| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
These are my opinions.
You cannot bring fighters or melees up to the level of wizards and other spellcasters. A fighter can never compete with the near-infinite options available to spellcasters - the day he is equal to these classes is the day the fighter is just a wizard with a new name. All you do by attempting it is to escalate the overall power level and numbers just climb higher and higher. Ultimately, the status quo is maintained.
The 4e system tried the reverse, they brought everyone down to the same level. While some may disagree, it was ultimately not a successful endeavor - while many new players liked it, many old-school players were very disappointed in it.
The problem is rooted in a number of things, not limited to the following:
- Each edition removed more and more restrictions on spellcasters (increased hit dice, mechanics which allow them to bypass spells per day, further focus on single attribute for everything, spell resistance is trivialized {if you don't believe me, look up AD&D 2e Magic Resistance}, spells used to autofail if you took damage during a turn you were casting, so on and so forth). This list just goes on and on.
- Extremely poor wording on spells and effects which allow for exploitation. Again, the number of spells which are poorly worded is astounding.
- No solid system for spell design. Benchmarks for spells are basically, "if it's as powerful or more powerful than this spell which is extremely powerful for its level, you might want to increase your new spell by 1 level". I think benchmarks should include Weak, Median, Strong and some solid formulas for when x, y, or, conditions should start appearing, especially for newer GMs.
- Magic Items? No real cost to a spellcaster for making them. AD&D had limits and where those limits failed, the cost was more severe and/or required more effort than a single dice roll.
- The big three for controling magic items in one's campaigns (command words, charges, and curses) are considered "Dick Moves," because we should always get what we want, when we want it. Capturing a wizard's stash of wands and rods was of little use if his books and notes couldn't also be found.
- Any and all changes to correct for magic, including fixing the wording on exploits to some folks, is considered a nerf. Am I nerfing my code when I correct a bug that crashes the system? Am I nerfing my child when I restrict her for clearly not behaving in a fashion that conforms to the rules all must follow? Probably poor examples, but still.
These are just a few examples, and while I think moving away from some of them was a move in the right direction, others should have remained in place. Additionally, I'm not saying that 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e. whatever was so much better than any of the others that we were fools to ever switch. I think the game has come a long way and still love it. I am, however, saying when you remove all the shackles that keep magic a component of the game, it becomes the game.
When a problem arises, an even hand and objective head must be applied to solve the problem in a gradual manner with objective and consistent solutions.
Again, my opinion, for what its worth.
|
The biggest one though is actually Read all the Spells and stuff on Magic. There is a lot of stuff you find just reading things that nerfs spells right there. Like if a Summoned creature dies you can't get it back for 24 hours or that Fireball can detonate prematurely if something gets in the way of it's line of fire.
I agree very much that you need to actually know and enforce the limits of magic. However, this isn't really one of them.
Suppose you summen a lantern archon, and it gets killed. You can just summon a different one. You could even summon a another one if your archon doesn't get killed, to have two of them at the same time.
The biggest one though is actually Read all the Spells and stuff on Magic. There is a lot of stuff you find just reading things that nerfs spells right there. Like if a Summoned creature dies you can't get it back for 24 hours or that Fireball can detonate prematurely if something gets in the way of it's line of fire.
I agree very much that you need to actually know and enforce the limits of magic. However, this isn't really one of them.
Suppose you summen a lantern archon, and it gets killed. You can just summon a different one. You could even summon a another one if your archon doesn't get killed, to have two of them at the same time.
if that was the case they wouldn't even need to put the 24 hour limit in there. But since they did you have to consider the summoning lists to be creature specific, with each creature on the list being a specific being.
The biggest one though is actually Read all the Spells and stuff on Magic. There is a lot of stuff you find just reading things that nerfs spells right there. Like if a Summoned creature dies you can't get it back for 24 hours or that Fireball can detonate prematurely if something gets in the way of it's line of fire.
I agree very much that you need to actually know and enforce the limits of magic. However, this isn't really one of them.
Suppose you summen a lantern archon, and it gets killed. You can just summon a different one. You could even summon a another one if your archon doesn't get killed, to have two of them at the same time.
if that was the case they wouldn't even need to put the 24 hour limit in there. But since they did you have to consider the summoning lists to be creature specific, with each creature on the list being a specific being.
