Post/Author/DateTime	Post
OneWinged4ngel 01-16-07, 11:25 PM	So, it's fairly common knowledge that spellcasters are extraordinarily potent characters. It goes for Wizards, Clerics, spellcasting monsters, and all those things. I would like to get a discussion going about a few of the things that might be done to improve on the problem for the benefit of those providing fixes for such problems, and also attempting to provide fixes within this thread. First, of course, the problems need to be specifically identified and addressed. 1: As the Wizard progresses in levels, he loses his limits. He no longer has to worry about his spells per day so much, since his supply is quite abundant. Limited resources doesn't mean so much when you have 30 high level spells available, if only 3 or 4 of your highest level. Essentially, the first problem is the scaling of vancian spellcasting. 2: Early on, you indeed have utility and a role in the party as a Wizard. You are fragile, but you can create a variety of stunning special effects. You can access areas no one else can reach easily with a Spider Climb or a Feather Fall. You can take out a whole group of enemies with Color Spray. Later on, your role fades from the fragile utility/blaster to a powerhouse that can encompass just about any effect in the game as effectively as anyone else; it just takes the right combination of spells. Essentially, the first problem is that spellcasters tend to take over just about every role, instead of remaining confined to a limited few, and as a result reduce the value of a well-rounded party and overshadow other party memebers. Magic can do *everything,* while everyone else is limited to their, well, limited selection of abilities. 3: One significant issue, and one I think should definitely be a focus of fixes, are individual spells. The difference in spell power is striking, and indeed any avid sorceror player knows the difference in effectiveness of one who picks the right or wrong spells. Some have too little utility and power to compete, and others are so great as to be essentials, or at least overshadow many other choices. Spell choices should be as balanced as possible, and any two spells of an equal level should have a comparable incentive to be used. The main problem is in the case of spells with few limits, which are very versatile and may indeed have unforseen consequences that the designers were not aware of. Essentially, the third issue is the discrepancy in the power of spells, and the striking power and abusability of certain specific spells from Shatter to Scry to Shrink Item. One big reason I feel this should be the main fix is that it is one of the most concise and even fixes. By smoothing out and limiting overpowered spells, and making the puny ones more viable, the entire magic system begins to even out. Instead of simply applying to a class, it applies to things such as monsters and so forth. It solves the most problematic issues with magic, which are indeed the Wishes and Polymorphs, while things like... well, Evocation spells in general, really aren't so intimidating to the system. 4: Multiclassing is almost always a suboptimal decision. You just can't afford to sacrifice caster levels! Prestige classes without full casting progression are seldom considered worth it, but those with full casting progression are a straight benefit, effectively being overpowered. Also, other classes just aren't as *good*. I feel Tome of Battle might be a good hint here, as it presents the concept of increasing a "caster" level without progressing in your own class, albeit at a slower rate. At the same time, spells are often *better* than Tome of Battle maneuvers, and synergize with other features darn well (though more spells are still usually a BETTER choice for you as a full caster). Things like True Strike, Enlarge Person, and so forth are definitely good for any martial character, and that's just first level spells. And it's common knowledge by now how you can get more out of Duskblade by not actually taking 20 levels in it, instead adding more powerful touch spells to your repertoire by advancing caster level in another class. On top of that, there's the issue of half-casters and prestige classes. How do we advance caster levels here? I mean, really, if you're going to go into a "+caster level" PrC, why not take 1 level of cleric to get ten levels of CLERIC spellcasting with those nice new class features that would outdo a full 20 levels of your paladin spellcasting. Such things encourage dips. Essentially, the multiclass situation for spellcasters is very messy and sloppy. ___ Well, there's a start. By the way, if you think everything is perfect, please go away. If you're not an experienced player with a good deal of experience with the complex mechanics of D&D, likewise, this is probably not the discussion for you. I'm hoping to keep with a sort of quality of posts that you'd type up for Regdar's, and get a useful discussion with good reference for the issues with D&D's magic system.
Seerow 01-16-07, 11:40 PM	1) I feel a good deal of faith can be put into Otto's system, even if that's not what you're looking for. Much of what I will say will be derived at least somewhat from the philosophy of his system. 2) A major thing for casters is they had SAD. They can get away with an 18 in their primary stat at the expense of all others, in any point buy. Indeed, many seem to think it criminal that a Wizard might NOT have a 16-18 base intelligence. This is wrong. To fix this, I believe Charisma should become the standard Save DC stat, while everything else remains dependant on a different stat. This really only brings up a problem when the Sorcerer and related classes come up. Honestly, if no other change to the Sorcerer is made, this could still be fine. However, Sorcerers could flavorfully still have either Intelligence or Wisdom as a secondary stat. 3) Cutting down on upper tier spells does a -long- way towards fixing casters. Honestly, past a point you simply don't care about lower spells anymore, but high level spells are always a precious commodity. So instead of getting 4 of your top tier spells, maybe you only get 1. Or 2. This goes a looong way to cutting back spellcaster power. Though this goes to my belief of in return, giving the casters more free castings of low level spells. Either on a per encounter, or even unlimited basis. (Per Encounter, AKA with a 10 minute rest period, is probably better to avoid certain abuses of buffs and such). But that isn't necessarily what would be in a "Solution" discussion. It's a class design philosophy, to make sure that nobody ends up completely useless in a fight, that you CAN always be doing something. (Face it, a Wizard with no spells because the DM and/or players doesn't want to let him rest is no fun. At least a Wizard with low level spells unlimited can be tossing out magic missile or something in these extended fights.) but it isn't really a fix, so much as a belief. 4) Fixing spells as a whole is indeed something that would fix the system, but it's also the most daunting task you could wish for yourself. I for one don't have the patience for it, and that's much the same reason I gave up on MP systems.
Milo HoBo 01-17-07, 07:44 AM	Things that need to be fixed? 1) Spells, as already stated. It will be a daunting task to say the least. 2) Full caster PrCs, as already stated. I really like the idea of 'increase your caster level, but not your advancement'. 3) 9th level spells should be really special. If you get 9th level spells, it should be the entire aim of your character. No armor, no wildshape, low hit die, only one good save, low BAB. Clerics, Druids, and now a plethera of other casters should be knocked down a peg or two. 4) SAD (single ability dependance) is an issue, but the most clear case is truely the Druid. Wildshape was able to eliminate the penalty of dumping everything into Wisdom. Wizards still need Constitution and Dexterity. Clerics still (arguably) need Charisma and Constitution. Etc. 5) Some of the other classes show really awesome potential on how to balance things. Bo9S has rechargeing, Pact Magic shows us neat 'at-will' abilities with cooler 'once per 5-rounds' abilities. Warlocks have cool 'at-will' abilities. Using these and adapting them to the 'classic casters' could be one route. That's all I got right now.
OneWinged4ngel 01-17-07, 03:38 PM	3) 9th level spells should be really special. If you get 9th level spells, it should be the entire aim of your character. No armor, no wildshape, low hit die, only one good save, low BAB. Clerics, Druids, and now a plethera of other casters should be knocked down a peg or two. I would recommend knocking off Natural Spell for a start on the Druid. That way, you're not getting so much casting in while wildshaped.
Seerow 01-17-07, 03:58 PM	Honestly, I like the idea of the Druid being broken into 2 classes. The first is a Shapeshifter first and foremost, but gets Ranger-esque casting. No 9th level spells, but he still gets some useful buffs and such. This also means fixing the ranger is easier, you can balance the abilities you give him against the shapeshifting. The Second becomes something more akin to the Cloistered Cleric. The Druid who stays in his groves to guard trees, has powerful magic, but can't shapechange easily. Clearly he would need spells to let him do minor changing, but nothing as complete and resource-free as Wildshape. (And yes, I am going on the assumption that the rebalancing of spells will result in Polymorph and Co as a whole thrown out)
MagocracyForAll 01-17-07, 06:43 PM	(Face it, a Wizard with no spells because the DM and/or players doesn't want to let him rest is no fun. At least a Wizard with low level spells unlimited can be tossing out magic missile or something in these extended fights.) Unlimited magic missiles would break the wizard even more, he would be able to do 5d4+5 damage each round. It is not high, but the range is incredible and it cannot miss, everybody would need shield this would also put his immediate damage potential beyond that of a sorcerer. There would be many other spells that would break, especially if higher level spells were unlimited. Bears Endurance on the whole party!! If third level spells are allowed, well then all heck breaks loose.
Seerow 01-17-07, 07:06 PM	5d4+5 a round is broken? What are you smoking? Realize, at the level it's doing 5d4+5 a round, a Wizard could have taken a Reserve feat and be doing 5d6 a round, which averages the same damage. Or hell, the Fighter. He has 2 attacks from BAB, 1 from rapid shot. He enhances his bow with some +d6 enhancement, and gets GMW cast from a Cleric with a Prayer Bead so it's a +3 weapon. He has Weapon Spec and Ranged Weapon Mastery. And say a +2 strength bonus at this level. He deals 1d8+1d6+2(strength)+3(enhancement)+2(spe cialization)+2(mastery) Or an average of 17 damage a hit. With 3 hits, he deals an average of 41 damage in a round, at a far longer range than the magic missile. The arrows can miss, the caster can run into Spell Resistance. The Fighter averages 41 damage in a round, the Wizard averages 17.5 damage in a round. If the Fighter lands just ONE arrow, he matches the Wizard's average damage. If he lands two he exceeds the Wizards max damage. Do you still want to try to argue it based on damage? Damage dealing spells are the weakest out there, using low level ones doesn't help any. So then you bring in Bear's Endurance. Second level spells would become unlimited at 11th level. So your bear's endurance lasts for 11 minutes. It takes you 10 minutes to refocus to cast the spell again. So you get bears endurance for 1 minute, then wait for 10 minutes, then move for a minute again after casting. You're also using ALL of your second level spell slots on this, since you want it on the whole party. Congratulations, you managed to cut your party's movement rate in TENTH to gain them a few HP. And please, enlighten me. What 3rd level spells are breaking the game having unlimited use at 15th level. Fireball? Hah! Fly? Everyone and their mother is flying now. Haste maybe? I dunno. I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Fact is, at higher levels, lower level spell effects are at a point where nobody cares about them. Meanwhile higher level spells are owning everything. So to me, the simplist fix is let the casters have their lower level spells as they like, and restrict them on the ones that makes everybody cry.
OneWinged4ngel 01-17-07, 07:35 PM	Let's look to some progressive processes here. First off, let's think of what spells are too strong (or too weak) for their level, and make a list of ones that need to be fixed. Some are obvious, like Teleport, Scry, and the horrid monster that is POLYMORPH (which probably should be thrown out altogether and replaced with a wholly new set of spells or something). Others are less so, and it would probably be wise to set a few example spells as an "average" or "ideal" power level for any given spell level. Remember, VERSATILITY is a big thing that makes something a "best" spell choice. Once we create a list of the specific spells that need fixing, we can work towards evening out the scale through edits. Second off, there's the whole prestige class "+1 caster level" problem. How could we revise that old mechanic in order to avoid the old "1 level dip in a real caster" thing, and avoid screwing the straight half-casters and/or encouraging spell level progression combos for optimization? Third: One possible solution to the "casters fill every role" problem would be breaking up the class into various classes that fill a more specialized niche, a la the Warmage or Beguiler. However, many would like to keep the wizard class, and the versatility afforded by its... well, genericness to create a variety of class concepts.
Seerow 01-17-07, 07:38 PM	The easiest way is to make sure every prestige class loses a caster level at level 1. Also, Teleport isn't so bad. At least in my opinion it's not. But then, I'm the crazy who wants to give the Fighter a feat that lets him teleport once per round while in combat. Go figure what I like =P
OneWinged4ngel 01-17-07, 07:43 PM	The easiest way is to make sure every prestige class loses a caster level at level 1. This does absolutely nothing to solve the "Let's dip for one level in a real caster before going into this half-caster prestige class" issue (such as, say, dipping into Cleric before taking a paladin prestige class) in order to significantly improve the casting progression, and never wanting to continue the casting progression of anything less than a full caster in that PrC manner. What you are addressing with that change ONLY helps to reign in the straight 20 level caster progression of people who already are full casters, which is not what I was addressing. Additionally, there is the problem of giving a PrC access to a new spell list without having to go through the mess of having a 5 or 10 level caster progression that doesn't work out too well. Also, Teleport isn't so bad. At least in my opinion it's not. However, I feel it could use some editing. But then, I'm the crazy who wants to give the Fighter a feat that lets him teleport once per round while in combat. Go figure what I like =P I actually had a prestige class centered around doing just that, though it was a Duskblade PrC. My problem doesn't lie with short range teleportation, for the most part.
IdleAltruism 01-17-07, 07:49 PM	I think casters only really become a problem when players start Min/Maxing. Yes, power gaming is the biggest reason casters are considered imbalanced. You would be hard pressed to optimize a fighter the same way you could a full caster. When you start looking at things from a min/max standpoint, characters start looking imbalanced when put next to others. The D&D system allows optimization easily so what do you think is going to happen? Unless you put restrictions on things like Prestige classes, splat books and metagaming you will forever be hard pressed to balance casters. For all the people who think optimization isn't metagaming that is total BS, when you only use mithral breast plate(whatever armor you get my point) because it allows you to get the maximum AC that is metagaming. Your character doesn't know what armor value is all they know is plate mail is hard to get through(you can argue all you want on how they can figure it out using dex bonuses yada yada but that barbarian isn't going to go fitting on every armor until he finds the perfect fit). The greatsword might be the best weapon in the game that doesn't mean every fighter in the world uses it. The same for casters, not every caster has or even should have pearls of power or meta-magic rods or dare I say it X+stats items(I think that went a little to far with the last one and I'll probably get chewed up for it but I think its silly every wizard running around with a headband).Metagaming gets really bad when you have Enchant's R Us, where you can enchant your set of mithral breast plate every time you get enough money. Or any super stores/towns where everything can be bought out of the DMG. You cannot help but metagame at least a little bit and it is part of the game and a little optimization is a good thing, but alot really imbalances the game. Sure you can make Pun-Pun but would you play him? Just because the fully optimized caster isn't as powerful as Pun-Pun it can imbalance a game. Just because it is there doesn't mean you have to use it. I've played an evoker and some would say "why would you do that evokers suck". You want to play an evoker? Go ahead don't let the fact that it might not be as powerful as X stop you, it might not be as powerful as X metagaming school, but it is still useful and serves a purpose. My solution to casters is to control my game. This might not work for everyone and many probably won't agree but this is what I've done and it's worked for me.
Seerow 01-17-07, 07:51 PM	Re: Prestiges Sorry, I didn't understand the question. In that case, as I mentioned on AIM, Otto's system is a good fix for that. There's a single spellcasting progression table, and any class that gains spellcasting merely gains progression along that table. So a Paladin would gain one spellcasting level every other level. A Paladin Prestige like the one you describe would then give the Paladin the same Benefit as a cleric, so it prevents the benefit of superdips. Re: Teleport Tell me what exactly your problem with teleport is. Personally, I don't feel it's a problem. Mostly because the places where the Players could cause trouble by getting into, there's generally going to be some sort of warding preventing them from getting in. I also like K's idea of anything under X feet of earth can't be teleported into.
OneWinged4ngel 01-17-07, 07:52 PM	I think casters only really become a problem when players start Min/Maxing. You think wrong. You don't have to do anything LIKE a powerful build in order to be an amazing caster. You just have to cast your spells with some moderate intelligence. This requires no optimization. Unless you put restrictions on things like Prestige classes, splat books and metagaming you will forever be hard pressed to balance casters. Without prestige classes, splat books, or metagaming, the casters still far outshine everyone else. So with all of those things COMPLETELY restricted, you're still completely wrong. I've played an evoker and some would say "why would you do that evokers suck". You want to play an evoker? Go ahead don't let the fact that it might not be as powerful as X stop you, it might not be as powerful as X metagaming school, but it is still useful and serves a purpose. No one here said you shouldn't play an evoker. They just said they're one of the weaker schools, and that ideally they should be more balanced in order to increase the quality of play. So you're arguing against an enemy that doesn't exist here; essentially a straw man. Heck, people who know me already know that I don't do much in the way of optimization when I play, and I make my characters with the sole intention of fulfilling the roleplaying concept I set forward for them in the thorough character writeups I tend to do. Doesn't mean I can't see the value of the game being more effectively balanced; that would be a Red Herring Fallacy. In fact, if the game were more balanced, the potential for optimizing would be REDUCED, and more options would be available WITHOUT unbalancing the game, thus creating a better general quality of game experience. For all the people who think optimization isn't metagaming that is total BS In actuality, you're wrong. Nothing about optimizing your character necessitates metagaming. Metagaming is generally defined as acting on out of character information in character. Optimization does not require this, and so is not metagaming. For example, if you build an effective character, you're not actually taking any in-character action, and thus cannot be metagaming. Metagaming would be if your character said "Wow, I'm going to do this because I know such and such out of character!" Quite simply, your statement here is BS, and blatantly, factually false. My solution to casters is to control my game. This might not work for everyone and many probably won't agree but this is what I've done and it's worked for me. Just because you CAN deal with the problem doesn't mean you should have to, as you seem to suggest. Additionally, no one had ever said that the problems were unmanageable and that they made the game unplayable. On a final note: Thinking in logical fallacies makes you an illogical person ;)
Cael 01-17-07, 07:58 PM	For all the people who think optimization isn't metagaming that is total BS, ... So, in real life, you get the first thing that comes to hand only? That is, you buy the first car you see, the first set of pots and pans you lay your hands on, the first... If not, then how do you "metagame" real life? Just asking, since you appear to know the answer to that one.
Seerow 01-17-07, 08:01 PM	IdleAltruism, just so you know, OW4 is struggling his hardest to not call you a moron. Come to think of it, I am too. D=
OneWinged4ngel 01-17-07, 08:07 PM	Re: Teleport Well, the main problem with teleport is... well, the Scry 'n' Die. It's the synergy of both of these spells that makes things frustrating. Additionally, the ability to go ANYWHERE can be frustrating to many DMs, although this isn't so much of a verifiable balance issue. However, I'd be annoyed when you can just teleport up to the Frostfell, a place supposedly so difficult to reach, with a quick spell. Or if someone just teleported to the end of a dungeon full of traps. Obviously, the problem with this varies by campaign. To some, it's not an issue. Myself, I've considered creating the need for "teleport beacons" to be placed, and for a person to only be able to teleport a long distance to such locations marked with these beacons. *Shrug* Anyways, the primary abuse lies with the Scry 'n' Die; arguably one of the most feared tactics in D&D.
Haida 01-17-07, 08:14 PM	I think the spirit shaman is a good place to start when addressing SAD in casters, and for other aspects of caster vs non-caster balance for that matter. Sure the concentration ability on level 10 is potentially abusable, but overall the abilities aren't as unbalanced as the druid. making Wisdom necessary for spell progression and charisma for abilities and DC's is a good way to make a full caster that isn't so unbalanced. In fact, I can't think of any post-Players Handbook full casters that are as unbalanced as the cleric, druid and wizard. Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman, Beguiler, Warmage, Warlock all seem pretty well-balanced with the non-casters.
Haida 01-17-07, 08:17 PM	Re: Teleport Well, the main problem with teleport is... well, the Scry 'n' Die. It's the synergy of both of these spells that makes things frustrating. Additionally, the ability to go ANYWHERE can be frustrating to many DMs, although this isn't so much of a verifiable balance issue. However, I'd be annoyed when you can just teleport up to the Frostfell, a place supposedly so difficult to reach, with a quick spell. Or if someone just teleported to the end of a dungeon full of traps. Obviously, the problem with this varies by campaign. To some, it's not an issue. Myself, I've considered creating the need for "teleport beacons" to be placed, and for a person to only be able to teleport a long distance to such locations marked with these beacons. I think it might be possible to require the caster to be able to physically see where she is teleporting to, or to create a range of X feet/level like most spells.
OneWinged4ngel 01-17-07, 08:18 PM	I think it might be possible to require the caster to be able to physically see where she is teleporting to, or to create a range of X feet/level like most spells. If you have to see where you're going, all you need to do is SCRY.
Cael 01-17-07, 10:20 PM	Re: Teleport Well, the main problem with teleport is... well, the Scry 'n' Die. It's the synergy of both of these spells that makes things frustrating. Additionally, the ability to go ANYWHERE can be frustrating to many DMs, although this isn't so much of a verifiable balance issue. However, I'd be annoyed when you can just teleport up to the Frostfell, a place supposedly so difficult to reach, with a quick spell. Or if someone just teleported to the end of a dungeon full of traps. Obviously, the problem with this varies by campaign. To some, it's not an issue. Myself, I've considered creating the need for "teleport beacons" to be placed, and for a person to only be able to teleport a long distance to such locations marked with these beacons. *Shrug* Anyways, the primary abuse lies with the Scry 'n' Die; arguably one of the most feared tactics in D&D. The problem with Teleport is Gandalf Teleporting Whatzisname to Mt Doom for him to biff the stupid Ring in, and then Teleporting back to Wherezit for breakfast...
Jaxgaret 01-17-07, 10:39 PM	The problem with Teleport is Gandalf Teleporting Whatzisname to Mt Doom for him to biff the stupid Ring in, and then Teleporting back to Wherezit for breakfast... Maia don't have access to Teleport, due to Middle-earth being a very low-magic setting. The most powerful magic users in the entire 'verse have less than 10 caster levels or equivalent, apparently.
Neutronium_Dragon 01-17-07, 11:40 PM	Gandalf does teleport at one point during The Hobbit. He just doesn't seem to have long range teleportation. The problem vis a vis prestige classes isn't really the full casting progression (without full casting progression a PrC is rarely worth it, and losing a level at PrC1 means you take the biggest hit to your power at the time when you gain the least back for your troubles), it's the fact that the problematic base classes generally don't have any (significant) class abilities beyond a caster level progression. Someone previously mentioned that the newer base classes don't seem to have the same kind of problems, and that's why - the new base classes have a slew of class features all the way through to 20th, often with better base abilities attached too (such as the beguiler's big slew of skill points and class skills). Therein lies the fix - redesigning those base classes to give them a similarly interesting/useful set of class features so that the hop to a PrC isn't a no-brainer and an automatic power bump.
krossbow 01-17-07, 11:54 PM	I personally think that a good way to do it is this: Wizards and sorcerors must have a Con score equal to 10+ the spell level to cast it, and they gain bonus spells from con scores. This is to emphasize that their body must be physically strong to withstand the arcane energies surging withint them. The Save DC of the spells are still dependent on Int and Charisma.
OneWinged4ngel 01-18-07, 12:44 AM	The problem with Teleport is Gandalf Teleporting Whatzisname to Mt Doom for him to biff the stupid Ring in, and then Teleporting back to Wherezit for breakfast... Don't get me started on Lord of the Rings. I am not a Tolkien fan. I don't care who calls me a blasphemer; his writing just wasn't that fantastic, though he was an inspiration to the fantasy genre and certainly an important and valuable figure. Anyways, if the guys in LotR had much sense, they would have done something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xWBnzxZPGk God knows I was wondering why they didn't do this (and other things) throughout reading the book. The problem vis a vis prestige classes isn't really the full casting progression (without full casting progression a PrC is rarely worth it, and losing a level at PrC1 means you take the biggest hit to your power at the time when you gain the least back for your troubles), it's the fact that the problematic base classes generally don't have any (significant) class abilities beyond a caster level progression. You almost make it sound like a spell list doesn't equate to more class abilities per level than pretty much any other class. And often BETTER class abilities. Someone previously mentioned that the newer base classes don't seem to have the same kind of problems, and that's why - the new base classes have a slew of class features all the way through to 20th, often with better base abilities attached too (such as the beguiler's big slew of skill points and class skills). Therein lies the fix - redesigning those base classes to give them a similarly interesting/useful set of class features so that the hop to a PrC isn't a no-brainer and an automatic power bump. Spellcasters DO have an interesting/useful set of class features. It's one of the biggest sets of class features in the game! They get more abilities every level! That's what a spell progression is!
Neutronium_Dragon 01-18-07, 02:30 AM	You're missing the point. If the class is balanced on the idea of, "their spellcasting progression is so good, it's all they get", then anything which gives full casting progression and other class features too is going to be a no-brainer (since it's substantially better). Modern classes are designed around the principle of a spellcasting progression and other substantial class features to avoid this problem
runestar 01-18-07, 02:41 AM	The problem with Teleport is Gandalf Teleporting Whatzisname to Mt Doom for him to biff the stupid Ring in, and then Teleporting back to Wherezit for breakfast... For all you know, maybe Mordor was warded against teleportation spells....;)
Seerow 01-18-07, 08:53 AM	But modern classes also have very restricted spell lists, or other such things to restrict their ability. The Wizard and Sorcerer are a step above them, despite the lack of other class features, because of their undefeatable versatility.
OneWinged4ngel 01-18-07, 11:29 AM	You're missing the point. No I'm not. If the class is balanced on the idea of, "their spellcasting progression is so good, it's all they get", then anything which gives full casting progression and other class features too is going to be a no-brainer (since it's substantially better). That means things that give a caster progression at every level are UNBALANCED, not that the casters get too few abilities. Because they really, really don't. Modern classes are designed around the principle of a spellcasting progression and other substantial class features to avoid this problem Modern classes tend to have restricted spell lists that make them substantially less scary than a Wizard or Sorceror. For all you know, maybe Mordor was warded against teleportation spells....;) Which, of course, does nothing to prevent this scenario: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xWBnzxZPGk
Seerow 01-18-07, 11:52 AM	but that scenario has nothing to do with magic, does it? Also, Spellcasters SHOULD get some abilities, just not as many or as powerful as those of non-casters/partial-casters. That combined with making all prestiges give up at least one caster level makes multiclassing something worth regretting.
Cael 01-18-07, 03:04 PM	Don't get me started on Lord of the Rings. I am not a Tolkien fan. I don't care who calls me a blasphemer; his writing just wasn't that fantastic, though he was an inspiration to the fantasy genre and certainly an important and valuable figure.. Well, I don't think that Tolkien smells of roses either. Not after that pile of crap that is LotR. Heck, Ed Greenwood is a better writer, and that is saying a lot... Anyways, if the guys in LotR had much sense, they would have done something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xWBnzxZPGk God knows I was wondering why they didn't do this (and other things) throughout reading the book. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I particularly liked the last sentence in that one: "One of us might have died!"
