| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(If you're old enough, the thread title might be funny...)
Here we go again, but maybe for the last time (from me). I'm mainly trying to take everyone's attention of the Tarrasque-killing thread...
Please don't read it and don't comment here if you only want to debate that we don't need to balance the classes. Save that for other threads. I would love to hear from anyone with suggestions on how to improve what I have here (including removing stuff you think I should not do - assuming your reason is balance and you're not just arguing that martials are fine).
The following list has some basic ideas for house rules that address the disparity between non-casters and casters. So far, I'm just spitballing here; these are not fully detailed out. In fact, the whole list is hypothetical. I'm still looking for feedback.
Note that I have three objectives:
1. Narrowing the gap between casters and non-casters,
2. Maintain party roles (tank, healer, mage, sneak, dpr, etc.) intact. I'm not trying to turn fighters into flying superheroes or turn spellcasters into adepts. When all is said and done, a fighter should feel like a fighter, but more badass. Like, so badass that he gains a couple tiers. Some casters, on the other hand, might slip down a tier or two with these house rules.
3. Keep the rules so simple that I can type them up in a weekend. I don't want to have to type up a hundred pages of house rules and then spend our first three gaming sessions reading them to the players. Better if it fits on a page or two.
It's a long list so I'll hide it and let you tackle it in chunks. Or don't read it at all if you're not at least somewhat invested in the idea of simple and easy tier rebalancing.
2. Full casters still get slots for level 7-9, but these slots can really only be used to cast spells of level 1-6. It's up to the caster if they want to use metamagic or not. Normally there is no benefit to putting a Fireball into a 9th level slot (it's still saved and resisted like a 3rd level spell). Hey, maybe this will give incentive to someone in the universe to actually learn the Heighten Spell feat.
3. Along with the upper levels of spells, I will selectively carve away all the annoying/game-wrenching spells of lower level. Teleport, the worst of the plot-breaking divinations and dominations, and maybe a few spells that step on the toes of skill-monkeys (like Spider Climb and Knock for example).
4. Longer casting times. For simplicity, all spells are treated like a sorcerer using metamagic: Standard actions become Full-Round actions, 1-round spells become 2-round spells, etc. This is a baseline; all spells will conform to this and I’ll probably do the same with class SLAs too. If martials can't move and use their full abilities, neither can casters.
5. I think I'll give them a little break and let them prepare (or use) a slot one level higher to cast any spell at its normal casting time as listed in the book.
6. I'm toying with casting limits. Spells with a duration (buffs, debuffs, summons, etc.) will be limited to affecting a number of targets equal to your Caster Level + ability score modifier. For example, a 5th level wizard with a 20 INT can have 10 total targets affected by duration spells. He has Mage Armor running and at the start of the battle he casts Haste on himself and his 4 PC allies and the druid's animal companion (affecting 6 total targets) bringing him up to 7 affected targets. He also casts Mirror Image and then summons a monster, bringing his total up to 9 affected targets. Then he decides to cast Hold Person on an enemy, bringing his total up to 10. Now if he wants to cast Invisibility on an ally, well, he'll first have to dismiss something he has active. (I don't think I want to include incidental targets, such as casting Web or Ice Storm and having a bunch of enemies affected, and also spells like Grease that affect an area but not specific targets, so they will all count as 1 spell toward the limit - it might make some AE spells seem overpowered compared to other duration spells but I'll just have to test it out.)
7. A hard limit of one spell per round. Even if you use Quicken Spell, all that does it let you cast it fast with no chance of AoO, but you cannot cast it in the same round you cast something else.
2. This is not a perfect idea if based ONLY on the usual Tier system. It must also be adjusted to push SAD classes closer to Tier 1 and MAD classes closer to Tier 6. For example, most posted Tier lists have Paladins as about a 3 or 4, but they are very MAD so I would move them down probably 2 steps toward 6 so they get more points to build with.
3. This list might have to be further adjusted. For example, all those spell adjustments from the previous section might bump many classes and archetypes down from their elite tiers to a weaker tier. Also, maybe some of the other ideas below might bump the martial classes up a tier or two. I assume it's more of an art form than a science.
4. I might even allow a Tier-0 for the really stupid SAD + strong classes, like a Scarred Witch Doctor. Make them play with just a 12 point buy.
