(3.5) Limiting magical item and buff abuse?

[Kaihaku]

I'm considering the following houserule...

A character may have no more ongoing supernatural effects active on their person than their HD at one time. Racial abilities are the sole exception to this rule. If the character has more ongoing supernatural effects on them than their HD the lower potency effects (ie: the lower spell level/power level/caster level/manifester level/etc) are treated as if successfully dispelled. Magical/Psionic items remain suppressed until 1d4 rounds after the higher potency effect is removed.

Contingency, Permanency, Craft Contingent Spell, Magical Items with no-item slot, et cetera would all be affected by this houserule.

Effects with a duration of instantaneous or items that have no direct effect on a character do not count towards this limit. Which touches on the issue I've been mulling over.... Should Magical Armor, Shields, and Weapons count towards the limit? If Wands or Staves don't count towards the limit is it 'fair' to count a +5 vorpal greataxe?

[holywhippet]

Enchanted weapons and armour aren't always directly affecting the user. For example, the enchantment on a +5 set of plate mail is only affecting the armour itself - making it hard to penetrate etc. If you had a +5 suit of armour that gave you fire resistance then you are only being affected by fire resistance.

Weapons are the same, if you have a +4 sword that does extra fire damage then the magic of the sword is not affecting the wielder directly. That +4 doesn't make the wielder a better fighter, it reflects enchantments making the sword lighter to wield and better able to penetrate.

As for your house rule, I suspect it lacks balance. The game is designed to expect players to use buffs to help themselves out. You'll be nerfing the players, but not the monsters they are facing.

[tiercel]

I would think that banning Craft Contingent Spell might nuke the majority of potential abuse. Sure, you can have a lot of permanency running but (1) permanency only works on certain, specific, spells not just anything and (2) permanency comes with a hefty XP cost compared to Craft Contingent effect. (It hurts a whole lot more if your permanency effects get hosed by a targeted dispel magic than if your Craft Contingent ones do.)

So permanency is already limited in the sense that you can only permanency on a relatively small list of spells, and it costs a goodly chunk of XP to do so for each one. You can only have one actual contingency spell on yourself at a given time. So these by themselves aren't *that* abusive.

If you are following even roughly the weath-by-level guidelines, you automatically have a limit on the number/potency of magical items a given PC should have. (And no-slot items are more expensive, and in any case if they are custom items have to be approved by the DM before they can even exist.)

As for other buffs, well, you have to actually spend the time to buff up. Just don't constantly allow your party to have only one fight a day every day and always know it in advance so they can spend 12 rounds prebuffing until ZOMG POWER OVER 9000.

[Kaihaku]

Enchanted weapons and armour aren't always directly affecting the user. For example, the enchantment on a +5 set of plate mail is only affecting the armour itself - making it hard to penetrate etc. If you had a +5 suit of armour that gave you fire resistance then you are only being affected by fire resistance.

Weapons are the same, if you have a +4 sword that does extra fire damage then the magic of the sword is not affecting the wielder directly. That +4 doesn't make the wielder a better fighter, it reflects enchantments making the sword lighter to wield and better able to penetrate.

I'm aware of the distinction, that's why I raised the question... I'd rather not divide it up into individual weapon or armor effects but there doesn't seem to be a happy medium.


As for your house rule, I suspect it lacks balance. The game is designed to expect players to use buffs to help themselves out. You'll be nerfing the players, but not the monsters they are facing.

1) Players can still buff themselves, there's just a limit to it. Granted, the limit might be painful at low levels...so perhaps it should be HD + CON mod.

2) Assuming that they never face enemies who use magical items and buffs. This variant would nerf certain monsters significantly; e.g Dragons and Liches.

3) I don't think the game was designed to expect players to creatively combine material from the pile of official 3.5 splatbooks out there. I don't want to discourage creative use of material that players spent their money on...but I do want to restrict it so that it isn't so overwhelming.


I would think that banning Craft Contingent Spell might nuke the majority of potential abuse. Sure, you can have a lot of permanency running but (1) permanency only works on certain, specific, spells not just anything and (2) permanency comes with a hefty XP cost compared to Craft Contingent effect. (It hurts a whole lot more if your permanency effects get hosed by a targeted dispel magic than if your Craft Contingent ones do.)

I probably should have mentioned this but I'm a fan of doing away with experience altogether and going with a material cost for things like permanency. Fair point though, it would be less hurtful to have permanent spells reactive after 1d4 rounds like magical items.


