Post/Author/DateTime	Post
cthulhu42 02-13-04, 08:10 AM	OK, this might get a little long winded, so settle in for a minute. I'll try to be brief and hit the pertinant points, but you know how it is... So heres the situation in brief: My group has played together for nearly a decade, usually with me in the DM's chair. Finaly, at long last, one of the players decided to step up and take on the DM job, partialy because she really wanted to try her hand at it, and partialy becasue she wanted to give me the chance to finaly play a long term character that I could get really involved in. Others have tried to DM, but it never seems to last more than a few months. I've got stacks of characters that made it to 5th level and then the campagin ground to a halt and that was that. But not this time! Nope, turns out that this player turned out to be an exceptionaly good DM. Her story has been engaging, exciting, and full of cool twists and turns (theres a 95 page diary of this saga on the Once Upon A Time board if you really want to see what we're made of). Its been a great six months of role playing for me, and at long last I've been able to really develop a character and play him for a good length of time. It all sounds great, right? Well, I thought it was too until I began to hear some rumblings in the ranks. Let me break it down for you. We are: Female, halfling, rogue Male, Dwarf, Cleric Male, Human, Bard Male, human, fighter Male, human, barbarian and me... Male, halfling, wizard We're all 11th level. For the first ten levels we all seemed pretty even. No one stole the spotlight, everyone had their place, and it was a well balanced group. Then, right around 10th/11th level, things began to turn a little sour without me even noticing it. I have the snaking suspiscion that its been going on for awhile, but I've been oblivious. Basicly, the problem is me. I'm too powerfull. I've got a thing for highg DC's and I do love me a polymorph spell! My philosophy has always been, why damage an opponent when you can simply whack them all together with a save or die spell? To that end I've abused both Hold Person/Monster and Polymorph to the point where it has apparently become a problem. Now it doesn't always work, obviously. Sometimes the bad guys make their saves and I'm reduced to pounding them with damage spells, but I've also been very lucky in a couple of fights that should have been much rougher. Example 1: We're battleing a demon, its tearing the armor off the fighter and things look bad. I cross my fingers and cast polymorph. Poof! The demon turns into a bunny! Example 2: We're fighting five giant sized baddies, each with three arms and bad attitudes. One of them is about to pound the bard into goo and I Hold Monster that sucker. A round later our barbarian is about three hit points away from death, so I polymorph his foe into a kitten. Example 3: We're crossing a frozen tundra when we're attacked by a Frost Worm. My studies tell me that if this thing dies it'll explode like a bomb! So again, I say a little prayer and cast Polymorph. Poof! It's a turtle. Well, instead of cheers all round, the rest of the players give me the stink eye. They don't say anything, but their silence tells me that they are not pleased. So a little later I'm hanging out with my DM and shes bemoaning the fact that she doesn't seem to be handling magic very well, that I'm causing her no end of headaches and quite frankly she'd be happy if another spell of any kind NEVER got cast in her campaign again. I press her a little further, and it turns out that at least one of the other players is just downright POed with me for stealing the thunder, not only in combat, but in everyday life. Example 4: Same frozen tundra, we're traveling agonizingly slow and at this rate it'll take us a month to get to our destination, not to mention that we're being beset by beasties at every turn. So I cast a few spells, and suddenly we're flying (3rd part spell, Firebird, and one polymorphed PC into a dragon). Well, turns out this really chaps the fighter players hide. He's put all kinds of points into skills that allow him to deal with these conditions and this whole flying business just cheapens the whole experience for him. Now from my POV this is just ridiculous! Why would any 11th level wiz worth his wand walk for a month across the snow and ice when he can fly? Heck, I'd have teleported us all had our DM not house ruled that Teleport is a personal only spell (which I actually agree with, since I've had plenty of encounters skipped right over because of teleport when i'm DMing). Still, I can understand the fighters beef. The more powerfull I get, the less usefull he feels. I know he's sitting across the table thinking, why should I even swing a sword? The wizards just gonna polymorph this bad guy anyway! OK, change of gears for just a moment. Again, this is the first time our DM has DMed (at least a game of this depth and length), and shes not familier with all the tricks and tactics to deal with a powerful spellcaster. To that end I've even given her several suggestions (anti-magic fields, counterspells, polymorphing MY sorry butt, etc). But what I didn't realise was just how low of a magic world she envisions. Here I am, happily building a kick butt wizard, and it turns out that kick butt wizards are something of a rarity in her game. Add to this the fact that at least two of the players (the fighter and bard) are very serious about flavor gaming. That is to say, their characters are not too keen on magic, and thus they have refused my wizards offer to craft items for them, specificly stat enhancers. I didn't think much of this, but now I realise that this has caused some disparity between myself and them. You'd better believe that I crafted a +6 hat of intelligence the first chance I got, while they have declined the luxury of even gloves or cloaks of str/cha. Thus, its difficult for the DM to create encounters that are a challenge for me but won't destroy the others. On top of that, becasue of my willingness to use magic and the thought I've put into my feats and such, I'm being labled a "Powergamer". Now I don't think this is entierly fair. Yes, my wizard is powerful. Yes, my vision of him was to give him very high spell DC's, and yes, I've used my knowledge of the game and its rules to my benefit. However, I have not taken a prestige class, and don't intend to. Furthermore, at least four of my feats are non-combat feats (2 craft feats, a feat to allow crafting by useing the xp of others, and a feat to boost my learned spells per level to four instead of two). On top of that, I'm a freaking halfling (not exactly considered the optimum wizard race) and I only JUST got an AC of above 13. I've been running around for ten freaking levels with an AC of 17 IF I cast Mage Armor! For a closer look at this PC you can click the link in my sig. OK, but! I will admit to having pushed pretty hard to get what I want. Our Dm has allowed 3rd party material and splat books as long as she ok's what we're after, and I've come up with some doozies! Shes nerfed a few spells and even nixed several flat out, but shes let me have a couple that I know she probably wishes she hadn't. Now when shes on the fence about a spell I have a tendency to argue my case pretty hard, and I've even heard her use the word "Whine" once or twice. I don't mean to, but apparently I am. Thats bad, and I've resolved to back way off on unfamilier spells. Still, its the core spells that are busting her chops. Polymorph and Hold Monster ain't exactly new spells, and I'm certainly not the first spellcaster to use them. Oh, should also mention that we've stuck to 3.0 spell rules, again, largely due to my utter disgust with 3.5. But, after hearing her side of this argument and the general discontent of at least one player, I've bitten the bullet and offered to make the retro switch to 3.5. It galls me, but I don't want to be the only one having fun here. My DM and I have talked at length about all of this and I give her all the credit in the world. I've learned soooo much from her style of DMing, and I can honestly say that shes taught an old dog some new tricks. I think its the discontent of the other player that has her really feeling at odds, though I know that she bangs her head on the table and curses my soul everytime I turn a tough encounter into a cake walk with a lucky polymorph. God bless her though, shes not fudging the dice against me, which would not only be easy to do, it would be within her right. OK, its late and I must be to bed. Please comment, and I'll answer any questions you may have.
raistlin_devreault 02-13-04, 08:39 AM	I know how your fealing.. i've been there.... Players whinning about spellcasters and how powerfull they are... Yes, it's true.. compare to a fighter of the same lvl, we are more powerfull, but the road to power is difficultn and very deadly at low lvl. It seems that you have a pretty good group, so your choice are very limited. I say create a new character, for the sake of the game... If she envision a low magic world, she shouldn't let you become this powerfull in the first place.. but anyway, i say for the sake of the game and players, create yourself another character to keep the game balance.. so that everyone will have fun....
Arakano 02-13-04, 08:51 AM	Well, first thing, I consider halflings quiet the ultimate wizard race. Better than the other core races, at least. And you have a feat that gives you FOUR known spells per level instead of two? ´Well, that´s IMHO nearly as unbalanced as a feat can be. Then, I think some of your companions are quiet strange: REFUSING STATBOOSTING ITEMS? Well, then they shouldn´t whine about being useless. :rolleyes: Then I´m asking myself why your DM isn´t more mean to you. For example, sending monsters with strong SR, or those immun against polymorph (there are quiet a lot of them, if I can remember my MM right). Or many small monsters instead of one big. Anyway, maybe you should give up some of your powers out of your free will. Would save you trouble.
Grand_Commander13 02-13-04, 08:57 AM	You: "Hey guys, you know how I'm so powerful?" Others: (Irritated) "Yes..." You: "Well, I can seriously beef you up by making this, this, this, and this for you, reducing my exp and probably costing me more than I'll charge you!" Others: "Heck no, you think we're power gamers or something?!?" ^Your group^ Your group = Idiots. Unless your group consists of characters that all have unfortunate pasts of their allies crafting cursed items for them, then I see no reason, in character or out, for them to refuse your crafting items for them. -_- I wish I had more time to mention coping strategies your DM can use.
raistlin_devreault 02-13-04, 08:57 AM	The feat he's talking about is in the Ultimate book of feat published by Mongoose... it let's you get 4 spell per lvl instead of 2, something called "Arcane Understandiong". In my group, we call this book, "the book of complete broken feat!"
olshanski_home 02-13-04, 08:58 AM	Demons have all been upgraded significantly in 3.5. Spell Focus and Greater Spell focus have been downgraded... if you have focus in your polymorph, expect the DCs that opponents have to make to drop by 3. Many spells have been toned down greatly. Also, for these ridiculous high saving throws, I'll assume that you are not letting Foxes intellect stack with other intellect enhancing items, are you? Also, even the most experienced DMs can sometimese forget about SR... has she remembered it in all of your games? Some magic items which increase virtual caster level have also been significantly toned down (or been made VERY expensive). An Average CR9 demon or devil probably has a SR of 21... which means that you've got about a 50% chance of penetrating the SR, up to 60% if you have spell penetration. Even then, most of those demons and devils will have about a +10 Save, and your DC for a polymorph shouldn't be much higher than 21... that again gives it another 50% chance to shake off the spell. Unless you are using a lot of unbalanced non-core materials, or failing to properly apply all of the rules, you shouldn't be all that unbalanced. I consider everything but the 3 core books to be possibly unbalanced though, and I seriously nerf everything outside of the 3 core books if the players ask to bring it in my campaign. I'd be glad to look at your char sheet if you have it scanned or something. my email should show up on my profile. {Edit: Never mind, if you have basic stat boosting items and other players don't, you will of course be far more powerful then them. If your DM throws a few monsters of appropriate challenge, the problem will solve itself... all of the weaker characters will die. You might die, or you might escape. It sounds like your DM is throwing you softballs.}
Llewelynn 02-13-04, 09:18 AM	I play with a guy who's wizard loves the "save or end the battle" spells too. It's great from an effectiveness standpoint, but not much fun for anyone but the wizard. It also takes out a lot of climactic story lines away. In a higher-level campaign I ran, they could have tried to Polymorph the fiendish lord they were fighting (and probably could have succeeded, because his SR wasn't cast on him yet). Instead, they had a long battle, and a blind archer had to use an unerring shot to kill him just before he was ready to Heal himself. Which is the better story? You're playing effectively, and it sounds like you have a concept as well, but I don't think your concept is one that plays well with others. There's a game designed to have a powerful wizard escorted by a party of less useful characters -- it's called Ars Magica -- check it out. I've worked out a solution with my players when I have problem mages. We try to get them to scale back a tad, otherwise, they face a party with the same number of same level mages. Then, it's basically down to initiative rolls and who fails more saves first. That's not a fun game for anyone. Since she sees things as low magic, her logical solution would be some very stealthy rogues immediately ganking you at the start of a battle. That doesn't sound like much fun for anyone either. Still, the only real fault I can see is that you drug 3rd party material in on a new DM. As an experienced DM yourself, you should know that those 3rd party books (heck...even some non-core WoTC stuff) are not nearly as balanced as the core items. With someone DMing for her first time, you should have stuck to core only until she had a chance to see how things work. Things are very different on the back side of the screen.
Puskara 02-13-04, 09:39 AM	OK, given the information in your post her is my take. Be advised it will be to the point. You are using the polymorph spell incorrectly. This is because your group either has a broken house rule, you have not read the spell recently, or do not understand the spell. The following ids from the wizards SRD: "Polymorph Transmutation Level: Sor/Wiz 4 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Willing living creature touched Duration: 1 min./level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level. You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine, nor can you cause a subject to assume an incorporeal or gaseous form. The subject’s creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form. Upon changing, the subject regains lost hit points as if it had rested for a night (though this healing does not restore temporary ability damage and provide other benefits of resting; and changing back does not heal the subject further). If slain, the subject reverts to its original form, though it remains dead. The subject gains the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores of the new form but retains its own Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. It also gains all extraordinary special attacks possessed by the form but does not gain the extraordinary special qualities possessed by the new form or any supernatural or spell-like abilities. Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to being polymorphed, and a creature with the shapechanger subtype can revert to its natural form as a standard action. Material Component: An empty cocoon." Note that polymorph can only be cast on willing subjects. You must also touch the willign creature. Even if we ignor the willing part you woudl have to approach the creature (many of the ones you mention have significant reach and woudl then take an AoO) and make a touch attack. Unless you have improved unarmed strike this would also provioke an AoO. Now there is some chance that you mean Baleful Polymorph, so lets look at its description: "Baleful Polymorph Transmutation Level: Drd 5, Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target: One creature Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: Fortitude negates, Will partial; see text Spell Resistance: Yes As polymorph, except that you change the subject into a Small or smaller animal of no more than 1 HD. If the new form would prove fatal to the creature the subject gets a +4 bonus on the save. If the spell succeeds, the subject must also make a Will save. If this second save fails, the creature loses its extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities, loses its ability to cast spells (if it had the ability), and gains the alignment, special abilities, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores of its new form in place of its own. It still retains its class and level (or HD), as well as all benefits deriving therefrom (such as base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and hit points). It retains any class features (other than spellcasting) that aren’t extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like abilities. Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to being polymorphed, and a creature with the shapechanger subtype can revert to its natural form as a standard action." Many of the creatures you mention have very impressive Fort saves. It is unlikly that thiw approach would be as sucessful as you state unless the DM is commiting some sort of chronic error or you are miscalculating your DCs. Earlier posts addressed this so I will not elaborate more. Check your spells, talk with the DM and let us know what you find. Puskara
green_yawgmoth 02-13-04, 09:42 AM	I really hate it when I have to tell another player or the DM how to nerf my characters so they'll STFU about me being too powerful, but I think you'll have to here. Just tell her about the wonderous power of SR. Anything with SR of your CL+10 should be more than enough defense against your polymorph others (EBT anyone? ;)), and it won't be killing the other players either.
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-13-04, 10:03 AM	I'm playing a wizard right now, and (having DMed quite a bit myself) knew that as the party reached higher levels my power level would be higher than the other players' (particularly as I planned to go Archmage as soon as possible). To keep this from becoming an issue, I specialized in Abjuration and took Enchantment and Necromancy as my prohibited schools. I did this because Enchantment spells (as you've discovered) make most encounters a joke (Mass Hold Monster? please), and Necromancy involves the vast majority of "save or die" spells. It's made combat more challenging and has allowed the melee and archer builds to actually accomplish things. I still have to be careful about throwing damage spells around; fully-loaded wizards with access to Evocation spells will do the most damage in combat, hands down, if they decide to. I suggest the following options for toning down your wizard without making it too obvious: 1) Spend the first few rounds of combat buffing yourself. It makes sense from a 'flavor gaming' perspective: what wizard wants to engage in combat virtually naked? Cast mage armor and stoneskin, then start looking around for things to blow up. 2) Buff the others. Displacement on the fighter or barbarian will help them out a whole lot. Polymorph one of them into a Stone Giant. The +11 natural armor bonus, high Str/Con, and large size can only make them more effective in melee. (Note: the polymorph tactic does not make the weapon larger, which might be an issue) 3) Make the change to 3.5 spells. Durations and DCs (as olshanski_home pointed out) have been reduced, which will make the success of your "save or die" spells less certain. Baleful Polymorph (3.0's polymorph other) is now a 5th-level spell, which will affect how often you can prepare/cast it. Hold spells last for 1 round/level and allow a saving throw each round. 4) Use spells like Wall of Force or Evard's Black Tentacles to perform crowd control rather than Hold spells. They serve the same purpose, and can make a challenging combat much easier (the old "divide and conquer" method). I tend to want combat over as quickly as possible, but what I realized while playing my wizard is that sometimes you have to be patient. Let the fighter whittle an opponent down to size, even if it means he takes more damage. Fighters and Barbarians revel in taking damage, and Clerics like it too: it means they can contribute in a useful fashion. Don't be surprised, however, if your fellow players start asking, "Why did you let it hit me? Why didn't you kill it?" when you start taking a less involved approach to combat. Even though they grumble, they may be expecting you to take care of them. Realize too that your casting fewer spells in combat won't usually lead to the death of your entire party. :teach: [Edit: Puskara, he's playing with 3.0 spells. Polymorph Other is what he's using.]
DakezDarkenblood 02-13-04, 10:41 AM	There is nothing less satisfying than watching a foe hop around as a bunny or explode in a flash of green light into a pile of fine ash. Wizards are wizards. It is the way it goes... it's why when one of my wizard players took out a small army of fire giants while improved invisible and using 3.0 cone of cold I looked him straight in the eye and asked if he wanted to just skip ahead to level 20 before he returned to the level 12 group he was scouting for, as there were more than enough giants for a single character to do so. It's unfortunate, but you really do have to cap yourself. The rules will not cap your power for you. Playing a wizard is for mature players who can read the wants and needs of their group. Some groups love to see a DC 45 wail of the banshee eliminate all their foes "free xp"... others do not. Personally, I feel like using save or dies or vorpal weapons as a player is like using a cheat code in a computer game. It's not that I don't cheat in computer games... I do... but if you're not selective about how or when you do it you can ruin the gaming experience.
Thorak 02-13-04, 10:41 AM	Solution 1: Give the two-handed fighter a big, gnarly weapon. Make sure he gets the whole power-attack thing going. Watch him start dishing out 100 damage a round at level 10-11. Point out that, while the mage can fireball and such, which may do more damage if there's a whole pile of critters, his damage is reliable, has no saving throw, and most likely outpowers the mage against a single target. Though said mage can certainly use things like Hold Person to make the beat-down even easier for you. Also, make sure you run the party ragged. If the party gets to rest after each encounter, the mage is staying powered-up. If he gets pushed through 5 or 6 tough encounters, either he's not contributing much in each fight, or his spell list is looking rather weakened. If the party tries to rest, whack them with a random encounter. Keep the adrenaline up, and make the mage save spells for when they 'need' it. Which they often find they won't by the time they DO rest. If you get one polymorph other a day, and you get run through 6 or 7 encounters between rests, you're not polymorphing everything into harmless forest creatures. And you're sure not going to use it on the biggest, baddest critter you can find; you'll use it on one it will probably work on, so you don't waste the precious spell. This kind of pressure is about the only way to keep high-level casters under control. Fighter types won't care, unless they have Fast Healing of some kind, they're only getting a hp or two back a night. Any spells the cleric can cast can be just as easily used between encounters as overnight, so they're not losing out on HP. Otherwise, you'll get casters Mazeing enemies, and then dropping a Prismatic Wall across where they were. And waiting for the fireworks when they reappear. CR15 encounter - poof, with two albeit highish level spells. Sucker even made most of his saves against the Wall, it was just so much even for failing that it took him out.
Addi83 02-13-04, 12:24 PM	What kind of roleplayer actually believes that a fighter would refuse when a wizard friend offers to make him an item that would make him stronger? Thats not good roleplaying, its roleplaying badly to avoid being to powerful, which an actual person would never do without having either a deep mistrust of magic, or having at some point decided not to use anything other than his own abilities.
jvsperoni 02-13-04, 01:17 PM	It sounds like the GM and other players have a low-magic world in mind, while your character is built for a standard-magic world. You might be able to fix the problem without having to change characters. Create some sort of house rule that limits spell use. For example, the group could say that virtually no one in the world knows spells beyond 5th level. Your character would stop taking new levels as a wizard because he's already mastered the highest available magic level. Use new levels to multiclass. While this house rule won't be an immediate fix, you'll see that, as the group gains levels, the new monsters will start to have easier saves against your spells. Maybe you'll be able to pick up a few more wizard levels in the future, after the increasing CR monsters become more balanced against your spell power. If the group totally bans spellcasting, then the GM has to make sure that she never uses any monsters whose only weakness is magic.
WarRabbit 02-13-04, 01:43 PM	Like others have said, I also believe you should fully update to 3.5. One of the key 'nerfs' to spells with 3.5 is the lower durations. Shorter durations for fly and invisiblity spells is very important when it comes to stealing the thunder of the skill based characters. Also, consider dropping all non PHB feats and spells. PHB feats and spells tend to be much more balanced than splat book and non-core material. By itself changing out Spellcasting Prodigy will lower your DC's by 1. Finally, consider lowering your hat of intellect to +4(to lower your DC's again by 1) and putting some of the extra gold towards some items to increase your AC and/or 'buffing' wands for the party. Overall, I don't really think your character is overpowered and I also wouldn't consider you a powergamer...you just like to min/max a bit and that's perfectly fine in most games. However, considering the playing tastes of your DM and the other players you probably should change a bit to fit the theme of the campaign.
The Stray 02-13-04, 04:25 PM	Hey, Doorag Marzipan! :D Seems you're having a bit of trouble with the others. Sorry to hear that. :( Maybe what you guys need to do is talk about it out of character first. Have a nice sit-down with all your friends and discuss the issues, so you know where everyone stands and, more importantly, how to make thegame fun again.
the_fools_wildhunt 02-13-04, 05:07 PM	What kind of roleplayer actually believes that a fighter would refuse when a wizard friend offers to make him an item that would make him stronger? Thats not good roleplaying, its roleplaying badly to avoid being to powerful, which an actual person would never do without having either a deep mistrust of magic, or having at some point decided not to use anything other than his own abilities. What the??? Bad role-playing by turning down magic? Even if they have not taken a vow of no-magic use it is player discretion. Some people like their characters not to be min-maxed up the whazoo. Personally, if I want something magical I will quest for it. I gives a feeling of accomplishment and a further attachment to an item instead "oh, my gloves of Str broke, hey wizo, make me another eh". Anyway, onto the main question. I don't think changing characters is the right idea. Maybe change your spell-use, there are excellent spells in the books other than Poly and Disintergrate. Maybe ask the DM to set-up a theft of your books. You now heve to rely on another book that doesn't have Polymorph and Fly and such but is filled with a broad range of spells. You also have a nemesis and a quest and in a few levels time when such spells are a little more even (Because Foes are tougher) she can have find your orginal book (After a big fight of course) I did this with a Ranger I had in 2nd Ed. She got to a -12 Thaco with the bow at around 15th level. God it was boring. Talked to the DM, and I had my equipment imprisoned and and had to quest to get it back using non-magical items and the like. It was alot of fun. Good luck on your dilemma.
