Scaling: How many level 1 characters should it take to defeat a level 10 character?

[MichaelSomething]

But I want to be a sexy shoeless god of war!

 

[Hussar]

Ok, Buugipopuu, let's walk through this shall we?

A 1st level wizard (discounting bonus spells) has 1 spell. That spell deals a level 1 worth of damage (if it deals damage) and lasts for, at most, one hour.

A level 10 wizard has 16 spells, spread across 5 levels, with each level of spell being more powerful than anything in the spell level previous. That makes sense, spell levels should be more powerful. But, it doesn't stop there. The earlier level spells aren't static. They continue to scale. They scale in damage, duration, saving throw DC's (since that's tied to the wizard's base scores which also go up as the wizard levels), and range.

So, spells that were fairly minor at 1st level suddenly become a lot more useful at higher levels. Mage Armor at 1st level is a minor spell that is likely only going to affect a couple of encounters. Very few wizards will ever use it at 1st level because it's not terribly effective. But, that 10th level wizard casts it every day, because now that same spell, which stacks with most of the other defensive items that he has, lasts for most of the adventuring day.

Or, take Unseen Servant. At 1st level, it lasts for 1 hour and has a range of 25 feet. Handy, but, again, unlikely to get used by a 1st level wizard. The 10th level wizard, OTOH, gets an Unseen Servant at a range of 50 feet for 10 hours. Ultimate trap detector. It's unkillable, so, you simply have it open everything. A million and one uses, all made possible because the cost of casting (1 first level spell slot) has now dropped to the point where it's negligible and the duration means that it's going to last all day long.

This is why wizards are exponential. It's not that the spells get better as the spells are higher levels. That's fine. It's that ALL the wizard's spells get better as the wizard advances in levels. Instead of having 3-5 really useful spells and a bunch of minor stuff that's not terribly effective because it's too low level, the wizard has 16 perfectly viable spells that he can mix and match to extremely great effect.

This is a systemic issue that's endemic to all casters. The spells not only become more powerful as you go up in spell level, but the lower level spells continue to gain in effect as the character rises in level, thus making him significantly more powerful than any non-caster. It's not a case of a couple of problem spells at all. That's never really been a big issue. It's a baseline problem that infects all casters.

 

[Buugipopuu]

This is why wizards are exponential.

You keep using that word. <Insert Princess Bride Reference here>. This is what 'exponential' means. The expression is "Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards", not "Linear Fighters Exponential Wizards" for a reason. It's amusing that you use Mage Armour as your example, given that that's a standard example of a linear scaling. It lasts for one hour per caster level. If it were exponential, and lasted for 1 hour at first level, and 2 hours at second level, it'd last for 525,288 hours at 20th level, rather than the 20 which it actually lasts. The most generous interpretation of Invisible Servant has it scale with the fourth power of spell level, since the linear dimensions of the volume it can affect and the time it exists for all scale linearly with level, but that still means it's polynomial, not exponential.

It's not that the spells get better as the spells are higher levels. That's fine. It's that ALL the wizard's spells get better as the wizard advances in levels. Instead of having 3-5 really useful spells and a bunch of minor stuff that's not terribly effective because it's too low level, the wizard has 16 perfectly viable spells that he can mix and match to extremely great effect.

This is a systemic issue that's endemic to all casters. The spells not only become more powerful as you go up in spell level, but the lower level spells continue to gain in effect as the character rises in level, thus making him significantly more powerful than any non-caster. It's not a case of a couple of problem spells at all. That's never really been a big issue. It's a baseline problem that infects all casters.

And how is "spells must scale in effectiveness with caster level" inherent to a Vancian system? Hint: It isn't.

 

[Hussar]

And how is "spells must scale in effectiveness with caster level" inherent to a Vancian system? Hint: It isn't.

Umm, it is inherent to the Vancian system that D&D uses. I'm not sure what Vancian system that you use. But every single "Vancian system" that D&D has ever used in any edition has spells that scale with caster level.

So, perhaps you could enlighten me on what Vancian system you're looking at.

And, as far as the overly pedantic wank over the definition of exponential, well, fair enough. It doesn't really matter, and at least you've finally gotten the point. Caster power scales far, far higher than non-caster power and this is a problem with the D&D caster system used in all editions prior to 4e.

 

[Gryph]

A problem with the 'flatter power curve' some people are advocating is that it breaks most campaign settings. If a 10th level character can be downed by half a dozen first level characters, there will be no solo 10th level characters in the world, as they'll have all been slain by the first group of mercenaries looking to make a name for themselves that hears of them. Hiring a squad of goons to take out your enemies becomes far cheaper and easier than doing it yourself. It ceases to be plausible that a dragon could terrorise any decent-sized settlement, because he stands a good chance of losing to the town guard.

If a 10th level character can be killed by a reasonable number (less than 20) of 1st level characters, the only 10th level characters around will be ones with their own armies to prevent people simply hiring thugs to kill them.



Then just make 7th level characters and start a game at 7th level. Nobody says every game has to start at level 1.

This is why I want morale rules back in the game. I'm ok with a band of 12-18 1st level men-at-arms being able to take out a 10th level pc. But it should come at the cost of a massive body count.

I think the odds of a small band of fighters continuing to stand in a fight where half or more of their companions have already been butchered by their opponent should be very low.

Its not that the Baron's garrison of 40 men can't ulitmately defeat a dragon. The problem is when 10 of them are roasted alive in their armor at the first fly-by of the dragon. That's when you start getting desertions.

It takes pretty extraordinary people/circumstances to get people to stand and fight when they believe they have a very high chance of being killed.

 

[GreyICE]

Who gives a flying fig what Jack Vance thought? Good grief, while the spell system might be called vancian, it's about as far from the actual texts as Harry Potter. The only part of the system that is Vancian is the fact that it's fire and forget.

And, yes, the power is exponential, not linear. The direct damage spells might be linear, but, not any of the rider effects. Dominate Person (thank you for the correction) isn't broken in this system. It's just that the spells scale that way. Charm person at 1st. Charm Monster at 4th. Well, what's the next step? Stronger Charm Person - which makes the target my effective slave for a signficant period of time. It's the nature of the scaling.

As far as expensive material components go - well, there goes 3e's game balance if you try. The wealth by level presumes that you can actually cast your spells fairly often. If you whack in difficulties casting the spell (and actually go beyond just needing coin value) then the game balance goes off.

Like I said, for my way of doing it, anything that has a duration longer than about 1 minute would require a ritual - probably a 30 minute casting time, magic circles and the like, and some specific material components with in-game consequences.

Well if they're smart, they may be able to fix that.

For instance, lets look at the following:

Charm Person
Level 1

A monster 2[Slot Level]+1 or under treats you as non-hostile (Save Ends).

----

Now this scales nicely. As a level 1 spell it gets 3 and under. Level 2, 5 and under. Level 3, 7 and under.

It might be better tied to average hit points to make it much harder to effect solos, but solos should be getting massive save bonuses anyway, so it makes no difference imho.

 

[Buugipopuu]

Umm, it is inherent to the Vancian system that D&D uses. I'm not sure what Vancian system that you use. But every single "Vancian system" that D&D has ever used in any edition has spells that scale with caster level.

So, perhaps you could enlighten me on what Vancian system you're looking at.

And, as far as the overly pedantic wank over the definition of exponential, well, fair enough. It doesn't really matter, and at least you've finally gotten the point. Caster power scales far, far higher than non-caster power and this is a problem with the D&D caster system used in all editions prior to 4e.

Vancian casting just means that spells are grouped by levels and prepared in slots corresponding to those levels. That there are spells which don't scale with caster level at all (mostly low-level utility spells) proves that it's not an inherent feature of the system. It's really quite easy to remove the caster level dependance, by pegging all CL-related effects at minimum caster level for the level the spell is prepared at, or by adding restrictions to spells to make only the most powerful spells a given caster can cast capable of big effects at the level they're cast. Of course, someone who thinks that using technical terms correctly is for 'pedantic wanders' probably shouldn't be playing a maths-heavy game like D&D, so the distinction is almost certainly lost on you.

 

[Umbran]

Some of you are getting personal.

Stop it, please.

Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster. If you cannot do so, that's a sign you need to walk away from the keyboard, before you say something you will regret.

Any questions on this, please take them to e-mail or PM with the moderator of your choice. Thanks, all.

 

[Hussar]

That there are spells which don't scale with caster level at all (mostly low-level utility spells) proves that it's not an inherent feature of the system.

What spells don't scale with caster level at all? For it to not scale at all, the range would have to be fixed, with is extremely rare for any spell as would the duration, which, again, is very rare.

A spell that lasts for several encounters due to extended duration is a spell that is that many times more effective than the same spell that only lasts one encounter. Which means that at higher levels, the lower levels spells grow in efficacy with every level, even though their base effects don't change.

Going back to Mage Armor. At 1st level, it lasts 1 hour, and likely only 1, maybe 2 encounters (presuming we're not back to 15 minute adventuring days). So, you get a +4 AC for one fight out of the 4-6 you should be having that day. Decent effect that doesn't shift balance too much. But, at 11th level, that same spell now works in every encounter, for the same cost as when you cast it at 1st level.

Again, this is inherent to the D&D magic system. Virtually all spells do this. Once you pass about 7th level, your 1st and 2nd level spell slots will almost all contain long duration utilities, leaving your higher level slots for the big whammy stuff.

And this is where the problem lies. The non-casters can never do this. A fighter's sword does the same damage regardless of what level he is. Sure, he can add damage to the sword - typically through magic buffs, magic weapons and feats. But, the weapon itself never changes. The casters, OTOH, get to have their weapons actually grow with them, plus they get many more weapons on top.

Look, I can understand loving the Vancian system. I get that. But, this is a failing of the system. Not an insurmountable one, to be sure. Yes, you could strip away the scaling on lower level effects. Durations become fixed, ranges become fixed, etc. And that would likely go a very, very long way towards reining in casters. You can no long simply drop single slots on day long effects - if you want the day long effect, you have to pay for it with multiple slots.

But, as it stands, the D&D system of magic doesn't do that. I've never been discussing how to fix the system. I've been trying to nail down what the problem is first.

 

[Buugipopuu]

What spells don't scale with caster level at all? For it to not scale at all, the range would have to be fixed, with is extremely rare for any spell as would the duration, which, again, is very rare.

But they do exist, whereas for your claim to be true, that the system inherently requires all spells to scale with level, no such spells could exist. Atonement, Awaken, Bestow Curse, Bless Water, Clone, Colour Spray, Continual Flame, and Curse Water are all examples (and then I got bored of going through the spell list, so that's just the ones in A-C)

A spell that lasts for several encounters due to extended duration is a spell that is that many times more effective than the same spell that only lasts one encounter. Which means that at higher levels, the lower levels spells grow in efficacy with every level, even though their base effects don't change.

Again, this is inherent to the D&D magic system. Virtually all spells do this. Once you pass about 7th level, your 1st and 2nd level spell slots will almost all contain long duration utilities, leaving your higher level slots for the big whammy stuff.

Your reasoning does not follow. It clearly is not inherent to the system as there are examples where it is not the case. The system allows for non-scaling spells, the designers merely chose not to use it very often. You're also overstating the ability to use Haste for two whole minutes at 20th level, or get Mage Armour all day at a level where Bracers of Armour that are superior are pocket change, but that's another issue entirely.

And this is where the problem lies. The non-casters can never do this. A fighter's sword does the same damage regardless of what level he is. Sure, he can add damage to the sword - typically through magic buffs, magic weapons and feats. But, the weapon itself never changes. The casters, OTOH, get to have their weapons actually grow with them, plus they get many more weapons on top.

No it isn't. Nobody's complaining that melee types can't do enough damage, and if your melee character isn't out-damaging the 1d6/level progression of a standard blaster caster, your melee character is built wrong. It has always been about battlefield control.

Look, I can understand loving the Vancian system. I get that. But, this is a failing of the system. Not an insurmountable one, to be sure. Yes, you could strip away the scaling on lower level effects. Durations become fixed, ranges become fixed, etc. And that would likely go a very, very long way towards reining in casters. You can no long simply drop single slots on day long effects - if you want the day long effect, you have to pay for it with multiple slots.

But, as it stands, the D&D system of magic doesn't do that. I've never been discussing how to fix the system. I've been trying to nail down what the problem is first.

Arg. Why do you keep saying one thing and then saying something completely contradictory to that thing? At least try and remain consistent for two consecutive paragraphs. "The system" is the set of universal rules, the framework around which the content is built. A failing of the system, for example, would be that there's little way of placing a spell in between 1st and 2nd level in power if you intend said spell to be cast in the heat of combat. This is a relatively minor issue because 9 spell levels is more than enough to get a decent spread of power, any more would be claiming more precision than actually existed. This is a problem with the system as it simply is not capable of handling fractional spell levels. Spells scaling with level has nothing to do with the system, and everything to do with the content. You're saying "The problem with these shelves is that all the books on them are in French, and I don't like French. Get me some new shelves!".