5. This might be exploitable by a player deciding to start with a class that gets a really high point-buy then multiclass into a class that would have had much fewer points. This is partially mitigated by having the plan from each player, but if someone changes their mind (or pretends to), we'll have to re-build with the lower point-buy. No exploits, even accidental ones.
6. 18 is a hard cap for all starting ability scores. This includes racial adjustments. If you are playing a race that has more than a +2 racial adjustment, I'll allow it to exceed this hard cap, up to 20. Don't count on me allowing that race though...
7. No ability score can be "sold" below 8. You can lower it to anything you want, but you won't get extra points for going below 8.
8. Instead of getting one point to add to an ability score every 4 levels, everybody who can cast spells gets one point per character level, everybody who cannot cast spells (including low level paladins, rangers, etc.) gets a single point every odd level and two points every even level - they spend these points using the point-buy system. They can save points for future levels. So if you have a 17 in a primary ability score, it costs 4 points to turn that into an 18. A spellcaster will be able to do that by 4th level (one point per level) while a non-caster could do it at 3rd level. Both of them could, however, improve several of their lowest ability scores, so it's easier to fix weaknesses than it is to pile onto the primary ability score. Adding points this way will have a hard cap that no ability score can be raised higher than 22. Also, I know they will be adding points AFTER racial adjustments (unlike character generation where points are spent before racial adjustments). I've extended the point-buy chart up to 22 as follows (using Paizo's formula and simply extending it): 19 costs 21 points, 20 costs 26 points, 21 costs 31 points, and 22 costs 37 points.
2. Power Attack and Combat Expertise are freely given to everyone, even casters. They should be core combat rules anyway.
Yes, I know what's missing here. I haven't done anything to make martials fly through the air or divert rivers by stomping the ground or put the Midgard Serpent into a chokehold or have light sabers. I'm hoping that by pulling the rug out from under the casters and adding stuff to let martials do more of what they already do, with better ability scores and more feats and skills than ever before, as well as Mythic tiers - I'm hoping this leaves party roles and character niches as they currently are but catapults non-caster martials (and to a lesser extend the rest of the martials) into a more respectable tier.
If anyone has read this far, I'd love feedback.
Also, I'd love volunteers to tackle the class tier list, especially sliding them per MAD/SAD as mentioned in point 2 and 3 of that section. Yeah, I want you theorycrafters to do my work for me... ;)
Thanks in advance to all who post constructively!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please, no more! It's like a madhouse! ;)
All the talk about caster-martial-disparity (a misconception in my opinion) on these boards baffles me. Sometimes, I'm really curious as to which traumatizing game experiences have lead to the rise of this idea. But since neither you nor I are looking for an argument here, I'd like to approach it from a different angle. Since your intent seems to be to the creation of house rules, have you tried to look at them from a player's perspective? What I get from them is
1) Whoa, this GM is really obsessive about control. I'm not sure this is the game experience I'm looking for. If I play with this GM, I can expect to be railroaded, so the story better be worth it.
2) This GM really has it out for casters. If they don't want me to play one, why don't they tell me so in the first place? This GM can be very passive-aggressive, so I'd better take a hint when it is given and triple-check everything with them to make sure they are okay with it.
Of course, I don't know you the way your players do, so I'm propably reading too much into it and I certainly don't want to put words into your mouth. But couldn't you achieve your goals by approaching your players, telling them that you are looking for a different game experience for your next campaing, and get them all on board?
Honestly, I don't like most of these.
The re-working of the spell list is more like a hack job and the general changes to spells feels like an attempt to make spellcasting weaker via making it less fun to use.
The general martial changes to skills, Point Buy, and Feats don't really do much for the main issue, which is that they can't do stuff like reroute rivers with their man-fists. Because unless you cut out very nearly every spell that isn't combat related, that gap between martial classes and casters still exists.
It's stuck in an odd place between a full system re-write and a collection of imperfect houserules, and kinda has the worst of both worlds. It's both clunky, and doesn't quite address the problem.
If you're going to do a hack job on it, what is probably a more elegant solution is using 3rd party systems. I don't know anything about Spheres of Power, but I hear it's pretty good. Maybe if I look at that some time I can update this, but eh.
1.) Change all full spellcasting to Psionics. You can keep the same Feats. All Magic Feats (sans Metamagic) apply to Psionics, and vice versa. All class abilities apply t Psionics instead of magic. The Schools of Magic already have direct analogues, so not an issue (Psychometabolism = Transmutation, Telepathy = Enchantment, etc.)
Lists:
Psion manifesting: Wizard, Arcanist
Wilder Manifesting: Sorcerer
Vitalist Manifesting: Cleric, Oracle (Domains/Mysteries would need to be slightly tweaked to grant bonus powers instead of spells), Shaman (likewise Spirits need tweaking)
Give 4 and 6 level casters the choice of their own list r a 6th level Manifesting list of their choice (Magi aren't as problematic as Wizards in the first place, but might like Psychic Warrior goodies).
This makes casters somewhat weaker, but still fun and versatile to play.
2.) Give full martial characters Path of War Disciplines. Let them pick whether they want Stalker, Warder, or Warlord, then let them swap 1 Discipline for free (For example a Rogue might want to swap Solar Wind for Black Seraph).
3.) Give full Martials Mythic Tiers. Nix Immortal and Legendary Hero, and trim some of the more clearly unbalancing abilities (Undetectable items, frex) and ones that just boost damage numbers even higher (Mythic Power Attack as an example).
4.) Trim to taste for 4 and 6 level casters. Perhaps give 6 level casters War Soul Maneuvers (Soulknife archetype, basically amounts to 6 level casting for Maneuvers instead of 9), and just let 4 level casters reap the full benefits, but less Mythic Tiers (6-7 instead of 10?).
This should go a long way towards closing the gap.
Please, no more! It's like a madhouse! ;)
(followed by railroad-ish stuff)
I know, it's like a madhouse, but I really am looking for solutions from a community. It doesn't strike me that posing a few questions, and then posing one more thread summarizing a list of house rules should be to maddening. Sorry if it is.
I'm kind of disappointed that you posted here to specifically tell me that casters don't need to be balanced against non-casters. I specifically asked people NOT to do that in this thread. I don't want that derailment, I would prefer to just discuss the playability of the proposed changes.
As for the railroading, I'm actually the opposite. I never railroad players. Right now we're playing the Sword of Air sandbox campaign where there is a giant book full of encounter ideas and mini-plots, with barely even the hint of a campaign plot thread to link them together. The players choose where to go and what to do and I just keep up.
I don't want to sit down before a campaign and say "Hey, James, I don't want you to play a summoner this time. Or a witch. Or a wizard or druid or gunslinger or zen archer or pounce barbarian or..." I NEVER want to do that.
On the other hand, I do want a game system where anyone can play whatever they want however they want, and it doesn't invalidate what the other players are doing.
That's the point of this thread, and if you don't think I need to make changes to do that, then please, just move along and don't post in this thread.
Honestly, I don't like most of these.
The re-working of the spell list is more like a hack job and the general changes to spells feels like an attempt to make spellcasting weaker via making it less fun to use.
Fair enough.
Unfortunately, there are only 3 choices.
1. Hack job. Quick and easy but feels like a hack job.
2. Re-write everything. Tons and tons of work and when we're done, I have a new game system that isn't Pathfinder.
3. 3PP stuff, and when I apply enough of that, I have a new game system that isn't Pathfinder.
I'm trying to avoid #2 and #3 which only leaves me with the hack job.
The general martial changes to skills, Point Buy, and Feats don't really do much for the main issue, which is that they can't do stuff like reroute rivers with their man-fists. Because unless you cut out very nearly every spell that isn't combat related, that gap between martial classes and casters still exists.
I really don't want them punching rivers into new courses. Gods (or demigods) do that. Magic does that. Mortal fists do not do that.
Frankly, if a wizard wants to change the course of a river, I don't find that very campaign-breaking. If I somehow make a quest out of changing the course of a river, then the whole GROUP needs to find a way, and the challenges will probably be something like:
1. research a way
2. acquire the magic
3. battle their way to the right place - whole group participates in these encounters
4. some party caster needs to apply the magic - it will take a while
5. rest of party has to keep him safe
Such a quest involves everybody and I doubt anyone would object that the wizard gets the river-altering magic.
I'm looking to narrow the caster/non-caster gap, but I'm not looking to elevate martials up to the level of wizards by making them magical and then re-skinning them with a superhero/demigod flavor.
It's stuck in an odd place between a full system re-write and a collection of imperfect houserules, and kinda has the worst of both worlds. It's both clunky, and doesn't quite address the problem.
I'd love more specific feedback. What is clunky? Can you isolate that to a specific section or a specific idea?