Except that it's right there in the text of the Summoning Spells that you can Summon 1d3, 1d4+1, ect ... of a creature with one casting of a higher level summoning spell.
It would be interesting if the game was more like most MOBAs where the power curve of fighters and wizards are reversed. Fighters are weak early game, but stronger late game. Mages are strong early game, but don't do much damage late game. The goal of a late-game mage should be to buff the fighters and set up their team for victory as a support.
|
|
The biggest one though is actually Read all the Spells and stuff on Magic. There is a lot of stuff you find just reading things that nerfs spells right there. Like if a Summoned creature dies you can't get it back for 24 hours or that Fireball can detonate prematurely if something gets in the way of it's line of fire.
I agree very much that you need to actually know and enforce the limits of magic. However, this isn't really one of them.
Suppose you summen a lantern archon, and it gets killed. You can just summon a different one. You could even summon a another one if your archon doesn't get killed, to have two of them at the same time.
if that was the case they wouldn't even need to put the 24 hour limit in there. But since they did you have to consider the summoning lists to be creature specific, with each creature on the list being a specific being.
I'm not really sure why the 24 hour clause is in there. I know that at least from 2nd edition onwards, there were various suggested bits of optional rule about personalizing summoned monsters and all that. Those never made it into default rules though. I think this is vestigial.
Although, with the more intelligent summoned monsters, summoning you already have a working relationship with might have some advantages; you can teach it some advanced tactics so that you can later on command it to execute complicated plans with only an "attack pattern delta!" order. If your favorite Lantern Archon is dead for 24 hours though, you're stuck with the "temp" who doesn't have that kind of training.
Hmm. That might be an interesting angle to play for a summoner/conjurer/priest actually.
Think of it this way.
Monster Summoning 3 used to summon a Lantern Archon summons "Bob"
Monster Summoning 4 used to summon 1d3 Lantern Archons pulls from Larry Curly and Moe
If Bob gets killed you are done using Monster Summon 3 for Lantern Archons for the next 24 hours. You just don't have any bound to that particular spell. You can't use it for Larry Curly or Moe because they are tied to MS4 not MS3
but you can still use MS4 to get Larry Curly and Moe. If Moe bites it but Larry and Curly are still ok then MS4 is capped at 2 for the next 24 hours.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quick note, I did not see anyone suggest this yet: has anyone tried eliminating 5th level spells and higher but (and this is where it gets interesting) keeping spellcasting slots at higher levels? Heightened Spell feat I'd free. Casters can fill these slots with any of their spells or, better yet, fill them with metamagic-enhanced spells. This would help curtail the high level spell power but still allow an increase in spell power tied to the metamagic fears a caster has. I would provide an additional bonus feats every 2 levels to casters to help balance the dependency out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think of it this way.
Monster Summoning 3 used to summon a Lantern Archon summons "Bob"
Monster Summoning 4 used to summon 1d3 Lantern Archons pulls from Larry Curly and MoeIf Bob gets killed you are done using Monster Summon 3 for Lantern Archons for the next 24 hours. You just don't have any bound to that particular spell. You can't use it for Larry Curly or Moe because they are tied to MS4 not MS3
but you can still use MS4 to get Larry Curly and Moe. If Moe bites it but Larry and Curly are still ok then MS4 is capped at 2 for the next 24 hours.
But what if I cast SM3, and cast SM3 again the next round? There's no text anywhere telling me I can't summon two lantern archons if I use two spells, nor is there text saying that if the monster you summon is out to lunch, you don't get a replacement. You cast the spell, you get a monster.
But what if I cast SM3, and cast SM3 again the next round? There's no text anywhere telling me I can't summon two lantern archons if I use two spells, nor is there text saying that if the monster you summon is out to lunch, you don't get a replacement. You cast the spell, you get a monster.Think of it this way.
