Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DIESCUMDIE 10-20-06, 04:52 AM	(Very reguler posters might notice I previously attempted a house rule to fix magic. Short answer, dm didn't go for it, despite whining.) Magic (vancian) is too powerful. (Except perhaps the warmage). Casters tend to use spells with abandon, because basically, the spells per day limit is meaningless and is not a way to overcome their superpower. So heres a quick painless fix; -If a player casts a spell, wild-shapes or expends a spell slot, they lose experience points according to the spell level. Lvl1 10xp Lvl2 80xp Lvl3 200xp Lvl4 600xp Lvl5 1200xp Lvl6 2000xp Lvl7 3400xp Lvl8 5100xp Lvl9 7300xp -This does not include using magic items. This number is halved if the spell is useable at will or spontaneously. Casters can still cast their low level spells nearly as regulerly as before, but not their high level spells. Casters level progression is slowed down, effectively providing a level adjustment for being a caster. Wands and sorcerors will see more use. Fighters and such no longer suck noodles. Casting a spell becomes a serious event.
rydi123 10-20-06, 05:53 AM	good gods! i want magic nerfed as much as the next person, but with those rules you might as well just remove it completely. switch to different charts with fewer spells/day, switch to spell points, give everything SR, anything but making the only real class ability available to casters cost levels! you could even increase the xp required to go up in level (second ed style), and it would still be easier. not to mention the irritation of bookeeping for a caster that uses magic on any regular basis.
Ashanti 10-20-06, 08:51 AM	Love it. I can see problems with people who love their primary casters but if you sell it as a low magic campaign I don't see why it should not work. That said, most people here will probably hate it. It will change the nature of the game (which I'm all for) but I would be impressed if many people said: "good on you mate". Where did you get you formula for the xp cost?
Lina_Inverse 10-20-06, 12:45 PM	You are an *******. D&D is first and formost fun. Being punished for helping my party is not fun. Being punished just for existing is not fun. Being punished for doing ANYTHING AT ALL is not fun. I repeat, you are an *******.
DIESCUMDIE 10-20-06, 01:58 PM	You are an *******. D&D is first and formost fun. Being punished for helping my party is not fun. Being punished just for existing is not fun. Being punished for doing ANYTHING AT ALL is not fun. I repeat, you are an *******. Grow up troll. Nobodies hurting anyone, you are trying to though. Casters can still cast, they just have to do so sparingly. They can cast low level spells often withut suffering much and cast from scrolls, wands and rods freely. Generally speaking if the caster casts too many spells and falls behind he will catch up because of the way xp work anyway. If you think the numbers are too high (remember spontaneous casters just pay half the xp), say that, don't accuse me of trying to jump on kittens. Spell casters need a level adjustment to make them level with other casters anyway. I did spell level cubed x 10 xp. Then rounded it to the nearest 100xp. To make book keeping easier just tally up the spells as you cast them (no harder than tallying hp) then work out your new xp afterwards. Jeez this is the forum for posting house-rules in, I cant see why people doing so should upset you so much. Oh no! The full casting classes won't be twice as powerful as all the other classes anymore, the tragedy.
rydi123 10-20-06, 05:36 PM	hopefully i just showed my shocked disapproval and did not cross over into rude... and don't mind lina, she/he/it is just that way... anyway, if you want a low magic setting, those rules are fine, but enforcing those kind of restrictions on a character whose only abilities are casting is just mean. why would you even bother taking a caster as a pc? sure there is some roleplay value to it, but even that is limited, as you really are impeded in your interaction w/the game at all. if this were going to be used, i would almost say that magic use should be worked as an incantations system, or a feat system or something. because a wizard in this system has nothing to play with. no skills, no BAB, no HP, and no saves. and if they cast the amount of spells they would normally cast in a day to fight monsters etc, they will be many levels behind the party by the end of the game (unless of course you don't adjust for what you find here, http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=695040 , in which case your efforts might all be for naught...
