Adamantine Dragon, you wrote this: "But 4e is also all about balancing powers between martial and casting classes. It's all about giving martial characters exactly the same number and type of combat options as a caster. The same number of at will powers, the same number of encounter powers, the same number of daily powers, and all of those powers, from any class, do more or less the same things. They daze, stun, blind, slide, push, knock prone, deal damage, teleport... It really doesn't matter if you are a ranger or a wizard, once you are in combat either one of you will have powers that let you set states, rearrange the battlefield or do damage, more or less in equal measure, just with different fluff."
None asked for that. Please read our comments. Someone asked spell like option for martial characters (more or less, an oriental high fantasy style, or like Bastard! comics), but is not the main point of this thread.
I wrote something very different, also because I prefer to limit magic, but the main point is to adapt to campaign. Plz, realize that: we don't want perfect balance or 4E style, and we're not all asking for a martial class that use magic.
In 3.5 there were feats for warrior against illusions, etc. We have feats against magic in PF. I think this is very appropriated in a high magic campaign or for very particular character and that we need more of them.
I don't play 4e simply because I don't really care for board games.
Kirth, 4e is "board gamey" too.
Why do you phrase your agreement as if chiding me and/or disagreeing?
Alec, for a high-magic Pathfinder game in which martials can do awesome things, too, you might check out THIS, if you haven't already.
Alec, perhaps I am reading more into your comments about providing options comparable to spellcasters for martial classes. But if so that's because I don't see how you give martial classes abilities comparable to spellcasters without them being magic in all but name.
Unless you nerf the spellcasters so much that they no longer gain any benefit from being spellcasters.
As I said, 4e did both of these things. A: Their martial classes are just refluffed casters. I don't like that. B: Their spellcasters have been nerfed into oblivion compared to PF spellcasters. I don't like that either.
Unless I am very much mistaken you are outright proposing B, and I think you are proposing A the same way 4e did, by using semantics to claim that the powers aren't "magic". Perhaps in your mind you can justify the martial "options" as being non-magical, but I suspect on a case-by-case basis you and I would not agree on how plausible those powers would be, and the more implausible they are, the more they are really just refluffed magic.
It may well be that you don't intend to pursue your logic to the ultimate 4e clone conclusion that I see. But I don't even like the path you are on.
I don't play 4e simply because I don't really care for board games.Kirth, 4e is "board gamey" too.Why do you phrase your agreement as if chiding me and/or disagreeing?
I don't. I just say what I mean. I mean 4e is "board gamey" too. In fact I was agreeing with you not chiding you.
Rereading my post I'm not sure why I put the "too" in that sentence. I just meant "Yes Kirth, 4e is indisputably board gamey."
I don't know how feats that can deflect a ray (like shield against ray), or the old feats that helped to avoid some magical defense should be considered magic abilities, BUT if you run a high magic campaign is normal that even fighter interacts (and not necessarily uses) magic.
For example a fighter could have a feats or SA that needs a cold iron weapon or a cold iron tools to suppress a magical effect for some rounds. The shield against ray could even deflect it against the caster (with anothe feat) and so on. Or maybe some feats to represent the mind training that bodyguards do to avoid being charmed. All this stuff are normal for people that lives in a high magic campaign. If instead you want to run a low magic one then casters should be limited, but they go the advantage that other people are not well prepared against them, so with a simple illusion they can do more than usual.
Then, if someone wants, there's another option. In a very low level campaign magic doesn't exist or is very weak and secretive. In a high magic campaign warrior got spiritual abilities like Ken Shiro or Goku, but this is a choice of flavour (archetype that should be added in some books). Book of nine sword was perfect for an oriental campaign, but this is not a matter of rule and balance but more of flavour.
It's clear where's the problem, with every book new spells appear, and a wizard can take virtually any. Clerics are even worst. When a new feat appears a warrior has to take it and he can't change every day.
So maybe the problem is that martial characters should be able to be awesome in more situations? Like in films, fighting unarmed, with a chair, with all weapon, deadly as Riddick?
The campaign flavour is all decided by GM and players, but rules should support different style of play. You like games where casters can use all spells, and change the world shape. Someone likes it different. Someone could prefere that even martial do it, or maybe that none can. I think that this could be interesting material for a new book for GM or something to run campaign.