danielinthewolvesden 02-13-04, 05:47 PM	1. Time to go to 3.5. :cool: 2. drop all nonWOTC stuff, and replace it. That feat is broken. Many spells from nonWotC are also broken. Note also you gotta go to 3.5 also for this to work. :b:
danielinthewolvesden 02-13-04, 05:57 PM	And, of course, when you go to 3.5, then Spellcasting Prodigy also goes bye-bye. :rolleyes:
cthulhu42 02-13-04, 06:00 PM	Wow! Thanks for all the great replies! I'm actually a little surprised. So many posts out here start out, "Dood! Yer DM Sux!". OK, let me answer a few specific things... but anyway, i say for the sake of the game and players, create yourself another character to keep the game balance.. so that everyone will have fun.... Well thats not much fun for me! I'm willing to make a few concessions, but giving up on a character I've invested so much in just for the comfort of other players is not one of them. Also, my DM LIKES my character. I think I've role-played him well and I've put a lot of work into him. Far more OOG work than all of the other players combined, probably, just taking into account the game journal I've been keeping for him. And you have a feat that gives you FOUR known spells per level instead of two? ´Well, that´s IMHO nearly as unbalanced as a feat can be. The feat he's talking about is in the Ultimate book of feat published by Mongoose... it let's you get 4 spell per lvl instead of 2, something called "Arcane Understandiong". In my group, we call this book, "the book of complete broken feat!" This is really interesting. Neither my DM nor myself has a problem with this feat. It merely expands the number of spells avalible per level, doesn't let me cast any more spells. I have actually gained far more spells through buying scrolls than I have from this feat, and in reality, even though I have scads of spells in my books, there are only about a dozen or so that I end up memorizing on a given day. I can't see that it's had any real effect on the game, though I suppose it may be too subtle to be evident. Please explain why it's broken. You: "Hey guys, you know how I'm so powerful?" Others: (Irritated) "Yes..." You: "Well, I can seriously beef you up by making this, this, this, and this for you, reducing my exp and probably costing me more than I'll charge you!" Others: "Heck no, you think we're power gamers or something?!?" ^Your group^ Your group = Idiots. No, they are not idiots. I wouldn't have played with them for ten years if they were. Some of them simply are quite passionate (at least with these particular characters) about not being too magic friendly. The fighter, in particular, is distrustful of magic (though I will admit that he doesn't have a problem with clerical healing magic or AC boosting items :rolleyes: ), and his player has always had a certain vision of what fantasy should be. In general he likes five o' clock shadow having tough guys that kick butt and chew bubblegum. This specific character is kind of odd in that he refused a str enhancing item, but pointedly asked if I could craft weapons (I can't), so I assume he'd be ok with me crafting him a beefy sword. I dunno. He's a weird guy, but he's also a really good guy, and I can't begruge him his character concept. Though I am feeling a little of the "holier than thou" vibe coming from him on this front. Something along the lines of, "your less of a ROLE-player than I am since your buffing your character." Our bard is also of this mindset as well (not holier than thou, rather he doesn't want stat enhancing items). This one kind of took me off guard since he's certainly not against useing his bardic magic all the time. He's just selective about his magic, and I think the idea of artificialy enhancing his charisma leaves a bad taste in his mouth. Again, thats cool. I respect anyone who can turn down a +4 stat boost for the sake of flavor. I probably couldn't do the same thing. But, from my POV I don't think I should be made to feel bad for the choices they have made. Demons have all been upgraded significantly in 3.5. Spell Focus and Greater Spell focus have been downgraded... if you have focus in your polymorph, expect the DCs that opponents have to make to drop by 3. Many spells have been toned down greatly. Also, for these ridiculous high saving throws, I'll assume that you are not letting Foxes intellect stack with other intellect enhancing items, are you? Also, even the most experienced DMs can sometimese forget about SR... has she remembered it in all of your games? My DM most certainly has been useing SR. Two thirds of the campagin thus far have found us fighting yuan-ti, and while they wern't much of a problem at at later levels, I wasted a lot of spells on their SR throughout the lower levels. As far as the demon in question, either it had no SR or I beat it's SR, don't recall which. And no, we know that Fox's Intellect or my +6 hat doesn't stack w/ other enhancments. Also, I do not have Spell Focus, nor am I specialized. My polymorph other has a standing DC of 22. 10+7 (for intelligence of 25 w/ hat) + 1 (spellcasting prodigy) + 4 (spell level) = 22. I also have a 3rd party spell called Greater Magical Flow Enhancement that raises all spell DC's by 2 for 10 min/level, material component: 50 gp gem, 4th level spell, so I can boost it to 24, which I did against the Frost Worm. Still, the only real fault I can see is that you drug 3rd party material in on a new DM. As an experienced DM yourself, you should know that those 3rd party books (heck...even some non-core WoTC stuff) are not nearly as balanced as the core items. With someone DMing for her first time, you should have stuck to core only until she had a chance to see how things work. Things are very different on the back side of the screen. True dat! I think I was so excited to finaly get to use some of the tricks I've picked up with a character that I kind of forgot that I might be a step ahead of her w/r/t magic. Also, its much easier for me to play magic effectivly since I have all the time in the world to focus on a single character while she has to juggle all kinds of things. However, we've always been pretty open to new material as long as the DM ok's it. Still, in many cases she might not have realized what she was ok'ing. On the third hand, again, its mainly the core spells that have been the real problem. Puskara, we're useing 3.0 so far. 2) Buff the others. Displacement on the fighter or barbarian will help them out a whole lot. Polymorph one of them into a Stone Giant. The +11 natural armor bonus, high Str/Con, and large size can only make them more effective in melee. (Note: the polymorph tactic does not make the weapon larger, which might be an issue) Well, again, the fighter has made it clear that he doesn't really like to be buffed. I cast an enlarge on him early on in the campagin, and a fly on him during a fight w/ a BBEG. Both times he accepted the spells, but only because he knew we were heading into a particularly dangerous fight. The majority of the time I don't even ask him if he'd like a buff since I know he'd refuse. The barbarian, on the other hand, has no beef w/ buffing, though he's new to the group. I may try this tactic a little, though I fear that our fighter would still be just as miffed if the barbarian is suddenly dolling out more damage than he is, especially since, as I've mentioned, the barbarian is new and up till now the fighter has been our heavy melee damage dealer. I think he would see it as me stealing his thunder again, just in a more oblique way. But yeah, maybe I'll use those first few rounds to cast defensive magics on myself. 3) Make the change to 3.5 spells. Durations and DCs (as olshanski_home pointed out) have been reduced, which will make the success of your "save or die" spells less certain. Baleful Polymorph (3.0's polymorph other) is now a 5th-level spell, which will affect how often you can prepare/cast it. Hold spells last for 1 round/level and allow a saving throw each round. Sigh. Yeah, like I said, I've finaly voulenteered to make the switch. My DM hasn't made a decision on this yet. We're pretty devided on 3.5. It came out about a month or so after we started the campagin and was met with a mixture of glee and disgust. We've been useing many of the rules from it thus far, but have stuck to 3.0 spells, largely due to my ragging about it. So my offer to make the switch is a big one, and she appriciates it, though we've also discussed the fact that even with 3.5 baleful polymorph I'd still have nailed that Frost Worm. Heck, the DC would have even been a point higher. And the upcoming save or die spells that I'll be gaining access to (finger of death, etc) are still pretty freaking deadly. In the end, no matter what version we use I have the feeling that I'm going to have to "dumb down" my character a little, which kind of sucks. In my defense I havn't even touched some of the other save/die spells. I have yet to cast Disinigrate or Flesh to Stone. To me, these seem like standard spells! These arn't new spells by any means, and they arn't gaurenteed killers either. It galls me a little that I should have to forgo such bread and butter spells. Don't be surprised, however, if your fellow players start asking, "Why did you let it hit me? Why didn't you kill it?" First time this happens I'm coming across the table at someone! Wizards are wizards. It is the way it goes... it's why when one of my wizard players took out a small army of fire giants while improved invisible and using 3.0 cone of cold I looked him straight in the eye and asked if he wanted to just skip ahead to level 20 Yeah, but how can you fault a player for useing those tactics? It would seem ludicris to NOT take advantage of spells that are part and parcel of wizards! How could you, as the DM, not have seen that coming? Playing a wizard is for mature players who can read the wants and needs of their group. This may be the best advise I've read so far. Thus far in the game I've just been forgeing ahead w/out reguard for the other players. I've just assumed that they'd take care of themselves, but apparently they arn't. I've already resolved to try not to miss the forest for the trees from here on out. Solution 1: Give the two-handed fighter a big, gnarly weapon. Make sure he gets the whole power-attack thing going. Watch him start dishing out 100 damage a round at level 10-11. Point out that, while the mage can fireball and such, which may do more damage if there's a whole pile of critters, his damage is reliable, has no saving throw, and most likely outpowers the mage against a single target. Well, I've already pointed this out. The fighter is no slouch, despite his aversion to magic. He's a crit machine, and with three attacks he regularly deals out more reliable damage than I usually do. But this falls on deaf ears when I steal his chance to fight. I should say, in my defense, that for ten levels our fighter types have had PLENTY of combat! I mean PLENTY! The problem is, I've tended to pull out the big guns when we fight particularly heinous bad guys. I've only sucsessfully Held or Polymorphed about six or seven foes, but they were foes that our fighter REALLY wanted a piece of. Now, I thought I was helping him out! But he doesn't see it that way. I think he'd rather lose a good battle than win an anti-climactic one. CR15 encounter - poof, with two albeit highish level spells. Sucker even made most of his saves against the Wall, it was just so much even for failing that it took him out. Holy CRAP! I hadn't even thought of that one! I'm thinking I'd be banned from the table if I pulled that stunt, and we play at my house! lol. What kind of roleplayer actually believes that a fighter would refuse when a wizard friend offers to make him an item that would make him stronger? Thats not good roleplaying, its roleplaying badly to avoid being to powerful, which an actual person would never do without having either a deep mistrust of magic, or having at some point decided not to use anything other than his own abilities. Well, but thats kind of what I'm faced with. The fighter has the distrust in magic, and the bard has resolved to only use his own abilities. I don't think thats bad role-playing, and like I said, I admire anyone who can forgo magic. Giving up power for flavor is admirable if it fits with your character concept. You might be able to fix the problem without having to change characters. Create some sort of house rule that limits spell use. For example, the group could say that virtually no one in the world knows spells beyond 5th level. Your character would stop taking new levels as a wizard because he's already mastered the highest available magic level. Use new levels to multiclass. Thats pretty extreme, and I doubt it would make the cleric very happy either. And as far as multiclassing goes, I really have no desire to do so. He's simply not suited for anything else. Also, consider dropping all non PHB feats and spells. PHB feats and spells tend to be much more balanced than splat book and non-core material. By itself changing out Spellcasting Prodigy will lower your DC's by 1. Finally, consider lowering your hat of intellect to +4(to lower your DC's again by 1) and putting some of the extra gold towards some items to increase your AC and/or 'buffing' wands for the party. W/r/t DC's: Oddly enough my DM has shown no reticence about me jacking them up. For example, when I approached her with Greater Magical Flow Enhancement (mentioned above), she didn't even hesitate to allow it. When I was shopping around for a prestige class (back when I was considering it) she even encouraged me to look at PrC's that boosted DC's. She realizes that this is the concept behind my character, and hasn't stifled me on it, bless her heart. W/r/t my hat, no way! I scrimped and saved and earned the xp to make that sucker the hard way. I spent the feats, I spent the xp, and I spent the gp. I refuse to feel guilty about having such an item, especially when other such items are more than avalible to the rest of the party. I took a 3rd party feat called Transference, which allows a crafter to use others xp to craft items SPECIFICLY so that I could craft stuff for the rest of the party. We had a 7 month stretch of down time recently, and my wiz made it a point to ask them all if they wanted an item or two crafted. Some took me up on it, others did not. OK, I think I hit the pertinant points. It sounds like it'll get worse before it gets better if I depend on the other players to accept the fact that wizards are simply more powerful at higher levels. Some will. Some won't. In the end I may have to just ignore such juicy spells as Finger of Death and Power Word Blind/Stun/Death when they become avalible. Its going to suck sitting there knowing I can cast Disinigrate, but opting for a (yawn) fireball or other less spotlight stealing damage spell. But again, I guess if I'm the only one having fun then something is wrong. I've also decided to steer clear of any other 3rd party stuff. I'll mention that I've already made a few consessions. Our cleric player recently bought the Book of Exaulted Deeds and began to use a spell called Diamond Dust that is just (IMHO) jaw droppingly broken (basicly its a cone/damageing spell that only effects evil so you don't have to worry about your good buddies getting caught in the blast). Turns out its also a wiz spell. I've made the choice to not even learn the dang thing. I've got a feeling that two of us casting that bloody thing would just have her smacking us with her DMG. I'm considering asking her to simply axe future save/die spells altogether, as in, remove them from the game. That way I won't be torqued that I have to ignore them, and at the same time we won't have to worry about getting hit by them either. I think this might help for another reason, namely that shes made it clear that resurection spells are VERY rare in her world. Last, but not least, I've resolved to stop offering the party overt magical aid in the form of spells that circumvent travel or harsh conditions. If they want to walk across the frozen tundra at ten miles a day, well, so be it. If they ask, then sure I'll help (I'm lawfull Good, after all). Thats another point. Maybe I'll decied to forgo necromatic spells based on my alignment. It makes sence. Again, thanks very much for the input! Keep it coming if your of a mind to!
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-13-04, 06:10 PM	This is a a common 3.0 problem... I've seen it happen a lot and it's often not the player or DMs fault, it's the fault of the rules... it's hard not to completely dominate everything when you play a 3.0 wizard by core rules. They totally own at high levels, and it takes a player who has a driving need to suck to put himself on par with the others. If you put the wizard in the hands of a strategic player, then there's no contest. Even an average player using the right save or dies is going to be hands down better than everyone else. As for some advice. First thing's first... and that's to switch to the 3.5 versions of polymorph, haste, disintegrate and hold monster if those are the problematic spells. Get em from the SRD. Your group will appreciate it. Next, check out what's making your DCs so high. switching to 3.5 spell focus and greater spell focus is probably the next step, as those are only half as effective as their bretheren. Ban those stupid empowered fox's cunning and use the 3.5 version of the archmage and red wizard spell power ability. This, coupled with the fact that you're only casting one spell a turn now due to the 3.5 haste nerf, should bring some semblance of sanity to save or die spells. Also, if you play in a "low magic" campaign, then house rules should be in place to buff saving throws. Granting all characters/monsters a +1 to saves per 4 hit dice isn't a bad general rule to simulate a cloak of resistance's effects. But basically, it's all about balancing out your DCs. If your spell DCs are too high, then it makes save or dies super broken. If you want to help a solution yourself... stop using save or dies and start using evocations. When you do damage to the enemy you're more of a team player, than when you're doing all save or dies. A save or die sucks in many ways because it does make the other party members feel useless especially when they're used in big battles. Yes, this is nerfing yourself, but in the event that your DM doesn't want to take the steps above, plus more invasive steps such as severe spell nerfs, then you should probably step in and stop trying to steal the spotlight so much. Preferably though, I favor just nerfing things, as it truly balances something out instead of just relying on the wizard to "take it easy" on the monsters so everyone else can contribute.
Nick Soapdish 02-13-04, 06:33 PM	Just wanted to say that I empathize. I spend most of my time behind the screen, but for an upcoming campaign that one of my players is going to run, I've already been told that I can't play a spellcaster. (I can't actually claim credit for him singling me out because he's thinking about re-working magic, but it's mostly due to me.) Theoretically, a DM needs to know about all the tricks (or at least have a vague notion of what to do if they should come up) while a player can just focus on one class. If they get reversed, the new DM may be stymied by stuff outside of his or her concentration. I've also been on the other end of it. I played a ranger in a 3.0 party with a sorceress and a wizard, both of whom loved Haste. I seemed to spend a lot of time just cleaning up the leftovers (although I could kick butt pretty well against giants thanks to power attack and a hot hand). Oh, I guess I do have a teensy bit of advice. You can concentrate on being as creative with as innocuous spells as you can find, leaving the big hits if things go completely wrong. Illusions can be great for this. They don't cause direct damage ... normally ... but they can distract the bad guys and help the party get more free licks in.
Tehril 02-13-04, 08:21 PM	As others have suggested, switch to 3.5 Second, concetrate on party enhancing spells...rather than spells that buff you or a single character. 3.5 Haste is awesome for this... the benefits are seriously decreased... basically, a small bonus to AC and attack... a decent bonus to movement...and the extra action can only be used to attack when you take a full attack action (ie, no extra spells). HOWEVER... Haste now affects multiple people, depending on your caster level. I have yet to see a fighter refuse that...it's less "magical" if you will, than say an Enlarge. You just 'move faster' ;) Cast spells that enhance their weapons. Save your big guns for when the figher and barbarian and cleric are down ont he ground at 0 or less hp. Or, if they beg you to cast it before then...do so. But not unless they are down on their knees begging for it. Claim your character is now conserving his power for when it's really needed. Heck, if you have to , wait until a character dies before you pull it out. But that would be a tad vindicative...so maybe not. Other spells to work on would be ones that give your fighter types an easier time of it from the start... lessening the threat without removing it. Blindness, deafness, cure, greater curse etc... good spells for hampering foes... but not out right killing them. (clerics have Bless/Bane... which works nicely). Now, I have my own rant with warrior types complaining about spell casters... they gain almost ALL the glory from 1st to 10th. They also get tons of help in surviving at almost any level... where as the armorless, 4 hp wizard is typically left to fend for himself agaist the ravages of the DM...oh yeah... a couple of measly spells to boot. Basically, a wizard is dead weight until 7th level. The warriors get the glory and you get to play the sidekick to the mighty hero. Even then, you are quite fragile and need to replenish spells if you hope to survive. Not so for the Abrahms A1, aka the Fighter or Barbarian. They just keep on trucking. So there you have it... work on party enhancing and enemy hindering spells more than insta kill spells. Use your heavy damage spells wisely, like removing a troop of creatures that would flank your fighter and barb... but let them have a go at the teaming masses of baddies. Save your big guns for when the chips are really down and your party is looking like it's going lose badly (ie, the warriors are staggerd or in the negatives...or worse!) Oh yeah...repeating myself... 3.5!!! And complainers suck. Big time. Tell them to grow up. If they comlain you didn't save their rears... smack 'em.
crazydude8790 02-13-04, 09:27 PM	I play a barbarian, and I'm in a 16th level party with a lich wizard. He's EXTREMELY powerful, and would annihilate me in a duel. Yet, I don't feel that he's overpowered. The DM is constantly putting us against creatures with high CR (often as high as 30), so we need to use more than "save or end the battle" spells. Ussually, I'm the only one who can break his DR. And since I'm the one on the frontline taking the damage, I honestly don't mind if the creature gets killed by one spell. Given proper opponents, an "overpowered" mage can be humbled, and the fighter can be given a chance to shine.
FineasBoggs 02-13-04, 10:28 PM	Holy cow! I'm a problem player!!! Aren't we all? http://webpages.charter.net/acamphuysen/manshoon_mage_sigil.gif
WarRabbit 02-13-04, 10:33 PM	Originally posted by cthulhu42 W/r/t DC's: Oddly enough my DM has shown no reticence about me jacking them up. For example, when I approached her with Greater Magical Flow Enhancement (mentioned above), she didn't even hesitate to allow it. When I was shopping around for a prestige class (back when I was considering it) she even encouraged me to look at PrC's that boosted DC's. She realizes that this is the concept behind my character, and hasn't stifled me on it, bless her heart. Just because your DM allows you to jack up your spell DC's doesn't mean it's not the root of the problem. Drop non-PHB feats and spells and you'll be a much more balanced character and your DM and the other players won't have to give you the hate stare next time you fight a BBEG...well at least you'll have less of a chance of getting lucky and getting the hate stares. If you begin to fail on some of your save or die spells in the big battles, when you do succeed it'll be much easier for the DM and the other players to take.
Zerelde 02-13-04, 10:38 PM	All right; at Cthulhu's invitation, I decided to chirp in and put in my perspective of this issue at the risk of being flamed away from the boards altogether. Let me say first: I love Cthulhu's character; he's a great little guy, and has been an integral part of many, many, many excellent roleplaying moments. In fact, the crew as a whole displays great roleplaying at regular intervals, and I have absolutely no desire for the wizard to go away, die, or nerf himself to oblivion. DnD is a game intended to provide hours of fun between friends, and this is the overall goal I have when I set up my screen and tell the crew to roll their dice. That said, there has been a problem with magic. I would say that a lot of the issue is my own, since I am a novice and this shows more and more as the characters gain levels that are above what I've rarely played, much less DMed. I recognize that a lot of the problem is that I am on a learning curve right now, and with a bunch of friends who have clear ideas about what they want to do in a session, frustrations can quickly come to a head. Much of this, I hope, will be resolved. I have a "let's figure this out" session planned before we crack open books for our next roleplaying session. A great piece of advice given me by a DM on another board sums up a major part of what I aim to discuss: At higher levels, magic is, by its very existance, going to be more of an element of the game. I do not begrudge the fact that Cthulhu is the current source of "contention;" it is merely a bump in the road that needs to be smoothed over before we continue. I need to refocus my image of magic, and that will come. I'm hanging out with my DM and shes bemoaning the fact that she doesn't seem to be handling magic very well, that I'm causing her no end of headaches and quite frankly she'd be happy if another spell of any kind NEVER got cast in her campaign again. Slight exaggeration, but basically true; Cthulhu causes headaches because he thinks hard about magic and has a lot of questions that mean I need to make rulings; this is the headache part. I think I have to make more rulings for the wizard than for any other character, and this is difficult for me to manage. Here I am, happily building a kick butt wizard, and it turns out that kick butt wizards are something of a rarity in her game. My bust, not his. I am working on it. Our Dm has allowed 3rd party material and splat books as long as she ok's what we're after, and I've come up with some doozies! I have learned a valuable lesson in this regard, and when I start a new campaign I will not do this. I have learned the hard way why so many DMs are so strict about 3rd party sources. I am, however, somewhat reluctant to make changes in what a character already has. Lesson learned. I think its the discontent of the other player that has her really feeling at odds Yes, this is a large part of it. I personally don't mind when the nasties get changed into bunnies. However, I need to try to keep it interesting for the entire party. Your group = Idiots. This is entirely unfair and uncalled for. Different gaming styles do not breed idiots; refusing to accept that people are different does. This group is excellent, IMHO, and I am honored to call them fellow dorks and friends. Also, even the most experienced DMs can sometimes forget about SR... has she remembered it in all of your games I've used SR baddies in the past and plan to do so in the future. I don't always use them, though, for it would be as unfun for Cthulhu as it would to always use monsters with damage reduction of 20/+5. The problem, in game terms, is that sometimes Cthulhu can just decimate a monster without the fighter getting much of a chance. Then again, this problem is also a problem of perception. Sometimes the fighter kills a guy very quickly, although not in nearly as dramatic a matter (there is little more impessive than a massive frost worm suddenly morphing into a turtle). However, the party does not always get away so easily; earlier that day the party was seriously challenged with four Winter Wolves. A part of the problem is party perception, which I plan on addressing. Sometimes Doorag shines, and sometimes he doesn't. It sounds like your DM is throwing you softballs. Sometimes I do. This is at the core of my personality, and an aspect of DMing that I am actively working on improving. Things are very different on the back side of the screen. Man, are they ever. Playing a wizard is for mature players who can read the wants and needs of their group. I agree; the fact that a wizard CAN dominate a party doesn't mean that he HAS to. Ultimately, there needs to be a balance between the surge of joy a kick-butt spell can give vs the needs of your friends who share your table. Let me say that Cthulhu is not a greedy player, and that the other players (the ones with the beefs) are not completely justified in their complaints. It is this balance that any group of friends needs to think about, IMHO. What kind of roleplayer actually believes that a fighter would refuse when a wizard friend offers to make him an item that would make him stronger? One who holds true to an image that he is drawn to. It is not a bad thing to rely on your own strengths, and I would be remiss to chastise my players for focusing on the flavor that their character has. That said, they should not berate Cthulhu for wanting those items. Making character choices that do not necessarily grant greater power in the number-crunching way of things is a valid, even honorable choice. Who is to judge that one character's world view is better than anothers? Regarding DC's: I see DC's as similar to the Attack Bonus of a fighter; if Doorag has spent feats that boost this, how is that different from a fighter that boosts his chances to hit? Doorag has sacrificed other feats (like Quicken Spell, for example) in order to gain DC feats. I'm willing to make a few concessions, but giving up on a character I've invested so much in just for the comfort of other players is not one of them. Thank Pelor for that. I am feeling a little of the "holier than thou" vibe coming from him on this front. I must admit that I am partially responsible for the "magic is dumb" vibe; this is a long-term thing of mine, and something I am changing. It will be brought up during our upcoming discussion. It isn't right, just as it wouldn't be right if Doorag preached about the stupidity of hitting things with sticks of metal when magic hurled from 50 feet away is just as effective. As far as the demon in question, either it had no SR or I beat it's SR, don't recall which. Doorag beat it. It was a long shot, but it worked. Thus goes the way of the dice. The fighter probably would have died in that contest, by the way. Bunnyhood was a good thing, although the player would have liked to kill the durned thing. I also have a 3rd party spell called Greater Magical Flow Enhancement that raises all spell DC's by 2 for 10 min/level, material component: 50 gp gem, 4th level spell, so I can boost it to 24, which I did against the Frost Worm. The frost worm rolled low. I chose not to fudge the die, because that would have been cheesy. Besides, the frost worm's demise facilitated this whole bug-a-boo, which will be productive in the long run. Still, in many cases she might not have realized what she was ok'ing. This is true.:blush: The majority of the time I don't even ask him if he'd like a buff since I know he'd refuse. He might not mind a buff. It's the visible magic that I think he has a problem with. I could be wrong on this point. In the end, no matter what version we use I have the feeling that I'm going to have to "dumb down" my character a little, which kind of sucks. I'd like to avoid this. A change in Doorag's perspective, perhaps a "higher road" method of thinking, might be more appropriate. Doorag is cerebral enough to think about this. He is an observer, and a halfling with a huge heart. I could see him letting Griff and the others do most of the dirty work, since they like it so much. Our cleric player recently bought the Book of Exaulted Deeds and began to use a spell called Diamond Dust that is just (IMHO) jaw droppingly broken This is an example of a bad decision on my part. Stiffer sacrifices will be imposed for future uses of this spell, which the cleric's player and I have already begun to discuss. I'm considering asking her to simply axe future save/die spells altogether, as in, remove them from the game. That way I won't be torqued that I have to ignore them, and at the same time we won't have to worry about getting hit by them either. I think this might help for another reason, namely that shes made it clear that resurection spells are VERY rare in her world. This is a very good idea; I'd rather not deal them out to you guys, especially since death is fairly permanent in my world. Life or death hinged on a single die roll is not very fun, in my experience. We will have to talk about this in more detail, Cthulhu. Theoretically, a DM needs to know about all the tricks...while a player can just focus on one class. If they get reversed, the new DM may be stymied by stuff outside of his or her concentration. Yeah. It is hard to balance all the stuff going on. I am learning, but obviously I've made some unfortunate mistakes along the way. Sorry about the length of the post. Thanks for the good advice, both for Cthulhu and, a bit more indirectly, for me. Cheers.
