So, looking over some stuff from Path of War and reflecting on the design philosophy behind it something occurred to me.
What happens if we remove the 9th level casters entirely from the equation?
How does the game change?
I know it's going to be hard but can we not invoke the dark and squiggly one while discussing this? I'm curious about how the game balances under these parameters not so much about summoning the Dark One.
The game is well balanced so long as everyone plays within 1-2 tiers of each other (the tier range will change the flavor of the game and the challenges, but the PC's will be balanced to each other). So by removing the tier 1 group, you make it more likely for that happen. Then you remove the tier 6 and 5 classes (fighter, rogue, monk, a few others) and replace them with Path of War (Tier 3 classes). Now you have a range of classes from tiers 2-4 and it'll be fairly balanced while still providing a range of options.
Bring in Spheres of Power and you have your full casters back with lots of other options, all still at tier 2-4.
It'll work fairly well.
I've played at 3.x without full casters. Was pretty fun! I think PF will handle it better, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... the 6 level casters are the sweet spot. It seems Paizo has figured this out as well.. lets see a break down:
Mundanes (i.e. no spells): 12...ish (Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Cavalier, Ninja, Swashbuckler, Gunslinger, Brawler, slayer, samurai, Kineticist)
4 level casters: 4 (Pally, Ranger, Bloodrager, Anti-Pally)
6 Level Casters: 13 (Bard, Alchemist, Magus, Inquisitor, Summoner, Hunter, Investigator, Skald, Warpriest, Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, Spiritualist)
Full Casters: 9 (Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Arcanist, Witch, Shaman, Oracle, Psychic)
And this is giving the "mundanes" some inflated numbers from the Monk and Kineticist (since they are almost a whole different catagory all their own as "not-magical" magical peeps...) and counting the Alternate classes as seperate classes... its even more interesting when you see the break down from CRB to Post CRB:
CRB:
Mundane- 4
4 lvl-2
6 lvl-1
Full- 4
Post CRB:
Mundane- 8
4 lvl- 2
6 lvl- 12
full- 5
After CRB, the 6 level casters make up nearly half the new classes... and that is if you count AP, Ninja, and Samurai as seperate classes. If you dont, then they actually DO make up half the classes released after the CRB.
That should tell you what Paizo thinks is the most balanced...
That's also because 3/4 BAB 6th level spell classes are more easily able to be made unique, with class abilities that allow them to do things no other class can, without making them overly strong.
9th level spellcasters lack class abilities because so much of their power is located in their spell lists, so adding more abilities will give them more power than they should. Considering the fact that even without many class abilities, they still dominate the high end of the power spectrum indicates that their spell list alone gives them so much power that adding more in class abilities is too much.
Full BAB martials without spells tend to be unable to do much more than full attack without spells, and abilities that give them more options just tend to be spell-like in nature, which means that they might as well get spells in order to gain variety.
Not to mention that since the CRB, classes focus on more specific and narrow niches in gameplay and theme, which favors 3/4 BAB 6th spell levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bring in Spheres of Power and you have your full casters back with lots of other options, all still at tier 2-4.
With Spheres of Power you don't have to get rid of the original full casters as well. Each casting class has an archetype that replaces it's casting with spheres, probably the best feature in the book since it basically allows you to rebalance casting without having to rewrite the system or dismissing classes.
Better yet, the Fighter has easy access to casting since it's two feats away from being a 1/2 spherecaster and still has the bonus feats to keep him a fighter. Its to the point where I don't think that most of the classes even are tier 6-5 with fixes such as Unchained and slight boosts of useability with cheap third party products like the Talented Monk/Fighter/Rogue/Cavalier and especially because when spherecasting obsoletes any advantage they have that is almost the only thing that they do rather than simply having access to any magic bullet for a multitude of situations. I can't even say that APs get harder, even if they keep their normal casting abilities because in my experience (This may not be totally true as I've only read or GMed 5 APs and fully played 2 so your milage may vary.) APs seem to be balanced around very mildly powered PCs and having a party of optimized and competent characters will outright wreck an adventure path if played straight. But if you're playing your own campaign its a simple matter to plan your encounters accordingly. Scratch that, its easier to plan because you don't have to plan pretending that the Schrodinger Wizard exists that will render challenges trivial because that's virtually the situation you're up against, plus the added goofiness of retreating to rest after going 50 feet into the dungeon.
