| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you guys think about eliminating all level 7-9 spells? I'm thinking of keeping the slots so if a caster gets 7th level slots, he can fill them with lower-level spells, with or without metamagic as he sees fit.
This way, casters' known spells and spells/day still improve after level 12, but the most game-breaking spells go away.
Does this seem like a good start on martial/caster disparity? Too much? What are your thoughts?
I've thought of this before. In addition:
1. Give spellcasters a bonus metamagic feat at any level they would have otherwise received a new tier of spells.
1a. If the spellcaster is prepared, they may also select one metamagic feat that will increase the spell level of the spell by the amount of that feat.
1b. If the spellcaster is spontaneous, they may also apply one selected metamagic without increasing the casting time of the spell.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My bet is that people will simply start complaining about the overpowered 6th level spells.
My bet is that people will simply start complaining about the overpowered 6th level spells.
Only if you get SMIX or Gate as a 6th level spell.
I've done just that in my home games and it's worked out great. The extra Metamagic feats give the casters all unique spells or casting styles.
I only did away with the spells NOT the slots. So it limits the narrative influence of spells slightly but they are still brutal in combat (maybe more so).
We've been playing this way for over a year now and no one has really missed them.
In fact....it lets the player really feel like a wizard because at high levels they have to design their own spells(effectively) ...so much more creativity than having yet another Wish-based argument with the DM.
at high levels they have to design their own spells(effectively)
Wait, do you mean they research a 7th level spell to put in a 7th level slot (presumably more powerful than a 6th level spell - if not, it should have been researched as a 6th level spell in the first place)?
Or do you mean they just take a lower level spell and apply metamagic, sort of a poor-man's "design a new spell" trick?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is ridiculous, but whatever floats your boat. I am the DM and we play high level all the time without many problems. Not saying they don't crop up from time to time, but it is rare. Of course, I also play with reasonable people, so that makes a difference also. Good luck though.
What do you guys think about eliminating all level 7-9 spells? I'm thinking of keeping the slots so if a caster gets 7th level slots, he can fill them with lower-level spells, with or without metamagic as he sees fit.
This way, casters' known spells and spells/day still improve after level 12, but the most game-breaking spells go away.
Does this seem like a good start on martial/caster disparity? Too much? What are your thoughts?
It's honestly perfect in my humble opinion.
I wouldn't be giving them free Metamagic feats, though I would probably give them the option to divvy up the higher level spell slots (i.e. you can break down the level 7-9 spell slots into multiple, lesser slots). Although this gives casters more endurance, their overall power is still reduced (and it allows players to have more and more encounters per day).
@Valantrix1 -Different strokes, for different folks.
I don't need luck...I've been playtesting it in live play for over a year....Thanks though, your reaction is the most common one.
@Darksol- the free feats go a long way to making it more palatable to the player's (not a net loss).
I give the at 13th/15th/ and 17th for prepared,one level later for spontaneous.
|
Like the idea, and like how high level casters would pretty much HAVE TO use metamagic and build their own spells.
You could still hand out occasional 7-9 spells, almost like treasure. Make them scrolls with hella' high DCs to scribe, and then make then rituals with casting times in hours or even days. Effectively removes them from any combat or even adventure situation, but allows them to exist in the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is ridiculous, but whatever floats your boat. I am the DM and we play high level all the time without many problems. Not saying they don't crop up from time to time, but it is rare. Of course, I also play with reasonable people, so that makes a difference also. Good luck though.
I play high-level games too, with reasonable people. Nevertheless, I still have the players of non-caster characters grumble about how ineffective they become, even without the casters being optimized - just vanilla casters with some effort to find good spells.
I usually balance that by dropping artifct-ish items just for the non-casters to play with - items that let them do very magical things. That works for them and it works for me.
But, thinking like a game developer for a moment, that doesn't work from a perspective of good game design - a game shouldn't be designed sot hat the GM must distribute special balancing items to just some players to help them compensate for their lack of effectiveness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the idea, and like how high level casters would pretty much HAVE TO use metamagic and build their own spells.
You could still hand out occasional 7-9 spells, almost like treasure. Make them scrolls with hella' high DCs to scribe, and then make then rituals with casting times in hours or even days. Effectively removes them from any combat or even adventure situation, but allows them to exist in the world.
For the bad guys...
