I was contacted by a friend to try and help out with a perceived problem and after getting their ok to post about it I was going to try and put the power of the forum to help them out.
Problem: How to reduce high level spell casters over all power at high levels and over all power of cap stone abilities.
(Note: You may not have a problem with these in you game but the person who contacted me does so I put my thinking cap on to try and help)
Solution:
(Note not my first or second as those required too much work for the person (and I agree) but my third)
A PC must multi-class by every 5th level. So at 5th level the max you could have is 4 levels in one class and 1 in another, 10th level would be 8 in one and 2 in another, 15th would be 12 in one and 3 in another, 20th would be 16 in one and 4 in another and at 25th level you could take your 20th level in a class.
Why it solves the problem:
By requiring multi-classing you push back the cap stone ability to 25th level (obviously the easiest) but with requiring the spell casters to multi-class also you also delay their access to essentially high level spells so they do not have them to deal with the higher CR obstacles.
Problems it causes:
The main problem I can see this causing is that delayed spell casting classes also have their spell progression delayed.
The second problem is that it pushes the game to 25th level, which they did not have a problem with but it should be mentioned as some people might.
Other Benefits:
The main other benefits I see is often PC's and PC concepts benefit from s dip into at least one other class and this requirement would essentially add flexibility to other PC concepts while still reducing spell casters access to high level spells.
Comments good and bad are welcome, with the bad being more helpful as I am no expert in the PF system (as I told the person) and they are simply seeking info to help them out in a planned long running home game.
Thanks
MDC
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As a player I am not happy with artificial build restrictions - so as a GM I wouldn't do this to my players. I'd rather go for following approaches:
* Restrict useful material for the full caster (e.g. a wizard not automatically gets access to any scroll they want)
* Provide more useful material for the other party members
* Build encounters that challenge the full caster, without outright killing them or making them useless
* Add enough noncombat challenges, even on high level
Part of the GM's job is to allow every player to shine here and there, that's totally possible even if the party is not really balanced.
High level casters and capstone abilities are two different issues altogether.
Capstone abilities are often very powerful because they are the reward for making it to 20th level, the highest level in the CR, in one class. If you persist in playing characters who are 20th level in one class, I suppose they are in some cases very powerful. Then again, some classes lack a capstone at all.
As for high-level casters: the game does assume that some things become available/come online at certain points. Delaying access may or may not cause problems.
From a different perspective: why would a spellcaster (or anyone else) decide to change careers so regularly or routinely? "Yes, I'm a devotee of Iomadae, one of her shining knights. Obviously, I don't want to practice this all the time, so I think I'll work on something else on the side?" "I seek to attain the position of Grand Druid. But I'll put that off to work on my hunting skills." "I want total mastery of the arcane...I'll delay that goal for a while."
Overall, I must ask: is the problem a lack of comfort with high-level play? And if so, is it based on experience or what's been read/heard about? This overall feels like a solution quickly slapped together in search of a problem....
It might be easier to just ban the offending classes. Then the remaining classes would still function as intended and nobody should be forced to play a crippled PC.
I don't think there are any official rules for playing Pathfinder to 25th level though I suppose you could probably go back and find the epic rules from 3.5.
As a player, I *never* multiclass without a specific goal in mind. There are a lot of classes that get weakened significantly by forcing them to multiclass. Also, while it may not be a huge deal everyone who is not a half elf is losing favored class bonus every five levels if you do this.
"By character level X, you're allowed to cast no higher than Y level spells". Less intrusive, solves the same problem.
I suspect this is going to hurt the kineticist and the paladin a lot more than it hurts the wizard and the cleric. The Wizard is going to get to choose
The problem with full casters is not their capstone abilities, it's that what you can accomplish with 7-9th level spells can be of world-shaping impact.
You might be better off saying "no 9th level casters" since there's also the fairness issue to concern where someone is playing a hybrid class or archetype that borrows features from a different class arguing that they're already a combination of two things so shouldn't be asked to multiclass further. I mean, bloodrager takes a level of swashbuckler so they're a barbarian, a sorcerer, a fighter, and a gunslinger? That's a lot of things!
