PDA

View Full Version : PEACH: Backlash (caster balance fix)



sonofzeal
2011-07-29, 12:56 AM
Houserule: Backlash
When a spell, power, spell-like ability, or psi-like ability is used, the user takes a penalty to their primary casting/manifesting ability equal to the level of the spell used. This reduces the save DC of any future uses, and may prevent a caster/manifester from using other spells/powers if the ability drops below the minimum for that spell/power. Bonus spells and power points per day from having a high casting score are not lost. No creature can use an ability that would reduce their primary casting/manifesting stat below 0; if attempted, the action is wasted. If a class gains spellcasting based on multiple attributes, the attribute that takes Backlash is the one that controls ability to cast spells of a given level.

This penalty cannot be blocked or removed by any other effect or ability, and stacks with all other penalties, including other Backlash penalties. The new total Backlash penalty is reduced by 1 each turn, down to a minimum of zero.


Class Exceptions
The Spell-Like Abilities granted by Binders, Dragon Shamans, Paladins, Shugenja, and Spellthieves cause no Backlash.

Incarnum and Conjuration (Healing) effects never create Backlash.


Monster Trait: Unfettered
Certain monsters in tune with the essence of magic (DM's discretion) take no Backlash penalties for their innate abilities. Most Dragons, Outsiders, and Fey have this trait, as do all deities.


Feat: Divine Resilience
Requires: Divine CL 7 or greater.
Whenever you take a Backlash penalty for casting divine spells, that penalty is reduced by 2 to a minimum of 0.


Feat: Arcane Resurgence
Requires: Arcane CL 10 or greater
Your total Backlash penalty is reduced by 2 each turn, down to a minimum of zero.


Feat: Psionic Force (Metapsionic)
To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus. When manifesting a power, you can choose to pay extra power points to reduce the Backlash. For every power point spent, the Backlash is reduced by 2.


Feat: Curse of the Mundane
Requires: Must have no abilities that creates Backlash. If you ever gain an ability that creates Backlash, you immediately lose the benefit of this feat.

If an ability that creates Backlash targets you, the user takes an additional 2 Backlash to the same ability score that they took the initial backlash to.

This feat can be taken multiple times. The amount of additional Backlash increases by 1 each time you take this feat.

This feat is a Fighter Bonus Feat

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-29, 01:09 AM
I humbly suggest that you include the Paladin's detect evil ability in the list of exceptions, as it is rather necessary for his class. (If you don't feel the paladin should be exempt when the hexblade is, fair enough, but I personally feel a crusader against evil should be allowed to instinctively know where evil is)

Edit: Wow, never mind. The paladin doesn't use a casting ability score for that ability. Still, maybe the smite evil should be exempt. The paladin doesn't exactly have that good of a repetoire anyway, and if you're letting the monk get away with it...(Besides, you'd still be punishing his Lay on Hands and spellcasting)

sonofzeal
2011-07-29, 01:12 AM
I humbly suggest that you include the Paladin's detect evil ability in the list of exceptions, as it is rather necessary for his class. (If you don't feel the paladin should be exempt when the hexblade is, fair enough, but I personally feel a crusader against evil should be allowed to instinctively know where evil is)

Edit: Wow, never mind. The paladin doesn't use a casting ability score for that ability. Still, maybe the smite evil should be exempt. The paladin doesn't exactly have that good of a repetoire anyway, and if you're letting the monk get away with it...(Besides, you'd still be punishing his Lay on Hands and spellcasting)
I hadn't thought of that, good point. Do you like my fix?

sonofzeal
2011-07-29, 01:19 AM
You know what, screw it, I'm taking (Su) out of the equation. That simplifies everything tremendously.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-29, 01:26 AM
I hadn't thought of that, good point. Do you like my fix?

