DwD Studios

This complicates the game a bit.

Can you provide a table with DP costs per level? It would be easier to understand what you're trying to say and the development costs involved.

Let's see:

1. Beginning human character with LOG 70 takes Spellcaster 1 as his Primary skill. He picks Offensive Strike and Aid as his two Rank 1 spells. His general Spellcaster roll is 65% (70/2+10+20). His Offensive Strike and Aid are 65% rolls.

2. Said character picks up 6 DP in his first adventure. He's more likely to spend those points raising Spellcaster to Rank 2, giving him a general roll of 75%. He adds Hinder and Transform to his pool of Rank 1 spells. Because his general rank (2) is higher than his specific spell ranks (1), however, he still casts at 65%.

3. In his next adventure, he gets another 6 DP. Now he decides to boost his Offensive Strike to Rank 2. As this is equal to his general Spellcaster skill rank, he casts Offensive Strike at 75% and Aid, Hinder, and Transform at 65%.

I don't find this overly complicated, I like how it slows the spellcasting character down (a fighting character who earned the same amount of DP and had a STR of 70 would have the 75% attack roll and be 2/3rds of the way to Warrior 3 and an 85% skill) but doesn't totally screw them. I also like the specialization potential. Given enough time, everyone with Rank 6 Spellcaster will have all 12 spells at Rank 6, but most characters who buy Rank 6 Spellcaster will look very different in terms of the spells they favor when they pick up that last pair.

He said sheepishly, worried that it was his latest BBF post on RPG.net that prompted Bill to propose this rule.

haha!

Well it does seem to be a general consensus. Sometimes you and your testers don't see something because they're just a microcosm of the entire broader customer base. I still don't personally see it as broken, but if enough people who are playing it are saying the same thing it must have some level of truth to it. So this is my initial idea for mitigation. It isn't yet official in any way, of course! I'm interested in what Larry and others have to say.

Do you see extending this idea to Cleric and Enchanter? Probably not given the checks already built into those skills (fewer spells for Cleric, the time to make runes and objects for Enchanters).

If spellcasters are too powerful (breaking the balance of the skills in BBF), why not just make the cost of rising in spellcaster skill levels more costly than other skills?

The problem is that the spellcaster levels out with the other skills by 6th level. (Or so I've heard.) Maybe they should be expensive initially and then level out later.

1st - 5dp
2nd - 8dp
3rd - 10dp
4th - 12dp
5th - 14dp
6th - 16dp

In the end, the spellcaster has only paid 2 extra DP (65 over 63), or if it is their starting skill, then it levels out with the normal cost.

I think only the spellcaster should pay for the spell versatility. The other spell-using skills are already balanced.

Personally, I only think the group strike ability of OS, and the unchecked offensive capability of transform simply need to be restricted in some way. The group strike capability could be separated and handled as either another spell, or a benefit acquired from some other rule regarding attacking groups.

The only issue my group ever had with spellcasters was the high damage on offensive strike once you get about SC level 3+. The AoE damage really wasn't an issue, as it was really just a minionater. We fixed the whole thing by flattening the damage to 3 dice and adding a damage bonus for Logic and it's been pretty effective. We also don't halve damage for AoE now as the base damage is reduced. Warrior weapons do slightly less damage, but that's traded off for armor and such.

Spellcasters get a lot of role-play versatility and power from things like the ability to Teleport, Commune, Divination, Aid, Entangle, Illusion, Charm, etc, etc, but so long as you have spellcasters in the game you're going to have those issues. If one player's jealous of spells, tell 'em to make a spellcaster. I generally only 'really' worry about combat balance. The rest tends to take care of itself. I figure the other stuff is balanced by generally lower health, Strength, DEX, DR, etc.

Also, don't forget that Spellcasters can't use any of their sorcerous might if they are too heavily Armored, and buying up STR will result in slower advancement-also, weapon skills tend to be low (unless picking up some Warrior and again diverting DP to pay for it. Seems pretty self-balancing to me.

I'll admit, Spellcasting seems very, very versatile-but so does the Leader Skill, and (aside from reducing Guardian to once per round in order to prevent a One-man Shield Wall) I haven't had to do much...I wouldn't allow multiple Actions of Warlord effects in one turn (even thought BTB I could) and Spellcaster seems comparable to that at the very least.

I've heard of other posters mentioning limiting use of each particular Spell to a maximum of once per round, so that high LOG, high Skill Spellcasters can do multiple Actions without blowing the opposition away with multiple Offensive Strikes in one round. I could see a truly skilled Spellcaster casting Aid on the Warrior, Protection on himself and Offensive Strike on an enemy, whereas 3 Offensive Strikes could turn the battlefield into a raspberry jam Mosh Pit pretty quickly!

