New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 63
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SowZ's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver
    Gender
    Male

    Default Simple Caster Limitation

    If you want a quick and dirty fix for full casting vs. non-casting classes, make the XP needed to advance from one level to the next be double that if you want to level up in a full caster class. So just find the difference between the XP you have at, say, level ten and at level eleven and double the difference. That is the XP that one must gain to get the eleventh level of wizard.

    If the character is multiclassing, instead of doubling the XP find out the normal XP to get to the next level and then add the difference in XP as if they were leveling up with all their mundane class levels removed. (Does that make sense?)

    Classes like Warlock, Bard, Psychic Warrior, etc. or other classes that start out with casting but don't have a full progression are one third more expensive, XP-wise.

    In this way, multiclassing between casting and non casting classes may be more prevalent, (it is a more viable option, at least,) and magic becomes harder to master than mundane skills. (Which is how it should be, I think.) It also helps game balance some. Sure, it still doesn't address the core issue of versatility and being able to replicate entire lines of class features or feat chains with one spell, but when to be a tenth level wizard you will have to adventure with a twentieth level barbarian, the caster will definitely need and rely on their mundane allies more.
    Homebrew PrC: The Performance Artist
    Avatar by Kymme

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Wouldn't it be way easier just to give all full casters a +1 or +2 level adjustment? Xp being a river and all that jazz.
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Troll in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    A lot of people go on about "Tier 1" classes or full caster classes "breaking the game" or "overshadowing" the others - this is not entirely correct.

    The truth is that they can do this, if played that way, but usually don't (unless everyone optimizes hard). They play to be effective and have fun. One of the most effective ways to play a wizard can be as a party buffer. Yes they really effect the power balance of party v. monsters, but overshadow fellow PCs? - they do the exact opposite by making them so much more effective.
    Most potentially game-breaking spells are 9th level (yes not all) and many campaigns never reach them, or if they do they are not abused. Breaking a game is rarely a player's aim - they are there to have fun too and breaking a game kills that.
    So looking at lower level tricks, a lot of them seem to be very situational (which means prepared casters do not use them as they need to prepare a flexible spell load) or not very repeatable - which means no one uses them as no one wants to stop for the night directly after breakfast when the sorceror says "yes I just single-handedly killed all the enemy guards, but now I need to regain my spell slots" - too high a chance those guards will have been replaced.
    [Caveat: if you managed to get a party to bounce (i.e. run away) then the chances are that the prepared casters will come back with spell lists tuned for that fight - this tends to make them short.]

    In short one only needs to deal with the potential power imbalance if it becomes a problem, otherwise you create the problem!
    A lot of people play fairly average pure casters, e.g. clerics that mainly heal but carry some fun stuff to chuck around as well (after all if the cleric does the fighting, who does the in-combat healing?). These characters can be quite easily overshadowed by an optimised fighter other "low-tier" character. Apply flat penalties to pure casters and you just make things worse!
    your method will make the fighter reach 11th level before the wizard and cleric reach 7th. This means that either they get killed in one hit by a critter that is a fair opponent for him, or all the monsters die in one hit from the fighter.
    Also D&D is balanced for a high magic environment - healing, long term buffs, combat buffs etc. - if you make pure casters cost twice the xp then a lot of player swill not (and rightly so) touch them - and the game will then go straight out of balance (no serious healing for a start).

    The best option is usually to run with the rules pretty much as they are, but warn players that if they find tricks to abuse you will take issue with that. If they do stuff that you consider "rules abuse" then discuss it with them and see if they can help you come up with a fix.
    If someone dominates the party too heavily, again discuss it (with everyone) and see if anyone has good suggestions on how to resolve it.

    A lot of people forget that most RPGs have age ratings on the side that are actually quite high - they are there for a reason, gamers are expected to be reasonably mature. In that light try behaving as if we are all mature - people might surprise you.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Quote Originally Posted by khedrac
    stuff
    I tend to agree, but the OP was looking for a quick and dirty caster nerf. I personally think that simply saying that a T1 or T2 caster getting a +X level adjustment is much simpler, and just as effective, as what he suggested.
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Quote Originally Posted by Khedrac View Post
    clerics that mainly heal but carry some fun stuff to chuck around as well (after all if the cleric does the fighting, who does the in-combat healing?).
    In combat healing is pretty terrible anyway, at least until you get Heal. From a mechanical standpoint it's much better to focus on killing the enemies ASAP and patch up afterward. Even if you do have a fighter, the cleric is much better off joining in on bashing skulls than hanging back and healing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khedrac View Post
    your method will make the fighter reach 11th level before the wizard and cleric reach 7th.
    And it still won't help much, as a 7th level cleric, druid or wizard can do loads more than an 11th level fighter

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Numerically, a Lv20 Wizard in this system would need 380000xp. Additionally, this is mostly loaded into getting the high levels of Wizard. Anyone could mix in three or four levels of Wizard without nearly this XP penalty. That is basically the benchmark to reproduce if trying to implement this with LA, so a fixed LA won't do (and +1 or +2 is certainly going to be too small - a +2 LA would be 231000xp).