Cael 01-18-07, 03:08 PM	Maia don't have access to Teleport, due to Middle-earth being a very low-magic setting. The most powerful magic users in the entire 'verse have less than 10 caster levels or equivalent, apparently. 10 caster levels is enough to get Teleport, even for a Sorcerer that is the Maia, and is definitely enough to cast it several times.
OneWinged4ngel 01-18-07, 03:14 PM	but that scenario has nothing to do with magic, does it? No. I was merely going off on the tangent of ridiculing Tolkien's masterwork, in my heathenous fashion ^_^;;
Squangos 01-18-07, 03:45 PM	…On top of that, there's the issue of half-casters and prestige classes. How do we advance caster levels here? I mean, really, if you're going to go into a "+caster level" PrC, why not take 1 level of cleric to get ten levels of CLERIC spellcasting with those nice new class features that would outdo a full 20 levels of your paladin spellcasting. Such things encourage dips. Essentially, the multiclass situation for spellcasters is very messy and sloppy. … Partial solution to that I came up with is to have Paladins as actual half-casters (as in Otto's very persuasive system), then have the Paladin prestige class advance you ten half-caster levels, which equate to 5 full-caster levels. 6 levels of Cleric spellcasting still better than 11+ levels of Paladin spellcasting? Well, yeah; that's why I called it a partial solution.
1CentSage 01-18-07, 03:53 PM	The main problem with casters lies within their spell lists as was mentioned before. In whatever way you limit casters as long as they eventually get access to things like shapechange, gate, etc. in the form as they are currently written they will always determine the range of power of a PC party and thereby the direction of the game. However, editing all the spell lists will unfortunately not help even if someone would be willing to do it, because since there is no concise system behind D&D magic you would have to do it on a spell by spell basis and the next published supplement might ruin your efforts. then you will hardly be able to reach a common agreement which spells should be changed in which way, etc... . So what's to do? the mentioned spell system by Otto could be an improvement, although I would favor a different spells/day progression with a broader base and less spells of high level. Another thing that would help is cutting down bonus spells for high spell levels. Also the importance of spell resistance should be increased which was an important balancing factor in previous editions where casters had considerably less spells/day. At the moment SR is nearly irrelevant if you do not fight monsters way above your party level. I also agree that spell casting should in general depend on two ability scores. Charisma for DC is an obvious choice. For clerics and druids the number of "spells known" should be limited as least as much as for wizards (although I did never meet anyone who did not do something like this). As for multiclassing, a nice variant for PrCs which I encountered in a campaign lately is to seperate the caster level progression from the spell level progression and advance both at different levels od a PrC. For example a 5 lvl PrC might advance CL at 1,3,5 and spells/day, spells known at 2 and 4 (or vice versa). This limits power, gives more freedom in class design and intrinsically increases the importance of spell resistance. It also has some disadvantages and increases the amount of book keeping, but I think it is worth mentioning it here.
supervillan 01-18-07, 05:11 PM	Really, straight casters aren't especially unbalanced. Powerful sure, but not unbalanced. DnD is set up with the basic premise that Magic (arcane and divine) is the single most significant force in the world/multiverse. Hence the absence of mass production and industrial revolution in the vast majority of DnD games. No need for technological (real world science) advances when you have Magic. This, indeed, is a key part of a fantasy roleplaying game. Sure you can have a "low fantasy" setting, and this can be fun too, but mostly your working in a world where Magic is the Ultimate Force. Downpower straight casters and you change the milieu to such an extent that you might create the need for technology. If you really want to retain the Magic = Ultimate Force in the Multiverse picture, then high level straight casters must represent the most significant players on the world stage: archmages and high priests. These characters stand as the direct representatives of supranatural deities, or as the most proficient manipulators of the arcane energies that power all of fantasy civilisation's greatest accomplishments. I said at the top of this post that casters are not intrinsically unbalanced. Evidence? Any high level fighter type can dish out more damage in a round with his weapons than a mage or cleric with his spells, and the melee or ranged fighter usually doesn't run out of attacks whereas a caster can run out of spells, and will run out of his most powerful magics. A straight caster's true power does indeed lie in his versatility. With enough time to prepare, a straight caster (especially a wizard) can overcome most obstacles. How then to retain the element of challenge? Individual spells can be banned or edited for your campaign if you like. In previous editions of the game, I banned Anti Magic Shell and Endure Heat/Cold for different reasons. Another DM I played with banned Polymorph spells. What I think is important is not so much which spells you ban, or even if you ban any spells, it's how you tailor your campaign to fit the characters in your party and the kind of game you want. For example, I say, let the Wizards and Sorcerers Scry & Die, but don't let them Teleport anyone else with them when they go: Personal spell effect only for Teleport. Watch how many mighty spellcasters find another way rather than face their target on their own. No campaign town should be a Bazaar where any DMG or splatbook magic item is available for purchase - no character should even have heard of any of the items in the DMG unless he is an item crafter with appropriate Feats AND has spent time researching a particular goal (eg - I am a gnome illusionist with Craft Wand and I want to make a wand that casts illusions, so I can do this, but I can't make a Monk's Belt even if I have Craft Wondrous Item and the appropriate spells because what do I know about Monks and unarmed combat?) It's the DMs world, first last and always.;)
OneWinged4ngel 01-18-07, 06:29 PM	I said at the top of this post that casters are not intrinsically unbalanced. Evidence? Any high level fighter type can dish out more damage in a round with his weapons than a mage or cleric with his spells This is COMPLETELY false. I've never seen a melee fighter other than a hulking hurler sort do well over a hundred thousand damage in a round. Spellcasters do much more damage, and if you don't think so you are wrong. This is my stance until you can actually show me a Fighter or something that is going to regularly be doing more damage than a Wizard. With thorough optimization, a Fighter can be doing hundreds of damage, possibly topping a thousand or two. Doesn't beat a Wizard, ESPECIALLY one with such a thorough level of optimization. Furthermore, even if the Fighter *could* hypothetically do more numerical damage at such high points, it wouldn't even MATTER. You know why? Because all the damage that really matters is the amount it takes to bring down the enemy. If a Wizard can more efficiently and safely do enough damage to bring down an enemy than a Fighter (he can) then he is performing better. Essentially, if you did 20 million damage in a full round attack in melee against a single enemy, you would not be able to compete with the death of thirty equally powerful enemies in the same time or less. On top of that, the damage output isn't really the melee guy's big role. The rogue certainly does it better. But maybe the role of the Fighter or other melee guy is battle control and damage absorbtion? Oops, wait, casters do battle control the best, andd melee doesn't control the battlefield enough to tank with comparable effectiveness to, say, a Cleric or Druid. ...So... not unbalanced... how? For example, I say, let the Wizards and Sorcerers Scry & Die, but don't let them Teleport anyone else with them when they go: Personal spell effect only for Teleport. Watch how many mighty spellcasters find another way rather than face their target on their own. A single spellcaster can easily obliterate forces of his CR or a bit higher, most of the time, *alone* with a scry and die. Some exceptions would be things like... well-played dragons, or suitably paranoid high level spellcasters. Scry and die is extremely effective when used right, and this is why it qualifies as one of the most feared tactics in D&D. In fact, this encourages some situations where the wizard leaves his party behind, and does more to require getting a mode of travel for everyone other than teleport (thus decreasing the utility to the party) and makes the scry and die option more of a focus of the spell's uses. Funny how that works. No campaign town should be a Bazaar where any DMG or splatbook magic item is available for purchase - no character should even have heard of any of the items in the DMG unless he is an item crafter with appropriate Feats AND has spent time researching a particular goal (eg - I am a gnome illusionist with Craft Wand and I want to make a wand that casts illusions, so I can do this, but I can't make a Monk's Belt even if I have Craft Wondrous Item and the appropriate spells because what do I know about Monks and unarmed combat?) This means what? It only makes the casters *better* in comparison to their teammates by means of being the ones who have greatest access to magical items, through means of item creation. So... you're actually supporting the counterpoint to your argument. It doesn't make them WEAKER in comparison to their allies. Essentially, while you haven't produced any evidence of your own, you've just contradicted plenty of other evidence, and spent half your time on an argument that... doesn't even support your point. Partial solution to that I came up with is to have Paladins as actual half-casters (as in Otto's very persuasive system), then have the Paladin prestige class advance you ten half-caster levels, which equate to 5 full-caster levels. 6 levels of Cleric spellcasting still better than 11+ levels of Paladin spellcasting? Well, yeah; that's why I called it a partial solution. I've been meaning to read his spell system for like... forever. Still need to. Blah.
Seerow 01-18-07, 06:36 PM	This is COMPLETELY false. I've never seen a melee fighter other than a hulking hurler sort do well over a hundred thousand damage in a round. Spellcasters do much more damage, and if you don't think so you are wrong. This is my stance until you can actually show me a Fighter or something that is going to regularly be doing more damage than a Wizard. With thorough optimization, a Fighter can be doing hundreds of damage, possibly topping a thousand or two. Doesn't beat a Wizard, ESPECIALLY one with such a thorough level of optimization. To be fair, hundreds of thousands of damage a round takes serious optimization on behalf of the Wizard. Most people consider "casters doing damage" as Fireball (lol 35 damage) and such. A single spellcaster can easily obliterate forces of his CR or a bit higher, most of the time, *alone* with a scry and die. Some exceptions would be things like... well-played dragons, or suitably paranoid high level spellcasters. Scry and die is extremely effective when used right, and this is why it qualifies as one of the most feared tactics in D&D. And dragons only live because they're natural casters!
OneWinged4ngel 01-18-07, 06:42 PM	To be fair, hundreds of thousands of damage a round takes serious optimization on behalf of the Wizard. True, but so does doing hundreds of damage with a melee character. Most people consider "casters doing damage" as Fireball (lol 35 damage) and such. In reality, people don't cast unmodified fireballs as their main offensive standby at high levels. And dragons only live because they're natural casters! Yes. Between things like Shimmerscales (or whatever it's called), anticipate teleport, and other useful spells, Dragons can be VERY difficult foes indeed, even for good spellcasters armed with scry and die. Hard to hit in melee. Very hard to hit with touch attacks. Hard to hurt with spells (decent SR and high saves). Tons of hp. And round that all out with the offensive power to take down anything that hasn't killed them in the last round or two. Damn, dragons are scary >_> No wonder the DC to avoid running scared from them is so high. ___ Anyways, the main thing I'd like to focus on is a rather big thing: Evening out the spells. I have a dream of a world where a sorceror can pick whatever spells he feels are fitting to his character concept, instead of having to pick the best, most versatile spells in order to be "optimized". Essentially, this would mean taking down the higher power spells, and boosting the lower powered ones, ultimately leaving *less* potential for min-maxing and powergaming, while *increasing* the versatility of "acceptable" build choices. Let's see what we can do :)
Cael 01-18-07, 06:48 PM	This is COMPLETELY false. I've never seen a melee fighter other than a hulking hurler sort do well over a hundred thousand damage in a round. Spellcasters do much more damage, and if you don't think so you are wrong. This is my stance until you can actually show me a Fighter or something that is going to regularly be doing more damage than a Wizard. With thorough optimization, a Fighter can be doing hundreds of damage, possibly topping a thousand or two. Doesn't beat a Wizard, ESPECIALLY one with such a thorough level of optimization. Furthermore, even if the Fighter *could* hypothetically do more numerical damage at such high points, it wouldn't even MATTER. You know why? Because all the damage that really matters is the amount it takes to bring down the enemy. If a Wizard can more efficiently and safely do enough damage to bring down an enemy than a Fighter (he can) then he is performing better. Essentially, if you did 20 million damage in a full round attack in melee against a single enemy, you would not be able to compete with the death of thirty equally powerful enemies in the same time or less. On top of that, the damage output isn't really the melee guy's big role. The rogue certainly does it better. But maybe the role of the Fighter or other melee guy is battle control and damage absorbtion? Oops, wait, casters do battle control the best, andd melee doesn't control the battlefield enough to tank with comparable effectiveness to, say, a Cleric or Druid. ...So... not unbalanced... how? Maybe core melee just really sucks. A single spellcaster can easily obliterate forces of his CR or a bit higher, most of the time, *alone* with a scry and die. Some exceptions would be things like... well-played dragons, or suitably paranoid high level spellcasters. Scry and die is extremely effective when used right, and this is why it qualifies as one of the most feared tactics in D&D. In fact, this encourages some situations where the wizard leaves his party behind, and does more to require getting a mode of travel for everyone other than teleport (thus decreasing the utility to the party) and makes the scry and die option more of a focus of the spell's uses. Funny how that works. This means what? It only makes the casters *better* in comparison to their teammates by means of being the ones who have greatest access to magical items, through means of item creation. So... you're actually supporting the counterpoint to your argument. It doesn't make them WEAKER in comparison to their allies. Essentially, while you haven't produced any evidence of your own, you've just contradicted plenty of other evidence, and spent half your time on an argument that... doesn't even support your point. Actually, there are two ways to argue this, both of which beat up on the Fighter. First, as you say, Wizards can outdamage just about anyone other than Pun-Pun and the like, but that requires some serious optimising, and to be honest, the Artificer is better at it with his Wands of Scorching Ray. The second is efficiency. Even if the Fighter can do a few thousand damage a hit (e.g., Leap Attacking Charger of Doom), is that really necessary? Using a howitzer to swat a fly is just wasting ammunition. Wizards, with a single Wail of the Banshee, can nail a group of foes, and just do enough damage to kill (full hp + 10). That is efficiency, with the damage spread out over the maximum number of opponents for maximum number of kills. The total damage, if you count all the hp of the dead things is going to be pretty comparable.
Cael 01-18-07, 06:51 PM	Between things like Shimmerscales (or whatever it's called), anticipate teleport, and other useful spells, Dragons can be VERY difficult foes indeed, even for good spellcasters armed with scry and die. Hard to hit in melee. Very hard to hit with touch attacks. Hard to hurt with spells (decent SR and high saves). Tons of hp. And round that all out with the offensive power to take down anything that hasn't killed them in the last round or two. Damn, dragons are scary >_> No wonder the DC to avoid running scared from them is so high. Maximised Shivering Touch... :D
OneWinged4ngel 01-18-07, 06:51 PM	Maximised Shivering Touch... :D Don't you have to hit the 40 touch AC the dragon got with a level 2 abjuration that converts his natural armor to a deflection bonus? ;) Like I said, a well-played dragon. Not a panzy dragon that doesn't totally use all his awesome spells to do crazy powerful things that make many parties cry. But usually, yeah, that'll take out a giant dragon no problem. But I don't worry about it much; no one really has a problem with me disallowing non-core spells all across the board :)
Cael 01-18-07, 06:53 PM	Don't you have to hit the 40 touch AC? Not really. Those dragons with AC of 40+ is in the CR 26 range. By then, it is easier to just Teleport in and Epic nuke the place before Contingent Teleporting out.
OneWinged4ngel 01-18-07, 06:56 PM	Not really. Those dragons with AC of 40+ is in the CR 26 range. By then, it is easier to just Teleport in and Epic nuke the place before Contingent Teleporting out. Don't forget dragons can also use magic items. And boost their AC more with spells. I repeat: Well-played dragon.
Seerow 01-18-07, 06:59 PM	True, but so does doing hundreds of damage with a melee character. What level are we talking? I figured if hundreds of damage was the melee benchmark, we were talking level 10, where people are using fireball. Hundreds of damage is childsplay at level 20 for even an unoptimized meleer. And if we're talking high level, just replace "Fireball" with "Meteor Swarm". 24d6 compared to a couple hundred damage. Or energy admixture et all Scorching Ray vs Uber Charger. If there is one thing melee types do well, it's damage.
OneWinged4ngel 01-18-07, 07:02 PM	What level are we talking? I figured if hundreds of damage was the melee benchmark, we were talking level 10, where people are using fireball. Hundreds of damage is childsplay at level 20 for even an unoptimized meleer. And if we're talking high level, just replace "Fireball" with "Meteor Swarm". 24d6 compared to a couple hundred damage. Or energy admixture et all Scorching Ray vs Uber Charger. If there is one thing melee types do well, it's damage. While possible for a melee type to do more damage numerically in many cases (power attack and multipliers are amazing things), the casters can typically outdo them in efficiency of taking down foes. That would mean that casters have more offensive power.
Kresalak 01-18-07, 07:02 PM	Greater Dispel makes equal level dragons cry. Remember, the best dragons ever get is a CL about 10 lower than their HD after you factor in how they're under-challenge ratinged.
Seerow 01-18-07, 07:06 PM	While possible for a melee type to do more damage numerically in many cases (power attack and multipliers are amazing things), the casters can typically outdo them in efficiency of taking down foes. That would mean that casters have more offensive power. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing the claim that Casters out-damage warriors when all things are equal. You just change your argument every time I bring up a point. I know we're trying to make casters look all powerful and fighters look bad here, but there are some points you simply have to give up.
Cael 01-18-07, 07:06 PM	Don't forget dragons can also use magic items. And boost their AC more with spells. I repeat: Well-played dragon. Epic nuke don't rely on hitting AC any more. You basically just turn something to ash a la Fireball, only with a heck of a lot more other goodies involved.
Cael 01-18-07, 07:07 PM	I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing the claim that Casters out-damage warriors when all things are equal. You just change your argument every time I bring up a point. I know we're trying to make casters look all powerful and fighters look bad here, but there are some points you simply have to give up. Umm... Wasn't all the Admixtured, Twinned, Empowered, Repeated, Maximised Scorching Rays going for like a few thousand d6s?
Seerow 01-18-07, 07:09 PM	Umm... Wasn't all the Admixtured, Twinned, Empowered, Repeated, Maximised Scorching Rays going for like a few thousand d6s? Yes, and that's considered high end optimization. The melee counterpart to that would be the Ubercharger, or Hulking Hurler, who get similar damage. And do it more often unless the metamagiced-out-the-ass-wizard is somehow pulling this off every round. Like you said, hitting a nail with a sledgehammer. At least the Warrior's sledgehammer doesn't have an off switch.
Cael 01-18-07, 07:25 PM	Yes, and that's considered high end optimization. The melee counterpart to that would be the Ubercharger, or Hulking Hurler, who get similar damage. And do it more often unless the metamagiced-out-the-ass-wizard is somehow pulling this off every round. Like you said, hitting a nail with a sledgehammer. At least the Warrior's sledgehammer doesn't have an off switch. To me, the sledgehammer (except in certain situations) is always a bad idea. One massive hit is just not optimal because of all the extra damage going to waste. I prefer something that does the same amount of damage but with multiple hits, so taht I can either switch targets after dropping the first one, or it will automatically target for me (AoEs, or multiple target spells). After all, if you turn one goblin into an expanding cloud of red mist, his other 20 buddies will get their chance to beat up on you. But if you can nail all of them and still leave an intact corpse... well, dead is dead, just that the second way is safer for you.
supervillan 01-18-07, 07:45 PM	What level are we talking? I figured if hundreds of damage was the melee benchmark, we were talking level 10, where people are using fireball. Hundreds of damage is childsplay at level 20 for even an unoptimized meleer. And if we're talking high level, just replace "Fireball" with "Meteor Swarm". 24d6 compared to a couple hundred damage. Or energy admixture et all Scorching Ray vs Uber Charger. If there is one thing melee types do well, it's damage. What he said. Many of the whacked out Improved Trip melee builds over on the optimisation boards can easily compete with arcane spell damage. And ranged combatants with multishot tricks can get there too. Their attacks are always available, cannot get interrupted and lost if an enemy holds an action to attack them, and they are just as effective 10 hours into a dungeon as they are in the very first room. Once you look at Fighter Rogue combinations and the effects of Sneak Attack it gets a bit silly. The "mass damage" spells like Wail of the Banshee and Meteor Swarm are one-hit wonders. Yes, you might clear a room with one spell. Yes, there are more effective spells than simple damage evocations. But you ask about balance. A high level wizard might be the big bad when he wakes up in the morning, but how's he feeling once he's popped his big tricks? The melee master doesn't care. So the Wizard is boss until he's used his tricks, after that he better be getting his 8 hours in. The melee master doesn't care, he's still swinging that old spiked chain/greatsword/two-random-weapon shtick. Who's unbalanced? If one class has a power curve that declines through the day, and another is constant, the average can be just the same. When one of the characters absolutely has to get 8 hours uninterrupted rest to keep his power curve going, that's a serious drawback. Any caster who has the sheer power to be dropping massive damage of the kind being described (ie hundreds or thousands of hp), or to wipe out major foes without breaking a sweat, is going to get noticed. He's going to have enemies. Those enemies will be powerful ones, be they political rivals or fiends from the planes. Many enemies will be powerful casters in their own right. More powerful PCs deal with more powerful foes, and so long as the DM doesn't run those foes like complete muppets there's where you get your challenge. At high levels, strategy is of paramount importance. It becomes a matter of outwitting your foe, not out-spelling them. Scrying can be detected, kings and high priests have guards and wards of many kinds. Casters are not inherently unbalanced compared to non-casters. They do not do more damage on average. They are vulnerable in ways that melee and ranged fighters are not. If they do not have time to prepare and to strategise, they can find themselves with the wrong spells prepared - in the case of spontaneous casters their limited spell selection means that there will always be some situations for which they are not prepared. It falls to the DM, as always, to play the PCs foes effectively and to develop a challenging campaign world. Play at whatever power level you like.
Cael 01-18-07, 07:55 PM	What he said. Many of the whacked out Improved Trip melee builds over on the optimisation boards can easily compete with arcane spell damage. And ranged combatants with multishot tricks can get there too. Their attacks are always available, cannot get interrupted and lost if an enemy holds an action to attack them, and they are just as effective 10 hours into a dungeon as they are in the very first room. Once you look at Fighter Rogue combinations and the effects of Sneak Attack it gets a bit silly. The "mass damage" spells like Wail of the Banshee and Meteor Swarm are one-hit wonders. Yes, you might clear a room with one spell. Yes, there are more effective spells than simple damage evocations. But you ask about balance. A high level wizard might be the big bad when he wakes up in the morning, but how's he feeling once he's popped his big tricks? The melee master doesn't care. So the Wizard is boss until he's used his tricks, after that he better be getting his 8 hours in. The melee master doesn't care, he's still swinging that old spiked chain/greatsword/two-random-weapon shtick. Who's unbalanced? If one class has a power curve that declines through the day, and another is constant, the average can be just the same. When one of the characters absolutely has to get 8 hours uninterrupted rest to keep his power curve going, that's a serious drawback. Any caster who has the sheer power to be dropping massive damage of the kind being described (ie hundreds or thousands of hp), or to wipe out major foes without breaking a sweat, is going to get noticed. He's going to have enemies. Those enemies will be powerful ones, be they political rivals or fiends from the planes. Many enemies will be powerful casters in their own right. More powerful PCs deal with more powerful foes, and so long as the DM doesn't run those foes like complete muppets there's where you get your challenge. At high levels, strategy is of paramount importance. It becomes a matter of outwitting your foe, not out-spelling them. Scrying can be detected, kings and high priests have guards and wards of many kinds. Casters are not inherently unbalanced compared to non-casters. They do not do more damage on average. They are vulnerable in ways that melee and ranged fighters are not. If they do not have time to prepare and to strategise, they can find themselves with the wrong spells prepared - in the case of spontaneous casters their limited spell selection means that there will always be some situations for which they are not prepared. It falls to the DM, as always, to play the PCs foes effectively and to develop a challenging campaign world. Play at whatever power level you like. Incorrect. A Wizard will merely do a Rope Trick and get his spells back and continue the carnage. What is your melee master going to do once his hit points start running out?
Eela6 01-18-07, 07:59 PM	Personally, you're approaching it from the wrong direction. The problem with a 11th-level caster is not that he can cast, say, Disintegrate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm). It's that he can cast Phantom Steed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantomSteed.htm), Solid Fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/solidFog.htm), and Black Tentacles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blackTentacles.htm). Quickened Black Tentacles + Solid Fog (accessible in a number of ways at that level [easiest is Practical Metamagic] reduces your enemy's speed to two-and-a-half feet. Phantom Steed means that you can move in up to 220 feet, cast a spell, and move away another 220 feet, putting yourself safely out of the charge range (or even effective ranged attack range) of most enemies. Wizards aren't about damage. If I wanted to do massive damage, I'd play a Swordsage, Warblade, or Rogue (or any combination of the above classes), not a Wizard. But if my enemy can't do anything to me, and I can to them, I've just as well as defeated them.
