(3.X) Considering banning the Big Five

[Shpadoinkle]

The big five being wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and artificer, for the record. Other primary casters, like the psion, wu jen, shaman, etc, would also be banned.

Other spellcasting and/or explicitly magical (or psionic) classes (bards, rangers, psychic warriors, warlocks, dragon shaman, etc) would be available and unchanged.

How would this affect the balance of the game?

[The Glyphstone]

It'd improve balance a lot to remove anything T2 and above. Not sure what it'd do to the dynamics of a campaign setting in terms of loss of the higher-level spells like Teleport without some thoughtful analysis.

[Raging Gene Ray]

How would this affect the balance of the game?

Are you also allowing ToB? Because if so, that's going to be the next unbalancer.

Seriously, I could understand banning certain spells or exploitable loopholes, but outright banning these classes...it might fix your balance problem, but you take away plenty of options from your players and alienate yourself. A lot of people love their primary spellcasters and that's a huge chunk of potential players that won't want to come near your DMing.

Now you could just say that this particular campaign is in a no-magic or low-magic setting. That would be understandable.

[tyckspoon]

The most significant part for most things is the loss of good status-restoration effects; without Clerical-level casting (including Favored Souls, other divine full/semi-full casters, and even Psions in this since they can get Restoration) ability damage, ability drain, negative levels, and similar long-term afflictions become much more difficult and expensive to correct. HP damage isn't a particular concern, since as long as there is still one reasonably common class that can make a Wand of Cure Light there is still cheap healing, but status conditions suck really hard.

Other than that, you mostly lose a lot of bypass effects; without the Big Five and other other classes that can access their spell lists/get similar breadth and power of effects, a huge chasm in the path may still be a significant obstacle to even a mid-high leveled party. They'll probably be able to cross it, but they may have to actually use some consumables to do it (as compared to 'I Overland Fly across and secure a rope for everybody else to cross with.' Or "I get out one of my ten scrolls of Teleport and we cross.")

[Welknair]

I believe it's called a "Low Magic World"

It would mean relying on secondary casters for many of your fixes. Instead of cleric, make sure to have a paladin, ranger, or bard handy. Instead of having the wizard take care of the guards, have your bard make sure to learn some good enchantments (they should anyways, but hey).

The most notable change is the versatility of the team and the ease with which they overcome obstacles. You aren't going to teleport to your destination. You aren't going to raise your buddy from the dead. You might get a bit of supernatural aid, but that's going just be one facet of your abilities.

I think it could work, though it would be interesting. And mean to NPC's born with unnaturally high int scores.

[The Glyphstone]

Are you also allowing ToB? Because if so, that's going to be the next unbalancer.

Seriously, I could understand banning certain spells or exploitable loopholes, but outright banning these classes...it might fix your balance problem, but you take away plenty of options from your players and alienate yourself. A lot of people love their primary spellcasters and that's a huge chunk of potential players that won't want to come near your DMing.

Now you could just say that this particular campaign is in a no-magic or low-magic setting. That would be understandable.

ToB are solid T3. They're fairly balanced against the semi-casters like PsyWarriors, Duskblades, Beguilers, and such.

[Ernir]

The "Big Five" usually mean the Wizard, Archivist, Cleric, Druid and Artificer. The Sorcerer is good, but the others are good in more ways.

Semantics aside - how much removing the classes changes things depends immensely on how your players used the classes to begin with. If you had the kind of group that tried to get its hands on Genesis + Astral Projection as soon as they could, you're going to see a big difference. If you had players playing Fireballspewing Evokers (doubt it, considering your reaction, but...), then you're just going to see Warmages instead. Doing the exact same things.

Another issue is how much you depended on the assumption of the classes existing when creating your settings. Who are the best item creators now? Warlocks? The best healers? Healers? It's going to... be a bit different.

Speaking of Healers, the lack of healing batteries that are actually fun to play is probably what's going to bother most low-mid optimization groups the most.

[Psyren]

It'd improve balance a lot to remove anything T2 and above. Not sure what it'd do to the dynamics of a campaign setting in terms of loss of the higher-level spells like Teleport without some thoughtful analysis.


The most significant part for most things is the loss of good status-restoration effects; without Clerical-level casting (including Favored Souls, other divine full/semi-full casters, and even Psions in this since they can get Restoration) ability damage, ability drain, negative levels, and similar long-term afflictions become much more difficult and expensive to correct. HP damage isn't a particular concern, since as long as there is still one reasonably common class that can make a Wand of Cure Light there is still cheap healing, but status conditions suck really hard.


Shugenja are T3 and can handle both of these issues - Teleport and Restoration are on their list. (Healing too.)

[ericgrau]

That's half of the classes. You might as well ban D&D and play something else.

[Seerow]

I'd recommend baning the prep casters, but allow the spontaneous casters with limited spell lists (ie Sorcerer, Beguiler, Warmage, Favored Soul, etc). Similarly ban knowstones, and any major spells you deem particularly problematic.

The biggest problem with most casters is the swiss army knife they represent. Letting people continue as full casters but with the much more limited arsenal at their disposal, and they're much more manageable and easier to plan around while keeping players who enjoy casters mostly happy.

[Gametime]

The most significant part for most things is the loss of good status-restoration effects; without Clerical-level casting (including Favored Souls, other divine full/semi-full casters, and even Psions in this since they can get Restoration) ability damage, ability drain, negative levels, and similar long-term afflictions become much more difficult and expensive to correct. HP damage isn't a particular concern, since as long as there is still one reasonably common class that can make a Wand of Cure Light there is still cheap healing, but status conditions suck really hard.



Allowing the Healer in the game solves that problem neatly, and fits in with using "specialized" fullcasters like Beguilers and Warmages. Giving Paladins and Rangers (and maybe Bards) access to Restoration and similar effects, if they don't get them already, would also solve that particular issue without unbalancing things.

[Eloel]

That's half of the classes. You might as well ban D&D and play something else.

Except it isn't. That is 4/11 banned in core, which is less than half.

It's also 8/44 from tier list, which is nowhere close to half.

I'm assuming stuff like Dread Necromancer & Beguiler are left intact, since they're "how magic should be" according to many people.

[Tvtyrant]

Where do Shadowcasters show up in the Tiers? Are they 2 or 3?

[Gametime]

I believe Shadowcasters as printed in ToM clock in at tier 4. Their longevity is really limiting, preventing them from excelling in any particular sphere, and their wonky method of mystery selection prevents them from diversifying much.

Using the Mouseferatu fix, it might be bumped up to tier 3, but more likely it would remain tier 4 (albeit a high tier 4).

[Eloel]

Where do Shadowcasters show up in the Tiers? Are they 2 or 3?

It's been a while since I last read Shadowcaster, so my memory of its' abilities is approximate at best, but I'd say it's a tier 4.

Edit: Swordsage'd.

[Shpadoinkle]

Well, the first idea I had along this line of thought was basically to implement a universal wizard-style specialization on all primary casters ("You can cast spells from these schools, but you can never learn or cast spells from these other schools, unless you multiclass.")

Then I remembered that there are already a lot of base classes (beguiler, healer, warmage, etc.) that are basically that concept, except nobody ever plays them because the big five outclass them in practically every way. So I refined the idea to what I posted above because it would be faster and all the work is already done.

[Callista]

Many people wouldn't want to play in a game like that. Why not just ban the really abusable spells instead?

[WarKitty]

The one thing I've found useful when banning things is to give out free healing abilities as a class ability. So now your bard has healing spells on his class list and gets them for free as bonus spells known. Or something like that. Really, just something so that you can have your healing without forcing someone to play a dedicated healer.

[Eloel]

Many people wouldn't want to play in a game like that. Why not just ban the really abusable spells instead?

Define "many" please? Pretty much everyone who knows and understands the tier system, and wants to play a balanced game, will accept a blanket ban on T1 & T2.

The problem is with versatility, not abusable singular spells. When your Wizard can cast Knock, summon stuff to trigger traps, and have Greater (or Superior) Invisibility, he makes the Open Lock, Disable Device and Hide (and Move Silently fo Superior Invis) irrelevant. Since that is pretty much the whole shtick of Rogue, replacing them with 3 spells (that are considered "balanced" spells), runs you into problems.


The one thing I've found useful when banning things is to give out free healing abilities as a class ability. So now your bard has healing spells on his class list and gets them for free as bonus spells known. Or something like that. Really, just something so that you can have your healing without forcing someone to play a dedicated healer.

Wands of Lesser Vigor for whomever has the UMD to use it? Scrolls of Resurrection? NPC Healer following around?

[BG]

I had a group that would frequently use spells in ways that I hadn't thought of to game the system. Usually I could roll with it a little bit, but once we get past mid-level, I don't know a lot of the higher level spells and loopholes, and I don't like having to veto a player action after the fact.

My solution? I only run e6 now. Sure, players can still come up with creative solutions to get around problems, but at least I can plan for all the spells they have available to them.

Also, while tier 1 classes are highly touted, they aren't by any means invincible, especially if you can prevent them from getting that night's rest they need.

