Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DreadArchon 04-28-07, 06:32 PM	I'm toying with rules for a relatively low-magic campaign (again). I've seen several threads on this before, but they're all going for lower low-magic than I am, so... Characters should be strong, but less reliant on magic items. Anything obviously a bad idea here? Particular points of concern: Are the pricing changes about right for limiting item availability? Is a Major Bloodline a bit much with the Feats and Stats part? Are Warlocks too magical to allow them full progression? What about Duskblades? Is sixth level too high for the primary caster classes, or should I drop it to four and make Bards even better by comparison? Are Bards too overwhelming in this setup? (Bards as the best casters possible is deliberate, they're there for story reasons too.) Action Points Action points are used, as given in Unearthed Arcana. Character Magic Rating This variant on Caster Level is used, as given in Unearthed Arcana. Magic Item Scarcity Most magic items and magic item properties cost 50% more than they would normally due to being rare. The exceptions are listed below. For “+X Bonus” costs, use the difference in cost between a +1 item with and without that bonus to determine the increase. (Example: A +1 Flaming longsword would cost 3000 gp more than a +1 longsword, as the difference between +1 and +2 is 6000 gp. A +1 Flaming, Shocking longsword would cost 6000 gp more than a +1 longsword, 3000 for the Flaming and 3000 for the Shocking, as the cost of the Flaming does not affect the cost increase for the shocking, despite that +2 to +3 costs more than +1 to +2.) Exceptions Armor: (Actual) Enhancements higher than +1, Fortification (all), Slick (all), Shadowed (all), Silent Moves (all), Floating Shields: (Actual) Enhancements higher than +1, Arrow Catching, Bashing, Fortification (all), Arrow Deflection, Ranged Melee Weapons: (Actual) Enhancements higher than +1, Bane, Defending, Keen, Merciful, Mighty Cleaving, Vicious, Lucky, Parrying, Sundering Ranged Weapons: (Actual) Enhancements higher than +1, Bane, Distance, Merciful, Returning, Seeking, Lucky, Sundering Rods: Metal and Mineral Detection, Cancellation, Negating, Wonder Potions: All with costs above 50 gp. Alignment Alignment restrictions are, in general, eliminated. Alignment-based effects still exist, however. Skill Points All classes gain +2 skill points per level (x4 at first level as normal). These skill points may only be spent on Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Jump, Knowledge, Perform, Profession, Ride, Speak Language, Swim, or Use Rope skills. These skills are always class skills. (These skills are either common to average individuals, a facet of the adventurer's background, or both.) Primary Caster Class Restrictions Spell progression for the following classes may not extend to levels above (class level) 6: Archivist, Beguiler, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard. (Duskblades, Bards, and Bard variants retain their full progressions.) This includes progression from prestige classes, such as Eldritch Knight. Should a player wish to take further levels in these classes for some reason, they may, but their Spells Per Day/Spells Known will not improve. (Caster Level, however, may improve above 6, and added spells from sources other than spell table progression are still valid--”Extra Spell” feat, “Extra Slot” feat, Dragon Disciple levels, etc., are not changed or forbidden). Level-Based Feats, Abilities Characters receive feats every second level rather than every third level. Characters' abilities improve every third level rather than every fourth level. Warlocks and Prestige Classes The equivalent spell levels of a Warlock's invocations count as spells of those levels for purposes of prestige classes. Additionally, Mage Hand is not required for Arcane Tricksters. Hit Points Per Level When rolling hit dice, a character may re-roll until getting at least half of the maximum hit points for that level (2 for a Sorcerer, 3 for a Rogue, etc.). This applies before bonuses (such as Constitution score). Ability Scores Starting characters allot their stats so as to have a total of +7 bonuses (i.e. a total of 74 if all ability scores are added together, 14 points worth of abilities above the tenth point), with a maximum of +4 (18 points) in any stat and a minimum of -1 (8 points) in any stat. Only one stat may be +4 (18 points). This applies before racial modifiers, but a player may not choose to have 7 or fewer points in any stat after modifiers. "Level 0" A character's first level must be taken in an NPC class (player's choice). This functions as normal for a character's first level, but it does not add to a player's total level (i.e. the hit die, while providing hit points, does not factor into future hit die or ECL calculations, nor does the class level). NPC classes are always favored classes for any character. As this level does not count towards a character's total level, each character also immediately receives a player class level, gained exactly as though multiclassing, except that a character's initial level in her NPC class does not count towards maximum skill ranks, feat progression, or ability increases, all of which remain based on class levels. (A character's initial NPC class level DOES NOT grant a first-level feat, but it DOES grant skill points as if it were the character's first class level, despite not raising a character's maximum ranks per level.) If the Commoner class is chosen, it grants a bonus feat at first level. All NPC classes gain +2 base skill points per level (so +8 at first level). Mongrels All player characters have a single Major Bloodline (player's choice). They need not take Bloodline Levels to benefit from it. Racial Changes Goblins: No Str penalty; Goblins are unusually strong for their size. Half-Elves: +2 Cha, but no additional bonus to Diplomacy or Gather Information; Half-Elves end up with the best parts of the personalities of their parent races. Kobolds: Str penalty reduced to -2, no Con penalty, no Light sensitivity; Kobolds aren't physically useless, nor are they unfamiliar with bright light. Orcs, Half-Orcs: No Cha penalty, no Int penalty; Orcs do not have especially weak personalities, nor are they particularly stupid (though true Orcs are still rather dense and careless).