OneSidedDice 10-20-06, 06:47 PM	I don't really see this being a good solution at all. It pretty much cripples casters. If you feel that primary spellcasters are too powerful, I think there are much less heavy-handed options to implement. I can't ever see wanting to play a primary caster, even a sorcerer or bad (assuming they get the half discount for "spontaneous" casting, which I don't quite understand). Having to pay XP to use class features you need XP to gain doesn't really make sense to me. I think your assertion that casters would catch up to the rest of the party in XP because they're lower level is flawed. This tends to be true over a relatively long period of time for characters a level or so behind the party that aren't continuing to lose XP. Your system would basically force a spellcaster to either burn precious XP to help the party out, or contribute a wizardly crossbow bolt, unless he wants to spend all his money investing in wands and scrolls, which is no fun. Assuming these top-of-my-head figures are correct (someone might want to double-check my math here, because I don't have my books with me): A level 7 wizard is capable of casting level 4 spells, which cost 600 XP a pop using your system. I believe a CR 7 monster is worth 2100 XP, or 525 XP each, to a party consisting of four level seven characters. So, if the 7th-level wizard wants to pull his weight in a fight against a CR 7 monster to save the party's bacon by using his most powerful spell available, it'll cost him 600 XP to participate in a fight from which he'll earn 525 XP. The difference becomes even more disparate when the party nears the peak of its power. Again, assuming my memory functions correctly, a 17th-level wizard is capable of casting a 9th-level spell, which you price at 7300 XP. For participating in an encounter against a CR 17 creature, he and his three buddies will earn 1275 XP each. If the wizard wants to help his friends out by throwing his most powerful spell available at the creature, he'll lose 6025 XP during the fight. I'm sure you can see why this wouldn't be good. This is also assuming that the party wizard is going to be levelled equivalently to the rest of the party, which would never happen with this system unless he did hardly any spellcasting for his adventuring career. This is also assuming the wizard limits himself to casting exactly one of his most powerful spells during each encounter. Basically, you're forcing primary casters to avoid using their only real class feature, and effectively forcing a delay on their most powerful spells, because using even one of them will cause the caster to lose XP in every fight he participates in from level 7-8 and beyond. Magic items are still available, but you have to consider the impact these rules would have on your campaign world: There's almost no incentive to be a caster. Magic items are going to be even rarer, because very few people are going to want to spend the time to level up in a class that forces them to spend XP to use their class features, then take a feat and spend more time, XP, and money to make something. What few items are available are going to be quite expensive. So, casters basically have four options, the way I see it: 1) Accept the fact that you're going to constantly lose XP for filling your role in the party, try to use your most powerful spells, and realize that you're soon going to be losing levels quickly. 2) Try to contribute in combat by using your lower level spells. Never use your most powerful spells unless it's absolutely necessary. You're soon going to find that as you fall in levels, you're going to be throwing spells so weak at monsters that they won't make a difference; there are very few low-level spells that can consistently make higher-level monsters pause, and your falling caster level compared to the average party level and average CR of monsters the group is facing will make punching through SR increasingly difficult. 3) Spend a disproportionate amount of money purchasing rare perishable magic items, like wands and scrolls, to try to be able to contribute. 4) Don't cast spells. Stick with the crossbow, unless you absolutely, positively must cast a spell. The idea of a "great and powerful wizard who only uses his powers when there is no other recourse" might make for an interesting character in a novel, but not a fun D&D character. Oh, and that's also completely ignoring the fact that this has no effect on creatures that don't derive their abilities from PC class levels. You can't decrease a devil's XP total for using its greater teleport ability, or a dragon's for using its natural spellcasting. Basically (this got a lot longer than I thought it would, sorry!), if you think primary casters are overpowered, that's definitely your perrogative. Personally, I've not noticed them to be so blatanly overpowered compared to non-casters, but that result seems atypical. If you feel that you need to address this power gap somehow, I think there are much better ways to do it. I know as a player, I'd absolutely hate these rules, even if I wanted to play a fighter.
Ashanti 10-20-06, 08:10 PM	You are an *******. D&D is first and formost fun. Being punished for helping my party is not fun. Being punished just for existing is not fun. Being punished for doing ANYTHING AT ALL is not fun. I repeat, you are an *******. Dude that SO not cool.