Monster Summoning 3 used to summon a Lantern Archon summons "Bob"
Monster Summoning 4 used to summon 1d3 Lantern Archons pulls from Larry Curly and MoeIf Bob gets killed you are done using Monster Summon 3 for Lantern Archons for the next 24 hours. You just don't have any bound to that particular spell. You can't use it for Larry Curly or Moe because they are tied to MS4 not MS3
but you can still use MS4 to get Larry Curly and Moe. If Moe bites it but Larry and Curly are still ok then MS4 is capped at 2 for the next 24 hours.
but there is text that says if it dies you can't get it back for 24 hours.
Frankly, It's one of those things that needs expanding on and it is an area where a DM can make a call regarding the spells
We use a rule that each choice in the summon list was a separate spell. Each time you used said spell, it summoned the same entity. If it died, that version of the spell couldn't be used for a day.
You have a relationship of sorts with said creature: treat it well, it would gain certain improvements (a template, etc); treat it as an ambulatory trap detector, you'd lose loyalty. Eventually, if you treated it poorly long enough, it would stop answering your summons or on rare occasion, answer one last time and attack you. That version of the spell ceased functioning from that point on. You ever wanted to use that version again, you had to discover the true name of another creature of its type, which was roughly the same as creating a new spell of that level in terms of costs and time.
The changes served several purposes and had some unforeseen, but pretty sweet side-effects.
1 we suddenly stopped having summon spells used as trap detectors.
2 we suddenly had something that never occurred before: players role played with the summoned monsters. They became NPCs and not a tool. Working relationships occurred and when the players shifted to another plane and met their summons for part of a quest, they immediately had a contact to help them along their path.
3 by playing on player avarice (in the form of desire for better stats) I added more flavor to my setting, while "nerfing" the hell out of a problem behavior.
May or may not work for you, but it was one of the only ways I could think of to correct a problem with a "light hand."
But what if I cast SM3, and cast SM3 again the next round? There's no text anywhere telling me I can't summon two lantern archons if I use two spells, nor is there text saying that if the monster you summon is out to lunch, you don't get a replacement. You cast the spell, you get a monster.Think of it this way.
Monster Summoning 3 used to summon a Lantern Archon summons "Bob"
Monster Summoning 4 used to summon 1d3 Lantern Archons pulls from Larry Curly and MoeIf Bob gets killed you are done using Monster Summon 3 for Lantern Archons for the next 24 hours. You just don't have any bound to that particular spell. You can't use it for Larry Curly or Moe because they are tied to MS4 not MS3
but you can still use MS4 to get Larry Curly and Moe. If Moe bites it but Larry and Curly are still ok then MS4 is capped at 2 for the next 24 hours.
but there is text that says if it dies you can't get it back for 24 hours.
Frankly, It's one of those things that needs expanding on and it is an area where a DM can make a call regarding the spells
Nothing in the text says that you summon the same specific creature each time. That you are limited to summoning that one specific creature. Indeed, the rules show explicitly that you can summon multiples of the same type of creature and have them all active at the same time.
Honestly, I think it's intended to be an RP rule. It's a way for people playing good aligned Clerics, Druids, and the like to not feel like they're summoning forth creatures to die for them. You summon a creature and it dies? It's okay, it isn't really dead, it just spends 24 hours reforming on its native plane and is good to go again. Otherwise people may feel that yanking a creature off its native plane and putting it between you and something that can kill it with one hit would be an evil act.
|
|
But what if I cast SM3, and cast SM3 again the next round? There's no text anywhere telling me I can't summon two lantern archons if I use two spells, nor is there text saying that if the monster you summon is out to lunch, you don't get a replacement. You cast the spell, you get a monster.Think of it this way.
Monster Summoning 3 used to summon a Lantern Archon summons "Bob"
Monster Summoning 4 used to summon 1d3 Lantern Archons pulls from Larry Curly and MoeIf Bob gets killed you are done using Monster Summon 3 for Lantern Archons for the next 24 hours. You just don't have any bound to that particular spell. You can't use it for Larry Curly or Moe because they are tied to MS4 not MS3
but you can still use MS4 to get Larry Curly and Moe. If Moe bites it but Larry and Curly are still ok then MS4 is capped at 2 for the next 24 hours.
but there is text that says if it dies you can't get it back for 24 hours.
