I'm just wondering if anyone's ever tried out some houserules where all casters use intelligence to learn spells, used wisdom for concentration, and charisma for the amount of spells per day. And if so, how that worked out for them.
I've never done anything like this, but if I did, I wouldn't split it up that much. Intelligence might be used for learning spells and spells per day, whilst Wisdom might be used for concentration and DCs. That would be a system worth adopting, perhaps. Charisma would be the odd man out, but perhaps it would replace Int for spontaneous casters?
I played in a 3.5 game where CHA was used to set all DCs while either INT or WIS was used to set bonus spells (Concentration was, of course, based on CON in 3.5).
It certainly makes casters more MAD (though some could just focus on Buff spells and Summons and not really care about lower DCs). It wont' change the fact that Wizards have all sorts of super spell options available, though it will lower their options/effectiveness by a bit.
From my experience they end stacking their primary stat(for DCs) sky high still and they don't care so much for physical stats so they just dump those a bit to raise the others. It doesn't really effect them because they still have the spells. They just end up with fewer of them which leads to a less happy player if anything, because only being able to do something so many times per day isn't a great balance.
Its also a little more punishing for casters who already place their stats in several places, such as combat clerics.
This would be really painful to partial casters like paladins, rangers, bards, inquisitors, alchemists, magi, who are already among the most mad classes.
I also think if its universal it would restrict certain character concepts, sorcerors being charismatic but not smart, wizards who are brilliant but as personable as a group of wasps, that sort of thing.
Ii also should at most be split between 2 abilities, and it should vary class to class based on how the class operates. Wizards are int and wisdom, sorcerors are charisma and wisdom, clerics are wisdom and charisma etc.
@Calybos : DC heroes uses a system like this, with 9 attributes, 3 physical, 3 mental and 3 social/magical. Each category is divided in Attack/dodge, Power and Resistance.
I've thought of this before, as a means of nerfing full casters slightly. The problem, like others have pointed out, is that it hurts half-casters, druids, battle-clerics, and the other "weaker" casters more than it hurts the intended target. Wizards will be slightly weaker, but not by much.
I've always thought that fixing the spell list, and getting rid of most of the ridiculous spells (8th and 9th mostly) would do more than enough to fix full casters. Specifically:
1. Make spells that eliminate the rogue harder to get (invisibility, levitate, fly, knock, etc.)
2. Make spells that one-shot fights higher in level (color spray)
3. Remove or drastically raise in level the gamebreakers (Wish, Gate, Teleports, Passwall, Arcane Eye, Scrying, etc.)
4. Apply logic. For instance, sleep and color spray are the same level. They accomplish the same thing, but color spray can affect any total HD of creatures (sleep is capped at 4 HD total). Or levitate and spider climb are the same level. One lets you climb stuff better, the other lets you simply bypass the need to climb.
But anyway, I'm rambling.
Isn't there a game system that uses three categories of attributes--attack, defense, power--for both physical and mental stats?
New World of Darkness is split up like that, with nine stats divided into Mental/Physical/Social. One stat represents power, another finesse, and another resistance.
Mental
-Intelligence (power)
-Wits (finesse)
-Resolve (resistance)
Physical
-Strength (power)
-Dexterity (finesse)
-Stamina (resistance)
Social
-Presence (power)
-Manipulation (finesse)
-Composure (resistance)
I've been toying with an idea in my mind, but in these early stages the system is not yet elegant, so I didn't want to make a thread about it yet.
To begin, make casters UNABLE to cast ANY spell from a school that they are not proficient with.
Then add certain spell mastery "feats" to caster classes like so:
Specialist Wizard: 3 School Familiarities at start, 2 School Focus at start.
Universalist: 9 School Familiarities at start.
Sorcerer: 2 School Familiarities at start, 2 School Focus at start.
Bard/Magus: 4 School Familiarities at start, 1 School Focus at start.
Cleric/Druid/Paladin/Ranger: 2 School Familiarities at start, 1 School Focus at start.
Etc.
At levels certain levels (3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 for wizard and sorcerer, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 for cleric and druid, 5, 10, 15, 20 for other non-primary casters), each caster class can choose either a School Mastery or School Focus "feat". At level 6/8/10 and later, they can choose School Specialization for a school that they have School Focus in. At level 9/12/15, they can choose School Mastery for a school that they have School Specialization in. At level 12/16/20, they can choose School Perfection for a school that they have School Mastery in.