Reversefigure4 10-20-06, 09:54 PM	Scroll and Magic Items would also cost more - after all, the caster is having to give up that EXTRA xp in addition to the usual xp and time... so even your party casters will find it prohibitively expensive to buy scrolls. Assuming this applies to divine spells as well, it must really suck to be the group healer. Constantly weaker than everyone else because you try to stop them from dying. Given it's probably cheaper in terms of XP to let them die and then Raise Dead them than it is to Heal them...
deanruel 10-20-06, 10:08 PM	You are an *******. D&D is first and formost fun. Being punished for helping my party is not fun. Being punished just for existing is not fun. Being punished for doing ANYTHING AT ALL is not fun. I repeat, you are an *******. Dude that SO not cool. I second Ashanti's statements. Grow up or don't show up on mature, adult boards.
TheDarkLord 10-20-06, 10:12 PM	You are an *******. D&D is first and formost fun. Being punished for helping my party is not fun. Being punished just for existing is not fun. Being punished for doing ANYTHING AT ALL is not fun. I repeat, you are an *******. I have to agree, If you want to nerf spellcasters that badly use d20 Modern's spell classes. They only allow 5 levels worth of spells. Secondly, Unless your casters in your group are cheating, those spell slots run out pretty fast on you many times throughout the campaign. I've been trying ways to increase the lasting power of the wizard (not cleric or druid) so he wont sputter out too fast.
DIESCUMDIE 10-22-06, 03:09 PM	The idea of a "great and powerful wizard who only uses his powers when there is no other recourse" might make for an interesting character in a novel, but not a fun D&D character. Thats pretty much what I was going for. If you want to cast regulerly you can be a warlock, incarnate or some such which are pretty balanced. But the wiz, druid etc are problematic because their spells are powerful and the spells per day limit is inneffective as a drawback. So I tried to make their spells less regulerly used, as in the novelistic fashion. Considering the power of spells, the only way to balance wiz's is to limit how often they can cast. I still think a wiz or druid would be competitive if you saved your spells for when you were under real threat. But I can understand everyones complaint that holding back isn't so much fun. Yes if you wanted to shoot to the dome with your caster this would make it impossible to do so effectively. But if you wanted to save your spells for 'solution' spells; fly against melee monsters, improve invis against monsters without good spot. Still to my mind a solution to super powered casters is required, and should be simple enough to leave the majority of the spells in one piece. Back to the drawing board I guess. Ideas: Obligatory major blood line Reduce spells known other stuff (I didn't worry about monsters as I don't really think their are problems with the cr system).
OneSidedDice 10-22-06, 05:27 PM	Considering the power of spells, the only way to balance wiz's is to limit how often they can cast. The game has already done this. I don't really see how you can get the impression that wizards are too powerful based on their spells per day. In my experience, this is an extremely effective limit. Wizards will run dry pretty quickly, especially if they're using their highest-level spells. A good wizard will get three of those as soon as they're available: one base, one for a high Int, and one if he's specialized. Those won't last very long. Again, if you think casters are overpowered and want to reduce them in power, that's definitely your perrogative, but I think you definitely overcompensated. A spellcaster should still be a fun class to play. I don't know what you mean by "required major bloodline", but I don't think reducing the spells known is really a good solution, either. The whole point of wizards compared to sorcerers is that they are limited only by the size of their spellbooks in what spells they know. If you reduce that capacity, then wizards are limited in spells known and have fewer spell slots per day than sorcerers, so there would be very little reason to play one.
BevisIscariot 10-22-06, 08:40 PM	As a DM, I too am having a problem with spellcasters being overpowered. The party consists of a wizard, a cleric, a bard, a fighter and a ranger (all at or around 10th lvl). The wizard and the cleric wreck shop on anything I throw against them; the fighter does O.K. but nowhere near as effective as the casters; the ranger and bard are pitifully behind, do inconsequential damage, don't hit that often and get demolished regularly--and the guys who play them are starting to get frustrated. I can't say I know how to even begin to fix the disparity -- although one of the problems is how easily a caster can augment his/her already powerful complement of spells with endless scrolls. but even without scrolls the casters would still be too powerful. I can't say anything I've heard yet has seemed like a really good fix to me.
