PDA

View Full Version : changing SAD to MAD



Fitz10019
2009-12-09, 12:22 PM
I figure if you can't fix MAD, create balance by changing SAD. I'm thinking of requiring casters to have the same Con requirement as their primary casting ability requirement.

Normal: a wizard with Int 16 and Con (any) can only cast up to 6th level spells

with additional Con requirement: a wizard Int 16 and Con 14 can only cast up to 4th level spells

The fluff is that mental preparation is only half the battle -- your body must be sturdy enough to be a conduit for magic. Casting a spell beyond your Con limit causes you [spell level]d6 damage.

This can't be a new idea, so I'm asking if anyone has any experience with this. Good, bad, pointless?

Edit: point-buy assumed

Mongoose87
2009-12-09, 12:25 PM
Con is already the second-highest attribute for most casters. Also, this could be very un-fun, if poor rolling keeps you from ever accessing higher level spells.

Zovc
2009-12-09, 12:26 PM
Favored Souls cast spells based on Charisma, but their spells' saves are derived from their Wisdom.

Just saying...

Optimystik
2009-12-09, 12:26 PM
Fine for high tiers (like Wizard.) Would screw over the lower ones (like Warmage.)

You're basically applying the Point Buy Tier Fix (Option #1 under House Rules (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)) indirectly, where the higher tiers get lower point buy.

Sliver
2009-12-09, 12:29 PM
Some people might be against losing the 'old frail looking wizard' archetype...

drengnikrafe
2009-12-09, 12:31 PM
Back in 2e, IIRC, you had to have certain stats to qualify for various specialist wizard types. Like Illusionists needed good intelligence, plus good dexterity, or something like that. While the idea could be good in theory, it basically stopped anyone from playing what they actually wanted.

Draz74
2009-12-09, 12:41 PM
You're basically applying the Point Buy Tier Fix (Option #1 under House Rules (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)) indirectly, where the higher tiers get lower point buy.

... except you're also giving the top tiers with their "lower point buy" bonus HP and Fortitude save bonuses. :smallyuk:

Seriously, this "fix" does nothing. Optimized Wizards all end up with a CON score of at least 18 anyway. Boosting that up to 19 isn't all that hard. Same with Druids and Clerics.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-12-09, 12:41 PM
I would take the favored soul as an example and make it so that wizards have to have int to cast there spells but there dc is con or chrisma or something else based.

sorcerers could be con/cha

etc,etc

sonofzeal
2009-12-09, 12:47 PM
How does this sound:


Int determines bonus spells, and what spells you can cast. DC is determined by....

Abjuration: Con (durability; plus there's not that many Abj with DCs)
Conjuration: Wis (since it covers situational awareness)
Divination: Int (nothing else really fits)
Enchantment: Cha (manipulation)
Evocation: Con (it's tough on your body to channel hellfire, maybe)
Illusion: Wis (awareness again)
Necromancy: Cha (see: Dread Necro)
Transmutation: Str (since so many are focused on augmenting force)
Universal: Int (except when mimicking a spell from another school via Wish or whatnot)

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-09, 12:56 PM
I figure if you can't fix MAD, create balance by changing SAD. I'm thinking of requiring casters to have the same Con requirement as their primary casting ability requirement.

Normal: a wizard with Int 16 and Con (any) can only cast up to 6th level spells

with additional Con requirement: a wizard Int 16 and Con 14 can only cast up to 4th level spells

The fluff is that mental preparation is only half the battle -- your body must be sturdy enough to be a conduit for magic. Casting a spell beyond your Con limit causes you [spell level]d6 damage.

This can't be a new idea, so I'm asking if anyone has any experience with this. Good, bad, pointless?Pointless. Most casters go after a 14 con minimum anyways, so they'd just need a +2 item at level 9, +4 at level 13, and +6 at level 16. That's about 2 levels before most people would buy them anyways.

And then there's Druids...

Glimbur
2009-12-09, 12:56 PM
How does this sound:


Int determines bonus spells, and what spells you can cast. DC is determined by....

Abjuration: Con (durability; plus there's not that many Abj with DCs)
Conjuration: Wis (since it covers situational awareness)
Divination: Int (nothing else really fits)
Enchantment: Cha (manipulation)
Evocation: Con (it's tough on your body to channel hellfire, maybe)
Illusion: Wis (awareness again)
Necromancy: Cha (see: Dread Necro)
Transmutation: Str (since so many are focused on augmenting force)
Universal: Int (except when mimicking a spell from another school via Wish or whatnot)

So now the formula for calculating DC's is more complicated. That's workable, but a bit irritating.

The real problem with this is that it doesn't fix the bigger problems. There are many, many spells worth casting that don't offer a save, so coming from a school with a lower save DC due to your character's stats doesn't matter. I would be content to run a high Int and Con wizard with these rules; I could get by only casting spells with saves from Divination, Abjuration (not that there are many), and Evocation.

Grumman
2009-12-09, 01:00 PM
How does this sound:
Too much work for not enough payoff, IMO.

Milskidasith
2009-12-09, 01:07 PM
So now the formula for calculating DC's is more complicated. That's workable, but a bit irritating.

The real problem with this is that it doesn't fix the bigger problems. There are many, many spells worth casting that don't offer a save, so coming from a school with a lower save DC due to your character's stats doesn't matter. I would be content to run a high Int and Con wizard with these rules; I could get by only casting spells with saves from Divination, Abjuration (not that there are many), and Evocation.

Don't forget conjuration, since the conjuration spells are either orbs (no save no SR damage) or summons (no save just get grappled by my 2 colossal centipedes. Malconvoking rocks.)

sonofzeal
2009-12-09, 01:14 PM
So now the formula for calculating DC's is more complicated. That's workable, but a bit irritating.

The real problem with this is that it doesn't fix the bigger problems. There are many, many spells worth casting that don't offer a save, so coming from a school with a lower save DC due to your character's stats doesn't matter. I would be content to run a high Int and Con wizard with these rules; I could get by only casting spells with saves from Divination, Abjuration (not that there are many), and Evocation.
You could "get by", but I think we can agree it would be a drop in power. Conj and Necro still have a lot of no-save effects, and Trans has a lot of "(harmless)", but the schools as a whole become rather weaker. Even Abjuration and Evocation suffer a bit, as your Con is not likely to be quite as high as your Int for most conventional wizards. Most good "Save or Lose" now become much more dubious (Glitterdust, Baleful Polymorph, Charm Person, Dominate Person, Friend to Foe, Shadow Evocation/Conjuration, Phantasmal Strangler, Fear, Magic Jar), and this restricts your list of tactics somewhat. Since Wizards depend on their versatility, I think that's a good thing.