You can only have one actual contingency spell on yourself at a given time. So these by themselves aren't *that* abusive.

It depends on how you use them...but in general I'd agree.


If you are following even roughly the weath-by-level guidelines, you automatically have a limit on the number/potency of magical items a given PC should have. (And no-slot items are more expensive, and in any case if they are custom items have to be approved by the DM before they can even exist.)

Wealth-By-Level is a bit confounded by the introduction of things like the Artificer and Item Creation augmentation feats (e.g -25% crafting exp cost). My experience is that Crafter Characters deck themselves out with the fruits of their labors while still claiming their share of the group's loot. Non-crafter characters are limited to claiming their share of the group's loot. Sure, I can balance it out with 'gifts' or custom rare items but that doesn't solve the problem that WBL is higher than it should be and it's not fair to crafters who took initiative in regards to items. A hard supernatural effect limit would buffer players a bit from WBL and force them to take a bit more forethought in which items and buffs to use for that day.


As for other buffs, well, you have to actually spend the time to buff up. Just don't constantly allow your party to have only one fight a day every day and always know it in advance so they can spend 12 rounds prebuffing until ZOMG POWER OVER 9000.

That's hard to do consistently without railroading when you have players who know how to use divination properly. Not to mention things like teleport, rope trick, time stop, etc. I have no problem blocking or misleading divination occasionally, especially in the occasion of BBEGs, but in general I don't think it's fair to negate good strategy just because its inconvenient for me.

[holywhippet]

3) I don't think the game was designed to expect players to creatively combine material from the pile of official 3.5 splatbooks out there. I don't want to discourage creative use of material that players spent their money on...but I do want to restrict it so that it isn't so overwhelming.


Even at low levesl you could expect several effects to be in place at the same time. A bard song would effect the whole party while the spellcasters might have cast some kind of AC boosting spell active.

[jmbrown]

I always imagined magical enhancement would hurt. A lot.

Magic or not, it can't be comfortable to feel your muscles and skin stretch while your bones struggle to support the extra weight in the case of bull's strength. We assume everyone and their grandmother knows how to work haste but frankly if I started moving at twice the speed I'd freak out and trip over my own two feet. People can apparently operate 100% perfectly under an invisibility spell despite the fact that you can't even see yourself! I mean, anyone can predict where they're walking without looking or reaching into their pockets, but how the hell does an invisible person know the exact length from the pommel of their sword to the hilt?

Buff spells should imply be a fortitude save or something kind of like the system shock in earlier editions where being wrenched from the dead may straight up kill you due to the shock on your body. Failure means you don't benefit from the spell because your body simply can't handle it.

[Kaihaku]

Even at low levesl you could expect several effects to be in place at the same time. A bard song would effect the whole party while the spellcasters might have cast some kind of AC boosting spell active.

So you would recommend a non-scaling limit? Like 12 supernatural effects + CON modifier? I say 12 because there are 12 set magical item slots.


Magic or not, it can't be comfortable to feel your muscles and skin stretch while your bones struggle to support the extra weight in the case of bull's strength. We assume everyone and their grandmother knows how to work haste but frankly if I started moving at twice the speed I'd freak out and trip over my own two feet. People can apparently operate 100% perfectly under an invisibility spell despite the fact that you can't even see yourself! I mean, anyone can predict where they're walking without looking or reaching into their pockets, but how the hell does an invisible person know the exact length from the pommel of their sword to the hilt?

I like the way you think. :smallsmile:


Buff spells should imply be a fortitude save or something kind of like the system shock in earlier editions where being wrenched from the dead may straight up kill you due to the shock on your body. Failure means you don't benefit from the spell because your body simply can't handle it.

Nods. I agree...and as a player I would enjoy that increased degree of verisimilitude. But as a DM and knowing my group as I do, I wouldn't go quite that far.

[bosssmiley]

@Kaihaku: You should read The Book of Gears homebrew (link to the Tome Collection pdf (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?yjddm5zu5mx)). There's a section in it on the limits of magical effects that is designed to curb exactly the kind of gonzo effects-stacking cheese you seem to be opposing.

The authors suggest a maximum of 8 permanent/use-activated effects (items, contingencies, etc.) at any one time. More than that just won't activate. These are not item slot-dependent. So you can wear eight magic rings if that's your bag. You just can't use any other meaningful item until you divest yourself of one of them.

I took this rule and ran with it, further limiting active effects = HD/lvl (max 8). So even if a new 1st level character inherits a bundle of prime magical swag from his predecessor he simply lacks the personal power / strength of character to use it all. Hey, experience has to mean something...

