PDA

View Full Version : I'm thinking of banning the core spellcasters.



Axolotl
2010-06-07, 07:37 AM
I'm currently planning on running a third edition DnD game and the more I try to make a setting mesh with the rules the more I want to just ban the core spell casters. Not the Paladin or the Bard but the fullcasters like the Wizard and Cleric. My problem isn't with the overall power of the classes since there are plenty of fixes to bring non-spellcasters up to par, my compaint is that they destroy any sort of comprehensible setting if you allow for the assumption that High level spellcasters exist.

I have two main issues with the classes in the core, firstly there are simply too many spells that just break the game and/or the setting. I'm not just talking about Tippyverse insanity or how Planar Binding wns the game instantly. But even lower level spells destroy settings, wars cease being any sort of tactical affair or even involve troops at all. Instead you just have a magical arms race. Now I'm sure that can make for an interesting setting, but it's not what I want or one that I can relate to in any way.

Secondly the Wizard class as written (and by extension the Sorceror) is ridiculously broad in the niche it's concept fills. Compare it to the Fighter where a guy who gets really angry and and is super-tough is considered thematicallly different enough to be a whole seperate base class, as is a guy who fights without equipment, a guy who has minor holy powers to augment his fighting and a guy who understands nature and has mior magic powers. All these archtypes are based on the same base but are considered different enough from the Fighter to be their own class. Contrast the Wizard where a guiy who reanimates the dead, a guy who smmons demon or angels, a guy who shoots raw elemental energy at people, a guy who mind controls people, a guy who manipulates light to disguise anything as anything and a guy who can create matter out of thin air. Not only are all these cocepts covered by the same class but they can generally all be covered by the same character, who also has a host of minorutility powers as well.

Now that was somewhat more rantish than intended but I wanted to explain why I'm trying to remove them. The Cleric and Druid, while more narrow (at least in core) still disrupt my sort of setting and I've never been satisfied with the conceptual space they occupy (at least, the space they occupy in 3.5). The obvious problem is how simply banning them disrupts balance and setting, the rules are built around having casters and I don't want a low magic setting.

My current plan is to replace the Wizard with the various dedicated specialist base classes such as the Dread Necromancer, the Warmage and Beguiler. This is where I need help because I want to know what classes are both:
A) Powerful enough to replace the Wizard/Cleric in a party.
B)Don't have any spells that destroy the setting.

I don't own any of the Complete X books but I do have access to them. Also is the Binder from Tome of Magic a viable caster replacement?

RelentlessImp
2010-06-07, 07:44 AM
Spontaneous Divine Casters as described in UA will let you use the Cleric/Druid without them completely breaking the game, depending on spell choices. Just remove the spells that you feel break your game, like the Planar Binding line, or turn them into complicated rituals that cost lots of time and gold.

Binder is a niche class. It can fill a lot of roles depending on what vestige they bind, but it's by no means a full caster.

Also, I think you mean Dread Necromancer (HoH), not True Necromancer (LM). While the forced-specialist classes are less powerful, some of them can still break your game. Once a DN reaches level 8, they become a ridiculously powerful undead army platform - much, much more dangerous than someone using Planar Binding for wishes or guardians or whatnot, especially if you're handing them high HD opponents that are supposed to challenge the entire party on their own, as they'll usually have the Animate Dead control pool to animate them afterwards.

Beguilers have a whole other problem. Their entire class is obviated by Mind Blank or an appropriate Protection from Alignment spell.

SilveryCord
2010-06-07, 07:47 AM
Warlock from Complete Arcane is a good option. Psion and Psychic Warrior are available on d20srd.org and can quickly be renamed "Witch and Witch Warrior" or whatever you'd like. Wildshape Ranger is also available in the variant section of d20srd.org and it makes a good druid replacement. Totemist from Magic of Incarnum also does. Binder is kind of completely different than spellcasters, it isn't a very optimal option for replacement.



My problem isn't with the overall power of the classes since there are plenty of fixes to bring non-spellcasters up to par


...Oh?


Beguilers have a whole other problem. Their entire class is obviated by Mind Blank or an appropriate Protection from Alignment spell.
Well, yeah, but being a good DM means not doing things that specifically obviate or nerf characters, like using flying enemies against Fighters. Besides, without Wizards, those specific spells will be less readily available anyway.

Yora
2010-06-07, 07:48 AM
I don't own any of the Complete X books but I do have access to them. Also is the Binder from Tome of Magic a viable caster replacement?
What the party needs depends entirely on what the gm confronting the players with.
I have never seen a binder in action, but they don't seem like actual spellcasters to me. They have a couple of magical abilities, but you simply don't have the wide range of spells to select from.

Greenish
2010-06-07, 07:54 AM
My current plan is to replace the Wizard with the various dedicated specialist base classes such as the True Dread Necromancer, the Warmage and Beguiler.Fixed that for you.

In general, nixing tiers 1 and 2 isn't such a bad idea.

Eldan
2010-06-07, 07:58 AM
If you haven't already, look up the tier system. It seems what you are intending to do is banning the lowest tiers (which are most powerful). These include the core full casters, but also the psion, archivist and a few others equally broken ones.

Generally, even without banning, my games seem to mostly involve tiers 3 and 4, where you can find the generally balanced classes like barbarian, rogue, warlock, beguiler. Most of which you actually mentioned.

About the only thing slightly problematic in that system, assuming you wanted to go with the core set-up of four characters covering the roles of artillery, tank, damage dealer/skill monkey and healer would be the healer role: few of the weaker classes get reliable access to healing, so you could consider putting the cure spells on the lists of a few of the weaker ones.

Mongoose87
2010-06-07, 07:59 AM
Let them exist, but make Cleric 3/Wizard 3 Mystic Theurge mandatory.

RelentlessImp
2010-06-07, 08:00 AM
Well, yeah, but being a good DM means not doing things that specifically obviate or nerf characters, like using flying enemies against Fighters. Besides, without Wizards, those specific spells will be less readily available anyway.

Quite a few caster classes have the Protection from X line available. A first level spell completely destroying a class intended to go from 1-20? Meh. It makes no sense NOT to use it, too.

Not to mention the prevalence of enemies in any game world that are immune to mind-affecting effects.



About the only thing slightly problematic in that system, assuming you wanted to go with the core set-up of four characters covering the roles of artillery, tank, damage dealer/skill monkey and healer would be the healer role: few of the weaker classes get reliable access to healing, so you could consider putting the cure spells on the lists of a few of the weaker ones.

Healer's on the higher tiers, and it can take care of the healing at all levels up til 17, when they get Gate. So if you want the healer to be a dedicated healbot, that takes care of that.

AstralFire
2010-06-07, 08:07 AM
Healing is not a requirement for a game that does not revolve around continuous dungeon crawling. :smallannoyed:

Optimystik
2010-06-07, 08:16 AM
Protection from Evil does not "shut down" Beguilers. It only blocks ongoing Compulsions and Charms; Beguilers have plenty of spells that do not fall under that umbrella, and they are excellent skillmonkeys to boot.

Even at first level, Pro: Evil will do nothing to stop a well-placed Color Spray.

Gnaeus
2010-06-07, 08:18 AM
Beguilers have a whole other problem. Their entire class is obviated by Mind Blank or an appropriate Protection from Alignment spell.

Beguilers are not remotely negated with Mind Blank or Protection from X.

Those spells do not stop Illusions. Beguilers have lots of Illusions.

Those spells do not stop party buffs. Beguilers have some good ones, like haste.

Those spells do not stop Slow, Time Stop, or several other beguiler offensive spells.

Those spells probably do not stop the spells the Beguiler has added to his list from Arcane Devotee, Sandshaper, Shadowcraft Mage, Rainbow Serpent, or other feats and PRCs.

Those spells do not stop the spell trigger or completion items that the beguiler is UMDing.

Amphetryon
2010-06-07, 08:28 AM
Spirit Shaman, Favored Soul, Shugenja... spontaneous divine casters do exist...

Person_Man
2010-06-07, 08:34 AM
In my homebrew campaign world based on ancient Rome and Greece, full casters exist, but are exceptionally rare. The PCs can play full casters or other Tier 1 classes if they want to, but by gentleman's agreement they choose spells that put them on the same general power level as the other players in their group, which is usually Tier 3. Almost all balance related issues can be solved by having the players talk to each other while they go through character creation.

Axolotl
2010-06-07, 08:36 AM
Spontaneous Divine Casters as described in UA will let you use the Cleric/Druid without them completely breaking the game, depending on spell choices. Just remove the spells that you feel break your game, like the Planar Binding line, or turn them into complicated rituals that cost lots of time and gold.Yes but I'm still left with a very open-ended spell list and fairly uninspiring concepts (from my point of view). Also I want to allow lots of splatbooks so I'd have to read through alot of spell lists.


