PDA

View Full Version : Dammit, Gyhm, I'm a Cleric, not a Miracle-worker! [3.5]



Aotrs Commander
2010-05-22, 07:34 AM
I'm considering at a theoretical revision, dealing with the caster
power. It occurs to me that a lot of the top-level caster problems seem to come from a fairly select few spells. Rather, then, than actually nerf the casters overall down towards the noncasters, it makes more sense to deal with those particular spells.

Theoretical question, then. What if some of the most abusable (and right-out broken) top-level spells were removed? What power difference would this make to full casters? Does it drop them a tier, or merely culls the worst potential abuses and some of the worst broken combos? Or is it going to have a more far-reaching effect? Or is it in the end, not going to make much of a difference? I'm asking since my Optimisation-Fu is only moderate.

At the moment, it's merely a theoretical excercise. I'm not expecting this to make casters and noncasters even, by-the-by, but perhaps just possibly curb some of the worst caster "I-Win" buttons at high level.

I'd welcome any comments, abusable spells/powers I probably ought to look at and so on.


Nominal spell revisions:
4th Level
Polymorph (deleted)

7th Level
Blasphemy/Dictum/Holy Word/Word of Chaos (Revise to Save: Will Negates and only affects creatures of opposite alignment (Blasphemy on Good ect))
Limited Wish (deleted)

Addition: Greater Remove Curse (counts as limited wish for specifically removing Bad Stuff that can normally only be undone with limited wish, plus psionic version for Bend Reality)

8th Level
Polymorph any Object (deleted or moved to Epic)

Bend Reality (deleted)

9th Level
Gate (Moved to Epic)
Miracle (Moved to Epic)
Shapechange (deleted)
Timestop (Moved to Epic)
Wish (Moved to Epic)

Genesis (Moved to Epic)
Psychic Chirurgery (Moved to Epic)
Reality Reversion (Moved to Epic)
Timeless Body (Moved to Epic)

Addition: Grand Remove Curse (counts as miracle/wish for specifically removing Bad Stuff that can normally only be undone with miracle/wish, plus psionic version for Reality Reversion)

Other
Summon Monster/Nature's Ally series (or any other similar spell) (Remove access to creatures with access to any of the following spells1)
Creation/Fabricate series (plus psionic versions) (deleted)



Interesting note. Looking back across that list, it strikes me nearly all those spells are ones whose options are not very delinerated (i.e. with very open options).



1In my specific case, this is not so much a problem since the entire cosmology and bestiary are different.

Yora
2010-05-22, 07:46 AM
Yes, I and probably most people, agree with your analyzation of the issue.

Polymorph and Shapechange only have an HD limit, and nothing stops a writer to create a creature that has very few HD compared to it's overall power. And that did happen a lot. I think Flashraker Drake or something like that is considered to be the ultimate offender here.

Also, I think any spell cast by summoned creatures should end when the summoning effect ends.

lesser_minion
2010-05-22, 07:49 AM
Calling spells have a large number of issues - in essence, it's possible to make the creature an offer it cannot refuse and which grants you far more power than you should have.

Project_Mayhem
2010-05-22, 07:52 AM
This has almost certainly been covered and suggested. but what if the shapechange spells were modified to work like the druid variant? I.e. there were several templates that would modify your stats and give you prescribed abilities. Then, the power would be consistent, and it would be easy to modify or create new ones for unusual creatures.

In fact, if you were willing to put a lot of work in you could have specific templates for specific monsters - form of troll, or form of bulette.

The White Knight
2010-05-22, 07:58 AM
This has almost certainly been covered and suggested. but what if the shapechange spells were modified to work like the druid variant? I.e. there were several templates that would modify your stats and give you prescribed abilities. Then, the power would be consistent, and it would be easy to modify or create new ones for unusual creatures.

In fact, if you were willing to put a lot of work in you could have specific templates for specific monsters - form of troll, or form of bulette.

Pathfinder style!

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 08:02 AM
If you can figure out a way to limit the spell list so it's not 'whatever I feel like this day', that would be good.

