PDA

View Full Version : Lets see if with can fix everything wrong in 3.5 with a few short steps



taltamir
2009-10-08, 07:03 PM
This is meant as a communal work in progress, the idea is to get feedback on whether something works, and if it is convoluted or not... if something is missing / not a good idea, please point it out and changes will be made. This isn't me declaring "this is how we fix it"... this is me coming up with some fixes and asking for fixes to problems I didn't think about, and alternative better solutions to those I have.

Suck != Weak
Awesome != Powerful

Priority design goals:
1. How many spell points should wizards / sorcerers gain per level? a simple conversion of current spells allows them too many level 9 spells as soon as they reach level 17.
2. Which martial combat feats (like improved trip and disarm) should be rolled in together into one single basic combat feat?
3. Some more powerful feats for martial characters of the following type:
EX: mind defenses: you have learned a single magical ritual you perform daily, it does not grant you any spells, but allows you to harden your mind against enchantments, giving you a +10 on saves to resist all mind affecting spells. (or maybe more powerful than that? what do you think?)


The idea is to have fun.. this means everyone must be useful, combat should be done as a team with everyone contributing. And nobody should "sit out this encounter" because they are unable to do anything.

The martial / magic balance in RAW: currently the martial magic balance seems to have two foci.
1. Magic users run out of spells, martial fighters do not run out of sword swings.
2. At very low levels magic users are useless, at med-high levels martial characters are useless.

Both of those are terrible "balancing" mechanisms. A few minor changes can go a great way towards fixing that...

Martial changes:
1. All weapon enchantments do 5x the damage
So a +2 sword gives +2 to hit, and +10 damage. A +1d6 extra elemental damage enchantment adds +5d6. This includes spells such as magic weapon (+1 enhancement for X rounds)

2. For every creature that can only be harmed by specific spells, make more effective temporary buff spells... EX: Shatter for demilichs... make a "shattering weapon" spell... Shattering weapon delivers a shatter spell with each strike, the spell ends after 1 strike / CL or 1 round / CL; whichever happens first. that way players work together instead of outshining each other. The fighters most often do the killing, but their weapons are useless (against the immunity type creatures) without the mages.

3. Feat rollup: certain basic feats like improved trip and disarm are rolled up into one feat that gives multiple basic needed "fighter feats"... suggestions are needed as to which packages to make.

This will allow martial characters to remain effective at higher levels.

Now to help casters on lower levels...
low level magics suck already... combined with very few castings it is frustrating, the solution is two fold:
1. Spontanous casters can cast the cantrips they know at will. Prepared casters can cast all prepared cantrips at will... damage cantrips do 1d6 damage instead of 1d3.
2. Casting a spell 8 levels below the max you can cast does not use it up. You are still limited on how many different spells you can prepare, but those you prepared at at will.
EX: a CL19 character has max spell level of 10. Thus level 1 and 2 spells are castable at will.
3. Sorcerers have same CL progression as wizards.
4. Do away with annoying vanacian system... casters have a max spell level castable which is always (CL + 1) / 2.
Spell points TBA, simple conversion gives them way too many highest level spells. suggestions as to how much is a good enough amount?
So a CL 19 wiz/sorc has a max spell level of 10, and can chose any mix of spells s/he desires.
Level 0 spells take 1/2 a point (so you essentially get them in pairs)
5. there is no such thing as shapechange of any sort shape or kind... you can have an illusion of another appearance, but it is pass through.
6. Disjunction has a target of "1 magic item or 1 spell of your choice". You must win an opposed caster check against the cumulative level of the enchantments on the item to destroy it.


Enemies and CR: Naturally the CR of monsters has to be adjusted down... enemies can just have PC levels though, so things match up.


Epic spells:
1. no such thing as an epic spell or seed
2. You keep on gaining spell points and max spell level as usual.
3. you gain more metamagic feats more often during epic levels, to use with those slots. (that is, for appropriate classes, like wizards and sorcerers)
4. DMs can craft the occasional truly epic spell, it takes a level 10+ slot (some can be level 10, some level 20, etc)... in fact, we can start a whole thread just to craft such epic spells... Ideally we could compile a nice balanced set of spells people could just choose from.
5. martial characters were always using magic, they were just using specialized magic to empower their attacks and protect their body instead of casting spells. Now they are more overt about it and can do appropriately amazing things (still only in regards to personal enhancement, not spell casting). So they can have feats that give large DR, SR, energy resistance, fast healing, immunities, extra damage, etc. Again, make a thread for truly "epic" martial feats.


Later on I will try to balance the horror that is the skill system. (the magic / martial classes balance before ignored the third type, the skill monkey, which is weak on both accounts but can contribute "out of combat".. except most spells do those out of combat things better).

Milskidasith
2009-10-08, 07:05 PM
This doesn't fix anything. Higher damage and higher numbers doesn't fix the fact that spellcasters can still shut down melee classes at will. The problems are with what spells do, not with whether or not wizards run out, and fighters can't ever touch anything to do damage so it doesn't matter.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 07:08 PM
it is a work in progress...

And as for shutting down, thanks for reminding me, as I forgot to put the info about this in...

Mercenary Pen
2009-10-08, 07:10 PM
Something else worthwhile might be placing a cap on free actions per round, on the grounds that some of the most broken TO builds rely heavily on an infinite number (or at least near-infinite number) of free actions, whether it be creating Pun-Pun, dropping spontaneously generated quarterstaffs from a great height or producing infinite numbers of chickens from nowhere in particular.

Kroy
2009-10-08, 07:11 PM
The martial / magic balance in RAW: currently the martial magic balance seems to have two foci.
1. Magic users run out of spells, martial fighters do not run out of sword swings.
2. At low levels, magic users are useless, at high levels martial characters are useless.



Both of these are wrong.
1.Meatshields do run out of sword swings, it's called HP
2. At low levels (1-4) Magic = Melee. Anything higher, mages win.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 07:12 PM
Both of these are wrong.
1.Meatshields do run out of sword swings, it's called HP
2. At low levels (1-4) Magic = Melee. Anything higher, mages win.

mages have HP too... and less of it... and then you have clerics who heal and run out of heals...
Notice i suggested feats that give fighters damage reduction, magic resistance, fast healing, etc...

And casting grease ONCE per day and then sitting out not just the rest of the encounter, but the rest of the DAY means low level mages ARE useless... they are equal for a short time, then martial become useless as i mentioned.

chiasaur11
2009-10-08, 07:12 PM
Everything?

I figure even the best balanced system on the planet would have some hard to fix problems, and this is 3.5.

Which means if you want few steps, step one would be "get new system."

Mind, it might be possible to fix some of the big problems in few steps, but the whole thing?

Eldariel
2009-10-08, 07:17 PM
Low-level casters patently don't suck. That attitude is a carry-over from AD&D, where they didn't have enough spell slots. With Wizard specialization (and out of Core, focused specialists), Sorcerer daily selection & Cleric+Druid physical prowess combined with bonus spells (as many as 2 on level 1 with racial bonus to casting stat, or age categories, and 1 almost always), you can have enough slots for 4 encounters and one spell is perfectly capable of ending entire encounters (specialization + 2 from stats for Wizard, and uhh...1 from stats for Sorcerer).

Color Spray, Sleep, Grease, Ray of Enfeeblement, Enlarge Person, 1st level spells have incredible power (Druids and Clerics have shorter lists, but there's still Cause Fear, Command, Entangle, Produce Fire, etc.). Add to that that low-level attacks are mostly just stat checks and you've got casters with high Dex or Str as perfectly able martial combatants.


The only problem with low-level casters is that they're squishy. Especially on level 1, magical defenses consume too much of their resources and physical defenses are awkward for Wizard & Sorcerers really forcing them to sneak and avoid detection, or have mount for cover or do the stupid Walking Tower Shield Act (which definitely falls under the "ridiculous things that are efficient by the rules, btw).

This leads to Wizards & Sorcerers having low AC and HP, making the game extra fatal for them (though Conjurers with Abrupt Jaunt can avoid this). Still, the fact that they can knock out as many as 4 opponents with a single spell means they've got their place; that and Enlarge Person is very key for some melee controllers to truly do their thing. Low-level D&D is quite balanced (though it's mostly balanced by all characters being so bad defensively that a single attack of the appropriate type can knock 'em out). If you really want to help casters on these levels though, just give 'em Cantrips at will. There, something magical to do always, but not terribly efficient. It mostly just makes sense (tho you have to replace Cure Minor Wounds and Inflict Minor Wounds unless you want for healing to become trivial; replace Cure Minor Wounds with autostabilize spell instead).

taltamir
2009-10-08, 07:21 PM
Low-level casters patently don't suck. That attitude is a carry-over from AD&D, where they didn't have enough spell slots. With Wizard specialization (and out of Core, focused specialists), Sorcerer daily selection & Cleric+Druid physical prowess combined with bonus spells (as many as 2 on level 1 with racial bonus to casting stat, or age categories, and 1 almost always), you can have enough slots for 4 encounters and one spell is perfectly capable of ending entire encounters.

Color Spray, Sleep, Grease, Ray of Enfeeblement, Enlarge Person, 1st level spells have incredible power (Druids and Clerics have shorter lists, but there's still Cause Fear, Command, Entangle, Produce Fire, etc.). Add to that that low-level attacks are mostly just stat checks and you've got casters with high Dex or Str as perfectly able martial combatants.


The only problem with low-level casters is that they're squishy. Especially on level 1, magical defenses consume too much of their resources and physical defenses are awkward for Wizard & Sorcerers really forcing them to sneak and avoid detection, or have mount for cover or do the stupid Walking Tower Shield Act (which definitely falls under the "ridiculous things that are efficient by the rules, btw).

This leads to Wizards & Sorcerers having low AC and HP, making the game extra fatal for them (though Conjurers with Abrupt Jaunt can avoid this). Still, the fact that they can knock out as many as 4 opponents with a single spell means they've got their place; that and Enlarge Person is very key for some melee controllers to truly do their thing. Low-level D&D is quite balanced (though it's mostly balanced by all characters being so bad defensively that a single attack of the appropriate type can knock 'em out). If you really want to help casters on these levels though, just give 'em Cantrips at will. There, something magical to do always, but not terribly efficient. It mostly just makes sense (tho you have to replace Cure Minor Wounds and Inflict Minor Wounds unless you want for healing to become trivial; replace Cure Minor Wounds with autostabilize spell instead).

I did give them cantrips at will; and that is about the only change I made that matters to low level characters. Most of my balance changes are at higher levels.
and I pointed out myself that grease is nice; there is also web, glitter dust, and a few others... but casting it once then sitting out the rest of the "day" sucks; you don't even kill the enemy, you just distract / cripple them for a few rounds for the front liners to finish off...
They may not be UNDERPOWERED in terms of mechanical power, but in terms of gameplay... the player basically spends the vast majority of his low level just skipping turns because he is out of magic.

And yes, you can get a focused specialist or a sorcerer and have a halfway decent amount of spells per day... that certainly goes a long way towards making low level's bearable.

Eldariel
2009-10-08, 07:24 PM
I did give them cantrips at will... and I pointed out myself that grease is nice... but casting it once then sitting out the rest of the "day" sucks... maybe not in terms of mechanical power, but in terms of gameplay... the player basically spends the vast majority of his low level just skipping turns because he is out of magic.

And yes, you can get a focused specialist or a sorcerer and have a halfway decent amount of spells per day... that certainly goes a long way towards making low level's bearable.