Actually, if you want a game without the caster/noncaster issue, where martial characters can do amazing things,
play EXALTED!
I'm not a huge fan of White Wolf, but the stuff they did with the Exalted game really rocks, and I think you'd find that the combat abilities are stacked much better with the "magic" abilities.
[Personally, I think that the casters in PF are fine, and would remind you of a quote by Vladimir Taltos, Baronette of House Jhereg: "No matter how subtle the wizard, a dagger between the shoulderblades will seriously cramp his style." PF fighters are lethal at high levels... they just do it more quietly than mages.]
For those who want to play a game with casters and non-casters balanced as closely as possible, the 4e forums are ---> that way.
Martial classes are better than casters in 4e. Also idk what the OP is trying to prove.
P.S. I play d&d from first edition, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, and PF (almost 21 years of play). I read the book of 4E but never rolled a dice to play it. Is a board game, has little to do with RPG.
Except for, y'know, the whole it-being-a-roleplaying-game part. I mean, you haven't even bothered to play it. The persistent anti-4e trolling is just bad.
|
@cranewings It's all happening simultaniously , don't think in turns.
@OP I can understand that feeblemind spell or something seems powerful for a higher level caster, but I just don't see one thing in all this.
Why would you want to nerf/redesign/whatever casters if they already received significant nerf on their damage spells. Nerf their debuff spells can totaly shut down entire classes which are even designed completely around those spells.
I also doubt PF is open for redesigning entire game system.
P.S. I play d&d from first edition, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, and PF (almost 21 years of play). I read the book of 4E but never rolled a dice to play it. Is a board game, has little to do with RPG.Except for, y'know, the whole it-being-a-roleplaying-game part. I mean, you haven't even bothered to play it. The persistent anti-4e trolling is just bad.
He has already decided what badwrongfun is, and he is the sole authority of what is overpowered, and what "real" RP'ing is.
|
@cranewings It's all happening simultaniously , don't think in turns.
Except that Cranewings has a very good point-- it may supposedly be happening "simultaneously" except that that isn't the way it plays out under the rules. In Cranewing's examples, if things were happening simultaneously and accounting for a person's intentions:
the fighter would move as the monster moves, and would stay in between the monster and the princess, no matter how much the monster tries to circle the two of them. And, the archer would be frantically trying to back-pedal to get enough room to shoot without getting cut down, but the attacker keeps advancing, right on top of the archer, not letting him get away...
In 3.5, combat is a more complex, complicated open-option board game (IMO) than 4E, but CW is right-- it's still a board game, if you play by the RAW; and the effects of everyone moving, and acting, one at a time, still frequently defies belief for the thought that it's all "really happening simultaneously".
BTW, Cranewings-- nice post.
Further note to Scott Betts, et al.-- the above point is not meant to imply that 4E and 3.5 aren't roleplaying games-- it's just to state an opinion that combat in both systems is very much a board-game set-up (and perhaps, that "board games" in this sense, is not a mutually exclusive term to "roleplaying games").
|
|
It's only natural for the game not to be perfect, as almost nothing is perfect.
You can pretty much interpret entire situation always differently, fighter was slow to notice, he tripped a bit on some object, monster was determent to kill princess and so on.
But this is talk about how unrealistic PF is.
Ok, seems that some people want to know what I'm trying to prove.
Nothing.
My opinion is that would be nice for this game to have guidelines or variant rules to play different style of campaign. I'm not here to prove it. It's an opinion.
I am not here also to discuss about 4E. I don't like it. If someone think that I'm trollin' about leave this thread and go to 4E forum. I would also talk about introducing some 4E features, but I'm not interested on playing it. So please bring 4E discussion or complaining in a proper thread, here is OT.
If someone thinks that would be nice to work togheter to put down some guidelines or idea to fix what someone perceives as a problem (things that I explained before), well, I'm fine with this. I'm not here to convince people to change their game style or to be convinced. It's clear now?
Someone was interested in new features for martial characters that live in a high magic campaign. Proposal?
I will work first on adaptation of magic system and casters to play a low magic campaign. Someone interested?
