That's "multiple ability dependency," not a crush.
See, to be a viable warrior character, you need high Dex (for AC, Reflex saves, and especially initiative), high Str (for sheer damage output), and high Con (so you don't drop after the first hit). To be a viable wizard, you need high Int, and that's pretty much it, because if you're getting into melee where the other stats matter, you're already not playing a wizard.
This means that point-buy stats are seriously geared in favor of casters. Also, the stat boost items in PF are overly caster-friendly and melee-putative as well. Rather than try and fix both of those, what if we fettered the casters a bit by inflicting a dose of MAD on them, too?
For example: What if wizards, clerics, and druids used Cha instead of Int to determine spell save DCs? Int/Wis would still be for bonus spells, etc. Fluff-wise, your force of personality, in this case, is resulting in harder-to-resist spells.
|
OK, to be a viable warrior character, you need high Dex (for AC, Reflex saves, and especially initiative), high Str (for sheer damage output), and high Con (so you don't drop after the first hit). To be a viable wizard, you need high Int, and that's pretty much it, because if you're getting into melee where the other stats matter, you're already not playing a wizard.
This means that point-buy stats are seriously geared in favor of casters. Also, the stat boost items in PF are overly caster-friendly and melee-putative as well. Rather than try and fix both of those, what if we fettered the casters a bit by inflicting some MAD on them as well?
For example: what if wizards, clerics, and druids used Cha instead of Int to determine save DCs? Int/Wis would still be for bonus spells, etc. Fluff-wise, your force of personality, in this case, is resulting in harder-to-resist spells.
I would say the cleric already IS MAD. They need wisdom, charisma (for channeling) and con (they do need to get pretty close to heal after all). The druid can be depending on if you a fighty druid or a caster druid. This would punish the fight druid pretty severly. As for the wizard...well yeah a straight up wizard would be made a bit weaker...but then the sorcerer would still be there. And it would rule out a lot of MCing options....
I would say the cleric already IS MAD. They need wisdom, charisma (for channeling) and con (they do need to get pretty close to heal after all).
Yeah, I thought of the Cha for channeling, and figured I'd expand on that a bit. As far as Con for clerics -- do your fights last long enough that you're actually healing in combat after 6th level or so? Usually our fights are over by the time the cleric starts channeling.
The cleric already needs Cha for channeling, as you pointed out. After 6th level, his need for Con is approximately zero, since combat happens too fast to be wasting time healing in the middle of it.
Maybe a class-by-class breakdown would be useful:
Isn't this why point-buy costs generally increase exponentially? Sure, the wizard might blow all his points to get an 18 Int and a bunch of 10's, but for the same cost in points, the fighter can get 16 str, 14 con, and a 12 dex, and all 10's in his mental scores.
I like the idea of increasing MAD so it applies to every character class. But if the wizards aren't feeling the need to invest in their save-bumping stats, just bumping up their offense, then they're not getting enough pressure put on them with ranged attacks or other counter-wizard abilities. Which might be the case. It's hard to justify a dire bear taking much more interest in the wizard than the fighter up front.
But I think we have to look at why it's worthwhile to increase MAD. What's the point of doing so? It to keep the wizard from just bumping his Intelligence into the stratosphere. Another approach might be to cap PC stats at some value like 24-26. If you can't go over that, the disparity between concentrated offensive stats and diffuse defensive stats like the save-boosters is constrained.
Casters can avoid this by focusing on no-save spells like buffs and some battlefield control. Hurts evokers more.
That's true, and it's a good point. I'd sort of subconsciously assumed that core evokers were already beyond help, and was thinking specifically about nerfing enchanters.
OT, to TOZ
That's "multiple ability dependency," not a crush.
See, to be a viable warrior character, you need high Dex (for AC, Reflex saves, and especially initiative), high Str (for sheer damage output), and high Con (so you don't drop after the first hit). To be a viable wizard, you need high Int, and that's pretty much it, because if you're getting into melee where the other stats matter, you're already not playing a wizard.
This means that point-buy stats are seriously geared in favor of casters. Also, the stat boost items in PF are overly caster-friendly and melee-putative as well. Rather than try and fix both of those, what if we fettered the casters a bit by inflicting a dose of MAD on them, too?
For example: What if wizards, clerics, and druids used Cha instead of Int to determine spell save DCs? Int/Wis would still be for bonus spells, etc. Fluff-wise, your force of personality, in this case, is resulting in harder-to-resist spells.
Ok so um wizards and clerics never cast touch spells? Or ranged touch spells? The former requires strength (particularly at low level) and dex/con to survive the dip into combat to cast the spell. The latter requires a high dex at lower levels. (and at high levels even if its not as needed anymore you have still spent the points at creation).
Clerics and druids both need physical stats for half of their possible focus (getting into combat). Bards, inquisitors, alchemists, and even summoners all have aspects of the class that support the idea of this character getting into the tustle now and again and thus requiring some investment into dex/con etc.
