Evenglare
Adventurer
Heh. The typo in this thread title is fantastic.
PS
Typo or completely intentional error? .... no... it's a typo....lol.
Pathfinder 1E Reigning in casters
- Thread starter Evenglare
- Start date
Typo or completely intentional error? .... no... it's a typo....lol.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
In other words, good old-fashioned casting times like 1e had.
One bit confuses me: "From the end of your turn, until the Spell Initiative, you are considered Concentrating." Wouldn't a simpler way to put it be "Between and including these two initiatives you are considered to be concentrating". And, see below...
Also keep in mind that if you're using 3e-style initiatives (i.e. 20 or more segments in a round) a 9th-level spell doesn't even take half a round to cast in this system. I think I'd want to tweak that a bit...maybe from 1-9 have the casting times be 2-3-4-6-8-10-12-15-18 segments?
It's an easy step from here to give each spell its own casting time - the default is (spell-level) segments but some spells e.g. Featherfall might want a 1-segment casting time (you can fall a long way in a round even using 3e's short rounds!) and others e.g. most of the summonnig spells might take a full round or even longer. This gives you an easy way to balance spells of the same level against each other to a small extent.
As for concentrating, the quickest and simplest way to rein in casters is to make it that ANY interruption ruins the spell, period. Concentration only comes into play once the spell is cast if it requires concentration to maintain e.g. most illusions. And for more fun and variety, bring in the possibility of wild magic surges if a spell is interrupted...
Lan-"and this makes even more sense when initiatives are re-rolled each round, as you never know when the caster's going to start"-efan
Kinak
First Post
If you accept the default fluff still applies, it says some interesting things about magic in your setting too.
Cheers!
Kinak
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
In other words, good old-fashioned casting times like 1e had.
One bit confuses me: "From the end of your turn, until the Spell Initiative, you are considered Concentrating." Wouldn't a simpler way to put it be "Between and including these two initiatives you are considered to be concentrating". And, see below...
Also keep in mind that if you're using 3e-style initiatives (i.e. 20 or more segments in a round) a 9th-level spell doesn't even take half a round to cast in this system. I think I'd want to tweak that a bit...maybe from 1-9 have the casting times be 2-3-4-6-8-10-12-15-18 segments?
It's an easy step from here to give each spell its own casting time - the default is (spell-level) segments but some spells e.g. Featherfall might want a 1-segment casting time (you can fall a long way in a round even using 3e's short rounds!) and others e.g. most of the summonnig spells might take a full round or even longer. This gives you an easy way to balance spells of the same level against each other to a small extent.
As for concentrating, the quickest and simplest way to rein in casters is to make it that ANY interruption ruins the spell, period. Concentration only comes into play once the spell is cast if it requires concentration to maintain e.g. most illusions. And for more fun and variety, bring in the possibility of wild magic surges if a spell is interrupted...
Lan-"and this makes even more sense when initiatives are re-rolled each round, as you never know when the caster's going to start"-efan
Sure. The intent is just to give other folks a window in which they can interrupt casting without making that "all the time" or "not at all." Ideally without getting TOO complex, though there's plenty of room for nuance.
n00bdragon
First Post
@OP
You'd be the 1,000,001th person to try doing this and probably the 1,000,001th failure, but if you're going to take a shot at that legendary problem you need to actually understand what's wrong with magic in 3e. Like treating a sick man attacking the symptoms of problem will only make him more miserable, you must attack the root of the problem. Let's look at the root problems with magic:
1 Banning Spells: There are a LOT of spells. To paraphrase Douglas Adams: The number of spells is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. Furthermore, as designed, casters in 3e have access to ALL the spells particular to their class and without straight up banning them one by one it's difficult to shut them off from gaining access to another equally broken spell. To make matters worse the PHB has many of the most egregious offenders. Enterprising DMs who think ban splats tend to end up with even more broken casters.
2 Playing with Casting Mechanics: Spells aren't categorized properly. Not every level 1 spell is equally powerful. This problem only gets worse as you rise in spell levels. Case in point: It's actually debatable whether Meteor Swarm, a 9th level spell, is better than Charm Person, a 1st level spell. A well placed Meteor Swarm can knock down a wall, but a well placed Charm Person can knock down a kingdom. Therefore, changing the rules for how spells are used disproportionately punishes spells that need all the love they can get.
3 You Need Spells: Spells were designed as a catch-all for player needs. If Gygax et al found that players needed something to advance the game along he usually designed a spell to fix that problem. This is why spells are the primary source of healing for players, primary source of non-combat rules, able to open locks and fly and regenerate limbs and dispel darkness and myriad other things. Without these effects the game quickly becomes unplayable because many challenges simply cannot be surmounted in a practical manner without magic.