Zovc
2009-12-09, 01:18 PM
Universal: Int (except when mimicking a spell from another school via Wish or whatnot)

I see nothing wrong with rewarding a player for jumping through hoops. Let all universal spells use Intelligence.

Person_Man
2009-12-09, 01:26 PM
Or you could just talk to the players in your group who want to play a full caster, and ask them to tone down their spell selection.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-12-09, 01:37 PM
How does this sound:


Int determines bonus spells, and what spells you can cast. DC is determined by....

Abjuration: Con (durability; plus there's not that many Abj with DCs)
Conjuration: Wis (since it covers situational awareness)
Divination: Int (nothing else really fits)
Enchantment: Cha (manipulation)
Evocation: Con (it's tough on your body to channel hellfire, maybe)
Illusion: Wis (awareness again)
Necromancy: Cha (see: Dread Necro)
Transmutation: Str (since so many are focused on augmenting force)
Universal: Int (except when mimicking a spell from another school via Wish or whatnot)

I'd make conjuration con based rather then wis based.


I'd say rather then it be by school it should be based on what you specialise in. so a illusionist all there spells would be based of illusion.
and divination should totaly be wisdom based.

I would make generalist wizards have a choice between con and charisma.

Fitz10019
2009-12-09, 01:39 PM
Pointless. Most casters go after a 14 con minimum anyways, so they'd just need a +2 item at level 9, +4 at level 13, and +6 at level 16. That's about 2 levels before most people would buy them anyways.

And then there's Druids...

But isn't 'two levels early' relatively expensive, from an available-funds persepective? That would make it at least partially meaninful, as they need to sacrifice by not getting other gear.

An elaboration might be that it has to be a high enough Con without gear. And for druids, a high enough Con in their humanoid form.

Also, can the school by school discussion please find another thread?

Kesnit
2009-12-09, 01:41 PM
Pointless. Most casters go after a 14 con minimum anyways, so they'd just need a +2 item at level 9, +4 at level 13, and +6 at level 16. That's about 2 levels before most people would buy them anyways.

Require a base attribute, which I thought was the requirement anyway. (No using items to raise the attribute to the requirement.)

erikun
2009-12-09, 01:44 PM
Skill points are based off the "base" INT, but everything else (HP, saves, spells known, DC, spells castable) are based of whatever current ability scores are.

Milskidasith
2009-12-09, 01:45 PM
Require a base attribute, which I thought was the requirement anyway. (No using items to raise the attribute to the requirement.)

It's never been based on the base attribute. Making casters require high con and int, though a possible option, only serves to arbitrarily limit the wizard rather than balance things (it basically means that in low point buy, the wizard sucks because they'll be stuck with 4th level spells at best, and in high PB nothing changes.)

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-09, 01:47 PM
But isn't 'two levels early' relatively expensive, from an available-funds persepective? That would make it at least partially meaninful, as they need to sacrifice by not getting other gear.Not a whole lot. 4K when you have 45K WBL isn't much at all. You're sacrificing an additional +1 on your Cloak of Resistance or a 2nd level Pearl of Power.

An elaboration might be that it has to be a high enough Con without gear. And for druids, a high enough Con in their humanoid form.Because we need more confusion about base attributes, enhancement bonuses, and penalties.

Dante & Vergil
2009-12-09, 02:01 PM
It's never been based on the base attribute. Making casters require high con and int, though a possible option, only serves to arbitrarily limit the wizard rather than balance things (it basically means that in low point buy, the wizard sucks because they'll be stuck with 4th level spells at best, and in high PB nothing changes.)

Agreed, whole-heartedly. You get fu my friend!:smallcool:
Doing this will aslo weaken the wizard in the long run. You only get +1 to a stat every 4 levels, and spells advance every 2. Can you see the problem with the system as it stands now? You may start out ahead, but sooner or later (depending what system you use to determine stats) you are going to fall behind and won't be able to keep up, and that's with items and inherent boni. In point-buy and/or low-wealth campains the problem only gets worse. Mind you this might not happen until Epic, depending on what you use for stats, so for the sake of this part of the argument, pretend that there was a balanced system in place for Epic Spellcasting and Improved Spell Compacity because some of us already do.) If you want to find one, I know where to find a good one.

Optimystik
2009-12-09, 02:09 PM
Just give the higher tiers lower point buy if you want to balance them out that way. Penalizing SADness lumps in a lot of classes that don't deserve it, like Beguiler, Warmage, Binder and Warlock. And fluffwise, making every caster MAD by necessity makes no sense - otherwise you'll force flavorfully frail classes like elves, spellscales, fey etc. to either be buff or inept at magic, when they are neither.

Snails
2009-12-09, 02:15 PM
I figure if you can't fix MAD, create balance by changing SAD. I'm thinking of requiring casters to have the same Con requirement as their primary casting ability requirement.

Why is it not possible to fix MAD?

For the Paladin:
* Use Cha as spellcasting stat, instead of Wis
* For a feat, use Cha for melee To Hit bonus instead of Str.

For the Monk:
* Use Wis for melee To Hit bonus instead of Str.
* For a feat, use Wis for melee damage bonus instead of Str.

MAD is easily fixed. It is only a matter of quibbling over the details to get the balance right.

Myrmex
2009-12-09, 02:23 PM
Or you could just talk to the players in your group who want to play a full caster, and ask them to tone down their spell selection.

Madness!!!!!

Demiwraith
2009-12-09, 02:29 PM
Why is it not possible to fix MAD?

For the Paladin:
* Use Cha as spellcasting stat, instead of Wis
* For a feat, use Cha for melee To Hit bonus instead of Str.

For the Monk:
* Use Wis for melee To Hit bonus instead of Str.
* For a feat, use Wis for melee damage bonus instead of Str.

MAD is easily fixed. It is only a matter of quibbling over the details to get the balance right.

The single attribute thing always bothered me for casters too. But I like the idea of most classes being MAD, so that all attributes are relevant, rather than try and make every class based off of only one or two attributes. Something I've always wanted to try out for all casters:

INT determines extra spells per day.
WIS determines max spell level you can cast.
CHA determines save DCs.

Now you can choose what kind of caster you want to be: Powerful, but unable to control the most potent spells, More but weaker spells per day, etc. In a higher point-buy, wealth, or power-level of your game I might even want to raise the WIS requirements to cast spells of a certain level. (You need 10+(2xSpell_level) to cast level X spells, and 10+Spell_level to even use the X level spell slots for meta-magic enhance lower level spells).

Has anyone ever tried something like this in actual play?

Milskidasith
2009-12-09, 02:35 PM
The single attribute thing always bothered me for casters too. But I like the idea of most classes being MAD, so that all attributes are relevant, rather than try and make every class based off of only one or two attributes. Something I've always wanted to try out for all casters:

INT determines extra spells per day.
WIS determines max spell level you can cast.
CHA determines save DCs.

