Poll

If a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, etc could only prepare one spell of each kind per day, then would they drop to tier 2?

Who cares if the druid can't cast a 2nd flame strike? They can sub other similar spells like a good old Tier 1. Meh!
5 (83.3%)
Interesting ... so you'll probably want a sorc and a wizard in the same party, but if you only have one, you'll feel stretched either way. Both sound Tier 2.
1 (16.7%)
What? If my cleric gets baited into casting a spell once, the enemy knows she can't cast it again that day? I'll hop up to a tier 2 Sorc instead of this massive nerf!
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 6

Author Topic: Pauli Exclusion Principle Prepared-Caster Nerf (Tier 1->2)  (Read 1616 times)

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
  • Respect: +28
    • View Profile
I'm looking into flavorful ways to bring T1's down to T2, without feeling too cheated by artificial limitations. Since the strength of spontaneous casters is supposed to be spamming bread and butter while prepared casters grab the odd spells, this seemed like a sensical restraint.

EDIT: I'm assuming a cap of 2 x int mod spell known per class level & a player only being allowed to use their own spellbook if they use one.

Offline Solo

  • Designer/Editor, Legend
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1694
  • Sorcelator Supreme
  • Respect: +122
    • View Profile
    • Solo's Compiled Works
The Pauli Exclusion Principal states that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. You can have multiple fermions in an orbital (or what have you) by changing thair spins, or through other quantum variations.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2015, 08:24:34 PM by Solo »
"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down."


Offline Solo

  • Designer/Editor, Legend
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1694
  • Sorcelator Supreme
  • Respect: +122
    • View Profile
    • Solo's Compiled Works
Spells don't have half integer anything ... ... you get the point

Fermions with whole integers are not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principal.
"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down."

Offline JohnnyMayHymn

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 744
  • Former Lord of the Kitchen Sink
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
    • Faux Blast
How about exponential spell costs when added to the spell book? the flavor is "the more powerful your spell book gets, the harder it is to add to it". they'll hit a wall, hopefully at about the same power level as sorcerers.  And reduce spells gained at leveling.

Is there anything stopping players from having a second spell book?  Maybe your familiar can only 'link' to one spell book, and if it dies,  the spells are lost unless you can res the familiar.
This is seeming to be less elegant the more I add.

I have a homebrew idea, maybe I'll type it up finally tonight.

Edit: what do you mean by 'one spell of each kind per level'?  That reminds me of erudite

Edit: YEAH! Per Level!   Bloodlines, you know where I'm going with this...
« Last Edit: July 06, 2015, 10:26:00 PM by JohnnyMayHymn »
The Emperor
Can you find the Wumpus?

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10177
  • The iconic spambot
  • Respect: +86
    • View Profile
Honestly if you just get rid of all the ways prepared casters can cast spontaenously (including leaving open slots to prepare later, Uncanny Forethought Feat, etc), and drop the spell level acquisition on spontaneous ones down to match the prepared ones (I have never understood the reasoning behind that), I think they'd be fairly equal. The thing that always made me never want to play one was the delayed spell acquisition, and the fact that you could slap spontaneous casting on a wizard with a single feat.

Another thing that could help out would be to give the spontaneous guys a way to cast the oddball stuff as a ritual or something (or drop the XP cost from Limited Wish and Wish so they could use those for that). You know, like Contact Other Plane, Contingency, etc? The things that wizards will learn because "why not?" and sorcerers will never want to take up a known spell slot with. Of course, they can already do this via Spellstaves, Knowstones, etc, but if it was a class feature it would be more encouraging to newbies.
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4428
  • Feeling the Bern
  • Respect: +40
    • View Profile
then everything moves up a tier..... since there's no more of the current tier 1 classes, so its a losing fight to get rid of tier 1 classes ;)
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
  • Respect: +28
    • View Profile
How about exponential spell costs when added to the spell book? the flavor is "the more powerful your spell book gets, the harder it is to add to it". they'll hit a wall, hopefully at about the same power level as sorcerers.  And reduce spells gained at leveling.

Is there anything stopping players from having a second spell book?  Maybe your familiar can only 'link' to one spell book, and if it dies,  the spells are lost unless you can res the familiar.
But, clerics and druids? Also I've already been considering this, as an aside.

Quote
Edit: what do you mean by 'one spell of each kind per level'?
I mean per spell level slot, not per character or class level (how do I edit the poll question?). If you want a 2nd magic missile prepared, you'll have to prepare it in a 2nd level spell slot.