WarRabbit 02-13-04, 10:49 PM	Originally posted by Zerelde I have learned a valuable lesson in this regard, and when I start a new campaign I will not do this. I have learned the hard way why so many DMs are so strict about 3rd party sources. I am, however, somewhat reluctant to make changes in what a character already has. Lesson learned. Don't wait to start a new campaign...if the problems continue then the game will be less fun for everyone involved. You're much better off presenting your new rules about '3rd party sources' when you talk to your players about the 'magic' problems you're having. It sounds like you're doing a very good job of DMing outside of the wizard, so I'm sure your players won't mind the rule changes..and if they do they'll get over it :)
Cantrip 02-13-04, 11:15 PM	Well most of the points I would make have already been said multiple times, but I do have one small thing to add. If polymorph is your DM's foil don't stop using it. There is a foil for polymorphing as well. Shapechangers. Being polymorphed is a minor inconvenience to them. For Hold Person/Monster saves are made every round to break out of the effect in 3.5. Also most clerics you face should have a couple Remove Paralysis and Freedom of Movement spells on hand in scroll form or memorized. (My group always keeps these two spells handy because our DM is not shy about playing NPCs as though they actually expect to win/live.) Edit: Ok, maybe it was more than one thing...
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-14-04, 12:26 AM	Originally posted by Zerelde That said, there has been a problem with magic. I would say that a lot of the issue is my own, since I am a novice and this shows more and more as the characters gain levels that are above what I've rarely played, much less DMed. I recognize that a lot of the problem is that I am on a learning curve right now, and with a bunch of friends who have clear ideas about what they want to do in a session, frustrations can quickly come to a head. Well, I wouldn't attribute all the problem to yourself. Sure, it's partially your fault for allowing some of the overpowered feats, but as a whole 3.0 wizards are overpowered. Lots of DMs, even experienced ones, myself included, have seen what a 3.0 wizard can do in the hands of a good player and it does totally shatter party balance. It certainly wouldn't be the first time this topic has come up. I've had to create pages of spell nerfs to keep magic under control in my campaigns, so I know well how badly problems can add up. As a word of advice for future campaigns, you've got to watch DC increasing things very closely, because DCs are already on the high side assuming you allow wizards to start with 18 intelligence. Tack on a headband of intellect +6, level based ability score increases, and spell focus, and the DC is quite huge. Anything that takes DCs beyond this point should be very carefully considered, and unless you are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that it won't be unbalanced, don't allow it. Now as for this one, I think you have to make the call and nerf some spells, as opposed to just having Cthulhu's character just go easy on monsters and don't act unless the party is in danger. I've always believed that as a DM you should give the party tools you are a comfortable dealing with, and then let them use those tools. If you think something obviously doesn't fit well in your campaign, then by all means don't hesitate to nerf or remove it altogether. If the nerf proves to be too harsh, you can always lessen it at a later session as you try to establish balance. However, the point is that you shouldn't just sit back and let it happen... because the thing with 3.0 wizard problems is that they only get worse. If you think save or dies are bad, wait till you hit spells like maze and forcecage that don't even grant a saving throw. Or at very high levels, the dreaded time stop... the spell that utterly devastates campaign balance. To run high level games of D&D, 3.0 especially, but 3.5 too, you've got to have good nerfing skills. But like anything else, nerfing takes practice.
PhaedrusXY 02-14-04, 01:38 AM	You know, I'm not very sympathetic with people who play characters like the bard and fighter in your group, claiming that they're good "role"players because they refuse buffs and magic items because it fits their character concept one minute, but then complaining the next minute because you polymorphed someone into a bunny. The next time some crap like that gets spewed, reply with "Well, my character concept is a powerful wizard who turns his enemies into harmless, fuzzy pets. That is no less of a legitimate character concept than yours." You could also try to work part of this frustration and differential in power out "in character". It should be obvious to the characters that your wizard is pulling ahead in power, and is now a force to be reckoned with. Roleplay him being frustrated with their stupid refusal of your offers to help them gain power and better themselves. Ask them in character why they refuse his help, and argue with them as to why they shouldn't. If your characters are trusting friends, and they are intelligent enough to do what's in their best interest, then they might eventually break down. I know if "I" lived in a world with dragons, trolls, and giants that wanted to eat me, and one of my friends was a powerful wizard, I don't think I'd turn down his offers of assistance. You'd be stupid not to take his help, if it would increase your odds of survival. Imagine if you lived in a war torn area that was regularly rampaged by monsters, but you had access to powerful weapons that could greatly increase your ability to combat them. Why on earth would you not use them? D&D IS a fantasy game of magic, dragons, fey creatures, and all other kinds of crazy things. Complaining because someone uses magic is senseless. If you don't like magic, go play Cyberpunk and STFU! A powerful wizard is one of the archtypical characters in the game, and it is no less of a legitimate archtype than the 5 o'clock shadowed tough guy with a sword.
Demon Lightfoot 02-14-04, 04:14 AM	Cthulhu, AFAIC, you aren't the problem player, although you have wheedled a few things out of a n00b DM that an experienced DM might not let you get away with...or might give to you while wearing a gigantic toothy shark-like smile. :behold: You merely play an effective wizard -- the other players need to get over themselves more than a little.
cthulhu42 02-14-04, 06:29 AM	Man, what a lot of good advise! Thanks! It was good to see that my DM stopped by to add her two cents. Shes a likeable sort, isn't she? Heres a quick story for you: Back about ten years ago I lost my play group and decided to soldier on and find a new one. To that end I put up a note on a bulliton board at my local game store seeking role-players. My current DM was one of the people who called me. Our cleric was another. And then there was this guy... lets call him Bob. Bob was this very intelligent, social inept, likeable-in-his-own-sort-of-weird-way uberdork. He was loved by some, loathed by others, and we played with him for something like six years. Until we kicked him out. The trouble with Bob was that, even though he had become a tremendously close friend over those years, he simply was no fun to play with. Bob was a powergame extrodinaire. He also played the meanest wizard I've ever seen. He reveled in the numbers, rolled in the rules, and crunched the numbers until his nose bled. I DMed him through a behemouth of an AD&D campagin, and he was my own personal little imp from hell sitting on my shoulder, calling into question my ruleings, siteing obscure rules, asking for spells out of some Dragon magazine that he couldn't even produce (and I still let him have that freaking spell! What was I thinking?), and wanting to do things with magic that would have me eating whole pages from my monster manual just to calm down. And oh, by the way, this was still pretty early on in my DMing career, and I had never actually played a spellcaster of any kind before! Ah, Bob. He really wasn't a bad guy, and I love him to death for the basicly big hearted lug he was. But I'll never role-play with him again. It got to the point where the rest of the group put their foot down, and Bob was asked to leave. The point is, nobody wanted to play with Bob. For all his good intentions he was just too big an annoyance at the table. And the last time we played I began to feel that sort of anti-Bob vibe directed at me! ME, of all people! Has the world gone crazy! What in the name of Mike is going on here? And the really terrible thing is, I actually hear Bob-like stuff coming out of me! GAAAAAA! What the hell? Is it just a wizard thing? OK, so its not as bad as it used to be with poor old Bob. I'm not terribly worried about getting kicked out of the group. I still get invited to the parties, so I figure I'm gonna stay friends with these guys. But still, its certainly troublesome to get that vibe. You know, I've learned something here today! What I need to do is back off on wheedling stuff out of my novice DM! Sheesh! Was THAT theraputic! Nobody likes Bob, so quit acting like him! Duh. Now on the other hand, a guy named PhaedrusXY posted something here that made me sit straight up in my chair and clap my forhead. Heres the good part... You could also try to work part of this frustration and differential in power out "in character". It should be obvious to the characters that your wizard is pulling ahead in power, and is now a force to be reckoned with. Roleplay him being frustrated with their stupid refusal of your offers to help them gain power and better themselves. Ask them in character why they refuse his help, and argue with them as to why they shouldn't. If your characters are trusting friends, and they are intelligent enough to do what's in their best interest, then they might eventually break down. I know if "I" lived in a world with dragons, trolls, and giants that wanted to eat me, and one of my friends was a powerful wizard, I don't think I'd turn down his offers of assistance. You'd be stupid not to take his help, if it would increase your odds of survival. Imagine if you lived in a war torn area that was regularly rampaged by monsters, but you had access to powerful weapons that could greatly increase your ability to combat them. Why on earth would you not use them? Why on earth indeed? And to be honest, I hadn't even considered dealing with it in game. Again, duh. Boy, I'm not at all sure if we could pull it off, but it sure would be an elegent solution to the problem. So far what I've been hearing is advise to nerf. Now understand, I've got nothing against a good nerf. I've nerfed plenty of stuff. I nerfed Bob just about every other week! I'm the nerfmaster general! OK, no, not really. The nerfmaster general is some guy named Ian who lives in San Diago. The point is, I agree with many of the suggestions made. Specificly the ones designed to ease the burden on the DM, because those are ones that I'll likely use myself when I DM next. But the other players, well, other than not wanting to be Bob at the table, I still feel that, yes, a wizard who turns his enemies into frogs is just as valid an arch type as that of a self destructive, magic hating, swordsman. Whew. Well, I seem to have run out of steam. Its very late, tomorrow is Valentines Day, and I can't find the %$*& wrapping paper so I can wrap my wifes gifts! I'll just have to leave this thread in the hands of cababel posters who have, thus far, given steller advise.
jvsperoni 02-14-04, 10:18 AM	A fighter who mistrusts magic because he's seen friends turned into toads, and worse, is role-playing. A fighter who refuses magic because he doesn't want to be "too powerful" is meta-gaming. Imagine a modern-day cop or soldier who says "no, sarge, I can't wear that body armor; it gives me an unfair advantage over the bad guys. And I can't use tear gas against the rioters, either. Oh, here, I'm turning in my radio, too, since the criminals can't call for backup..." A PC that doesn't use all the tools available to him should expect to fall behind the other players in power. If I play a pacifist cleric, I would expect the other players to deal more damage to the monsters than I do. What does a group do when a fighter won't wear armor for "role-playing" reasons? The group moves forward and the fighter in question has to deal with a low armor class. You don't nerf the other fighters in the game.
Demon Lightfoot 02-14-04, 02:04 PM	:whatsthis I didn't see anything in your description of "Bob" that should have made "rest of the group put their foot down" and kick the poor bastard out. Insufficient data. Elaborate. :mage: :b: jvsperoni : W3rd.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-14-04, 03:40 PM	Originally posted by PhaedrusXY D&D IS a fantasy game of magic, dragons, fey creatures, and all other kinds of crazy things. Complaining because someone uses magic is senseless. If you don't like magic, go play Cyberpunk and STFU! A powerful wizard is one of the archtypical characters in the game, and it is no less of a legitimate archtype than the 5 o'clock shadowed tough guy with a sword. I don't think anyone in the group is complaining that he shouldn't be a wizard or that a wizard isn't a valid archetype. People are complaining because magic is too powerful, which is something different altogether. Nerfing magic isnt' about getting rid of it, it's just about putting it back into balance with the rest of the characters, because as many many people have stated in the past... high level wizards are overpowered in the right hands. And really you shouldn't have to kick the PC out of the group, just nerf him down to a point where everyone is happy. Unless the PC is one of those players that is only happy when their character is 100x stronger than everyone elses then it should fix the problem.
cthulhu42 02-14-04, 04:21 PM	DM: OK, your walking down the dungeon corridor. X, Y, and Z happen. Bob: I cast spells A, B, and C! Thereby utterlydestroying creatures D through R! DM: No, you can't do that. Spell B doesn't work that way. Bob: What! No! Wait! Why! (Insert 20 minute argument with DM here). Rest of the group: :rolleyes: ...later... DM: OK, you finaly confront the BBEG! Bob: Excellent! I have prepared well for this! I ready my nuculer bomb! DM: What? Bob: Earlier today I used an Item spell to turn many gallons of water into a small piece of cloth! Then I cast a sphereical Wall of Force around the piece of cloth! Now I will dispell the Item spell, casusing the water to return to normal volume, which is much greater than what the sphere of force will allow! Water cannot be contained like this! Physics dictates that atoms will split! Nutrons will dance! Chain reactions will occur! The whole mess will explode, and I will win, win, win! DM: ... Rest of the group: :mad: DM: You can't do that Bob. Bob: What! No! Wait! Why! (Insert 20 minute argument with DM here). ...later... Bob: I found this spell in Dragon magazine! Can I have it? DM: Ummmm, yeah, I guess so. Bob: Ha HA! I cast this spell incesently! I am now all powerful! I win! Game balance and fun be damned! DM: Ok, let me see that spell again Bob. Bob: What? Oh, well, the Dragon is in my storage shed. Not sure where it is. It does this, this and this though. DM: You don't even have a copy of the spell for reference Bob? Bob: Ummmm... DM: OK Bob, This is how we're going to nerf that spell... Bob: What! No! Wait! Why! (Insert 20 minute argument with DM here). Rest of the group: :headexplo ...later... DM: OK, creature X hits you for Y damage. Bob: What! This is BS! That creature can't do that! DM: This one can, Bob. Bob: I've read every single D&D rule ten times over! I've read them in greek! I've read them in the original hebrew text! I've got a shrine to Gary Gygax set up in the corner of my room at home! Creature X CANNOT do that! DM: This one can, Bob. Bob: What! No! Wait! Why! (Insert 20 minute argument with DM here). Rest of group: :weep: ...Six years pass. All or part of the above happens EVERY week for SIX YEARS, no matter how many times we try to get Bob to take it down a notch... DM: Bob, we love you, your our friend, but we just can't roleplay with you anymore. Your surgicly removing the fun from this game. Bob: ... Rest of the group: :bounce: And so it goes. Nerfing magic isnt' about getting rid of it, it's just about putting it back into balance with the rest of the characters, because as many many people have stated in the past... high level wizards are overpowered in the right hands. What did we do before 3.5 came along to save us all from powerfull wizards? How did I ever manage to DM AD&D for all those years? Anybody besides me remember AD&D? You think 3.0 wizards are powerfull? Ha! How in the world did I DM 3.0 before 3.5 came out? How did we manage to have fun at all? How on earth di I manage to DM a kobold sorcerer up to 15th level and still maintain game balance? And how are the other players who now have a beef with me going to take it when I continue to Balefuly polymorph bad guys?
Zerelde 02-14-04, 04:29 PM	Bob is an excellent person who just flat-out didn't fit into our group. He was a very persistant rules-lawyer who just couldn't internalize the rule of "DM's word is final," and he ate up a lot of game time as Cthulhu tried to deal with him. This created a general feeling of frustration as the other players sat around as the campaign was halted again and again over Bob's questions/arguments. Just ignoring Bob was not an option. Many attempts to address this problem with Bob were made, but the fundamental problem was that Bob's motiviations to role play were in nearly complete contrast to the rest of the group. He couldn't mellow out in this regard. He needed a group that played the way he does, and we just were not that group. We kicked out Bob because the group was in danger of falling apart over the issue. Roleplaying was not fun anymore. It came to a choice to ask Bob to leave or for everyone to stop playing and partially "reform" later: an irresponsible, cheesy response to a problem that needed to be addressed directly. This was a very, very difficult decision for nearly everyone involved, and strained friendships (which eventually persevered, thank the heavens). It was the hardest thing our group has ever had to do, but I must admit that I'd do it again. Cthulhu got the rotten end of the stick in the task, and he handled it very, very well. It is still a painful topic for many of us, and one we think on often. Kicking a friend out of a group is a horrible thing to have to do, but it made a huge difference in how our group works. Oh - and Cthulhu isn't even close to as troublesome as Bob was, although sometimes I see glimmers of similarities.
WarRabbit 02-14-04, 05:15 PM	Originally posted by cthulhu42 How in the world did I DM 3.0 before 3.5 came out? How did we manage to have fun at all? How on earth di I manage to DM a kobold sorcerer up to 15th level and still maintain game balance? Did the kobold sorcerer have a 25 Charisma, Spellcasting Prodigy, and use a spell that boosts all his DCs by 2 at 11th level? Did the kobold sorcerer cast 3.0 haste, polymorph other, and other save or die spells? The potential for abuse has always been around, whethere it was AD&D or 3rd edition...the key has always been the player behind the wizard and then, when that player was a powergamer, the DMs ability to put the clamps down on non-core material and create challenges appropriate to a party containing a well played wizard. Originally posted by cthulhu42 And how are the other players who now have a beef with me going to take it when I continue to Balefuly polymorph bad guys? Like I mentioned earlier, if you get rid of non-core material your DCs will drop and chances are you won't get so lucky with every big bad guy. Once you start to fail more often I'm sure your bunnymorph successes will be taken much better in the group and with your DM.
cthulhu42 02-14-04, 05:45 PM	Hehe, I wish I could introduce you to that kobold! Half of what I know about spellcasting I learned from Bob. The other half I learned from that kobolds player! That kobold is no less a "powergamer" than Bob, but he has social skills that leave poor Bob in the dust. No matter how he number crunched and drove me crazy, its impossible not to like the guy, and despite his insistance on teleporting the party everywhere, etc, he is still fun to game with. Bob was not. Trust me when I say that Mr. Kobolds DC's are plenty high, not to mention the fact that I've allowed his sorcerer to use Quicken Spell since it was well after he'd taken it that we realised it doesn't work for sorcerers. I eventually had to nerf Haste toward the later months of that campagin after we realised that he could possibly get off three spells a round. And even though Mr. K's prefered tactic is an empowered lightning bolt followed by empowered quickened magic missiles, he also has polymorph in his bag of tricks, not to mention disinigrate, and he's not afraid to use them. He's a challenge to DM, but in the end he's made me a better DM, and I'm far more able to keep up with him. Look, as I said before, I'm not entierly against nerfing magic. I've nerfed plenty of it. I just don't think that it will cure the root of this particular problem. I think that solution will be born of maturity within myself and the rest of the group.
jvsperoni 02-14-04, 09:22 PM	Originally posted by Demon Lightfoot SNIP jvsperoni : W3rd. "W3rd" :confused: My brain is still running online slang v1.0. What does w3rd mean?
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-14-04, 10:09 PM	Originally posted by jvsperoni My brain is still running online slang v1.0. What does w3rd mean? "Word" (often spelled "werd"). As in, "Word up, homie." Or, "The thing you say be correct." Or, "True-dat." Also, "Jvsperoni's comment is the shiznit." :cool:
jvsperoni 02-15-04, 12:30 AM	Thanks. I already knew what "word" meant - I'm not that ancient. S3, when p3sting to these b3ards, sh3uld I n3w start t3 replace all my O's with 3's :D
Jell_Moo 02-15-04, 01:01 AM	Wow, I don't know why, but I've throughouly enjoyed this thread. You and your DM are some of the most articulate posters I've come across. Except for this recent problem, you seem to have a good dynamic with your group. As to the problem at hand... Step One: Don't bring in any more 3rd party material. Simple. While you're at it, go a little lighter with spells and what have you that you're using now. That spell that raises your DCs should probably be shelved. Step Two: You're a wizard. You're starting to reach a high level. The other players should expect you to start dominating a bit more. You were the weaker one at the early levels, now it's your turn to shine. Still, try not to rub in the fact that you have the power of the cosmos at your fingertips. Step Three: Slowly change the focus of your casting. Don't always start with save or die spells. Work in spells that not only buff the party, but spells that weaken the enemy. Spells like Bestow Curse and Enervation for example. If the fight starts to get out of hand, then use the save or die spells. Step Four: If the party would rather hoof it than have you cast Fly on em, accept it. However, there's no reason for you to have to suffer. FLy or teleport.... Heck, cast Reduce Person on your self and ride in the Fighter's backpack! Step Five: Try and make sure that people realize that you shouldn't be punished for making a powerful character. Offer some concessions, but make sure others realize that you shouldn't be penalized because they would like to play 'un-buffed'. It's all well and good for the fighter not to want any magical help, but he does have to realize that doing so will make his character weaker. If his character is weaker, than yours is going to seem all that much more powerful. Just because he wants a low magic character does not mean you have to play that way. All in all, I think that this is a problem easily resolved. You and your DM both seem to be reasonable, likeable people, and I'm certain you and your group will work through this. In the future though, take it a little easier on a 1st time DM, and limit the 3rd party stuff!:D Even if she approves it, you should know better! ;)
Scion of Coldshard 02-15-04, 01:33 AM	I've read through the thread and it is hard to see a real problem other than what has been mentioned. You use magic, some others in the group almost entirely refuse to do so. I would suggest useing a modifified version of the vows from exalted deeds. 3rd party stuff is great, the dm gets to go through and pick and choose what is good for their games, modify it to fit, and places it where needed. It sounds like the fighter is already near the vow of poverty, but not on it exactly, I think it could be modified to fit his style and the campaign.. if he wont accept something like that boosting him then he wants to play a game that doesnt actually have magic and not d&d. Not trying to be too disparaging ;) I really dont see much of a problem anyway. Even dc 24 at 10th level isnt a huge deal for a fort save. Most anything that you actually want to use it on will either be A) immune, B)have good saves and SR or C) be able to prevent it somehow possibly even by reflecting it back on you. Even CR 7 creatures or so could make that save half of the time at least, and at this point they arent supposed to be much of a threat. But then in my games I always get rid of all save or dies, so perhaps I am looking through the wrong eyes. I do have a question though, what kind of mage could you play that they would accept in any way, shape, or form? Evocationist? nope, it deals damage, and any damage dealing that isnt done by fighter types is too powerful Illusionist? Dont even go there, you think they dont like you now wait until these spells start dropping. Abjuration? Transmutation? Necromancy? Doesnt matter, these all do powerful things at any level. So basically you are stuck with diviner, which will step on the bards toes and any rougeish type of people. Perhaps I am missing something, but just from the various posts it sounds like any sort of spellcaster will be by default a problem in their eyes. If I am reading too far into it feel free to correct me ;) But the question stands for now, what sort of mage could you play that wouldnt bother them? If there even is one is it any fun to play? I hope that it works out for you! I think that by far the best solutions are making them stronger, not you weaker. Kill all save or die spells, change a few other things here and there that seem broken, give them the choice of a few feats that are modified from various sources (tell the fighter that conan obviously had this combination of feats because he was able to deal with everyone so well without magical gear) that sort of thing It will take some work, but in the end it will be more satisifying for everyone in my estimation. However, it is very true that for the first few levels wizards are a bit weak. Plus, I have seen that trend continue all the way up through every level vs properly made tanks and appropriate houserules (ie taking out spells that break the particular campaign and certain combos, to this end I wound up having to power up casters dramatically through various ways in order to make them appropriate.. but that is too much to talk about just on here ;) ) Keep the thread posted! I am sure we are all curious how this will turn out.
Korhal_IV 02-15-04, 02:09 AM	RE: Questing for items instead of having the wizard craft them: What did you think you were doing all those times you hauled his sorry butt out of the fire/pit/maw/etc. ? Point out that a refusal to carry magic while running around with a guy who's scalp-deep in the most obvious and powerful magics ever is deep hypocrisy. Then point out that the villains are willing to have Belts of Giant Strength +6, and they like to grapple too.
Ehelonna 02-15-04, 02:37 AM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard I really dont see much of a problem anyway. Even dc 24 at 10th level isnt a huge deal for a fort save. Most anything that you actually want to use it on will either be A) immune, B)have good saves and SR or C) be able to prevent it somehow possibly even by reflecting it back on you. Even CR 7 creatures or so could make that save half of the time at least, and at this point they arent supposed to be much of a threat. But then in my games I always get rid of all save or dies, so perhaps I am looking through the wrong eyes. I don't think so. The very thing that lead to your ban on save or die spells is the problem here. Lets assume that cthulhu42's targets save 90% of the time (he only targets the big threats) and he carries two save or die spells. That means that 19% of serious combat situations are over before they really begin. Although 1 in five may not sound like a lot it will be a source of friction since it happens at least every other session (assuming at least 3 encounters per session). If the targets save only 25% of the time, that translates to a 44% chance of the combat ending really early... That's almost half the time!!! :eek: Those odd encounters were he gets REALLY LUCKY like Example 2: We're fighting five giant sized baddies, each with three arms and bad attitudes. One of them is about to pound the bard into goo and I Hold Monster that sucker. A round later our barbarian is about three hit points away from death, so I polymorph his foe into a kitten. can engender bad feelings in several ways... Why didn't you blow two of them away early so that we could concentrate on the other 3 and take less damage? Why are you stealling my thunder? Gee... thanks. That just made the last 3 rounds of my actions totally pointless. A cleric walking up behind the characters and casting Heal wouldn't generate the same sort of feelings... The cleric saved the day AND the fighter made a difference. With the wizard, they made the fighter's contribution look pointless. In a way, this is quite silly... the reason the wizard didn't do that first was because he thought the chances of it actually working was quite low... so he better stick with spells that have some effect when the target saves... until the situation gets desperate. But having the spell work then makes all of the effort expended before that seem quite pointless. :rolleyes: I'm currently playing a level 8 wizard and I have been noticing that a lot of encounters can be made soo much less noticable with magic. For example, our campsite was attacked overnight... but the wizard was awake and the entire opposition was obliterated before they could actually close to melee distance (it was a goblin raid... a few CRs below our level... but there were some grumblings about why we bothered to wake the rest of the camp). :angel:
Zerelde 02-15-04, 03:50 AM	In fairness to my fighter, I have to say that he's not completely anti-magic. He feels cheesy boosting stats, and he doesn't like the image of fly. He is yearning for some magical armor, has a great blade, and is, I think, generally happy with what he has. His image of cool fantasy is along the lines of Gemmel, and I completely identify with his mental picture. Cthulhu's is more traditional DnD. With me in holding the reins, a little clashing between the two was bound to happen. The issue is the speed at which combat ends, and this is something that I'll be addressing. The "anti-magic" vibe (or, the "oh man it's Bob" vibe) is not extreme, and I intend to do what I can to nip it in the bud. Cthulhu has already recognized his part in the problem, and I hope to be able to open up the rest of the situation with the rest of the party. Yeah, Cthulhu holds some of the responsibility; so do I. But by no means is he the "sore spot" in a group of perfect gamers. Frustrations generally come from many sides, and none of them are completely right. Ultimately, the combat issue is something that I can do something about, and discussion on boards such as this one has done a whole heck of a lot to teach me ways to improve my DMing skills. It's the blend of "yeah, sorry" and "don't worry about it, man" that makes a good group, and I think we'll be fine.
cthulhu42 02-15-04, 05:38 AM	Then again, maybe I'll just turn chaotic evil and kill em ALL!!! :devil:
cthulhu42 02-15-04, 05:45 AM	Maybe I should just change what I polymorph foes into. I once polymorphed an axe beak into a cow, and the rest of the party had a pretty tough time with old bossy! I think the cleric even got bit. Hehe.