[GoatBoy]

I just tell my players, "play what you want but please don't break my game."

Maybe it's easier for me because I have a rather large pool of players from which to choose. But that approach has worked for me so far.

[Callista]

Exactly. "Don't break my game" is enough for most players; and the ones for whom it isn't enough will generally be cheating on their dice rolls and editing their character sheets anyway.


Define "many" please? Pretty much everyone who knows and understands the tier system, and wants to play a balanced game, will accept a blanket ban on T1 & T2.About half, I'd guess. The half that likes to play those classes. I "know and understand" the tier system just fine; and I can play a wizard without breaking the game. Now, granted, the party as a whole gets stronger with a wizard in it; but a well-played wizard doesn't outshine the rest of the party--he makes it possible for the rest of the party to outshine him! When the barbarian lands three devastating hits in a row, nobody's really looking at the guy in the robes who just cast Haste and Bull's Strength on him...

Besides, if the wizard tries to be the rogue, he doesn't have enough spells left to be the wizard. A sensible wizard doesn't prepare Knock or try to handle traps when he's got a rogue in the party; a rogue is like a walking reusable Knock spell, so why be redundant? Prepare a summon to flank with him or a spell that'll deny enemies their DEX to AC. If you're truly paranoid you can carry a scroll, I suppose; by the time you have spell slots open for Knock, you're past the point where locked doors matter anyway. The barbarian's magic weapon has been working better than your Knock spell for some time by then.

[umbrapolaris]

That's half of the classes. You might as well ban D&D and play something else.


+1 000 000

in the 1st edition of ad&d, the wizard (called magic user...) already has 9 level of spells, the monk has many abilties, the fighter...he has NOTHING (no feats, no abilities, except construct a stronghold...).

we are at the 4th edition, if the designer banned the T1-T2 at that time, d&d 2nd, 3rd, 4th edition may never exist and you may play actually at LoTR...

when you play at d&d you know that magic user will be more powerful than the rest.

[Killer Angel]

I believe it's called a "Low Magic World"


Once I DMed a low magic world.
Arcane was in it's early developement, so there weren't spells > 4 lev. (and the ones of 4th level were limited in number).
Divine magic was something tribal, for shaman, and also in this case the 4th level spells were limited similarly.
We'd have a very satisfying campaign, from 4th to 14th level.

[faceroll]

If players *really* want a spell, they can play a warmage or beguiler and pick it up with arcane disciple. Burning a feat and having to be MAD to cast something like teleport or major creation is an appropriate cost, imo.


Speaking of Healers, the lack of healing batteries that are actually fun to play is probably what's going to bother most low-mid optimization groups the most.

The rogue's T4, though.

[Private-Prinny]

when you play at d&d you know that magic user will be more powerful than the rest.

And... you don't see the problem with that? If I'm in a party with a magic user, I want to be their teammate, not their pack mule. Where's the fun for everyone else when the party wizard can literally replace all of you with a flick of his wrist and a snap of his fingers?

On-topic: I'm actually running a Tier 3 campaign IRL, and it is fantastic, since everyone gets to have their own niche, and no one feels useless. I would totally recommend it, if that's your sort of thing..

[umbrapolaris]

And... you don't see the problem with that? If I'm in a party with a magic user, I want to be their teammate, not their pack mule. Where's the fun for everyone else when the party wizard can literally replace all of you with a flick of his wrist and a snap of his fingers?

On-topic: I'm actually running a Tier 3 campaign IRL, and it is fantastic, since everyone gets to have their own niche, and no one feels useless. I would totally recommend it, if that's your sort of thing..

personnaly no ! if he does , it's coz maybe he don't let you do your job ! so it is more the player fault not the class.

[Private-Prinny]

personnaly no ! if he does , it's coz maybe he don't let you do your job ! so it is more the player fault not the class.

Actually, it is entirely the fault of the class. There is no justifiable logic behind the wizard choosing to not end all encounters immediately. It's faster, more efficient, and fewer people get hurt. Why in the Nine Hells would I, as a mage, sit on the sidelines and do something that is completely beneath me when I have the potential to end the fight before it even starts?

That's why I prefer the Tier 3 casters. I'm on equal footing with the others, so I don't have to do mental gymnastics trying to figure out why someone else would even need to lift a finger in my presence.

[Killer Angel]

personnaly no ! if he does , it's coz maybe he don't let you do your job ! so it is more the player fault not the class.

While this can be true, a frontline druid does the same job of a fighter. Only, the druid is so large that is better then the fighter and fills other niches of competence, too...


There is no justifiable logic behind the wizard choosing to not end all encounters immediately. It's faster, more efficient, and fewer people get hurt. Why in the Nine Hells would I, as a mage, sit on the sidelines and do something that is completely beneath me when I have the potential to end the fight before it even starts?


Personal tastes of the player? For example, I'm more a controller / buffer type, and dislike almost all the polymorf line (wich is more efficient, but less fun to me) and things like power words.

[umbrapolaris]

Actually, it is entirely the fault of the class. There is no justifiable logic behind the wizard choosing to not end all encounters immediately. It's faster, more efficient, and fewer people get hurt. Why in the Nine Hells would I, as a mage, sit on the sidelines and do something that is completely beneath me when I have the potential to end the fight before it even starts?

That's why I prefer the Tier 3 casters. I'm on equal footing with the others, so I don't have to do mental gymnastics trying to figure out why someone else would even need to lift a finger in my presence.

it is not the wizard class than overshadow the others classes , it is SOME of his spells, and that make a big big difference ! i play a fullcaster and i generally choose spells who not duplicate my companion's abilities/skills/roles. not because i want to restrain myself but coz it will wasted my slots, and i need slots for spells that fit my character.

you may say i have "heavy artillery" spells that can blow all opposition; yes it is true, but without those, my companion may do the same, just slower, without risking too much their lives.


While this can be true, a frontline druid does the same job of a fighter. Only, the druid is so large that is better then the fighter and fills other niches of competence, too...

remind me the tanking druid in World of Warcraft, isn't it? ^^

[Reluctance]

Umbrapolaris, two questions. First, how often do you DM? And second, would you care to share plots you'd like to run with full powered casters running around?

I'm not even touching on the ability of the big five to trivialize other characters entirely by accident. More important to me is their ability to trivialize whole plots. And how the people who seem most gung-ho about the benefits of playing the big five tend not to say much about their time on the other side of the screen.

[umbrapolaris]

Umbrapolaris, two questions. First, how often do you DM? And second, would you care to share plots you'd like to run with full powered casters running around?

I'm not even touching on the ability of the big five to trivialize other characters entirely by accident. More important to me is their ability to trivialize whole plots. And how the people who seem most gung-ho about the benefits of playing the big five tend not to say much about their time on the other side of the screen.

i never DM coz im a very bad story-teller and im lazy to prepare all encounter and scenarii. the role don't fit to me. it not means i dont know how DMing is.

[Killer Angel]

remind me the tanking druid in World of Warcraft, isn't it? ^^

I was thinking more to the typical theoretical druid in dire bear form, with a bear companion magically buffed and a pack of summoned celestial bears, but yeah, sort of. :smallwink:

[umbrapolaris]

I was thinking more to the typical theoretical druid in dire bear form

the same in WOW, where the bear druid has more HP and AC than the tanking warrior ^^

[Eloel]

Umbrapolaris, may I suggest one of the million spellcheckers available on the web? My brain hurts while reading your posts.
Thank you.

Now, on topic;

If you're selecting weaker spells (possible for stuff like Sorcerer and Psion), you're gimping your character intentionally. So, you're making bad choices to get to equal footing with your party members. Problem.

If you're a Cleric, a Wizard, a Druid, an Archivist or an Artificer (basically, prepared caster) (Also, hey, that's all Tier 1. Coincidence. Right?), even if you gimp your character one day, you can swap all your spells out for the next day, so you can summon an army, buff them and let them loose on the enemy one day (Tens of allies each better than the Fighter), blast stuff into oblivion the other day (More damage than the Fighter. Note that blasting is -very- suboptimal), shut down enemies for your followers (*ehem* your -party-) to kill them at their leasure on yet another day. At around 7th level, you can do it all day long. At around 11th level, you can do all of them all day long.

That causes a big, big problem. Potentially, the Wizard can dominate the game while Fighter can only watch. If you're not using it to full potential, great. But the Big 5 have either high Int or high Wis (unlike the players), so justifying their useless choices in game is very, very hard.

[Tyndmyr]

The big five being wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and artificer, for the record. Other primary casters, like the psion, wu jen, shaman, etc, would also be banned.

Other spellcasting and/or explicitly magical (or psionic) classes (bards, rangers, psychic warriors, warlocks, dragon shaman, etc) would be available and unchanged.

How would this affect the balance of the game?

The only difference between T1 and T2 is the number of different ways they can break the game at once. T2 don't actually break the games less.