Frankly, It's one of those things that needs expanding on and it is an area where a DM can make a call regarding the spells
Nothing in the text says that you summon the same specific creature each time. That you are limited to summoning that one specific creature. Indeed, the rules show explicitly that you can summon multiples of the same type of creature and have them all active at the same time.
Honestly, I think it's intended to be an RP rule. It's a way for people playing good aligned Clerics, Druids, and the like to not feel like they're summoning forth creatures to die for them. You summon a creature and it dies? It's okay, it isn't really dead, it just spends 24 hours reforming on its native plane and is good to go again. Otherwise people may feel that yanking a creature off its native plane and putting it between you and something that can kill it with one hit would be an evil act.
I think this is the real background to the rule, yes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We use a rule that each choice in the summon list was a separate spell. Each time you used said spell, it summoned the same entity. If it died, that version of the spell couldn't be used for a day.
You have a relationship of sorts with said creature: treat it well, it would gain certain improvements (a template, etc); treat it as an ambulatory trap detector, you'd lose loyalty. Eventually, if you treated it poorly long enough, it would stop answering your summons or on rare occasion, answer one last time and attack you. That version of the spell ceased functioning from that point on. You ever wanted to use that version again, you had to discover the true name of another creature of its type, which was roughly the same as creating a new spell of that level in terms of costs and time.
The changes served several purposes and had some unforeseen, but pretty sweet side-effects.
1 we suddenly stopped having summon spells used as trap detectors.
2 we suddenly had something that never occurred before: players role played with the summoned monsters. They became NPCs and not a tool. Working relationships occurred and when the players shifted to another plane and met their summons for part of a quest, they immediately had a contact to help them along their path.
3 by playing on player avarice (in the form of desire for better stats) I added more flavor to my setting, while "nerfing" the hell out of a problem behavior.May or may not work for you, but it was one of the only ways I could think of to correct a problem with a "light hand."
I like this a lot. You could make a cool summoner/conjurer out of this, not nearly as sterile as the classic god-wizard. More like a general who wants high morale among his troops. And summoning within alignment becomes relevant.
I like this a lot. You could make a cool summoner/conjurer out of this, not nearly as sterile as the classic god-wizard. More like a general who wants high morale among his troops. And summoning within alignment becomes relevant.
Thanks! One of the many "not quite nerf" fixes I try to introduce. Determining what constitutes poor treatment based on the summoned entity's alignment and how it perceived the spellcaster based on his alignment/behavior is kinda fun too, believe it or not.
|
|
An interesting side effect might be a general change in the wizard's attitude. Instead of having a choice between a PC fighter or a faceless minion, he is now almost always dealing with faceful minions/colleagues. It means a sociably played wizard will have an edge over a total dork.
Another idea I had: the monster you summon is basically a projection of an actual monster somewhere out there. So if you summon devils to do clandestine jobs, there are devils out there who know what you've been doing...
That might make summoning a lot more powerful/risky though; you could summon a monster, ask it a question, and next day he might know the answer. Or you could use it to lobby the gods.
But what if I cast SM3, and cast SM3 again the next round? There's no text anywhere telling me I can't summon two lantern archons if I use two spells, nor is there text saying that if the monster you summon is out to lunch, you don't get a replacement. You cast the spell, you get a monster.Think of it this way.
Monster Summoning 3 used to summon a Lantern Archon summons "Bob"
Monster Summoning 4 used to summon 1d3 Lantern Archons pulls from Larry Curly and MoeIf Bob gets killed you are done using Monster Summon 3 for Lantern Archons for the next 24 hours. You just don't have any bound to that particular spell. You can't use it for Larry Curly or Moe because they are tied to MS4 not MS3
but you can still use MS4 to get Larry Curly and Moe. If Moe bites it but Larry and Curly are still ok then MS4 is capped at 2 for the next 24 hours.
but there is text that says if it dies you can't get it back for 24 hours.
Frankly, It's one of those things that needs expanding on and it is an area where a DM can make a call regarding the spells
Nothing in the text says that you summon the same specific creature each time. That you are limited to summoning that one specific creature. Indeed, the rules show explicitly that you can summon multiples of the same type of creature and have them all active at the same time.