Now you can choose what kind of caster you want to be: Powerful, but unable to control the most potent spells, More but weaker spells per day, etc. In a higher point-buy, wealth, or power-level of your game I might even want to raise the WIS requirements to cast spells of a certain level. (You need 10+(2xSpell_level) to cast level X spells, and 10+Spell_level to even use the X level spell slots for meta-magic enhance lower level spells).

Has anyone ever tried something like this in actual play?

Your fix would trip up newbies and only somewhat limit the options of optimizers. Plus, it requires an absurd wisdom to cast higher level spells; with a 16 starting wisdom, you'll be unable to cast your best spells at level 7 without magic, and at level 17 you'd need a +6 item and a starting 18, or a +6 item, a +2 tome, and a starting 16 just to cast.

Again, all this does is make newbies suck because their spells are all sucky, force even more dependency on spending all your wealth on +stat items instead of stuff that can help the party (wands, scrolls, etc.) and just forces using the already broken routes of no save just die stuff (Orbs, summons, waves of exhaustion, etc.)

Dante & Vergil
2009-12-09, 02:38 PM
The single attribute thing always bothered me for casters too. But I like the idea of most classes being MAD, so that all attributes are relevant, rather than try and make every class based off of only one or two attributes. Something I've always wanted to try out for all casters:

INT determines extra spells per day.
WIS determines max spell level you can cast.
CHA determines save DCs.

Now you can choose what kind of caster you want to be: Powerful, but unable to control the most potent spells, More but weaker spells per day, etc. In a higher point-buy, wealth, or power-level of your game I might even want to raise the WIS requirements to cast spells of a certain level. (You need 10+(2xSpell_level) to cast level X spells, and 10+Spell_level to even use the X level spell slots for meta-magic enhance lower level spells).

Has anyone ever tried something like this in actual play?

I can say I have not, as it only serves to severely cripple casters, first by adding a third stat into the mix when you are not getting enough, then by raising the requisite stat requirment to rediculous levels.
If you don't want spellcasters in your game, just don't allow anyone to play one.
Again, I agree with Milskidasith, because he's the only one that thinks that doing this will only create problems.

Optimystik
2009-12-09, 02:39 PM
The single attribute thing always bothered me for casters too. But I like the idea of most classes being MAD, so that all attributes are relevant, rather than try and make every class based off of only one or two attributes. Something I've always wanted to try out for all casters:

INT determines extra spells per day.
WIS determines max spell level you can cast.
CHA determines save DCs.

How would that affect casting classes that don't rely on attributes to get spells per day OR max spell level, like Warlocks and Binders?


Madness!!!!!

THIS!
IS!

...too easy

sonofzeal
2009-12-09, 02:42 PM
How would that affect casting classes that don't rely on attributes to get spells per day OR max spell level, like Warlocks and Binders?
....why should it affect these classes? Are Warlocks/Binders in desperate need of MADification?

Myrmex
2009-12-09, 02:42 PM
The single attribute thing always bothered me for casters too. But I like the idea of most classes being MAD, so that all attributes are relevant, rather than try and make every class based off of only one or two attributes. Something I've always wanted to try out for all casters:

INT determines extra spells per day.
WIS determines max spell level you can cast.
CHA determines save DCs.

Now you can choose what kind of caster you want to be: Powerful, but unable to control the most potent spells, More but weaker spells per day, etc. In a higher point-buy, wealth, or power-level of your game I might even want to raise the WIS requirements to cast spells of a certain level. (You need 10+(2xSpell_level) to cast level X spells, and 10+Spell_level to even use the X level spell slots for meta-magic enhance lower level spells).

Has anyone ever tried something like this in actual play?

It would be balancing at levels 9 to 14, for full casters. Once the full casters get 8th & 9th level spells, it's gg. The spells are the real problem, and at that level, they will have a lot of them.

At levels 1-8, casters would be hard to play. They would get hardly any spells and have abysmal physical scores, at levels when they're still relevant. And with charisma determining save DCs, casters would simply stop using them.

For half casters (bard, ranger, paladin, duskblade) and specialized casters (beguiler, warmage), you'd ruin them.

Optimystik
2009-12-09, 02:45 PM
....why should it affect these classes? Are Warlocks/Binders in desperate need of MADification?

No, but that's the point. Because it nerfs every traditional caster through the floor, suddenly Warlocks and Binders would be king of the roost (and still SAD.)

The same goes for any level-based progressing class, like Truenamers, Shadowcasters, Factotums...

Milskidasith
2009-12-09, 02:46 PM
Well at least Psionics would still be OK since augmentation is based on level, as are DCs for augmented abilities by adding PP. But nobody cares about psionics but me... >_> Exaggeration, I know, but I am a very strong psionic supporter.

Myrmex
2009-12-09, 02:46 PM
No, but that's the point. Because it nerfs every traditional caster through the floor, suddenly Warlocks and Binders would be king of the roost (and still SAD.)

The same goes for any level-based progressing class, like Truenamers, Shadowcasters, Factotums...

So by moving tier one down to tier 3 or 4, you have to movie tiers 7 through 3 down further?

Zovc
2009-12-09, 02:48 PM
Well at least Psionics would still be OK since augmentation is based on level, as are DCs for augmented abilities by adding PP. But nobody cares about psionics but me... >_> Exaggeration, I know, but I am a very strong psionic supporter.

I think we're just too few and far between.

Jayabalard
2009-12-09, 02:49 PM
If you don't want spellcasters in your game, just don't allow anyone to play one.I don't think this is what the OP wants at all... I think he wants less powerful or weaker spellcasters, not "no spellcasters".


No, but that's the point. Because it nerfs every traditional caster through the floor, suddenly Warlocks and Binders would be king of the roost (and still SAD.)You're presenting this as if it's a problem, but not actually demonstrating that this is the case. What exactly is the problem with those classes being the most powerful? They aren't actually gaining any power, they are just staying the same while the top end classes become weaker.

Optimystik
2009-12-09, 02:52 PM
So by moving tier one down to tier 3 or 4, you have to movie tiers 7 through 3 down further?

Actually it would be more like flipping the tiers.

Say I'm a Warlock. Using Demiwrath's system, I focus on CHA.

I need INT for bonus spells - doesn't affect me.
I need WIS for highest spell level - doesn't affect me.
I need CHA for save DCs - just like before. (And, like milskidaith said, I can even just focus on no-save Invocations and not need CHA.)

I am effectively SAD. I am very powerful compared to the lowly wizard, who now needs a really good stat roll or high point buy to keep up with me.

Same would apply to Binder etc.