Scion of Coldshard 02-15-04, 10:50 AM	Gah :( board ate my post. This will be much more brief, sorry all :( Originally posted by Ehelonna Those odd encounters were he gets REALLY LUCKY Exactly, against a big bad, who at this level probably has some SR or immunities every single time, then it will almost never work. Especially with a fairly low save dc (24 at level 10+ is good, but not incredible, so 'fairly low' according to what it could be at this level, not fairly low for all cases everywhere) But I did take out save or dies in my campaign. I took them out for a lot of reasons but mainly because it wasnt fun for the pc's to have them used on themselves and because higher level casters are already pretty much forced into useing them. If you dont and you dont have a really high dc then you are relegated to buffer, and that just isnt much fun. So I changed quite a few things with magic, but it works much nicer now ;) This was much nicer and with better examples last time.. bad boards :( Originally posted by Ehelonna I'm currently playing a level 8 wizard and I have been noticing that a lot of encounters can be made soo much less noticable with magic. For example, our campsite was attacked overnight... but the wizard was awake and the entire opposition was obliterated before they could actually close to melee distance (it was a goblin raid... a few CRs below our level... but there were some grumblings about why we bothered to wake the rest of the camp). :angel: [/B] I just have one thing to ask, why were you all sleeping on the ground????? At this level there are so many ways for all of the spellcasters to fix this, or just a few magical items from party treasure. No one wants to be attacked while sleeping, no one wants to be caught unprepared. It is always imperitive to find a way to not be caught with your pants down as it were ;) With the fact that they were incredibly low CR and the mage (low spot and listen by default) was able to make them out ahead of time.. it sounds like it was supposed to be easy ;) I bet they would've been more mad if you 'hadnt' waken them up though..lol Still, dont sleep on the ground. Either cast spells or get an item to make it so you dont have to. This is just something that every group should do.. otherwise someone who is able to sneak past the mage could kill most/all of the party easy. Most dm's will shy away from a tpk, but there is still no reason to invite it ;) Like I said, I was much more indepth and nice last time. Sorry :( hopefully I didnt step on any toes here. This thread is cool, but it is hard to see a problem. One guy picks a tactic but does not really max it out so it only works infrequently, and technically shouldnt have worked as much as it did. Some of the other party members think he is stealing the thunder, but probably for awhile he had almost no thunder of his own anyway and is just not getting into the swing of things. Like I said earlier, I think that the idea of various feats and such is more of the way to go than a lot of the nerfs listed in this thread. Sounds like his character wants to be more like conan anyway, he'll have to deal with it in a proper d&d fashion. By taking feats and magic items to help in his quest ;)
Scion of Coldshard 02-15-04, 10:59 AM	Originally posted by Zerelde The issue is the speed at which combat ends, and this is something that I'll be addressing. The "anti-magic" vibe (or, the "oh man it's Bob" vibe) is not extreme, and I intend to do what I can to nip it in the bud. Cthulhu has already recognized his part in the problem, and I hope to be able to open up the rest of the situation with the rest of the party. I wonder, is it possible or required to change cthulus primary purpose? As in, sortof do a bit of a time shift and change the character to something a bit different. Specialize in necromancy, pick up some stuff to help enhance it. This will allow the mage to have fun, do lots of things in combat that wouldnt immediately end it, and maybe everyone can be happy? Making your foes tired and slowed dont end the battle, just makes the others more effective ;)
Zerelde 02-15-04, 01:54 PM	A lawful good necromancer halfling? I think I like Doorag as he is!:eek:
Scion of Coldshard 02-15-04, 02:09 PM	Which is fine, it seems that this whole thread is looking for options, and that is an option. It sounds like you are disparaging that particular type of build. There is nothing wrong with a lawful good necromancer halfling. Nothing against being lawful and good, being lawful and a necromancer, being lawful and a halfling (although the last is debateable ;) ) Nothing against being a good necromancer or a good halfling. Nothing against being a necromancer halfling. There is nothing inherently evil about necromancy, which I think is what you were trying to be against ;) not sure though.. Still, like I said, it is an option. Whether it is an acceptable one or not ::shrugs:: No one answered my other question about what sort of mage could be made that the party would like. From the description it sounds like at least one player would be against any of the mage builds. If that is anywhere near the case then the other players should adjust, and not the person who originally posted.
Tevish Szat 02-15-04, 03:02 PM	IF YOU REALLY WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR CHARACTER 1) Slow. sink alomst all your xp into making magic items. Open a magic shop while you're in town. Your character will have a huge bankroll of GP (which he just might generously share with his compatriots), but that won't help much on the road when he's suddenly a level or two behind... 2) Kamakazi. suicide the character because you don't wnat to cause any more strife. possibly tell the DM your intentions beforehand. afterwards, there are many memorable methods It finally got to him: The wizard, via failed illusion or something, thinks they are a great warrior. they slap on really cruddy armor (nonproficient, almost no bonus to AC and a lot of penalities), grab a sword (nonproficient) and insist on challenging the most powerful enemy in any encounter to a dule. they will quickly find they have neither attack bonus nor hit points... and do so fatally. Remember thoes little walking bombs from mario?: Get in the middle of a large crowd of enemies. since you don't want to make concentration checks, try to avoid attacks of opportunity. then cast the nastiest, biggest, area of effect spell you can manage... centered on yourself. the mage goes down laughing like a maniac as the twinned fireball blows him and everything in 20 feet straight to hell. Fizban method: Jump off a high cliff and cast featherfall... but screw up the last syllable. Featherball! your fall is not slowed and thus you go splat, leaving a wake of millions of white chicken feathers... A taste of his own medicine: Pick a fight with an Aoa (fiend Folio). polymorph it into a toad. fail to beat its spell resistance. get polymorphed into a toad. I, for one, would talk with the group out of character. Acknowledge that there's a problem and you're willing to fix it. if making a new character for a relativly low magic world is the answer, your character can die or retire. If there's some other solution, like retolling to a variant where magic is hazardous to the health or sanity of the user, go ahead and try it, unless you'd rather blow up the halfling and start from scratch...
Dragontooth 02-15-04, 08:45 PM	Here might be a slight help. Instead of turning the BBEG into a bunny, or frog, or bug, or what not. Turn it into say a Dire Lion, and Tiger, and Bear oh my!! I'm sorry just had to do that. The foe won't be so deadly as it was before, but it still gives the fighter, barbarian, bard a foe worthy of them defeating, and the foe has a chance to still hurt them somewhat.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-16-04, 01:52 AM	Originally posted by cthulhu42 Look, as I said before, I'm not entierly against nerfing magic. I've nerfed plenty of it. I just don't think that it will cure the root of this particular problem. I think that solution will be born of maturity within myself and the rest of the group. Well, I don't know your group perfectly, however I can say that if the problem is as bad as you seem to be making it out to be, some steps should be taken to put things back into balance. I generally dislike solutions that involve the player himself purposely hurting his character by making him play nontactically. If anything this is more of an insult to the group, and makes their characters feel even worse. You shouldn't have to change around your character archetype completely to make things work. If you like save or dies and save or dies are too powerful, the solution isn't to say, "Don't use as many save or die spells.", or have your wizard go insane and start weilding a sword and armor... it's to put save or die spells back into balance with the rest of the game. The first place to do that is with save DCs. Save or dies should fail sometimes... frequently even. If they're too successful on big name foes, then your save DCs are too high and should be toned down, or the monster's saves should be beefed up. Considering that it seems you've used a lot of 3rd party DC enhancers my guess is the former would probably be a better idea. 3.0 and 3.5 for that matter just wasn't made to support huge DCs. And the DC min/maxer is one of the most gamebreaking characters out there, especially in 3.0 with its abundance of low level save or dies. From what you've said most of your problems seem to come from save or dies... so clearly if you get your spell DCs in line, the game becomes fun again and the problem is averted. All in all your wizard will probably be more fun to play because he will be more challenged, and you won't have to resort to anything drastic like making your character go insane, or changing to a necromancer.
Demon Lightfoot 02-16-04, 02:19 AM	Holy Mother Of Elvis, Emeril and Gygax. That explains Bob better than I could ever have wanted. You have my deepest sympathies. I've never encountered anyone remotely like that.
fractal 02-16-04, 03:18 AM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard I would suggest useing a modifified version of the vows from exalted deeds. 3rd party stuff is great, the dm gets to go through and pick and choose what is good for their games, modify it to fit, and places it where needed. It sounds like the fighter is already near the vow of poverty, but not on it exactly, I think it could be modified to fit his style and the campaign.. This sounds like possibly the best idea to me. If the character doesn't want to have magic items, then the rules of the game need to be modified to accomodate that. (That, or else just let the character tag along being useless.) Find a way to modify VoP. It was posted later that the Fighter does want a magic weapon and armor, just not other stuff. I can understand that. It fits the typical fantasy mold a lot better to have a few powerful items rather than carrying around an entire magic shop on your back. So, perhaps you could make him a magic helm that adds to strength, con, etc. Sure, it's more expensive to put multiple abilities into one item, but he might like the flavor better.
Dorian H 02-16-04, 07:36 AM	I think the save or die mechanic is broken. Either it works or not, it's all or nothing. Either you steal the show or do nothing. The problem is that since 1 st edition evocation just went along all the way to nerfdom. Withe the average HP/level climbing upunlike the evocation damage (horrid wiltng went down from D8 to D6, nothing more than an 8th level fireball) save or die spells became more and more popular. In 1st edition, "power word kill" really meant what it says : kill the opponent by speaking a power word. Now it's "word of questionnable power : finish an opponent who lost more than 50% of his HP". Which means that save or die and polymorphing(call it Pandora's box of cheese) steal the show. As a DM, I think that wizards must be controleld. I tend to ban : - powerfull divination spells. They are plot killers. - teleport : it's now a ritual (1 minute casting time) with an XP cost (so that it's not the usual way of traveling). This spell is another plot killer. Plus it's indispensible in a world where it exists. - fly : heavily controlled - improved invisibility : spoils many encounters unless the DM metagames against it. So Basically I consider it vanishes if a user casts a spell, and has a range of "personnal".
Glock-9mm 02-16-04, 08:52 AM	To cthulhu42 & Zerelde. I have sent a private message to cthulhu42 regarding a couple of things he has mentioned in his posts and given him a link to page you may both find "Invaluable" regarding the current delimma and helpful for new GMs/Players. cthulhu42, Would you be able to PM/Email me the responce to my 1st question in my PM please. Thx. Regards Glock-9mm
pjackson 02-16-04, 12:43 PM	Obviously talking ths over with your DM and the other players is the best way to handle it, but perhaps I can suggest something you haven't though of. I get the feeling that it is not the reliability of you spells (high DC) but that when they work they completely overshadow what the other players are doing. The other players are not at fault for not wanting magic items that will spoil the feel of their characters for them. They seem to want their characters to be more dependant on their own abilities than the standard in D&D of high level characters being largely defined by their items. I rather agree with that. But you have been making your character pretty near as powerful as the system allows, using your knowledge of the system. That can be fun, but if the other players do not want to push things as hard, then that can cause a clash of styles. The first thing I would suggest is that you look at the changes in 3.5 and bring in those that would help. You need not convert completely. The new Hold spells would I think be especially helpful, since they are no longer save or die. (Luckily for my character, whose familiar had to attack to prevent an enemy from doing a CdG last session whilst I tried to roll higher than 4).) Swap that feat that gives you extra spellls for Craft Magic Arms and Armour. That will slow down the rate at which you increase your power, especially if casters as high level as you are rare so scrolls of higher level arcane spells are hard to find. It will also let you create those items the fighter wants. The DM could help by featuring your weaknesses for a while. Such things as using shapechangers who can shrug off polymorph, and having enemies target you as the main danger, holding actions to attack you as you cast. Rogues should be sneaking around the party to attack you. Summoned monsters should be appearing next to you. You should be having to devote a significant proportion of your spells to personal defense. You said you were just using mage armour. Why not shield? What about the moderate level wizards an sorcerers who should be holding actions to hit you with magic missile should you start casting a spell. BBEGs tend to have fought their way to the top making many enemies of their own, and having developed ways to defend against common types of attack. If polymorph is a very effective attack easy to do, they will have developed a defense to it.
StormKnight 02-16-04, 01:07 PM	What did we do before 3.5 came along to save us all from powerfull wizards? How did I ever manage to DM AD&D for all those years? Anybody besides me remember AD&D? You think 3.0 wizards are powerfull? Ha! Um...as I remember AD&D, one of the reasons myself and my friends DIDN'T play it as soon as we found out about other RPGs was that at high levels it was simply pointless to play anything other than a wizard. Nasty monster? Zap it with spells. Trap? Disarm/Open it with spells or just teleport past it. Puzzle? Use spells to solve it. Nasty monster that's immune to spells? Summon things to kill it. Need Healing? Oh, yeah, that's what we're lugging the bored looking cleric around for. :)
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-16-04, 02:18 PM	I don't know why you're saying 2E was a caster's game... IMO it seemed to be the other way around. You give a fighter a girdle of giant strength and weapon spec and he starts really chewing things up at high levels. Meanwhile the wizard sits there being able to do almost nothing. Magic resistance negates the majority of his spells. His evocations weren't all that great at that level anyway since everything was almost guaranteed to make the save for half. Also, almost all 9th level spells had a casting time of 9 meaning they were tough to get off in combat. Really I found in 2E the main tactic in a tough battle was haste+stoneskin on the fighter and have them tear stuff up. Wizards in 2E were powerhouses earlier on. At low levels they were completely invaluable with their sleep spell. At higher levels, they tended to rely on the fighters more to actually dish out the damage. With 3E, the variable save DCs mixed things up. Now, I don't think the concept of a save or die is broken, but it is dangerous, because it basically requires you to pay special attention to how high oyu allow the DCs. If they get too high, then SoDs become too reliable and the game balance is shifted. Most DMs who allow lots of DC pumping feats and abilities don't yet know what they're getting into. I've always thought that SoDs should have a fixed DC based on the spell as opposed to being modified by everything else. That would be an invasive change but it would certainly balance them out with everything. That way you could have a DC 50 fireball and it wouldn't matter much, but having a DC 50 flesh to stone would be impossible. For SoDs to be balanced, there has to be situations where they generally just don't work. It should be a gamble to throw one at a powerful enemy. If it gets to the point where it's a 75% or greater that it's going to take out a powerful foe, then they are far too powerful.
cthulhu42 02-16-04, 06:51 PM	Ok, well, sunday has come and gone, we put another gaming session in the books, and it appears that the problem has been resolved. My DM and I met a little early to discuss specific game mechanics that could be implimented to help the situation. From the way things look now it doesn't appear that we will be making a full on switch to 3.5, due in part to our not having the 3.5 DMG & MM. Yes, we know about the SRD, but quite frankly I think she'd rather have the books. More user friendly. However, we have begun to look at the spells on a case by case basis. Hold Person/Monster, for example, has now been toned down to a 3.0/3.5 hybrid that still works pretty well. She also took away a 3rd party spell which I'd had for awhile but never used, so its retro loss doesn't screw with historical accuracy. The meat of the matter was handled with the group as a whole though via an open discussion between the lot of us before te game began. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice to say that I admited to my Bob-like tendencies and resolved to take that down a notch, as well as resolving to be more cognizent of the fact that our DM isn't as magic savy as I am and to be more content with core material. However, I also asked for their patience with reguard to asking for ruleings from the DM and creative use of spells. Our DM backed me up on this, siting that D&D is simply a more magical game at higher levels. The other players were given their chance to rebut and give their two cents. This was carried out in a calm and nonviolent mannor, and no feelings were hurt in the process. I also promised to be more aware of the other players as a whole, and to not attempt to use magic as a solve-all when it came to mundane problems. One other happy note: It turns out that my character has simply not given the fighters character enough IN GAME information on the items he would like to craft for him. You see, during our seven months of downtime I think I simply made a blanket statement to the group that I was willing to make items for them. While the rest of the party met me halfway and gave me their list, our fighter (bless his hardcore role-playing heart) obviously had no idea what gloves of strength were, and thus had no idea what to ask for. When I (yesterday) explained to him (in character) that it was possible for Doorag to craft an item that would increase his strength, he seemed far more open to the possibility. I know its a subtle distinction, but its important to him. As the game unfolded last night the tension between us seemed to have disapated, and I felt no ill will at all. I relaxed a little, told them that I would no longer be useing half my quota of spells to enable mass fleight in favor of conserving my powers for possible dangers, BUT, I did offer a sleightly less fancy method of getting us across the tundra (namely a caravan of Tensors Floating Disks ridden by them and pulled by a polymorphed me) IF THEY WANTED IT. Everyone said, "Sure!" and we were off. Now I will admit to a little bit of metagaming w/r/t being carfull with spell selection during battles. I can think of two times when I pulled my punches a little. We had three encounters last night with some pretty bad enemies. Most of them I knew had very high fort DC's (I knew this both in game and out), so I didn't bother to attempt polymorph, instead going to fire based spells against these cold thriving opponents. The double damage fireball against a winter wolf was a thing of beauty (98 points!), and nobody seemed to mind a bit since they were getting the snot kicked out of them. However, during a fight with a couple of other cold based creatures I elected to only use one of the two empowered Scorching Rays I had memorized, electing instead to let the fighters finish them off, reasoning that I needed to conserve those heavy hitters for future baddies. During a rough fight with four fighter trolls (one with armor that provided him with SR) I made it a point of targeting the troll with SR. My character did not know he had SR, but did know that he was the leader and it seemed a reasonanble target. My spell fizzled against his SR, and I was plesently surprised to hear a groan of dissapointment from the rest of the party. I shifted my focus to a troll that was about to kill our bard and cast my only SoD spell of the night. The Hold Monster froze him in his tracks and nobody seemed to mind that at all, least of all the bard, who was beginning to sweat pretty hard. I had a second Hold Monster waiting, and i know it stood a very good chance of working what with the trolls pathetic will saves, but I declined to cast it. This was, I admit, a purely OOG desicision as I watched the balance of the battle teeter in our favor. One Hold Monster had shifted things in our direction and had put the odds in our favor. Two of them would have been overkill. I knew it, and elected to be content with damaging spells that would help but not dominate. Again, I can always rationalize this by wanting to conserve spells for later battles. As it turned out, we beat the trolls, found some nice treasure, and I felt zero in the way of hard feelings. Everybody got a slice of the glory pie, especially our bard! I think our DM will now have to worry about him a little more, as he is really coming into his own w/r/t his fasinate/suggestion effects and ability to cause fear in many opponents. He was able to scare off those three winter wolves that I mentioned earlier, and we were forced to chase them across the tundra to finish them off! All in all I think things went pretty well. I still felt plenty useful, and so did everyone else. On a side note, I was PMed recently and asked for a link to my characters diary that I alluded to in my title post. I've decided to put that link here as well for any of you that would like to follow this story more closely. I warn you, its long. 95 single spaced pages thus far, but I've been told that it makes for a pretty good read, especially after the first few pages when I begin to find my voice a little and add more description and detailed interaction among the characters (this, at least, according to the critics). So, read it if ya like. It used to be here on the Whats a Player to Do board, and that was nice since it got a little traffic. It has since been shunted off to languish on the Once Upon A Time board (yeah I know, where the hell is that?) and thus I don't think a lot of people stumble across it. I'll admit that I'm a sucker for feedback, so heres the link in hopes of gaining some new readers. :D Doorags Diary (http://http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68684)
PhaedrusXY 02-16-04, 07:38 PM	Cool, sounds like you've worked things out mostly. Originally posted by cthulhu42 On a side note, I was PMed recently and asked for a link to my characters diary that I alluded to in my title post. I've decided to put that link here as well for any of you that would like to follow this story more closely. Doorags Diary (http://http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68684) I remember reading this back when you first posted it, and thinking it was cool. I haven't looked at it in a while, but I did write up a bit of history for a character of mine after seeing and being partially inspired by it. And on to other things: Originally posted by Dorian H As a DM, I think that wizards must be controleld. I tend to ban : - powerfull divination spells. They are plot killers. - teleport : it's now a ritual (1 minute casting time) with an XP cost (so that it's not the usual way of traveling). This spell is another plot killer. Plus it's indispensible in a world where it exists. - fly : heavily controlled - improved invisibility : spoils many encounters unless the DM metagames against it. So Basically I consider it vanishes if a user casts a spell, and has a range of "personnal". Good lord! Do you run a low magic game in general? If so, I could see doing this, as most NPC foes won't be expecting these things, or prepared to deal with them. However, if the game is set somewhere like Forgotten Realms, or even a typical D&D game*, intelligent foes should have seen these kinds of things and be prepared to deal with them. If not, then they wouldn't have lasted long enough to be subjected to those things in the first place. *The game assumes quite a bit of magic, and free access to it, if you look at character wealth and CRs in the DMG and MM.
Zerelde 02-16-04, 08:51 PM	I have to admit, I'm finding this thread a whole lot of fun. It's both interesting and educational to have this conversation here, and I'm glad that Cthulhu sent me the invitation. So Sunday has come and passed, and things went down much as Cthulhu already wrote. I'm happy about the Hold Monster, and I'm confident that we'll quickly get that whole quagmire of spells worked out. I was pleased at the understanding that seemed to come between Cthulhu and the fighter's player, because it really is true that Griff isn't completely zealous about "PC purity." The "whys" of character concepts were discussed ("I don't want a cloak of charisma because:.....), and I think everyone came away from the table with at least a bit more understanding of the others' character. I could tell Doorag held back, thank you Cthulhu, and to let you in on a little secret, it is a good idea for Doorag for plan for more sustained "endurance," and you could consider it the next step in Doorag's magical career. The game was still unfocused, however. At least the combats went better! I'm discovering the wonders of advanced monsters, and it was nice to see the cleric being cautious around four trolls after tangling with Huge Winter Wolves that are excellent trippers. I actually wounded Doorag before he shot out of reach, and it was nice to get the chance (sorry, Cthulhu, but sometimes it's just plain fun to actually get the little guy). I am completely jazzed about the bard's development, though, and I think that soon he will be suddenly more of a force in the party. Today he got to fascinate four trolls, suggest their spell-resistanced leader give them his gold, and get the party safely past them without having to lift a weapon or make any threats. It was a thing of beauty, I tell you, and next level he can tell stories to spells and break enchantment. Very cool. He'll be a nice foil to Doorag, I think. It was even better when the bard deliberately messed up their passage by pushing his suggestions a bit too far, because, after all, they're evil troll bandits demanding an exhorbatent fee on a public road. Can't just leave them there, can he? Point made, point taken, I hope.
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-16-04, 08:55 PM	Originally posted by cthulhu42 ... BUT, I did offer a sleightly less fancy method of getting us across the tundra (namely a caravan of Tensors Floating Disks ridden by them and pulled by a polymorphed me) IF THEY WANTED IT. Everyone said, "Sure!" and we were off. Heh, glad that worked out for you. ;) Sounds like you're doing a good job of controlling your magic use. I've always found it nice to know I have a number of spells in reserve in case things get really hairy. I learned my lesson once when I used up all my spells in a situation that didn't call for it, and then we ran into a much bigger encounter. Heh, I was very careful after that to use my spells wisely. Anyway, good luck with your game and your group.
