Give full BAB classes a bonus feat per level? That might even it out a little. Obviously, no one will be playing sorcerers.
Use the rule against them. Build a caster encounter that butchers them like a fresh-killed pig. Make them see just how broken it can be.
That or negotiate with them/roll with it. Your choice :)
I'm not very savvy with casters, but I think kyrt is pretty much right. Show them that if they can play the game that way, you can too. Outright trying to kill the players is usually discouraged, but perhaps you can teach them a lesson, so to speak.
If you will be playing with this method, it will in fact make the cleric/wizard etc more powerful. The easiest way to address this will be to not let them abuse the 15 minute adventuring day.
Yes, spontaneous spells are useful adders, but they are still a finite resource. Making sure they have multiple encounters before recharging will ensure that yes, they can sometimes get the creative/versatile moments to shine, but will not be doing it every single time.
Wow, talk about ridiculously overpowered! Who would ever want to play a sorcerer/oracle in this system?
Ok, compromise time then. I played in a game that used a spontaneous style of casting and it worked out fairly well. Here were the rules:
Spontaneous classes remained the same.
Prepared classes prepared their spells per day as normal, except that prepared spells count as Spells Known for the day. Each character can prepare a number of spells as per their class chart, with two exceptions:
1. Specialized Wizards & Domain Clerics/Druids don't gain an extra slot to prepare their school/domain spell in. Instead they must use one of their "normal" slots. Wizards must prepare a spell of their favored school & clerics/druids must prepare only a single domain spell per level.
2. A high spellcasting ability score does not provide the ability to prepare more than the class's base amount.
Characters then treat these prepared spells as spells known and may spontaneously cast any combination of them using their spells per day as normal. Characters with high ability scores add the standard bonus spells per day (as a sorcerer would) and gain an additional spell per day if they are a specialized wizard or a domain user.
After these spells are prepared, he may cast his Shocking Grasp spell a total of 3 times per day (1 base, +1 for specializing, +1 for his high intelligence score).
This variant system does a few things. First, it provides the flexibility of playing a spontaneous character without invalidating the existing spontaneous classes. Spells known will never rise above 4/level. Second, it forces a diversity between different flavors of spellcasters. Domain users will find that they cast their domain spells much more often, and wizards will show an actual preference for their specialized school- over 1/4 of the character's known spells will be these.
Anyways, I hope this helps even a little. It worked pretty well for us.
Don't be antagonistic. You'll just lose the group. Although looking at the description, it may be a group you aren't going to want to keep.
Try talk it over with them. If they want to play spontaneous casters, give them sorcerers and oracles. If they're new to Pathfinder, the addition of bloodlines and revelations may make them more interested.
Or simply consider tightening the reigns. Restrict those casters to the Core Rulebook only, allowing them to pick 1 spell per level from the Advanced Players guide (or other source). Take wizards back to 3.5 style, removing access completely to their barred schools. Also consider requiring wizards to take 3 barred schools, thus limiting options further.
Sounds like your players have you man :)
Talk to them see if they will play a more restrictive game.
If push comes to shove... get another group of players.
If push comes to shove... play the game, the way your players want to play it. But Remember that what your players can do.... you as DM can also do with your monsters. So, let the Spells Fly.
Wow, that's a tough one.
They clearly believe something, and no matter how wrong it is, you're probably not going to convince them otherwise.
I would probably inform them that while they like their houserule, you don't agree that it is balanced — casters will become far to powerful during the last 3/4 of the game. They can either play with the rules you want, or someone else can GM (and you'll play a wiz I bet). Also, offer to run something in a different system, maybe one that doesn't have all this crazy baggage.
I've had a couple of players show up that were used to similar system variations; one of which had never realized wizards needed spellbooks...after three years with the same group (and obviously, the same DM).
Personally, I'd use the spell recharge variant from Unearthed Arcana and apply its effects to the enemies the party faces (read: enemy casters). It's an easy sell and you can make the players start preparing spells again.
|
Sean likely has the best compromise above. Though if this is what the group likes and feels is fair.
Good point. They do think it is fair. I'll try to just tone it down a bit and see what happens. Maybe they are right for their play style.
No one has played a Sorcerer, ever. This system was developed for 2nd Edition and they’ve been using it since. There is one player talking about playing a Pathfinder Sorcerer. The consensus is that since the Sorcerer just gets their spells known for free, it will balance out the Wizard having to find all of theirs. I’m told that Wizards do not get the two free spells known per level and have to find them all on scrolls. Maybe this will help?