Sorry for the persistent rants about Spheres of Power but Up until this product I was tentatively fine with casting using mountains third party material to be able to produce the kind of casters me and my players wanted including fat books with literally up to a thousand spells, but after Spheres of Power I've come to HATE spells and how they work and how they interact with the game. I don't really need to promote the product as I've seen it on the top 10 third party download list every week on the little newsletter emails that Paizo sends out for a few months, including a few weeks when I DIDN'T see Ultimate Psionics. If you still value the casting classes you already have and their archetypes and everything but you want to balance out casters this is the book. Whenever there is a thought experiment or idea on how to balance things out by getting rid of full casters or spell levels or anything like that, you want Spheres of Power. It will just come up in the thread anyway so we might as well. From now on all threads like this should be locked and SoP should become a sticky because these threads are now obsolete unless you also want to buff martials; in that case the answer is Path of War or Book of Martial Action or something like that. (That answer is more broad so martial buffing is still a useful topic.) But the point is that everything wrong with casting in regards to taking over the game and being generally over-powered can be blamed on how casting works and you can either delete classes from your game, rewrite the thousands of spells that exist or just get Spheres of Power, and I will tell you now, buying it is way easier for everyone because;
From my review of Spheres of Power:"Its easy. The list of spheres and talents are about 50 pages, not including traditions and advanced talents but including all the full page images. That itself is as varied and encompassing as normal magic. Compare that to the list of spells in the Core rulebook ALONE which is about 147 pages. Nobody has time to read all that! Especially since most of them are trap options. And it doesn’t come near the versatility that spherecasting has in it’s measly 50 pages. You don’t even have to read all those pages. The names of the spheres are intuitive enough where you can just decide your theme and pick whatever sphere that sounds right and read that."
That's right, rather than having to wrap your head around things or have a lengthy explanation of how your house rules work and having people have to pare through mountains of spells in splat books and hardcovers for things you can just hand over 50 pages of material that they don't even need to read all of to get the basics of how this works.
Let's look at thsi stuff a bit closer.
Condition removal is delayed. A warpriest gets Restoration 3 levels later than a cleric. Stat and Life drainers will be uncounterable for longer. With a cleric they're usually counterable at CR=APL but not anymore.
Yes, this is undeniable. But probably not exactly a terrible thing either. It makes permanent status effects and ability drain much more dangerous.
Boss NPCs are usually full casters. An evil warpriest just isn't as scary as a villainous cleric, nor does a magus hold a candle to a wizard as a BBEG. Wizard and Cleric and Sorcerer cover the best arch-villain tropes and the 6 level casters don't.
I think that's really more of a matter of opinion honestly. Sure one or more concepts would necessarily go away but whether or not those are the "best" is more of a matter of taste rather than balance.
Most of the high end item crafters are gone, taking the magic item economy with them. The 6 level casters are all semi-martial and not going to sit around at home and craft. If it's not on the Adept list it's not going to get crafted.No Teleport no shopping trips. If you roll for item availability your PCs will stop being able to get what they need when it costs more than 16,000 gp. That won't buy a +3 weapon. Past that there are only 4d4 medium and 3d4 major magic items even in a metropolis. Without teleportation that is either not available to 6 level casters or only much later in the game than +3 weapons are expected intercontinental shopping trips are not practical. And no hiring an NPC to craft something custom because all the casters that could be sedentary have been removed from the setting.
Most of this is pure speculation as there is no clear reason why those items are there. Just that they are.
Certain magic items would certainly become less expensive or more expensive since they would not be drawing from the same list of spells. Consumables particularly would be greatly affected.
