A radical idea for dedicated spellcasters

[airwalkrr]

It is no great secret that throughout every edition but 4th, dedicated spellcasters (in this sense any spellcaster which can eventually achieve 9th-level spells) are far and away more powerful than almost every other class. So this idea can apply to almost any edition but 4th (which is balanced nicely by giving everyone the exact same daily, encounter, and at-will abilities, which imho is boring, but 4e just isn't my system so I don't concern myself with it). The idea is this, stagger the gaining of new spell levels by all dedicated spellcasters by 1 level, and make the effect cumulative. So, for example. A wizard gains 2nd level spells at 4th level, 3rd level spells at 7th level, 4th level spells at 10th level, 5th level spells at 13th level, 6th level spells at 16th level, 7th level spells at 19th level, and then, if you can, you could continue the progression into epic levels if you like. The same applies to clerics, druids, etc.

So I have thought that this might more evenly distribute the power level of classes quite a bit, especially in systems like Pathfinder where the power of casters is boosted at lower levels (where they need it) but still ramps up into overdrive at higher levels (where they don't need it). Traditional thinking has always been that playing a high-level spellcaster is the reward for suffering through the low levels. But if you can increase caster power a bit to make them just as fun at lower levels, why not try to stagger their power curve a little at later levels to keep things on a more even keel?

 

[GMMichael]

My boring, underpowered Fighter has a Sword of Antimagic, 10' radius. He doesn't complain about his overpowered comrades.

While you're nerfing the dedicated casters, maybe you could spend some time beefing up the non-casters as well?

 

[airwalkrr]

I think pathfinder is the solution for beefing up the non-magic classes. And I don't see a huge downside to reducing caster power in an incremental way such as this, aside from some possible conversions for spells. A few spells might have their maximum effects capped by the time they become available. So maybe allowing a little more scaling would be in order.

 

[Gamling]

Great idea, simple but obviously effective. However it is just delaying the inevitable... Ive found enhancing the combat systems and making it more difficult for players balances out the mage well. My mage players are great, and now, even at high levels, theyre still incredibly vulnerable, not enough to spoil their fun, but they certainly dont get ego's. As for the low level mages, take the no. of languages of their intelligence and allow them that many extra levels of spells (personally i always give them detect and read magic free too)

 

[airwalkrr]

Is it truly delaying the inevitable when using systems like 3.5/4e/PF, which have wealth-by-level expectations? The more magic items a fighter or rogue acquires, the greater his suite of tools to handle encounters. Many magic items mimic spells, or grant other useful functions comparative to those of spellcasters. When a rogue has the ability to use a staff of healing with UMD, he can actually function in double capacity as both a healer and a front-line combatant. And many higher-level feats grant successively more powerful movement and utility features. The casters are acquiring those too, but feats can be more valuable in relative terms to classes that lack the customization provided by spellcasting.

This does not hold so well for AD&D, which does not have wealth-by-level expectations. But there is still the assumption that the higher in level one gets, the more magical items one acquires, and those which provided utility are generally far more beneficial to linear-powered classes such as the fighter. So it might still be a valid method of at least lessening the exponential increase of spellcaster power.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It is no great secret that throughout every edition but 4th, dedicated spellcasters (in this sense any spellcaster which can eventually achieve 9th-level spells) are far and away more powerful than almost every other class.

Really? Hadn't heard that one.

That said, looking at ways of playing around with casters, I think the spell slots are an easier target that changes the game less. Give casters only a small and relatively static number of slots at any level, so running out of spells is actually a realistic concern. Using a spell point system, I was thinking of making it so the cost to cast a spell is the spell level squared. That changes the picture real fast, but still allows casters to be what they are.

 

[airwalkrr]

Well I do believe within the 3e/PF architecture there is certainly no need for bonus spell slots based on your casting ability score. Perhaps you could maintain that while skewing the bonus spell slots to lower level spells. For example:

                   Bonus Spell (by Spell Level)
Ability Score  1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
10-11           -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
12-13           1   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
14-15           2   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
16-17           2   1   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
18-19           3   1   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
20-21           3   2   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
22-23           3   2   1   -   -   -   -   -   -
24-25           4   2   2   -   -   -   -   -   -
26-27           4   3   2   -   -   -   -   -   -
28-29           4   3   2   1   -   -   -   -   -
30-31           5   3   2   1   -   -   -   -   -
32-33           5   4   2   1   -   -   -   -   -
34-35           5   4   3   1   -   -   -   -   -
36-37           5   4   3   2   -   -   -   -   -
38-39           5   4   3   2   1   -   -   -   -
40-41           6   4   3   2   1   -   -   -   -
42-43           6   5   3   2   1   -   -   -   -
44-45           6   5   4   2   1   -   -   -   -

That would definitely give casters a lot fewer high-level spell slots, but still leave them with lots of low-level slots which they can frequently use for less earth-shattering effects. Compare a 20th-level wizard with a starting 15 Int, +5 level ups and a +6 Int item who would have a 26 Int total. Under the existing formula, he would have 6/6/6/6/5/5/5/5/4. Using the formula proposed above he would instead have 8/7/6/4/4/4/4/4/4. It's not a huge difference though.

Another way to reduce spell slots might be to skew them based on class instead. Make the attainment of the next spell slot in each spell level progressively more difficult. Perhaps something like this (using the wizard as an example):

                   Spells by Level 
Wizard Level   1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
1st             1   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
2nd             2   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
3rd             2   1   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
4th             3   1   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
5th             3   2   1   -   -   -   -   -   -
6th             3   2   1   -   -   -   -   -   -
7th             4   2   1   1   -   -   -   -   -
8th             4   3   2   1   -   -   -   -   -
9th             4   3   2   1   1   -   -   -   -
10th            4   3   2   1   1   -   -   -   -
11th            4   3   2   2   1   1   -   -   -
12th            4   4   3   2   1   1   -   -   -
13th            4   4   3   2   1   1   1   -   -
14th            4   4   3   2   2   1   1   -   -
15th            4   4   3   2   2   1   1   1   -
16th            4   4   3   3   2   1   1   1   -
17th            4   4   4   3   2   2   1   1   1
18th            4   4   4   3   2   2   1   1   1
19th            4   4   4   3   2   2   1   1   1
20th            4   4   4   3   3   2   2   1   1

Of course, that gives you a lot of levels with not a lot going on. But I suppose you could argue that the inherent power of higher-level spell slots makes that a bit more balanced. In this case, you might be able to get away with using the bonus spell slots as written. Or if you wanted to give wizards a little more actual spellcasting to do, use the table above for limited bonus spell slots.

Spell points, especially the system presented in Unearthed Arcana (3.5), is a good way to limit caster's use of high level spell slots. It also limits the effect by requiring 1 spell point for each caster level you want to add to the effect. That does present some problems though. It makes a magic missile at ninth caster level cost as much as a cone of cold cast at ninth caster level. So all it really does in practice (I have used it before) is force casters to prepare utility spells that do not depend on caster level in their lower level slots and prepare the damage-dealing, save-or-suck, or earth-shattering spells in their higher level slots. But if you take away the extra spell point cost for higher caster level, the lower-level spells, then spells like magic missile just become too cheap. And either way, spell-point systems eliminate the sorcerer niche and also tend to reduce the efficacy of other spontaneous casters (not that the sorcerer is a strictly necessary class, but many players like it).

 

[GMMichael]

Wasn't the Cleric awarded the Most-Powerful-Class award by Wizards of the Coast? Back in 3.5, anyway. Not a dedicated caster, what with heavy armor, medium weapons, and a fair amount of power put into the Turning ability. Why not pick on them?