Ashanti 10-23-06, 08:59 AM	Thats pretty much what I was going for. If you want to cast regulerly you can be a warlock, incarnate or some such which are pretty balanced. But the wiz, druid etc are problematic because their spells are powerful and the spells per day limit is inneffective as a drawback. So I tried to make their spells less regulerly used, as in the novelistic fashion. Considering the power of spells, the only way to balance wiz's is to limit how often they can cast. I still think a wiz or druid would be competitive if you saved your spells for when you were under real threat. But I can understand everyones complaint that holding back isn't so much fun. Yes if you wanted to shoot to the dome with your caster this would make it impossible to do so effectively. But if you wanted to save your spells for 'solution' spells; fly against melee monsters, improve invis against monsters without good spot. Still to my mind a solution to super powered casters is required, and should be simple enough to leave the majority of the spells in one piece. Back to the drawing board I guess. Ideas: Obligatory major blood line Reduce spells known other stuff (I didn't worry about monsters as I don't really think their are problems with the cr system). One method I use when I DM Dark Sun is to use rules for spell components. You have your pouch that can hold 100 Spell Component Points. The cost for each point in gold is set by your campaign. Each time a spell is cast that has a M component it reduces the the PCP total. The formula for this total is exactly the same as a Psions PP cost for powers. The wizard ends up spending money to get spell off (up to you how much) and has the added RP element of managing a working Spell Pouch. Each pouch ways about 5 pounds. You can have loads of pouches if you want. What do you think?
DIESCUMDIE 10-23-06, 11:30 AM	If anyone had the impression I ment specifically wizards, I meant all full spell casters. Comparing their powers to those of the dragonfire adept, incarnate or warlock or to a fighter, rogue or other such non magical class, and the difference is obvious. The only time this is not obvious is if you think of spells as merely a way of dealing damage, for which they are not that special. The problem is all the spells which have more odd effects, which often wreck games. Anyway I think my previously mentioned system would bring them down to the same level of power as other classes. But it seems to run the risk of being booring. These are some alternatives, I imagine allowing the player to chose his own handicap might work best. Must wait after casting a certain duration (12 divided by character level hours for example) Half spells known (good flavour for sorcerous, doesn't work on divine casters)
OneSidedDice 10-23-06, 01:26 PM	The problem is all the spells which have more odd effects, which often wreck games. Can you give us some examples of when this has occurred? I've never seen it happen. In the game I currently play in, one of our casters is a wizard/cleric of Farlanghn/mystic theurge. He took the Mobile Spellcasting feat from Complete Adventurer, so his specialty is bounding around the battlefield using his 50 ft speed and casting support spells for us. He's excellent at using battlefield control spells and spells that don't deal direct damage. I've never seen him "wreck" our game. Must wait after casting a certain duration (12 divided by character level hours for example) Half spells known (good flavour for sorcerous, doesn't work on divine casters) Again, spellcasters should still be fun to play. Having to wait hours between casting spells is arguably even worse than your initial idea. At least if they have to pay XP, they have the option of using spells as frequently as they want. Even a 20th-level caster has to wait 36 minutes between casting spells. How is that fun? "Okay, guys, I just healed the fighter. Everyone take 36 until I can do it again." Not counting 0-level spells, the most spells a sorcerer knows of any given spell level is five. Limiting sorcerers to one or two spells of every spell level would make for a very boring character, and a very difficult character to play, because you'd be utterly worthless in any situation where your one or two spells don't apply. Sorcerers have enough trouble with variety as is. I don't see gimping your players being "good flavour".
kadeity 10-23-06, 01:41 PM	Scissors: OMG NERF ROCK! Paper: I think rock is fine. does vancian suck? yes. does xp cost for spells suck more? super yes. and the comment about the warmage... wow. your extra not knowing what your talking about. if anyone uses spells with abandon its the warmage. its DESIGNED to. want low to no magic? look for that. magic isnt overpowered. fighters are underpowered. put book of the nine swords next to your phb and see if you still think your wizard is too big. wanna make non vancian casters? make them work like truenamers... or you could even make spells function EXACTLY LIKE maneuvers from book of the nine swords. want low magic? try no magic. want to make up some crazy illogical xp punishment for doign what your class is made to do.... then do what your doing. but keep in mind... how do casters get xp? casting spells. how do they lose xp? making items, and if you ahve it your way, by doing anything. ever. realize also that your new method makes any prestige class for casters... actually become a WASTE of time. and since the xp costs dont scale, if a caster ever does make it to high enough levels, he can literally finally use his low level spells, except now its practically at will. you...yeah... are pretty much not so smart at all even a little.