As for no crafters, again, I think that's mostly speculation without a lot of meat behind it. If there's a demand, someone will fill it eventually.
Soooo, what about teleport?
I think that largely depends on whether we're using unchained summoner or not.
Actually, I think the biggest impact will be delayed access to raise dead. Character death will be a threat (barring certain archetypes like clone master alchemists) until 13th level (instead of 9th-10th with 9-level casters); a hunter could still cast reincarnate at 10th level, but the randomness of the result makes it a less desired choice.
With death being less easy to "fix," there might actually be more former adventurers (5th-11th level) that "retire" to craft magic items instead of continuing to risk their lives.
Actually, I think the biggest impact will be delayed access to raise dead. Character death will be a threat (barring certain archetypes like clone master alchemists) until 13th level (instead of 9th-10th with 9-level casters); a hunter could still cast reincarnate at 10th level, but the randomness of the result makes it a less desired choice.
With death being less easy to "fix," there might actually be more former adventurers (5th-11th level) that "retire" to craft magic items instead of continuing to risk their lives.
And no True REsurrection at all.
That certainly greatly impacts how death works.
And no True REsurrection at all.
That certainly greatly impacts how death works.
Heck, not even regular Resurrection. If something happens and you need a new body, hope you like whatever you get Reincarnated as. At least it's a bit cheaper than Raise Dead, as a bit of a consolation prize.
Definitely gives it more of an old school feel where coming back to life was a bit more rare.
The level-range in which caster/non-caster disparity goes off the rails is pushed back noticeably. With Fullcasters it starts at 12-13, with only 6th-level-casters it goes to ~17.
Thats almost 50% more levels without some classes utterly dominating.
I think that would better intra-party dynamics and give a campaign with no SC-Fullcasters a more old-school feel.
Heck, not even regular Resurrection. If something happens and you need a new body, hope you like whatever you get Reincarnated as. At least it's a bit cheaper than Raise Dead, as a bit of a consolation prize.And no True REsurrection at all.
That certainly greatly impacts how death works.
There is at least one way to get resurrected in this alternate world. An 18th level Hexcrafter can select the Life Giver Grand Hex which functions like a Resurrection spell without the material component.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're removing 9th level casters, also remove the summoner class. they're not really a 6th level class as their entire spell list and summon ability is 1st-9th level in power as they just skip some spell levels. They Gate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, I really don't want to soil another thread by peeking into this can, but... I really need to ask: What would removing 9th level casters achieve?
There's a lot here about what would be missing, spells and etc. But what would be gained?
I think I've heard some people (understatement of the decade) feeling like classes without or with fewer spells aren't as versatile as the 9th level casters. But removing them wouldn't really make the others more versatile, would it? Or is lowering the roof of versatility in the game a way to make the others reach the top? Or has these whispers of imbalance I mentioned earlier just gotten stuck in my head and there is another reason to remove them?
Personally, I like playing them and would miss them.
Think of it this way. Why does a huge difference in saves suck? Because its impossible to challenge the guy with a huge save without making the rest of the party auto-fail. That's the situation that gets eliminated when you 'lower the ceiling'. You create an environment where the higher tiers are challenged and the lower tiers are challenged way more rather than the higher tiers auto succeeding while the rest of the party is challenged or challenged while the rest of the party auto-fails. This would be okay but I used saves as an analogy because in a lot of cases autofailing means you're out of the game and autosucceeding makes challenges pointless. In the case of 9th level casting this means that a lot of challenges are trivial unless you make a sort of mechanical arms race, but what remains is that the lower tiered classes who don't have the resources to confront the things that actually challenge 9th level casting.
Alternatively one could say that raising the floor by eliminating the weaker classes is an equally valid response, but higher level casting goes past powerful and right into god-like making it difficult to actually handle so the natural reaction is to get rid of the god-like power and preserve a more down to earth level of magic and challenges that doesn't require a phd in Pathfinder to actually run. Not only that but with 9th level casting gone there is still powerful magic around with the 6/9 casters so you can still preserve a lot of concepts while going the other way means you get rid of concepts that you can't get back unless you get third party products involved.