GM: The evil wizard casts Meteor Swarm, here's your damage.
PC wizard: I want to get that spell too!
GM: Well, yeah, it doesn't seem to be in his spellbook - he keeps these really good ones stored, well, not here. Not anywhere you can find...
Cruel, and hopefully I'd implement it with more story than that, but could be fun if the BBEGs spent time learning spells that adventurers would never learn (took that BBEG 10 years to research Meteor Swarm and now it will force you to retire from adventuring for 10 years to understand it...).
Like the idea, and like how high level casters would pretty much HAVE TO use metamagic and build their own spells.
You could still hand out occasional 7-9 spells, almost like treasure. Make them scrolls with hella' high DCs to scribe, and then make then rituals with casting times in hours or even days. Effectively removes them from any combat or even adventure situation, but allows them to exist in the world.
The only ones I'd even consider to keep are things like Mass spells, and even that's iffy. Mass Heal is still overly powerful, though Mass Cure Critical would be well within the caster's expected power limit.
Among other things, it means that no one is ever going to get raised from a death effect, as you've eliminated both resurrection spells.
I've also eliminated many (most?) of the death effects that cannot be reversed by Raise Dead. Could make Disintegrate an OP spell - oh how the PCs will dread facing any BBEG with that one...
Or we could suggest that certain high priests of certain gods might have a ritual for recovering from the remaining death effects.
Among other things, it means that no one is ever going to get raised from a death effect, as you've eliminated both resurrection spells.
Honestly, it just makes dying a much more difficult thing in the higher levels, and that's fine. I see multiple threads complaining about how death isn't a worrying factor in the lategame, and threads wondering about effective ways to keep someone from coming back to life.
And the GM finally has something to say to all of that junk: "Guess what guys; this s#!^ just got real."
Among other things, it means that no one is ever going to get raised from a death effect, as you've eliminated both resurrection spells.
That's intentional :D
Someone needs to get under the bus every now and then...keeps the excitement high.breath of life still works...not on dust though.
The only ones I'd even consider to keep are things like Mass spells, and even that's iffy. Mass Heal is still overly powerful, though Mass Cure Critical would be well within the caster's expected power limit.Like the idea, and like how high level casters would pretty much HAVE TO use metamagic and build their own spells.
You could still hand out occasional 7-9 spells, almost like treasure. Make them scrolls with hella' high DCs to scribe, and then make then rituals with casting times in hours or even days. Effectively removes them from any combat or even adventure situation, but allows them to exist in the world.
I think I found a 3rd party Feat, or maybe just a house-rule somewhere, that I grabbed years ago (maybe a decade ago) that was a Mass Spell metamagic feat - +3 spell levels to turn any single-target non-instant spell into a Mass version.
Putting something like that into the game would allow those high-level slots (or even mid-level slots) to be used for Mass Anything.
Honestly I almost never see 7th level spells so I have no clue. Sounds reasonable though.
The martial/caster disparity stems from far more than wizards having powerful abilities at high levels. I don't think this would affect it much. A better approach came from Path of War's maneuver system where martials have a martial analogue to spells. I never ran a high level campaign with this, but this struck me as a way to give martials more options and make them more fun, which I feel is more important than simply making sure martials have the same power of 9-level spellcasters.
That being said, I do support your idea of nixing higher level spells. Have you considered leaving 7th level spells as a 20th level capstone? I got that idea from SKR's Five Moons, which eliminates 8th and 9th level spells, but keeps 7th as a full spellcaster's capstone ability.
Having tested it out....I can say that casters are as strong (if not stronger) when using Metamagic feats instead of the given spells.
Buffing martials too is required...for sure.
The martial/caster disparity stems from far more than wizards having powerful abilities at high levels. I don't think this would affect it much. A better approach came from Path of War's maneuver system where martials have a martial analogue to spells. I never ran a high level campaign with this, but this struck me as a way to give martials more options and make them more fun, which I feel is more important than simply making sure martials have the same power of 9-level spellcasters.
That being said, I do support your idea of nixing higher level spells. Have you considered leaving 7th level spells as a 20th level capstone? I got that idea from SKR's Five Moons, which eliminates 8th and 9th level spells, but keeps 7th as a full spellcaster's capstone ability.
Well, I wasn't trying to solve the disparity with a single idea.