Nom 02-16-04, 09:43 PM	And who said metagaming was a bad thing? :) A slight change in tactics, and the wizard goes from being "the kill-joy who does it all himself" to "the hero who gets us out of a tight spot". Coming from a tactical background myself, I know how hard it is to make that small but important shift from "winning the encounter" to "advancing an exciting story", but the rewards can be worth it.
Dalaeck 02-16-04, 11:51 PM	Old wizard has not read the entire thread, a number of things to note: Do NOT change to 3.5 spells. Your game will be very quickly ruined. In fact 3.5 will likely ruin the game spontaneously. Do NOT add 3rd party material randomly. That's a recipe for disaster in the brewing. It may look good on paper but it's likely not in the final verdict. The core rules are very well balanced. Your character sheet DCs are incorrect. DC is 10 + spell level + int modifier. Currently your 0th level spell is listed at DC 18, when it should be DC 17, and so forth. Drop that silly spellcasting prodigy feat. Your DM should not DM at this level if he/she is not experienced enough. I'm not trying to be rude or impolite, that's a reality. Challenging players (those with half a wit / survival instincts / experience that don't "refuse" stat increasing items for instance) at this level requires DM experience. Running an orc encounter is very different than running a kraken or a beholder. Low magic worlds do not work with mid-high level characters. It doesn't and won't mesh. That's a simple fact. If you like low-magic you need low-level. You are not doing anything "wrong", your character is perfectly in line with your level of power if you drop the non-core stuff you've added.
Dalaeck 02-17-04, 12:18 AM	Other things to note: Polymorph other has limited applicability against a whole host of monsters. Devils, demons do not lose their spell like abilities when polymorphed for instance. If you polymorph a balor into a rabbit it will still be able to fire-storm you into oblivion. It will likely teleport away, dispel the polymorph, and return for your corpse. Wizards are limited in the spells they acquire per level because of balance. Arcange magic is powerful but likewise extremely expensive, and should be. You should be scribing spells at 200 GP per spell level. Doorag's spell books are likely disproportionately large as a result of that non-core feat. Versatility is a form of strength as much as specialisation. Giving your character too many free spells is giving him a severe edge. Zerelde, you seem very reasonable and eager to learn if you want help in running a monster or setting up a challenging encounter then I'm more than willing to offer advice. You're in a difficult spot though, it's almost like a black-hole because the players are going to advance quickly if the challenges drop easily and you're going to have even more to contend with shortly in the next spell level. I really think that you don't need to change any of the spells as written - hold monster, polymorph, they are all very well written as is. Doorag needs to be brought back to core rules - in a fair way - just replace feats with core feats, items for cash and non-core spells for core spells. Doorag's spell book needs to lose 4 spells at every level (only 2 at 6th) - now. That will hurt, but it's part of balance equation.
cthulhu42 02-17-04, 04:41 AM	Do NOT change to 3.5 spells. Your game will be very quickly ruined. In fact 3.5 will likely ruin the game spontaneously. I don't think thats necesarrily true. I don't like 3.5 either, but if we can survive the trips from 1E to AD&D to 3.0, we'll likely not spontaniously combust should we decied to switch to 3.5. There are some things in both editions that I think are bent or broken. All of them have been argued about ad nausum on these boards, but classics like 3.0 Haste spring to mind. If I showed up with a 3rd party spell like that I'd be laughed off of these boards! And 3.5 is no better! Enter "3.5 Enlarge" in any search box on these forums and settle in. Lets not forget Scorching Ray! It looked innocous at first, and I asked our DM if I could have it. At the time 3.5 was considered (at our table) suplimentary material, and I'm sure she approached it as she would have a 3rd party spell. I'm willing to bet shes asked herself a few times if she made the right choice, becaus Scorching Ray, in the field, is a mean little spell! During this last session I finaly got around to empowering that bugger and hitting a winter wolf with it. Mind you, I'm only 11th level, I get two rays. I did over 50 points. With a 2nd level spell. Trust me, 3.5 has its share of problem spells. Oh! I almost forgot 3.5 Ray of Enfeeblement! Anyway, I'm getting away from the point, which is that as long as the rules are playable and maintain an acceptable flavor of whatever you envision "D&D" to be, they can be made to work. Adjustments may be requiered, but wholesale panic over 3.5 isn't the answer. Your character sheet DCs are incorrect. DC is 10 + spell level + int modifier. Currently your 0th level spell is listed at DC 18, when it should be DC 17, and so forth. Drop that silly spellcasting prodigy feat. Well, the fact remains that I have it, have asked the DM if she would like me to get rid of it, have been told to keep it, and will continue to do so. That said, my 0 spell DC's would be 18. Your DM should not DM at this level if he/she is not experienced enough. I'm not trying to be rude or impolite, that's a reality. Challenging players (those with half a wit / survival instincts / experience that don't "refuse" stat increasing items for instance) at this level requires DM experience. Running an orc encounter is very different than running a kraken or a beholder. I have to assume that I am misinterperting your thought. Isn't actually running these games how one gets experience? You may be refering to her not having even played at high levels that often. That much is true, but shes as experienced as any of our group is (we've all played together for something like 10 years). The highest we've gone in an actual campagin is 15th level, with me DMing. So yeah, we're nearing uncharted waters. But SOMEONE has to do it, and if shes up to the challenge, I say go for it. The real crux of her as a DM is that she has our attention. We're all very much into the campagin. She tells a fine story and the players love it! I had forgotten what it was like to see players that involved in their characters, and I know that I'll take a few pages from her book when I next DM. So really, why not? Its either got to be me or her, and quite frankly, I want to see what happens next. :D
Nom 02-17-04, 07:45 AM	Originally posted by cthulhu42 Lets not forget Scorching Ray! It looked innocous at first, and I asked our DM if I could have it. At the time 3.5 was considered (at our table) suplimentary material, and I'm sure she approached it as she would have a 3rd party spell. I'm willing to bet shes asked herself a few times if she made the right choice, becaus Scorching Ray, in the field, is a mean little spell! During this last session I finaly got around to empowering that bugger and hitting a winter wolf with it. Mind you, I'm only 11th level, I get two rays. I did over 50 points. With a 2nd level spell.Uh, I don't see the problem with Scorching Ray. Damage is approximately 1d6 / level (max 12d6) divided over multiple targets within 30 ft., close range. No save but a ranged touch attack instead. This is a hairsbreadth over the 10d6 max damage for a level 2 "single target" spell but not badly so. Now, Empowering effectively turns it into a 4th level spell, so you have a 4th level spell doing 12d6 * 1.5 damage (average 63) at 11th level (the optimum level). Ok, that's better than fireball and has no save, but it's a close range ranged touch attack (actually, 3 attacks) divided between at most 3 targets. Your 3rd level fireball could do 10d6 (*1.5 if empowered, but level 5) to everything within a 40 ft. diameter at long range; even if the save is made, expect to do way more total damage. You also need to consider whether you'd rather go against a Reflex save (half if successful, except Evasion) or a ranged touch attack (nil if failed). Your save DC is currently 21 for fireball (or +11). Your ranged touch bonus is +8. +8 is hardly a sure thing, so you're likely to have better average damage per target with an empowered fireball too.
Dalaeck 02-17-04, 08:45 AM	Originally posted by cthulhu42 I don't think thats necesarrily true. I don't like 3.5 either, but if we can survive the trips from 1E to AD&D to 3.0, we'll likely not spontaniously combust should we decied to switch to 3.5. I meant to counter the statements of previous posters who erroneously see a "conversion" to 3.5 as solving any of your currrent problems - not to turn the thread into a 3rd edition vs 3.5 debate. I'm telling you that you can have powerful spells like "haste" and "hold monster". You just need to stick more to the core rules. In 2 rounds of haste Doorag would have a single 5th level spell left assuming he's burning them from the top. In 3 rounds he's at 2 forth level spells. In 4 rounds and he's working only with 3rd level magic. Your fighter would LOVE to be able to move and make a full attack. He would appreciate Doorag very much afterwards... Well, the fact remains that I have it, have asked the DM if she would like me to get rid of it, have been told to keep it, and will continue to do so. That said, my 0 spell DC's would be 18. She should reconsider. I mean it. A mindless numerical comparison is that there are 8 schools of magic. You got an overall +8 to your DC's from that one feat. Spell focus is +2 to a single school. That's a very potent feat - too potent. If you truly want to make your character fair then you should drop the feat of your own volition. Doorag should be experiencing difficulty in raising his DCs any higher - and as a DM you likely know that. You've capped off. That feat should go. Likewise from your other non-core feat gaining two extra 6th level spells is 2400 GP, 4 extra 5th level spells is 4000 GP, 4 4th is 3200 GP, 4 3rd is 2400 GP, 4 2nd is 1600 GP and 4 1st is 800 GP. That's 14 400 GP of spells - not counting the price of buying the particular scrolls you want. Your current character wealth should be around 66 000 GP. You've artificially increased your character's wealth, which is another limiting factor to a wizard's strength, by 21%. Of your own volition you should pay up the difference in either magic items or by simply dropping the spells altogether. Those feats are not "balanced" and I'm sure you know it. Doorag will still be very usefull after the trim, but more inline with what he should be at this level. I have to assume that I am misinterperting your thought. Isn't actually running these games how one gets experience? I mean playing with an experienced DM. Nerfing things like teleport are the hallmarks of inexperience - I've been there myself. The abilities of 11th level characters ARE powerful, and should be. I wrote the first piece before the second and between which I read the entire thread. Your DM seems very reasonable and willing to learn from her mistakes and the mistakes of others. Playing high level games gives you that kind of experience - trying to figure it out on your own is hard. That's all I meant, not "drop the game entirely and start at level 1". Knowing that there will be jitters and explaining that to the players is a great start (and has clearly been done). Asking for advice online is also a really good move because you can benefit from the experience of other DMs and a variety of opinions.
Dorian H 02-17-04, 09:09 AM	Originally posted by PhaedrusXY And on to other things: Good lord! Do you run a low magic game in general? If so, I could see doing this, as most NPC foes won't be expecting these things, or prepared to deal with them. However, if the game is set somewhere like Forgotten Realms, or even a typical D&D game*, intelligent foes should have seen these kinds of things and be prepared to deal with them. If not, then they wouldn't have lasted long enough to be subjected to those things in the first place. I mentionned the things that can ruin an encounter and cheapen so that it's stupid "pigeon shooting". A pack of four trolls is a CR9 encounter. Wizard casts expeditious retreat, improved invisibility, and then scorched rays => win with no losses and no way for the trolls to drop the payers any hitpoints. I could say about the same for any of the spells I mentionned. I don't feel satisfying neither for players nor for DMs to have encounters cheapend so frequently.
Toptomcat 02-17-04, 09:11 AM	That's not really a cheap encounter- the wizard is burning quite a few valuable spells on it.
Scion of Coldshard 02-17-04, 10:33 AM	Actually, I think spellcasting prodigy should be made core and spell focus returned to +2, getting rid of greater spell focus. Spellcasting prodigy should also be allowed to be taken at any level. Really, the +1 to all spells that have a save is a nice bonus, but hardly huge. If you combine it with 30 other things that do the same then it becomes a problem, but in and of itself it does very little but is nice to have. No numerical analysis done to date that I have seen has really done it justice. It is a marginal feat, flavor, and doesnt provide a huge boost in power (a great many spells have no save, whether they are defensive or offensive, you can make a caster without having any spells that allow a save pretty easily, plus having a spell list full of save spells in order to take advantage of it is just a bad idea for many reasons) In any event, keep the spellcasting prodigy, it certainly isnt causing any problems in this example.
Dorian H 02-17-04, 11:41 AM	Originally posted by Toptomcat That's not really a cheap encounter- the wizard is burning quite a few valuable spells on it. As we don't have the same definition of cheap, there is little point continuing this discussion. For me, a encounter where you cannot be hit whatever the encounter's behavior is cheap, and should be treated as CR far below 0. An encountter has to pose you a threat. I took the example of lvl 9, but I can easily imagine a worse situation like lvl 12 or 15. Improved invisibility just breaks a mechanic of the game, and has to be controlled. Same for the other spells I mentionned. It is perfectly acceptable for NPCs, as PCs can esaily deal with this problem, but it is not available for PCs as more than 50 % of encounters from the MM of appropriate lvl have no chance against it. Same for fly, teleport ... I don't consider flying over an helpless opponent's head and pinching him with arrows anyway heroic, so I don't let it happen.
Dalaeck 02-17-04, 01:36 PM	Originally posted by Dorian H A pack of four trolls is a CR9 encounter. Wizard casts expeditious retreat, improved invisibility, and then scorched rays => win with no losses and no way for the trolls to drop the payers any hitpoints. I could say about the same for any of the spells I mentionned. Um no. First of all there's the rest of the party. The wizard might be relatively safe behind his illusion for a time but the rest of the party will certainly feel the brunt of the attack. Because the wizard is effective against this opponent does not mean the encounter is "not challenging". Using up resources and threatening at least one member of the group is considered a "challenging encounter" as described by the DMG. That's the definition. Secondly trolls are not unintelligent monsters. If they can't see their foe after a few attempts and they take damage/casualties then they will run. Improved invisibility is a great spell but like many others it has limited duration. Thirdly the trolls may get surprise or utilise terrain advantageously. I would be carefull around four trolls. (I likewise would not use 3.5 scorching ray or 3.5 at all in fact. ) As a counter example the next fight could involve say a hydra. A hydra with scent will be able to sniff out the invisible wizard unfortunately rather quickly. Or take something with tremorsense. Or a dragon with blindsight. There are many many monsters in the MM and no wizard can be fully prepared against them all. A high level wizard will likely not have the "optimal" spell against an opponent but will have something subpar that will be still usefull though not necessarily killer. A very high level wizard (15+) has an even greater chance at having the right spell for the job but even he can fall prey to the wrong monster. That's all part of the game. If you're interested why don't you post a wizard with his prepared spells. Let's say 9th level as your example and I'll give you an encounter you can't handle without help. I guarantee I can do it. Standard gold, pay for any additional spells beyond your standard allotment at 200 GP per spell level. You can craft as much as you like with your standard gold if you have the feats.
Dalaeck 02-17-04, 02:05 PM	Originally posted by Scion of Coldshard Actually, I think spellcasting prodigy should be made core and spell focus returned to +2, getting rid of greater spell focus. If you combine it with 30 other things that do the same then it becomes a problem, but in and of itself it does very little but is nice to have. You see we disagree fundamentally here. Your last sentance is very true and is the exact problem. +1s add up very quickly, on a roll of a d20 that's 5%. In the case of this particular character he even has a spell that gives him +2 to his DC's. That's a 15% increase to the DC's of all his spells for literally very little. If he had the core spell focus that would be a 10% increase to only that school. In the core rules there are only the following ways to raise DC's beyond spell level increase: Spell focus feat gives +2 Enhancement headband of intellect gives +3 Wishes (and relevant items) can give +2.5 Bonus to ability scores from level game can give +2.5 Bonus to casting stats from age can give +1.5 (and penalise your physical stats heavily) Beyond this the only other way to make things save with lesser probability is to use spells that reduce saves such as bane, bestow curse, etc... which require a save in the first place. So it is intentionally difficult to get more bang for your spell buck. Now Doorag has a pretty damn nice starting intelligence of 17, has given himself +2 to his int from level gain and crafted an expensive item to give himself +6 to his int. Wishes are out of the question until much later, as is likely his character aging and so really he has hit his max DC increase which is +7. He could have +9 to certain schools, like enchantment for instance, but he has been playing with +10 to all schools from the non-core feat and the non-core spell. He also has too many spells because of his other non-core feat translating into far too much versatility and is thus too powerful for his level. By standard rules he has too much wealth and his spell DC's are as though he's given himself 5 wishes and an extra point to int from level 12 that he hasn't reached yet. It's very simple and very easily fixed - get rid of the non-core crap. (a great many spells have no save, whether they are defensive or offensive, you can make a caster without having any spells that allow a save pretty easily, plus having a spell list full of save spells in order to take advantage of it is just a bad idea for many reasons) The vast majority of offensive spells have saves and touch attack mechanics to limit their power. I agree you can make a no-save caster pretty easily but such a caster is likewise extremely limited in his power.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-17-04, 02:10 PM	If you're interested why don't you post a wizard with his prepared spells. Let's say 9th level as your example and I'll give you an encounter you can't handle without help. I guarantee I can do it. Standard gold, pay for any additional spells beyond your standard allotment at 200 GP per spell level. You can craft as much as you like with your standard gold if you have the feats. Any particular EL on that encounter? Originally posted by Dalaeck I mean playing with an experienced DM. Nerfing things like teleport are the hallmarks of inexperience - I've been there myself. The abilities of 11th level characters ARE powerful, and should be. I disagree. I think nerfing spells can be a sign of experience in most cases. You've seen that the spell is broken, and you want to get rid of it. Teleport is a borderline example, it's really only totally gamebreaking when used with scry. Teleport is mostly a flavor based nerf, depending on the kind of world you want to use to tell your story. But there are plenty of spells out there that deserve the nerf stick totally. In either edition, Gate and shapechange immediately come to mind, as does time stop. Polymorph other in 3.0 needs a heavy hit. 3.5 does a pretty good job of that though. As for polymorph other being balanced, I can't see how anyone could claim that. It's a permanent buff that doubles as a save or die. Turning into a troll or giant permanently with no ongoing cost is ridiculously broken alone... it's total insanity regardless of context. As a troll, you get, 23 strength, +5 natural armor, reach and regeneration. And you get that permanently, no ongoing spell slot cost, never have to cast the spell again till it's dispelled. That's crazy... and, that's not even all the spell does! Later on you get to turn into a giant which makes those stat buffs look like crap. Plus it also functions as an overpowered save or die. 3.5 puts this spell at 5th level which is probably just about right. At 4th level it's many times better than phantasmal killer. I can't see how any DM would not nerf this, it'd be inexperience not to. 3.0 Polymorph other is hideously unbalanced... there is absolutely no case for it being balanced. It needs to be swiftly and brutally beaten with the nerf stick without remorse. btw, as a word of additional advice to cthulhu and Zerelde, if you do switch to 3.5, be ready to hit the druid with the nerf stick heavily, because he's very overpowered. Besides that, most of the other things in 3.5 are better balanced than 3.0 for the most part. And spellcasting prodigy is broken, you can deal with it in game, because it's only another +1 to DC, assuming its the only other DC enhancer you have, but just in concept it's broken. I don't know if you have to ban it... but certainly if you have to cut the fat of DC enhancing abilities then spellcasting prodigy should probably go.
danielinthewolvesden 02-17-04, 02:10 PM	I suggest a complete conversion to 3.5 (and yes, that will solve many of your current problems). That includes dropping "spellcasting prodigy". Having that feat and using 'scorching ray" from 3.5 is "munchkin". Also drop all non-WotC stuff. Basicly, you "min-max"ed your PC, then added in non-Wotc stuff, and combined different source material. That is being "munchkin"- sorry! :D . Even "spellcasting prodigy" is only supposed to be taken at first level and ONLY if you come from certain FR regions. Even at that- it is badly broken.
danielinthewolvesden 02-17-04, 02:17 PM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth I disagree. I think nerfing spells can be a sign of experience in most cases. You've seen that the spell is broken, and you want to get rid of it. btw, as a word of additional advice to cthulhu and Zerelde, if you do switch to 3.5, be ready to hit the druid with the nerf stick heavily, because he's very overpowered. Besides that, most of the other things in 3.5 are better balanced than 3.0 for the most part. I disagree. No 3.5 spell needs to be nerfed. You do have to keep an eye on the Druid, I will agree. If you make 'dragonhide armour" easily available on the open market (rather than making the PC's go kill their own!) the Druid gets very powerful indeed.:b: Make sure the Druid doesn't pull tricks like "awakening" himself- and watch when he uses it on his companion. Most of the extra power of the 3.5 druid comes from a very strained reading of the rules.
lantzer 02-17-04, 02:41 PM	Originally posted by Addi83 What kind of roleplayer actually believes that a fighter would refuse when a wizard friend offers to make him an item that would make him stronger? Thats not good roleplaying, its roleplaying badly to avoid being to powerful, which an actual person would never do without having either a deep mistrust of magic, or having at some point decided not to use anything other than his own abilities. "What are you saying? That I'm not GOOD enough to work with you, you pointy-hatted pantywaist? Fine - go adventure by youself then, you ungrateful bastard. (What do wizards know about fighting, anyway? Greatness comes from the heart, not a bunch of gimmicks.)" Problems: 1) It sounds like the GM isn't providing frequent enough or large enough encounters to seriously burn the wizard's resources. 2) Perhaps the critters have been just unlucky on their fort saves? 3) The GM and party have designed campaign and characters for feel and flavor. The wizard is designed for numerical efficiency. These two styles often have trouble mixing. 4) The wiz may be a glory hog. It happens to the best of us. 5) In attempting to give magic items to the other PCs, the Wiz attempted to pull them from _their_ vision of the campaign world (low-magic), into _his_ vision of the campaign world (high-magic). They like the world as is - they consider _him_ to be the one who is out of place. And they are right. 6) Its best to make a character in line with the core assumptions of the world that he/she will be adventuring in. A new GM may have trouble communicating these. It's a theme mismatch that often causes the most intra-group friction. 7) Believe it or not, most people do not spend their lives in a single-minded grasping pursuit of power and effectiveness. Some people just like to do cool stuff, regardless of whether it's efficient or not. More single-minded people often do not get along with them. It's good roleplaying. (It's just that they do not belong in the same group, then).
Dalaeck 02-17-04, 03:29 PM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth Any particular EL on that encounter? Sure, 9th. Show me the wizard, I will show you the challenge. Simple as pie no? Think you can handle it all? I don't want to turn this thread into a spell debate. There are other places to debate this. As for polymorph other being balanced, I can't see how anyone could claim that. It's a permanent buff that doubles as a save or die. Turning into a troll or giant permanently with no ongoing cost is ridiculously broken alone... it's total insanity regardless of context. As a troll, you get, 23 strength, +5 natural armor, reach and regeneration. And you get that permanently, no ongoing spell slot cost, never have to cast the spell again till it's dispelled. That's crazy... and, that's not even all the spell does! Later on you get to turn into a giant which makes those stat buffs look like crap. Polymorph other is quite well balanced until you hand your PC the MM and say "go nuts". Even then it's nowhere near as bad as you propose. You do NOT get regeneration. That's an extraodinary special ability and it doesn't grant you those as per spell description. Every fight you are in you must make a will save DC 19 or take -2 to attacks saves and checks. You can't turn into anything beyond large size if you yourself are medium size. Much of your gear melds with you and becomes non-functional unless you are a giant or a humanoid - nothing else is guaranteed by the spell. Any peice of gear that is seperated from you returns to it's original size. So your huge greatsword when disarmed is a plain greatsword. You put down your shield and it reverts to normal size. You take your armor off to sleep at night and it's likewise "poof" normal armor and doesn't fit your firegiant form anymore. You need human like hands and voice to even cast spells (metamagic can get around some of this but that's only fair). Not troll claws. There is so much room for DM interpretation in this spell that it is far from unbalancing. 3.5 polymorph self is psycho unbalanced. Now you get the extroadinary special attacks of the thing you morph into. So Doorag here could morph into say a roper and use the strength damage tendrils for instance. Or into a digester and spit out cones of acid many many rounds in a row. Or a dire weasel and do 1d4 no-save con damage per round. Heck as a druid he could keep casting spells while attached as a weasel... Even worse is 3.5 shapechange which gives you all extroadinary AND supernatural abilities. So you can morph into a great wyrm red, and breath, then as a free action into a great wyrm black and breath, and so forth... All of it core, no splat books, nothing. Plus it also functions as an overpowered save or die. 3.5 puts this spell at 5th level which is probably just about right. At 4th level it's many times better than phantasmal killer. I can't see how any DM would not nerf this, it'd be inexperience not to. 3.0 Polymorph other is hideously unbalanced... there is absolutely no case for it being balanced. It needs to be swiftly and brutally beaten with the nerf stick without remorse. Phatasmal killer will kill for instance a shapechanger. Phantasmal killer will work on an experienced druid. Indeed phantasmal killer will kill a balor dead. Polymorph any of these and you have a nasty surprise waiting for you. Indeed polymorph other is great spell but it works off of the fort save which is almost always very high. I would cast phantasmal killer at a frost wyrm before polymorph because I can hope to actually do some damage rather than just have it fizzle. Polymorph is very good, definitely 4th level, not 5th though. Again, lets not clutter this thread Teveroth, if you want to discuss these spells more open up a tandem thread in the spells forum and I'll gladly join to discuss them.
