I'm going to write up this little nagging problem I've had with spellcasting, and hopefully get some feedback as to solutions / alternate perspectives from the community here. My problem stems from the fact that I've seen my groups' fighters and rogues and all assorted classes willing to try a few levels of this class or a few levels of that class which I like... it makes them less one dimensional characters. However, my spellcasters rarely attempt such forrays into other classes or prestige classes because for every level of spellcasting they miss out on, it's nothing that can be compensated for by taking another class. My players complain it hurts their immediate effectiveness in the group to do anything other than focus exclusively on their spellcasting.
I see a related issue with those classes that have limited spellcasting - Bards, Rangers, to an extent the Paladin. Often, I'm faced with requests of "if I ditch my spellcasting on this class, what can I get in exchange?" The feeling is that the way spells are worked into the system one either focuses on them to exclusion to keep the spells used by the characters relevant for the challenges thrown at them, or else it's considered more of a "gimmick" ability that costs their class more than it benefits. Useful for a cosmetic option of the character, but easily duplicated if not outright made useless by a magic item in many cases.
My question is... how do I make it attractive to characters to break out of this all or nothing mindset with spellcasting? Have other game masters felt this conflict as well, and how did you handle it? I'm naturally looking for the smoothest option out there - drastically restructuring the game isn't my idea of fun.
I've toyed with the idea of perhaps reworking spellcasting charts for those classes that had minor spellcasting so they perhaps were closer to the sorcerer and wizard to when a new spell level was achieved... only curtailing them to casting even fewer spells for balance. However, this doesn't solve the problem for the wizard or sorcerer. Perhaps if there was some way to keep their magic competitive, even when not focusing on it to exclusion... I'm eager to hear input on this issue.
|
I would argue spellcasters have the most options available, compared to other classes. A single-classed spellcaster can easily differentiate himself from other members of his class via unique skill, feat, and spell selection. The new item creation rules now give casters access to spells they are not normally able to cast (mostly be brewing potions). Simply put, a spellcaster doesn't need to multiclass to be unique.
Alternatively, there are viable concepts that do involve multiclass spellcasters. The classic arcane swordsman archetype, for example, is very doable in core, though the character will probably want to avoid spells that allow a save to remain effective. The variety of spells lends itself to a multitude of fighting styles, as long as the character is capable of managing resources.
If you are really that worried about cookie cutter casters, I think allowing more feat, spell, and prestige class options should help diversify your characters. The 'Practiced Spellcaster' feat in Complete Arcane is a great way to alleviate some of the pain of multiclass spellcasters. You may also consider the non-spellcasting variants of the paladin and ranger in Complete Warrior or the prestigious versions of the bard, paladin, and ranger in Unearthed Arcana. Spell Compendium is also a great resource.
Thanks for your input... but I still see the problems. "Practiced Spellcaster" Feat could be taken by a spellcaster who doesn't deviate from the exclusively sorcerer/wizard raising, and as such the divide still exists. And the non-spellcasting variants are almost exclusively what my group prefers to play. I personally like the option of having a bit of magic in a character that isn't the main spellcaster... but why should one limit oneself for an ability that doesn't really positively impact gameplay?
I'm trying to think of a way to give more "punch" to the magic that is available to the players, whether they're a Ranger, or the Wizard who has a theological bend and dedicates a couple levels to Cleric. We all see how quickly lower spell levels become irrelevant, and when you only allow a class lower spell levels that access becomes irrelevant at the same rate.
"Practiced Spellcaster" Feat could be taken by a spellcaster who doesn't deviate from the exclusively sorcerer/wizard raising, and as such the divide still exists.
Er... yeah, it could be taken by such a character, but it wouldn't do anything...
I totally agree with your general issue, though. Unfortunately it's baked pretty deep into the system; there are ways to adjust it, but they fall deep into house rule territory.
Whoops - I was remembering off the top of my head, and I confused "Practiced Spellcaster" with a different feat, misremembered the effects. My bad. *sheepish grin*
Still looking for other suggestions, so anyone... fire away!
Have you considered that it might be something of a role playing mistake not a rules mistake.
It is a very reasonable assessment that your last spells are the most powerful abilities in the game. There may be nothing in multiclassing or even prestige classes that is worth giving them up. This however is a player perspective not an in game character perspective.
Does the character know the game limits and details of his class? How many people do you know that knew where they'd be now 10 years ago?
If every character they are playing knows all the same rules and everything that the player does they will be the same character.
S
You pretty much have to re-work the whole spell casting system to make this work. Spell levels are what dictate spell power, spell levels are made available by continuing to progress in a single caster class. The only thing that makes multiclassing kind of work for casters is prestige classes. Things like the arcane trickster, mystic theruge, etc, make it hurt less, but your not going to be on par in overall effectiveness. They just have to want the 'versatility'. If they dont, there isnt a way to make it worth while without starting the system over from scratch.