[Sinfire Titan]

Even at low levesl you could expect several effects to be in place at the same time. A bard song would affect the whole party while the spellcasters might have cast some kind of AC boosting spell active.

AFFECT! Effect is like the extra Fire damage dealt by a crit from a +1 Flaming Burst weapon. Affect means that you are being affected by an effect.

Tzeentch's sake, why can't people get that right? Even people fluent in English mess that up.

[Epinephrine]

AFFECT! Effect is like the extra Fire damage dealt by a crit from a +1 Flaming Burst weapon. Affect means that you are being affected by an effect.

Tzeentch's sake, why can't people get that right? Even people fluent in English mess that up.

Edit - misread your statement. You were correcting his, I thought you had quoted him using affect, and were suggesting that effect was correct. Mea culpa.

To clarify -
A spell has an effect.(1)
It can affect people.(2)
I affected(3) an appreciation of his pedantry, but I was secretly bored.
One can, through a spell, effect(4) changes in the world.
My Wave of Grief's effect(1) affected(2) your character's affect(5).
The shatter spell's effect(1) affected(2) his personal effects(6).

The sudden appearance of his dead wife's effects(6) effected(4) a sudden change in his affect(5)! Or, one could say that they affected(2) his emotions. Or, maybe he was just affecting(3) grief.

No, can't see why any of that would be confusing...:smallwink:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affect
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect

(1) Something that inevitably follows - as the fireball inevitably follows the fireball spell (noun)
(2) To produce an effect on. (verb)
(3) To put on a pretense, to feign (verb)
(4) To cause, to bring about (verb)
(5) The observable aspect of subjective emotion (noun)
(6) Possessions (noun)

[PinkysBrain]

I'm considering the following houserule...

A character may have no more ongoing supernatural effects active on their person than their HD at one time.
I think that's still way too many actually. Being able to have more than a couple of spell buffs makes the difference between pre-buffing and not pre-buffing just too immense.

I wouldn't mess with the straight item bonuses though, the game is pretty much balanced around them.

[Eldariel]

Edit - misread your statement. You were correcting his, I thought you had quoted him using affect, and were suggesting that effect was correct. Mea culpa.

To clarify -
A spell has an effect.(1)
It can affect people.(2)
I affected(3) an appreciation of his pedantry, but I was secretly bored.
One can, through a spell, effect(4) changes in the world.
My Wave of Grief's effect(1) affected(2) your character's affect(5).
The shatter spell's effect(1) affected(2) his personal effects(6).

The sudden appearance of his dead wife's effects(6) effected(4) a sudden change in his affect(5)! Or, one could say that they affected(2) his emotions. Or, maybe he was just affecting(3) grief.

No, can't see why any of that would be confusing...:smallwink:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affect
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect

(1) Something that inevitably follows - as the fireball inevitably follows the fireball spell (noun)
(2) To produce an effect on. (verb)
(3) To put on a pretense, to feign (verb)
(4) To cause, to bring about (verb)
(5) The observable aspect of subjective emotion (noun)
(6) Possessions (noun)

To simplify, for this context:
"affect" is a verb
"an effect" is a noun

So you affect something, but something has an effect on something. That's how I keep them straight for myself.

[Epinephrine]

To simplify, for this context:
"affect" is a verb
"an effect" is a noun

So you affect something, but something has an effect on something. That's how I keep them straight for myself.

Much more concise :smalltongue:

[Myrmex]

The real problem, imo, is persistent spell + metamagic reducers, which turns rounds/level into 24 hours, and polymorph effects circumventing low ability scores and stacking with every bonus.

Personally, I've never had much of a problem with lots of buffs up without persistent spell in effect. It kind of makes me wonder if your players are stacking things that don't stack.


I always imagined magical enhancement would hurt. A lot.

Magic or not, it can't be comfortable to feel your muscles and skin stretch while your bones struggle to support the extra weight in the case of bull's strength. We assume everyone and their grandmother knows how to work haste but frankly if I started moving at twice the speed I'd freak out and trip over my own two feet. People can apparently operate 100% perfectly under an invisibility spell despite the fact that you can't even see yourself! I mean, anyone can predict where they're walking without looking or reaching into their pockets, but how the hell does an invisible person know the exact length from the pommel of their sword to the hilt?

Buff spells should imply be a fortitude save or something kind of like the system shock in earlier editions where being wrenched from the dead may straight up kill you due to the shock on your body. Failure means you don't benefit from the spell because your body simply can't handle it.