Binder is a niche class. It can fill a lot of roles depending on what vestige they bind, but it's by no means a full caster.I'm looking for niche classes ideally because that helps put them on par with non-magic based classes. Can Binders compete with full casters in general power terms if not utility?



Also, I think you mean Dread Necromancer (HoH), not True Necromancer (LM). While the forced-specialist classes are less powerful, some of them can still break your game. Once a DN reaches level 8, they become a ridiculously powerful undead army platform - much, much more dangerous than someone using Planar Binding for wishes or guardians or whatnot, especially if you're handing them high HD opponents that are supposed to challenge the entire party on their own, as they'll usually have the Animate Dead control pool to animate them afterwards.Yes I did mean Dread Necromancer I'll go edit that. As for Animating, it's not general power I'm concerned about, I'm going to significant buff up non-casters. It's spells that simply break the whole setting as soon as they're incorperated. Animating the dead will give a player a big power boost yes. But with Planar binding as written the first person to cast it wins, everybody else can just give up because they can do anything.


Beguilers have a whole other problem. Their entire class is obviated by Mind Blank or an appropriate Protection from Alignment spell.But if I remove Cleric, Wizards, Druids and Sorcerors from the setting that'll be less of a problem surely?

RelentlessImp
2010-06-07, 08:42 AM
I'm looking for niche classes ideally because that helps put them on par with non-magic based classes. Can Binders compete with full casters in general power terms if not utility?

No, they can't. They have a very small list of abilities (slightly larger if you permit certain web-based vestiges, such as the one that lets them use Summon Monster line), and can only have up to 2 vestiges bound at most - maybe 3, with a feat. They're very fun to play, but typically take the spot of Face or 5th-wheel to the standard 4 man party, much akin to a Bard.



But if I remove Cleric, Wizards, Druids and Sorcerors from the setting that'll be less of a problem surely?

You're forgetting that Paladins & Rangers get the spell, too. But as others have pointed out, I was mistaken about how far Protection from Alignment goes to block out a Beguiler's spells - though a lot of their BFC-style spells are still Enchantment (Charm) and (Compulsion) effects, they have enough Illusions and buff spells to make up for it.

EDIT:


Yes I did mean Dread Necromancer I'll go edit that. As for Animating, it's not general power I'm concerned about, I'm going to significant buff up non-casters. It's spells that simply break the whole setting as soon as they're incorperated. Animating the dead will give a player a big power boost yes. But with Planar binding as written the first person to cast it wins, everybody else can just give up because they can do anything.


The moment the Dread Necromancer starts animating melee monsters, like Fire Giants, Ogres, Dragons, Outsiders, etc., the rest of the party can just sod right off because he'll be taking so long in combat for all of his undead creatures and be dishing out so much damage on his turns that melees are kind of pointless.

You can, of course, limit this by asking the player to restrict their pool to 2-3 high HD creatures, but pretty soon that'll leave them with around 100 or so HD unused.

Optimystik
2010-06-07, 08:52 AM
No, they can't. They have a very small list of abilities (slightly larger if you permit certain web-based vestiges, such as the one that lets them use Summon Monster line), and can only have up to 2 vestiges bound at most - maybe 3, with a feat.

Not sure where you got that from: Binders can bind 3 vestiges at 14, and 4 at 20. Furthermore, with the right feats and items you can swap them out during the day without too much downtime.

I agree that they are a poor replacement for casters, but if the whole game is geared to Tier 3 you won't have too many problems.

QuantumSteve
2010-06-07, 09:01 AM
FWIW, in AD&D Planar Binding allowed you to restrain, or "bind" an outsider. And that's it!. There was no "Charisma check" to make the Balor your **** If you made a deal with a demon (or other powerful outsider) you'd better have a way to send it back afterwards, because once it's out of the summoning circle, all bets were off.

RelentlessImp
2010-06-07, 09:04 AM
Not sure where you got that from: Binders can bind 3 vestiges at 14, and 4 at 20. Furthermore, with the right feats and items you can swap them out during the day without too much downtime.

I agree that they are a poor replacement for casters, but if the whole game is geared to Tier 3 you won't have too many problems.

>.> Shows what I know. I haven't played a Binder past level 8 so don't have a lot of working knowledge beyond about 10th. But, I agree, really; at Tier 3-4 they could be fairly valuable additions to the party. They're just not replacements for casters.

Eldan
2010-06-07, 09:17 AM
Healing is not a requirement for a game that does not revolve around continuous dungeon crawling. :smallannoyed:

I know that and have never made a dungeon crawling campaign in any shape or form. I was talking from the hypothetical standpoint of a classical D&D campaign, the way it is assumed to be in the core books, which I stated in my post.

SilveryCord
2010-06-07, 09:59 AM
But if I remove Cleric, Wizards, Druids and Sorcerors from the setting that'll be less of a problem surely?

Well, exactly. You're the DM. Choose to not use Mind Blank.

Optimystik
2010-06-07, 10:02 AM
I know that and have never made a dungeon crawling campaign in any shape or form. I was talking from the hypothetical standpoint of a classical D&D campaign, the way it is assumed to be in the core books, which I stated in my post.

Dedicated healers are not necessary in "classical D&D campaigns" either, assuming we're still talking about 3.5.

this post intentionally not bolded

Ranos
2010-06-07, 10:13 AM
You seem to have more of a problem with high levels than with casters. While banning the big 5 is definitely a good move, I'd also recommand you to simply play E6.

Kalrik
2010-06-07, 10:19 AM
First piece of advise. Don't ban anything because doing so would be stupid. The splat book classes are lame compared to the core casters and nobody will dispute that. The broken spells are easy to fix, just say no, or tell your characters that if they use them, then the spells are fair game. I run pathfinder now, so most of those spells have been retooled, however, in 3.5 none of my wizards had ray of enfeeblement. If the party wizard used one, even one, he would eventually be layed out by a maximized empowered RoE and be knocked out of a fight...because I'm mean like that. Easiest way, say no.

Second. High level casters are governed by a "higher power" so to speak. Druids go off to commune with nature and can be as viscious or tranquil as the natural world. Wizards and Sorcerers seek out more magic, focus on teaching the craft to the "new blood", or delve into research to learn the secrets of something. Clerics have dogma and a church/god to answer to. High level clerics often times, in my games and in every game I've ever played in, become priests and teachers within the church. They are surely powerful, but are even more adhearent to the wishes of their gods. Lastly on this note, does your world have dragons or demons/devils. There is ALWAYs someone bigger and badder that wants to steal your cookie.

Another alternative is to say that full casters are rare in the extreme. That way, the PCs can play them, but there isn't a cleric or wizard in every town. That also means that the services provided by casters is in high demand, and not easily squandered on a battle field, that is what soldiers are for.

Reading these boards is a bad thing for most people since most players won't powergame/optimize/munch their characters and won't rules monger you to death either.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-06-07, 10:24 AM
Allow the core magic users in a limited Dip capacity, in such a way that you can not have 3rd level spells before 7th-9th (depending on the power level you want).
or Give the classes requirements to meet and basically make them prestige classes.
or both.

I've limited such things before and it works just fine.

AstralFire
2010-06-07, 10:25 AM
First piece of advise. Don't ban anything because doing so would be stupid. The splat book classes are lame compared to the core casters and nobody will dispute that.

I would. The core casters are so versatile they have no flavor and you essentially cannot play a specialist in say, fire, because you're crippling yourself.


Second. High level casters are governed by a "higher power" so to speak. Druids go off to commune with nature and can be as viscious or tranquil as the natural world. Wizards and Sorcerers seek out more magic, focus on teaching the craft to the "new blood", or delve into research to learn the secrets of something. Clerics have dogma and a church/god to answer to. High level clerics often times, in my games and in every game I've ever played in, become priests and teachers within the church. They are surely powerful, but are even more adhearent to the wishes of their gods. Lastly on this note, does your world have dragons or demons/devils. There is ALWAYs someone bigger and badder that wants to steal your cookie.

You're completely off-base and missing why he wants to get rid of them. He's annoyed with their interaction with the setting - high level core casters can eliminate a LOT of fantasy tropes, easily. Even if they are rare, as you say, one can change the world by themselves.


Reading these boards is a bad thing for most people since most players won't powergame/optimize/munch their characters and won't rules monger you to death either.

Really? Because I get a lot of very useful, thought out, in-depth thoughts about roleplay and I typically play at a much lower power level than these people.

Prodan
2010-06-07, 10:27 AM
First piece of advise.

Advice. The word you're looking for is advice.