    This system is somewhere between gaining one LA per 2 levels and per 3 levels of wizard (starting at 0). One per two levels puts Lv20 Wizard at 435000xp. One per three puts it at 325000xp.

    Edit: A good compromise would be one LA per spell level you gain access to after the first.

    As far as XP-is-a-river, that suggests that to duplicate the effect of this system you'd be closer to one per three than one per two, assuming a campaign where combat XP is the bulk and the CR system is actually used. Keep in mind that XP rewards stop scaling beyond CR+5 though, so it won't make up an arbitrarily large difference.
    Last edited by NichG; 2012-07-26 at 07:48 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Troll in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Quote Originally Posted by LordBlades View Post
    In combat healing is pretty terrible anyway, at least until you get Heal. From a mechanical standpoint it's much better to focus on killing the enemies ASAP and patch up afterward. Even if you do have a fighter, the cleric is much better off joining in on bashing skulls than hanging back and healing.
    In-combat healing pre-Heal (and from shortly thereafter to Mass heal) may be horrible, that does not mean it is not necessary. Having been playing a favored soul healer in a fight where at one point both "tanks" were only alive due to delay death confirmed that one for me... Try to do fights without in-combat healing too often and you will wind up with dead characters without an overpowering CR - at some point the dice will kill you.
    Quote Originally Posted by LordBlades View Post
    And it still won't help much, as a 7th level cleric, druid or wizard can do loads more than an 11th level fighter
    Except survive when hit for a reasonable amount of damage - especially wizards even with good con.
    Last edited by Khedrac; 2012-07-26 at 09:21 AM.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Most games won't have problems with fullcasters making other classes irrelevant. Mature players will be able to avoid these problems entirely (i.e. don't Polymorph into a Cryohydra and solo the encounter, focus on buff and CC, let out the occasional blast when needed).

    A Wizard dedicating himself to outdoing the Fighter is a waste of a Wizard. At best, you end up with slightly better numbers anyway.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SowZ's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    Wouldn't it be way easier just to give all full casters a +1 or +2 level adjustment? Xp being a river and all that jazz.
    But then casters can't start out as casters. Simpler, sure, but not exactly what I am going for. I don't actually calculate XP when I DM, so basically it would just be, "For every one level of a caster you take, you could have taken two martial levels."

    Quote Originally Posted by Khedrac View Post
    A lot of people go on about "Tier 1" classes or full caster classes "breaking the game" or "overshadowing" the others - this is not entirely correct.

    The truth is that they can do this, if played that way, but usually don't (unless everyone optimizes hard). They play to be effective and have fun. One of the most effective ways to play a wizard can be as a party buffer. Yes they really effect the power balance of party v. monsters, but overshadow fellow PCs? - they do the exact opposite by making them so much more effective.
    Most potentially game-breaking spells are 9th level (yes not all) and many campaigns never reach them, or if they do they are not abused. Breaking a game is rarely a player's aim - they are there to have fun too and breaking a game kills that.
    So looking at lower level tricks, a lot of them seem to be very situational (which means prepared casters do not use them as they need to prepare a flexible spell load) or not very repeatable - which means no one uses them as no one wants to stop for the night directly after breakfast when the sorceror says "yes I just single-handedly killed all the enemy guards, but now I need to regain my spell slots" - too high a chance those guards will have been replaced.
    [Caveat: if you managed to get a party to bounce (i.e. run away) then the chances are that the prepared casters will come back with spell lists tuned for that fight - this tends to make them short.]

    In short one only needs to deal with the potential power imbalance if it becomes a problem, otherwise you create the problem!
    A lot of people play fairly average pure casters, e.g. clerics that mainly heal but carry some fun stuff to chuck around as well (after all if the cleric does the fighting, who does the in-combat healing?). These characters can be quite easily overshadowed by an optimised fighter other "low-tier" character. Apply flat penalties to pure casters and you just make things worse!
    your method will make the fighter reach 11th level before the wizard and cleric reach 7th. This means that either they get killed in one hit by a critter that is a fair opponent for him, or all the monsters die in one hit from the fighter.
    Also D&D is balanced for a high magic environment - healing, long term buffs, combat buffs etc. - if you make pure casters cost twice the xp then a lot of player swill not (and rightly so) touch them - and the game will then go straight out of balance (no serious healing for a start).

    The best option is usually to run with the rules pretty much as they are, but warn players that if they find tricks to abuse you will take issue with that. If they do stuff that you consider "rules abuse" then discuss it with them and see if they can help you come up with a fix.
    If someone dominates the party too heavily, again discuss it (with everyone) and see if anyone has good suggestions on how to resolve it.

    A lot of people forget that most RPGs have age ratings on the side that are actually quite high - they are there for a reason, gamers are expected to be reasonably mature. In that light try behaving as if we are all mature - people might surprise you.
    This is mostly true at lower levels of play. But once you reach, say, twelfth level the wizard will have to actively limit himself hard not to just steamroll anything that the same level of Fighter could handle.