Drachasor 04-28-07, 06:55 PM	Primary Caster Class Restrictions Spell progression for the following classes may not extend to levels above (class level) 6: Archivist, Beguiler, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard. (Duskblades, Bards, and Bard variants retain their full progressions.) This includes progression from prestige classes, such as Eldritch Knight. Should a player wish to take further levels in these classes for some reason, they may, but their Spells Per Day/Spells Known will not improve. (Caster Level, however, may improve above 6, and added spells from sources other than spell table progression are still valid--”Extra Spell” feat, “Extra Slot” feat, Dragon Disciple levels, etc., are not changed or forbidden). Don't you mean it doesn't extend beyond 6th level spells? As written you imply that a Wizard never gets 4th level spells. You could allow as many levels as people want, but say there are no spells of levels 7 through 9. You can still get higher level spell slots, which can be used for lower level spells and lower level metamagic spells. (You might want to consider letting players have Heighten Spell for free in this case, so they can keep the save DCs on their low-level spells up). If you do this, let Sorcs get lower level spells for their higher level spell known slots. You should remember that Bards have some 8th level spells as 6th level spells. I am not sure why you want to get rid of level 7 through 9 spells.* Are there particular problem spells there that you don't like? You might gain more by just getting rid of CERTAIN spells, rather then entire spell levels, imho. As for Warlocks, I don't think they'd be overpowered. They are already just OK as written. If anything they should have a flat progression for their eldritch blast (improving every odd level, no matter what). They certainly don't need a nerf. -Drachasor *I am not sure, because if it is about problematic spells, almost all mechanics you find at levels 7 through 9 crop up in one way or another in lower level spells too.
Sorentia 04-28-07, 09:41 PM	Don't you mean it doesn't extend beyond 6th level spells? As written you imply that a Wizard never gets 4th level spells. You could allow as many levels as people want, but say there are no spells of levels 7 through 9. You can still get higher level spell slots, which can be used for lower level spells and lower level metamagic spells. (You might want to consider letting players have Heighten Spell for free in this case, so they can keep the save DCs on their low-level spells up). If you do this, let Sorcs get lower level spells for their higher level spell known slots. You should remember that Bards have some 8th level spells as 6th level spells. I am not sure why you want to get rid of level 7 through 9 spells.* Are there particular problem spells there that you don't like? You might gain more by just getting rid of CERTAIN spells, rather then entire spell levels, imho. As for Warlocks, I don't think they'd be overpowered. They are already just OK as written. If anything they should have a flat progression for their eldritch blast (improving every odd level, no matter what). They certainly don't need a nerf. -Drachasor *I am not sure, because if it is about problematic spells, almost all mechanics you find at levels 7 through 9 crop up in one way or another in lower level spells too. He specified caster level several times so I think what he means is you can reach 6th caster level, but under no curcumstances can you rise above it I think that this may be an intention to make spellcasting something special while removing the most powerful of effects. Something more along the line of what you would see in a Xena episode or Hurcules. Wizards etc exist, but they are not the mover's of mountians that they are in the typical D&D world. However, by dissallowing clerics spells above 3rd level won't Bards end up becoming the better healers? Just seems... odd... ((re-read original post so made an edit to my own))
DreadArchon 04-28-07, 10:02 PM	He specified caster level several times so I think what he means is you can reach 6th caster level, but under no curcumstances can you rise above it No, not quite. Your caster level can get pretty high--indeed, with the Magic Rating variant, many characters will have better caster levels than they normally would. However... As written you imply that a Wizard never gets 4th level spells. I was trying to explicitly state it, actually. That's the whole point. I think that this may be an intention to make spellcasting something special while removing the most powerful of effects. Kind of. I was actually seriously considering banning all classes that can get spells higher than sixth level, but I decided that some dabbling would be okay. Still, I'm considering dropping it down two levels, such that Wizards, etc. can't get spells higher than second level. However, by dissallowing clerics spells above 3rd level won't Bards end up becoming the better healers? Just seems... odd... Deliberate. I should perhaps supply some background: My current campaign is a Golden Age of Magic thingy. Flying cities, magitek armor (i.e. mecha adapted from d20 Future), etc. It'll end with a fall into a horrible dark age where the main races are pushed to the brink of extinction and blah blah blah etc. One facet of this is that powerful magic will be rare at best--except that the most powerful surviving deity will be the goddess of Bards. I don't want to completely ban other casters, but I do want to prevent most casting styles to go above "dabbler" in usefulness.