The Shadowmind
2010-06-07, 10:30 AM
Perhaps if you don't want to ban them outright, reduce the spell progression by a lot. Like reducing the full casters to bard progression. It reduces the spells available to level 6, thought there is likely plenty of broken on stuff in the spells before 6th level.

Ferrin
2010-06-07, 10:31 AM
Another idea is to have some kind of "anti-world-altering-system". For example; every time someones uses an ability that changes something in your setting you get a number of points which do something bad to you, depending on the effect of the power on your setting. Though this still allows for the things to happen, it's less likely to happen due to the cost, which is often the case in a lot of fantasy settings. Not sure how you want to go with that in your setting though.

SilveryCord
2010-06-07, 10:33 AM
First piece of advise. Don't ban anything because doing so would be stupid. The splat book classes are lame compared to the core casters and nobody will dispute that. The broken spells are easy to fix, just say no, or tell your characters that if they use them, then the spells are fair game. I run pathfinder now, so most of those spells have been retooled, however, in 3.5 none of my wizards had ray of enfeeblement. If the party wizard used one, even one, he would eventually be layed out by a maximized empowered RoE and be knocked out of a fight...because I'm mean like that. Easiest way, say no.

Second. High level casters are governed by a "higher power" so to speak. Druids go off to commune with nature and can be as viscious or tranquil as the natural world. Wizards and Sorcerers seek out more magic, focus on teaching the craft to the "new blood", or delve into research to learn the secrets of something. Clerics have dogma and a church/god to answer to. High level clerics often times, in my games and in every game I've ever played in, become priests and teachers within the church. They are surely powerful, but are even more adhearent to the wishes of their gods. Lastly on this note, does your world have dragons or demons/devils. There is ALWAYs someone bigger and badder that wants to steal your cookie.

Another alternative is to say that full casters are rare in the extreme. That way, the PCs can play them, but there isn't a cleric or wizard in every town. That also means that the services provided by casters is in high demand, and not easily squandered on a battle field, that is what soldiers are for.

Reading these boards is a bad thing for most people since most players won't powergame/optimize/munch their characters and won't rules monger you to death either.

Keep in mind that in his original post his issue was not power levels, but rather the intrinsic access wizards, druids, and clerics get to things like Time Stop, Polymorph, Plan Binding, Plane Shift, Find Traps, Knock, Divine Power, Freedom of Movement, Rope Trick, Major Image, and Alter Self. Sure, the other casters get access to some of these spells, but the issue is more that tier 1 casters get *all* of them (divided into arcane/divine, that is). He also explained that he didn't want to run a low magic world.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-07, 10:35 AM
You could try addressing it with variable point buy by tiers.

15 ("low-powered campaign", DMG page 169)
22 ("challenging")
28 ("tougher")
32 ("high-powered")
36
Fuhgeddaboudit!
If somebody plans on dipping into higher-level classes in the future, they use the lower number of points corresponding to the more powerful tier.

At least this way a Tier 1 character can't start with any stat higher than 17 (before racial adjustment).

Hendel
2010-06-07, 10:44 AM
Totally different direction here than what you might have expected, but have you looked into something like the Black Company Campaign Setting that Green Ronin offers. It is still d20 and compatible in some ways with standard 3.5, but it is what you might want as far as a harder way to access magic set of rules.

Don't get me wrong, there are wizards (the Taken, the Lady, etc), but the magic system makes it harder to cast spells and harder to get the amazing effects that you are used to in D&D wizards and clerics. It puts more of an emphasis on the various warrior classes and flushes them out some more. Healing is troublesome sometimes but there are ways to get around that.

In short, take it or leave it, but it is more like a Middle-Earth style game where there is magic and it does come into play during battles and such, but it is seems to be a more rare of a thing than in your traditional D&D game.

Friend Computer
2010-06-07, 11:11 AM
You seem to have more of a problem with high levels than with casters. While banning the big 5 is definitely a good move, I'd also recommand you to simply play E6.
This.
D&D, as the stats work out, is a viable reflection of common fantasyfrom levels 1-5, with 6 being the ultimate level of uberness (with fighters getting their iterative then, and sorcs getting their 3rd level spell).

A big issue that seems to warp this understanding is the absurd levels presented in the random settlement generation tables in the DMG. There, high level characters are extremely common.

Another thing people frequently ignore is the cost of training. Just how expensive is it to train a wizard? Casters, barring innate casters (Sorc, etc.) will be exclusively nobles, and all nobles will have a level or two of wizard or cleric or something, depending on the culture. Of course, even assuming a max level of 6, nowhere near all will take the full 6 levels, if only because stats above 10-11 are very uncommon, and there's no point going to level 3 if you are only smart enough to cast level 1 spells. One could eliminate all core casters, and just use bards as is, changing the spell list/excuse for the buffs as appropriate. Eliminating all core casters/top tier classes and just having a caster for each theme of magic would also work, leaving bards, dread necros, beguilers, etc.


But if you intend to play with the high level nonsense that ruins all attempts to concieve of a workable game world, getting rid of tiers 1&2 would be a start, and while would not make designing a consistent game world easier, would achieve the class/thematic variation desired.

jiriku
2010-06-07, 11:34 AM
I strongly discourage wizards IMC for that same "vanilla-flava-I-do-it-all" issue they have going on. Beguilers and dread necromancers and duskblades and bards all offer excellent, focused arcane caster classes, and even warmage works with some houseruling.

You might also take a look at my earth dreamer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155003)base class, an earth-focused arcane caster. Even if you don't care to use it, I wouldn't mind feedback (shameless plug).

Divine casters are harder, but as mentioned, wildshape ranger is essentially Druid Lite (shapes great, less killing!), and with some DM support, healers and paladins can be effective divine casters.

Draz74
2010-06-07, 11:44 AM
I want to know what classes are both:
A) Powerful enough to replace the Wizard/Cleric in a party.
B)Don't have any spells that destroy the setting.

I don't own any of the Complete X books but I do have access to them. Also is the Binder from Tome of Magic a viable caster replacement?

Cleric

The Cleric is a tricky issue. There are some very nice utilities that the game kind of needs, like Align Weapon, that are only practical to do via the Cleric spell list (via Cleric, Archivist, Favored Soul, or Ur-Priest). And access to the Cleric spell list automatically means having access to some "broken" effects.

So you've got no perfect options. You do have a lot of imperfect options, though:

nerfed Cleric (including Spontaneous variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/spontaneousDivineCasters.htm))
Favored Soul (CDiv) (pretty similar to Spontaneous Variant Cleric)
Ardent (CPsi)
Crusader (ToB)
Binder (ToM)
Divine Bard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#bardVariantDivineBard)
Incarnate (MoI)
Psion (XPH) -- can actually function pretty well as a Cleric-type in many ways, especially with the Sangehirn PrC (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040625c).
Truenamer (use Kyeudo's fixed version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120488) if you want a healer)
Adept (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/adept.htm)
Healer (MinHandbook)
Dragon Shaman (PHB2)


In general, my favorite Cleric replacement is the Ardent or Psion/Sangehirn. But those have their own ways they can break the game if you're not careful, and you'll still have to homebrew a couple things like Align Weapon for them. Just nerfing the Cleric may be the easiest solution.

Druid

More options:

nerfed Druid (including Spontaneous variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/spontaneousDivineCasters.htm) and the PHB2 Shapeshift variant, or the Aspect variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#wildShapeVariantAspectOfN ature))
Pathfinder Druid (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/basic-classes/druid)
Wildshape Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#ranger)
nerfed Cleric, focused on nature domains
Totemist (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20050907a&page=3) (MoI)
Dragon Shaman (PHB2)


Personally my favorite option here is to just use the Totemist for the Druid. Allow the Wild Cohort feat (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a) if he wants an Animal Companion.

Sorcerer

The Dragonfire Adept (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060912a&page=2) is beyond perfect for a classic, blasty, dragon-descended Sorcerer.

If that doesn't meet all your Sorcerer needs, then the Warlock (CArc), Binder (ToM), and Wilder (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/wilder.htm) (XPH) should.

Wizard

Well, ok, the Wizard class is really a sort of dichotomy between two general concepts: the "generic" spellcaster type, and the specific "scholarly study" caster type.

For just spellcasters in general, the Dread Necromancer and Beguiler are a good start (if a bit overpowerful for my tastes). (The Warmage, I find, isn't very good at fulfilling its own fluff. If I want that particular flavor of spellcaster, I think Duskblade (PHB2) does a better job of filling it.) You could also get some mileage out of the Shadowcaster and Binder (ToM), and of course the good old Bard. My favorite overall caster, though, is definitely the Psion.