1. Someone was interested in new features for martial characters that live in a high magic campaign. Proposal?
2. I will work first on adaptation of magic system and casters to play a low magic campaign. Someone interested?
1. Already done -- at least twice. See the link I posted above, or go back and look at Frank and K's Races of War, etc.
2. Also already done -- see "E6."
Cap level at six is not what I'm searching from this game, but the purpose it's clear. I run game to high level, I'm not working on a strictly low magic campaign, but something like teleport, or spells that bend reality in a showy way becomes a problem. Also I want that the party doesn't become too much caster dependant. Everyone should have his moment. I'm working on a list of spells modified or banned, when I finished to translate it I will post as an example.
If properly played casters are a very good thing. All depends on campaign style. Now I'll post a short list of spells that I changed / banned, for traditional fantasy (not insane stats for character, not magic items as mandatory equipment, etc).
There are a lot of spells that interact with reality in a way that bypass skills. All this skills are changed, but I did not make a list, so I'll give some example.
Mending: this spell lets you repair an item with a +1/caster level bonus on skill check. You can make it with no tools (or few, maybe an hammer but not a forge), but you can't make it without training.
Pass without trace: add +1/caster level to DC to follow your track.
Spider climb: you can climb even flat walls, or climb as normal with a +1/caster level on skill check.
And so on.
Sometimes I use this variant rules for healing spells.
All healing spells work this way: range close, give to target the same amount of HP that would be cured as temporary hit points for 1 round / caster level. Same on undead (at GM decision, the range of this effect could be touch or close).
Now the list of sorcere/wizard spell banned (core book). Obviously this depends on campaign. Now I'm talking about a magic level lower than usual (like traditional fantasy).
5th level
Teleport: Teleport at high range could exists as a sort of magic item, like circle of teleport.
Feeblemind: Too strong. (At 9th character level can be a oneshot, ST are weak, and players would not have the spells to recover). I'm working on a variant, maybe a sort of greater touch of idiocy.
Baneful polymorph: same thing of feeblemind. I'm working about it. I think that I'll go for a sort of damage over time to stats (str).
Overland flight can be banned (GM's discretion)
6th
Stone to flesh: working for a variant spell.
7th
Plane shift
Teleport, greater
Teleport, object (GM discretion)
Ethereal jaunt
Limited wish (GM discretion)
9th
Wish (GM discretion)
Another consideration
There are a lot of spells that are "all or nothing". If ST is failed, target is KO, is ST is done, a round is wasted. I think that I'll change every spell to have less effect on a succesful ST, but not a deadly effect if failed. This will also help to handle the ST problems (too high or too low).
Very important, more variants
8th
Mind Blank: doesn't protect from see invisibility and similar spells.
3th
Fly: I'm wondering to change it, and I see different ways. Simply give a different duration, 1 round / caster level. This should need a casting time of 1 swift action.
The second way is to permit casters to use this spells as non continuative duration, but I'll need more time to change magic system in that way (if it seems to be a proper variant).
This are some example. I don't have more specific list, because my players ask me when they pick new spells.
Now I don't have time but next I'll translate other class list and APG list.
You see that casters are not weakened. Consider that even if I ban spells that can kill or stop someone in 1 round with a faile ST I give them a unique DC for all spells, 10+ level/2 + bonus stat.
Uhm... it's not necessary that characters can kill hordes of people. Indeed,even in reality few well armored warrios could kill a lot of commoners. For this is not a problem, if a different campaign is running you can ban all mass damage dealing spells and similar. The main point is to ban or modify what render useless other parts of the game (like skills).
This is a great thread. I very much agree with wanting to give sword swingers a little something extra. I love my caster and they should stay the way they are. I also love my sword swingers. The thing about this particular system is that that it assumes you will be part of a team. This team will be made up of people that will compliment each other and that each class does their own thing and works well with one another. This of course is in a perfect world.
Now throw in your player, that plays a caster, can come in and lay waste to your mundane characters and they can't do a thing about it. What is worse is that it happens after being involved with a campaign for 6mos+. In this case does the GM step in or just let it happen and ruin the campaign and waste a lot of peoples time?
Enter the Tome of Battle. This is somewhat of a hot topic. People either love it or hate it and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of meh...
The Tome of Battle was a test run for 4ED IMHO, and a last attempt a plugging a hole, that people thought existed with the power of sword swingers. IMO the Book of Nine Swords is a book that does fill a hole. Granted I have only played a swordsage to level 8, but non the less it was one of my favorites for a sword swinging type. It is somewhat powerful. Its power comes in versatility, rolling well on your dice rolls and many of the powers are SN. IMHO I think it was enough of a bonus to give sword swinging types enough of an advantage as to not being overshadowed. Again keep in mind I only made it to level 8.