Drachasor 04-28-07, 11:17 PM	Ok, then as written, wizards suck. There is NO REASON to ever be one. Bards have better spells, better hit points, better skills, and better class abilities. They even get enough damaging spells to compete there well enough (sound-based attacks). Wizards only getting 3rd level spells (and none higher) are flat-out worse casters than bards. Wizards (and Sorcs) have fewer spells per day, and those spells are weaker (at higher levels, say level 10). In fact, you've turned Wizards and Sorcs into dip classes. You stop taking Wizard levels at level 6, as you've written it. Why ever take level 7 or higher? just take Cleric or Bard and your caster level increases and you get more spells. You do know that 3rd level spells do not make wizards the equal of warriors? They are going to do less damage by a long shot, and just be less effective in combat. It isn't even until level 9 or so that Wizards really start to shine. As for Clerics, I can't see any reason to take any levels in that class either. Just take Bard and you get the same sort of stuff, only it is BETTER. If you want heavier armor, take combat casting. Your BAB is already as good. As written, you are better off just flat-out banning wizards, sorcerers, clerics, druids, etc. Well, Druids are still potent thanks to Wild Shape, though they lack defensive abilities since their magic is far too nerfed (imho). Still, probably somewhat viable, unlike all the other formerly full casters. Honestly, you are better off figuring out what you don't like about those classes and getting rid of that, or just banning them. As written, they are just a trap for players who don't know better to fall into, and then get hit repeatedly in the head as they gain levels (oh, the suffering!) The change you did unbalances almost EVERY PrC that grants spellcasting levels, making them awful to the extreme. As I said, it's going to make a trap for unwitting players, who will make characters that will be inferior to non-magical or bardic counterparts. If you are intent on no wizards/clerics with no spells over 3rd level, then just make those into bloodlines. I mean, consider the 20th level Wizard! What the heck can he possibly do with a +10 BAB, barely any spells each day, spell DCs that are worthless, and damage from spells that are no good? The class has given up ALL of its magic and gain NOTHING. Consider a Rogue 3/Wizard 6/Arcane Trickster 10 -- just how is this a valid choice for a Rogue? He's gained a small number of spells and lost a huge amount of BAB (4!), sneak attack (4d6!), higher level rogue abilities, untold numbers of skill points (from 10/level to 4/level over 16 levels), and hit points. How could this ever be considered a good idea after you look at it? But a player might decide to make such a character, only to become ever-increasingly dismayed by how ineffectual his character is. Oh, and no one should EVER be a cleric. You are better off as a Paladin. You get more healing, do more damage, etc. I'm sorry, but the more I look at this, the worse and worse it looks as far as full casters go. -Drachasor
DreadArchon 04-29-07, 04:31 PM	In fact, you've turned Wizards and Sorcs into dip classes. And Beguilers, Clerics, and Druids. That's the point. The same goes for caster-based prestige classes: They're not supposed to be viable.