OneWinged4ngel 01-18-07, 08:04 PM	I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing the claim that Casters out-damage warriors when all things are equal. You just change your argument every time I bring up a point. I know we're trying to make casters look all powerful and fighters look bad here, but there are some points you simply have to give up. Not really, I conceded to your point, then said that. Like I said, ultimately having a higher numerical damage potential doesn't equate to a higher offensive ability. Also, the real frightening caster spells tend to NOT be the damage spells. Indeed, the frightening spells are in the stacking and synergizing or extremely versatile spells which can create extraordinary effects. Direct damage is often considered one of the weaker sides of the caster's arsenal (and indeed this is why Evocation is often considered the weakest school). However, they can still do tons of it. Anyways, while I'll agree with you, I completely disagree with supervillain on many points. What he said. Many of the whacked out Improved Trip melee builds over on the optimisation boards can easily compete with arcane spell damage. And ranged combatants with multishot tricks can get there too. Their attacks are always available, cannot get interrupted and lost if an enemy holds an action to attack them, and they are just as effective 10 hours into a dungeon as they are in the very first room. Once you look at Fighter Rogue combinations and the effects of Sneak Attack it gets a bit silly. The "mass damage" spells like Wail of the Banshee and Meteor Swarm are one-hit wonders. Yes, you might clear a room with one spell. Yes, there are more effective spells than simple damage evocations. But you ask about balance. A high level wizard might be the big bad when he wakes up in the morning, but how's he feeling once he's popped his big tricks? The melee master doesn't care. So the Wizard is boss until he's used his tricks, after that he better be getting his 8 hours in. The melee master doesn't care, he's still swinging that old spiked chain/greatsword/two-random-weapon shtick. Yes, the "melee master" does care. He really does. Without the party behind him, he dies. Who's unbalanced? If one class has a power curve that declines through the day, and another is constant, the average can be just the same. A melee class's effectiveness actually does decrease over time, in the form of item expenditure and even hp loss. You wouldn't go into a fight with 10 hp, would you? Also, for the most part, when the casters run out of juice, the party stops to rest because the Fighter can't carry the party on his shoulders. They AREN'T that great. When one of the characters absolutely has to get 8 hours uninterrupted rest to keep his power curve going, that's a serious drawback. Clerics need 8 hours interrupted rest? That's news to me... last I checked they didn't. *checks again* Oh hey, look, the rules agree with me still! The d20 SRD says: Clerics meditate or pray for their spells. Each cleric must choose a time at which he must spend 1 hour each day in quiet contemplation or supplication to regain his daily allotment of spells. Time spent resting has no effect on whether a cleric can prepare spells. A cleric may prepare and cast any spell on the cleric spell list, provided that he can cast spells of that level, but he must choose which spells to prepare during his daily meditation. As for arcane casters, they simply cast Rope Trick or something and sleep safely. So... it's not hard to get uninterrupted rest. Any caster who has the sheer power to be dropping massive damage of the kind being described (ie hundreds or thousands of hp), or to wipe out major foes without breaking a sweat, is going to get noticed. He's going to have enemies. Those enemies will be powerful ones, be they political rivals or fiends from the planes. Many enemies will be powerful casters in their own right. More powerful PCs deal with more powerful foes, and so long as the DM doesn't run those foes like complete muppets there's where you get your challenge. At high levels, strategy is of paramount importance. It becomes a matter of outwitting your foe, not out-spelling them. Scrying can be detected, kings and high priests have guards and wards of many kinds. [quote] Casters are not inherently unbalanced compared to non-casters. They do not do more damage on average. So? I just explained why that's pretty much a moot point, as did Eela. They are vulnerable in ways that melee and ranged fighters are not. This I would disagree with. At higher levels, casters often have some of the most formidable defenses in the game. Extra hp != higher AC, protective effects, and miss chances. If they do not have time to prepare and to strategise, they can find themselves with the wrong spells prepared - in the case of spontaneous casters their limited spell selection means that there will always be some situations for which they are not prepared. And it doesn't even matter if a fighter strategizes, because he doesn't have the BENEFIT (this is not a drawback) of changing your class abilities every day. It falls to the DM, as always, to play the PCs foes effectively and to develop a challenging campaign world. Play at whatever power level you like. So what you're saying is "Throw the idea of balance to the wind, because it doesn't matter." Sorry, but most would say that balance is an element of good game design. I'm not going to get into an argument over that any further in this topic. Also, PLEASE don't argue whether melee classes are good or not in this thread any more, especially if you don't know what you're talking about. Please go to another thread intended for establishing that. Last thing I want is a repeat of the chaos on the fighter threads.
supervillan 01-18-07, 08:12 PM	Incorrect. A Wizard will merely do a Rope Trick and get his spells back and continue the carnage. What is your melee master going to do once his hit points start running out? No spell is infallible, not even good old rope trick, which is a great spell by the way. Every strategy can be countered. Let's use the example of Rope Trick, since it's a good basic spell and a typical defensive measure. Rope Trick relies on a rope being to hand - common equipment, but vulnerable to all kinds of hazards (fire, flood, sunder and so on). Does your average 20th level wizard even carry a 50-foot rope anymore? The rope can be pulled away by a great weight - not likely to be a hazard at low levels, but for higher level characters its better to go for Mordenkainen's Mansion or something along those lines. The Rope Trick leaves a marker behind - an invisible window. Again, this is unlikely to present a problem at low levels, but higher level foes will be able to detect this window. When you and your party tumble to the ground, and you haven't got your 8 hour's rest, and that bad old dispelling villain is right there waiting, there's trouble in store. Plus there's the "opportunity cost" of preparing or knowing the Rope Trick spell in the first place. It's a good bet for a wizard, but will he prepare it every day in preference to say, Web? How paranoid will he let himself get? For a sorcerer it's a weaker option, they know so few spells by comparison.
supervillan 01-18-07, 08:25 PM	So what you're saying is "Throw the idea of balance to the wind, because it doesn't matter." Sorry, but most would say that balance is an element of good game design. I'm not going to get into an argument over that any further in this topic. Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying, if you and your friends want to play a game where every PC is an optimised 1000hp damage a round beefcake and you can take on Odin before breakfast, that's up to you. If you want to play neophyte characters in a low magic setting that's up to you too. It is up to the DM to ensure that whatever level you play at, however much magic there is in the mix, there is an appropriate level of challenge. I think that, as a DM, it is possible to provide that challenge and the enjoyment of the game regardless of how powerful casters are or are not. Whatever the party has access to, the DM has more so. Magic in DnD doesn't need fixing.
Seerow 01-18-07, 08:26 PM	Well if you want to pick on rope trick we can always bust out the Wizard with his own pocket dimension full of wards that prevents anyone but him from entering without being fried.
OneWinged4ngel 01-18-07, 08:37 PM	Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying, if you and your friends want to play a game where every PC is an optimised 1000hp damage a round beefcake and you can take on Odin before breakfast, that's up to you. If you want to play neophyte characters in a low magic setting that's up to you too. It is up to the DM to ensure that whatever level you play at, however much magic there is in the mix, there is an appropriate level of challenge. I think that, as a DM, it is possible to provide that challenge and the enjoyment of the game regardless of how powerful casters are or are not. Whatever the party has access to, the DM has more so. Magic in DnD doesn't need fixing. Funny, that translates to what you just had quoted. Magic in D&D is not balanced. You say it doesn't need fixing. This means you want to ignore the problem, or leave it to the DM to change. Oh wait, you're arguing against giving a method for DMs to change it in this thread. That doesn't make much sense, does it? I find your input rather pointless and indeed disruptive to the progression of the thread, as evidenced by your pointless argument taking up so much space as it has already. I do hope that it hasn't derailed the thread too severely.
Cael 01-18-07, 08:40 PM	No spell is infallible, not even good old rope trick, which is a great spell by the way. Every strategy can be countered. Let's use the example of Rope Trick, since it's a good basic spell and a typical defensive measure. Rope Trick relies on a rope being to hand - common equipment, but vulnerable to all kinds of hazards (fire, flood, sunder and so on). Does your average 20th level wizard even carry a 50-foot rope anymore? The rope can be pulled away by a great weight - not likely to be a hazard at low levels, but for higher level characters its better to go for Mordenkainen's Mansion or something along those lines. The Rope Trick leaves a marker behind - an invisible window. Again, this is unlikely to present a problem at low levels, but higher level foes will be able to detect this window. When you and your party tumble to the ground, and you haven't got your 8 hour's rest, and that bad old dispelling villain is right there waiting, there's trouble in store. Plus there's the "opportunity cost" of preparing or knowing the Rope Trick spell in the first place. It's a good bet for a wizard, but will he prepare it every day in preference to say, Web? How paranoid will he let himself get? For a sorcerer it's a weaker option, they know so few spells by comparison. Doesn't matter what the other guy can do. The point it, the Wizard has the option to do it and he will either get away with it, or he forces the bad guy to expend resources to get him out of it. Dispelling it won't work since we are talking about a dimensional interface here. You can't affect another plane with a normal casting on the Prime. The only exception is Force effects from the Prime to the Astral (or was it Ethereal?). That's it. Your melee master, on the other hand, have to just sit there and take it, and let me tell you, he'll take it, alright, straight up the hatch...! No, no, no! The *other* hatch!!!
OneWinged4ngel 01-18-07, 08:48 PM	This is not a place for discussion of WHETHER casters are balanced. They aren't. We already know this. We know this from many other threads. We know this from comments WotC has made to that effect. We know it from common sense like "Hey, Polymorph sure does seem more powerful than that 5th level spell over there." This is a place to IMPROVE the balance and function of casters and casting systems. Let's get back on track. :)
Kresalak 01-18-07, 09:16 PM	Generally, casters work well save for a few spells that make us cry. Fixing these, as well as bringing up the non-casters who also aren't Rogues, might do it. Of course, another issue is the whole nova thing. If casters were balanced on a per encounter scale, that would help with things. I think I have the beginnings of such a mechanic on my other computer, but sadly I'll have to wait until tomorrow morning to get that.
Crashy75 01-18-07, 10:14 PM	This is not a place for discussion of WHETHER casters are balanced. They aren't. We already know this. We know this from many other threads. We know this from comments WotC has made to that effect. We know it from common sense like "Hey, Polymorph sure does seem more powerful than that 5th level spell over there." This is a place to IMPROVE the balance and function of casters and casting systems. Let's get back on track. :) Thank you!!!!!!!!!! I was starting to think, "Not another one of those." I know you guys can really accomplish something here. That's why I’ve subscribed. (I'm just not adept enough to contribute at this point) ;)
krossbow 01-18-07, 11:08 PM	Perhaps make a type of system where use of magic creates a strain on the user? For example, something like how you have to roll fortitude saves on forced marches? Or concentration checks on running? Hey! Thats something right there! Every spell the caster casts requires a skill check of Concentration However, successive spells will increase the DC to cast them, and thus it becomes harder and harder to cast spells as the fight goes on. However, this becomes Moot at high levels---- fights last 1-2 rounds then.
OneWinged4ngel 01-18-07, 11:09 PM	Perhaps make a type of system where use of magic creates a strain on the user? For example, something like how you have to roll fortitude saves on forced marches? Or concentration checks on running? Hey! Thats something right there! Every spell the caster casts requires a skill check of Concentration Remember, skill checks are very easy to abuse. There are just so many things that can add on to push your skills to incredible heights. However, this becomes Moot at high levels---- fights last 1-2 rounds then. If I were to significantly redesign D&D as a system, I would hope to reduce such aspects that cause this, from uber-charging to spell abuse.
Nelagend 01-18-07, 11:45 PM	Let's look to some progressive processes here. First off, let's think of what spells are too strong (or too weak) for their level, and make a list of ones that need to be fixed. Some are obvious, like Teleport, Scry, and the horrid monster that is POLYMORPH (which probably should be thrown out altogether and replaced with a wholly new set of spells or something). I believe the Polymorph Errata did just that. Wizards did nerf a bunch of my favorite spells in between Complete Arcane and Spell Compendium, so they ARE aware of it, and I'm noticing that damage caps have been going down between 3.0 and 3.5. Teleport has essentially been fixed - have you ever tried to teleport into an anticipate teleportation effect, landed in a recently cast Dimensional Lock, and got TPKed by readied actions combined with standing spell effects? But, of course, if the opponent isn't a caster, none of these anti-spell spells do any good at lowering a caster's power. I would start by looking at Absorption and Spell Immunity, as without them, all your pure caster's buffs just make them a really tasty target for a gish's Reciprocal Gyre. Generally speaking, any 8th or 9th level spell that axes a whole class of 6th and lower spells contributes to pure casters beating out gish. Spell Turning is OK, as the ring neatly counters it. Dimension Door could use a shorter range. The Teleport family should take a full round to cast. Generally speaking, you should not be moving so far in one combat round with no chance for disruption that archers take a -18 to hit you. Wind Wall also might need to die. Finally, I'd let dispel magic and greater dispel scale past their cap at half rate. So a 20th level caster can dispel at +15 with a 3rd-level slot. I would also scale Concentration checks by twice spell level. This would go a long way towards nerfing 9th-level slots. Generally speaking, you should look for ways to make pure casters grimace at the sight of gish with really high saves, and Finally, I believe there's some high level or epic feat that lets casters not provoke attacks of opportunity when casting. This needs to be nerfed if it still works, as it allows a caster to completely ignore Mage Slayer. If you do all of that, you have casters with less crazy mobility who can be shut down if you jump on them, and should have bad matchups dealing with Large chainfighters and high-save gish packing Gyres.
Eela6 01-19-07, 12:21 AM	No, they Polymorph Errata *said* it did that, and then didn't actually change the spell at all, unfortunately. It basically said 'ignore it', but it didn't actually change it or the fact that it's a viable option in everything bar RPGA. Spells I can think of off the top of my head that are probably 'too good' for their level or simply problematic: Web Solid Fog Phantom Steed (can't stress this enough - it should be fourth or fifth level) Command Undead Rope Trick Shrink Item Explosive Runes? Suggestion? Black Tentacles Minor Creation Telekenisis (Sort of - it's either weak (single combat manuever, shooting two medium-sized weapons) or far too good (15 colossal bolts, Alchemist's (X), Acid, Master of Unseen Hand 35x combat manuever cheese) ]Fabricate Geas/Quest Charm Monster Wind Wall ... Magnificent Mansion. Plane Shift (for Clerics moreso than Wizards. As a "get-away" button, it can be even worse than Teleport.) (Interestingly, almost all of these are conjuration spells. Geas/Quest is somewhat unique here - it's not all that 'great', per-se, but incredibly prone to abuse, considering it has no save, is incredibly vague, and lasts practically forever. Charm Monster is incredibly problematic because it lasts a day per caster level - you can keep one or five guys on your leash for... well, forever by the time you get access to it.)
OneWinged4ngel 01-19-07, 12:31 AM	No, they Polymorph Errata *said* it did that, and then didn't actually change the spell at all, unfortunately. It basically said 'ignore it', but it didn't actually change it or the fact that it's a viable option in everything bar RPGA. Spells I can think of off the top of my head that are probably 'too good' for their level or simply problematic: Web Solid Fog Phantom Steed (can't stress this enough - it should be fourth or fifth level) Command Undead Rope Trick Shrink Item Explosive Runes? Suggestion? Black Tentacles Minor Creation Telekenisis (Sort of - it's either weak (single combat manuever, shooting two medium-sized weapons) or far too good (15 colossal bolts, Alchemist's (X), Acid, Master of Unseen Hand 35x combat manuever cheese) ]Fabricate Geas/Quest Charm Monster Wind Wall ... Magnificent Mansion. Plane Shift (for Clerics moreso than Wizards. As a "get-away" button, it can be even worse than Teleport.) (Interestingly, almost all of these are conjuration spells. Geas/Quest is somewhat unique here - it's not all that 'great', per-se, but incredibly prone to abuse, considering it has no save, is incredibly vague, and lasts practically forever. Charm Monster is incredibly problematic because it lasts a day per caster level - you can keep one or five guys on your leash for... well, forever by the time you get access to it.) Great start. Now, what can we do to improve each of these spells? Note that by improve, I mean improve their design, not improve as in make them stronger.
MerlintheTuna 01-19-07, 12:41 AM	Here's (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=86768) a nice list of problematic spells, as well as some fixes. I'm not in total agreement on all of them (ex: I don't think that Levitate explicitly trumps Spider Climb), but it's certainly a good resource.
navar100 01-19-07, 01:24 AM	As for me, I don't see a problem at all. It is certainly true Joe Fighter has got nothing on Fred Wizard flying in the air tossing fireballs disintegrates, and charming monsters. But guess what, Joe and Fred are party members. They work together as a team. If Fred starts boasting of his uberness and taking care of everything while Joe sits there twiddling his thumbs, the problem is really not fighters being weaker than wizards. The problem is Fred is being a jerk. Joe is not having fun because of Fred, not because he's play a fighter. It is Joe's job to keep the big bad monsters away from Fred. Fred should in turn make Joe better at doing that. Cast Fly on Joe instead of himself for a change. Give Joe the Stoneskin. Give Joe Displacement. It doesn't have to be every combat. Different combats call for different tactics. Cast Energy Immunity Fire on Joe, have him going into the fery with his Whirlwind Attack, then Fred fireballs them. Give Joe a ring of evasion and cloak of resistance +4. Joe might take one for the team and hope to evade Fred's Cone of Cold. It would help if the cleric casts Resist Energy Cold on him just in case. Bad guys might not expect to be in area damage spells with PCs in their midst. Joe may also not be having fun because of the DM. If Fred wizard is so uber, so too is NPC wizard, and they should be going at it with each other sometimes. Joe fighter should be fighting NPC fighter sometimes. The DM should be giving Joe something to do. Maybe an NPC wizard's sole role in the fight is to counterspell Fred. Perhaps the NPC wizard casts Globe Of Invulnerability upon the main combat area. I couldn't care less Fred wizard just learning Disintegrate is so much better than Joe Fighter just getting Improved Critical. If I'm Joe, I just care Fred and I are having fun together. I'm glad PHBII offers new feats that are really enticing and good for high level Joe fighter. It's nice that 18th level Phillip Warblade can deal +100 damage to his normal damage in an attack. However, that does not mean Fred wizard should be decapitated.
Seerow 01-19-07, 01:28 AM	So your point is "The caster deserves to have all the toys, and it's his job to make sure the Fighter can be useful, because the Fighter can't be expected to do anything himself" That's ********.
OneWinged4ngel 01-19-07, 01:40 AM	So your point is "The caster deserves to have all the toys, and it's his job to make sure the Fighter can be useful, because the Fighter can't be expected to do anything himself" That's ********. I agree. Also, evening out the more abused spells is not going to make Wizards "Decapitated" in any form. It would take a lot more than that to make them weak.
Crashy75 01-19-07, 11:32 AM	As for me, I don't see a problem at all. It is certainly true Joe Fighter has got nothing on Fred Wizard flying in the air tossing fireballs disintegrates, and charming monsters. ... OK. If that's how you feel I don't think this thread is for you.
Azar_of_Faerun 01-19-07, 11:41 AM	You guys want to bring the mage down, man :eek:
krossbow 01-19-07, 02:08 PM	What if we used a System like in iron heroes? Have the wizard make a channeling check each round to make sure his spell works; this way its not a skill, so it can't be so cheesed. In addition, the schools idea (which makes you better at channeling certain schools) makes the specialization more important.
nightwyrm 01-19-07, 03:30 PM	One of the caster problem with going nova then resting is the fact that it take only one hour to prepare all the spells you can memorize whether you have 1 spell or 50 spells. If my memory serves me correctly, back in 2ed or even before that, it took something like 10 minute per spell level to memorize a spell, and a high level wizard could spend more than a day memorizing all his spells. Bringing something like that back would make casting a high level spell a more important decision for the spell caster.
Kresalak 01-19-07, 03:40 PM	What if we used a System like in iron heroes? Have the wizard make a channeling check each round to make sure his spell works; this way its not a skill, so it can't be so cheesed. In addition, the schools idea (which makes you better at channeling certain schools) makes the specialization more important. You do know that the Iron Heroes (spellcasting) system is so bad that it's not even worth the price of the lighter fluid, right?
OneWinged4ngel 01-19-07, 03:47 PM	Generally, casters work well save for a few spells that make us cry. Fixing these, as well as bringing up the non-casters who also aren't Rogues, might do it. This is essentially what I hope to accomplish in my own rewritings of the game. I also hope to make problematic mechanics (such as multiclassing, etc) more streamlined, intuitive, and functional.
Aggrenox 01-19-07, 03:53 PM	So you all seen the Reserve feats? Why not limit cut down all level of spells per day and give them some reserve feat-like abilities? That will cut the number of overpowered spells, but still allow the mage to enter the fray on a regular basis, Slinging 1d6 fire bolts, until he has to waste the powerbase for it by throwing his fireball into a mess of orcs.
krossbow 01-19-07, 03:56 PM	The Magic in iron heroes is a product of the spells allowed, not the channeling idea. Each school more represents 1-4 spells, not the 30 or so that D&D does Iron heroes has so few spells allowed that it's like making a sorceror, then gimping them. However, requiring them to make a check is a good idea that makes sense. In D&D, the spell list is huge; this means that the casters would be alot less gimped, as iron heroes is due to the limited spells. If Each caster had to make a power check of 10 +double the spell level cast (so 0 would be 10, and 9 would be 28), with each spell cast within 10 minutes of not resting increasing the DC by 1, then novaing would be a lot less problematic.
Kadasbrass 01-19-07, 04:17 PM	I was thinking of an idea a few days on ago on a system where spellcasting was in part tied to constitution. Where they need to make checks or take nonlethal damage based on the level of spell. Something that could knock a wizard out of combat if they take damage from a foe and their spellcasting, but not to much of a gimp effect. (I'm sorry, but the following is going to look like a mess, but it was merely an idea I had. I don't intend to use it myself but will post it here incase someone wants to build on it) When a spellcaster cast too many spells in a row, normally more then their constitution modifier, without resting a number of rounds equal to the combined spell-levels of the spells they have casted, they need to make a constution check or take nonlethal damage. Can't be a fort save since druids and clerics could easily pass. A con check makes sense since most races that have mental stat bonuses normally have penalties to constutition. It also adds in a realistic element of needing physical endurance to cast alot of spells in short order. Could also have it deal some mix of nonlethal and lethal, but then a cure spell heals twice as much to a degree. But thats just an idea. I personal use an combination of: 1) Changing the Mechanics of the classes. But I don't do it as much for spellcasters in this regard. 2) Regulations of what the classes can or cannot do or have access too (this is the best step for spellcasters). A handfull of spells (or a barrelful as it now) shouldn't ruin the game like they do. 3) The Monster/Encounter side. I firmly believe in Darwinish in D&D - and Darwinish isn't the survival of the fittest. Darwinish is that "Nature favors thoses that adept to changes in their environment." So in a world where most adventuring parties or armies will have someone that can cast fireballs, the only monsters that would exist are thoses that know to not have more then 3 creatures in a 20 foot radius of each other. Even the dumb monsters in a magical world should know basic steps to protect themselves from spellcasters.
Finfreeze 01-19-07, 07:32 PM	Since a combination of a power outage and Firefox destroyed my original post, I'll just make a short form... I think that as long as you gain spells per day per level you're going to have a surplus by level 20. I like the idea of bringing spellcasting to everybody and making a standardized spell progression chart with caster level being the main determinant. Give the lesser casters better abilities as they level up (so as to push the expiration dates further back), but give full spellcasters (or everyone) a little more durability to compensate. Overview... Full Caster (Spellcaster, Battle Sorcerer): CL 20, 10th level spells, least features 3/4 Caster (Cleric, Bard): CL 15, 8th level spells, lesser features 1/2 Caster (Ranger, Paladin): CL 10, 5th level spells, greater features 1/4 Caster (Fighter, Rogue): CL 5, 3rd level spells, greatest features Multiclassing would be as simple as calculating caster level, then looking at the chart to see your new spells per day total. There's the little matter of Spell Resistance, but Spell Resistance is lame. To help deal with SAD, I think we need to do something with Wisdom and Charisma first. As it is, there's not enough there to get people to use them if your class doesn't have special abilities tied to them. Merge those two into a "Spirit" stat, and have this new stat determine your spells per day and spell DCs. Now get rid of the ability score prerequisites to cast spells, making it so that you don't have to make the magic 19 to be a decent caster. Finally, have intelligence determine spells known. If you want to have six stats, divide dexterity into dexterity (ranged/precision/ray acc./damage) and agility (init., evasion). I do think that reorganizing/rebalancing spells is a good idea. Tying spellcasting to constitution isn't that great of an idea since everybody has at least a decent constitution score.
navar100 01-20-07, 01:41 AM	So your point is "The caster deserves to have all the toys, and it's his job to make sure the Fighter can be useful, because the Fighter can't be expected to do anything himself" That's ********. No, it means "game balance" is not, or should not, be about one character being equal in all ways to another but rather both characters having equivalent fun doing stuff. The warrior classes have their own shticks of doing stuff. They may not compare to a wizard or codzilla on a one for one basis, with the higher level Tome Of Battle maneuvers coming close, but what's important is that the warrior players are having their own fun and significant affects on the game along side their wizard and codzilla party members. The wizard will lay the field to waste with Fireball. The druid will become a dire bear and pummel the opposition. The cleric will kill with a touch of Slay Living or Harm. The question is really, is the fighter also killing his enemies with his sword? Is the fighter also able to avoid blows with a good AC or some magic item while the wizard hides in Invisibility, the druid flies away as a bird, and the cleric utters a Word of Recall. How the fighter is interacting with the game is part the player's responsibility in his character development and in game choices, part DM responsibility in presenting a game fair and fun for everyone, and to a lesser but not insignificant responsibility of the group by not hogging the spotlight, which goes for combat as well as roleplay.
navar100 01-20-07, 01:56 AM	OK. If that's how you feel I don't think this thread is for you. Perhaps, but if people are having such a hissy-fit (my term in exaggeration) about spellcasters in comparison to the warriors, then perhaps D&D is not really for them. Creating a minute change for aesthetics or flavor, even if it is one I might disagree with such as clerics losing spontaneous curing for spontaneous domains and no domain slot, is chalked up to Rule 0. If you are rewriting the game, why play the game? Creating a "stronger" class to replace fighter or a "weaker" class to replace wizard I'd have to chalk to Rule 0, but creating a new wizard and changing all the spells and changing how magic works (casting and/or protecting yourself from), even if still using a d20 system, you are creating a new game. Monte Cook beat you to it :D , not that the Arcana series is superior to whatever one might create but just to use as an example. I don't buy the old Gygax comment that changing one rule to *his* game means you are not playing D&D, but if you change enough of them, you're not.
Seerow 01-20-07, 01:58 AM	But tell me, is it easier to have fun with a useless character, or one who has options at his disposal? Seriously, I've played characters before where your only option for the turn is "How much do I want to power attack?" or in the strange situation "Can I actually charge him? Or should I attack this guy" Really, by your definition of what makes a good game, you could play a commoner in your game and it be perfectly balanced. You can come back and say "Well if you want to roleplay a commoner.... I'm not a munchkin!" that's fine. But realize you're arguing a totally diferent point from everyone else. We're making the assumption that some classes, such as the NPC classes aren't intended for play. We assume this is so because they are weaker than other classes. This means by definition classes that are too weak should not be PC classes. From there it's a matter of proving that the melee classes are in fact significantly weaker than the caster classes, because we already know that classes that are significantly weaker than the others are unsuited for PC play. This isn't just a power grab. This is a matter of -enhancing- fun. The Fighter doesn't have any fun when all of his fun depends on Mr Wizard pulling punches for him. So it becomes a matter of powering the meleers up, or powering the casters down. Personally, I like the idea of the two meeting somewhere in an ideal middle.
OneWinged4ngel 01-20-07, 04:32 AM	Perhaps, but if people are having such a hissy-fit (my term in exaggeration) about spellcasters in comparison to the warriors, then perhaps D&D is not really for them. Creating a minute change for aesthetics or flavor, even if it is one I might disagree with such as clerics losing spontaneous curing for spontaneous domains and no domain slot, is chalked up to Rule 0. If you are rewriting the game, why play the game? Creating a "stronger" class to replace fighter or a "weaker" class to replace wizard I'd have to chalk to Rule 0, but creating a new wizard and changing all the spells and changing how magic works (casting and/or protecting yourself from), even if still using a d20 system, you are creating a new game. Monte Cook beat you to it :D , not that the Arcana series is superior to whatever one might create but just to use as an example. I don't buy the old Gygax comment that changing one rule to *his* game means you are not playing D&D, but if you change enough of them, you're not. Well gee, then WotC has created a new game with such things as Incarnum, Psionics, and Binders. They're weaker than wizards with completely new casting systems. And to play anything other than pure D&D would be sinful to Gygax's legacy or something equally extremely foolish-sounding. :rolleyes: Oh wait! That's the D&D game, because it has the big label on the cover of every book, officially endorsed by WotC! Alternate spellcasting systems and replacement classes? Binders and Swordsages and Warblades and Psionicists? Things that can take the place of a spellcaster or melee fighter in a world? Enhance melee classes and weaken casters? Yep, that's already a part of D&D. So... denying such things actually would put you in the position of the one who doesn't want to play D&D. Funny how that works. Even *if* adding house rules that improve the design of the game make it a "different game," why does that even matter? How is this relevant in any way other than semantics or classification? Whether it is a different game than D&D or not isn't going to improve the quality of the game or vice versa based purely on that qualifier. Basically, the above post is pretty much BS. No, it means "game balance" is not, or should not, be about one character being equal in all ways to another but rather both characters having equivalent fun doing stuff. Uhm... and so, changing polymorph and other spells in a fashion so that they are not so problematic mechanically is going to make people have less fun? Your logic evades me, though I suspect that may be because there wasn't much of it to catch. Again, this isn't really a discussion of the principles and philosophy and value of balance within a game. It's a discussion for improving the balance of spells and spellcasters. Neither of your double-posts seem to present and reason for *not* improving the balance, or why this would be a bad idea, other than the insinuation that doing so would be so sinful as it would be making us play a different game, which is obviously a ridiculous form of argument. The first doesn't seem to offer anything relevant at all. It's off-topic, among other things. I'll repeat myself: This is not a place for discussion of WHETHER casters are balanced. They aren't. We already know this. We know this from many other threads. We know this from comments WotC has made to that effect. We know it from common sense like "Hey, Polymorph sure does seem more powerful than that 5th level spell over there."
DIESCUMDIE 01-20-07, 08:18 AM	To my mind to fix casters you have to: Get rid of spells per day. Its very rare for a game to actually have 4 encounters per day (if the wizard would let it). Many don't even have 6 per session, or 6 per leveling up. Instead limit spells based on encounters not days. Reduce the casters power per round, even if they do run out, the first few rounds are those that matter most. Make some way to combat spells aside from magic itself based on some ordinary quality possesed by the opponent. This way dm's who aren't as well versed in spell tactics as their players can still design challenges. Some limit on the casters flexability in its casting. Something that stops the caster from scrying, teleporting, casting walls, casting invisability, casting combat buffs, inflict negative levels , ability damage and ordinary damage, all in one encounter. (My solution in my Sig- but I am not trying to suggest this is the best solution)
Crashy75 01-20-07, 01:43 PM	Perhaps, but if people are having such a hissy-fit (my term in exaggeration) about spellcasters in comparison to the warriors, then perhaps D&D is not really for them... I don't buy the old Gygax comment that changing one rule to *his* game means you are not playing D&D, but if you change enough of them, you're not. Ok. That's cool. It's ok with me if you, or Gygax or anybody claims that I'm not playing 'true' D&D. Perhaps you should start a thread (here or in Regdar's) about what is true D&D and what isn't. This thread is about nerfing some spells to make casters mortal. (or that was my impression- perhaps I am wrong) I don't necessarily consider you a troll, but all this is derailing the thread. Please man!!! And on trolls. Contrary to popular opinion, flames are not the best way to handle them. The best way to deal with a troll is to starve him. Thank you :D
Kresalak 01-20-07, 01:52 PM	*Snip long post* This is a great idea, but for one thing-having a CL so low means your spells are never useful. However, limiting access to spells such that 1/4 casters only ever get 3rd or 4th level spells is a good idea, as long as they have a CL equal to their ECL. Alright, here's the basics of the system. A magic user knows a certain number of spells, determined by a "spellbook". It doesn't need to be an actual book; you could simply have every spell in a mental library or something. However, you can only prepare up to N (3 or 4, probably) spells of each level per 8 hour rest cycle, and of those you can cast them spontaneously. Casting is at will, but you have to gather spell points (probably called mana) to do that. Gathering an amount equal to your caster level is a standard action, so you can only cast one high level spell every other round. Gathering up to, say, 3/4 your caster level is a move action, and up to 1/2 a Swift action. Maybe 1/4 is a free action that can be taken only once per round. You can keep the spell points you gather for up to a certain number of rounds, and after that you start taking Ability Burn. The system needs balancing and development, as it's currently in the idea stage.
krossbow 01-20-07, 02:33 PM	Meh, how about we convert the magic system so it works kind of like psionics, with the power points and all.
Crashy75 01-20-07, 03:10 PM	Meh, how about we convert the magic system so it works kind of like psionics, with the power points and all. check Xeviat-DM's web site. It's pretty complete. http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://www.thecbg.org/settings/29/Mana_System.html Personally, I’d like to start with modifying spells before spell systems.
Leo 01-20-07, 06:51 PM	Yeah, because, like, it isn't as wizards hasn't done a buttload of money with the so called broken magic system. Ho, wait, it has. You may not agree, but most people like the system as it is, since they keep buying wizards books. You seem like the guys at the magic boards "Oh my god card/color x is so broken/weak wizards should nerf/power it". And then they got pwned by the card/color they said it was so weak. Magic isn't that powerfull. At least if you have a decent Dm that remembers to throw sneaky smart monsters that attack you at night now and then run away, privating you from your precious rest. Yes, because if you're there throwing spells like crazy, the enemies in the area are bound to learn to attack you when you are more vulnerable And no, you can't balance feats and spells. THEY WORK IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BASIS FOR GODS SAKE. One of them is a permanent bonus, the other is a 1-shot trick. Of course the spell needs to be stronger. But no. You insist in trying to fix D&D and end up slaughtering everything that makes it the most played table RPG in the world for years. I'm just glad you're not the ones in charge of the creation team, either way D&D would have gone bankrupt years ago. But hell, I guess it's the way of life. You can never make everyone happy.
OneWinged4ngel 01-20-07, 07:09 PM	Yeah, because, like, it isn't as wizards hasn't done a buttload of money with the so called broken magic system. And Blizzard is making a fortune on WoW, but they are constantly revising the balance of their own class system because they know it's not as good as it could be. Just because they made money off it doesn't mean it can't be improved. Heck, many of their own designers have complained about balance and used various house rules in their own games. Indeed, they have repeatedly voiced much disdain for particular mechanics, such as Polymorph. However, they have a strong policy to never really change anything unless they're making a new edition. Ho, wait, it has. You may not agree, but most people like the system as it is, since they keep buying wizards books. Good for them. So what? They don't have to use whatever fix we make. We're not going to kick in their doors and shove it down their throats. You seem like the guys at the magic boards "Oh my god card/color x is so broken/weak wizards should nerf/power it". And then they got pwned by the card/color they said it was so weak. Not really. I'm not telling Wizards to nerf it, I want to develop house rules to increase the enjoyment of players in my own games. Magic isn't that powerfull. Yes it is. At least if you have a decent Dm that remembers to throw sneaky smart monsters that attack you at night now and then run away, privating you from your precious rest. Yes, because if you're there throwing spells like crazy, the enemies in the area are bound to learn to attack you when you are more vulnerable And no, you can't balance feats and spells. THEY WORK IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BASIS FOR GODS SAKE. One of them is a permanent bonus, the other is a 1-shot trick. Of course the spell needs to be stronger. Funny, no one said anything about balancing feats and spells. But no. You insist in trying to fix D&D and end up slaughtering everything that makes it the most played table RPG in the world for years. I'm just glad you're not the ones in charge of the creation team, either way D&D would have gone bankrupt years ago. Pray tell, what have we slaughtered or taken away from the game? What change have we made that detracts from the fun of the game? But hell, I guess it's the way of life. You can never make everyone happy. Leo, I've yet to see you do much more than troll on these boards. Who are you trying to make happy?
navar100 01-20-07, 07:39 PM	But tell me, is it easier to have fun with a useless character, or one who has options at his disposal? Seriously, I've played characters before where your only option for the turn is "How much do I want to power attack?" or in the strange situation "Can I actually charge him? Or should I attack this guy" Really, by your definition of what makes a good game, you could play a commoner in your game and it be perfectly balanced. You can come back and say "Well if you want to roleplay a commoner.... I'm not a munchkin!" that's fine. But realize you're arguing a totally diferent point from everyone else. We're making the assumption that some classes, such as the NPC classes aren't intended for play. We assume this is so because they are weaker than other classes. This means by definition classes that are too weak should not be PC classes. From there it's a matter of proving that the melee classes are in fact significantly weaker than the caster classes, because we already know that classes that are significantly weaker than the others are unsuited for PC play. This isn't just a power grab. This is a matter of -enhancing- fun. The Fighter doesn't have any fun when all of his fun depends on Mr Wizard pulling punches for him. So it becomes a matter of powering the meleers up, or powering the casters down. Personally, I like the idea of the two meeting somewhere in an ideal middle. The wizard doesn't have to pull his punches. He can Fireball and Disintegrate to his heart's content. He doesn't have to buff the Fighter all the time. The Fighter, meanwhile, is not a boring class. He is more than just swinging his sword around. His feats and various combat actions provide some versatility. There is no feat that compares to Fireball. No question. PHBII and Complete Series go a long way to improve the Fighter's options than just the PHB alone. No, the Commoner is not a viable adventuring class. There has to be some baseline for which a character class is viable in game mechanics to be effective in general game play. Let the Fighter be that base because it's the weakest of all classes if you want. Some people enjoy the combat tactics Fighters and their feats provide. They'll have fun Disarming or Sundering instead of "going for the kill". Some will enjoy being two-weapon machetes, and they'll turn deaf against all who protest how so sub-optimal that is compared to two-handed weapons. It's not all about being uberoptimal. There's nothing wrong with uberoptimal. That is also fun, but it's not like you have to have an "18" in class abilities to be effective.
Crashy75 01-20-07, 07:45 PM	No, they Polymorph Errata *said* it did that, and then didn't actually change the spell at all, unfortunately. It basically said 'ignore it', but it didn't actually change it or the fact that it's a viable option in everything bar RPGA. Spells I can think of off the top of my head that are probably 'too good' for their level or simply problematic: Web Solid Fog Phantom Steed (can't stress this enough - it should be fourth or fifth level) Command Undead Rope Trick Shrink Item Explosive Runes? Suggestion? Black Tentacles Minor Creation Telekenisis (Sort of - it's either weak (single combat manuever, shooting two medium-sized weapons) or far too good (15 colossal bolts, Alchemist's (X), Acid, Master of Unseen Hand 35x combat manuever cheese) ]Fabricate Geas/Quest Charm Monster Wind Wall ... Magnificent Mansion. Plane Shift (for Clerics moreso than Wizards. As a "get-away" button, it can be even worse than Teleport.) (Interestingly, almost all of these are conjuration spells. Geas/Quest is somewhat unique here - it's not all that 'great', per-se, but incredibly prone to abuse, considering it has no save, is incredibly vague, and lasts practically forever. Charm Monster is incredibly problematic because it lasts a day per caster level - you can keep one or five guys on your leash for... well, forever by the time you get access to it.) k. One at a time... Web Conjuration (Creation) Level: Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Effect: Webs in a 20-ft.-radius spread Duration: 10 min./level (D) Saving Throw: Reflex negates; see text Spell Resistance: No Web creates a many-layered mass of strong, sticky strands. These strands trap those caught in them. The strands are similar to spider webs but far larger and tougher. These masses must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points or else the web collapses upon itself and disappears. Creatures caught within a web become entangled among the gluey fibers. Attacking a creature in a web won’t cause you to become entangled. Anyone in the effect’s area when the spell is cast must make a Reflex save. If this save succeeds, the creature is entangled, but not prevented from moving, though moving is more difficult than normal for being entangled (see below). If the save fails, the creature is entangled and can’t move from its space, but can break loose by spending 1 round and making a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 25 Escape Artist check. Once loose (either by making the initial Reflex save or a later Strength check or Escape Artist check), a creature remains entangled, but may move through the web very slowly. Each round devoted to moving allows the creature to make a new Strength check or Escape Artist check. The creature moves 5 feet for each full 5 points by which the check result exceeds 10. If you have at least 5 feet of web between you and an opponent, it provides cover. If you have at least 20 feet of web between you, it provides total cover. The strands of a web spell are flammable. A magic flaming sword can slash them away as easily as a hand brushes away cobwebs. Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away 5 square feet in 1 round. All creatures within flaming webs take 2d4 points of fire damage from the flames. Web can be made permanent with a permanency spell. A permanent web that is damaged (but not destroyed) regrows in 10 minutes. Material Component: A bit of spider web. Suggestions? And guys. Don't feed the trolls. Let them bump the thread if they want.
Seerow 01-20-07, 07:49 PM	Except Sundering and Disarming aren't necessarily good or viable tactics at ANY level, let alone high levels, where the Fighter is weak. PHBII and Complete Warior do add some nice options, but more than anything they feed into the high level fighter becoming a one trick pony. They turn the Fighter to going from "How much do I power attack for?" to "Who do I want to annihilate with an uber charge". A much more potent trick to be sure, but still just a trick. Also, the Fighter doesn't have an 18 in class abilities. He has a 5.5. A feat is worth half a real class ability (seriously go to the feats forum and try to post a class ability as a feat, you'll get people telling you that's too powerful) and the Fighter gets 11 feats.
navar100 01-20-07, 07:58 PM	Well gee, then WotC has created a new game with such things as Incarnum, Psionics, and Binders. They're weaker than wizards with completely new casting systems. And to play anything other than pure D&D would be sinful to Gygax's legacy or something equally extremely foolish-sounding. :rolleyes: Oh wait! That's the D&D game, because it has the big label on the cover of every book, officially endorsed by WotC! Alternate spellcasting systems and replacement classes? Binders and Swordsages and Warblades and Psionicists? Things that can take the place of a spellcaster or melee fighter in a world? Enhance melee classes and weaken casters? Yep, that's already a part of D&D. So... denying such things actually would put you in the position of the one who doesn't want to play D&D. Funny how that works. Even *if* adding house rules that improve the design of the game make it a "different game," why does that even matter? How is this relevant in any way other than semantics or classification? Whether it is a different game than D&D or not isn't going to improve the quality of the game or vice versa based purely on that qualifier. Basically, the above post is pretty much BS. Uhm... and so, changing polymorph and other spells in a fashion so that they are not so problematic mechanically is going to make people have less fun? Your logic evades me, though I suspect that may be because there wasn't much of it to catch. Again, this isn't really a discussion of the principles and philosophy and value of balance within a game. It's a discussion for improving the balance of spells and spellcasters. Neither of your double-posts seem to present and reason for *not* improving the balance, or why this would be a bad idea, other than the insinuation that doing so would be so sinful as it would be making us play a different game, which is obviously a ridiculous form of argument. The first doesn't seem to offer anything relevant at all. It's off-topic, among other things. I'll repeat myself: This is not a place for discussion of WHETHER casters are balanced. They aren't. We already know this. We know this from many other threads. We know this from comments WotC has made to that effect. We know it from common sense like "Hey, Polymorph sure does seem more powerful than that 5th level spell over there." It is a matter of degree which by its nature is subjective. There is some foundation for which you have a game. Given an official version of that game, in this case the Core books, for personal aesthetics people will make house rules. Happens in Monopoly, such as getting money for landing on Free Parking or Income Tax only counts money on hand, not value of properties and buildings. The Splat books are by definition house rules. However, they offer addendums that continue the pattern established in the foundation. When you get to books like Incarnum and Tome Of Magic, they do use the d20 system, and thus can fit into D&D play which uses d20, but yes, they are on the fringe. Whether they are "D&D" or not is the subjectiveness coming into play. However, if starting back with the Core, the foundation, if you are going to change that foundation - change how the whole thing works, then you are saying you don't like the foundation, obviously. All I originally commented was that I didn't think there was a problem with the foundation. I was challenged, figuratively speaking, to defend that position, hence the debate continues. Notice how I don't comment on the various proposals being offered on how to make changes. It is not my interest. Go ahead and have your discussion on proposed changes.
Ramses III 01-20-07, 08:43 PM	My suggestion for a fix to polymorph (which won't hurt other shapechanging abilities as long as one references the errata) is to limit the creature types it can change the target into; IMC I think I'm going to limit it to humanoids (non-monstrous), animals, and possibly vermin. Scrying is a toughie, but if one takes the parameters of the spell and uses them to craft limitations, one can make it more manageable -- require that the caster have seen the subject in person, or even have some material connection to the subject on hand (hair clippings, some possession of the subject, etc.). Some factors can't be balanced without outright bans; I have no compunctions about banning core material in my game for balance purposes. The calling application of Gate is a good example of something potentially damaging to a game; I also ban Natural Spell out of hand because I think it's stupid to have your party's druid always in dire ape or dire lion form, or whatever they decide to break with their build this week. In the end though, fixes like this are largely cosmetic and don't fully address the larger issue of full-progression casters being overpowered. If D&D is the game you're playing, you have to either accept that there is a skew of balance that favors full-progression casters over other character types or to totally restructure the game and play with a far different system. For myself, if I was to delve that far into game design, I'd build my own system from scratch. Currently my choice is to play D&D and make the best of a system that has its flaws, but is still a fun game, and make whatever cosmetic tweaks I find necessary to keep the game fun for everyone involved.
Squangos 01-21-07, 06:00 PM	Cael talking about how a warrior-type's one-shot super-slice is not as efficient as a fireball-type spell - especially this bit… That is efficiency, with the damage spread out over the maximum number of opponents for maximum number of kills. …reminded me of a quote from one of my favourite movies: "Through analysis of thousands of recorded gunfights, the Cleric has determined that the geometric distribution of antagonists in any gun battle is a statistically-predictable element. The Gun Kata treats the gun as a total weapon, each fluid position representing a maximum kill zone, inflicting maximum damage on the maximum number of opponents, while keeping the defender clear of the statistically-traditional trajectories of return fire. By the rote mastery of this art, your firing efficiency will rise by no less than 120%. The difference of a 63% increased lethal proficiency makes the master of the Gun Katas an adversary not to be taken lightly." …Not actually related to the idea I had; it was a springboard, though. I think. So anyway, I thought up a rough system where you could choose to deal the excess damage from a melee attack to another target within reach (the same sort of thing might work with ranged combat, allowing you an extra attack against another target), possibly trading damage to move between foes. This sort of "flowing blade" style of fighting makes me think of katana-wielding guys, so I might make a new Samurai out of it. At least, I will when my computer works again… I might have broken it in transit… __________________ Sorry that wasn't relevant to rebalancing spells at all… What if fireball and the like had a number of "shots", which you could spend over the course of a combat or nova with in one go? Three for the price of one Evocation spell?
krossbow 01-21-07, 07:26 PM	Dang, books released by wizards are houserules? Well, thats news to me! I guess they AREN"T cannon, simply because they, y'know, are shown as such by wizards.
Kadasbrass 01-22-07, 04:25 AM	Heres another idea I will throw out there. One I plan on using myself. While some spells shouldn't be allowed, there are a few others that aren't really broken in the general context of the game but overpowered at the time you get access to them. While the spell doesn't need to have its spell-level increased, maybe instead have access to the spell delayed a few levels. Sleep when you get down to it, is really a level 1 save or die spell. If you delay access to 3rd or 4th character level, the spell remains effective in some sititations, but not a sure thing to be used every encounter. I'll need to delay access to enlarge person for my personal campaign since I decided to make a LA 0 large humanoid. The spells not broken given the other 18 races in my world, but allowing both the spell and the race at lvl 1 can result in a huge creature and thats just not decent. Could be argue that some spells are just difficult to find. Maybe the spells require actual quest-time or research to gain.
Flamewarrior 01-26-07, 03:27 AM	3) Cutting down on upper tier spells does a -long- way towards fixing casters. Honestly, past a point you simply don't care about lower spells anymore, but high level spells are always a precious commodity. So instead of getting 4 of your top tier spells, maybe you only get 1. Or 2. This goes a looong way to cutting back spellcaster power. Though this goes to my belief of in return, giving the casters more free castings of low level spells. Either on a per encounter, or even unlimited basis. (Per Encounter, AKA with a 10 minute rest period, is probably better to avoid certain abuses of buffs and such). But that isn't necessarily what would be in a "Solution" discussion. It's a class design philosophy, to make sure that nobody ends up completely useless in a fight, that you CAN always be doing something. (Face it, a Wizard with no spells because the DM and/or players doesn't want to let him rest is no fun. At least a Wizard with low level spells unlimited can be tossing out magic missile or something in these extended fights.) but it isn't really a fix, so much as a belief.I proposed exactly this some time ago in other thread. My idea was using a formula: daily uses of x-level spells = caster level / x. I was in doubt if 0-level spells would count as half-leveled, or simply be unilimited from the start (that would cause the kicking of cure minor wounds, I think). Anyone thinking a chart would help: just tell me. Honestly, I like the idea of the Druid being broken into 2 classes. The first is a Shapeshifter first and foremost, but gets Ranger-esque casting. No 9th level spells, but he still gets some useful buffs and such. This also means fixing the ranger is easier, you can balance the abilities you give him against the shapeshifting. The Second becomes something more akin to the Cloistered Cleric. The Druid who stays in his groves to guard trees, has powerful magic, but can't shapechange easily. Clearly he would need spells to let him do minor changing, but nothing as complete and resource-free as Wildshape. (And yes, I am going on the assumption that the rebalancing of spells will result in Polymorph and Co as a whole thrown out)Krusk (yes, I did say Krusk) is making this. Take a look: Druid (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10891274#post10891274) and Shifter (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=754488).
Otto the Bugbear 01-26-07, 12:41 PM	I like the idea of bringing spellcasting to everybody and making a standardized spell progression chart with caster level being the main determinant. In case you didn't see this. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=767298)
Flamewarrior 02-06-07, 05:31 PM	OK, this probably is selfishly using the thread to get feedback on my own idea, but since it's what Seerow talked about, it seems to be on-topic. To give an example of what would be the spell progression generated by what I proposed in the previous post: Daily slots by Caster Level1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 1 4 2 5 2 1 6 3 2 7 3 2 1 8 4 2 2 9 4 3 2 1 10 5 3 2 2 11 5 3 2 2 1 12 6 4 3 2 2 13 6 4 3 2 2 1 14 7 4 3 2 2 2 15 7 5 3 3 2 2 1 16 8 5 4 3 2 2 2 17 8 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 18 9 6 4 3 3 2 2 2 19 9 6 4 3 3 2 2 2 20 10 6 5 4 3 2 2 2 But now I was toying with an extension of it: adding together level and ability modifier before dividing by the spell level - so, no more additional spells table either (and I know it is, statistically, a further reduction of spell slots above 4, since the table gave extra spells for every +4 above the spell level). Should anyone want to see how the original thread about this idea went, there's it: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=740322. Beware, though: there was much naysaying.
OneWinged4ngel 06-11-07, 02:20 PM	Mmmm, thread necromancy. Anyways, I think this is a worthwhile topic for discussion still. Like Crashy said: Thank you!!!!!!!!!! ... I know you guys can really accomplish something here. That's why I’ve subscribed. ...
Squangos 06-11-07, 03:20 PM	Odd; I noticed this got bumped a couple of minutes after I had an idea to make Prestige Classes less of a "must have". Anyway, my idea is to only apply the spellcasting progression of a PrC to a thematic set of spells (so you only count an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil level as a Wizard or Sorceror level in regard to Prismatic and Abjuration spells, for example).
OneWinged4ngel 06-11-07, 03:26 PM	Odd; I noticed this got bumped a couple of minutes after I had an idea to make Prestige Classes less of a "must have". Anyway, my idea is to only apply the spellcasting progression of a PrC to a thematic set of spells (so you only count an Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil level as a Wizard or Sorceror level in regard to Prismatic and Abjuration spells, for example). I don't really like that. Honestly, you can modify just about any spell to be "thematic." In fact, I had a sorceress who reflavored just about every spell she cast as prismatic or color-related, from unraveling the colors of a foe like thread between her fingers for disintegrate or having her color melt away to nothing for invisibility.
Squangos 06-11-07, 04:16 PM	So the idea of limiting a clearly superior option in a flavourful, understandable way isn't dumb in and of itself, right? Just the way I worded it? If so—which I'll assume is the case—I can work on fixing that. "…an Elemental Savant gains new spells from the Evocation school and spells with the descriptor matching her elemental speciality per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if she had also gained a level in a spellcasting class to which she belonged before adding the prestige class level…." You've given up a broader path with a broader selection of spells for a more power-focused path with a more focused selection of spells. Which are also more powerful. Since this idea is part of a D&D v4.0 thing I'm idly working on, spells that spellcasters are expected to have like Heal and so on might have a (Mandatory) descriptor or something. Maybe the party would have to invest in magic items that do the job instead; no idea what I'll do right now.
FoamingPipeSnake 06-11-07, 05:21 PM	I was reading the OP and had an idea for making casters need two stats. Why not make spells fatigueing? Say easch spell has a target number that raises in difficulty based on the spells level. If he fails his Fort save upon casting the spell he takes say, 1d3 subdual damage. This would make 'casters sure to keep their Con's up, it might even get them to blow feats on raising their Fort save. Just a quick thought, but I bet it could be made to work.
Leo 06-11-07, 05:30 PM	I tought you guys hated dual stat casters, like the favored soul.