If you want wizards with a specifically "scholarly" flavor, I think a fixed Truenamer is the best option. (If you don't care about healing specifically, then either Kellus's Fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90961) or Kyeudo's Fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120488) works well.) Or, if you like a challenge, a Factotum (Dungeonscape) can actually put on a surprisingly good show of being a "Wizard," even though he only has a few spells per day. IMHO this actually leads to being more similar to some classic wizards of literature, who were pretty conservative about throwing their spells around, then the modern spell-spamming classes are.

cfalcon
2010-06-07, 11:55 AM
Well by default you'll end up with a lower magic game if the core casters don't exist.

Spontaneous variants of druid and cleric will help if you want these guys to stick around. But do you?

If you decide that Bards will pretty much be the top tier of caster allowed, for instance, you'll end up with a game much less about spells that blow up your setting. You'll still have to deal with some powerful illusions, but it won't be nearly as world-changing as the core guys. The paladin will also feel a lot more magical if he's running around with healing spells that are otherwise pretty rare.

You could also look at the Iron Heroes setting, originally by Monte Cook. This really *IS* a low magic setting, but if you axe the arcanist and add in some of the magical classes (you'll need to ramp up their power level a tad to compete with these dudes) you'll end up with something pretty ok.

Pechvarry
2010-06-07, 12:52 PM
It doesn't do a lot for removing spells that damage your setting, but for giving spellcasters a bit more personality: ban sorcerer and make all wizards focused specialists. It's probably even better if you look around for house rules of people who've combined/redistributed schools to make them more even.

But assuming tiers 1 and 2 banned entirely, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to give their spell lists to hybrid casters? e.g. hexblade gets sor/wiz spell list, spell-thief already has sor/wiz casting so that's neat, paladin gets cleric's spell list, ranger gets druid's. Since they top out at 4th level and get them very slowly, it shouldn't be too broken. This gets your Align Weapon at level 8, for instance. Consider bonus spells for those classes.

Axolotl
2010-06-07, 01:09 PM
Well by default you'll end up with a lower magic game if the core casters don't exist.Yes but in this context "lower" means one that I as a 21st centuary man has a hope of comprehending. The wizard as presented in the core books creates a world I cannot relate to in any reasonable way, a single casting of Planar Binding can give somebody infinite wishes. Even more restrained spells lke commune, teleport and ressurection destroy the sort of mileu I'm aiming for. People have suggested having people in the world just be low level but I want a setting like The City State of the Invincible Overlord that is fairly high powered but still relatable and rooted in generic fantasy kitchen sink.


Spontaneous variants of druid and cleric will help if you want these guys to stick around. But do you?It helps the problem of power but I'm still left with world-breaking spells and I'm still not satisfied by the design space they take up in their 3.5 incarnations.


If you decide that Bards will pretty much be the top tier of caster allowed, for instance, you'll end up with a game much less about spells that blow up your setting. You'll still have to deal with some powerful illusions, but it won't be nearly as world-changing as the core guys. The paladin will also feel a lot more magical if he's running around with healing spells that are otherwise pretty rare.I still want full caster, just specialist ones so they're more in line with non-casters thematically and because that cuts down on the spells that prevent me from creating a reasonable world.

Doresain
2010-06-07, 01:11 PM
you called always use the mage, acolyte and shaman advanced classes from d20 modern and fix them up so they fit a bit better in the dnd world...

or if you want an less pellcasting capabilities you could use the occultist and the spirtualist...that way no one has true spellcasting, just scrolls and other magic items they cast from

Gametime
2010-06-07, 01:13 PM
You could also look at the Iron Heroes setting, originally by Monte Cook. This really *IS* a low magic setting, but if you axe the arcanist and add in some of the magical classes (you'll need to ramp up their power level a tad to compete with these dudes) you'll end up with something pretty ok.

No, he won't. The Iron Heroes classes are, in D&D terms, probably still around tier 4. They have more hit points, more skills, and some interesting abilities, but they suffer from the same fundamental problems as the fighter and barbarian in standard 3.5. The new feat chains do something to give them more options, but not enough.

Iron Heroes solves the magic-nonmagic disparity by getting rid of casters, not by equalizing them with noncasters. It's a fun game, but I don't think it's what the OP is looking for.

Reynard
2010-06-07, 01:19 PM
I had a Dread Necro who had acquired, with help from the party, a Skeletal Colossal Landshark and a Skeletal Sand Snake+Exotic Harness. In addition to my modest amount of skeletons, our 5-man party romped around on these great undead creatures, living inside the land sharks ribcage while I rode around on the snake at the head of the army. It was common for our one and only Tank to ride the land shark into battle, and leap off of it into groups of mooks after it had made it's charge, and decimate them with a combination of feats and a special magic weapon. The player loved the image of it, and the rest of the party liked being able to vanish underground at a moments notice if things went bad.

No one person took the spotlight, and we all had plenty of fun.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-06-07, 01:40 PM
Protection from Evil does not "shut down" Beguilers. It only blocks ongoing Compulsions and Charms; Beguilers have plenty of spells that do not fall under that umbrella, and they are excellent skillmonkeys to boot.

Even at first level, Pro: Evil will do nothing to stop a well-placed Color Spray.

It irks me how many people think PFE does way more then it actually does.

Melayl
2010-06-07, 03:02 PM
I'd agree with those saying to restrict the core casters to one school/sphere of magic (possibly with access to another but with a much slower -- say, paladin -- progression).

As a shamless self-plug, my skill-based spellcasting system (see my sig) puts similar limits on casters.

Axolotl
2010-06-07, 04:16 PM
I've now looked through some of the suggestions (especially Draz74's suggested cleric replacements) and I'm liking the Healer class from the Miniatures Handbook as a Cleric replacement as it fixes most of my issues with the Cleric. However I can't see many players wanting to play one especially seeing as I'm removig resurrection and nerfing gate. In order to rectify this I'm considering boosting the class by giving it a bonus Exalted feat every few levels and adding in some spells/tricks from BoED. Has anyone any opinions on this? Would it break the class or is it still not worth it to be a healbot and should I look for an alternative solution?

Now looking at the Druid's spell list I can't find much to complain about. It's powerful yes, but there aren't any truely world changing spells there and they are all tightly focused on Nature. Of all the core classes I'm tempted to leave the Druid as is. I still don't like it's use design space as 3.5 implements it but I can't complain about the class itself.

Greenish
2010-06-07, 04:32 PM
Now looking at the Druid's spell list I can't find much to complain about. It's powerful yes, but there aren't any truely world changing spells there and they are all tightly focused on Nature. Of all the core classes I'm tempted to leave the Druid as is. I still don't like it's use design space as 3.5 implements it but I can't complain about the class itself.If you're axing the other Core full casters, then druid probably ought to go, too.

I would split the class, essentially, by using Wildshape Rangers and Spirit Shamans. The former gets the animal companion and wildshape, the latter gets druid spells, with a twist.

jiriku
2010-06-07, 05:05 PM
Yah your big issue is that if you drop wizzie, sorc, cleric, archivist, and artificer, the druid is DRAMATICALLY more powerful than every other class you're considering. Balance issue waiting to happen. I have heard that the PH2 shapeshift variant Druid nerfs it down to a more reasonable power level (and is also much less bookkeeping to play), but I haven't any experience with it myself.

Private-Prinny
2010-06-07, 05:45 PM
If you're axing the other Core full casters, then druid probably ought to go, too.

I would split the class, essentially, by using Wildshape Rangers and Spirit Shamans. The former gets the animal companion and wildshape, the latter gets druid spells, with a twist.

I do something similar. I usually ax Tiers 1 & 2, so I split it into WS Ranger and the much less impressive Shugenja.

AslanCross
2010-06-07, 06:50 PM
Eberron does say high-level casters exist, but they're extremely rare. The assumption is typically that the PCs are the highest-level characters with PC class levels in the general region.

Kalrik
2010-06-07, 07:04 PM
Advice. The word you're looking for is advice.

Wow, did I really do that?

Anyway, the point is that if you are trying to eliminate all the high powered casters, then don't play D&D. Play M&M or anything else. As a matter of fact, you probably shouldn't play anything because there is always something that will be more powerful than everything else.

Oh, and if you do ban all core casters, you should probably ban barbarians and fighters too...and rogues. Because a high level fighter has little to fear from anything if you eliminate the casters. He will have a massive AC with tons of hit points and hit really hard.

Point is, in any game there are the power classes/builds, the ok classes and builds, and the total suck but flavorful classes and builds. Deal with it or don't GM.

Don't get me wrong, I love these boards. Everyone here has great opinions, good advice, and are smart people. I have great respect for anyone who posts and doesn't just troll. My previous comment about reading these boards being bad was simply because I've seen good players turn into munchers by trolling gaming boards. When one of my very good but not so optimalistic players begins to prep shivering touch each morning, when he never even knew of the spell, and then brags that he can one shot a dragon I start to wonder.