Scion of Coldshard 02-17-04, 04:00 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck You see we disagree fundamentally here. Your last sentance is very true and is the exact problem. +1s add up very quickly, on a roll of a d20 that's 5%. In the case of this particular character he even has a spell that gives him +2 to his DC's. That's a 15% increase to the DC's of all his spells for literally very little. If he had the core spell focus that would be a 10% increase to only that school. It is fine to disagree, but in this case I'll present a few more things before not argueing too much farther ;) +1's add up, but not quickly. There is a spreadsheet that I have (unsure where I placed it :( ) that basically goes through and says that if 1/3 of your spells are save based (high in my estimation, but probably low in yours, so it should be a decent middle ground) then a single +1 to a save will matter about once every 2 levels. Given 13.333 encounters per level and such. There are ways to increase this and ways to decrease it but it was just an average of those encounters. So saying that you go for more than 1/3 (risky imo) and being able to maximise the amount of saves people get (lots of area effects, only casting when it will hit at least 2 targets, etc) then you could push it to mattering about once per level. Comparing this to weapon focus (some people, not I though, feel that this is a very weak feat anyway) where a fighter of comparable level it will wind up mattering in some significant way almost 3 times per level (averaged from low levels to high). Plus, with spellcasting prodigy the secondary bonus (the extra spell) is generally not useable, or provides only a small benefit in power. There are some levels/stat scores where it is a big bonus, but the overall average of this is that it is fairly trivial. Mainly just flavor. But like I said, we can disagree ;) but personally, that mere +1 is just a bit of a boost that rarely sees real action. With the +2 from spell focus you really limit yourself incredibly (has to be from a certain school, has to give a save, generally this means only a single save type.. ouch) so you lose some versitility for some power. Plus it costs a feat. So lots of loss for benefit here and there. Take into account however that I use no save or dies in my campaign. This doesnt change a lot as I allow people to make their own spells (which may or may not use their specialty or whatever) so that should make things about even on both sides. I think we mainly disagree on how little is little for cost. Having to only use one school, and only spells that have a save out of that school is incredibly limiting. Sortof like kneecapping yourself ;) Sure you can make a powerful build out of it, but at that point the character is so narrow that he is easily toppled when just barely outside of his element, or a few key defensive spells/items shut them down completely. Seems balanced to me.
Dalaeck 02-17-04, 04:14 PM	Out of curiosity an you post a wizard's spellbook from your campaign Scion? I'm curious as to what the heck they use because 1/3 is not just low for me - it's unimaginable. Offensive enchantments, illusions, evocations and transmutations alone are almost all save-based, and that's half the schools of magic altogether. Are they all diviners and abjurers? Not having any save-or-die spells in your campaign would account for some of this but really I can't wrap my mind around it. If you have plenty of no-save spells then do you have no-save-die spells? Or is the whole idea of death from a spell completely anethma? Personally I will stick to the core rules, save-or-die is balanced, fair and appropriate. So long as the save is balanced fair and appropriate and Doorag needs his DCs put in check. As for spell focus, it sure does look pale in comparison to bloody spell prodigy! It is however worth the effort if you want the DC - because enhancing DCs is really hard if you follow the core rules. That was indeed my point and I'm glad we can agree on this. I don't understand your math either. Effectively once every 20 castings a +1 to the DC will make or break the spell. At 13.3 encounters per level (don't know where you got this figure), that would mean each encounter you're casting only a single save based spell. That's unreasonable, even factoring in 1/3 of total spells cast. The average encounter is at least about 3 rounds long. The reality is that it's 5%, one out of twenty times you cast the spell it counts. At +3 that's 15%, which is very much non-negligeable. I wonder if that frost worm would have survived it's roll had the DC been 3 lower. (Even then I'm surprised the frost worm didn't explode when the turtle died, presuming they squished it, because any polymorphed creature reverts to its natural form when slain. )
cthulhu42 02-17-04, 05:17 PM	Those feats are not "balanced" and I'm sure you know it. No, I don't know it. That implies that I'm purposly taking advantage of my DM, and I resent that. (Even then I'm surprised the frost worm didn't explode when the turtle died, presuming they squished it, because any polymorphed creature reverts to its natural form when slain. We didn't kill it. I flew it several miles away and let it go. Maybe the cold got it later, but we heard no explosion in the distance that night. We did share a nervous laugh thinking of that turtle dragging himself all the back to our camp to commit suicide in our midst, blowing us all to kingdom come. And I don't care what anybody says, Scorching Ray is a mean spell! I don't necessarily think its broken, but I'm glad the 15th level kobold sorcerer I've been DMing doesn't have it. It reminds me a little of Agonazar's Scorcher, a spell that I just HATED during our AD&D days. But yeah, I've missed with it plenty of times too.
Ranthanas 02-17-04, 06:17 PM	The thing I'm surprised no one has mentioned is area control spells. IME no one objects to strategically placed walls or fog clouds as they still get to splat the monsters- although they can take them one at a time, making things much easier. They also can't be resisted, as most of the spells don't target the victims directly. In my experience they are also easier on the wizard, allowing him to save slots for either real emergencies or the high life. As far as I am concerned, the most useful spell in the arsenal of any of my mages (sorcs/wizards/bards) is often silent image. Create a fake fog cloud between you and the enemy archers and it seems to take them about three rounds to catch on and see through it. Meanwhile you warned your guys in advance (or the fog cloud has writing on your side to tell them) and you get three free rounds of shooting. Create a fake blade barrier and watch the enemies decide that running through it is a stupid thing to do. Enemy behind it out for two or three rounds while he searches for another way and you finish off the ones on your side. And that's just basic combat uses.
Dalaeck 02-17-04, 07:03 PM	Originally posted by cthulhu42 No, I don't [b]know it. That implies that I'm purposly taking advantage of my DM, and I resent that. Pardon, I thought you've DMed 3rd edition quite a bit, perhaps your 10 years experience is mostly 2nd edition. Increasing DC's is like handing out candy to a caster. Likewise increasing the number of spells a wizard gets per level. These are safeguards in the system to prevent things from getting out of hand. Now that you do know this however (not from just my opinion clearly) then you should be able to readily accept the loss of those 4 extra spells per spell level, the spell prodigy feat and the loss of the DC increasing non-core spell. With the two feats it clears out you could take something like spell focus transmutation (because you seem fond of polymorphing things like I am) and spell focus enchantment. You will be still quite potent, and should be, but not unbalancing. We didn't kill it. I flew it several miles away and let it go. Did you take 1d8 cold damage per round from it's cold? :P It doesn't lose it's cold subtype either so it's likely alive and well somewhere. That or something will bite into a turtle and get a nasty "surprise" meal. :P With the adjustments, not assuming spell focus, a DC 21 4th level polymorph you can nail the frost worm with its +14 fort save 35% of the time. Your will save is +8 and it's trill is DC 17 so it can nail you 45% of the time - 15d6 without save from the cold will outright kill doorag if he's not otherwise prepared. Which is fairly even. Doorag should of course be very prepared for this type of encounter (protection from cold and the like) to make it less deadly and appropriate for the CR. If you happen to have hold-monster memorized, the perfect spell for the job, then it's pretty screwed with only a +6 to will versus your DC 22. It likely is held in place 80% of the time. Of course you still have to deal with it during the 11 rounds it's held but that shouldn't be too hard if you have an archer. Did the frost worm trill? Did it get surprise with it's +13 to hide check and +4 to spot? Where did you guys fight it? On an open plain? Did it burrow to attack first?
Dalaeck 02-17-04, 07:14 PM	I agree with you Ranthanas that illusion spells are indeed very potent, particularly in skilled hands. However the uses you suggest are not legitimate uses of the spell. A silent image creates the image of an object, creature or force. A fog cloud is neither of these. Likewise a blade barrier (that makes no sound?!). If you can get it by your DM, convincing him of a larger interpretation of the spell, then that's peachy - but that wouldn't fly with me. These are subtle spells used for subtle uses.
Scion of Coldshard 02-17-04, 07:18 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck Now that you do know this however (not from just my opinion clearly) then you should be able to readily accept the loss of those 4 extra spells per spell level, the spell prodigy feat and the loss of the DC increasing non-core spell. I'll answer your other post in a moment, but I think you are a bit overboard on this still. An extra 2 spells per level into his spellbook at the cost of a feat seems fine. Really all it is basically is extra money per level that can only be used to put spells in the spellbook. Even after 20 levels it isnt such a substantial amount of money. Since he could easily just buy bacoobs books and get spells for nearly free anyway this is just a flavor thing and a time saver. Seems perfectly fine.
Scion of Coldshard 02-17-04, 07:22 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck However the uses you suggest are not legitimate uses of the spell. A silent image creates the image of an object, creature or force. A fog cloud is neither of these. Likewise a blade barrier (that makes no sound?!). If you can get it by your DM, convincing him of a larger interpretation of the spell, then that's peachy - but that wouldn't fly with me. These are subtle spells used for subtle uses. An illusory fog cloud or walls do block line of sight, and usually you have to 'interact' to disbelieve. During that time archers line of sight is broken so they will have a hard time hitting you. And who says blade barrier makes sound to begin with? you could say that in your campaign it does, but the spell says nothing about it. As such saying that it makes sound is a houserule ;) I will get to your other post, I just had to say a few things that I saw up there..lol.
PhaedrusXY 02-17-04, 07:35 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck Beyond this the only other way to make things save with lesser probability is to use spells that reduce saves such as bane, bestow curse, etc... which require a save in the first place. So it is intentionally difficult to get more bang for your spell buck.Enervation and Energy Drain have no save (for the initial negative levels) and both will lower saving throws. So it is possible to lower a creatures saves without allowing them a save. (That sounds confusing, heh). At higher levels, hitting a creature with a Quickened Enervation and Empowered Enervation in round 1 is a good way to soften it up for a big Save or Die spell in round two.
Scion of Coldshard 02-17-04, 07:40 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck [B]Out of curiosity an you post a wizard's spellbook from your campaign Scion? I'm curious as to what the heck they use because 1/3 is not just low for me - it's unimaginable. Sure, there are three main 'types' of spells. Utility, Offensive, and Defensive. Utility spells are things like knock. Offensive you seem to know all too well ;) Defensive are things like blur. Now, that pretty easily splits each into roughly one third of a days spells. You could put more weight on any one but you will suffer in the others. As such roughly 1/3 of a casters spells in a day are offensive. (some spells fit multiple categories, but we'll go for 'main use' here) Of the offensive spells generally fit into a few categories also. Save +SR, no save + SR, no save + no SR. I tend to count 'touch attacks' as no save, at least for this comparison. So with 1/3 of your spells offensive (the only ones out of the three categories that will grant saves to your opponents in most circumstances) and only a fraction of those needing saves (it could be anywhere from 0% - 100%) that certainly cuts into the usefulness of anything that raises dc's. Now, of that fraction which are offensive and grant a save they will get the +1 from spellcasting prodigy. If you want to get the +2 from spell focus the character will have to further limit themselves pretty painfully in most cases to an even further subcategory (offensive, save spells, that are from a certain school) I dont have any spell lists with me currently, but if I have time in a bit I may work one up for you. But I think that the above stresses the important points. Spellcasters only have so many slots, and wizards have very few of those. Out of these they have to draw everything they want to do in a day. It is possible that they only have spells that require a save and are in their school, but then they are of such narrow focus that almost anything in d&d will topple their little house of cards. Oh, and there are no save or dies in my campaign, nor 'no save but die anyways' or anything like that. They are not fun to be used on the pc's (ok bob, roll your die, I know this is your first battle today and you are incredibly fresh, but if you roll a 1-6 you might as well go read a book for the next few hours until they get you raised or we work another character in) so I generally make a deal. They can have save or die's in the campaign, but the bad guys will use them too, or there will be none (except for incredibly rare exceptions like the medusa) on either side. So far no group has asked to have save or dies stay in. As for Doorag's dc's they are fairly benign, along with only haveing a couple save or die's memorized in a day.. ::shrugs:: balance is important, but so is fun, and I feel that any campaign where save or dies and disjunctions fly around just arent that much fun. Originally posted by Dalaeck I don't understand your math either. Effectively once every 20 castings a +1 to the DC will make or break the spell. At 13.3 encounters per level (don't know where you got this figure) Apparently no one in your games uses either utility spells or defensive one or offensive non-save spells. I find this very odd actually. Same as I said above, only a fraction of the spells a character has memorized in a day will have a save. If they really go overboard this will be a high fraction, but even then they are just asking for it as anything outside of thier focus will destroy them. Sure that is what other party members are for, but then he should have some backup for them too. The 13.33 came directly from the core books. That is what the exp chart is based on. The +3 is nonnegible sure, but that is the point, they had to give up a lot!! to get it! 2 feats base, plus an incredibly focused spell pool from which to draw. They had better get a benefit! At higher levels when SR and Saves are incredibly high most casters go more and more towards the no save spells, especially if they dont grant SR as well. The level the character this thread is about is at most of his save or die spells should do nothing. Against foes of appropriate CR they will have a good save vs it, possibly be immune, and most of them will have some level of SR soon. He is getting to the point where it is better to buff, debuff, and find spells that bypass at least one mechanic the game uses to nerf spells at high levels ;) I am unsure if, in your games, everyone is a specialist that only casts spells from one school anyway or something like that.. but if so it would be far, far from the norm as far as my experience goes. I have seen a great deal of mages created at a broad spectrum of levels.. and generally no one overspecializes to that degree unless they have a really great angle they are trying to exploit..
PhaedrusXY 02-17-04, 07:43 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck If you're interested why don't you post a wizard with his prepared spells. Let's say 9th level as your example and I'll give you an encounter you can't handle without help. I guarantee I can do it. Standard gold, pay for any additional spells beyond your standard allotment at 200 GP per spell level. You can craft as much as you like with your standard gold if you have the feats. Only core 3.0 material? What point buy? I might give this a shot. ;)
Addi83 02-17-04, 08:05 PM	Metagaming and endeavoring to make a character as deadly as possible using thought out schemes is one thing, accepting things and items that are reasonable for your character to have is another. One is powergaming, the other isn't.
cthulhu42 02-17-04, 08:18 PM	Pardon, I thought you've DMed 3rd edition quite a bit, perhaps your 10 years experience is mostly 2nd edition. Actually I've been playing for for 22 years, and yes, of course the vast majority of that time was spent playing previous editions. I must assume that the same holds true for you, since 3E has really only been out a reletivly short amount of time compared to the history of the game as a whole. I'll be the first to admit that I have plenty to learn, but I contend now, as I always have, that the system does not make the game. The rules, no matter what their edition, are there to be used as we see fit, tinkered with, dropped, added to, etc. I allow plenty of 3rd party material in my campagin. Sometimes its a mistake, sometimes it add flavor to the game. Live and learn. I refuse to make a blanket ban on all non-core material, since my group very much enjoys buying new books and poring over them. Beyond that, I could go into a quote/reply frenzy here, but this thread is already degernerating into something it was not ment to be. I firmly believe that the problem, at its root, was caused by personalities and philosophical differences between gamers. Mature discussion and the finding of common ground, not to mention a little self control on my part, seem to be the answer to the dilema. That said, you make good points, though they are a bit tempered by the fact that you seem unwilling to entertain the possibility that you could be wrong, or that any other way of playing the game is just as valid as yours. We're having fun with our game, as I hope you are with yours. I appriciate your suggestions until they become admonishments, at which point I'm afraid they will fall on deaf ears.
Dalaeck 02-17-04, 09:37 PM	I'm afraid I'll have to disagree here Scion. There is no "fighter gains 20% more cash per level" feat. Character wealth is very important in game balance. Boccob's blessed book does not pay the cost for the scribing materials (quills inks and other supplies). "Utility defensive and offensive" spell categorisations are an over simplification and attempting to draw a line between such things as "summon monster" (Utility? Giant eagle for a short burst of speed. Defensive? meat sheild. Offensive? Attack) or bigby's clenched fist or otiluke's freezing sphere or... the list goes on. You cannot break things down into such a simple classification. Sure you can try, but it will be generalisation without basis in fact. Let's work with it for the sake of argument, but I do disagree with the classification. Likewise daily allotments of a wizard's spells are not broken up into 1/3 utility 1/3 protection and 1/3 offensive. That's nuts, you don't have enough slots to take on anything at all that way. In the case of the wizard in question he would have 9 offensive spells (ignoring the zeroth levels) in a given day. That's enough for 3 3-round combats, not including haste. You have at the very least scribe scroll which will allow you your utility and defensive spells that don't require DC's. It's almost impossible (short of divination which is of course omni-present at mid-high levels) to prepare the correct utility spells for the correct situation. You keep that stuff in scrolls. Touch attack spells are not "no save". They can be even worse then a save based spell in many cases. You literally need true-strike cast before hand to get mileage out of many of them. I dont have any spell lists with me currently, but if I have time in a bit I may work one up for you. But I think that the above stresses the important points. No problem, and please do. I'm curious. It is possible that they only have spells that require a save and are in their school, but then they are of such narrow focus that almost anything in d&d will topple their little house of cards. I typically play with spell focus enchantment, illusion, evocation and necromancy. It's worth it in many cases. I again don't know how you play D&D without save-or-dies. You probably don't play with spheres of annihilation, bags of devouring, soul binds... man. Pardon the analogy but it's like diablo II or something. No real risk beyond hit points. I could never play like that, they're as integral to the game as damage. What do you do with beholders? No disintegrate rays? No finger of death? No flesh to stone? I feel that any campaign where save or dies and disjunctions fly around just arent that much fun. To each his own. I feel that campaigns where I'm guaranteed to become level 20 "just because" arn't fun. I enjoy actually being a hero and beating challenges and skirting death and even total annihilation by wit and good play. It lends something of the heroic. Apparently no one in your games uses either utility spells or defensive one or offensive non-save spells. I find this very odd actually. Same as I said above, only a fraction of the spells a character has memorized in a day will have a save. If they really go overboard this will be a high fraction, but even then they are just asking for it as anything outside of thier focus will destroy them. Sure that is what other party members are for, but then he should have some backup for them too. The schools of magic are pretty clear. Saves are omnipresent, even in high levels. Disjunction, weird, wail of the banshee, dominate monster, prismatic sphere, meteor swarm, soul bind, teleportation circle are all very good and powerful magics and all require saves. I understand where you got 13.3 from now, but that's clearly not even average because only 50% of all encounters are flat challenge rating from p.102 of the DMG. But we can use it as a basis for discussion. At higher levels when SR and Saves are incredibly high most casters go more and more towards the no save spells, especially if they dont grant SR as well. This I agree with very much. However the potential to nail someone with something truly nasty that is save-based is also there with such spells as limited wish and wish. Likewise you typically have few of such earth shattering spells even at high levels and will rely on your weaker save-based ones still quite heavily. (when the BBEG appears you nail him hard of course).
Dalaeck 02-17-04, 09:50 PM	Indeed PhaedrusXY enervation will lower saves but it's a ranged touch attack mechanic which is just like a save. Better at times, particularly coupled to true-strike, but worse at others such as a high dexterity monster like an air elemental or the expertise savy warrior, or even mundane cover and concealment, like a tower-shield, foliage or a blur spell. Sure take my challenge on! No point buy, standard scores 15,14,13,12,10,8. Point buy is optional core rules. Those are standard 4d6 drop one score distributions. No PrC, actually nothing at all optional. Any item in the DMG. Blessed books do not subplant the materials cost of your scribing (quills, inks and whatnot) as discussed above ;). Good luck!
Dalaeck 02-17-04, 10:17 PM	Originally posted by cthulhu42 Actually I've been playing for for 22 years, and yes, of course the vast majority of that time was spent playing previous editions. I must assume that the same holds true for you, since 3E has really only been out a reletivly short amount of time compared to the history of the game as a whole. I'm sorry if that sounded wrong, I don't know of the rate of your gameplay. I've been playing for I don't know how many years anymore now (15-16?). And though I consider myself still a 2nd edition player (in flavor and style moreso) I must admit the bulk of my gaming experience is now 3rd edition. The rules in 3rd edition are exceptionally well written and so I adhere to them as much as possible. All I did was suggest that your current DM, who has little experience in the high-levels waters, adhere to them closer with respect to your character and I'm pretty sure much of the problem will dissapear. I generally do ban all non-core material, and I suggest so for novice DMs. I personally find the flavor dimension elsewhere: in personalities and setting. I am a purist I must admit. Mature discussion and the finding of common ground, not to mention a little self control on my part, seem to be the answer to the dilema. I think this is important, indeed very important, but it does not solve the underlying mechanical problems with your character. Self restraint may go to the wind at a serious threat to his life, or towards the acheivement of an important quest or goal. You shouldn't "need" to restrain yourself, the character should keep blasting away - targeting appropriate saves, using the best metamagic, etc... He just needs to be brought in-line with the power of a character of his level on a wealth and DC playing field. The point is you don't need to change your playing style, you don't need to adapt, you need to change the game mechanics that have been introduced without much forethought. As for admonishments and admitting there are other ways of playing the game, I personally don't care. You're not compeled to do anything I've suggested and I certainly won't hold a gun to your head. I've offered advice from experience for free in good will and without patronization about how to help Doorag Marzipan (who has a very good name and is an interesting wizard) play with his compatriots on a level playing field and nothing more.
PhaedrusXY 02-17-04, 11:06 PM	Dalaeck: Is the Leadership feat available? And if so, can I build and direct my cohort, or would you control him as an NPC? Also, would you like to start another thread for this? Edit: Oh, and on the item creation: Just take into consideration the gold cost, or should I consider XP cost also? What about Permanency? Edit2: And 200 per spell level winds up being quite a bit more than the listed 25 gp X caster level X spell level for scrolls. Since we're doing everything else according to the core rules, why not this too?