OneWinged4ngel 06-11-07, 05:33 PM	I tought you guys hated dual stat casters, like the favored soul. ...uhm, no. MAD is generally a good thing as far as design goes (at least, the potential to diversify builds by differing focus on various ability scores). Also, that post sounds suspiciously like baiting/trolling. I was reading the OP and had an idea for making casters need two stats. Why not make spells fatigueing? Say easch spell has a target number that raises in difficulty based on the spells level. If he fails his Fort save upon casting the spell he takes say, 1d3 subdual damage. This would make 'casters sure to keep their Con's up, it might even get them to blow feats on raising their Fort save. Just a quick thought, but I bet it could be made to work. This has been suggested and done before, and I gotta say... making spells do subdual damage just doesn't really help anything. Further, this doesn't address the general concern of the vast gap between spells of the same level. (I mean, Erase vs Silent Image? Darkness vs Web? Daylight vs Phantom Steed? You kiddin' me?)
FoamingPipeSnake 06-11-07, 05:56 PM	This has been suggested and done before, and I gotta say... making spells do subdual damage just doesn't really help anything. Further, this doesn't address the general concern of the vast gap between spells of the same level. (I mean, Erase vs Silent Image? Darkness vs Web? Daylight vs Phantom Steed? You kiddin' me?) Yeah, you are right, it does absolutely nothing to address that, but it would force them to spread their stats out a bit. I'll tell you what i am doing in my campaign, which is kinda low magic. 1) Pure casters must take 1 multiclass level for ever three levels of their caster class. They can even take another caster class if they want, as long as they start at level 1. 2) Casters only start with (2 or 3, not sure yet) known shcools of magic that they can cast from. They can earn more schools with feats. Clerics can only cast from schools aligned with their god, but they know all spells in that school. they can learn more schools with feats as well. 4) Clerics only get medium armor profiecincy and incur caster penalties from heavy armor. 5) Druids can never casy while wild shaped. This is harsh, but I think it will be fun. I may give sorcs and/or wizards a d6 hit die as well as letting them wear light armor.
OneWinged4ngel 06-11-07, 06:11 PM	Yeah, you are right, it does absolutely nothing to address that, but it would force them to spread their stats out a bit. They tend to invest in Con ANYWAYS. Besides, if you're just talking about damage, it's an easy matter to heal it all. Especially if it's subdual
Crashy75 06-11-07, 07:26 PM	Forgot all about this thread. I still think the spells should be addressed first.
OneWinged4ngel 06-11-07, 07:27 PM	Forgot all about this thread. I still think the spells should be addressed first. I agree.
OneWinged4ngel 06-13-07, 06:21 PM	Problematic Powers Thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=657631 Problematic Spells Thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=86768 What ideas do people have for adjusting spells to be more on an even power level with EACH OTHER?
windscar18 06-13-07, 07:46 PM	Honestly, I don't see much of a way except to go through and edit every spell manually. I mean, the reason why the spells are overpowered is because they're just broken, but they all seem to be broken in different ways. If one spell is overpowered in its ability to end fights by itself (*cough*saveordie*cough*, another spell is powerful for its endless loopholes in roleplaying. (*cough*wish*cough*miracle*cough cough*), while a third might just be overpowered in its casting time (*cough*teleport*cough cough*). I don't really see if there's a way to make all spells universally on the same level unless someone wants to go through the extremely painstaking process of editing every spell to fit the baseline of balanced.
OneWinged4ngel 06-13-07, 07:57 PM	Honestly, I don't see much of a way except to go through and edit every spell manually. That was the idea. Of course, balance cannot be PERFECT in such a complex system, but it can be IMPROVED.
Crashy75 06-14-07, 11:36 AM	Perhaps it would be best to start with a baseline. How powerful should a spell be at a given level? Also, I personally hate automatic success spells- spells like knock, wind wall and even magic missile. Perhaps starting with the problem spells is the wrong approach. I'd like to see a list of quintessential spells for each level- basically all the spells that are perfect for their level. Once we have that list, it's simply a matter of balancing other spells with them.
Leo 06-14-07, 02:43 PM	Magic is suposed to be something special. And powerfull. Magic is suposed to let you do things you couldn't do any other way. Casting a spell should always be a superior choice than using a skill, attack, psionic power or any other nonmagicl action. Honestly, the only reason I bother playing a cleric or a wizard it's because of the awesome spells they can cast. If everybody in the party can outdo my spells with their class abilities casters just aren't sexy. Of course, if you think magic is so strong, you could just: 1-Reduce the number of spells per day they can cast. 2-Make the price of scrolls, staffs and wands(but not magic items that everybody can use) go skyrocket, or increase the build time(10 days for each 100 gp of price, minimum 10 days for example.) 3-Eliminate the extra spells gained by high ability scores. 4-Increase casting time. Now this would be interesting. Each spell needs 2 rounds per level to be cast. Or something else. Even when cast from a item. 5-Rewrite the entire spell list. Wich will take a long long long time. Probably 4th edition will be out when you finish it.
Nephlite 06-14-07, 03:55 PM	My suggestion for a fix to polymorph (which won't hurt other shapechanging abilities as long as one references the errata) is to limit the creature types it can change the target into; IMC I think I'm going to limit it to humanoids (non-monstrous), animals, and possibly vermin. Hmm, that lowers power, but animals are still pretty strong (plus polymorph doesn't require familiarity).
Flamewarrior 06-14-07, 03:56 PM	Magic is suposed to be something special. And powerfull. Magic is suposed to let you do things you couldn't do any other way. Casting a spell should always be a superior choice than using a skill, attack, psionic power or any other nonmagicl action. Honestly, the only reason I bother playing a cleric or a wizard it's because of the awesome spells they can cast. If everybody in the party can outdo my spells with their class abilities casters just aren't sexy. Of course, if you think magic is so strong, you could just: 1-Reduce the number of spells per day they can cast. 2-Make the price of scrolls, staffs and wands(but not magic items that everybody can use) go skyrocket, or increase the build time(10 days for each 100 gp of price, minimum 10 days for example.) 3-Eliminate the extra spells gained by high ability scores. 4-Increase casting time. Now this would be interesting. Each spell needs 2 rounds per level to be cast. Or something else. Even when cast from a item. 5-Rewrite the entire spell list. Wich will take a long long long time. Probably 4th edition will be out when you finish it.First, of course spells are supposed to do things nothing else can do - but then, psionics, incarnum and blade magic are supoosed to do things nobody else can (including magic) too. And, if one of those is expected to do things inherently superior to another's options, the concept of game balance automatically goes down the drain. By the way, psionics is a charge (read: limited per day) system too - there isn't any reason for wizard to be superior to a psion, since they're equally pitiful in anything not related to spells/manifesting. About the sexiness of spellcasters, look at it like this: psionics gets the most micromanagement, incarnum is the apex of permanent effects, and blade magic gets the trophy for action manipulation. Except, of course, that magic beats all of them silly in their chosen niches. For what reason: fanboyism such as the one that gave supernatural actions to shapechange (Wasn't it strong enough already?) in 3.5. By the way, I take the chance to remind people that psionics has greater metamorphosis, except it lasts 100 times less, and still it's probably the strongest power, since it's unbounded - the kind of thing magic gets all the time. Do you think someone wants to destroy necromancy, for example? Or give it to another system? Trust me, magic can take a good nerfbeating and still retain plenty of uniqueness. But, to your suggestions: 1) I tried this, and a rough draft is on post 104; 2) not the market price, since that screws rogues more than spellcasters, but increasing XP crafting costs might be indeed interesting; 3) or slow it down for higher-level spells, such as I wondered about, also in post 104; 4) there is a lot of spells that are actually fine for casting as standard actions (by the way, that could be the one great advantage of evocation, since it has little of use, and even that is stealable via shadow spells), but that could be part of a massive spell rewrite; 5) I actually agree with your opinion on the time needed (which is why I nerf the spellcasting structure itself, and outright ban the most broken spells instead of trying to rewrite any) - besides, people who wanna rewrite spells could go directly to the problematic spells/powers threads linked by OW4 (though I do like Crashy's idea of hunting balanced spells first, instead of the other way around).
Leo 06-14-07, 04:30 PM	Yes, psionics is limited per day, but much more versatile. First you can choose in spending all your PP in a few powerfull attacks or lots of smaller tricks, while a magic user will need to "dilute" his total power in levels from 0-9. Also most powers offer great versatility, while more than half the spells are highly focused in something(cough knock cough charm monster cough teleport). The school limitation also looks tempting. We could make like the beguiller:each caster chooses 2 schools of magic and that's it. Nothing else. Not even from scrolls or wands. And natural spell. First thing to ban. I still wonder what wizards was smoking when they decided to include it in core 3.5.
knuck 06-14-07, 06:56 PM	Ok, here's just some random thoughts about fixing casters: - Ban any divination spells (scry, detect alignment, etc). They not only make the casters overpower, but also can easily kill any plot. - Make WIll saves CHA-based. This helps to get rid of the SAD for CoDs. - Ban the stupidly overpowered spells like Bite of Wereboar, Avasculate, Harm, Disarm Construct. Ban any save-or-die spells too. Actually, the spells need to be remade from scratch. It's about time to fix some stuff that has been there since 1e I'm not sure what to do with Polymorph though. About druids: - Reduce duration of wild shape maybe? Or the number of times it can be used/day. - I would make them not be divine spellcasters. I was thinking something like Nature spellcasters. I'm not so sure yet. i'll post more when I get home later. I have some ideas about how to fix the Cleric without using the cloistered version.
Flamewarrior 06-14-07, 07:59 PM	Leo: as I said, undoubtedly psionics gets the micromanagement trophy, but that alone doesn't mean its average power needs to be inferior since you are - more - vunerable to running dry (unless you manifest low-PP powers all the time). Knock (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/knockPsionic.htm), teleport (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/teleportPsionic.htm), and charm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/charmPsionic.htm): besides charm being the sole to have something different, the real difference is that, while it is true that many psionic powers are many spells rolled into one, magic actually comes ahead in having versatile spells simply because many pretty much don't enforce limits on what you can do (Shadow conjuration/evocation, anyspell, anyone?). Also, about the school limiting idea, the "problem" is that some people simply do like the idea of a generalist wizard. For those who are fine with thematic classes, there're beguiler/dread necromancer/warmage, and the ones by Otto the Bugbear: oracle (http://dsenchuk.googlepages.com/sorcerer%3Aoracle), summoner (http://dsenchuk.googlepages.com/summoner), transmutist (http://dsenchuk.googlepages.com/sorcerer%3Atransmutist), who address all the remaining schools. Even better, they come from Otto's spellcasting changes, which are a step in the right direction. Natural spell - it's even better solved if one has the PHB II and uses shapeshifting, though I still don't understand how they managed to print a nerf that someone has to accept voluntarily. Well, maybe no daily limit and swift action activation convince most that it's on par with wild shape ...
OneWinged4ngel 06-14-07, 08:44 PM	Ok, here's just some random thoughts about fixing casters: - Ban any divination spells (scry, detect alignment, etc). They not only make the casters overpower, but also can easily kill any plot. Just no. This is an example of exactly what you DON'T want to do for a good fix that will be useful in everyone's games. - Ban the stupidly overpowered spells like Bite of Wereboar, Avasculate, Harm, Disarm Construct. Ban any save-or-die spells too. Since when was HARM stupidly overpowered? It doesn't kill on its own, it requires a melee range touch, it gives a save, and the damage caps! I'm not sure what to do with Polymorph though. I recommend going the way of things like Displacer Form and Body of War. Essentially, polymorph would be split into various spells About druids: - Reduce duration of wild shape maybe? Or the number of times it can be used/day. I prefer the variant that gives them a limited choice of forms. That solves most all of the wild shape issues. - I would make them not be divine spellcasters. I was thinking something like Nature spellcasters. I'm not so sure yet. Again, let's try to make a GENERALIZED fix instead of overhauling the system. We're adjusting a magic system's balance here, not making a new one. Yeesh. ___ To reiterate the first post: I'd like to curb the broken stuff (like the problematic spells identified already in this thread), boost the useless stuff, and work towards "evening out" the power level of a spell of a given level to make all options more viable and fun. You know it's balanced when you can taste the indecision in what to pick. Additionally, the system for multiclassing/PrCing casters is a horrible mess and I don't really know what to do about that (though Otto has developed an interesting system)
Leo 06-14-07, 09:06 PM	Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the most balanced spells in the list?
Otto the Bugbear 06-14-07, 09:42 PM	Just to input a little, I've also been working on changing some of the problematic spells. A lot of the suggestions came off the thread OW4 linked to, while a lot more came from just an overall "feel" of how things should change. It's still being worked on, but feel free to check it out on my homepage. I will also say that there are spells that really need to be drastically overhauled or dropped altogether. I don't have a list handy, but it's more than a mere handful.
knuck 06-15-07, 11:13 PM	Since when was HARM stupidly overpowered? It doesn't kill on its own, it requires a melee range touch, it gives a save, and the damage caps! Yeah you just need to use Quickened Harm plus a wand of magical missiles. I just don't like the idea of dealing damage without rolling a die. That's just me I guess. I prefer the variant that gives them a limited choice of forms. That solves most all of the wild shape issues. Oh I thought about that before. I didn't know there was such a variant already though.
OneWinged4ngel 06-16-07, 12:02 AM	Yeah you just need to use Quickened Harm plus a wand of magical missiles. I just don't like the idea of dealing damage without rolling a die. That's just me I guess. And the quickened harm is way more harmful than a quickened (insert other spell here) why? Again, Harm has a save and is fairly high level... might as well kill the guy with that quickened shot. And then kill someone else with the next one instead of using magic missile.
arjomanes 06-16-07, 12:04 AM	My suggestion to fix the casters, you just make specialist casters and general casters. And give the general casters cool abilities like beguiler gets. Maybe more feats for the wizard, or higher skill points, and cool heritage abilities for the sorceror. Dont' use the specialists as we see them now, but use beguiler and warmage as examples. Beguiler and warmage get 9th level spells since they specialize. But they're stuck with very specific spells. The beguiler gets time stop, but he doesn't get celerity, scry, teleport, gate, limited wish, or polymorph. The general wizard or sorceror gets progression up to 8th level. They progress behind the beguiler and warmage -- maybe if you really want the general wizard to be allowed 9th level spells, then he can take a feat chain that uses up 4 feats to eventually gain access to some of the specialist wizards' 9th level spells. I don't know what you should throw at the wizard for preparing spells vs spontaneous, but I don't think they should get spells a level ahead of the sorceror. I think that will bring the wizard and sorceror down. They still get the fixed versions of polymorph, teleport, scry, etc, but they don't get as many spells or as high level spells as the beguiler, warmage, dread necromancer, and the other new specialist casters. And really, I think druid and cleric can get pushed down to 3/4 casters like the bard is. They just don't get higher than 6th level spells bc their class features like 3/4 BAB, armor, and abilities like turning and wildshape are powerful. Maybe throw a couple abilities at the cleric. If you want to keep those higher-level cleric and druid spells, pare them down so they aren't so strong and make them lv 6 spells. Oh, and get rid of divine metamagic and feats and abilities that let you bypass metamagic level penalties. Fix polymorph and wildshape by following the shapeshift alternate class feature in ph2. Fix gate by listing outsiders like summon monster. Put a distance limit on teleport, maybe like the dragonmark ability to teleport in eberron.
runestar 06-16-07, 12:29 AM	Before you all start talking about fixing casters, do you even know what the heck is wrong with them?:confused: Some of the suggestions here suggest otherwise. Some just seem to be jumping on the "lets nerf spellcasters" bandwagon without even knowing the full impact and ramifications of the changes they are proposing. Banning save-or-die spells? Limiting divine spellcasters to spells of 6th lv or lower? :confused: Personally, I find that some of the more problematic spells are also the main reasons why spellcasters are so fun to play. You get to mess around with spells like PAO and timestop, thus letting you circumvent the in-game constraints inherent in the system, unlike fighters, which are bound altogether. Sure, it might be game-breaking. But oh, the joy of your fighters running around as planetars or cornugons...or shapechanging into chronotyns...this is the exact sort of thing my mage toughed out so many lvs for.:) Also, I think that warmage should be compared more to an archer, rather than a pure spellcaster for a meaningful discussion. They do nothing but fling damage spells after all.
arjomanes 06-16-07, 12:48 AM	Sure. At higher levels, casters are generally more versatile and more capable with dealing with encounters than non-casters. This is especially true when playing with classes in the player's handbook and not taking supplements into account. There are two good ways to help balance out the playing field some. You could boost all the non-casters to have some of the versatility and power level casters have, especially at higher levels. Or you could limit the versatility and power level of casters by looking at specific spells and abilities. Wizards has been doing both of these for the last few years. They released polymorph/wildshape errata in an attempt to make it less powerful. And they have created a number of new stronger feats and classes (base classes and prestige classes) for non-caster classes. A great example of this the tome of battle for martial classes, giving them abilities more similar to spells than the previous feat mechanic. They also released a number of good fighter feats in the players handbook 2 and the skill trick mechanic in complete scoundrel, which allows more versatility for skill-based characters. Some of the supplements also boosted caster abilities as well though. For example, celerity in the ph2 now allows the spellcaster to cast a spell as an immediate action. This, coupled with time stop, makes the opponent of the wizard at an extreme disadvantage. And you could argue that that's just one fluke, but really there are a number of things a wizard at high levels can do that really outshines many of the non-spellcasting classes. How can a fighter or hexblade or bard or ranger compete against this? Is it fair to the other players that some classes get better and more versatile abilities at higher levels than they do? An 18th level ranger should generally be on par with an 18th level sorceror. He should be better in a wooded environment, or against his favored enemies, but not as effective out of that environment -- but not very sub-par. I just threw out some suggestions. I like the beguiler and warmage classes a lot, just like I like the shapechange variant of the druid class alot. I think more along these lines would be nice. Of course if you like the way the classes line up now, that's fine. Obviously it works as it is, and lots of people enjoy it. I just think it might be nice to see what happens if the casters had a little less and the other classes had a little more. I'd like to see what it would be like if there weren't any dead levels, with neat abilities every level, but some of the highest-level spells would be pared back. And level 9 spells would be a lot rarer.
arjomanes 06-16-07, 12:58 AM	Before you all start talking about fixing casters, do you even know what the heck is wrong with them?:confused: Some of the suggestions here suggest otherwise. Some just seem to be jumping on the "lets nerf spellcasters" bandwagon without even knowing the full impact and ramifications of the changes they are proposing. Banning save-or-die spells? Limiting divine spellcasters to spells of 6th lv or lower? :confused: Personally, I find that some of the more problematic spells are also the main reasons why spellcasters are so fun to play. You get to mess around with spells like PAO and timestop, thus letting you circumvent the in-game constraints inherent in the system, unlike fighters, which are bound altogether. Sure, it might be game-breaking. But oh, the joy of your fighters running around as planetars or cornugons...or shapechanging into chronotyns...this is the exact sort of thing my mage toughed out so many lvs for.:) Also, I think that warmage should be compared more to an archer, rather than a pure spellcaster for a meaningful discussion. They do nothing but fling damage spells after all. Oh i totally agree you don't want every caster to follow the warmage. I don't enjoy evocation spells as much as others, but I really like the way the beguiler and warmage classes are set up. You get a limited portfolio of spells that all work together, but you can cast off all of them. I think that better reflects a specialist idea than the current specialist mechanic. You can currently be an illusion specialist and hardly take any illusion spells. You just can't take your banned schools. And none of your class abilties match your focus. And I wasn't saying ban the generalist wizard. That's no fun at all. Some people really would miss being able to pick from a huge list of spells. But I think they should be slightly behind the beguiler and warmage in progression, but get to cast more spells too. One thing that's always irked me is the whole party has to stop and camp when the cleric and wizard run out of spells. If there were more less-powerful, but still very fun and versatile, spells I don't see that being a bad thing. Also, it's cool that your mage cooperatively used his spells to make all the players enjoy their characters well. That isn't built into the system and seems rarer in my experience. In many cases I've seen it's the wizard doing really cool things on his turn while your rogue or your ranger or fighter just has to do the same thing again. And it would be cool if the other classes didn't rely on the wizard to make them capable of doing cool things too. I love Tome of Battle and can't wait to see more, just for this very reason. But I still think casters can get pulled down a little and still be lots of fun, especially with interesting abilities thrown in every level. And it might make other classes a little more fun too.
OneWinged4ngel 06-16-07, 01:29 AM	Okay... time to try to take some of that random energy everyone has and try to direct it at one good thing at a time (which I will then compile and put all at the front conveniently) First off: What do we do about Fabricate? This spell is bad enough that it might even be worth banning entirely or a total rewrite.
arjomanes 06-16-07, 03:02 AM	option 1: Take it off the sorceror/wizard spell list but leave it on the magewright spell list. It seems like a necessary spell in a magical world, but it works better for npc's to use. option 2: Reduce the amount of material per level you can create. 10 cu. ft./level is a lot. Even 1 cu. ft./level is alot. Casting time could change to 1 hr.
Leo 06-16-07, 03:13 AM	Option 3:Make the shopkeepers at medium and high levels smart enough to carry a wand of detect magic or some other mean of distinguising if an object is fake or not. C'mon, someone who deals with tenths of thousands of gold in magic items at once surely has means of assuring what's he buying is for real.
runestar 06-16-07, 03:33 AM	So long as you adhere to the overall wealth limits/guidelines for PCs, what does it matter?:confused: They get more money from their "business venture", they get less loot from their adventures...
Otto the Bugbear 06-16-07, 07:12 AM	Okay... time to try to take some of that random energy everyone has and try to direct it at one good thing at a time (which I will then compile and put all at the front conveniently) First off: What do we do about Fabricate? This spell is bad enough that it might even be worth banning entirely or a total rewrite. I removed it completely. I tried writing several different versions where it has some sort of limit, then just hit the 'delete' key. Same thing with rope trick. Then, last Thursday, I was looking through Szatany's posted changes and he set a hard limit on fabricate; it cannot create anything with a Craft DC over 15. Though I'd say that makes the level a little to high then. So long as you adhere to the overall wealth limits/guidelines for PCs, what does it matter?:confused: They get more money from their "business venture", they get less loot from their adventures... And how do you adhere to that guideline without some hackneyed 'behind the scenes' rule? Even in core, the phrase "I buy 50 pounds of steel. I fabricate it into full plate" gets to the point of breaking the guideline.
OneWinged4ngel 06-18-07, 01:11 AM	I removed it completely. I tried writing several different versions where it has some sort of limit, then just hit the 'delete' key. Same thing with rope trick. I'm a bit reluctant to do this, if only because the concept of magecraft is cool, and because it's one of only two slots available for Greater Cannith Dragonmark (and I, of course, am an Eberron player). Then, last Thursday, I was looking through Szatany's posted changes and he set a hard limit on fabricate; it cannot create anything with a Craft DC over 15. Though I'd say that makes the level a little to high then. And how do you adhere to that guideline without some hackneyed 'behind the scenes' rule? Even in core, the phrase "I buy 50 pounds of steel. I fabricate it into full plate" gets to the point of breaking the guideline. Hmmm, maybe we should post links up to Szat's/your fixes here as a resource, along with the "problematic spell forum" So long as you adhere to the overall wealth limits/guidelines for PCs, what does it matter?:confused: They get more money from their "business venture", they get less loot from their adventures... ... ... ...ooookay. So... you go into a dungeon and all they do is somehow LOSE treasure to bring them back down to guidelines, because they already far exceeded it? See how long you can pull that off before the players stop coming to your games of fighting armies of rust monsters and ethereal filchers. If you can't see a problem with that, I don't know WHAT to tell you. :rolleyes:
Otto the Bugbear 06-18-07, 07:17 AM	I'm a bit reluctant to do this, if only because the concept of magecraft is cool, and because it's one of only two slots available for Greater Cannith Dragonmark (and I, of course, am an Eberron player). Understandable. I just have a double problem with it. It's too easy for PCs to make it nearly non-threatening to camp right in enemy territory. It's too easy for enemies to make it nearly non-threatening to camp right in "good guy" territory. All past a certain level of course. ;) Then, when I tried to write it in a way that made it more balanced, it just didn't work out. So, I spread the Alarm spell around a bit (on spell lists), and added Safe Clearing, as Open Game Content. Safe Clearing Abjuration Level: Nature 3; Ranger 2 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 10 minutes Range: Touch Area: 30 ft. radius spread Duration: 1 hour/level Saving Throw: Will negates Spell Resistance: No This spell makes the area protected by the effects of a sanctuary spell. Any creature attempting to harm a creature within the area must first make a Will save to carry out that action. Focus: A miniature standard you stick in the ground that serves as the center of the spell. Hmmm, maybe we should post links up to Szat's/your fixes here as a resource, along with the "problematic spell forum" 1 meg .pdf of my spells (dsenchuk.googlepages.com/spells.pdf) (contains most SRD spells and psi-powers) Aaaaaand, I can't find Szatany's spell fixes. I have the file saved at work, so I'll post it at lunch if I can get it formatted in time.
Otto the Bugbear 06-18-07, 12:05 PM	Szatany's Proposed Spell Changes Alter Self Transmutation Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 10 min./level (D) You assume the form of a creature roughly similar to you and of your size. The new form can be imaginary and you cannot assume the shape of any specific person. You can change into a member of your own kind or even into yourself. You gain +2 bonus on any physical ability score. You retain all special attacks and qualities of your original form, except for those requiring a body part that the new form does not have (such as a mouth for a breath weapon or eyes for a gaze attack). If the new form is capable of speech, you can communicate normally. You retain any spellcasting ability you had in your original form, but the new form must be able to speak intelligibly (that is, speak a language) to use verbal components and must have limbs capable of fine manipulation to use somatic or material components. You also gain one of the following abilities per 3 caster levels (maximum 3 abilities at level 9), provided the new form has appropriate body parts. Each ability can be taken only once. Those are: • Fly speed 10 (poor) (requires wings) • Climb speed 20 (requires claws or 6 legs) • Burrowing speed 10 (requires claws) • Swim speed 20 • Natural armor bonus 2 (requires either scales or thick fur) • Natural attack that deals 1d6 + Str modifier damage (requires appropriate appendage or mouth) • Damage Reduction 2/- • +4 racial bonus to one of the following skills: Hide (requires coloration), Listen, Move Silently, Spot (requires eyes), Survival • Low-light vision (requires eyes) • Immunity to blindness (requires lack of eyes, but you are not blind because of this spell) • Immunity to deafness (requires lack of ears, but you are not deaf because of this spell) • Scent If you alter self as a member of existing race, you are disguised as an average member of that race and you get a +10 bonus on your Disguise check. When the change occurs, all your equipment that cannot be worn by your new form falls to the ground. Any part of your body that is separated from the whole reverts to its true form. Astral Projection Necromancy Level: Clr 9, Sor/Wiz 9, Travel 9 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 30 minutes Range: Touch Targets: You plus one additional willing creature touched per two caster levels Duration: See text Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes By freeing your spirit from your physical body, this spell allows you to project an astral body onto another plane altogether. You can bring the astral forms of other willing creatures with you, provided that these subjects are linked in a circle with you at the time of the casting. These fellow travelers are dependent upon you and must accompany you at all times. If something happens to you during the journey, your companions return to their bodies immediately. You project your astral self onto the Astral Plane, leaving your physical body behind on the Material Plane in a state of suspended animation. The spell projects an astral copy of you and all you wear or carry onto the Astral Plane. Since the Astral Plane touches upon other planes, you can travel astrally to any of these other planes as you will. To enter one, you leave the Astral Plane, forming an astral version of yourself and your equipment in the new plane. Your astral version appears as you do although you appear to be sheathed in a shimmering blue field of energy that neither impedes you nor any that you interact with. Illusion magic or other disguises can conceal your astral nature. You are free to interact with the plane as if you were actually there with three exceptions. First, any piece of equipment that becomes separated from your astral self dissipates 1 round later and cannot thereafter be recovered until Astral Projection is dismissed and cast again. Second, any additional equipment found or gained by your astral self does not transfer back to your original body when the spell ends. If you wish to keep treasure gained while adventuring in astral form, you will have to make other arrangements to get it back to your original body. Finally, any time magic items or effects are used by your astral self, a like number of uses per day and/or charges are consumed as if you had used the original item yourself. In other words, wand and staff charges consumed in astral form are likewise consumed when Astral Projection ends. In cases such as potions and scrolls and such, the original items still exist upon ending the spell, but all magic in them are gone. If you astrally travel to the same plane your original body is located in, the spell ends. Astral Projection cannot be cast while on the Astral Plane. You cannot cast astral projection while under its effects. While you are on the Astral Plane, your astral body is connected at all times to your physical body by a silvery cord. If the cord is broken, you are killed, astrally and physically. Although astral projections are able to function on the Astral Plane, their actions affect only creatures existing on the Astral Plane; a physical body must be materialized on other planes. You and your companions may travel through the Astral Plane indefinitely. Your bodies simply wait behind until you choose to return your spirits to them or form new ones. The spell lasts until you desire to end it, or until it is terminated by some outside means, such as dispel magic cast upon either the physical body or the astral form, the breaking of the silver cord, or the destruction of your body back on the Material Plane (which kills you). Material Component: A jacinth worth at least 1,000 gp, plus a silver bar worth 5 gp for each person to be affected. Awaken Transmutation Level: Drd 5 Components: V, S, DF, XP Casting Time: 24 hours Range: Touch Target: Animal or tree touched Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will negates Spell Resistance: Yes You awaken a tree or animal to humanlike sentience. To succeed, you must make a Will save (DC 10 + the animal’s current HD, or the HD the tree will have once awakened). The awakened animal or tree is friendly toward you. You have no special empathy or connection with a creature you awaken, although it serves you in specific tasks or endeavors if you communicate your desires to it. An awakened tree has characteristics as if it were an animated object, except that it gains the plant type and its Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores are each 3d6. An awakened plant gains the ability to move its limbs, roots, vines, creepers, and so forth, and it has senses similar to a human’s. An awakened animal gets 3d6 Intelligence, +1d3 Charisma, and +2 HD. Its type becomes magical beast (augmented animal). An awakened animal can’t serve as an animal companion, familiar, or special mount. An awakened tree or animal can speak one language that you know, plus one additional language that you know per point of Intelligence bonus (if any). You cannot awaken a creature that has 3 or more Intelligence score (not even when that score is drained, reduced, or damaged). XP Cost: 250 XP. Blasphemy (same changes apply to Dictum/Holy Word/Word of Chaos) Evocation [Evil, Sonic] Level: Clr 7, Evil 7 Components: V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 40 ft. Area: Nonevil creatures in a 40-ft.-radius spread centered on you Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will partial; see text Spell Resistance: Yes Any nonevil creature within the area of a blasphemy spell suffers the following ill effects. Code: HD Effect Equal to caster level Dazed Up to caster level –1 Weakened, dazed Up to caster level –5 Paralyzed, weakened, dazed Up to caster level –10 Killed, paralyzed, weakened, dazed The effects are cumulative and concurrent. Dazed: The creature can take no actions for 1 round, though it defends itself normally. Weakened: The creature’s Strength score decreases by 2d6 points for 2d4 rounds. Paralyzed: The creature is paralyzed and helpless for 1d10 minutes. Killed: Living creatures die. Undead creatures are destroyed. Furthermore, if you are on your home plane when you cast this spell, nonevil extraplanar creatures within the area are instantly banished back to their home planes. Creatures so banished cannot return for at least 24 hours. This effect takes place regardless of whether the creatures hear the blasphemy. Creatures whose Hit Dice exceed your caster level are unaffected by blasphemy. Whenever a creature makes successful Will save, it suffers blasphemy's effects as if it was one HD category stronger. For example, if a creature would normally be weakened and dazed on a failed save, it is only dazed on a successful save. A creature with HD equal to the caster level suffers no ill effects of this spell if it makes a successful Will save. Neutral (neither good nor evil) creatures gain +4 bonus on Will save. Cure Minor Wounds Conjuration (Healing) Level: Clr 0, Drd 0 This spell functions like cure light wounds, except that it cures only 1d3 points of damage. Dimension Door Conjuration (Teleportation) Level: Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 4, Travel 4 Components: V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level) Target: You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None and Will negates (object) Spell Resistance: No and Yes (object) You instantly transfer yourself from your current location to any other spot you can see within range. You always arrive at exactly the spot desired. After using this spell, you can’t take any other actions until your next turn. You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn’t exceed your maximum load. You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent per three caster levels. A Large creature counts as two Medium creatures, a Huge creature counts as two Large creatures, and so forth. All creatures to be transported must be in contact with one another, and at least one of those creatures must be in contact with you. Divine Power Evocation Level: Clr 4, War 4 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 round/level Calling upon the divine power of your patron, you imbue yourself with strength and skill in combat. You gain a +10 enhancement bonus to Strength, and you gain 1 temporary hit point per caster level. Enlarge Person Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz 1, Strength 1 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 round Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target: One huge or smaller humanoid or giant Duration: 1 min./level (D) Saving Throw: Fortitude negates Spell Resistance: Yes This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, giving it in essence powerful build ability. Affected subject can function in many ways as if he was one size category larger. Whenever the subject is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts), the subject is treated as one size larger if doing so is advantageous to him. The subject is also considered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature’s special attacks based on size (such as improved grab or swallow whole) can affect him. The subject can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty. However, his space and reach remain those of a creature of his actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject’s size category. Enlarge person has no effect on a creature that already has powerful build ability. Enlarge person counters and dispels reduce person. Enlarge person can be made permanent with a permanency spell. Material Component: A pinch of powdered iron. Fabricate Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: See text Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target: Up to 10 cu. ft./level; see text Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell. The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication. If you work with a mineral, the target is reduced to 1 cubic foot per level instead of 10 cubic feet. You cannot fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship (craft's DC 15 or higher). Casting requires 1 round per 10 cubic feet (or 1 cubic foot) of material to be affected by the spell. Material Component: The original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created. Fire Seeds Conjuration (Creation) [Fire] Level: Drd 6, Fire 6, Sun 6 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Targets: Up to four touched acorns or up to eight touched holly berries Duration: 10 min./level or until used Saving Throw: None or Reflex half; see text Spell Resistance: No Depending on the version of fire seeds you choose, you turn acorns into splash weapons that you or another character can throw, or you turn holly berries into bombs that you can detonate on command. Acorn Grenades: As many as four acorns turn into special splash weapons that can be thrown with 10 ft. range increment. A ranged touch attack roll is required to strike the intended target. You can throw more than one acorn at the same target at a time, but it's difficult. For each acorn you throw beyond first with the same action, you suffer -1 penalty on that attack roll. Each acorn explodes upon striking any hard surface and deals 3d6 points of fire damage. In addition to its regular fire damage, it deals 1d6 points of splash damage, and it ignites any combustible materials within 10 feet. A creature within this area that makes a successful Reflex saving throw takes only half damage; a creature struck directly is not allowed a saving throw. Holly Berry Bombs: You turn as many as eight holly berries into special bombs. The holly berries are usually placed by hand, since they are too light to make effective thrown weapons (they can be tossed only 5 feet). If you are within 200 feet and speak a word of command, each berry instantly bursts into flame, causing 1d8 points of fire damage to every creature in a 5-foot radius burst and igniting any combustible materials within 5 feet. A creature in the area that makes a successful Reflex saving throw takes only half damage. You can have up to 4 acorns or 8 berries enchanted at one time. Material Component: The acorns or holly berries. Fire Storm Evocation [Fire] Level: Clr 8, Drd 7, Fire 7 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 round Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Area: Cylinder (40-ft. radius, 160 ft. high) Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Reflex half Spell Resistance: Yes When a fire storm spell is cast, the whole area is shot through with sheets of roaring flame. The raging flames do not harm natural vegetation, ground cover, and any plant creatures in the area that you wish to exclude from damage. Any other creature within the area takes 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 20d6). Fly Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz 3, Travel 3 Components: V, S, F/DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) The subject can fly at a speed of 60 feet (or 40 feet if it wears medium or heavy armor, or if it carries a medium or heavy load). It can ascend at half speed and descend at double speed, and its maneuverability is good. Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking, so the subject can attack or cast spells normally. The subject of a fly spell can charge but not run, and it cannot carry aloft more weight than its maximum load, plus any armor it wears. Should the spell duration expire while the subject is still aloft, he falls to the ground, taking 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet of fall. Depending on the height he was at, falling may take more than one round, at which time spellcasting, among other activities, is possible, but requires a DC 20 Concentration check. Arcane Focus: A wing feather from any bird. Forbiddance Abjuration Level: Clr 6 Components: V, S, M, DF Casting Time: 6 rounds Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Area: 60-ft. cube/level (S) Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: See text Spell Resistance: Yes Forbiddance seals an area against all planar travel into or within it. This includes all teleportation spells (such as dimension door and teleport), plane shifting, astral travel, ethereal travel, and all summoning spells. Such effects simply fail automatically. In addition, it damages entering creatures whose alignments are different from yours. The effect on those attempting to enter the warded area is based on their alignment relative to yours (see below). A creature inside the area when the spell is cast takes no damage unless it exits the area and attempts to reenter, at which time it is affected as normal. Alignments identical: No effect. The creature may enter the area freely (although not by planar travel). Alignments different with respect to either law/chaos or good/evil: The creature takes 6d6 points of damage. A successful Will save halves the damage, and spell resistance applies. Alignments different with respect to both law/chaos and good/evil: The creature takes 12d6 points of damage. A successful Will save halves the damage, and spell resistance applies. At your option, the abjuration can include a password, in which case creatures of alignments different from yours can avoid the damage by speaking the password as they enter the area. You must select this option (and the password) at the time of casting. Dispel magic does not dispel a forbiddance effect unless the dispeller’s level is at least as high as your caster level. You can’t have multiple overlapping forbiddance effects. In such a case, the more recent effect stops at the boundary of the older effect. Material Component: A sprinkling of holy water and rare incenses worth at least 150 gp, plus 150 gp per 60-foot cube. If a password is desired, this requires the burning of additional rare incenses which doubles the price. Freedom of Movement Abjuration Level: Brd 4, Clr 4, Drd 4, Luck 4, Rgr 4 Components: V, S, M, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal or touch Target: You or creature touched Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and act normally for the duration of the spell. While under the effects of this spell, the subject enjoys the following benefits: • Under the influence of spell or effect that impedes movement but doesn't allow a save or skill check to ignore the effect, the subject has 75% chance to ignore the effect for one round. • Under the influence of spell or effect that impedes movement and allows a save or skill check to ignore the effect (such as grapple or pin), the subject gains bonus on said save or check equal to the caster level. • Underwater, the spell allows the subject to move and attack normally, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing. Material Component: A leather thong, bound around the arm or a similar appendage. Gate Conjuration (Creation or Calling) Level: Clr 9, Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 minute Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Effect: See text Duration: Instantaneous or concentration (up to 1 round/level); see text Saving Throw: None or Will negates; see text Spell Resistance: No Casting a gate spell has two effects. First, it creates an interdimensional connection between your plane of existence and a plane you specify, allowing travel between those two planes in either direction. Second, you may then call a particular individual or kind of being through the gate. The gate itself is a circular hoop or disk from 5 to 20 feet in diameter (your choice), oriented in the direction you desire when it comes into existence (typically vertical and facing you). It is a two-dimensional window looking into the plane you specified when casting the spell, and anyone or anything that moves through is shunted instantly to the other side. A gate has a front and a back. Creatures moving through the gate from the front are transported to the other plane; creatures moving through it from the back are not. Planar Travel: As a mode of planar travel, a gate spell functions much like a plane shift spell, except that the gate opens precisely at the point you desire (a creation effect). Deities and other beings who rule a planar realm can prevent a gate from opening in their presence or personal demesnes if they so desire. Travelers need not join hands with you—anyone who chooses to step through the portal is transported. A gate cannot be opened to another point on the same plane; the spell works only for interplanar travel. You may hold the gate open only for a brief time (no more than 1 round per caster level), and you must concentrate on doing so, or else the interplanar connection is severed. Calling Creatures: The second effect of the gate spell is to call an extraplanar creature to your aid (a calling effect). By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling. Deities and creatures with at least 6 HD more than your caster level are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord. All other creatures can make a Will save to resist the pulling of the gate. This use of the spell creates a gate that remains open for just a moment - whether or not the subject is pulled. You may call either a single creature or several creatures. You can call several creatures as long as their HD total does not exceed your caster level +5. Creatures you gate are not controlled. An uncontrolled being acts as it pleases, making the calling of such creatures rather dangerous. An uncontrolled being may return to its home plane at any time. Note: When you use a calling spell such as gate to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it becomes a spell of that type. Harm Necromancy Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will half; see text Spell Resistance: Yes Harm charges a subject with negative energy that deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level). If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount. Harm cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than -8. If used on an undead creature, harm acts like heal. Hold Person Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting] Level: Brd 2, Clr 2, Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S, F/DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Target: One humanoid creature Duration: 1 round/level (D) Saving Throw: Will negates Spell Resistance: Yes The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech. A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can’t swim and may drown. If any enemy begins a hostile action (such as casting a offensive spell, making an attack, stealing a purse, and silmilar activities), the subject becomes free to act again and can defend against the action in a normal manner. Arcane Focus: A small, straight piece of iron. Identify Divination Level: Brd 1, Magic 2, Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 hour Range: Touch Targets: One touched object Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No The spell determines all magic properties of a single magic item, including how to activate those functions (if appropriate), and how many charges are left (if any). Identify does not function when used on an artifact. Material Component: A pearl of at least 100 gp value, crushed and stirred into wine with an owl feather; the infusion must be drunk prior to spellcasting. Inflict Minor Wounds Necromancy Level: Clr 0 Saving Throw: Will negates This spell functions like inflict light wounds, except that you deal 1d3 points of damage and a Will save negates the damage instead of halving it. Mordenkainen's Disjunction Abjuration Level: Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Area: All magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft.-radius burst Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will negates (object) Spell Resistance: No All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item for 1 week. An item in a creature’s possession uses its own Will save bonus or its possessor’s Will save bonus, whichever is higher. You also have a 50% chance of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined. Artifacts and epic items are immune to disjunction Polymorph Replaced with Polymorph I-IX. Polymorph I Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Willing living creature touched Duration: 1 min./level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No You or a willing creature touched transforms into another creature, chosen from the list below. The subject cannot assume the shape of any specific creature, only a general representative of that creature's kind. He cannot change into a member of his own kind, but if he is already polymorphed, you can use this spell to change the subject's shape into his original self. The subject keeps his Hit Points, but gains all other characteristics of the new form and loses all other characteristics of his own form, including class abilities and the like. If the new form is capable of speech, subject can communicate normally. If polymorphed as a member of existing race, the subject is disguised as an average member of that race and gets a +10 bonus on Disguise check. When the change occurs, all of the subject's equipment melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. As soon as the subject is restored to its original shape, all of his equipment reappears where it was. However, if you polymorph the subject into a form that has equipment listed in Monster Manual entry, the subject gains that equipment for the spell's duration. If any part of that equipment is separated from the subject, it disappears. Any part of the body that is separated from the whole reverts to its true form. Material Component: An empty cocoon. Polymorph II Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz 2 As polymorph I, but you can assume form of a more powerful creature. Polymorph III-IX Same as polymorph II. LIST OF CREATURES: Polymorph I • Elf • Gnoll • Gnome • Goblin • Halfling • Hobgoblin • Kobold • Krenshar • Lizardfolk • Merfolk • Orc • Stirge • Troglodyte Polymorph II • Bugbear • Drow • Giant Eagle • Giant Owl • Grig • Grimlock • Hippogriff • Sahuagin • Shocker Lizard • Skum • Svirfneblin • Worg Polymorph III • Ankheg • Howler • Nixie • Ogre • Pegasus • Pseudodragon • Rust Monster • Satyr • Triton • Yeth hound Polymorph IV • Ettercap • Grick • Griffon • Minotaur • Otyugh • Owlbear • Sea Cat • Thoqqua • Unicorn Polymorph V • Achaierai • Basilisk • Gargoyle • Harpy • Hell Hound • Manticore • Mephit • Winter Wolf • Wyvern Polymorph VI • Azer • Bulette • Ethereal Filcher • Ethereal Marauder • Ettin • Girallon • Ravid • Shadow Mastiff • Spider Eater • Xill Polymorph VII • Rast • Scorpionfolk • Tojanida • Troll • Will-O’-Wisp Polymorph VIII • Aboleth • Athach • Behir • Gibbering Mouther • Grey Render • Hag • Lamia • Medusa • Salamander (average) • Xorn Polymorph IX • Gorgon • Lillend • Nightmare • Pixie (with dance) • Remorhaz • Roc • Yrthak Polymorph Any Object Transmutation coming soon Rope Trick Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: One touched piece of rope from 5 ft. to 30 ft. long Duration: 1 hour/level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No When this spell is cast upon a piece of rope from 5 to 30 feet long, one end of the rope rises into the air until the whole rope hangs perpendicular to the ground, as if affixed at the upper end. The upper end is, in fact, fastened to a place in astral plane. Creatures in astral plane are hidden, beyond the reach of spells, unless those spells work across planes. As many as eight creatures (of any size) can hold the rope in astral space simultaneously. Creatures in the space can pull the rope up into the space, making the rope “disappear.” In that case, the rope counts as one of the eight creatures that can fit in the space. The rope can support up to 16,000 pounds. A weight greater than that can pull the rope free. If anyone drops the rope, spell for that person ends and it lands on the ground on the material plane. That creature can climb the rope again if it desires so. Spells cannot be cast across the extradimensional interface, nor can area effects cross it. Those in the astral space can see out of it as if a 3-foot-by- 5-foot window were centered on the rope. The window is present on the Material Plane, but it’s invisible, and even creatures that can see the window can’t see through it. Anything inside the space drops out when the spell ends. The rope can be climbed by only one person at a time. The rope trick spell enables climbers to reach a normal place if they do not climb all the way to the astral space. Note: Astral plane can be hazardous on its own. It's generally devoid of anything, but an occasional traveler or monster can be attracted to you or others holding the rope. Creatures on astral plane do not need to eat or sleep. Material Component: Powdered corn extract and a twisted loop of parchment. Shadow Conjuration Illusion (Shadow) Level: Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 4 Components: V, S, See text Casting Time: See text Range: See text Effect: See text Duration: See text Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with); varies; see text Spell Resistance: Yes; see text You use material from the Plane of Shadow to shape quasi-real illusions of one or more creatures, objects, or forces. Shadow conjuration can mimic any conjuration (summoning) or conjuration (creation) spell of 3rd level or lower that is normally granted by your class (even if you personally are prohibited from casting it). Shadow conjurations are actually one-fifth (20%) as strong as the real things, though creatures who believe the shadow conjurations to be real are affected by them at full strength. Any creature that interacts with the conjured object, force, or creature can make a Will save to recognize its true nature. Spells that deal damage have normal effects unless the affected creature succeeds on a Will save. Such spells deal typless damage. Each disbelieving creature takes only one-fifth (20%) damage from the attack. If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is only 20% likely to occur. Regardless of the result of the save to disbelieve, an affected creature is also allowed any save that the spell being simulated allows, but the save DC is set according to shadow conjuration’s level (4th) rather than the spell’s normal level. In addition, any effect created by shadow conjuration allows spell resistance, even if the spell it is simulating does not. Shadow objects or substances have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they are 20% likely to work. A shadow creature has one-fifth the hit points of a normal creature of its kind (regardless of whether it’s recognized as shadowy). It deals normal damage and has all normal abilities and weaknesses. Against a creature that recognizes it as a shadow creature, however, the shadow creature’s damage is one-fifth (20%) normal, and all special abilities that do not deal lethal damage are only 20% likely to work. (Roll for each use and each affected character separately.) Furthermore, the shadow creature’s AC bonuses are one-fifth as large. A creature that succeeds on its save sees the shadow conjurations as transparent images superimposed on vague, shadowy forms. Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell. If mimicked spell has any components other than verbal or somatic, you must provide those components as well. Shadow conjuration's casting time is equal to mimicked spell's casting time plus one move action. Shadow Evocation Illusion (Shadow) Level: Brd 5, Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S, see text Casting Time: See text Range: See text Effect: See text Duration: See text Saving Throw: Will disbelief (if interacted with) Spell Resistance: Yes You tap energy from the Plane of Shadow to cast a quasi-real, illusory version of an evocation spell of 4th level or lower that is normally granted by your class (even if you personally are prohibited from casting it). Spells that deal damage have normal effects unless an affected creature succeeds on a Will save. Each disbelieving creature takes only one-fifth damage from the attack. If the disbelieved attack has a special effect other than damage, that effect is one-fifth as strong (if applicable) or only 20% likely to occur. If recognized as a shadow evocation, a damaging spell deals only one-fifth (20%) damage. Regardless of the result of the save to disbelieve, an affected creature is also allowed any save (or spell resistance) that the spell being simulated allows, but the save DC is set according to shadow evocation’s level (5th) rather than the spell’s normal level. Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect. Objects automatically succeed on their Will saves against this spell. If mimicked spell has any components other than verbal or somatic, you must provide those components as well. Shadow conjuration's casting time is equal to mimicked spell's casting time plus one move action. Shapechange Transmutation Level: Animal 9, Drd 9, Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 10 min./level (D) This spell functions like polymorph VII, except that it enables you to assume the form of any creature available with polymorph I-VI as well. In addition, you can change form to a new one as a standard action. If you cast this spell as cleric with animal domain, you are limited to animals, vermin, and magical beasts. Focus: A jade circlet worth no less than 1,500 gp, which you must place on your head when casting the spell. (The focus melds into your new form when you change shape.) Simulacrum Illusion (Shadow) Level: Sor/Wiz 7 Components: V, S, M, XP Casting Time: 12 hours Range: 0 ft. Effect: One duplicate creature Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can’t create a simulacrum of a creature whose Hit Dice or levels exceed your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Spot check (opposed by the caster’s Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check. At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner. A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness. A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum. The simulacrum has no memories and divine abilities of the original (including cleric spells, aura of courage, and the like). It behaves similarily to the original, but has mind on its own. It is aware of what it is. Material Component: The spell is cast over the rough snow or ice form, and some piece of the creature to be duplicated (hair, nail, or the like) must be placed inside the snow or ice. Additionally, the spell requires powdered ruby worth 100 gp per HD of the simulacrum to be created. XP Cost: 100 XP per HD of the simulacrum to be created. Teleport Conjuration (Teleportation) Level: Sor/Wiz 5, Travel 5 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal and touch Target: You and touched objects or other touched willing creatures Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None and Will negates (object) Spell Resistance: No and Yes (object) This spell instantly transports you to a designated destination, which must be within your sight, but otherwise can be as far as the horizon. Interplanar travel is not possible, nor is teleporting to places you can see with spells or similar effects. You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn’t exceed your maximum load. You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent (see below) per three caster levels. A Large creature counts as two Medium creatures, a Huge creature counts as two Large creatures, and so forth. All creatures to be transported must be in contact with one another, and at least one of those creatures must be in contact with you. As with all spells where the range is personal and the target is you, you need not make a saving throw, nor is spell resistance applicable to you. Only objects held or in use (attended) by another person receive saving throws and spell resistance. Once the spell takes place, you and your eventual companions appear on the spot you were looking at. Focus: A special compass made of gold and astral driftmetal, worth 1,000 gp. Teleport, Greater Conjuration (Teleportation) Level: Sor/Wiz 7, Travel 7 This spell functions like teleport, except that you can teleport to place you can't currently see. You must have been or seen (via scry spell, for example) the general area you want to teleport to. You do not designate exact spot as the destination. Instead, you designate an area roughly the size of a large village or small castle, and the spell teleports you to seemingly random part of that area. Exact destination is not totally random, as empty places are more likely to attract greater teleport's subjects than occupied ones (that includes both buildings, vegetation, and people). Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible. If you attempt to teleport into a place that doesn't exist (because what you seen was an illusion or deception) or no longer can be teleported into safely (a cave system that was flooded with lava or water), the spell fails. Interplanar travel is not possible. True Seeing Divination Level: Clr 5, Drd 7, Knowledge 5, Sor/Wiz 6 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) You confer on the subject the ability to see things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces). The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet. True seeing only discerns spells of 8th or lower level. True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent. It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like. True seeing does not help the viewer see through mundane disguises, spot creatures who are simply hiding, or notice secret doors hidden by mundane means. In addition, the spell effects cannot be further enhanced with known magic, so one cannot use true seeing through a crystal ball or in conjunction with clairaudience/clairvoyance. Material Component: An ointment for the eyes that costs 250 gp and is made from mushroom powder, saffron, and fat. Virtue Transmutation Level: Clr 0, Drd 0, Pal 1 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: 1 min. Saving Throw: Fortitude negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) The subject gains 2 temporary hit points. If you cast this spell as a paladin, the subject gains 2d4 temporary hit points instead. Wall of Iron/Wall of Stone (and other spells that can provide raw materials) Add: Wall is hard but brittle once broken. Any fragment of the wall separated from the main body is useless rubble, too contaminated to even be melted and reforged (in case of iron). Wish Universal Level: Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V, XP Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: See text Target, Effect, or Area: See text Duration: See text Saving Throw: See text Spell Resistance: Yes By simply speaking aloud, you can alter reality to better suit you. A wish can produce any one of the following effects. Each effect, however, costs you a number of experience points. The more potent the vagary, the higher the price. Also, there is 20% chance that a malevolent being or raw chaos energy will contaminate the spell and attempt to twist your wording of the wish as much as possible. Exact details of such situation are left to DM. • Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 8th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you. Cost: 200 XP per spell level. • Duplicate any other spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you. Cost: 400 XP per spell level. • Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 7th level or lower from a prohibited school. Cost: 300 XP per spell level. • Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower from a prohibited school. Cost: 500 XP per spell level. • Undo the harmful effects of many other spells, such as geas/quest or insanity. Cost: 200 XP per spell level. • Create a nonmagical item or building of size up to a cottage. Cost: 1 XP per 5 gp of item's value. [/color] • Create or mend a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item. [color=blue]Cost: 1 XP per 2 gp of the item's value. • Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score or improve existing inherent bonus by +1. Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be dispelled. Note: Inherent bonuses to a particular ability score stack, but their total may not exceed +5 for a single ability score. Single ability score can not gain more than +1 inherent bonus at any given level. Cost: Special. You pay nothing beyond wish's basic cost (1000 XP), unless you cast wish on yourself. Spell's recipient must pay 1000 XP per point of (newly improved) inherent bonus squared (for example, yuo cast this spell on a creature that already has +3 inherent bonus to Wisdom and didn't improve the bonus at the current level; you attempt to improve the bonus to +4 so the cost is 4 x 4 x 1000 XP, or 16000 XP). Only willing creatures can be bestowed this effect. • Remove injuries and afflictions. A single wish can aid one creature per caster level, and all subjects are cured of the same kind of affliction. For example, you could heal all the damage you and your companions have taken, or remove all poison effects from everyone in the party, but not do both with the same wish. A wish can never restore the experience point loss from any event or the level or Constitution loss from being raised from the dead. Cost: 3000 XP. • Revive the dead. A wish can bring a dead creature back to life by duplicating a resurrection spell. A wish can revive a dead creature whose body has been destroyed, but the task takes two wishes, one to recreate the body and another to infuse the body with life again. A wish cannot prevent a character who was brought back to life from losing an experience level. Cost: 200 XP per resurrected creature's HD/level. • Transport travelers. A wish can lift one creature per caster level from anywhere on any plane and place those creatures anywhere else on any plane regardless of local conditions. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies. Cost: 100 XP per creature with 10 or less HD/levels, plus 500 XP per creature with 11-20 HD/levels, plus 2000 XP per creature with 21 or more HD/levels. • Undo misfortune. A wish can undo a single recent event. The wish forces a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s successful critical hit (either the attack roll or the critical roll), a friend’s failed save, and so on. The reroll, however, may be as bad as or worse than the original roll. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies. Cost: 3000 XP. Duplicated spells allow saves and spell resistance as normal (but save DCs are for 9th-level spells). Material Component: When a wish duplicates a spell with a material component, you must provide that component or pay extra XP equal to 1 point per 5 gp of that component's value. Wish allows you to ignore components worth less than 5 gp. XP Cost: The XP cost for casting wish is 1,000 XP or XP indicated by a particular effect, whichever is more. When a wish duplicates a spell that has an XP cost, you add that cost to wish's XP cost I don't agree with all of them, but that's the complete file.
