Spellcasters in AH seem to have a significant disadvantage. Even the designers have noticed this, leading them to make statements such as this to try to explain that spells are good:

"Why are spells good? On average, they give higher bonuses per hand than pretty much anything else, and they are Magical attacks. If you have the Sword of Glory, you're probably content with that, but 2 Shrivellings is about the biggest combat bonus you're going to see."

In combat, a spellcaster has to a) spend Sanity cost, b) roll Lore check, c) exhaust the spell. This means you may not succeed in casting your combat spell, thereby wasting Sanity AND having no real chance of making your combat check. When you do successfully cast, you better hope there's only one monster to fight because your spell cannot be used again. With a weapon, none of these problems occur. The case of a spellcaster having great combat ability (as with 2 Shrivellings, above) is very rare, and would put him at 1 Sanity after only a few combats. Again you're essentially disarmed, whereas with a gun or two you can get +6 all day. Lastly, unless you're fighting the Dunwich Horror or an AO, you'll never need +12 dice for any combat anyway.

It seems like spellcasters go through a lot of nonsense to get the same bonus you can get with a gun. So as combat characters they are very limited. Rather than get spells, why not send those characters to whip through the Unique Item deck, grabbing Magical Weapons not to mention Elder Signs while they're at it? I know combat isn't the only part of the game, but the great spells (Find Gate, etc) come up far less often than the slew of combat spells, each of which has multiple copies in the deck. If you don't get one, you're pretty lame next to just about anyone with a weapon.

Anyway, a couple of my friends and I were toying with the idea of making spells more useful because we're starting to wonder if there is any good reason to play a spellcaster. This is the kind of situation that makes me start looking for house rules. Here's two possibilities: 1) Remove some of the spells from the deck so there aren't so many copies of all the combat spells. They're pointless and way too common. 2) House rule that sanity cost is only spent if you fail the Lore check, in which case the spell works anyway.

I know this probably sounds extreme to many of you, but what is your experience with spellcasters? Don't they need some kind of tweak? Rather than a fun system, failing to cast is just annoying when you realize a gun is just as easy to get, doesn't cost Sanity, and (usually) doesn't exhaust.

P.S. This game is still the greatest thing ever.

There are more monsters that are Physical Resistant/Immune then Magical Resistant/Immune. So, despite the unreliablility of Spells, they become more useful in regards to the kinds/numbers of Monsters in the game.
Most spellcasters have decent Fight/Will which gives them a decent chance to avoid the Horror Damage from a Monster.

Your combat spellcasters should be maxing their Lore and making regular trips to the Asylum, and should be carrying at least 1 physical weapon for those Magical Resistant/Immune Monsters. You only need 1 Success to cast a spell unless the card says otherwise.
Never try to take on a Stack of Monsters with a Spellcaster, it just doesn't work easily.

Most people usually remove 1 or 2 copies of each Spell to thin the spell deck.

Also, Spells count as Items, so when you do go Insane/Unconscious, you can easily toss your multiple copies of a Spell in place of something more valuable.

P.S. When you try to "farm/cycle/search" the Unique Item deck at the Curiostte Shop, you HAVE to buy 1 of the Items Drawn, which are usually expensive.

agreed on the rule that sanity shouldn't be spent unless the spell is succesfuly cast

I think the key point is that Daisy is a ridiculously better spellcaster than any other one ever printed. And she's what the third best Investigator? Maybe the fourth? She gets to bypass the Sanity mechanic almost completely and gets any spell she wants out of the whole deck and Mandy is still head and shoulders about her.

Frankly, with the exception of Arcane Insight, spells in general are just not that impressive. Even with a Lore of 5, Shriveling doesn't compare that well to a Sword of Glory. It's one more die, but it only goes off at all 65/81 times. The actual average contribution to battle is only 4.815 dice. It's worse than a Sword of Glory, even before we get to the part where you're supposed to pay a Sanity every time you cast it.