Not personally, no, but that won't stop me from helping you out. Don't get me wrong, you have a nice idea here, but I just don't think casters need to be nerfed because they're better than melee (Personal opinion here, that has been slightly strengthened because of all the caster nerfing threads that have been popping up in this section in the past week)

Your problem, and no offense is meant here, is that you're including supernatural abilities in your nerf, which is a bit harsh, as that's the cool pseudo-spell feature that casters (druids excluded) don't get, but mundane classes get in order to compete with casters.

Let's look at the PHB, for example. Your punishment of supernatural abilities would affect the monk's Quivering Palm, the paladin's Smite Evil, and the cleric/paladin's Turn/Rebuke Undead.

So you're hitting two weak classes in the ability scores that help them the most, while barely affecting a caster in a score he doesn't need for an ability he'll probably rarely use.

Look at your exceptions list. The Dragonfire Adept, the Hexblade, the Monk, the Ninja and the Dragon Shaman. You're excluding pretty much every class that has a supernatural ability, so that your nerf can burn the Cha of a cleric that actually uses his Turn Undead uses to turn undead instead of for Divine feats.

My suggestion? Do yourself a favor and drop the backlash on supernatural altogether. Casters don't have supernatural abilities, and if they do (druids) they don't use an ability score for them.

Edit: I have never been so happy to be swordsage'd. Glad you understood before my long-winded rant even got posted.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-29, 01:29 AM
By the way, you should probably include that UMD doesn't cause backlash (or clarify that it does, if you want to punish the rogue for burning skill points so he can be the party bandaid because no one wanted to be a cleric)

Edit: Here's a question too: What kind of backlash do Favored Souls get? Do they get hit in both Wis and Cha?

sonofzeal
2011-07-29, 01:39 AM
Not personally, no, but that won't stop me from helping you out. Don't get me wrong, you have a nice idea here, but I just don't think casters need to be nerfed because they're better than melee (Personal opinion here, that has been slightly strengthened because of all the caster nerfing threads that have been popping up in this section in the past week)
I see this as more of a theoretical limiter than a complete nerf. If you're only casting one spell a turn, you aren't held back too much by this. You can always open with your top-level spell at full strength. It's mostly the Novas that are hurt by this, and the higher-level novas at that. You can cast low level spells and keep a reasonably Backlash balance, but higher level effects become costly.

I also see it as potentially a tactical thing. If you need the Wizard's spells to solve a certain encounter, then suddenly the rest of the team has to contribute and keep that Wizard safe until his Backlash diminishes enough.

My experience, though, is that casters who aren't breaking the game wouldn't be held back much by Backlash... and the casters who are causing problems, generally struggle with it more. The Wizard in my current campaign mostly just passes arrows to the archer, and the Ultimate Magus spends his time plinking with Reserve Feats. Both occasionally cast big spells, but neither would mind Burnout much. But the Cleric casting Quickened Divine Favour + Righteous Might, he'd feel it more.


Edit: I have never been so happy to be swordsage'd. Glad you understood before my long-winded rant even got posted.
It was more a product of my original thought, which was that magical effects in general should carry a cost to use. But writing out the whole thing, it became more and more awkward to keep (Su) out, and wasn't really a major balance point anyway. If magic has a price it makes some sense that (Su) should be a factor too, but I'm willing to take the very slight hit on thoroughness if it simplifies the rules significantly, and I think it does. I still have to exclude a few classes with class-based (Sp) abilities, but thankfully the list is far shorter.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-29, 01:45 AM
I see this as more of a theoretical limiter than a complete nerf. If you're only casting one spell a turn, you aren't held back too much by this. You can always open with your top-level spell at full strength. It's mostly the Novas that are hurt by this, and the higher-level novas at that. You can cast low level spells and keep a reasonably Backlash balance, but higher level effects become costly.

I also see it as potentially a tactical thing. If you need the Wizard's spells to solve a certain encounter, then suddenly the rest of the team has to contribute and keep that Wizard safe until his Backlash diminishes enough.

My experience, though, is that casters who aren't breaking the game wouldn't be held back much by Backlash... and the casters who are causing problems, generally struggle with it more. The Wizard in my current campaign mostly just passes arrows to the archer, and the Ultimate Magus spends his time plinking with Reserve Feats. Both occasionally cast big spells, but neither would mind Burnout much. But the Cleric casting Quickened Divine Favour + Righteous Might, he'd feel it more.


It was more a product of my original thought, which was that magical effects in general should carry a cost to use. But writing out the whole thing, it became more and more awkward to keep (Su) out, and wasn't really a major balance point anyway. If magic has a price it makes some sense that (Su) should be a factor too, but I'm willing to take the very slight hit on thoroughness if it simplifies the rules significantly, and I think it does. I still have to exclude a few classes with class-based (Sp) abilities, but thankfully the list is far shorter.

I suggest you go a step further, you know, since you're just trying to stop casters who are breaking the game, and say that if the spell or spell-like ability is a conjuration (healing) effect, it shouldn't cause backlash. (After all, sometimes a fight really is just a barbarian standing there raging and a cleric right behind him healing every turn. Trust me. I've been in that situation before. Don't want the cleric's casting stat to drop below a 16 there. No sir)

Additionally, though you probably just didn't see this post, what would you do about the Use Magic Device skill, and how will backlash affect warmages and favored souls?

sonofzeal
2011-07-29, 01:51 AM
I suggest you go a step further, you know, since you're just trying to stop casters who are breaking the game, and say that if the spell or spell-like ability is a conjuration (healing) effect, it shouldn't cause backlash. (After all, sometimes a fight really is just a barbarian standing there raging and a cleric right behind him healing every turn. Trust me. I've been in that situation before. Don't want the cleric's casting stat to drop below a 16 there. No sir)
Point. That might be more elegant than the random Healer exception.


Additionally, though you probably just didn't see this post, what would you do about the Use Magic Device skill, and how will backlash affect warmages and favored souls?
I just added a comment about various split-stat casters. UMDing wands shouldn't come into this, as it isn't using a spell or spell-like ability. Casting from a scroll would cause Backlash though. I'm not sure I want or need to change this. A Rogue will likely rely on Wands in my experience, and can afford the backlash from an isolated scroll. Shouldn't be a big deal.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-29, 02:18 AM
Alright, your point about wands and scrolls seems fair. However...

I just cracked open my copy of Complete Warrior, and I might be mistaken, but I don't believe I saw a single spell-like ability for the hexblade, so you can probably just take him off. Additionally, the paladin's spell-likes (detect evil, special mount, remove disease) all don't have a casting stat, as they don't require a saving throw. So you can take him off your exceptions list too. Just helping you trim it down a little.

Other than that, it looks good. With the wands being free, healing being free, and supernaturals being free, it all looks balanced. I would say something about infusions, but I think the casting time on most infusions balances that out nicely already. So good job. I hope you get more PEACH than just mine. I'll check the thread again tomorrow and see if you still need any help.

sonofzeal
2011-07-29, 10:38 AM
"Curse of the Mundane" has been changed to apply to all spells that create Backlash. Originally it let you pick and choose effects, which was specifically intended to avoid Spell Resistance's problem of blocking healing. Now that Conjuration (Healing) has a specific exception, that is no longer a concern. I also reduced the rate at which it stacks with itself. Finally, I made it only apply on targetted rather than area effects, since the previous wording allowed the Curser to move into the area of a previously cast spell, like Daylight, to cause retroactive Backlash. This raises the effectiveness of Solid Fog and similar favorites, but is closer in line with the system's treatment of SR.

ericgrau
2011-07-29, 12:43 PM
Most of my favorite spells don't have a save. I suppose I could reach a point where I can't cast at all after 2 turns, making this mainly a way to prevent casters from using more than 1 or 2 high level spells.

sonofzeal
2011-07-29, 01:07 PM
Most of my favorite spells don't have a save. I suppose I could reach a point where I can't cast at all after 2 turns, making this mainly a way to prevent casters from using more than 1 or 2 high level spells.
Note that "Curse of the Mundane" still works on save-less spells like Orbs or Enervation. There's still some good options, like Solid Fog, but they still have standard Backlash . I'm still trying to figure out if I want it to scale as 2-3-4-5 or 2-4-6-8. I suppose the feat cost is enough that anyone with more than two or three does deserve that extra benefit, and it's not like it's actual protection, the spell still gets off, it just burns the caster more.

But yes. This isn't intended as a total game-changer. My philosophy for homebrew is very much to make minimal changes. Mage characters will still get basically the same playstyle, they're just slowed down, it takes them longer. A lvl 1-3 caster won't even notice the Backlash since they heal it as fast as they get it, but even an Archmage might still sometimes want to be plinking with a crossbow.

I'm not sure about Reserve Feats. I'm thinking of making use of a Reserve Feat cost 1 Backlash, basically cancelling out the regen for that turn. They won't ever impair you even if you're throwing out 9d6 fire blasts every turn from here to doomsday, but a mage who opened with a big nuke ("Twinned Split Ray Enervation UNF!") might want to cool them for a bit.

Gamer Girl
2011-07-29, 01:27 PM
Like with most caster 'fixes', this one does too much. It will basically make spellcasters useless and people won't want to even play them. Your rule would, in effect, just say 'no spellcasters in my game'.

Just take the average caster with an 18 in their primary ability(now, granted if you let spellcasters get 30s in abilities by like 5th level then it does not matter). They can only cast 8 spell levels until they are useless. So that's about three spells or so. Then they don't even get a point back for a turn.

Why do you figure the caster with an ability of 9, so they can't cast spells will do? Go watch TV? Play a video game? Take a nap?

How do you figure the resting will go: ''Guys lets stop here for an hour so I can cast spells again after that.''

And it only gets worse at higher levels....

At least your fix won't effect magic items (right?), so a spellcaster can still blast away and destroy things...just not with spells.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-29, 01:32 PM
Like with most caster 'fixes', this one does too much. It will basically make spellcasters useless and people won't want to even play them. Your rule would, in effect, just say 'no spellcasters in my game'.

Just take the average caster with an 18 in their primary ability(now, granted if you let spellcasters get 30s in abilities by like 5th level then it does not matter). They can only cast 8 spell levels until they are useless. So that's about three spells or so. Then they don't even get a point back for a turn.

Why do you figure the caster with an ability of 9, so they can't cast spells will do? Go watch TV? Play a video game? Take a nap?

How do you figure the resting will go: ''Guys lets stop here for an hour so I can cast spells again after that.''

And it only gets worse at higher levels....

At least your fix won't effect magic items (right?), so a spellcaster can still blast away and destroy things...just not with spells.

Actually, if you read the OP, it says "The new total Backlash penalty is reduced by 1 each turn". So he's forcing casters to be patient with their spells. As long as they don't cast, they recover.

Additionally, a caster is unable to cast if the Backlash would prevent him from casting spells, so his Backlash will never drop his score to 9 unless his foe has Curse of the Mundane.

sonofzeal
2011-07-29, 01:36 PM
Like with most caster 'fixes', this one does too much. It will basically make spellcasters useless and people won't want to even play them. Your rule would, in effect, just say 'no spellcasters in my game'.

Just take the average caster with an 18 in their primary ability(now, granted if you let spellcasters get 30s in abilities by like 5th level then it does not matter). They can only cast 8 spell levels until they are useless. So that's about three spells or so. Then they don't even get a point back for a turn.

Why do you figure the caster with an ability of 9, so they can't cast spells will do? Go watch TV? Play a video game? Take a nap?

How do you figure the resting will go: ''Guys lets stop here for an hour so I can cast spells again after that.''

And it only gets worse at higher levels....

At least your fix won't effect magic items (right?), so a spellcaster can still blast away and destroy things...just not with spells.
You restore 1 Backlash a round.

A 5th lvl generalist Wizard with 18 Int can cast every single spell he knows, in consecutive rounds, and not run out of casting stat. The DC will suffer, but that's all.

Round 1: 3st lvl spell at 18 int
Round 2: 3st lvl spell at 16 int
Round 3: 2st lvl spell at 14 int
Round 4: 2st lvl spell at 13 int
Round 5: 2st lvl spell at 12 int
Round 6: 1st lvl spell at 11 int
Round 7: 1st lvl spell at 11 int
Round 8: 1st lvl spell at 11 int
Round 9: 1st lvl spell at 11 int

Far from being useless, he can dump his entire pyramid in consecutive rounds, as could a lvl 5 Sorcerer with 18 charisma. A higher level caster couldn't, nor could a Focussed Specialist, but generally speaking there's no need to do that anyway.

I really think you've missed a key line in there, or your math is off.

Shadow Lord
2011-07-29, 02:20 PM
It falls into the same trap as Truenamer. You become less effective as you level up. Please, think about the mistakes that were made with Truenamer.

ericgrau
2011-07-29, 02:45 PM
Round 1: 3st lvl spell at 18 int
This post made me 3sty. <Finds water cup>

By the time you're casting 9th level spells you have maybe a 32 int. So that becomes 24, then 16. Then at most you can cast another 6th level spell and you're done. Of course you probably have a feat by then so it's more like 26, then 20, then 14, and you're at a 4th level spell at most. 3 9s and a 4. I'd be hesitant to actually play with such a heavy nerf too but 3 rounds of your best spells isn't the end of the world. Most fights are done in 5 rounds and decided in 3. Is it annoying? Ya. Encouraging an inordinate number of out-of-combat buffs? Ya.

Yitzi
2011-07-29, 03:10 PM
Seems too strong; now a caster, even with arcane resurgence, can only cast a few max-level spells before they're useless.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-29, 03:13 PM
Yes, but that regulates a caster into more of a support role, tossing out maybe one powerful blast before using his lower level spells to buff the melee in the party, then sitting back and waiting on his recharge.

jiriku
2011-07-29, 04:13 PM
If your fix is to be effective, you'll want to address a number of loopholes that it leaves open. Currently, your house rule really only addresses short-duration combat spells that offer a saving throw, which is a fairly small subset of the total 3.5 spell list and actually contains most of the better-balanced spells. Here are some concerns you'll want to address:

1A. Most powerful battlefield control wizards don't rely heavily on spells that offer saving throws. For example, an 8th-level wizard with an Int of 24 can cast:

round 1: glitterdust (Int reduced to 22)
round 2: grease (Int remains at 22)
round 3: evard's black tentacles (Int reduced to 17)
round 4: web (Int reduced to 16)

The Int penalty does little to inconvenience the caster because he starts his sequency with spells that offer saves and finishes it with spells that mostly work through grapple checks, Strength checks, and Balance checks. Sure, they're a little easier to save against, but ultimately that's just going to push the optimizer to hunt down more spells that are resisted with something other than a save. How will you address this?

1B. Continuing the example above, the spell sequence I described above would be considered wasteful by most good battlefield controllers. In practice, 2 or 3 of those spells should be sufficient to completely hamstring the enemy force and allow the rest of the party to mop up while the wizard makes himself some tea or powers her nose or something. Thus, even if you can force a battlefield controller to cast fewer spells, his spells still dominate the combat. How will you address this?

2. Most of the spells that define the power gap between casters and martial/skill monkey characters aren't combat spells, and thus this system does nothing to balance them. For example, commune, divination, contact other plane, teleport, simulacrum, planar binding, polymorph, shapechange, superior resistance, astral projection, scry, rope trick, mordenkainen's magnificent mansion, mind blank, anticipate teleportation, nondetection, overland flight, or permanency, just to name a few. How will you address this?