There's no excuse to have less than 3 1st level slots as a Wizard, and it's fairly easy to have 4. Non-Elven Generalists suck on level 1, but that's about it. I definitely wouldn't call it a mechanical problem.

Sure, you only have one level 1 spell to expend per encounter, but that's enough. Level 1 spells pack a punch against low HD opponents. And yeah, just the fact that firing with a Light Crossbow with your 14-16 base Dex is perfectly sufficient contribution on level 1 means it's really hard even for non-Elven Generalists to truly become completely useless.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-08, 07:27 PM
I don't think it fixes everything....but I think cantrips at will are great for low level casters, and killing off epic, at least in it's current form, is a necessary part of any balancing that needs to be done.

It fixes casters at low levels, and fixes the obvious breakage of magic in epic(Incidentally, Ive advocated that exact same fix in the past...and I doubt Im alone. It's a popular solution). The only real problem remaining is dealing with the existing melee/magic disparity at med-high levels.

I'd start by changing disjunction to a targetted effect. Casters cry when they lose their magic weapons, sure, but melee ends up just as badly nerfed. However, casters can cast this, melee users cannot. And frankly, nobody is gonna miss the spell in it's current form anyhow, nerfing it's a good thing for reasons other than the slight amount of added balance.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 07:27 PM
level 1 spells pack a distraction... they can cripple an enemy against your own fighters... but thats it, you aren't taking out ANYTHING by yourself, you are a team player...
Which is nice and good and how it should be... its the whole "and then you spend the rest of the day on your ass part" that sucks... Eldariel, you assume that when I say "suck" i mean "weak"... give me more credit please.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-08, 07:28 PM
level 1 spells pack a distraction... they can cripple an enemy against your own fighters... but thats it, you aren't taking out ANYTHING by yourself, you are a team player...
Sleep.........

taltamir
2009-10-08, 07:31 PM
sleep is a cool spell... but:
1. they can make their save and kill you
2. in a mixed group, some will make their saves, some will not, to go and coup de grace the unconscious ones you get AoO and die (so its still your fighters who finish them off).

You are crippling the enemy as i said, but your fighters still need to get to them in X rounds to finish the job.


Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not. Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the aid another action).
So yes, you sleep an enemy, and his friends wake him up.. UNLESS you have your fighters in close to finish the job.

SilveryCord
2009-10-08, 07:32 PM
The martial / magic balance in RAW: currently the martial magic balance seems to have two foci.
1. Magic users run out of spells, martial fighters do not run out of sword swings.
2. At low levels, magic users are useless, at high levels martial characters are useless.

Both of those are terrible "balancing" mechanisms. A few minor changes can go a great way towards fixing that...

Martial changes:
1. All weapon enchantments do 5x the damage.

Volume of damage is not the problem at all. The real problem with D&D balance is that encounters are often only solvable through magic. Sure, you can grab a magic item to fly to take down that flying enemy, but it only sets you that much further behind the full-caster who can just Fly already.


2. For every creature that can only be harmed by specific spells, make more effective temporary weapon enchantment spells... EX: Shatter for demilichs... make a "shattering weapon" enchantment... Shattering weapon delivers a shatter spell with each strike, the spell ends after 1 strike / CL or 1 round / CL; whichever happens first. that way players work together instead of outshining each other. The fighters most often do the killing, but their weapons are useless (against the immunity type creatures) without the mages.

Again, magic items don't really solve the problem, because fighters just end up spending their WBL trying to play catch up while wizards are free to buy whatever they want.



Now to help casters on lower levels...
low level magics suck already... combined with very few castings it is frustrating, the solution is two fold:

Eh. Much low level magic remains usable throughout campaigns. Grease, Summon Monster 1, Ray of Enfeeblement, Color Spray, and Disguise Self are all enough to power casters through the early levels. Specialist wizards don't have a lack of spell slots.


1. Spontanous casters can cast the cantrips they know at will. Prepared casters can cast all prepared cantrips at will... damage cantrips do 1d6 damage instead of 1d3.

Not really necessary, IMO.


2. Casting a spell some levels below your max level has a chance of not consuming it. The chances are 20% per level it is below your max... that means a 1st level spell is never expended when cast by a wizard of CL 11 or higher.
Oh...... my. are you sure about this one?


3. Sorcerers have same CL progression as wizards.

I agree, wizards should have a slower caster level progression ;)


4. Do away with annoying vanacian system... casters have a max spell level castable which is always (CL + 1) / 2. And spell points equal to the sum of the number of spells per level x level of spell.
So a CL 19 wiz/sorc has a max spell level of 10, and can chose any mix of spells s/he desires.

Um, this is a bad idea because it lets higher level casters cast... insane numbers of level 9 spells.


5. there is no such thing as shapechange of any sort shape or kind... you can have an illusion of another appearance, but it is pass through.

Could just use a variant instead of eliminating polymorphing completely.


idk. My solutions, take 'em or leave 'em:
1. Spellcasting, for all full spellcasters, is based on all three mental stats. Intelligence for highest level spell knowable, Wisdom for bonus spells (and probably retooling the base spell slots at each level to be lower so wisdom is as important as intelligence), and Charisma for spell DC. There might be a "Scholarly Might Metamagic" feat that would let you prepare a spell at a higher level to use Intelligence for the DC, etc.
2. Retool overly redundant 'required' fighter feats like Improved Trip or Disarm. Either by combining them into single feats like "Military Training I, II, III" etc, or by giving the fighter twice as many bonus feats. Seriously, there are way too many required feats to build competent martial builds, and some of them just downright suck. Also, tome of battle tome of battle tome of battle.
3. Double the number of skill points for each character at each level.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 07:32 PM
I don't think it fixes everything....but I think cantrips at will are great for low level casters, and killing off epic, at least in it's current form, is a necessary part of any balancing that needs to be done.

It fixes casters at low levels, and fixes the obvious breakage of magic in epic(Incidentally, Ive advocated that exact same fix in the past...and I doubt Im alone. It's a popular solution). The only real problem remaining is dealing with the existing melee/magic disparity at med-high levels.

I'd start by changing disjunction to a targetted effect. Casters cry when they lose their magic weapons, sure, but melee ends up just as badly nerfed. However, casters can cast this, melee users cannot. And frankly, nobody is gonna miss the spell in it's current form anyhow, nerfing it's a good thing for reasons other than the slight amount of added balance.

yap, and I'd love more advice on how to fix the other problems...

I really like the disjunction idea... make it a targetted spell that can only affect one item / spell effect per casting. And make it easier to resist.

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-08, 07:33 PM
[B]
2. Casting a spell some levels below your max level has a chance of not consuming it. The chances are 20% per level it is below your max... that means a 1st level spell is never expended when cast by a wizard of CL 11 or higher.
3. Sorcerers have same CL progression as wizards.
4. Do away with annoying vanacian system... casters have a max spell level castable which is always (CL + 1) / 2. And spell points equal to the sum of the number of spells per level x level of spell.
So a CL 19 wiz/sorc has a max spell level of 10, and can chose any mix of spells s/he desires.

These seem like bad ideas to me. Basically, spellcasters can cast their highest level spells far more often, and lower level spells at will. Also, they gain a good deal of spontaneity. Overall, this benefits them far more than your other fixes benefit martial characters.

Eldariel
2009-10-08, 07:34 PM
level 1 spells pack a distraction... they can cripple an enemy against your own fighters... but thats it, you aren't taking out ANYTHING by yourself, you are a team player...
Which is nice and good and how it should be... its the whole "and then you spend the rest of the day on your ass part" that sucks... Eldariel, you assume that when I say "suck" i mean "weak"... give me more credit please.

I'm just not getting your problem here; are you saying that the problem is not being able to demolish a bunch of opponents multiple times per encounter? After you spray/sleep/grease/enlarge/whatever a bunch of opponents, there isn't much "sitting on your ass" to do; the fight probably won't last much longer (or is tough enough to warrant a second spell). And you can be shooting your crossbow nailing those Goblins/Kobolds/Orcs/whatever just fine when not casting spells. It's just that when you do cast a spell, you have the potential to just change the entire fight.

And everyone is a teamplayer; if you really wanted to do all the killing, maybe you shouldn't have played a Wizard as that's really not the part at which Wizards excel, especially on low levels (well, outside specific builds anyways). Wizards make sure enemies die with as little resource expediture and danger to the party as possible. Fighters can do most of the killing against tougher opponents.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 07:35 PM
That was the idea I was most worried about...
I figured that by the time you get it for a spell it will no longer matter... but 20% is too high... how about 10%? where a level 21 caster can cast 1st level spells at will?

Boci
2009-10-08, 07:35 PM
Ban core. Replace with ToB, ToM (using online fixs for shadowcaster and truenamer), MoI, EPH and Dungeonscape.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 07:38 PM
Ban core. Replace with ToB, ToM (using online fixs for shadowcaster and truenamer), MoI, EPH and Dungeonscape.

heh... I don't know why people always say that banning "anything but core" will make the game better.. the core is the worst offender of the lot :)

Rainbownaga
2009-10-08, 07:41 PM
I think that one step towards balance is the use of the optional 'clobbered' rule.

The problem isn't so much wizard vs. fighter, it's Status effects vs. Hp damage; 'blaster' mages suck so much at level 1 (one of my players had an elf sorcerer with magic missile, but stopped using it when she realised her bow did more damage).

With the clobbered rule, utility and SOS spells will still be superior to anything a fighter or blaster mage can do, but at least the hp-chippers will get a nice bonus when they deal half a creature's hit points in one round, particularly with the more powerful enemies.

AFB atm, but I'd expand the rule to eliminate immediate/swift actions as well if you're clobbered.

I also think it would be cool if fighters could take the Hijack feat pre-epic;

Tyndmyr
2009-10-08, 07:42 PM
yap, and I'd love more advice on how to fix the other problems...

I really like the disjunction idea... make it a targetted spell that can only affect one item / spell effect per casting. And make it easier to resist.

Hmm...perhaps resist modifiers to spells might be good. Particularly powerful ones might give bonuses to

I'd say drop the cantrip damage changes and slot usage percentage, just to keep things simple. Endless cantrips is enough to keep the low level mage from running completely dry, and won't ever be terribly exploitable later. The other ones would probably require more work/complexity to do that.

I imagine the polymorph line would need some sort of restriction. Ditto druids. I don't mind casters being powerful, so much, as I mind them invalidating other classes.

So....what are the big weaknesses of the melee classes. Magic item dependancy is one, but with a weakened disjunction, this is lessened.

Perhaps we could toss them one or two extra feats? Not just fighter bonus feats, but unrestricted feats. Might make interesting builds easier for the average player, and at a minimum, allow them to shore up weak areas.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 07:42 PM
I'm just not getting your problem here; are you saying that the problem is not being able to demolish a bunch of opponents multiple times per encounter? After you spray/sleep/grease/enlarge/whatever a bunch of opponents, there isn't much "sitting on your ass" to do; the fight probably won't last much longer (or is tough enough to warrant a second spell). And you can be shooting your crossbow nailing those Goblins/Kobolds/Orcs/whatever just fine when not casting spells. It's just that when you do cast a spell, you have the potential to just change the entire fight.

And everyone is a teamplayer; if you really wanted to do all the killing, maybe you shouldn't have played a Wizard as that's really not the part at which Wizards excel, especially on low levels (well, outside specific builds anyways). Wizards make sure enemies die with as little resource expediture and danger to the party as possible. Fighters can do most of the killing against tougher opponents.

you seem to assume that every time i describe how something works, it is because I have a problem.
you also assume that I want to make mages kill everything themselves instead of being parts of a team (explicitly what I am against).
oh, and that a crossbow is anything but a joke... or that it is somehow fun... Actually with my fix, you still do more damage with a crossbow (1d8 vs 1d6 with damage cantrip of choice at will).