    Limiting a wizard by making them not use their power spells, not optimize, or be a buffer could limit the fun for a lot of people as opposed to just playing the game. It is like when people run through a video game and say "I am beating Halo 3 with only a pistol this time!" I don't want my players to have to do that. Besides, when is too much?

    Spoiler
    Show
    At level 20, let's say the party is fighting an army of demons. The wizard dominates the balor so the balor is wiping out a third of his own army. Meanwhile, that wizard is controlling the battlefield that combine him and the Balor he kills half the enemies.

    A cleric gates in something and Clericzillas a couple demons while his summon kills another third of the army. Meanwhile, the Barbarian kills a Glabrezu and the Figher kills a handful of Babaus.

    These are normal, expected applications of spells without any tricks. Should I go through and just ban every power spell? I would rather limit the casters spells by making it harder to achieve new spell levels.


    But it is true, this is more aimed towards high levels of play.

    Once a wizard is high level, they have so many spell slots that they can make most of them utility spells which means that the idea that they will run out of their encounter ending spells or not have it prepared becomes less and less true as the game goes on. I have never seen a level 10+ caster run out of spells. This makes a pure wizard in a level 20 game have to play at level 10. He will still be super useful and occasionally shine in encounters only he can deal with and have enough utility and control and even a bit of burst damage to have fun. But he will also need the level 20 Ranger to protect him and dish out damage.

    As it stands, the Ranger may as well be a Cohort as the wizard doesn't really need him.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    I tend to agree, but the OP was looking for a quick and dirty caster nerf. I personally think that simply saying that a T1 or T2 caster getting a +X level adjustment is much simpler, and just as effective, as what he suggested.
    It doesn't quite get the desired effect, though, and hurts you just as much even if you dip into a casting class.

    Quote Originally Posted by LordBlades View Post
    In combat healing is pretty terrible anyway, at least until you get Heal. From a mechanical standpoint it's much better to focus on killing the enemies ASAP and patch up afterward. Even if you do have a fighter, the cleric is much better off joining in on bashing skulls than hanging back and healing.



    And it still won't help much, as a 7th level cleric, druid or wizard can do loads more than an 11th level fighter
    Would you agree that a tenth level wizard is still useful next to a twentieth level fighter or fifteenth level bard?

    Quote Originally Posted by NichG View Post
    Numerically, a Lv20 Wizard in this system would need 380000xp. Additionally, this is mostly loaded into getting the high levels of Wizard. Anyone could mix in three or four levels of Wizard without nearly this XP penalty. That is basically the benchmark to reproduce if trying to implement this with LA, so a fixed LA won't do (and +1 or +2 is certainly going to be too small - a +2 LA would be 231000xp).

    This system is somewhere between gaining one LA per 2 levels and per 3 levels of wizard (starting at 0). One per two levels puts Lv20 Wizard at 435000xp. One per three puts it at 325000xp.

    Edit: A good compromise would be one LA per spell level you gain access to after the first.

    As far as XP-is-a-river, that suggests that to duplicate the effect of this system you'd be closer to one per three than one per two, assuming a campaign where combat XP is the bulk and the CR system is actually used. Keep in mind that XP rewards stop scaling beyond CR+5 though, so it won't make up an arbitrarily large difference.
    Hmm. Interesting. It may be simpler. You are saying making your LA equal to the spell level or spell level minus one is close to equivalent to my system?

    Of course, one thing I am trying to do is actually encourage people not to go straight wizard or straight cleric. So it should be easier to grab wizard two than wizard five. The way I view it, magic is really complicated. Not enough that people can't dabble or learn a little of it with great difficulty but enough that it takes intense dedication to learn a lot. Most people would not have the time or willpower to spend all their time in study when they know they can learn swordplay much faster. Even someone who starts out as a wizard may be tempted to pick up a sword after enough times getting stabbed.

    Another thing I am trying to do a little is emphasize a weakness of pure casters so they need their buddies more. That is, the HP differential between a level ten wizard and fighter is massive now. (I maximize HD, by the way.) Further, they have lower saves. (I like the idea of the fighting classes being more resilient in general. (A ten wizard is only one will save higher than a twenty fighter. I like that, myself.) Anyway, wizards are supposed to have awesome offense and utility but be vulnerable. But with all their spells and contingencies it doesn't usually work out that way. This returns a bit of that.

    That also encourages more multiclassing. A wizard eight may prefer to grab ranger two than wizard nine when he knows he will get better with a bow, (for when he wants to save his offensive spells and plink at mooks getting too close,) and get two quick save bonus' and quadruple the HP gain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khedrac View Post
    In-combat healing pre-Heal (and from shortly thereafter to Mass heal) may be horrible, that does not mean it is not necessary. Having been playing a favored soul healer in a fight where at one point both "tanks" were only alive due to delay death confirmed that one for me... Try to do fights without in-combat healing too often and you will wind up with dead characters without an overpowering CR - at some point the dice will kill you.
    Except survive when hit for a reasonable amount of damage - especially wizards even with good con.
    So the wizard has to play smart to survive and use his allies more. A wizard twenty basically just has to not play stupid to survive or not get horribly unlucky. (But luck can kill any class.) Also, that is a reason why most wizards will multiclass. There is a reason most wizards stay in a tower and research spells or stay at the back of massive battlelines in war. They really don't know how to fight.

