Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rydi123 10-25-06, 07:11 PM	Since i have seen alot of calls for nerfing spellcasters lately, and alot of fixes that are, imo, problematic, i am proposing my own. it is a very simple one, but i think it will be both extremely easy, and efficient. LIMIT AVAILABLE SPELLS this requires a little work at the outset, because you actually have to go through and say what you want to be on a given casters list, but the system stays the same, the power is decreased substantially, the character is given more flavor, once it is done you never have to mess with it again, and you can even hand out 'special' spells as treasure (scrolls become alot cooler with these rules). A few examples of ways this can be approached: Clerics are limited to casting spells from thier domains only, and spontaneously converting spells. a generous gm might include all healing spells as well, so that evil clerics can still heal thier allies. Wizards and sorcerers are limited to one or two schools of magic (thus qualifying them for specialization as well). if more than one school can be cast, it would probably be a good idea to allow wizards more schools than sorcereres, thus maintaining a similar balance between the classes as far as utility goes. Druids would be limited to elemental spells (possibly only one element of choice), or those that deal specifically with animals or plants. another way of doing the druid would be to make them pick spheres of influence, similar to a cleric's domains (a elemental druid might have access to several elements, a life druid would have no elemental access but would have animals and plants, and a specific elemtal druid might be able to manipulate one element, and animals/plants of that element (water element and all things that live in it, for example). with this option, instead of changing a bunch of spells, you just edit out the ones that are a problem. teleporting making character's lives to easy? well then say all dimensional travel effect don't work (why? astral storm, thickened dimensional barriers, the gods want it that way, whatever; make something up). web ruining your dungeon? then it doesn't exist, or if it does, it lasts only one round. Whatever seems most broken/problematic just gets edited out for game balance. one thing i noticed about d&d, is that the more source books you make available to players, the more powerful they become, and the fewer limitations they have. The spell compendium is a great example of this. it removes many of the limitations to individual caster classes, and it adds some really powerful stuff. so how did i deal with it? i made it 'approval only' material. It even makes sense, as a wizard will not automatically have access to every spell ever created when picking spells, at least not in a realistic setting. different regions would have different spells, and wizards that wanted to know more spells would go on journeys, apprentice under or fight other casters, and so on. clerics are much the same. different gods, even if they have the same domains, may grant different spells based upon their natures. or maybe it is up to the cleric to channel the divine power how he/she chooses, and churches only teach a limited number of techniques, with regional differences existing much as they do for wizards. sorcererous blood would only allow for the spells common to thier ancestors (and since the MM only uses players handbook spells, that's all that sorcerers gain access to). another good option, but probably the most time consuming, is to assign an arbitrary number to each spell level on a casters list, and give the list that many spells of that level. you can then pick spells that won't disrupt your game, fit the feel of each class, and generally put controll back into the hands of the DM.
DIESCUMDIE 10-27-06, 09:54 AM	Limited casters is the only one of these options I like. Although I've been flamed for posting it.
Krusk 10-27-06, 01:29 PM	I liked the limit spellcasters to a certian school idea. When i play a spellcaster I usually tend to do this except for the odd spell i like. But I doubt anyone could get a majority of their players to go for it.
rydi123 10-27-06, 04:18 PM	Limited casters is the only one of these options I like. Although I've been flamed for posting it. well, in comparison to level loss / xp drain anything looks good :) I liked the limit spellcasters to a certian school idea. When i play a spellcaster I usually tend to do this except for the odd spell i like. But I doubt anyone could get a majority of their players to go for it i think it primarily depends on the game in question. if the environment isn't magic heavy, and if the gm has set this stuff out ahead of time, it shouldnt be too much of a bother. but i can see where jumping up in the middle of a game and saying 'all casters get their spell list quartered' wouldn't fly.
kadeity 10-27-06, 08:18 PM	im attempting something similar in this post. take a look and tell me what you think. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10483459#post10483459
DIESCUMDIE 10-28-06, 02:10 PM	well, in comparison to level loss / xp drain anything looks good Grrr:mad: Why is ther no smiley giving the finger? But anyway, limiting casters to one or two schools is a good idea and will create flavourful characters. A sorc with evocation and necro will be very different from one with enchant and transmutation. Sort of x-men ish. To my mind clerics and druids should also be limited to one or two domains. I don't know what to do with bards though.
calvinNhobbes 10-28-06, 04:53 PM	I don't know what to do with bards though. Bards could just be multiclassed. Ex. sorcerer (illusion and enchantment schools) multiclassed with a cleric (travel and trickery domains)
Krusk 10-28-06, 07:47 PM	Bards tend to be pretty specific and narrowed anyway, they really dont need much nerfing to their spellcasting. Id say just leave as is, maybe take out a few of their odd spells that do damage.
Witch 10-28-06, 07:51 PM	Or perhaps, you just let spellcasters do as they are. In practical play, they're not significantly more powerful than anyone else. Some spells might require changing or banning, though not too many. Sure, you can tell me all the min-maxed numbers in the world of how spellcasters are incredibly powerful compared to fighters. Practically, however, they're not. Not in actual play.
DIESCUMDIE 10-29-06, 11:39 AM	Or perhaps, you just let spellcasters do as they are. In practical play, they're not significantly more powerful than anyone else. Some spells might require changing or banning, though not too many. Sure, you can tell me all the min-maxed numbers in the world of how spellcasters are incredibly powerful compared to fighters. Practically, however, they're not. Not in actual play. You make the mistake that somebody is trying to pursuade you. I have played lots of games were casters have been a problem. As have the other posters on this thread (I assume otherwise why would they be posting). So those of us who would like a nerf are discussing it. You are adding nothing because your experience is not indicative of much at all really. Unless you work in dnd research, which I know you don't otherwise you wouldn't say something so incorrect.
Red_Rabbit 10-29-06, 12:07 PM	First I hate people that try to rewrite the corebooks, because most of the time it doesn't turn out very good. Mainly because the writer isn't thinking about what will be FUN to play, but EASY for them to handle. Your Solution is simple ban all casting classes, because you don't know how to handle them. Which means you need to probly figure out how to adapt to your players and situations. I DM a large group and each of your ideas remove the fun from casters. I'd say learn to adapt to and overcome what your players do, but don't use EXTRA CHEESE just to have your way. My arcane and divine casters have never offered me a problem I couldn't take care there have never been an invincible tank or spellcaster I couldn't slap around and take down a notch when they get an ego. Your answer for Wizard is to take there ability to learn spells away and give them the same number as a sorcerer would have, by letting them have 2 schools does that really sound like the idea of what a wizard should be doesn't sound very well trained to me. Your Answer for Cleric is to give them 9 spells and make 5 healing spells "maybe if the DM is feeling nice about healing" seriously how much of a bad idea is that. Your Answer for Sorcerer is well you aren't really doing much to a sorcerer but Imposing your own will on players and taking away there decision to pick there own spells so that's bad enough. The books learn to adapt instead of posting a cry post. This sounds like you are very inexperianced and not a very strong DM to make suggestions like this. The game is suppose to be fun for the DM and the PLAYERS so don't go crazy and start changing things from the book, otherwise you could find yourself without a Group when people get sick of you whining about what you don't understand. The Rabbit
Witch 10-29-06, 12:15 PM	You make the mistake that somebody is trying to pursuade you. I have played lots of games were casters have been a problem. As have the other posters on this thread (I assume otherwise why would they be posting). So those of us who would like a nerf are discussing it. You are adding nothing because your experience is not indicative of much at all really. Unless you work in dnd research, which I know you don't otherwise you wouldn't say something so incorrect. If casters have been that big of a problem, then one of following events is occuring: - the DM is favoring one side - the non-casters don't know how to build decent characters - the casters are munchkinning The nerfs you're proposing will generally ruin a spellcaster. They're not good houserules, because they're not balancing, they're underpowering. And no, I don't -work- in D&D research. But then again, not a lot of people do. I consider myself to be somewhat better versed in factual game balance than most, though I'm sure there's people out there who are far more competent in it. If you state that my experience is invalid - I would like to point out that you are the ones houseruling against a heavily playtested core system out of your own previous experience. Not me, who is supporting the system. Just a pointer.
Mysticaloctopus 10-29-06, 01:54 PM	Or perhaps, you just let spellcasters do as they are. In practical play, they're not significantly more powerful than anyone else. Some spells might require changing or banning, though not too many. Sure, you can tell me all the min-maxed numbers in the world of how spellcasters are incredibly powerful compared to fighters. Practically, however, they're not. Not in actual play. I'm in agreement with Witch here. Spellcasters are not that powerful that they need major nerfing! This is like saying "Fighters have the highest BAB, so we're going to drop its BAB down, and hey, let's just give everyone the wizard BAB!" If you min-max it horribly, a spellcaster can do major damage, but so can any other class (Except Bards. Everyone hates bards! Sorry, bards, but you're not overpowered :P ). Here is an example I used once against a group of 20th-level PCs: Half-Orc Gravetouched Ghoul Barbarian 18. Start with 18 STR, +2 for being half-orc. Built to be min/maxed, so Cha was put high to avoid problems with being undead and using it in place of Con for some things, and for later. Stats as an 18th-level character, after magic items, etc: Str 26 Dex 15 Con - Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 16 Next, I spent a lot of treasure on one magic item: A +1 shocking flaming frost corrosive profane greatsword, with each of those abilities given the Surge synergy from DMGII. That's a +6 weapon, +10k gp: about 85,000 gp. IT deals 1d12 + 1d6 each fire, acid, electricity, cold, +2d6 versus the living + 8. Three times per day (once per point Cha mod, min +1) on a hit (declared after rolling) it can deal +2d6 of any of these. Pick and choose as you wish. In a rage, with this ability, used three times and assuming hits on a spellcaster foe: 1d12 + 6d6 + 12d+ + 11 (from rage bonus to Str). lowest damage: 1 + 6 + 12 + 11 = 30 damage average damage: 6 + 18 + 36 + 11 = 71 damage maximum damage: 12 + 36 + 72 + 11 = 131 damage These aren't wasted on a miss, and he can do this three times per day. Now, let's not forget that he has enough money to buy a spare weapon with this enchantment, too, so he can do it six times a day. In two rounds, that's 180 to 786 damage, averaging out at 426 points of damage. Given that a wizard can do heavy damage if he spends it all in one encounter, I think we can fairly say that a Barbarian built around being strong with a magic sword is broken, and rule that all magic swords, even +1 daggers, are epic items and thus reduce their power to, say ,all magic weapons being +0.125? and that's only on a tuesday, if the moon is waxing, when you have both the Wield Magic Item and eat pancake with magic item feats. The bottom line is this: In laboratory tests, any high-level minmax is overpowered. In the field, unusual conditions can render any class near useless (read: about as powerful as a bard :P ). We don't need t onerf magic. If it was that overpowered, WotC would've seen to it by now. We get the occasional thread about magic needing a nerf, but then we get threads about everything needing a nerf now and then. Let's just hope it doesn't become the next Katana topic!