It's uh... it's magic.

[erikun]

This will painfully nerf spellcasters at low levels. The party wizard can't cast Shield, as the cleric's Bless and the bard's Inspire Courage would cause it to disappear. (And as both affect "all allies" in an area, the wizard would basically need to be outside of combat to be unaffected.) Heck, the best use of a spellcaster's magic is to buff his allies, as that gives one of the strongest effect/round output.

Conversely, you aren't going to pile 20 different enchantments onto a character. Heck, with this method, you could just stick a bunch of random high-level buffs onto your BBEG Lich to have him immune to turning. (Assuming the turning is coming from someone lower level than the buffs, the turning's "magical effect" is supressed when you try to apply it.)

Also not clear is the difference between a "buff" and an enchantment on an item. Is a +5 sword a buff, even though it "buffs" the sword and not the character? Is a portable hole a buff? Is wishing for permanent enchanced strength a buff? What about getting permanent darkvision? For that matter, are characters with racial magical abilities under the effects of a buff or not?

[Kaihaku]

Personally, I've never had much of a problem with lots of buffs up without persistent spell in effect. It kind of makes me wonder if your players are stacking things that don't stack.

Stacking isn't quite the restriction it was meant to be / use to be with the hordes of spells/abilities out there. So, no. They're just creative and know the material too well by this point.


This will painfully nerf spellcasters at low levels. The party wizard can't cast Shield, as the cleric's Bless and the bard's Inspire Courage would cause it to disappear. (And as both affect "all allies" in an area, the wizard would basically need to be outside of combat to be unaffected.) Heck, the best use of a spellcaster's magic is to buff his allies, as that gives one of the strongest effect/round output.

Later in the thread it was recommended switching to a set number for that very reason. 8 + CON and 12 + CON were raised as possible alternatives to HD + CON.


Conversely, you aren't going to pile 20 different enchantments onto a character.

I've seen it done, not uncommonly even.


Heck, with this method, you could just stick a bunch of random high-level buffs onto your BBEG Lich to have him immune to turning. (Assuming the turning is coming from someone lower level than the buffs, the turning's "magical effect" is supressed when you try to apply it.)

If the Cleric could actually manage to turn a BBEG Lich as is than I think his effective turning level (Cleric Level + X + what not) would be high enough to beat the spell/caster level of the Lich regardless.


Also not clear is the difference between a "buff" and an enchantment on an item.

I know, I said that myself in the OP. It's an area I'm not quite sure how to handle. I suppose I could just go back to my old magical radiation idea but that introduces other problems.


Is a +5 sword a buff, even though it "buffs" the sword and not the character?

Sounds a lot like the question I raised in the OP.


Is a portable hole a buff?


Effects with a duration of instantaneous or items that have no direct effect on a character do not count towards this limit.

I would consider a portable hole as having a direct effect on what its placed on not on the character who places it.


Is wishing for permanent enchanced strength a buff? What about getting permanent darkvision?

Inherent bonuses, no. Natural Darkvision, no. Darkvision from a permanent ongoing spell effect, yes. That does leaves a small gap for Darkvision granted by Class, I'll have to revise to cover that.


For that matter, are characters with racial magical abilities under the effects of a buff or not?


A character may have no more ongoing supernatural effects active on their person than their HD at one time. Racial abilities are the sole exception to this rule. If the character has more ongoing supernatural effects on them than their HD the lower potency effects (ie: the lower spell level/power level/caster level/manifester level/etc) are treated as if successfully dispelled. Magical/Psionic items remain suppressed until 1d4 rounds after the higher potency effect is removed.

I'll probably add in something about Class supernatural abilities as soon as I figure out exactly what I want to add.

[erikun]

Later in the thread it was recommended switching to a set number for that very reason. 8 + CON and 12 + CON were raised as possible alternatives to HD + CON.
8 + CON (or something similar) sounds good, as it nerfs excessive stacking at higher levels (which seems to be the point) while allowing lower-level casters to still rely on their spells. It also makes CON an important stat, as it determines how many buffs can be applied... although that may just make Amulets of Constitution more valuable.


If the Cleric could actually manage to turn a BBEG Lich as is than I think his effective turning level (Cleric Level + X + what not) would be high enough to beat the spell/caster level of the Lich regardless.
True, but it also means a Cleric can't turn 1HD skeletons that have a buff from the (slightly higher caster level) BBEG. Of course, this is fixed a bit with the 8+CON variation.

Speaking of which: what about undead/constructs without a CON score? Is it 8+CHA?