    In lore and myth and video games and movies, a lot of heroes dabble in magic or even are really good at it. But most know how to fight, too. The way I view it, adventurers are well off learning how to fight. If a sorcerer wanted to be an adventurer, he would probably learn at least something about combat before or along the way. This system allows for going pure caster, but encourages not. Most wizards in a tower would get killed in a battle without a lot of preparation and allies. A wizard ten represents a tower wizard a little moreso than a hardened adventurer. Even despite that, it does help balance.

    Also, it keeps casters from one shotting a boss easily. Whereas it is not hard to make a character that can dominate a CR20 monster reliably by level sixteen or so, a level ten wizard probably won't have saves in the thirties. Upper twenties, maybe. That isn't going to dominate an old dragon with much reliability. (Keep in mind the ten wizard still counts as twenty for WBL since he has been adventuring for that long, which will make him considerably better than a normal wizard ten.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipperychicken View Post
    Most games won't have problems with fullcasters making other classes irrelevant. Mature players will be able to avoid these problems entirely (i.e. don't Polymorph into a Cryohydra and solo the encounter, focus on buff and CC, let out the occasional blast when needed).

    A Wizard dedicating himself to outdoing the Fighter is a waste of a Wizard. At best, you end up with slightly better numbers anyway.
    Once you get into the teens, I disagree. In the single digits, maybe. But a level twenty wizard using his spells as intended with no tricks or exploits or advanced spell combos or metamagic reduces can still trivialize encounters with ease. The game is designed that magic is limited and so should be stronger in burst AND wizards are squishier. But the spells help defense so much and at high levels a wizard never runs out that these weakness' are trivial.

    A twenty figher unoptimized will be putting something on the line taking on a balor. A wizard can probably dominate one and force it to fight the others while using control and flight and other damage spells well enough to take on two, maybe even three. An optimized wizard even moreso.

    Anyway, the players should not have to severely handicap themselves to make the fighter feel better.

    Anyway, shouldn't unlocking the secrets to manipulating the universe take longer and be harder than learning good sword swinging stances? What would you all feel like playing in this system? I want to continue the discussions we are having, but I also wonder would this discourage you all from going caster? Would you dip maybe six levels or would any of you still go for it? Ignore them completely?
    Last edited by SowZ; 2012-07-26 at 11:25 AM.
    Homebrew PrC: The Performance Artist
    Avatar by Kymme

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Alternatively, limit characters from taking more than half their current character levels in any one full-caster class. Allow a dedicated wizard to take "alternate" wizard" as a second class, a class which has rules identical to the standard wizard but whose spell-casting does not stack with his other wizard class. And ditto for clerics (the cleric's "alternate cleric" class should be of the same deity).

    This will of course preclude some of the highest level spells from entering the game pre-epic. And certain prestige classes will need to be reviewed (make them count as levels in the same class that they are stacking their casting ability on).

    This will also make some of those "count levels in class X as levels in class Y" feats one of the Complete books more useful from.
    Last edited by Ashtagon; 2012-07-26 at 11:29 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    OP: If casters being unbalanced is a thing that happens in your game, here's a possible solution!

    First: That never happens! unless it does!

    the Rest: maybe a useful suggestion, mostly anecdotal nonsense.


    I find that people that post solutions to "Tier 1 unbalanced" have typically run into situations where that was a thing.

    I find that people that post that the idea of unbalanced classes is stupid or never comes up are idiots (or new).

    well, not idiots, per se. that's mean.

    Counterproductive?

    Basically: don't tell someone their problem isn't a problem because you don't think it is.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    As far as wizards trivializing encounters- I played a wizard with no feats and three levels behind the party, and I trivialized entire dungeons.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Quote Originally Posted by Khedrac View Post
    In-combat healing pre-Heal (and from shortly thereafter to Mass heal) may be horrible, that does not mean it is not necessary. Having been playing a favored soul healer in a fight where at one point both "tanks" were only alive due to delay death confirmed that one for me... Try to do fights without in-combat healing too often and you will wind up with dead characters without an overpowering CR - at some point the dice will kill you.
    My groups routinely does fights without in combat healing on high power campaigns without much trouble. Small amounts of D8s+a little bit simply can't keep up with level appropriate monster damage. And for emergencies, Delay Death(which is an immediate action, and past a certain level of power all your beatsticks should have Beastland Ferocity cast precombat anyway) handles it just fine. Same for Revivify/Last Breath.

    Except survive when hit for a reasonable amount of damage - especially wizards even with good con.
    But he has tons more ways to prevent the enemies from hitting him compared to a fighter.





