PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] more "balanced" casting



Choco
2009-05-12, 02:12 PM
In the next game I will be DM'ing, I am planning on doing a little experiment (parts of which I have seen suggested on these forums a few times) to balance casters with melee classes.

The basic plan is to stop full caster progression at lvl 7, keep spell and caster level progression progression normal, and use the spell point system (as is, no mods). This doesn't further gimp full casters at the low level and at the high level allows them to cast much more of their lower level spells as opposed to bringing in the game-breakers. On top of that (this part is just speculation so far) I plan on killing off the fighter class entirely and giving all other non-caster classes at least part of the fighter feat progression (and by default access to fighter bonus feats).

However, one big issue I am having is what to do with partial casters, especially the bard, which has some 6th level spells that are 8th lvl sor/wiz spells (like Greater Shout). I can see that bard spells will need to be capped at lvl 5 max, but would any action even be required with partial caster classes that cap out at lvl 4?

Also, Druids are still a pain... Was thinking of using a suggestion also from these forums about giving them either wild shape OR an animal companion, not both.

So yeah, that's it, any advice would be appreciated. Also, if anyone has links to similar balancing attempts (or has done so themselves) that worked out well please send them my way.

edit: Also, I am using the Cloistered Cleric variant for all clerics... If you want to be a holy warrior, that is what the Paladin is for (of course, I am also greatly loosening up the paladin code to encourage more Hinjo paladins as opposed to Miko)

JeenLeen
2009-05-12, 02:23 PM
My current DM had the idea of making a core-only, class-limited game to balance the character classes.

He banned Sorcerer and Wizard, making Bard the only arcane caster. He believes Cleric and Druid not to be overpowered with core-only, since without DMM Clerics aren't broken and Druids aren't broken without the wildshapes or animal companions outside of MM1. PHB as the only spell source also simplifies balancing.

I realize you're going off a different route, but I thought his ideas might bounce off yours and give some insights.

Choco
2009-05-12, 02:28 PM
My current DM had the idea of making a core-only, class-limited game to balance the character classes.

He banned Sorcerer and Wizard, making Bard the only arcane caster. He believes Cleric and Druid not to be overpowered with core-only, since without DMM Clerics aren't broken and Druids aren't broken without the wildshapes or animal companions outside of MM1. PHB as the only spell source also simplifies balancing.

I realize you're going off a different route, but I thought his ideas might bounce off yours and give some insights.

Ah yes, thank you, glad you mentioned it since I forgot about DMM/Nightsticks... hmm, perhaps make DMM not stackable?

I trust my group enough to leave full casters in there, and have made it clear that any attempts to break the game and/or savagely abuse the rules will be met with even greater game-breaking on the part of the villains (who DO have access to all the same spells, and maybe some more, after all :smallbiggrin:)...

On that note, I should have mentioned earlier that my group has no "power gaming munchkins", I am just looking for a way overall to balance casters with the non-casters, since in high level the melee classes become almost useless compared to the casters.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-12, 02:36 PM
Instead of weakening casters, why not just make melee better? ToB keeps it relevant until level 17 or higher, depending on the caster.

Druid use the PHBII Shapeshift variant. Much more balanced IMHO.

DragoonWraith
2009-05-12, 02:48 PM
One thought I had was changing the shape of the caster power progression from exponential (9th level spells are at least twice as good as 8th which are at least twice as good as 7th, etc), which makes losing spell progression crippling and makes it nigh impossible for non-casting to keep up, to more logarithmic, where losing the top tiers of spells is not crippling; they are better but you might be able to find class features worth more to you. Change most prestige classes to lose progression some (but probably not CL if they're meant to be casting classes), depending on the strength of class features (which should no longer mean automatic "not a chance"), etc.

The problem is that this is really, really hard. You would have to tweak all of the spells themselves, making higher spell level worth more than the previous level but by a lesser increment than the previous level is better than the one before it. And it has to be balanced next to melee classes at the same time. It would take a lot of work. But it seems like a better progression model than is current.

grautry
2009-05-12, 03:20 PM
If you do this then you probably need to change Spell DC's to 10+1/2 HD+Casting stat modifier. Otherwise spellcasters will find that enemy saves are just too high to make magic work reliably.

Choco
2009-05-12, 03:35 PM
Instead of weakening casters, why not just make melee better? ToB keeps it relevant until level 17 or higher, depending on the caster.

Partially laziness, partially because many high level spells (and some lower level ones) are inherently broken and easy to abuse to begin with (infinite Solar gate loop, forcecage on anyone without magic, etc.) and I would rather just remove them than tell the players NO as they are formulating a plan around it. I was thinking about allowing some 8th and 9th level spells, like the damage ones (Greater Shout, Meteor Swarm, etc) for instance, but forcing the players to go on quests to attain them.


One thought I had was changing the shape of the caster power progression from exponential (9th level spells are at least twice as good as 8th which are at least twice as good as 7th, etc), which makes losing spell progression crippling and makes it nigh impossible for non-casting to keep up, to more logarithmic, where losing the top tiers of spells is not crippling; they are better but you might be able to find class features worth more to you. Change most prestige classes to lose progression some (but probably not CL if they're meant to be casting classes), depending on the strength of class features (which should no longer mean automatic "not a chance"), etc.

I think getting rid of the top few tiers of spells accomplishes this. If I were to rewrite all the spells to avoid the exponential progression, 9th level spells would probably end up the equivalent of 5-6th level spells. Eliminating the top tiers doesn't change that progression in the tiers that are left are exponential, but it does its job IMO.

Also, thanks for bringing up prestige classes... if I do cut some tiers, I will have to change when those classes gain access to their remaining tiers after all, else the prestige classes would be overpowered.


If you do this then you probably need to change Spell DC's to 10+1/2 HD+Casting stat modifier. Otherwise spellcasters will find that enemy saves are just too high to make magic work reliably.

That is a very good catch! I like your idea and will likely implement it, though perhaps DC = 10+1/2 Caster Level+Casting stat modifier would be better?

Shpadoinkle
2009-05-12, 03:47 PM
There's always the E6 variant.

Also, as long as you're not one of those people who hate it for evidently no reason, there's also the ToB.

Choco
2009-05-12, 04:02 PM
There's always the E6 variant.

Also, as long as you're not one of those people who hate it for evidently no reason, there's also the ToB.

I got the ToB, and think it is awesome. Just that the majority of my players want to play core classes.

Could you please send a link or tell me what book this E6 variant is in? Don't remember reading about that, though that could have just been me skimming past it too fast to remember.

Kroy
2009-05-12, 06:33 PM
I got the ToB, and think it is awesome. Just that the majority of my players want to play core classes.

Could you please send a link or tell me what book this E6 variant is in? Don't remember reading about that, though that could have just been me skimming past it too fast to remember.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html

Choco
2009-05-12, 06:50 PM
Ah thanks, I will read up on that here shortly

Zeful
2009-05-12, 06:57 PM
infinite Solar gate loop It's not infinite and never really was (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm), you gate in one solar, who you can control for exactly CL number of rounds without charge, which is pretty powerful. But the Solar you summon controls the entire line from then on, once your rounds of control expire, there's nothing preventing the Solar you summoned from telling the creatures he gated in to tell the creature's they gated in to leave. Meaning you are at best limited to CL-N rounds where N is the number of rounds you're actually doing something.


Also, thanks for bringing up prestige classes... if I do cut some tiers, I will have to change when those classes gain access to their remaining tiers after all, else the prestige classes would be overpowered.
Easy remove the concept of Full caster progression. 4/5 to 7/10 max for most, and change the Archmage's progression to match the Heirophant's (i.e no caster levels (and related spell per day/ known) without choosing it as the Special Power from the Archmage's list) or simply don't include them, they are a variant rule.

JoshuaZ
2009-05-12, 08:48 PM
You may want to consider some of the Ultimate classes. (http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/index.php?title=Ultimate_Classes). They generally top out at 7th level spells but make up for it with very flavorful abilities. There are versions for a variety of different spellcasting classes.

The Glyphstone
2009-05-12, 08:52 PM
It's not infinite and never really was (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm), you gate in one solar, who you can control for exactly CL number of rounds without charge, which is pretty powerful. But the Solar you summon controls the entire line from then on, once your rounds of control expire, there's nothing preventing the Solar you summoned from telling the creatures he gated in to tell the creature's they gated in to leave. Meaning you are at best limited to CL-N rounds where N is the number of rounds you're actually doing something.


Easy remove the concept of Full caster progression. 4/5 to 7/10 max for most, and change the Archmage's progression to match the Heirophant's (i.e no caster levels (and related spell per day/ known) without choosing it as the Special Power from the Archmage's list) or simply don't include them, they are a variant rule.

It's not infinite in the time sense...it's called the "infinite solar gate loop" because of the number of solars you get to control for that CL-N rounds, which is infinite (justified by them being on the encounter table for an infinite plane, or several of them). At least, that's how I understood it.

quick_comment
2009-05-12, 09:32 PM
Combine the wizard and sorcerer - a single arcane caster class with limited spells known who needs to prepare spells.

After that, force them to ban a school other than evocation. Fluff it as "evocation is the core of magic, as it involves energy manipulation, which all other schools need." If they want to specialize, that is 2 more schools gone.

All spells deal nonlethal damage equal to spell level *3. If you are immune to nonlethal damage, it is converted to lethal damage. There are no loopholes in MAGIC.

FinalJustice
2009-05-12, 09:32 PM
there's nothing preventing the Solar you summoned from telling the creatures he gated in to tell the creature's they gated in to leave.

Well, outside of core, there's always Mindrape.

quick_comment
2009-05-12, 09:33 PM
It's not infinite in the time sense...it's called the "infinite solar gate loop" because of the number of solars you get to control for that CL-N rounds, which is infinite (justified by them being on the encounter table for an infinite plane, or several of them). At least, that's how I understood it.

You make it infinite in the time sense by mindraping them.

Edit: Ninjas!

Also, in core you can diplomacy them to make them stay.

Zeful
2009-05-12, 09:50 PM
It's not infinite in the time sense...it's called the "infinite solar gate loop" because of the number of solars you get to control for that CL-N rounds, which is infinite (justified by them being on the encounter table for an infinite plane, or several of them). At least, that's how I understood it.

No, it's not. First Solar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm) (or any angel for that matter) don't have Gate as an SLA (firefox's built in search can't find the word on the page). And the typical Solar (which short of DM intervention is what the players are going to be calling) don't have Gate prepared, so can't summon bretheren, meaning you get one.

Second SLAs don't have reduced casting times, and Gate is a standard action, so creatures with Gate SLAs can burn one round calling a similar creature. So that means 20 titans (or creatures with a gate SLA), not an infinite number.

So while there may be an infinite pool to draw from, the player is in no way going to be in command of more than the caster level of the Gate SLA at a time.

What's more even if you can summon the 21st-umpteenth Gate SLA equipped creature, if an SLA duration runs out first, you have to order the creature to place itself under contractual service to use it's power, which in turn will invoke it's contractual service clause creating a chain reaction of debt that will increase very quickly, if not exponentially. Infinite Gate-looping Titans only mean that you owe an infinite number of Titans an infinite time of service.

EDIT: RE: Mindraping/Dipomancy: You could try that, but a mindraped/diplomanced servant (especially an angel), has a period of time outside your direct control (or you run into contractual service obligations) where the spell/influence can (and if you DM is like me, will) be negated. Otherwise you have to do extensive research to summon a unique Solar/Titan/Gate SLA'ed creature, which doesn't have to respond to the calling. Which creates a large amount of legwork for very little gain.

Lycanthromancer
2009-05-12, 09:55 PM
Try playing using psionics, ToB, rogue, factotum, the shapeshifting druid, and the rest of tiers 2 (sans the sorcerer), 3, and 4, and you'd be amazed at how balanced everything suddenly becomes.

The Glyphstone
2009-05-12, 10:01 PM
@Zeful: Interesting, I'd never actually looked to see if Solars can Gate or not. So there is indeed no actual Infinite Solar Gate Loop, though the Infinite Titan Gate Loop is still (supposedly) valid due to:



Second SLAs don't have reduced casting times, and Gate is a standard action, so creatures with Gate SLAs can burn one round calling a similar creature. So that means 20 titans (or creatures with a gate SLA), not an infinite number.


This is, from what I remember, the crux of the argument to make it gamebreaking - according to those in favor of the loop, while Gate is a standard action, there's nothing that says a Gated creature cannot use its SLA on the turn it arrives, in the same manner that any other summoned or called creature can act normally when it arrives. So you get, in theory, one titan who Gates another Titan in, who immediately Gates another Titan in, until you have N^1 Titans, all of which somehow takes place within the same 6-second span of time. Whether you buy into it or not is a valid issue, but that's the basis of the claims in "favor' of it, as much as anyone would actually argue for a loop that ends the universe under the crushing weight of infinite Titans.

Zeful
2009-05-12, 10:25 PM
This is, from what I remember, the crux of the argument to make it gamebreaking - according to those in favor of the loop, while Gate is a standard action, there's nothing that says a Gated creature cannot use its SLA on the turn it arrives, in the same manner that any other summoned or called creature can act normally when it arrives. So you get, in theory, one titan who Gates another Titan in, who immediately Gates another Titan in, until you have N^1 Titans, all of which somehow takes place within the same 6-second span of time. Whether you buy into it or not is a valid issue, but that's the basis of the claims in "favor' of it, as much as anyone would actually argue for a loop that ends the universe under the crushing weight of infinite Titans.

And technically you could order all the infinite titans with a free action but with an infinite number of titans spawning in the same 6 second interval means that the order has to be anticipated for the last Titan summoned, making the repetition of "you summon to tell your summon to tell your summon" approach infinity, which falls right outside the "free action" length (no, there is no way you can get any DM, hypothetical or otherwise, to approve a statement with infinite length being spoken as a free action). So there is no way for the current turn to end without somehow gaining one or more extra standard actions to manage a stop to the process... somehow.

Infinite Titan Gate Loop Summons stop time. Especially sense you can't word the order to terminate after a certain length of time.

The Glyphstone
2009-05-12, 10:51 PM
Yes, yes they do. Though arguably, the order "Summon another Titan and repeat this order to him verbatim" would get around the infinite-length statement, it's funnier to say it stops time. As for ending the chain, there's always a Readied Dimension Lock once there are X titans Gated in, but how to make a Dimension Lock's radius big enough to prevent the Gating is beyond me.

Choco
2009-05-13, 10:11 AM
You may want to consider some of the Ultimate classes. (http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/index.php?title=Ultimate_Classes). They generally top out at 7th level spells but make up for it with very flavorful abilities. There are versions for a variety of different spellcasting classes.

Ah yes, that is the kind of info I was looking for, thanks!

I will probably end up replacing at least some of the classes with those ultimate classes