There are bloodline powers that are either touch, ranged touch or melee attacks, all requiring physical stats to make use of (particularly at lower levels).
Not to mention where exactly is this world of yours where every warrior is mad? I've seen plenty of heavy armor fighters with garbage dex and only moderate if any con. Thus requiring exactly 1 ability score to be viable (the heavy armor and big hit die covering for most of the rest). I have also seen all dex characters that had little con or str, relying on class abilities and lots of attacks for damage and good AC to keep them alive instead of lots of hitpoints.
I have a considerable problem with your 2 base assumptions, 1 that all warriors are mad and that all casters arent. It entirely depends on the build and just about every class supports both, which means you cant create some sweeping house rule to fix the issue with the one stat caster without hurting lots of other possibilities unjustly.
Ok so um wizards and clerics never cast touch spells?
Not in combat, if they're smart.
Re: other MAD, a diviner in Pathfinder can jack up his initiative without Dex, and Impr. Init. is usually the first thing casters pick up anyway. Ranged touch spells are usually an easy hit, since touch ACs tend to be low.
which means you cant create some sweeping house rule to fix the issue with the one stat caster without hurting lots of other possibilities unjustly.
I'm still awaiting your recommended fix, then, if you have a more workable alternative. I'm all ears!
But I think we have to look at why it's worthwhile to increase MAD. What's the point of doing so? It to keep the wizard from just bumping his Intelligence into the stratosphere. Another approach might be to cap PC stats at some value like 24-26. If you can't go over that, the disparity between concentrated offensive stats and diffuse defensive stats like the save-boosters is constrained.
That's a possible approach, although I'm not sure about it... another possibility, just brainstorming, would be to keep the physical stat-boost items as in 3.5, but make mental stat boost headbands/circlets count as minor artifacts, rather than simple magic items.
anime
(Shudders uncontrollably and backs away from the conversation, muttering unpleasantly)
Ok so um wizards and clerics never cast touch spells?Not in combat, if they're smart.
Re: other MAD, a diviner in Pathfinder can jack up his initiative without Dex, and Impr. Init. is usually the first thing casters pick up anyway. Ranged touch spells are usually an easy hit, since touch ACs tend to be low.
What does 'if they are smart' mean? Theres a huge chunk of offensive combat spells that are touch spells. Are you saying that 'smart' casters simply ignore those parts of the spell list?
And ranged touch spells GET easy, they dont start easy. At low levels even a 10 touch AC is a 50-50 shot for a caster to hit unless he bumps dex, not good odds for precious spell slots.
As for my suggestion, I dont believe there is one short of applying a cap. If you are worried about a caster being able to jack up 1 stat exclusively make the maxium starting stat 18 (after racial modifiers) then whether they want ot or not they are going to spread out some. Maybe drop that to 16 with lower point buys. Then you dont gimp character concepts that are already mad in order to elimitate the few examples of non-mad casters.
If you are worried about a caster being able to jack up 1 stat exclusively make the maxium starting stat 18 (after racial modifiers).
Then later on they craft a headband +6 and a book +5 and are right back in the stratospheric-jacking business. Requiring two casting stats is an easier fix. Clerics already need high Cha for channeling -- that's a Pathfinder change, not a homebrew one -- so they lose nothing. Sorcerers and bards are totally unaffected by this, since Cha is already their casting stat. Two classes get boned -- wizards (quite intentionally -- I had them specifically in mind) and druids (who are pretty awesome no matter how MAD they get). If you're too concerned about druids anyway, limit it to wizards.
Again, the only workable alternative I can think of is to make mental stat items minor artifacts rather than craft-able items, and outright ban wishes for higher Int.
|
|
On that note, Kirth, an idea someone shared elsewhere...
Net result is that everyone gets the inherent attribute bonuses that the game intends/provides without having to jump through binding hoops, they get them at a level they can appreciate/use them, and nobody has to deal with the asymmetric boosts that finding the books incurs.
On that note, Kirth, an idea someone shared elsewhere...
I have a draft set of feats that would privide temporary enhancement bonuses to scores as well, to cut down on item dependency. I liked that approach because fighters have less loot to spend on stat boost items (after weapons and armor), but have more feats than anyone else, so it neatly counteracts the stat-boost item problems.
Rather than artificially cap scores (how does that work for monsters witrh racial adjustments? Or does it just screw PCs vs. monsters?), I'm starting to really like the idea of making wizard spell DCs Cha-based. That would also have the pleasant side effect of making wizards think twice before dumping Cha down to 3. Either that, or, like I said, make mental stat headbands into artifacts. Or maybe both.
|
|
You know I have a horrible idea...
How about making the save DC for wizards be based on stats based on school...
