Double the sorcerer's spells per day. Yes, all of them. If you want to set them apart from the wizard by not giving them third-level spells, give them something that might come close to being as good.
As you may have noticed, I prefer stopping at even levels so that sorcerers and wizards stop equally.
Considering E5, Sorcerers can cast 6 level 1 spells and 4 level 2 spells, can do it on the fly, and have access to 2 bloodline powers and eschew material.
On the other side Wizards can cast 3 level 1 , 2 level 2 and 1 level 3 spell and have a bomus feat + arcane bond and scribe scroll.
I think they're pretty much even out. Wizards will have diversity, while sorcerers will have fire power. :)
It depends a great deal on how the group plays the game. A sorcerer could completely outperform a wizard on 5th level if they regularly get into enough fights per day to exhaust their entire arsenal and spells are mostly used to kill things quickly.
But in a game where you don't want to kill absolutely everything and instead often use divinations and transmutations to do things the brainy way, the sorcerer becomes completely useless.
|
If we assume that a wizard and a sorcerer both have at least a 16 in their prime casting stat (and less than 24), and the wizard has an arcane school (since 99% of the people agree Universalists are losers), then...
- The sorcerer has 7 level 1 and 5 level 2 spells: 12 spells total, and 17 "levels" of spells.
- The wizard has 5 level 1 spells, 4 level 2 spells and 3 level 3 spells; 12 spells total and 22 "levels" of spells. That's not counting a possible bonded item.
The whole idea of "sorcerers get more spells per day" doesn't actually work so well on the uneven levels.
Ok, I didn't consider specialist wizards, as they're not the norm in my group...
But even then, I wouldn't opt to double their number of spell per day though. I'll keep in mind your explanation as you raised a good point there :)
|
|
You should keep in mind that the step from level 2 to level 3 spells is HUGE. Summon Monster III is where you get critters that are quite strong for their level, and in E5, they'll be top-notch for a very very long time. Also there's Haste, Slow, Fireball, Stinking Cloud, Fly...
The whole "sorcerers are the blasters" thing doesn't really convince if it's a sorcerer doing Scorching Ray while the wizard can do that and ALSO cast Fireball.
If you look at spells per day, the even levels are much more balanced between wizards/sorcerers; the wizard knows a lot more spells but the spells/day tips towards sorcerers.
Level 5:
Wiz 5/4/3 = 12 spells / 22 levels
Sorc 7/5 = 12 spells / 17 levels
Level 6:
Wiz 5/5/4 = 14 spells / 27 levels
Sorc 7/6/4 = 17 spells / 31 levels
Meanwhile martial classes get the +6 BAB, which does a nice job of setting them clearly above the rest in to-hit and attack rate, and opens up the +6 BAB feats, including greater maneuver feats. And I think E6-8 is the place where maneuvers can really shine; not too many immune monsters yet, but you can actually bring together the various requirements by that point to really do cool stuff with them.
By the way, the whole wizards/sorcerers thing applies to clerics/oracles in the same way.
I sort of run E# games, but instead of capping characters at a certain level, I get them involved in the politics of the country/region/world instead. In the end the high level characters spend so much time running their realm that they have to send their henchmen out to perform missions (i.e. have adventures) on their behalf.
I run my campaigns in Greyhawk, rather than Golarion and the various country's rulers range from levels 10-20. So I have my politics roughly pegged as:
1-3: An unknown
4-6: Locally important
7-9: Local ruler or of national interest
10-12: Running a small country or national organisation
13-15: Running a country
16-18: Important on a regional scale
19-21: Global influence
22-25: Major global figure
26-29: Legendary hero
30+: Divine
In practice most PCs don't progress far into double figures as the majority of the game time is spent playing the henchmen, but it provides continuity and allows the players to shape the world whilst playing in thre sweet spot.
Dot for interest. I'm trying to gather intel for an E6 game myself, so all this is fascinating.
|
|
I'm playing in E8 myself, and I think the most important piece of advice I can give is this: have the entire ruleset, including "epic feats", written out before people make characters. Once players commit to a character, making neutral decisions about which class should get how much becomes much much harder.
I am currently playing in an E6 campaign (had a session on sunday) that I am enjoying quite a bit, though in reality we are just about to get to 6th level in the next session, so the divergence from 'normal' hasnt really happened yet. I mean really if you want to know how an 'E6' game is going to go, think about how levels 1-6 go in your game when you play them. Pretty much like that but longer. I am enjoying it as much as I enjoy low level play (quite a bit) but just with the knowledge that the dm wont eventually get frustrated with high level abilities diverting the game away from the story he wants to tell.
I've been planning E8, but in truth I'm considering switching to E6 and just making sure that the 7th & 8th level features are available.