Yuki Akuma
2010-05-22, 08:03 AM
This has almost certainly been covered and suggested. but what if the shapechange spells were modified to work like the druid variant? I.e. there were several templates that would modify your stats and give you prescribed abilities. Then, the power would be consistent, and it would be easy to modify or create new ones for unusual creatures.

In fact, if you were willing to put a lot of work in you could have specific templates for specific monsters - form of troll, or form of bulette.

So you mean... the Polymorph subschool that already exists in the later books? Genius!

Eldariel
2010-05-22, 08:09 AM
Yes, I and probably most people, agree with your analyzation of the issue.

Polymorph and Shapechange only have an HD limit, and nothing stops a writer to create a creature that has very few HD compared to it's overall power. And that did happen a lot. I think Flashraker Drake or something like that is considered to be the ultimate offender here.

That's only for Wildshape (though to be fair, it's still pretty damn strong in Core, though Fleshraker does amp the low-level power quite a bit). For Polymorph, especially the Magical Beast forms like Hydras, Remorhazes and such are real bad. For Shapechange, basically anything with Supernatural abilities is bad since it grants those, as is...well, ok, Shapechange is pretty busted with anything with abilities.

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-22, 09:10 AM
If you can figure out a way to limit the spell list so it's not 'whatever I feel like this day', that would be good.

I think that's a whole different issue, albiet one that's related.

It could be relatively easily achieved by just giving clerics/druids a set number of spells known (and/or wizards/archivists a maximum number of spells per level a la AD&D). (The most difficult part is figuring out what the limit is).

I've actually gone with other way with my overall magic revision, which was to essentially make everyone cast spontaneously, but curtails the amount of effective spell levels per day (and for classes like Clerics and Druids, make them work a bit like Erudites in that they only get a certain number of unique spells per day)1. I.e. greater on-the-spot flexibility at the cost of not being able to cast as many spells per day. I'm still fiddling with it (since a major revision needs a fairly good whack at playtesting.)

That train of thought does raise a point though; that if some spells allow you to negate the need for certain classes, you could simply follow suite and remove those probelmatic spells. Find Traps springs to mind, for example. (Okay, you are still going to be able to replace front-line cannon-fodder role (or an unmodified fighter or other melee class) with spells.)

On the other hand, I've also been buffing the noncasters so they aren't quite as weak as they used to be. I'd rather, overall, power the melee classes up (and increase their flexibility) than downgrade the caster's. Nor do I really want everyone on exactly the same level, as 4E does, as I found that rather banal and uninteresting.

However, all that is a) a topic worthy of a thread unto itself and b) doesn't solve the issue of the most problematic spells themselves (particularly if they're so good anybody with a smidgin of optimisation ability is likely to pick them, even with a sharply limited number of spells in the first place.)



On the shapeshifting issue, I certainly would (and doubtless will) follow the later WotC examples of set spells for certain creature types. One solution might be to make an effective template you apply to a creature to get the abilities, and then basically make you learn polymorph once for every form. Or do it a bit like Untapped Potential formbinding system.

It's particulaly important in my case, since my bestiary (created from scratch) has a large number of creatues that are balanced out (well, supposed to be, anyway) as character classes (with an eye that CR=ECL=HD (mostly)). Which would create some serious problems if left alone, as you can well imagine! (One creature, the Occulant has an ability that would make most TO folk cry with joy, as it would lend itself to abuse if it ever got into the PC's hands2.)



1My rationale comes from my last cleric character, which was actually a Monk/Cleric reflavoured into a Naruto-style ninja. Having reflavoured all the spells, I realised that I'll never use about 90% of them, as I'd never bother to load them; even taking into account the character doesn't do any in-combat healing at all.

2Specifically, as an immediate action, it can basically copy any ability, manouver spell or power (etc) it sees at the level of ability identical to the originator. There was going to be a limitation in place that in order to use this ability, you have to BE an Occulant, and that shapeshifting into a form that alien would essentially make you mentally an occulant (and therefore an NPC) as well as physically. But if there's not Shapeshift there's no problem (Savage Species is not on the list of permitted material anyway, so you could't Assume Supernatural ability in any case).