Like enchantment DC is based on charisma and evocation based on strength...talk about making things truely MAD :P . Course the DC scaling should be a bit higher then 1 for 1 and none of the school should be based off int. Just an idea I have been tossing around. Nowhere near getting any detail done hehe.
|
|
Ok so um wizards and clerics never cast touch spells?Not in combat, if they're smart.
Re: other MAD, a diviner in Pathfinder can jack up his initiative without Dex, and Impr. Init. is usually the first thing casters pick up anyway. Ranged touch spells are usually an easy hit, since touch ACs tend to be low.
What does 'if they are smart' mean? Theres a huge chunk of offensive combat spells that are touch spells. Are you saying that 'smart' casters simply ignore those parts of the spell list?
And ranged touch spells GET easy, they dont start easy. At low levels even a 10 touch AC is a 50-50 shot for a caster to hit unless he bumps dex, not good odds for precious spell slots.
As for my suggestion, I dont believe there is one short of applying a cap. If you are worried about a caster being able to jack up 1 stat exclusively make the maxium starting stat 18 (after racial modifiers) then whether they want ot or not they are going to spread out some. Maybe drop that to 16 with lower point buys. Then you dont gimp character concepts that are already mad in order to elimitate the few examples of non-mad casters.
Kirth is talking about optimized play and character generation for such play. And while that is a concern...what he suggest does punish unoptimized play somewhat since as you pointed out, people may not be playing their wizard the way kirth mentioned and so such character would now become very hard pressed.
That's "multiple ability dependency," not a crush.
Ohhhhh. I'd been wondering. Back during the Cold War it meant Mutually Assured Destruction.
As to your suggestion, I think it's a bad idea.
That would also have the pleasant side effect of making wizards think twice before dumping Cha down to 3.
And you let them get away with dump stats?!?!? Have them chased out of town as monsters! Have an enemy cast a spell that gives them diseases that eat Charisma! Slap a Curse spell on them!
And what's stopping the other classes from selling out their Int & Cha? Very little. Starting languages? Skill points? It gives nothing to Saves, AC, HP, To Hit or Damage. Most front line fighters just roll their eyes and start selling, expecting the arcane caster to pick up the slack. [/rant]
Ok so um wizards and clerics never cast touch spells?Not in combat, if they're smart.
Re: other MAD, a diviner in Pathfinder can jack up his initiative without Dex, and Impr. Init. is usually the first thing casters pick up anyway. Ranged touch spells are usually an easy hit, since touch ACs tend to be low.
What does 'if they are smart' mean? Theres a huge chunk of offensive combat spells that are touch spells. Are you saying that 'smart' casters simply ignore those parts of the spell list?
And ranged touch spells GET easy, they dont start easy. At low levels even a 10 touch AC is a 50-50 shot for a caster to hit unless he bumps dex, not good odds for precious spell slots.
As for my suggestion, I dont believe there is one short of applying a cap. If you are worried about a caster being able to jack up 1 stat exclusively make the maxium starting stat 18 (after racial modifiers) then whether they want ot or not they are going to spread out some. Maybe drop that to 16 with lower point buys. Then you dont gimp character concepts that are already mad in order to elimitate the few examples of non-mad casters.
I think what he means is that there are way to deliver touch spells without actually touching. I know there are some feats out there that let you do this and in addition there is the spectral hand spell which hangs around and delivers touch spells for you, it is a handy spell if you don't mind the pun. At most you would lose about 1d4 HP if it is destroyed. If you are really into touch spells then creating a magic item that casts dailies of this spell is in order. Personally I think any wizard who uses touch spell and is worth his salt would use that particular spell.
Now I understand his point of view when it comes to the whole one stat thing. Most I know use the point buy system because it is fast and players can do it at home. With this system however anyone who plans on playing a wizard always makes the wizard a 18+ Int wizard.
I think if another stat affected how many slots a wizard has and another affects how high a level a spell he can learn or cast and so on.
Then later on they craft a headband +6 and a book +5 and are right back in the stratospheric-jacking business. Requiring two casting stats is an easier fix. Clerics already need high Cha for channeling -- that's a Pathfinder change, not a homebrew one -- so they lose nothing. Sorcerers and bards are totally unaffected by this, since Cha is already their casting stat. Two classes get boned -- wizards (quite intentionally -- I had them specifically in mind) and druids (who are pretty awesome no matter how MAD they get). If you're too concerned about druids anyway, limit it to wizards.
Again, the only workable alternative I can think of is to make mental stat items minor artifacts rather than craft-able items, and outright ban wishes for higher Int.
And a dex or strength based fighter will do the exact same thing, load up on their primary stat and get buy just fine. Especially with the belt and head slot only items most characters i see arent spreading their ability bonuses out, its all on the primary stat. I have yet to see a game amongst my group all of whom optimize where there was a mental stat that out stripped the highest physical stat by more then 1 or 2 points.