You're presenting this as if it's a problem, but not actually demonstrating that this is the case. What exactly is the problem with those classes being the most powerful? They aren't actually gaining any power, they are just staying the same while the top end classes become weaker.

It's a problem because he's effectively banning top tier classes, so why not just do that and save himself a lot of work?

An effective ban is not "a fix."

Milskidasith
2009-12-09, 02:52 PM
Idon't think this is what the OP wants at all... I think he wants less powerful or weaker spellcasters, not "no spellcasters".

Spellcasters getting bonus spells as written, DCs as written with a different stat, and spell levels with twice the normal amount is almost as MAD as the monk or paladin (you need Int and Wis, and Cha is necessary if you don't want to be a buff and summon and orb and a few other spells bot). Plus, the double requirement for wis means you need to sink all of your money into it immediately.


You're presenting this as if it's a problem, but not actually demonstrating that this is the case.


The problem is that leaving the classes in there when they are MAD and forced to cheese it up or suck it up means that it's a trap. Optimizers could do OK with a malconvoker who buffed his summons, but anybody blasting would run out of spells, never get one to hit, and not have the good ones anyway.

EDIT: Also, it doesn't make Warlock T1, it removes T1 entirely, because T1 requires you to be able to break the game any way you want, and you can't do that with a warlock. Psions, however, are probably still T2/T3 because they can augment several good lower level powers. Other casters are "optimize and be T2, don't optimize and be T5."

Curmudgeon
2009-12-09, 02:56 PM
Favored Souls cast spells based on Charisma, but their spells' saves are derived from their Wisdom.
I like making a similar adjustment for Wizards, but using Charisma for spell DCs. As has already been pointed out, CON is a priority for Wizards anyway. Charisma is the way to go.

Zovc
2009-12-09, 02:58 PM
I like making a similar adjustment for Wizards, but using Charisma for spell DCs. As has already been pointed out, CON is a priority for Wizards anyway. Charisma is the way to go.

Indeed, Charisma should be in the equation somewhere, in my opinion, because it's a useless attribute (in comparison to the rest of them).

sonofzeal
2009-12-09, 02:59 PM
It would be balancing at levels 9 to 14, for full casters. Once the full casters get 8th & 9th level spells, it's gg. The spells are the real problem, and at that level, they will have a lot of them.

At levels 1-8, casters would be hard to play. They would get hardly any spells and have abysmal physical scores, at levels when they're still relevant. And with charisma determining save DCs, casters would simply stop using them.

For half casters (bard, ranger, paladin, duskblade) and specialized casters (beguiler, warmage), you'd ruin them.
I don't think it'd ruin half-casters. How many Paladin/Ranger spells rely on saving throws? And since all their spells are such low level, you'd hardly need much effort there either. Int is nice (but mostly replaceable with Pearls of Power), Wis you'd want a 12 to start, and Cha can be dumped entirely. That's not really "ruining", although I do agree they really don't need the nerf, and it is still a nerf, just not as hard a nerf as it is for full casters.

Specialized Casters aren't really hit harder than other full-casters, although again some really don't need the nerf.


The real oddness is for Archivist and Favoured Soul, casters who are already split.

shadow_archmagi
2009-12-09, 03:01 PM
Not sure how this would really solve anything. Sure, the wizard's save DCs might decrease somewhat, but that only reduces his usefulness in situations wherein casting spells with a save is the optimal move.

Not that I'm saying no-save spells will just replace save spells in combat (not to say they wouldn't either) but, well

Take the basic tier system example:

You have to defend a city, hunt down a crimelord, and infiltrate a dragon's lair. Defending the city won't change significantly, because Wall of Stone and Inspire Heroism and all the other spells you'll be using to help the defense prepare don't require saves. Infiltrating the dragon's lair won't change because spells like Flight or Disintegrate or whatever it is you're using to bypass traps won't be affected by changing DCs.

The wizard's strength here is "There is a spell that can solve almost every problem, and I know them all. I can always contribute the most or near the most to the solution of any problem. "

The real solution to wizards is to reduce the number of situations that their tool kit of magic can solve; reduce the number of spells they have available and reduce the utility of spells that are a bit too swiss army knife.

Myrmex
2009-12-09, 03:02 PM
Actually it would be more like flipping the tiers.

Say I'm a Warlock. Using Demiwrath's system, I focus on CHA.

I need INT for bonus spells - doesn't affect me.
I need WIS for highest spell level - doesn't affect me.
I need CHA for save DCs - just like before. (And, like milskidaith said, I can even just focus on no-save Invocations and not need CHA.)

I am effectively SAD. I am very powerful compared to the lowly wizard, who now needs a really good stat roll or high point buy to keep up with me.

Same would apply to Binder etc.

Invocations are extraordinarily weak compared to spells. The reason full casters are on top is because of how broken their spell lists are, and how easy it is for them to get multiple actions/round.

And as a warlock, you're only "very powerful" until level 12 or so, when suddenly the wizard can afford some int & wisdom equipment (charisma still stays a dump stat, since save-or-anything spells are weak), and then he's got teleport and passwall and all his other shenanigans. He'll lose a few int points, but that means going from 7 or 8 ninth level spells to 5 or 6 level nine spells, which an infinity more ninth level spells than a warlock gets. Maybe 5 or 6 infinities; I'm not great with math.

The suggested "fix" just makes wizards even weaker at low levels, without fixing any of the higher level problems of shapechange, time stop, celerity, or metamagic abuse & persistent spell.

At levels 1-10, smart wizards use spells that make the party fight better. Outside of color spray & sleep for the first couple levels will you see a wizard ending an encounter in one action. He might greatly push an encounter in a favorable direction with a Solid Cloud or a nasty ray effect, but he is still going to need the 3 beatsticks with him to actually do the damage that ends the encounter. Once he can start throwing around empowered enervates, **** changes, and it really doesn't matter what his ability scores are.


It's a problem because he's effectively banning top tier classes, so why not just do that and save himself a lot of work?

He's not; he's just making upper tier classes more difficult to play at low levels and not changing much at higher levels.

Snails
2009-12-09, 03:04 PM
Sure. If you really like MAD, then everyone should be MAD. But that is quite different from MAD being difficult to fix.*

With respect to Wizards, I always thought it would make sense to have Cha determine DC. Doing the same for the Cleric would be okay as well. But I am not sure how to re-balance all the various casting classes under this regime.

* Drifting off topic: MAD is a significant design flaw because its effect is extremely unpredictable under the different stat, wealth, and PrC styles that DMs run under. Under specific campaign conditions, it could be viewed as a feature that requires only trivial tweaking to the class balance.

Optimystik
2009-12-09, 03:06 PM
He's not; he's just making upper tier classes more difficult to play at low levels and not changing much at higher levels.