Mark Carlson 255 wrote: The main problem I can see this causing is that delayed spell casting classes also have their spell progression delayed.
The second problem is that it pushes the game to 25th level, which they did not have a problem with but it should be mentioned as some people might.
Isn't the whole point of this to cut off spell progression?
Maybe you'd be happier GMing E6?
Thanks all,
The person in question and I have talked about game stuff on and off over the course of a few years and they saw a comment I made some where about PF and so started talking to me about the above problem they experienced in their game.
Lathiira,
I can say from their description of other game systems in the past and from their PF experienced it is not in any way a lack on comfort with high level play, high powered play and has been experienced in their group and generated discussions on how to try and solve the issue. IIRC, they have done 3 or 4 complete PF Ad paths, play a high level game to has reduced leveling to continue to play under the 20th level cap and a game that has exceeded the 20th level cap and have played D&D since the mid 80's IIRC. As you can see they are an active group playing many game systems.
Why they reached out to me, is knowing I have no problem axing parts of systems to try new things and or completely redesigning them based on a new take's or ideas.
For example the previous solutions I presented were and rejected for various reasons:
1) Keep track of Exp individually as more often fighter types excel at lower levels thus gain more Exp so level sooner. But does not solve the capstone, and martial vs spell caster imbalance they have found existed in their game.
2) Redesign the who system from the group up for 30 levels, so now 9th level spell casters get new spells every 3 levels, 6th level casters get spells every 4 levels and modify how delayed casters get spells. But this involves a lot of work on all classes and basically building a custom system from the group up for their group and would take more time than they have and is not something I would just do for them.
3) Use the different Exp leveling tracks for different classes, so if the group perceived a class was a problem or had a problem it would use a slower level of Exp growth vs the other classes. This was mainly rejected do to book keeping and a general lack of "likability" among'st the group in general.
4) Use the multi-class idea above but require a PC to spend a feat to stay focuses on one class.
Solves the dedicated to one thing PC concept but does not solve the problem that they brought to me.
I also brought up the fact that generally people in RL pick up skills that are outside their "job" or area and multi-classing is a way to reflect this in PF.
I do know that some people will hate it and reject it as it is not RAW or rules in stone but from their comments they are not one of those groups.
It did take me some working getting permission to ask about this issue on the forums though as they are a very private group in general from my limited contact with them but after some time they gave permission as I play PF but I do not consider myself one of the people who know all the in's and out's of the complete system.
Thanks again, I will relay your info to them.
MDC
Wow, lost power hit restore posed and suddenly there are more posts.
So even if I do not respond to your post directly like I did with Lathiira, I and I assume they will enjoy your comments.
Drahliana Moonrunner,
I do not know anything about E6 myself but when I suggested running another system the reply I got was"We want to try and fix this problem we are having, can you help with some ideas?"
The pushing the level past 20 idea I know is covered in one of the PF books and it is a rule used by their group with the highest level attained 28th IIRC but every class is capped at 20 levels. I do not know what the break down of that PC is or the others that are above 20th level as I did not think it was than important. But I can ask if you do? But I do not think this in general will solve the issues they are describing to me.
PossibleCabbage,
I myself did not propose any limits on multi-classing in my suggestion to the group but that is probably a lack of foresight on my part because as a GM I generally do not just let players multi-class willy-nilly or pick up any class they want during a game, ie there is some training involved so you just do not become a gunslinger after 3 levels of monk. Which my players in the past have been fine with (I am not running any PF stuff right now but am advising this group and another friend who is running PF for the first time and going through the Giant Slayer Ad Path).
I will ask them about how they deal with multi-classing and if the GM will force and or require them to think of one to train off on during the game if they reach the level limit.
Thanks again.
MDC
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner,
I do not know anything about E6 myself but when I suggested running another system the reply I got was"We want to try and fix this problem we are having, can you help with some ideas?"
The pushing the level past 20 idea I know is covered in one of the PF books and it is a rule used by their group with the highest level attained 28th IIRC but every class is capped at 20 levels. I do not know what the break down of that PC is or the others that are above 20th level as I did not think it was than important. But I can ask if you do? But I do not think this in general will solve the issues they are describing to me.