Honestly, I think it's intended to be an RP rule. It's a way for people playing good aligned Clerics, Druids, and the like to not feel like they're summoning forth creatures to die for them. You summon a creature and it dies? It's okay, it isn't really dead, it just spends 24 hours reforming on its native plane and is good to go again. Otherwise people may feel that yanking a creature off its native plane and putting it between you and something that can kill it with one hit would be an evil act.
Indeed, you are describing the Variant Rule in the 3.5 DMG called Summoning Individual Monsters (pg.37). The text in the PFCR is identical to the text in the 3.5 PH, both for the spell and the section under Conjuration: Summoning.
In the discussion of specifics under the variant rule they mention and illuminate the "dead and unsummonable for 24 hours". This is what it really supports.
Bravo if your group does this, it is actually a good way to curtail summoning abuse. However, it is not the default rule in the Core Rulebook.
2) You may not use templates, Psionics, 1001 Spells, 3.5 material, or non-Paizo material.
just a minor nitpick, but disallowing psionics and non-paizo material is redundant, as Psionics is now the purview of Dreamscarred Press (and if someone else is ding the same thing as them, I am interested in checking it out).
but to contribute to this thread: arcane magic could cause a backlash, perhaps a chart with lots of bad or strange things on it. higher level spells maybe causing multiple rolls on the chart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try building the new spell using the Words of Power rules. Gives a pretty good idea how powerful that spell is.
Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner, its been busy around the house and I only just noticed it.
I kinda like the Words of Power, but seems to slow down gameplay a lot, so we just use it as a basis for spell construction for homebrew spells. I'd love it even more if it ever got the support such a system merits from Paizo. Was released in what, 2011 and no updates or mentions of it since, which is really unfortunate.
While it has been mentioned, words of power is a significant nerf to spellcasters.
Also, banning 3rd party spells isn't doing anyone any good, the most broken spells are from Paizo. In fact one of the best fixes would probably involve throwing out the weaker Pizo classes and replacing them with more powerful 3rd party versions and the melee feats with scaling feats.
Occam's razor would seem to disagree with this statement. Instead of rewording problem spells, removing those that cannot be repaired, and other simple miscellany which correct for a magical singularity, we should instead expand our focus to rebalance/buff (and thus escalate) every other class, feat, skills, and so on in the game, instead?
I would think repairing the problem instead of everything but the problem (as I've said before, with an even hand and objective perspective) would be the best fix.
Occam's Razor doesn't mean that the "least complicated" option is correct. It means that, between two competing theories that are equally valid in explaining observations, you default to the one that requires the fewest extra assumptions.
Plurality should not be posited without necessity. The principle gives precedence to simplicity... Which is what I suggest.
The line, "I would think," should have been an indicator that I was stating an opinion on what would be the best solution, as opposed to stating my opinion as fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll put this as simply as possible. The two competing theories are "buff all other classes, feats, skills, and so on" and "nerf full casters".
Of the two competing theories, either or both could ultimately solve the perceived problem (the potential for both solutions to fail in solving it exists, as well). One solution is complex, the other is simpler. Of the two competing theories, which does the principle support selecting?
If your answer is the first solution, you get a gold star.
Furthermore, an opinion is, "any view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge". With that in mind, do you now plan to argue that a solution - not yet proven as fact - is in some way not an opinion?
PS I'm sure you missed the, "I think" line because you didn't bother to read the whole post before you started your diatribe. You seem to have some need to prove me wrong, which I'm good with. However, arguing philosophy is off-topic for the thread, so if you'd like to continue our e-peen contest, I'd be delighted in PMs or the general discussion thread.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My "fixes" for the linear/quadratic issue:
.
.
.
.
I utilize all 3 EXP Tracks for the classes:
Fast Track
barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue, cavalier, ninja, samurai
Medium Track
bard, paladin, ranger, inquisitor, gunslinger, magus
Slow Track
cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, alchemist, oracle, summoner, witch
Feats scale with level progression (Now that twice as many feats as everyone else actually means something for the Fighter).
All classes get +2 additional skill points per level and Class skills do not require a skill point to gain the +3CS bonus. (This expands the out of combat capabilities of martials).