Exquisite_Flopilidopilies 10-23-06, 08:43 PM	I think the balancing mechanic at work in the spell slots per day limit is not really that wizards (or divine casters) just can't act more than X times per day; it's that they need to take that into account when choosing spells and therefore can't prepare spells useful for every situation at the outset. It's this having to call your shots that I find more limiting than the total number of spells. I mean, at 5th level lightning bolt is pretty cool but you can't put it in every slot. What if you don't meet anything you need to zap that day, but you really needed to dispel some stuff? It's not the magic four encounters per day vs. 3 top-level spell slots that really make the difference, it's that you have to prepare for four encounters of various types, plus some utility activity, each day, whether you use them or not. I don't know anyone who plays a caster that doesn't make tough choices when it comes to preparing spells (even if they leave open slots for fast preparation), deciding to loose them, or ends up always using them all up. They're just not all as useful as they seem on paper, all the time. If casters seem overpowered, it could be you're observing them in a setting where their weaknesses aren't exploited (so they have to guard themselves and others, too) and they aren't having to do a lot of different things. It might not be a class balance issue per se.
DIESCUMDIE 10-24-06, 10:30 AM	I'm sorry but I'm not interested in discussing wether spellcasters are overpowered. Ask about elsewhere on this forum and people will be happy to explain it to you. Its seems bizzare to me that anyone would assume that instead of doing something to make the few overpowered classes the same level as the other classes its a better idea to try to make all the other classes better. If it makes them less fun, surely all the other classes are less fun already seing as there is very little they can do that compares to what a full caster can do. But if it makes you feel big to criticise for its own sake, knock yourself out, actually trying to contribute wouldn't make you seem nearly as smart.
rydi123 10-24-06, 10:36 AM	i am curious (no, really i am, not just being a jerk here) what aspects of casting are to powerful in your opinion? i agree with you that they are to powerful, but only when they are abused/optimized (which word you use depends on who you ask). the super buffers, the novas, things like that. but really, a base wizard that is decked out for utility, or a battlemage without wierd damage loops, well, they have never caused disruption for me. the most trouble i have had has come from wands and scrolls, but that can be solved by altering creation feats.
calvinNhobbes 10-24-06, 11:46 AM	One thought I had was trying to use the spell point variant system, but significantly reduce the number of spell points per day to like 40% (~100). The caster must decide if the 9th level spell at 17 points is really worth ~4-15 lower level spells. Casters would not be able to fire their big guns as often, but they could use their lower level spells almost all day long. I was also thinking of giving a small boost to spell points at lower levels to allow casters a little more staying power initially and to make up for the high level nerf.
DIESCUMDIE 10-24-06, 02:38 PM	Imagine you want to build a character/monster designed to kill/threaten casters: Well getting the first attack in would help. Except how do you get around, scrye, contingency, alarm etc. Generally speaking a wizard will know about you before you know about them. Even if you do get the first turn, you have to kill the wizard then otherwise the wizard can simply teleport away. Even if you have spell resistence or immunity, and have an antimagic field your not immune. When you get into combat the wizard can fly, teleport turn invisable etc etc. While it is true a wizard cant do all these things at once, it is impossible to plan for what he will do. Really though the combat optimization forum will be able to explain it better. Even at low levels most monsters have low will saves so sleep or such will take them down easier than a fighter can. Spells per day is meaningless because rope trick and teleport means you choose when you fight and when you rest. I wizard can basically do anything another class can but better. -------- I like the spell points idea. Though it is probably less of a hinderence than you think because of rope trick and such.
calvinNhobbes 10-24-06, 02:45 PM	Spells per day is meaningless because rope trick and teleport means you choose when you fight and when you rest. This part can easily be circumvented by good DMing. I try to make as many quests/adventures time dependent. PCs: Well that's a dozen demons down but a dozen more to go, but now we're low on spells. Time to retreat and rest up. DM: Uh...don't forget that portal lets more demons in over time. You need to finish off the rest and close the portal. PCs: No problem, it's just 8 hours. We'll finish it tomorrow. Party teleports to a safe haven and returns the next day. PCs: Holy crap! What's with all the demons. DM: I warned you.