The closest I can get as to what your problem was is "High level spellcasters too powerful, knock off thier higher abilities." That's essentially higher level spells.
You need to codify a bit more specifically what YOUR perception of the issue is and what you want as a result.
High level can be a mess anyway, even with limits enforced. The monsters are pretty wild too.
Maybe use the 5th Edition spell progression?
Basically, you get multiple spells for levels 1-5, but then spell levels 6-9 are limited to 1 per day for the most part.
This gives the spellcasters their big guns, but they're one-offs.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote: stuff It is one thing to say that one is comfortable with high-level games. It is another to attempt to find a solution to the problem of high level spells, as so far, that seems to be the main focus of the issue, and if these are a problem it is hard to believe they are comfortable with high levels. You've mentioned the capstones several times but I admit these seldom come up as a problem; high level spells come up in many threads. I would definitely take the advice of some other posters, whether it is to ban the offending classes (sounds so far like full casters) and adjust accordingly, play E6, or even something different like SmiloDan's solution.
Also, I did not see any commentary about the in-character effects of enforced multiclassing. For some people, the choices made for the character are about the character, so to speak. Why would people all just pick new classes (jobs/careers) in the middle of developing their existing abilities? If the characters are pursuing power, they're obviously driven to be the best, how could they do that if they're stopping off to smell the roses of another class?
Maybe make some PrCs for spellcasters that give no spellcasting progression, but other boons magic-users would like to use.
For example:
+4 to caster level checks
The ability to cast a 1st level spell at will (each time you select this ability, the spell level increases by 1, up to a max of 5th level spells)
The ability to cast dispel magic as an immediate action
+6 to all Concentration checks
The ability to add your spellcasting ability modifier to spell damage rolls
The ability to heal 2 hit points per spell level when you kill something with a spell (usable 1/round)
The ability to apply metamagic for free once per day
Stuff that makes magic fun and utilitarian, but not overall more powerful.
Maybe look at the 3.0 Hierophant PrC for ideas.
you could just flat out ban all spells that would normally be 7-9th level no matter what spell list they were on(so if a 6th level caster got like a 9th level spell from some one elses spell list as a 6th level they would not be able to use that spell as it was a 9th level spell somewere else
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mark Carlson 255 wrote: I was contacted by a friend to try and help out with a perceived problem and after getting their ok to post about it I was going to try and put the power of the forum to help them out.
Problem: How to reduce high level spell casters over all power at high levels and over all power of cap stone abilities.
(Note: You may not have a problem with these in you game but the person who contacted me does so I put my thinking cap on to try and help)
Solution:
(Note not my first or second as those required too much work for the person (and I agree) but my third)
A PC must multi-class by every 5th level. So at 5th level the max you could have is 4 levels in one class and 1 in another, 10th level would be 8 in one and 2 in another, 15th would be 12 in one and 3 in another, 20th would be 16 in one and 4 in another and at 25th level you could take your 20th level in a class.
As others have mentioned, this feels forced and heavy-handed.
IMO, a different approach is to ban 1st-3rd level characters from taking levels in any casting class (including archetypes that add casting to non-casting classes, alchemists, investigators, and possibly kineticists; you may want to consider whether bloodragers, paladins, and rangers are allowed, banned, or forced to use non-casting archetypes) and requiring Eldritch Heritage to "unlock" casting ability. Thematically, magic requires an inherent "spark" that comes from supernatural influences.
You could even require specific Eldritch Heritage bloodlines to qualify for specific caster classes: Accursed or Fey for witch, Maestro for bard, etc.
Thanks all for the replies, I lost internet (probably do the the weather) so this is the soon as I could get back to you.
Drahliana Moonrunner,
The issue is not one I have per say but a couple of issues some has contacted me about trying to find a mod to fix so their group can have more fun.
In case I did not lay the issue out clearly the first time as they were presented to me.
1) Keystone cap abilities are something their group has a problem with for power reasons.
2) They want a way to delay access to high level spell but keep them in the game. (The levels they provided me with were 8th and 9th but I proposed 7th through 9th as a work around and they agreed.)
2a) one reason to delay higher level spells was it was a solution to them to solve the power level of higher level martial's vs spell casters.