Drachasor 04-29-07, 07:21 PM	And Beguilers, Clerics, and Druids. That's the point. The same goes for caster-based prestige classes: They're not supposed to be viable. I think you've missed my point. It is not worth it to ever take any levels in Wizard or Sorcerer. Clerics are arguable, but the fact is that generally it would be better to take Bard levels instead. Normally it is a very, very bad idea to take 5 levels of Wizard and 15 levels of a class that doesn't advance your casting. Doing so gimps your character. As written you have put out these classes that are not worth taking any levels in, but players might be lulled into thinking it still makes sense to take levels in them. That's because unlike the commoner or adept, players are used to Wizards and Clerics being useful. They aren't useful classes anymore (in fact both are flat-out worse than the adept, a normally extremely subpar class). You are better off rethinking how you are handling it, or simply banning those classes. -Drachasor
Drachasor 04-30-07, 07:44 PM	ooooops, wrong thread! (argg, how embarrassing!)
Sorentia 05-01-07, 09:16 AM	Here is a few thoughts for you.... You said that the Goddess of Bards will be the predominant surviving Goddess. Well, what about her priests? Are you saying that she tells her priestly worshipers "Screw you, go be a bard"? Perhaps you should design a new PrC for the priests. One that combines priestly magic (Clerical only obviously as druids wouldn't worship a bard goddess) and bardic magic allowing a priest player to surpass the "3rd Level Divine Spell Limit". I'd make the requirements somewhat steep since you don't want them to get the highest of the high spells, but I think something like this could work. Priest of the Harp (Working title) Req Knowledge Religion : 10 ranks Performance (any) : 10 ranks Divine Spell Casting 2nd level Spells Arcane Spell Casting: Spontanious Casting, 3rd level spells Class Feature : Inspire Confidence Game Rule Info HD d6 BAB Poor (1/2) Skills 4+Int Mod Class Skills: Same as Bard Saves: Good - Ref/Will Poor - Fort 1st Level - +1 Arcane Casting level every level 2nd level - +1 Divine Casting Level, raises again on 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th PrC levels stack with Bard for Bardic Knowledge Thats just a rough idea, nothing really thought out but something to give you an idea. As for the wizards and sorcerers... well... I'd out and out remove the sorcerer class. As for the wizards, you could allow full advancement, just remove the 2 spells per level learned and require them to learn all spells from an outside source. Then you can have 100% control over when they get a spell. Could give a player a "Searching for the past" story arch thing. Just some ideas on how to incorporate things a little bit. Oh, and for the Druid, I'd suggest giving them the "Avenging Druid" option but instead of loosing thier animal companion they loose thier spells and don't take a penalty to animal empathy checks. Don't make it an option, but rather just how the class functions. This could allow them to fill a bit of a role of "preserver of nature" with thier rage, shape shifting, and companion with out having to be worried about spells at all.
Max Octavious Xavier 05-01-07, 12:46 PM	I'm toying with rules for a relatively low-magic campaign (again). I've seen several threads on this before, but they're all going for lower low-magic than I am, so... Characters should be strong, but less reliant on magic items. Anything obviously a bad idea here? Particular points of concern: Are the pricing changes about right for limiting item availability? Is a Major Bloodline a bit much with the Feats and Stats part? Are Warlocks too magical to allow them full progression? What about Duskblades? Is sixth level too high for the primary caster classes, or should I drop it to four and make Bards even better by comparison? Are Bards too overwhelming in this setup? (Bards as the best casters possible is deliberate, they're there for story reasons too.) ... I should perhaps supply some background: My current campaign is a Golden Age of Magic thingy. Flying cities, magitek armor (i.e. mecha adapted from d20 Future), etc. It'll end with a fall into a horrible dark age where the main races are pushed to the brink of extinction and blah blah blah etc. One facet of this is that powerful magic will be rare at best--except that the most powerful surviving deity will be the goddess of Bards. I don't want to completely ban other casters, but I do want to prevent most casting styles to go above "dabbler" in usefulness. I am planning to do a similar event at the end of my current campaign. An event will cause the "Rules of Magic" to be "rewritten". I was going to restrict casters to 3rd level spells, and let them use the 4th+ spell slots for metamagic versions of lesser spells. If I wanted Bards to be special, I would let them have 4th level spells. Yes, bards would be "too overwhelming".