I was assuming the point of his system would be not to allow Wizards access to all kinds of stat-boosting equipment to circumvent the drawbacks. If that isn't the case, then of course I agree with you. But a Wizard who isn't allowed to rely on his WBL to overcome the system would end up closer to my example.

Myrmex
2009-12-09, 03:07 PM
I don't think it'd ruin half-casters. How many Paladin/Ranger spells rely on saving throws? And since all their spells are such low level, you'd hardly need much effort there either. Int is nice (but mostly replaceable with Pearls of Power), Wis you'd want a 12 to start, and Cha can be dumped entirely. That's not really "ruining", although I do agree they really don't need the nerf, and it is still a nerf, just not as hard a nerf as it is for full casters.

I was thinking mainly of the bard, duskblade, and beguiler. All 3 are pretty dependent on their physical ability scores, and now also have greater dependency on two mental attributes they didn't before. Needing wis to cast spells practically cripples them.

Paladin & Ranger are more MAD than they already were, but the ways you circumvented that aren't any weaker.


I was assuming the point of his system would be not to allow Wizards access to all kinds of stat-boosting equipment to circumvent the drawbacks. If that isn't the case, then of course I agree with you. But a Wizard who isn't allowed to rely on his WBL to overcome the system would end up closer to my example.

Craft Wondrous Item would be on the top of my feat list, for sure.

Snails
2009-12-09, 03:15 PM
The real solution to wizards is to reduce the number of situations that their tool kit of magic can solve; reduce the number of spells they have available and reduce the utility of spells that are a bit too swiss army knife.

The idea that magic can theoretically be a solution to anything and everything would be a major sacred cow.

What is peculiar about D&D Wizards is the dominance of the Generalists. On the scale of practical possibilities within the basic framework, even the Wizard Specialists are really generalists.

I think that the 1e Illusionists and 3.5 Psionics show the potential for actual Specialists.

It is not necessarily a big deal that a particular Wizard can directly compete with a particular major class ability. What is a big deal is almost every Wizard can potentially compete with almost every class ability.

Mark Hall
2009-12-09, 03:31 PM
Personally, I'd link it to something other than Con. Since Wizards makes such a big deal about armor interfering with the necessary motions of spellcasting, switch it to Dex, and you have less of an issue.

I suggest, a while ago, making all of the casters MAD, using different attributes for different aspects of spellcasting... you COULD neglect one, but it would limit the spells you could get away with.

For example, make Wizards so that Intelligence influenced the highest level spells they could cast (understand), Wisdom influenced their bonus spells (extra reserves of willpower), and Charisma influenced spell saves (strength of will to affect the world). Clerics needed Wisdom to understand higher level spells, Intelligence to keep all the various prayers straight (i.e. bonus spells), and Charisma to be liked by their deity so things would get hit harder by them.

Myrmex
2009-12-09, 03:34 PM
Personally, I'd link it to something other than Con. Since Wizards makes such a big deal about armor interfering with the necessary motions of spellcasting, switch it to Dex, and you have less of an issue.

I suggest, a while ago, making all of the casters MAD, using different attributes for different aspects of spellcasting... you COULD neglect one, but it would limit the spells you could get away with.

For example, make Wizards so that Intelligence influenced the highest level spells they could cast (understand), Wisdom influenced their bonus spells (extra reserves of willpower), and Charisma influenced spell saves (strength of will to affect the world). Clerics needed Wisdom to understand higher level spells, Intelligence to keep all the various prayers straight (i.e. bonus spells), and Charisma to be liked by their deity so things would get hit harder by them.

Yeah, we just went over why that's not really a fix for when full casters are at their strongest, and is rather crippling for bards & duskblades.

Mark Hall
2009-12-09, 04:15 PM
Yeah, we just went over why that's not really a fix for when full casters are at their strongest, and is rather crippling for bards & duskblades.

That's the thing, though... you don't have to make it the same for every class, and working it across three stats helps the issue, even if it doesn't solve it.

Duskblades do not cast like wizards do not cast like bards do not cast like sorcerers do not cast like hexblades, even though they're all "arcane" magic. Thus, you can limit wizards slightly be requiring three stats, sorcerers a bit less by only requiring two, and bards, duskblades and hexblades far less by only requiring one.

While wizards might be able to dump charisma to an extent (relying on no-save spells and Charisma boosters), that still either limits their spell selection, their spells per day, or their magic item slots... they either have to choose carefully to avoid spells that cannot be saved against or eat up magic item or spell slots for Charisma boosters. They could dump wisdom, but that gets them in the same place... they either lose out on spell slots or they have to buy magic items that enhance their Wisdom (since the temporary boosts from spells wouldn't give them additional slots). Sorcerers, on the other hand, might need only two stats... they have to have Charisma to get their spell levels and saving throws, and Constitution or Wisdom for their bonus spells (since they need either mental or physical endurance to channel that energy). Bards, on the other hand, can get away with just having a powerful personality.

This would further tie into the fluff that being a wizard is HARD. That you need to have some distinct requirements for it in order to be any good, while you can go to a three-week bard camp and be casting spells like Taliesin.

It's not a perfect solution by any means. But it's a resource-driven game, and either forcing spellcasters to spend more resources (be they attribute points, spell slots, gold, or magic item slots) to get the same effect lessens them, especially since combat classes are already pretty MAD.

jiriku
2009-12-09, 04:16 PM
'Twould probably be easier to control wizard power by tightly restricting what spells they can learn. I rely heavily on the sorcerer class when building my monster NPCs for that reason - I can pick what spells I please without having to worry "what will it do the game if a PC wizard adds this spell to his spellbook?"

Fitz10019
2009-12-09, 05:31 PM
'Tightly controlled' wizard spell access means hours of your life lost to begging.

Kesnit
2009-12-09, 07:05 PM
Agreed, whole-heartedly. You get fu my friend!:smallcool:
Doing this will aslo weaken the wizard in the long run. You only get +1 to a stat every 4 levels, and spells advance every 2. Can you see the problem with the system as it stands now? You may start out ahead, but sooner or later (depending what system you use to determine stats) you are going to fall behind and won't be able to keep up, and that's with items and inherent boni. In point-buy and/or low-wealth campains the problem only gets worse.

So? Pure casters are widely said to be overpowered anyway. Weakening them that mush would only make them comparable to lower tier classes. Rather than having a WIZ end every combat with a well placed high level spell, they would have to actually think and use tactics.

Milskidasith
2009-12-09, 07:07 PM
So? Pure casters are widely said to be overpowered anyway. Weakening them that mush would only make them comparable to lower tier classes. Rather than having a WIZ end every combat with a well placed high level spell, they would have to actually think and use tactics.