Banning all primary casters results in a lot of things not working well, or at all. Access to a primary caster is assumed in a great deal of monster, encounter, and campaign design. This problem grows dramatically as you level. Then, you'll have practical problems in that whichever melee character does the most damage will likely be overpowered. So, a barbarian or something, most likely. Getting melee characters with wildly differing damage output is pretty easy to do without even trying.

I suggest instead using a different system that is better adapted to low magic. For instance, 7th Sea has magic, but in a much less central position. I suspect it'd be dramatically better for you. D&D 3.x is fantastic at potraying a specific type of game. High magic, high fantasy. For anything else, it doesn't actually work all that well.

[Eloel]

Banning all primary casters results in a lot of things not working well, or at all. Access to a primary caster is assumed in a great deal of monster, encounter, and campaign design. This problem grows dramatically as you level. Then, you'll have practical problems in that whichever melee character does the most damage will likely be overpowered. So, a barbarian or something, most likely. Getting melee characters with wildly differing damage output is pretty easy to do without even trying.

I think he's still allowing things like Warmage, Beguiler, Healer and Dread Necromancer. Thus, 9th level spells are in, stuff that break the game with 9th level spells are out. Also, "more melee damage" does not make "powerful melee". Hence, Warblade > Barbarian.

[The Glyphstone]

the same in WOW, where the bear druid has more HP and AC than the tanking warrior ^^

Technically, it's like a WoW bear druid who gets the Hunter's pet under a permanent Bestial Wrath and can heal/cast without leaving Dire Bear Form, while simultaneously having maximum points in all three talent trees, letting him out-DPS the DPS mage and out-Heal the Holy Priest. Oh, and not only does he have more HP and Armor than the warrior, but he's also allowed to use a shield and parry attacks while keeping his buffed Dodge.

But with that in mind, it's a fair comparison.:smallcool:

[umbrapolaris]

I suggest instead using a different system that is better adapted to low magic. For instance, 7th Sea has magic, but in a much less central position. I suspect it'd be dramatically better for you. D&D 3.x is fantastic at potraying a specific type of game. High magic, high fantasy. For anything else, it doesn't actually work all that well.

i agree entirely.

p.s: sorry, English is not my language of origin. and google translate is not so efficient.

[Tyndmyr]

I think he's still allowing things like Warmage, Beguiler, Healer and Dread Necromancer. Thus, 9th level spells are in, stuff that break the game with 9th level spells are out. Also, "more melee damage" does not make "powerful melee". Hence, Warblade > Barbarian.

You don't think warmage can break the game? They get, as a class feature, evocation spells from a number of lists, including sorcerer. It's not terribly hard for them to pull off the same crazy stunts as the sorc.

Sure, you've taken the familiar. Oh, they're slightly mad. It's pretty ignorable, though. Sure, you end up with no warmage edge, but that merely means you have the same damage output on your nukes as every other primary caster. This is not really important. If you want to nuke, you just grab wings of flurry, and your favorite metamagic and laugh as everything dies horrifically. Adding +int to the damage really wouldn't be relevant. You also have enough spells per day, being spont, that you could care less about bonus spells from any moderate level onward. So, cha is your single stat. Just like a sorc. The same PrCs that are great for a sorc are also great for you.

Dread Necro can be game breaking. Now, I don't mean to say it shatters the rules like a wizard. It's just that, in practice, team undead takes freaking forever to take it's turn, because a DN can be controlling quite a lot of stuff. If the DN is not controlling stuff, it's mostly crap. So...either way, it does annoying stuff to the actual gameplay.

Warblade is better than barbarian, yes. It may not actually be more gamebreaking. Uberchargers make the game work badly. Warblades are, while fairly hard to screw up a build for, fairly hard to make truly broken. They'll remain one of the better options to take, sure, but I've never seen them make a game stop functioning properly.

[Eloel]

*talking about warmages, snipped for length*
They deal damage, and do nothing else. Damage is dealt just as well by Ubercharger. Thus, not broken. (I'm excluding Rainbow Servant from this discussion). A warmage can't Fly. He can't go Invisible. He can't Teleport. He can't summon.
As I said, a Sorcerer gimped to take blasting spells only is one sad Sorcerer. Oh, wait, that's what Warmage is. Hence, Tier 4 (unlike Dread Necro or Beguiler, who are Tier 3)



Dread Necro can be game breaking. Now, I don't mean to say it shatters the rules like a wizard. It's just that, in practice, team undead takes freaking forever to take it's turn, because a DN can be controlling quite a lot of stuff. If the DN is not controlling stuff, it's mostly crap. So...either way, it does annoying stuff to the actual gameplay.

Most Dread Necros I played with tended to create one big undead instead of an "army of mooks to be killed in multiples of 24 with Lightning Bolt". Sure, DN can get boring if they go for bunch of mooks, but there are alternatives that are not strictly weaker they can go for.


Warblade is better than barbarian, yes. It may not actually be more gamebreaking. Uberchargers make the game work badly. Warblades are, while fairly hard to screw up a build for, fairly hard to make truly broken. They'll remain one of the better options to take, sure, but I've never seen them make a game stop functioning properly.
That's pretty much what I said. Tier 3 on the tier list is where everything functions right, imo.

[AstralFire]

Almost any class can break the game. It's not a question of 'if' it is a question of 'how easily.' You have to try with the Warmage, and its avenues to ultimate power are easily restricted.

I've run T3 games before, they work great.

[Hanuman]

As far as tact goes, try not to use the word "can't" and "banned", instead if they ask to play a T1 or T2 class tell them their alternative options, like:

Player: Alright, I think I'm going to roll a wizard.
DM: Well, Wizards in my campaign are called Wu Jen, and they work slightly differently. *Hands her OA*


Things like this, just shuffle it around. Instead of blocking your players just re-rout them.

[Tyndmyr]

Almost any class can break the game. It's not a question of 'if' it is a question of 'how easily.' You have to try with the Warmage, and its avenues to ultimate power are easily restricted.

I've run T3 games before, they work great.

And there we run into the problem of why massive ban lists don't work well. They just keep getting added to, require a lot of work, and are pretty unwieldy.

So...either play with people who aren't trying to break the game, or if you want to do something remarkably non standard, play a system that supports that better. Either of those is ridiculously more practical.

[Maho-Tsukai]

If you like low magic, why not try 1e AD&D? While 2e adds all kinds of crazy stuff from what I have heard(Level 10 spells, for example) 1e casters are hardly overpowered and are quite neutered in the fact that at low levels they are extremely weak, and by extremely weak I mean at 1st level they only get one level 1 spell per day and if I remember correctly, 1 level 1 spell known...and even worse, they don't get crossbows either. The most they can have as far as ranged weapons go is a sling which usually costs too much for them to afford at 1st level anyway meaning that they will literally be dead weight in the party after their 1 level 1 spell per-day has been used. Your only options at first level after that spell is used are either to stay in the back reading a book or doing something else wizards like to do or running into melee like an idiot to whack monsters with your quarterstaff or poke them with your dagger while they laugh at how pathetic your attacks are and then proceed to curb stomp you to death because your a squishy in melee without any protective spells.

At higher levels, however, a 1e magic-user can be very powerful. The problem however is living long enough to reach those levels...and in 1e the DM has FAR more power then the players and thus 1e can be extremely brutal for a low level, non-multiclass caster. However, that is part of the charm of 1e. Sword and Board types can once again actually be powerful. Rogues/Thieves become the versatile class they where meant to be. Paladins are good too seeing as they use the cleric list and have roughly the equivalent of level 6 cleric casting in 3.5e while still being good melee fighters. Oh, and also, in addition to Magic-Users(Wizards) being hard to level up/extremely weak at low levels, the other "casters," Cleric and Druid, only get spells up to level 7, though some of their level 7 spells are equivalent to level 9 Magic-User spells.

[Grim Reader]

The big five being wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and artificer, for the record. Other primary casters, like the psion, wu jen, shaman, etc, would also be banned.

Other spellcasting and/or explicitly magical (or psionic) classes (bards, rangers, psychic warriors, warlocks, dragon shaman, etc) would be available and unchanged.

How would this affect the balance of the game?

I've had some similar plans myself. Only difference is, I was going to leave the Sorcerer in, and prune the spell list a little. Polymorph, Alter Self, Celerity etc. I figured the Sorcerers low number of spells known make him more predictable and plannable for.

My reasoning was:

Wizard is replaced by the Sorcerer, Beguiler, Necromancer and Warmage.

Cleric is replaced by the Favored Soul and the Archivist (Who is a lot less broken without Domain Spells. Also keep out Divine Bard spells)

Druid is replaced by the Spirit Shaman and the Wildshaping Ranger (who should be the default, with the other Rangers being options)

Artificer does not fit the campaign world in question anyway.

This differs from your setup in that you wanted to ban the other primary casters as well, which I think will change game balance a lot. To be honest, I think retarding high-level spell access by another step around level 7 or 9 would do the trick just as well. Unless your players are extremly effective at squeezing mileage out of spells.