4 Monsters Need Spells: Like above, many monsters have either spell like abilities or outright spells. Changing the way spells works will force you to rejigger all these monsters so that they work properly. Not that CR was worth a toss to begin with, but now the job is even harder.
5 It Still Has to be Fun: This is the most important piece so I left it for last. Playing a spellcaster still has to be fun and there have to be reasons you would want to play one. If you're having to meticulously track bat poop supplies or spend five rounds chargin' your lazar to shoot a fireball then magic stops being fun to play. You may pat yourself on the back because now your party consists of all rangers and barbarians instead of all wizards and clerics but you've effectively shot the sick man in the face and declared him cured because he's no longer coughing.
These are just five major problems I came up with off the top of my head. There are a lot of other core problems you'd need to address as well. I don't claim to have an answer to them; if I did, if anyone did, you'd think they would have published it by now almost fifteen years after the game came out. I'm just saying this rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than you probably think it does.
You'd be the 1,000,001th person to try doing this and probably the 1,000,001th failure, but if you're going to take a shot at that legendary problem you need to actually understand what's wrong with magic in 3e. Like treating a sick man attacking the symptoms of problem will only make him more miserable, you must attack the root of the problem. Let's look at the root problems with magic:
1 Banning Spells: There are a LOT of spells. To paraphrase Douglas Adams: The number of spells is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. Furthermore, as designed, casters in 3e have access to ALL the spells particular to their class and without straight up banning them one by one it's difficult to shut them off from gaining access to another equally broken spell. To make matters worse the PHB has many of the most egregious offenders. Enterprising DMs who think ban splats tend to end up with even more broken casters.
2 Playing with Casting Mechanics: Spells aren't categorized properly. Not every level 1 spell is equally powerful. This problem only gets worse as you rise in spell levels. Case in point: It's actually debatable whether Meteor Swarm, a 9th level spell, is better than Charm Person, a 1st level spell. A well placed Meteor Swarm can knock down a wall, but a well placed Charm Person can knock down a kingdom. Therefore, changing the rules for how spells are used disproportionately punishes spells that need all the love they can get.
3 You Need Spells: Spells were designed as a catch-all for player needs. If Gygax et al found that players needed something to advance the game along he usually designed a spell to fix that problem. This is why spells are the primary source of healing for players, primary source of non-combat rules, able to open locks and fly and regenerate limbs and dispel darkness and myriad other things. Without these effects the game quickly becomes unplayable because many challenges simply cannot be surmounted in a practical manner without magic.
4 Monsters Need Spells: Like above, many monsters have either spell like abilities or outright spells. Changing the way spells works will force you to rejigger all these monsters so that they work properly. Not that CR was worth a toss to begin with, but now the job is even harder.
5 It Still Has to be Fun: This is the most important piece so I left it for last. Playing a spellcaster still has to be fun and there have to be reasons you would want to play one. If you're having to meticulously track bat poop supplies or spend five rounds chargin' your lazar to shoot a fireball then magic stops being fun to play. You may pat yourself on the back because now your party consists of all rangers and barbarians instead of all wizards and clerics but you've effectively shot the sick man in the face and declared him cured because he's no longer coughing.
These are just five major problems I came up with off the top of my head. There are a lot of other core problems you'd need to address as well. I don't claim to have an answer to them; if I did, if anyone did, you'd think they would have published it by now almost fifteen years after the game came out. I'm just saying this rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than you probably think it does.
Evenglare
Adventurer
Not sure if you are in favor of banning spell or not, but anyway to the casting times. You said it yourself, that not every level 1 spell is equal, which is precisely why you would want to raise casting actions. Now, I do admit that under my system I treat them as the same power and this of course is probably a misstep as it was just a brain storming idea. However, casting times still can be implemented per spell. This seems like the best way of tackling the issue, and probably the most tedious. I mean, sure you can find flaws in any plan in a game such as complex as 3.5/pathfinder, but just because it may not be perfect is no reason just to give up. Certainly something like this would be much better than what we have now. Of course the casting times may be too high etc etc, but that can be fixed (as stated above). As player it's completely true the goal is to have fun of course, but if a full blown wizard or cleric stars wielding these spell, it instantly become unfun for all the martial classes. So I don't really agree with the statement that if you were to nerf a wizard the class wouldn't be fun anymore. Wizards still get to do all these amazing things, yet with a longer casting mechanic they don't get thrown around every single turn in battle. Sure this is much less fun than what wizards are now, but really, they are still good just not AS good.