Suggestions:

Spells cost too much at the magic shop. $5? Seriously? 4 dollars would be a lot better.

Spells cost too much Sanity. Across the board. Daisy isn't even game breaking unless she has the Necronomicon. And then it's really her "read for free" power that's breaking the game, and not the spellcasting part. Or when she has Arcane Insight, and that spell breaks the game as long as you have, well any Lore character. Response: you should be allowed to make a Will check to prevent Sanity Loss.

-Frank

Will checks to prevent sanity loss? good idea! but it would add too much time to the already-taking-long spellcasting... exhaust the card, roll dice for will checks, then for spell checks, then for combat checks...

How about a house rule like this:

If you fail your Check to Cast a Spell, you only spend 1/2 Sanity Cost, Minimum 1.

But really, if you have a sword of glory, why care about spells? Spells are supposed to be a way to have decent combat checks without the powerful weapons.
If you spend your time "searching" the common and unique item decks for the best stuff, spells are almost useless. If you don't go "searching" the decks, spells become more powerful, which is probably the original intent of spellcasting.

dkw said:

Eh... Cycling through the spell deck is also pretty expensive. Unique items worth buying tend to be about 5-6, not much of a difference. I don't thin the spell deck. Sometimes I find spells useful, sometimes not. I usually play spell casters as meelee characters with high sanity. I don't really think of most investigators as spell casters except Daisy, Lily, and Carolyn. Usually I just go for unique items, and a few common items (if I'm low on cash).

And of course, there are a few *very* powerful spells. So, it's not like there's nothing in that deck. I don't think that thinning it down is a good idea for balance reasons— though it might be fun :')

Frank said:

Daisy's rank fluxuates... It's typically between one and three, it depends on the AO in my opinion... Um... But you're leaving out Alchemy— a *very* powerful spell. It's like drawing 20+ cash.

But that's exactly my point. Most of the non-combat bonus spells are pretty cool, and of course a few are just awesome. But spellcasters are terrible melee characters when compared with gun wielding joes. There's just no reason to use them unless you don't mind failing spells, paying sanity, and only fighting one enemy per turn. You can grab a gun or unique weapon and have none of the drawbacks.

So using a spellcaster as a fighter is a waste. But what about the other spells? They're good right? Except that you are bound to draw plenty of combat spells along with them, including as starting equipment since there's so many. Again you are hindered with garbage, and gaining spells to try to find the great ones becomes an ineffective strategy.

All of this could be more balanced if combat spells weren't such a sorry imitation of a weapon.

And I don't mean to imply that players should "search" the unique deck (using special investigators and such). But given the choice between your two "spellcasters" buying spells, or buying unique items, the choice is clear. At least you are getting tomes, elder signs, magic weapons, etc etc rather than multiple Wither and Shrivelling spells, with an occasional really good spell.

I see the point about Physical Resist/Immune monsters. But honestly, one character with Wither would be able to handle that. (Although an enchanted knife or alien device etc would do just as well, with no roll.) There's no reason for there to be so many combat spells out there, especially since they are much weaker than weapons.

Anyway, I think we will try the house rules I mentioned at the top. There's no reason spells should fail, really. They're bad enough already!

The point is, the designers never thought people would spend half their time shopping for the good stuff. Spells were a way to get high bonuses you couldn't get with normal weapons, and a way to get rid of Physical Resistant/Immune Monsters because, again, they didn't expect people to spend all their time shopping, hence the abundence of Combat Spells.

Try playing a game where you don't give all your money to 1 Investigator to buy all the good stuff.

Also, most people here are playing single player. How would you like to be designated the group shopper, and spend half the game with 0 Clues, 0 Items as everyone comes and takes what you have, 0 Allies, never moving, and all you do is draw from a deck of cards? That is quite boring for any player, mostly because people want to do something important, and feel that waiting for their turn to come around just to do 1 thing a turn while everyone else is doing 3 or 4 things is a waste of their time.