[AstralFire]

And there we run into the problem of why massive ban lists don't work well. They just keep getting added to, require a lot of work, and are pretty unwieldy.

So...either play with people who aren't trying to break the game, or if you want to do something remarkably non standard, play a system that supports that better. Either of those is ridiculously more practical.

We did? Looks like we ran into "large ban list that is simple to say is quickly implemented and perfectly wieldy as long as someone isn't trying to actively break it." The warmage cannot accidentally break the game - the wizard can. "You can't use these classes," is perfectly quick, perfectly valid, end of story.

[Tyndmyr]

We did? Looks like we ran into "large ban list that is simple to say is quickly implemented and perfectly wieldy as long as someone isn't trying to actively break it." The warmage cannot accidentally break the game - the wizard can. "You can't use these classes," is perfectly quick, perfectly valid, end of story.

T1 classes and fullcasters is easy to say, sure. However, it has far reaching implications that will necessitate a great many more changes. Alone, it is fairly awkward. T1 classes and fullcasters that cast more than one school is somewhat better, but still poor.

Either it doesn't work at all, or it requires a great deal more detail, or it's irrelevant because your players were never going to break the game anyhow.

[AstralFire]

T1 classes and fullcasters is easy to say, sure. However, it has far reaching implications that will necessitate a great many more changes. Alone, it is fairly awkward. T1 classes and fullcasters that cast more than one school is somewhat better, but still poor.

Either it doesn't work at all, or it requires a great deal more detail, or it's irrelevant because your players were never going to break the game anyhow.

Or you can just say, "these classes are not in." Eleven or so names are not that hard to recall. Not seeing the need for great detail. Even if the work that goes into deciding what classes is barred is complex, the classes to keep in mind are not.

None of these classes have unique abilities which cannot be somehow replicated in some way by another class, so no negative effects on the gameworld either.

[TakeABow]

I played a game where I banned Cleric and Wizard/Sorc - so one of the PC's played an Archivist (Heroes of Horror). It is a really cool class and that game was a lot of fun since CoDzilla didn't happen. I think the party was Archivist, Hexblade, Beguiler, Swordsage. Archivist is quite strong still, but I could reel the power level down by limiting access to spells.

I wouldn't be afraid to ban the major classes, but keep a careful watch on the CR 12+ stuff that usually requires dispel magic, glitterdust, or arcane miscellanea to deal with effectively, so you don't back the PCs into a corner they need a class they didn't have access to to fight properly - since most monster manual authors presume that every party has wiz/sorc and cleric spells available when they assign CR.

[Tyndmyr]

None of these classes have unique abilities which cannot be somehow replicated in some way by another class, so no negative effects on the gameworld either.

By another class, yes. You get to pick which of those abilities your party gets to replicate, when bog standard D&D assumes that you generally can get access to all of them.

Consider mid-high level encounters. Flight is often assumed. Dispel Magic is generally assumed. Some way to hit incorporeal/ethereal is necessary, along with see invisibility and detect magic & identify. There's probably more, but this is an easy starter list.

Now yes, it's possible to pick those up. However, it's a bit of a PITA, and it requires a lot more care in building. Any party with the knowledge and foresight to do this also has the required knowledge and foresight to avoid breaking the game.

[GoatBoy]

If you're selecting weaker spells (possible for stuff like Sorcerer and Psion), you're gimping your character intentionally.

Anyone who doesn't play Pun-pun or Cheater of Mystra is "gimping their character intentionally."

If a player I knew as reasonable came up to me and said they wanted to play a Wizard who focused on tossing bolts of lightning, and I knew they had some degree of optimization skill, I'd say, "sure, just don't break my game, please." I wouldn't force them to play a Warmage.

If someone was playing a Domain Conjurer with Abrupt Jaunt, Arcane Thesis, and levels in Incantatrix, telling them to take themselves down two tiers is like saying, "I'm telling you to do this because I think it will keep you from destroying my encounters." I imagine this type of person would take that as a direct challenge to their skill, and end up playing a Factotum who makes my life far worse than the above lightning Wizard.

I know that some people don't have much of a choice in whom they can allow into their games and have to take what players they can get. And I suppose a blanket ban is understandable in that case. But I wish people wouldn't make the claim that their standards should apply to everyone, because anyone who doesn't squeeze effectiveness out of their character like water from a stone is clearly "doing something wrong."

And I am saying, if your players are the type who need blanket bans in order to function at a reasonable level, you'd be forgiven in looking for a better group unless you had no option.

[umbrapolaris]

At higher levels, however, a 1e magic-user can be very powerful. The problem however is living long enough to reach those levels...and in 1e the DM has FAR more power then the players and thus 1e can be extremely brutal for a low level, non-multiclass caster. However, that is part of the charm of 1e. Sword and Board types can once again actually be powerful. Rogues/Thieves become the versatile class they where meant to be. Paladins are good too seeing as they use the cleric list and have roughly the equivalent of level 6 cleric casting in 3.5e. Oh, and also, in addition to Magic-Users(Wizards) being hard to level up/extremely weak at low levels, the other "casters," Cleric and Druid, only get spells up to level 7, though some of their level 7 spells are equivalent to level 9 Magic-User spells.

yes, i remember dying so many times before reaching high levels that i almost quit the wizard class ! but one of my fellow fighters told me " dont worry, from now i will be your shield".

and the monk is the total opposite of what he is now, all the current abilities compared to the fighter ultimate power " the D10 for hp" ^^

sample:

"Although fighters do not have magic spells to use, their armor and
weapons can compensate. They have the most advantageous combat
table and generally have good saving throw (q.v.) possibilities as well"

[WarKitty]

The test is not "can this class break the game," but "will this class played reasonably intelligently break the game." Banning classes doesn't deal with the person who's determined to break things. It does deal with the person who goes "ooo hey cool, I can stop time! That looks like fun!" and preps it. It's quite possible to break a game with a Tier one without even trying.

[Roderick_BR]

T1 classes and fullcasters is easy to say, sure. However, it has far reaching implications that will necessitate a great many more changes. Alone, it is fairly awkward. T1 classes and fullcasters that cast more than one school is somewhat better, but still poor.

Either it doesn't work at all, or it requires a great deal more detail, or it's irrelevant because your players were never going to break the game anyhow.
Can you explain why it doesn't work at all? I don't see how not playing some classes will make a game harder. Wizard is easily replaceable with sorcerer, that while it can be overpowered with the proper spell selection, can't do it in 5 different ways at the same time as the wizard can. Same with clerics being replaced with favored soul, and druid being replaced with the shaman and wildshaping ranger. Artificer is pretty much a new class, won't be missed.

In fact, in my group, no one plays arcane casters. At all. And the druid only ever uses his wild shape for utilitary (most often birds to fly), and it never made the game "not work at all".

[Yora]

Many people wouldn't want to play in a game like that. Why not just ban the really abusable spells instead?
The classes really are not broken. (Well, maybe the druid is.) It's the spell lists that are broken. Nothing you do to the classes has any effect on balance. Everything you can do to improve balance has to be something about the spells. And some possibly wonky feats.
But the wizard with his spells per day and bonus feats really is not an issue.

[AstralFire]

Saying "the class isn't broken! It's the spells!" is accurate, but when there are far more balanced classes using most of the same spells, it's easier to ban an entire class and replace it with these substitutes.

[Tyndmyr]

Anyone who doesn't play Pun-pun or Cheater of Mystra is "gimping their character intentionally."

Zackly. And pun-pun is a level 1 pally. You can certainly break low tier classes.

There is absolutely wrong with making a character at the level the party's comfortable with, even if you could make a more optimal one.


If someone was playing a Domain Conjurer with Abrupt Jaunt, Arcane Thesis, and levels in Incantatrix, telling them to take themselves down two tiers is like saying, "I'm telling you to do this because I think it will keep you from destroying my encounters." I imagine this type of person would take that as a direct challenge to their skill, and end up playing a Factotum who makes my life far worse than the above lightning Wizard.

Yup. Go straight to the source of the problem, and be honest about it. By blaming something else, you run the risk that they take you at face value, and thus, the problem remains unsolved.


I know that some people don't have much of a choice in whom they can allow into their games and have to take what players they can get. And I suppose a blanket ban is understandable in that case. But I wish people wouldn't make the claim that their standards should apply to everyone, because anyone who doesn't squeeze effectiveness out of their character like water from a stone is clearly "doing something wrong."

I understand some bans...like banning material that you don't have available. That's a convenience issue, not one of balance.

But D&D 3.5 is simply too complicated, with too much material, to make it balanced with anything less that a rather extensive set of corrections. This is why so many people have made variant systems of it. If doing that level of work is what makes you happy, great, give it a shot. Otherwise, use an existing system designed for balance or just avoid the need for system enforcement of balance.


And I am saying, if your players are the type who need blanket bans in order to function at a reasonable level, you'd be forgiven in looking for a better group unless you had no option.

Yup. And a quick talk with the players might be of help if you didn't have another option.

