Would I be missing the point if I gave the Adept class higher spell levels?

[Noumenon]

I thought the idea of NPC classes like the warrior was to be weak, so first level orcs don't kill so many PCs. But the Adept is weak in the wrong way. It's kind of like a wizard multiclassed with commoner, when what I need is a true spellcaster, just weaker.

Slower spell progression is the opposite of what I want in an NPC class. I'm kind of a magic lover, I think my encounters are cooler when my goblin pirates can use flaming arrows or my ship's druid can cast Gust of Wind to maneuver away from them. So I am always looking for higher spell levels than I can afford in terms of CR. Adding three druids with enough levels to cast Wood Shape means I kill the party unless I cut out half the goblin warriors, and then there's nobody left to board the ship through those Wood Shaped holes.

If I were building an adept class I'd build one that got the same top spell level as a wizard, but fewer spells per day, worse saves, no feats, and CR of (level -2). That way I could design an encounter that starts with hold person on the door guard without making the raiding party automatically at least CR 3, or use an artillery barrage from four Magic Missilers on a party lower than level 5. It wouldn't be too dangerous, because they would run out of spells so fast.

(Aside: What CR is a fifth level adept supposed to be anyway? He's no stronger than a third level wizard, and we know a third level wizard is barely a CR 3. Either I treat him as CR 5 and all my encounters get drastically weaker, or the party has to fight a bunch of NPCs who are three levels higher than they are.)

So does it make sense to give adepts the top level of wizard spells, if they only get one or two? Is there a balance reason they're so useless, or is it just that whoever wrote the DMG didn't like high magic campaigns?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Maybe you are, maybe you are not.

It is noteworthy that a Warrior gains a full BAB, meaning he has a good chance to hit at his level. While an Adept uses lower level spells, so his spells have a lot less chance to affect anyone, and are also weaker in total effect.
On the other hand, generally spells get a lot stronger than other types of attacks at high levels, so maybe the intention is to balance this out.

The biggest problem of any NPC with spells is that they don't have to think about the next fight. They have just to survive this battle, and can thus always let loose their most powerful spells. Of course, if they don't get the first shot, that might be meaningless.

What might be better overall might be to give the Adept a Save Bonus to his saving throw DCs. So he doesn't get Lightning Bolt early, but when he gets it, he has a good chance to have a few enemies fail their saves.

 

[Noumenon]

It is noteworthy that a Warrior gains a full BAB, meaning he has a good chance to hit at his level.

They got that right. "Weaker fighter" doesn't mean "gets a commoner's BAB every other level," it means "gets the main thing about being a fighter, but less of everything else."

The biggest problem of any NPC with spells is that they don't have to think about the next fight. They have just to survive this battle, and can thus always let loose their most powerful spells.

It's not really fair, is it? They have a fifteen-minute adventuring day lifespan, they're like mayflies with nukes.

I could fix this and almost simulate the class I want by saying "You actually meet a wizard, not an adept, but he already used half his spells today, so it's just about the same thing."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Who knows, it might work.

I remember from the little insights into the Adventure Paths I have, that a lot of NPCs are assumed to be buffed by certain spells before any possible encounter occurs. Instead of casting buffs, your NPC Wizard has already cast a lot of "utility" spells...

To replicate this with the Adept, you could indeed give him a Wizard-like Spellcasting progression, but remove 2 spells of each spell level (and maybe remove the highest level spell. A CR 1 Adept should probably not have the firepower of a Scorching Ray, which can basically kill most PCs in one clean shot.)

 

[Aus_Snow]

(Aside: What CR is a fifth level adept supposed to be anyway?

I thought the NPC classes were -1 CR, compared with PC classes, and always treated as non-associated when added to monsters. Though I might be misremembering, of course. Pretty sure about the latter, but the former? Not quite so sure.

Um, so my actual estimate by way of direct answer would be '4'.


edit --- increase to CR does indeed = (NPC class levels -1). DMG, p. 38.