Runestar
2010-05-22, 09:18 AM
It is a start, but I think that even "optimized" spellcasters rarely abuse those spells. Yes, they are commonly cited as reasons why casters = "I win", but they are no less viable even with the removal of those broken spells.

I think the key reason is that melee simply cannot keep up with the rate at which spells improve. So you may want to address that issue as well.

Roderick_BR
2010-05-22, 11:39 AM
Casters can still cast lots of minors spells that stacks with each other, for very strong effects, even without the "abusable" spells. For me, I'd remove all-day-lasting spells, and any ability to cast more than one spell in a single round.

Jack_Simth
2010-05-22, 11:53 AM
Also, I think any spell cast by summoned creatures should end when the summoning effect ends.They already do (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning):
When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells that would cost it XP, or to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells.

lesser_minion
2010-05-22, 11:57 AM
They already do (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning):

I believe she meant Called creatures.

Jack_Simth
2010-05-22, 12:43 PM
I believe she meant Called creatures.

Unfortunately, most Calling effects are Instant, and are already gone by the time the critter uses it's abilities.

However, applying the second portion of the Summoning restriction to Called critters (nothing that would cost XP were it an actual spell), and doing the same for Su abilities, would help somewhat. This is one of the classes of spells that would need addressing to help balance casters.

Wish, Limited Wish, and their Psionic brethren aren't really a problem - the XP cost keeps them from being abused. Anything that bypasses the XP cost needs to be banned, but that's not the fault of the spells themselves.

The next class of spells that need addressing are the Polymorph-style spells and effects. Banning polymorph outright tends to be a bad idea - it's just that iconic in fiction. However, it's busted as all get-out as-is (from both a character power perspective and from an accounting perspective). I'm familiar with three basic ways that have a chance of letting it work (most of them can be combined).
1) Limited Forms (similar to the Summon Monster Line - possibly limited to 1 form). A big chunk of why Polymorph and related is broken is that it gets better with every supplement - more options. If there's a set list of critters you can become with the spell, that's not a problem - you can balance the spell based on what the selectable critters can get you.
2) Variant Summoning. It's not you in the shape of an Efreeti, it's you standing off screen ordering an Efreeti (minus certain problematic abilities - anything that would cost XP if it were a spell) around. Buffs you've pre-cast are gone while the Polymorph is in effect. You can't cast spells while in another form, and so on - you essentially put your character sheet away, and use the Monster Manual Entry for the critter. Damage and status effects done to the beast are applied to you when the spell ends. Then limit how tough the monster can be is based on CR, rather than HD.
3) Mostly illusion. You don't turn into an efreeti. You just look like an efreeti, and choose a small number of options from a list of buff effects to apply to you (the specific list of options being based on the specific spell used). So turning into an efreeti with Shapechange might give you, oh, Fly-60 Average, +4 Enhancement to Strengh, and Fire Resistance-20 (or some such).

These can be combined - the Polymorph subschool in later books made for combinations and variations on all three (Single-form spells that gave you a fixed list of buffs and prevented you from using most of your own abilities) ... but I've yet to see a successful attempt at balancing Polymorph that didn't involve at least one of the three.

The next class of spells that need addressing being the Save-Or... spells (and the no-save spells) - when you have a 50+% chance of turning dangerous opponents into non-issues with one action in battle, balance is lost. If a nondamaging spell (or rather, a spells who's primary effect is not damage; Finger of Death is technically a damage spell) could not affect an opponent unless the opponent had less than 50% of the HP than the caster? That could work - mooks get blasted without issues, the big bad sorcerer can terrorize the commoner townfolk without problems, but the Dragon isn't falling for your Shivering Touch, and that Barbiarian charging you can push through your Wall of Force.

The next to last class of spells that need addressing are those that break the action economy - things that let you act out of turn (Celerity line, but also Wings of Cover and even Contingency), things that let you cast multiple spells at once (Arcane Fusion and Time Stop, I'm looking at you), and the like. These all pretty much need to be banned. Fortunately, they're not nearly so iconic.

The final class of spells that need addressing are the absolute spells - mind blank, true seeing, and the like. If they all required caster level checks vs. a DC based on the caster level of the other (ala Nondetection), that would work quite well. In certain cases, it'd be better addressed by an attack roll or similar, but that's the place to start.

lesser_minion
2010-05-22, 12:53 PM
Unfortunately, most Calling effects are Instant, and are already gone by the time the critter uses it's abilities.

A calling effect 'genuinely' ends when the creature dies or uses its free return home ability. It's just the magical portion that is gone long before the creature uses its abilities.

Beorn080
2010-05-22, 01:09 PM
For the polymorph spells, I do believe the great Giant in the Playground himself remade the entire set of polymorph spells and split them up a bit.

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/dC21fDHZ4tK8n5OjUm9.html
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/PbpHATjPkec7E82kEmo.html

Those are the relevant articles, and personally they seem to do a good job.

Now, for calling/summoning. Summoning isn't horribly broken. Yes, its strong, but its fairly limited since the creatures have a decent set of limitations. I'm AWB right now, but I recall a variant that lets you make a deal with creatures you summon, so you always get them while summoning, but if they bite it during the summon, you can't resummon them for 24 hours, and for that level of summoning, they are all you get. This lets you use them for scouting, but requires you to be more cautious about their use. Also, if you called them, you could arm them with equipment of your choosing that they would bring when you summoned them.

Calling however, is broken. I'm of a mind that a "link" is generated between the called creature and the caller, such that the caller loses a highest level spell slot whenever the called creature uses a SLA or such. This would let you switch your spells around and do more, while still limiting the power you have total.

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-22, 06:11 PM
It is a start, but I think that even "optimized" spellcasters rarely abuse those spells. Yes, they are commonly cited as reasons why casters = "I win", but they are no less viable even with the removal of those broken spells.

I think the key reason is that melee simply cannot keep up with the rate at which spells improve. So you may want to address that issue as well.

Oh, I don't expect this change to do much in isolation. I've already done quite a few upgrades to the melee classes (and am still looking at others). And they seem to be effective as far as my usual standard of game goes. (I have a party which consists of a Fighter 17, Rogue 17, Monk 17, Wizard 17, Cleric 17 and Fighter/Ranger/Deepwood Sniper (in some combination that equals 17 levels). The fighter and the archer are doing a horrible amount of the fighting, and I'm working on boosting the monk. Admittedly, the adventure contains a lot of weaker enemies1 and the party is hideously over-equipped, but still.)

On the other hand, I'm happy with just narrowing the gap a touch, not so much trying to close it completely. So long as no-one's actually useless, I'm satisfied. Also, the theoretical changes make more versimilitudal sense. (For the same reason I have seriously considered making Remove Disease significantly more difficult to do.)


Casters can still cast lots of minors spells that stacks with each other, for very strong effects, even without the "abusable" spells. For me, I'd remove all-day-lasting spells, and any ability to cast more than one spell in a single round.

Well, yes. Some of those are party buffs, though. And Dispel Magic tends to ruin your day quite a lot. (Especially as access to caster level buff equipment and abilities - and thus resistance to Dispels - is already severely limited, specifically to deal with things like Holy Word. Bead of Karma was unilaterally banned the second I actually read the description, for one!) And EVERYTHING that has access to Dispel Magic will have it and have it loaded. (An encounter that doesn't have spellcaster support generally won't count as anything other than a chaff encounter anyway.) DMM is under close scruteny if it ever comes up, and Nightsticks were laughed out of the building as soon as I laid eyes on 'em.

Though, of course, those comments are particular to my playstyle.


For the polymorph spells, I do believe the great Giant in the Playground himself remade the entire set of polymorph spells and split them up a bit.

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/dC21fDHZ4tK8n5OjUm9.html
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/PbpHATjPkec7E82kEmo.html

Those are the relevant articles, and personally they seem to do a good job.