[TheGeckoKing]

I never got why it was beyond some DM's to just say "Don't break my games, please." Really. Playing a one-off T3/Low Magic campaign can be cool, but there's just no need for permanent bans. If a player wants to break your game, he will, by any means.

[AstralFire]

I never got why it was beyond some DM's to just say "Don't break my games, please." Really. Playing a one-off T3/Low Magic campaign can be cool, but there's just no need for permanent bans. If a player wants to break your game, he will, by any means.

Again, this is about preventing accidental breakage.

[GoatBoy]

Again, this is about preventing accidental breakage.

Player 1: Okay, Power Attack to plus ten, add this damage, activate item as swift action, call buffs into account, flanking bonus... thirty-seven?
DM: Hit, but you missed because of concealment.
Player 1: DAMMIT!
Player 2: LOL TIEM STOPP

No, you're actually right. It just put that really funny image into my head.

[Quietus]

I never got why it was beyond some DM's to just say "Don't break my games, please." Really. Playing a one-off T3/Low Magic campaign can be cool, but there's just no need for permanent bans. If a player wants to break your game, he will, by any means.

This is exactly the tack I take. I'm in the process of recruiting for a game right now, and right in the first post I say "I'm looking for a group that hovers around Tier 3 - this doesn't mean no wizards/monks, but it DOES mean that Wizards shouldn't go for Ultimate Cosmic Power, and Monks should make sure they have at least two or three things they're competent at". It gives a clear idea of what power level I'm looking for, without limiting a player's choice of class - it just clearly says that I don't want a Wizard/incantantrix/IotSFV blowing every encounter apart on round 1.

[dextercorvia]

Are you leaving in Bard, Binder, and Marshal?

Diplomancy FTW

[Tyndmyr]

Again, this is about preventing accidental breakage.

Accidental breakage can be solved by the simple expedient of glancing over the character sheet before you play.

This is generally a good idea anyways, because people make mistakes. Especially new ones.

And, tbh, a first timer wizard doesn't usually break the game. He goes blasty, and if he's smart, he discovers some fun spells along the way that allow him to be solid, but not game breaking. Time stop is not particularly bad. It's got enough limitations that while it allows you to buff like a psycho, it has relatively few game breaking combos.

[AstralFire]

Accidental breakage can be solved by the simple expedient of glancing over the character sheet before you play.

This is generally a good idea anyways, because people make mistakes. Especially new ones.

And, tbh, a first timer wizard doesn't usually break the game. He goes blasty, and if he's smart, he discovers some fun spells along the way that allow him to be solid, but not game breaking. Time stop is not particularly bad. It's got enough limitations that while it allows you to buff like a psycho, it has relatively few game breaking combos.

And you're going to catch everything, every time, without having an encyclopedic knowledge of the game and fast intuition on how these things fit together? You're saying this is easier than banning a dozen classes out of forty-something? And, lest we forgot, it's also easy for someone who has no grasp of the system to screw themselves up horribly at T1 with poor spell selection - most T3 classes are relatively hard to destroy beyond repair.

[Eloel]

And, lest we forgot, it's also easy for someone who has no grasp of the system to screw themselves up horribly at T1 with poor spell selection - most T3 classes are relatively hard to destroy beyond repair.

Actually, T1 is very easy to fix. All prepared casters, Cleric and Druid don't even have spellbooks to waste money on. T2 is the one that gets screwed with spell selection.

[Tyndmyr]

And you're going to catch everything, every time, without having an encyclopedic knowledge of the game and fast intuition on how these things fit together? You're saying this is easier than banning a dozen classes out of forty-something? And, lest we forgot, it's also easy for someone who has no grasp of the system to screw themselves up horribly at T1 with poor spell selection - most T3 classes are relatively hard to destroy beyond repair.

Nah. You might need that to catch people who are trying to break the game, and thus, are trying to slip stuff by you. But that's best avoided altogether.

But if you know anything about the game system at all(and if you're DMing, you better), you should be able to look at a sheaf of character sheets and determine that they're all more or less in the same category of power. After all, if you can't do that, how will you build NPCs that are of an appropriate power level?

Edit: And yeah, it's much easier to screw up lower tier classes by mistake. A cleric or wizard just has to start using different spells. Life is great. So, if at some point, they're preparing spells that cause a problem for whatever reason, it's not at all a big deal to fix.

[AstralFire]

I said 'T3' is hard to screw up, not 'T2.' Notably because T3 rarely needs fixing - T2 and T1 open up the possibility of picking the wrong spells and never knowing you took the wrong spells while almost everything for say, a Swordsage? Is decent.

[Person_Man]

Saying "the class isn't broken! It's the spells!" is accurate, but when there are far more balanced classes using most of the same spells, it's easier to ban an entire class and replace it with these substitutes.

That's true. But easier doesn't necessarily mean better. As with most things, it depends on your group. If a player is denied an option he really wants, it makes the game less fun for him. If the same player is just talked into using less abusive spells, he can still have fun being a Wizard, just not a jerk about it. If the player is going to be a munchkin whatever material he's given, then banning Tier 1 & 2 classes doesn't have that much of an impact, because he's just going to find a way to abuse a Teir 3 class. I've see nothing wrong with a DM black listing or white listing certain classes, but I think it should be done in the context of actually talking to your players about their choices. The point of the game is to have fun, not to run a balanced simulation.

[GoatBoy]

If the player is going to be a munchkin whatever material he's given, then banning Tier 1 & 2 classes doesn't have that much of an impact, because he's just going to find a way to abuse a Teir 3 class.

This.

But bans on Wizards, etc., are probably still in line when Steve brings his little brother who always tries to kill the king and raep the princess. And you can't smack him and kick him out because the XBox is in his room.

It's not a simple problem, and the solution is not as simple as a mass ban.

[Tyndmyr]

This is when you give Steve's little brother a talk on how cooperative games are different from a solo game on said Xbox.

[krossbow]

Allowing the Healer in the game solves that problem neatly, and fits in with using "specialized" fullcasters like Beguilers and Warmages. Giving Paladins and Rangers (and maybe Bards) access to Restoration and similar effects, if they don't get them already, would also solve that particular issue without unbalancing things.

Ugh; the healer class is like pulling teeth, IMO. It has no real dynamics besides "healbot". If there were some none healing stuff thrown in to round it out (i know, complaining that a "healer" class can only heal sounds strange) it could work, but overall, i wouldn't wish that class on my most hated player.

[Callista]

Yeah. "Walking box of Band-Aids" is not exactly heroic.

[HunterOfJello]

Banning Tier 1 and asking for players not to break your game should work well enough.

[umbrapolaris]

ban the abusing player not the class.

in real life, a company who found that his computer engineer is hacking and cheating the financial data for his own benefit will fired him, not suddenly decide that computer engineers will never be employed anymore.

i see this problem like that.

[Seerow]

ban the abusing player not the class.

in real life, a company who found that his computer engineer is hacking and cheating the financial data for his own benefit will fired him, not suddenly decide that computer engineers will never be employed anymore.

i see this problem like that.

Except it's literally easy enough to break a wizard/druid/cleric that some players do so by accident. Banning them from the table because they didn't go out of their way gimping themselves isn't right either.

Bad analolgy is bad.

[Private-Prinny]

ban the abusing player not the class.

in real life, a company who found that his computer engineer is hacking and cheating the financial data for his own benefit will fired him, not suddenly decide that computer engineers will never be employed anymore.

i see this problem like that.

It's actually more like stepping up security on your finances so the guy doesn't get the chance to hack into them in the first place.

And what about the countless Druid players who took Natural Spell at 6th level because it looked cool and ended up invalidating the fighters? They are not abusing the game at all, but it still ends with them on a completely different level than everyone else.

[krossbow]

generally, I still say the best way to handle it is to either homerule some stuff to bring them down a bit instead, or force them to start taking a non-caster level every other level once they're level 6+ caster.

and always use the players handbook 2 variant of druid; No animal companion, its alternate form is simpler and way less broken than wildshaping.

[randomhero00]

Not sure if this has been said or not but another option is just not letting them take those class levels in the big five until they are level 5 (or 6 or 7 or 8). Reason being they are just so rare and powerful that it wouldn't make sense for some level 1 nobody to be learning the secrets of magic or the secrets of some god.

(in other words that significantlly delays the big nasty spells and removes 9th level spells)

[Raven777]

It's a false dilemma from the start. The problem really shouldn't be about banning certain classes or they will break your game. The problem is making players understand that what they know and all the splatbooks they own were never meant to all represent knowledge readily available to their character. Most of these builds and strategies should be, from an in-universe perspective, utterly obscure to the run of the mill adventurer.

What you want is more role playing, less gaming, in my humble opinion.

[umbrapolaris]

Except it's literally easy enough to break a wizard/druid/cleric that some players do so by accident.

if by accident, so just inform them that this way of playing do not fit to your campaign, risking of breaking it. An honest player will surely sacrifice some "broken combo" to still enjoying the campaign. if not , return to rule 1 : ban the player.

you may surely saw that i'm a fierce opponent of banning any classes. Just ban the combo incriminated or rework it with the player.

and i wonder how to run a Forgotten Realms campaign without the big 5, no way i "forget" the Forgotten Realms setting.