DIESCUMDIE 10-25-06, 10:23 AM	This part can easily be circumvented by good DMing. I try to make as many quests/adventures time dependent. PCs: Well that's a dozen demons down but a dozen more to go, but now we're low on spells. Time to retreat and rest up. DM: Uh...don't forget that portal lets more demons in over time. You need to finish off the rest and close the portal. PCs: No problem, it's just 8 hours. We'll finish it tomorrow. Party teleports to a safe haven and returns the next day. PCs: Holy crap! What's with all the demons. DM: I warned you. The fact that you have to do that shows the problem. If their is a rogue in the party you should throw a few traps their way now and again (even if their isn't you could throw in some minor traps though). Undead for clerics and paladins etc. If they have a caster you have to make every adventure that you want to challenge them time dependent. Not to mention how many perfectly good plots this ruins. I think general consensus on the boards agrees with me. I also think the appearence of more magic variants such as the dragonfire adept, and dragon shaman shows wizards are also thinking this way. New solution posting in new thread, see you there.
calvinNhobbes 10-25-06, 10:43 AM	The fact that you have to do that shows the problem. I disagree. Last time I checked almost EVERY heroic type movie, book, plot, etc, involves a time constraint of some kind. Any half way intelligent bad guy worth anything will take advantage of the extra time the party has given him. I'm not saying that all spells are balanced because obviously they are not. I'm just saying this statement: Spells per day is meaningless because rope trick and teleport means you choose when you fight and when you rest. should not be happening in any game with a good DM. The pressure should constantly be on. It's and adventure, not a walk in the park!
Reversefigure4 10-25-06, 07:29 PM	Every adventure should be time dependent, to some extent. If they spent 3 weeks going through the forest because they stop and rest all the time, instead of one week, the odds of them being attacked by more roaming animals increase. If they go halfway through a dungeon, then leave to rest, the monsters won't sit quietly back on their laurels. They'll plan an ambush, or leave the area, or something, not simply wait in their pre-planned positions.
DIESCUMDIE 10-26-06, 01:01 PM	Yes maybe no but whatever- this thread was about solutions for overpowered casters, not the debate on wether casters are over powered. If you want to say they're not start a new thread or engage in one of the many threads specifically about these issues. Anyway on the issue of a specific rules fix for casters I've started a new thread "faster levelling". There are plenty of ways you can disagree with me there.
starfire311 10-26-06, 01:13 PM	You are an *******. D&D is first and formost fun. Being punished for helping my party is not fun. Being punished just for existing is not fun. Being punished for doing ANYTHING AT ALL is not fun. I repeat, you are an *******. I have to agree with lina here, even if she did go a bit overboard, the sentiment is correct... why would you play a spellcaster in this system? all this really says is you have banned spellcasters. having to pay 10xp to cast a spell when you have 0xp is rediculous.
okaynowa 10-26-06, 02:04 PM	Making casters pay for spellcasting is a sound design principle because it forces conservation of power, risk assessment, and tactical thinking. The question becomes, what is a reasonable cost for the spellcaster? Whatever the spellcaster pays, the pool he pays it out of should be limited in size (so he has to watch how often he casts), increase with level (so that higher level casters have more choices than lower level casters), and renew itself at a fixed rate (so the caster can plan ahead). Paying hit points would be a reasonable cost, and there's a precedent in fantasy literature (and many gaming systems) for spellcasting being physically exhausting or dangerous. A spellcaster would have to balance the benefit of a spell versus the risk of not having enough hit points left for the rest of the encounter. The caster also knows that if he can just make it eo the end of the day, he can recover his hit points by resting and healing up with everybody else. Paying ability points (say, 1 point of Con for this spell, 2 for that, etc) would work much the same. Cast a spell, but reduce your hit points and Fort save (or whichever). Again, ability damage and status effects (like fatigue and exhaustion) can be recovered at a fixed (but improvable) rate, so the spellcaster can plan ahead. Paying experience points is not so hot an idea primarily because XP is not a resource that renews itself at a fixed rate. The DM awards XP when challenges are met and overcome-- there's a lot of whim and campaign circumstance involved. And ultimately, the spellcaster who pays XP to cast spells to overcome challenges will net less XP for overcoming the challenge in the way the class is supposed to-- by casting spells. Which leads me to another thought: Teleporting away from danger, taking out the enemy before the fighters can take a swing... the problem in each of these situations seems to be the spell itself. One of the design principles behind the (relatively recent) warlock is the idea that unlimited use of a spell is not game breaking if the spell in question isn't an all-powerful answer to everything. If rope trick is too good a refuge for low-level parties, maybe rope trick shouldn't be available to them. If save-or-die spells steal the fighter's thunder once too often, maybe save-or-die spells should go away. Said DIESCUMDIE:Magic (vancian) is too powerful.And I agree-- but it's the magic that's too powerful, not the magic-user. Remove a few problem spells, and you may see several problems disappear.
rydi123 10-26-06, 04:35 PM	Teleporting away from danger, taking out the enemy before the fighters can take a swing... the problem in each of these situations seems to be the spell itself. One of the design principles behind the (relatively recent) warlock is the idea that unlimited use of a spell is not game breaking if the spell in question isn't an all-powerful answer to everything. If rope trick is too good a refuge for low-level parties, maybe rope trick shouldn't be available to them. If save-or-die spells steal the fighter's thunder once too often, maybe save-or-die spells should go away. Said DIESCUMDIE: Quote: Magic (vancian) is too powerful. And I agree-- but it's the magic that's too powerful, not the magic-user. Remove a few problem spells, and you may see several problems disappear. that is what occured to me. go here for my take on it: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=727764
Pellanor 10-27-06, 11:08 AM	I still think a wiz or druid would be competitive if you saved your spells for when you were under real threat.So what constitutes a Real Threat? Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that it's something that you need to cast all available spells in order to overcome. A 20th level Specialist Wizard with a 30 Int (not hard to get), has the following spells per day: 0x4, 1x8, 2x8, 3x7, 4x7, 5x7, 6x7, 7x6, 8x6, 9x6 That means that if they cast all of their spells per day, it'll cost them 123,520 experience. That much experience loss will reduce them to 12th level. So in order to cast all your most powerful spells once, at 20th level, you have to spend 8 levels in order to do so. That's garbage. You've gone way to heavy on the Nerf stick here.
kadeity 10-27-06, 08:17 PM	i apologize for flaming earlier... i was peeved at the idea of paying xp for a class ability. HOWEVER, i agree that the vancian system is flawed, and i have started another post discussing my proposed solution. please take a look and let me know what you think. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10483459#post10483459
Reversefigure4 10-27-06, 08:50 PM	The problem is that this not only hurts the casters, but the entire party. The healers won't be able to heal without it costing them XP, so they won't. The utility wizards - the guys who cast Fly on the fighter so he can get up there and help - won't do it, because the best solution is to just run away instead.
Mysticaloctopus 10-29-06, 02:05 PM	Scissors: OMG NERF ROCK! Paper: I think rock is fine. Sigged. Now, onto Diescum's fix: The XP cost is too high. Way too high! I mean, Wish is the A-Bomb of magic. Well, no, it's a more versative A-bomb, but still, it's rarely used, powerful and quite final. It also has a heavy price tag: 5,000 XP, minimum. You want to attatck a cost of More than that to all 9th level spells? That's like saying "All spells have a material cost: One arm and one leg, of the caster". Magic doesn't need a nerf like this! Maybe some spells are overpowered, but most of them are great in certain situations! As DMs, it is our responibility to give challenges. If you know your player has Wall of Stone, then you know he can bridge chasms of a certain width! If you say "Oh No, he's magically bridged that chasm and is CHEATING, you've just overlooked his resources. Not every challenge should be impossible, but remeber what your PCs can do before giving them a game and it shouldn't come down to "Magic is overpowered".
Just another user 10-29-06, 03:01 PM	Why don't just slow the spell recovery? A caster only recover a certain number of spell levels every day, if he cast more than that, he'll need more time to be back at full strength. You know, kinda like they did in the previous editions.