A spell behaves differently depending on the school understanding of the wizard casting the spells. A Fireball, for example, starts with 1d4 damage per level with just Familiarity, which increases to 1d6 with Focus, 1d8 with Specialization, 1d10 with Mastery and, finally, 1d12 with Perfection. Other values can also be modified, such as duration, strength of some non-damage effect, etc. This is the hardest part, because it means changing every single spell ever.
Scrolls can be used at one level of understanding higher than the user of the scroll, up to the level of understanding at which it was inscribed. Use Magic Device skill can be used to enable a non-caster to use scrolls and wands, and the feat Fundamental Understanding would make the user count as if he had School Familiarity, empowering the effect if possible.
And finally, to make the schools different in another way, change the "primary casting stat" from a by-class definition to a by-school definition. I whipped these up by the "themes" of the non-wizard/sorcerer casters and their current favored spell casting stat.
Intelligence: Evocation, Necromancy, Universal
Wisdom: Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination
Charisma: Enchantment, Illusion, Transmutation
This change could be implemented alone, but I don't think it would work quite as well. as the primary problems (casters getting versatility for free) would still exist.
In order to not overpower a caster at the early levels, the base spells per day numbers for each level would need to be reduced a bit (depending on class, so that sorcerers still get boatloads). This change would make low-level spells much more abundant, as a wizard that chooses Evocation, Illusion and Abjuration spells at level 1 with at least a 12 in all three casting stats would enjoy a total of 3 additional spells cast that day. This would make the early levels much more interesting for a caster. It would also make high level spells much more rare, what with the reduced number of spells per day and lower chance of having a high attribute due to attribute dependency.
Isn't there a game system that uses three categories of attributes--attack, defense, power--for both physical and mental stats?
Yeah, it's called d20.
Str = Physical power
Dex = Physical finesse
Con = Physical resistance
Cha = Mental power
Int = Mental finesse
Wis = Mental resistance
I've toyed with MAD casters a bit. I came up with Int for highest spell level one can cast; Cha for things like save DC and other spell effects; and both Wis and Con for number of spells per day.
I've never had a chance to try it out though.
Why Wis AND Con? Why Con at all?
|
Why Con at all?
Number of spells per day is limited by the caster's physical endurance and ability to withstand the strain of shaping magical energies.
If I was going to tie spells/day to Con, I would not involve a secondary stat.
I would also split melee accuracy off of strength and tie it to dexterity.
But when playing a caster (the class with the good Will save), if Wis and Con are both equally effective at providing the same thing, I'd go Con every single time. HP, save and spells trump save and spells every time, especially on a fragile d6 caster.
In my houserules, all save DCs vs. spells are Cha-based (force of personality). In addition, all Concentration checks to cast are Charisma-based. Casters use their primary casting stat only to determine slots/prepared spells per day, and the max spell level they can cast.
This means that prepared casters (wizards, clerics, druids) get a much bigger dose of MAD their way, because they need to keep up two casting stats instead of one.
Spontaneous casters remain SAD, but that's OK, because spontaneous casting as a whole sort of bites compared to prepared casting, once you're playing on a level at which planning and preparation count more than slots per day.
Kirth, so how do you see people building their casters in your games? Are the Wizards prioritizing INT/CHA about the same or are they favoring the CHA score to pump DCs?
I think attaching each stat to different kinds of spells might be a better option. Cha is used for enchantment and summoning spells, for instance. I could work out what each stat would cover, by I'm lazy.
|
|
Spontaneous casters remain SAD, but that's OK, because spontaneous casting as a whole sort of bites compared to prepared casting, once you're playing on a level at which planning and preparation count more than slots per day.
Do you also house rule out all the options that give spontaneous casters a much wider spell selection at any given moment in time than a prepared caster?
Ring of spell knowledge
Pages of spell knowledge
Paragon Surge
Kirth, so how do you see people building their casters in your games? Are the Wizards prioritizing INT/CHA about the same or are they favoring the CHA score to pump DCs?
I would build a half-elf sorcerer. I would keep very careful track of every spell I managed to identify with spellcraft.
Very early in my career I would obtain a Ring of Spell knowledge, upgraded as I gained access to higher level spells.
I would supplement this with pages of spell knowledge holding key spells that might need to be cast on short notice (example: daylight).
At high level, paragon surge allows me access to any sorcerer spell at a moments notice. Schrodinger's wizard is actually a sorcerer, it is only by virtue of a really clever marketing campaign the wizards take the blame.
I think attaching each stat to different kinds of spells might be a better option. Cha is used for enchantment and summoning spells, for instance. I could work out what each stat would cover, by I'm lazy.
Are my posts invisible? Look up, dude.