My favorite book was the Iron Heroes book. I took a fighter to lvl 20. The feat mastery trees were awesome and they were able to also plug a lot of the wholes sword swingers had. I am sure I am missing something. The ADD is kicking in. I am sure I will think of it after my post or someone will catch something I missed.
Cap level at six is not what I'm searching from this game, but the purpose it's clear. I run game to high level, I'm not working on a strictly low magic campaign, but something like teleport, or spells that bend reality in a showy way becomes a problem. Also I want that the party doesn't become too much caster dependant. Everyone should have his moment. I'm working on a list of spells modified or banned, when I finished to translate it I will post as an example.
I think you are missing a very important piece of your own puzzle. If your real objective is to draw the line between low fantasy and high fantasy, you have to realize there is more to it then just spells. At higher levels, even mundane things become beyond what is normally reasonable. There is the old 20th level barbarian walking off the 300ft cliff to avoid having to run down example (because he has so many hp that the fall is no threat to him). The high level cleric gleefully eats poisoned food because he knows his fort save is so high he can only be poisoned on a 1. The fighter is stabbed through the heart with a sword, gets up pissed off and kills his attacker, then goes back to be without concern for his wound.
The high level game does not model low fantasy well at all, and it isn't just because of specific spells. It is because of the way power is scaling. In only 25% of the game (levels 1-5) we span the entire limit of human ability. If you go past level 6 low fantasy in the strictest terms is no longer possible. If your objective is to determine which parts of the game dont belong in a low fantasy game, everything above level 8 is a sure bet.
I'm not trying to define low and high fantasy but more precisely low - middle - and high magic system :)
I agree that even HP system is high fantasy, or better heroic fantasy. It's just a matter of description for me: the sword that stab the heart comes when the enemy reach negative HP.
My purpouse is to try to define magic because magic just mimic technology. Different flavour, but same impact. Glantri, Warmachine, Eberron, etc. I define this campaigns high magic. If high magic is running I have to think about the influence that it has on environment. In this setting I have to adapt all non magic user classes, with the example I made before.
In a middle - magic campaign magic is not a secret and is used, sometime ammired or feared. Dragonlance, LOTR (that is middle-low), Forgotten Realms (middle-high), etc. In this settings I just have to ban some very strange effect spells. In a low magic campaign (like european traditional epic) magic is unknown, strange, and very few people use it, but it's not low fantasy, because very big monsters run the land and even gods walk between humans, and an hero could be their son (Eracle).
It's obvious that in an high magic campaign martial characters interact with magic even if they don't directly use it.
I think that this game doesn't suit low fantasy, since its rules are made for heroic fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just redefine how I look at things.
I don't play after level 20.
|
|
Please I'd like some feedback :)
What do you think about this? Is true that there are two levels of play, that caster can reach both (plausible and implausible), while non casters usually are confined in the plausible (or a little implausible, but not much)? This is more important than simple dmg or class power, I think, because that can be fixed with ease.The spellcasters really run roughshot over the noncasters in one kind of game. The kind of game where the DM allows magic to escape the limits built into it, to run out of control like a raging forest fire. The kind where arcanists have unlimited spell resarch, the ones where the PC wizards have EVERY spell in the rule books available, and more importantly the ones in where every adventuring day only lasts 15 minutes.
The easiest way however for magic to run amuck, and unfortunately it's one that Paizo itself contributed to.... is magic item creation.
The removal of experience point costs eliminated one of the big brakes on the caster who's essentially a magic item vending machine. A more serious one is the ridiculous ease in which magic items are crafted. Recent FAQ rulings which allow item creation to inflate WBL only have added fuel to the fire for campaigns making pre-made high level characters. Fortunately the rules leave most of the process to GM adjudication and the situation really only requires a moderate amount of adjustment to keep things under control. The other thing that tends to blow balance out of the water is custom magic items, one of the few areas where munchkins actually thrive better in Pathfinder than they did in 3.5.
One of which I make is the requirement of formulae to make magic items. In other words, every type of cake requires a recipe to craft them, and that's plenty of opportunity to drain excess cash. The standard items in the rulebooks represnet the most cost effective ways to make certain items, which is why they are the most common forms of them. Custom items in my game get hit...