And a dex or strength based fighter will do the exact same thing, load up on their primary stat and get buy just fine.
He can't -- insufficient cash (compared to the half off casters get for crafting), and he lacks the Int and/or base skill points for Master Craftsman to be anything more than a false promise.
And you let them get away with dump stats?!?!? Have them chased out of town as monsters! Have an enemy cast a spell that gives them diseases that eat Charisma! Slap a Curse spell on them!
That's how I used to do things, but I now prefer to look for RP solutions to RP problems, and mechanical solutions to mechanical glitches.
Kirth is talking about optimized play and character generation for such play.
If by "optimized" you mean "with a modicum of common sense, especially at higher levels when you're supposedly one of the best in the world at what you do," then, yes. As DM, I generally have two groups of PCs running, on alternative adventures. The first is the A-Team: the players know these guys are facing real danger, and need to be clever in their approaches to things, and not just flail around helplessly. The second group is more laid-back; they can get away with doing really stupid things for roleplay reasons (or for no reason at all, like when the half-orc decided to attack the priests he was asking to heal him).
We rolled for stats (4d6, drop lowest). The A-team wizard of course put the highest score in INT and the lowest in CHA. But hey! So did the B-team wizard! So does every wizard ever played! Because jacking up a wizard's intelligence isn't so much "optimization" as it is a glaringly obvious thing to do.
Um Kirth just so you know I've played a wizard without maxing out his Int. With a twenty point buy I went with the following:
Str 12 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 16 Wis 10 Cha 13
My extra points went into cha(1), con(2) and wisdom(2) , and I used metamagic feats instead of higher level spells.
Was it easy? No, but I did fine and honestly had a lot of fun with him.
I used the usual advice: Some summoning, few save throw spells (those I did use hit a large enough number of targets or had a secondary effect), some direct damage, some buffs and utility stuff for the most part.
Um Kirth just so you know I've played a wizard without maxing out his Int. Was it easy? No, but I did fine and honestly had a lot of fun with him.
Excellent, then we know from playtest experience, as it were, that spreading out a wizard's stats a bit more evenly will reduce his awesomeness a bit without totally gimping him. Which actually sounds pretty good to me. This is valuable information -- thank you.
Um Kirth just so you know I've played a wizard without maxing out his Int. Was it easy? No, but I did fine and honestly had a lot of fun with him.Excellent, then we know from playtest experience, as it were, that spreading out a wizard's stats a bit more evenly will reduce his awesomeness a bit without totally gimping him. Which actually sounds pretty good to me. This is valuable information -- thank you.
Well by "it wasn't easy" I mean "I was still quite able to do what I wanted without just walking past everything all day."
It does work -- the wizard has plenty of good spells to choose that don't rely on the need for high intelligence.
All it requires is a deep breath and a player willing to look at what he's got available honestly.
Good metamagic feats for this concept:
Intensify spell (makes up for the lack of higher level blast spells when you want one)
Reach spell (there are several good low level touch spells that are better at short range)
Extend spell (ok not always but I can generally find a spell I want to last longer, from the lowly mage armor to the acid arrow on another mage)
Quicken spell
Disruptive spell (on an extended acid arrow this really kills casters)
Dazing spell
Widen spell (honestly it's not the *best* choice but it can be a decent one in some cases)
Empower (generally these last two are not your best bet but when not using the higher level spells might as well plug for a bit more than normal with this or maximize)
Maximize
|
Kirth, you're a genius!
Great suggestion, actually. I like MAD as a concept for a number of characters, prevents one trick ponies from arising. I've never been a fan of the difference in a dump stat (which I typically see is charisma) and a single really high ability score.
I had been thinking about solving the DC problem in a different fashion, and that was to make all classes cap at 10 levels (still allowing them to go to 20 but effectively cutting out all spells higher than 5th level). This left SR a significant threat and kept DCs low. It also made it so that multiclassing was necessary, so I gave a 2nd favored class at 10th level to all characters.
I never got a chance to test this out, though. It's still something that lingers in the back of my head, waiting for a chance to be tried. Perhaps when I run again in the future I'll try it.
For now though, a 2nd ability score sounds good to me.
Kirth, you're a genius!
Alas, only for a specific type of game. I have no patience for story hour, but at the same time, playing the DPS Olympics to their ultimate conclusion means you're better off playing chess -- one set of optimal moves, and the rest drop out naturally, so why bother with the interim? So the types of solutions I aim for almost always fail hard when it comes to the CharOp forums standards ("play chess"), but they also seriously annoy the "Mother May I" crowd because I do acknowledge there are rules. Only people who can't help but notice some issues, but who are content to wear blinders for others, will get much use out of my stuff, I'm thinking.
|
|
Kirth, you're a genius!Alas, only for a specific type of game. I have no patience for story hour, but at the same time, playing the DPS Olympics to their ultimate conclusion means you're better off playing chess -- one set of optimal moves, and the rest drop out naturally, so why bother with the interim? So the types of solutions I aim for almost always fail hard when it comes to the CharOp forums standards ("play chess"), but they also seriously annoy the "Mother May I" crowd because I do acknowledge there are rules. Only people who can't help but notice some issues, but who are content to wear blinders for others, will get much use out of my stuff, I'm thinking.
