Pathfinder 1E Reigning in casters

[ArmoredSaint]

The best ways I've come up with to control spellcasters are:

-Rigidly and ruthlessly enforce concentration checks and opportunity attacks at all times. Possibly even expand opponents' opportunity to attempt an opportunity attack or cause a caster to roll a concentration check.

-Do not allow spellcasters to acquire new spells easily; make them work to earn/find every single new spell. Strictly control which spells they have access to--if you don't want them to fly or turn invisible, then rule that those spells either don't exist, or are closely-guarded secrets of mysterious cults, etc. the acquisition of which should be an extremely perilous quest.

I really, really like the idea of requiring longer casting times for powerful, unbalancing, potentially game-ruining spells; I might give it a try in my next game.

In my experience, players of spellcasters tend to be smart people who get their jollies from displaying the superiority of brains over brawn. They often excel and delight in system mastery, and will take every devious opportunity to find ways to exploit the rules in various creative ways regardless of how cheesy or unrealistic the result might be, and every spell they get gives them another tool to do so. Some of them even take a perverse pleasure in ruining your carefully-planned adventure with a combination of well-timed/placed spells that takes advantage some obscure loophole in the rules that you hadn't noticed before. Not taking the proper precautions before the campaign starts is what allows spellcasters to dominate the game as much as they have the reputation for doing, IMO.

 

[benkyo]

You might run into the problem when nerfing caster to inadvertently buffing the other classes. I know casters can do some crazy stuff at high levels, but so can a lot of other classes. If a wizard is spending several rounds to get off a high level spell, and a fighter gets to them within that casting time, there's a very low chance that that wizard is going to get off that spell after taking 3 or more attacks in one round. Limiting the spells available, as others have mentioned, would be the better way to go about that I think.

 

[Lanefan]

One thing I'd always considered was to not only adopt a spell point system, but instead of the default costs, have the cost be the spell's level squared. That way, there remains a very real possibility that even a high-level spellcaster will run out of magic and requires conservation of resources (which is the point of having those resources anyway, right?).

We did this for many years, except the s.p. cost by spell level was on a Fibonacci sequence (1-2-3-5-8-13...). Worked great up to about 6th level in 1e-based, after which point the casters ended up with far too much access to their lower level spells. A 9th-level MU might have 40 s.p. - think of the possibilities...

I've made them all work like 3e Sorcerers, so far so good but the high-level test still awaits.

Another related element would be to implement a recharge rate (instead of getting it all back whenever you rest), perhaps even one that increased in a linear fashion (meaning that low level casters would recharge overnight while high level casters would take more time).

Hmmmm...much like h.p. should work. This gives me ideas...

Thanks!

Lanefan

 

[Elf Witch]

Because they're doing something that could be accomplished equally well by a few hirelings, a summoned creature(s), or a wall.

And your difficulty with constructs is noted, though it mostly shows you should have prepared more general purpose spells or at least had a few scrolls. Constructs are only immune to spells that allow for spell resistance, which a lot don't(stone to mud the ceiling, then mud to stone the mud around the constructs if you feel like it, or Grease the floor and watch the constructs re-enact the Three Stooges since most constructs have garbage Reflex saves).

And the only thing I really recall 4e doing was making balance an issue and actually letting all classes be equally viable while still being fun.

That is one to look at I suppose though in my thirty years of playing I have never had any player say that about their characters unless the DM was totally inadequate about making well rounded encounters and engaging the character in the world.

Well see since I am playing a specialist wizard multiclassed with dread necromancer who chose to give up the schools of magic that allows grease then that was not an option. And well I have three scrolls none of which helped because they were feather fall, and 2 identify and because like most of the DMs I play with we don't get a lot of time to scribe scrolls and we don't play in a magic market economy casters rarely have tons of extra spells. It is amazing how simply not allowing the easy magic item creation in 3.5 helps limit some of the major issues people have.


A lot of these discussions assume that the wizard has always picked the right spells or has tons of scrolls. Since we had never faced constructs and had no clue and we heard rumors of orcs in the hills that is what I prepared for.

Again one way to look at 4E is your way but another way to look at it is mine which was it made the characters bland, made me feel as if I was playing a video game and ruined my ability to suspend my disbelief. It also seems the most limited when it came to supporting different play styles. And before anyone gets their panties in a twist I recognize that my opinion of 4E is just that an opinion and that there are people who enjoy it and feel differently.

I have to wonder with all the different editions and systems available now why people cling to playing an edition that they have major issues with. Or if they have a major issue with a class why not simply ban that class in their game. And there are fixes that can rein in some of the power if you feel it is to strong for your game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Worked great up to about 6th level in 1e-based, after which point the casters ended up with far too much access to their lower level spells. A 9th-level MU might have 40 s.p. - think of the possibilities...

This is inherent to hacking D&D to do spell points: low-level spells become highly accessible, to the point where high-level casters become quasi-warlocks. UA does a correction for damaging spells, but that still leaves a lot of room to overuse various useful low-level spells.

My experience (with the UA system, not the higher-cost versions being discussed) has been that the low-level spells are rarely powerful enough for that to really matter, and I don't mind that whole dynamic too much, but it is a conceptual issue that's hard to avoid without building a new magic system from the ground up.