3. Most of the powerful "nova" builds rely heavily on metamagic stacking, meaning that one spell accomplishes an effect that would normally require 3 or 4 spells. Your rule does nothing to limit this. For example, a 15th level wizard/incantatrix can cast an empowered, twinned, energy admixtured orb of fire that deals 90d6 damage - as much as six normal orb of fire spells. He takes no more backlash than he would from casting a regular 8th level spell, and the most powerful enemy monster is still dead after he casts this spell. Moreover, next round he can do it again, because he really doesn't care if an enemy saves against this spell. How will you address this?

4. The chief tactic that gets punished by this house rule is any attempt to nova through lots of high-level spells that a) offer a save, or don't have lasting effects if cast on an ally, and b) don't win battles all by themselves. Frankly, that's a pretty unsophisticated tactic for most casters to take, and the players most likely to see a considerable performance hit for their character are the less skillful players whose characters were already performing well below optimum. In other words, this houserule will trip up the noobs, while serious optimizers will find a way around it. How will you address this?

5. At the end of the day, wizards, and sorcerers (and clerics to a lesser degree) are meant to be casting spells every round in combat. That's why they don't have any other meaningful class features. If you manage to nerf them to the point that they can't do so any longer, then they're going to be sitting idle in combat. Sophisticated players will craft gish builds that can make effective melee contributions, but less skillful players will just be left feeling like other players are having fun and they're sitting around waiting on their spell cooldowns. If you're determined to prevent casters from casting, you need to give them something else to do with their actions. How will you address this?

sonofzeal
2011-07-29, 04:53 PM
Given that opinion seems split between "wow that's a huge nerf" and "eh it doesn't do enough, I think it's pitched fairly well.


For those who think it's too much:
As others say, you still get all your spells, you can still always lead with your best spell, and you still have most of your out-of-combat utility. It's not a huge thing, and isn't intended to be.


For those who think it's too little:
- In a high-op, Celerity / Timestop / etc are usually very popular for obvious reasons, but become more costly here.

- Immediate and Swift action spells are still entirely viable, but have a higher opportunity cost since you're blowing through Backlash faster. Since many of these are defensive ones like Greater Mirror Image that can really hose an attacker lucky enough to get a clear shot, it reduces that safety net and makes you a little more vulnerable. A proper Mage shouldn't need those, but in practice they usually do unless the DM is a total lapdog. And if the Mage now has to play more cautiously to prevent those lucky shots, well that's its own opportunity cost.

- Monsters with Curse of the Mundane discourage more active tactics like Empowered Twinned Orb of Fire, and encourage passive methods like Solid Fog that promote teamwork to actually bring the monster down. Solid Fog has never been a problem in my book since everyone else still feels useful. It doesn't end fights, merely changes them so the others can win.

- Taking on a heavy Backlash load means the caster is significantly weaker after the fight, for at least a minute or so. Extended encounters, enemies gradually arriving/revealing themselves, and serial encounters with little or no breaks all push the Mage harder than they would have otherwise. And since many of those are very difficult to predict, it encourages the Mage to be more conservative with their in-combat spells, just to prevent completely burning out later. A paranoid Mage (and most are described that way on these forums) will likely want to adjust his tactics accordingly, and this entirely satisfies my goal. Rather than houseruling half the game, I just want to encourage Mages to treat spells with a bit more respect that they often seem to. They're no longer quite fire-and-forget, you've got to make sure the next few rounds won't make you regret that.