I'm sorry, I really don't want to soil another thread by peeking into this can, but... I really need to ask: What would removing 9th level casters achieve?
There's a lot here about what would be missing, spells and etc. But what would be gained?
What would be missing that would be missed?
We've discussed true resurrection and delayed removal but for some of us that creates a more interesting game where the stakes are much more meaningful in combat.
As for what would be gained, that's what we're asking is it not?
Overall the feeling seems to be if you cut out the top and the bottom you're left with a crunchy middle that could turn out rather interesting in the sense that a lot of arbitrary things (oh no my character has "x" time to ask "X" 9th level caster to remove it immediately as to remove it as a problem altogether) get tossed out altogether along with a lot of needless griping.
As for removing summoners? I don't know. In some ways that's correct.
However I wonder if they don't preserve "just enough" that some of the feeling stays without necessarily adding to potential problems.
I'm sorry, I really don't want to soil another thread by peeking into this can, but... I really need to ask: What would removing 9th level casters achieve?
There's a lot here about what would be missing, spells and etc. But what would be gained?
I think I've heard some people (understatement of the decade) feeling like classes without or with fewer spells aren't as versatile as the 9th level casters. But removing them wouldn't really make the others more versatile, would it? Or is lowering the roof of versatility in the game a way to make the others reach the top? Or has these whispers of imbalance I mentioned earlier just gotten stuck in my head and there is another reason to remove them?
Personally, I like playing them and would miss them.
It would remove the classes that can literally take over the roles of other classes and still have options for every single situation in the game. Classes which can also literally change the world on a whim's notice. 9th level casters are the epitome of power and capability. There's a reason they're called the "God" classes. Their power level is so much above every other class that it's ridiculous. These are the Tier 1 classes.
Now, this isn't really a problem when your party consists of other God classes (or even other powerful classes like the tier 2 classes). But when you have classes that can barely hold their own (core monk or core rogue) standing next to God, it creates such an extreme power difference that it can ruin the fun of certain players. The God classes have to be careful not to overshadow these other classes (tier 5 and 6) as to not ruin their fun.
In this instance, tier 5 is a class that can do one thing well, but nothing else. This is the core fighter. Does combat and damage really well, but cannot contribute to the game otherwise. So when the session is 10% combat and 90% something else, the player with the fighter is sitting there bored. Tier 6 are classes that can't even do their specialty well.
So removing the ultra powerful tier 1 classes and removing the ultra weak tier 5 and 6 classes goes a long ways towards balancing the classes so no player is sitting in game being bored and no character is overshadowing anyone else. Everyone will have their specialty and everyone will be able to contribute to almost every situation.
However, some people (like yourself) may feel that this limits their character options too much. Consider this: even with removing those classes, you'll still have more options that the CRB. You'll have the bard, barbarian, paladin, ranger, alchemist, inquisitor, magus, summoner, bloodrager, brawler, Hunter, investigator, skald, and warpriest (Note: some people put oracle and summoner on the Tier 2 list, so those may stay depending on what you're looking for). Using Spheres of Power will accomplish the same task and allow you to keep the full casters (just use the archetypes for the wizard, cleric, et al.). Bringing in Path of War will give ou more martial options in those same tier 2-4 range.
This will keep all the players contributing to the game in almost all situations without any class completely overshadowing any other class.
And this is giving the "mundanes" some inflated numbers from the Monk and Kineticist (since they are almost a whole different catagory all their own as "not-magical" magical peeps...) and counting the Alternate classes as seperate classes... its even more interesting when you see the break down from CRB to Post CRB:
Yeah...I would say that monks are relatively limited in their SLA abilities (just a few qinggong abilities at best), but kineticists seem much closer to casters in their abilities. Heck, perhaps even close to full casters.
With the right infusions, they gain many aspects of important staple spells (deadly earth+grappling= black tentacles, for example). And while their access is limited by their element selection and utility infusions, they get some of the same abilities that can mess with dungeon design (earth, for instance, could earth glide, stone shape, and move earth, all at will. And lets not even mention the at will dimensional door from ride the blast)
It would make the game duller. Players would have less options, their mates would have less options provided - and the party wouldn't be able to fight epic battles against full caster NPCs. Taking away highest level magic from players only would be perceived as quite unfair, after all.
Instead of looking for a mechanical solution for a potential problem, what about a social one? Just ask this full caster to stay away from his mates' jobs or whatever annoys you. Often they simply don't notice what they are doing to their fellow players...
It would make the game duller. Players would have less options, their mates would have less options provided - and the party wouldn't be able to fight epic battles against full caster NPCs. Taking away highest level magic from players only would be perceived as quite unfair, after all.
Instead of looking for a mechanical solution for a potential problem, what about a social one? Just ask this full caster to stay away from his mates' jobs or whatever annoys you. Often they simply don't notice what they are doing to their fellow players...
Does it have to be removed from NPCs? Or could you just leave it as an 'enemy' option unavailable to PCs?
I mean...besides some of the after fight healing/repair options (restoration, raise, etc.) being more limited, does anyone see a party made entirely out of 6th level casters as 'unviable' against normal BBEGs?
I would like high wizards better if they still had some vulnerability. I think that would encourage more teamwork.
It would make the game duller. Players would have less options, their mates would have less options provided - and the party wouldn't be able to fight epic battles against full caster NPCs. Taking away highest level magic from players only would be perceived as quite unfair, after all.
Instead of looking for a mechanical solution for a potential problem, what about a social one? Just ask this full caster to stay away from his mates' jobs or whatever annoys you. Often they simply don't notice what they are doing to their fellow players...
Does it have to be removed from NPCs? Or could you just leave it as an 'enemy' option unavailable to PCs?
I mean...besides some of the after fight healing/repair options (restoration, raise, etc.) being more limited, does anyone see a party made entirely out of 6th level casters as 'unviable' against normal BBEGs?
Parties with nothing but 6th level casters are often considered the best groups, as they're able to face every challenge and thrive, at all levels.
Having a party of no casters is helpless at mid and high levels. A party of 4th level casters is helpless at the highest levels. A party of 9th casters *might* be helpless at the lowest (my playtest of 4 wizards through Rise of the Runelords is still underway), except Druids which dominate at all levels. But 6th level casters? Those are the sweet spot that thrive in all situations and all levels.
Parties with nothing but 6th level casters are often considered the best groups, as they're able to face every challenge and thrive, at all levels.
Having a party of no casters is helpless at mid and high levels. A party of 4th level casters is helpless at the highest levels. A party of 9th casters *might* be helpless at the lowest (my playtest of 4 wizards through Rise of the Runelords is still underway), except Druids which dominate at all levels. But 6th level casters? Those are the sweet spot that thrive in all situations and all levels.
So, a good example party might be (based off of the old 4 member assumptions):
Paladin (fairly simple sub for fighter; some healing spells), Bard (rogue replacement- a bit of wizard with buff/charm stuff), Warpriest (they get cleric spells...just not as many), and maybe an alchemist (since bombs can have a lot of the battlefield control stuff)
I think this would be an example of a party that could do well without 9th leveled caster, even if the enemies don't have a similar restriction.
I'm sorry, I really don't want to soil another thread by peeking into this can, but... I really need to ask: What would removing 9th level casters achieve?
There's a lot here about what would be missing, spells and etc. But what would be gained?
Well, I would venture that the best way to put the principle is in an old epithet: A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
In other words, if you remove everything you will not miss, you have surely streamlined the game significantly. A streamlined experience is, arguably, easier to run, and easier to understand.I think I've heard some people (understatement of the decade) feeling like classes without or with fewer spells aren't as versatile as the 9th level casters. But removing them wouldn't really make the others more versatile, would it?
The thing is, it would make the attempt to fill a role on the more finite resources actually shine. So a dedicated skill monkey isn't outdone by a smattering of say spider climb, invisibility, silence, aboleth's lung, what have you.
Or is lowering the roof of versatility in the game a way to make the others reach the top? Or has these whispers of imbalance I mentioned earlier just gotten stuck in my head and there is another reason to remove them?
No no, it's about imbalance. This is really a reiteration of above but new framing: Consider the concept of purchasing power. For a non-full caster, attaining X is typically much much more resource intensive compared to a full caster. If we are interested in a good minion wall for combat, a full caster has relative to everyone else, a lot more capital. Not because they have more levels necessarily, but simply because those levels make obtaining said wall carry a negligible cost.
See discussions of ressurection upthread. Both non-full-casters and full-casters can obtain it. Full casters just got there quicker, and with less cost.So yes, lowering the roof does help others reach the top. Because the top isn't occupied before the roof is reached for non-full-casters.
I may have muddied the point a little there.
Personally, I like playing them and would miss them.
Which really makes my above reflections redundant since the very starting point is "remove anything you won't miss." :P
If someone finds full casters disrupt their game more often, and feels their games would function without them - why keep them? Heck, just if you think the game would remain fun without them. If they provide absolutely zero felicity for your game, they are just a further pool of information you are forced to retain. And why do that? It's a waste of time and energy.OT, FINALLY: Most effects are of the harsher game variety. By reducing aforementioned purchasing power of groups, each resource has higher value. Meaning players have to leverage them for more so that it remains economical since strategy is a good chunk of asking whether the resources at hand are best spent in X way, or Y. Defeating a dragon carries a lot of otherwise potentially ignored decision making when you can't fly yourselves like "how do we ground it?"
It would make the game duller. Players would have less options, their mates would have less options provided - and the party wouldn't be able to fight epic battles against full caster NPCs.
EDIT: Realized I misunderstood the intent behind this statement.
That's a matter of table. Sometimes not having those options work to force people to find ways around problems that aren't at hand.
Consider for example how death suddenly is a real possibility for much longer in a a game? How would players react if they realized that even a simple Raise Dead was beyond their reach without extraordinary circumstances?
As for retaining full casters as NPC's?
I can see them as being ultra rare mostly benign things. But for the purposes of our exercise let's assume that all full casters are gone.
Having a party of no casters is helpless at mid and high levels. A party of 4th level casters is helpless at the highest levels. A party of 9th casters *might* be helpless at the lowest (my playtest of 4 wizards through Rise of the Runelords is still underway), except Druids which dominate at all levels. But 6th level casters? Those are the sweet spot that thrive in all situations and all levels.How is that going anyway Bookrat? Mine breezed through the Festival and a couple of minor followup encounters, but we've been bogged down in RPing around town and haven't pushed further than that yet.
Now that I'm no longer GM, I think I'll have more time to dedicate to it. Are you still doing the PBP? Last I looked, it was cancelled.
Does it have to be removed from NPCs? Or could you just leave it as an 'enemy' option unavailable to PCs?It would make the game duller. Players would have less options, their mates would have less options provided - and the party wouldn't be able to fight epic battles against full caster NPCs. Taking away highest level magic from players only would be perceived as quite unfair, after all.
Instead of looking for a mechanical solution for a potential problem, what about a social one? Just ask this full caster to stay away from his mates' jobs or whatever annoys you. Often they simply don't notice what they are doing to their fellow players...
As a GM, you could remove it for PCs only, but it would upset players with good reason. But if you are the GM, you have a lot of other tools at hand, so why swing the banhammer...
I think you've basically highlighted the inherent problem with full casters right there. If you have to have one in order to even consider fighting the other than neither is good for a team based game.
I meant they couldn't fight NPC full casters anymore because these opponents would no longer exist. EDIT: Saw your EDIT, so that's settled.
As for the game being duller? That's a matter of table. Sometimes not having those options work to force people to find ways around problems that aren't at hand.