As for turning martials into "I got spells but I don't call them spells" superheroes, well, that's a flavor that not everyone supports. Even for those who do, that solution usually closes the combat gap but does nothing for the martial out of combat (e.g. there is no "I swing my sword so fast that I teleport to Absolom" ability - usually).
I like the capstone idea. Sounds easy enough.
Maybe even spread out the spell levels a bit. Although, just slicing the top off of the spell-mountain can turn it into a plateau with a one-sentence houserule, while spreading out the levels (e.g. second level spells at lvl 3, third level spells at lvl 6, fourth level spells at lvl 10, fifth level spells at lvl 14, and sixth level spells at lvl 19) means more than one sentence because we would need to change the Spells Known and Spells per Day charts for those classes.
I don't think this is the right solution, or not alone at any rate.
First, spell DCs are by level. If you eliminate high level spell DCs will lag behind Su and Ex ability DCs. This can be addressed and I'm all for redoing DCs to match the standard 10 + 1/2 level + stat pattern with an adjustment for spell power (eg. save or puppet having lower DCs than save to avoid HP damage) as an independent fix for related issues.
Second, level does not correlate strongly with brokenness. Meteor Swarm does less damage to game balance than Invisibility for all that it's seven levels higher. There's no fix for this but to go over the entire spell list and cull it. Well, I think cantrips, orisons, and ranger or paladin spells are all safe, but that still leaves a lot to cover.
Heighten Spell does wonders if you're so concerned about Spell DCs. In fact, that's exactly what Heighten Spell is for. Additionally, spell DCs are fine the way they are. If anything, your proposition makes a 1st level spell as deadly as a 6th level spell, and that's hardly the intent behind the Spell DCs.
You're kidding, right? Meteor Swarm is an extremely powerful spell. Invisibility has great utility, sure, but instead of sneaking past the town guard to steal something you shouldn't, why not just obliterate everything with a Meteor Swarm? Both are Evil acts, so it doesn't really matter if you do it through method A or method B.
Invisibility only buys you time in coming up with a strategy, it does nothing to aid in your actual ability to kill your enemy. Throw me Greater Invisibility, and then we got something to properly compare.
Meanwhile, Dragons are so damn smart, they'll already know your tactics and plan ahead against them, so they'll bother to learn spells like See Invisibility, or have magic items of them constantly working on his person; and not just Dragons, any BBEG will do this. This "Invisibility trivializes more encounters than Meteor Swarm" argument is about as stupid a claim as that Zen Archer guide who beat a Pit Fiend, who has access to Wish, and uses it to make a Wind Wall of all things.
Dragons also have blindsense, so they know exactly where anything is whether it's invisible or otherwise concealed from vision.
Nevertheless, Meteor Swarm is a terrible spell. A wizard should never use it unless it's the only one that the GM has permitted him to memorize. Almost any level 6 or higher spell will be more use.
To address the actual topic, removing all high level spells will (by definition) only affect high level play. It won't make much difference to the martial/caster disparity.
What I'd do (if you feel like you need to do anything), is to reduce the range and variety of spells available to a caster at each level. Either by theme (fire wizards get fire spells, death priests get undead type spells) or by school.
If you are limited to only 5 spells of each level, you can't do the range of things most people complain about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the 1st beastiary, Fire Giants, Devils, certain dragons, mephits, and a handful of other creatures are immune to Fire. You might be fighting Dragons and Devils regularly, but you're probably not using blast spells on strong creatures. That's not the point of blast spells.
I can guarantee you invisibility doesn't work on any of those creatures either, as they too have see invisibility, either as a spell, or a constant effect, as well as other creatures.
In either case, suggesting every single competent creature has Fire Immunity, and not See Invisibility, in some shape or form, is just a ridiculous bold-faced assumption.
Lastly, Admixture Specialist Wizards. That is all.
It would make for terrible high-level play for arcane casters. Some creatures of high CR cannot be stopped by spells sixth level or low; though some can. But it would make levels past 11/12 nearly pointless for the wizards beyond extra spell slots. Metamagic is actually more boring; I would much prefer a wizard not constantly casting persistent, dazing, and quickened spells. The variety is more fun.
Thanks for that, I appreciate the perspective.
I'm curious, how many times have you played a game that went into teen levels? Which spells in the range of 7-9 made the game more fun? Were you the spellcaster, or where you playing a fighter while someone else at the table had the spellcaster with these fun spells?