No, casters would still be just as broken with no save just lose spells. It's just that all the solution does is make all the already underpowered options (blasting) even worse, and make wizards require optimization to be good, and without optimization they'd suck.

Temotei
2009-12-09, 07:13 PM
No, casters would still be just as broken with no save just lose spells. It's just that all the solution does is make all the already underpowered options (blasting) even worse, and make wizards require optimization to be good, and without optimization they'd suck.

This.

I don't like this idea at all, to be honest. Not only will the wizard have to get two good ability rolls to be able to cast his/her best spells, they also have to scrap that stereotype of a frail old man spellcaster. Which is sad.

Kesnit
2009-12-09, 07:19 PM
No, casters would still be just as broken with no save just lose spells. It's just that all the solution does is make all the already underpowered options (blasting) even worse, and make wizards require optimization to be good, and without optimization they'd suck.

No, they wouldn't because WIZ wouldn't be able to GET the higher spells. (At least, not as early as they do now.) I was addressing the idea of basing casting off BASE attribute, not whatever you can get by augmenting attributes with items. If a WIZ is restricted to (say) 6th level spells because they have to get their natural (say) INT and CHA to 16 before they can cast, their ability to one-shot everything is reduced.


This.

I don't like this idea at all, to be honest. Not only will the wizard have to get two good ability rolls to be able to cast his/her best spells, they also have to scrap that stereotype of a frail old man spellcaster. Which is sad.

Honestly, I don't care if CON is the second attribute for WIZ. CHA would work just as well. Probably better, actually. The idea is to make it much harder for WIZ to gain the ability to cast high level spells.

Milskidasith
2009-12-09, 07:28 PM
No, they wouldn't because WIZ wouldn't be able to GET the higher spells. (At least, not as early as they do now.) I was addressing the idea of basing casting off BASE attribute, not whatever you can get by augmenting attributes with items. If a WIZ is restricted to (say) 6th level spells because they have to get their natural (say) INT and CHA to 16 before they can cast, their ability to one-shot everything is reduced.

See, you probably should have mentioned this, because the whole "base attribute" thing was left on the last page as bad design, because it's basically "in high PB, you're fine, in low PB, you suck." It also further emphasizes the "in 32 PB, the wizard has 18 con and 18 int" problem. It doesn't make the wizard less powerful, it just makes him less likely to have anything that isn't spellcasting related, much like requiring high wisdom to cast spells just means the wizard would burn all his money on +wis items instead of items to help the party.

Plus, limiting wizard spells isn't balancing him. It's saying you can't play the class past X point. It's like saying the fighter needs a natural 18 in wisdom or he can't learn any more fighter feats. It's just not as good of a fix as actually banning the class, because that's what you are doing.

nightwyrm
2009-12-09, 07:30 PM
No, they wouldn't because WIZ wouldn't be able to GET the higher spells. (At least, not as early as they do now.) I was addressing the idea of basing casting off BASE attribute, not whatever you can get by augmenting attributes with items. If a WIZ is restricted to (say) 6th level spells because they have to get their natural (say) INT and CHA to 16 before they can cast, their ability to one-shot everything is reduced.


Putting aside the extra bookkeeping of keeping separate track of "natural" to "itemized" stats. That just means the wizard has casting delayed until he gets enough cash to buy those stat boosting tomes.

erikun
2009-12-09, 07:37 PM
I'm afraid this wouldn't work. All it would do would require higher ability scores and higher optimization to make the Wizard work properly; it would not hamper a properly designed Wizard from being T1.

Besides, it doesn't really make the Wizard that MAD. All a Wizard need pre-epic is 20 WIS, which can be accomplished with a starting 14 WIS and buying the stat boosting items. Blaster-Wizards will then focus on CHA (not getting extra spells from INT) while Batman-Wizards will focus on INT (not caring about CHA because they don't rely on saves).

So all you've done is make Blasting worse, make poor decisions more punishing, and imposed a minor gold tax on the most powerful class of Wizard: The Batman and The Trippy. You're eliminating the type of Wizard that was not the problem, while forcing players to either use Fighters or the type of Wizard that is the problem.

Milskidasith
2009-12-09, 07:39 PM
I'm afraid this wouldn't work. All it would do would require higher ability scores and higher optimization to make the Wizard work properly; it would not hamper a properly designed Wizard from being T1.

Besides, it doesn't really make the Wizard that MAD. All a Wizard need pre-epic is 20 WIS, which can be accomplished with a starting 14 WIS and buying the stat boosting items. Blaster-Wizards will then focus on CHA (not getting extra spells from INT) while Batman-Wizards will focus on INT (not caring about CHA because they don't rely on saves).

So all you've done is make Blasting worse, make poor decisions more punishing, and imposed a minor gold tax on the most powerful class of Wizard: The Batman and The Trippy. You're eliminating the type of Wizard that was not the problem, while forcing players to either use Fighters or the type of Wizard that is the problem.

Err... he suggested spell level*2 wisdom required to cast spells, meaning you need 28 wis for 9th level spells, or all your levelups, a +6 item, and a starting 18 to have it by level 17. So it's a bit harder to do than you thought, but not incredibly so.

erikun
2009-12-09, 07:49 PM
10 + level * 2 to cast a spell slot? I must have missed that.

Then again, INT means a lot less to a Wizard now, so you could concievably go 16 INT, 18 WIS and end up still much farther ahead than any non-spellcaster.

This is kind of highlighting an ongoing problem with the "fix". It keeps getting larger and more complex, in an attempt to limit Wizard from casting their highest level spells. I mean, it doesn't even stop them from casting Grease or Web or Detect Thoughts to completely ruin the DM plot.

AshDesert
2009-12-09, 09:19 PM
So? Pure casters are widely said to be overpowered anyway. Weakening them that mush would only make them comparable to lower tier classes. Rather than having a WIZ end every combat with a well placed high level spell, they would have to actually think and use tactics.

My friends Grease (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/grease.htm), Solid Fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/solidFog.htm), Haste (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm), and Glitterdust (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glitterdust.htm) would like to talk to you about how you don't need high level spells to (effectively) end an encounter with one spell:smalltongue:. Also, how is using a "well placed high level spell" not "[thinking] and [using] tactics":smallconfused:?

Kesnit
2009-12-09, 09:36 PM
See, you probably should have mentioned this, because the whole "base attribute" thing was left on the last page as bad design,

Except it was the post I was actually replying to.


because it's basically "in high PB, you're fine, in low PB, you suck."

Except a Wizard wouldn't suck. It would pull them down from Tier 1, but that is the idea of this thread anyway. Wizards would still have all the spells they have now. They would just either have to wait longer to get them or really lower their other stats.