Thanks!

You're welcome.

 

[Celebrim]

We did this for many years, except the s.p. cost by spell level was on a Fibonacci sequence (1-2-3-5-8-13...). Worked great up to about 6th level in 1e-based, after which point the casters ended up with far too much access to their lower level spells. A 9th-level MU might have 40 s.p. - think of the possibilities...

I've always been more worried about the reverse - too much access to their higher level spells - to favor spell points as a solution. Given how big of a jump in power each spell level tends to represent, I've always been afraid of the PCs being tempted to go nova by consolidating all their lower level spells into higher level ones and playing off a 15 minute adventuring day. This for example is my problem with the Psion.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I've always been more worried about the reverse - too much access to their higher level spells - to favor spell points as a solution.

That's why I proposed the square-based cost. If a 5th level spell is worth 25 1st level spells, then that does not happen.

 

[Elf Witch]

The best ways I've come up with to control spellcasters are:

-Rigidly and ruthlessly enforce concentration checks and opportunity attacks at all times. Possibly even expand opponents' opportunity to attempt an opportunity attack or cause a caster to roll a concentration check.

-Do not allow spellcasters to acquire new spells easily; make them work to earn/find every single new spell. Strictly control which spells they have access to--if you don't want them to fly or turn invisible, then rule that those spells either don't exist, or are closely-guarded secrets of mysterious cults, etc. the acquisition of which should be an extremely perilous quest.

I really, really like the idea of requiring longer casting times for powerful, unbalancing, potentially game-ruining spells; I might give it a try in my next game.

In my experience, players of spellcasters tend to be smart people who get their jollies from displaying the superiority of brains over brawn. They often excel and delight in system mastery, and will take every devious opportunity to find ways to exploit the rules in various creative ways regardless of how cheesy or unrealistic the result might be, and every spell they get gives them another tool to do so. Some of them even take a perverse pleasure in ruining your carefully-planned adventure with a combination of well-timed/placed spells that takes advantage some obscure loophole in the rules that you hadn't noticed before. Not taking the proper precautions before the campaign starts is what allows spellcasters to dominate the game as much as they have the reputation for doing, IMO.

Another way is to have an enemy spellcaster counter spell the caster. There are times that I have had my NPC caster do this because they have been studying the party and their tactics and are prepared. I found sorcerers are great at this.

Another tactic I like is have a rogue or a monk target the caster forcing them to combat cast or risk getting an attack of opportunity. Or having an archer just target the caster from a superior position. Protecting the archer from the melee party members.

Also those pesky spells like invisible, teleport, scry, well the NPC casters have access to those too.

I do like adding things to spells that make them not as good as doing it mundanely. Knock for example will unlock the door but it makes a loud knocking noise so not great if you are trying to sneak.
I still use the scry rules from 3.0 which required putting ranks into scry. I don't allow teleport without error unless you are very familiar with the area. And to teleport more than yourself requires a concentration check.

And some spells require rituals that take time. Teleport is one of those.

I have not found that players who delight in system mastery necessarily chose wizards over other builds. I have more trouble with the ones who know how to combine classes, feats and prestige classes to make a character that makes me as DM feel that I need to nuke them from space just to be sure. Taking precautions ahead of time helps with that too.

 

[Celebrim]

That's why I proposed the square-based cost. If a 5th level spell is worth 25 1st level spells, then that does not happen.

Well, to be able to do what a 10th level 3e wizard does, your 10th level wizard now has base 217 spell points. That means 8 5th level spells and some change, not counting points earned from bonus spells, instead of just 3. It also means at the other end of the spectrum 217 1st level spells. Either way we are a big jump up from 30 spells per day, and no more than 3 of 5th level. The great thing about the spell slot system is the enforced diversity, both of spells in use and power of the spells that are used. It's great for pacing IME. Spell points on the other hand, while seemingly more 'realistic' (an odd concept to apply to magic) in theory, in practice tend to encourage one trick ponies and 15 minute work days.

The fibonachi sequence isn't any better. The 10th level 3e wizard has 80 spell points, good enough for 10 5th level spells or 77 1st level spells at the opposite extreme.

You'd never design anything as messy as the D&D magic system if you were starting out to design a magic system, but it just works.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, to be able to do what a 10th level 3e wizard does, your 10th level wizard now has base 217 spell points.

I'm not sure where you got that figure (converting spell slots to points, I'm guessing? There's a reason we don't do that). The 3e spell point system would kick out a number a little less than 100 (for a wizard, a bit more for a sorcerer). That's only four 5th level spells and you're done (using the square method). My method for calculating spell points is simpler and more generous than the book, but not by that much; probably more like 120 for a wizard and 150 for a sorcerer.

Of course, that's still at least a hundred first level spells in any case, which could admittedly get weird.

Spell points on the other hand, while seemingly more 'realistic' (an odd concept to apply to magic) in theory, in practice tend to encourage one trick ponies and 15 minute work days.

I've yet to see that. To me, what they encourage is using your lower level spells.

You'd never design anything as messy as the D&D magic system if you were starting out to design a magic system, but it just works.

It does seem to have had some staying power, but it also has plenty of critics (including the OP).