Yeah, I forgot about that suggestion. (I believe that was mine.) Once per turn is certainly a fine restriction that pretty much nerfs most of the too much power.

Transform may still need restriction, though, or at least a ruling on the creature's state when it returns to normal.

Agreed-I just houseruled that Transform cannot directly kill. An airbreather transformed into a Goldfish that suffocates to death transforms into a comatose airbreather once more when the Spell wears off, just as a creature turned to stone would still be living flesh if returned to normal. That goldfish could still be fried to a crisp in a hot skillet, a 'stoned' target could be reduced to rubble by a pickaxe, and a flying beast turned into a toad might well die from a case of Sudden Gravity..

You could pay for new spells at each level, instead, without having to pay for spell levels individually, up to 2 spells at a time. So you're paying one-time costs to gain the spells, but no cost after that. This would make it more expensive while keeping the cost reasonable. Learning a new spell costs 1dp. It levels according to your current skill level, just as the spells already do. So you would be paying 2 extra per level. Or you could simply make it part of the skill's level costs.

I just want to caution against changing this. I think the "spellcasters are too powerful" view is coming from the DND camp.

DND is much more restrictive than BBF in spells and spellcasting. I think BBF is just fine and your playtesters were correct. I and my players have been playing for a few months now and not seeing a problem. In fact, we are having a blast! I think more time needs to be allowed for gms and players to play this game as is.

It might be useful to know (and I don't know if this can be done) if the "spellcasters are too powerful" viewpoint have been running games for any length of time or if it is just from reading the rules a few times.

I thought the same (spellcasters too powerful), I've been running the game, I think different now.

Fair enough. I have not had a chance to play BFF regularly yet, so I have to bow to the wisdom of those who have.

Spellcasters should be dangerous. It is why you kill them quietly and first. ;)

Well, I'm basing it upon the plays of others. We had the one who used OS just fine against single opponents, but was having problems with the OS multi-attack significantly outclassing the warrior. Then there's the other who played it but felt that OS single strike was too powerful. (But I suspect the latter was using the previous rule where OS was indeed too powerful before it was fixed.) There's one viewpoint that says that it starts out powerful and then gets weaker, then the other that says it starts out weaker and gets more powerful, outclassing the other skills in the end. (I'm not sure the level of play either with the viewpoint have had, though the former seems to fail to consider the acquisition of magical weapons.)

I prefer to control the power of my games personally, rather than relying upon the rules. So I can handle it easily. I use obstacles, reminding the players of the danger and considering variables, not allowing magic to be used willy-nilly without consequences. (For example, fire balls don't just disappear and leave flames on the target. Fireballs splash. Something or someone nearby may end up getting scorched or worse.) But for those who are not inclined to use anything but the rules to control the power, it is good to have the power balanced for them.

Nice!

I want to discuss Offensive Strike power level. I've tried to stay out of it up until now as much as I can... but I'm just confused by it. I'll explain... and I'm trying not to sound like I'm defending our game, just participating in a discussion where I seem to disagree with the popular opinion.

[opinion]
As I've mentioned, I run a lot of games, and none of my players ever say that Offensive Strike is too powerful. Yes, the most powerful spellcaster in our group shells out 6D damage when he casts his OS spell (being level 5), but our warrior causes 5D+5 damage on his own, which is pretty much the same thing (both are 32-33 damage to the average)... but our warrior can get AIDed to be even more capable (when the cleric in our group aids the warrior's STR by +50 his damage output increases tremendously... he ends up doing +10 more damage AND swings so often in a turn that he's insanely unstoppable). AIDing the spellcaster doesn't help nearly as much. I simply DON'T have trouble seeing the warrior and spellcaster as balanced... and I'm frankly surprised others do.

And the area-effect ability doesn't bother anyone either. It's half damage to all within 3 spaces... 3D damage to each. Sure, it allows him to mop the floor with kobolds and goblins and whatnot, but it's an average of 16 points of damage... typically doesn't even destroy a group of hobgoblins in one pass... have to cast more than one Offensive Strike. The warrior in the group could have taken care of those low-rank foes himself if he wanted, no problem. I have trouble seeing where the balance issue is.

Now perhaps it's because I allowed our warrior to come across a namir battle axe and permitted the enchanter in the group to enchant it. But come on... he's a rank 5 Warrior... he should have an enchanted weapon or two.

So if we curb the damage output of offensive strike then the warrior outshines everyone else when he's in possession of an enchanted weapon or gets AIDed.
[/opinion]

In our games, OS isn't seen as over powerful, but the spellcaster does seem to be too versatile. He has 10 spells all at level 5 ability and can solve a diverse amount of problems without much help. So that is where I was going with the suggestion in the original post.