2b) As I said in 2) they want to keep higher level spells in the game and have no problem going beyond 20th level to do so.
Lathiira,
I have talked on and off with this person since about 2005 (IIRC) on another game forum and from my understanding they have no problem with high levels with that system which we talk about a lot more vs the high level issue they might be having in PF. In that other system they frequently played in the 20+ level campaign (with some PC's going as high as 55th level IIRC in two versions of the game system)
All posters,
Thanks again for your input and I will relay your comments to them and if I remember I will let you know what they have decided to do and in about a year or so what they results were if they decide to test the mods I have proposed out.
Idea that people are focused and do not multi-class:
I agree and disagree on with this comment as often from my experience as we go out into the world and do things we pick up skills and abilities from other areas that are not our core focus in life. The idea that you have to multi-class by a specific level is another way of not providing the person with additional abilities outside of the level system.
For example I work in computers but decide to get into bettering my house so do some year work involving flowers, shrubs, etc as well as build a deck and fence, add a new bath room with all the plumbing and electrical. All of those things could be considered other "classes/professions" by game standards.
All Posters:
I agree this idea is not for everyone and I know another person who I asked about it hates it. But then they hate every new rule idea/house rule idea until it is published in a book then it is the best there ever is.
Again the main issues or questions I see with this are:
1) Essentially pushes the access to 7th to 9th level spells which were in the 16 to 20 range to levels 20 to 25. (Which is a issue they were looking for)
2) I did not see any issues with various class interactions by requiring a PC to multi-class vs what you would expect in game but that is one reason I wanted to ask the forum for advice and possible crazy builds.
3) By requiring multi-classing it would reduce the power level/(CR)/balance a bit of casters vs martial classes depending on how much of a issue they had with high level spells in their game.
As a side note, I have not played D&D beyond 3.X have looked at 4.0 and in general avoided the other editions but it is a direction I can point them to to see if they see an solution to their issue there.
Again many thanks.
MDC
Have you considered just altering the Spells Per Day table?
Spell access can be the same as it is for levels 1 through 11 or 13, then delay access to higher level spells to every 3 or 4 or 5 levels.
For example:
6th level spells at 11th
7th level spells at 14th
8th level spells at 17th
9th level spells at 20th
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
SmiloDan,
No I have not but since you mention it I will put it forth as an idea to them and see what they want to do.
Thanks for the idea.
MDC
I have heard back from them and right now they are going to stick with the must mutli-class option unless the group can get some work done and all agree on expanding the relevant classes abilities to 25th level.
The GM says the group right now seems to be up for the rewrite and expansion but only time will tell just how good the options are that the players come up with and if their ideas pass their rules group.
SmiloDan,
I sent your idea in another email and have not heard back about it yet but it seems like they are ok with one of the two options of must multi-class or rewrite class to 25th level as a solution to their issue.
Thanks all again.
MDC
Cool. I hope it works out well for your group. :-)
SmiloDan,
This is not my group but it is someone I have had frequent conversations with when I was a moderator for another game's website. They just sort of contacted me out of the blue since I stopped being a moderator about a year ago as they know my passion for taking games apart and adding or removing rules to fit specific settings and or ideas that people want to try out.
I do not play with the group or plan on playing with them but have asked them to keep me in the loop to what they do and how it affects their game in terms of players vs CR as published encounters (they are going to be starting an AP soon (which I do not know the name of but from my other questions have gotten the idea that they add quite a bit of stuff to the published material as well as side quests that fit their PC's story with in the over all AP story line), general feeling of what has changed is for the better or worse, would they do it again, what new problems arose, etc.
All the normal questions you pose when altering any base rules to see if it fix's a problem your group is experiencing.
MDC
The first thing I thought of when you proposed forced multiclassing was full casting progression prestige classes. Who cares if I'm forced to multiclass my wizard if the other class I take is Loremaster?
You could take a page from 1e, and simply put some restrictions on high level casters:
Eliminate the free spells at level up for spellbook users, after spell level 6. Require them to find in-game any 7th-9th level spells so you can control exactly what they have access to. Polar ray and power word kill can be useful but don't have the narrative power of other options.