It also further emphasizes the "in 32 PB, the wizard has 18 con and 18 int" problem. It doesn't make the wizard less powerful, it just makes him less likely to have anything that isn't spellcasting related,

Wizards are casters. They should be focused on casting, not becoming a better Fighter than a Fighter.


much like requiring high wisdom to cast spells just means the wizard would burn all his money on +wis items instead of items to help the party.

Except there would be no reason for the WIZ to spend their money on items that boost abilities because those boosts would do nothing for them


Plus, limiting wizard spells isn't balancing him. It's saying you can't play the class past X point.

Nope, you can play a WIZ all the way along. A WIZ would eventually get 9th level spells - it would just take longer. Until then, the WIZ still has all their lower level spells.

[
Putting aside the extra bookkeeping of keeping separate track of "natural" to "itemized" stats.

What extra bookkeeping? His natural and augmented stats are already on his sheet.


That just means the wizard has casting delayed until he gets enough cash to buy those stat boosting tomes.

Which is rather the point.


My friends Grease (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/grease.htm), Solid Fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/solidFog.htm), Haste (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm), and Glitterdust (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glitterdust.htm) would like to talk to you about how you don't need high level spells to (effectively) end an encounter with one spell:smalltongue:. Also, how is using a "well placed high level spell" not "[thinking] and [using] tactics":smallconfused:?

A WIZ can cast all those spells, granted. But with an 8 in STR and DEX (which would be necessary to get the 18 starting INT and CHA/CON/whatever as referenced above with a 32 point buy), someone else is going to have to actually finish the enemies off.

The idea isn't to make a WIZ unplayable. It's to nerf a WIZ enough that it becomes worthwhile to play other classes. In other words, make the WIZ just another member of the party and not the sole focus of the encounter.

Hat-Trick
2009-12-09, 09:46 PM
I think a DEX check would be a decent idea at least. All this three stat stuff is confusing. Force a DEX check with a DC of 10+spell level or what ever seems fair to see if the spell works. Fail, and you can either say they lose the spell or it just didn't work and they can try again later.

Myrmex
2009-12-10, 01:53 AM
No, casters would still be just as broken with no save just lose spells. It's just that all the solution does is make all the already underpowered options (blasting) even worse, and make wizards require optimization to be good, and without optimization they'd suck.

Blasting is actually the most optimal offensive tactic in the wizard's repertoire (buffing, debuffing, and control require actual teamwork). You would only need 18 wis and as much int as possible in a 3 mental stat MAD wizard variant, and still do over 9,000 damage/round.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-10, 04:58 AM
So, let me comprehend this.

In an effort to make wizards more balanced, we:

*Keep Int as a mandatory stat, for max level of spells known, and bonus spells.
*Add Wis as a mandatory 2nd stat, following the same guidelines.
*Add Con as a mandatory 3rd stat, following the same guidelines.
*Require the Wizard to have 10 + 2*(Spell level) for int, and 10+Spell level for the others.
*Force the wizard to spend 10xp per spell level of the spell he casts, whenever a metamagic feat is applied. This is in addition to spell slot changes.
*Beat the wizard's player with a hose whenever he casts a spell that has the potential to end an encounter.

Am I missing anything?

Akisa
2009-12-10, 05:45 AM
Now for the most important question of them all, with all these changes would any of your players play a caster now?

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-10, 05:53 AM
Yes.
Because when someone tells me, "You are this class. You should be doing this, and not that..." I hate that. 3.X is about options.

Even if those options are horribly sub-par. Even if Wizard required all 6 stats at 10+ spell level.

Even with a mandatory 10% failure chance.

If I want to cast spells, I'll do that. Because that's what I want to do.

From an effectiveness standpoint? No, I wouldn't. The selection doesn't address the things that make a wizard powerful. All they do is remove the option for wizards to have any other focus, and hobble their players.

erikun
2009-12-10, 08:35 AM
Now for the most important question of them all, with all these changes would any of your players play a caster now?
Yes. You'll probably see me using an old anthropomorphic bat with 20 INT and 26 WIS at level 1, but I could still play a wizard.

And hence lies the problem. The higher the stat restrictions are pushed, the more optimized a character needs to be to fit them. It doesn't make the wizard any weaker, it just makes it a worse idea to be a non-optimized wizard.

The wizard will never we equal to the fighter, simply because the fighter is simply the worse of the two. You could change the wizard spell list to make it more in line with the fighter, or give the fighter abilities to make it more in line with the wizard. Placing ability score restrictions on the wizard doesn't make it "worse" or "balanced", it just means that people who aren't optimizing just don't have the option to play a wizard.

--

As a side note, I would like to point out that there is a Wizard fix available. It prevents the wizard from dominating fights with save-or-die spells, with resolving skill checks with a wave of hand, and removes the possibility of Chain-Gating Solar nonsense. It goes something like this:

1.) ban Wizards
2.) ban Sorcerers
3.) allow Beguilers
4.) allow Warmages
5.) allow Dread Necromancers

wormwood
2009-12-10, 08:47 AM
I don't recall the exact effects of aging but I'd say any system that makes it harder for wizards to cast spells as they get older is going to be bad. If you base any part of the spellcasting off of physical attributes that will degrade, then your old wizards will be weakened. That is contrary to the fluff of most games, I'd say.

At least in all the games I played as a kid, if we saw anyone who appeared to be over 30 years old we assumed they were the skillet, and not to be messed with.

Fitz10019
2009-12-10, 10:27 AM
Hello, all, OP here...

The idea was never to 'totally nerf' wizards, or any other class; not to prevent anyone from getting to 9th level spells, or even to delay them; and certainly not to discourage players from choosing any particular class. Also, I have no idea where the multiple-by-spell-level-for-min-stat came from. Madness!

The idea was simply that casting classes should have to spend their point buy in more than one attribute to be effective, just like the melee classes have to. No one-attribute wonders. Wizards and Clerics are tier 1 even if they were to need a minimum Con (or Cha, per Curmudgeon) to cast. I think as long as spending gold matters, and using up body slots matters, then MAD matters.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-10, 02:17 PM
Huh. So...I play a dragonwrought kobold, and throw a few points at con, then procede to break the game anyway?

I fail to see what you're trying to accomplish.

First off, ignoring enhancement bonuses makes them meaningless. Buffs, gear, get ignored. If you don't do this, they are an easy way to negate all your wierd changes. Neither option is particularily attractive.

Anything that affects only save DC will get ignored. There are many ways to bypass saves.

Spell level will always take priority over everything else. Nobody sane will ever sacrifice 9th level spells for +1DC or +1 bonus spell of a lower level.

So, it changes almost nothing for the highest tier, optimized casting classes right up until the point where you break them completely. There's no happy, balanced medium. Plus, it adds complexity.