This is not sarcasm, I'm truly curious - maybe the spells that make if fun might be worth trickling in, say, in a captured spellbook or a scroll you find somewhere (making them at the GM's discretion; no player can say "I hit level 17, I put wish and time stop into my spellbook").
For me, I agree with you, many top level spells are a whole lot of fun, but they're often fun only for the spellcasters while players with non-casting classes (or classes that only cast lower level spells anyway), are just spectators while their friends have the fun. That can be fun too, but it's really not very balanced.
I really like this idea, and have considered doing it quite a few times.
I might test it out to see how it goes and give a free spell focus or something to shore up the DCs that will lag a bit behind.
It would make for terrible high-level play for arcane casters. Some creatures of high CR cannot be stopped by spells sixth level or low; though some can. But it would make levels past 11/12 nearly pointless for the wizards beyond extra spell slots. Metamagic is actually more boring; I would much prefer a wizard not constantly casting persistent, dazing, and quickened spells. The variety is more fun.Thanks for that, I appreciate the perspective.
I'm curious, how many times have you played a game that went into teen levels? Which spells in the range of 7-9 made the game more fun? Were you the spellcaster, or where you playing a fighter while someone else at the table had the spellcaster with these fun spells?
This is not sarcasm, I'm truly curious - maybe the spells that make if fun might be worth trickling in, say, in a captured spellbook or a scroll you find somewhere (making them at the GM's discretion; no player can say "I hit level 17, I put wish and time stop into my spellbook").
For me, I agree with you, many top level spells are a whole lot of fun, but they're often fun only for the spellcasters while players with non-casting classes (or classes that only cast lower level spells anyway), are just spectators while their friends have the fun. That can be fun too, but it's really not very balanced.
I have generally GMed through my roleplaying career, but have recently played a wizard from 1st level up to 17th level. My perspective on this issue has varied.
As a GM, I find that I want my (generally higher level than the party) bad guys to have access to more powerful toys - spells, artifacts, magic items, or better spaceships, guns, etc. Therefore, playing games that stop at about Level 14 or so work nicely.
Running higher level games means coming up with ways that bad guys can do stuff that PCs can't. Epic levels, mythic rules, godlings & devils/demons/etc are all ways of bending the rules.
All D&D, from 1st edition to Pathfinder, have struggled with higher level play.
I have also played & reffed Ars Magica, where the magic scales upwards pretty much indefinitely so there are always bad guys who are more powerful than the PCs, which works better in this respect.
As a player, I'd want to have some sort of replacement for the higher level spells, otherwise classes like inquisitor & bard (and of course the Summoner!) will look much more attractive - and if that's what you want to happen, simply say that full casting classes aren't available to play.
Extra feats, to get the metamagic as well as the feats I'd want normally, is one way. Scaling spells, so a fireball cast from a L7 slot is more effective in one or more parameters, is another way - like applying metamagic but without granting the feats so they only work in the higher slots rather be applied to any spell.
Running higher level games means coming up with ways that bad guys can do stuff that PCs can't.Why?
If you add a previous sentence to your quote, it might make more sense to you:
"As a GM, I find that I want my (generally higher level than the party) bad guys to have access to more powerful toys - spells, artifacts, magic items, or better spaceships, guns, etc."YMMV, but I like having PCs face off against enemies with more capabilities - and still win. If I could run an equal number of enemies, simultaneously, so they work as effectively as the players can do so with their one character each, then I wouldn't need to do this.
In rather more than 30 years of playing and reffing, I haven't found many GMs who could do this, repeatedly, and successfully. Occasionally, yes.
Eg in a recent adventure I played in, our party triggered a Mirror of Oppostion trap (which couldn't be circumvented simply by smashing the mirror, and we were in a small demi-plane so space to escape and plan was limited). The GM used copies of our character sheets, and had 2 copies of each of us allied together to oppose us with.
They lost, and we didn't lose a single character. Despite the GM being very good.
Not to dissuade anyone's thinking on the subject finding a means to mitigate an arcane spellcaster's increase in power level, and finding a means of balancing it out by eliminating the top level spells. But, to me, in a proposed lesser magic setting, think like it is in standard fantasy novels. While most spellcasters don't have access to ultra powerful spells, at the same time the ease of casting cantrips for simple daily activities, also doesn't exist.