In 1e a cleric's deity directly granted their spells of 6th level or higher. This gave the GM the excuse to tell the player, "No, you don't get those ones you asked for, for some reason you got these spells instead."
These are both examples of basically using an in-game justification to ban some of the high level spells. Arcana Unearthed/Evolved did a thing where spells could be "exotic" and those required a feat to learn and use, like an exotic weapon. Most of the "plot-warping" spells could be locked behind a feat tax if you wanted to go that way.
ryric,
Thanks for the Lore Master comment as it is one I did not realize would allow a player to effectively get access the spells level's they are trying to delay.
I will pass this on to them and have them look for any more P Classes like this that might cause a problem.
Thanks a lot as this was the info I was looking for.
SmiloDan,
One of the two people I have been talking to about this has said they thought it was an interesting idea to have no spell casters for 3-5 levels but really did not solve the issue they have been experiencing and are wanting to try and solve and in his opinion limits class's a bit more than forcing multi-classing 1 level in every 5.
Thanks again all for your comments and ideas.
MDC
ryric,
Had a chance to take a look at the Loremaster on the PSRD and noted that it requires 2 skills at rank 7, so if the group did decide to go for the must multi-class rout they could do it by level 7 and break what the GM and group was trying to test out.
I sent them a recommendation to not allow such things/class options/Prestige class's until after the 12/3 level split (15th level and would still allow for 10 levels of a Prestige Class if desired as the plan is to go to 25th level right now but of course may change over the year or so it will take them to play the AP.) unless it is necessary for the story. Which I do not see like it will be a big deal as they are a more story driven group (divined from my limited interactions in the past) and the fact that they want to test out delaying access to higher level spells.
Much thanks again for this insight as it one one of the areas I was concerned about and it seems like there are not a whole lot of ways to "break" what they are trying to test.
MDC
There is only one prestige classes that one can take at 5th level (Arcane Trickster on a Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue with the Accomplished Sneak Attacker feat), so everyone has to multiclass into a full class at least once, but there are a lot of prestige classes that allow full casters to all but ignore the later forced multiclassing.
I'd straight up require GM permission for either every prestige class, or every prestige class that advances spell progression (including Evangelist).
Mark Carlson 255 wrote: As a side note, I have not played D&D beyond 3.X have looked at 4.0 and in general avoided the other editions but it is a direction I can point them to to see if they see an solution to their issue there. 4th Edition is so different a game from what preceeded it and Pathfinder, that you're not going to find help in managing 3.X and Pathfinder high level games.
I can't see why your group has issues with Keystone abilities. Or let me put it this way if keystones are an issue with your group or GM, it's because they're insisting on viewing the 20th level game in the same way they looked at low level games, which is at best counter-productive, and at worst, a complete travesty of playing high level at all.
The game changes in a major way post 12th level. If those changes bother your group that much, you should simply put a level cap on your game. And that would solve all of your problems.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: Mark Carlson 255 wrote: As a side note, I have not played D&D beyond 3.X have looked at 4.0 and in general avoided the other editions but it is a direction I can point them to to see if they see an solution to their issue there. 4th Edition is so different a game from what preceeded it and Pathfinder, that you're not going to find help in managing 3.X and Pathfinder high level games.
I can't see why your group has issues with Keystone abilities. Or let me put it this way if keystones are an issue with your group or GM, it's because they're insisting on viewing the 20th level game in the same way they looked at low level games, which is at best counter-productive, and at worst, a complete travesty of playing high level at all.
The game changes in a major way post 12th level. If those changes bother your group that much, you should simply put a level cap on your game. And that would solve all of your problems. this play like an e8 style of game so no multiclassing or changes are required (e8 means level 8 is the highest level you can get to but you continue to "level" but leveling up after level 8 only gets you feats and a few other things
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: Mark Carlson 255 wrote: As a side note, I have not played D&D beyond 3.X have looked at 4.0 and in general avoided the other editions but it is a direction I can point them to to see if they see an solution to their issue there. 4th Edition is so different a game from what preceeded it and Pathfinder, that you're not going to find help in managing 3.X and Pathfinder high level games.
