Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tilenas" data-source="post: 5788047" data-attributes="member: 71414">Over the years, two issues have become immanent to me that might be main reasons for caster/non-caster discrepancy: - the "I win button". Magic often just works as intended. Wizards are able to perfectly aim their fireballs so that they hit only enemies, if that is geometrically possible. Sure, they get a save, but if a level-10 Wizard says so, Joe Average gets 5d6 damage and there's not a thing he can do about it. - the revovery mechanic. Rest eight hours and you're back at full casting capacity. Hence, the 20-minute adventuring day.The question now is: Are they sacred cows of D&D or can they be subject to modification in order to create a greater class balance? My personal answer is that they should be modified.The first issue can be adressed by introducing some sort of aiming or generalized casting check, be it for area damage spells like fireball, or spells like charm person. I am not talking about reversing the save 4e-style by having casters roll against a static defense. I would like to see some kind of mechanic that determines how well the spell is cast (like a concentration or spellcraft check) before any saves are made. That's more dice rolling, but lends more mystery to magic in general.The second issue is closely tied to vancian magic. Full recovery after resting is kind of required, because: How do you introduce an easy and reliable method for partial spell recovery if your Cleric can cast 5/4+1/3+1/3+1/1+1 spells? I have no idea. But I would LOVE to see spellcasters that have to be more careful with their magical resources. DSA, for instance, uses spell points which are recovered just like hit points. More powerful casters regain their spell points more quickly, but it's all within the same ballpark. All of a sudden, it makes sense to conserve your energy, because left-over spells are not wasted as they are now.</blockquote>

Verification