    Would you agree that a tenth level wizard is still useful next to a twentieth level fighter or fifteenth level bard?
    I actually believe a 10th level wizard is tons more useful than a 20th level fighter. An 11th level wizard even more so.
    Same goes for bard. They both get 5th level spells, except wizard spell list>bard spell list. Although a 15th level bard can stand next to a 10th level wizard and not feel useless.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyde View Post
    I find that people that post that the idea of unbalanced classes is stupid or never comes up are idiots (or new).

    well, not idiots, per se.
    So I'm an idiot... but not an idiot?


    Players I've experienced will either show restraint with T1s, or are not rules-savvy enough to destroy the game with them. If this makes me an idiot, either say it or don't. Because I'm certainly not "new".

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SowZ's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipperychicken View Post
    So I'm an idiot... but not an idiot?


    Players I've experienced will either show restraint with T1s, or are not rules-savvy enough to destroy the game with them. If this makes me an idiot, either say it or don't. Because I'm certainly not "new".
    T1s played normally, using dominate and gate and polymorph as intended and expected will overshadow a fighter nine times out of ten.
    Homebrew PrC: The Performance Artist
    Avatar by Kymme

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Banned
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2012

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    LOL at the idea casters are so much better that L10 casters would be better alongside L20 non-casters.

    Better at what? Spells? ok, the others, by our definition, don't cast spells. Combat can't possibly be meant, is it?

    I think the easiest fix of all would be to sheer off the L6-9 spells from the game. Leave them increasing in CL, and they can have the HL slots, useful for extra low level spells (with or without any metamagic feats they have).

    I'd let heighten spell applied to summon monster/nature's ally get the critters of the spell heightened to. Probably needs a few other such tweaks.

    Call it a low magic world if you like (but that's not really true). One can leave in items with L6-9 spells, on occassion, created by the gawds or other ubers. HL monsters might need some tweaks for un-escapable spells, but not all that much I expect.

    At least this way the casters have some HD, HP, saves, skills, feats & CL (that matters vs monsters). Perhaps the WILL still put fighters, rogues & the rest to shame, but I doubt it.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Larpus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Just to be sure, you want to bring the power level of full casters down, so bringing the level of the others up wouldn't help, right?

    Anyway, on the matter at hand...your idea seems a bit too harsh, as Khedrac said, the casters will simply be too weak and I believe too useless since their DCs and BAB (in addition to HP) will be a joke, rendering them pretty useless.

    The best way is to probably limit spells that you find problematic and possibly lower the amount of higher level spells they get each level; possibly also increasing the cost of created magic items so they don't get too many more spells than they should.

    However, with changes like that in effect, I'd be tempted to say that Wizards, Sorcerers and other 1/2 BAB classes might be candidates to become 3/4 instead, as they can't do much more than casting, so take that away and they're deadweight.

    EDIT: Also, if you have so much against full-casters, I think it may be best to simply disallow them, encouraging people to play the "half caster" guys like Bard, Warmage and whatnot, which everyone agrees to be much more in line and overall balanced.
    Last edited by Larpus; 2012-07-26 at 12:55 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    eggs's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    A level 9 Wizard still plays a completely different game than a level 13 fighter - especially if they each have ECL 13 wealth.

    This looks crippling for the balanced casters (the Warmage and Wilder aren't hurting for fixes, except certain patchable problems), obnoxious for the full casters (having to be even more paranoid to keep playing? bleh) and no better for the weaker classes (the fighter still only fights, still isn't able to produce the battle-changing effects like web or teleports, and still doesn't have effective counters for total lockdowns like Ray of Dizziness or Entangle).

    Balance can be a problem, but it's a problem that's best addressed by approaching directly: Eg. If the fighter doesn't have the versatility of other classes or the tools to contribute in high-level combats, give it that versatility. If the Wizard has too much versatility or too abuseable of spells, hack up its spell list and lock it into a Beguiler-style straightjacket.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Quote Originally Posted by GenghisDon View Post
    LOL at the idea casters are so much better that L10 casters would be better alongside L20 non-casters.

    Better at what? Spells? ok, the others, by our definition, don't cast spells. Combat can't possibly be meant, is it?
    First of all, I meant on equal WBL (As per the OPs suggestion where casters would level up slower, but presumably still get an equal share of the treasure). A 20th level non-caster with full lvl 20 WBL can probably throw enough GP at stuff to be somewhat competitive vs. a 10th level caster with 10th level WBL.

    Secondly, I meant fighter, not 'non-caster' (TOB, MOI Binders and the like are something else entirely).