I can't see why your group has issues with Keystone abilities. Or let me put it this way if keystones are an issue with your group or GM, it's because they're insisting on viewing the 20th level game in the same way they looked at low level games, which is at best counter-productive, and at worst, a complete travesty of playing high level at all.
The game changes in a major way post 12th level. If those changes bother your group that much, you should simply put a level cap on your game. And that would solve all of your problems. The group I am advising (not my group and I do not plan on play testing with them either) said they have a problem with capstone abilities as well as delaying higher level spells and asked for my opinion on how I would solve the issue.
1) To which I simply thought that if you have having a problem with them then delay the ability until a higher level and or later in the game. And the must multi-class idea solved both problems but forth to me.
2) I really did not ask what all the problems their group had with the cap stone abilities or if it was just with a few classes.
I read 4th edition D&D and would have thrown the book away if I owned it, which I was glad that I decided cutting back on my RP budget was a wise thing to do. But I am lucky enough to have a few friends who buy a lot of different stuff and I can borrow and read at my leisure if need be or if I have some time I will actually just go to a store and read a bit of the book/rules to get a feel of what the game and mechanics are all about.
I did ask them if any of the new editions of D&D had a fix that might work for them and they said no.
MDC
Maybe have spellcasters gain their spells per day and spells known normally for levels 1-10, then spread level 11-20 spellcasting through levels 11-30.
6th level spells at 13.
7th level spells at 17.
8th level spells at 21.
9th level spells at 25.
SmiloDan,
I had provided them with that option, sort of, ie full casters get new spell level every 3 class levels vs every 2 and max 6th level casters get spells every 4 levels going from 1 to 30.
The way I envisioned it working was casters get more lower level spells from the delay of higher level spells in a strait linear fashion but I think some play testing needs to be done to see if a hybrid your idea and mine of extra low level spells and slight reduced amount of higher level spells (generated from the new formula) would work better.
At the time I mentioned it they did like it but also balked at the fact they would have to rewrite each class to 30th level or extend the chart of abilities for each class by 10 levels. From my limited experience whit them they have no trouble doing mods but the sheer amount of work involved in doing each class and arch-type sounded too daunting to them.
But as I said above they are thinking about trying just that but only rewriting each class and arch-type to level 25. With them focusing on the classes they like to play and then extending their modd'ing out from their.
I think the game is going to start sometime in the next few months but I am not sure as I do not plan on playing in it do to time and the fact they are in one of the two L's IIRC (Latvia, Lithuania) as I had a friend from high school that was from Lithuania and back in the late 2000's I remember quite a conversation about it.
MDC
I was just thinking about the sheer number of class they are going to have to expand, from PSRD 11 core, maybe 1/2 base 4 or 5 (1/2 of 9) depending on AP and group, Alt Classes 0 to 3, Hybrid Class's 6 or 7 to all 10, and 3 unchained classes with the option of converting the Psychic classes and any 3rd party classes the use in their game also a factor. Then they are going to have to look at the archtypes and re-balance all of them also.
Heck I can even see them change their mind and re-evaluate their idea of expanding to 25th level and going to 30 as it might make some things easier.
MDC
I think that if high level spells are the power, then don't affect lower levels. How about multiclassing the level you get 7th level spells, 8th level spells, and 9th level spells.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: Mark Carlson 255 wrote: As a side note, I have not played D&D beyond 3.X have looked at 4.0 and in general avoided the other editions but it is a direction I can point them to to see if they see an solution to their issue there. 4th Edition is so different a game from what preceeded it and Pathfinder, that you're not going to find help in managing 3.X and Pathfinder high level games. It's not so much about 4e solving the problems with Pathfinder. It's that 4e takes an entirely different philosophy on balance. By using it, you do not have the caster/martial disparity. By also making most of the actions discrete you eliminate many of the issues where you combine feats and items and class features and combine into Voltron.
ryric wrote: Eliminate the free spells at level up for spellbook users, after spell level 6. Require them to find in-game any 7th-9th level spells so you can control exactly what they have access to. Polar ray and power word kill can be useful but don't have the narrative power of other options. Then people will play spontaneous casters. If you use the other options, and still restrict spellbooks, then you still will encourage people to go with non spellbook classes.
Philo Pharynx,
I agree it is a different philosophy and one I did not enjoy at all as it just seemed to lose the differences and it seemed to me almost every class was generic and could almost be substituted for another. Please note that this was my impression upon playing 2 6 hour games and having read the book.
Q1)
"I think that if high level spells are the power, then don't affect lower levels."
Are you saying that do not adjust anything but the level at which you gain higher level spells and thus leave blanks in the progression?
(I also assume that you meant problem in place of power but if you meant something else please explain)
Q2)
"How about multi-classing to get higher level spells?"
Can you explain a bit more on how you envision this working? Are you saying just delay all higher level spells for all caster and then make special prestige class that have access to higher level spells? Is that not essentially a more generic version of extending each class by 5 levels and in effect losing some class flavor? (As a side note this might be what they do if they chose the expand each class option as IMHO it will be quite a bit of work, but then some people really enjoy and do not mind doing stuff like this.)
Thanks, and once I better understand your thought I will relay them on.
MDC
Is the concern just spells, or every high level ability?
Have they considered doubling or tripling the XP required for levels 10-20 or whatever?
Or is the main concern the martial/caster disparity?
just play e8 it would be so much less work
Lady J:
I am sorry E8? Are you saying D&D 5th is E8? If so I do not think that will solve their issues (I do not know a lot about it but I assume that they have looked into it and I know quite a few people I trust that are not keen on D&D 5th).
I do fully agree it looks to be a huge amount of work but so far from my understanding they are either going to try the must multi-class idea or extend each class 5 levels to 25th level. I really do not know when the game is going to start but from memory a few months ago they said in the first part of 2017, but that may change also.
SmiloDan:
The info I received from the guy was something like this; "Do you have an idea to help out these problems we are having in our game; level capstone abilities and power level of 7th through 9th level spells, upper level power disparity of martial vs casters, (as well as a couple of other issues that I did not get permission from them to talk about)"
So I asked for some more info, they play PF into the mid 20th level's often, group size can be from 4-10 people (IIRC), occasionally 2 GM's when the group grows beyond 6, do not have troubled modding (which I knew from experience from another system) and average party make-up.
Then I put my thinking hat on, thought, re-thought and sent some ideas and batted some others back and forth.
Then I asked if I could ask the forum if they could help see any problem with the must-multi-class idea, (which took a while to get approved as they were not too keen on the idea) and I have been relaying the info from you all back to them.
I have received a little feedback from them but most of it has been for the idea of must multi-class and extending class's to 25th. I agree the class extension is going to a lot of work (and they may love it, I am glad I am not a part of it) and the must multi-class is an idea that does not take any work.
Double or Triple EXP:
I did not ask them about this but I will forward it to them as something that was suggested.
MDC
E8 (and E6) are playing styles or alternate versions of PF.
Basically, you stop getting levels after level 8 (or 6), and instead get extra feats instead of new class abilities and spells and stuff. Some custom feats provide the option of getting new class abilities and spells and stuff (like a feat to cast one 5th level spell, or a feat to get a 2nd iterative attack or improved evasion or improved Channel Energy, etc.).
If their only concern is the martial/caster disparity at high levels, and play to levels 25+ often, I think my idea of improving spells at a higher level is probably the easiest solution.
For example:
Levels 1-10, normal.
Beginning at level 11, spells per day increases at half the normal rate.
11. No new spells.
12. Spells per day as 11th.
13. No new spells.
14. Spells per day as 12th.
15. No new spells.
16. Spells per day as 13th.
Etc.
It's a pretty easy conversion, and it can also be applied to 6/9 casters and 4/9 casters if needed.
You might need to mess around with it a bit, like have it start at 12th level if you want 6th level spells in a timely manner.
SmiloDan wrote: E8 (and E6) are playing styles or alternate versions of PF.
Basically, you stop getting levels after level 8 (or 6), and instead get extra feats instead of new class abilities and spells and stuff. Some custom feats provide the option of getting new class abilities and spells and stuff (like a feat to cast one 5th level spell, or a feat to get a 2nd iterative attack or improved evasion or improved Channel Energy, etc.).
this^
Thanks for the info on E8, is there a place where I can download the rules to take a look at them.