Kalrik
2010-06-07, 07:09 PM
Eberron does say high-level casters exist, but they're extremely rare. The assumption is typically that the PCs are the highest-level characters with PC class levels in the general region.

This!

My current game world is very high magic, but it is remenants from when the world was more powerful. The most powerful spellcaster in the world is the High Kings magical advisor/bodyguard. He is a thirteenth level wizard and a rather old man.

Also, as a thought about the spell pool that the cores can draw from, one could house rule that wizards MUST specialize, or that clerics have a set number of spells known...double what a sorcerer knows, as an example, and still allow them to drop any known spell for a cure spell of the appropriate level. I'm all for nerfing a core class if it is harder to manage, I just don't like the idea of them being taken out of a game completely. Just doesn't sit right, lol.

Friend Computer
2010-06-07, 07:26 PM
Anyway, the point is that if you are trying to eliminate all the high powered casters, then don't play D&D. Play M&M or anything else. As a matter of fact, you probably shouldn't play anything because there is always something that will be more powerful than everything else.

Oh, and if you do ban all core casters, you should probably ban barbarians and fighters too...and rogues. Because a high level fighter has little to fear from anything if you eliminate the casters. He will have a massive AC with tons of hit points and hit really hard.

Point is, in any game there are the power classes/builds, the ok classes and builds, and the total suck but flavorful classes and builds. Deal with it or don't GM.

Don't get me wrong, I love these boards. Everyone here has great opinions, good advice, and are smart people. I have great respect for anyone who posts and doesn't just troll. My previous comment about reading these boards being bad was simply because I've seen good players turn into munchers by trolling gaming boards. When one of my very good but not so optimalistic players begins to prep shivering touch each morning, when he never even knew of the spell, and then brags that he can one shot a dragon I start to wonder.

This is all nonsense and has nothing to do with what the OP was talking about. The OP was asking for advice on how to deal with spells that break the game-world, and what flavourful classes can collectively take the place of the unflavourful core casters. Pay attention, this has nothing to do with game balance.

tiercel
2010-06-07, 07:26 PM
Spirit Shaman is an excellent, but less powerful, replacement for Druid. I actually quite enjoy the class and its "flexible sorcerer" casting, even though split casting stats are the price you have to pay.

As for those saying Beguiler is completely shut down by mind blank.... aside from the replies already given, by time you get to a sufficiently high level that encountering mind blank is a significant concern, it's probably a good idea to open any combat against a foe with access to spellcasting by using targeted greater dispel anyway. Beguilers get that, y'know. (Not to mention arcane sight and the greater version.)

Umael
2010-06-07, 07:36 PM
*snip*

...

Wow.

Just wow.

And not in a good way.

I think you missed the OP's point AND took how gaming works out of proportion, as well as insinuated some rather insulting things.

Gametime
2010-06-07, 07:44 PM
Oh, and if you do ban all core casters, you should probably ban barbarians and fighters too...and rogues. Because a high level fighter has little to fear from anything if you eliminate the casters. He will have a massive AC with tons of hit points and hit really hard.

There are plenty of ways to deal with a fighter without spells. Barbarians can usually go toe-to-toe with a similarly built fighter in terms of damage output, and have certain advantages that can make them much better at it.

Fighters don't really get anything that gives them high AC except heavy armor and shield proficiency. There are other classes that can do that; the number of feats that improve your AC are minimal.


Point is, in any game there are the power classes/builds, the ok classes and builds, and the total suck but flavorful classes and builds. Deal with it or don't GM.



You're presenting the balance issue as a dichotomy, which it really isn't. Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that perfectly balanced classes are impossible. That doesn't mean that all levels of imbalance are equal. Banning tiers 1 and 2 still leaves a vast gap between the now-strongest classes (martial adepts, beguilers, dread necromancers, factotums) and the weakest classes (monks, samurai, truenamers). The "break-my-campaign-itude" is now much lower overall, however, despite the still-existing power and versatility disparity.

Anyway, the OP really doesn't seem to be concerned with how good wizards & co. are at defeating challenges (which is a symptom of class power) as they are at circumventing challenges. Once things like constant flight come into play, you have to radically alter your campaign structure. Teleport and Planar Travel just makes things worse. The worst part about wizards isn't finding enemies to challenge them - it's finding enemies that can actually force them to fight at all.


Spirit Shaman is an excellent, but less powerful, replacement for Druid. I actually quite enjoy the class and its "flexible sorcerer" casting, even though split casting stats are the price you have to pay.


I love the Spirit Shaman's casting mechanism. It's got all my favorite parts about spontaneous spellcasting combined with the huge spell list of prepared spellcasting.

The way it uses metamagic kind of sucks, but whaddayagonnado.

JaronK
2010-06-07, 08:06 PM
Anyway, the point is that if you are trying to eliminate all the high powered casters, then don't play D&D. Play M&M or anything else. As a matter of fact, you probably shouldn't play anything because there is always something that will be more powerful than everything else.

Yeah... not the point. D&D was actually designed around the T5 power level, not the T1 power level. Wizards and Clerics and such are actually dramatically overpowered beyond what the designers intended. Remember, the sample Druid has Weapon Focus: Scimitar. Why? Because she wasn't fighting in Wild Shape.

If you want to play D&D the way it's "supposed" to be played, then Wizards and Sorcerers should all be pure blasters, Druids should only Wild Shape when they feel like looking like an animal for a while, Clerics should be healbots, etc. And if your players don't play like that, then nerfing the high powered classes actually will bring you back down to the level it was intended for. If they play as a Healer they'll actually be acting how Clerics are supposed to. If they play as a Warmage they'll play as Sorcerers were supposed to. Etc. I'm not saying it's wrong to play differently of course, but that's how it's intended, so telling someone they shouldn't play D&D if they want to play closer to the power level D&D was designed for is silly.


Oh, and if you do ban all core casters, you should probably ban barbarians and fighters too...and rogues. Because a high level fighter has little to fear from anything if you eliminate the casters. He will have a massive AC with tons of hit points and hit really hard.

Except there are many classes that are still far stronger than Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues without the core casters. For examples: Warblades, Psions, Dread Necromancers, Factotums, Beguilers, Favored Souls are all well ahead of those. So... just no.


Point is, in any game there are the power classes/builds, the ok classes and builds, and the total suck but flavorful classes and builds. Deal with it or don't GM.

He is dealing with it, by removing the classes that are too powerful for what he wants in his game. That's his job. Any good DM deals with power levels by depowering builds (or classes) that are inappropriately powerful for his game and powering up builds that are inappropriately weak.

JaronK

Kalrik
2010-06-07, 08:14 PM
...

Wow.

Just wow.

And not in a good way.

I think you missed the OP's point AND took how gaming works out of proportion, as well as insinuated some rather insulting things.

I really didn't mean to be insulting. I very well could have missed the OP's intent. It has kind of been an off day for me, no excuse in any case. So, if i've insulted anyone, I do apologise.

Flavel
2010-06-07, 10:49 PM
If I considered this a problem I would:

As a dungeon master I would disallow characters automatically receiving new spells per level. Both for Sorceror types and the book worms. Only allow characters to learn spells they find via adventuring or training. As a dungeon master, you decide what they find.

As for Cleric types. Well, what they pray for is not always what they receive in terms of spells. The gods are fickle critters.

This would help put some "mystery" back into spellcasting. Wizards would actually quest ancient ruins and pour over moldering manuscripts in search of the fabled [insert your spell here]. Heck, they might even make use of the decipher script skill.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-06-07, 11:03 PM
If I considered this a problem I would:

As a dungeon master I would disallow characters automatically receiving new spells per level. Both for Sorceror types and the book worms. Only allow characters to learn spells they find via adventuring or training. As a dungeon master, you decide what they find.

As for Cleric types. Well, what they pray for is not always what they receive in terms of spells. The gods are fickle critters.

This would help put some "mystery" back into spellcasting. Wizards would actually quest ancient ruins and pour over moldering manuscripts in search of the fabled [insert your spell here]. Heck, they might even make use of the decipher script skill.


This is a very good option. Just cause they have a certain number of spells they are ABLE to know, doesnt mean they know that many. and i always wondered how wizards suddenly learned higher powered spells out of the blue anyway.

Fighter: Wow wizard, where did you learn that amazing spell!
Wizard: oh I leveled up (wait metagaming). . . I mean. . . google (darn!). . . I mean. . . I uh. . . found it?

CarpeGuitarrem
2010-06-07, 11:09 PM
I like the idea, mentioned before, of E6. That sounds just like what you're looking for.

Philistine
2010-06-08, 12:44 AM
If I considered this a problem I would:

As a dungeon master I would disallow characters automatically receiving new spells per level. Both for Sorceror types and the book worms. Only allow characters to learn spells they find via adventuring or training. As a dungeon master, you decide what they find.

