Sorry, I went away to GenCon and then forgot to check this thread when I got back.
[fanboy]I was hoping to see you there Wulf- I was hoping to get your autograph on Grim Tales and Slavelords of Cydonia! Ah, well.
[/fanboy]
Geron Raveneye said:
Wulf Ratbane said:
Cheiromancer said:
Magic should only encroach on the core competencies of nonspellcasters when there is a high opportunity cost involved in its use.
I have to digest this a bit more. I could use more examples.
I guess what he meant is to add complications to the "offending" spells that cost the caster more than a spell slot, a few material components and maybe a few XP. Tangible examples can be found in older editions, where spells actually aged the caster, cost him Constitution permanently, etc. That used to instill a hefty respect into the casters (and their players) whenever they really had to use those spells.
Not exactly. My idea is that a wizard only has a few of his highest level spell slots, and so when he uses them the results have to be dramatic. His can open a lock the thief can't open, kill a swarm that would have taken down the fighter, and so on. He can be better than the rogue once a day because the rogue can use his skills all day long. He can be better than the fighter once a day because the fighter doesn't have a limit on how often he can swing his sword.
My idea here is, well, it's important enough to get a color:
Each character in a balanced party should be able to do some things better than any other character.
I am advocating a broader range of skills, but I don't want each character to be a one man adventuring party. If a character has a distinct role, they should still be able to keep it. Which implies that this character's core competencies have to improve steadily, although perhaps more slowly than it does now. But having *some* growth in peripheral competencies is not a bad thing; in fact, it should be encouraged. If the half-orc barbarian has a -2 diplomacy modifier at level 1, that's OK; the half-elf bard can be the party's face man. But at level 15 I think it would be great if the barbarian had a +5 diplomacy score or something. He won't steal the bard's thunder when negotiating with the Githyanki ambassador, but he could maybe make friends with the local innkeeper. Maybe he has a reputation score that can substitute for diplomacy ranks or something; he'd also need a DM who puts him in circumstances where he finds this competency valuable. Players like to do cool things, and having an innkeeper be awed by Grunk the Savior of the City is kinda cool.
The wizard is a very special case. I am thinking of the role of the wizard in areas where he infringes on the rogue (in skill use) or the fighter (killing things). I see him as being a trump card for rare circumstances where the rogue and fighter are overmatched. That means that the wizard's highest level spells should be able to outdo the rogue or fighter for as long as they are the highest level spell, but not for much longer.
At 3rd level the wizard's trump spells are things like
knock or
invisibility (for Open Locks or Hide), maybe
Web for dealing with large numbers of opponents. He's better than the rogue's schtick or the fighter's schtick, but he can only do it a few times a day; most of the time he has to rely on those other classes. They, in turn, find the wizard valuable for the times when their native skill is not quite enough.
Now suppose it is 11th level and
disintegrate is the "trump" spell to get through a door that the rogue can't open. Or it can slay a lich whose DR is too tough for the fighter to kill- or maybe the lich's minions are holding the fighter off and the battle needs a
disintegrate to turn the tide. Or something. The wizard can only use
disintegrate a few times, and every slot he spends on it is a slot he can't spend on something else. So it's ok that he can outdo another class at their own schtick- that's his trump function.
However, what about the 2nd level spell slots? I think that while they trump a 3rd level character in another class, a 2nd level spell should not be able to trump an 11th level character. I suggest therefore that
knock be capped at around what a 7th level rogue can do. That's enough to make it impressive at 3rd level, but not so impressive later on. (I am basing the 3rd-7th interval on the approximate size of the current sweet spot. Great at level n, average at level n+4.)
The reason is that for an 11th level wizard his second level spell slots aren't very valuable. And so their function should not be to outshine the other classes at what those classes do best, but are perhaps backups for routine use. If the rogue is elsewhere the wizard might want to bypass a lock, or go unseen from point A to point B. He should be able to as long as the task isn't too hard.
I don't think there are a whole lot of spells and mechanics that need to be tinkered with to cap them in this way. And there might be lots of neat ways you could cap a spell. For instance, you might add a character's BAB to their spot check to detect magical invisibility; this would allow
invisibility to be very good at lower levels, but not so hot against tougher opponents. The idea is that the spell is very good when you first get it, but becomes relatively less spectacular as you get to higher levels.
To do this systematically, you'd have to identify a bunch of core competencies of each class, and see how magic steps infringes on them. If a 3rd level spell is better than a 15th level character's core competency, then something needs to be done.
Maggot's observation about granularity is very insightful. There shouldn't be such huge jumps in how far characters can travel in a day, or how effective healing is. Steady increases are enough to satisfy the needs of gamists, and the allow the campaign to adjust more gradually. I think it might be these discontinuities that diminish the sweet spot.
Teleport might be too big a change to the campaign as a 5th level spell, but if there was a
limited teleport at 5th and the regular
teleport at 6th, then the changes might be able to be assimilated more smoothly.
Again, I'm not advocating nerfing all the magic. Wizards need cool things to do, and there needs to be new abilities added at regular intervals. In fact, new abilities like
fly and
teleport are really a wizard's primary role; their trumping function is definitely secondary. So there needs to be a regular progression of new abilities. But the progression can be spread out a little. Gamists would be satisfied, but the stress on the campaign's sweet spot would be less.