If you want it sometimes, use golems / antimagic fields / dead magic zones / counterspelling / magic eating creatures / specialized assassins / dispel on hit / protection spells etc.. If you aren't the GM, you can recommend him these options to make sure the table doesn't drown in boredom.
Consider for example how death suddenly is a real possibility for much longer in a a game? How would players react if they realized that even a simple Raise Dead was beyond their reach without extraordinary circumstances?
Personally I would think twice before I even join this round. Playing for a year, then a bad roll ends the character I spent a lot of energy on? No thanks. There is a reason why modern games usually did away with real 'game over'.
*stuff*
Regardless of your feelings on the subject though, none of this really addresses anything I was asking though.
You feel it would upset players though I've found the opposite to be true as well. But that's not really about balance or mechanical effect.
You also don't think you'd like it. That's fine, but that's not the question.
At least not the one I meant to ask. Sorry I did not make it clearer.
I'm not out to solve social issues at the table. Too many tastes to even make that a question worth asking. I'm only interested in seeing how the game bends when you twist it a certain way...
As a GM, you could remove it for PCs only, but it would upset players with good reason. But if you are the GM, you have a lot of other tools at hand, so why swing the banhammer...Does it have to be removed from NPCs? Or could you just leave it as an 'enemy' option unavailable to PCs?It would make the game duller. Players would have less options, their mates would have less options provided - and the party wouldn't be able to fight epic battles against full caster NPCs. Taking away highest level magic from players only would be perceived as quite unfair, after all.
Instead of looking for a mechanical solution for a potential problem, what about a social one? Just ask this full caster to stay away from his mates' jobs or whatever annoys you. Often they simply don't notice what they are doing to their fellow players...
There are a lot of options that players don't get. I could certainly understand it.
The thing here is that the ban is only being proposed because of how much of a problem full casters are causing for their game. I mean... have you seen threads like the 'how to beat a level 20 wizard in his lair'? The general answer that gets thrown around was 'be a god' or 'be a 20th level wizard yourself'. While it was joking... the thread went on excrusiating detail the degree of options wizards are given to counter everything.
The game is alreadys stacked in the player's favor. Add in power like that as you enter higher levels...and the GM can have problems even when they are using gods and 20th level wizards... It is enough that I am generall in favor of a SEVERE curtailing of the wizard spell list (Emergency Force Sphere being a prime example- an immediate action answer to most attacks with a frighfully low spell level- it is practically to the point that you can prepare it a few times. and never have to worry about a ton of problem).
This solution is not for tables where people have 9th level casters and feel everything is fine. This solution is for tables where things have gone poorly. There are reasons why people have adopted systems like E6 or E8- they are unhappy how the games tend to scale with high magic at later levels. So it is not like this sentiment is out of the blue, or that there are not people who prefer such approaches. I merely suggested the 'enemy only' route because I in part agree with you- 9th level casters can be compelling enemies with their power. But so are dragons, and ....most people don't expect to play them during normal games.
Personally I would think twice before I even join this round. Playing for a year, then a bad roll ends the character I spent a lot of energy on? No thanks. There is a reason why modern games usually did away with real 'game over'.
You only play games where you can be raised from dead?
You only play games where you can be raised from dead?
Personally I would think twice before I even join this round. Playing for a year, then a bad roll ends the character I spent a lot of energy on? No thanks. There is a reason why modern games usually did away with real 'game over'.
Eh, I understand his point. You put in a lot of investment and roleplay into a character only to have them die unceremoniously to a random frost giant crit.
To me though that kind of high stake game is exactly why their's such a thing as tension. If you have everything to lose you have every reason to actually think about what you're doing and why.
To me though that kind of high stake game is exactly why their's such a thing as tension. If you have everything to lose you have every reason to actually think about what you're doing and why.
Exactly. And, to be honest, in most RPG systems you can die because of a bad roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. And, to be honest, in most RPG systems you can die because of a bad roll.
To me though that kind of high stake game is exactly why their's such a thing as tension. If you have everything to lose you have every reason to actually think about what you're doing and why.