cthulhu42 02-17-04, 11:06 PM	Well, as long as you can admit your a purist I will take your opinions in the spirit I'm sure they are given. Let us break bread. :)
Scion of Coldshard 02-17-04, 11:58 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck I'm afraid I'll have to disagree here Scion. There is no "fighter gains 20% more cash per level" feat. Character wealth is very important in game balance. Boccob's blessed book does not pay the cost for the scribing materials (quills inks and other supplies). Actually I beg to differ on both. There are several different 'wealth' type of feats from various suppliments. One easy core one is leadership. Sure it doesnt directly translate to money, but then neither does the one that he has. The fighter could get a spellcaster buddy and get all sorts of spells cast, which would correspond to a certain gp value over time. Plus, bacoobs book does make it so that you dont have to pay the cost in either edition, although in the new one the cost of the book did go up. SRD: Blessed Book: This well-made tome is always of small size, typically no more than 12 inches tall, 8 inches wide, and 1 inch thick. All such books are durable, waterproof, bound with iron overlaid with silver, and locked. A wizard can fill the 1,000 pages of a blessed book with spells without paying the 25 gp per page material cost. This book is never found as randomly generated treasure with spells already inscribed in it. Moderate transmutation; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, secret page; Price 12,500 gp;Weight 1 lb So really, he paid a feat to get a psuedo bacoobs book that can only be used at very specific times and with only limited amounts. Basically a feat for an item worth 12.5k gp, but more limited. It actually sounds underpowered in that light ;) Originally posted by Dalaeck "Utility defensive and offensive" spell categorisations are an over simplification I said not all would fit, and of course it is an oversimplification, but I didnt want to go through and actually count each spells. Plus I would have to go through every single spell and say if it could be put into whichever category. Of course the summon monster spells fit into every category, except spells with a save ;) So they are a huge and incredible tactic, but benefit not at all from either spellcasting prodigy or spell focus. I would even go so far as to say, as you go up in levels more and more of the spells a mage has cast will not give a save. As you get to casting 6th level spells your 4th level spells and lower will graviate towards non-save and your 2nd and lower will never use saves if you can help it. Since, as you go up in level, you have way more lower level spells than higher ones this just gets to be a stronger case. Originally posted by Dalaeck Likewise daily allotments of a wizard's spells are not broken up into 1/3 utility 1/3 protection and 1/3 offensive. Sure it is, over an average of all character builds the average will be somewhere around that. Some characters are purely offensive, others purely utility, others purely protection. Most are some combination. I know that I have personally had casters that almost never cast any spell besides 'summon monster' for their entire carear. Lots of different builds. Plus, as I've said before, when you go up levels your lower level spells will go towards the non-saves. Many good utility spells exist at lower levels, and it is ok to burn those so the character spends these are well as possible and saves his highest level slots for attacking generally. Most of the time only the first two top levels of spells are very good for attacking, except against very specific foes, that is just the way the game is made. Nearly every character will have some combination of spells like the above. Detect magic? Purify food and drink? Knock? Fly? Invisibility? Read magic? Feather fall? Blur? Mirror image? Alter self? animal buffs? etc etc etc.. I can go on forever with nonattack spells that all sorts of people will want/need.. Then I could make a large list of spells that are attack spells that grant no save but are still very good (enervation is way up there, it is incredible) Originally posted by Dalaeck Touch attack spells are not "no save". They can be even worse then a save based spell in many cases. You literally need true-strike cast before hand to get mileage out of many of them. Touch attacks are "no save" when we are talking about spellcasting prodigy and spell focus. No matter whether you have these feats or not those spells dont care. I know what you mean about them not being directly "no save" however, in this instance at least, they effectively are. But you definately do not need true strike to get use out of them. Even casters can get through with touch attacks against most opponents. By the time creatures get much on the touch ac casters can have a pretty decent bonus to attack as well. Dex is a good thing for most casters to build up on at least here and there, plus they get a BAB every other level. Hitting something in the 15 - 20 range with at least a +7 or so isnt horrible. If they are really concentrating on such things though they could have used those two feats to improve those touch attacks though, which is good to get around a real save. Originally posted by Dalaeck No problem, and please do. I'm curious. I'll see what I can dig up later, it is very late now and I have to be up early. Originally posted by Dalaeck I typically play with spell focus enchantment, illusion, evocation and necromancy. It's worth it in many cases. At +1? I doubt it. I so highly dougbt in fact that I believe it is mainly just positive thinking. They can be useful now and then, but it is so very rare as to be almost obscene that they changed it to a +1 in the first place. With 4 different spell focus you will have to memorize pretty much 100% of your spells as save spells from those 4 schools to make it worth it. That will hurt your versitility greatly. I'm glad you like it, but I've seen the numbers and seen it in action. Even at +2 it just wasnt worth taking except for characters who were very devoted to that school. At +1 it is a waste of space in the phb.. in my not-so-humble opinion ;) Originally posted by Dalaeck I again don't know how you play D&D without save-or-dies. You probably don't play with spheres of annihilation, bags of devouring, soul binds... man. Pardon the analogy but it's like diablo II or something. No real risk beyond hit points. I could never play like that, they're as integral to the game as damage. What do you do with beholders? No disintegrate rays? No finger of death? No flesh to stone? Spheres of annihilation? Lets stay out of the artifact range please. Those are completely seperate issues. Same with epic spells that will kill or whatever. As are bags of devouring (these have a whole ecology in my campaign, they dont instantly slay, they are conduits to creatures on another plane and I could keep going on, but it is far from dieing unless the character is low level or stupid) There is nothing wrong with diablo, but this isnt diablo. Save or dies are no fun. If you think that they are then go ahead and play with them, but I have already listed one reason why they dont work properly, I could make more but it isnt a big deal really. Disintegrate does damage in 3.5 you know ;) Nope, no finger of death, flesh to stone doesnt kill (read the spell ;) ) It is a good way to be, the players dont have save or dies, they have to find other ways to do things, but I have made several other changes. The bad guys dont have them so they have to do other things as well, it works out fine. Better than with them, and no one has missed them yet. Soul bind might be good for some story plot element, but I'd talk with the player ahead of time to make sure they were ok with it and making it further the plot. I'd have to have them use some other character in a mean time. It is a game where everyone is supposed to have fun after all. Originally posted by Dalaeck To each his own. I feel that campaigns where I'm guaranteed to become level 20 "just because" arn't fun. I enjoy actually being a hero and beating challenges and skirting death and even total annihilation by wit and good play. It lends something of the heroic. I've no idea what you are talking about. I'm always hard on the players, and if anyone makes it through the first 10 levels without dieing at least twice and owing their soul to at least one god then something is wrong..lol.. but it is a game, with a plot, and lots of elements. It sounds like you wouldnt like it, however lots of people do, and they have a great time. Much better than, 'ok, roll that die, try to roll above a 10 or you are out of the game for the next few hours'. If they go out from bad play, or because of several successive dice rolls fine, but from a single die roll? nah.. that isnt a game, that is just tic tac toe or something similar. Edit: thinking about it more, it may sound a bit harsh. Games last a long time to get to high levels, but death is hard to recover from, possibly, but hard. But it is easy to die. If a character dies in some way that furthers the plot and is valid for their character coming back is easier or they get a minor bonus to their next character. Thus the plot flows, thus the story is told. It is all very nice ;) Death should have meaning most of the time for PC's, possibly not always, but much much more than 'roll better than a 10 or you are dead, sorry'. Originally posted by Dalaeck The schools of magic are pretty clear. Saves are omnipresent, even in high levels. Disjunction, weird, wail of the banshee, dominate monster, prismatic sphere, meteor swarm, soul bind, teleportation circle are all very good and powerful magics and all require saves. If you can find anyone who says disjunction is a good spell and well balanced is probably smoking something pretty strong. I've changed it drastically to actually make it something that isnt, 'nuke the campaign'. Any spell that is designed to ruin one whole part of the game is bad. Remember your comment earlier about wealth being important? this single spell ruins that whole philosophy. Kills it dead in a single round. 3 seconds and there goes the entire wealth table ;) weird is just like phantasmal killer, which is the one save or die I almost leave in because of the dual save nature. But it is still gone, sorry. Domination and charming are mostly the same still. Teleportation circle? Save: None? I am confused, it doesnt have a save, what are you talking about here? lol There are lots of good high level spells with a save yes, however, most players will try for more nosave spells for the majority of their slots. If they can cast 9th level spells then most of their 7th level and lower spells wont use saves, unless they dont care about the people saving, or they go up against a whole lot of people who are way below thier CR. Hey, have you checked out Waves of Exhaustion? Talk about a killer no-save high level spell. It is pretty incredible ;) There are ways to make characters that are mostly save based and ways to make them not. For those that are save based they pretty much 'need' to have spellcasting prodigy and spell focus, but greater spell focus is a bit too much, especially if they have a high primary stat. But still, I think spellcasting prodigy is more than fine as is for all of these reasons and more. If a character has more than 50% of his daily spells as save spells then he is going to have some major problems sometimes, but perhaps all of his spells go for 'the big payoff' like you were talking about. Hard to say. Most people I've seen would rather be consistant than do nothing most of the time and have a few big deals now and then. Kindof like a barb who only power attacks for the maximum every attack with a x4 multiplier weapon. He may not hit incredibly often, but when he does.... ;) Same sort of thing I think, we just play different games. But in mine the saves are fine, spellcasting prodigy is cool, and no where near overpowered. It may be different in yours.
Jefepato 02-18-04, 12:07 AM	Supposedly, in D&D there are no winners and losers. However, I would contend that anyone who won't take magic items from the wizard (without an actual reason beyond "flavor," such as being a forsaker or occult slayer, or suspecting that the wizard is going to give them a cursed item -- which has happened to me before) has in fact lost at D&D.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-18-04, 12:33 AM	Originally posted by Dalaeck To each his own. I feel that campaigns where I'm guaranteed to become level 20 "just because" arn't fun. I enjoy actually being a hero and beating challenges and skirting death and even total annihilation by wit and good play. It lends something of the heroic. Huh? If anything playing D&D with unnerfed magic leads to the "I'm doomed to reach high level and never die an early death". Sure, core rules are deadly, death is cheap... but life is equally cheap too. In an ultra deadly core game, death merely becomes a status condition at high levels. It's not so much about skirting death as it is about being killed multiple times and picking yourself up. In Zerelde's world, this does not seem to be the case, and she isn't running a game where her PCs expect to be hit by multiple save or dies at every turn and routinely get killed. Now, regardless of what you believe D&D should be like, Zerelde is obviously running in a different style of campaign than you normally play. Obviously at least resurrection magic has probably been nerfed. It's ok to want to play the game without just a ton of save or dies, and believe it or not, you won't be playing some toned down version of the game. In fact, many players, myself included, consider the "you won't go down easy, but when you're down you're screwed" approach to be much more hardcore than the "poof you're dead! Poof you're alive again!" style. Don't forget that for death to have true meaning, it has to be permanent. Putting in all the save or dies in the world won't make your game deadlier if resurrection is available at the corner temple. I always liked the 2nd edition save or die spells. They sucked badly against anything high level, but they were great for taking out little stuff in an impressive fashion and they really scared the hell out of high level characters anyway not because they were likely to hit, but because on the off chance you did get finger of deathed, you were basically done in 2E. Sure you only failed on a 1-3 on the d20, but everytime that spell got thrown at you as a PC there was a lot of fear. Now you're expecting to fail about 50% of the time or more, unless you're a paladin. But if you get taken out, it's just not the same effect, because nothing short of artifacts can disable you to the point 9th level spells can't fix.
J. Grenemyer 02-18-04, 04:31 AM	Hello cthulhu42, A lot has been said in this thread already, but I felt the need to chime in with regard to the very first post of the thread. In a nutshell: I know how your DM feels. I really, really do. The good news is that it looks like you’re on the right track by converting to 3.5. Before my three-years running Third Edition Forgotten Realms campaign made the transition from 3.0 to 3.5, I was having the exact same difficulty dealing with Polymorph that your DM and fellow players are (were?) having, as Polymorph Other and (later) Polymorph Any Object allowed not one, but two PC Wizards in my group to take out non-Wizard foes that all of them had either marginal Fortitude or poor Will saves or both. Fast forward to 3.5, and it’s not nearly the issue for me that it was before. Baneful Polymorph and Polymorph Any Object are still potent spells to be sure, and are still used by my players, but thanks to improvements in creature statistics (as found in the v.3.5 Monster Manual) my BBEGs and NPC’s/Monsters have a fighting chance, which is a vast improvement (and all I really need to make a fun game happen). As for Teleporting and the like: I’ve introduced quite a few Portals in my adventures (several of which are one way) so my players quickly learned that being able to Teleport back home was a must if they wanted to keep to their plan of operating from a single base/location. However, this has not kept them from having to make several overland (and underground) journeys during the campaign, as I’ve always taken pains as a DM to leave clues and hints that lead the players into excursions that must be undertaken if the players are to have any hope of finding the answers (or enemies) they seek. Thus, I would advise you to (politely and respectfully) advise your DM to consider not giving away the PC’s ultimate destination early in an adventure. She ought to also consider your character’s abilities (and that of the other PC’s) more often when crafting adventures, so everyone has a chance at utilizing their Character to the fullest. As for magic items: If your fellow players refuse to accept crafted items from you, then it’s up to your DM to keep an eye on their treasure and include useful items to help maintain some sort of balance between PC’s. Obviously your DM should not try to undo your fellow players efforts, but neither should your fellow players be hamstringing the party by not partaking of needed gear, either. Lastly, third party material: I can’t emphasize enough how useful and fun such material is to a game (DM permitting, of course). Yes, I’ve come across a few unbalanced spells/items/feats myself, but no more or less than can be found in material published by WotC. As for how it can help your game: Third Party Material (and in-house WotC material other than the Core Rule Books, such as Forgotten Realms sourcebooks and the Class Splatbooks) can greatly influence a game by allowing DM’s and Players to experience new game elements that are not in the Core Books (and so can be an interesting surprise to Players in the form of new Magic Items and Spells, or a nightmare in the form of a never before seen Monsters) as well as help shore up PC imbalances with new feats and spells that are a good thematic fit to a given character. Note that last sentence basically reflects three and a half years of direct in-game experience on my part as a DM. Find and use whatever your DM will allow, and encourage her to do the same. Your game will be all the better for it. Ultimately it seems to me like your DM just needs to pay more attention to each player’s gaming style and their character’s abilities and magic items, while your fellow players need to figure out that they can reflect their well crafted character back-story and personality by carefully selecting/planning what Feats, Skills, Spells, Equipment and Magic Items they want, all without loosing an ounce of Roleplaying enjoyment. My ultimate observation would be that Third Edition is ideally suited to the task of melding Rules and Roleplay. Good luck! :D [Edit: I almost forgot to add that Rabbit is also my player's favored form of choice for Polymorph, and the two Wizards in my group by no means rule the game. Lastly, I see you have worked things out a bit with your DM and fellow players. Well done!]
Xavim 02-18-04, 06:08 AM	Heh Rabbit, My favourite is PaO turning the weak of body into Paper.
Dalaeck 02-18-04, 12:32 PM	Not that I want to be a pain, and I'm not interested in further cluttering the thread with off-topic posts (J the front part of your post makes little to no sense as it's still a fort save in 3.5 and PAO is even more powerful), but I've only recently looked at Doorag's gear. Bracers of armor +5 25 000 GP Wand of daylight 4500 GP Ring of protection +1 Mantle of spell resistance 90 000 GP Wand of haste 11 250 GP Handy Haversack 2000 GP Hat of intellect +6 36 000 GP Not counting the spell you get for free each level, other spells in your spell book that you scribed, scrolls which you mysteriously get for ridiculously cheap, and the other gear I don't even have statistics for (wizard's cloak? alien tool box?) that's already 170 750 GP worth of gear on Doorag. Even if you could craft it all (which you can't without help for the very expensive mantle) that's 85 000 GP. And Doorag is carrying 11 540 GP on you in hard cash (is it your character's gold?)! You should have roughly 66 000 GP worth of gear for an 11th level character. What the heck is going on here Zerelde?
Dalaeck 02-18-04, 01:00 PM	PhaedrusXY I've created the challenge thread here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184595 Scrolls ARE 25 x level x spell level. Scribing spells into a spell book from scroll or otherwise is 200 GP per spell level as per PHB. It's very expensive.
creepy drifter 02-18-04, 01:01 PM	However the uses you suggest are not legitimate uses of the spell. A silent image creates the image of an object, creature or force. Dalaeck, a fog cloud can indeed, be construed as an object, creature, or force. Your creativity constructs the fantastic nature of the figment. Hence, that fog cloud could appear as a murky, amorphous, floating, insubstantial object. Or a wispy, occluded ghost-like creature that for all intents and purposes, *is* a fog. Albeit, a sentient fog. That fog cloud can also appear as a force, again an opaque cloud of energy-infused static. Never underestimate a player who can give you a really detailed, multi-sentence explanation of a creative manifestation of a figment spell. Even if it is fantastique, absurd, or seemingly impossible, the game mechanics of figments are nearly limitless in application and manifestation.
Dalaeck 02-18-04, 01:21 PM	We really should bring these extraneous debates to other threads. I'll just answer creepy, the rest of you make threads and post them here and I'll join. A pack of 100 soldiers joined at the hip by illusory silk rope? An unnatural fog-cloud-thingy? No that's your DM giving you far too much leeway. The spell says creature, object or force, singular. There is room to work with but not so much so as to replicate other spells. You cannot for instance create a silent image of someone else's body encompasing yours - replicating change self. Your creativilty with the spell must be that which is subtle and does not warn of the illusion. In that case it can be very deadly. Recently the party I DM had to assault a brigand's hideout. There was only a narrow walkway along a cliff edge to reach the entrance of the hideout, and two men with crossbows were guarding it. The illusionist made the image of a heavily armored warrior with a tower sheild advancing in the front of the group. The illusion worked wonderfully and the players managed to get inside the hideout without being shot and potentially falling to the rocks below. Anyhow, create a thread in the spells and magic forum if you want me to continue to debate it.
J. Grenemyer 02-18-04, 02:47 PM	Hey Dalaeck, I see your back! Good to have you around. Now then, where were we? Originally posted by Dalaeck Not that I want to be a pain, and I'm not interested in further cluttering the thread with off-topic posts (J the front part of your post makes little to no sense as it's still a fort save in 3.5 and PAO is even more powerful), The point was that in 3.5, as opposed to 3.0, Monsters and Monster/Class combinations did not allow for great Fortitude saves, much less Will Saves (or saves overall, for that matter). Even High Hit Dice creatures had poor Saves. Now, though, that's not a problem because the 3.5 Monster Manual greatly improved upon monster ability scores and saving throw progressions. This, combined with the revisions to Polymorph and the addition of Baleful Polymorph, makes it far less likely that my latest BBEG is going to be turned into a little White Bunny Rabbit by either of those spells, as he will be unwilling to submit to the former and gets up to two saves vs. the later. As for PAO, sure it's still a potent spell. But at the levels of play where it will be seen there exist plenty of foes that have good Spell Resistance and/or Spell Turning, in addition to having good Fort Saves. Hope that cleared things up a bit! :D
cthulhu42 02-18-04, 04:49 PM	Re: Doorag's gear. Ah, now here you may have a point. The first half of this campagin was, believe it or not, quite sparse w/r/t magic items. We found very little magical treasure aside from the odd scroll or potion all the wasy through levels 8 or 9. However, at levels 10/11 our lucked changed dramaticly. Heres is a break down of his items and where/how he got them. Bracers of armor +5 25 000 GP - Found on BBEG at the end of the first half of campagin. Wand of daylight 4500 GP - Given to us as a lender item by our mentors as a means of combating yuan-ti darkness ability. Has sinc been returned. Ring of protection +1 - Found on an enemy. Mantle of spell resistance 90 000 GP - This was a personal reward given to Doorag as a reward for having helped save his kingdom. Each of the characters recieved a very powerful item that was personaly suited to them. My head spun when I was told what I'd recieved, let me tell you! Wand of haste 11 250 GP - Again, part of BBEG's treasure. Handy Haversack 2000 GP - Crafted myself at appropriate xp/gp cost. Hat of intellect +6 36 000 GP - Again, crafted at appropriate xp/gp cost. I also have a whole slew of scrolls and a wand crafted by myself, not to mention a Bracelet of Friends, crafted by myself. I'll admit to being a little shocked to find +5 items this "early" on in the game, but I'll trust my DM that she knows what shes doing on this. She may not be 100% savy w/r/t spells, but I know she knows the deal when it comes to items, so I trust that she as a plan to deal with them. A couple of other points: Early on in the campagin Doorag found a book that (after three months study) significantly reduced the gp/page space requiered for scribing spells into his book. Also, the Arcane Understanding feat wasn't taken until 9th level, so I've only been able to use it's benefits twice thus far, which means that all but four spells in his books were either learned via leveling up at 2/level, or bought in scroll form and copied. The "wizards cloak" is a mundane/non-magical cloak sewn together as a gift from a grateful townsperson. The "Alien Tool Box" is a curiosity, again, non-magical and of no use. Doorag found it on an adventure and keeps it as a conversation piece for his lab.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-18-04, 05:23 PM	I don't find anything wrong with doorags equipment list. Yes, it's over the suggested gold for what a character of his level should have, but if the others have comparative equipment... it's still ok. The mantle of SR is probably excessive, but if the quest it was obtained on was a difficult one, then it's probably still ok. It doesn't look like any sort of excessive treasure give away. So long as the other PCs are relatively even, it should actually work in the other PCs favor in a high treasure environment, since the wizard generally only needs the hat of intellect and a few other things. Once you've got the hat as a wizard, you're basically good to go. As for the whole illusion argument... I'd probably say that you could create a cloudlike creature like that, but anything actually touching the creature would automatically disbelieve it (and thus could see through the illusion). It'd be no better than creating an illusionary wall really.
Ranthanas 02-18-04, 06:45 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck I agree with you Ranthanas that illusion spells are indeed very potent, particularly in skilled hands. However the uses you suggest are not legitimate uses of the spell. A silent image creates the image of an object, creature or force. A fog cloud is neither of these. Likewise a blade barrier (that makes no sound?!). If you can get it by your DM, convincing him of a larger interpretation of the spell, then that's peachy - but that wouldn't fly with me. These are subtle spells used for subtle uses. One fog cloud: one object. I have never had a DM object to this. Blade Barrier is much more dubious, I admit- but I had all the blades connected. One large object looking like a mutant bit of agricultural machinery that none of the ogres wanted to test. I wouldn't try it against brighter foes (unless I was playing a dim caster) It doesn't always go according to plan, however. One prismatic wall is one object- and I used it to separate a BBEG from his bodyguards (the plan was to defeat them and run away from him to heal). His response: Cone Of Cold to knock the first layer down. Went straight through the illusion and hit everyone. Ouch. (At least it froze the golems as well, although we had to carry the wizard out in a Bag of Holding...)
fractal 02-19-04, 01:48 AM	Originally posted by cthulhu42 Mantle of spell resistance 90 000 GP - This was a personal reward given to Doorag as a reward for having helped save his kingdom. Each of the characters recieved a very powerful item that was personaly suited to them. My head spun when I was told what I'd recieved, let me tell you! My personal experience seems to indicate that the Mantle of Spell Resistance is overcosted anyway. It doesn't work against extraordinary or supernatural abilities, and by the time you can afford one, enemies can get past it much of the time anyway. I'm currently playing a Rogue of under 10th level with one. It seems like most monsters have supernatural abilities that ignore it, and opposing spellcasters make their caster level checks. It does do a wonderful job of protecting me from those vicious Haste spells, however. I don't think our Sorcerer has managed to get one onto me yet, unless I first spend an action lowering the resistance. I'm giving serious thought to trying to sell it and purchasing a Cloak of Resistance to wear there instead.
Vega_Engi 02-19-04, 03:31 PM	Include a Wiz in the opposing groups to balance things. 1. NPC Wiz can dispell and counterspal partie's Wiz. 2. Fight with eight 8 lev enemies insted of one 14 lev. They will be a problem for surrounded Wiz. 3. Choose monsters with good saves and SR. 4. Use hide, fog, cover, invisibility - when Wiz see the treat he is already in 10 ft. reach. He will use his rounds to get out, the monster will NOT kill him, switching to the fighter, when thing looks bad, but overall fighting time will be longer. 5. Use simple "bad" tools: enemy scrys or asks a god in a prayer and learns about yr favourite spell. Next day the enemy comes with protection from polymorph active.
Polymorph 02-20-04, 01:17 AM	Playing the superpowered wizard is intimidatingly fun.. for a certain time... but in the end the Problem (aka the Wizard ;) ) has to be solved by one of two means: 1) Your DM does the job: Your DM seems to be worried about the situation so i would advise her to look up some information on these boards on how to get rid of overpowered wizards. There have been some mentioned before on this thread, but the possibilities are endless and afterall it's one of the good sides of DMing to spoil your PCs plans.:smirk: Expect your spellbooks to be stolen or destroyed, your mind raped by mindflayers causing permanent intlligence loss (great roleplaying possibility :D ) and your mighty magic items to loose their power as you do. Monsters will suddenly have insane SR, they will dispell you all the time, and they will have certain abilities that make them immune to your best spells. This perfectly NORMAL and your DM needs to know this too. Taking away some of your power will make you try as hard as before to become as strong as possible, but this time you struggle to keep up with the rest of the group. 2) You do it yourself: Roll a new character. Period. I know that sucks because you got involved into your character so much by now, so you could stick to some story based solutions too. (there are plenty, ust be creative and talk with your Dm about it.) Just trying to stop using save or die spells, to rule the battlefield with tactical spells, use your spells to buff up the others only or hiding your power and using it only in critical moments are NO solutions. Try to understand the other players. When you offer them buffs and crazy magic items in a low magic world and they refuse, they probably do so, because they see this as just another way you try to be superior to them. This might not sound so great, but only if you are severely crippled in your ability or if the DM starts to counter everything you are good at the game will be fun for everyone again. the good part of this is, that it will be fun for you again too :) .
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-20-04, 05:10 AM	Originally posted by Polymorph Expect your spellbooks to be stolen or destroyed, your mind raped by mindflayers causing permanent intlligence loss (great roleplaying possibility :D ) and your mighty magic items to loose their power as you do. Monsters will suddenly have insane SR, they will dispell you all the time, and they will have certain abilities that make them immune to your best spells. This perfectly NORMAL and your DM needs to know this too. Taking away some of your power will make you try as hard as before to become as strong as possible, but this time you struggle to keep up with the rest of the group. I really hope you're joking... Metagaming as the DM by including lots of custom monsters designed specifically as wizard hosers is not a good solution, especially when you're inventing special types of ability drain that can't be restored. If such drastic measures are supposed to be "normal" then it's time the DM starts nerfing magic, because a DM who takes such extreme measures is clearly not comfortable with the power the wizard possesses. A DM should give players abilities he is comfortable with them using. Allowing them abilities only to brutally hose them with special metagame creatures and encounter design is very petty and poor DMing.
TheDarkestOfAngels 02-20-04, 05:05 PM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth I really hope you're joking... Metagaming as the DM by including lots of custom monsters designed specifically as wizard hosers is not a good solution, especially when you're inventing special types of ability drain that can't be restored. If such drastic measures are supposed to be "normal" then it's time the DM starts nerfing magic, because a DM who takes such extreme measures is clearly not comfortable with the power the wizard possesses. A DM should give players abilities he is comfortable with them using. Allowing them abilities only to brutally hose them with special metagame creatures and encounter design is very petty and poor DMing. drastic measures? Poor DMing? Uhh... no. Which situation is better? DM: that's a pretty powerful character you got there... Wiz: yeah. I sure did a lot of hard work to get him this way too. But it was worth it. DM: Well... its ruining my game *yank* X and Y and Z spells and A and B and C abilities don't work for you anymore. Tough luck. Wiz: But then... DM: DM HOUSE RULE! Accept it or suffer the bizzaro consequences! or... DM: Well, that was fun. Wiz: Yeah, I liked how you challenged my wizard with that thing you made and how you did it without nerfing my wizard to kingdom come. DM: Well, thanks, I'm glad you liked it. I HATE the idea of nerfing magic in order to get a "good" campaign. To me, that's the worst kind of DM who'd rather nerf you to preserve game balance than balance the game with his/her players. I've had both kinds of DMs and I liked the one that challenged my characters, even the more munchkinized ones, with encounters and such rather than pull the rug out from my character and nerfing me or anyone else to a backseat. It also shows signs of a creative DM as well, who'd rather run a good game without barking houserules at his players whenever a player wants to use a good combination of ... well... anything. Feats, weapons, skills, spells, etc. etc. that's my rant for today, incomplete as it is.
