Non-Combat Spells

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
The_Hanged_Man
Knight-Baron
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Non-Combat Spells

Post by The_Hanged_Man »

A thread on Nifty got me thinking about this. Most of the horrible, game-destroying spells, and a lot of the head-scratching, almost-campaign-destroying spells, are problems b/c of things they do outside of combat. Awaken, Fabricate, Calling spells, Rope Trick, and so on are practically useless in combat, but immensely powerful once combat ends and the party's hanging out counting XP.

IMO, the problem is that no one really knows how to balance non-combat and combat spells. It's easy to say a 10d6 fireball is more powerful than a 5d6 fireball. It's a little harder to say a 2d6 acid damage, every round for 5 rounds, is less powerful than one 10d6 lightning bolt. But how do you compare a 10d6 lightning bolt to a spell that lets you create a completely safe place to rest and recuperate? Or healing magic v. damage dealing magic?

I've heard lots of theories, but none of them are satisfactory. It's hit or miss, and almost always miss. Either the spells are craptacular or terrific. Anybody got a good framework to look at this? Is separating out combat and non-combat spells the only way to do it?
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Non-Combat Spells

Post by User3 »

I doubt it. Because you also have hybrid spells - that can be both useful out of combat (utility, healing, transport) and in combat. Examples are Plane Shift, Shadow Conjuration (Creation *and* Summoning spells), Alter Self / Polymorph, and Summoning spells in general (summon creatures to use their own spells).

Besides, creative players will find ways to eak out alternative usages of certain spells to use in ways they were not intended. Classifying them directly into one of two (or more) camps would be problematic at the least.
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Non-Combat Spells

Post by RandomCasualty »

The thing that's tough about non-combat spells is that they tend to vastly reshape the game. Combat spells generally don't as a rule (though 3.0 harm did to a degree).

When you're talking about a non-combat spell, the first thing I think is important is to ask if the spell should even be in the hands of the players. This is where you basically should start with some kind of campaign world and work backwards. Envision the basic world and mood first and then worry about balancing noncombat spells.

The thing with noncombat spells is that their balance is almost totally world and campaign dependant. Basically it's all about if your group answers "yes" to the question "Is it fun?"

This is the main problem with spells like fabricate. A spell that lets you make refined good instantly is going to break the average fantasy world paradigm, so unless you actually wanted to design your world with the paradigm that the market is flooded with magically created goods, you probably shouldn't allow fabricate at all.

With divinations, they basically just have to follow one rule "they give hints, not solutions." Somehow they have to be limited. Either by being excessively cryptic or giving yes/no answers only or whatever, and the ones that are more useful like commune, should always have a way to beat them, like mind blank. The divinations in the PHB are pretty good in this regard, the only one that could be excessively powerful is Find the Path, which some DMs consider not fun. OTOH, psionic divinations like hypercognition are hopelessly broken because they solve everything for you, and basically drain the fun out of any kind of mystery quest completely.

There will never be a total consensus on which noncombat magics are balanced because they really don't play with the balance of the game much, unless the world isn't ready for them. Some people like teleport spells to simply be a short cut to travelling far distances. Basically you teleport to specific teleportation circles, and that's it. Other people want to be able to teleport straight into the enemy's lair. Both are equally balanced... it's just a matter of what your group finds fun.

Noncombat spells are all just really extras that wizards get.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Non-Combat Spells

Post by Username17 »

The spell slot system does one thing really well. That is, it allows peopleto have limited spell power while still allowing them to run around throwing their staple spells before letting go with their giant hammer spell. That's an important staple in many fantasy settings, and spell slots model that extremely well.

But that's the only thing they do well.

Let's face it, a high level wizard actually has more spell slots than he will use in combat. That means that all the rest of his spells can be converted into non-combat buffs essentially free of charge.

Fundamentally, the entire concept of using your combat spell slots to power non-combat applications probably has to go. For one thing, it vastly changes the scope of character power for games where the average number of encounters is higher or lower than normal.

-Username17
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Non-Combat Spells

Post by RandomCasualty »

The best way to balance non-combat buffs is to link them to the magic item standard.

We have pearls of power that tell us how much an individual spell slot is worth, gp wise, so we simply ensure that a long term buff never creates a bonus better than what an item with an equivalent cost would grant.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Non-Combat Spells

Post by Username17 »

But unless and until the class features of non-magical characters become similarly valued - that doesn't mean crap.