I prefer distinguishing the 3/4 BAB characters from the 1/2 BAB to distinguishing the full BAB from the 3/4; that, however, may be a matter of a bias towards power for classes I like, such as Magus & Inquisitor, rather than a better feel for the game.
I definitely want 5th level spells to be gone, but I think having 4th level spells isn't a huge problem; still, there are advantages to staying at 6th.
Ritual magic I consider a must.
I heartily agree with having the rules fully written up; the worst thing you could do, of course, is tell the players "oh by the way, you don't level up anymore". This should include how ritual magic works, and what additional feats have been added (largely this is going to be iconic class features that come in too late).
I actually just ran a one-shot (a heavily-edited-for-time Broken Chains) in my E8 setting, and it went pretty well. There was only one foe in the adventure who violated E8, and I just ignored the (rather poorly selected) 5th level spells on that creature. That does mean that the E8-ness wasn't particularly relevant to the one-shot, though. But part of my plan was to crowdsource some aspects of the setting design, and I got some good ideas from the players (as well as having to answer questions I hadn't had an answer for before).
I think I'm going to take a bit of time to review what comes in at 7th & 9th level, and the 4th level spells, to see how I feel. I definitely want to stick with an even level so that prepared and spontaneous casters have the same spell access (even if prepared know more).
|
|
An important side issue is: does E* also apply to NPCs? If NPCs continue to level (like the king's court wizard/priest), that strikes me as rather unfair.
I like the idea that at E6, you're elite but not entirely beyond the reach of common folk. You can wreak a lot of havoc, but an army can actually take you down.
An important side issue is: does E* also apply to NPCs? If NPCs continue to level (like the king's court wizard/priest), that strikes me as rather unfair.
I like the idea that at E6, you're elite but not entirely beyond the reach of common folk. You can wreak a lot of havoc, but an army can actually take you down.
In terms of the standard rules, the E* applies to everyone in the setting, including npcs.
I've been planning E8, but in truth I'm considering switching to E6 and just making sure that the 7th & 8th level features are available.
Well, sure. Isn't that the point of the epic/capstone feats?
For people who play E8, what do the capstone feats look like?
|
I'm participating in an E6 PbP here on the Paizo boards. So far we're only level 3, so no big difference, but the GM has some house rules with capstone feats, etc. that might be interesting. All credit to my GM Davachido. :)
I use the Beginner box to play an E5 game with the CRB and APG to expand the classes, feats, and spells.
The only houserules I've used so far is that if you hit 5th in a single class - you can use feats to select 6th level class abilities (+1 attack for fighter so you get +6/+1 for example).
It's worked pretty good so far - everyone seems to love the way that every dragon is an epic fight.
What can you tell me about Cavaliers in the level 6 to 8 range? Some type of nobleman warrior could be an interesting addition to my campaign, but is the class actually much good at that stage?
Or might the Samurai perhaps be a better choice?
To me, it’s a style (like ultra low magic) used by DM’s that both NEED to have “control” and can’t figure out how to keep PC’s on a railroad when they can (gasp!) teleport.
In the same way that Pathfinder is a game for GMs who can't handle space ships in their game?
To me, it’s a style (like ultra low magic) used by DM’s that both NEED to have “control” and can’t figure out how to keep PC’s on a railroad when they can (gasp!) teleport.
I would say that E6 is a low-magic game that makes internal sense. Contrast that with people who say they're running low-magic games by banning +2 swords when there are still 20th level wizards running around. ArooOOoo?
Why do people like running low-magic games? For one thing, a lot of fantasy fiction is set in low-magic worlds.
In the same way that Pathfinder is a game for GMs who can't handle space ships in their game?
Nor does my DM allow us to get a Monopoly on Park Place and Boardwalk. But a Space RPG is not the same as a Fantasy RPG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been planning E8, but in truth I'm considering switching to E6 and just making sure that the 7th & 8th level features are available.Well, sure. Isn't that the point of the epic/capstone feats?
For people who play E8, what do the capstone feats look like?
I have some notes... at home, of course. There wouldn't be "capstone" feats, just class features at 8th level. If a class really got nothing suitable, I might shift a 9th or 10th level class feature to 8th.
As far as "epic" feats... some generic ones, and a major source was to skim the classes and provide a feat for any class feature after 8th that I felt wasn't going to violate the feel. Sorcerers could pick up their 9th level bloodline power, Rangers could get Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight, Rogues could get one advanced talent, and so on.For me, E6 vs. E8 is a question of 4th level spells and the second iterative attack for 3/4 BAB characters. I'm not too concerned about the extra two hit dice as far as HP are concerned, at least.
I would, broadly speaking, impose the same restrictions on NPCs as on PCs. Occasionally, for story purposes, I might allow NPCs to violate the level cap, though I would much prefer not to.