Ring of spell knowledge
Pages of spell knowledge
Paragon Surge
I have no idea what those things even are. Before allowing them (without modification, anyway), I'd have to actually review them.
I think attaching each stat to different kinds of spells might be a better option. Cha is used for enchantment and summoning spells, for instance. I could work out what each stat would cover, by I'm lazy.Are my posts invisible? Look up, dude.
Oh, I wasn't really paying attention. Right on, we had the same idea.
I have no idea what those things even are. Before allowing them (without modification, anyway), I'd have to actually review them.Ring of spell knowledge
Pages of spell knowledge
Paragon Surge
The first two allow spont casters to cast spells as if they were on their list (the ring by the ring "learning" the spell from observing it, the page from having the spell written on it).
Paragon Surge is a Half-Elf-only spell that temporarily gives you +2 Dex and Int and temporarily gives you a free feat you qualify for; a frequent use of this feat appears to be taking the Extra Spells Known feat, so for casting one 3rd level spell (4th if you're a paladin or magus) you learn two new spells of one or more levels less than your highest spell level. These spells of course should vanish from the spells-known list when Paragon Surge's duration (1 min/level) ends, since the feat does.
Kirth, so how do you see people building their casters in your games? Are the Wizards prioritizing INT/CHA about the same or are they favoring the CHA score to pump DCs?
Overall, what the MAD meant (along with the greater ease of disrupting casting in the houserules) was that the full casters went from being diva superstars to being support characters and/or team players.
|
|
I have no idea what those things even are. Before allowing them (without modification, anyway), I'd have to actually review them.Ring of spell knowledge
Pages of spell knowledge
Paragon Surge
Collectively they allow a sorcerer to become Shrodinger's Wizard. They remove all limitations on spontaneous caster spell selection. At most, a I round delay gives access to any spell on the sorcerer spell list. Level 3 and lower healing and cure spells can be accessed via a ring of spell knowledge IV, pages of spell knowledge simply expand spells known without wasting a standard action (or swift action if paragon surge is quickened.)
The relevant pages for you to actually read the game text, Kirth.
Thanks, I'll take a look at them when I get the chance.
But when playing a caster (the class with the good Will save), if Wis and Con are both equally effective at providing the same thing, I'd go Con every single time. HP, save and spells trump save and spells every time, especially on a fragile d6 caster.
I was going to have Wis also give HP. One would get fewer HP from one's class.
Con would still win because it bolsters the weak save, but you might be on to something here...
I still like my approach better. Only Sorcerer and Oracle would suffer a huge shift in attribute allocation.
Maybe I wasn't trying to nerf casters? Maybe I just wanted to
a) Make casters more uniform instead of having them all focus on a single stat which depends on their class, have all casters use the same stat to do the same thing with their spells
Or maybe fighters should just add str to range attacks and hitpoints; rogues should automatically add dex to attack, damage, and hitpoints; and barbarians should add their con to attack and damage. Heck we could even rename the ability scores as: Fighter(Str), Rogue (Dex), Barbarian (Con), Wizard (Int), Cleric (Wis), and Bard (Cha).
b) Reduce the desire for min maxing, stat dumps happen; but it's ridiculous when a character has everything they do dependent on a single stat so they feel gimped playing balanced stats.
As far as the Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric differences go. If it takes intelligence to learn spells, wisdom to concentrate, and charisma to cast; Intelligent Wizards would know a lot of spells including some of the more complicated ones, Charismatic Sorcerers would have lots of power to shoot off loads of spells or at lots of power, Wise Clerics would have concentration and their faith, I don't know...
Ragnorok i appreciate what you are trying to do, however I have one question. What happens to the arcana of the sage and empyreal bllodlines?
Casters still like a good dex and con. Inititive, reflex, armor class, and health. They just don't suffer as much for not having a high one. six level casters and hybrids taker a bigger hit I think.
Ragnorok i appreciate what you are trying to do, however I have one question. What happens to the arcana of the sage and empyreal bllodlines?
I assume they'd get removed or replaced. Classes, Archetypes, and Feats that let you replace one stat with another don't alleviate min maxing, they encourage it by allowing players to choose a stat. Enough of it, and it eventually leads to players seeing how high they can get their one stat because the others just don't matter. Maybe I'm weird for being against an ability score that "does nothing for this class".
Anyway, I know that it'll take a little more work than what I've suggested, that's why I was asking for experiences from people who've already tested out such a thing.
MAD casting is a pretty icky idea. It makes it less fun to play one, more busy work to build a character, and won't make a lot of actual change when all is said and done.
Worst for me personally about the original idea is it would reduce the flavor of the different casters. No more the idiot sorcerer who infuriates genius wizards by getting spells just as good. Or the Einstein of the arcane with brillance but no social abilities and a questionable taste in fashion.
Other MAD cases are generally born from either trying to do multiple things with a class. Your base melee doesn't need more then Str, your archer needs Dex. Its doing multiple things other then fight/cast/skill that give rise to MAD, or trying to change up the basic formula by say not using Str to fight. There's really no such need for casting.
So really only reason to do it is for nerfing. Which there are probably better options. As long as spell DCs are improved by a stat then a build around save-or-lose/suck/etc will just boosts the relevant stat.
So better nerfs to be had. Like putting absolute limits on save DCs, or lowering DCs for certain effects.
Course probably the simplest nerf is just change what action you need to cast a spell. Imagine if standard spells took a full round action or 1 round to fire.
Other MAD cases are generally born from either trying to do multiple things with a class. Your base melee doesn't need more then Str, your archer needs Dex. Its doing multiple things other then fight/cast/skill that give rise to MAD, or trying to change up the basic formula by say not using Str to fight. There's really no such need for casting.
This is incorrect for several reasons. Fighters et al are MAD because they REQUIRE several attributes to stay alive.
If you want damage and attack, get STR. If you want armor, get some DEX. If you want health, get some CON. If you want to not be useless outside of combat, get some INT.Here's how the wizard deals with that.
DEX? For what? Mage Armor, baby! Pump INT. Damage? Meh, damage is for suckers, but if I needed to, I could. Pump INT. Health? What ever for, I have Stoneskin. Pump INT. Utility? Yeah, here's a spellbook, pick a page. Pump INT. Oh look, that INT gives me skill points!
With INT, they do EVERYTHING.
Yes, the only reason to do it is nerfing. BECAUSE. THEY. ARE. TOO. GOOD.
And I, for one, do not agree with the "spells per day based off one, maximum spells of another, saves off the third" approach, because it screws over actual specialists, the "good" build that has built in strengths AND weaknesses. That's why I proposed the casting-stat-by-school approach.
@The Boz : IMHO you are so very wrong. A wizard need at least the same CON score as a fighter (14 for many build, 12 min), and DEX is so useful for casters (act first => better for wizard).
The only attributes a wizard does not need absolutely are Strength (not his job), Wisdom (but not dump it, 10 or so is enough), and charisma (not his job).
So : 1 strong, 2 correct, 1 medium, 2 dump.
A fighter need High strength (similar to high INT for wizard), correct DEX and CON (as a wizard), and doesn't need any other abilities (he can invest some point in either INT [for skills] or WIS [for will saves and perception] if he want to).
So : 1 strong, 2 correct, 1 medium, 2 dump.
I don't see a real difference between the abilities of wizard and fighter IMO.
Sure, most players will try to fill several roles with a single character, and if mental abilities are not important for the class, you will have a harder time, but still, there is no difference for Fighters who does their jobs and Wizards who does their jobs.
You will never decrease the desire to min max. Its a part of the player, not the system. If you don't want min maxing you talk to the players. Changing the system won't stop stat dumps, it will alter stat dumps.
I agree with you : instead of dumping STR and CHA, they will dump STR even more, reduce a little DEX and CON and raise CHA (if needed for spells DC). It won't "solve" anything (is it a problem by itself ?).
Moreover, by making CHA a good stat for wizard, you give even more roles to wizards (caster + loremaster [+ face + healing via UMD]).
There is a reason why no caster class is based on INT and CHA.
You are failing to see the point. Also, you are wrong.
Strength: damage for fighter.
Intelligence: everything for wizard.
And when I say everything, I mean "this enables the wizard to do everything just as good as the specialists at those fields".
@The Boz : have you ever played a wizard ? I mean, you don't make your point because you saw posters arguing with Shroedinger's wizard, right ?
A wizard is NOTHING if he only have INT. He needs DEX and CON as much as a fighter.
A fighter is NOTHING if he only have STR. He needs DEX and CON as much as a wizard.
A paladin is NOTHING if he only have STR. He needs CHA and CON as much as a wizard or fighter needs DEX and CON.
A barbarian is nothing if he only have STR. He needs DEX and CON as much as a wizard or fighter.
A ranger is nothing if he only have DEX. He needs CON and WIS as much as a fighter needs DEX and CON.
A cleric is nothing if he only have WIS. He needs CHA and CON as much as a paladin, and may not be able to dump STR as much as a wizard.