Please show me a suggestion on how to make "low level wizards" overpowered compared to how they were before? with the exception of unlimited cantrips (for less damage then a crossbow), they are unmodified until higher levels... and at higher levels I focus on nerfing magic and buffing DD.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 07:44 PM
I think that one step towards balance is the use of the optional 'clobbered' rule.

The problem isn't so much wizard vs. fighter, it's Status effects vs. Hp damage; 'blaster' mages suck so much at level 1 (one of my players had an elf sorcerer with magic missile, but stopped using it when she realised her bow did more damage).

With the clobbered rule, utility and SOS spells will still be superior to anything a fighter or blaster mage can do, but at least the hp-chippers will get a nice bonus when they deal half a creature's hit points in one round, particularly with the more powerful enemies.

AFB atm, but I'd expand the rule to eliminate immediate/swift actions as well if you're clobbered.

I also think it would be cool if fighters could take the Hijack feat pre-epic;

good points, what is the globber rule?


Hmm...perhaps resist modifiers to spells might be good. Particularly powerful ones might give bonuses to
I don't quite understand what you mean, care to clarify? :)


I'd say drop the cantrip damage changes and slot usage percentage, just to keep things simple. Endless cantrips is enough to keep the low level mage from running completely dry, and won't ever be terribly exploitable later. The other ones would probably require more work/complexity to do that.
1. without the cantrip damage increase, you are looking at 1d3 damage from cantrip, or 1d8 damage from crossbow. The way I increased it, it is still less than a crossbow (1d6)... but COOLER :).
2. You are right about the percentage thing, terrible idea due to having to roll after EVERY spell you cast... I like the mechanic idea... but the implementation is bad... how about "spells that are 8 levels below your max castable can be cast at will"? I don't think at will level 2 spells at level CL19 will break the game, and it will be a lot of "cool" and none of the rolling percentages mechanics? the "not expand slots" is to prevent them from having every level 2 spell ever made, instead they must still prepare X level 2 spells, they can just cast those spells as many times as they want.

I am doing away with the percentage thing as you suggested. Instead replacing it with free cating of 8 spell levels below max.


I imagine the polymorph line would need some sort of restriction. Ditto druids. I don't mind casters being powerful, so much, as I mind them invalidating other classes
First thing I did was completely ban any type of polymorph or shapechange. :)


So....what are the big weaknesses of the melee classes. Magic item dependancy is one, but with a weakened disjunction, this is lessened.
Yes, an excellent point which I missed at first, thanks for pointing it out.. any others I am forgetting?


Perhaps we could toss them one or two extra feats? Not just fighter bonus feats, but unrestricted feats. Might make interesting builds easier for the average player, and at a minimum, allow them to shore up weak areas.

I like the idea... buff up martial feats... as to why.. well its magic.. the fighter learned how harder his mind to mind spells via magic, he can't cast spells, but he knows a specific specialized ritual that he does every morning to harden his mind... Or against fire, etc...

Rainbownaga
2009-10-08, 07:48 PM
Optional rule from DMG- If you take half your current hit points in a round, you only get one action in your next round

taltamir
2009-10-08, 08:12 PM
Sorry for delay on this one, I don't know how I missed your post...


Volume of damage is not the problem at all. The real problem with D&D balance is that encounters are often only solvable through magic. Sure, you can grab a magic item to fly to take down that flying enemy, but it only sets you that much further behind the full-caster who can just Fly already.

Well, you expect a human with a sword to kill a dragon without magic to back him up?


Again, magic items don't really solve the problem, because fighters just end up spending their WBL trying to play catch up while wizards are free to buy whatever they want.
I made a typo there, i was trying to say make a spell, not a weapon enchantment... aka, empower buffs.



Eh. Much low level magic remains usable throughout campaigns. Grease, Summon Monster 1, Ray of Enfeeblement, Color Spray, and Disguise Self are all enough to power casters through the early levels. Specialist wizards don't have a lack of spell slots.
They have some interesting utility spells...



1. Spontanous casters can cast the cantrips they know at will. Prepared casters can cast all prepared cantrips at will... damage cantrips do 1d6 damage instead of 1d3.
Not really necessary, IMO.
Not necessary in terms of mechanical balance, but in terms of fun it is... prestidigitation at will and 1d6 magic damage at will is nice. A crossbow STILL does more damage, but d8 vs d6 is a small enough difference that you can chose to use the cantrip just for the coolness.
And not having to spend your move action reloading.. so you are a bit more mobile... you don't reload and shot and do a 5 foot step, you make a move action, then shoot.
The difference is really that out of combat you have some nice prestigititations and light at will... cool, not unbalancing... in combat you have other options besides "I use move action to reload crossbow, and standard action to shoot" every single turn.



2. Casting a spell some levels below your max level has a chance of not consuming it. The chances are 20% per level it is below your max... that means a 1st level spell is never expended when cast by a wizard of CL 11 or higher.
Oh...... my. are you sure about this one?
No, it was a mistake, I revised it.



4. Do away with annoying vanacian system... casters have a max spell level castable which is always (CL + 1) / 2. And spell points equal to the sum of the number of spells per level x level of spell.
So a CL 19 wiz/sorc has a max spell level of 10, and can chose any mix of spells s/he desires.
Um, this is a bad idea because it lets higher level casters cast... insane numbers of level 9 spells.

Ok, this is a REALLY important point... Any suggestions on how to solve it without resorting to vanacian? I would think just make a lot less spell points per level available instead of my original suggestion of converting all current spell levels to spell points. What do you think?



ban polymorph
Could just use a variant instead of eliminating polymorphing completely
You could, do you have a good one in mind?


idk. My solutions, take 'em or leave 'em:
1. Spellcasting, for all full spellcasters, is based on all three mental stats. Intelligence for highest level spell knowable, Wisdom for bonus spells (and probably retooling the base spell slots at each level to be lower so wisdom is as important as intelligence), and Charisma for spell DC. There might be a "Scholarly Might Metamagic" feat that would let you prepare a spell at a higher level to use Intelligence for the DC, etc.
2. Retool overly redundant 'required' fighter feats like Improved Trip or Disarm. Either by combining them into single feats like "Military Training I, II, III" etc, or by giving the fighter twice as many bonus feats. Seriously, there are way too many required feats to build competent martial builds, and some of them just downright suck. Also, tome of battle tome of battle tome of battle.
3. Double the number of skill points for each character at each level.
1. I am a bit weary of giving all casters terrible MAD...
2. I VERY much like the idea of rolling them up; in fact I will add it to the list...
can you give me some specifics? which feats specifically do you think should be rolled into "military training I, II, III?
3. Yea, skill points are broken as hell, I have some ideas but I am not ready to take a stab at them yet...

Yahzi
2009-10-08, 08:20 PM
My solutions, take 'em or leave 'em:
Those are pretty good. To that I would add: Leadership.

Fighters are supposed to be heroes, leaders of men, even kings. They should get Leadership for free at 5th level and a body of 1st level men who serve them loyally. As they get higher level they get more and higher level men.

(Wizards don't get followers. They only get mercenaries: troops who will fight as long as they are paid well and it's not too dangerous.)

I think you can match one 5th level spells with 20 heavy cavalry or so.

Of course, this requires role-playing (as in the character is part of a world) rather than dungeon crawling, so it's never going to be that popular.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 08:23 PM
leadership is generally agreed on to be a really really bad feat. and should be banned...
If you want to be a leader you can easily be one... via roleplaying and aquiring status and power... taking a feat for a regenerating supply of expendable mooks is beyond game breaking.

Akal Saris
2009-10-08, 08:26 PM
Here's some of the PF changes to the system, though it's a matter of individual opinion whether they were positive changes or not:

Changed size rules and bonuses so that the bonueses to opposed checks were halved. Large/Small = +1, Huge/Tiny = +2, etc.

Got rid of multi-class limits with favored classes, and instead made favored classes grant +1 HP or +1 skills/level

Severely weakened all of the save-or-die spells, the polymorph line, and about half of the battlefield control spells

Replaced experience costs in spells with GP costs

Made cantrips at-will (which meant removing cure minor wounds and instead giving an auto-stabilize cantrip)

Gave specific in-class benefits at 8th level for most classes to encourage staying with a base class for longer

Made sneak attacks and criticals apply to all creatures except incorporeal undead and oozes.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 08:30 PM
I have... an interesting idea... how about allow the following:
Any spell that can be cast on a single enemy target, can be optionally cast on a weapon. It will then have its full effect (as if cast on it AND hit it if it has a ranged touch/touch attack) on any creature hit with said weapon. Up to 1 hit / 3 CL or 1 round / SL whichever comes first and both rounded up.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 08:34 PM
Here's some of the PF changes to the system, though it's a matter of individual opinion whether they were positive changes or not:

Changed size rules and bonuses so that the bonueses to opposed checks were halved. Large/Small = +1, Huge/Tiny = +2, etc.

Got rid of multi-class limits with favored classes, and instead made favored classes grant +1 HP or +1 skills/level

Severely weakened all of the save-or-die spells, the polymorph line, and about half of the battlefield control spells

Replaced experience costs in spells with GP costs

Made cantrips at-will (which meant removing cure minor wounds and instead giving an auto-stabilize cantrip)

Gave specific in-class benefits at 8th level for most classes to encourage staying with a base class for longer

Made sneak attacks and criticals apply to all creatures except incorporeal undead and oozes.

maybe I should have just used pathfinder as a base... I really like most of those...
Except I'd prefer it if there was no such thing as a favored class. Or no such thing as alignment either for that matter.

Godskook
2009-10-08, 08:43 PM
Volume of damage is not the problem at all. The real problem with D&D balance is that encounters are often only solvable through magic. Sure, you can grab a magic item to fly to take down that flying enemy, but it only sets you that much further behind the full-caster who can just Fly already.

This warrants repeating.


Suck =! Weak
Awesome =! Powerful

This warrants refuting, on two points. 1.It is '!=', not '=!'. 2.That is exactly what they equal. Awesome, by nature, requires you to invoke awe in others, which is done by having the power to do things. It is simply impossible to roleplay Conan if you can't kill things with ease. Now, if you had meant:

Awesome != All-powerful

Sure, I can see that. However, the rather confused idea that someone can play an awesome character who isn't mechanically powerful is a contradiction in terms. Its like having an awesome baseball player who can't throw a ball or swing a bat.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 08:46 PM
In my defense about the =!... I am running on very few hours of sleep :)

awesome = fun and cool
suck = boring, frustrating, etc

There are plenty of powerful things in DnD that nobody wants to be because they suck...

Mostly though, those were to point out what I mean when I use those words. So that people stop getting on my case for saying wizards suck with "OMFG WIZARDS TOTALLY MOST POWERFUL"... yes, I know, that actually makes them suck because breaking the game means you are not PLAYING the game, and thus not having FUN

Aldizog
2009-10-08, 08:48 PM
Not necessary in terms of mechanical balance, but in terms of fun it is... prestidigitation at will and 1d6 magic damage at will is nice. A crossbow STILL does more damage, but d8 vs d6 is a small enough difference that you can chose to use the cantrip just for the coolness.
And not having to spend your move action reloading.. so you are a bit more mobile... you don't reload and shot and do a 5 foot step, you make a move action, then shoot.