What I mean is that most typical fantasy novels, wizards seem to have at least 1st - 3rd level spells (sometimes higher), but despite having access to only lower level spells, magic isn't used for everyday activities like starting a fire, creating light, creating food or water, cleaning oneself (all typical cantrips). In low magic games, those things are handled mundanely. Magic is only used when something extraordinary needs accomplished, something that mundane acts cannot duplicate - like flight, invisibility, fireballs, etc.
So if you're only trying to balance the casters vs. the martials, cutting out the top end spells is an effective means for that, I agree. But if the goal is to create a realistic lower magic setting limiting the lowest level spells (cantrips) is just as necessary as cutting out the ultra powerful spells.
Something to consider...
You are incorrect that this is indicative of "most typical fantasy novels[.]" There's a diversity of levels of magical abilities in different fantasy series. I agree with you want low magic cutting down the spells levels and frequency might make sense; but I also think PF is the wrong chassis for your game.
I'll agree that its much too difficult to generalize fantasy novels at all, especially regarding what power level of magic is involved, I would say that the majority doesn't include the kind of power common in D&D/PF games. That said, I find D&D, and Pathfinder usable as a chassis for any niche setting game. From low fantasy to high fantasy, from uber magic to no magic, from stone-age to sci-fi-esque - I haven't found a setting concept that the rules were impossible to fit.
Granted it might require forcibly taking custom designed archetypes that tweak all existing classes to fit (and some classes might need eliminating altogether), so there's a definite need for customization to accomplish such a goal. Still I've never found D&D/PF a chassis that limits anything. Not that other systems specifically designed for a given setting concept that is not D&D/PF might not already exist, but nothing about D&D/PF is limiting in my opinion.
Certainly not every GM/designer can accomplish this, but that's a limitation in that person, not the game system.
It would make for terrible high-level play for arcane casters. Some creatures of high CR cannot be stopped by spells sixth level or low; though some can. But it would make levels past 11/12 nearly pointless for the wizards beyond extra spell slots. Metamagic is actually more boring; I would much prefer a wizard not constantly casting persistent, dazing, and quickened spells. The variety is more fun.
I'd actually like to see the entries for those creatures. Unless they have a Greater Globe of Invulnerability spell (which is probably a 7th-9th level spell), I don't see it happening.
Even if that's the case, that's precisely what Heighten Spell is for.
Unless you have an adamantine vorpal greatsword, and you see an Adamantine Golem, run!
Have your character run, and you run from the table.
I'm hiding this topic so don't ask me any more questions about this. :p
I do something similar, but slightly different-
I don't want to ban 8th and 9th level spells outright, and I make it so that carrying around 7ths is a fairly difficult task (They tend to weigh a lot in terms of carrying capacity).
As for higher level spells? Well, simple- I bind them to giant monoliths for Wizards, and Epic tasks for Clerics. A wizard wants to cast Greater Planar Binding? They have to travel to Violetshade, and spend an hour and several thousand gold to gain access to it. If they're lucky. If they're NOT lucky, they have to descend into a dungeon to fight eldritch beings from beyond mortal comprehension to memorize Shadow Haven.
Basically, you want higher level spells? Learn them from Epic Monoliths, fighting powerful outsiders and ripping their flesh from their bones, or consuming the flesh of a massive being who made that spell.
@ vagabond?- I like that approach.It's good to invest PCs in the campaign world.
@everyone else-
The reason I eliminated 7-9th was to curb the narrative power a little. Full progressions spellcasters are just as powerful in combat.....sometimes more so due to all the metamagic Dazing and maximization.
It also seems to me that there should be a point in a Wizards career where he begins to truly master the spells he learned in his youth...not just cast ever higher levels of spells until the game ends.
For my campaign world fluff I see the "True Wizards" i.e. metamagic masters...looking down on simple "Spell casters" because all they do is parrot what was taught to them rather than modify and improve the spells that they cast.
It also prevents the DM from having to play "Mother may I" with PC's casting Wish. I'm also not a fan of spamming Wishes for attribute enhancement,but that's just a personal peeve of mine.....so I'm not saying it's "badwrongfun" I just don't like it.
The resurrection spells trivialize death and kill the excitement of the game for me....it just becomes another thing to throw money at.