Quite frankly, the problem is with your players who want to have thier cake and eat it to. (snip) so the answer is... challenge them to man up and go for it despite surrendering a bit of their thrones.
There's another facet to this problem, perhaps it might shed some light on the issue. I have one player in my group, and he's got a bit of a lean towards the power gamer side. He only plays tank oriented Fighters or Barbarians, or maxed out with every advantage Wizards. Not much variety or difference between his characters... and they always invariably become that main consideration in each and every fight, because he builds them with greater thought towards game mechanics than personality.
This creates situations where the classes with "gimmick" spellcasting always feeling like they're playing second fiddle when he plays one of his tanks... they're not his peer, and feel like their less effective spells don't contribute sufficiently against his Conan-like methods. Contrastingly, when he plays one of his Wizards they're clearly more reliant on the protection on the warrior types to protect his hide, but it always seems like it's always that Wizard's spell that tips the scale of battle - not the action of any other characters.
So, I have players who dislike the variety of the classes with lesser spell casting because they don't want to trade diversity for lessened effect. They see how the game master du jour has two choices... they can make a combat that's challenging towards this one player's characters and almost frustratingly difficult towards everyone elses', or they make it challenging towards the group as a whole and watch this one player's character pick apart the encounter like Wayne Gretzky vs. the NJ Devils of old.
I've tried encouraging this player to try something else... a Rogue, for goodness sakes! But they're not interested. So, I've been thinking of a way to reward the players who do take a more varied path with their characters rather than punish the one player and making him feel picked on. And it seems like spellcasting is a key issue of contention.
You're trying to solve a player problem with rules that the player in question will eventually exploit and increase your problem.
Make non combat encounters that matter. Reward diplomacy and social interaction. Give bonus experience for write ups, social flavour, and things that the other characters are good at.
Take a good look at what the players are each good at. In a way min\maxing is the quickest way to power but not necessarily finesse.
If your power gamer complains, be frank. "The other players have goals you don't and I want them to be rewarded\shine too."
S
Quite frankly, the problem is with your players who want to have thier cake and eat it to. (snip) so the answer is... challenge them to man up and go for it despite surrendering a bit of their thrones.There's another facet to this problem, perhaps it might shed some light on the issue. I have one player in my group, and he's got a bit of a lean towards the power gamer side. He only plays tank oriented Fighters or Barbarians, or maxed out with every advantage Wizards. Not much variety or difference between his characters... and they always invariably become that main consideration in each and every fight, because he builds them with greater thought towards game mechanics than personality.
This creates situations where the classes with "gimmick" spellcasting always feeling like they're playing second fiddle when he plays one of his tanks... they're not his peer, and feel like their less effective spells don't contribute sufficiently against his Conan-like methods. Contrastingly, when he plays one of his Wizards they're clearly more reliant on the protection on the warrior types to protect his hide, but it always seems like it's always that Wizard's spell that tips the scale of battle - not the action of any other characters.
So, I have players who dislike the variety of the classes with lesser spell casting because they don't want to trade diversity for lessened effect. They see how the game master du jour has two choices... they can make a combat that's challenging towards this one player's characters and almost frustratingly difficult towards everyone elses', or they make it challenging towards the group as a whole and watch this one player's character pick apart the encounter like Wayne Gretzky vs. the NJ Devils of old.
I've tried encouraging this player to try something else... a Rogue, for goodness sakes! But they're not interested. So, I've been thinking of a way to reward the players who do take a more varied path with their characters rather than...
I dont think your problem can be fixed with rules. Certainly a power gamer will be able to exploit them more effectively then the other players, they always do. If you provide bonuses for diversity, the powergamer will certainly use it to their advantage. Thats what they do.
The real problem is the difference between your players. I have seen ludicrous powergaming groups have a ball, because they all power game, or low power groups have fun playing their 'interesting' but relatively weak characters. The answer is to find a way to get your players in line with eachother. If you cant talk the powergamer down, try talking the other players up, offer ideas for options that would improve their characters overall performance in combat. Perhaps offer treasure rewards tailored to them that will let them shine a little better.
Baring that, play to player strengths and weaknesses. This means customizing the encounters to maximize other players effects. Try to put encounters where the non-powergaming players have to be involved. Examples include a golem or high SR enemy when theres a power gaming wizard, or a highly mobile, flying enemy vs the powergaming tank. Thats just a drop in the bucket ofc but you get the idea.
|
|
I would suggest diversifying your encounters and rewards. Your gimmick spellcasters are probably more interesting characters and as such should have more significant roles in the game world. They should therefore be entitled to positions of authority in which they have more access to funds, magic items, and cohorts. The power gamer may start to get the message when all your NPCs and story hooks constantly gravitate towards the more interesting characters.