I like 3.5's approach on resource management. If I want a magic-user who never runs out, Warlock. If I want to play a wizard who can blast away with a minor magical blast all day long, and have the big guns now and then, Wlk1/WizX. Once you're at level 3 or above, reserve feats and wands. But if I am a 2E or BECMI veteran willing to throw daggers or sit out some rounds when the big guns aren't needed, then Wizard all the way, and no Reserve feats.

Having a very limited amount of magic at low levels is a *choice* that a player makes in choosing to play a wizard. Every single player who has had the option of Warlock and has decided to play a Wizard, or who has had the option of Reserve feats but picked Sudden Maximize, has chosen to give up unlimited low-level power in exchange for a limited amount of more powerful effects.

Now, this does lead to the problem of the 15-minute adventuring day, to which I suggest the solution is superior adventure design.

But if I had a DM who insisted on saddling my wizard with unlimited blasting ability, I'd ask if I could trade it away for something less warlocky and more wizardly, like the archivist's Dark Knowledge ability.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 08:49 PM
yes well.. the choice you suggested is sacrificing a CL for a 1 level warlock dip so you can have something cool but WEAKER than acrossbow to do in combat sucks. You really should not have to do it..

And reserve feats ARE a way to deal with the problem... except you have to be level 3 or above, they actually do MORE damage then I intended (so they are sitll useful btw), and they are quite far from core...

If you want to ban what is essentially fluff... go right ahead and don't give them unlimited cantrips. they will just have to deal with using soap and water to wash themselves, and using a crossbow in combat for their low levels.

Ernir
2009-10-08, 08:50 PM
The classes players may select are:

Bard, Beguiler, Binder, Crusader, Dread Necromancer, Druid minus spellcasting, Swordsage, Warblade.

I think that should level the playing field a bit.


If you want to keep the full breadth and depth of 3.5 and still hammer some semblance of balance onto it - without mutating it into something completely unrecognizable, I wish you good luck. :smalltongue:

taltamir
2009-10-08, 08:53 PM
The classes players may select are:

Bard, Beguiler, Binder, Crusader, Dread Necromancer, Druid minus spellcasting, Swordsage, Warblade.

I think that should level the playing field a bit.
Nice idea... definitely works for terms of balance... but deprives you of some cool things later on. I'd definitely want to play such a game on occasion, but sometimes you wanna be a cleric or a wizard while playing with someone who wants to be a meatshield that does not become obsolete...



If you want to keep the full breadth and depth of 3.5 and still hammer some semblance of balance onto it - without mutating it into something completely unrecognizable, I wish you good luck. :smalltongue:

Thanks, I am gonna NEED it :)

Aldizog
2009-10-08, 09:03 PM
yes well.. the choice of losing CL progression for a 1 level warlock dip so you can have something cool but WEAKER than acrossbow to do in combat sucks.
Doesn't matter. Full casters are *so* powerful that, if you're the party's main arcane caster, you will still be more than pulling your weight even at 1 level behind. And you'll have a Least invocation at will as a bonus. The "never, ever lose a CL" idea is only meaningful in theoretical optimization, not practical. In an actual game, you still dominate, just not quite as OMFG much.

And this only really matters during the very first adventure. After that, the wizard has a few XP to start scribing scrolls (of which he can afford a few with just his starting gold). A wizard who refuses to scribe scrolls is, again, making a decision that he *does not want* large amounts of low-level magical power, valuing other things more.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 09:05 PM
it hurts every step of the way... not having that 5th or 6th or 7th etc level spell that would have won the day because you are one level lower sucks.

And again, there is absolutely no reason for it whatsoever, it is a pure fluff bonus that you want to deny them, so go right ahead...they will grumble, grit their teeth, and use a crossbow instead.

oh, and warlocks have to sell their souls / be descendants of people who did...

Eldariel
2009-10-08, 09:15 PM
Please show me a suggestion on how to make "low level wizards" overpowered compared to how they were before? with the exception of unlimited cantrips (for less damage then a crossbow), they are unmodified until higher levels... and at higher levels I focus on nerfing magic and buffing DD.

I'm not disagreeing with your changes, I'm disagreeing with the premise that changes in this regard need to be made in the first place; one of your premises was that casters suck on low levels and my point is that that is not the case. Sure, playing a level 1 caster is different than playing a high-level one in that you cannot bone reality in the rear, but is it really "unfun"?

By the way, on first level, Crossbows honestly do just fine. 1d8 is plenty to drop most non-leveled creatures and is a relevant amount of damage to any level 1 encounter. And if Crossbows aren't fun...well, isn't it what martial types are doing all the time? I mean, how is it less fun for a Wizard than a Fighter to shoot things?

Godskook
2009-10-08, 09:15 PM
There are plenty of powerful things in DnD that nobody wants to be because they suck...

Name one. I'm curious.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 09:21 PM
I'm not disagreeing with your changes, I'm disagreeing with the premise that changes in this regard need to be made in the first place;
How can I have a premise that something NEEDS to be changed and not make a single disagreeable change based on said premise? ;p
What exactly is my so called premise that I didn't act upon?


one of your premises was that casters suck on low levels and my point is that that is not the case. Sure, playing a level 1 caster is different than playing a high-level one in that you cannot bone reality in the rear, but is it really "unfun"?
Actually, I said boning reality in the rear (specifically breaking the game) is unfun and needs nerfing. All the low levels need is some fluff... a magical attack at will that does less damage then a physical one but is cool is all I gave them...


By the way, on first level, Crossbows honestly do just fine. 1d8 is plenty to drop most non-leveled creatures and is a relevant amount of damage to any level 1 encounter. And if Crossbows aren't fun...well, isn't it what martial types are doing all the time? I mean, how is it less fun for a Wizard than a Fighter to shoot things?
Becuase if you are playing a fighter, using such a weapon is what you consider fun, if you are playing a wizard that you do not... If your wizard considered it fun, why is he a wizard?


Name one. I'm curious.

Only one? pun pun... Even if my DM will let me, I don't wanna play one. it will not be fun.

This is also why I avoided cleric VERY early on when I was unaware of the wizard's strengths (I played a blaster wizard instead... lots more fun; except for the hateful vanacian system)


Guys, really, lets get back on track... this shouldn't be a debate about me or my beliefs... we had some really awesome suggestions... I incorporated a lot from every suggestion made thus far (except the pathfinder one, which I am gonna incorporate soon).
Anyone disagree with some of my suggestions? has more of their own?

madtinker
2009-10-08, 09:36 PM
If you want to level the field for melee, why not give high level melee classes supernatural/magic abilities? Sword swing of mighty crunching: on a successful melee touch attack (with a melee weapon), a wave of force does XDY damage in a Z foot cone, reflex for half. (That is, your attack affects everyone in the cone whos touch AC you beat). Or something like that.

Arrow of lightning strike, similar thing. Just give them juiced up special attacks that work like magic, usable x times/day.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 09:38 PM
If you want to level the field for melee, why not give high level melee classes supernatural/magic abilities? Sword swing of mighty crunching: on a successful melee touch attack (with a melee weapon), a wave of force does XDY damage in a Z foot cone, reflex for half. (That is, your attack affects everyone in the cone whos touch AC you beat). Or something like that.

Arrow of lightning strike, similar thing. Just give them juiced up special attacks that work like magic, usable x times/day.

I did actually suggest that actually :)

madtinker
2009-10-08, 09:53 PM
Means its a good idea then.

It's like giving them a pass to do magic, but with the requirement that the weapon be the focus of the spell.

Akal Saris
2009-10-08, 10:42 PM
Here's some more PF changes then, take what you like and leave out the bad stuff =)

Give barbarians rage powers every even level, which are mini-feats only usable while in a rage. Rage powers include gaining a bite attack, the chance to reroll a failed will save, or panicking nearby shaken opponents when you shout)

Make it so that all skills cost 1 point instead of .5 for cross-class, and all classes have the same maximum ranks in a skill instead of half for cross-class skills. If you have ranks in a skill that is a class skill for you, you gain a permanent +3 bonus to it. This also means that you don't get x4 ranks at 1st level, as it is no longer necessary. It also makes cross-class skills easier to acquire, which is good for fighters that want to be diplomatic, for example.

Make it so that you can Identify magic items with a Spellcraft check (DC 15 +1/CL), and the Identify spell merely adds +10 to the check (and doesn't cost anything)

Roll Spot and Listen into Perception, Move Silently and Hide into Stealth, and Speak Language, Forgery, and Decipher Script into Linguistics. Possibly do as 4E did and roll Jump, Climb, and Swim into Athletics as well.

taltamir
2009-10-08, 10:45 PM
Here's some more PF changes then, take what you like and leave out the bad stuff =)

Give barbarians rage powers every even level, which are mini-feats only usable while in a rage. Rage powers include gaining a bite attack, the chance to reroll a failed will save, or panicking nearby shaken opponents when you shout)

Make it so that all skills cost 1 point instead of .5 for cross-class, and all classes have the same maximum ranks in a skill instead of half for cross-class skills. If you have ranks in a skill that is a class skill for you, you gain a permanent +3 bonus to it. This also means that you don't get x4 ranks at 1st level, as it is no longer necessary. It also makes cross-class skills easier to acquire, which is good for fighters that want to be diplomatic, for example.

Make it so that you can Identify magic items with a Spellcraft check (DC 15 +1/CL), and the Identify spell merely adds +10 to the check (and doesn't cost anything)

Roll Spot and Listen into Perception, Move Silently and Hide into Stealth, and Speak Language, Forgery, and Decipher Script into Linguistics. Possibly do as 4E did and roll Jump, Climb, and Swim into Athletics as well.

getting longer then a few short steps... but sure, ill take the lot of them. All of them are good ideas.

sofawall
2009-10-08, 11:18 PM
it hurts every step of the way... not having that 5th or 6th or 7th etc level spell that would have won the day because you are one level lower sucks.

And again, there is absolutely no reason for it whatsoever, it is a pure fluff bonus that you want to deny them, so go right ahead...they will grumble, grit their teeth, and use a crossbow instead.

oh, and warlocks have to sell their souls / be descendants of people who did...

First you say pure fluff is effectively meaningless, then use it as a reason to not take a class?

taltamir
2009-10-08, 11:46 PM
First you say pure fluff is effectively meaningless, then use it as a reason to not take a class?

first i say pure fluff is not something that should be banned.
then I say pure fluff is a reason not to take a class... both cases i am arguing for fluff.

Delwugor
2009-10-09, 12:15 AM
Almost made my ThreadCap saving throw but this made the DC higher. :smallbiggrin:


2.That is exactly what they equal. Awesome, by nature, requires you to invoke awe in others, which is done by having the power to do things. It is simply impossible to roleplay Conan if you can't kill things with ease.
I have played several mechanically weak characters that where awesome.
Now this wasn't others Players, PCs or NPC saying a character was awesome. Instead these characters where awesome to the person that it mattered the most ... me.

In fact the only awesome and powerful character I've ever had was my namesake and he could make Conan think twice about facing a dwarf with a big axe again. His immense combat ability was not what made him awesome, instead it was his personality and how he coped with situations which made him awesome to me.


Awesome != All-powerful
How about actually defining it as equal. For me it is:
Awesome = Player enjoying his character and making the best of him no matter how powerful or weak.


However, the rather confused idea that someone can play an awesome character who isn't mechanically powerful is a contradiction in terms.
Awesome by being mechanically powerful removes the most awesome thing about gaming ... me being awesome with my character.


Its like having an awesome baseball player who can't throw a ball or swing a bat.
How about instead:
I have seen an awesome player he can't throw and his swing really stinks, good thing he is a professional soccer player. :smallbiggrin:

OK end of threadcapping.