I vote this solution burn in fire.

Kesnit
2009-12-10, 04:13 PM
How about this, then....

Every spell requires a save. Spells that are listed as no save (unless they are harmless) now require a save. Casting is set up like Favored Soul - one stat to gain access to spell level and another to calculate saves. In order to gain spells of a certain level, you must have a natural attribute of 10+spell level. Buying items will not increase what level of spells you can cast. Saves can still be based on item-augmented abilities.

erikun
2009-12-10, 05:01 PM
Hello, all, OP here...

The idea was never to 'totally nerf' wizards, or any other class; not to prevent anyone from getting to 9th level spells, or even to delay them; and certainly not to discourage players from choosing any particular class. Also, I have no idea where the multiple-by-spell-level-for-min-stat came from. Madness!

The idea was simply that casting classes should have to spend their point buy in more than one attribute to be effective, just like the melee classes have to. No one-attribute wonders. Wizards and Clerics are tier 1 even if they were to need a minimum Con (or Cha, per Curmudgeon) to cast. I think as long as spending gold matters, and using up body slots matters, then MAD matters.
In this case, the best solution you're going to find is the Archivist/Favored Soul solution - namely, that spellcasting run off of one stat while save DC run off another. It won't stop wizards from casting no-save spells, as others have mentioned, but it will mean that wizards are interested in another stat.

I should probably point out, though, that every wizard worth their spellbook is concerned about DEX and CON, at least at low-mid levels.



I suppose you could modify how spellcasting works entirely, such as requiring a Concentration check or "Nimble Fingers" check to cast a spell successfully. However, such a solution will penalize the already MAD spellcasters (Archivist, Favored Soul, lesser casters like Bard) unless you modify what stats are important to them.

Also, if all classes are MAD, are you planning on allowing dual-stat progression every 4 levels to make up the difference?

Tyndmyr
2009-12-10, 05:10 PM
How about this, then....

Every spell requires a save. Spells that are listed as no save (unless they are harmless) now require a save. Casting is set up like Favored Soul - one stat to gain access to spell level and another to calculate saves. In order to gain spells of a certain level, you must have a natural attribute of 10+spell level. Buying items will not increase what level of spells you can cast. Saves can still be based on item-augmented abilities.

This solution entirely invalidates all touch spells. Why would you choose to make a touch spell and a save when you could instead cast something with just a save?

Also, it makes getting gear for the primary casting stat pointless. Why would a wizard buy a +int item if it doesn't boost my save dc or my spells per day? It already fails to boost skill points. I spend the same amount of gold buying a +cha(or whatever) item instead. Um, yay?

Mark Hall
2009-12-10, 05:18 PM
This solution entirely invalidates all touch spells. Why would you choose to make a touch spell and a save when you could instead cast something with just a save?

Truthfully, I think they wound up overusing touch spells, and the idea that they didn't need a save.

Kesnit
2009-12-10, 07:02 PM
This solution entirely invalidates all touch spells. Why would you choose to make a touch spell and a save when you could instead cast something with just a save?

Good point. I wasn't thinking of those, just the no-save, auto-hit. OK, how about: there is no such thing as a no-save, auto-hit spell. Spells that require an attack roll still do. Those that currently do not require an attack or a save now require a save. Also, there are no more save-or-die. Spells that are currently save-or-die effect a creature that fails its save as if it had made its save (under the current system). Creatures that make their saves have the effect halved.


Also, it makes getting gear for the primary casting stat pointless. Why would a wizard buy a +int item if it doesn't boost my save dc or my spells per day?

That was the point.


I spend the same amount of gold buying a +cha(or whatever) item instead. Um, yay?

So? You're still spending the same amount, just that you are boosting a different stat.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-10, 08:20 PM
Good point. I wasn't thinking of those, just the no-save, auto-hit. OK, how about: there is no such thing as a no-save, auto-hit spell. Spells that require an attack roll still do. Those that currently do not require an attack or a save now require a save. Also, there are no more save-or-die. Spells that are currently save-or-die effect a creature that fails its save as if it had made its save (under the current system). Creatures that make their saves have the effect halved.And non-spell save-or-die effects? They work fine?

What about spells that are save or die, but the successful save is <Negates> ?

Does that mean that under the new system, creatures that fail their save have nothing happen to them? So anyone that walks across a Symbol of Death? Nothing happens to them on a failed save.

Finger of death? Turns into an 8th level spell that does 3d8+CL on a failed save.

Circle of Death? Take it to the preschool for show-and-tell, it's harmless.

Something tells me this hasn't been thought out.

What about Save or Lose? Such as Glitterdust?

All you're doing here is reducing saving throws to the point of meaninglessness.

Now, it's AC/Miss Chance/Attack bonus, and who cares about saves, SR, or defensive immunities?

All you're suggesting is that we take the principle draw of 3.x (diversity in options), and trample them.

Sorry, doesn't do it for me.

Kesnit
2009-12-10, 09:52 PM
I'm throwing out ideas, which is more than a lot of people are doing. I never said my ideas are perfect. How about coming up with actual answers, rather than just throwing up your hands and saying nothing will ever work?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-11, 12:57 AM
I'm throwing out ideas, which is more than a lot of people are doing. I never said my ideas are perfect. How about coming up with actual answers, rather than just throwing up your hands and saying nothing will ever work?Again, ban most tier 1 classes. You can swap Clerics to Favored Soul-style wis/cha and ban Divine Metamagic and certain spells, split the Druid into 2 classes, leave the Archivist, Artificer, and Wizard in the trash bin, and hit anyone who mentions Spell-to-Power. Combine that with being willing to houserule/homebrew weaker classes(give the Healer TU and spont casting, similar fixes if someone wants to play any other tier 5 or lower), and you've got a balanced game. Tiers 2-4 can run through together no problem.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-11, 01:08 AM
I'm throwing out ideas, which is more than a lot of people are doing. I never said my ideas are perfect. How about coming up with actual answers, rather than just throwing up your hands and saying nothing will ever work?

Oh, I don't say that nothing will work. I say that this idea will not work.

In general, when someone responds to flaws in their homebrewed idea by proposing massive, sweeping game changes, it indicates that they're trying to justify their idea, not solve a problem.


It's easier to just make sure that people make parties on roughly the same tier and play nice with each other.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-11, 01:14 AM
I'm throwing out ideas, which is more than a lot of people are doing. I never said my ideas are perfect. How about coming up with actual answers, rather than just throwing up your hands and saying nothing will ever work?

I'm not against all ideas. Just all ones that remove a fundamental part of the game without careful consideration of what the impact of the proposal is.

Other proposals, such as class bannings, Dual stat a la Favored Soul, and the like? Those are ok.