Actually I've never played where 1 investigator takes all the money and goes shopping most the game. (Nor two of them, etc.) That's why I wrote "And I don't mean to imply that players should "search" the unique deck..." So there! Even though some people have obviously figured out how to use the right investigators to shop the game to death, I just don't think that sounds fun.

However, with the players' starting unique items, plus two or three players (your spellcasters) spending one turn each shopping for uniques, you will easily have one or two magical weapons. Not to mention other unique items. That's why it's silly to choose to play a spellcaster. Why would you want 2 Spells as starting equipment if you can have uniques and/or common items instead? That's sort of my point in this thread: spells really are THAT BAD when it comes to combat.

Yes, Wither plus Shrivelling is by far the most likely way you'll see a +9 combat bonus. But it's just not worth it given all the disadvantages of spells, because you're essentially a magical flamethrower. (A flamethrower that doesn't always work when you need it, and will drive you insane if you use it a few times. But I digress.) Why not just get a flamethrower! (Or a shotgun, or two little guns, or...)

Anyway bottom line is that you don't have to use lame tactics of searching decks to make spells obsolete. They're lame already, and would be very easy to fix. But we'll have to see after some playtesting...

Sothis said:

If you need magic weapons while fighting Y'golonac ;') you can't afford to go to the unique item shop, too likely to add doom tokens.

::Shrug:: I didn't realize you were just complaining about the combat aspect. I don't really mind withers *that* much, they're decent. At least they don't cost sanity ;') And I love getting a shrivelling (being able to pull off a +10-11 attack can really be a game saver against certain enemies). I'm fairly complacent about the spell deck contents and rarely shop for spells anyways :')

dkw said:

Eh... I usually have all players meet in shops on the first turn, and someone (or some two) usually stay behind for a second or third turn. It's not that much of a time sacrifice.

"::Shrug:: I didn't realize you were just complaining about the combat aspect."

haha, it's not just the combat aspect; that's just the most obvious fail because it's so bad. My point was I'm starting to think NO spells need to have a "chance of failure", really. There's no reason for it. I wonder if spells could be auto-cast by paying the sanity cost, maybe spellcasters would be way more fun.

Sothis said:

That's actually a very good idea: They could make it that you first roll for the spell, and then two things happen: If you rolled a success, you pay no sanity and cast the spell. If you failed the roll you pay the sanity cost and cast the spell. Either way- you cast the spell. I hope a rule such of this would actually get implemented into the game...

Avi_dreader said:

I'm not forgettig Alchemy, It's just like having a Retainer. Nice, but honestly Darrel starts with one and is made of stone cold awesome in pure crystal form on top of that.

Getting two dollars a turn dumps all over Jenny Barnes' entire character, but several Dunwich charactersand anyon whi spends some time in the Nwspaper can just do that. Jenny Barnes was never that good, and the Dunwich wealth accumulation schemes render her worthless by comparison. But Daisy's monetary accumulation scheme isn't particularly superior to Darrel's. Not by a long shot.

-Frank

Sothis said:

Now, more seriously: Spells are terrific! There are several spells that make the game so much easier, that it would be a terrible mistake to let them succeed every time. I don't even think that all combat spells are bad. It's just the ones that cost sanity that are bad. And if you have a way to regain sanitiy even the ones that cost one sanity are fine.

Now, if I wanted to boost the usefulness of spells, I'd probably do something like reducing the number of hands required to use the combat spells by one. I.e. effectively every investigator gets a third hand to wield spells. Alternatively, have the combat spell effects last longer than a single combat (to allow using them for several fights at a single location) or don't have them occupy a hand when you fail the spellcasting check.

But, as I said, I don't think it's necessary to do anything about combat spells. They're quite okay the way they are. They're not meant to be great for every investigator.

When I first started playing the game, I thought the sanity cost of spells was ridiculous. Now spell casting has become too easy, especially for the likes of Daisy and with the abilities given by several unique items. Last night I had Arcane knowledge and the Seven Criptical books of Hsan in the hands of an average spell caster, Marie. In addition, she did have a Lore +1 Skill. I was able to cast it every turn but two (with two dice). It was one of the easiest games I ever played. It was fun while doing it. I think it it would be disappointing if it continued.