As for Cleric types. Well, what they pray for is not always what they receive in terms of spells. The gods are fickle critters.

This would help put some "mystery" back into spellcasting. Wizards would actually quest ancient ruins and pour over moldering manuscripts in search of the fabled [insert your spell here]. Heck, they might even make use of the decipher script skill.
Maybe it's just me, but that "solution" sounds more heavy-handed, authoritarian, paternalistic, hand-holdy and rail-roady than simply banning the Tier 1s outright and/or forcing the divines to go Spontaneous. And the "fix" for the divines doesn't appear to do anything to address clerics who adhere to an abstract principle or idea rather than a specific deity.


This is a very good option. Just cause they have a certain number of spells they are ABLE to know, doesnt mean they know that many.
Except that - according to the rules - they do. Also - according to the rules again - the only limit to the number of spells a prepared caster is able to know is the total number of spells ever printed for their class spell list. "Ban and Replace" for the Tier 1s is both easier and more elegant than "Houserule them so heavily that you're practically re-writing them from scratch."


and i always wondered how wizards suddenly learned higher powered spells out of the blue anyway.

Fighter: Wow wizard, where did you learn that amazing spell!
Wizard: oh I leveled up (wait metagaming). . . I mean. . . google (darn!). . . I mean. . . I uh. . . found it?
Of course, this is not properly a criticism of D&D spellcasters so much as it is a criticism of level-based game systems in general. But even if you reject the default fluff - that the spells automatically learned by a wizard at level-up represent the results research performed during downtime (see PHB p178) - allow me to present the following alternative conversation...

Fighter: Wow wizard, where did you learn that amazing spell!
Wizard: Well, you remember that big fight a few days ago? I was thinking about that fight while I was preparing my spells last night, and I had a kind of breakthrough. Not only did I come up with a couple of nifty new spells, but I found ways to make many of the spells I already knew significantly more efficient!
Fighter: *sobbing* I wish I had a class feature!

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-06-08, 02:16 AM
Except that - according to the rules - they do. Also - according to the rules again - the only limit to the number of spells a prepared caster is able to know is the total number of spells ever printed for their class spell list. "Ban and Replace" for the Tier 1s is both easier and more elegant than "Houserule them so heavily that you're practically re-writing them from scratch."


Of course, this is not properly a criticism of D&D spellcasters so much as it is a criticism of level-based game systems in general. But even if you reject the default fluff - that the spells automatically learned by a wizard at level-up represent the results research performed during downtime (see PHB p178) - allow me to present the following alternative conversation...


first point. . . it's ONE houserule actaully. . . . and not even an uncommon one

Second point. . . it wasn't so much meant as critisizm, as it was meant as humor.

Though the point you construed from my (apparently bad) joke stands. . . What research are you doing in the middle of the wilderness(where many games are placed)??? You're not a sorcerer you dont cast spells just cause(insert fluff) you need books and labs and towers of knowledge. . .

Maerok
2010-06-08, 02:31 AM
I had a Dread Necro who had acquired, with help from the party, a Skeletal Colossal Landshark and a Skeletal Sand Snake+Exotic Harness. In addition to my modest amount of skeletons, our 5-man party romped around on these great undead creatures, living inside the land sharks ribcage while I rode around on the snake at the head of the army. It was common for our one and only Tank to ride the land shark into battle, and leap off of it into groups of mooks after it had made it's charge, and decimate them with a combination of feats and a special magic weapon. The player loved the image of it, and the rest of the party liked being able to vanish underground at a moments notice if things went bad.

No one person took the spotlight, and we all had plenty of fun.

Undead Lieutenant is also pretty useful as you can grant control of your undead to others in order to form different squads. Then other players can manage them too. Advanced Learning lets the DN pick it up.

----

On the other hand, when seeking out a low-tier heal-bot one could reverse engineer the Dread Necro into a healer.

Endarire
2010-06-08, 03:23 AM
The main complaint is that of magic. Casters alter reality. Non-casters hit stuff.

Greenish
2010-06-08, 06:26 AM
If I considered this a problem I would:

As a dungeon master I would disallow characters automatically receiving new spells per level. Both for Sorceror types and the book worms. Only allow characters to learn spells they find via adventuring or training. As a dungeon master, you decide what they find.Well, wizards add a large part of their spells from outside sources anyway.

But hey, force warmages to do the same, that'll teach 'em to play overpowered spontaneous casters!

Axolotl
2010-06-08, 06:43 AM
The main complaint is that of magic. Casters alter reality. Non-casters hit stuff.But it's worse than that because with the way the classes are presented casters alter reality with spells that mimic every magic archtype in fantasy literature and non-casters hit things in a specific way based on their class.

I want to make one thing clear about my intent. I do not want a low power setting. I'm not trying to remove high power magic from my game. Time Stop/Astral Projection/Implosion/Energy Drain I'm fine with them, I want a setting where high level spellcaster blow things up withease.

However I also want a setting I can understand and relate too one that has most basic fantasy concepts. There however many high level spells (and not so high level spells) that destroy such a setting in the hands of NPCs and prevent dozens of plots when in the hands of PCs.

Somebloke
2010-06-08, 07:57 AM
Ages and ages ago I had a similar situation. I ended up mading a homebrew alchemist/sage class and a sorcerer/priest class, both based on the warlock.

I could go fishing around for them as potential options if the OP wants me to.

In the pathfinder game I'm intending to run next, I plan on modifying the bard to create a generalist sage class with a little magic power. Maybe generalist warlock powers instead of bardic abilities?

warmachine
2010-06-08, 09:44 AM
I want to make one thing clear about my intent. I do not want a low power setting. I'm not trying to remove high power magic from my game. Time Stop/Astral Projection/Implosion/Energy Drain I'm fine with them, I want a setting where high level spellcaster blow things up withease.

However I also want a setting I can understand and relate too one that has most basic fantasy concepts. There however many high level spells (and not so high level spells) that destroy such a setting in the hands of NPCs and prevent dozens of plots when in the hands of PCs.
This seems to be a contradiction. Blowing things up with ease (or astral projection or draining people) does destroy settings or prevent plots. Perhaps you could restrict powerful magic to lengthy rituals, making them NPC-only special effects. In this way, you can make up whatever you like and not care that it's not in the PHB.

rat-morningstar
2010-06-08, 10:22 AM
i registered JUST for this thread:

what about talking to your players, and telling them: don't take/use any horribly overpowered spells


and if they do, send a lvl 12billion greater-huge-diamond-gold-demon-dragon-troll-wolf after them


you're the DM, you've got the power to build a giant purple unicorn that cries nuclear bunnies

Greenish
2010-06-08, 10:23 AM
i registered JUST for this thread:Then it's a shame you didn't read the OP.

rat-morningstar
2010-06-08, 10:38 AM
he wanted to remove the classes because they've got spells that **** **** up, my alternative is to talk to people and tell them they can't use the OP spells

in what way is that even the slightest bit offtopic?

Greenish
2010-06-08, 10:40 AM
he wanted to remove the classes because they've got spells that **** **** up,He wanted to remove the classes because they don't have any real flavour. He was also going to remove some of the spells whose existence would ruin his setting.

rat-morningstar
2010-06-08, 10:46 AM
isn't the point of character creation to add your flavor to the class you're going to play?

i mean, if you're banning stuff for being broad and flavorless, why not ban fighter?
he can do anything but cast spells

Greenish
2010-06-08, 10:48 AM
i mean, if you're banning stuff for being broad and flavorless, why not ban fighter?Because no one will take more than 2 or 6 levels of it. :smallcool:

AstralFire
2010-06-08, 10:50 AM
he wanted to remove the classes because they've got spells that **** **** up, my alternative is to talk to people and tell them they can't use the OP spells

in what way is that even the slightest bit offtopic?

There's a difference between OP in combat and OP in the metaplot.

rat-morningstar
2010-06-08, 10:51 AM
hehe, true

banning something because it's flavourless sounds a lot like "because i want to/ can"

AstralFire
2010-06-08, 10:55 AM
hehe, true

banning something because it's flavourless sounds a lot like "because i want to/ can"

I regularly ban or modify classes if they're flavorless and thus don't really add anything to a setting as they originally were. Here's the thing: Magic is a Unicorn. It is often one of the primary differences between the Real World and the Fictional World. It is a form of physics that you have added on, and should correspond as well as all the normal things under physics do - swordsmen who have bulging muscles show that strength outside of combat too, after all.

There is a reason that every single good fantasy series with magic closely interacts the Supernatural with the Natural, such that no two series could be mechanically represented the same way. Outside of Eberron, no D&D campaign seeks to address this at all, and Eberron still goes psuedo-E6 or G8 for most of its content because it can't actually say 'we ban the generic casters' as they're core WotC content.