    And third, I meant everything, including combat

    All a fighter can do at level 20 is hit things with a stick. Depending on optimization, it can be anywhere from horrible to pretty good at it. But he's helpless against problems you can't hit with a stick

    A wizard on the other hand can: fly, teleport, see the future, make people his friends/minions with charm/dominate and tons of other useful stuff, and still has enough tricks to end combat in his favor. Hell, if you really wanted, between polymorph and other buffs, you could also probably out-melee a 20th level fighter.
    Last edited by LordBlades; 2012-07-26 at 01:34 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Quote Originally Posted by eggs View Post
    Balance can be a problem, but it's a problem that's best addressed by approaching directly: Eg. If the fighter doesn't have the versatility of other classes or the tools to contribute in high-level combats, give it that versatility. If the Wizard has too much versatility or too abuseable of spells, hack up its spell list and lock it into a Beguiler-style straightjacket.
    Yep. There is no simple caster limitation. The closest is to ban Vancian full casters except for warmage, dread necro, and beguiler, and then you've got the much smaller psionic list to fix. If you want something that allows wizards and clerics, the only options that will work and still qualify as simple are to balance up - mass-ban everything below T3 except as dips, or gestalt anyone T3 or lower with another class.
    EDIT: Well that's embarrassing, my big bolded point used the wrong first word.
    Last edited by lsfreak; 2012-07-26 at 02:24 PM.
    Proudly without a signature for 5 years. Wait... crap.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ View Post
    If you want a quick and dirty fix for full casting vs. non-casting classes
    I've seen a great many "quick and dirty" fixes for this. Generally, they aren't worth bothering with. The basic issue is...it's a complex problem. Quick fixes to complex problems muck up the works.

    make the XP needed to advance from one level to the next be double that if you want to level up in a full caster class. So just find the difference between the XP you have at, say, level ten and at level eleven and double the difference. That is the XP that one must gain to get the eleventh level of wizard.
    Yay, more math.

    If the character is multiclassing, instead of doubling the XP find out the normal XP to get to the next level and then add the difference in XP as if they were leveling up with all their mundane class levels removed. (Does that make sense?)
    How will I calculate XP for a wizard 3/cleric 3/mystic theurge 10//factotum 11/bard 5?

    In this way, multiclassing between casting and non casting classes may be more prevalent, (it is a more viable option, at least,) and magic becomes harder to master than mundane skills. (Which is how it should be, I think.) It also helps game balance some. Sure, it still doesn't address the core issue of versatility and being able to replicate entire lines of class features or feat chains with one spell, but when to be a tenth level wizard you will have to adventure with a twentieth level barbarian, the caster will definitely need and rely on their mundane allies more.
    It also means that low level wizards, already squishy, basically suck for ages. XP is a river doesn't kick in until level 4. Therefore, low level wizards will be substantially more twitchy, and prone to random death.

    High level casters...well, xp is a river is helping them...

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    {{Scrubbed}}
    Last edited by LibraryOgre; 2012-07-27 at 03:18 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    I've found a terrible solution to tier 1 classes trivializing encounters is to have the party fight tier 1 classes.


    Yeah, this basically ruins everyone's night.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    eggs's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    {{Scrubbed}}
    Last edited by LibraryOgre; 2012-07-27 at 03:19 PM.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    {{Scrubbed}}
    Last edited by LibraryOgre; 2012-07-27 at 03:19 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    eggs's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    {{Scrubbed}}
    Last edited by LibraryOgre; 2012-07-27 at 03:20 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    To the OP...

    Your attempt to do this by manipuating a very clean 3.X system of XP awards is...misguided.

    If you want to slow casting progression down, then probably the simplest approach is this:

    Your caster level, and the number of levels you can take in any primary (ie 1-9) casting class, is limited to 1/2 your character level. Any class, ability, feat, etc. that would break this stricture is banned.

    Quick, simple fix that has the same basic mechanical effect as what you describe, while allowing these now-restricted casters to spend the rest of their XP diversifying into something else that interests them.


    I don't know how WELL that fix would work...other posters have already pointed out some of the problems in the concept and ways that even low-level casters are very effective and powerful.
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    HalflingPirate

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In an Octopus's Garden

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    {{Scrubbed}}

    As far as a Simple caster fix goes, the best one I've ever seen is to limit full casters to the Bard's spell/day table, and Bards to the Adept table. I'd keep spells known the same, allowing a Sorcerer to pick a spell known of any level 0-2, 3-4, or 5-6 in place of a 7th, 8th or 9th respectively.

    It isn't really the HD, BAB and base saves that are making the casters have a quadratic progression. It is the spells.

    It wouldn't be perfect. They would still have a significant edge, but it would chop off the worst of the disparity.

    Edit: This is probably too much of a nerf for the already T3-T4 caster classes, but maybe we could work something out.
    Last edited by LibraryOgre; 2012-07-27 at 03:20 PM.
    Dex

    Spoiler
    Show
    Regarding my Necrotic Apprentice trick:
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Roc View Post
    This is brilliant.
    Regarding my Non-Epic Hidecarved Dragon:
    Quote Originally Posted by Amphetryon View Post
    Nicely done. Probably too cheesy for many tables, but I'd be inclined to allow it at mine, just for chutzpah.

    Have a cookie.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Check out the Versatile Domain Generalist.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Banned
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2012

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Quote Originally Posted by LordBlades View Post
    A wizard on the other hand can: fly, teleport, see the future, make people his friends/minions with charm/dominate and tons of other useful stuff, and still has enough tricks to end combat in his favor. Hell, if you really wanted, between polymorph and other buffs, you could also probably out-melee a 20th level fighter.
    Ah, it is ONLY the fighter that's aweful, got ya.

    Not that I agree, at L20 a Fighter could easily do everything you quote for the L10 wizard (or caster X)...it's called gear.