Actually, I'm looking forward to mythic as a way to address higher-level published adventures to a degree without having to raise the level cap itself. Mythic tiers for PCs should allow access to higher level adventures, and rituals cover for high level spells required in the plot. Suddenly, I only really need to rebuild enemies with more than 8 class levels (ideally).
To me, it’s a style (like ultra low magic) used by DM’s that both NEED to have “control” and can’t figure out how to keep PC’s on a railroad when they can (gasp!) teleport.I would say that E6 is a low-magic game that makes internal sense. Contrast that with people who say they're running low-magic games by banning +2 swords when there are still 20th level wizards running around. ArooOOoo?
Why do people like running low-magic games? For one thing, a lot of fantasy fiction is set in low-magic worlds.
But it doesn’t make internal sense. They make D20 Low Magic, such as Iron Heroes. That game is designed and playtested to be internally consistent with Low magic. PF isn’t.
And you have it in a nutshell “Why do people like running low-magic games?”. It’s never “Why do people like playing low-magic games?”. Thread after thread on these boards and other boards is about a DM who wants to run a LM campaign, not players who want to ditch their DM and his standard magic campaign and get less stuff & power. Sure, a lot of players don’t have much choice in DMs and are happy to play anything, even if it’s Bunnies & Burrows.
Not as much as you think. Middle Earth is VERY High Magic, not Low Magic at all. Think about it: in one party, they have the Single Most Powerful Artifact in the World, the 3rd most powerful, an artifact sword, two relic swords, a version of the Invulnerable Coat of Arndt, the Vial, Elven Cloaks for each and every one…….
|
And you have it in a nutshell “Why do people like running low-magic games?”. It’s never “Why do people like playing low-magic games?”. Thread after thread on these boards and other boards is about a DM who wants to run a LM campaign, not players who want to ditch their DM and his standard magic campaign and get less stuff & power.
Flat out false Dr. D.
All of my players have expressed more interest in playing a lower powered, sweet spot game vs. high fantasy. To generalize this as a DM preference is incredibly narrow sighted. My players stop expressing interest in a game when it takes longer to play (function) basic aspects of the game than it is to explore, rp and fight. That is a by-product of higher level play.Power is relative - I know that a few of my players who are predisposed to martial characters actually enjoy older editions because the fact that fighter types were mechanically more competent at their role in the group.
I don't know if this is just you being reactionary to the fact that some people may not like the PF level of assumed power (for everyone, including NPCs) or if you are just trolling on the subject. Either way, who cares if people (DMs or players) want to get feedback and support for an E- whatever game? For some novice DMs it could be an easier game to manage and for some seasoned DMs it can take the focus away from character builds, to playing the game and advancing a campaign. Or as Hogarth said – some people may view fantasy at different levels of power, maybe lower powered than assumed by Pathfinder RPG? I don't see the point of what amounts to a drive-by in a suggestion/house rules thread.
And for the record – I don't run nor have I ever ran an E-whatever game. Just not seeing the point or motivation for the threadcrap.
But it doesn’t make internal sense. They make D20 Low Magic, such as Iron Heroes.
I don't know what to tell you: by my definition, a party of 20th level spellcasters in Iron Heroes is not Low Magic (tm) and a party of 6th level spellcasters in E6 is not High Magic (tm).
Think about it: in one party, they have the Single Most Powerful Artifact in the World [etc.]
It goes without saying that The Single Most Powerful Artifact in the World is neither a "high-level" idea nor a "low-level" idea. Likewise for The Single Most Powerful Spellcaster in the World: in D&D, that could be a level 1 wizard or a level 100 wizard or anything in-between.
And you have it in a nutshell “Why do people like running low-magic games?”. It’s never “Why do people like playing low-magic games?”.
I'm mildly confused. I'd be interested in playing an E6 game, but not a "low-magic 20th level wizards" game (which I think is a contradiction in terms). I can't tell if that means that I agree with what you said or if I disagree with you!
|
|
And you have it in a nutshell “Why do people like running low-magic games?”. It’s never “Why do people like playing low-magic games?”
I like playing in low-magic/E6 games for a few reasons...
1. World verisimilitude. When my character hits 6th level, s/he's pretty damn powerful, but really not that much more powerful than the enemies we fought a few levels ago.
2. Challenge. It forces you to think outside of the box and not solve things with "We get the wizard to prepare X, Y, Z and then we win".
3. Flavour/feel. High level Pathfinder is unlike any fantasy novel I've ever read (outside of the D&D/Pathfinder novels).
There have been entire armies equipped with what are at least +2 equivalent swords (both Gondolin and Cardolan seem to have widely used orc and undead bane weapons respectively). There's a guy who can turn into a bear and wade into an army of orcs without dieing (Beorn). There are magic dwarven masks that can protect their wearers from the breath of a colossal wyrm (a gargantuan creature cannot straddle a ravine that it is impressive for a stag to leap). There is a person who could put everyone in a very large dungeon complex to sleep (Luthien). Someone does something that in Pathfinder would take a fifth level wizard spell at CL 24 (Finrod uses Seeming on 11 elves and Beren). Someone animates a statue as a golem (The Faithful Stone in Unfinished Tales).