Yeah, I'm in kind of the same place. My view of fun is one that is varied and nuanced, I like having a good story and using the rules. They're absolutely compatible.
Someone like myself, who is that middle ground, can understand your solution a little better than the other groups. I'm glad you thought of a decent solution for this, and I'm going to highly consider using charisma based DCs in the future.
A suggestion:
Give non-full casters ability score increases built in to their class progression at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th. You can stipulate which scores each individual class can increase in these slots (barbarians can raise Str, Dex, or Con, Monks can increase Str, Dex, Wis, and so on)
In essence non-full casting classes increase their abilities twice as much as full casting ones.
Actually I would suggest that the real solution here is to possibly do the exact opposite of what you are thinking to do Kirth.
I understand the want to have spell casters that aren't "one stat wonders" I really do -- but I think giving them yet another way to fail isn't really going to do what you want (have "reasonably well rounded" characters instead of every wizard having an Int of 18~20 and Cha and Str of 7 each).
In every game I've played the reason the party stops for the day isn't because the fighters are low on HP, or have run out of sword swings/arrows/daylight/etc -- it's because the casters are out of spells.
The casters run out of spells because it is very hard to have a spell actually be effective compared to what everyone else can deal out each round.
Yes I know, that sounds counter intuitive, but it's the truth. I cast summon monster -- it drops inside of a round usually with little to no effect on the actual fight/enemy. I can buff the fighters but really that's not a very limelight spot and quickly gets old for everyone ("oh yay... thanks wizard I'm now +10 more to hit and +8 more on damage... I'll just steam roll over this fight too... joy." While the GM is going "I can't challenge them cause the wizard makes everyone kill everything in one round"). Compared to the "damage dealers" (fighters/paladins/rogues/monks/etc) who have nearly (or completely) unlimited use of their kick ass skills the spell chucker is extremely limited on his casting having to fit everything into a very limited number of slots while not pissing off his GM by doing too much of the "craft contingency items" or cheesing the system (honestly a very fine line).
I have demonstrated before that even the weakest save throw character in the game (the human fighter) can easily get to the point that he can make will saves without a "major investment" against the best DC a wizard can get over 65% of the time. Remember this is the worse will save guy in the game -- everything else is better (or out right immune) meaning that many of the vaulted "save or die" spells are nearly useless and are even more so if you don't absolutely maximise your casting stat to have a decent DC.
Consider the maximum Save DC compared to the "average" save throw bonus for creatures of a given CR and you'll quickly see that relying on creatures failing their save throws is a lost cause for the wizard with anything less than maximum DC.
It's not the player's fault the system forces them into optimizing spell casters -- it's the system design -- which gives them limited abilities, with high probability of failure and ties all that into one stat that if not maximized will lead to even more failure.
The fighter knows he is going to hit and deal damage -- the rogue can know his skills are going to do what they should and that they'll get decent damage with sneak attack -- same with most every other class. The casters do not know any of this however. Either they'll not have the correct spells ready, or their DC's won't be good enough for the monster encountered, or the other spells will only have effects that help everyone else actually do the job.
That's not a fun position to be in -- so naturally the player does what he can to actually get to the point where he too can drop a monster in one round like a fighter and survive. Unfortunately this requires him to drop all the extras to get to the point where he can.
********************************
So how to fix this?
I would suggest that instead of nailing the caster with yet another issue doing the following:
1. Drop some of the save throws on monsters with a gentleman's agreement with the caster that he won't absolutely max the DC of his spells. If he honestly has a good sporting chance that his best spells will really work (65~80% chance on his best spells) then he'll feel he's actually contributing without the need to optimize as much.
2. Do something to get him more spell slots. This seems odd, but it helps with killing the 15 minute adventuring day. You don't play a wizard so you can run out of spells and follow everyone else around in a support role -- you play it so you can contribute arcane might in an effecient meaningful fashion and get a bit of the spotlight the fighter gets each time he one round kills another monster. The easiest thing I've seen done on this front is to give the spell casters all their bonus slots at level 1. They can only use these bonus slots to cast spells of the spell level they have access too (so a caster with a casting stat of 16 at level 1 would get three bonus spells slot which he can only cast first level spells with). As he levels he can use the higher level bonus slots on higher level spells. This way he doesn't feel the need to bleed every last ounce of effeciency out of the few spells he has and failure on any given round doesn't hurt quite as much (since he has more chances). Think about it at level one the fighter can literally kill things all day without problems -- the wizard has three to five rounds before he's regulated to b&**! detail. That's not fun for the wizard when he can plainly watch the fighter continuously hogging the spotlight (which the fighter can continue to do into high levels).