kadeity 11-01-06, 09:02 AM	DIESCUMDIE id like to see your comment on my attempt at a revised magic system. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10479132#post10479132
mlasater 11-01-06, 10:52 PM	Restricting spellcasters by gimping them will never work (unless you gimp them to complete uselessness, in which case no one plays a caster - if that is your goal, then just ban casters and move along.) The way to restrict casters is to make the restrictions one the PLAYERS impose on themselves. They'll happily go along & never complain because they are doing to themselves. An example (this is from a 2nd edition, heavily house-ruled campaign & an example of the law of unintended consquences): I was playing in a campaign where casters were able to memorize double their normal allotment of spells by doing the rest/spell memorization thing in the mystical mountains (no you could teleport there & they were full of magical monsters). But only there & spell slots didn't reset in other places until the character was under his normal allotment. Once the characters go mid-levelish & made a trip to the mountains all the spellcasters memorized their double number of spells. Back in normal adventuring - the casters didn't want to use their spells because they had these bonus spells & they wouldn't reset. Everyone hoarded their spells because it took time & effort to reset the bonus spells. Now the characters were more powerful casters, yet used less magic. (Admittedly, this was second edition & virtually everyone was multiclass so the casters had options in combat besides spells.) No one every complained about being gimped, the whole thing was a bonus. They could have just used up the bonus spells & gone back to the standard spell allotment or ignored the whole thing & used only the standard allotment - but they wanted the extra power & thus had to save it when for when it was really necessary. And no, these weren't some super RP type players, some of them were serious powergamers. I am not actually suggesting this system. It was designed for a specific world & a specific campaign. What I am saying is that attempts to limit the "power" of casters won't necessarily work unless the players cooperate. You take something away, the players feel cheated (quite possibly rightly), so they try that much harder to make up for what they have lost & the cycle continues.
Ghenesh 11-02-06, 08:48 AM	Scissors: OMG NERF ROCK! Paper: I think rock is fine. Lol(th)! An absolute siggy. mlasater, your example is very specific and doesn't prove anything in this discussion, because is your particular experience, in fact, my experience is the total opposite... the moment i gave my characters expendable spell power (potions, scrolls, temporary spell slots, etc) they use it right away... they have gotten to their second encounter in a day totally wasted and have to depend on the non-casting players, for, sometimes, awful results. And i don't make them fight ubber challenges, i'm very careful selecting adequate CR (by not trusting the CR printed in the monster description). As mentioned above by Just another user, slowing spell recovery is one option, the other one is limiting spells per day a bit further, specially on the huge spells per day list of Cleric and Druids, those classes almost never use all of their spells in a day. About the XP Cost posted by the OP... it is absolutely ridiculous, it does not only nerfs spell casters so badly that they will never get new levels, it also nerf the fun of playing an spellcaster. Even using a chart were they must pay Spell Level x 10 experience points for casting a spell is too much. If you're going to implement it anyway, you should consider using a cost like Spell level points of experience, not more.
smileypete 11-02-06, 09:04 AM	Why don't just slow the spell recovery? A caster only recover a certain number of spell levels every day, if he cast more than that, he'll need more time to be back at full strength. You know, kinda like they did in the previous editions. :eek: Just found your post after posting something similar in a new thread. Maybe you could post some specifics. Charging XP for spells would be like charging fighters every time they used their feats. Not right.
mlasater 11-02-06, 08:08 PM	Ghenesh I was never suggesting actually using it, it was more of an example of the interaction between rules & player style. If your PC casters are running out of the spells by the second encounter, you don't shouldn't have a problem & presumably the players will learn better. The players in the example were all experienced (many with some real powergamer tendencies) and a DM who pulled no punches. Also because the characters were all effectively multi-class, they all had something besides spell catsing to do in combat. As far as I can tell, there are two basic trends on these boards in the "Spellcasters are overpowered arguement". Spellcasters dominate in combat, magic is disruptive to the setting/adventure plotline. In my years of learning to DM, I've been down all these roads....magic and/or spellcasters dominate the game, teleport is disruptive, buffs are annoying, mind-reading/divination spoils a good mystery. I have at various times as a DM made all those points. I have tried many of the suggested limitations on spellcasters - slowed recovery, fewer spells, limiting spells. The net effect...nada, zip, zero, nothing. The same old "problem" continued, just in a new form. I finally learned. It isn't the rules (or magic, or spellcasters) that is the problem, it was me, the DM. (I never tried the suggestion which started this posting - my alterations never reduced a caster to uselessness.) I improved my DMing skills - better tactics, better use of bad guy magic, better world design to acount for the presence of magic, stopped trying to railroad my players and so forth. The "problems" vanished. I will continue to maintain my basic point. All the nerfing of spellcasters in the world isn't going to solve the problem & may well make it worse. If magic is causing problems your campaign, work on your DMing skills. That is the route to a real solution to the vast majority of rules/balance issues.