Jack_Simth
2009-10-09, 07:23 AM
If you really want to help casters on these levels though, just give 'em Cantrips at will. There, something magical to do always, but not terribly efficient. It mostly just makes sense (tho you have to replace Cure Minor Wounds and Inflict Minor Wounds unless you want for healing to become trivial; replace Cure Minor Wounds with autostabilize spell instead).
Funny thing about uncapped healing... it doesn't help the casters much (as the casters still run out of useful level spell slots / spell points) so much as it helps the noncasters (Fighter, Rogue, Monk, et cetera), and to a lesser extent the partial casters (Paladin, Ranger, Bard, et cetera) - because those relying on skill or martial prowess now don't run out of HP between encounters, but the casters still run out of spell slots. Can help out with melee/skill types at mid+ levels... if the DM designs the campaign around endurance runs.


And reserve feats ARE a way to deal with the problem... except you have to be level 3 or above, they actually do MORE damage then I intended (so they are sitll useful btw), and they are quite far from core...

Well... it's totally possible to have a Reserve feat at level 1, due to Precocious Apprentice (Complete Arcane, sidebar feat).


Anyone disagree with some of my suggestions? has more of their own?
Save or Lose spells need to go. Sleep, Entangle, Web, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, and their ilk are much of what makes Wizards/Druids/Clerics so strong.

Possibly a "Soak it" rule/feat that lets someone with more than 1/2 of their HP remaining "soak up" a spell who's primary effect is not damage, by way of taking 2d4 damage per spell level of the spell - so the Fighter hit with Glitterdust can take 4d4 damage to end the effect as it's cast, or so the Fighter can take 10d4 damage to burst through that Wall of Force you put between you ... but that Fireball will have it's full effect.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-09, 07:25 AM
Save or Lose spells need to go. Sleep, Entangle, Web, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, and their ilk are much of what makes Wizards/Druids/Clerics so strong.
They're also what make combat interesting.

Jayabalard
2009-10-09, 08:19 AM
2.That is exactly what they equal. Awesome, by nature, requires you to invoke awe in others, which is done by having the power to do things.You can inspire awe without "having the power to do things". You can play characters that are weak that don't suck, and you can play characters that suck without being weak. So your "refutation" doesn't actually refute anything, you're just making a counter claim without backing it up in any way.


It is simply impossible to roleplay Conan if you can't kill things with ease.I don't really see the relevance of this; this is essentially saying "you can't play this specific powerful character without being powerful" which rather Obvious; it doesn't support your "refutation" in any way.

The Big Dice
2009-10-09, 08:26 AM
There's a lot of "OMG WIZARDS ARE SO POWERFUL!" type thoughs floating around, but there's something very important that's been missed. Wizards, especially using the Jack Vance inspired Vancian casting system are weak.

Take a look at it: they run out of spells, they have to get a good night's slepp to prepare new spells and for an hour a day they're totally defenceless while they prepare their spells. And then they are utterly dependent on picking the right spells to deal with the situation they think they're going to face that day.

Want to beat a wizard? Stop him getting a good night's sleep.

In other words, play smart. Don't play the system, play the role. Sure, that wiazrd can turn into all kinds of things with a polymorph, or do one of a hundred other things. But if you set the house he's in on fire while he sleeps, he's just as squishy as anyone else, if not more so because he hasn't had the chance to prepare his load out for the next day.

In other words, you don't fight someone on their terms unless you think you can beat them on those terms. The wizard is smart enout not to get into a slugging match with the melee fighter, why can't the melee fighter be smart enough not to stand in the open when there's a powerful caster around?

sentaku
2009-10-09, 08:35 AM
There's a lot of "OMG WIZARDS ARE SO POWERFUL!" type thoughs floating around, but there's something very important that's been missed. Wizards, especially using the Jack Vance inspired Vancian casting system are weak.

Take a look at it: they run out of spells, they have to get a good night's slepp to prepare new spells and for an hour a day they're totally defenceless while they prepare their spells. And then they are utterly dependent on picking the right spells to deal with the situation they think they're going to face that day.

Want to beat a wizard? Stop him getting a good night's sleep.

In other words, play smart. Don't play the system, play the role. Sure, that wiazrd can turn into all kinds of things with a polymorph, or do one of a hundred other things. But if you set the house he's in on fire while he sleeps, he's just as squishy as anyone else, if not more so because he hasn't had the chance to prepare his load out for the next day.

In other words, you don't fight someone on their terms unless you think you can beat them on those terms. The wizard is smart enout not to get into a slugging match with the melee fighter, why can't the melee fighter be smart enough not to stand in the open when there's a powerful caster around?

Wizards sleep in houses? I thought they slept in Magnificent Mansions. Well unless they put a cottage on there demi-plane. Still hard to set on fire.

Jayabalard
2009-10-09, 08:46 AM
Wizards sleep in houses? I thought they slept in Magnificent Mansions. Well unless they put a cottage on there demi-plane. Still hard to set on fire.Yup. S. Carolinus lives in a cottage by the tinkling water and he's one of the three AAA+ rated mages in the world. Garkin lived in a pretty poor house out in the middle of the woods away from pretty much everyone.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-09, 08:53 AM
Want to beat a wizard? Stop him getting a good night's sleep.

And Fighters don't need rest to regain HP?

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2009-10-09, 08:57 AM
The premise is flawed. 3.5 is huge and does not have categorically similar flaws. They are varied, synergistic, and numerous. The OP should withdraw. This is a more or less random 'hey what about this idea?' thread and it won't solve anything. It's pretty clear from a long of really good posts from many people that threads like this (there have been others) usually end up making things worse due to complication.

You want to fix the worst of the worst. I have already done that. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3288.0)


Want to beat a wizard? Stop him getting a good night's sleep.You are 100% correct. However ensuring this meets quite a lot of opposition (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5001.0).

There. That should help :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2009-10-09, 09:05 AM
They're also what make combat interesting.

I would agree with this. If it becomes just a damage race, half of combat positioning and such goes out the window.

No, dont get rid of stuff like glitterdust.

Jayabalard
2009-10-09, 09:11 AM
The main issue with fixing the flaws of 3.5 is that not everyone agrees on exactly what a "flaw" in the system is... one man's flaw is another man's feature.

If you want help fixing the flaws, you're going to have to start by nailing down what you consider those to be... or at least identifying the prime offenders.


The premise is flawed. 3.5 is huge and does not have categorically similar flaws. They are varied, synergistic, and numerous. The OP should withdraw. This is a more or less random 'hey what about this idea?' thread and it won't solve anything.I don't really see this a very helpful post; if you don't think the discussion is worthwhile, you should feel free to ignore the thread.

kestrel404
2009-10-09, 09:40 AM
My 'easy fix' recommendations would be (Wow, this turned out really long):
Class changes:
Ban core full-casters (and any other 'tier 1' classes).
Sorceror is OK, but should have to choose two banned schools (which cannot include Evocation) but gain the Wizard feat progression plus a free gestalt with the Dragon Disciple at levels 11-20 (seriously, NO class features after first level?!?).
Combine fighter and monk into a single class as per the gestalt rules (Minus the monk bonus feats - these align with the fighter bonus feats and are thus 'redundant class features', to prevent a 2-4 level dip from being overly broken) (this should make them at least a tier 3 class, possibly a weak tier 2 - on par with say a beguiler in terms of usefullness).
The rest of the core classes are relatively salvageable.
Re-skin psionics as magic (this is mostly because I don't like the psionic's flavor, and because we need a new 'Wizard').

Skill changes:
Add 2 skill points per level to every class. At the same time, combine the following skills:
Handle Animal + Rope Use + Survival => Survival (Wis)
Jumping + Swimming + Climbing => Athletics (Str)
Spot + Listen => Perception (Wis)
Escape Artist + Tumble + Balance => Acrobatics (Dex)
Hide + Move Silent => Stealth (Dex)
Knowledge(History) + Knowledge(Nobility) + Knowledge(Geography) => Knowledge(Academics) (Int)
Knowledge(Local) + Gather Info => Streetwise (Wis)
Knowledge(Architecture) + Knoweldge(Dungeoneering) => Knowledge(Engineering) (Int)
Craft + Profession => Tradecraft (Int, Wis or Cha as appropriate) (With categories like Craftsman, Smith, Merchant, Soldier, etc.)
Open Locks + Sleight of Hand => Thievery (Dex)
The rest of the specialist skills are just that - only used by specialists, so I have no problem with them being 'more expensive' (relative to their usefullness).
Last change to skills - maximum skill rank on cross-class skills is the same as for in-class skills. Thus, you can buy any skill up to 3+char level. Cross-class skills still cost double.

Feat Changes:
Ban all metamagic cost-reducers, and all +0 level metamagics become +1 level metamagics. Arcane thesis, ease metamagic, incantatrix, etc. Even with the worst offenders (the core casters) out of the picture, there are enough arcane and divine casters left to make metamagic reducers scale poorly (even bard can make Arcane Thesis overpowered).
Combine Dodge + Mobility as: +1 AC (untyped bonus) while not flat-footed, and +4 AC against AoOs
Alertness, etc. => +2 bonus to all skills based on one attribute (int, wis, dex, etc.). The Strength version and Con version are combined as a special case (because it affects so few skills). This also applies to straight attribute checks (int check, etc). Can be taken multiple times, once for each attribute. This replaces all of the +2 bonus to two skills.
Skill Focus => +2 Bonus with +1 per four character levels, and may always take 10 on that skill. If a skill's description states that you can 'never take 10', then you may only take 10 if you are not in a stressful situation (such as when you could take 10 with a normal skill).
Weapon proficiency, weapon focus, and all other 'choose one weapon' feats applies to weapon groups, as in 4e. (Ex. Light blades, which includes daggers, kukri, rapiers, and any other light slashing weapon).
Combine Endurance + Diehard.
Combine all of the Mounted combat feats - but make using the mounted Combat hit-negation an immediate/swift action (thus only useable once/round)
Combine Improved Trip, Improved Feint and Improved Disarm into Combat Expertise. Whirlwind attack is still its own feat (although now with only 3 pre-req feats).
Combine Improved Sunder, Improved Overrun, Improved Bull Rush and Improved Shield Bash into the tactical feat Furious Assault.
Toughness is +1 HP/char level. It may still be taken multiple times.
Two-Weapon fighting auto-levels, so that you do not need another feat to make two or more attacks with the off-hand weapon. Also, if you have BAB 6+, you may make an attack with both weapons as a standard action/on a charge (but not an AoO).
Weapon Specialization is available to anyone who is profficient in "All Martial Weapons", and requires +4 BAB. It auto-levels to 'Greater Weapon focus' at +8 BAB, and 'Greater weapon spec' at +12.
Craft Magic Arms & Armor, Rod, Wand, Staff, Wondrous Item and Forge Ring are combined into a single feat, Imbue Item, wich has a pre-requisite of 'Spellcaster 3rd, and either Scribe Scroll or Brew Potion'. The individual abilities granted are still level dependent (so no magic rings until level 12).


Equipment:
This is a sticky thing to mess with, as any change here can affect everyone equally. That having been said:
ONLY Eternal wands (wand with 2 uses/day, no charges).
Any masterwork weapon can be made into a 1/day Eternal Wand, use activated (so no skill checks are required) as a standard action, at the same cost as the Eternal wand. This weapon cannot be enchanted further (so it cannot be made +1, or flaming, etc.).
Scrolls cost 10*Spell Level*Caster Level (slight discount to counter the absence of wizards). Also, scroll availability is fairly common for spells up to level 3. The cost of scribing a scroll of level 3 or less is 5 * (level-1) * (caster level of scroll), with a minimum of 1g for cantrips and 2g for 1st level spells. You may choose the caster level of the scroll you scribe.
Magic swords do not need to have a +1 base enchantment before they're given magical attributes.


DR, Resistance and Immunity:
Any DR with more than 2 descriptors can be bypassed by an attack that contains at least 2 of those descriptors. Thus, "DR 5/Good,Magic,Silver" can be bypassed with a Good/Magic weapon, a Magic/Silver weapon or a Good/Silver weapon. Any DR which has type /- is also applied as Resist(All) to magic (and only magic, it does not prevent mundane fire & acid damage), including force damage - this DOES NOT apply seperately to magic damage caused by weapon attacks, i.e. extra damage from a flaming weapon. This stacks with other resistances.
Resistance is capped at 25. This includes any stacking from DR.
Immunity becomes Resist 30.
Immunity to 'fear' and 'mind affecting' and similar give a +10 to saves against such effects.
Logical immunities, such as Poison immunity for constructs, and immunity to gas attacks for unbreathing creatures are exceptions. 'Mindless Creature' immunities to mind affecting spells are NOT logical immunities, since generally these 'mindless creatures' can be found, mentally controlled, by others (ex. undead and golems).
'Precision damage' and 'Critical damage' are 50% effective against crit-immune creatures. Thus, a crit on an undead causes 1.5x for a 2x crit weapon, or 2x for a 3x crit weapon, etc. And Rogue sneak-attack deals +1d3 against golems, etc.

Aldizog
2009-10-09, 04:06 PM
(seriously, NO class features after first level?!?).
I'd suggest going the other way; strip out nearly all class features (other than HP, BAB, saves, skills, and casting), replace their effects with feats, and give more feat slots. Not classless, but class-light. I know not everybody would take that approach.



Knowledge(Architecture) + Knoweldge(Dungeoneering) => Knowledge(Engineering) (Int)

I like most of your skill fixes, except the monster lore part of Dungeoneering doesn't seem to fit into "engineering."



Weapon proficiency, weapon focus, and all other 'choose one weapon' feats applies to weapon groups, as in 4e. (Ex. Light blades, which includes daggers, kukri, rapiers, and any other light slashing weapon).
I like a lot of your feat fixes, and I think this might be okay for Weapon Focus, but it just feels to me that the higher degrees of expertise should be more specialized. If you give Inigo Montoya a kukri, he's not going to be as good as he is with a rapier. If you give Duncan MacLeod a battleaxe, he's not going to be as good as he is with a katana (though being Name-level fighters, either would still be deadly). A housecarl trained in the long axe would not be able to use a greatsword the same way.



Any DR which has type /- is also applied as Resist(All) to magic (and only magic, it does not prevent mundane fire & acid damage)
You're just going to see more of that Complete Arcane rules-lawyerly garbage of "oh, it's not magical energy, it's mundane energy created by magic, so it will affect golems." If you're going to go this route, strictly cap how much damage "mundane fire or acid" can do.

Faleldir
2009-10-09, 04:18 PM
If you give Duncan MacLeod a battleaxe, he's not going to be as good as he is with a katana (though being Name-level fighters, either would still be deadly). A housecarl trained in the long axe would not be able to use a greatsword the same way.

Maybe that's because axes and heavy blades are different weapon groups?

Aldizog
2009-10-09, 04:30 PM
Maybe that's because axes and heavy blades are different weapon groups?
Ah, haven't played 4E. I was thinking "One-handed slashing" and "Two-handed slashing." My bad.
Still, I think that even within narrower groupings, a true master of one particular weapon should be *better* with that weapon than with things that are generally similar but have slightly different balance and reach than what he's used to.
Are flails in the same grouping as maces and hammers? I understand that the chain allows for certain kinds of strikes that you can't do with other weapons.

Jack_Simth
2009-10-09, 04:39 PM
I would agree with this. If it becomes just a damage race, half of combat positioning and such goes out the window.

No, dont get rid of stuff like glitterdust.

*shrug* they don't have to go directly. But when the Conjourer-3 has has three spells that'll render multiple opponents pretty much harmless with a standard action (Web, Glitterdust, Cloud of Bewilderment - the last from Spell Compendium: Wizard-2, is essentially Stinking Cloud in a smaller area), there's a problem. If, for the Wizard, he merely needs his opponents to fail one roll (or, in some cases, no roll at all) in order to effectively put multiple opponents out of the battle, while the Fighter needs to make quite a few rolls to put his opponents out of the battle, there's a very significant game balance problem there.

It's not the vancian system itself that's broken - if you rip out all Arcane spells, and replace them with short-range single-target direct-damage spells that require a touch attack, cost 1 round to cast, permit SR, and do a flat 1d6 damage per spell level, the Wizard is suddenly a very weak class. If you rip out all Divine spells that aren't Conjouration(Healing), then the Cleric and Druid's power takes a very significant hit. As far as Full Casters go, it's not the system (Vancian Casting) nearly as much as it is the contents of the system (the multitude of extra-useful spells).

To balance the system, you need to Do Something about that type of spell. Remove them completely? Maybe. Permit a new save every round and change all the saves to "negates"? Maybe. Introduce a mechanism by which opponents can spend HP to eliminate status effects? Maybe. But to balance the system, Save-or-Lose spells as they currently exist need to be significantly reduced in effectiveness.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 05:37 PM
Weapon proficiency, weapon focus, and all other 'choose one weapon' feats applies to weapon groups, as in 4e. (Ex. Light blades, which includes daggers, kukri, rapiers, and any other light slashing weapon).
I actually want to just make a few "categories" of balances weapons which can the be adjusted... ex, decrease damage increase crit range, etc.

Also it means "Exotic" is something from another culture, and "martial" is something from yours...
Aka, martial shortsword proficiency will be a medieval shortsword for one human, a kuriki for another, a dwarven varient for a dwarf, and so on and so forth. There less need for "Exceptions" as rulings could be easily made on the fly. And less need for heavy design... you just say "is it basically a crushing, peircing, or slashing weapon?" and then ask "how big?" and then "is it specialized for something" (giving it less damage for extra crit range, or more crit damage, or whatever)... so you could have one person having a "greataxe balanced to do massive criticals" while another carries a "lith light one headed axe designed to chop really well" or whatever else their character wants...

You come up with the weapon and just use a VERY simple set of rules to balance it towards other weapons.

quillbreaker
2009-10-09, 05:53 PM
Pull preparation based casting (with the huge spell lists) out of the game entirely and replace it with spontaneous based casting (with the limited spell selection). This changes wizards, clerics, and druids, obviously.

The ability of prep-based characters to reinvent themselves practically on a whim by changing their spell selection is pretty much what makes these classes broken. They're like Magic the Gathering decks - with so many possibilities, there will always be broken (sometimes nearly incomprehensible) combinations. You can't salvage the system without removing this.

With fixed spell lists for a character, a DM can both deny the players broken combinations at level up and, at the same time, not have to deal with so amorphous a threat as a Batman Wizard.

To those who say, "they will just buy scrolls", when there's no preparation-based casters anywhere, the range of spells that merchant-wizards can sell will be limited (the spells they know).

quillbreaker
2009-10-09, 06:02 PM
Oh, and I don't know why you are so fond of the idea of spell points. It just lets you use your most broken spell for a given situation every round. You don't have to worry about blowing your highest level spell slots because... you don't have spell slots anymore.

At the very least, each successive use of a spell between rests should increase the cost of casting that spell again by a point.

Paulus
2009-10-09, 06:26 PM
It's always been my thought that Wizard and Sorcerer's are a stupid separation of the same class. All caster should be spontaneous casters. force players to choose spells, and stick with them. Upgrade as needed sure, but choose and stick. Removing ways to change their spell selection entirely like the psionic trick, and also limit their capability of adaption.

The problem with most spell casters is their sheer versatility with choosing spells. The problem with melee is their sheer in-versatility when choosing feats, maneuvers, etc. If you want to level the playing field, level it's mechanics. A fighter is perfectly fine as he goes, choosing whatever feats he likes. But when he will always be that same fighter, the same feats, the same abilities.

A wizard, druid, or cleric? They can be anything. Literally. Any role. Magic is simply that powerful, therefore allowing them endless choice, is what puts them so far ahead of the fighter. Limit them as you do the fighter, and two things happen.

Their power is lessened, and clearly typical patterns start to emerge. Cookie cutter wizards, cookie cutter clerics, cookie cutter druids, following the same spell path that makes them so unstoppable, choosing the same spells, the same feats, the same combination with little variation. why?

because these combination are most effective against preexisting weaknesses in the system itself. Exploitation- The only answer then is to fix these so they can not be exploited. and in that. You must find out what those are. iron those out, the weaknesses, the exploitations. and you can better find an answer.

The exploitation of endless spell choice and preparation is what breaks Batman and the endless cycle of system weakness exploitation is what breaks GOD wizard.

Exploitation of endless enemy forms is what breaks the druid, and wizard. These powers are far to powerful because it gives them the same power as their foes who are powerful. The solution? allow only specialization? Magical beast, humanoid, dragon etc types only? Possible. But it would be better to justify it outside of itself. Transmutation is a very powerful spell selection. Yet more so are the polymorph line of spells and wildshape etc. Therefore, perhaps if we separate them somewhat. Wild shape looses spell casting ability, spell casters loose spell casting ability when polymorphed, and perhaps polymorph can only be maintained by concentration checks...

perhaps. sadly I don't know enough about how to break the system to suggest how to fix it. But if it were up to me... I probably find out why 1-10 is so balanced yet past that is so unbalanced...

Akal Saris
2009-10-09, 06:38 PM
I think Paulus has some good points there, by the way. I agree with pretty much all of them.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 07:04 PM
you guys raise excellent points...
banning any sort of shape shifting (or severely limiting them) fixes the exploitation of a neigh infinate amount of enemy monsters to morph into.
Banning preparation based casters does the same, by limiting spell choices you prevent their neigh infinite power.

This ALSO very much fits into "simple and concise" plan of fixing. Rather then make a whole book that fixes things one by one, concise solutions are given.

However this does not fit everyone. Some do want to play with versatility... so there has to be other fixes. I would put it down as an alternative fix. Heck it deserves its own thread... I think I will design one single class "mage" and it is the ONLY person who can cast spells, like a sorcerer. Casting a divine spell requires a god and wis, casting an arcane spell requires int and psionics requires cha... mmm.

quillbreaker
2009-10-09, 07:08 PM
However this does not fit everyone. Some do want to play with versatility... so there has to be other fixes. I would put it down as an alternative fix. Heck it deserves its own thread... I think I will design one single class "mage" and it is the ONLY person who can cast spells, like a sorcerer. Casting a divine spell requires a god and wis, casting an arcane spell requires int and psionics requires cha... mmm.

At this point I question your "fix" motivation. You've just proposed changing a lot of things - surely some of them arn't broken.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 07:13 PM
At this point I question your "fix" motivation. You've just proposed changing a lot of things - surely some of them arn't broken.

did you not yourself suggest banning prepared casting? For the sake of simplicity and for the sake of not overly crippling him I suggest combining all casters.
A spontanous caster with X spells known, but from any list, could be interesting... you want to be a cleric? choose divine spells... this also closes the odd gap between the two and consolidates the unnecessary multiple systems of magic into one single magic system.