BevisIscariot 10-29-06, 07:25 PM	I'm in agreement with Witch here. Spellcasters are not that powerful that they need major nerfing! This is like saying "Fighters have the highest BAB, so we're going to drop its BAB down, and hey, let's just give everyone the wizard BAB!" If you min-max it horribly, a spellcaster can do major damage, but so can any other class (Except Bards. Everyone hates bards! Sorry, bards, but you're not overpowered :P ). Here is an example I used once against a group of 20th-level PCs: Half-Orc Gravetouched Ghoul Barbarian 18. Start with 18 STR, +2 for being half-orc. Built to be min/maxed, so Cha was put high to avoid problems with being undead and using it in place of Con for some things, and for later. Stats as an 18th-level character, after magic items, etc: Str 26 Dex 15 Con - Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 16 Next, I spent a lot of treasure on one magic item: A +1 shocking flaming frost corrosive profane greatsword, with each of those abilities given the Surge synergy from DMGII. That's a +6 weapon, +10k gp: about 85,000 gp. IT deals 1d12 + 1d6 each fire, acid, electricity, cold, +2d6 versus the living + 8. Three times per day (once per point Cha mod, min +1) on a hit (declared after rolling) it can deal +2d6 of any of these. Pick and choose as you wish. In a rage, with this ability, used three times and assuming hits on a spellcaster foe: 1d12 + 6d6 + 12d+ + 11 (from rage bonus to Str). lowest damage: 1 + 6 + 12 + 11 = 30 damage average damage: 6 + 18 + 36 + 11 = 71 damage maximum damage: 12 + 36 + 72 + 11 = 131 damage These aren't wasted on a miss, and he can do this three times per day. Now, let's not forget that he has enough money to buy a spare weapon with this enchantment, too, so he can do it six times a day. In two rounds, that's 180 to 786 damage, averaging out at 426 points of damage. Given that a wizard can do heavy damage if he spends it all in one encounter, I think we can fairly say that a Barbarian built around being strong with a magic sword is broken, and rule that all magic swords, even +1 daggers, are epic items and thus reduce their power to, say ,all magic weapons being +0.125? and that's only on a tuesday, if the moon is waxing, when you have both the Wield Magic Item and eat pancake with magic item feats. The bottom line is this: In laboratory tests, any high-level minmax is overpowered. In the field, unusual conditions can render any class near useless (read: about as powerful as a bard :P ). We don't need t onerf magic. If it was that overpowered, WotC would've seen to it by now. We get the occasional thread about magic needing a nerf, but then we get threads about everything needing a nerf now and then. Let's just hope it doesn't become the next Katana topic! Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Your will save's nothing. You lie on the ground laughing while the spellcaster destroys you. You're dead. Limiting certain spells is, IMO, a good idea. Especially the "save or you're screwed" type. If they work, they wreck encounters; if they don't the spellcaster has accomplished nothing, wasted a turn and feels cheated.
rydi123 10-29-06, 07:30 PM	while i think casters can be just fine in the average game, i think that thier potential for abuse is much higher than any other class. also, even in an average game where no one is optimizing, the versatility of casters can derail a whole adventure if you don't take thier every spell into account when planning it. while i don't necessarily think that the system as a whole needs to change, i certainly think it would be appropriate in many games to lower the power of magic either for story reasons, or simply for power. also, i think that if they limited spell selection a bit more in future editions, the game would be much improved.
X-Codes 10-29-06, 08:23 PM	The problem here as the problem with all spellcaster nerfs is the same. Magic already serves as it's own counter with counterspelling, AMF, MDJ, dispelling, and oh-so-many others. Teleporting getting the BBEG down? Dimensional Anchor the guy casting the Teleport spells, that way *nobody* can teleport. Webs making a sticky situation? It's effectively canceled out by a level 1 spell: burning hands. Fireball works, too, as does Freedom of Movement. Heck, summon Fire Elementals and they can clear out the webs. Most summoned creatures are knocked out with a dismissal spell. ...and it keeps going, around and around and around.
bruiserdeck 10-29-06, 08:32 PM	I think that all that is needed to balance spell casters is for the DM to actually use the limiting factors of spell casters and add a little realism (LOL love that... little realism... spellcasters LOL). most DMs simply allow the player to have access to any spell in any book and they dont have to use any materials except those that cost a amount of money. hell i know GMs that even ignore things like pearls for identify spells. but try playing a campeign where the mage is required to get his/her spell components. Or a game where the DM restricts spells because the player has no way to learn that spell or the GM simply assumes that not all spells are found in all places at all times. In a game i am playing now the GM allows almost all spells and ignores spell components. because of this at 3rd level we can walk into a goblin encampment and the wizard drops Kelgors Grave Mist from the PHB2 and murders most of the encampment or forces them to flee leaving only the goblin leader and a few random goblins for the group to fight. I am sure the mage is having fun but every time this happens I casually mention, where is this guy getting all this grave dirt to cast this spell?(he cast the spell 5 times in 3 days adventuring in the field) and he is a lawfull neute elf... how many L/N elves go digging around graveyards for dirt to cast a spell like this? and where did he get the spell in the first place. when ge gained level 3 he just spontaniously invented the spell? as a ranger if I have to buy all my arrows and am forced to go through all sorts of role playing to get any specialty arrows but the wizard gets an unlimited supply of grave dirt, cats wiskers, bat poop, or what ever else is required to cast what ever spell he desires. and apperantly every spell ever printed in any book is conjured up as spontanious knowlage or found in the village library of the smallest most insignificant thorp at the end of civilization. this lack of attention to detail is 80% of the reasons casters are over powered in D&D. dont blame WotC. blame your DM.
Jaxgaret 10-30-06, 12:22 AM	I think that all that is needed to balance spell casters is for the DM to actually use the limiting factors of spell casters and add a little realism (LOL love that... little realism... spellcasters LOL). most DMs simply allow the player to have access to any spell in any book and they dont have to use any materials except those that cost a amount of money. hell i know GMs that even ignore things like pearls for identify spells. but try playing a campeign where the mage is required to get his/her spell components. Or a game where the DM restricts spells because the player has no way to learn that spell or the GM simply assumes that not all spells are found in all places at all times. In a game i am playing now the GM allows almost all spells and ignores spell components. because of this at 3rd level we can walk into a goblin encampment and the wizard drops Kelgors Grave Mist from the PHB2 and murders most of the encampment or forces them to flee leaving only the goblin leader and a few random goblins for the group to fight. I am sure the mage is having fun but every time this happens I casually mention, where is this guy getting all this grave dirt to cast this spell?(he cast the spell 5 times in 3 days adventuring in the field) and he is a lawfull neute elf... how many L/N elves go digging around graveyards for dirt to cast a spell like this? and where did he get the spell in the first place. when ge gained level 3 he just spontaniously invented the spell? as a ranger if I have to buy all my arrows and am forced to go through all sorts of role playing to get any specialty arrows but the wizard gets an unlimited supply of grave dirt, cats wiskers, bat poop, or what ever else is required to cast what ever spell he desires. and apperantly every spell ever printed in any book is conjured up as spontanious knowlage or found in the village library of the smallest most insignificant thorp at the end of civilization. this lack of attention to detail is 80% of the reasons casters are over powered in D&D. dont blame WotC. blame your DM. You forgot to surround your post with /rant and /end rant. DMs are not gods. Talk to your DM about these things. Just venting on the boards isn't going to make your game any better. If your DM doesn't want to work with you, find a better DM, or do it yourself. As an aside, in my campaigns, I give the melee classes small stat boosts to make them a little more balanced to casters. Seems to work pretty well.
rydi123 10-30-06, 01:14 AM	most DMs simply allow the player to have access to any spell in any book and they dont have to use any materials except those that cost a amount of money. hell i know GMs that even ignore things like pearls for identify spells. but try playing a campeign where the mage is required to get his/her spell components. Or a game where the DM restricts spells because the player has no way to learn that spell or the GM simply assumes that not all spells are found in all places at all times. i do agree. but that is, in effect, very similar to what i am talking about. that is what limiting spells means much of the time. you can't always learn the spells you want, just what you have access to. if the DM wants, they can give out a special scroll as treasure to give you access to new spells, but otherwise, you are bound by what the DM feels the campaign can handle. but the material components is difficult; it makes the game even more about bookkeeping. there is a reason why the materials get ignored: they bog the game down. but as one of the only limiting factors on mages, that gives them too much power. so what is the answer? imo, just make them have access to fewer spells. Bards tend to be pretty specific and narrowed anyway, they really dont need much nerfing to their spellcasting. Id say just leave as is, maybe take out a few of their odd spells that do damage. i agree, though they might need a few spells removed depending on how much you nerf spellcasters, simply to maintain the same balance of power (if wizards only get 1 domain, then bard is actually a better caster). Grrr Why is ther no smiley giving the finger? sorry, no offense, it was just to easy to :P you on that one. First I hate people that try to rewrite the corebooks, because most of the time it doesn't turn out very good. Mainly because the writer isn't thinking about what will be FUN to play, but EASY for them to handle. Your Solution is simple ban all casting classes, because you don't know how to handle them. Which means you need to probly figure out how to adapt to your players and situations. I DM a large group and each of your ideas remove the fun from casters. I'd say learn to adapt to and overcome what your players do, but don't use EXTRA CHEESE just to have your way. My arcane and divine casters have never offered me a problem I couldn't take care there have never been an invincible tank or spellcaster I couldn't slap around and take down a notch when they get an ego. Your answer for Wizard is to take there ability to learn spells away and give them the same number as a sorcerer would have, by letting them have 2 schools does that really sound like the idea of what a wizard should be doesn't sound very well trained to me. Your Answer for Cleric is to give them 9 spells and make 5 healing spells "maybe if the DM is feeling nice about healing" seriously how much of a bad idea is that. Your Answer for Sorcerer is well you aren't really doing much to a sorcerer but Imposing your own will on players and taking away there decision to pick there own spells so that's bad enough. The books learn to adapt instead of posting a cry post. This sounds like you are very inexperianced and not a very strong DM to make suggestions like this. The game is suppose to be fun for the DM and the PLAYERS so don't go crazy and start changing things from the book, otherwise you could find yourself without a Group when people get sick of you whining about what you don't understand. The Rabbit First I hate people that try to correct people when they don't understand what they are even trying to say. i am not rewriting anything. i am saying, that if casting is causing you a problem, then you can do something about it other than fight fire with fire like was suggested by x-codes when he she wrote: The problem here as the problem with all spellcaster nerfs is the same. Magic already serves as it's own counter with counterspelling, AMF, MDJ, dispelling, and oh-so-many others. Teleporting getting the BBEG down? Dimensional Anchor the guy casting the Teleport spells, that way *nobody* can teleport. Webs making a sticky situation? It's effectively canceled out by a level 1 spell: burning hands. Fireball works, too, as does Freedom of Movement. Heck, summon Fire Elementals and they can clear out the webs. Most summoned creatures are knocked out with a dismissal spell. ...and it keeps going, around and around and around. this manner of dealing with casters is viable, but ultimately taxing for the party and the DM, and it creates a very definite feel for the magic that may not suite every game. to say that someone isn't a good dm because they don't like how magic works is also a bit ignorrant on your part. the casting systems has been one of the major complaints for 3.x and if you go over to optimization, you can see some reasons why. sure, such things can be dealt with using the rules, but why bother when you can just change it to work the way you want it? second, i gave several options, not just limiting to one domain/school; which options were used would be up to the dm. each option was simply taking the concept of limiting spells and spinning it to fit different campaigns and gm styles. and even the most extreme nerfs i have proposed would not eliminate the usefulness of casters. a druid/cleric would still have thier class abilities and spontaneous casting, in addition to domain spells, great armor, saves, hp, and a bab equal to a rogue. they would still be useful and interesting to play. further, because of the specialization, they would actually have more roleplay value, as different clerics would have very different roles to fill in a party, rather than just being generic healers. limiting wizards is kind of the same thing. sure they have fewer spells, but limiting them to the whole players handbook isnt that bad, if you chose to go that route. and if you limit them to only one or two schools, it would seem obvious to me that you would have to supplement their list with stuff from other books so that they would have an adequately large list. but again, making super specialists opens as many 'fun' roleplaying options as it closes, and forces creativity on the part of the player (which is what the game is about, right?). also, to both x-codes and red_rabbit, what is wrong with limiting problem spells? teleport for example. you want to run a campaign where transportation is a big deal, and you want sea voyages to be the primary means of getting from one place to another. once the characters can teleport, the whole campaign changes. that is, unless you d-lock the whole plane (very contrived, and results in the same thing functionally). why not instead simply get rid of teleport. another example comes from a module called the worlds largest dungeon, where because of the enclosed nature of the whole module (level 1-20) web is incredibly powerful and battle changing. they suggest simply removing web as a spell all together (neither players or monsters get to use it) to prevent people spamming web for 20 levels. and of course, let us remember that the rules are not the holy grail of roleplaying. the goal is to have fun. if the casting system is causing problems in a group, and the group is okay with changing it, where is the problem? sometimes the simplest solution is the best. and one thing specifically regarding x-codes comment: The problem here as the problem with all spellcaster nerfs is the same. Magic already serves as it's own counter with counterspelling, AMF, MDJ, dispelling, and oh-so-many others. this is true, but why do it that way? it results in more unfun in my experience. casters would, in my experience, rather cast from a limited list than battle against a counterspeller. at least with a limited list, they get to do something in a fight. and again, this really creates a different feel than many dm's/players may want. most sf/fantasy novels that use supernatural powers, for example, don't do alot of counterspelling, and if that is the feel you are going for, this option doesn't work. and players HATE MDJ. i have heard it referred to before as the nuke of d&d. there is an unspoken agreement between players and DM's that if one side doesn't MDJ, the other won't either. it just overcomplicates things, and makes everything the players have worked so hard to achieve go down the drain. very disheartening and unfun. The nerfs you're proposing will generally ruin a spellcaster. They're not good houserules, because they're not balancing, they're underpowering. were you talking about diescumdie's rules or mine? my proposal is simply a concept, that of limiting spell selection. but the level of nerfage is completely in dm hands. my question is simply: would this be a better aproach to nerfage than the others people have proposed (xp penalties, cutting spells/day, etc).
X-Codes 10-30-06, 03:55 AM	also, to both x-codes and red_rabbit, what is wrong with limiting problem spells? teleport for example. you want to run a campaign where transportation is a big deal, and you want sea voyages to be the primary means of getting from one place to another. once the characters can teleport, the whole campaign changes. that is, unless you d-lock the whole plane (very contrived, and results in the same thing functionally). why not instead simply get rid of teleport. another example comes from a module called the worlds largest dungeon, where because of the enclosed nature of the whole module (level 1-20) web is incredibly powerful and battle changing. they suggest simply removing web as a spell all together (neither players or monsters get to use it) to prevent people spamming web for 20 levels. Teleport is vital to any adventuring party traveling over vast distances. It cuts all the travel time and all the roadblocks that happen along the way to 0. If your players are using Teleport to warp in and out of the BBEG's castle at will, then make use of spells like Dimensional Anchor, Forbiddance, and Dimensional Lock. Then you get it both ways. this is true, but why do it that way? it results in more unfun in my experience. casters would, in my experience, rather cast from a limited list than battle against a counterspeller. at least with a limited list, they get to do something in a fight. and again, this really creates a different feel than many dm's/players may want. most sf/fantasy novels that use supernatural powers, for example, don't do alot of counterspelling, and if that is the feel you are going for, this option doesn't work. When the party is around level 6-7 then I'll probably throw one or two low-level clerics with CL 5 wands of Dispel Magic for counterspelling and BBEG support. It's what smart NPC's do, and if the players get around the front line and attack the Clerics, then the party spellcasters are free to cut loose. Later on it won't be Dispel Magic so much as specific spell countering such as blocking Web with Fireball. and players HATE MDJ. i have heard it referred to before as the nuke of d&d. there is an unspoken agreement between players and DM's that if one side doesn't MDJ, the other won't either. it just overcomplicates things, and makes everything the players have worked so hard to achieve go down the drain. very disheartening and unfun. Then just use AMF or Dead Magic zones. It has the same level of absolute negation that MDJ has and is the ultimate counter to magic. Obviously you wouldn't do this every fight, but just in fights where spellcasters are starting to become a problem and the BBEG needs to change things up to get a chance to win. The thing about balancing spellcasting is that it's a *lot* easier and a *lot* simpler to do it in-game. I also wouldn't have as much fun playing a cleric that can only cast CLW and my domain spells as I would playing a full-out cleric in a game rife with counterspellers and AMF's.
Witch 10-30-06, 04:24 AM	were you talking about diescumdie's rules or mine? my proposal is simply a concept, that of limiting spell selection. but the level of nerfage is completely in dm hands. my question is simply: would this be a better aproach to nerfage than the others people have proposed (xp penalties, cutting spells/day, etc). Limiting spell selection is a good thing, as long as you don't exaggerate. I believe you exaggerated.
rydi123 10-30-06, 05:39 AM	ah. well, i actually gave options ranging from nearly non-existent nerfing (remove a few spells), to extreme nerfage for specific campaign settings (casters limited to a few domains/schools). the choice wouldn't be mine, but the DM in question.
DIESCUMDIE 10-30-06, 09:06 AM	I don't understand why everyone complains. If they want to shoot fireballs to the dome they can take the warlock. Quasi-evil flavour aside it is everything a caster is except fair. There's also the dragonfire adept, incarnate, etc etc. Nobodies trying to take magic away, just fix the abusive classes. These classes have lots of utility, but none of them are going to derail a game like a wizard.
