PDA

View Full Version : Another simple magic fix? Really? [PEACH]



Jormengand
2013-07-29, 11:43 PM
Yes, really.

This was designed for PF, but it fits well enough with 3.5e as well.

This fix is really simple in concept. A little harder in execution, so aren't you glad I've done it all for you? Basically, the easiest way of taking power from spellcasters is by taking away their spells. What? No, not all of them. But significantly lowering the number they can chuck out per day will go some way towards balancing them.

What you'll notice is that level 7 spells are the new level 9 spells. Why? because 8th and 9th level spells are too powerful. They need to be reserved for epic territory, because only at the point where a rogue can sneak attack anything that flinches and a fighter can ubercharge everything to death should anyone even think of casting a spell which is essentially "Win battle." (In 3.5, wish actually has a "win battle" option!)

Cleric, Druid, Witch Wizard:
{table]Level|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7
1st|2|1|0|0|0|0|0|0
2nd|3|1|0|0|0|0|0|0
3rd|3|2|0|0|0|0|0|0
4th|3|2|1|0|0|0|0|0
5th|3|2|2|0|0|0|0|0
6th|3|2|2|1|0|0|0|0
7th|3|3|2|2|0|0|0|0
8th|3|3|3|2|0|0|0|0
9th|3|3|3|2|1|0|0|0
10th|3|3|3|3|1|0|0|0
11th|3|3|3|3|2|0|0|0
12th|3|3|3|3|2|1|0|0
13th|3|3|3|3|3|1|0|0
14th|3|3|3|3|3|2|0|0
15th|3|3|3|3|3|2|1|0
16th|3|3|3|3|3|3|1|0
17th|3|3|3|3|3|3|2|0
18th|3|3|3|3|3|3|2|1
19th|3|3|3|3|3|3|3|1
20th|3|3|3|3|3|3|3|2[/table]

Sorcerer, Oracle:
{table]Level|1|2|3|4|5|6|7
1st|2|0|0|0|0|0|0
2nd|2|0|0|0|0|0|0
3rd|3|0|0|0|0|0|0
4th|4|0|0|0|0|0|0
5th|4|3|0|0|0|0|0
6th|4|4|0|0|0|0|0
7th|5|5|0|0|0|0|0
8th|5|5|3|0|0|0|0
9th|5|5|5|0|0|0|0
10th|5|5|5|3|0|0|0
11th|5|5|5|4|0|0|0
12th|5|5|5|5|0|0|0
13th|5|5|5|5|3|0|0
14th|5|5|5|5|4|0|0
15th|5|5|5|5|5|0|0
16th|5|5|5|5|5|3|0
17th|5|5|5|5|5|4|0
18th|5|5|5|5|5|5|0
19th|5|5|5|5|5|5|3
20th|5|5|5|5|5|5|4[/table]

Bard, Inquisitor, Magus:
{table]Level|1|2|3|4|5
1st|1|0|0|0|0|
2nd|2|0|0|0|0|
3rd|3|0|0|0|0|
4th|4|0|0|0|0|
5th|4|1|0|0|0|
6th|4|2|0|0|0|
7th|4|3|0|0|0|
8th|4|3|2|0|0|
9th|4|4|3|0|0|
10th|4|4|4|0|0|
11th|4|4|4|1|0|
12th|4|4|4|2|0|
13th|4|4|4|3|0|
14th|4|4|4|4|0|
15th|4|4|4|4|1|
16th|5|4|4|4|1|
17th|5|4|4|4|2|
18th|5|5|4|4|3|
19th|5|5|5|4|4|
20th|5|5|5|5|5|[/table]

Paladin, Ranger:
It's a trap! Their spellcasting is unchanged. The poor little low-T4/high-T5 classes need all they can get.

Thoughts?

TheFellow
2013-07-30, 02:49 PM
Personally I do not like this fix. The logic behind it is solid; although if you decrease the amount of spell slots that they get; you really get to a point where they can do nothing. I know in the games I get in; we can't safely sleep for a long time; so I end up only being able to use 1 to 2 spells per encounter at low levels.