Paulus
2009-10-09, 07:25 PM
did you not yourself suggest banning prepared casting? For the sake of simplicity and for the sake of not overly crippling him I suggest combining all casters.
A spontanous caster with X spells known, but from any list, could be interesting... you want to be a cleric? choose divine spells... this also closes the odd gap between the two and consolidates the unnecessary multiple systems of magic into one single magic system.

This doesn't work, it congeals too many classes and allows for too much of that dread versatility. Some arcane spells from some lists add far to much to others, and some take far too much. The same can be said of divine. Let the classes keep their class list, for it too limits their choices. and in such limitations, true uniqueness and dare I say 'reality' accosts the character. A cleric is not a druid, a bard is not a wizard. A wizard is not a all powerful in his grasp of the arcane, but he is as close as you can get. Combining the Sorcerer and Wizard in this way, as they are nearly the same thing anyway, just differently flavored would simply allow for character versatility as opposed to mechanic versatility. All those bonus feats the wizard gets can be spent on heritage feats for the "sorcerer' type or on 'item creation, or books, and such.

EDIT: For clarity, I mention the wizard and sorcerer in particular as being able to combine because not only do they basically have the same mechanics yet varied features, but they have the same spell list. Therefore, nothing is truly lost, yet equality gained. And therefore, for core at least, the supposed pure arcane class(es) are the most powerful arcane class. As it (they) were meant to be.

Start small. General sweeping fixes cause general sweeping problems and cause others still unseen. Again, know what is broken, so you know what to fix. Otherwise it's an exercise in creating a new system, not fixing one.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 07:31 PM
I hardly think that counts. And I never suggest "let them have any spell that they want without DM approval of said spell".

A druid and cleric differ very little on spells, with the druid simply having less spells available in exchange for shapeshifting... but we said those are banned due to having infinite versatility...
so druid (shapeshifter class) is banned (or heavily modified / nerfed). Druids (the people) are simply clerics of nature / nature gods.
It is this annoying insistence that someone must be a unique class to do a certain job.

Wizard is banned and sorcerer gets a slight boost (extra feats and don't skip caster progression).

Actually this is probably a communcation issue, there must be some more magic systems out there i haven't taken into consideration.
I really meant to make a mage who can select his known spells from any wizard / cleric spell... and maybe psionics... but as a sorcerer does. Then nerf specific problem spells.
But yes, it was going too far to include psionics (especially because i am not overly familiar with it)...

I say just combine the cleric and wizard spell list, let mage choose from those. Cast as sorc does, and problem spells are banned / nerfed. While the class can be take in more directions, each individual character is still limited by the spells they know.

And cut down on the amount of martial classes too...

Faleldir
2009-10-09, 08:08 PM
I suggest dropping the Fighter class and giving Fighter feats to all martial classes.

taltamir
2009-10-09, 08:12 PM
I suggest dropping the Fighter class and giving Fighter feats to all martial classes.

what is even the point of having a million classes who all "hit stuff with a chunk of metal"? They can all be mashed into one class which are differentiated by the powers they take.

Faleldir
2009-10-09, 08:20 PM
If you want a classless system, it would hardly be the same game. It's like removing HP or AC.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-09, 08:43 PM
I hardly think that counts. And I never suggest "let them have any spell that they want without DM approval of said spell".
Too much work for the DM. And if you're relying on DM fiat anyway you can just ban all the broken 3.5 stuff.


what is even the point of having a million classes who all "hit stuff with a chunk of metal"? They can all be mashed into one class which are differentiated by the powers they take.
It's a mechanical thing. Dipping barbarian/fighter/hexblade will get you abilities faster. :D
But seriously, "hit stuff with a chunk of metal" is too vague. Monk and fighter are difficult to combine. Hexblade/Duskblade and fighter are difficult to combine. I could probably think of more examples if i weren't tired.

In fact, I could probably contribute actual, helpful ideas rather than just nag if I weren't tired. :(

madtinker
2009-10-09, 09:55 PM
Most of you probably won't listen to me, but isn't this about the character? Its a role playing game, and with a bit of creativity, play the role, and have fun with it. Not everything is about levels and powers, but can you have fun with the game and playing 'your guy.' You don't have to optimize to have a good time (at least, I don't), and anytime you get a system as complicated as DnD people will find a way to break the system. Look at any political entity to ever exist. Anyway, carry on...

sofawall
2009-10-09, 10:04 PM
Most of you probably won't listen to me, but isn't this about the character? Its a role playing game, and with a bit of creativity, play the role, and have fun with it. Not everything is about levels and powers, but can you have fun with the game and playing 'your guy.' You don't have to optimize to have a good time (at least, I don't), and anytime you get a system as complicated as DnD people will find a way to break the system. Look at any political entity to ever exist. Anyway, carry on...

Say you want to be Conan. Conan is strong! So you roleplay him as strong. Problem is, he can't smash open doors, as Roleplay doesn't effect STR-checks. Trying again, you give him a Conan-esque STR score. You are now mechanically Conan-ish as well as in Roleplay, so you want to take out a Dragon, like Conan would be able to!

Well, roleplay doesn't do as much as Power Attack, and isn't effective against a flying dragon, so trying again, you take optimized feats, get some good items, that sort of thing.

Just to play Conan, not to "be the best!" or to be better than the rest of your party, you just optimized! Going back to fight the Dragon, after an epic battle, you finally overcome the beast! Looking around however, you see some disheartening sights:

The Wizard two dragons over just killed it with one volley of Enervations.

The Sorcerer to your left just Shapechanged into a Balor and went to town.

The Psion Ego-Whipped the white dragon to submission.

The Truenamer Gated in a big nasty to deal with the dragon.

All these are stronger than Conan. Conan should be on par with them, right? He is Conan! But, alas, he is not.

So optimizing and balance are not completely separate from "Playing a concept" or doing something "For roleplay reasons".

Wall of text attacks, crits!

Paulus
2009-10-10, 02:26 PM
Say you want to be Conan. Conan is strong! So you roleplay him as strong. Problem is, he can't smash open doors, as Roleplay doesn't effect STR-checks. Trying again, you give him a Conan-esque STR score. You are now mechanically Conan-ish as well as in Roleplay, so you want to take out a Dragon, like Conan would be able to!

Well, roleplay doesn't do as much as Power Attack, and isn't effective against a flying dragon, so trying again, you take optimized feats, get some good items, that sort of thing.

Just to play Conan, not to "be the best!" or to be better than the rest of your party, you just optimized! Going back to fight the Dragon, after an epic battle, you finally overcome the beast! Looking around however, you see some disheartening sights:

The Wizard two dragons over just killed it with one volley of Enervations.

The Sorcerer to your left just Shapechanged into a Balor and went to town.

The Psion Ego-Whipped the white dragon to submission.

The Truenamer Gated in a big nasty to deal with the dragon.

All these are stronger than Conan. Conan should be on par with them, right? He is Conan! But, alas, he is not.

So optimizing and balance are not completely separate from "Playing a concept" or doing something "For roleplay reasons".

Wall of text attacks, crits!

First, trying to fit any 'hero' character in D&D is bound to be flawed, because that hero character exists and acts in a world which directly revolves around him. Naturally, since it's his story. And there are other considerations such as fans, history, etc to which other writers must heed. The Conan universe is different then the D&D universe in many ways, therefore, a introduction of Conan into this new universe will of course be difficult. There have been many threads on "What would so and so be in D&D" So using an example of difficult translation as a flaw in D&D won't hold up well if you wish to fix the flaws, it simply caters to a case by case basis of character.

but again, it should be more about the team - unless you are playing a solo game in which case the DM would make special situations for you- so when you talk about Conan (presumed straight barbarian)being less mighty in the presence of Wizard, Sorcerer, Psion, etc of course it supports your argument on the face. Because each of those characters classes has an exploitation, which comparatively, no melee class would be able to mimic. Therefore, comparatively again melee always seems weaker. Thus, aside from the fact a melee character just soloed a DRAGON, sed player will always feel outshined and out witted in comparison. But the answer to such things is more on the side of D&D not being competitive but co-operative as opposed to balance issues. But still, the whole principle is changing: and as I said:

General sweeping fixes cause general sweeping problems and cause others still unseen. Again, know what is broken, so you know what to fix.

Class variation is not broken, it gives the players more choices, but can or can not be abused or exploited or 'gimped' due to mechanical flaws. Find the flaws in the mechanics, one by one, and the changes this makes will repair other based on those mechanics, start at the bottom, work to the top.

Otherwise it's an exercise in creating a new system, not fixing one.

sofawall
2009-10-10, 04:07 PM
Yes, D&D is a team game.

However, you'll notice the Wizard and Psion are both more than capable of soloing most encounters in one round, w/o any other party members. Sure, you could hold back and weaken yourself, but that does not change the fact that power imbalance is a problem. Having to consciously weaken yourself actually acknowledges that it is, in fact, a problem.

Also, purposefully gimping yourself, well, that's not very good roleplay, is it? :P

Gnaeus
2009-10-10, 04:59 PM
OK, but most players play RPGs to be larger than life, powerful, butt kicking things. The responsible ones know that it isn't a good idea to be vastly more powerful than the rest of their party, but 95% of players sit down at a table to pretend to be Conan or Gandalf (well, not EXACTLY those 2, but close enough). It is part of the escapism of play, the desire to be larger than life.

This is especially true in D&D. (Well, not uniquely true. There are games that lend themselves more to powergaming, but not many). If people wanted to be in games where their characters weren't giant superhuman things, and they were more or less balanced against everyone in the party, GURPS and similar games would long since have killed D&D in the market.

Yahzi
2009-10-10, 11:25 PM
leadership is generally agreed on to be a really really bad feat. and should be banned...
Leadership is a bad feat because it allows a high-level fighter to gain an slightly lower level caster as a follower... who then proceeds to utterly supplant his alleged master in every encounter, because the lower level caster is much more powerful than the high level fighter.


taking a feat for a regenerating supply of expendable mooks is beyond game breaking.
No, Wish, Gate, and Polymorph are game-breaking. The ability to employ a large number of 1st level followers in any CR 17 encoutner is not game-breaking, unless you're doing something really, really wrong.

kestrel404
2009-10-12, 01:13 PM
I'd suggest going the other way; strip out nearly all class features (other than HP, BAB, saves, skills, and casting), replace their effects with feats, and give more feat slots. Not classless, but class-light. I know not everybody would take that approach.

I like class features. I like classes that have a fixed progression of steadily better abilities that synergize with previous abilities and reward continuing in a single chosen path. I like having lots of choices that are interesting and often fiddly and can be combined in interesting ways. That's why I think the Sorceror needs more class features, more spells per day, and fewer game breaking 'one spell to beat one encounter' options.


I like most of your skill fixes, except the monster lore part of Dungeoneering doesn't seem to fit into "engineering."

Oh, yes, monster lore. I've seen two solutions to this: 'Monster lore' was spread between almost every knowledge skill equally, so any knowledge can be rolled as a 'monster lore' check, or else there was a new skill added that just covered monster knowledge. I've never really seen Dungeoneering, in particular, as a monster-specific skill.

Personally, I'd add Knowledge(Creature Lore) to the skill list, and call it a day. Also, if the characters succeed at the difficulty (10 + CR + 2 per rarity category), they get to see the monster's stat block. And if the PLAYER has memorized the monster's stat block, they'd better have the knowledge skill to back it up or I start bringing in homebrew monsters (not much of a threat from me, really, since I do this a lot anyway).


I like a lot of your feat fixes, and I think this might be okay for Weapon Focus, but it just feels to me that the higher degrees of expertise should be more specialized. If you give Inigo Montoya a kukri, he's not going to be as good as he is with a rapier. If you give Duncan MacLeod a battleaxe, he's not going to be as good as he is with a katana (though being Name-level fighters, either would still be deadly). A housecarl trained in the long axe would not be able to use a greatsword the same way.

You make a good point. I wrote that before I combined the weapon-focus feats into a single feat. So yeah, you take Weapon proficiency in a weapon group (Martial Light blade), or a single exotic weapon (Bastard sword), and weapon focus in a single weapon (Rapier).

And while I think that the idea of 'martial' weapons and 'exotic' weapons being defined culturally and being different for different locales, that runs into the issue that almost all 'Exotic' weapons are mechanically superior to their nearest martial kin. That's why even fighters need a feat to fight with a spiked chain.


You're just going to see more of that Complete Arcane rules-lawyerly garbage of "oh, it's not magical energy, it's mundane energy created by magic, so it will affect golems." If you're going to go this route, strictly cap how much damage "mundane fire or acid" can do.

OK, you're absolutely right. So I'll get rid of the 'except mundane sources' proviso and just say that Resist (All) applies to everything, regardless of source. And as for the concept that the magic 'created the energy, but it's not magical once created', my ruling on that as a DM has always been that any damaging effect coming from a spell is magical in nature. Only ongoing damage that exceeds the duration of the spell could be considdered 'real, non-magical' damage.

A few other minor changes can be added to my previous set if you want a more even balance:

Equipment addition:
The Spiked Chain exotic weapon is actually a magic item. It exists, and it requires a feat for proficiency, but to actually function as a real weapon, it requires an enchantment which is the equivalent of +2. Wielding a spiked chain WITHOUT this enchantment will get you a heavy whip which can ONLY be used at its maximum reach (regardless of feats that say otherwise), cannot grant AoOs, and provokes AoOs when used (just like the whip).

Prestige Classes:
I like the prestige classes the way they are mostly. Since the worst of the casting classes are already gone, I don't feel the need to nerf 'full casting' prestige classes.
The only change I would make is to say that prestige class that grants additional known spells to spontaneous casters cannot more than double the spells known that they would have gained without that prestige class. This prevents things that the 'Ranbow-Servant capstone grants my Sorceror every possible cleric spell' issues. Also, class features that depend on 'class level' cannot be advanced beyond the highest level of that class - thus 'Hellfire warlock' cannot gain more than +6d6 damage from their hellfire blast class feature.

Spells:
This, I don't really even want to get into. I would say 'ban core' and leave it at that, but there are too many iconic spells in core, and really almost half of the spells are fine. Instead, I'm just going to say that all spells in core are increased by a spell level (so, 1st level spells are actualy 2nd level spells, etc.). And the polymorph and summon spells can only summon/change into things from core (so, stuff in the original PHB, DMG and MM1). You'll note that this also makes all the 9th level core spells into 10th level spells - that's on purpose. Wish and miracle really are 'epic' spells. And any monster/magic item/abilities that can grant wishes or miracles are downgraded to limited wish.

On second thought, I'll make an exception for the cleric's 'Cure' and 'Harm' line of spells. These, as a group, are pretty much fine as-is, and it's an easy enough grouping to single out as OK.

Mystic Muse
2009-10-12, 01:21 PM
if you're going to get rid of wish do the same for reality revision.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-12, 01:47 PM
I'd suggest going the other way; strip out nearly all class features (other than HP, BAB, saves, skills, and casting), replace their effects with feats, and give more feat slots. Not classless, but class-light. I know not everybody would take that approach.

I'd enjoy such a method, but how exactly would spellcasting fit into this?

Tyndmyr
2009-10-12, 01:53 PM
The Truenamer Gated in a big nasty to deal with the dragon.

All these are stronger than Conan. Conan should be on par with them, right? He is Conan! But, alas, he is not.

It's about at the point where you describe a Truenamer as stronger than an optimized *anything* that I begin to suspect you may be a wee bit biased.

Optimized melee characters are not nearly as weak as many make them out to be. Sure, they don't have the flexibility of a wizard or some such, but does it matter how they kill the dragon, provided that they both do?

Flying Dutchman
2009-10-13, 08:29 AM
I find most of the flaws in 3.5 to be the problem with games in general. That there are thousands and thousands of players looking for ever possible loop hole in said rules to make there char as good as possible. It's the same with video games, and the same with some sports.

It's almost impossable for a system to not be broken if you look hard enough. Think about it there are what 20+ D&D books. There is enough material by sheer number alone that there will be things that are easily exploitable. Some things are easier than others, and the magic system in d&d is WAY to detailed. I mean really what are there like 500+ arcane spells, some of which do practicly nothing, but some of which are ludicrously powerful.

4.0 got it right in terms of balance at least in a general sence. it just took out to MANY options, made people TOO specialized, and thus limited the "role play" which was the point in the first place.


So now that i'm done ranting my proposed fixes are as such.

1. No dipping classes.....ever:

It's to often players either covering a weakness of their charictars, or adding more to an ability thats boarderline to powerful anyway. Pick a class and stay with it. Prestige classes are fine, but only 1. Unless you are doing this for a SOLEY RP REASON. Dipping classes is generally used only by optimizers anyway, I know noone in my DND group does it.

2. All teleport/plane jumping/instantanious movement spells are rituals, and cannot be cast in battle.

This lets wizards/casters in general cheat out of to many situations. Forcing martial classes to dip into classes that CAN do these things to be able to compete.

3. Ban all walls of force/ Impenatrable barriers

Simple martial classes have to be able to move to do damage. Sure they can prolly 1-shot a wizard whom they can attack, but as is wizards can litteraly summon a mountain on top of them or box them in in a force prision. There is simply no way a simple martial class can deal with this, and as such should not be in the game.

4. ban all instant kills/dominations/paralisis

At least on the player end. On the DM side he's not gonna want to do this anyway or will have a plot reason to do so. But with all the ways to make the saves nigh impossable or simple non existent in some cases these effects are simple to powerful especially against classes "cough* fighter *cough* with terrible will saves.

There are other things that need to be addressed, like how casting buffs on your party is almost entirly useless do to combat lasting <5 rounds generally. These however are imo the reason that martial classes cannot compete at mid-high levels.

Random832
2009-10-13, 09:00 AM
Prestige classes are fine, but only 1. Unless you are doing this for a SOLEY RP REASON.

Aren't there prestige classes that are specifically designed (both mechanically and flavor) to follow from other prestige classes?

This doesn't seem to fit with the rest of what you are saying, anyway.

Cainen
2009-10-13, 09:07 AM
It's to often players either covering a weakness of their charictars, or adding more to an ability thats boarderline to powerful anyway. Pick a class and stay with it.

No. Classes are bundles of abilities, not the definition of your character. The abilities define the character, not the other way around.

Faleldir
2009-10-13, 01:52 PM
1. No dipping classes.....ever:


I could not disagree more. Casters only multiclass if they want a dual-progression PrC, because caster levels are much more important than low-level class features. This houserule would only hurt the non-casting classes.

Flying Dutchman
2009-10-14, 12:37 PM
Like I said it's only my opinion, I'm a fairly new player, but having read alot of the material i just see no reason for there to be charicaters with 3-4 classes other than as i said, to do something thats prolly gonna give your DM a headache anyway. Then you have to make up some riduculous set of circumstances to justify it from an RP standpoint. Sure maybe disallowing dipping 'ever' is a little harsh, but make sure it's not for something potentially gamebreaking.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-14, 05:00 PM
1. No dipping classes.....ever:

It's to often players either covering a weakness of their charictars, or adding more to an ability thats boarderline to powerful anyway. Pick a class and stay with it. Prestige classes are fine, but only 1. Unless you are doing this for a SOLEY RP REASON. Dipping classes is generally used only by optimizers anyway, I know noone in my DND group does it.

Your D&D group /= entire D&D community. I've seen and done dipping for non optimization reasons. Hell, I've seen no shortage of dips that made no mechanical sense whatsoever.

Anyway, dipping is less viable for casters unless both classes boost the same type of casting anyhow. Sacrificing casting levels is a harsh price to pay. Melee types arguably gain the most from dips.



2. All teleport/plane jumping/instantanious movement spells are rituals, and cannot be cast in battle.

This lets wizards/casters in general cheat out of to many situations. Forcing martial classes to dip into classes that CAN do these things to be able to compete.

If you want to increase casting time or something, sure, but setting arbitrary restrictions on what can and cannot be cast in battle leads to sticky definitions of what constitutes battle. I'd favor not going there.


3. Ban all walls of force/ Impenatrable barriers

Simple martial classes have to be able to move to do damage. Sure they can prolly 1-shot a wizard whom they can attack, but as is wizards can litteraly summon a mountain on top of them or box them in in a force prision. There is simply no way a simple martial class can deal with this, and as such should not be in the game.

So, basically, you're going to just ensure the melee character can always get to the wizard.

Are you now going to ban flight? Immobilizing spells? Dazes? Seriously, there are a nearly infinite number of save or sucks that will prevent the melee type from reaching the caster. It doesn't particularly matter HOW this happens, just that it does. Removing all of them makes the wizard into a blaster class, and it's a pure damage race. I don't really consider this a fix.


4. ban all instant kills/dominations/paralisis

At least on the player end. On the DM side he's not gonna want to do this anyway or will have a plot reason to do so. But with all the ways to make the saves nigh impossable or simple non existent in some cases these effects are simple to powerful especially against classes "cough* fighter *cough* with terrible will saves.

Again...this is just turning the entire game into a damage race. If you want to play 4.0, go play 4.0. There is little point in turning 3.5 into the same system.


There are other things that need to be addressed, like how casting buffs on your party is almost entirly useless do to combat lasting <5 rounds generally. These however are imo the reason that martial classes cannot compete at mid-high levels.

There are plenty of valuable buffs that are most certainly worth casting, at least in the right situation. Haste. Flight. Invisibility/Greater Invisibility. Mage Armor. Protection from Arrows. Im still working off memory off core spells here...

If you want more buff spells for melee players, great, but don't pretend that the existing ones are all rubbish.

Faleldir
2009-10-14, 05:45 PM
Are you now going to ban flight? Immobilizing spells? Dazes? Seriously, there are a nearly infinite number of save or sucks that will prevent the melee type from reaching the caster. It doesn't particularly matter HOW this happens, just that it does. Removing all of them makes the wizard into a blaster class, and it's a pure damage race. I don't really consider this a fix.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. Save-or-suck spells have a chance of failure. Forcecage is "no save, no SR, just stand there for 26 hours without oxygen". There's a difference between battlefield control and automatic win buttons.
As for flight, it wouldn't be nearly as bad if melee classes had enough feats and powers (in the 4e sense of the term) to occasionally use ranged weapons with some degree of competence. No, 1d8+STR doesn't count.

Navigator
2009-10-16, 12:43 AM
I don't think this is a fair comparison. Save-or-suck spells have a chance of failure. Forcecage is "no save, no SR, just stand there for 26 hours without oxygen". There's a difference between battlefield control and automatic win buttons.
As for flight, it wouldn't be nearly as bad if melee classes had enough feats and powers (in the 4e sense of the term) to occasionally use ranged weapons with some degree of competence. No, 1d8+STR doesn't count.
One of the few changes I like from Pathfinder Core is that forcecage allows a reflex save, and the costly components are gone.

Eldariel
2009-10-16, 12:54 AM
One of the few changes I like from Pathfinder Core is that forcecage allows a reflex save, and the costly components are gone.

That sounds meh. Now it's practically the same spell as the 3 levels lower Otiluke's Resilient Sphere. It's not like Evocation needed less versatility.