 

[Noumenon]

Thanks for finding that rule tucked away so far from the writeup of the classes themselves. I still think it's ridiculous to say a 10th-level adept with level 3 spells is anywhere near a 9th-level cleric with level 5 spells.

A CR 1 Adept should probably not have the firepower of a Scorching Ray, which can basically kill most PCs in one clean shot.)

OK, that's a convincing argument for making the adepts' CR (level - 1) instead of (level - 2).

you could indeed give him a Wizard-like Spellcasting progression,

I actually didn't realize what I was saying there. I missed the part where adepts cast divine spells, focusing on the first sentence in the DMG that says "Some tribal societies don't have the resources to train wizards and clerics." I thought it was supposed to substitute for either of them. So I should forget about the Adept entirely and just use exhausted wizards all the time.

 

[Jhaelen]

I missed the part where adepts cast divine spells, focusing on the first sentence in the DMG that says "Some tribal societies don't have the resources to train wizards and clerics." I thought it was supposed to substitute for either of them. So I should forget about the Adept entirely and just use exhausted wizards all the time.

Well, in the Eberron Campaign Setting there is an arcane adept variant called magewright. I don't think they have a better spell progression than the DMG adepts, though.

 

[Voadam]

So does it make sense to give adepts the top level of wizard spells, if they only get one or two? Is there a balance reason they're so useless, or is it just that whoever wrote the DMG didn't like high magic campaigns?

No. The point of NPC classes is to be weaker and represent non superheroic NPCs. If you give them the same spells as a full caster but fewer of them they will be as effective and dominating in combat as a full caster for the first couple of rounds. It would only be in extended fights when they run out of spells that they would be weaker.

A better solution IMO would be to give them high level spells but limit them to ones that are not so combat oriented so that they do interesting magical things appropriate to their themes, but not be save or die/massive damage blasters. This would make them interesting additions but not dominating forces in combats.

Another option is to give low level casters wands with the appropriate spells you want to use, so a level 1 druid with a wand of wood shape will go with the goblin boarders and not dominate the fight with wildshaping, his massive buffed animal companion and summoned critters, etc. but will focus on using the wand to open holes for the goblin pirates.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Another option is to give low level casters wands with the appropriate spells you want to use, so a level 1 druid with a wand of wood shape will go with the goblin boarders and not dominate the fight with wildshaping, his massive buffed animal companion and summoned critters, etc. but will focus on using the wand to open holes for the goblin pirates.

Or or if you're worried about giving out too much loot, just give low level casters the spells you want them to use and don't worry about how they got them.

So maybe this goblin has the stats of a level 1 druid, can't wildshape, can cast Fog Cloud but not any other level 2 spells. Because he specifically studied up on Fog Cloud or has a natural talent for it or something.

 

[Herobizkit]

Another option is to give low level casters wands with the appropriate spells you want to use, so a level 1 druid with a wand of wood shape will go with the goblin boarders and not dominate the fight with wildshaping, his massive buffed animal companion and summoned critters, etc. but will focus on using the wand to open holes for the goblin pirates.

I thought of this at first, but adding wands with few charges runs the risk of PCs crying foul, especially if *every* NPC spellcaster happens to have wands. Of course, even wands have a limit (max spell level for a wand is, what, 4?) Once the PC's defeat the caster, you also run the risk of having a powerful item in the hands of low-level adventurers, just like the enemies did. This could be fun or trouble, even if the wand only has 1-3 charges.

Another solution is to have Adepts/NPCs use a completely different spellcasting system. I suggest Elements of Magic and its partner, Mythic Earth (for sale here on EnWorld, I think). In this way, NPCs will have a few tricks that may be higher power than expected, but will still only be around for a round or two. It's definitely "the hard way" to go, but opens up the option for PC's to learn a new way of casting as well... then spell levels become a thing of the past.