    If one wants polymorph cheese games...go all the way.

    Greater Cloak of Transformations: Polymorph 5/day. CL15
    Cost: 120,000 gp Req: Craft wondrous item, polymorph, 4,800 XP 60,000 gp

    How's the L20 Fighter doing vs the L10 Wizard now? He's only got 640,000 gp more in gear.

    What? That's a bad item? really? maybe polymorph is just a bad spell.

    Regardless, the game isn't actually about the party killing itself, but about the party overcoming challenges together.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SowZ's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Caster Limitation

    Quote Originally Posted by GenghisDon View Post
    LOL at the idea casters are so much better that L10 casters would be better alongside L20 non-casters.

    Better at what? Spells? ok, the others, by our definition, don't cast spells. Combat can't possibly be meant, is it?

    I think the easiest fix of all would be to sheer off the L6-9 spells from the game. Leave them increasing in CL, and they can have the HL slots, useful for extra low level spells (with or without any metamagic feats they have).

    I'd let heighten spell applied to summon monster/nature's ally get the critters of the spell heightened to. Probably needs a few other such tweaks.

    Call it a low magic world if you like (but that's not really true). One can leave in items with L6-9 spells, on occassion, created by the gawds or other ubers. HL monsters might need some tweaks for un-escapable spells, but not all that much I expect.

    At least this way the casters have some HD, HP, saves, skills, feats & CL (that matters vs monsters). Perhaps the WILL still put fighters, rogues & the rest to shame, but I doubt it.
    That is an idea, I suppose, getting rid of 6-9th spells. I'll think about that more, for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Larpus View Post
    Just to be sure, you want to bring the power level of full casters down, so bringing the level of the others up wouldn't help, right?

    Anyway, on the matter at hand...your idea seems a bit too harsh, as Khedrac said, the casters will simply be too weak and I believe too useless since their DCs and BAB (in addition to HP) will be a joke, rendering them pretty useless.

    The best way is to probably limit spells that you find problematic and possibly lower the amount of higher level spells they get each level; possibly also increasing the cost of created magic items so they don't get too many more spells than they should.

    However, with changes like that in effect, I'd be tempted to say that Wizards, Sorcerers and other 1/2 BAB classes might be candidates to become 3/4 instead, as they can't do much more than casting, so take that away and they're deadweight.

    EDIT: Also, if you have so much against full-casters, I think it may be best to simply disallow them, encouraging people to play the "half caster" guys like Bard, Warmage and whatnot, which everyone agrees to be much more in line and overall balanced.
    I still think casters will be useful as so many spells easily replicate entire feat chains or high level class features, but you have a point. I don't want to hand a player a list of specific spells they aren't allowed to choose, though. Nor do I want to edit each powerful spell. I would rather make a general ruling that players can work within than make a bunch of small rulings.

    As far as banning casters, I still like giving people the option. I don't actively dislike casters and don't stack the deck against them, but I don't like how they don't have to rely on the martials as much as the other way around and don't like how in D&D you can actually learn spells and magic far, far faster than you can learn combat tricks which is basically the opposite of every fantasy mythos ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by eggs View Post
    A level 9 Wizard still plays a completely different game than a level 13 fighter - especially if they each have ECL 13 wealth.

    This looks crippling for the balanced casters (the Warmage and Wilder aren't hurting for fixes, except certain patchable problems), obnoxious for the full casters (having to be even more paranoid to keep playing? bleh) and no better for the weaker classes (the fighter still only fights, still isn't able to produce the battle-changing effects like web or teleports, and still doesn't have effective counters for total lockdowns like Ray of Dizziness or Entangle).

    Balance can be a problem, but it's a problem that's best addressed by approaching directly: Eg. If the fighter doesn't have the versatility of other classes or the tools to contribute in high-level combats, give it that versatility. If the Wizard has too much versatility or too abuseable of spells, hack up its spell list and lock it into a Beguiler-style straightjacket.
    This probably doesn't address the actual issues very well, yeah. It may be too radical of a change.

    Quote Originally Posted by LordBlades View Post
    First of all, I meant on equal WBL (As per the OPs suggestion where casters would level up slower, but presumably still get an equal share of the treasure). A 20th level non-caster with full lvl 20 WBL can probably throw enough GP at stuff to be somewhat competitive vs. a 10th level caster with 10th level WBL.

    Secondly, I meant fighter, not 'non-caster' (TOB, MOI Binders and the like are something else entirely).

    And third, I meant everything, including combat

    All a fighter can do at level 20 is hit things with a stick. Depending on optimization, it can be anywhere from horrible to pretty good at it. But he's helpless against problems you can't hit with a stick

    A wizard on the other hand can: fly, teleport, see the future, make people his friends/minions with charm/dominate and tons of other useful stuff, and still has enough tricks to end combat in his favor. Hell, if you really wanted, between polymorph and other buffs, you could also probably out-melee a 20th level fighter.
    Fair enough. Maybe if the martials had more abilities per level up and more feats? I'll address that later.