Heron_Marked_Blade 02-20-04, 10:01 PM	Originally posted by Polymorph Expect your spellbooks to be stolen or destroyed, your mind raped by mindflayers causing permanent intlligence loss (great roleplaying possibility :D ) and your mighty magic items to loose their power as you do. Monsters will suddenly have insane SR, they will dispell you all the time, and they will have certain abilities that make them immune to your best spells. This perfectly NORMAL and your DM needs to know this too. Taking away some of your power will make you try as hard as before to become as strong as possible, but this time you struggle to keep up with the rest of the group. The problem is in these suggestions. These are specific anti-wizard tactics that are patently cheap and unfair. If the player broke rules and cheated to get his character to its current power level, then that needs to be addressed outside of the game. If the player made a powerful character within the rules, then the DM needs to work within the rules to balance him. There are plenty of monsters with high SR and elemental resistance in the MM; there is no need for the DM to cheat (auto-success dispels, insane SR, suddenly immune to the specific spells cast by a specific wizard, etc) in order to "balance" the wizard. The best way to deal with this is to either (A) talk to the player out of game and work together to bring the character into line with the campaign world, or (B) create encounters that don't allow a "nuke, nuke, nuke" approach (or whatever the character's standard approach is). I prefer (B), myself, but I've had to resort to (A) a few times. If the character had fun working to bring his character to its current level of power, he'll probably have as much fun working to bring it to the level of power suitable for the campaign.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-21-04, 02:56 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels I HATE the idea of nerfing magic in order to get a "good" campaign. To me, that's the worst kind of DM who'd rather nerf you to preserve game balance than balance the game with his/her players. I've had both kinds of DMs and I liked the one that challenged my characters, even the more munchkinized ones, with encounters and such rather than pull the rug out from my character and nerfing me or anyone else to a backseat. It also shows signs of a creative DM as well, who'd rather run a good game without barking houserules at his players whenever a player wants to use a good combination of ... well... anything. Feats, weapons, skills, spells, etc. etc. that's my rant for today, incomplete as it is. When you purposely invent wizard hosers, this is a house rule, and you are hosing a player indirectly. Speaking of pulling the rug out from under a character, creating custom anti-wizard creatures and new rules about irreversible permanent int drain is much more of a nasty surprise than simply being honest and saying you think the character is too powerful and nerfing some spells/feats. DMs should give players tools they are ok with them using, not handing them out spells and feats they believe are overpowered and then trying to compensate behind the scenes with rigged encounters. Reminds me a lot of the DM strategy where you counter save or dies simply by fudging rolls. "Oh look, another natural 20, wow this NPC is rolling lucky, looks like your polymorph fails again." However, this just isn't fair to PCs. If you give them a spell they should expect it to work with a reasonable and forseeable degree of success. A 10th level wizard doesn't expect every monster he faces to have saving throws and SR drastically inflated compared to what a normal CR 10 creature has. Sure, occasionally you have these encounters where one character is more challenged, but if they become the norm and a stealth balancing tool, then something is wrong. If you're playing a solo quest, then sure you can balance it from either end, but when you have to worry about PCs, the most important thing is PC vs. PC balance. If you make creatures immune to spells, then what happens when the cleric wants to cast something offensive? He can't because you beefed up everything to stop the broken wizard, so now the cleric can't do much of anything. If there's a problem, you should try to fix the problem, not work around it. It's bad DMing practice to know a problem exists and then simply try to sweep it under the carpet by modifying everything else to compensate, because that solution simply doesn't work in all cases. For instance, if you've got a druid in wildshape who is completely dominating in melee, and the party barbarian looks like crap, beefing up the opposition's attack and damage rolls won't fix anything. The barbarian is still overshadowed and now getting completely thrashed compared to the druid who is now being challenged. You've made the game challenging for the druid, but have inadvertently squashed one of your players. The proper solution is to nerf the druid down to a playable level, so he isn't stealing the spotlight all the time. I've said it once and I'll say it again... PC versus monster balance is irrelevant, it is PC vs PC balance that is important. Custom monsters will only fix the former, while nerfing can fix the latter. Also when you nerf something, you don't have to bother designing super counters for something. When the save or die DCs are in line you can play your monsters as written and not have to worry much. Players spells work exactly how you've told them they do, rather than unpleasantly discovering that the new average fort save among CR 10s was raised to +30 to compensate for their huge DCs. When you use a nerfed spell, you aren't constantly at risk of being hit with the DM's favorite petty stealth nerfs. You know immediately what you're getting and can choose the spell beforehand. Nothing worse than being a wizard, taking a spell and then unpleasantly discovering stealth nerfs in place at the time it's been cast. Adventure design should not become a forum for interparty balance, that's what the rules are for.
TheDarkestOfAngels 02-21-04, 02:04 PM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth When you purposely invent wizard hosers, this is a house rule, and you are hosing a player indirectly. I'm not talking about inventing wizard (or other appropriate class) hosers. If I actually stated that, then I blame it on writing it so early in the morning or something. Speaking of pulling the rug out from under a character, creating custom anti-wizard creatures and new rules about irreversible permanent int drain is much more of a nasty surprise than simply being honest and saying you think the character is too powerful and nerfing some spells/feats. I'm not talking about "nerfing" them in-game by making stuff to specifically to counter that individual character like "INT" draining CR12 monsters with massive saves and SR or anything like that. DMs should give players tools they are ok with them using, not handing them out spells and feats they believe are overpowered and then trying to compensate behind the scenes with rigged encounters. Reminds me a lot of the DM strategy where you counter save or dies simply by fudging rolls. "Oh look, another natural 20, wow this NPC is rolling lucky, looks like your polymorph fails again." and I'm definately not talking about fudging the rolls. However, this just isn't fair to PCs. If you give them a spell they should expect it to work with a reasonable and forseeable degree of success. A 10th level wizard doesn't expect every monster he faces to have saving throws and SR drastically inflated compared to what a normal CR 10 creature has. Sure, occasionally you have these encounters where one character is more challenged, but if they become the norm and a stealth balancing tool, then something is wrong. again, I'm not talking about roll fudging or making monsters that're basically immune to that character. (I'll get to what I'm talking about when I'm finished commenting on all the redundancies.) If you're playing a solo quest, then sure you can balance it from either end, but when you have to worry about PCs, the most important thing is PC vs. PC balance. If you make creatures immune to spells, then what happens when the cleric wants to cast something offensive? He can't because you beefed up everything to stop the broken wizard, so now the cleric can't do much of anything. the important thing is PC vs. encounter level balance, not PC vs. PC balance. The players are supposed to be working together. If a player is "stealing the show" then that's a problem with the player, not hte magic he/she wields, not the character (as long as it is made within the rules), but the player. Thus, he/she should be dealt with, not neutering their character (which might affect other characters as well.) If a PC is unbalaning the game (i.e. walking through battles without much of a sweat) then action needs to be taken, I just don't think walking up to the player and saying "My encounters are too weak for you. nerf your character so I can restore balance." isn't nearly as favorable as simply making the encounters tougher or planning ahead better. The game should be challenging to every one on different levels, reguardless of their actual character, even if they're using ones from the optimization board. If there's a problem, you should try to fix the problem, not work around it. nerfing spells is working around the problem, not fixing it. It's bad DMing practice to know a problem exists and then simply try to sweep it under the carpet by modifying everything else to compensate, because that solution simply doesn't work in all cases. you're doing the same thing. What I propose is a change in tactics in how the game is run. Not fudging the rolls, not making ridiculous monsters for them to fight. not "manipulating" the game in my favor, just different methods in continueing the game. For instance, if you've got a druid in wildshape who is completely dominating in melee, and the party barbarian looks like crap, beefing up the opposition's attack and damage rolls won't fix anything. The barbarian is still overshadowed and now getting completely thrashed compared to the druid who is now being challenged. You've made the game challenging for the druid, but have inadvertently squashed one of your players. fudging the melee rolls and damage won't solve the problem. a problematic druid can be taken care of in several ways. 1) Druids are spellcasters and they have to prepare their spells ahead of time, like a cleric. simply changing battle tactics would work wonders, whether there're only melee combatants and especially if there are spellcasters involved. Its wildshape is a supernatural effect and it still casts spells, so its subject to both dispel and antimagic. Against melees, they'd just have to use those combat feats they should have. The enemies in most of the PCs encounters are intelligent and tactical creatures and if the druid is dominating the battlefield, then suddenly, they have a prime target. If the BBEGs are in communication with each other (like, say, they encounter a group of baddies that are associated with the BBEG's evil group), then later encounters can change their tactics accordingly. The proper solution is to nerf the druid down to a playable level, so he isn't stealing the spotlight all the time. I've seen too many DMs do that to the point to where a certain tactic is either completely unviable or even making a class completely unviable. It also alienates players and can cause friction between the player or players and the DM just as badly as if he were doing what you think I suggested (fudging rolls and making PCs specifically resistant to the problem player.) I've said it once and I'll say it again... PC versus monster balance is irrelevant, it is PC vs PC balance that is important. Custom monsters will only fix the former, while nerfing can fix the latter. I never said anything about custom monsters. Nerfing only says "Sorry, that's a good build, but I have to bust it down for you. You wanted to take that cheesy PrC? Well, PrCs are banned. You were working a lot for that nifty spell. That nifty spell is banned. You like your character? Too bad. I'm gonna bust you down so bad, you'll have a difficult time fighting orcs because the rest of the players hate magic items and I want you to be balanced against them." Also when you nerf something, you don't have to bother designing super counters for something. When the save or die DCs are in line you can play your monsters as written and not have to worry much. Players spells work exactly how you've told them they do, rather than unpleasantly discovering that the new average fort save among CR 10s was raised to +30 to compensate for their huge DCs. I never suggested that any of those be changed, and, in fact, I'm against that. When you use a nerfed spell, you aren't constantly at risk of being hit with the DM's favorite petty stealth nerfs. You know immediately what you're getting and can choose the spell beforehand. Nothing worse than being a wizard, taking a spell and then unpleasantly discovering stealth nerfs in place at the time it's been cast. I could do that just fine with an appropriate counterspell. If the PCs find something cheesy to hit my encounters, I can find something equally bad for the BBEGs to hit them back. Nerf. nerf. nerf. nerf. I never suggested nerfing anything. I'm against the whole concept. I just wanted to state that its better to simply change tactics and evolve the encounters around the weaknesses and strengths of the PCs rather than nerf the PCs to fit the encounters. Its counter-intuitive to have built up a PC only to have it destructed when a DM finds that it works too well. Adventure design should not become a forum for interparty balance, that's what the rules are for. both are. I just don't think the rules should be nixed, especially the rules the players operate by, should be nixed so I don't have to alter the adventure to suit them. The easiest path isn't necessarily the best. I've also seen a lot of bad DM decisions involving nerfs and rules changes "because stuff is too powerful" turn into things like this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106389). I had a DM who wouldn't let any of his players buy anythng magical. Anything. Platinum sword? (special materials from Magic of Faerun) It involves magic to make the materials as hard as steel, so no. Potions? No. Wands? No. nothing at all. we were epic characters, by the way and we couldn't buy a potion of cure light wounds because one player (who didn't even group w/ us any more) somehow abused something involving the economy rules and managed to land himself tons of money and he ended up with far more magic items than he should have had at his level. We couldn't even buy anything if we were making new characters. everything was rolled randomly. My spellcaster ended up with magical full plate. Powerful magical full plate. My DM allowed a reroll, but I ended up with a wand of knock.
Archtyrant Terevoth 02-21-04, 05:45 PM	Originally posted by TheDarkestOfAngels nerfing spells is working around the problem, not fixing it. I disagree. If your game has to drastically change to deal with a few problematic spells, then the spells are indeed the problem, and fixing them is nerfing them. fudging the melee rolls and damage won't solve the problem. a problematic druid can be taken care of in several ways. 1) Druids are spellcasters and they have to prepare their spells ahead of time, like a cleric. simply changing battle tactics would work wonders, whether there're only melee combatants and especially if there are spellcasters involved. Its wildshape is a supernatural effect and it still casts spells, so its subject to both dispel and antimagic. Against melees, they'd just have to use those combat feats they should have. The enemies in most of the PCs encounters are intelligent and tactical creatures and if the druid is dominating the battlefield, then suddenly, they have a prime target. If the BBEGs are in communication with each other (like, say, they encounter a group of baddies that are associated with the BBEG's evil group), then later encounters can change their tactics accordingly. DIspel does nothing agaisnt wildshape. You dispel it, he just wildshapes again, after all he can do it like many hours per day. Antimagic isn't a factor until very high in level, and making it commonplace would be one of those stealth nerfs I talked about. If your counter to an 11th level druid is constant antimagic, then I can see many of the players getting upset. You just don't stand a chance against a fully wildshaped druid. +1 wild full plate dragonscale armor, +1 wild large shield plus the natural armor from wildshape and barkskin. The druid is nearly impossible to hit. This isn't speculation, I've actually seen it in real games, and with natural spell the druid can remain wildshaped without losing his casting potential, you don't even have anything to sunder. Fighters of equivalent level just can't hit the druid, and the druid outfights and outgrapples them. The only solution you have without drastically pumping up the opposition is nerfs. I've seen too many DMs do that to the point to where a certain tactic is either completely unviable or even making a class completely unviable. It also alienates players and can cause friction between the player or players and the DM just as badly as if he were doing what you think I suggested (fudging rolls and making PCs specifically resistant to the problem player.) There's a balance with nerfing, you don't want to make a tactic totally unviable, and you certainly don't want to make a class unviable. And the thing is that if you've found you've gone too far then you should rescind some of the nerfs. What was overpowered yesterday may be underpowered tomorrow thanks to nerfs, but you can always try to fine tune it. Like any rule, rule 0 nerfs should be written in pencil and you should be constantly fine tuning them. I never said anything about custom monsters. Nerfing only says "Sorry, that's a good build, but I have to bust it down for you. You wanted to take that cheesy PrC? Well, PrCs are banned. You were working a lot for that nifty spell. That nifty spell is banned. You like your character? Too bad. I'm gonna bust you down so bad, you'll have a difficult time fighting orcs because the rest of the players hate magic items and I want you to be balanced against them." Nerfing isn't always banning. Nerfing can and most often is "well that PrC looks a little too good, lets take away ability X or weaken it a bit." The game shouldn't be about flipping through books and looking for the most broken PrC out there. It should be about establishing a balance. And it's not all about reducing, if someone comes to you with an underpowered PrC you can and should boost it a bit if it fits his character concept. I could do that just fine with an appropriate counterspell. If the PCs find something cheesy to hit my encounters, I can find something equally bad for the BBEGs to hit them back. And what happens to your PCs who aren't super powergaming?Congrats, you've dealt with one power player by annihilating everyone else. That's why as I've said, beefing up the opposition just doesn't work. Nerf. nerf. nerf. nerf. I never suggested nerfing anything. I'm against the whole concept. I just wanted to state that its better to simply change tactics and evolve the encounters around the weaknesses and strengths of the PCs rather than nerf the PCs to fit the encounters. Its counter-intuitive to have built up a PC only to have it destructed when a DM finds that it works too well. This isn't a computer game. It's not a strategy game where the purpose is to outplay your opponent. It's an RPG where everyone is supposed to have fun. Not everyone plays the game to find the best combinations of feats and abilities to make their characters dominate everything. Such power characters should be more powerful, yes... but they shouldn't totally overshadow the group. If they're overshadowing the group, then something is clearly wrong, espeically when a power druid is overpowering the party fighter, or the wizard has become an entire adventuring party (as could happen in 3.0) I've also seen a lot of bad DM decisions involving nerfs and rules changes "because stuff is too powerful" turn into things like this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106389). Anything can be done in excess and can lead to bad changes. This is the sort of thing that improves as you get better as a DM. In fact, you can tell a lot about a DM by his house rules. The fact that some people nerf poorly doesn't condemn the whole practice. I would think most of the bad DMs who made these rules probably wouldn't do any better running strict core. They're mostly just bad DMs. I had a DM who wouldn't let any of his players buy anythng magical. Anything. Platinum sword? (special materials from Magic of Faerun) It involves magic to make the materials as hard as steel, so no. Potions? No. Wands? No. nothing at all. we were epic characters, by the way and we couldn't buy a potion of cure light wounds because one player (who didn't even group w/ us any more) somehow abused something involving the economy rules and managed to land himself tons of money and he ended up with far more magic items than he should have had at his level. We couldn't even buy anything if we were making new characters. everything was rolled randomly. That's bad nerfing... Instead of nerfing the ability to buy things he should have just nerfed the loophole that allowed the other guy to make tons of money, or just disallowed it outright. That's his job as DM to prevent crap like that from entering the game. When you abuse rules you get hit with the nerf stick, that's the way it should be. Preventing items for sale to deal with an abuser is going around the problem, the real solution is to stop the abuser in his tracks and prevent his moneymaking scheme.
PhaedrusXY 02-21-04, 06:00 PM	This is slightly off-topic, but the druid's ability to Wild Shape is supernatural, and so is not subject to Dispel Magic. Edit: Found the rule in the SRD under Abilities and Conditions A supernatural ability’s effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells.
TheDarkestOfAngels 02-22-04, 05:50 AM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth I disagree. If your game has to drastically change to deal with a few problematic spells, then the spells are indeed the problem, and fixing them is nerfing them. not any more than dealing with the problem in any other fashion. changing tactics (and no, I'm not talking about "stealth nerfing" or cheating) to deal with the individual character or even the player OOG. The difference is that nerfing magic (or really, any aspect of the game) hurts, or at least can hurt everyone indirectly. For instance, if you nerf the druid's wildshape badly enough (say the player was horrendously abusing the entire mechanic or certain spells), then anyone else who might want to use the druid would have to suffer the nerf as well. While it may have neutered the first to balance it may have made it unviable for someone else. That, I have a problem with. DIspel does nothing agaisnt wildshape. You dispel it, he just wildshapes again, after all he can do it like many hours per day. Antimagic isn't a factor until very high in level, and making it commonplace would be one of those stealth nerfs I talked about. If your counter to an 11th level druid is constant antimagic, then I can see many of the players getting upset. my bad. for some reason I thought supernatural powers could be dispelled for some reason. ah well. mistakes are made. ALso, I dislike stealth nerfs as well. I don't like the idea of fudging rolls, bumping stats so the BBEG can save or succeed w/ SR better, or anything like that and I discourage it. I'm talking about playing the baddies intelligently enough to play on the problem druid's weaknesses. (this only works for opponents that're intellligent or experienced enough to figure something like this out.) You just don't stand a chance against a fully wildshaped druid. +1 wild full plate dragonscale armor, +1 wild large shield plus the natural armor from wildshape and barkskin. The druid is nearly impossible to hit. This isn't speculation, I've actually seen it in real games, and with natural spell the druid can remain wildshaped without losing his casting potential, you don't even have anything to sunder. Fighters of equivalent level just can't hit the druid, and the druid outfights and outgrapples them. The only solution you have without drastically pumping up the opposition is nerfs. sounds like an easy touch/ranged touch attack. it takes a standard action to cast a spell and it requires concentration. both of those can be disrupted easily. the druid also can't cast while grappled and must use somatic and verbal components to complete a spell. wildshaping requires a standard action wild armor and shields require expertised hands (likely itemcrafting druids or other spellcasting shapeshifters) and can be prone to not being near the druid that wants them if the druid is making him/herself a force to be reckoned with in a battle, especially if its outclassing hte other party members, then the BBEGs ought to be able to recognise this and respond accordingly and use appropriate spells or tactics to bring the druid down. There's a balance with nerfing, you don't want to make a tactic totally unviable, and you certainly don't want to make a class unviable. And the thing is that if you've found you've gone too far then you should rescind some of the nerfs. What was overpowered yesterday may be underpowered tomorrow thanks to nerfs, but you can always try to fine tune it. Like any rule, rule 0 nerfs should be written in pencil and you should be constantly fine tuning them. agreed. nerfs should only go so far if they have to exist at all. I dislike nerfs in general and would only use them if I absolutely have to, but I'm not "totally" against your position, despite my "early morning" rambles. I usually make more intelligent arguements, but my responses have been fudged by a tired mind thus far. but more to the point, I think if nerfs should be done at all, it should be done in the most minimal way possible, but it really varies with the spell or ability or whatever. I've both experienced and heard about some DMs who'd nerf or ban anything to achieve their sense of balance and I've thus become sensitive to it. I dislike it because I've seen what it leads to. I also dislike it because I'd rather do something within the existing rules to fix a problem over simply rule 0-ing it. Even if it means that the BBEG is gonna recognise the problem character first and deal with him accordingly because he/she saw what the problem character did to his/her minions. Suddenly, she/he's armed with more spells or equipment to counter the druid's offensive and suddenly he's not as powerful as he/she was before in this particular battle. (I'm also not saying that this should even be done every battle. If the problem gets out of hand, I'd rather deal with the controlling player, whether DM or player, first rather than either accept a nerf or impose one.) what's perhaps the largest problem is, as a player, whether its my character that got nerfed or not, is if I attempt to argue w/ the DM, it can only lead to OoG consequences. Even if its just hot water, it essentially labels me as a "munchkin" or "rules lawyer" or some other negitive term. Nerfing isn't always banning. Nerfing can and most often is "well that PrC looks a little too good, lets take away ability X or weaken it a bit." The game shouldn't be about flipping through books and looking for the most broken PrC out there. It should be about establishing a balance. And it's not all about reducing, if someone comes to you with an underpowered PrC you can and should boost it a bit if it fits his character concept. I see your point. I guess I shouldn't say nerfing is a completely bad thing and I think is more of a case-by-case sort of thing... in general, but to me it really shouldn't be used often, if at all. (But it really depends on what's being nerfed.) For instance, I'd sympathise with the DM for nerfing something out of a mongoose publishing book in a FR campaign. that stuff is horribly overpowered in general and I'd never personally allow their use w/o reviewing it first, if I were DM, and I'd never use them at all as a player. Thus, I wouldn't be against nerfing or banning those books. However, I'd be flatly against, say, nerfing the Incantrix or the druid. both are powerful but not necessarily all powerful. several factors contribute to abuse with most D&D classes and prestige classes and I think minimal nerfing, if any, should be done. (I have a sorceress/incantrix and if it were nerfed badly enough, I wouldn't even play it. I've been the subject of nerfing, usually indirectly as a result of someone else's actions, to take that sort of thing.) And what happens to your PCs who aren't super powergaming?Congrats, you've dealt with one power player by annihilating everyone else. That's why as I've said, beefing up the opposition just doesn't work. there's a difference between making the BBEGs act intelligently than simply beefing up their defenses and offenses. I'm not changing really anything at all, simply how the BBEGs use their resources in an imminant battle with a problem player. Simply changing tactics is often, as I've found, much more effective than simply disallowing an action or power or defense because their inability to handle that individual's abilities. This isn't a computer game. It's not a strategy game where the purpose is to outplay your opponent. It's an RPG where everyone is supposed to have fun. Not everyone plays the game to find the best combinations of feats and abilities to make their characters dominate everything. Such power characters should be more powerful, yes... but they shouldn't totally overshadow the group. If they're overshadowing the group, then something is clearly wrong, espeically when a power druid is overpowering the party fighter, or the wizard has become an entire adventuring party (as could happen in 3.0) indeed, but being the subject of a nerf isn't necessarily any fun, whether it be stealth or direct and can often cause equal friction. I've seen both. (I'm usually the victim of a nerf, but usually indirectly. I'm not really a problem player myself, I try to powergame, but without the munckinisms, to fill my role in the group better.) Anything can be done in excess and can lead to bad changes. This is the sort of thing that improves as you get better as a DM. In fact, you can tell a lot about a DM by his house rules. The fact that some people nerf poorly doesn't condemn the whole practice. I would think most of the bad DMs who made these rules probably wouldn't do any better running strict core. They're mostly just bad DMs. that's not necessarily true. I recently got off a lengthy arguement with someone that couldn't believe that wizards had a chance of getting a +6 headband of intelliect at high levels and was dead set on prooving that magic items weren't supposed to be that "common" and casters shouldn't be able to "Know" what they can make (that is, players shouldn't look through the DMG magic section like a sears catalog.) which has its logic... to a point. Then there's also the horror stories on the "RIDICULOUS House Rules" thread. Some of them even from competant DMs that played out badly. That's bad nerfing... Instead of nerfing the ability to buy things he should have just nerfed the loophole that allowed the other guy to make tons of money, or just disallowed it outright. That's his job as DM to prevent crap like that from entering the game. When you abuse rules you get hit with the nerf stick, that's the way it should be. Preventing items for sale to deal with an abuser is going around the problem, the real solution is to stop the abuser in his tracks and prevent his moneymaking scheme. agreed. this is generally the approach I'd prefer to any nerfing, really. I've just heard of too many grips about a DM that'd jump to nerfs and bans before trying anything else. "because it's easier" or something, I suppose. In retrospect, I suppose I do agree with you on some points, but my point is is that I'd prefer avoiding nerfs whenever possible and resorting to true nerfs only if absolutely necessary and its something I'd prefer to simply "well your defenses are too good, Mr. Incantrix. My energy drains keep failing on you, so I'm simply gonna take that ability away so they can work instead of just using another attack cause all I put in this encounter are energy draining monsters. So there." sort of DMs.