OneWinged4ngel 06-19-07, 06:52 PM	Understandable. I just have a double problem with it. It's too easy for PCs to make it nearly non-threatening to camp right in enemy territory. It's too easy for enemies to make it nearly non-threatening to camp right in "good guy" territory. All past a certain level of course. ;) Then, when I tried to write it in a way that made it more balanced, it just didn't work out. So, I spread the Alarm spell around a bit (on spell lists), and added Safe Clearing, as Open Game Content. Safe Clearing Abjuration Level: Nature 3; Ranger 2 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 10 minutes Range: Touch Area: 30 ft. radius spread Duration: 1 hour/level Saving Throw: Will negates Spell Resistance: No This spell makes the area protected by the effects of a sanctuary spell. Any creature attempting to harm a creature within the area must first make a Will save to carry out that action. Focus: A miniature standard you stick in the ground that serves as the center of the spell. Cool replacement for Rope Trick... but what about Fabricate?
Otto the Bugbear 06-19-07, 06:59 PM	Deleted, for now. I haven't given it much thought, so perhaps a suitable replacement could be made at some point. I'm more inclined to just go with a "call item" spell instead of something like fabricate. That would fill the need to "spontaneously create" some item of choice, which is what fabricate really seems more intended to fulfill anyway.
Neutronium_Dragon 06-19-07, 07:22 PM	I lost track of this thread for a while, but... >> If the class is balanced on the idea of, "their spellcasting progression is so >> good, it's all they get", then anything which gives full casting progression >> and other class features too is going to be a no-brainer (since it's >> substantially better). > That means things that give a caster progression at every level are > UNBALANCED, not that the casters get too few abilities. Because they > really, really don't. >> Modern classes are designed around the principle of a spellcasting >> progression and other substantial class features to avoid this problem > Modern classes tend to have restricted spell lists that make them > substantially less scary than a Wizard or Sorceror. Which is exactly what I was saying above. A Beguiler has a full casting progression and a bunch of other abilities. The wizard, sorcerer, and cleric are specifically a problem vis a vis full casting PrCs because they don't; there's virtually no tradeoff. I am not saying, "Well, just give the current wizard, sorcerer, and cleric a bunch of extra abilities, then!" I'm saying that the original design of these guys was a bad one; if they had about half the spellcasting potency and a set of other progressive class features (like, y'know, the beguiler) then the full casting PrCs wouldn't have been a problem. But that's not what happened. We got classes based on the idea of "spells, spells, and nothing but spells" and that creates a lot of issues. (To be fair, it created them in hindsight, but the problem nevertheless exists.) The current arrangement is also why non-full progression PrCs aren't going to work - because giving up the caster level(s) is far more of a loss than any but the most absurdly powerful PrC abilities are going to be a gain, and this is doubly true when you're giving up the caster level at the first level of the PrC. In other words, the problem is not, "Full casting progression PrCs are inherently broken!" The problem is, "Base classes which are based on nothing but spellcasting progression create problems." Because really, a full casting PrC isn't going to create issues when you apply it to a beguiler or a spirit shaman (base classes which have a full spellcasting progression but which aren't based on nothing but that spellcasting progression.) If you want to "fix" this, the approach that needs to be taken is to make the wizard, sorcerer, and cleric look more like the beguiler, the warmage, the duskblade, and so on, in terms of having a blend of spellcasting and other class features, with the spellcasting not being quite as inherently overwhelming. Then when the character enters a PrC there *is* a tradeoff - they're keeping the casting progression but exchanging the other base class abilities for the PrC class abilities. Again, just like the beguiler, the spirit shaman, the warmage and so on.
OneWinged4ngel 06-19-07, 08:13 PM	In other words, the problem is not, "Full casting progression PrCs are inherently broken!" ...Yeah, they really are. In a few ways. It's pretty much "+1 level of class features. But only if it's these specific class features that you have." And spellcasting classes are already getting MORE class features every level than most other classes. Additionally, you get things like advancing "special" spell progressions like the Ur-Priest. +1 level of spellcasting also is rather ruinously unfair to half-casters (it's almost always better to one-level dip in a full caster before going into a "+1 level of spellcasting" thing, even if it's a PrC for a paladin or something.) There's nothing inherently wrong with spells being all the class features a class gets. There is something inherently wrong with the +1 level of "class feature category" function. Think of it this way. You could have something that was "+1 level of BAB and saves." Then you would always want to dip in the best BAB/saves class for at least one level. That doesn't mean that full BAB and high saves are the problem at all... but that's exactly what you're saying.
AllisterH 06-19-07, 08:28 PM	...Yeah, they really are. In a few ways. It's pretty much "+1 level of class features. But only if it's these specific class features that you have." And spellcasting classes are already getting MORE class features every level than most other classes. Additionally, you get things like advancing "special" spell progressions like the Ur-Priest. +1 level of spellcasting also is rather ruinously unfair to half-casters (it's almost always better to one-level dip in a full caster before going into a "+1 level of spellcasting" thing, even if it's a PrC for a paladin or something.) There's nothing inherently wrong with spells being all the class features a class gets. There is something inherently wrong with the +1 level of spellcasting function. I kind agree and disagree. I mean, looking at the handbooks on the CO board, I don't see ANY non-full casting PrC recommended for the themed spellcasters. Even with their limited spells, that simply is too much to give up which indicates that even if the PHB core classes were reworked to better match the example of say the beguiler, non-full casting PrC wouldn't be chosen. I think the problem is that +1 level of spellcasting gives so much that it really hurts not to take. Not just an increase in spells cast per day, but everything gets more powerful. I mean, seriously, even if you have a wicked concept for a character that is expressed in a PrC, if the PrC isn't full progression then chances are, you probably could do your concept JUST as well using the spellcasting increase you've gotten instead of taking the gimped class. The only non-full casting PrC I would take would've been the Jade Phoenix Mage and that's because it gives a butt load of abilities to make up for the loss of its caster levels. A simple solution might be instead of +1 level to spellcasting to have it be +1 Caster level AND +1 spells known. The former so you don't get more spells known/per day but your other spells gets more powerful while the latter is simply the reverse.
Neutronium_Dragon 06-19-07, 09:21 PM	That's what we need. If the design principle was: "All spellcasting classes get a level of full spellcasting progression and a Special Ability X at every class level. All nonspellcasting classes two special abilities of comparable total power at each level." Then there would be absolutely no problem with, "All spellcasting prestige classes get a level of full spellcasting progression and a Special Ability Y at every PrC level." But that's not the design principle that was used with the wizard, sorcerer, or cleric. As a result, they create problems. You're giving up nothing for Special Ability Y. It *is* the design principle that was used with the beguiler, the spirit shaman, the warmage, and so on - and surprise, surprise, as a result of that the full casting progression + ability PrCs work perfectly well with them and don't end up ramping up their overall power level. (You're giving up Special Ability X for Special Ability Y, rather than giving up nothing for Special Ability Y.) In the case of the former classes, saying, "Give up a level of spellcasting progression for Special Ability Y!" isn't going to cut it because under their current arrangement, their level of spellcasting is worth far more than a score of Special Ability Y's. They need to be reworked to be like the latter bunch in order to bring them into line. (And arguably that's exactly what many of the latter bunch *are* - the warmage is a reworked sorcerer focused on blasting, etc.)
OneWinged4ngel 06-19-07, 11:06 PM	I kind agree and disagree. I mean, looking at the handbooks on the CO board, I don't see ANY non-full casting PrC recommended for the themed spellcasters. Even with their limited spells, that simply is too much to give up which indicates that even if the PHB core classes were reworked to better match the example of say the beguiler, non-full casting PrC wouldn't be chosen. I think the problem is that +1 level of spellcasting gives so much that it really hurts not to take. Not just an increase in spells cast per day, but everything gets more powerful. I mean, seriously, even if you have a wicked concept for a character that is expressed in a PrC, if the PrC isn't full progression then chances are, you probably could do your concept JUST as well using the spellcasting increase you've gotten instead of taking the gimped class. The only non-full casting PrC I would take would've been the Jade Phoenix Mage and that's because it gives a butt load of abilities to make up for the loss of its caster levels. A simple solution might be instead of +1 level to spellcasting to have it be +1 Caster level AND +1 spells known. The former so you don't get more spells known/per day but your other spells gets more powerful while the latter is simply the reverse. War Weaver has also been cited as "Worth it," as well as the Sovereign Speaker (to some extent). But yeah... the multiclassing mechanic for casting is awful. As opposed to, say, ToB, where it's actually BENEFICIAL in many cases to multiclass. What could be done to make the casting classes multiclass / PrC less... uhhhm... messily?
angryscrub 06-19-07, 11:09 PM	one idea i've been toying with is to let non full caster progression classes be gestalt, but if you take a full caster progression class it's that class only. wouldn't necessarily solve anything, but might make the nonspellcasters not notice/care about the versatility of spellcasters. a level 20 gestalt fighter/rogue doesn't really sound that bad vs a level 20 single class wizard. i realize there would be some balance issues in the opposite direction at low levels, but maybe it would work for a high level campaign. not sure.
cato 06-19-07, 11:54 PM	Its a sad day when this game becomes wow and melee has the same average power as a caster. Casters in my book are supposed to be more powerful, but in a game like DnD it shouldnt matter... at least in my opinion, you play a game with friends were you dont compete with each other, you -role play- different circumstances and have fun with each other. Spells should not be based solely on their effectiveness in combat and they should not be so tightly controlled and balanced.. its magic after all. The game is getting farther and farther away from elements me and my friends enjoy, everything becoming more generic, even removal of specific names of spells which have lore behind them and add a really nice immersion to the game.
OneWinged4ngel 06-20-07, 12:26 AM	Casters in my book are supposed to be more powerful. In that case, why not just make your casters be HIGHER LEVEL? That'd make them more powerful. While you may not share the opinion, many people expect characters of the same level to be roughly of the same power level (and indeed, the CR rules treat them as such.)
Crashy75 06-20-07, 12:56 AM	Every time this thread starts going somewhere it degrades into a debate on the obvious.
OneWinged4ngel 06-20-07, 01:00 AM	Every time this thread starts going somewhere it degrades into a debate on the obvious. Yeah, no kidding.
cato 06-20-07, 01:14 AM	In that case, why not just make your casters be HIGHER LEVEL? That'd make them more powerful. While you may not share the opinion, many people expect characters of the same level to be roughly of the same power level (and indeed, the CR rules treat them as such.) Cause to be honest i dont think that even a 40lvl warrior should stand a chance against a 20 mage, so there is no point in it. If your a dumb melee character you should never possess the power of someone who can manipulate the universe to his will and can plan ahead further than you will ever be able too. Further more the actual player has to put on a lot more effort into playing a caster to a full extent, weather that be researching tons of spells and deciding on each spell with scrutiny, and then having to pick the correct spell each day which can make the difference from winning or total defeat. In other words, classes as a mage, or cleric bear a much greater mental responsibility, A warrior or a warblade etc, even though he might have put an effort on deciding his build at the start of the campaign, has a choice of weather to choose between 5 things give or take, and thats is only during battle. That gives him the advantage of concentrating more on the role playing aspect of his class, rather than having to make all sorts of calculations, predictions, choices and assumption about the course of action the party will take in relationship to each and every spell he is going to use, unless of course you are the kind of mage that spams fireballs and scorching rays with lots of metamagic feats all the time shouting : Unliiiiimited power! Instead of focusing power lvls try to role play more and have fun.
OneWinged4ngel 06-20-07, 02:35 AM	Cause to be honest i dont think that even a 40lvl warrior should stand a chance against a 20 mage, so there is no point in it. If your a dumb melee character you should never possess the power of someone who can manipulate the universe to his will and can plan ahead further than you will ever be able too. Further more the actual player has to put on a lot more effort into playing a caster to a full extent, weather that be researching tons of spells and deciding on each spell with scrutiny, and then having to pick the correct spell each day which can make the difference from winning or total defeat. In other words, classes as a mage, or cleric bear a much greater mental responsibility, A warrior or a warblade etc, even though he might have put an effort on deciding his build at the start of the campaign, has a choice of weather to choose between 5 things give or take, and thats is only during battle. That gives him the advantage of concentrating more on the role playing aspect of his class, rather than having to make all sorts of calculations, predictions, choices and assumption about the course of action the party will take in relationship to each and every spell he is going to use, unless of course you are the kind of mage that spams fireballs and scorching rays with lots of metamagic feats all the time shouting : Unliiiiimited power! Uhm, yeah, well that's your opinion and you can have it, but this thread is for people who actually value the principle of balance. So... why not go to another thread instead of trying to derail this one with irrelevant ramblings? Instead of focusing power lvls try to role play more and have fun. Errr, right. Check out my site, and see if you don't think I focus on roleplaying a few lines into the log of the first game. You're not in a position to patronize me on roleplaying (and indeed, that's wholely baseless and unrelated to the topics of conversation in any way. Making a correlation between "power" and "quality of roleplaying" is the Stormwind Fallacy, and thus logically *wrong*). So... be so kind and take it to another thread.
cato 06-20-07, 02:51 AM	Uhm, yeah, well that's your opinion and you can have it, but this thread is for people who actually value the principle of balance. So... why not go to another thread instead of trying to derail this one with irrelevant ramblings? Threads in this forum are for anyone who considers he has something to say, but I guess when someone does not agree with you he does not belong in your threads. As for ramblings, its pretty obvious to me who is rambling here, if you are that concerned with balance go play an mmo like guild wars and leave this game to the people it was intended for, before it is completely turned into one. Making a correlation between "power" and "quality of roleplaying" is the Stormwind Fallacy, and thus logically *wrong*). . I am not comparing the roleplaying itself, but the things that were mentioned in this thread ask for things like: oversimplifying what spells can do, nerfing spells in the name of balance, and a lot of similar adjustment that spoil the flavor of the mage. Instead making him some dmg spell spamming, narrow use ranged artillery service, with limited utility. That hinders world continuity in already existent campaign settings, things that have historically happened in those settings since the casters, and lead to situations where something like alamanther's return is called replicate casting, aganazzar's scorcher is called scorch and all spells will be reduced to something like: bigger blast, greater scorch, and bigger blast. Its not exactly the same but its a similar logic.
Neutronium_Dragon 06-20-07, 02:59 AM	Erm, concerns about game balance have been with D&D since its inception in the what, 1970s? Long before any MMO was even conceived.
OneWinged4ngel 06-20-07, 03:30 AM	Threads in this forum are for anyone who considers he has something to say, but I guess when someone does not agree with you he does not belong in your threads. *Sigh.* Wow. No. The problem isn't argument, it's that you're off-topic... like I already said. We're talking about what can be done to improve balance, not whether improving balance is a worthwhile endeavor. Posting off-topic is considered SPAMMING by the CoC. I'm not even going to bother pointing out everything that's wrong with what you just said because... I'm not gonna feed the trolls. Anyways, if you continue spamming off-topic and disrupting the thread, I'll just report you. You know what they say. Don't feed the trolls. So... back on topic? What could make multiclassing more... viable for spellcasters? Please include reasons for your ideas.
cato 06-20-07, 04:39 AM	*Sigh.* Wow. No. The problem isn't argument, it's that you're off-topic... like I already said. We're talking about what can be done to improve balance, not whether improving balance is a worthwhile endeavor. Posting off-topic is considered SPAMMING by the CoC. I'm not even going to bother pointing out everything that's wrong with what you just said because... I'm not gonna feed the trolls. Anyways, if you continue spamming off-topic and disrupting the thread, I'll just report you. You know what they say. Don't feed the trolls. So... back on topic? What could make multiclassing more... viable for spellcasters? Please include reasons for your ideas. Its all right, my point was made, and a post examining the validity/usefulness of a discussion is not really off topic. As for trolling, a topic on "fixing" something that works perfectly well imo, is the definition. I bid you farewell :tiphat;
Leo 06-20-07, 06:21 AM	What could make multiclassing more... viable for spellcasters? Please include reasons for your ideas. You want to make multiclassing more...viable for spellcasters? Well, that's not vey clear. I'll assume you want a caster to be able to multiclass whitout losing much of his power. Taking 2 levels of barbarian is great. Taking 2 levels of fighter is great. Taking 2 levels of druid...What were you thinking? A fighter 2/ barbarian 2/ranger 2 can make some nice strong character. A sorceror 2/wizard 2/druid 2 will be something very bizzarre and pretty much useless. What makes casters atractives are the uber spells. And guess, what, that's all that's good about them. A cleric whitout spells sucks. A druid whitout spells sucks(yes I'm taking in acount wildshape and companion, whitout all those buffs even a fighter will take you on easily). A wizard or sorceror whitout spells is almost a commoner. So, multiclassing greatly hurts casters, as they lose their spell progression, both caster level and bigger spells. A melee type character doesn't lose so much because all he needs is BAB, any kind of ability he can get and life, and there's plenty of ways to get that in other classes. High level spells and caster level, on the other hand, you must stick to your class or seek a prc. But wait, this is actually good! If casters are so broken, why do you claim that we should make multiclassing for them easier? Having the wizard spell list isn't good enough for you? You want the wizard spell list plus other class abilities whitout paying any signinficant price? So, you are asking to a change to the rules that makes you able to multiclass and still keep growing your spells and caster level. Let me think of the perfect solution for that: Hmm, don't be a power maniac? It's easy, it's clean, it's "elegant" as you say it. Yes, you won't be able to control the universe as soon as a purecaster. But you'll look cooler making your stancy maneuver or smite per encounter you like so much. Guess what? You can't have everything. Play your uber caster build for the 999th time or make other combination that's more flavourfull/interesting/fun sacrificing power. The Stormwind paradox. Read it. Think about it. Sign it.
Otto the Bugbear 06-20-07, 07:15 AM	So... back on topic? What could make multiclassing more... viable for spellcasters? Please include reasons for your ideas. One thing I've thought about, briefly, is that when you have a caster class, half your levels in a non-casting class advances your spellcasting. Sort of like how ToB handles initiator levels. One caveat is that your actual casting class levels (total levels in classes that have '+1 spellcasting level' or an actual advancement of their own) must be at least 2x your non-casting class to gain this benefit. (Or pick an arbitrary number in place of 2x, like 'level +4' or 'level +5' or whatever.) So, Wizard 10 / Barbarian 5 would cast like a Wizard 12 (10 + (5/2; round down; 2)). A Druid 12 / Ranger 6 could cast either like a druid 12 and a ranger 6, or like a Druid 15 (15 + (6/2; 3)). However, a Fighter 7 / Cleric 5 wouldn't gain half the fighter levels toward caster level.
windscar18 06-20-07, 09:27 AM	Yes, but that's more of a "bonus" then anything because wizards decided to print the ever so useful Practiced Spellcaster.
Otto the Bugbear 06-20-07, 12:06 PM	Well, there are two ways to respond to stuff like that. Try to rewrite something based around all the material that WotC has put out in the last 7 years. Ignore it in an attempt to create a casting system that's a little more balanced or "better", from the individual's perspective, than what we currently have. I'd always prefer to ignore the stuff that's marginal or stuff that's broken (either on the strong side or the weak side). Practiced Spellcaster would hurt for my suggestion, but it pales in comparison to stuff like planar binding, which just plain hurts regardless of how you change the system.
OneWinged4ngel 06-20-07, 04:38 PM	There is a point there, though. Practiced Spellcaster pretty much does what you're suggesting. It catches you up in terms of caster level. As for the... others... it seems like if we talk about anything to make certain builds more viable for spellcasters, we're powerhungry monsters who want to destroy flavor and roleplaying, and if we want to nerf anything that's overpowered or problematic we're wizard-hating monsters who want to destroy flavor and roleplaying. Funny how that works... everyone who disagrees with them (no matter what it's about) is a jerk who wants to destroy their flavor. Honestly, if you don't like any changes that we come up with, don't use them. No one's forcing it on you. But making crazy, unwarranted accusations is just annoying. And argumentum ad hominem isn't exactly a valid form of logical argument. A sorceror 2/wizard 2/druid 2 will be something very bizzarre and pretty much useless. And if it weren't totally useless, it would be a crime in your eyes, and make us power-hungry monsters? What kind of bizarre, twisted logic is that? *Sigh.* Any more ideas for Fabricate?
Crashy75 06-20-07, 05:24 PM	... What could make multiclassing more... viable for spellcasters? Please include reasons for your ideas. There are a number of ways to do this but I'd prefer to tone down spells and give class features to casting classes. That way, they would be truly giving up something when taking a full caster prestige class. That would be a b*tch though.
OneWinged4ngel 06-20-07, 05:33 PM	There are a number of ways to do this but I'd prefer to tone down spells and give class features to casting classes. That way, they would be truly giving up something when taking a full caster prestige class. That would be a b*tch though. The problem with "+1 spellcasting" is that it's "+1 level of selective class features." So it could either be +1 level of Ur-Priest spellcasting or +1 level of Ranger spellcasting. Meanwhile, other class features don't advance. If it actually were "+1 level of class features" instead of "+1 level of selective class features" it'd actually probably be more evenly implementable. In any case, it would probably be better for many PrCs if they had their own spell lists and progression types... except that has had issues in the way that's it's been done before. No one wants to see that level 1 to 4 progression of spells. One class that has an interesting way of introducing a new progression is the Sublime Chord: It doesn't start at 1, it starts at approximately where a bard would leave off if he went into it at the earliest oppurtunity. Now think of this: What if we could set up some sort of thing like that where the class has a progression of its own, with its own spell list that's additive to existing traits. You left off at level 3 and you keep going from level 3 (just like +1 level)... albeit with different spellcasting properties (a la the Sublime Chord). This could, say, allow for you to create a paladin PrC that advances their spellcasting without necessarily making a 1 level dip in Cleric a must-have, or any of that nonsense.