Back to the point, what I meant is that any smart, high-level adversary will know of this universal rule and put it to use for them. A demon or high-level wizard will simply toss on several low-spell-level buffs (which still have a higher caster level than the party) and then become immune to Holy Word, Power Word: Stun and so on.

[Kylarra]

Back to the point, what I meant is that any smart, high-level adversary will know of this universal rule and put it to use for them. A demon or high-level wizard will simply toss on several low-spell-level buffs (which still have a higher caster level than the party) and then become immune to Holy Word, Power Word: Stun and so on.

Wouldn't that be easily overcome by simply adding the word "beneficial" to the limitations. Of course that does give some weird conflicts with things like enlarge person, but overall, it does prevent the "buffs to prevent debuffs" thing from happening.

[Sinfire Titan]

Question: How does this house rule interact with Incarnum? Soulmelds are effectively magic items, and a meldshaper can potentially shape up to 14 or so of them.

Question 2: How does this house rule intend to fix classes that are heavily item-dependent, such as any non-caster or the Artificer (a can of worms, no doubt, but a legitimate query).

[Kaihaku]

It also makes CON an important stat, as it determines how many buffs can be applied... although that may just make Amulets of Constitution more valuable.

Probably both.


Speaking of which: what about undead/constructs without a CON score? Is it 8+CHA?

That's another area where I'm undecided since, technically, undead and constructs are animated by magic (though that would be covered by racial exceptions). 8+CHA would probably strike the best balance and is probably what I'll go with but I feel a bit of a temptation to make creatures without Constitution scores exceptions to the rule.


Back to the point, what I meant is that any smart, high-level adversary will know of this universal rule and put it to use for them. A demon or high-level wizard will simply toss on several low-spell-level buffs (which still have a higher caster level than the party) and then become immune to Holy Word, Power Word: Stun and so on.

I agree, a smart high-level adversary (as well as smart players) would use this universal rule to their advantage but I think it balances out because while that smart high-level adversary would have extra protection from ongoing supernatural effects they would also have a hard limit on the number of buffs they could put on themselves. No more fighting a BBEG who has 20+ effects up (from spells, magical items, craft contingent spell, contingency, permanency, etc)....unless that BBEG has a very impressive CON score...maybe a Dragon could pull it off.

EDIT:

Question: How does this house rule interact with Incarnum? Soulmelds are effectively magic items, and a meldshaper can potentially shape up to 14 or so of them.

Any particular reason they shouldn't be treated identically to magical items?


Question 2: How does this house rule intend to fix classes that are heavily item-dependent, such as any non-caster or the Artificer (a can of worms, no doubt, but a legitimate query).

A legitimate query.

At first I thought that the Artificer was the class hit the hardest from this but I'm beginning to think otherwise. In response to this Artificers would turn more of their crafting energies towards items that do not have a direct effect on them or that have a duration of instantaneous. More alchemy, bags of holding, offensive wands, etc. The rule would weaken them a bit and force them to choose Infusions more carefully.

Overall non-casters would lose some versatility and would focus more of their resources on a few high powered items (which they often seemed inclined to do regardless) or on items that are not subject to the limit. I would hope also that they would rely less on spellcasters for buffing.

I think the ruling would be a boon to most non-casters in that enemy casters won't be able to play the flying invisible stone skinned improved blinked bear's endurance energy protection from arrows resistance polymorphed + contingency(dimension door) + magical items card against them nearly as easily.

Which is to say... I think it would lessen the ability of casters to buff themselves into any role.

Also... I'm leaning towards this rule not applying to Weapons, Shields, and Armor (even if they provide energy resistance, death ward, or fortification, that can be refluffed as the armor dampens flame around it, buffers out negative energy, or the armor protects critical areas extremely well). For something like Vicious I think I'd rule that sapping life force is instantaneous.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't like the basic idea. If you think characters have too much stuff, send thieves after all that valuable gear. D&D rules with body slots already have a bookkeeping limit, and you're proposing another bookkeeping system on top of that. Bleah!

[Kaihaku]

I don't like the basic idea. If you think characters have too much stuff, send thieves after all that valuable gear. D&D rules with body slots already have a bookkeeping limit, and you're proposing another bookkeeping system on top of that. Bleah!

True enough, it would add a good deal of book keeping, though in some cases it would limit book keeping in that players wouldn't be keeping track of over 20 spell effects at once, just 8 + CON (course, that's their choice and I'm not thinking of this houserule to make that part of their life easier).