It goes without saying that The Single Most Powerful Artifact in the World is neither a "high-level" idea nor a "low-level" idea. Likewise for The Single Most Powerful Spellcaster in the World: in D&D, that could be a level 1 wizard or a level 100 wizard or anything in-between.
I have no idea what any of that has to do with what I said, although I have to admit I am curious how you can tell that a sword mentioned in a story is a +2 sword -- did he say they're 10% more accurate than normal swords or something like that?
"I can't!
Someone is wrong on the internet!"
Your claim was that the concentration of so many magic items was not evidence of high magic....
I didn't say anything about the concentration of magic items, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. To quote myself:
It goes without saying that The Single Most Powerful Artifact in the World is neither a "high-level" idea nor a "low-level" idea.
So to expand on that idea, "the most powerful magic item in the whole world" is a relative thing; that could apply to a +1 sword or a +10 sword, depending on the setting. A low-magic setting will have a "most powerful item" and so will a high-magic setting.
You rejected DrDeth's argument that LotR was high magic because the fellowship had a large number of relatively high powered magic items.
No. I specifically stayed away from arguing whether LotR is a high- or low-magic setting, because I had no desire to get into a flame war. :-)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. :-)
For me, E6 vs. E8 is a question of 4th level spells and the second iterative attack for 3/4 BAB characters.
Upthread people have stated that they'd rather not have the 3/4 BAB classes get a second iterative. I feel the rogue needs every attack he can get for his precision damage dice to have a hope of narrowing the gap between his damage output and the fighters. It won't do him much good if he isn't flanking. The extra time spent watching the cleric wiff a second attack isn't too much of a price to pay for that. It also lets fighters pick up a level of something that's not full-bab and still interate.
For people who do / have done E6/ E8, do you limit the magic items to what can be crafted by level 6 - 8 characters or do you have items that are more powerful than that (ie. up to what a level 6 - 8 could afford)?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd consider anything that could be crafted by a level 6 PC in E6 to be a "normal" magic item, and anything more difficult to craft would be an artifact-level magic item.
Items that can be made with a Caster Level of 6th or lower [and there are many that are listed with an unneccessarily higher CL!] should be unrestricted. Though that doesn't have to mean you can just walk into a store and buy them. But there should be plenty of people around who can make them.
Ignoring any exploits that allow characters to craft items with a CL greather than their class level, any item with a minimum CL of 7th could only be created by monsters that have natural spellcasting abilities, like nymphs, rakshasa, or planetars. If PCs can't make them, they are by definition minor artifacts. How common they are depends mostly on the setting, depending on how many supernatural beings are around and how often they create magic items for mortals as gifts. (Or even as weapons in their own wars?!)
That's indeed a bit redundant. But I would say you could not make an item that uses a 4th level spell, even if you increase the crafting DC by +5. Because to cast a 4th level spell, you would have to have a CL of 7th. Which as a 6th level character you simply don't have.
I am refering to this line:
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.
Basesd on this, I conclude that you can not create an item at a caster level greater than your own. If the item has a spell as a prerequisite, which requires a minimum caster level greater than the spellcaster, the item can not be created.
|
|
That's talking about item creation costs;
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.
Some items cost more if you put a spell in them at a higher caster level. You're not allowed to save money by putting in the spell at a lower level than the minimum to cast the spell.
Having a certain caster level isn't actually a requirement for most magic items; the exceptions are magic weapons, armor and various things that follow the same "caster level must be 3x the +modifier of the item" line. Can you bypass that requirement? Yes, according to the FAQ:
Crafting and Bypassing Requirements: What crafting requirements can you bypass by adding +5 to the DC of your Spellcraft check?
As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 02/22/13
The developers have stated several times that the main limits on the creation of magic items are access to the item creation feats and money; caster level and creation DC aren't meant to be the main limits.
I completely agree with you on that. And it really bugged me when people didn't believe it in 3.5e, where it all comes down to one comma actually being a semicolon, that makes all the difference in RAW.
But that's not what I was talking about.
What I was talking about is, that you can't create items that have a 4th or higher level spell as a prerequisite, even if you don't actually provide the spell and take a +5 incrase to the crafting DC instead.
Would you contest that statement?
|
|
Yes, I would.
You can't provide the spell, obviously, and you're paying for that with a +5 DC. That's the only obstacle.
If you hunt through the text carefully, you'll notice that caster level isn't actually required. If you've got the patience to do it, you can also find forum threads where SKR explains that you're also allowed to enchant items at a higher CL than your own.