Why Not Magic?

Bluenose

Adventurer
Why won't players choose spellcasters?

Because casting spells has a COST that other classes don't have to deal with.
  1. What if casting a spell drains one year of life?
  2. What if casting a spell drains Stamina/Endurance?
  3. What if casting a spell takes twice as long as attacking with a weapon?
  4. What if casting a spell can go wrong and harm the party?
  5. What if casting a spell requires a successful ability/skill roll to work?
The way Gygax balanced casters with D&D was to limit their HP, combat ability, spell strength and Experience growth. He forced magic-users to depend on the rest of the party because one arrow or dagger strike could delete the caster. It made sense but WotC empowered casters in a way that imbalanced the game.

Limit your casters and you can create balance.

Probably the most important balancing mechanism at higher levels (when magic-users had plenty of spells available and weren't so vulnerable in terms of hit points) was that they were faced with increasingly good saving throws on the part of anything high-level likely to be opposition. I'd also suggest that the significant lowering of the thresholds for extra hp/AC from Con/Dex benefitted casters much more than it did fighters or thieves - having a 12 in Con to get 40% more hp is a lot easier than getting 15 Con for the same benefit being an obvious example.

As for the suggested balancing mechanisms, apart from the first (and there are a few examples similar to that) there are games which have done one or more of them. People play casters despite those limitations. And they also play people who don't use magic, in some of those games, without it being regarded as pointless to play either sort.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Remove ads

Top