DreadArchon 05-01-07, 02:40 PM	You said that the Goddess of Bards will be the predominant surviving Goddess. Well, what about her priests? Are you saying that she tells her priestly worshipers "Screw you, go be a bard"? Perhaps you should design a new PrC for the priests. One that combines priestly magic (Clerical only obviously as druids wouldn't worship a bard goddess) and bardic magic allowing a priest player to surpass the "3rd Level Divine Spell Limit". Divine Bard from Unearthed Arcana with the (slightly modified) Sublime Chord prestige class. Also, there will be other deities. The Goddess of Bards won't be the only one with weaker Clerics. I was going to restrict casters to 3rd level spells, and let them use the 4th+ spell slots for metamagic versions of lesser spells. If I wanted Bards to be special, I would let them have 4th level spells. Yes, bards would be "too overwhelming". Hmmm, okay. I'll probably head in that direction, but... what about Duskblades? Do you think that their limited spells known makes them more like special, fancy Fighters, or do they get too much also?
Drachasor 05-01-07, 03:12 PM	I am planning to do a similar event at the end of my current campaign. An event will cause the "Rules of Magic" to be "rewritten". I was going to restrict casters to 3rd level spells, and let them use the 4th+ spell slots for metamagic versions of lesser spells. If I wanted Bards to be special, I would let them have 4th level spells. Yes, bards would be "too overwhelming". Well, I still say even something like this makes wizards and clerics nigh-unplayable. It still has the problem of making them seem playable to naive players. I propose granting everyone Heighten Spell for free. That way higher level slots can be used to increase DC. I also think that damage caps on spells should be dropped. IMHO, it's that or just ban the classes. You shouldn't give players the option of playing a worthless class. On the other hand, if you are letting Bards become Sublime Chords....then I am not sure why you even letting players be wizards or sorcerers. Same is true of clerics if there's this Sublime Chord cleric option. -Drachasor
DreadArchon 05-01-07, 03:54 PM	Well, I still say even something like this makes wizards and clerics nigh-unplayable. It still has the problem of making them seem playable to naive players. Oh, I got that part. Honestly, if my players can't figure out that the classes aren't viable even after I've told them, I'm not going to feel particularly sorry for them. Not all of my players are that dumb, and I don't want to gimp the more creative ones (who have, in the past, had reason to dip into caster classes for only a few levels). On Sublime Chord, etc.: Well, M.O.X. more or less pushed me over the fence about Bards, so I don't think I'll be allowing them (as written). Thus, I don't feel the need to correct such glaring discrepancies any more. (Otherwise, yes, you're correct.) The Goddess of Bards will still factor in heavily story-wise (perhaps I'll draft up a spell-free Bard?), but it won't be represented mechanically by unneutered Bards.
Max Octavious Xavier 05-02-07, 12:08 AM	Hmmm, okay. I'll probably head in that direction, but... what about Duskblades? Do you think that their limited spells known makes them more like special, fancy Fighters, or do they get too much also? well, I don't have much experience with duskblades so I would probably limit them like I would all casting classes. I will have to think about warlocks. I think you've missed my point. It is not worth it to ever take any levels in Wizard or Sorcerer. Clerics are arguable, but the fact is that generally it would be better to take Bard levels instead. Normally it is a very, very bad idea to take 5 levels of Wizard and 15 levels of a class that doesn't advance your casting. Doing so gimps your character. ... Well, I still say even something like this makes wizards and clerics nigh-unplayable. It still has the problem of making them seem playable to naive players. A little overboard don't you think. It "gimps your character" only in relation to full casters. If you wanted to cast spells then it would be worth it to take some levels in the appropriate class. You will also have to adjust some monsters down (in power) or up (in cr) a bit to account for the lack of high level spells and probably high level spellcasters.