3. Instead of giving the wizard another stat problem give him rewards of some type that fit into having other stats that are better. Your current idea is a punishment -- which breeds resentment -- instead give him a reward for spreading out the stat points. Maybe bonus spell slots from charisma in addition to Intelligence. Perhaps a bonus on concentration checks based on Consitution (in addition to the casting stat bonus). This makes taking other stats hurt less for the wizard so he doesn't mind doing it so much.
The third point is honestly how I "build" characters -- I look for things that take the sting out of being "less than optimized in the most optimized way possible". If I know that by having the wizard be a bit more friendly I will also not have to worry about having as many spell slots (even if these were spell slots I can only use on specific types of spells) I'm more likely to mix up my stats than if someone tells me "oh by the way you must have this stat too in addition to everything else you want".
Those perks could even be based on what school of magic they are linked too -- a transmuter might get a bonus on how long his buffs last based on his consitution score, while a conjurer might get his summons extended by his charisma score, and the evoker might get bonus damage based on his wisdom, charisma or strength (as he "forces" the magic).
I honestly believe 9/10ths of the problem though is those save throw bonuses on monsters -- the make wizard players feel like the only way to actually be useful is to have a maximized DC/ spell slots to stay competitive with the people doing their stuff all day long.
Maybe in your game, Abraham, wizards are somehow sub-par, but they're gods after median level in almost everyone else's. Making them MORE powerful with the incentives you mention isn't really what I'm after. Weakening them is.
Oddly, I never have a problem with this 15-minute day. Indeed, after 6th level or so I see warriors run out of hp and healing at a much greater rate than I see wizards run out of spells.
Maybe in your game, Abraham, wizards are somehow sub-par, but they're gods after median level in almost everyone else's. Making them MORE powerful with the incentives you mention isn't really what I'm after. Weakening them is.
Oddly, I never have a problem with this 15-minute day. Indeed, after 6th level or so I see warriors run out of hp and healing at a much greater rate than I see wizards run out of spells.
I would suggest most people probably don't really understand how to deal with wizards.
But honestly I'll stick by the point of the DCs. I've sat down and ran that math myself, and it's always been the biggest sticking point for me -- a wizard that doesn't maximize his Intelligence isn't going to really get anywhere with a lot of his spells, and his DC's drop so fast that running out of your top spells can be a huge issue -- especially if your lower ones are having little to no real effect.
A good player can still make do with an Int 14~16 wizard (I've done it) but if you want the average player to be willing to try it you've got to give him a reason to want to have something other than just maximum Intelligence instead of punishing him for simply wanting to be good at something.
After all a wizard really does need more stats than just Int. Con is vitally important, charisma is needed if he's going to mess with the enchantment school of magic or calling spells. Dex will be needed if he wants to do rays or weapon finessed touch attacks. A wizard can honestly find himself with crappy will saves if he isn't careful about not dumping his wisdom or doing things to keep them shored up.
*********************************
Quick question:
Do you punish the other character classes if the go for an optimized choice in building their characters? Do you get just as upset about the archer fighter sitting there with Int 7 Cha 7 and 16/14's in everything else?
The half elf zen archer that can spot an invisible creature without see invisibility at level 10?
Or is this something reserved just for spell casters?
Do you punish the other character classes if the go for an optimized choice in building their characters?
There comes a point when the most highly-optimized warrior in the world is a caddy for the sloppiest wizard -- see Mistah Green's play notes elsewhere with the wizard/wizard/cleric/druid party, and how much more effective it is after a certain point than the traditional fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard party (something I saw myself in DMing Savage Tide).
Currently I don't punish anyone, but buffing the non-casters only goes so far. I'm thinking that nerfing the casters, hard, might be needed as well. Then redo all the CRs above 10 or so to match.
After a certain level, Pathfinder becomes Ars Magica, or "Wizards and Muggles" -- or, if you prefer, "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit." There are two ways to address that; nerfing the casters is an E6-like approach.
Do you punish the other character classes if the go for an optimized choice in building their characters?There comes a point when the most highly-optimized warrior in the world is a caddy for the sloppiest wizard -- see Mistah Green's play notes elsewhere with the wizard/wizard/cleric/druid party, and how much more effective it is after a certain point than the traditional fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard party (something I saw myself in DMing Savage Tide).
Currently I don't punish anyone, but buffing the non-casters only goes so far. I'm thinking that nerfing the casters, hard, might be needed as well. Then redo all the CRs above 10 or so to match.
After a certain level, Pathfinder becomes Ars Magica, or "Wizards and Muggles" -- or, if you prefer, "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit." There are two ways to address that; nerfing the casters is an E6-like approach.