The other part this fix does not see is that as long as a Wizard knows a spell, when they use an object to cast it (hello, wand); they don't need to make a spell craft check. It happens and marks one of the charges off the amount that the wand holds.

Jormengand
2013-07-30, 03:09 PM
Personally I do not like this fix. The logic behind it is solid; although if you decrease the amount of spell slots that they get; you really get to a point where they can do nothing. I know in the games I get in; we can't safely sleep for a long time; so I end up only being able to use 1 to 2 spells per encounter at low levels.

The other part this fix does not see is that as long as a Wizard knows a spell, when they use an object to cast it (hello, wand); they don't need to make a spell craft check. It happens and marks one of the charges off the amount that the wand holds.

Of course, this fix is situational. If you are in a campaign where you can't rest often, then of course you're going to need more spells per day. I just don't see an adventurer needing to create entire new planes several times per day because he feels like it, or being able to nuke a city he doesn't like on a whim.

Yeah, but remember that in a realistic D&D game a wizard can't just go ahead and buy a wand of limited wish (ignoring the fact that wands can't replicate 5+th level spells), especially if there aren't a ton of high-level NPC casters around. Also, money and sunder attempts will cast greater ruination on your day.

NichG
2013-07-31, 05:46 PM
For me, I'd keep the total number of spell slots per day but basically reduce the progression of spell levels. I don't want to do a full table, but lets say you get something like +1 slot of each spell level you can cast every level, up to a maximum of 8 slots, and you start with 3 first level slots. But now the spell level progression for full casters looks like:

CLv1: Get Lv1 spells
CLv5: Get Lv2 spells
CLv9: Get Lv3 spells
CLv13: Get Lv4 spells
CLv17: Get Lv5 spells

Go ahead and raise the damage caps on damage deal spells to 15 or even 20d6 with this, and you've got a quite playable caster (he can cast tons of different spells all day long) but whose power cap is a lot lower.

On top of this, you can now sparingly introduce things into the game that let you prepare higher level spells in lower level slots. A magical location that basically lets you fill a single slot with a spell up to 1 or 2 spell levels higher would be a highly contested area and a magnificent treasure that would change the game not only for the caster character but for the party (since now you can take someone there to be Resurrected, whereas you couldn't do that otherwise). You could have consumables that let you bump up a slot, ways to ritualize over the course of days that let you bump up a slot (say, if you extend the casting time to 1 week you get a +1), and so on. That way you can keep those spells in the game, but make them a bigger deal to use.

Amechra
2013-08-01, 05:18 AM
NichG...

Why are you talking about my Convoker? (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=5344.0)

:smallwink:

Carl
2013-08-01, 06:37 AM
I know in the games I get in; we can't safely sleep for a long time; so I end up only being able to use 1 to 2 spells per encounter at low levels.

Honestly, this is the real issue. If the rules required you to be a fair ways away from enemies before you could rest spellcasters would be much more balanced. But when most DM's will let a wizard blow all his spells in a couple of encounters then rest at will to recover them all the wizard i free to make full use of his brokenness. The most popular low level damage immunity trick, (wind wall+fly+Mirror image), is 3 spells all by itself, which is too many in games like yours for a single encounter.

Yitzi
2013-08-01, 07:14 AM
Honestly, this is the real issue. If the rules required you to be a fair ways away from enemies before you could rest spellcasters would be much more balanced.

Even if the rules don't require it, simply having the enemies counterattack while you're resting would probably be enough to balance low levels.

High levels are another matter entirely.

Jormengand
2013-08-01, 07:24 AM
High levels are another matter entirely.

Especially when I can create my own demiplane to rest in, yes...

Rolep
2013-08-01, 07:33 AM
I think that NichG has the right idea, but I would also hurt their spells known, resricting them to maybe 2 schools total (sort of like warmage/DN/Beguiler), and to know ANY spell they must do magic research. Thus a character can only get spells that they and the DM want them to get, and only from a select few schools. And yes, someone would need to make a few more decent Divination spells...