And lastly: Some Spells are revised to scale back the power disparity.
That's very retro, Damien. Have you had issues with survivability for the slow track folks?
That's very retro, Damien. Have you had issues with survivability for the slow track folks?
none.
Looking at a theoretical "classic" partyFighter (Fast)
Wizard (Slow)
Rogue (Fast)
Cleric (slow)
At Zero Exp they are all starting out at the same level.
APL is 1
CR of encounters should range from 1/2 to 2
At 15,000 exp:
Fighter: level 6
Wizard: level 5
Rogue: level 6
Cleric: Level 5
APL: 6
Cr should be 5 to 7
At 105,000 exp:
Fighter: level 11
Wizard: level 9
Rogue: Level 11
Cleric: Level 9
APL: 10
Cr should be 9 to 11
At 635,000 exp:
Fighter: level 17
Wizard: level 14
Rogue: level 17
Cleric: level 14
APL: 16
Cr should be 15 to 17
And at 3,600,000 exp:
Fighter: level 21 (using the Core rules for advancing beyond 20)
Wizard: level 19
Rogue: level 21
Cleric: level 19
APL: 20
CR should be 19 to 21
And as long as the CR is set to the party APL the slow tracks are facing a threat +1 level above and the fast tracks are facing a threat -1 level below their theoretical ability. Which further balances the linear/quadratic issue.
Of course this set up assumes only moderate level optimization.
In cases of a full party with maximized Optimization I would use the Slow tracks as my base for determining CR (only exceeding their practical ability by +1) which again should bring things into line with allowing the martials to contribute equally.
That is ... pretty damn awesome. I can guess your martials don't feel overshadowed until much higher levels, as well (if at all)?
That is ... pretty damn awesome. I can guess your martials don't feel overshadowed until much higher levels, as well (if at all)?
No overshadowing has occurred as yet... The scaling feats goes a long ways to helping that. (Mostly its just saying feat chains only require you select the starting feat of the chain and get the rest of the chain automatically when you qualify for it or 4 (2 for fighters) Class levels later if the next feat in the chain has no special requirements.
I have not gone through every possible permutation of gamer personalities as yet so a martial feeling overshadowed may never happen or next week could be that one game that disproves the set up.
how do you handle the gear with people at different levels?
==Aelryinth
how do you handle the gear with people at different levels?
==Aelryinth
I do not understand the question.
How do you handle gear when everyone is the same level?Why would it be any different?
how do you handle the gear with people at different levels?
==Aelryinth
I do not understand the question.
How do you handle gear when everyone is the same level?
Why would it be any different?
It looks like what you are showing in your post is that the classes level up at different rates. If that is the case, then would they have a different Wealth By Level? I mean, a level 21 Fighter and a level 19 Wizard would be different levels, so they would have a different WBL.
It looks like what you are showing in your post is that the classes level up at different rates. If that is the case, then would they have a different Wealth By Level? I mean, a level 21 Fighter and a level 19 Wizard would be different levels, so they would have a different WBL.how do you handle the gear with people at different levels?
==Aelryinth
I do not understand the question.
How do you handle gear when everyone is the same level?
Why would it be any different?
ooohhh... I see...
By issuing treasure commensurate with the challenges faced.How the party chooses to split it is up to each party to determine.
WBL is useless if your world does not set the same values as the CRB.
Not to mention it is poor metric for judging power in general.
So your wbl is based on total experience, not character level.
Which is fine. WBL is a guideline for the DM, more then anything. It basically helps balance the amount of gear within the party.
But, it numerically also means the level 19 wizard has the same amount of gold gear as the level 21 fighter.
I'd suggest cut the cost of magic weapons in half, and it would probably balance out nicely.
==Aelryinth
"Welp, you're all at your WBL limit so all the treasure from that dragon horde is confiscated by the IRS. Sucks to be you... moving on..."
This had me cracking up. I would love to do this to my players as a joke, just to see their faces, and may. I'll have to wait a few weeks, however, as the sting of tax day can be felt for many weeks to come.