I have also used another mechanic to limit casters and that would be to make counter spelling much easier. In essence it's the same rules such as rolling to see what the opposing wizard is casting, however to dispel a spell being cast you simply use up one of your spell slots to counter. This provides melee characters some spot like to go and take down a magic user first because that wizard make lock down another wizard. Of course if you are rolling to identify a spell, this means that a wizard still can cast a spell, but it might be dispelled by the opposing caster.
Again, pretty much anything is better than letting casters roam free through all the books.
Quartz
Hero
I never had problems with even high-level casters in 3E. I had two simple guidelines:
1. Encourage magic item creation - especially scrolls and expendable items. This means that the party will seldom be without a key utility spell that normally seldom gets used. For instance, how often will a low level wizard memorise Erase, Gaze Reflection, or Run? But a 3rd level wizard with Create Wondrous Item could create a Pumice Stone of Erasure, Spectacles of Gaze Reflection, and Boots of Running. At higher levels, encourage Limited Wish and Wish. This also uses up XP and keeps the spellcaster a level or two lower than the fighter types. And use Disjunction (and watch the players' glee when they reflect the Disjunction!) for further churn.
2. Discourage 'going nova'. Make it so the cleric is glad they made that wand of Hold Person, the wizard glad they made the Wand of Fireballs. Put a time-limit on the plot so they cannot stop and rest. Give them competition - if they rest, will their competitors?
1. Encourage magic item creation - especially scrolls and expendable items. This means that the party will seldom be without a key utility spell that normally seldom gets used. For instance, how often will a low level wizard memorise Erase, Gaze Reflection, or Run? But a 3rd level wizard with Create Wondrous Item could create a Pumice Stone of Erasure, Spectacles of Gaze Reflection, and Boots of Running. At higher levels, encourage Limited Wish and Wish. This also uses up XP and keeps the spellcaster a level or two lower than the fighter types. And use Disjunction (and watch the players' glee when they reflect the Disjunction!) for further churn.
2. Discourage 'going nova'. Make it so the cleric is glad they made that wand of Hold Person, the wizard glad they made the Wand of Fireballs. Put a time-limit on the plot so they cannot stop and rest. Give them competition - if they rest, will their competitors?
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Except for the last clause, what you said made sense.
I'll use level 2 spells as an example. If you're going to compare Invisibility to Alter Self to Scorching Ray, why should they all have the same casting time? Alter Self lasts a long time, it could have a casting time measured in minutes and still be perfectly balanced. Invisibility is more powerful than Scorching Ray (although they're not directly comparable, they're apples to orange). I would give Invisibility a longer casting time, but not a direct combat spell like Scorching Ray, which needs to be fast to be useful.
And yes, this would mean going through every single spell, which is what n00bdragon was worried about. (There are a lot of spells. I once went through every problem spell in the 1st-level core rules for wizards, and gave up after that.)
It depends on how you nerf the wizard. I don't think the wizard is broken. I don't think spells are broken (except maybe save DC calculations). I think many, many wizard spells are broken, and these are broken on an individual level, so you should focus on fixing these broken spells.
I don't see how spending three or even two rounds casting Fireball nerfs the wizard "properly". People aren't saying Fireball is broken. They are saying turning invisible is broken though.
As n00bdragon mentioned, there's so many spells that even nerfing the broken ones in the core rules are time-consuming enough, much less splats. If you ran core-only and also nerfed the broken spells, you could solve 3e's continual balance problems. It would be a lot of work, though, and it doesn't help that previous group attempts failed, because poster A thinks spell A is broken but poster B thinks spell A is fine.
n00bdragon
First Post
Yeah, I probably could have been a lot more concise and clear in my post but it was very stream of consciousness. I would say my main takeaways are:
1. There's too many spells to deal with them individually unless you are coo-coo for cocoa puffs crazy.
2. Dealing with them by groups isn't effective because there is so much variance in power and utility within any subgroup, and effects vary so wildly that many broken spells will go untouched by any particular nerf.
3. The game requires spells to function so nerfing spells will wreck the game's internal "balance", broken though it already is.
4. There is a line which nerfing something to fairness becomes nerfing something to oblivion. Care must be taken not to cross this line.
1. There's too many spells to deal with them individually unless you are coo-coo for cocoa puffs crazy.
2. Dealing with them by groups isn't effective because there is so much variance in power and utility within any subgroup, and effects vary so wildly that many broken spells will go untouched by any particular nerf.
3. The game requires spells to function so nerfing spells will wreck the game's internal "balance", broken though it already is.
4. There is a line which nerfing something to fairness becomes nerfing something to oblivion. Care must be taken not to cross this line.
Similar Threads