ThatOneGuy79
2013-08-01, 09:16 AM
Honestly, the way I deal with casters being more powerful is to, y'know, use smart enemies. Also, in my homebrew world the creatures are significantly more challenging.

Jormengand
2013-08-01, 11:46 AM
I think that NichG has the right idea, but I would also hurt their spells known, resricting them to maybe 2 schools total (sort of like warmage/DN/Beguiler), and to know ANY spell they must do magic research. Thus a character can only get spells that they and the DM want them to get, and only from a select few schools. And yes, someone would need to make a few more decent Divination spells...Yeah, that might also be a good idea.


Honestly, the way I deal with casters being more powerful is to, y'know, use smart enemies. Also, in my homebrew world the creatures are significantly more challenging.I Wish that your smart enemy was never born. Hells, I cast Irresistible Phantasmal Killer on your smart enemy. I hide in an alternate plane for a year while only a day passes in real time, and spend every one of those three hundred and sixty five days casting Explosive Runes in its varying incarnations on a crossbow bolt, power up my True Strike, land back in reality and shoot your Smart EnemyTM in the face.

The problem with D&D is that no matter how optimised, intelligent and downright lucky that fighter is, a wizard can and will kill him as a standard or even a swift action if he has half a clue what he's doing.

Yitzi
2013-08-01, 12:09 PM
I Wish that your smart enemy was never born.

I'm pretty sure that's outside the limits of the spell. (It can undo recent events, not decades-ago events.) Not sure what it'd do instead, but probably nothing you want.


Your other points are good though; I have no clue what the guy who designed irresistible spell was thinking (unless it was "how can I make casters even more overpowered than they are already?"). It would be horrible game design even if it weren't horribly overpowered.

Cheiromancer
2013-08-01, 12:26 PM
Honestly, this is the real issue. If the rules required you to be a fair ways away from enemies before you could rest spellcasters would be much more balanced. But when most DM's will let a wizard blow all his spells in a couple of encounters then rest at will to recover them all the wizard i free to make full use of his brokenness. The most popular low level damage immunity trick, (wind wall+fly+Mirror image), is 3 spells all by itself, which is too many in games like yours for a single encounter.

Maybe add some kind of control over how often spellcasters recharge spells? The system is apparently balanced on the notion that there are 4 encounters between rests, and 13.33 encounters per level. So a spellcaster should only need to recharge 4 times a level. Let's be generous and make it 5 times. (Plus 1/month for non-adventuring wizards)


Your other points are good though; I have no clue what the guy who designed irresistible spell was thinking (unless it was "how can I make casters even more overpowered than they are already?"). It would be horrible game design even if it weren't horribly overpowered.

It seems to me that there ought to be some way of designing the feat so it is useful but not broken. Maybe if there were some hit dice limitations? Like if it only denied saves to creatures whose hit dice did not exceed the spell level. Then you could cast an irresistible phantasmal killer at an 8th level character and kill him, provided you hadn't used any metamagic reducers (if you used arcane thesis on it, it would only be irresistible against 7th level characters, etc).

Of course this is only one broken thing in the game (assuming KoK stuff properly counts as a part of the game, that is). While a few broken features can be fixed, global rule changes seem more likely to fix things than a few band-aids here and there.

Amechra
2013-08-01, 12:34 PM
Irresistible Spell is:

A. Third party, and therefor kinda irrelevant to balance concerns, since it won't be allowed at most tables.

B. Was errata'd to "only" be a +10 to the save DC. Which, when compared to Heighten Spell, is actually closer to a +6 to the save DC.

It is an awful feat, but anyone using it should be smacked. The same for wishing for your opponent to never be born (that ain't on the safe list. Sucker.)

No, when you are a Wizard, you solve your problems by killing your opponent before they were born. Explosively. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2287.msg71122#msg71122) Wish isn't necessary, you know. Or very creative.

