Yeah I crossed on that last post -- got some going to you and some going to Fergie and I didn't make clear which was which very well.
I think saves against PC casters SHOULD become easier for monsters to make, because the spells themselves become more numerous, and INCREDIBILITY powerful. Monsters making their saves 75% of the time isn't so bad, because you are casting Whale of the Banshee, or Implosion! And if those don't work, you have 20+ other spells that are almost as good. Having a 25% chance to end an encounter with one spell is plenty powerful.
As I said in my original post, high level (15+) isn't much of an issue for me. I almost never play/GM that high, and won't be worried if characters had a +1-4 to their abilities by that point.
You invalidate your own point (plenty of spells and they do so much compared to never even getting to those spells in the first place) and the casters aren't going to have "all those spells" in addition to the fact that the failing spells means more cast (and more failed) leading to more cast... finally no spells for the day with a bunch of fail going on round after round.
Wail of the Banshee and Implosion are highly unlikely to end a combat as it stands already --
And honestly do you as a player or DM want to be told 75% of the time "too bad you fail again."
I'm fascinated by the discussion of what should be the "success rate" for casting save-or-win spells, and I'd like to discuss it, but I don't want to derail the OP's discussion with that. Anyone mind checking out my new thread here?
Name those "auto success" spells -- I think you'll find that you are lacking in choices in pathfinder.
Also I'm not saying "auto success" is needed -- indeed auto success is highly unlikely even with the big six however wanting at least a 45~60% rate for something you are limited to doing a few times per day and is going to have absolutely no effect if the save is made isn't an insane -- especially since once you are done you are weaker than before you started.
For auto success, I would consider most spells that don't allow a save "auto success". This includes (most) wall spells, cloud type spells, melee touch spells, and battlefield control type spells. There are also several specific spells that allow no save such as waves of fatigue/exhaustion, and power word spells. There are also a variety of ranged touch spells that don't allow saves such as - enervation/energy drain. Finally, since a good amount of spells have a partial effect, or affect a large number of targets, rarely is a spell totally wasted (and often those that are are TREMENDOUSLY powerful such as the enchantment spells.)
And really you aren't limited to a "few per day". Almost any mid+ level caster is going to be able to cast about half a dozen spells of their highest two levels, with another dozen more lower, but still relevant spells.
Hm... I don't think the cloud spells count as "no saves" since several of them give saves.
Necromancy is a good source of a couple of spells that do not allow some saves but do you really want a party where all the wizard prepares is scorching ray, ray of exhaustion, and summon monster with the occasional buff thrown in?
Most the enchantment spells don't have secondary effects. Personally I like a bit more variety in spell casting than this.
|
Also remember that not only are you drastically impacting the caster's ability to make spells stick, you are also dramatically limiting the amount of spells he has available by decreasing his ability to boost his mental stats. Even as he fails more, he loses the already limited ability he posseses to try again.
In addition, the effectiveness of low level spells during mid-level play will be drastically reduced. Web will be useless, for example. It has some utility when it's save DC is ~20 or 21 due to stat boosts, but when you're level 10 and the DC is 18... that's a very makeable number for Level appropriate monsters.
The fighter can blow a round by missing on every attack, but that's not relevant to this conversation - both for the reasons that have been outlined above by Abe and others, and because we're not talking about eliminating weapons with > +2 bonuses or toning down the Full BAB progression. We're talking about the absolute number one mechanic that influences the effectiveness of casters.
Personally, I'd say if you want to house-rule a huge homerun with the nerfbat more or less solely aimed at casters, go for it. Just don't expect to have any casters amongst your players, and expect your PC's to die a LOT more as a result. I'd play in such a game, but there is a 0.0% chance that I'd play a caster.
I would be willing to play a caster in such a game -- but I have a lot of experience with casters and the caster I played wouldn't be anything near the "typical" mage. I would be relying a lot more on metamagic in some cases, and summons in most of them. Necromancy would be a big school for me while I would quickly drop enchantment and evocation from my list I think.
|
|
Personally, I'd say if you want to house-rule a huge homerun with the nerfbat more or less solely aimed at casters, go for it. Just don't expect to have any casters amongst your players, and expect your PC's to die a LOT more as a result. I'd play in such a game, but there is a 0.0% chance that I'd play a caster.
Well I still contest that this sort of wholesale change can work successfully - and has for my own games for the past few years - given the changes I suggested.
The keys points are a high-magic stat build starting point (20 point buy not 15) and an increase of stats every even level.
Remember the Fox's Cunning and a stat boosting item doesn't stack, so a person wearing a +4 INT headband would never benefit from the spell.
A 12th level wizard wearing one under normal Pathfinder rules (starting with 18, adding 1 at 4th and 8th, and 12th and a +4 item giving him 25) would be comparable to a 12th level character in my campaign (starting w/ 18, adding 1 at 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th for a total of 24) but by wearing no magic item, freeing up money and slots for other benefits. By starting with more point buy, it allows the player to fill in some of the weak points of stats at the beginning rather than trying to fill them in with a couple of +2 ability items later.
My system does not hit spellcasters or anyone with a big nerfbat as you may be concerned with.
Robert
Since I will probably play in this campaign, I figured I should chime in. I think Brambley is right that if you are going to restrict the spells and items, you may want to increase the PC's base power through more generous point buy and/or attribute increases. I know I would feel more comfortable as a player in a campaign like that. The limitation can seem somewhat arbitrary and the boost to power makes it feel more like a quid-pro-quo situation.
