Reading JaronK's Tier System, and several threads which compare the power level of spell casters to the Martial classes, where each finds the disparity quite egregious. I wonder if there is a simple fix in making the 'cost' of casting a spell self-deterring.
For example, Haste is a go-to spell, and is quite wonderful, but would the arcanist be so quick to let it fly if it cost him 5,000gp? If the encounter were significant, absolutely; I'm sure the party would assume part of the cost. If it were a random grid encounter from traveling unexplored regions? Very likely not, they'd rather let the Martials do the brunt of the work, and save their precious resources for when they are really needed. This pumps the need for martials from 'meh' to 'vital', and also forces the casters to rely more on their inherent non-spell abilities, such as Domain or Specialty abilities. This happens because material resources are limited, and so spell economy would be very, very conservative. I think bloodline-like powers would be less theme and more exciting as well.
By the way, 'cost' is an abstraction, mostly referring to consumed material components worth X amount :) Just clarifying.
Should this be a static cost based on the level of the spell? Or should you simply hack a cost into those spells which seem to break the game?
For example:
Cantrips/Orisons and Level 1 spells cost nothing.
Level 2 Spells: 10g
Level 3 Spells: 100g
level 4 Spells: 1000g
Level 5 Spells: 5000g
Level 6 Spells: 10000g
Level 7 Spells: 25000g
Level 8 Spells: 50000g
Level 9 Spells: 100000g (they break the game after all :P )
Or is it more correct to append a cost to the overly used, game changing spells which are typically used in arguments about how X caster is always better than X martials; like haste? Or in cases where a spell allows a caster to be better at martialing than a martial; such as Divine Favor, Mage Armor, etc. I think this would depend on how interdependent you want the group, where the goal is heavy leaning teamwork.
For example: Cure spells would cost nothing, as would direct damage spells, but SoS and SoD spells would have a hefty fee, as would the summon monster spells.
I think this approach allows the group to better target problematic spells, and curb power-disparity based on the group make up. And I think the over all advantage of this approach is that the most powerful spells are absolutely still there to be used, but now they must be used wisely.
Potential issues:
1. Wizard Specialists, such as Conjurers and Transmuters might bear and unfair tax load.
2. What do we do with hybrid casters, such as the Ranger and Paladin whose spell lists are good compliments and not at all game-breaking?
3. Some classes might have inferior non-spell abilities, such as the Bloodline powers (when compared to Mysteries, Eidolon or Druid Pet, Domains, etc), which fail to deliver enough utility and fun when the encounter isn't worth the cost of using their big guns.
Not so much about the balance but:
Man I would hate having to do all that book keeping. Constant cash worries...not to mention how fast you would tear through cash preventing you from using it for fun stuff.
I've never actually seen one of these classes break the game though. Sure, they theoretically can, and I'm sure sometimes they do. But one thing I've noticed is that these classes tend to be best at making the non Tier 1 classes better.
Haste is a great spell....for the rest of the party. If I were the fighter I wouldn't want my wizard to not use it because it costs to much. So I'd end up covering part of the cost, which would prevent me from getting that next +1 on my weapon.
I think adding these costs would be a huge amount of extra work and may not actually balance anything, just make everyone worse.
I am pretty sure all this would do is create a game where no one plays casters ever. If your perception is that casters have an unfair advantage over melee there are a host of small tweaks that could help out. Improved save DC's, moving some spells up a level or two here and there, modifications to concentration. What you are doing here is swatting flys with a hammer. One fifth level spell for more than the cost of several useful permanent magic items...I would never play a caster again...or politely refuse to play period.
I'd give non casting classes proportionally more feats the more powerful they become. Extremely difficult to implement.
What I dislike the most is that, the higher level the group is, the biggest the difference is between what a new level gives to caster and non-caster.
By level 10-12, any fighter will have most of the feats he need to do his job: the rest of the levels will be spent putting the icing of the cake but, with rare exceptions, the benefit they will get will be almost irrelevant (most of what a fighter will do with new feats, class features and gold will be just to keep up with the stronger enemies). He will mostly improve the tactics he have been in the previous levels.
At these levels though, the wizard will be getting stronger and stronger spells, while as his caster level improves all his lesser spells will improve too. If a lesser spell could (powerwise) be compared to a feat, at higher levels such a comparison become impossible.
Even lower level spells scales similarly to the martial prowess of a martial character (think about higher CL and metamagic feats as corresponding to BAB and normal feats: stats improve in the same way), and those spell slots too low to be used effectively can still be useful outside of combat, giving the caster versatility in addition to power.
What I mean is that at level 12 (or 16 or whatever should be deemed appropriate) a fighter should get more than a lousy feat: he should gain an entire chain and ignore (at least some) prerequisites. Like becoming a master of tripping (maybe ignoring the prereq.), or a master of TWF if he focused on THF, or mastering blind combat, or mastery archery: the higher the level, the more important the chain or the more prerequisites ignored. Rangers and rogues already do something like this, but I'd take it a lot further.
This is just a rant, I know for sure such a system is too difficult for me to implement with the little time I have: just for the sake of completeness I would assign a tier to feats, so that at the level associated to a certain tier you could choose a certain number of feats from lesser tiers. Clearly this would have an impact on the power level of a group which is the main reason for the system is too complex for me to implement.