Thanks for the link, I might take few ideas from them. Though I think I'm more likely to go down the shifting only into a number of specific creatures. Shifting into animals probably isn't too bad (since I am, of course, controlling what animals are around and available, and more importantly, unlike most of the WotC rules writers, actually consider potential abuses when I do something!)

Summoning itself I don't think is a problem; it only becomes so when you get access to abilities that you really shouldn't (like Wish). Calling, yes, is more of a problem. That is probably better shifted to a ritual casting and making it have much larger roleplaying connotations. (I.e. make the PCs have to actually roleplay it out in full 2.)


The next class of spells that need addressing being the Save-Or... spells (and the no-save spells) - when you have a 50+% chance of turning dangerous opponents into non-issues with one action in battle, balance is lost. If a nondamaging spell (or rather, a spells who's primary effect is not damage; Finger of Death is technically a damage spell) could not affect an opponent unless the opponent had less than 50% of the HP than the caster? That could work - mooks get blasted without issues, the big bad sorcerer can terrorize the commoner townfolk without problems, but the Dragon isn't falling for your Shivering Touch, and that Barbiarian charging you can push through your Wall of Force.

Well, I do have to say, that uniquely among spells, I unilaterally banned Shivering Touch before I even owned Frostburn (and was astonished when I actually got it that the spell was even more broken than I had heard...)

Dealing with SoDs is a tricky issue. While I do have a self-confessed preference for blasting, removing them altogether eliminates about half the spells in D&D (and while I make copious rewrites, rewriting the entire spell list is a bit too much like hard work even for me!) Toning them down runs the risk of Final Fantasy Death spell syndrome. In that by the time you get the spell, anything worth using it on is immune to it, and anything else is killed more easily by other spells. The trick is to balance them so they aren't all-powerful but also aren't useless.

I don't have a huge problem with them myself, since they work both ways. (And even if they don't make the save, the look of panic when you tell the player to kae a save and say "You probably really want to make this one..." is totally worth the trouble...

The only time they are hugely problematic is when the PCs are fighting one boss-type opponent. But then again, a critical from the melee types can ruin your day just as well! To deal with this, I have stolen one of 4E's better ideas (never let it be said, while I generally dislike 4E, there were not ideas worth nicking), the solo, and adapted it a bit. Basically, I made a stackable template that increments a creature's hit points and allows it to negate outright kills and status effects by sacrificing a full set of hit points (and it also gets what is very roughly a negative level when it does so). This allows SoDs to still be useful while not boss-encounter ending. And on mooks or combined arms encounters it either doesn't matter or the PCs need all the help they can get! This template has been entering service already and is hugely sucessful.

(Last session (different group to the 17th leveler above), the players were doing battle with an Illithid Cleric. The Rogue/Ninja/Invisible Blade shot it with a paralysation arrow and it actually failed it's save. What would have been an anti-climax merely made it drop one of it's hit point pools - which was equivalent to 209 damage and made it -1 to all it's rolls. So it had an impact (the player was well chuffed, since he'd fired it as a long shot) without ending the combat. I was surprised how well it's worked, as the extra endurance really does give you some extra clout when fighting the PCs! Also, because it doesn't do much apart from incrementally up the man hit points, I can apply it on the fly, as I need to with this adventure (as this, different crowd on PCs) also is over-equipped (thank you AD&D modules...))


The next to last class of spells that need addressing are those that break the action economy - things that let you act out of turn (Celerity line, but also Wings of Cover and even Contingency), things that let you cast multiple spells at once (Arcane Fusion and Time Stop, I'm looking at you), and the like. These all pretty much need to be banned. Fortunately, they're not nearly so iconic.

Oh yes. I don't mind so much allowing quickened spells (since again, the bad guys can use 'em too), but extra action spells are definately a no-no. (I banned the Belt of Battle for exactly the same reason.) No-one has used Celerity yet, but it's certainly on the potential ban list due to it's frequent mentioning. Schism I don't find to bad, since it is quite limited in power.