@PXY yes, assuming equal spell progressions and no expansion options (editing the OP), I don't find even a heavy hitter like Uncanny forethought to unbalance the above because of the limited spells known and inability to keep same-spell-slot-level efficiency. It's even less efficient in combat due to the full round casting time. It's still worth a feat though, for sure to keep up the illusion of always being prepared.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
  • Respect: +85
    • View Profile
I'm with Phaedrus, it's the spell progression that's always been the deal-breaker to me w/r/t Sorcerers and the like.  I sort of have a feeling that the designers realized that, too, and tried to paper it over by making an array of faux Sorcs.

I don't see the proposal as a real nerf to prepared casters.  And, it seems kind of odd since memorizing Magic Missile x2 has been a fixture for so long.  I'd also question the problem it's trying to solve.  The problem isn't that there aren't 5+ great spells of a given level to cast.  To the extent that T1s are any more powerful than T2s, and I kind of feel like in practice that's a very near thing, it's due to their ability to do some downtime stuff like Contact Other Plane, etc.  Isn't that right?  This proposed nerf wouldn't do much to resolve that, although that's a small enough list of spells that maybe you can just ban or limit those outright. 

I'd be inclined to go a little bit the other way and just make everyone Sorcs with a +1 on the level progression or something to that effect, with maybe a mechanic allowing them to change up their spells "known" with effort or when they level, etc.

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10177
  • The iconic spambot
  • Respect: +86
    • View Profile
I'd be inclined to go a little bit the other way and just make everyone Sorcs with a +1 on the level progression or something to that effect, with maybe a mechanic allowing them to change up their spells "known" with effort or when they level, etc.
I like this better. Wizards are already a pain in the butt to play. PBMC's proposal makes them moreso, but doesn't actually fix the problems between them and sorcerers. I'd rather make sorcerers a little bit more appealing (and maybe also just ban wizards, but if you make the sorcerers even a little bit better, most people would probably rather play one anyway because it is so much less book keeping).
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline Amechra

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4520
  • Thread Necromancy a specialty
  • Respect: +97
    • View Profile
I'd be inclined to go a little bit the other way and just make everyone Sorcs with a +1 on the level progression or something to that effect, with maybe a mechanic allowing them to change up their spells "known" with effort or when they level, etc.
I like this better. Wizards are already a pain in the butt to play. PBMC's proposal makes them moreso, but doesn't actually fix the problems between them and sorcerers. I'd rather make sorcerers a little bit more appealing (and maybe also just ban wizards, but if you make the sorcerers even a little bit better, most people would probably rather play one anyway because it is so much less book keeping).

Further solution: Sorcerers get +1 Spell Progression, Wizards become a Sorcerer PrC or ACF.
"There is happiness for those who accept their fate, there is glory for those that defy it."

"Now that everyone's so happy, this is probably a good time to tell you I ate your parents."

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10177
  • The iconic spambot
  • Respect: +86
    • View Profile
I'd be inclined to go a little bit the other way and just make everyone Sorcs with a +1 on the level progression or something to that effect, with maybe a mechanic allowing them to change up their spells "known" with effort or when they level, etc.
I like this better. Wizards are already a pain in the butt to play. PBMC's proposal makes them moreso, but doesn't actually fix the problems between them and sorcerers. I'd rather make sorcerers a little bit more appealing (and maybe also just ban wizards, but if you make the sorcerers even a little bit better, most people would probably rather play one anyway because it is so much less book keeping).

Further solution: Sorcerers get +1 Spell Progression, Wizards become a Sorcerer PrC or ACF.
This is an interesting idea... If you make the time required to change out a spell known significant enough, it might work. Hmm... maybe adapt the PF system of having a focus/familiar, have them contain the spells known like the PF witch, and make the spellbook an alternate type.
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
  • Respect: +85
    • View Profile
A bunch of my recent games have worked along those lines:  you're a spontaneous caster, but you can change your spells up if you really want to.  It's just that you're not doing it from day to day.  But, on the other hand, you're not locked in forever and you don't have to worry about an inability to use certain spells during downtime, and so on.  There's also usually a bit of a thematic or niche constraint, but that operates more at the level of "I'd really appreciate it if you did that" rather than rules.  Hell, a lot of our charopp stuff works that way. 

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
  • Respect: +28
    • View Profile
Wizards are already a pain in the butt to play. PBMC's proposal makes them moreso, but doesn't actually fix the problems between them and sorcerers
I've watched and played t1's before and the main problem was not deciding which spells to prepare for an unknown day's adventures (the good ones are often obvious), but in what proportion to prepare them. As in: "Yeah so definately these three spells, but do I want two of this one and then three of that one...?"

Now the problem is solved. Its just a daily list. Put a line through each as you cast. If you forget to do that once, all you have to remember is: did I cast that already today?