5. At the end of the day, wizards, and sorcerers (and clerics to a lesser degree) are meant to be casting spells every round in combat. That's why they don't have any other meaningful class features. If you manage to nerf them to the point that they can't do so any longer, then they're going to be sitting idle in combat. Sophisticated players will craft gish builds that can make effective melee contributions, but less skillful players will just be left feeling like other players are having fun and they're sitting around waiting on their spell cooldowns. If you're determined to prevent casters from casting, you need to give them something else to do with their actions. How will you address this?
I would like spells treated less like a vulcan minigun, and more like a sniper rifle. A good sniper doesn't take a shot every six seconds! He isn't "meant" to, to use your term! That doesn't mean he's useless, or wasting his rounds, just that he's being caution and choosing his shots carefully. A Fighter can swing his sword like crazy every round, that's his prerogative. But the Wizard might have to duck behind cover to recharge, or plink with a wand, or cast something lower level than he'd like to, or drink a potion. Wizards only have finite spells; Warlocks are meant to use their powers every turn, but Wizards never were. And bringing some of that back at higher levels is, I think, a good thing.

Shadow Lord
2011-07-29, 04:58 PM
I'm fairly certain that no one said it's too little. And, once again, you fall into the Truenamer trap. You get less effective as you level. And that's lame. :smallsigh:

sonofzeal
2011-07-29, 05:05 PM
I'm fairly certain that no one said it's too little. And, once again, you fall into the Truenamer trap. You get less effective as you level. And that's lame. :smallsigh:
You get more effective, because you get options. Your lower and mid levels spells benefit from a higher caster level. Your casting stat goes up so you can afford more Backlash. And you still have those top-levels spells. Far from becoming less effective, you're gaining spells and slots all over the place as you grow, and the various feats give you definite options to improve.

Additionally, Mages are already quadratic. Any attempt to balance them is going to have to be more stringent at higher levels. Truenamers fail because the end result is sub-linear, they improve more slowly than linear classes like Fighter or Barbarian. But I'd wager Wizards with Backlash still improve more quickly than Fighters or Barbarians, they just don't improve as quickly as they used to. And I think that's a good thing.

jiriku
2011-07-29, 05:27 PM
I'm fairly certain that no one said it's too little. And, once again, you fall into the Truenamer trap. You get less effective as you level. And that's lame. :smallsigh:


You get more effective, because you get options. Your lower and mid levels spells benefit from a higher caster level. Your casting stat goes up so you can afford more Backlash.

Additionally, Mages are already quadratic. Any attempt to balance them is going to have to be more stringent at higher levels.

I think where shadow lord is coming from is that caster's pool of available spell levels increases faster than his capacity to absorb backlash. For example, a 5th level wizard might hope to have a 21 Int. Casting two 3rd level spells in succession sets him back to Int (21-3+1-3) 16. A 15th level wizard might hope to have a 27 Int. Casting two 8th level spells in succession sets him back to Int (27-8+1-8) 12, or Int 13 if he took the Arcane Resurgence feat. The caster's ability to actually use his highest-level spell effects decreases as he advances in level. Essentially, casting your best spells becomes a subtle trap that forces you to wait out the rest of the fight.

Now, this isn't all bad. Opening with a few spells that inflict modest effect and then closing with a powerful, game-winning spell is dramatic. Some players will doubtless enjoy that style. And there can be no doubting that this will encourage a more tactical playstyle. But again, you're forcing a caster to hoard his resources in combat, and spell novas aren't the reason why casters are better than melee. The doctor is prescribing medicine for something other than the ailment that brought his patient into the office.

Shadow Lord
2011-07-29, 05:35 PM
jiriku got what I was saying. And this makes blasting casters rather sad, because of the greater limit on how much damage you can deal.

jiriku
2011-07-29, 05:48 PM
Thought: you could correct the trap just by auto-scaling the recovery rate. For example, the recovery rate could be set to 1/2 the highest spell level you can cast by virtue of class and level (rounded down). Hrm, still doesn't address the host of other issues though.

How about this. Can we agree on a list of things that need to be adjusted to bring casters back into the ballpark occupied by melee characters? I'd say that any "fix" needs to address the following issues:

spell ranges
spell durations
metamagic reducers
reliability of effect*
ease of bypassing spell resistance
quantity of spells per day
ease of acquiring new spells known

*Note that this is different from reliability of casting. Casting has always worked reliably in D&D, and balance issues weren't such a big deal in earlier editions. I think reliable casting is a fine and acceptable thing.