Yitzi
2013-08-01, 01:26 PM
Maybe add some kind of control over how often spellcasters recharge spells? The system is apparently balanced on the notion that there are 4 encounters between rests, and 13.33 encounters per level. So a spellcaster should only need to recharge 4 times a level. Let's be generous and make it 5 times. (Plus 1/month for non-adventuring wizards)

Poor idea, as once he runs out he's pretty much useless for the rest of the level unless he wants to wait a month. I'd say a better approach is to limit it to one recharge/day, and then take a lesson from RTS games like Starcraft: If you wait around to recharge, the other guy's going to just strengthen his position until you can't do anything to him.

Remember, the reason you send an adventuring party rather than an army (at least at low levels) is often because it's faster and easier to sneak in, so you can hit the enemy before he fully mobilizes.


It seems to me that there ought to be some way of designing the feat so it is useful but not broken.


Maybe if there were some hit dice limitations? Like if it only denied saves to creatures whose hit dice did not exceed the spell level.

Such creatures usually wouldn't make their saves anyway.


Then you could cast an irresistible phantasmal killer at an 8th level character

4th level; most metamagic does not increase spell level.

Jormengand
2013-08-01, 02:00 PM
Irresistible Spell is:

A. Third party, and therefor kinda irrelevant to balance concerns, since it won't be allowed at most tables.

B. Was errata'd to "only" be a +10 to the save DC. Which, when compared to Heighten Spell, is actually closer to a +6 to the save DC.

It is an awful feat, but anyone using it should be smacked. The same for wishing for your opponent to never be born (that ain't on the safe list. Sucker.)

No, when you are a Wizard, you solve your problems by killing your opponent before they were born. Explosively. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2287.msg71122#msg71122) Wish isn't necessary, you know. Or very creative.

Exactly. There are so many ways on screwing around with ninth level spells that it's not even funny. Even a first level wizard can kill another first level character without giving him a save, but we hope your players aren't dirty enough to do that. A seventeenth level wizard is automatically dirty enough to do that.

Let's look at the ninth level PF W/S spells, which aren't actually as broken as the 3.5 ones:

Freedom: Release someone from one of the dirtiest spells ever (see below)
Imprisonment: Save (probably at -4) or be harder to reach than if you were dead. There is only one spell which will release the subject - not even Miracle or Wish will release the subject.
Mage's Disjunction: Destroy magic items made by deities. Kill constructs/undead/anything that lives on magic.
Mage's Excelent Enclosure: AKA "Kill spellcaster who's worse in combat than you."
Communal Mind Blank: Stop divination, even through miracle/wish.
Prismatic Sphere: Oi! go away, I'm trying to cast Karsus' Avatar/rest/whatever here! *Casts P sphere* *Casts Permanency.* Yeah, it kills anything that touches it. Disjoin your way out afterwards.
Spellbane: Target spellcaster's spells don't work.
Symbol of Vulnerability: Stick it next to a symbol of death and laugh.
Wall of Suppression: No-one takes this, but it's nice for unbuffing and un-magic-iteming everyone else.
Clashing Rocks: Kill target enemy.
GCD: Make your own plane of existence. Come on!
Gate: Stick it under a fighter and send them to the plane of Kill Everything.
Interplanetary Teleport: Move wherever you like as a standard action.
Refuge: Make a single-shot stone of recall. Not great, but no-one takes it.
Summon Monster IX: Summon a creature with at least ten ways to kill whatever you like.
Teleportation Circle: Makes circle that can be used either as a trap or to teleport yourself.
Tsunami: Destroy a town and kill everyone in it.
Wooden Phalanx: 6d6*(1d4+2) damage per round in an area for several hours.
Foresight: You know about everyone who is trying to kill you.
Dominate Monster: Pet dragon.
Heroic Invocation: with clever spacing, make a small battalion stupidly powerful.
Mass hold monster: Stop whatever you like from moving.
Overwhelming presence: Make everything helpless, and drain its wisdom when it snaps out of it.
PWK: Kill target creature with <101 health. No save.
Symbol of Strife: Make those who trigger rune kill each other.
Crushing Hand: Giant hand does everything.
Mass Icy Prison: Save-or-trapped, still makes those who pass suck.
Meteor Swarm: Stupid amount of AoE damage.
Ride the Lightning: Be a lightning bolt. Nothing hurts you, ever.
Winds of Vengeance: Fly, and anything that attacks you either fails, or must save or take damage and fall over.
Shades: Replicate any conjuration spell below ninth level.
Weird: Failing a double save kills everyone nearby. Passing only one deals a little damage and some strength damage.
Astral Projection: Send multiple people to astral plane.
Canopic conversion: High damage, dead target becomes a mummy.
Cursed Earth: Make a mile radius kill and reanimate everything, essentially destroying a city. Saves? Spell resistance? You wish.
Energy Drain: 2d4 negative levels on RTA, no save except 24 hours later roll for each one or it's permanent.
Soul Bind: Trap soul - not even Miracle or Wish returns it.
Mass Suffocation: Save or die affects 1/2 a person per level. You need to fail multiple saves to die, but you need to take one every round for CL rounds.
Wail of the Banshee: Deal 4000 damage. I'm not kidding.
Etherialness: Be Ethereal with friends.
Fiery body: Become amazing, fly everywhere, burn everyone.
Salvage: repair any ship you like.
Shapechange: Turn into your choice of creature each round.
Timestop: Buff yourself horrifically or make tons of DBFs everywhere.
Transmute Blood to acid: 12d6 damage/round, FOR half. Only lasts 4 rounds, so what?
World Wave: The earth carries you around and smashes anything that gets in your way:
Wish: Do stupidly powerful things.