See I've never been in a game where it's evolved into an "angel summoner and BMX Bandit".
Usually the save throw bonuses of the monsters are simply too high to rely on any sort of SOD, and summons simply aren't going to cut it -- battlefield control is fine to a point (something ravingdork pointed out two weeks ago) and direct damage with magic is -- lacking at best.
I've never -- and I do mean never -- had a game evolve into rocket launcher tag except when the fighter is literally doing what fighterman does (aka one hit killing all CR equal creatures).
It *could* be a case of people doing things differently around here -- most of our players know the ins and outs enough to not have non-magical characters that can't contribute and most of our GM's know enough to be able to not nerf anyone while still not giving casters a free pass.
I really can't concieve of a situation where non-spell casters are simply "caddies" to the spell casters.
Casters can avoid this by focusing on no-save spells like buffs and some battlefield control.
I keep coming back to this, and you're right. Mistah Green recommended an easier fix: simply rigging the point buy system so that starting 18's are prohibitively costly. That means abandoning my nostalgic "roll 4d6, drop lowest" method, but then again, you can't have everything.
The current Pathfinder recommended point-buy is:
Stat: 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 . 11. 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18
Cost: -4 . -2 . -1 . 0 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 5 . 7 . 10 . 13 . 17
Maybe a scale like this would be better?
Stat: 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 . 11. 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18
Cost: -3 . -2 . -1 . 0 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 5 . 8 . 12 . 16 . 21
In other words, jack up the costs for superhuman scores, and reduce the rebate for dumping stats.
honestly with a 15~20 point buy getting an 18 is already really expensive (assuming the idea is to have a 20 after the racial stat boost). It is possible ... but not probable.
Consider for the fifteen point buy you must drop at least two stat points (either from one stat or one from two stats) and then all you have is 8, 10, 10, 18, 10, 10.
Twenty point buy at least leaves you with four 10s and a 13.
But either way you got an "average" guy that is really smart. Sounds on par to me personally.
Also I would suggest that an 18~20 is not superhuman in the slightest. It's honestly only about pro/olympic level. "maximum human potential" for D&D is a 36 in a stat -- so anything beyond is superhuman -- at that level you are the top of human potential.
(just to be clear on what I'm doing here, so it doesn't seem like I'm just naysaying: I appreciate what you are trying to do on the most basic level -- the idea of getting players to not play "cookie cutter" casters is a good one. I don't agree with the method you are presenting -- I know in my local groups it would just end up being one more huge problem to playing a spell caster -- we tend to play tight to the rules and casters have a lot of problems when you do that -- from nul effects, to getting access to spells/components/etc to simply getting the spell off without toasting yourself or party too. I'm not naysaying to tell you that kirth is wrong -- I'm trying to help make sure he's considered all the implications of what he is suggesting).
I do know that we point buy -- and I think this can make a huge difference in how things go in a campaign and think it *could* be a significant part of where our divergent experiences could be coming from.
we tend to play tight to the rules and casters have a lot of problems when you do that -- from nul effects, to getting access to spells/components/etc to simply getting the spell off without toasting yourself or party too.
Are there rules for bits of bat guano being hard to get? Please link to them -- they sound like what I've been looking for.
P.S. What's a nul effect? Is it a case of the DM making every dungeon an antimagic zone?
The point is, if you play a campaign specifically designed to nerf casters, then of course you see no need to nerf casters. I'd call that less a case of "playing tight to the rules," though, and more a case of being out to nerf casters. Which is a good thing to do; it needs doing. My approach is different, however, insofar as I'd like to make a simple rules change to hopefully accomplish some of what your mysteriously missing components and antimagic fields do.
|
|
Maybe in your game, Abraham, wizards are somehow sub-par, but they're gods after median level in almost everyone else's. Making them MORE powerful with the incentives you mention isn't really what I'm after. Weakening them is.
Oddly, I never have a problem with this 15-minute day. Indeed, after 6th level or so I see warriors run out of hp and healing at a much greater rate than I see wizards run out of spells.
That would be because Andostre and I don't have the overwhelming need to cast a spell when the fighter types are more than capable of handling the situation. But then, I don't have to do something every round to have fun. I just have to do the right thing when it is most effective.
The only reason the 15 minute adventuring day exists is because most wizard players have zero concept of resource management, and think they have to cast a spell every round.
Solutions to this stem directly from problems with Melee nerfs arising from the move from AD&D rules to d20 rules.
1) Everybody can get a high Str Score. It used to be, this was restricted to Fighter types. Non-Fighters could not use magic items that granted them high strength (like Girdles, only Gauntlets for Rogues and Clerics). Ability scores had DEFINITE caps. 18 was basically it for everyone!
2) everyone can get a massive Con score and the benefits thereof. Formerly, non-Melees maxed out at a 16 con, and +2 per die. So, naturally they all got 16 Cons, and no higher. It meant that the fighter with 18 Con had 9.5 hp/level, and the Wizard with 16 Con had 4.5 hp/level. In other words, Melees had twice the hit points of wizards.