OneWinged4ngel 06-20-07, 06:55 PM	Okay, I have a question: How does ANIMATE DEAD even work? Like, at all? I seriously have no idea. You're supposed to stick gems bigger than people's heads in their eyes, you're supposed to SOMEHOW know what their HD is (even though HD is a metagame abstraction) to have the material component, and the price of onyx maxes out so that you actually CAN'T animate anything with 4HD or more. The rules for it make no sense at all. And even if they did, do you even want to pretend that 50gp for a human skeleton is worth it? I mean, come on... hirelings own that price in the face without magic. The question comes up because I'm looking at playing a necromancer cleric for the first time (A priest of the Blood of Vol, to be specific)
Crashy75 06-20-07, 06:58 PM	The problem with "+1 spellcasting" is that it's "+1 level of selective class features." So it could either be +1 level of Ur-Priest spellcasting or +1 level of Ranger spellcasting. Meanwhile, other class features don't advance. If it actually were "+1 level of class features" instead of "+1 level of selective class features" it'd actually probably be more evenly implementable. In any case, it would probably be better for many PrCs if they had their own spell lists and progression types... except that has had issues in the way that's it's been done before. No one wants to see that level 1 to 4 progression of spells. One class that has an interesting way of introducing a new progression is the Sublime Chord: It doesn't start at 1, it starts at approximately where a bard would leave off if he went into it at the earliest oppurtunity. Now think of this: What if we could set up some sort of thing like that where the class has a progression of its own, with its own spell list that's additive to existing traits. You left off at level 3 and you keep going from level 3 (just like +1 level)... albeit with different spellcasting properties (a la the Sublime Chord). This could, say, allow for you to create a paladin PrC that advances their spellcasting without necessarily making a 1 level dip in Cleric a must-have, or any of that nonsense. Now that's not a bad idea! What about full caster PrC's? Also, how would this work with a dip- say somebody that took a level or two from the PrC to get class feature and then continued with their former class? I'm assuming that they would keep their caster level but lose some higher level spells. This would probably not be acceptable for full casters. As for the first issue (Ur Priest vs. Ranger and such) I seem to remember Otto's system addressing that.
Leo 06-21-07, 09:14 AM	Okay, I have a question: How does ANIMATE DEAD even work? Like, at all? I seriously have no idea. You're supposed to stick gems bigger than people's heads in their eyes, you're supposed to SOMEHOW know what their HD is (even though HD is a metagame abstraction) to have the material component, and the price of onyx maxes out so that you actually CAN'T animate anything with 4HD or more. The rules for it make no sense at all. And even if they did, do you even want to pretend that 50gp for a human skeleton is worth it? I mean, come on... hirelings own that price in the face without magic. The question comes up because I'm looking at playing a necromancer cleric for the first time (A priest of the Blood of Vol, to be specific) It can be some pretty well crafted Onyx. 2 gems of equal weight can have much diferent prices if they are crafted with diferent degrees of shophistication. One can be rough sphere, the other a miniature statue of a dragon with scales, wings and everything. The second one would be much more valuable than the first one, yet also fit in an eye socket. Another reason why 3.5 was a badly made update. In 3.0 the only rule on Animate dead was one 50 gp onyx per body. But then, the undead you got depended only on the size of the body, so it was much harder to abuse, besides you could only control half as much HD. Another sign that clerics were really unpopular if wizards had to give them so much boosts in order to people play them. And yes, you're being contradictory. Casters are overpowered...Let's make them stronger! Now that is twisted logic.
Otto the Bugbear 06-21-07, 12:05 PM	Casters are overpowered...Let's make them stronger! Now that is twisted logic. Really now... point out the post and quote where OW4 said that. Strawman much?
OneWinged4ngel 06-21-07, 02:38 PM	Strawman much? If I had a penny for every strawman Leo's given me... ugh, just don't try to reason with him. Last time I did he said that logic wasn't necessary for reason, logical fallacies are wrong, etc. He's just a jerk. He doesn't CARE if no one actually said anything he claims they did.
Leo 06-21-07, 03:42 PM	And if it weren't totally useless, it would be a crime in your eyes, and make us power-hungry monsters? What kind of bizarre, twisted logic is that? Here. Ow4 states that a wizard2/sorceror 2/druid 2 should be as usefull as any other (insert class here) 6 or any other class combination with sum 6. Thus he is demanding more power for casters. Now, the logical fallaccies you suport are wrong, mainly the SW one. Mainly because SW did the fallaccy, but never bothered with the definitions implied. It was necessarry several giant threads to get it done, and still it was other people who came up with the definitions, wich are also pretty much questionable. SW himself never bothered to explain the definitions, yet throws his namesake fallaccy left and right whenever someone disagrees with him. I'll keep throwing strawman or fallaccies or whatever you call them because it doesn't matter what I say, if I don't blindly agree with you I'm comiting one of them. As an ending point, is funny how you call me jerk, yet fail to reply to my coments that are actually on topic. OW4 seems to be completely blind to any of my atempts to answer his game questions. Otto still tries to keep himself midly reasonable about it, so he gets, naturally, a better treatment.
windscar18 06-21-07, 03:54 PM	O_o? So, you're saying that calling wizards overpowered in general is the same as demanding power from a wizard/sorceror/druid? How does that even work? That's like as related as saying that fighters are overpowered, and demanding the same service to fighter/rogues. Multiclassed abominations aren't necessarily the fault of their base classes. What OW4 is trying to point out is that casting should be more available to all the classes to keep them on par with the growing problem that full casters are immediately better than any other character. And I fail to see how the SW fallacy is wrong, considering the fact that there is no proof to say that it is wrong. Roleplaying and power levels are completely independent of each other and I fail to see how you could come up with an example that specifically says that they are indeed related.
OneWinged4ngel 06-21-07, 05:42 PM	See? He doesn't even CARE that he's using fallacies. He actually thinks it just means people won't accept his view arbitrarily. :nonono: I'm fed up with this. Not going to respond to any more off-topic posts, baiting, or trolling from you, Leo, after this post which I'm sure you'll ignore anyways. Here. Ow4 states that a wizard2/sorceror 2/druid 2 should be as usefull as any other (insert class here) 6 or any other class combination with sum 6. Thus he is demanding more power for casters. The ones that are, in your own words, USELESS, and not overpowered like you claimed. That's a contradiction. Again. Your example fails to support your accusation in any form, and so it's still a straw man. Which is a real logical fallacy, and it makes your argument faulty as a matter of FACT, and not opinion. That's the whole concept of what a logical fallacy is. O_o? So, you're saying that calling wizards overpowered in general is the same as demanding power from a wizard/sorceror/druid? How does that even work? It doesn't work. Leo doesn't make sense and he doesn't think he has to, or else he knows it and he's just trolling, or else he actually somehow believes the silly things he says. And I fail to see how the SW fallacy is wrong, considering the fact that there is no proof to say that it is wrong. You can't prove it's wrong (it's actually an extension of a real fallacy, with Stormwind's name posted up on it), but you can't tell Leo that, he argued about it for several pages. Roleplaying is the ability to act "in-character." If your character is powerful, good roleplaying is acting like that powerful character. If he's not, good roleplaying is acting like that weak character. You can roleplay a god well just as you can roleplay a peasant well. It seems like it would be a simple thing to understand, but... apparently some people have trouble. Oddly, I've yet to see one such player who held such an opinion of power dictating quality of roleplaying who was ACTUALLY a very good roleplayer, no matter how crappy their characters performed in combat, whenever I got a chance to look at logs from their games. Though, that's totally unrelated to the Stormwind Fallacy, and of course a completely subjective opinion (UNLIKE the Stormwind Fallacy). I'll keep throwing strawman or fallaccies or whatever you call them because it doesn't matter what I say, if I don't blindly agree with you I'm comiting one of them. No Leo... you're actually committing logical fallacies. Look 'em up. Logical fallacies make you wrong. Always. Based on completely objective criteria. If that's too hard for you to understand, that means that using a logical fallacy makes you wrong as a matter of FACT, not opinion. My opinion has nothing to do with whether or not you're using fallacies... you just ARE. ...yet fail to reply to my coments that are actually on topic. OW4 seems to be completely blind to any of my atempts to answer his game questions. Errr, right, when you contribute something worthwhile, instead of actively trying to disrupt the conversation, repeating tired flawed comments that I've heard before (from you, actually, and often had already replied to you on the very same issue elsewhere), and the like I'll respond to it as such. AFAIK, you've done no such thing. You started posting on this thread on page 4. You posted 9 times. Let's look at all the "Useful advice" you offered and just how marvelously on topic you were. Yeah, because, like, it isn't as wizards hasn't done a buttload of money with the so called broken magic system. Ho, wait, it has. You may not agree, but most people like the system as it is, since they keep buying wizards books. Great, they can keep it like it is. How is this on topic? Oh wait, no, it's baiting and trying to start a flame war... You seem like the guys at the magic boards "Oh my god card/color x is so broken/weak wizards should nerf/power it". And then they got pwned by the card/color they said it was so weak. Magic isn't that powerfull. At least if you have a decent Dm that remembers to throw sneaky smart monsters that attack you at night now and then run away, privating you from your precious rest. Yes, because if you're there throwing spells like crazy, the enemies in the area are bound to learn to attack you when you are more vulnerable And no, you can't balance feats and spells. THEY WORK IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BASIS FOR GODS SAKE. One of them is a permanent bonus, the other is a 1-shot trick. Of course the spell needs to be stronger. Never said we wanted to balance feats and spells. Look at the straw man! But no. You insist in trying to fix D&D and end up slaughtering everything that makes it the most played table RPG in the world for years. I'm just glad you're not the ones in charge of the creation team, either way D&D would have gone bankrupt years ago. But hell, I guess it's the way of life. You can never make everyone happy. Great, so you worship the RAW as flawless more than the game designers themselves do. As a point of fact, many of the game designers have expressed concern on many of the issues I put forth. You want to make multiclassing more...viable for spellcasters? Well, that's not vey clear. I'll assume you want a caster to be able to multiclass whitout losing much of his power. Taking 2 levels of barbarian is great. Taking 2 levels of fighter is great. Taking 2 levels of druid...What were you thinking? A fighter 2/ barbarian 2/ranger 2 can make some nice strong character. A sorceror 2/wizard 2/druid 2 will be something very bizzarre and pretty much useless. What makes casters atractives are the uber spells. And guess, what, that's all that's good about them. A cleric whitout spells sucks. A druid whitout spells sucks(yes I'm taking in acount wildshape and companion, whitout all those buffs even a fighter will take you on easily). A wizard or sorceror whitout spells is almost a commoner. So, multiclassing greatly hurts casters, as they lose their spell progression, both caster level and bigger spells. A melee type character doesn't lose so much because all he needs is BAB, any kind of ability he can get and life, and there's plenty of ways to get that in other classes. High level spells and caster level, on the other hand, you must stick to your class or seek a prc. But wait, this is actually good! If casters are so broken, why do you claim that we should make multiclassing for them easier? Having the wizard spell list isn't good enough for you? You want the wizard spell list plus other class abilities whitout paying any signinficant price? So, you are asking to a change to the rules that makes you able to multiclass and still keep growing your spells and caster level. Let me think of the perfect solution for that: Hmm, don't be a power maniac? It's easy, it's clean, it's "elegant" as you say it. Yes, you won't be able to control the universe as soon as a purecaster. But you'll look cooler making your stancy maneuver or smite per encounter you like so much. Guess what? You can't have everything. Play your uber caster build for the 999th time or make other combination that's more flavourfull/interesting/fun sacrificing power. The Stormwind paradox. Read it. Think about it. Sign it. Another post, another straw man and uninformed, inflammatory rant. It can be some pretty well crafted Onyx. 2 gems of equal weight can have much diferent prices if they are crafted with diferent degrees of shophistication. One can be rough sphere, the other a miniature statue of a dragon with scales, wings and everything. The second one would be much more valuable than the first one, yet also fit in an eye socket. Another reason why 3.5 was a badly made update. In 3.0 the only rule on Animate dead was one 50 gp onyx per body. But then, the undead you got depended only on the size of the body, so it was much harder to abuse, besides you could only control half as much HD. Another sign that clerics were really unpopular if wizards had to give them so much boosts in order to people play them. And yes, you're being contradictory. Casters are overpowered...Let's make them stronger! Now that is twisted logic. It's like you can't go for a post without making an argument against something no one said! Here. Ow4 states that a wizard2/sorceror 2/druid 2 should be as usefull as any other (insert class here) 6 or any other class combination with sum 6. Thus he is demanding more power for casters. Now, the logical fallaccies you suport are wrong, mainly the SW one. Mainly because SW did the fallaccy, but never bothered with the definitions implied. It was necessarry several giant threads to get it done, and still it was other people who came up with the definitions, wich are also pretty much questionable. SW himself never bothered to explain the definitions, yet throws his namesake fallaccy left and right whenever someone disagrees with him. I'll keep throwing strawman or fallaccies or whatever you call them because it doesn't matter what I say, if I don't blindly agree with you I'm comiting one of them. As an ending point, is funny how you call me jerk, yet fail to reply to my coments that are actually on topic. OW4 seems to be completely blind to any of my atempts to answer his game questions. Otto still tries to keep himself midly reasonable about it, so he gets, naturally, a better treatment. Here you demonstrate that you don't even CARE that you're being illogical or off-topic (and that you realize you are being off topic). Yes, psionics is limited per day, but much more versatile. First you can choose in spending all your PP in a few powerfull attacks or lots of smaller tricks, while a magic user will need to "dilute" his total power in levels from 0-9. Also most powers offer great versatility, while more than half the spells are highly focused in something(cough knock cough charm monster cough teleport). I'm not even going to bother pointing out what's wrong with that... The school limitation also looks tempting. We could make like the beguiller:each caster chooses 2 schools of magic and that's it. Nothing else. Not even from scrolls or wands. And natural spell. First thing to ban. I still wonder what wizards was smoking when they decided to include it in core 3.5. Ah, so now you're doing exactly what you told us made us monsters ruining the game! Changing the RAW! You banned a feat that was problematic! But if anyone else suggests banning something that's broken, they're apparently trying to ruin the sanctity of the game. Right. This is what we call "hypocrisy." Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the most balanced spells in the list? This is probably the ONLY post where you ask a potentially valid question, even if it's not really helpful to the discussion much. And it honestly looks like it's just trolling for something to pick at, knowing your style. Option 3:Make the shopkeepers at medium and high levels smart enough to carry a wand of detect magic or some other mean of distinguising if an object is fake or not. C'mon, someone who deals with tenths of thousands of gold in magic items at once surely has means of assuring what's he buying is for real. That's obviously not a solution, because Fabricate makes real items. So not only is it a terribly condescending post... it's also completely erroneous and uninformed. Magic is suposed to be something special. And powerfull. Magic is suposed to let you do things you couldn't do any other way. Casting a spell should always be a superior choice than using a skill, attack, psionic power or any other nonmagicl action. Honestly, the only reason I bother playing a cleric or a wizard it's because of the awesome spells they can cast. If everybody in the party can outdo my spells with their class abilities casters just aren't sexy. Of course, if you think magic is so strong, you could just: 1-Reduce the number of spells per day they can cast. 2-Make the price of scrolls, staffs and wands(but not magic items that everybody can use) go skyrocket, or increase the build time(10 days for each 100 gp of price, minimum 10 days for example.) 3-Eliminate the extra spells gained by high ability scores. 4-Increase casting time. Now this would be interesting. Each spell needs 2 rounds per level to be cast. Or something else. Even when cast from a item. 5-Rewrite the entire spell list. Wich will take a long long long time. Probably 4th edition will be out when you finish it. Nevermind that some people have already done t. Sometimes repeatedly. Looks like you're just trying to disrupt discussion. More attempt at derailment, and outright false AS WELL AS condescending statements. I tought you guys hated dual stat casters, like the favored soul. Wow, more trolling and baiting, with no actual basis (no one said anything was bad about dual stat casters, and you're clearly trying to take a shot at us being "powergamers") ___ Okay, so in all that, where was I refusing to respond to your worthwhile, on-topic posts? It just looks disruptive throughout. If I never replied to you, ever, I still wouldn't have EVER ignored you when you were posting relevant, on-topic things that answered my questions about the magic system. So again... what you're saying is just false. Anyways, this only seems to represent continued attempts to be disruptive.
Flamewarrior 06-21-07, 07:57 PM	I haven't been active here lately (still, the idea I posted wasn't replied to either), but I think i can explain the multicaster problem nicely. Single-classed spellcaster (and people with full- or near-full-casting PrCs): in the opinion of people like OW4 (myself included), they rock the house, own left and right, hose all other kinds of classes and class combinations, and so on. (a lot below) Classes in a set often called well-balanced (mostly from XPH and ToB) (other lot below) Most classes without either spellcasting, psionics, or blade magic (for the most I hate this name): generally screwed if compared to all others - paragons of this are the non-boards-fixed fighter, paladin, and marshal. (maybe even a little below) Randomly multiclassed spellcasters: royally screwed, according to Leo himself (see below) A sorceror 2/wizard 2/druid 2 will be something very bizzarre and pretty much useless. According to this, claiming wanting more power to muticlassed spellcasters is necessarily wanting more power to casters in general is wrong, and anyone that cares about game balance and acknowledges free multiclassing should want multiclassing a spellcaster not being a shot in the guts (no, not just the foot).
Crashy75 06-21-07, 08:05 PM	It can be some pretty well crafted Onyx. 2 gems of equal weight can have much diferent prices if they are crafted with diferent degrees of shophistication. One can be rough sphere, the other a miniature statue of a dragon with scales, wings and everything. The second one would be much more valuable than the first one, yet also fit in an eye socket. . This brings up another issue. Why does the weave care so much about market value? Perhaps gods like mystra should be the god of commerce as well as magic.
ORC_Paradox 06-21-07, 09:50 PM	Guys, stop the baiting and flaming.
OneWinged4ngel 06-30-07, 11:37 PM	This brings up another issue. Why does the weave care so much about market value? Perhaps gods like mystra should be the god of commerce as well as magic. That's one of the issues I have with "well-cut onyx" being so "valuable" in terms of magical properties. If you really were going to increase the value of an onyx for magical purpouses, I would at least say it was "magically treated" or "cut to filter arcane energies more effectively" or something. not just "it's a prettier rock."
AllisterH 07-01-07, 01:11 AM	Its a sad day when this game becomes wow and melee has the same average power as a caster. Casters in my book are supposed to be more powerful, but in a game like DnD it shouldnt matter... at least in my opinion, you play a game with friends were you dont compete with each other, you -role play- different circumstances and have fun with each other. . Not necessarily. Take Slayers for example. Lina Inverse is one of the most powerful magic users in fiction yet in the novels and manga, even she admits that in one on one battle versus Gourry, the smart money is the sword wielder. So magic doesn't HAVE to overshadow melee.
Qwicksilver 07-03-07, 03:25 AM	*Sigh.* Any more ideas for Fabricate? I like the idea of a mage crafter as well, but do understand Otto's worries about abuse. Unless someone has suggested this before, perhaps we could modify fabricate to give bonuses to your craft skill and reduce crafting time. This would allow a mage to be able to craft items of high quality, but not as quickly as 1 round/10 cubic feet of material. Perhaps we could alter the spell to have longer or shorter crafting time depending on the intricacy of your attempted fabrication, base it on how high the craft dc of the would-be item would be. Perhaps the powers of fabricate should be dependent on the ranks you have in craft. However, this is very odd when put in terms of spell usage. There is no other spell I know of which is skill dependent. So, in essence, what you have is a sort of assisted crafting, rather than a "poof and it's there" kind of feel.
Leo 07-03-07, 09:17 AM	I like the idea of a mage crafter as well, but do understand Otto's worries about abuse. Unless someone has suggested this before, perhaps we could modify fabricate to give bonuses to your craft skill and reduce crafting time. This would allow a mage to be able to craft items of high quality, but not as quickly as 1 round/10 cubic feet of material. Perhaps we could alter the spell to have longer or shorter crafting time depending on the intricacy of your attempted fabrication, base it on how high the craft dc of the would-be item would be. Perhaps the powers of fabricate should be dependent on the ranks you have in craft. However, this is very odd when put in terms of spell usage. There is no other spell I know of which is skill dependent. So, in essence, what you have is a sort of assisted crafting, rather than a "poof and it's there" kind of feel. I think the question is :what do you want fabricate to do. At the level you gain the spell, it's much more worthile to just buy nonmagic items you need than to craft them. With the current version, the only use you can gain of it is cheating merchants for profit quickly. Other bizzarre uses include equiping a group of low level followers wiht equipment, but nothing really worth it, since they disappear in a few hours? So, what do players want fabricate to do? -Nonmagical stuff only? -How much duration? -How much quality? -How much casting time? In the end it must be something that some player will want to take but at the same time don' be easily abused. In the other hand at this level you get stuff as charm monster, wich is just screaming abuse me. As for magic knowing the market value, I think it works in the other way. An onyx is worth 25 gp if it is of good enough quality to animate a 1HD creature. A sack of diamonds is worth 500 gp if it is good quality enough to be used in a raise dead spell. This quality includes size and skillfull cuting to better condute magical energies. Thus inflaction doesn't exist in D&D. Magic users establish the prices for how usefull a certain item is for their spellcasting and the merchants follow, since you can't cheat magic. Don't forget that no matter where you go, the price of a meal/sword/armor/horse is always the same.
Qwicksilver 07-04-07, 09:15 PM	I think the question is :what do you want fabricate to do. At the level you gain the spell, it's much more worthile to just buy nonmagic items you need than to craft them. With the current version, the only use you can gain of it is cheating merchants for profit quickly. Other bizzarre uses include equiping a group of low level followers wiht equipment, but nothing really worth it, since they disappear in a few hours? So, what do players want fabricate to do? -Nonmagical stuff only? -How much duration? -How much quality? -How much casting time? snip*** I'm not a major re-designer like many of the other people on the boards, however I do like the many different variations and try to do my own things from time to time. Given that, I'm going to answer my opinion of these questions and maybe some ideas for changing fabricate if i can think any: "So, what do players want fabricate to do? " In general I'd say I want fabricate to be able to assist in transmuting, or changing, raw materials into a more refined desired shape or item. "-Nonmagical stuff only?" Yes this would be essential for game balance and since transmuting is essentially "changing the shape of" it would either do nothing to magical properties or, worse, destroy that item's magical properties. "-How much duration?" Interesting question, since I assumed fabricate was a spell that had nothing to do with keeping the item in shape, unlike things like minor creation (psionic power), I assumed it had no duration. Once the spell is over, that material you transmuted, stays in its shape indefinitely. It would be interesting to add some kind of duration for large amounts of material or more dense amounts of material. A table of some kind would be interesting, but perhaps a bit complicated? "-How much quality?" Originally I implied that my fix would lengthen the time for the amount of quality that one hopes to get from crafting an item. In those terms, it could be up to masterwork quality, but it would make the duration of your fabricate days, not minutes or rounds. For complex items, weapons and armor, I would say using fabricate would take away some percentage of its normal crafting time. This would allow the mage-blacksmith to do well, but still he'd have to have a full-time job as a mage-blacksmith. Would he run all the mundane blacksmiths out of town, probably, but that's a good or bad thing depending on your setting. (Think about it the way animators needed to move on to digital animation from cell animation.) "-How much casting time?" I mentioned that I would make it depending on the amount of material and the quality of the item you want to craft. In those terms, transmuting a large amount of material into merely a different shape it could naturally take would be less time than crafting real intricate items. Turning a tree trunk into, say, some planks of wood would not take long, perhaps a minute or two. Even easier would be, say, changing the shape of a round rock to that of a square rock (depending on size). But hardest would be transmuting any item into a finished product of some kind. Take raw iron, in real life that has to be tempered into steel, hammered over time, and ground against some kind of millstone to become a finished sword of even mundane quality. I don't know what it takes in d&d terms, but certainly more than a few days. Applying fabricate to this kind of item would significantly reduce the crafting time, but it wouldn't exponentially reduce it. However, some crafted items are obviously easier than others. Whittling a wooden pipe (mundane quality at least) takes less time than forging weapons and armor, and perhaps the craft dc would reflect that, or the easier-to-work material would reflect that. I'm just throwing these up as ideas, I don't have a system for it, and if someone would back me up or we could further refine the general idea, perhaps a new system would arise out of it. I'd like to keep fast fabrication time for simple shapes (as these have gotten me out of jams pretty often), but increase it dramatically if one wants to make something of any large amount or significant value.
OneWinged4ngel 07-04-07, 09:49 PM	I like the idea of a mage crafter as well, but do understand Otto's worries about abuse. Unless someone has suggested this before, perhaps we could modify fabricate to give bonuses to your craft skill and reduce crafting time. This would allow a mage to be able to craft items of high quality, but not as quickly as 1 round/10 cubic feet of material. Perhaps we could alter the spell to have longer or shorter crafting time depending on the intricacy of your attempted fabrication, base it on how high the craft dc of the would-be item would be. Perhaps the powers of fabricate should be dependent on the ranks you have in craft. However, this is very odd when put in terms of spell usage. There is no other spell I know of which is skill dependent. So, in essence, what you have is a sort of assisted crafting, rather than a "poof and it's there" kind of feel. Have you seen the "Magecraft" spell? It's in the ECS. 1st level spell, gives +5 craft skill. A standby of the Magewright.
Qwicksilver 07-04-07, 10:13 PM	Have you seen the "Magecraft" spell? It's in the ECS. 1st level spell, gives +5 craft skill. A standby of the Magewright. Sorry I haven't, and I can't find it in the spells consolidated lists. Also I'm unfamiliar with the ECS abbreviation, what book does that refer to? At any rate, I suppose one of the things about nerfing fabricate is that it is a 5th level spell. Many of the things I proposed limit its power level significantly, but I think being a Magewright would be a specialized role that not all casters would want to take. What I want to do, however we propose to fix fabricate, is to allow fabricate to work best for someone who wants to specialize in that area, but not necessarily have it be a "must take" spell. Personally "must take" spells irritate me a bit because I feel it cuts down on the # of choices you have to prepare, or have known.
OneWinged4ngel 07-04-07, 10:30 PM	Sorry I haven't, and I can't find it in the spells consolidated lists. Also I'm unfamiliar with the ECS abbreviation, what book does that refer to? Eberron Campaign Setting. You should check it out. It's my personal favorite :) Anyways, it gives you +5 on a craft skill for 24 hours.
Qwicksilver 07-04-07, 10:32 PM	Cool. Eberron did a lot for crafters, obviously with the artificer. But aside from that, what do we do with fabricate?