The final class of spells that need addressing are the absolute spells - mind blank, true seeing, and the like. If they all required caster level checks vs. a DC based on the caster level of the other (ala Nondetection), that would work quite well. In certain cases, it'd be better addressed by an attack roll or similar, but that's the place to start.

Not thought about those too much, to be honest. But given the amount of Invisible, flying PCs I've had to deal with, I don't mind True Seeing too much. But you do raise a valid point well worth some further thought.

In a similar vein, Wind Wall needs to go or be massively reduced in power (since it is always the first answer to the question "what if the noncaster shoots you with his bow"). (Mind you, I have usually found ranged attack characters to be fairly hideously effective, otherwise. The ability to just shoot to death all the Marshals and leader chaps is quite depressing... The Deepwood sniper guy mention before is the reason I will not ever be allowing that PrC again!)



1And by "large numbers", I mean like, 20-50 enemies of about level 8 or so. Plus their higher-level leaders (and spellcaster support!) The specialist archers at that level are still fairly capable of putting holes in many of the PCs; well at least they were until the last shopping trip to Sigil...

2Also, it should be noted at this point that I don't treat Diplomacy - or Intimidate - by the RAW as I think the former in particular is simply a stupid way to go about things. I'm more inclined to treat it like the Giant does; but under no circumstances does it amount mind-control, like RAW's better-than-charm-person. So, you can't simply Diplomancer you way around things. Yes, the Malconvoker - if I allowed it at all - would be fairly screwed...

SilveryCord
2010-05-22, 06:18 PM
On the other hand, I've also been buffing the noncasters so they aren't quite as weak as they used to be. I'd rather, overall, power the melee classes up (and increase their flexibility) than downgrade the caster's. Nor do I really want everyone on exactly the same level, as 4E does, as I found that rather banal and uninteresting.


What?
You know, outside of these forums, I've never heard of game balance between different classes being considered a bad thing.

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-22, 06:44 PM
What?
You know, outside of these forums, I've never heard of game balance between different classes being considered a bad thing.

I'm not going to derail the thread by getting into an edition discussion, but I'll just reply to say that personally I think 4E went waaaay to far in "balancing" the classes to the point where they were homogenised. I don't think 4E is a mechanically bad system, but it went in completely the opposite direction to my own (decidedly more simulationist) preferences. No, I agree, you can't accuse 3.5 of being very simulationist either! But it's closer to simulationist than 4E is and easier to run than Rolemaster (until 3.x my system of choice). And I do like 3.5's multi-classing/class/build mechanics. (The omission of which was 4E's biggest sin in my opinion.) Long story short, I just don't like 4e for a wide varity of reasons.

Doesn't mean I didn't nick the best ideas for my own use. Nearly all rules set contain some good ideas (well, maybe not FATAL...) Heck, I'm not struck on Pathfinder either, overall, but that didn't stop me filching their skill system!

(Incidently, that is one of the sort-of boosts to noncasters, since not-class-skills can now only be 3 points behind everyone else, not half the ranks. It's not much, but it's still something again!)

Project_Mayhem
2010-05-22, 08:50 PM
So you mean... the Polymorph subschool that already exists in the later books? Genius!

Aww man, I knew I should have cast protection from snark earlier :smalltongue: I hadn't encountered those rules.

Thrawn183
2010-05-22, 08:58 PM
The core of the problem is thus: the fighter fights. That's all he does. Outside of combat the fighter does.... what, climb? If other classes are going to be good at things outside of combat (skills, spells) then they must be significantly less good at fighting than the fighter.

lesser_minion
2010-05-22, 09:10 PM
What?
You know, outside of these forums, I've never heard of game balance between different classes being considered a bad thing.

What do you mean by balance?

Not only is it hard to define, but it touches on a whole pile of different questions.

Not everything the 4e designers identified as a problem was - having one class take the spotlight for a scene is not an imbalance, for example. If it happens more often for one character, or one character gets longer periods in the spotlight, then you have a problem, but that's a "the DM needs to be taken outside and shot" issue, not a game balance issue.

A bad DM will screw up a game no matter what the game does. Taking tools from the DM for fear that a bad DM will abuse them... is unwise.