Drachasor 05-02-07, 12:47 AM	A little overboard don't you think. It "gimps your character" only in relation to full casters. If you wanted to cast spells then it would be worth it to take some levels in the appropriate class. Well, right, but if you want to cast a small selection of spells, it is better to take a class dedicated to a few levels of spells. Like an Assassin. That'll help you focus on what you want to do, and give you some spells to back it up. Taking 2-6 levels of Wizard can't help you at all. At 15th level, those spells are not going to be helpful; their effects are weak (magic items or other effects can match them), and their durations are awful. If you try to up your caster level, then you have to take a Gish class, which is awful at fighting if it doesn't get more spells (it NEEDS those spells to survive). The one exception MIGHT be the Abjurant Champion PrC, if you only focus on getting one or two levels of Wizard (more won't help you at all). That said, however, the PrC is not terribly useful if you are going Wizard 1/Barbarian 14/Abjurant Champion 5. It can net you some AC, but it makes you dependent on spells for all of your AC (and you can't up your caster bonus from 19, so you can't count on not being dispelled). Generally it would be better to go with magical items...probably. This might be the sole exception, however. Still, you'd probably be more effective taking 4 levels of Rogue (netting you sneak attack, better reflex save, and evasion). Or, if you want some warrior-specific protective magics (most of the best stuff you'll see from Wizard or Cleric spell levels 1-3), just be a Paladin, Ranger, or some other partial caster. They keep your BAB, those spells work in armor, and the class abilities are generally more useful to boot. If you want general utility magic, then go with a Bard. He'll have the best overall spell list by far, and he continues to improve as you gain levels. Just what is dipping into Wizard or Cleric going to do for anyone? Worse hit points? Worse BAB? Class Features that become worthless or a liability? It just ain't cost effective (especially the wizard). There's a reason why you don't see any builds that just dip a few levels into a caster and never progress the casting. They aren't worth it at all. So it gimps you relative to a non-caster. It gimps you relative to your other casting options (remember, even the Pally or Ranger is going to get spells a Cleric will never see. Furthermore, very few low-level cleric spells will remain worth casting at level 10 or 12). Anyhoo, beyond that healing is going to be a problem. Bards can't heal very well, especially at higher levels. They get their heals later than a cleric, and the cleric just keeps up (barely, though Heal changes things for clerics). Just help them get items to help with that and that should be fine though. It changes a good bit if you let casters get higher level slots. Still however, the fact is that no damaging spells will remain that viable for long, and the 1-3 buffs aren't all that good. Some are *useful*, but almost all of those you can get elsewhere. Certainly going with a Wizard would remain a very bad choice. Wizards don't start earning their weight until 4th and 5th level magic. As is they'll be stuck with crappy BAB, bad hit points, and very little ability to do anything in battle. (just get worse as you gain levels). So no, generally I don't think I overstated that it was gimping a character. Beyond some obscure PrC* that taking 1 or 2 caster levels helps you get into, how would dipping really help anyone in such a world as opposed to just taking levels in a lesser casting class that wasn't screwed over? I doubt there's any example you can give a level 10+ guy that benefits from 5 or fewer caster levels (and no other levels). It is only going to make such a character weaker (particularly, again, wizard or sorcerer levels). -Drachasor *I can't think of any of-hand, besides ones that would have their own casting progression.
Max Octavious Xavier 05-02-07, 11:45 AM	...It changes a good bit if you let casters get higher level slots... I said "I was going to restrict casters to 3rd level spells, and let them use the 4th+ spell slots for metamagic versions of lesser spells." They do get higher level spell slots. Maybe I'm just a "naive player" who think that you could make use of a few levels of wizard. They won't have their traditional place of power in a party, but they will be useful. Also, these changes don't take place in a vacumn. Low-magic worlds tend to have less magic items and the opponents will have to be adjusted. As I said before; "You will also have to adjust some monsters down (in power) or up (in cr) a bit to account for the lack of high level spells and probably high level spellcasters." Drachasor, I don't think your claims are as universal as you think; "NO REASON to ever be one It is not worth it to ever take any levels in Wizard or Sorcerer Taking 2-6 levels of Wizard can't help you at all." You make some good and valid points. This does gimp spellcasters, especially wizards and sor who have no other reason to take levels other than spells. But I am ok with making them into dip classes. In fact, many of your points are WHY I want to do this. One of the most effective characters in my campaign is a build that would make any powergamer cry (multiclassed Fighter/Rogue/wizard/cleric/MT/Arcane archer). Another character has a very optimal build, but is much less effective. It depends on the player. So, I think I will agree to disagree.