[Private-Prinny]

It's a false dilemma from the start. The problem really shouldn't be about banning certain classes or they will break your game. The problem is making players understand that what they know and all the splatbooks they own were never meant to all represent knowledge readily available to their character. Most of these builds and strategies should be, from an in-universe perspective, utterly obscure to the run of the mill adventurer.

What you want is more role playing, less gaming, in my humble opinion.

So you're saying that a Sorcerer, someone to whom magic is an innate gift, should have to know what the hell they're doing in order to cast a powerful spell? Or that Wizards, with nigh-infinite amounts of Divinations, shouldn't be able to find out which spells are powerful? Or that a Fighter wouldn't notice that a particular trick of his is more effective than others, and focus all of his training into making that trick more effective?

Plus, being a "run-of-the-mill" adventurer stops at about level 8, if you take things slow. Once you hit mid-levels, your party is composed of possible legendary heroes. A bit of power creep is almost to be expected.


if by accident, so just inform them that this way of playing do not fit to your campaign, risking of breaking it. An honest player will surely sacrifice some "broken combo" to still enjoying the campaign. if not , return to rule 1 : ban the player.

you may surely saw that i'm a fierce opponent of banning any classes. Just ban the combo incriminated or rework it with the player.

Ok, you can be a Wizard, but no:

Abrupt Jaunt
Planar Binding
Wish
Limited Wish
Celerity
Incantatrix
Shadowcraft Mage
Polymorph line (inc. Shapechange & Alter Self)
Time Stop
Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil
Gate
Reverse Gravity
etc.
etc.
another etc.

By the time you take out all of the broken stuff, you just have this imposing list that any player's eyes would pop out of their head at, even if they didn't know what half of that stuff even was.

And then they still get Fly, Invisibility, Knock, Solid Fog, Haste, need I go on? Even if you remove the outright cheese, they still wind up with an answer for almost everything. Unless you remove all of those, too, in which case I could dig up another 5-10 spells to replace a teammate or three.

Trust me, the problem is in the class.

[umbrapolaris]

ok, if listen all opponents of the fullcasters, how should i play in my favorite high magic setting (forgotten realms) without the big 5. so Netheril will never be the powerful empire of casters who almost destroy magic and just be a fishing village,etc..

[Private-Prinny]

ok, if listen all opponents of the fullcasters, how should i play in my favorite high magic setting (forgotten realms) without the big 5. so Netheril will never be the powerful empire of casters who almost destroy magic and just be a fishing village,etc..

I'm not familiar enough with Forgotten Realms to tell you, since all of the games I've been in take place in homebrew settings.

That said, it is also a moot point because "How well can I run this in FR?" has nothing to do with game balance.

[Seerow]

I'm not familiar enough with Forgotten Realms to tell you, since all of the games I've been in take place in homebrew settings.

That said, it is also a moot point because "How well can I run this in FR?" has nothing to do with game balance.

More importantly, I'm curious why someone else wanting to discussing banning full casters affects someone else who has no intention of doing the same playing a different setting entirely.


Also, my suggestion earlier in the thread was to ban wizards and other prepared casters, but leave sorcerous equivalents. Not necessarily just Warmage and like, but also Sorcerers and Favored Souls. So all the same magic currently in the world? It's still there! It's just no one individual has access to all of it at any one given time.

[DeckOneBell]

To everyone saying just to tell players to tone it down, I'd like to refer to AstralFire talking about accidental breakage. I'm not saying this solution is the best, but the debate seems to have devolved into an argument about class tiers and their necessity (or not necessity).

A core-only fighter vs. a core-only druid, both played reasonably without any attempt at abuse, is just ridiculously unfair. Especially when the druid hits level 5. He can have a wolf which is equivalent to at least a level 2 or 3 fighter focused on tripping, as well as himself in bear form, punching people in the face as a level 5 fighter. Level 6, he gets to cast spells while he punches people in the face. This is an unoptimized druid! No bull's strength, no spell shenanigans, just a druid with class features. What's fighter going to have by then? Power attack? Heironeous forbid he chooses two-weapon fighting.

It's really depressing to ask a player to tone it down, especially when they're not even trying to break the game. Someone just trying to be as effective as possible while not particularly researching any crazy ideas might have to be told to scale it back.

If it's NOT an issue for your players, that's great! Don't worry about it.

But I already had to worry about a druid in a game with friends that hardly know what optimization is, so, really, it's not the player's fault at all. Just an archer-based ranger is going to have a rough time keeping up with a druid, again, core only, nothing special going on.

There's obviously ways around it, like tilting magical item drops to your noncasters and making sure you tailor encounters, but getting rid of the casters is certainly a solution too.

[faceroll]

And what about the countless Druid players who took Natural Spell at 6th level because it looked cool and ended up invalidating the fighters? They are not abusing the game at all, but it still ends with them on a completely different level than everyone else.

DMd a core game with a fighter, a cleric, a druid, a rogue, and a wizard in it. Level 1 to level 10. Druid and cleric were pretty cool, after spending all battle casting spells to make themselves stronger. Fighter and rogue just killed everything as the wizard did wizardy things.


That said, it is also a moot point because "How well can I run this in FR?" has nothing to do with game balance.

And game balance has nothing to do with game mechanics and internal consistency.

[umbrapolaris]

I'm not familiar enough with Forgotten Realms to tell you, since all of the games I've been in take place in homebrew settings.That said, it is also a moot point because "How well can I run this in FR?" has nothing to do with game balance.

to simplify, FR is a high level magic setting where most of the actual main influent groups & NPC are high level magic users like the power-hungry nation of the red wizards of Thay led by a Lich (where the rulers are only specialist wizards), Shades or Shadovar (ex-Netherese Arcanists, the ones who build floating cities and designed many powerful artifacts and almost destroyed Magic by stealing the power of the goddess of magic), the Zhentarim (a group led by a high level cleric and wizards),etc ... and i dont mention Elminster, the simbul, and many others...

i don't mention of the extinct empire of Imaskar (where wizard called Artificers, open a planar gate to another world and abduct the egyptian-like inhabitant , making them slaves, cast powerful magic that banned the gods of this world to enter their own world).

the others non-casters influent groups are cabal of assassins & thieves.

so now how maintaining the fluff of the setting without full-casters and powerful spells ( the core of the FR setting)...?

[Seerow]

to simplify, FR is a high level magic setting where most of the actual main influent groups & NPC are high level magic users like the power-hungry nation of the red wizards of Thay led by a Lich (where the rulers are only specialist wizards), Shades or Shadovar (ex-Netherese Arcanists, the ones who build floating cities and designed many powerful artifacts and almost destroyed Magic by stealing the power of the goddess of magic), the Zhentarim (a group led by a high level cleric and wizards),etc ... and i dont mention Elminster, the simbul, and many others...

i don't mention of the extinct empire of Imaskar (where wizard called Artificers, open a planar gate to another world and abduct the egyptian-like inhabitant , making them slaves, cast powerful magic that banned the gods of this world to enter their own world).

the others non-casters influent groups are cabal of assassins & thieves.

so now how maintaining the fluff of the setting without full-casters and powerful spells ( the core of the FR setting)...?

1) Sorcerers
2) If you don't want to restrict it, don't! What this guy does in his own game has no bearing whatsoever on your campaign. If you're fine with wizards being the ultimate swiss army knife who solve any problem then more power to you. I don't understand why you keep trying to push the point in this topic where it's someone else talking about what they want to do in their campaign.

[krossbow]

to simplify, FR is a high level magic setting where most of the actual main influent groups & NPC are high level magic users like the power-hungry nation of the red wizards of Thay led by a Lich (where the rulers are only specialist wizards), Shades or Shadovar (ex-Netherese Arcanists, the ones who build floating cities and designed many powerful artifacts and almost destroyed Magic by stealing the power of the goddess of magic), the Zhentarim (a group led by a high level cleric and wizards),etc ... and i dont mention Elminster, the simbul, and many others...

i don't mention of the extinct empire of Imaskar (where wizard called Artificers, open a planar gate to another world and abduct the egyptian-like inhabitant , making them slaves, cast powerful magic that banned the gods of this world to enter their own world).

the others non-casters influent groups are cabal of assassins & thieves.

so now how maintaining the fluff of the setting without full-casters and powerful spells ( the core of the FR setting)...?



Sandbag player characters by requiring them to slow down spell progression in some way; slow down big five progression in some way and say that the all powerful wizards in the game are epic (as most of them are). something like that.

[umbrapolaris]

1) If you don't want to restrict it, don't! What this guy does in his own game has no bearing whatsoever on your campaign. If you're fine with wizards being the ultimate swiss army knife who solve any problem then more power to you. I don't understand why you keep trying to push the point in this topic where it's someone else talking about what they want to do in their campaign.