In the campaign I'm currently running, I gave the characters a generous array and have them increase their attributes by 2 pts at 4 and 12 (1 at 8 and 16). I fully expect and would relish hefty dc's from the players and smite-a-licious damage from everyone at high levels. I want to be able to beat the stuffing out of these characters and have them bounce back, smiling, ready for more.
I think that in my next campaign, the power level will be scaled back a bit (although not to the extent that Fergie is proposing; there's a reason we constantly tell him he is evil) because it would suit the atmosphere of the campaign better.
I wanted this current campaign to feel bigger though, and I appreciate that stat generation method and scope is one of the ways a GM has to control the tone, setting and scale of the adventuring party.
A party of heroically strong adventurers is going to behave different than that "ragtag band of rebels" with barely more than ordinary stats.
As for me, I will most likely play a caster in Fergie's new campaign. I feel like there is never a shortage of fun stuff for a caster to do, and as long as you are not concerned about doing the most x or the highest y, you'll enjoy yourself and make a difference.
My current character in Fergie's campaign rarely has encounter-ending moments but when he does they are a doozy and they usually occur well into combat as a result of judicious buffing (& debuffing), battlefield control and tactical synergy with the rest of the party.
I feel this might be a part of Ferg's rationale as well. Limiting the party's resources can have the effect of making the party rely on teamwork and strategy more often, using aid another actions or flanking, for instance.
|
Since people seem to be forgetting what fergie wants...I'll re-iterate that getting rid of the stat boost items won't make stats more equalized. In fact, it'll do the exact opposite. Giving more stats at the start helps a bit...but unless your giving them enough to have multiple 18s, once again...not so much. More level up stat points? So you wanna have them have even more specialized stats?!? What you need to do is get rid of the tomes/wish and the level up stat points. That will cut out +10 to your primary stats. The stat boost items will give +6...but as you get higher levels your gonna get the multi-stat items which means your stats will be more even to each then.
|
|
Since people seem to be forgetting what fergie wants...I'll re-iterate that getting rid of the stat boost items won't make stats more equalized. In fact, it'll do the exact opposite. Giving more stats at the start helps a bit...but unless your giving them enough to have multiple 18s, once again...not so much. More level up stat points? So you wanna have them have even more specialized stats?!? What you need to do is get rid of the tomes/wish and the level up stat points. That will cut out +10 to your primary stats. The stat boost items will give +6...but as you get higher levels your gonna get the multi-stat items which means your stats will be more even to each then.Here's an idea that might work for what Fergie's looking for.
Step 1: Cut out items of +X stat. (Do not cut out the +X spells, those are cool and flavorful and tend to get outshone by other buffs. In an environment without the items they may actually get a chance to shine once in a while)
Step 2: Give generous starting scores ( I would suggest 32 [with no stat dumps under 10 for more points] in PF, makes for a fairly easy starting 18 before racials and still support tertiary stats [alternatively it allows the Melee's to start with healthy stats spread around, which is important since there won't be permanent magic items. )
Step 3: At every 4th level every PC gets +1 to all stats, and +1 more to one stat of their choosing.
In this way wizard's have +8 at level 16 (where before they would have +4 from levels and +6 from an item) and also will likely have access to x times per day casting items of Fox's Cunning. (two 3x per day items should be adequate. A 9 Cl item would last 1 and a half hours each casting)
Step 4: Give all full casters 1 more spell per day per level.
That should do it. (this is all off the top of my head, so it might need some refinement, but it's an idea at least)
1 need to have the + stat spells removed, 2 isn't needed. 3 should be +1 to all stats period...or once again you will have the primary stat disparity that fergie wanted to avoid...and 4...honestly...not really needed. If anything that should be given to bard (and summoner if your using that). And step 5 is you need to remove wish/tomes for raising stats. Quite frankly just leaving the items in and removing level up point and tomes/wishes is easier. Then you can lave the spells as the items will override the spells eventually.
|
|
Well I still contest that this sort of wholesale change can work successfully - and has for my own games for the past few years - given the changes I suggested.
The keys points are a high-magic stat build starting point (20 point buy not 15) and an increase of stats every even level.
(...)
My system does not hit spellcasters or anyone with a big nerfbat as you may be concerned with.
I don't doubt that your system is fine, sorry if it seemed like that's what I was talking about. I'm more or less responding to the OP's viewpoint, which is (as I understand it) "just take the items away", Full stop.
A stat boost at every even level would certainly mollify my concerns a good bit.
As for me, I will most likely play a caster in Fergie's new campaign. I feel like there is never a shortage of fun stuff for a caster to do, and as long as you are not concerned about doing the most x or the highest y, you'll enjoy yourself and make a difference.
If at any point you've detected Aura of Minmaxing emanating from my arguments, then I'm not doing a great job explaining myself, and I apologize. I'm never really worried about "doing the most x or the highest y". However, I would be worried about having 5-7 less spells per day at 10th level than I would in a normal game, especially if the fighter can still go out and buy his +2 Keen Elven Curveblade or whatever implement of destruction he so chooses. And especially if I cast my spell round after round and the enemy shrugs off my lackluster DC. Then, I'm doing nothing. Sure, I can still drop Obscuring Mist and Summon Monster I-IV to be effective (note 'effective', not 'amazing'), but lacking the type of direct-effect battlefield control spells that I <3 as a player, I'm not having as much fun as I can.
YMMV, there is no 'badwrongfun'. I'm just saying, casters are cool the way they are, making them less cool is simply making them less cool. if you have really valid reasons for wanting to do that, great, do it. But also realize that your attempt to help baddies make their saving throws has had significant consequences elsewhere in the game, consequences that are impacting one character type disproportionately.