You would be right if you compared with the monk, who need almost all of them (except INT and CHA).
In 3.5/Pathfinder, being SAD means being TAD (Three attributes dependant), and being MAD means being FOMAD (Four Or More Attribute Dependant).
I have played several primary casters, including wizards.
Well, thanks Kirth and MrSin. Don't think I'm going to get much more out of this thread that isn't just theorycrafting or about how I want to nerf casters.
If I want to nerf casters, this is not how I'd do it. I'd just change the spells. In fact not all casting is equal. Some schools are pretty boned over from the beginning *cough* evocation *cough* with massive occurrences of saves or attack rolls, SR, and caps on spells. Fixing it is beyond the scope of this thread.
That is not enough of a reason to support SAD. SAD design is just sad and lazy. I've been there, and I've heard players. Of course you can't just make casters MAD and leave it at that, I know this, this is why I was asking for actual experience because all this theory crafting is just complaints. I'm sorry if you had GMs that squashed the dreams of your casters, but guess what you don't have to play in my games. You aren't saving anyone. I'm not kidnapping players and forcing them to play gimpy casters. I'm trying to gain information and insight on how to let players play a balanced caster without feeling like they've made the suboptimal decision.
Also FYI, casters don't really need that much dexterity unless they're spellslinging (divination, summoning, area effects, healing, etc don't need it). If the baddies are up in the caster's face, the martials aren't doing their job. It is a team game after all. Or do most people play solo PF?
I use charisma for all casting and wisdom/intelligence for bonus spells and class abilities usable x + casting modifier times per day.
My players tend to prioritize charisma over intelligence/wisdom, but do invest in items that raise both attributes, casters focusing more on utility, buffs and summoning will give more importance to intelligence/wisdom instead.
paladins and rangers use wisdom, rangers generally do not miss anything since they hardly cast spells with a save DC and paladins still have their reasons to invest in charisma but tend to focus more on wisdom instead, non-will saves tend to be a bit lower and will saves a bit higher.
I chose to use intelligence for bards and actually gave them spells to prepare like a magus, it tends to make them a bit more versatile.
Clerics tend to focus enough on charisma to meet the minimum charisma to cast their high level spells but wisdom is important for number of uses of channeling and number of spells. They might suffer a little bit on their will saves and number of spells, but they are still solid.
I think the changes work out well enough, people tend to be casters slightly less often I think.
So, if the problem is that they are OP because they have so many options, options that cover what should be their weaknesses. There is one possible house-rule which is way easier to do:
-Casters pick one School of Magic, they only can cast spells from that school (maybe they can cast universal spells too, as they are supposed to be the "core" of magic). Voilá, excessive versatility is gone.
|
|
This is incorrect for several reasons. Fighters et al are MAD because they REQUIRE several attributes to stay alive.
If you want damage and attack, get STR. If you want armor, get some DEX. If you want health, get some CON. If you want to not be useless outside of combat, get some INT.
If a wizard wants to stay alive they get CON
If a wizard wants AC/ray spells they get DEXIf a wizard wants to not be socially useless they get CHA
A wizard is just as likely to invest in Dexterity and Constitution as a fighter, for the exact same reasons. A large number of players give full casters the same CON as their martial characters: 14. Dexterity is more flexible, for both martial characters and casters; some invest in it, some do not.
So, if the problem is that they are OP because they have so many options, options that cover what should be their weaknesses. There is one possible house-rule which is way easier to do:
-Casters pick one School of Magic, they only can cast spells from that school (maybe they can cast universal spells too, as they are supposed to be the "core" of magic). Voilá, excessive versatility is gone.
Part of that is in my idea a few dozen posts ago, but the problems are still schools. Conjuration beats pretty much every other school, evocation alone is weaker than a monk in full plate, and schools like divination are really, really niche.
|
|
So, if the problem is that they are OP because they have so many options, options that cover what should be their weaknesses. There is one possible house-rule which is way easier to do:
-Casters pick one School of Magic, they only can cast spells from that school (maybe they can cast universal spells too, as they are supposed to be the "core" of magic). Voilá, excessive versatility is gone.
Voila: you have no arcane casters. Everybody is playing martial classes.
If your goal is to run a group with 5 pure melee and a healbot, your suggestion would do it.
A simpler suggestion. Instead of spending countless hours rewriting rules to ensure nobody is wiling to play an arcane caster, just ban them from your games. It is simpler and has the same end result.
Ok, you could add something like "Casters may learn one spell of a secondary school of magic per each caster level." Better?