@ Dark Mistress - Melee classes are popular, Rogues are not. I think they feel well balanced. Note that the most popular build for a Wizard is a blaster Wizard who does not take Spell Focus (Evocation) and spends a lot of time Maximizing fireballs. Maybe played that way the Wizards really are close in power to a Fighter?
@ Sean – 1 spell known per spell available to cast - That’s the compromise I proposed! You are a wise man, sir. J Not a popular suggestion. It would be a big change for them.
I’m thinking about changing the current formula which gives between 4-14 spells known per level (It’s # spells/day * 3 + extra spells/day from Int) to something that starts around 2-3 spells known and caps out around… 8-10? It’s still a lot compared to the Sorcerer, but it will keep people happy. Perhaps one less per level but allow a bonus spell from the specialized school.
I suppose I can just nuke the Wizard from orbit if it gets too out of control. Still not sure what to do about the Cleric!
Haven't changed since 2e? Get them to move with the times or kick them to the curb. Don't give in to their petty grognarding.
|
Tell them flat out to play your game or find another GM.
Don't give in to terrorism by your players ;)
While I do believe that a certain amount of compromise must be made between the GM and his/her players, I agree with Alex- You're the GM, you decide on the rules that the players will follow, not the other way around. Personally, I would tell them to find another GM because I don't respond very well to ultimatums. It doesn't really matter what they are making the ultimatum about, but if anyone says "if you don't do X, I'm not going to play", I'll kindly show them to the door, even if I was already planning on implementing whatever they were talking about. That's just not a good attitude to go into a game with.
EDIT: But, I would honestly tell any players that suggest what yours did to take a look at the spontaneous classes (Oracle and Sorcerer) and that they can choose that if they want to cast spontaneously. No funny math involved, there's already a class for both of those!
If I were you I would do any combination of the following.
1. Keep them on the run. Set up a scenario where they are being chased or constantly being pursued. Don't let them get their 8 hrs. This will make sure that are very selective with their spells.
2. Create creature encounters that negate or have high magical resistances.
3. Have encounters with other over powered wizards or clerics. Rubbing their noses in it is always fun.
4. Increase the number of encounters... Have them wade their way through cannon fodder before getting to the big bad.
5. Play smart make sure not to cluster your creatures or have them target the wizards in every encounter. Keep them on the defensive.
|
|
You could also consider telling your players that if they truly believe that Wizards and Clerics are underpowered, they should probably play a different class.
It would never occur to me to tell a GM that he needs to play by my house rules or else. That's pretty cheeky. I wouldn't allow my players to dictate the rules of a game I was running. If someone wanted to debate the merits of a house rule with me, that's all well and good, but the GM should be the final arbiter. Giving a GM an ultimatum like that, though, is unreasonable.
If your players agree to play different classes, you could also throw some by-the-book Wizard and Cleric opponents at them, and show them that the classes are less underpowered than they think.
|
If your players actually believe what they say and are not a bunch of monchkins working an angle to get more powerful, then they obviously have no idea how to play casters so there will be no balance issues. If they are a bunch of munchkins...just use those rules against them and butcher them all...repeat until they wish to play by the rules again.
No problem! If they've been doing this for years and like it, go for it! I assume they have a reasonable number of non-casting characters up to now, and don't plan on making just Wizards for your game.
.
If you will be playing with this method, it will in fact make the cleric/wizard etc more powerful. The easiest way to address this will be to not let them abuse the 15 minute adventuring day.
+1
That's how I control casters, and it's quite effective.
This may not be that useful but could you make everything spontaneous. Fighters can change feats and rogues talents, a ranger's favoured enemy is whatever he is fighting and his spells are spontaneous as is the paladin's ect.
It may seem a little silly but it also might get the point across.
|
@ Dark Mistress - Melee classes are popular, Rogues are not. I think they feel well balanced. Note that the most popular build for a Wizard is a blaster Wizard who does not take Spell Focus (Evocation) and spends a lot of time Maximizing fireballs. Maybe played that way the Wizards really are close in power to a Fighter
The bolded part kinda explains it right there. If all they focus on, is caster blasting things, then yeah they likely feel they need a boost.
A well played NPC wizard that uses other spells might show them how effective they are and how over powered what they are doing in the right hands is.
I agree with Blueluck. There's no problem here, let them have at it.
Back in 1e/2e days we always played clerics as spontaneous casters. It was fine. Sounds like they come from that same history.
I would definitely do some other subtle control things.
1. Hold the clerics a lot more to their deity and its restrictions from a RP sense. This was part of the package back in 2e too.
2. Let the wizards spont-cast but make them keep up a spell book and follow the rules for that strictly (have to find spells, costs $, people love stealing/destroying your book, etc.)
And the counterspell-lock idea is beautiful.
Hell I may run my next campaign this way.
In 1e/2e there was a lot less 'kid gloves' from the GM as well; I would imagine they are happy for enemies to target the dangerous mages, try to steal spellbooks, etc. Wandering monsters interrupt attempts to 'sleep in the dungeon' (lame). Encounters are not always level appropriate - there's a lot of "old school" here that provides the balance even when specific classes aren't obsessively rules balanced against each other. We had fun doing it for 20 years, so it's not all that crazy...
Thanks for the love.
Sure! And it makes the counterspell rule useful at least. I have never seen anyone actually use counterspell in the history of 3e+. It's just too finicky to pull off. With this though, it might actually happen!
|
Make a prepared caster using normal rules, then give them a fight they'll never forget!
If you can prove that the wizard is better than the sorcerer, without house rules that make caster that prepare into Sorcerer/Oracles on steroids, you might be able to change their point of veiw.
Or just show all the threads on these very messageboards that bascially boil down to "Wizards vs. Sorcs".
Use Arcana Evolved Rules, not Pathfinder. They're actually balanced quite nicely exactly for the style of play your players want.
It's nice to see another Arcana Evolved fan on the boards. Once I played the spell system of the Magister, Greenbond, and Mageblade I couldn't go back to prepared spellcasting.
Back in 1e/2e days we always played clerics as spontaneous casters. It was fine. Sounds like they come from that same history.
Likewise, I played in a 2E game where all casting was spontaneous and the game didn't fall to pieces. Admittedly, this will make sorcerers and oracles look pretty bad, but maybe that's a feature, not a bug.
Another compromise might be to use the Spell Points rules from Unearthed Aracana. I use it regularly, and have not found it overpowered, especially in PF.
What it does is allow the wizard to memorize any spell they want in the morning, up to the number of spells they get for the day (IE: If they get 1 level 4 spell, and 2 level 3 spells, and 4 level 2 spells, and 4 level 1 spells, they get to memorize 1 level 4, 2 level 3, 4 level 2 and 4 level 1 spells), but they can cast those spells in any way they want. If they have 30 spell points, they can cast up all their spell points as that 1 level 4 spell, or they can cast 30 level 1 spells, or 10 level 2 spells, or 6 level 3 spells.
It gives them flexibility in that they can pick a set of spells in the morning, but gives them some of the flexibility of a spontaneous caster.
I don't see what the issue is here. Though all the various groups I've been Dm-ing for the last 18 years i've used this variant rule.
You're right in that it makes sorcerers kind of pointless. But I've had players that still like to play them along with all the new variants(summoners, oracles).
Picking those classes become more a choice of flavor rather then the min/max obsession a lot of the forum dwellers here have. I know, I know.. try not to have a conniption fit.
So if your curious, here is why I abolished pre-memorization. You're players aren't omniscient. How do they know if on this particular day a knock spell is going to be useful, or a comprehend languages, or that the denizens of your dungeon are immune to a few different energy types.
As a player caster nothing is more depressing then memorizing spells that turn you into the lantern barer for the dungeon. All this does is lead to them nagging the party wanting to leave the area so they can rest and select better spells.
With allowing your wizards and clerics to pick their spells at the time of casting they can cast lightning bolt 3 times if it's called for rather then casting it once and saying well.. where's my crossbow.
Now I will say. the new rule in pathfinder where you can leave slots open for the day and just spend 15 minutes in the dungeon to fill them. Really brings the RAW way and this variant closer together. As a DM I would have no problem using memorization with this rule in place.
Use the rule against them. Build a caster encounter that butchers them like a fresh-killed pig. Make them see just how broken it can be.
That or negotiate with them/roll with it. Your choice :)
If a group told me there would be no compromise this is what I would do. I don't like the "no negotiations" tactics.
Er, doesn't that completely obsolete the sorcerer?
it makes it more of a flavor choice. Do you want to have a bloodline or a school?
I second the recomendation to look at Arcana Evolved. Also consider the Book of Experimental Might.