DreadArchon 05-02-07, 03:23 PM	Well, right, but if you want to cast a small selection of spells, it is better to take a class dedicated to a few levels of spells. Like an Assassin. That'll help you focus on what you want to do, and give you some spells to back it up. Unless you want spells that aren't on the Prestige Class lists. Or you don't want to adjust your build to meet prerequisites for a certain Prestige Class. Or you're aware that six levels of Battle Sorcerer would give you better than six levels of Assassin would in terms of spells. Taking 2-6 levels of Wizard can't help you at all. I don't agree, there are useful things you can do with those levels, especially if you have something specific in mind. If you try to up your caster level, then you have to take a Gish class... Practiced Caster gets you quite a bit for only one feat (and note that I'm giving a bunch of extra feats). Also, I'm using the Magic Rating system, which advances caster level similarly to Base Attack Bonus. An Archivist 2/Wizard 2 would cast all of his spells as CL 4, for example. If you want general utility magic, then go with a Bard. He'll have the best overall spell list by far, and he continues to improve as you gain levels. I'm nixing that. There's a reason why you don't see any builds that just dip a few levels into a caster and never progress the casting. Baseless and incorrect assumption. Anyhoo, beyond that healing is going to be a problem. ...And banning the classes outright will solve this? o_O Beyond some obscure PrC* that taking 1 or 2 caster levels helps you get into, how would dipping really help anyone in such a world as opposed to just taking levels in a lesser casting class that wasn't screwed over? Master of Masks, Dragon Disciple, and Racial Paragon classes come to mind immediately. It wouldn't surprise me if there were others.
Drachasor 05-02-07, 03:50 PM	I really don't want to get into a long argument that will mostly derail the thread. So I'm just going to leave my opinion as is for the most part. Generally it is that Wizard/Sorc levels will not be nearly as useful as levels in some other class. Of course they will have abilities that get used, but with the huge nerfage, the penalties of those class outweigh the benefits by a huge margin. So let me change the tone of my objects to instead be one of offering helpful advice (imho). I propose you at least consider letting those classes both have 3/4 BAB, light armor casting, and a d6 or d8 hit die. That would help a lot. I also propose that the DC on spells is 10 + Caster Level/2 + Ability Mod, and that you get rid of damage and other level limitations on spells. E.g. a 20th level Caster casting Cure Light Wounds heals 1d8+20 damage, a 19th caster level magic missile has 9 missiles, and a 20th level fireball does 20d6 points of damage. Magic will still be quite weak then, and higher level effects will be impossible. However, it would still be useful and good. Indeed, it would reduce the overall power of casters to be more in line with those of non-casters (without nerfing them to oblivion). Beyond that, MOX's system of still giving higher level slots is a good idea. (Personally I'd also consider some higher level spells on a case by case basis, but I understand you don't want to go there). You might want a soft cap on increasing caster-level effects if you do this, or perhaps just get rid of the empower and maximize spell feats. Or, you could have it so that higher level slots increase the caster level cap according to the DMG 3.0 chart (if so keep empower and maximize, imho): Spell Damage Cap Level Single Area 1-1 5 - 1 5 5 2 10 5 3 10 10 4 15 10 5 15 15 6 20 15 7 20 20 8 25 25 9 25 25 The spell levels above are for Arcane Casters, Divine Casters have a limit of Spell Level - 1 (or 1-1 for 1st level spells) on the above chart. It was something like that anyhow. That makes the classes worthwhile, as I said, but still much, much weaker. Assuming you are still having normal or mostly normal wealth by level, it should allow casters to keep up with non-casters (a good non-caster build can do much more damage to a single target than this, so casters have an AoE niche). Otherwise it is a lot better to get a PrC that does what you want, and has a spell list that's more focused and has higher level effects as lower level spells. Remember, a lot of PrCs have access to 4th, 5th, or 6th level arcane/divine magic (and even some 20-level classes like the Paladin and Ranger). Bards have access to some 8th level effects! ...And banning the classes outright will solve this? o_O Banning the classes won't change it (healing problems) much. I was just pointing out this problem to make sure you were aware of it. You'll need some plan to deal with it. Personally I think healing in normal D&D is too monopolized. Every class or almost every class should have some ability to heal themselves or others. Healing duties are, in almost all cases, not fun. That's a fact for most players (there are rare exceptions). So that was more of a FYI in case you hadn't already noticed. (This is a problem in and of itself though). -Drachasor
DreadArchon 05-02-07, 05:25 PM	Of course they will have abilities that get used, but with the huge nerfage, the penalties of those class outweigh the benefits by a huge margin. Yes, that's the idea. I'll take that as praise, I guess. The LA penalty on a Succubus far outweighs the benefits as far as I'm concerned, but it's still there as a (technically) playable race. Heck, mages under this system are still more useful than the Duelist class, IMHO. :P (Edit: Well, the core Duelist. The Duelist is more viable with splat books and the extra feats I'm giving. You get the idea.) So that was more of a FYI in case you hadn't already noticed. (This is a problem in and of itself though). Ah, okay.