THAT is why spellcasters should not have ninth level spells.

Yitzi
2013-08-01, 02:05 PM
THAT is why spellcasters should not have ninth level spells.

Though some spells, such as Meteor Swarm, could probably be brought down some levels.

(I would say that as a general rule, a wizard should be evenly matched with a fighter 2-3 levels lower in a straight-out fight, in order to compensate for all his noncombat options.)

Jormengand
2013-08-01, 02:16 PM
Though some spells, such as Meteor Swarm, could probably be brought down some levels.

(I would say that as a general rule, a wizard should be evenly matched with a fighter 2-3 levels lower in a straight-out fight, in order to compensate for all his noncombat options.)

Surely a fighter 2-3 levels HIGHER would be more appropriate?

Cheiromancer
2013-08-01, 02:29 PM
Poor idea, as once he runs out he's pretty much useless for the rest of the level unless he wants to wait a month. I'd say a better approach is to limit it to one recharge/day, and then take a lesson from RTS games like Starcraft: If you wait around to recharge, the other guy's going to just strengthen his position until you can't do anything to him.

One recharge/day is what we already have. I am saying that he can rest and regain spells only 5 times in a given level of experience. After that... say it costs 100 xp/level to recharge spells, and he can lose levels that way. (Insert your own method of dealing with thought bottle abuse)


most metamagic does not increase spell level.

Sorry, I thought irresistible spell was a +4 metamagic. And I thought there were only a few metamagic spells that did not increase spell level. Invisible and cooperative come to mind.

As for 9th level spells, I think they should be in the game, just hard to get. Maybe make them available only to single-class casters? Or else make casters have to give up caster levels along the way so that 9ths are available only at 20th level (and 5ths at 10th).

These suggestions are very rough; warmages, for instance, are nerfed by many of these changes even though they are not problematically strong. Very careful language has to be used.

Jormengand
2013-08-01, 02:34 PM
Sorry, I thought irresistible spell was a +4 metamagic. And I thought there were only a few metamagic spells that did not increase spell level. Invisible and cooperative come to mind.

Higher spell slot, same spell level.

Yitzi
2013-08-01, 02:44 PM
One recharge/day is what we already have. I am saying that he can rest and regain spells only 5 times in a given level of experience. After that... say it costs 100 xp/level to recharge spells, and he can lose levels that way. (Insert your own method of dealing with thought bottle abuse)

I believe that he actually can get nearly 3 recharges/day by RAW, as it only takes 8 hours rest.


Sorry, I thought irresistible spell was a +4 metamagic.

It is. But a +4 metamagic just takes a slot 4 levels higher; unless the metamagic is Heighten Spell, it does not actually increase the spell's level.