"Welp, you're all at your WBL limit so all the treasure from that dragon horde is confiscated by the IRS. Sucks to be you... moving on..."This had me cracking up. I would love to do this to my players as a joke, just to see their faces, and may. I'll have to wait a few weeks, however, as the sting of tax day can be felt for many weeks to come.
Depending on what they find, I can see the PCs saying "Come and get it, I would like to see you try....". :D I can fondly recall some sessions in the 90's where the DM would use a program called Dungeon Genie or something similar that had a random treasure generator. He would print out our findings and we had some fun divvying out that treasure. :)
This does bring up an interesting question. I tend to give treasure out to who would make the best use of it. But I have seen groups that actually account for the sell value, so that you buy it with your share of the loot.
Anyway, I do like your level up disparity. In fact, I came up with a way to do it automatically through Hero Lab. I made the full-caster classes (and Summoners) level up slower. I do this by using the PFS XP "table" of 3 XP per level, and requiring a 4th XP per even numbered level for a full caster class. It ends up being very close to your table. Also I give the "lame" classes (Fighter, Cavalier, Rogue, etc) an additional feat on every even level (and those "sucky" classes stack).
"Welp, you're all at your WBL limit so all the treasure from that dragon horde is confiscated by the IRS. Sucks to be you... moving on..."This had me cracking up. I would love to do this to my players as a joke, just to see their faces, and may. I'll have to wait a few weeks, however, as the sting of tax day can be felt for many weeks to come.Depending on what they find, I can see the PCs saying "Come and get it, I would like to see you try....". :D I can fondly recall some sessions in the 90's where the DM would use a program called Dungeon Genie or something similar that had a random treasure generator. He would print out our findings and we had some fun divvying out that treasure. :)
This does bring up an interesting question. I tend to give treasure out to who would make the best use of it. But I have seen groups that actually account for the sell value, so that you buy it with your share of the loot.
Anyway, I do like your level up disparity. In fact, I came up with a way to do it automatically through Hero Lab. I made the full-caster classes (and Summoners) level up slower. I do this by using the PFS XP "table" of 3 XP per level, and requiring a 4th XP per even numbered level for a full caster class. It ends up being very close to your table. Also I give the "lame" classes (Fighter, Cavalier, Rogue, etc) an additional feat on every even level (and those "sucky" classes stack).
They still tell stories of my "Trap smith" (2e thief) that charged the party 50% of all found treasure... (no cleric in the party and he had the only wands of rez and CW...)
QUOTE="kyrt-ryder"]
Seems just a little too extreme to me. At the very least I'd think that if one were going to go this route they might give the caster a 'tolerance level' equal to caster level + Con modifier or so, such that for example a first level caster with 14 con would only lose spells if they take 4 points of damage or more.
The rule he referenced is very old school - Ad&d 1e and 2e if I remember right. No one complained much about casters, if at all, back then. They often didn't survive long enough without tons of fudging, hehe.
The Damage Threshold in place of a Concentration check is not really something I've ever considered before Kyrt. Sounds good on paper, though I'd recommend changing the formula slightly to: 10 + Class Fort save + Con modifier + misc. if the threshold is met or exceeded by damage, the spell fails.
Would allow them to add any save modifiers from items/ spells to the total and maybe toss in a feat that could be taken once to add +4 to their threshold.
Neat idea, over all, though I wonder how it'd play out with ever escalating damage in PF.
ON comps: The problem here is now you have to make up lists of comps for each and every spell, how many you have of them, and it adds loads of bookwork which really doesn't help move the game along.
Realism, sure. Gaming? Ugh.
It also opens the door to power comps, which ARE nice, and SHOULD be tracked.
Taking any damage won't really hurt most casters. They'll take steps to minimize being hit, and be even more skittish about melee. It just takes an adjustment in tactics.
Turning a scroll into a conduit that lets you expend your power as something else is a clever way to rethink it. However, since it doesn't allow a non-caster to use a scroll, the lack of saved power should definitely lower the price.
==Aelryinth
|
|
There are tons of tweaks that bring full casters down a notch, but as I'm pressed for time, I'll just post a really quick and dirty one.
Quicken Spell does not exist. Only feather fall and other incredibly minor spells have less than a standard action casting time. There is no way to cast more than one spell per round except feather fall and similar spells.