I don't focus the OP particularly, if he has his homebrew setting and everyone of his players agree with that , fine just do it. what i dont like it is the suppression of a thing instead of adaptation.(i dont like , i ban, remind me of a old dictator who want to rules the world...).

imagine i live in a small village, i love wizard & high magic campaign, but the only one efficient rpg group is ruled by a dm who banned wizard and other -T1/T2 classes. should i resign to play Rpg?

what i meant is by banning some thing instead of working with the players to adapt it , you may loose some opportunity to introduce new good players. banning yourself from the others. of course if you don't care of it...


Sandbag player characters by requiring them to slow down spell progression in some way; slow down big five progression in some way and say that the all powerful wizards in the game are epic (as most of them are). something like that.

ok, so it is adaptation , what i repeat since the beginning, so no need to ban a class. the slow down level progression was made in the older edition of d&d where each group of classes has a different level progression. the wizard had the slowest one if my memory is good.

in FR all the mighty npc are epic, the common level in FR setting turn around lv10-15, all powerful wizard npc are between 20-30.

[Seerow]

I don't focus the OP particularly, if he has his homebrew setting and everyone of his players agree with that , fine just do it. what i dont like it is the suppression of a thing instead of adaptation.(i dont like , i ban, remind me of a old dictator who want to rules the world...).

imagine i live in a small village, i love wizard & high magic campaign, but the only one efficient rpg group is ruled by a dm who banned wizard and other -T1/T2 classes. should i resign to play Rpg?

what i meant is by banning some thing instead of working with the players to adapt it , you may loose some opportunity to introduce new good players. banning yourself from the others. of course if you don't care of it...

Do you live in a small village with this guy as your DM?


No?

Then why do you care?

[Callista]

Or, y'know, just talk to the players about not breaking the game.

Houserule: Don't deliberately try to break the game. If you accidentally come up with a game-breaking strategy, it works the first time; after that, the universe retcons it out of existence and the incident is an irreproducible fluke. (Re-building of characters based on such "non-existent" strategies is, of course, freely allowed.)

When we play D&D we're trying to simulate a world that could reasonably exist, with internal consistency; the numbers we're using represent a world that should make sense. The builds that are possible in the world have to be consistent with what we observe about the world, just the way the laws of physics we formulate in the real world have to be consistent with what we observe about the way things work.

In an internally consistent D&D world, we observe that iron actually costs money and isn't dirt-cheap and ridiculously plentiful; therefore, Wall of Iron can't give you limitless wealth. We observe that kobolds don't routinely become overdeities; therefore Pun-Pun's build is not possible. We observe that commoners don't actually possess the ability to accelerate something to light speed by using Ready Actions; therefore the commoner railgun doesn't work. Giants, however strong, can't throw small planets; therefore the Hulking Hurler doesn't work that way either. Et cetera.

Banning ridiculously nonsensical strategies on the basis that "that is not how the world works" is just... common sense. Anything that's so powerful that you'd have to be stupid not to do it can be declared off-limits because it obviously doesn't exist--if it did, every NPC would be using that strategy, too.

[faceroll]

Do you live in a small village with this guy as your DM?


No?

Then why do you care?

There's a school of ethics that believes that, in order to create a truly moral society, we must devise a code of ethics without any prior knowledge of who we are to be in that society.

[WarKitty]

You still have the issue that some classes can wildly outperform others without trying. And I do mean literally without trying - a druid playing the class as intended will outshine the fighter fairly quickly. It's often easier to ban the classes than to make the top-tier class players intentionally build suboptimal characters so they don't make the lower-tier classes useless.

Edit @ faceroll: This doesn't qualify. While we might build the code that way, the specific applications of it would still be determined by the location we occupy in society.

[umbrapolaris]

Do you live in a small village with this guy as your DM?No?Then why do you care?

oh !!!! ok , a dictator genocides a population, i don't live there, who care?...

[Incanur]

You'd have to ban almost everything for a setting like Forgotten Realms to make any non-negligible amount of sense. Even minor spells would profoundly alter a medieval-style society, as would the presence of high-level characters. In pure power politics terms, 99% of the population doesn't matter at all. Even mid-level PCs can wreck a town; I've seen it happen at the table.

[Seerow]

oh !!!! ok , a dictator genocides a population, i don't live there, who care?...

Banning a class in D&D is genocide. You heard it here first folks.



brb pulling an Ender.

[WarKitty]

oh !!!! ok , a dictator genocides a population, i don't live there, who care?...

:smalleek: Just...what? Funniest quote of the evening!


You'd have to ban almost everything for a setting like Forgotten Realms to make any non-negligible amount of sense. Even minor spells would profoundly alter a medieval-style society, as would the presence of high-level characters. In pure power politics terms, 99% of the population doesn't matter at all. Even mid-level PCs can wreck a town; I've seen it happen at the table.

Cure minor wounds alone would make a huge difference to medieval society. Still, it doesn't sound like the OP is running a specific setting, so it shouldn't be an issue here if that's not the type of game he's playing.

[umbrapolaris]

Banning a class in D&D is genocide. You heard it here first folks. brb pulling an Ender.

i don't quote about the class, just the way you react. forget it.

[Callista]

Cure minor wounds alone would make a huge difference to medieval society. Still, it doesn't sound like the OP is running a specific setting, so it shouldn't be an issue here if that's not the type of game he's playing.And it does make a huge difference. Most D&D settings are not a medieval-type society, but simply a low-tech society--and magic probably has a lot to do with it. Why do you develop modern medicine when Cure spells are available? Why power things with electricity when you can animate them instead? Why study the laws of physics when the laws of magic have a much more immediate payoff? D&D is not a medieval society, and hasn't been since the first hint of magic and superhuman abilities appeared.

[Seerow]

i don't quote about the class, just the way you react. forget it.

So you take something out of context and exaggerate it, I point out what a ridiculous counterpoint it is, and you throw up your hands and go home?

Fair enough. At least you stopped bitching about someone you'll never meet considering banning material you like.

[Incanur]

Pseudo-medieval or medieval-esque would be a better way to put it, but plenty of D&D settings fall into this category. Just look at the DMG or Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. The vast majority of folks, as my players used to say, are dirt farmers.

[umbrapolaris]

So you take something out of context and exaggerate it, I point out what a ridiculous counterpoint it is, and you throw up your hands and go home?

i don't like , i ban ... see the analogy? over-exaggerated , sure, that was the purpose. i think we may stop now...

[Seerow]

i don't like , i ban ... see the analogy? over-exaggerated , sure, that was the purpose. i think we may stop now...

Yes you don't like ban, we get it.

The point is you coming in and talking about how a ban negatively affects your preferred campaign setting has no effect at all on the discussion at hand.


And for gods sake use a goddamn spell check, and ease off on the ellipses. Someone else told you this in another thread, but seriously I think your posts would be a lot more bearable if it didn't look like an 11 year old was typing.

[umbrapolaris]

And for gods sake use a goddamn spell check, and ease off on the ellipses. Someone else told you this in another thread, but seriously I think your posts would be a lot more bearable if it didn't look like an 11 year old was typing.

English is not my natural language, and i already use a spell-checker maybe not for the syntax, but i think it is fine enough, because you understand what i said ^^

[Killer Angel]

At least you stopped bitching about someone you'll never meet considering banning material you like.

To be fair, isn't this the usual thing it happens every time someone posts a thread regardin' the banning of ToB? :smallwink:

[Ecalsneerg]

I like this idea, BUT...

... homebrew, please. I agree totally that saying "you can't play a Wizard, but how about a Warmage [Evoker], Dread Necromancer or Beguiler [Enchanter]?" But maybe work up a Diviner, an Abjurer, a Conjurer class?

[Eloel]

i don't like , i ban ... see the analogy? over-exaggerated , sure, that was the purpose.
"I don't like" != "Is overpowered".

I, myself, hate Paladins. I won't -unless there's a flavor reason for the setting, irrelevant to forum discussions- ban people from playing Paladins while I DM.

I, actually like the flavor and various mechanics behind Druids. If I'm trying to run a game where players are balanced with each other, so everyone has fun, I'll either tone down the Druid (Shapechange variant), or outright ban it, because frankly, someone who fights better than the fighter, has a friend (as a class feature) that fights better than the fighter, and can cast 9th level spells, is very unbalanced.

(Replace the word "fighter" with "warblade" if the Druid optimizes)


If you want to go the "I liek powah, I no care if it destroy teh gaem", noone will stop you. It's your game, and you can play it as unbalanced as you wish. But please, don't give advice as if it's universal truth, when it's only based on what you prefer.


i think we may stop now...
Yes. Yes, you probably should.



... homebrew, please. I agree totally that saying "you can't play a Wizard, but how about a Warmage [Evoker], Dread Necromancer or Beguiler [Enchanter]?" But maybe work up a Diviner, an Abjurer, a Conjurer class?
I agree with this statement, to some extent. There are some substitutions available, but creating (or using one of those already created) a "Summoner" class with the Summon lines (Orbs are Warmage's, so this is the "rest" of Conjuration) & buffs (Transmutation), and a "Oracle" class with Divination & some buffs (Abjuration) should be considered.