OneSidedDice 10-30-06, 01:06 PM	I don't understand why everyone complains. If they want to shoot fireballs to the dome they can take the warlock. Quasi-evil flavour aside it is everything a caster is except fair. There's also the dragonfire adept, incarnate, etc etc. Nobodies trying to take magic away, just fix the abusive classes. These classes have lots of utility, but none of them are going to derail a game like a wizard. Wizards can hardly "shoot fireballs to the dome". A 20th-level wizard is going to be able to toss something like seven fireballs per day, and that's if he has a 32 Int. Maybe eight if he's an evoker, and likes fireball. This is also assuming that all he takes is fireball. Those spells won't last for very long in near-epic combat (or maybe they will, because there's much better things to use than 3rd-level spells at that point). People are complaining because you're making the assertion that casters, particularly wizards it seems, are broken, yet you have failed to back this claim up. I don't believe you've offered any evidence or examples of how a wizard is able to "derail a game". If you can convince people that magic, or wizardly magic, is broken, then you would likely find that people wuold complain less and be more receptive to your ideas. As is, however, you seem to just be saying "magic is broken" and not offering any support for that claim.
DIESCUMDIE 10-30-06, 04:29 PM	'Are mages broken?' Is a thread for the magic forum, class forum, or combat optimization forum. There are lots of such threads already. This is a thread for people who are of the opinion already and looking for a solution. Its as if your at a meeting to discuss solutions to enviromental issues, arguing if there is such a thing, when that is really the subject for another entirely different debate. (Not that I'm saying their is any link between enviroment and magic, or course). http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=728013 http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=674452 http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=728773 http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=728823 http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php%3Ft%3D18500 If you want to know ask on the co boards. Otherwise why does it bother you that some people find magic a problem? Nobodies forcing you to adopt the house rule.
bruiserdeck 10-30-06, 08:17 PM	You forgot to surround your post with /rant and /end rant. sure I am ranting... but its a rant with a point that your missing. people play a game, drop rules they dont want to use, then complain that the game is broken or something is overpowered. its like parents who let their kids watch a movie then write angry letters that the movie exposes the kids to in appropriate material. is it the movies fault for having the material or the parents fault for not monitoring it? or smokers who blame the cigarett company for their cancer. The buck stops with the GM, they ARE the ultimate god of every game, the GM allows or disallows everything in the game. If some one says "This campeign/rule/idea is pretty crappy." it ultimately falls on the GM to agre and change the rule or explain to the player why it cannot be changed.
Witch 10-30-06, 08:27 PM	The buck stops with the GM, they ARE the ultimate god of every game, the GM allows or disallows everything in the game. If some one says "This campeign/rule/idea is pretty crappy." it ultimately falls on the GM to agre and change the rule or explain to the player why it cannot be changed. They are the ultimate god of any D&D game as long as the players agree to play under his rules. Sure, they can do whatever they want. But if they abuse that, their players will go away. Some DMs tend to forget that.
DIESCUMDIE 10-31-06, 01:40 PM	They are the ultimate god of any D&D game as long as the players agree to play under his rules. Sure, they can do whatever they want. But if they abuse that, their players will go away. Some DMs tend to forget that. Hahaha. I'm sorry but I've never seen dm's without players. I've seen lots of dm's who have the luxery of picking and choosing who they let play though. Mainly because of people like you who can assert that the dm is totally responsible for everything yet unable to make any adjustments if you don't like them, making dm'ng a minefield ony the commited bother to deal with.
Pellanor 10-31-06, 03:35 PM	It's not as odd as it sounds. In our group, one of the guys who used to DM doesn't any more because a fair number of the players would refuse to play with him. Actually the reason I took over DMing was because I was sick of him overly limiting classes he felt to be problematic. Anyways, you listed a number of threads showing how borken magic is. The first one compares a Splatbook Fighter to a Core Wizard. This thread doesn't show that Magic is broken in any way shape or form. First off the Fighter is generally considered to be the weakest class in the PHB, with it's strengths in the low levels. It should lose against any other core class at 20th level. This thread just proves that the extra feats available from the various splatbooks aren't enough to boost the Fighter to the level where he can keep up with the other classes. The second thread simply states what the implications of having ready access to large amounts of magic are on a society. Nothing here seems to indicate that magic borken. The third thread shows that spellcasters are more powerful at higher levels, while the melee classes are more powerful at low levels. Still nothing screams Borken to me. Next up is a thread with a guy asking advise on how to play a wizard. I see no relevance here. Finally you link to a guide on how to build a good Wizard. I love how you listed so many relevant threads where somebody has given a detailed analysis of why spellcasting is borken. It really supports your argument. But really, what's your problem with spellcasting? What, in particular, needs to be fixed? It seems to me that you think it's too good and needs to be made less good. I keep expecting to hear, "Spellcsting is so good, it's almost magical. We need to make it more mundane." Here, I'll show you how it's done. I'll start by listing a few of the issues I have with the spellcasting system. Spells per Day. I don't like this system. I don't like any Abilities per day, because it requires you to have X encounters within that time frame (typically 4 of equal CR) in order to be balanced. I don't have a solution for this at the moment, and it's really too much effort for me to figure one out, but it is an issue that I have. Touch Attacks make a lot of Tank characters much easier to hit than they should be. Having a large number of spellcasters in the party can dramatically decrease the difficulty of an encounter with a creature who has a large AC, but a low Touch AC. Save or Dies. I don't like them because I can't, as the DM, use them. I mean I can, but then PCs die, and my players complain. That and I don't want my PCs to die, I want them to suffer. Magic, not necessarily spellcasting, is required in order for AC to keep up with Attack. Polymorph is a joke. It's been Errated so many times I have no idea what it does now. Illusion and Enchantment are both the same school of magic, with different thematics. Both schools are basically "Make a will save or get screwed" with a few extra spells on the side for flavour. On the plus side this makes it easy for a wizard to pick one of the schools he losses access to. There, see. Wasn't that easy. So let's try this again. What issues do you have with the Magic system?
rydi123 10-31-06, 04:54 PM	witch: they are missing you over on epic duels :) pellanor: lets see. my problems, or the ones normally listed? i will just go with my problems i guess. 1- feel/flavor/genre/theme/etc.- i just don't like the thematic elements of d&d casting. for generic games it works ok, but when you want to do a game with a certain flavor to the magic, or a game where everyone is really specialized, it is hard to capture that feeling with the super-generic, wide open spell choices people can make. if you want clerics like you see in many fantasy settings, where clerics are limited to spells that fit thier deity, rather than any spell in existence (minus a few alternate alignment spells), d&d just doesn't accomadate this. same for specialist wizards. sure you lose a school, and get a little better at one, but what about a campaign in which wizards get only one or two schools (the mentalist, or the warmage for example)? present in alot of fantasy, and possible to do without too much of a power loss for wizards, but still not allowed by the normal rules. 2- specific spells- some spells just ruin scenarios. when the players gain teleport, the game changes. it becomes very difficult to make a story about traveling when you can get where you need to be in the blink of an eye. web is super strong in an all dungeon campaign and most monsters (esp. at low levels) cannot deal with it. basically, there are times at which the game would be better off without certain spells. sure, you can find ways to work around them, but that often isn't worth the work, and when it is it usually feels contrived (largely because it is). 3- magic clubs psionics like a baby seal- psionics, the other fully developed 'magic' system in d&d, is nerfed beside the awe and splendor of the 'real' magic system. yet they say psi is balanced? 4- spells/day- at low levels, casters are worthless. the arcane caster gets a couple of magic missiles, and the cleric heals a few people (though they can at least strap on some armor and beat people up). woohoo. if they live long enough however, they become nearly unkillable. layered contingencies, buffs, etc. and enough spell slots to prepare for almost any situation. i would like it if spellcasters were more even throughout, and not so impervious to harm at higher levels. 5- buffs- this problem, at least for clerics, can partially be solved just by getting rid of divine metamagic and/or persistent spell. but in general, i just think that the idea of long standing buffs is problematic, both thematically and mechanicaly. thematically, i refer you to fiction, even d&d fiction. i can count on my fingers the number of times someone walks around in fantasy novels (and i have read alot) with spells active on themselves for any extended period of time. generally they buff immediately before a fight, or during it, allowing for more drama, more specialness in the spells, and more manageable characters that can actually be caught unawares and killed. mechanically the length of buffs is problematic because it effectively changes the CR of characters. have you seen an even mildly optimized buffing CoDzilla? once they are done, the entire party has stats putting them on par with creatures several levels above them, and encounters become a joke... unless you use the same tactics for your enemies, in which case you have added a huge amount of complication and numbers crunching for a net change of zero. 6- countering spellcasters- the option most often stated for dealing with casters is some variant of 'the system has built in failsafes for powerful casters: just dispel/counterspell them, or use the same tactics they do.' i do not agree with this option. as stated above, it results in a net change of zero much of the time (i.e., you cast, i counter it, nothing happened, and the spell had no effect upon the game, other than to frustrate the player trying to cast), and they add complications where none should exist (CoD buffs party, party goes to fight monsters; to stand up to and be a sufficient challenge for the party, every group of monsters gets a CoD who buffs them. wonderful numbers crunching ensues, with the end result being that both sides have pretty much the same buffs, putting the situation back where it started). 7- magic items obsolete- on most optimized characters you will seldom see high +x weapons. why? greater magic weapon of course. i have seen so many threads going over this, and really, they make alot of sense. but why in a game largely about the goodies, would one want to remove that element? and further, why should a simple spell be able to replace an immensely powerful/expensive magic item for more than a few moments (sure spells can do what items can, but only for a very limited time, thus the reason for the items in the first place). i just don't get it. 8- too many spells- i don't have time to read every spell in the game. it is just too much. but to be properly prepared for running a caster, it is almost necessary. unless of course you limit spells to core only (which most pro-caster people don't like). when a wizard can choose any spell to add to their book upon level up, and clerics can simply cast anything on thier list, they are capable of solving nearly any problem, because somewhere, in the crevices of some sourcebook, there is a spell that will resolve virtually any situation. sure, i guess i could ambush players all the time to prevent them from prepping, but other than that, what do you do? 9- spell-like items- in games with significant amounts of downtime, the crafting feats, specifically scroll/wand, can become very problematic, making the caster even more versatile and letting them spam thier most powerful spells. sure, gold is a limiter as well, but it requires a very watchful eye on the dm's part, and it depends on the idea that characters won't pool gold to make such items (which is ultimately in the tactically minded parties favor, as they can go kill more monsters, and then just get more gold/levels). 10- spell components- they are a balancing factor on spellcasters, but isn't there some better way? they are a pain to do the book-keeping on, tedious for all concerned, and while thematically appropriate sometimes, they are a very boring thematic element most of the time,