    Quote Originally Posted by lsfreak View Post
    Yep. There is no simple caster limitation. The closest is to ban Vancian full casters except for warmage, dread necro, and beguiler, and then you've got the much smaller psionic list to fix. If you want something that allows wizards and clerics, the only options that will work and still qualify as simple are to balance up - mass-ban everything below T3 except as dips, or gestalt anyone T3 or lower with another class.
    EDIT: Well that's embarrassing, my big bolded point used the wrong first word.
    Hard bans seem to frustrate some players, though, and I would rather avoid it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    I've seen a great many "quick and dirty" fixes for this. Generally, they aren't worth bothering with. The basic issue is...it's a complex problem. Quick fixes to complex problems muck up the works.



    Yay, more math.



    How will I calculate XP for a wizard 3/cleric 3/mystic theurge 10//factotum 11/bard 5?



    It also means that low level wizards, already squishy, basically suck for ages. XP is a river doesn't kick in until level 4. Therefore, low level wizards will be substantially more twitchy, and prone to random death.

    High level casters...well, xp is a river is helping them...
    It probably is too complicated. And you are right, I have never got behind the quick and dirty fixes I have seen, either. E6 is my favorite solution so far and that is because the game is better balanced at low levels, anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    To the OP...

    Your attempt to do this by manipuating a very clean 3.X system of XP awards is...misguided.

    If you want to slow casting progression down, then probably the simplest approach is this:

    Your caster level, and the number of levels you can take in any primary (ie 1-9) casting class, is limited to 1/2 your character level. Any class, ability, feat, etc. that would break this stricture is banned.

    Quick, simple fix that has the same basic mechanical effect as what you describe, while allowing these now-restricted casters to spend the rest of their XP diversifying into something else that interests them.


    I don't know how WELL that fix would work...other posters have already pointed out some of the problems in the concept and ways that even low-level casters are very effective and powerful.
    This is the second person who has suggested that, and it sound reasonable. The only thing I worry about is the guy who, for his concept, wants to be nothing but a frail bookworm.

    Quote Originally Posted by dextercorvia View Post
    I would like to nominate eggs for forumite of the day.

    As far as a Simple caster fix goes, the best one I've ever seen is to limit full casters to the Bard's spell/day table, and Bards to the Adept table. I'd keep spells known the same, allowing a Sorcerer to pick a spell known of any level 0-2, 3-4, or 5-6 in place of a 7th, 8th or 9th respectively.

    It isn't really the HD, BAB and base saves that are making the casters have a quadratic progression. It is the spells.

    It wouldn't be perfect. They would still have a significant edge, but it would chop off the worst of the disparity.

    Edit: This is probably too much of a nerf for the already T3-T4 caster classes, but maybe we could work something out.
    Well, would keeping T3-T4 casters the same make them the new Tier 1s or would that be balanced, do you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by GenghisDon View Post
    Ah, it is ONLY the fighter that's aweful, got ya.

    Not that I agree, at L20 a Fighter could easily do everything you quote for the L10 wizard (or caster X)...it's called gear.

    If one wants polymorph cheese games...go all the way.

    Greater Cloak of Transformations: Polymorph 5/day. CL15
    Cost: 120,000 gp Req: Craft wondrous item, polymorph, 4,800 XP 60,000 gp

    How's the L20 Fighter doing vs the L10 Wizard now? He's only got 640,000 gp more in gear.

    What? That's a bad item? really? maybe polymorph is just a bad spell.

    Regardless, the game isn't actually about the party killing itself, but about the party overcoming challenges together.
    Well, I was actually giving the wizard the same amount of gear, but your last thing is a big part of what I am working on. I want the casters to have to rely on the martials and use them as more than fodder and meat shields in their planning. The game can, at high levels, not feel like overcoming challenges together and instead be 'Magic-Pants McGee and Friends fight dragons.' I don't like that.

    I don't mind making wizards and psions and druids and such worse in combat, either, because they have so much out of combat utility. Other classes are balanced with this in mind. (A rogue is worse at fighting than others but is balanced with more skill points at trapfinding.) Why shouldn't casters be balanced this way?


    Okay, everyone, I am thinking about the issue. This is too quick and messes with other mechanics, (saves and HP,) too much to work. How does my proposed system compare to limiting caster levels to half HD OR giving LA to casters OR banning spell levels 6+ OR changing spells to the bard progression OR this homebrew I considered,
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248425 ,
    also in my signature, which takes out spell levels 6-9 as well as taking away dead levels for martials but may very well have serious bugs of its own I don't know about?

    (So you don't have to read it, because I am just trying to make a better balanced game here not plug another thread of mine, basically you double your Con mod to HP and add your BAB to HP each level, get some other flat bonus' like to saves, and then class features for all the non full casters are scrunched up and distributed over ten levels instead of twenty, and there are only ten levels to advance, whereas full casters remain unchanged.)

    How do all these fix ideas stack up?
    Last edited by SowZ; 2012-07-26 at 04:38 PM.
    Homebrew PrC: The Performance Artist
    Avatar by Kymme

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •