Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Saytr 04-17-07, 11:02 PM	Didn't know where to post this one. Here I guess. Would the game be better without 9th-level spells? It seems to me that they just change the game too drastically and we're better off without them. I'll probably ban them next time I DM but I've never played a 17th level game before. I've played a lot of DnD, mind you, just not at very high levels. So, in practice and in theory, would the game be better without 9th level spells? ~
daggeroflath 04-17-07, 11:10 PM	Didn't know where to post this one. Here I guess. Well, I think Magic would probably be the right forum personally. But here'll do. Would the game be better without 9th-level spells? No. It seems to me that they just change the game too drastically and we're better off without them. I'll probably ban them next time I DM but I've never played a 17th level game before. I've played a lot of DnD, mind you, just not at very high levels. Get your friends together. Encourage them to make 17th level caster characters to help you playtest. Run a brief playtest campaign, getting constant feedback from your players. THEN start randomly hacking sections from the rulebook. So, in practice and in theory, would the game be better without 9th level spells? No.
RobbyPants 04-17-07, 11:10 PM	You could do it, but then you lose things like Wish and Miracle. Granted, it seems like this is what you're after, but it's nice to have NPCs that have those sorts of powers too. Some things can only be undone with these types of spells. Realistically, anything above 6th level magic starts to get pretty potent too. If you haven't read the section in Complete Arcane about dealing with magic, I'd suggest it. It has a lot of good advice on certain types of spells (like charms, flight, teleportation, diviniations, invisibility, etc...). Not that it specifically pertains to this, but you might get some ideas for handling the power of these spells.
penchant 04-17-07, 11:26 PM	once characters are high level (able to cast or have access to 9th level spells) they become forces of change. Even without those spells they will begin to change the nature of hte game and direct the campaign. They can bypass clever plot points, ignore pits and chasms (figurative and literal), tell your carfully crafted NPC's where to stick it and start to carve out their own kingdoms if they so choose. Eliminating 9th level spells will not change this. That's what high level is about. In other words, if the emperor of your realm was 17th level when the characters started at 1st, then why would you expect them to not become at least kings when they get 17th level. The same with the highest levels of spells. Your game changes at that point, either to a realm that is that higher plane of power, or in nature where politics and the ability to choose to not wield power is the greatest power of all. In short, no the game isn't better without 9th level spells.
GoriceXII 04-18-07, 07:47 AM	I think it depends on your campaign. A low magic campaign (say like Conan D20) or something can change the magic levels, but there's this to consider too. You don't really get that many till you're REALLY high level, and they can be costly. Another thing you can do is to simply require that the pcs actually earn the spells they get--ie not every spell in the book is available, they may have to quest to find an ancient scroll or something. Make the ones that are challenging for you a challenge to get.
Varia 04-18-07, 08:49 AM	Well after last saturday I'd have to say I'm in favor of banning the use of 9th lvl spells on lvl 11 characters. Wail of the Banshee, sheesh. BUT I'M NOT BITTER!!! :P Not the DMs fault- she's a newbie running City of the Spider Queen, just following whats in there as best she can. She's nowhere near the point where it would be reasonable to expect her to rearrange things on the fly, or to recognise when things should be changed. My ire is reserved for the gimboid writer who thought that a banshee-summoning trap thingie was appropriate. He should be femaledog-slapped by professionals till his pants are out of style (or come back into style, as appropriate).
JadeReaver 04-18-07, 09:23 AM	Its not a matter of whether THE game would be better without 9th level spells, but if YOUR game would be better without 9th level spells. And that, of course, is up to you. Personally, I don't think it would be a bad thing to do so, really. Though make sure you let your players know ahead of time before making characters, and you might want to consider granting them some more limited, but still useful ability in its stead. But there are a bunch of there options to consider: Maybe limit high level spells to 1/week usage, reasoning that memorizing and casting such spells is an arduous process even for the most keen minded wizards. Get rid of them, but let the wizard keep those spell slots for the purpose of metamagic. Have high level spells cause subdual/ or lethal damage equal to twice or 3 times its level to the caster. "Archmage abilities" - For instance, give them a potent ability instead of 9th level spells at 17th level. Maybe the Necromancer gains Fast Healing (X) where X is the highest level spell he has in memory, or an Evoker who's blasting spells cut through resistance equal to 5x his INT modifier. . . etc. Neat stuff that would still make it worth it for the Wizard, but keeps things like Timestop and Wish off the table. Just some thoughts, but again, if you find it may be frustrating for you I think you have the right to explore other options.
RobbyPants 04-18-07, 09:39 AM	Its not a matter of whether THE game would be better without 9th level spells, but if YOUR game would be better without 9th level spells. QFT.
OravennasBrother 04-18-07, 09:55 AM	Would the game be better without 9th-level spells? .... I've played a lot of DnD, mind you, just not at very high levels. I think these two are telling. A DM without experience at stopping high level spell abuse (There are a lot out of abuses there and many, if not most, are not workable once you examine the rules closely) will lose ocntrol of the game and it will seem at that point that "Wizards Rule and Fighters Drool" and teh spellcasters will gleefully tell you that is how it SHOULD be. Don't listen to them. Either familiarize yourself with the core rules well enough to spot the problems in abuse, start with a rule 0 of "I'll stop any abusive use of magic", outlaw spellcasters, or just stop the campiagn when the spellcasters start breaking past your ability to keep them in check.
Kuronue 04-18-07, 10:27 AM	I suggest starting a game at maybe 15th level, or even 10th, and seeing what the power level of the game without 9th level spells is, then working your way slowly up to them. See what lengths you have to go to to challenge the fighter and monk at 17th level- shouldn't you have to go to the same lengths to challenge the wizard?
Millennium 04-18-07, 10:52 AM	If you've never actually played a game that included 9th-level spells as something the players can use, then you should. I'm not saying that this will necessarily change your mind, but before you go changing something that major you need to really understand how it works in practice, not just in theory. There's no substitute for personal experience as far as that goes. Once you have a feel for how 9th-level spells affect your game, you'll be in a better position to deal with them in a way that works for your game.
Daydreamer 04-18-07, 11:42 AM	i expect he might more generally be lamenting the imbalance between casters and non casters at the very high levels.
Lazigothi 04-18-07, 11:44 AM	I've been in games where players abuse 1st level spells. These tended to be games where the DM lacked experience with the rules and balance, and/ or where immature players intimidated a shaky DM. A confident, experienced, and knowledgeable DM with a mature group of players could handle 9th level spells. If 9th (or any high level) spells are banned due to unfamiliarity, the advice above to playtest them with players seems fair. A good dialogue with players to avoid the concerns a DM might have (fear of loopholes, etc.) should go a long way. Keep in mind how spells are worded and what they require as far as spell components and experience. If the high level spells are banned due to flavor, the advice to inform the players about spell caps would be a must. Also make sure that no one else has access to these spells if you forbid PC's access. PC's can't feel like heroes if everyone else gets the impressive "off limits" powers and abilities. You can read other threads regarding low magic to get other advice, but part of the fun of playing D&D specifically comes from all the options allowed to players. The core books provide a playtested and balanced system to allow a story to flow creatively and fair. If something becomes tricky, work with players to discuss your concerns and compromise to return balance. Players have the same investment in having fun and the story along with the DM.
Vaalingrade Ashland 04-18-07, 12:36 PM	Disjunction and Shapechange, but not the others.
CryoSilver 04-18-07, 01:53 PM	I think it all depends on the other houserules in your game, as well as which supplements you allow. 9th level spells have the power to really change the game, but then, many other high level abilities do as well. You can cut them, but it might be more fair to your players to justmanage their power and adjust challenges so that they HAVE to use those spells.
DaidojiTaidoru 04-18-07, 02:01 PM	Disjunction and Shapechange, but not the others. Gate's a little touchy too, but that one's easier to fiddle with in game. Anything else they've probably been breaking since 11th level anyway....
Senevri 04-18-07, 02:25 PM	A curious idea. Getting rid of certain 9th spells might be a better one. Vaal's suggestions are good - or restrict Shapechange to (ex) only, and keep an eye on how they use Gate. Another nasty one is Astral Projection... but seriously, if they cannot figure out their opponent's location & travel there.... Of course, players can do this too, and of course, their opponents can also track them. At their level, Bardic Lore check of 11 will reveal their public adventuring history.
danielinthewolvesden 04-18-07, 03:28 PM	Actually, this could work. It would reduce the disparity in power at high levels between Spellcasters and Warriors. If we are "picking and choosing" then Time Stop also has to go. It is so much fun for the non-time-stop-caster to sit there for a half hour whilst the TS caster plans out what he does during his bonus turns. "Wish" and "Miracle" could still be granted by Dieties.
Senevri 04-18-07, 03:45 PM	Actually, "wish" isn't that bad... I have a Planar Shepherd in my game...
JadeReaver 04-18-07, 03:53 PM	Actually, "wish" isn't that bad... I have a Planar Shepherd in my game... :eek: You, sir, are a far braver man than I.
CuttinCurt 04-18-07, 03:55 PM	There are many truths here that must be restated. Characters being able to cast 6th or higher level spells are potent characters. They can make a powerfull enemy fall to thier knees with one failed save. (which, by the way, will happen far more often than you want). They are realms changers, not to be dictated to, but that do the dictating. Once this level is reached, 11th and up, I can tell you by experience, that it is hard to challenge a good team of players that have played together for a year or more with even CR challenges. Even a +4 EL challenge is sometimes not enough. However, the answer is not to restrict the whole of the 9th lvl spells, or even to make them uncastable but 1/week. This will not make a campaign change back to the 1st-8th lvl play style. Combats take longer, spells effects are all over the place, targeted dispel checks, counters, cones, cylinders, lines, spreads, lingering clouds, wounding weapons, haste, protection from elements, ect......... You get the picture. Dont take away the chance to cast 9th lvl spells. There are to many metamagics out there that can use a slot that high, and if you take away the ability to use a quickened Teleport, then you hamstring the escape tactics of most wizards. (1) 9th lvl spell at 17th lvl is an awsome thing most players never reach. Let the players have the chance to do something with it, and time stop is potent, but as with most spell of this level, if you cast them all the time, flaunt your magic and make yourself seem like the greatest wizard of all time, then there will be that special evil wizard that will want to step in and give that boisterous magic flinging mage a lesson in humility, and death.
Senevri 04-18-07, 04:10 PM	:eek: You, sir, are a far braver man than I. Thank you, I guess. FWIW, I also allowed the Dread Necromancer to take Unholy Toughness as a feat. What can I say, it's a... high-powered game.
mightymouse1107 04-18-07, 04:19 PM	The Monster Manuals can have difficulty providing challenges to high level campaigns. However, almost any high level campaign can benefit from the old standby "anything a PC can do, an NPC can do, and with more levels". A well equipped 20th level monk can be absolutely devastating to a high level wizard who hasn't carefully prepared spells to deal with such an eventuality. And even then, one mistake leading to a blown spell can leave you with a monk sitting right on top of you ready to pummel you into oblivion. More to the point, if the NPC's are one save away from destruction at the hands of PC spell casters, the same is true for PC's vis a vis NPC spellcasters. Nothing makes a 17th level NPC's "Disjunction" or "Shapechange" or "Time Stop" any less effective than that of a PC. Items can also be accounted for, as the DM equips the NPCs. Additionally, new monsters can be created and old ones modified to compensate along these same lines. The one rule change I instituted at very high levels was to increase the ease with which spell casters could counter-spell. I introduced feats that make counterspelling a free action available during another's initiative, that restrict non "dispel magic" counterspells only to those of the same school rather than the same spell, and a metamagic allowing one to use two same level spells of any school to counter a spell. (I realize similar feats may exist in non-core. Keep in mind I don't use very much non-core, so if WotC came up with the same ideas that I did, good for them.) This serves to make battles with multiple high level casters involve more strategy of spell casting, deciding what to counter, what to let go, and generally delaying the time when the big "boom, your dead" spell happens.
Millennium 04-18-07, 04:19 PM	:eek: You, sir, are a far braver man than I. I remember the time when I was rolling up a character and asked the DM, seemingly out of the blue, if I could have a goat. The DM's expression was priceless. I ended up not getting the goat for a couple of levels, though.
OravennasBrother 04-18-07, 04:45 PM	If we are "picking and choosing" then Time Stop also has to go. It is so much fun for the non-time-stop-caster to sit there for a half hour whilst the TS caster plans out what he does during his bonus turns. Time stop lasts for up to 30 seconds (5 rounds) if the caster hs not finished announcing his actions in that interval he just wasted some of the time stop. Simple. Effective. Keeps everyone in the game. Except for the whiners and you don't want them.
Mock26 04-18-07, 05:25 PM	Didn't know where to post this one. Here I guess. Would the game be better without 9th-level spells? It seems to me that they just change the game too drastically and we're better off without them. I'll probably ban them next time I DM but I've never played a 17th level game before. I've played a lot of DnD, mind you, just not at very high levels. So, in practice and in theory, would the game be better without 9th level spells? ~ There is no easy answer to your questions. Some will say No and some will say Yes. But, the opinions of others (and of myself) are not fact They are only opinions and should be taken with a grain or a truck of salt. If you find that 9th level spells drastically unbalance the game, then Yes, you would be better off without them and your game would be better off without them. But, you have to remember that this applies only to you and your game. My advice to you would be that since you have never played or DM'd a 17th level game, that you start a campaign (as player or DM) and continue on to 17th level and that you then try the game with the spells on a probationary basis. If you find that they are indeed too unbalancing then simply remove them from the game. If only a few of them are unbalancing then remove those few. If they don't unbalance the game then keep them. Only You can state if your idea of removing 9th level spells is good because this will only directly affect You and no one else here on these forums. And remember, short of possibly rolling your DMG as a d4 or using actual weapons to attack your DM, there really isn't a wrong way to play D&D. I wish you luck in your endeavor to explore 9th level spells. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
Saytr 04-19-07, 02:42 AM	Didn't know where to post this one. Here I guess. Would the game be better without 9th-level spells? It seems to me that they just change the game too drastically and we're better off without them. I'll probably ban them next time I DM but I've never played a 17th level game before. I've played a lot of DnD, mind you, just not at very high levels. So, in practice and in theory, would the game be better without 9th level spells? ~ Sorry if I wasn't more clear. I wasn't really looking for advice on running a game. I was asking: Would the game be better off without 9th-level spells? Like I said, I don't know quite where to post this. I also didn't want to give the impression that I'm a newbie here. I've played dozens of games over many years and I'm very familiar with just about everything in the game, but I'm also one of those guys who hasn't had a game that ran for more than about 40-50 or so sessions and never started one at 15th-20th level. It seems to me that the game changes at the point of casting 9th level spells. To wit.. A Wish will get the party out of any situation. Escape across planar boundries with the whole party and no chance of failure... A Miracle will call on your diety to save the day for you. Deus Ex Machina whenever you need it... Big bad guy? Gate in a Solar. Take a nap. Not tired? Shapechange you AND your familiar into two Solars. What's that.. two CR 23s? Stand up during the Council of Elrond. Cast Disjuction on the ring. Have tea. Stop freaking Time. Take your ball. Go home. How is this... fun? I understand it. This game goes back way before 3.0. All of these things were in the game before. People are used to them. You can't just take them out, but... I understand that you don't have to cast one to solve every situation and they cost XP and all that, but... You have a big, red "I WIN" button. How is that fun? Wouldn't it be more fun to just keep playing it like you've been playing it? Powerful characters, huge spells, big hit points, legendary swords, but without the big, red button? This actually a ligit question. Like I said. I haven't played at 17th-plus level. Some of you guys have. I've just about convinced myself that the game would be better without them. It sure seems that way but it would be stupid of me to say that without asking all you who have actually played with them. So, all you high-level players and DMs. Is it fun? Is it better and why? Or would it be better without 9th level spells? ~
daggeroflath 04-19-07, 04:14 AM	Sorry if I wasn't more clear. Don't apologize, lack of clarity breeds interesting conversations that could go anywhere. I was asking: Would the game be better off without 9th-level spells? I stand by my former "No". Like I said, I don't know quite where to post this. I stand by my former "Magic". but I'm also one of those guys who hasn't had a game that ran for more than about 40-50 or so sessions and never started one at 15th-20th level. This is probably why you have trouble with level 9 spells. You have a big, red "I WIN" button. How is that fun? Because the DM has a big blue "Aha, but you didn't think of this" button. Wouldn't it be more fun to just keep playing it like you've been playing it? Powerful characters, huge spells, big hit points, legendary swords, but without the big, red button? No. It sure seems that way but it would be stupid of me to say that without asking all you who have actually played with them. Thankyou for saving me the effort of pointing that out... you know, again. So, all you high-level players and DMs. Is it fun? Hell, YES! Is it better and why? Yes. It means there's always something more to reach for. Plus it encourages the DM to put more effort into their adventures and stories, rather than just giving you a problem that can be solved with a 9th level spell. Or would it be better without 9th level spells? No. ..... In the end it's your game, run it however you please (though some consideration for your players feelings also helps). I'm only telling you what I think because you asked.
HerbalTea 04-19-07, 04:16 AM	I know! Lets get rid of all spells, don't include any magic items, don't include any creatures with a CR of above 3 and have a level cap of 1 ! much better! :)
ff6shadow 04-19-07, 04:45 AM	Hey that CR cap of three is dangerous. You know how easy it is for an Ogre to hit and one shot a 1st level character? Be nice. On a more serious note, 9th level spells, and indeed some of the lower level spells too, need to be readjusted some, but in general, if a wizard survives his crappy levels at 1-5, let him enjoy the spoils at 17-20.
Millennium 04-19-07, 07:09 AM	I also didn't want to give the impression that I'm a newbie here... But you are a newbie, relative to this situation. You say yourself that you've never played in this particular situation. This is exactly why you need to play this particular situation with no changes from RAW first, before you start making changes. Your theories are interesting as far as they go, but you need experience in these situations before you go making changes.
Etarnon 04-19-07, 08:46 AM	It depends on the power level of the game. A very low magic world should not have 9th level spells. A world with lots of magic should. It is DM's preference / judgement call.
Millennium 04-19-07, 09:35 AM	A Wish will get the party out of any situation. Escape across planar boundries with the whole party and no chance of failure... This is why you use problems that just Getting Out Of Dodge won't solve. This is one reason why BBEGs are so popular: you can run away, but then you haven't defeated him. A Miracle will call on your diety to save the day for you. Deus Ex Machina whenever you need it... Only if the deity consents, and even then only if the deity is actually able to solve the problem. Big bad guy? Gate in a Solar. Take a nap. If you've set up a BBEG to go against a full party of 17th-level characters and he can't at least stand a decent chance against a solar, then this is a problem. Not tired? Shapechange you AND your familiar into two Solars. What's that.. two CR 23s? Not nearly as good as it first seems, since shapechange doesn't give you a solar's spell-like abilities or spells prepared. You essentially become a nice gish (since you keep your spells prepared), but your familiar -who, unlike you, doesn't have its own spells- becomes a high-level fighter with a couple of buffs. While this is not necessarily a bad strategy, it's not the all-powerful gamebreaker you seem to believe it is. A high-level BBEG should be able to compensate. Stand up during the Council of Elrond. Cast Disjuction on the ring. Have tea. ...and risk permanently losing your spellcasting abilities, call down the wrath of Sauron, quite likely blow up the whole city... Stop freaking Time. Take your ball. Go home. Time stop lasts for less than a minute, and worse, it doesn't let you affect anyone else. You might be able to take your ball and go home, but your party is screwed if you do that. You have a big, red "I WIN" button. How is that fun? Because it's not an "I WIN" button at all. Yes, it gets them out of certain scrapes, but for the most part these things are only extensions of things the party was capable of at much lower levels. A DM has all the tools he needs to make that button not nearly as effective or desirable. It's just a matter of applying them. A good DM wants the players to win, but that doesn't mean he wants it to be easy. One of the nice things about high-level play is that the DM doesn't have to restrain himself so much. As long as you don't do something truly excessive or the players do something truly stupid, they can take care of themselves.
stackmachine 04-19-07, 10:19 AM	Time stop lasts for up to 30 seconds (5 rounds) if the caster hs not finished announcing his actions in that interval he just wasted some of the time stop. Simple. Effective. Keeps everyone in the game. Except for the whiners and you don't want them. i second that. you, as DM, control those intervalls. 30mins of planning for one player is something no sane DM should allow. let the wizzy state his actions and give him about 30 seconds per turn. that should suffice and not bore anyone too much, and besides: a well prepared wizard will have two or three standard-combinations for his timestops anyhow. another thing to make this more interesing: you as DM roll the 1d4+1 (like you should roll for his spot, listen, disable...) and your player doesnt know exactly how many rounds he got. :rolleyes: this makes an elaborate chain of spells somewhat risky and encourages straightforward tactics; which is a good thing, for you and the players.
Lazigothi 04-19-07, 01:22 PM	I remember the time when I was rolling up a character and asked the DM, seemingly out of the blue, if I could have a goat. The DM's expression was priceless. I ended up not getting the goat for a couple of levels, though. Well, a goat is a powerful weapon if used properly. They'll eat anything. Worse than a swarm of piranha dumped in the local swimming pool. On top of that they can be harvested to make cheese!!!! Few can stand the odor, let alone the taste. ;) :rofl: