh, wizards and sorcerers (at least) should have no problem stocking up on scrolls and still have plenty of gold for their other needs, WBL. They don't have to purchase expensive armors and weapons before getting expendables/ability boosters/miscellaneous stuff.
But keep up the debate, it's been good reading.
|
|
The diference is that fighters specifically don't have to have all the problems that the people that complain about them having. They focus exculsively on high ac and usually a single super weapon, and than they don't realize that all the threats that they can't avoid now could have been built up against as well.
I'm arguing against any more spell nerfs and against any additional spell failure because I have been in the position to many times were someone else's character died because I didn't have any chance to save them. No choice or action on my part was bad, it was just pure bad rolling. And that isn't fun for anyone. The guy that dies is usually a little angry, the DM feels bad and guilty, and the other players don't rant to just keep going and have the one (ex)player wait until a good time to bring in the new character.
Granted, that doesn't happen as often as the other not fun things, like ability damage, or sitting there for a real world hour for a 5ish round combat, or being so penalized that you just can't succeed at anything. Those things are more common, but not much more fun.
The real diference is that when the fighter doesn't have a fair will save or the ability to fly/teleport, it is their choice. They opted for high armor and damage rather than pariapt of wis, cloak of resistance, and flying boots, boots of levetation, or teleportation. Or a flying carpet. Spell failure is not something anyone can choose to control. Sure, they can take a feat or so to help, but it is still strictly luck. Nothing they can do about it.
Scrolls and wands are somewhat of a solution, except well they suck. They usually have dismally low saves, so it's rarely anything but the lesser effect with wands. Unlike spells, they do not scale up with your level at all. Staffs do, but are rediculously expensive, and unlike a magic weapon, they run out. They all help a little, but seriously, the argument is to basically make spellcasters class feature use magic device and not spellcasting.
That being said, I suggest to all clerics that you have your party buy you wands for you to use on them. Or rather make them buy themselves those wands and scrolls for you to use on them.
One funny thing I've noticed in these endless arguments:
People telling the fighter fans to "get over it" always seem to list a zillion magic items fighters should have to compensate for their lack of built in class abilities, but the same people go on about "wasting spell slots".
Let's see. Wizards get an ability, for free, at first level that makes the whole "spell slot" argument moot: Scribe Scroll. If a wizard (or cleric, druid or sorcerer) doesn't have a bunch of scrolls written, boo freaking hoo if they run out of spell slots. For one feat and some gold (xp cost is gone now), spell casters can have the ability to almost never run out of useful spells. If your DM doesn't give you time to scribe in your downtime, maybe you need a new DM.
Let's play the "in MY game" card: In MY game, I've never seen a spell caster without an ample supply of scrolls.
Sheesh, wizards and sorcerers (at least) should have no problem stocking up on scrolls and still have plenty of gold for their other needs, WBL. They don't have to purchase expensive armors and weapons before getting expendables/ability boosters/miscellaneous stuff.
This sort of "balance" assumes that casters have infinite gold.
But they don't. They have the same amount of gold as everyone else. Scribing an Enlarge or a Cure Light Wounds is cheap. Scribing a Gate or a Shapechange or a Miracle is not.
Are you truly suggesting that the game system is balanced as long as the casters put themselves in the poorhouse replenishing expensive magic items?
Or worse, since this thread is born out of "Why do we hate existing spell loss" but rather "Why do we hate adding new spell loss", then maybe you're saying houserules that drive casters into poverty are justified?
DM: The dragon's hoard had 100,000 gp in it. That's 20,000 GP each.
Fighter: Sweet! I've been saving up for a Ring of Regeneration for a while, and now I can get it!
Rogue: Yeah, I'm getting me that vorpal rapier I've been saving for.
Cleric: Well, I might be able to afford a +2 mace. But I have to put alot of this coin aside for scrolls and potions for us all. Maybe I'll just get a +1 mace instead.
Wizard: Nah, not me. I'm paying back that loanshark what I owe him for those last 4 scrolls of Implosion. Those sure saved out butts. But, I'll be penniless after paying him back. I guess I'll ask him for another loan to scribe some more scrolls...
This is balance?
Now, if we want to add permanent reusable magic items, so casters can cast an unlimited number of spells from a staff or ring or whatever, and then we suggest casters should buy these items, then I would say your arguement is valid. Fighters should buy Cloaks of Resistance to provide unlimited help with their Will saves. Casters should buy Rings of Infinite Spell X to provide unlimited help with losing daily spells. That would be even, that would be fair. But that would not be Vancian, and that would not be D&D.
The game system, the Vancian magic, is quite balanced. Perfect? Nah, probably not. But close enough.
But then along come people on the forums discussing houserules to incorporate new and intersting ways to strip spellcasters of their primary class ability. Of the only thing they do that really matters in the game.
Then this is justified by saying "oh, fighters can miss with their swords which is just as bad as blowing a spell for no reason, so this new houserule is balanced."
Hogwash.
And everyone saying that knows it's hogwash.
It would only be remotely true if that fighter had to switch to a smaller weapon every time he spends a round attacking (regardless of whether he hits or misses), and if he can only carry a limited number of weapons, each weapon being worse than the last one, until eventually after enough rounds, he must resort to punching and kicking. Then we'll talk about whether missing an attack is equal to blowing a spell.
It would only be remotely true if that fighter had to switch to a smaller weapon every time he spends a round attacking (regardless of whether he hits or misses), and if he can only carry a limited number of weapons, each weapon being worse than the last one, until eventually after enough rounds, he must resort to punching and kicking. Then we'll talk about whether missing an attack is equal to blowing a spell.So all of the caster's spells need to be equal to their highest level spells.