Cheiromancer
2013-08-01, 02:58 PM
Higher spell slot, same spell level.

If I talk about about a +4 metamagic feat on a 4th level spell and refer to its spell level as 8, is it not clear I am talking about the level of the spell slot?

Anyway, your original post reduces both the highest level spell as well as the number of spells per day. Eliminating 9th level spells (or making them capstones, or accessible only via a feat after 18th level, or whatever) is probably wise. There are just too many problematic spells there. Although a few are OK. 8th's... the case is less compelling.

I like NichG's (and apparently Amechra's) idea to increase the number of spells available per spell level, so that the total number of spells per day is the same. If not, I can really see casters confronted by the following trilemma:
rest after each encounter
be useful only during the first encounter of a day
be mostly useless during every encounter of a day

Maybe the upper tier spellcasters would adjust, and be much more stingy with their spells. Dunno. But that would be my main concern.

Amechra
2013-08-01, 02:59 PM
I really think Power Word Kill is level appropriate; I mean, what are you doing, wandering around high level combat with only 100 HP?

I remember seeing someone post calculations somewhere that every PHB class can expect to average 200 damage at least each round by 20th level, at a reasonable level of optimization. Therefor, getting rid of someone who would take half a round to kill in half a round? Not a problem.

I think more spells should be written like the Power Word line; they don't work on people who have more than X HP. I mean, I wouldn't apply that to blasting spells (Kellus' truenaming fix did that, and it felt really unsatisfying), but others? Yep.

Jormengand
2013-08-01, 03:02 PM
I really think Power Word Kill is level appropriate; I mean, what are you doing, wandering around high level combat with only 100 HP?

PWK, yeah, go ahead. Other spells you can get at ninth deserve to be shot.

Cheiromancer
2013-08-01, 03:58 PM
I believe that he actually can get nearly 3 recharges/day by RAW, as it only takes 8 hours rest.

Well, not for clerics. And there seem to be an awful lot of references to "daily spells" in the SRD section regarding a wizard's spell preparation. That said, as a DM I've allowed a "midnight mass" so that clerics can do their healbot thing faster. Only on non-adventuring days, though.

As for other 9th level spells... well, for wizards there is bigby's crushing hand, energy drain, etherealness, hold monster, mass, meteor swarm, prismatic sphere (no worse than prismatic wall, surely), refuge (it's a cleric 7), soul bind, wail of the banshee, weird... this is just from the PHB. Oh, and if you allow SM VIII there is no reason to ban SM IX. None of these seem broken to me.

Other spells would have to be found from other sources to balance out the schools, but even if you are squeamish about dominate monster there are enough other things for a standard wizard to learn.

NichG
2013-08-01, 04:44 PM
I think the refresh thing is a bit of a red herring. While there is a resource management mini-game in the Vancian casting system that may be desireable to retain, in practice the number of encounters per day varies so much anyhow in practice that I'd rather try to balance around the wizard's peak power and make sure that peak power lasts a bit longer than try to make it decay quickly and force the assumption DMs are really going to run 4 fights a day. The balance of 'nova-capable' characters is really hard since you never know when they're going to Rope Trick and be at full fighting trim for the boss fight or whatever.

In response to the up-thread comment about smarter enemies though: the problem with magic as it stands isn't that the DM can't challenge those characters, its that other PCs who aren't a Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Archivist are likely to be marginalized. Its about spotlight balance, not difficulty level.

Yitzi
2013-08-02, 07:13 AM
If I talk about about a +4 metamagic feat on a 4th level spell and refer to its spell level as 8, is it not clear I am talking about the level of the spell slot?

But when you say it affects a maximum HD equal to spell level, that suggests you're using the actual spell level used in the rules (for things like DCs, Globe of Invulnerability, etc.), which is not increased by metamagic other than Heighten.



Well, not for clerics.

True.


And there seem to be an awful lot of references to "daily spells" in the SRD section regarding a wizard's spell preparation.

Oh, 1/day is definitely RAI; I just don't think it's explicit in RAW.