mlasater 10-31-06, 08:57 PM	I really shouldn't as there are enough people in this arguement, but point by point. 1- feel/flavor/genre/theme/etc This is really the only valid reason for wanting to limit/alter spellcasters (or any other class). It is easier to simply eliminate the classes (or races) which don't fit rather try make major alterations to the mechanics. And if you alter the mechanics for one spellcaster class - like wizard - then you must alter ALL spellcasting classes - including the more specialized ones like warmage or the balance is really messed up. Generally people want to run a lower magic setting, which requires an experienced DM with the D&D system. Frankly, if you still having all the other problems listed, your not ready to be trying to alter the rules for a low magic setting. 2- specific spells- some spells just ruin scenarios... Piffle. Any experienced DM can stifle these kind of problems & without feeling contrived. Teleport & divination spells are the usual examples. Teleport - if the PCs use it to leave, heal & return - have the bad guys use the time while the PCs are gone - get reinforcements, build traps, or simply take the best loot & leave. If the PCs use time, the bad guys use time. Travel - teleport has limits (like error chance), it works best if the PCs have actually been where they are going. Want an overland journey - send the PCs some place they have never been. Sure, I suppose they could try teleport, have fun with the error chance. Divination - sure it makes a mystery harder to design, but really - all the spells have limitations & any assassin worth hiring would take precautions against any commonly available divination effects. Actually makes murder mysteries more fun... 3- magic is better than psionics... A matter of opinion, but not a valid reason to nerf spellcasters. 4 - spells/day- at low levels, casters are worthless...at high level they become nearly unkillable Trust me, weakening spellcasters won't help the first & the second is dealt with by proper adventure design. 5- buffs - Yeah, this can get annoying. The easist solution for extreme cases is to talk to your players - the "don't do that" conversation. If they persist, show them how annoying it is (by having some uber buffed monsters) - trust me, they'll get the hint. Anything the players can do, the DM can do better. D&D is NOT an arms race. If all else fails, remove the most problematic feats/spells. 6- countering spellcasters. Once again, this is where actually talking to your players is the best solution. If you endlessly frustrate your players, they will escalate. This isn't a rules problem, its a DM style problem. Beyond that, it is a fantasy setting with magic, you have to use intelligent well-run spellcasters as DM. Anything ONLY the players have is always a problem (doesn't matter what it is). 7- magic items obsolete... Frankly, I have NEVER seen this problem. Magic weapon spells get used when the PCs need and magic weapon & don't have one (We're fighing a lich & no-one has magic bludgeoning weapons). Even if they do this, so what it is fewer spells which can be used elsewhere. If the DM has only given out low plus items, this could occur - but once again, that is a campaign issue, not a rules problem. I could go one for pages about how to make magic items special, but here isn't the place. 8- too many spells - Reading spells goes with the job of DM. Start with the PHB & read the spells your PCs memorize. If they are determined, they'll find all the good ones for you. There are tons of books, why is reading spells more of a problem than reading feats or prestige classes? 9 - spell-like items. If you don't like the crafting feats - delete them. I haven't found them a problem. Feats are scarce, if the mage is taking Item Creation feats, they aren't taking the feats to increase the power of their magic. Under the standard rules exp is more of a limit than gold. Given the comments about magic weapon, the PCs may be making items because they feel what they have found is inadequate (once again a campaign issue, not a rules problem). 10- spell components. Standard spell components are a flavor item left over from the previous editions. They aren't meant to be a limit, hence the "Spell Component Pouch". Expensive components are a limit, they take money. Actually trying to keep track of the normal components is not worth the time & effort (I know, I tried in 2nd edition). X is overpowered problems are usually the result of one of the following: Inexperienced/lazy DMs - It takes experience & work to design fun & challenging adventures. Rules changes/errors - If something seems overpowered - READ THE RULES. It is amazing how many times the problem is because the rules aren't being run correctly. This gets amplified when inexperienced DMs starting changing the rules willy-nilly. Things which aren't meant to be combined. This is the least common problem, but can still occur. The folks who write the books, often don't catch the implications of all possible combinations. This is where DM fiat comes in - either ban one of the problematic parts or just say no. D&D has moderately powerful magic - for really powerful magic (especially at high levels) try Rolemaster. If you really want weaker magic, either use the d20 Modern/Past system or use different game mechanics entirely.
rydi123 10-31-06, 11:49 PM	1-i agree, if you change one you have to change them all. kind of a given imo, but i can see how that would need to be stated i suppose. 2-you addressed some ways to limit the damage, but such spells still mess with roleplaying elements, and the setting in general. ultimately, once teleport becomes a staple, there will be much less sailing around on the high seas, causing problems for your seafaring themed game. 3-i would also argue that aside from nova potential and a few broken loop spells (and there are ways to limit those), psi is more balanced than arcane/divine, and thus moving arcane/divine closer to parity with psi would make more sense than the other way around. 4-like i said, i would actually like to see casters more powerful at lower levels. and as far as campaign design... it is irritating having to design around the other issues ive brought up in this thread. i can do it, i have done it successfully, and my players have had fun. but i havent, and i think we could all have more fun with some limits. 5&6-yes, talking can work, depending on the player. but some people just don't think that way. if it is allowed in the rules they say to themselves 'why would i not do the most powerful thing i can do?' and any amount of talking doesn't work. and of course, you can kick those people out, but that can hurt freindships, destroy games, and overall cause more trouble than it is worth. but just saying you are using different house rules is often less offensive, and easier for the problem player/ rules lawyer to deal with. they just min/max within a new framework that is more easily dealt with. and those that don't like it are more apt to say, 'i don't like this game, i think ill leave' than they are to feel like they are being unfairly targeted in the middle of the game for simply following the rules as they are printed. 7-my players have not done this. but i have seen alot of threads on it, and heard people talk about doing it. it grates. and it is kind of in the 5&6 category. you can talk to them, but until the spells in question are changed, limited, or omitted, there are some people that just won't get it. and it isn't because items handed out are too weak. it is simply because the min/max works better that way. supposedly. 8-this one i highly disagree with. yes, i have read the core spells, and know them fairly well. and yes, i have looked over pretty much every 3.x book ever made by wotc. but i don't have to know all the information backwards and forwards to run my games, just the pertinent info (character classes in party, feats in party, etc.). but the spells are a different story. casters that can just pick up whatever spell they want after a nights sleep are just a pain. if you let them pull from every source, then you end up having to actually know every spell if you want to insure that your campaign isn't derailed by mordenkainen's magnificent plot solver. because ultimately, they have access to it if it exists, so long as i let them pull from those books. and frankly, that is too much work. that isn't me being lazy, it is just absurd that someone would spend that much extra time to prepare for a game (and not even working on the actual game) when one could simply limit the spell selection and remove the problem entirely. 9-kind of what i was suggesting. but as far as the xp thing goes, you should read this: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=695040
mlasater 11-01-06, 03:15 AM	Overall opinion - spellcasters do NOT need to be nerfed. Problems with spellcasters in a campaign can be dealt with through good campaign/adventure design, intelligent opposition, understanding the rules, & the occassional minor fix if something becomes a problem. 1. Given that some suggestions involve extreme limitations on wizards/clerics but leave classes like warmage untouched, I thought it needed to be said. 2. Good campaign design - thinking about common issues like teleport, mind reading, & raise dead when your designing your campaign - will prevent most of this type of problem. To use your example - Seafaring focused campaign & teleport. First of all teleport is a fifth level spell, start the campaign at first & it will be awhile before the players can use it. Second - teleport, in addition to error chance, hae real weight & distance limits. Beyond the base limitations of the spell, this is where thought in campaign design comes into play - why are ships used if teleport is better? If you can answer that question in campaign design, then the problem of PCs & teleport has been solved. Use the same process for any problematic area & you have resolved the problem. How do societies use (or why don't they use) divination, mind reading, teleport, raise dead & so forth? Sure it is easier to just remove the spells, but the time & effort to develop a setting where they & are integrated (or limited by the setting) will lead to a much richer & more enjoyable campaign. 3. I am not going to rehash the psionics vs magic arguement, plenty of people already do that & of course plenty of people say psionics is too powerful. 4. Want to make spellcasters stronger at low level. Use spell points. Of course, this will make them much more flexible (the real power of wizards) at high level. 5 & 6. If your players can't or won'r take a hint, wreck the campaign. As I said, anything players can do the DM can do better. If you don't have the ideas, borrow from the CO boards. Throw, some REALLY unbalanced/optimized characters at the PCs (of course tailored for their weaknesses:D ). A few TPKs later, sit down with your players & point out its a lot more fun if people don't try & break the game. If your have one of those really intransigent players who can't or won't get it & you can't or won't eject them from the group, then worry about changing the rules. Besides, I never said use everything in all the books, deleting some feats, some (most) prestige classes, a few spells isn't going to majorly nerf spellcasters )or any other class). 7. As I said, I have NEVER seen it happen (other than with monk characters who don't use weapons). If the magic items the party is getting are keeping up with the average for their level, there is little need. Also, as I said - who cares - so they'd rather use up spells rather than get an enchanted weapon. 8. If the players know the books better than the DM, it will always cause problems. This is why one of my standard house rules is: If it isn't in a book I OWN, it isn't available in my campaign. The easist way to limit flipping through books looking for the perfect spell is to A) make people use their own books, not the DMs (most players don't have any many splat books as the DM); Time: Unless the player happens to know exactly what spell they are looking for & which book it is in - it takes time. It rude to make the rest of the group wait while anybody wastes time hunting for the perfect spell. Finally: So what - they find the perfect spell to easily solve the situation (which you didn't know about). Smile & move along like you expected it (you'll never get caught by that again & it makes your players think your a better DM). Players like victories. If your aren't good at running off the cuff, have some default back up adventures just in case (a good idea in general, when the PCs say "No way are we going into the Tomb of Ultimate Death looking for some lost artifact.") 9. Yeah. I run for old school players who hate spending experience. Finally. Relax. Take a deep breath. So what if the players manage some easy (easier) victories because they come up with a plan/idea/spell/use of a feat which didn't occur to you as the DM. As I said, smile & act like you expected it. They'll start wondering if they missed something, did they fall into the BBEGs trap, & such things. As you DM, you'll start to get familiar with all the common tricks & how to counter them. Your DMing skills will improve & your players will marvel at how you have thought of everything. Use your adventure plans as a guide, not an absolute plan. So the players zigged when you expected them to zag. Adapt & adjust, modify the plot/story on the fly. D&D isn't a competition between DM & players.
rydi123 11-01-06, 09:28 AM	1-i see your point, but i just assumed people would have the common sense to apply the limits across the board (i am so not going to break down spell lists for every single caster class in the game :) ) 2-i agree that it can be fun to integrate the spells into a campaign design and see thier logical impact on a society (well, as much of thier logical impact as we can anyway). however, sometimes you don't want that. sometimes you don't want the wayfarers guild, and the master diviners, and a whole magitech society (the likely end that magic would progress towards, much like eberron). sometimes you just want a barbarian with a big sword and a guy that can sling fire riding on a mule-drawn cart. and granted, it takes a bit for teleport to become a factor, but it is game changing when it does. and don't get me wrong, i don't advocate taking out every single spell that could potentially be a problem (there wouldn't be any spells left), but just stuff that really cuts into the way you want your game to run. 3-works for me. 4-ive contemplated this. possibly a spell point system that doesn't ramp up so high at the end would be a possibility. one of the big problems i have is the whole '4 fights a day' model, especially at higher levels where the fights take forever as it is. if i run that many fights, there won't be a roleplaying portion to the game, but if i dont, then the casters won't really be challenged because they will have most of their spells left. something to think on at least. 5&6-not my style. maybe that works for some DM's, but i don't like breaking games just to play *** for tat with silly players. i would rather just get to the root of the problem and eliminate that. and to be honest, the demographic that plays d&d is one of the least likely to get the whole 'don't break the game' talk. it is such a heavily rules oriented game, and so much about the combat and competing with the DM that many people just can't see the bigger picture. other games i've ran, like marvel, WoD, even the 5th age stuff for dragonlance, have been a more cooperative storytelling experience, but something about the system of 3.x seems to limit that element (still possible to get cooperative gaming, but just much more difficult). 7-the potential of it irritates me, but as it has never been a problem for me in my own games, i will drop it from this arguement. 8-like i said before, i absolutely refuse to memorize every spell in the game. maybe that makes me an aweful DM, but as my games generally run pretty well, i would be inclined to think it doesn't. and i know there are alot of people that would agree with me on the whole memorizing thing. as far as limiting book flipping, that is probably a good idea, though usually the player already has an idea of what they want to do, so it isn't going to help all that much. and as far as letting players win... that is your job. the DM's job is to facilitate a good story/play experience. that means the players get to win all the time. not my problem. my problem is when the system breaks under the wieght of a players spell list, and an encounter becomes pointless to even roll out. sure, it is fun to roll over the bad guys on occassion and get a reward for it, but all the time is just dull, and it is far more rewarding to roll over the bad guys due to good RP than to roll over them because of your automated buff chain or your obscure game-breaking spell. 9-:) and your advice on the rest is sound, and just par for the course when you are running a game. oh, and: Besides, I never said use everything in all the books, deleting some feats, some (most) prestige classes, a few spells isn't going to majorly nerf spellcasters )or any other class). exactly. i don't necessarily advocate some of the more extreme options i wrote down. however, i think it should be on peoples minds as an option, especially considering some of the horribly crippling nerfs that have been proposed on other threads. i just wanted people to get the idea, and understand some of the possible directions they could take that idea in. my list wasn't anywhere near a full break down of the ideas in question, or exhaustive in its analysis of individual classes. i don't advocate using all the limitations, or the most extreme, just whatever will make games better, and if they are good DM's, the DM's should be able to figure this out for themselves for my part, the limitations i would personally use (i wanted to leave this out of the discussion for at least the first page so that people would talk about the idea, rather than my specific take on it) are: -players guide spells only for spell selection, with non-players guide sources by request/approval only, and scrolls from other books handed out as treasure every once and awhile -removal of problem spells from the game, with no more than a few removed in this way (examples: web in an all dungeon campaign, teleport in a game focused around travel, etc). -no persistent spell feat. these rules are pretty tame, but they limit the casters enough that they can be planned for, and prevent them from messing with the overall campaign feel by getting rid of some of the potential game breakers before they happen. there are a few of the more extreme nerfs i would actually be interested in playing however, with the right group (though they would be more like campaign variants than nerfs): -limited schools domains: this is just a fun idea. with this i would open up all the books, since the schools would be too small otherwise. but this allows for a huge variety of base characters, inventiveness on the part of casters (how exactly does a divination wizard stop a horde of orcs?) and some reeeally neat campaign design. -tailored spell lists: this serves many of the same functions as the limited schools/domains, but from a less constrained angle.
DIESCUMDIE 11-01-06, 12:55 PM	I think alot of you are missing the main point, the three main reasons to nerf spellcasters. 1. Party imbalance. Some players want to play barbarian meat heads, or rogues. The game sucks for them if they are basically just entertaining themselves while the wizard ponders wether or not to end this encounter/ campaign. They eitther don't want to be casters, or cant figure out how to play them well. 2. The dm cant cope. Theres no requirement for the dm to be able to outbook the players. His mission is to make an exciting game / story. To challenge a barbarian you just pull monsters right out the book upping the cr until they're challenged. Rogues require alot of knowledge of the worlds ins and outs to create enough oppurtunities for their subterfuage, but this can be made up reasonably on the fly and overall isn't too demanding. Wizards on the other hand find no challenge in anything you do unless you are as versed in spells as them. If your not (I'm not for my players) you will not be able to challenge them. 3. Want to see parties made up of more than just casters. Players are choosing casters because otherwise they cant keep up with each other. Your collection of 5 books could be condensed to 1 book only detialing the magic spells and classes. You happen to like barbarians, either for the players or for your meathead monsters.
Witch 11-01-06, 01:00 PM	Some players want to play barbarian meat heads, or rogues. The game sucks for them if they are basically just entertaining themselves while the wizard ponders wether or not to end this encounter/ campaign. They eitther don't want to be casters, or cant figure out how to play them well. I'm sorry. The campaigns I play in, Barbarians are just as viable as casters, if the player playing them is competent.
Pellanor 11-01-06, 01:02 PM	1. This is a valid reason for houseruling, though I would not enjoy a game that limiting. I've always found that the most appealing part of a caster to me is their versatility. Taking that away is, to me at least, like taking away a Barbarian's Rage. 2. If you don't want to actually attempt to figure out the effects of high level magic on your world, then yes I could see how this could be an issue. If you're just putting together a "generic medieval world" that doesn't take magic into account then there will be spells that will disrupt that world. A lot of these spells are more of an issue with World Setting rather than game balance. For example, a world where there's only a handful of characters capable of casting Teleport, then ships will be the primary form of over seas transportation. However a world which has an epic level caster in every city will likely have a teleportation network connecting all major cities, much as we have airports now. Also, you mention time and time again how Teleport can ruin a seafaring campaign. Has it ever occurred to you that the players may not enjoy the seafaring game, which is why they're Teleporting to get around it? If they really want to play a seafaring game, then having access to Teleport won't stop them from doing so. They will choose not to cast the spell, in favour of travelling by ship, because that's more fun for them. 3. I concur about dropping this one. 4. Most fixes I've seen weaken Spellcasters straight across the board. It would take a fairly major overhaul to give casters more staying power in early levels, without really strengthening them in later levels. 5. Divine Metamagic Persist is dirty. Other than that, there aren't many buffs that last all day that you need to worry about. Sure there's almost 60 spells in the SRD with a duration measured in hours per level, but even for these you need to be 12th level and have the Extend Spell feat in order to have them last all day. Also the majority of them aren't combat buffs. There's only about a half dozen that fit that description. So as long as you aren't DMPing then there shouldn't be an issue here. 6. First magician throws spell at second magician. Second magician uses counterspell at first magician. First magician throws another spell at second magician. Second magician counters. Big army comes and crushes magicians.Counter Spelling is to Spellcasting what AC is to Attacking. It gives a chance to render a certain action null. It give you no advantage, outside of preventing your opponent from gaining an advantage. The only difference between the two is that AC is Passive where as Counterspelling is Active. A skilled counter speller can make a caster's life very difficult, yet at the same time it is very hard to counter a caster of equal level to you. I see no issue with giving characters another way to defend themselves against magic. 7. I believe you are referring to the +1 Keen Valorous Wrathful Healing Heavy Lance of Haste here. Where it is effectively a +10 weapon, with only a +1 enchantment bonus. They then cast Greater Magic Weapon, while using Karma beads to make it a +5 Keen Valorous Wrathful Healing Heavy Lance of Haste for 24 hours. While this is powerful, it is only feasible in a situation where the PCs have access to custom magic gearmo. 8. You don't need to memorize every spell. Sure clerics can have access to that spell that will automatically solve the puzzle, but you know what, they still have to wait to prepare it. Not something they'll be able to do if they only have an hour. Heck, if you're working on a puzzle simply ask your self these simple questions. 1. Would those who built this puzzle know about the spell that can automatically bypass it? 2. If so, would they have the resources to add in an extra layer of protection to void the above spell? 3. If so, What would be a safe fix that could work against any spell that might be a capable of overcoming this puzzle? For example, say there's a door with a puzzle on it. One way to get around the puzzle would be to go around the door, perhaps teleporting into the room beyond, or walking through the walls. So since the makers of the puzzle are aware of this, they have planned so that the room on the far side of the door is trapped, and those traps are only disarmed by opening the door. Or the players might be able to use some divination to get the answer to the puzzle told to them. Well what if the puzzle shifts, so if they look into the past to find the answer then they get the old solution, not the current one. And perhaps it's enchanted to mask any divination attempts on it. Or perhaps that's one solution that the puzzle maker just didn't think of. The same can apply to a mystery. If an assassin knows that somebody could use magic to identify him based on the bolts that he fired, perhaps he'll use special exploding bolts, so that they leave no trace of themselves behind for divination. So really you don't need to know every spell, and check them against whatever you're doing in order to figure out if one could bypass your puzzle / plot. You just have to figure out what type of effects might bypass it, and take reasonable precaution against them. 9. Custom Magic Items can be very dangerous. But even with standard item crafting and a party that carefully manages their resources, they can effectively double the value of their magical gear. Of course doubling the value doesn't necessarily double it's strength, since most gear costs are exponential. One of the big uses of the Item Crafting feats is to make a worthless item useful. Have a +X exotic weapon that nobody in the party is proficient with? Sell it at half price, then use the gold to make a equal value item that is usable. Of course, like all gear, the DM can easily regulate this, assuming he doesn't allow the party to abuse the economy (silly pineapple, why are you worth 150gp per lb). Just don't give the Players more gp if they're being to crafty for you. However remember that they did invest some of their characters resources into item crafting, so they should get some benefit from it. 10. I agree with mlasater here. edit:I think alot of you are missing the main point, the three main reasons to nerf spellcasters. 1. Party imbalance. Some players want to play barbarian meat heads, or rogues. The game sucks for them if they are basically just entertaining themselves while the wizard ponders wether or not to end this encounter/ campaign. They eitther don't want to be casters, or cant figure out how to play them well. 2. The dm cant cope. Theres no requirement for the dm to be able to outbook the players. His mission is to make an exciting game / story. To challenge a barbarian you just pull monsters right out the book upping the cr until they're challenged. Rogues require alot of knowledge of the worlds ins and outs to create enough oppurtunities for their subterfuage, but this can be made up reasonably on the fly and overall isn't too demanding. Wizards on the other hand find no challenge in anything you do unless you are as versed in spells as them. If your not (I'm not for my players) you will not be able to challenge them. 3. Want to see parties made up of more than just casters. Players are choosing casters because otherwise they cant keep up with each other. Your collection of 5 books could be condensed to 1 book only detialing the magic spells and classes. You happen to like barbarians, either for the players or for your meathead monsters.Why? What is it the root cause of these issues? What is it we should fix? Once again you're simply saying that Spellcasters are too powerful, without saying why.
DIESCUMDIE 11-01-06, 06:23 PM	I explained it last time, I'll explain it again. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10531592#post10531592 To quote the best explanation by Esponer " I'd say that until we see a combat ability that lets your attacks slide under contigencies and deny immediate actions in response (such as celerity), a non-caster will not compete with a caster at higher levels. And I'm really surprised to have never seen a combat ability that does the aforementioned, not even in fanstuff. The Book of Nine Swords provides some interesting options for mêlée characters, but casters retain most of their almost sacred powers. Those being, complete mastery over actions (with celerity, time stop, foresight and immediate action spells in general, and of course contingencies), mastery over self-preservation (astral projection and again contingencies), and mastery over all those annoying ways to make yourself impossible for a non-caster to touch you (flying, being invisible, and the various more imaginative options)." I'm betting you didn't read the links I posted last time. I imagine you haven't read much on this board either. Casters can do more than all the other characters, out of combat, in combat, offensively, defensively etc etc. This is not about 'munchkins' the ability to fly and turn invisable alone makes casters more powerful than any other class, this requires absolutely no optimization, just simply picking two good low level spells.
Witch 11-01-06, 06:35 PM	I explained it last time, I'll explain it again. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10531592#post10531592 I'm betting you didn't read the links I posted last time. I imagine you haven't read much on this board either. Casters can do more than all the other characters, out of combat, in combat, offensively, defensively etc etc. And do you know this from theoretical mathematics, or from experience? Besides, your link doesn't prove anything. It's merely you asking "can anything compete to the casters?", with other people giving a lot of things capable of doing so, and other saying "no". No arguments at all.
DIESCUMDIE 11-01-06, 06:53 PM	The examples they gave were artificers and psions. Not Barbarians and Rogues. They gave arguements, fly, invisability, contingency, celerity, and many others, which I just posted and you ignored. I know from experience as a dm and as a player. (No I've never subjected players to any house rules or magic nerfs). At all levels. I wish it wasn't true, I haven't created a random grudge against casters, I've just from experience found this to be a problem. If it doesn't happen in your games, thats great, but it does in games I play.
Witch 11-01-06, 07:03 PM	At all levels? Have you played Epic? Contingency is not limited to casters - you can buy them from NPC spellcasters. Fly? Hardly special. Plenty of items that allow a non-caster to fly. Celerity? That's a broken spell, which doesn't make a broken class. Invisibility? Get a ring of it - melee characters can.
rydi123 11-01-06, 08:14 PM	Pellanor: if you look at my last reply, down at the bottom, you will see my personal preferences for nerfs, which imo answers some of your comments, and shows that i agree with many of them. that said, i do have a few replies: 2-sometimes i want to run generic d&d, and i don't want to worry about demographics (what percent of the populace is a wizard? cleric? has healing or telportation ability? etc.), and sometimes i want to run in a game world that is well worked and high magic, but doesn't have certain facets that a world most likely would if it were set in a high magic setting (teleport being the easiest example again). and i do agree that this is more of a world setting issue rather than gameplay, but that isn't necessarily always the case. web for example can be really problematic if you are playing in dungeons 90% of the game, and as i mentioned earlier, i have seen an otherwise great module just come out and say 'this should probably just not exist if the game is going to work'. and as far as the players going around to sail even when they can teleport, well, true, unless there is an emergency. then they will blink around. so basically, whenever they are in downtime they will sail, and maybe activate an encounter, but otherwise they will port where they need to be. and a dm might want to eliminate that possibility. to maintain the campaign feel. and you are right, the party could just not teleport, but that would be rather contrived. 4. indeed. it is something to think about though. maybe a good place for the UA boards to expand... 6. it is occassionally a good thing. but for the most part, i think counterspelling=unfun. when actions are negated, you basically lose a round and have no impact on the game. that isn't happy for players, and if it becomes a regular facet of the game it will be highly irritating. 7. yes, that's the one. and usually i let characters craft thier own items if they take the feat. and they usually do. but as i said, no one has done this to me personally, the possibility just irritates. 8. depends on the group and the situation. i have found it is just easier by far to allow only the PHB spells, and just do everything else on a case by case. and i like the feel that creates as well, because i think it is ridiculous for a character to have any spell they want out of all the books. whatever happened to hidden lore? and about the puzzles... yes, and i have done that on many occassions. but overdoing it can be contrived, and underdoing it often allows obscure spells to come on through. time is an obstacle to the players, but again, making every single dungeon a race becomes contrived after a while. eh. guess it is up to individual play style. The examples they gave were artificers and psions. Not Barbarians and Rogues. They gave arguements, fly, invisability, contingency, celerity, and many others, which I just posted and you ignored. I know from experience as a dm and as a player. (No I've never subjected players to any house rules or magic nerfs). At all levels. I wish it wasn't true, I haven't created a random grudge against casters, I've just from experience found this to be a problem. If it doesn't happen in your games, thats great, but it does in games I play. dude, do you have the worst players in the wolrd or what? i mean are they abusing every rule and loophole in the game? are they immune to talking? and what is so bad about all the spells? i mean, maybe if those other spells are becoming a problem you should run a more Conan feel for your game: no casters with spells above x level, and the rest of the characters warriors rogues. because at a certain point, if casters can't cast basic fantasy effects such as invis or fly, well, what's the point? also, you really haven't said anything regarding the idea of simply limiting spells (you know, the thread topic). you just keep saying how broken the magic is. and while i agree with you in some instances, i don't agree with the extremity, and i would be interested to hear some of your ideas for fixing it (other than all spells costing xp; just going to have to agree to disagree there i suppose) or your opinions on my fixes and why they are good/bad.
mlasater 11-01-06, 08:45 PM	As far as campign design & magic. The heavy magitech or Eberron type of setting is not the only logical outcome of magic in a setting. I run in a homebrew setting & over the years have had to deal with these issues. I would describe my campaign setting a genericish fantasy. Teleport. Beyond the limitation in the spell (teleport isn't very good at moving large amounts of anything over really long distances). One way to limit teleport is to simply have natural barriers which can't be teleported across (mountain ranges, ocean currents) - come up with whatever explanation suits your world. It has the advantage of dividing the campaign world into areas with more limited contact. I have a few teleport networks (my players thought they were neat when they first ran into them - 20 years ago). Magical Creation. I dealt with this issue through societal restrictions. Sure a wizard could make tons of iron magically (wall of iron) - so what, no one will buy it. No one trusts magically created materials. The various craft guilds help enforce the restriction (the root of the distrust lies in my world's history). Characters can use creation spells for their own benefit, but it has no impact on the world economy. Magic & the world economy. I assume a certain level of magical weather control, disease cures & so forth in the base world economy. Not really because of the PCs, but because it allows for a wealthier (higher population) setting. I am enough of a medieval historian to know how nasty the middle ages really were - judicious assumptions about magic allows a setting with larger cities and so forth. Famine, disease are still potential problems if I want them to be - first off, most societies are operating near their carrying capacity with magic - any disruption can create problems, second there are always magical causes for problems (artifacts, dark gods, etc), great adventure fodder. Divination (especially mind reading) magic. Generic divination is pretty limited. The real issue was mind reading. The easist restrictions are social. Many (most) of the cultures in my world have restrictions on the use of mind reading (its illegal to use on other person without consent, cannot be used an evidence, & so forth). Sure, many of the ideas are modern in origin, so what, I never claimed to be running in the middle ages anyway. I also agree with Pellanor, sometimes it is a problem because the players aren't interested or the characters are poorly suited (a bunch of landlubbers on ships gets old fast). Spellcasters are overpowered/dominate the game arguement. This is a campaign/DM/player issue not a rules issue. Either the campaign setting is such it allows the PC spellcasters to dominate (a common flaw for "low magic" settings). Good campaign design must consider how the various societes deal wtih magic & rogue mages. Same as the problem of the fighter who decides to kill the entire town guard because he can. Or the DM is not using the magic (or half way decent tactics) to counter the PCs actions. If the PCs have access to magic their opposition must have access to magic. It is possible to run a campaign where only a select few (including a PC) have access to magic (typically plane travel or magic is hidden setting), but it is HARD. It requires a skilled DM who is willing to have the consquences of the PCs actions come back to haunt them. Reasonable players help too. Or its a player issue. Some players are simple more aggressive, more dominate, more skilled at builds. These players will tend to dominate the group regardless of the character type they play. If they always play casters, then it may appear that spellcasters are the problem - but its an illusion. A few spells, a few feats (especially in combination) may be broken, but spellcasters are NOT overpowered by the rules. Deal with the REAL underlying problem & the issue of spellcasters dominating the game will vanish. As far as DIESCUMDIE points. 1 & 3 are covered above. 2 (DM can't cope). Get more experience as DM. Good DMing is more than grabbing a few monsters out of the MM. As I said in an earlier post - Smile & pretend you expected it, alter your adventures on the fly to deal with things which didn't occur to you, & so forth. READ THE RULES and make sure what is being done is actually legal. Don't modify the rules until you have the experience to understand the impact of your modification. Start at 1st level, low level characters always have fewer options & are easier to run for. If your the player & not the DM, I have fewer suggestions - but bad DMing does not mean the rules are broken. To rydi123 & breaking the game. Its not my style either - but my players usually behave. I have seen some near examples. I was playing once & another player was abusing a rule (I don't remember what, it was a heavily house-ruled 2nd edition game). The DM changed the rule, player continued with the mechanic abuse. This went on for awhile until the DM said flat out - don't do that, I am going to keep changing the rules (to limit it) until you stop. Player sulked for 2 hours & the game went on - but he was never that abusive of the rules again. I usually prefer to deal with problems as the occur, rather than trying to solve every possible abuse in advance. Spellcasters aren't the only class which can abuse the rules. If the players complain, I tell them - if you weren't abusing the rules, I wouldn't have to change them. I do consider possible abuses before I add house rules - but I have found the best test in in play, if it doesn't work, I remove or change it. As far as easy challenges - I never said always let the players have an easy challenge. If the players come up with a clever tactic the DM didn't think of, it doesn't hurt. I haven't had the one spell which solves the whole adventure issue since I was much less experienced as a DM (and I don't have every spell memorized). As Pellanor said, you come up with the basic ways around the puzzle & block those you don't want used. Most new spells will be wrinkles the old same thing. If it is a combat spell. its really irrevelant - either the wizard avoids damage (so what, wizards are fragile anyway) or the fight is too easy (easily corrected, add more monsters). If you really think it was too much of a cakewalk, reduce the XP reward. rydi123 Your house rules aren't that bad. I would never allow a spell from a third party supplement without approval first. I won't bother with custom spell lists - I tried that in 2nd edition with priests for flavor reasons - way too much work.
Barlo_Browns 11-02-06, 07:59 AM	I think that all that is needed to balance spell casters is for the DM to actually use the limiting factors of spell casters and add a little realism (LOL love that... little realism... spellcasters LOL). most DMs simply allow the player to have access to any spell in any book and they dont have to use any materials except those that cost a amount of money. hell i know GMs that even ignore things like pearls for identify spells. but try playing a campeign where the mage is required to get his/her spell components. Or a game where the DM restricts spells because the player has no way to learn that spell or the GM simply assumes that not all spells are found in all places at all times. In a game i am playing now the GM allows almost all spells and ignores spell components. because of this at 3rd level we can walk into a goblin encampment and the wizard drops Kelgors Grave Mist from the PHB2 and murders most of the encampment or forces them to flee leaving only the goblin leader and a few random goblins for the group to fight. I am sure the mage is having fun but every time this happens I casually mention, where is this guy getting all this grave dirt to cast this spell?(he cast the spell 5 times in 3 days adventuring in the field) and he is a lawfull neute elf... how many L/N elves go digging around graveyards for dirt to cast a spell like this? and where did he get the spell in the first place. when ge gained level 3 he just spontaniously invented the spell? as a ranger if I have to buy all my arrows and am forced to go through all sorts of role playing to get any specialty arrows but the wizard gets an unlimited supply of grave dirt, cats wiskers, bat poop, or what ever else is required to cast what ever spell he desires. and apperantly every spell ever printed in any book is conjured up as spontanious knowlage or found in the village library of the smallest most insignificant thorp at the end of civilization. this lack of attention to detail is 80% of the reasons casters are over powered in D&D. dont blame WotC. blame your DM. So basically in your games, Eschew Materials is as necessary to casters as Natural Spell is to Druids. Gotcha. So casters burn 1 feat and then dominate everyone. Not too shabby.
Witch 11-02-06, 09:03 AM	Aside from that, Kelgors Grave Mist does 1d6 cold damage to all within the area. "How dominating". And before you say "it deals 1d6 per level", go reread the actual spell, not the short description in the list.
Barlo_Browns 11-02-06, 09:42 AM	Agreed. How do you even "Waltz up" to a Goblin camp anyway? Surely you'd be filled with arrows by that point.
rydi123 11-03-06, 08:30 PM	well, a goblin might be able to waltz up to a goblin encampment...
kadeity 11-04-06, 05:41 AM	wizard 20 vs Fighter 20? wizard. hands down. tell me casters arent strong. or you could just say fighters are weak.
Witch 11-04-06, 05:49 AM	wizard 20 vs Fighter 20? wizard. hands down. tell me casters arent strong. or you could just say fighters are weak. Without contingent spell? Fighter. Hands down. The wizard is one grapple away from death.
kadeity 11-04-06, 05:53 AM	Without contingent spell? Fighter. Hands down. The wizard is one grapple away from death. whatever, theres so much in play there. like if the fighter could even get NEAR the wizard with all the walls, slow and terrain problems in the way. and what if the wizard flies? lets say they are both naked. the fighter has a sword and the wizard has a spellbook. fighters are a GEAR DEPENDANT CLASS. thats short for "any class thats not a caster."
Rowan_Whispercloak 11-04-06, 09:23 PM	Well getting back to the original post, I have been think of ways to "nerf" spellcasters. However, I have been as of late trying to finds way to make the classes all have a way to keep up all day with a variable amount of encounters without giving too much nova power to any class. I really liked the shadowcaster from Tome of Magic, but I find that they are somewhat weak in higher number of encounters/day. The point where their spells become supernatural abilities does give them a considerable amount of power though. So this is what I am trying to work on (this is the first time I posting any of this because it is still very much in the works and I have yet to have time to really play test with a solid base). looking at the shadow caster as a base for all casting, example only having access to a few casting available, giving sorcerers slightly more casting available to make up for their smaller selection. Wizards being able to prepare from their books to get the list of available spells for the day. At first this seems to basically go back to previous editions where you basically sucked as a caster until upper level. I would like to avoid this so and to give the caster a work all day ability. So the idea is after a caster has exhausted all his castings/day, have a game mechanic that allows them to attempt to cast again, with failure leading to exhaustion and some nonlethal damage. Success allows the spell to be cast with perhaps less nonlethal damage and/or fatigue. Every additional attempt would become more difficult, until resting being the only option. I am uncertain for the exact game mechanic to use with this, I know I want to avoid a skill check as the Truenamer class has shown the difficulty of using a scaling skill based option. I have been toying with a few different methods, but none have really came to shine above the others. On an off topic note: Without contingent spell? Fighter. Hands down. The wizard is one grapple away from death. I believe Dimension Door (verbal component only) allows you to escape the grapple easily.
Witch 11-05-06, 11:34 AM	I believe Dimension Door (verbal component only) allows you to escape the grapple easily. Only if you don't pin the wizard.