"I have an app for that" spells are kicked up a spell level or two (basically anything that insta-trivializes skills), and the particularly egregious examples (Glibness) do not exist.
Not panaceas, but they help a little bit.
|
While it has been mentioned, words of power is a significant nerf to spellcasters.
I never looked at Words of Power before today, and not doing so was a mistake.
I really wish I had implemented them in my current campaign. I'm giving some strong considerations to implementing them in any new campaigns that I start.
I'm reading Words of Power now, and I see subtle fixes that appear to give casters a little extra utility while killing off a large number of abuses.
Thank you for pointing this out or I probably never would have looked at it.
As an example, the WoP equivalent of Arcane Eye is a level lower and doesn't take forever to cast, but the WoP Teleport is expressly restricted to places that the caster has *visited* before.
And there's no Quicken. It looks like some small buffs can be cast as immediate/swift actions, but that's it.
I never looked at Words of Power before today, and not doing so was a mistake.
I really wish I had implemented them in my current campaign. I'm giving some strong considerations to implementing them in any new campaigns that I start.
I'm reading Words of Power now, and I see subtle fixes that appear to give casters a little extra utility while killing off a large number of abuses.
Thank you for pointing this out or I probably never would have looked at it.
As an example, the WoP equivalent of Arcane Eye is a level lower and doesn't take forever to cast, but the WoP Teleport is expressly restricted to places that the caster has *visited* before.
And there's no Quicken. It looks like some small buffs can be cast as immediate/swift actions, but that's it.
One man's trash is another's treasure. Unless Paizo suddenly takes interest in the system (unlikely) you don't have to worry about new exploitable words being added that you'll have to sort through. So in a way, Paizo not updating or supporting them has been a good thing.
|
|
I never looked at Words of Power before today, and not doing so was a mistake.
I really wish I had implemented them in my current campaign. I'm giving some strong considerations to implementing them in any new campaigns that I start.
I'm reading Words of Power now, and I see subtle fixes that appear to give casters a little extra utility while killing off a large number of abuses.
Thank you for pointing this out or I probably never would have looked at it.
As an example, the WoP equivalent of Arcane Eye is a level lower and doesn't take forever to cast, but the WoP Teleport is expressly restricted to places that the caster has *visited* before.
And there's no Quicken. It looks like some small buffs can be cast as immediate/swift actions, but that's it.
One man's trash is another's treasure. Unless Paizo suddenly takes interest in the system (unlikely) you don't have to worry about new exploitable words being added that you'll have to sort through. So in a way, Paizo not updating or supporting them has been a good thing.
3PP or homebrew is always an option, too. PC Wizards might be more invested in gaining academic credentials and lab space among arcane guilds if it allowed them to invent new effect words which the players could then run by me for GM approval.
IMO, there's a critical mass of player-facing crunch-support that becomes unfun and unhelpful and feeds into splatbook bloat/treadmill. I like tactical gameplay (I do think the G should stay in RPG), but I always felt like spellcasters were among the worst offenders of the "Magic:-the-Gathering-style builds outweigh in-game decisions and tactics" problem in 3.x.
But in addition to eliminating exploits, it also looks like core components were fixed to avoid scry-and-fry, buffstacking, obsoleting skills, breaking the action economy, and other things that are considered to be caster-caused fundamental problems of 3.x. No direct analogues of Divine Power and Righteous Might even closes the "CoDzilla" issue once and for all.
My current game has to run as it is, as it's on the verge of collapsing under splatbooks and rules anyway and I don't want to disturb the Jenga tower, but I really like some of the suggestions I've seen here - I'm really considering, for any future campaigns, implementing one of Words of Power, giving mythic tiers to martials, E6 (or E8, or E10), or removing generalist full caster classes in favor of 2/3rds casters and specialized full casters.
While a lot of arguments, heated even, result from threads like this one; so too do a lot of useful ideas.
I was glad when Justin brought up Words of Power, as it rarely gets represented in conversations about spellcasting, as a solution to full casters.
WotC, Paizo, and many other game companies have a lot in common with the news media. None of them have any idea of what the words "objective," "fair," and "balance" actually mean.