3) Crafting is no longer an argument for Pathfinder. All you need is a craft skill and Magical Artisan to make anything. What the mage gains in Create Wondrous Item The Melee can Gain in Magical Artisan (arms and armor) with some skill points. 400k worth of weapons and armor just became a lot cheaper for the Melee...just needs time to do the job.
4) However, this does note that mages just get Con boosters as quickly as they get Int boosters. IN PF, the difference between HP for mages and Melee is 2 hp/die...or +4 Con. Given that most Fighters want to have a decent Dex so they can max their high level armor bonus, and want a good Con so they can survive being in melee, something has to give.
And let's not even go into the ability score reqs on Fighter feats. Fighters have a ton of MAD.
5) Wizards have Int, and then Con/Dex. It becomes a tossup between hp/fort saves, and AC/going first (reflex saves? what?). That is still three stats, but they are not as 'vital' to the wizard as to the Melee...the wizard elects, the Melee NEEDS.
6) The green campaign example of all casters falls down because the DM doesn't have the time to go anti-caster and do what is needed to for challenging the party. Killing a party of caster-reliants is not hard if you plan for it...and they are fighting ROGUES, fer chrissakes. Rogues are supposed to be sneaky and underhanded, and he basically handed them into a straight-up melee. Eesh.
7) Low ability scores dilute the importance of high ability scores. Unrestricted high ability scores create problems. The ability to easily raise all ability scores creates problems.
In AD&D, the only way to really raise Int was with a Tome (1 pt) and Gem of Intellect (1 pt). That was IT. (Well, except aging, but aging never got you past 18, except for Wisdom). Dexterity and Con were hard to raise, also...Gauntlets of Dex, Ioun stones, and Girdle of Dwarvenkind, all giving about +1.
But Strength, strength was easy to raise with magic. Girdles and Gauntlets racheted Str scores up easily.
This was because the designers realized that melee dmg depended on stats, but spell dmg depended simply on having the spells!
No stat limits, giving stats away with spells, is a big problem with 3.5. You want to control non-melee hit points, just use restrictions on physical stats. Restrict casters to +2, secondary casters to +3, minor casters to +4, and open end non-casters.
There's nothing in PF that rewards the non-magical, or anti-magical bias, of a character. Someone pointed out that defenses against magic are nowhere near as common as offensive magic. You're forced into builds with unreasonable stats or lack of loot to make up for it...a problem 4E gets around with their 'level-based opponent' builds, and simply ignoring ability requirements. If the opponent should have this level of saves and such to be a challenge, that's what they have.
The system needs some tweaking. The idea of being able to derive all bonuses for something is something that should be done away with. I like how 4e figured Save and AC boosts into by-level things. There's a lot that 4E did right in this regard. The thing is the story and a memorable fight, not being restricted to 15 in a stat and +1 bonuses, and thus becoming 'lame'.
==Aelryinth
… My approach is different, however, insofar as I'd like to make a simple rules change to hopefully accomplish some of what…
You're kidding right?
A little derail:
|
|
Okay, I've not read the entire thread, as I have work soon, so I don't know if this has already been suggested.
I have a standing houserule for stat buy in my games in that you can only ever have a 6 point spread in your stats. If you want an 18 in a stat, the lowest other stat has to be a 12 (which is impossible on 15 point buy).
This goes a long way against optimized characters. I know that IRL there are obscenely strong people who are dumb as a post and obscenely smart people who couldn't lift a Cheetos bag, but those kinds of people certainly aren't hero material.
EDIT: Also,
I keep coming back to this, and you're right. Mistah Green recommended an easier fix: simply rigging the point buy system so that starting 18's are prohibitively costly. That means abandoning my nostalgic "roll 4d6, drop lowest" method, but then again, you can't have everything.
The current Pathfinder recommended point-buy is:
Stat: 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 . 11. 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18
Cost: -4 . -2 . -1 . 0 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 5 . 7 . 10 . 13 . 17Maybe a scale like this would be better?
Stat: 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 . 11. 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18
Cost: -3 . -2 . -1 . 0 . 1 . 2 . 3 . 5 . 8 . 12 . 16 . 21In other words, jack up the costs for superhuman scores, and reduce the rebate for dumping stats.
Stat buy costs are as they are for a reason: Sake of ease. It costs a number of points to go from X to X+1 equal to the modifier of the stat you are going to, minimum 1. That's why its only 1 point to go from 12 to 13, but 2 to go from 13 to 14, 3 to go from 15 to 16, etc.
With a system like this, you don't have to consult a table every three seconds.
I DO agree that reducing stats is too generous, even though it follows an inverse pattern. Starting point buy at 8 without increasing the allotted points might go a long way as well.