This is why I tell my GM that I'm saving the game right before a battle. :)
A thought that's occurred to me is that the idea of cutting out the full casters isn't too far removed from the concept of E6.
A thought that's occurred to me is that the idea of cutting out the full casters isn't too far removed from the concept of E6.
The concepts are rooted in the same soil, but they have different effects. The biggest is that E6 limits everyone else in an attempt to also limit full casters. You're suggestion still allows everyone remaining to grow and be challenged.
|
A thought that's occurred to me is that the idea of cutting out the full casters isn't too far removed from the concept of E6.
It kind of is, but 3/4ths casters tend to have a lot of non magic tools.
To me ideally there'd be no full casters. I wouldn't cut raise dead though for reasons already stated, I'd just shift it to a 6th level spell for divine casters (or that one paladin feat), make it something possible but not super common, so you have a consequence for death but not a permanent one.
That's aside the point though, since I agree with a lot of others in that 3/4ths casters are probably the most balanced in the game. 7th+ level spells often have wide reaching effects that are too vague and broad to allow some challenges to survive them, which makes for dull adventures. The level of magic needs to be toned down a bit to allow everyone to participate.
One issue that comes up here is that the entire game becomes a LOT more martial in the fact that it's either full bab or 3/4ths BAB, so everyone's making attack rolls, which makes group buffs that much more powerful. Before you cast haste and the wizard's like "Cool, I'm super fast, gonna cast the same spells", but now everyone's involved in making either ranged or melee attack rolls at some point, which isn't a bad thing. It's just something to consider. Those who can group buff (BARD) are made much more important.
Personally, I think all full divine casters could be taken down to 3/4ths spell progression and be just fine, although this would make the War Priest that much more impressive, so there might need to be some tweaks here. On the other hand, you lose the trope of the pure caster, since a wizard/sorc/arcanist lose a lot of versatility without those higher level spells. Witches suffer less thanks to hexes, although there would need to be some hex tweaking to keep them in line with the new power level, such as toning down some major hexes and buffing some minor ones to make sure they could still compete.
Honestly, I think it'd be nice to see more of an attempt to make a 1/2 bab 3/4ths caster for a system like this to really see what would be needed to make such a character viable. I think the unchained summoner would be a good example of this, knocking it down to 1/2 bab, and seeing how it performs.
Overall I'd like more of my games to be T3-5, since full casters are very polarizing, especially arcane ones.
A thought that's occurred to me is that the idea of cutting out the full casters isn't too far removed from the concept of E6.The concepts are rooted in the same soil, but they have different effects. The biggest is that E6 limits everyone else in an attempt to also limit full casters. You're suggestion still allows everyone remaining to grow and be challenged.
This can be summed up as 'I like E6, but I am kinda bummed that I never get to use those shinier high level abilities on my martials.'
Heck, it might be why PFS goes to level 12 (last I checked). Either it was a conscious decision (cause higher encounter design gets trickier with full casters going about... and no guarntee there will be ANY casters at the table, since PFS), or just reflective of the fact that a lot of home campaigns just peter out around that level (with higher level spells as one of the causes for that past that point)
Honestly, I think it'd be nice to see more of an attempt to make a 1/2 bab 3/4ths caster for a system like this to really see what would be needed to make such a character viable. I think the unchained summoner would be a good example of this, knocking it down to 1/2 bab, and seeing how it performs.
Spheres of Power does this nicely. Nevermind. I misunderstood you the first time.
Overall I'd like more of my games to be T3-5, since full casters are very polarizing, especially arcane ones.
I've always thought of Tier 5 as "good at their specialization, but unable to contribute anywhere else." For me, this puts Tier 5 as a poor choice, because I want my players to be able to specialize AND contribute in other circumstances. Fighter is the classic Tier 5 - very good at combat and damage, but unable to do anything when combat stops. (Below that is Tier 6, unable to even do well in their own specialization and unable to contribute elsewhere, like the core rogue or core monk).
Based on these definitions, I would rather see Tiers 2-4 than Tiers 3-5.