Axolotl
2010-06-08, 11:23 AM
isn't the point of character creation to add your flavor to the class you're going to play?

i mean, if you're banning stuff for being broad and flavorless, why not ban fighter?
he can do anything but cast spellsI'm not banning the Wizard/Sorceror because it's flavourless, quite the opposite. I'm getting rid of it because it encompases every flavour of spellcasting from any work of fiction any DnD author has ever read/seen. The equivelent would be if the Fighter were a gestalt class who had all the class features of the Barbarian/Monk/Knight/Samurai/Rogue/every other noncaster.

I'm also removing them because I want a setting that runs on the DnD rules like Eberron. But Eberron only works because nobody is above 12th level and they removed the gods.

rat-morningstar
2010-06-08, 11:30 AM
hmm, indeed, if you put it that way


then, if it's too broad, why not let them choose 2 schools of magic?

Umael
2010-06-08, 12:46 PM
hmm, indeed, if you put it that way


then, if it's too broad, why not let them choose 2 schools of magic?

*blink*

Not even close.

Can't speak for the OP, but myself? Why bother?

From what I gather, the OP doesn't want the class "wizard" because it is too broad. So if a single wizard only gets two schools, four wizards get a total of eight schools. The WORLD has a class, "wizard", which includes so many things. It is STILL too broad.

Axolotl
2010-06-08, 04:54 PM
hmm, indeed, if you put it that way


then, if it's too broad, why not let them choose 2 schools of magic?Because the Specialist classes are more flavourful. Dread Necromancer for example gets class features rlated to Necromancy, or the Healer has a code of conduct and a few neat healing tricks.

It helps confirm the characters as a Necromancer or an Enchanter rather than a gimped Wizard.

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-08, 05:00 PM
i mean, if you're banning stuff for being broad and flavorless, why not ban fighter?
he can do anything but cast spells

Even if I always complain about how feats scale badly and so on, I really don't see fighter bonus feats that way. When I see them, I see lot of possibilities, and 1000 flavors, not lack of them.

Mechanically speaking, in another issue. BUt I play gestalt from now to the end of times, so :smalltongue:

erikun
2010-06-08, 05:30 PM
Assuming you are removing the Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Favored Soul, Archivist, Psion, Erudite, and Artificer...

The first concern involves magical healing and buffing. D&D isn't designed for handling more than a couple of battles at a time without magical support. If everyone takes half their HP in damage, it can take half a week to be back up on their feet. That is mighty problematic if there's a dungeon with another 20 encounters waiting for them somewhere. The Bard is the only class I know off hand that provides healing support. I think the Spirit Shaman does also, although I'm not familiar with the class. The Healer is tier 6 for a reason, and generally a bad option even for someone interested in healing.

The second concern is that there aren't any more classes that fit the scholarly intellectual type. The Wizard, Archivist, Psion, and even Cloistered Cleric are all gone. The only options left are the Factorium, or another class where high intelligence is simply a benefit. (Rogue comes to mind.) Wu Jen is also a possibility, but not everyone who want to play a smart spellcaster desires growing their nails long or meditating on the sunset every day.

Draz74
2010-06-08, 05:47 PM
Assuming you are removing the Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Favored Soul, Archivist, Psion, Erudite, and Artificer...

The first concern involves magical healing and buffing. D&D isn't designed for handling more than a couple of battles at a time without magical support. If everyone takes half their HP in damage, it can take half a week to be back up on their feet. That is mighty problematic if there's a dungeon with another 20 encounters waiting for them somewhere. The Bard is the only class I know off hand that provides healing support. I think the Spirit Shaman does also, although I'm not familiar with the class. The Healer is tier 6 5 for a reason, and generally a bad option even for someone interested in healing.
Fixed that for you. And Healer is actually not a bad option if you want to heal people. (It's just a worse option than Cleric.)

Also:

Ardent
Crusader
Dragon Shaman
Binder
Sangehirn (plus any psionic base class)
Fixed Truenamer
Dragon Shaman
Adept
Incarnate
WAND OF CURE LIGHT WOUNDS

If by "healing" you're mostly concerned about out-of-combat hit point healing, then really the wand option there is the only one you need. It can be operated by any Paladin, Ranger, Bard, or anybody with good UMD.


The second concern is that there aren't any more classes that fit the scholarly intellectual type. The Wizard, Archivist, Psion, and even Cloistered Cleric are all gone. The only options left are the Factorium, or another class where high intelligence is simply a benefit. (Rogue comes to mind.) Wu Jen is also a possibility, but not everyone who want to play a smart spellcaster desires growing their nails long or meditating on the sunset every day.

Fixed Truenamer. Binder can sort of squeeze into this role, too, though I admit it doesn't have much need of Intelligence.

Endarire
2010-06-08, 05:50 PM
You could say:

-All Wizards must specialize. Focused specialists (Complete Mage) are allowed.
-Specialists may cast from their specialty school and 2 other schools. Focused specialists get their specialty school and one other.

Kalrik
2010-06-08, 05:51 PM
When one looks at a class and says it has no flavor, they are 100% correct. A wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer has no flavor on its own, but neither does any other class except, maybe, the flavor classes like healer and dread necromancer.

Players add the flavor to the character and class. If your cleric is using six books to prep spells, there is a problem. I like the healer clerics, I have a set of spells that I always have and a few audibles for just in case times. I only delve deep into the books if, in game, a character asks my cleric if he can do something. That is just me.

As for wizards and sorcerers, I favor houseruling that spells like teleport, planeshift, astral projection, greater teleport, gate, time stop, wish, etc, have to be learned from someone else and cannot be gained on a level up. It makes for a great adventure hook to have the party do a quest for a more powerful someone to learn the coveted teleport magic or to seek out the ancient library that had these magics recorded. As far as the classes being too broad, well, narrow it down by talking to your players. You can say: "in this world, wizards/sorcerers are highly specialized and themed. It is a superstition or taboo or a qwerk in how spellcasters are taught." Whatever it is, since it is your world, they have to live by your rules.

To the OP, I don't know how to attain what you want. I've tried to weigh in and my beliefs just don't mesh, I guess. As I've said previously, I never meant to offend anyone.

Best bet is to take a sampling of what has been said here and run with it. There have been some great ideas in this thread. Best thing to do is to talk to your players, that way they can still play a core caster if desired, and you can have your high power/high magic world without fighting the "high lvl spellcasting breaks adventures" monster. I do empathize. When the cleric spends the day before going off to battle to cast divinations and auguries, and consults with helpful outsiders to ensure the most favorable results, and then the wizard teleports everyone directly to the sight of encounter completely bypassing my whatever I had planned completely torques me.

Pechvarry
2010-06-08, 06:21 PM
What research are you doing in the middle of the wilderness(where many games are placed)??? You're not a sorcerer you dont cast spells just cause(insert fluff) you need books and labs and towers of knowledge. . .

Unless you're the first wizard ever.

And why do you need a lab and towers? You have magic. Why can't a wizard with high enough spellcraft to decipher magical scrolls also be able to treat magic like a math equation? "research" simply means sitting down and coming up with a new postulate. If x and y, then Acid Arrow.

Frog Dragon
2010-06-08, 06:28 PM
Well, the problem with FocSpecs is that they are still far too wide for the OP:s tastes. Infact, I think he said so himself. If the problem is with the class itself having too broad flavor, then doing that will not help one bit.
I second (Or third. Or fourth. or twentyseventh.) the notion of using classes like Dread Necromancer and Beguiler to replace the Wizard and Sorcerer. There are homebrew classes on these forums to make similar classes for the other schools. If you find some of those, they could be good.
I'm not sure if OP is willing to take psions and wilders, since they are rather broad. Also, with the bannings of Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric and Druid(?), they would probably become the most powerful classes in the game. Discounting stuff like Archivist for now.
Artificers could be cool, since they fill a rather specific niche. (The magical item crafter.) I am aware that they are rather powerful, tier wise. But speaking from personal experience, I can say that actually breaking the class shall not happen without real expertise. I for one, have not been able to grasp the exact abuses of the artificer, despite being no chump (I think) optimization wise. Even though there are ways to completely break the game with the class, which is probably why it is regarded as high tier. However, as I understand it. The problem wasn't power level, but the flavor, so these guys could be cool.
The "weaker" psionic classes, like Ardent and Psywar, the former which I regard as a real gem in the Complete Psionic, have more definite flavor and no significant balance issues. I recommend using at least the ardent for this.
I also recommend splitting the druid into WS ranger and Spirit Shaman/Shugenja. Spirit Shaman, I have personal experience with, and it should be pretty good for this. The Shugenja, not so much, but it's apparently an elemental focused divine class. Can't say much about it. Though, IMHO druids should not be allowed as is due to the fact that they are one of the few classes that you can accidentally break. I force the shapeshift variant myself.
Just my 2cp. I hope my post was helpful.

erikun
2010-06-08, 07:12 PM
Fixed that for you. And Healer is actually not a bad option if you want to heal people. (It's just a worse option than Cleric.)
Thanks. And I did note healing and buffing, where the Healer does have a problem with the latter. That, and having multiple versions of Cure Light Wounds but being unable to participate in combat is quite a problem.