Sean likely has the best compromise above.+1
This variant of spell casting seems like it would be extraordinarily boring in higher level play. Essentially, if every spell caster is just spontaneous, then I would think all encounters featuring an enemy spell caster would just devolve into counter spell locks. With no need to actually have the right spell prepared to counter then I would think every enemy caster would just sit around and negate everything the PC players would cast. At least, I don't imagine it working any other way. Even a caster a level or two lower than the PCs would be able to effectively negate almost all their spells, or at least contest them with dispel magic for the higher level ones. It just seems like spell fighting would be rather static.
Just my thoughts.
+1
Common courtesy would dictate that if you are joining an established group you don't try to force them to play your way. 4-5 annoyed people at the table because you have to play your way, especially when it's a new group is not the best way to make friends.
I would say try it, you might be surprised at the versatility it allows you as a DM when designing encounters.
And I'm sorry wraithstrike.. what you are condoning just reeks of ego and vindictiveness.
As a GM for a high level game I can say spell locks are just as easy for a prepared caster to do. My cleric usually has dispel magic available. Or more precisely greater dispel in a CL 20 staff. I don't think a spontaneous only group will be any more of a problem at high levels.
Oh, another idea I've been contemplating for my group: allow everyone to use the vital strike feat chain as part of normal BAB progresion for free. Helps add a little more flexibility to non-casters.
|
Just tell them if they want to play a spontaneous wizard, they've got one premade as a sorcerer.
Spontaneous cleric? Point them at the oracle. Tell them you're just more comfortable running the game with characters that have been balanced around spontaneous casting.
Alternatively, you could make clerics require scrolls just like wizards to learn new spells and then restrict the availability of scrolls in the world. That way they can play their class, but you can restrict their spells to about what they'd know if they were a spontaneous caster of that level.
Common courtesy would dictate that if you are joining an established group you don't try to force them to play your way. 4-5 annoyed people at the table because you have to play your way, especially when it's a new group is not the best way to make friends.
I would say try it, you might be surprised at the versatility it allows you as a DM when designing encounters.
And I'm sorry wraithstrike.. what you are condoning just reeks of ego and vindictiveness.
There is a big difference between joining a game and saying 'you guys change your rules' and four peole asking someone to GM and then saying 'Oh, you GM the way we tell you or else!"
You're response is appropriate for a player joining someone's existing group. This is an existing group getting a new GM and issuing ultimatums on how he has to GM. Big difference.
Use the rule against them. Build a caster encounter that butchers them like a fresh-killed pig. Make them see just how broken it can be.
Unless you have your NPC casters deliberately memorize a bunch of useless spells, this is not much of a power boost for NPCs. At all. They're still going to be casting their best spells at the PCs each round, presumably. There really isn't much variation over picking those best spells beforehand or picking them on the fly, unless your PCs have weird immunities or vulnerabilities (e.g. you have a party of undead PCs and your NPC wizard has a bunch mind-affecting spells memorized).
Now it is a power boost for the PCs, since NPCs do tend to have weird immunities/vulnerabilities. But I still don't think it's as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.
What the piont of play then. Realy come on that is insane. I give evey thing SR 20 + hit dice then. Make them track spell componets then. Cuase this sounds realy dum. Are the plaers age under 10 years or something. Do they not have any idea of balence then. I would not waste my time writing/ make up bad guy for them to fight cause it point less an no fun not a chalenge at all.
Common courtesy would dictate that if you are joining an established group you don't try to force them to play your way. 4-5 annoyed people at the table because you have to play your way, especially when it's a new group is not the best way to make friends.
I would say try it, you might be surprised at the versatility it allows you as a DM when designing encounters.
And I'm sorry wraithstrike.. what you are condoning just reeks of ego and vindictiveness.
No ego, but slightly vindictive yes. As an aside players often agree/want things with the assumption that whatever rule(insert other word as needed) they want changed won't be used against them. I often tell players of the "reversal of fortune", and that is enough to normally change their minds. Some people only learn by example though.
I'd advise you let them play they way they like and try it out yourself If you find it makes the adventure un-challenging, just beef up the critters in power or number and make it more challenging.
It does sound powerful but it also sounds like a fun way to play and the point of the game is to have fun, not to follow the rules if they are getting in the way of a good time.
I love rules, but they were made by people who like to play so I don't see why players can't make rules to play how they like so long as everyone is on board and the end result isn't a mess.