Would anyone nominate anything else that needs balancing, or does that about sum it up?

sonofzeal
2011-07-29, 08:21 PM
The doctor is prescribing medicine for something other than the ailment that brought his patient into the office.

How about this. Can we agree on a list of things that need to be adjusted to bring casters back into the ballpark occupied by melee characters? I'd say that any "fix" needs to address the following issues:

spell ranges
spell durations
metamagic reducers
reliability of effect*
ease of bypassing spell resistance
quantity of spells per day
ease of acquiring new spells known

*Note that this is different from reliability of casting. Casting has always worked reliably in D&D, and balance issues weren't such a big deal in earlier editions. I think reliable casting is a fine and acceptable thing.

Would anyone nominate anything else that needs balancing, or does that about sum it up?
I think the entire reason casters are better than non-casters can be summed up simply: spells are an undervalued resource.

None of the issues you mentioned would be issues if the casting of a spell was a significant act. But it isn't; mid to high level Mages can throw up half a dozen long-duration buffs, cast a spell every round of combat for three fights, and still have reserve.

Consider Schierke in Berzerk. As powerful at Guts is in that show, Schierke's magic is devastating. When her spells finish, they're total game-changers, demolishing all opposition. They have huge range, good duration, they're fairly reliable... but she's entirely dependent on the rest of the party, and it's entirely possible that Isidro could pose a credible threat to her in the right circumstances.

Balance-wise, a party of all Schierke's would likely fail, and a party without Schierke might still get through if they had another person besides Guts who could go one-on-one with an Apostle. Still, it's hard to argue that she brings more to the table than the rest (besides Guts, but even he relies on her to pull him out of the berserker frenzy).

So how can Schierke be so powerful, and still balanced? It's because magic has a price, it's hard, and it takes a while. For all her might, she can't treat spells lightly. She has to pick her magic very carefully, she has to pick her timing very carefully, and if she just launched into her biggest spell the moment initiative got rolled then she'd be far less effective. She needs her teammates to cover for her while she's doing her magic. And she has ever reason to try not to use her magic if she can avoid it.



So the problem is not that the Wizard knows thirty different spells with huge range and duration that mess up whole squads of monsters. The problem is that he can toss them around without much of a second thought. His only concern is running out of appropriate prepared spells per day, but we all know that's not enough of a limiter as is.

A few solutions present themselves...

- Reducing spells per day. Brutal, but effective. If casting Greater Mage Armor meant no Haste later on, that forces the Wizard to be more conservative and careful with their spells. It also doesn't seem like much fun to play, not with the way spells are currently designed. Perhaps a few spells of your top level and a whole bunch of casts of lvl 0-1, but less in between?

- Increasing casting time. How Berserk does it, more or less. What if a spell took a number of rounds to cast equal to perhaps half its level, rounded down with a minimum of whatever the current casting time is? But perhaps 75% of the spells in the game would be useless that way, and the rest would be mostly out-of-combat stuff like Commune and Lesser Planar Ally. Damaging spells, anything with 1 round/level duration, and most Battlefield Control would be a total liability. You'd have to revamp or remove the vast majority of spells. I just don't see a way to make this work without massive intervention.

- Adding other penalties to casting. My solution doesn't resolve a lot of the major issues, but I think it does move in the right direction, namely encouraging casters to be more conservative. There's probably a better implementation though, if you can propose one.

Of course, one could always...

- Make spells less powerful. But that also requires massive intervention, and I really don't have the taste for that. It's a huge amount of work on the DM's side rebalancing everything, and it's a huge headache on the PC's side because now they have to remember all the changes, and they can't just look in the book to remind themselves what each spell does. I really do not see any way to make spells less powerful without making gameplay worse overall for your average group.