As DM just control the gold flow.
I'm trying to add some changes so my players can play game at every level, and where money doesn't mean power.
I don't bother much on higher levels, I can handle it. The point is to limit some options according to campaign type. Power is not a problem, spells like create demiplane or teleport are not a problem of power but on world perception that players have. Since I'm trying to run a classic fantasy campaign I want to make some changes to give a particular perception of world for my players. If low magic, I have to do some changes. If middle, something different, and for high magic I can't have character that can't interact with magic.
For money it's different. It's not money the problem, but what you can do with it. There are banks? You can buy magic item? How GM handle item creation?
In a low magic campaign even if player find tons of money maybe they can't carry or keep all, and if they become rich they can buy a castle (it's ok for me) but not magic items that raise character's power.
So my question is: what kind of spells and magic gear you will let to your player in a low magic campaign? In a middle magic? Which changes you would do to classes to run a high magic campaign? This is what I'm trying to do.
I think the very high majority of problems between the power of casters and non-casters are reduced or even eliminated by just enforcing the rules. The demi-plane example is perfect, as is wish. These are expensive spells and high level. That means that you have fewer of them and the more you want to cast them, the less money you have available for other things.
Look at Create Greater Demiplane. At level 20, you have 400 10-foot cubes to work with. The spell takes 6 hours to cast. It will last 20 days. If you want it to be permanent, then it will cost you 22,500 gold per casting. The more options you want or the larger you want it, the more money it will cost. Each casting adds a different trait and must be made permanent individually. If it is permanent, it should cost against your WBL. If you use the lesser version, you need to cast other spells to travel to and from your plane. If you use a higher version, you will need to still cast the spell twice, once for the plane and once for the gate.
Wish also has its limitations spelled out clearly in the description as well as having a high gold piece cost. Every casting is a diamond worth 25,000 gold. Note that it is a single diamond. It must be accounted for on the character sheet. If the GM isn't making the player keep track of this, then he is making a mistake.
These spells are powerful but they are not so powerful that they make non-casters pointless.
I have noticed that the better understanding the GM has over the system, the fewer problems he has. That's not to say that there aren't some issues still, but they aren't nearly as bad as people claim.
Each trait requires an additional casting. Each time you want to make the spell permanent, you need to spend more money. I guess the issue is how long does "instantaneous" last and I think it's clear where I'm going to go with it but each GM will have to make their own ruling. The plane also is a set size. It does not increase naturally. The 9th level spell costs 22,500 gold to make permanent. You were looking at the 8th level version. That's not a big difference but remember that this plane is 7 times bigger than a Magnificent Mansion. It's roughly 170 shipping containers. Sounds big until you realize that is a very small portion of a cargo ship. The average cargo ship can carry about 7500 demi-planes. That's something that needs to be taken into account.
No matter how you really rule on this, comparing it (a non-combat spell) to a non-caster's combat ability isn't really a good comparison.
|
Finn, thanks.
It actually didn't take much house ruling to fix the movement problem, and it actually went a long way to improve the fighter. As the gm I do my best to make sure the players understand at the start of the round what the enemies' implied intentions are, and I let everyone take movement out of turn if they want. So instead of moving figures, I might say, "the monster attacks the princess." to which a player interjects, "I get in the way."
There are feats that allow you to do that kind of things:
- a few teamwork feats,
- defensive feats like Bodyguard and In Harm's Way
- movement feats like Combat Patrol and Step Up
Getting them and using them has a cost in feats and actions, so it is easier to get them for some classes while other classes will shun them.
Giving something like them out for free, especially, if, as it seem from your post, you disregard the action cost, will strengthen some classes while weakening others.
True in RL a archer could not take a 5' step and fire his arrow with impunity, but at the same time the melee guy running up to him would not do that without getting his chest full of arrows. I think that at the end it mostly balance out.
Your changes aren't a problem as long as they suit your players and you as a GM, you simply need to be aware of their effects.
P.S. I play d&d from first edition, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, and PF (almost 21 years of play). I read the book of 4E but never rolled a dice to play it. Is a board game, has little to do with RPG.Except for, y'know, the whole it-being-a-roleplaying-game part. I mean, you haven't even bothered to play it. The persistent anti-4e trolling is just bad.