I misread the rules originally, and allowed my primary spell caster to take two spells initially and one per level after that. That has worked well so far.

It's only yesterday that I realised I should have been giving her two spells per level. On reflection, I think the way I did it worked well.

No one here, I don't think, would tell you that you also are not entitled to your opinion Bill. We all hold you, the creators, in extremely high regard, not just because you created such a great game, but because you post and respond and are just very personable as people. You are approachable and down to Earth and well... we just plain like you.

That being said, I pretty much agree with everything you said. The only difference being we don't hand out very many weapons and our enchanter isn't high enough level (and hasn't wanted to stop long enough) to knock out some enchantments. For us, and the group I run with my step-son, the flattened 3D damage has worked, also because we use a bonus to damage from Logic. My spellcaster just made level 6, and when he Aids himself, the damage becomes... just rude. Generally the second thing I do is Aid the warrior as well, so it works out. As for spellcaster diversity, see my above comment. Everyone has the option of playing that if they choose, and to be honest, Enchanters are even worse. They get all the spells all the time at the expense of taking time to make runes. It's just a question of perspective.

With my step-son, when he's game mastering, he's an inexperienced GM, so flattening the damage some was necessity. He couldn't deal with it well. In my other group, we did it to preserve continuity from game to game, but the GM there is much more experienced and could, I think, handle it. Some of the concerns, I think, are mostly in the experience of the players.

Yeah, what Bill said sounds about right. Versatility is likely the real issue. That's basically where I would be adjudicating, as I indicated, considering realistic limitations and means of nerfing effectiveness.

My personal opinion is "as is." There are plenty of ways that this character balances out beyond just how much damage it can dish out in combat. It isn't superior in every ability or skill, and is just as vulnerable, if not more, to some forms of attack.

I don't particularly see a problem with it as is either. /shrug
As has been pointed out, unless the caster wishes to spend DP on STR, armor becomes an issue meaning these guys are inherently squishy. If they want to jump out there and start hurling spells around they immediately get a bull's eye painted on them. The word 'pincushion' comes to mind...

I like the idea in the first post and plan to use it. However, I think I will keep the action roll as-is, based purely on Spellcasting level, and use the spell's level only to determine effect. Keeps things simple to explain and remember. You invest DPs in Spellcasting for overall skill and diversity. You invest in a spell to make it more powerful.

Well, as pointed out before, if someone is concerned about spellcasters being too powerful, they always have the prerogative to play one instead of another type of character. :)

I think it was J. Edgar Hoover who said, No matter what the rules, they apply to both sides.

So far, I favor the rules as written for spellcasting; they have not presented a problem for me and my little band of players. If I were to limit spellcasting, I'd probably go the route suggested by order99 and Ascent of limiting the use of each spell to once per round. But, in the main, I'm in agreement with jasales in cautioning against changing the rules. Bill's cogent defense of OS as written in the rules is compelling.

Now, having contributed nothing to the discussion, apart from stating with whom I agree, let me say that this thread is easily one of the most sane and balanced series of posts you'll find on the interwebs. The approach taken by you all on the BBF forums as you discuss these matters is yet another reason why I've made the switch after 30+ years from B/X D&D to BBF. I commend your spirit!

As one who just recently found this gem of a game and who is in the process of setting up some actual play, I felt it necessary to reanimate this thread :)

I've been concerned about spellcasting as well but not for the same reasons as discussed above (I think - I may be completely wrong, in which case please excuse!).

I'm more in the line of:
- A Spellcaster reaches Lv6.
Suddenly that person gains two, up until that point, new spells at Lv6 (Master Level)!

For me that's just off, character development wise. It doesn't make sense to me.
A master chef, for example, wont automatically be able to do a gourmet meal from one recipe just because they have mastered one from another. They would need practice, even though their basic knowledge about cooking is superb.

The skill level for the actual casting of spells would (in my revision) be the same as the Spellcasting skill dictates, because the magi would have a deep understanding about magic as a force and as an art.
But the Spell in itself is new, and would need practice before it could be used to its full potential.

One solution I've seen would be to make spells into semi-separate skills while keeping Spellcasting as it is, with +10 Casting skill/Lv and so on.
For each level the magi gains in Spellcasting they gain two new spells.
But they cannot use them at any effect over Lv1 until the spells are leveled up with (as a suggestion) 1DP/Lv up to, but not beyond, the Spellcasting skill.

However, I haven't been able to figure out what to do with either Clerics or Enchanters. Would they face the same "need to buy" or would their built in limitations be enough? I'm on the fence about that one...

Thoughts? Critique?