EDIT: for readability and to add the quick solution below
Another (simpler) solution could be to get rid of all 8 and 9 level spells: just keep the slots for using metamagic.
In older editions the intended result of this change were present. The wizard had far fewer spells, and he saved them, and spent most of the game waiting for just the right moment to unleash his magic. Conceptually this is pretty cool. In practice it blows. Caster players spend a whole lot of REAL time doing nothing or nearly nothing.
That simply isnt fun. 3rd edition and pathfinder both intentionally move away from this mentality. This change will simply bring that back. No one would want to play a caster in this kind of system, and people wouldnt want a caster in their group (constant drain on party resources). If you think casters 'break' your game and dont want them played it is pretty passive aggressive to just tax them gold every time they want to participate in the game. You really ought just not allow primary casters in your game and be an adult about it.
In my mind a better solution is to give cool things to do to everyone. A first foray into this was the tome of battle in 3.5. It had mixed results but it did show some promise. The idea that martial characters can if done right be on the same page as casters, with a pocket full of cool and effective things they can do over the course of the day.
Pathfinder has jumped into this also. Take a look at the barbarian or the ninja. The rogue was one of the most uninteresting and weakest classes in terms of class abilities and mechanics. But adding the option of a few well chosen magic like abilities (be they spell like, supernatural or extraordinary) and sudenly the ninja isnt so second class to a barbarian or even a wizard.
Basically I think that penalyzing a player for doing what his character does is a terrible idea. If you have a problem with magic being too powerful do one of two things. Remove the classes that have the most magic (you can get by with just inquisitors, bards, magus and alchemists) OR add magic and magic like things to the classes that have the least of it (fighters and rogues). Why shouldnt a fighter have 'flourishes' or 'fighting styles' that give them the ability to do things above and beyond what they currently can (instead of just hit with sword harder)? Like I said I think it is a much better way to go about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In older editions the intended result of this change were present. The wizard had far fewer spells, and he saved them, and spent most of the game waiting for just the right moment to unleash his magic. Conceptually this is pretty cool. In practice it blows. Caster players spend a whole lot of REAL time doing nothing or nearly nothing.
That simply isnt fun. 3rd edition and pathfinder both intentionally move away from this mentality.
I recon that the inability of the wizard to participate without casting spells is mainly due to the fact that by design, the wizard cannot do much without casting a spell (well, lets say that the wizard has few other mechanical tools than magic to do 'things').
3rd edition and Pathfinder moved away from 1st edition mentality on that part, but it wasn't the only direction that they could have taken. In their defense, what they did was consistent with their game design as a whole.
@Paulcynic: I feel that in order to reduce spellcasting without 'cheating' the player, you must offer new class features for the character to participate in his party's adventures.
'findel
Exalted has a stunt mechanic, Mr. Fishy has considered adding that to Pathfinder. That would allow martial characters to perform over the top stunts, like deflecting an attack into an adjacent enemy. Or a high level rogue rolls acrobatics to leapt onto an larger creature and continues the fight atop the creatures back.
This isn't a good fix.
Cool. I failed to make clear that I don't have strong feelings about this power disparity. I tailor my sessions and encounters to the capability of the group, and its quite personally satisfying to give the mighty caster his own 'thing' to handle during a fight, while the martials go about doing what they do best in a fun and exciting way. The reason that I have posted this idea is because every single post about every single issue devolves into a loooong fight over casters > martials. Offering homebrew solutions seems a great way to at least make these arguments productive. I hope more ideas like what have already been posted continue to see the light of day ;)
I haven't GM'd or played with a group past level 12, and so I have a specific question for those who have:
Do Save DCs go up drastically in late game, or do they possibly fall behind and become easier to save against?
The reason I ask, is that if spells not only become more powerful in what they do, but also become relatively harder to resist/avoid, then this would validate the complaints about casters > martials. If not, then there's no reason for any changes.
Laurafindel, I agree. My instinct is that full casters pretty much only have spells, with one exception: The Witch. She is, from my experience, the perfect full-caster. She can cast up to 9th level spells, but her other non-spell abilities are so amazingly good and *fun* to use that casting isn't the go-to playstyle option. I also like the Oracle's Mysteries for this exact same reason, they are so useful and fun to see in action. I really like the *idea* of Bloodlines, but they're a mechanically inferior choice, and have extremely limited uses per day.
To the rest of the concerns posted, the idea is to create a spell economy, allowing spells which disrupt the game or power balance to still exist, but removing their 'fiat' status. They now have a cost, and are a more careful choice rather than a no-brainer.
I think this is a good and reasonable fix for those tables who *are* having this casters > martials discussion, and who want ideas for a solution.
--PC
I think it could work, but I would say that picking select spells to have costly material components seems the way to go.
I think a good way to make it less of a "nerf" and more of a "rebalancing" would be to give the affected casters some compensation in class features. Perhaps give the wizard schools and sorcerer bloodlines more powers, or upgrade the existing ones to be more consistently or easily useable in combat.
Obviously this would take an eye for balance, and a look at which schools/bloodlines are hit hardest by your changes, but I think making them less able in one way and more able in another might be the best way to make players continue to want to play these characters after hearing they have lost some things from core. New toys can be enticing, even if they aren't as good as the old ones.
As long as the class remains fun to play, I think you'll be fine.