Blackwarder
Adventurer
I'm working so I haven't read the entire thread, I just want to say that IMO number of HD is a better indicator than hp threshold.
Warder
Warder
My gut reaction is that's a lot harder to balance than you might think. In the traditional D&D system, even though the casters are getting more and more spell slots they can cast, there are always a limited number of the newest high level spells while plenty of other slots are populated by spells of smaller scope and power.
Cut the number of spell slots but migrate them into higher levels and you'll probably get a higher number of spells overall at the highest level of power. For example, if you limit the caster to 10 slots but move them up a spell level every time a new level becomes available, suddenly you have a PC with 10 9th level spells as soon as he qualifies for them. In the old system, he'd have a lot more spells but only 1 9th level spell on top of 2 8th, 3 7th, and so on. And don't even try to balance the play styles between the power gamer filling them all up with the highest level spells he can and the more moderate player who takes a 1st level charm person so he can charm his way past single gatekeepers and get what he wants.
It's not so much a matter of accepting it... if it's option that I can ignore and still play a traditional Wizard, that's fine for me. But your previous post sounded quite a lot like you want to totally change how it works for everyone.
Oh, I do, because there were too many problems with spellcasters in previous editions. I'm not balance-crazy, but Wizards just kept getting more spells, and low-level spell slots were always still useful, and then in 3rd edition they all became caster-level based, so we had a cubic growth in power that non-spellcasters couldn't do much about. It was fun! But I'd like something a bit more nuanced.
Trouble was, some players can't pass up the attraction of pumping up the casting stat so that the save DCs go sky high - well beyond the target's saving throws ability to catch up and make it a reasonable contest (making this, perhaps, one nuance too many).
I can't tell exactly what you mean by "in 3rd edition they all became caster-level based" in this context. Do you really mean spell-level based or caster-stat based (or both)?
The problems 3e has aren't because they lack nuance. There are plenty of nuances in there (probably too many). After all, using the spell level to help determine the save DC is one mechanism added to ensure that a 1st level spell isn't as potent as a 5th level or 9th level spell. That was a nice addition for people who felt that low-level spells shouldn't be as powerful as high level ones. And the rate at which the spell level drives up the save DC isn't out of control compared to the rate the saves increase. Weak saves usually only trail by 2-3 points. Trouble was, some players can't pass up the attraction of pumping up the casting stat so that the save DCs go sky high - well beyond the target's saving throws ability to catch up and make it a reasonable contest (making this, perhaps, one nuance too many).
Yes, the "blame the victim" mentality.
I can't tell exactly what you mean by "in 3rd edition they all became caster-level based" in this context. Do you really mean spell-level based or caster-stat based (or both)?
The problems 3e has aren't because they lack nuance. There are plenty of nuances in there (probably too many). After all, using the spell level to help determine the save DC is one mechanism added to ensure that a 1st level spell isn't as potent as a 5th level or 9th level spell. That was a nice addition for people who felt that low-level spells shouldn't be as powerful as high level ones. And the rate at which the spell level drives up the save DC isn't out of control compared to the rate the saves increase. Weak saves usually only trail by 2-3 points. Trouble was, some players can't pass up the attraction of pumping up the casting stat so that the save DCs go sky high - well beyond the target's saving throws ability to catch up and make it a reasonable contest (making this, perhaps, one nuance too many).