A 9th level spell slot is worth 81,000 GP. A 17th level Wizard gets 3 of them. What amazing thing does a Ranger get at 17th level that is worth two hundred and forty three thousand pieces of gold?

-Username17
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Non-Combat Spells

Post by RandomCasualty »

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1083118617[/unixtime]]But unless and until the class features of non-magical characters become similarly valued - that doesn't mean crap.

A 9th level spell slot is worth 81,000 GP. A 17th level Wizard gets 3 of them. What amazing thing does a Ranger get at 17th level that is worth two hundred and forty three thousand pieces of gold?


Well, it depends on how highly you value BaB and hit points. There's currently no magic item that permanently increases your hit dice or your BaB, so it becomes difficult to put a value on BaB and hit dice.

Not that I'm saying it's balanced, because I don't think it is... but it's just something to think about.

The magic item standard is still the best way of balancing things that I can think of.
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Re: Non-Combat Spells

Post by Maj »

It doesn't sound to me like there is a magic item standard, Random Casualty. It sounds to me more like there's a gp standard, and since I have serious issues with the way the magic item pricing system works, I don't think it's a very reliable way of setting equivalencies. Especially because the cost of magic items is based on the level of spell that goes into the item - and it's judging the level of spell to determine proper balance that's the whole point of this thread.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Non-Combat Spells

Post by User3 »

The only magic item system that is vaguely balanced is the one in Arcana Unearthed(not Unearthed Arcana). In that book, all spells are given mods(multipliers) based on their effectiveness when made into different kinds of magic items.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Non-Combat Spells

Post by User3 »

Maj at [unixtime wrote:1083125075[/unixtime]]It doesn't sound to me like there is a magic item standard, Random Casualty. It sounds to me more like there's a gp standard, and since I have serious issues with the way the magic item pricing system works, I don't think it's a very reliable way of setting equivalencies.


Well, in theory, so long as you can buy magic items, the cost of a slot is equal to the magic item that grants you another spell slot. So an item that actually does what that slot can do should be basically the same cost as that slot, assuming the spell isn't personal (but really I'm a believer that personal range spells have no right being in magic items anyway).
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Non-Combat Spells

Post by Username17 »

Well, in theory, so long as you can buy magic items, the cost of a slot is equal to the magic item that grants you another spell slot. So an item that actually does what that slot can do should be basically the same cost as that slot, assuming the spell isn't personal (but really I'm a believer that personal range spells have no right being in magic items anyway).


Cost for a 1st level spell slot at your caster level = 1,000 gp.

Cost for a 1/day use of a 1st level spell at minimum caster level = 360.

Cost for a 1/day use of a 1st level spell at the caster level of a 20th level Archmage with an Ioun Stone = 8,640 gp.

The cost of a spell slot is based on the level of the spell slot alone, but the cost of a magic item which contains a single spell is based on the caster level and the spell level.

Which means that the "cost" of one of those first level spells is anywhere from 360 to 8,640 gp. It means that Wizards are getting ripped off by buying Pearls of power for a while, but eventually they catch up.

Most importantly, it means that relating the value of abilities back to the magic item system is hopeless.

-Username17
The_Hanged_Man
Knight-Baron
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Non-Combat Spells

Post by The_Hanged_Man »

Isn't that the basic problem, though? At the most basic level, the value of everything - including spells - is measured by how much damage they do, or how much damage they prevent. Instant death has a value, too, depending on how likely that instant death is.

So, a Vorpal Sword has a value based on weapon values, and is really, really expensive. A Decanter of Endless Water has a value pulled out of the air, and is basically free at high levels.

You know which one of those is potentially the most dangerous? I'll give you a hint. It isn't pointy.

So, add combat and non-combat magic items to spells. How do you balance the two together? I don't have a clue, and I don't see that anyone really does.
User avatar
Essence
Knight-Baron
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Non-Combat Spells

Post by Essence »

[action]pulls the plug from his Decanter of Endless Water[/action]

And now, p--poor world, watch as the tide of your d--doom begins! Soon the en--entire world will be flooded by my wr--wrath!


Oh...sorry.
Post Reply