If you're going to do a hack job on it, what is probably a more elegant solution is using 3rd party systems. I don't know anything about Spheres of Power, but I hear it's pretty good. Maybe if I look at that some time I can update this, but eh.
Not really the goal.
Speaking as a GM who HEAVILY houserules the game for the sake of improving Martial/Caster disparity, I feel like tackling some of your concerns from a general standpoint.
As said, I'm really not interested in that discussion.
If you're suggesting achieving a certain feel by coercing your players into playing a certain way... I disagree with that wholeheartedly.
On the contrary. The rules allow for the game to be played in many different ways. I advocate working with the players, asking them for the game experience they expect, and reaching a consensus on a basic framework for the campaign (such as important genre elements, religious, historical and cultural influences, technology level, and the role of magic).
If you make radical changes to the magic system without considering your players' interests and opinions, you already coerce them to play in a certain way (whether these changes are good or bad).
That's the point of this thread, and if you don't think I need to make changes to do that, then please, just move along and don't post in this thread.
Sorry if you feel that way, derailing really wasn't my intent.
I'm simply advocating the inclusion of the players in the process before making fundamental changes to the game.
I'm simply advocating the inclusion of the players in the process before making fundamental changes to the game.
That's fair.
I never make houserules without getting approval of all the players.
I currently have a list of exactly 4 house rules. That's it. Not because they reject them but because I try to play the game out-of-the-box without changing it much.
Clearly, this thread is a huge deviation from what I normally do, and I won't dump that on my players without discussing it with them and getting their buy-in.
The following list has some basic ideas for house rules that address the disparity between non-casters and casters. So far, I'm just spitballing here; these are not fully detailed out. In fact, the whole list is hypothetical. I'm still looking for feedback.
Note that I have three objectives:
1. Narrowing the gap between casters and non-casters,
2. Maintain party roles (tank, healer, mage, sneak, dpr, etc.) intact. I'm not trying to turn fighters into flying superheroes or turn spellcasters into adepts. When all is said and done, a fighter should feel like a fighter, but more badass. Like, so badass that he gains a couple tiers. Some casters, on the other hand, might slip down a tier or two with these house rules.
3. Keep the rules so simple that I can type them up in a weekend. I don't want to have to type up a hundred pages of house rules and then spend our first three gaming sessions reading them to the players. Better if it fits on a page or two.
1) which gap in particular? Versatility of casters a) in combat; b) out of combat? Narrative power level, again in and/or out of combat? Or...
For my next comments, I will assume you mean 'all of the above'.
Ok, your character generation system breaks your 3rd objective - it's not simple, short, or easy to invent, balance, or use. It severely nerfs clerics and oracles - these classes are (in theory) able (not required to, but are able to) to participate in combat. These stat rules would make them just as squishy as a wizard. It would take a lot of effort and playtesting to derive appropriate stat point buy totals for semi-casters. And thus put you into the 'writing your own game system' land.
On the other hand, getting extra points to increase stats is always a good thing to sell otherwise unpleasant rule changes to players. Would you also need to ban magic items that enhance stats?
Personally, I would prefer any system that is fair for all players - this one rules out too many options. Eg no caster will have a decent non-casting stat. This also impacts on skill totals - if you only have one decent stat, the only skills you'll be good at will be the ones using that stat.
Cont...
Mythic section: I've never played or even read the mythic rules. No comment.
Feat section: I've previously advocated giving the feat chains to fighters for free. As level increases, they automatically get all of them. Ever since 2nd edition came up with weapon specialisation rules, I felt that they just limited fighters. Weapon Focus should apply to every weapon that a fighter picks up, without restriction. Ditto Improved Critical. Etc. I wouldn't automatically apply this to Paladins, for example, and I might need to consider barbarians more carefully, since they already have alternative options.
Skills: more skill points are always good, and don't unbalance the game. Having more points can't make the possible total score for a given ability increase; instead, it gives characters more options and more opportunities to 'do stuff'. I've played a stupid barbarian; it was boring whenever we weren't hitting things.
Spellcasting: I've posted in the other thread. To sum up: removing higher level spells might work; re-writing spell lists is tedious, hard work (see your 3rd objective); I'd recommend limiting the number of spells available per level to eg 5, based on theme or school. I can give more details on my ideas if you're interested.