Fine.
Re-write the magic system to get rid of spell levels.
All spells scale with spell level and start available at 1st.
Spells per day by level all add into one big pool of spells per day.Problem solved.
[/snark]
You got me backward.
I'm not saying it should be like this. I don't think it should or say it should.
But a bunch of people are saying that a caster who blows his spell, probably one of his best available remaining spells (or else why is he casting this resource in this fight?), is losing nothing more than a fighter loses when he misses his enemy.
Their claim that both characters are losing a round, spending their whole round accomplishing nothing, therefor the impact to both characters is the same, is hogwash.
All I said was that for there to be any truth in what those guys are saying, we would need to implement this purely hypothetical and quite nonsensical multiple weapon silliness. If we did, then a fighter who must replace the weapon in his hand with a weaker weapon at the end of the round would really feel the loss if he missed this whole round with this weapon, just like a caster really feels the loss if he misses/loses his spell this round. Then, and only then, would their contention hold any remote resemblance to truth.
On a side note, I like your suggestion. It wouldn't solve the problem that robbing a caster of a spell is far worse than a fighter missing his attacks for a round, but it might be an interesting magic system.
In the spell point system, infinitely better in my opinion, this sort of problem, in fact just about every problem with spellcasting, is solved. There really isn't any case were that one spell you absolutely need is gone, you can just try again next round, just losing a few of your spell points. Unless it is the last fight for that day, you might be low on spell points.
I last used a spell point system when I invented one wholesale for 2nd ed. I'm seriously considering a return. (It's part of why I love psionics, despite their incendiary effect on some people)
|
|
They have one in Unearthed Arcana that works perfectly. Eash spell level has a certain cost in points. Whenever you cast a spell, it is at the level that you first got the spell, unless you spend points to augment it, like in psionics. So a 10th level wizard casts fireball. He pays, say 7 points as the base cost, (I don't know off hand how much). A wizard first gets fireball at 5th level, so it deals 5d6, regardless of his caster level. for every point he puts into it, though, he can increase the damage by 1d6, up to his caster level max (10d6). I want to say all cater level bonuses work this way, so range, and whatever else are as a 5th level caster unless they bump it up. Metamagic simply costs the extra points to cast it as if it were a higher level spell originially, and you are restricted to the max you can put into a spell, just like psionics.
I would suggest using Heighten Spell is a free thing any caster can do, as it is a lot less important with spell points, but more costly for what it does. There is one small note. Spells that increase in effect, but not in dice/CL, still increase. So, Cure Light Wounds, that heals/deals 1d8+1/CL, heals +1 at 1st level, +3 at 3rd level, etc. . . just like normal.
They have one in Unearthed Arcana that works perfectly. Eash spell level has a certain cost in points. Whenever you cast a spell, it is at the level that you first got the spell, unless you spend points to augment it, like in psionics. So a 10th level wizard casts fireball. He pays, say 7 points as the base cost, (I don't know off hand how much). A wizard first gets fireball at 5th level, so it deals 5d6, regardless of his caster level. for every point he puts into it, though, he can increase the damage by 1d6, up to his caster level max (10d6). I want to say all cater level bonuses work this way, so range, and whatever else are as a 5th level caster unless they bump it up. Metamagic simply costs the extra points to cast it as if it were a higher level spell originially, and you are restricted to the max you can put into a spell, just like psionics.
I would suggest using Heighten Spell is a free thing any caster can do, as it is a lot less important with spell points, but more costly for what it does. There is one small note. Spells that increase in effect, but not in dice/CL, still increase. So, Cure Light Wounds, that heals/deals 1d8+1/CL, heals +1 at 1st level, +3 at 3rd level, etc. . . just like normal.
Is there any difference between sorcerers and wizards with this?
Quite a bit, but I really don't think it works "perfectly."
Vancian casting is not the enemy.
|
|
It works perfectly in the sense that if you lose that one spell you absolutely must have, you can try it again next round. You lose some points, but the spell is still there if you can afford it.
Wizards and sorcerers do have some differences. They actually talk about this in a sidebar. Sorcerers have two primary benefits. More spell points and the fact that their spells are automatically slightly better. Remember were I said all spells default to minimume caster level? Because sorcerers get spells at a slower rate, all their minimume caster levels are higher. So if a 6th wizard and a sorcerer both cast a fireball, unmodified, the wizard deals 5d6, but the sorcerer's deals 6d6. Both cost the same price though.
Wizards, and anyone that prepairs spells, can essentually change their spells known each day.
Clerics and druids get their cure/inflicts/summons automatically known.
The base spell point cost for each level of spells is 1 for first level, and +2 per spell level, so a 9th level spell costs 17 (base).
Quite a bit, but I really don't think it works "perfectly."
Vancian casting is not the enemy.
Sure it is. It's always been a stupid, cumbersome system. I just don't play casters enough to care, generally. When I want to achieve things without swinging a club around I play psions, because they're like casters that aren't a drag.
Interesting stuffs...
Unearthed Arcana, eh? I needed something to do while I drift off into a nap...
Sure it is. It's always been a stupid, cumbersome system. I just don't play casters enough to care, generally. When I want to achieve things without swinging a club around I play psions, because they're like casters that aren't a drag.Quite a bit, but I really don't think it works "perfectly."
Vancian casting is not the enemy.
YAY Psionics!