SmiloDan,
I will pass on your idea but I provided something close to this and they did not like it. But maybe they have changed their mind in the mean time.
I recommended them doing some testing at various levels to see the change(s) any rule change would have on how they experience the game. As you can expect at higher levels the CR values can move a bit depending on your group, play style, items, etc so this would defiantly be something I would want to test out before hand and not jump into blindly.
I am sort of curious to see what their experience is though and what it actually did or did not change when they get done in a year or so.
Thanks again.
MDC
Mark Carlson 255 wrote: I was contacted by a friend to try and help out with a perceived problem and after getting their ok to post about it I was going to try and put the power of the forum to help them out.
Problem: How to reduce high level spell casters over all power at high levels and over all power of cap stone abilities.
(Note: You may not have a problem with these in you game but the person who contacted me does so I put my thinking cap on to try and help)
Solution:
(Note not my first or second as those required too much work for the person (and I agree) but my third)
A PC must multi-class by every 5th level. So at 5th level the max you could have is 4 levels in one class and 1 in another, 10th level would be 8 in one and 2 in another, 15th would be 12 in one and 3 in another, 20th would be 16 in one and 4 in another and at 25th level you could take your 20th level in a class.
Why it solves the problem:
By requiring multi-classing you push back the cap stone ability to 25th level (obviously the easiest) but with requiring the spell casters to multi-class also you also delay their access to essentially high level spells so they do not have them to deal with the higher CR obstacles.
Problems it causes:
The main problem I can see this causing is that delayed spell casting classes also have their spell progression delayed.
The second problem is that it pushes the game to 25th level, which they did not have a problem with but it should be mentioned as some people might.
Other Benefits:
The main other benefits I see is often PC's and PC concepts benefit from s dip into at least one other class and this requirement would essentially add flexibility to other PC concepts while still reducing spell casters access to high level spells.
Comments good and bad are welcome, with the bad being more helpful as I am no expert in the PF system (as I told the person) and they are simply seeking info to help them out in a planned long running home game.
Thanks
MDC
Has your friend considered adopting an alternate magic system instead of imposing build restrictions on your group? Spheres of Power is a highly reviewed 3pp magic system that goes a long ways towards balancing out spellcasting power without dictating what the character can do when they level up. Akashic Mysteries is an at-will magic system that trades high level spell spikes for daylong consistency and using it for your magic can also serve to mitigate issues caused by higher level spells.
It would also be remiss not to note that Paizo has a wealth of great 6-level casters who can fill into most roles very well and naturally have lower ceilings but are created to operate well within their respective niches. Nixing druids in favor of hunters or clerics in favor of warpriests and/or inquistors can do quite a bit all by itself.
Ssalarn,
I do not play in the group.
I do not know what magic system they use or have used but I will ask and send them your thoughts.
I do know that they have played other games with vastly different styles of magic, namely WOD Mage and I do know in the past the "group" as a who spent quite a bit on RPG stuff.
Thanks
MDC
Mark Carlson 255 wrote: Thanks for the info on E8, is there a place where I can download the rules to take a look at them. I know of three versions:
1) You cap the level to 8. Every 10,000 further XP the PC gets another feat they qualify for. I'd use 10k because E6 uses 5k and you get twice the XP for +2 CR. Further modifications can be done later, but in doubt I'd avoid them.
2) You build on the original E6 guide.
3) You build on the expanded P6 codex. Personally, I find it an abomination alone for offering Leadership, but tastes differ.
SheepishEidolon,
Thanks for the info I will look it over but from just the sound of it I know I do not really like it (but I have not read it so I reserve judgment until I have the full idea digested).
But they may like it so I will send it to them so they can make a decision on their own.
I sent the info about alt magic systems as well as had a chance to just look a little at them myself and I think that they are probably familiar with at least one of those products as from memory they as a group spend quite a bit on game stuff and often use products from other systems in various forms for other games.
I have not head back from them but it is getting close to the holidays so I do not expect much.
Thanks again.
MDC
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I just had a chance to read the two articles and I can say that it would not work for any game of mine but again I did forward it to them so they can make that decision and I really appreciate your input and the info.
Thanks
MDC
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