Overall, I wouldn't like to play using your rules - because of the stat rules not being 'fair'. Reducing point buy does not nerf wizards; a better way would be to limit all PCs to having their highest stat no more than 2 points higher than their next highest, which must be no more than 2 points higher than the next, etc. This keeps it 'fair' and also limits how high a caster can push one stat, without penalising MAD classes.
Spellcasting: Overall, I wouldn't like to play using your rules - because of the stat rules not being 'fair'. Reducing point buy does not nerf wizards
Thanks for the feedback! I like all of it and won't comment on the parts I like except to thank you for the feedback.
I do want to quibble on your final point, basically because I don't think you're seeing it the same way I am (which is my fault for not explaining more, but my OP was long enough as it is).
I'm not trying to "nerf" wizards or anyone else by limiting them to a 15-point buy. I use that anyway. Paizo defines that as "Standard Fantasy". So there is no "nerf" here. Wizards (and everyone else) in all my previous campaigns got 15 points, and by this rule change they still get 15 points.
What this really does is open up the ability scores for other classes like fighters who would have much more than 15 points, and so would rogues and monks and cavaliers and yes, even clerics because they are not a SAD as wizards are. Though clerics might be at 18 or 21, and fighters might be at 27 or 30, depending on how it all shakes out.
Hopefully that makes it look less unfair?
a better way would be to limit all PCs to having their highest stat no more than 2 points higher than their next highest, which must be no more than 2 points higher than the next, etc. This keeps it 'fair' and also limits how high a caster can push one stat, without penalising MAD classes.
Interesting idea. This turns every class into a MAD class. Nobody is SAD (well, some still are but they cannot build their ability scores that way).
linky to my attempt
Also as a separate note(and thus separate post): people really think you're out ot get casters any time you try to balance them.
I implemented a system with limited casting from unchained but made it so spontaneous people can overclock and wizards can use esoteric materials. THEN i gave every caster the spells per day of a spontaneous caster and the ability to cast spells spontaneously but the spells known of a prepared caster.
everyone thought i nerfed casters... oh lordy.
snip, for brevity
I'm not trying to "nerf" wizards or anyone else by limiting them to a 15-point buy. I use that anyway. Paizo defines that as "Standard Fantasy". So there is no "nerf" here. Wizards (and everyone else) in all my previous campaigns got 15 points, and by this rule change they still get 15 points.What this really does is open up the ability scores for other classes like fighters who would have much more than 15 points, and so would rogues and monks and cavaliers and yes, even clerics because they are not a SAD as wizards are. Though clerics might be at 18 or 21, and fighters might be at 27 or 30, depending on how it all shakes out.
Hopefully that makes it look less unfair?
Ok, I understand your viewpoint a bit better; however I fundamentally disagree with it!
Fair = same point buy for all characters.What makes casters more effective is their magic. The only stat which normally affects those spells is their spellcasting stat. Limiting casters to a lower point buy doesn't stop their power level, but does limit their non-spellcasting options and capabilities. Hence having a lower point buy generally penalises MAD classes rather than SAD ones. Therefore, if you want to limit casters whilst still allowing MAD classes, you should limit the maximum anyone can reach in their highest stat, rather than by limiting how high their non-casting stats can be.
And a cleric is more MAD than a fighter!
a better way would be to limit all PCs to having their highest stat no more than 2 points higher than their next highest, which must be no more than 2 points higher than the next, etc. This keeps it 'fair' and also limits how high a caster can push one stat, without penalising MAD classes.Interesting idea. This turns every class into a MAD class. Nobody is SAD (well, some still are but they cannot build their ability scores that way).
Exactly. Fair = the same for all. Insisting that all characters spread their points around is fair; preventing casters from having more than one decent stat isn't fair, and doesn't address the actual problem in the first place.
Wait... you were trying to balance casters in creating those monsters with the best of both worlds?Also as a separate note(and thus separate post): people really think you're out ot get casters any time you try to balance them.
I implemented a system with limited casting from unchained but made it so spontaneous people can overclock and wizards can use esoteric materials. THEN i gave every caster the spells per day of a spontaneous caster and the ability to cast spells spontaneously but the spells known of a prepared caster.
everyone thought i nerfed casters... oh lordy.
i shouldn't say balance them, but make them less nova and encourage people to not only try to buy specific spells or gain certain spells known.
Pity you're so against 3rd party options as Spheres of Power, while an extensive redesign of the spell system, does a lot of what you are looking for. I've had really good experiences with it so far.