Combat spells are a little crazy, but just a little. The only change I'd make is that the sanity cost of spells only be paid upon success. After all, the sanity costs represents the danger of contacting the mythos. If you didn't cast the spell, then you didn't contact the mythos (at least not correctly). I suppose FFG could have a miscast table. On the other hand, perhaps that's what the sanity cost of miscasting represents in a simplified method.

What I've seen as I've acquired the expansions is a ramp up in difficulty in monsters and Old Ones but a corresponding ramp up in power and number of powerful weaponry, both magical and physical.

What soured my group on magic was Dexter. He looks like a spell user, talks like spell user, gets a pretty powerful spell to begin with (Shriveling), but he's not really a spell user. In the basic set, Carolyn is the best spell user but begins with no spells. Now I think these are hilarious and very thematic.

Now we have a librarian who because she can read can also cast spells safely and gets the spell she wants to boot. In addition, she's one of the biggest game slowers ever. In the hands of a novice, either the choice of picking a spell is too daunting or takes too long. In my convention games, I've seen players never ever even take the time to use the 'liver of iron'.

But in the hands of a veteran there's numerous combos that can be used. Daisy is the only component I've taken out of the game.

mageith said:

:cries a few tears of joy:

Frank said:

Sure it is, retainers last 6 turns on average. Alchemy doesn't disappear (so you have to spend turns trying to get another one), and of course, it's giving you an extra cash per turn. It's a superior money collection method to Darrell's. And of course, one can get a second one...

Dam said:

BOOOOO!

::Cries tears of rage::

Avi_dreader said:

Technically, there's only a 33% chance of avoiding a 1 for 6 rolls in a roll. There's a 48% chance of avoiding a 1 for 4 rolls in a row.

I heart the spells, so I will defend them I suppose.

first, spells kind of give you everything at once. There are spells to make money, spells to move faster, sneak better, fight harder, regain stamina/ sanity, etc. Point is that you get a chance at everything you need, and often a better chance of it than if you were looking at the General Store/ Curiositie Shoppe for similar effects. Strong casters can often make it the whole game needing nothing but their magic to sustain them. Just about anything you could dream of wanting is in one spell form or another. Now *perhaps* it isn't as good as the common/unique counterparts, but often times it is just as good, or better. Evade is a perfect example. You could try for a Pallid Mask or a Dark Cloak/Military Motorcycle, or you could go for Mists of Ryleh or Summon Shantak, both of which are considerably better than a +1 or even a +2 boost to evade.

Also, there are the spells that simply no other item can duplicate. Arcane Insight, Call Ancient One, Red Sign, Lure Monster, Call Friend or Find Gate. Not all of these are game-winners, but they all certainly can help, and provide options that otherwise wouldn't be available.

Also worth noting is that the magic shop closes last. There are some games where you barely get time to even look at the general store, spells are something that will almost always have a garunteed method of aquiring them available to investigators.

Finally, Arkham has always been a game of making the most of what you got. Not all suceess is measured in terms of being a combat monkey. Sometimes you have to take on multiple monsters at once, sometimes you don't. Sometimes your spells can help you evade the guy you can't fight, sometimes they won't. If spells are able to get you into a gate, provide you a little character enchancement, and give you enough combat power to take most monsters you might find in random encounters, than that is good enough I say.

Although, I will say this. 1. There isn't enough variety in the base game to make spellcasting truly enticing. Casters need the expansions to be good, I find particularly the DH spells and the KiY spells are superbly helpful. 2. Spells at the magic shop probably are indeed too expensive, but there is another option. Buy spell tomes. They're typically very cheap, and provide you with 1 or more spells, and sometimes a clue or two to boot. Yes, they usually drain your sanity. You'll have to decide if cheaper spells is worth that consequence, I usually think it is.