I'm a bit ashamed I missed the Adept, although I'm not familiar with most of the other classes you mentioned.

Also, wands cost money. The party could even heal through potions, but I don't consider a Rogue with Use Magic Device to be a substitute for a healer (although the could with sufficient optimization).


Fixed Truenamer. Binder can sort of squeeze into this role, too, though I admit it doesn't have much need of Intelligence.
I was sort of under the impression that OP was trying to avoid homebrew. Otherwise, he could fix the core classes as easily as banning them. I'm also not sure if a working Truenamer would be something he'd allow, given his decision to ban Wizards is based on their all-purpose functionality, not necessarily their strength.


You could say:

-All Wizards must specialize. Focused specialists (Complete Mage) are allowed.
-Specialists may cast from their specialty school and 2 other schools. Focused specialists get their specialty school and one other.
Focuses specialists are actually more broken than regular specialists; they get nearly twice as many spells, and the schools they give up don't nearly put a dent into their strength. Conjuration, Transmutation, and Illusion represent a rediculous amount of versatility and sheer power through just three schools.

Gametime
2010-06-08, 07:31 PM
Focuses specialists are actually more broken than regular specialists; they get nearly twice as many spells one extra spell per spell level per day and increased restrictions on which schools of spell can be prepared, and the schools they give up don't nearly put a dent into their strength.

Fixed, although your point is still somewhat valid. Focused specialization is only worth it for certain schools; conjuration, transmutation, maybe illusion. The other schools don't have enough good spells at every level to make using 3 spell slots of each level on them a good idea.

erikun
2010-06-08, 07:43 PM
I was under the impression that it was two extra spells per day over the specialist, giving the focuses specialist three additional spell slots at each spell level. I guess that's the problem with not owning the book.

Still, that is pretty significant. A wizard will only have 2-3 spell slots of their highest level spells and 3-4 of their second highest, unless they manage to possess a 30+ Intelligence score. Giving them 2-3 additional spell slots is nearly double the number of their strongest spells they can cast. That's an enormous benefit when throwing around spells is your only class feature, as it allows the wizard to stick around through twice as many fights (or end fights twice as quickly).

Koury
2010-06-08, 07:58 PM
I was under the impression that it was two extra spells per day over the specialist, giving the focuses specialist three additional spell slots at each spell level. I guess that's the problem with not owning the book.

Focused Specialist gives you the Sorcerer's Spells Per Day chart. Thats the simplest way to remember it. Of course, you have to give up three schools (two if you focused in Div) and three of your spells, per spell level, must be of your specialized school, but yeah. It's still the Sorcs Spells Per Day chart.

Gametime
2010-06-08, 08:13 PM
I was under the impression that it was two extra spells per day over the specialist, giving the focuses specialist three additional spell slots at each spell level. I guess that's the problem with not owning the book.



You get two extra school spells per day, but you also lose a non-specialized spell per day, so it's a net gain of one spell per day, and the versatility you give up in the other slot isn't always insignificant. Some schools (Conjuration, Transmutation, Illusion) have lots of good spells at every level. Others are questionable. Others (Divination comes to mind) are almost never worth it.

It is a very powerful option for the schools that support it, though.


Focused Specialist gives you the Sorcerer's Spells Per Day chart. Thats the simplest way to remember it. Of course, you have to give up three schools (two if you focused in Div) and three of your spells, per spell level, must be of your specialized school, but yeah. It's still the Sorcs Spells Per Day chart.

Adjusted for the superior level casting of the wizard, of course.

Koury
2010-06-08, 08:18 PM
Adjusted for the superior level casting of the wizard, of course.

Naturally. :smallsmile:

erikun
2010-06-08, 08:24 PM
Well, I appreciate the correction everyone. :smallsmile: Not quite as strong as I thought, but you're still getting a large increase in spellcasting for the highest levels of spell slots, relatively speaking.

Of course, the spell school matters a lot. If you're specializing, I would assume that you're taking a school with a lot of variety at each level anyways.

Beorn080
2010-06-08, 08:52 PM
I'm not banning the Wizard/Sorceror because it's flavourless, quite the opposite. I'm getting rid of it because it encompases every flavour of spellcasting from any work of fiction any DnD author has ever read/seen. The equivelent would be if the Fighter were a gestalt class who had all the class features of the Barbarian/Monk/Knight/Samurai/Rogue/every other noncaster.

I'm also removing them because I want a setting that runs on the DnD rules like Eberron. But Eberron only works because nobody is above 12th level and they removed the gods.

Alright, I think I have a relatively simple solution. Wizards, sorcerers, druids, and clerics are the main problems from what I've seen you say. Alright.

Wizard. All wizards are devoted to one school. Not as a focused specialist, simply they only have access to one school. They can use wands and scrolls from that school with no UMD check, but other schools require a UMD check to cast from scroll or wand form, and UMD will be a cross class skill due to the disdain wizards have for spells outside their school. Note that universal would still be available to everyone.

Sorcerers behave normally, getting to pick out anything they want from any school, but can't use scrolls or wands outside of what they know. UMD is a class skill for them, due to their innate relationship with magic.

Clerics can cast any spell that their deity has a domain for, even if it isn't naturally a cleric spell. Good clerics have access to the cure line, and evil has access to the inflict line, due to the nature of the energy involved, but they can't be spontaneously cast anymore. However, they no longer have access to the full cleric spell list. Domains are picked normally, along with the extra domain slot. An extra domain per god might not go awry but probably won't be needed.

Druids are tougher. No real easy line to cut out stuff for, and a fairly impressive spell list. First, no natural spell. Second, wild form requires burning a spell slot, both to change and turn back. Third, no advanced animal companions. Fourth, no burning slots for summons without prep. This one is a pain.

Well, there is my take on it. The full casters still get to be powerful, but in a much more focused way. Note that if you do this, you may want to give Evokers and Enchanters a bit of a boost somehow, maybe making copies of certain Conjuration and Transmutation spells to give them.

Kalrik
2010-06-08, 11:20 PM
Alright, I think I have a relatively simple solution. Wizards, sorcerers, druids, and clerics are the main problems from what I've seen you say. Alright.

Wizard. All wizards are devoted to one school. Not as a focused specialist, simply they only have access to one school. They can use wands and scrolls from that school with no UMD check, but other schools require a UMD check to cast from scroll or wand form, and UMD will be a cross class skill due to the disdain wizards have for spells outside their school. Note that universal would still be available to everyone.

Sorcerers behave normally, getting to pick out anything they want from any school, but can't use scrolls or wands outside of what they know. UMD is a class skill for them, due to their innate relationship with magic.

Clerics can cast any spell that their deity has a domain for, even if it isn't naturally a cleric spell. Good clerics have access to the cure line, and evil has access to the inflict line, due to the nature of the energy involved, but they can't be spontaneously cast anymore. However, they no longer have access to the full cleric spell list. Domains are picked normally, along with the extra domain slot. An extra domain per god might not go awry but probably won't be needed.

That would be a serious nerf to the core classes. As was mentioned to me, the OP doesn't have a problem with the power of the classes, simply the broad view of the classes. It would be simpler to say that the core classes are limited to the PHB spell lists only. Sure, there are some very powerful spells in that selection that may warrent ban/houserule, but that significantly limits what can be done. Use spells from splatbooks and spell compendium as speciality treasure handed out by the GM.

Beorn080
2010-06-09, 12:05 AM
That was why I proposed it as I did. For wizards, you can be a transmuter and buff, but your not going to be dropping the bombs that conjuration or evocation gives you. Or, if you want to be broader, you can play a sorcerer and cherry pick your spells, but would have to settle for less total. Essentially, split the wizard class up into multiple classes, and reduce the sorc's ability to focus on a few spells and rely on wands for the rest.

I'll admit the cleric and druid ones are less balanced. I'm not sure what to do there, since they don't divide up the spells neatly.

Endarire
2010-06-09, 12:35 AM
Remember: Conjuration can do anything.

It may not seem like it, and Conjuration can't do everything right away, but Conjuration has crowd control, buffs, debuffs, summons, callings, teleport/mobility, and blasts.

All in core.

If the Conjurer can't do it, he can summon or call someone who can.