I've played it, and it isn't. A role-playing game, that is. It's a tactical wargame.
Alitan, I sprained my wrist the third time I rolled 18 dice for initiative in Exalted, and tied.
OK, ok, nothing's perfect. But the Charms system is really keen.
Everyone seems to be focused on nerfing the caster, and I really think that, while it needs to be done to a certain extent, can be handled simply by reading the spells, and applying the limits already present in the system.
What really needs to be done to boost non casters is rein in the insane feat chains that have developed. Do we really need 3 feats, plus a prerequisite feat, for every combat maneuver? Compress the normal, improved, and greater type feats into one feat, and build the prereqs into the combat maneuver feat instead of requiring another feat first, with further abilities being unlocked at certain levels, and non casters would get a huge boost. Right now, the concept of feats is nice, but they need to continue to provide new benefits as the character gains levels like spells and class abilities do. As it is, they are one of the few static mechanics in a game where most of the mechanics takes into account growth at higher levels.
|
|
@Liam Warner:
At best you can spend 12 hours casting Create Greater Demiplane each day. You need 8 hours of rest and 1 hour to recover your spells.
Level 20 caster:
400 (not 4,000) cubes each casting, I think that the section added to the demiplane will share his properties, so you need only 6 extra castings to set his properties.
So 192,272,000 cubic feet are 481 casting of the spell and you will have:
300’ ceiling (a small hill) on a 300’ x 213.78’ base.
A nice estate.
The Palace of Versailles floor area: 67,000 m2, and that translate at about 2..198.163 square feet. Give it a height of 60’ and you have a volume of 131.889.764 cubic feet.
The palace ground are 800 hectares. 1 hectare is 107,639 square feet. The whole area is 86,111,200 square feet. Let’s make your ceiling very low, 90’ to have a bit of space above it.
Total volume 7,750,008,000 cubic feet. Divided 400,000 you get 19,375.02 casting.
4 castings for each day on the prime material plane (as the time in your plane move x2) = 53 years and 31 days (while you did experienced 106 years and 62 days doing it) spending 12 hours each day casting Create Greater Demiplane, 8 sleeping and 1 hour memorizing spells. You will have 3 hours left to “live”.
Total cost 435,960,000 gp
So to get the Palace of Versailles I would have to cast non stop for 106 years the same spell, with no time to care to research new spells, take a rest, hardly the time to eat and rest.
I would call doing that slavery.
800 hectares is is a area of 2x4 kilometres, a single, decent sized island.
Please notice that the point of some spells is not the game balance now but how interact with reality and how players perceive it. In some settings create demiplane can't exist, doesn't matter how many gold pieces players got. This limitation to magic is not intended just to nerf casters, but to adapt rules.
Same thing is for magic items, but there are different thread that talk about it so I will not discuss here.
With rules RAW the best way to balance game is to control characters' wealth (noe I'm playing Eberron and I do this). In this setting mage can use every spell, money is the limit (and it works). This is a campaign where is normal to have characters full of magic gears, when everyone got his cloak of resistance, etc. In a different campaing I can't handle magical gear in this way, but is an important part of game balance.
I agree with Diego, there are too many prerequisite for certain feats.
Now I'm playing with this variant, attempting a manouver doesn't provoke, but you do it with a -4. The first feat put off this malus. Except for fighter few classes can afford the amount of feats needed to use various manouver. I'm wondering to give attack power and combat expertise as combat options instead of feats.
I did some changes to feats (even metamagic) I will translate and post.
|
|
Each trait requires an additional casting. Each time you want to make the spell permanent, you need to spend more money. I guess the issue is how long does "instantaneous" last and I think it's clear where I'm going to go with it but each GM will have to make their own ruling. The plane also is a set size. It does not increase naturally. The 9th level spell costs 22,500 gold to make permanent. You were looking at the 8th level version. That's not a big difference but remember that this plane is 7 times bigger than a Magnificent Mansion. It's roughly 170 shipping containers. Sounds big until you realize that is a very small portion of a cargo ship. The average cargo ship can carry about 7500 demi-planes. That's something that needs to be taken into account.
No matter how you really rule on this, comparing it (a non-combat spell) to a non-caster's combat ability isn't really a good comparison.
It's this kind of honest analysis...I know I am at the point of begging now Bob, but I can't convince you to participate in this?