[AstralFire]

And if you want to be a multischool wizard, work out something like the Mystic Theurge for the wizards. If you're in Forgotten Realms, they're clearly epic level.

OH GOD I MADE FORGOTTEN REALMS WORK WITH SPECIALIST CASTER VARIANTS :O

[JaronK]

The other obvious idea: there are plenty of NPC only things. In fact, a lot of the broken spells are clearly designed for NPCs first, without regards to what happens if a PC gets their hands on them. So, if you want Wizards in the world, have them... but the PCs aren't those guys. The PCs are someone else. I've run games where the PCs all had to be commoners. They weren't the best, there were real PC class people around, and it was hilariously fun for all involved. Just make it clear that it isn't about punishing them, it's about making the power level fit the kind of game you want (a concept somehow foreign to D&D, but stock standard in games like Dresden, Exalted, etc). There are Wizards, they do powerful things, and you're not them. No worries. You're not the high demon princes that plan to take over the world either. You're not a dragon. You're not a mind flayer. You're... well, pick your power level, I like avoiding all the T1 and T2 classes and calling it a day.

JaronK

[Seatbelt]

Just my two cents. I would love to play in a game where the core classes are banned, or at least the big 3(4?). Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer.

A lot of builds benefit from fighter or rogue dips. Paladins and Rangers make good skeletons for other builds. Monk is a 2 level class. Who doesn't love barbarians? I find that when I make a character - aside from special cases like beguiler and dred necro, the bulk of my non-prc levels come from core. I think it would be really interesting to be forced to build a character using noncore classes only.

[Psyren]

I've run games where the PCs all had to be commoners.

If I may ask... what did they do besides throw chickens at everything?

[AstralFire]

Presumably, it'd be a less combat focused game. And nothing is inhibiting skill tricks here.

[Tyndmyr]

So you take something out of context and exaggerate it, I point out what a ridiculous counterpoint it is, and you throw up your hands and go home?

Fair enough. At least you stopped bitching about someone you'll never meet considering banning material you like.

A better reason is that he posted here for feedback. Giving him feedback regarding banning is exactly what he's after. He may not agree with it all, of course, but that's his decision.

[WinceRind]

Presumably, it'd be a less combat focused game. And nothing is inhibiting skill tricks here.

That actually sounds like amazing fun. Especially if you allow taking the skill trick-oriented classes from Complete Scoundrel.

Now my mind is forever riddled with an awesome Indiana Jones-like commoner with proficiency in whips and Whip Climber/Sudden Draw skill tricks =p

[WarKitty]

A better reason is that he posted here for feedback. Giving him feedback regarding banning is exactly what he's after. He may not agree with it all, of course, but that's his decision.

Then again, comparing banning classes to genocide isn't really feedback.

[Tyndmyr]

Then again, comparing banning classes to genocide isn't really feedback.

I'm not defending it's quality, but I do understand the philosophy that modification is better than banning. Genocide is a bit ridiculous, but I agree that sweeping bans can often make a game much less fun.

[WarKitty]

I'm not defending it's quality, but I do understand the philosophy that modification is better than banning. Genocide is a bit ridiculous, but I agree that sweeping bans can often make a game much less fun.

What kind of modifications would you suggest? I have found that a caster played straight and a fighter played straight will still manifest a significant and unfun power difference as the game progresses. So it's not just a matter of telling players to not break the game - there's a lot of ways for the tier one casters to break things, many of which will come up with someone just trying to play an interesting character.

[Seerow]

I'm not defending it's quality, but I do understand the philosophy that modification is better than banning. Genocide is a bit ridiculous, but I agree that sweeping bans can often make a game much less fun.

The bigger problem as far as I was concerned was that pretty much none of his posts were about why the OP should or should not ban the classes in question. Every post he made was "woe is me, if these classes were banned, my game would be ruined!" using a lot of fluff justification that likely doesn't even apply to the OP. It took the topic and tried to focus it solely on him and his games in order to prove a point.



Going off the ToB example someone else posted earlier, if someone is asking if they should ban ToB, we will come in and say "You really shouldn't. If your problem is the fluff, that can be easily changed, and the system as a whole is still less powerful than psionics or magic. Do you allow magic using classes? Yes? Then why not allow ToB in your campaign?"

What we will not do is come in and say "i hate playing a fighter ... i love the warblade , and I will only play a warblade ... in my campaign a large organization is based around the tob classes , if you remove tob , what will they do??? be a fighter's guild ? hah !!1 thats ridiculous , fighters suck and aren't awesome enough to do the things they do if u ban tob u will completely kill my campaign , its like a dictator genocides on a population completely unacceptable !"

Yes, the way you present your arguments in a discussion topic does mean a lot. There's a big difference from coming at it from an objective balancing point of view, and a self centered campaign specific point of view.

[Tyndmyr]

What kind of modifications would you suggest? I have found that a caster played straight and a fighter played straight will still manifest a significant and unfun power difference as the game progresses. So it's not just a matter of telling players to not break the game - there's a lot of ways for the tier one casters to break things, many of which will come up with someone just trying to play an interesting character.

E6 is an awesome solution to this.

[WarKitty]

E6 is an awesome solution to this.

I'm not entirely sure how E6 works - do you ever get access to higher-level abilities? Not just spells, but the later class abilities. Speaking as someone who tends to enjoy higher-level characters for the "you can do really awesome things" feel.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not entirely sure how E6 works - do you ever get access to higher-level abilities? Not just spells, but the later class abilities. Speaking as someone who tends to enjoy higher-level characters for the "you can do really awesome things" feel.

Yup. Well, if you stick to the original E6. A surprising amount of variants have sprung up. The earliest version of it allowed modular purchasing of all forms of progression.

Look at any class out there. Buy your way through the abilities granted by it as if they were feats(ie, 5k xp each). The only limitations are that you must A. Do so in order, and B. Finish purchasing the abilities of a class before you start another. Prerequisites and such are unaffected.

I've both played and DMed under such rules, and some of us are pretty blatant optimizers at the table, and it works out quite well. The most powerful prestige classes are often that way because they give a ludicrous amount of abilities, or combo them with other things like rapid casting progression, that don't matter in E6(since you get just the abilities).

[Doug Lampert]

Pseudo-medieval or medieval-esque would be a better way to put it, but plenty of D&D settings fall into this category. Just look at the DMG or Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. The vast majority of folks, as my players used to say, are dirt farmers.

Actually, they're not.

By the DMG only 1% of communities are big cities. But big cities are, well, comparatively big. Figure the % of the population in town of 5,000 or more adults (DMG populations explicitely are adult populations).

5,000+ adults is a big town or small city by medieval standards. The national capital is likely the only thing substantially bigger in most countries. And BtB ALMOST EVERYONE lives in towns of 5000+ adults. Given the population densities in historical walled towns the D&D population may actually be more urbanized on average than the modern USA!

Now consider the typical level 1 commoner. On average one of Int or Wis is 12+ (especially given that age gives bonuses to these). He has 4 ranks in craft or profession, and skill focus.

If he works as an unreliable wandering day laborer he averages over 9 GP/week, or 468 GP/year. He can buy masterwork tools with less than six weeks earnings and up that pay to 10 GP/week. He can buy a good house with less than 2 years pay.

If we assume that long time residents get better jobs than wandering vagabonds (aka level one adventurers from out of town), then he does better yet.

He's not a dirt farmer unless dirt farming pays REALLY REALLY WELL.

[Incanur]

As in the medieval society modeled in the Dungeon Master's Guide, the standard wage for a day laborer is 1 silver piece.

I wasn't lying or making stuff up. The profession rules are just another example of how the mechanics don't mesh with the world as described in official sources.

[Tyndmyr]

I wasn't lying or making stuff up. The profession rules are just another example of how the mechanics don't mesh with the world as described in official sources.

The official sources say the world is mostly made up of dirt farmers? Where?

[Incanur]

Look at the FRCS quotation. The DMG presents medieval society as the default D&D setting. The FRCS describes the typical Faerunian human as a subsistence farmer with minor market engagement depending on legal status (free vs. unfree). See pages 80-83 for further details.

[Doug Lampert]

Look at the FRCS quotation. The DMG presents medieval society as the default D&D setting. The FRCS describes the typical Faerunian human as a subsistence farmer with minor market engagement depending on legal status (free vs. unfree). See pages 80-83 for further details.

But it doesn't. The town population demographics in the DMG are TOTALLY wrong for a medieval society. The DMG population demographics produce an urbanized population.

1% of settlements of 25 or more adults hold more than 25,000 adults. That's HUGE! 1% of settlements makes for much more than 1% of the population when these places are 1000 times as large as a hamlet and hamlets count as settlements.

I doubt that New York State is that urbanized TODAY!

The wages given by the rules in the PHB, and based on the NPC classes in the DMG, result in commoners getting over 500 GP/year, EASILY! The DMG nowhere tells you this is wrong or not to use those numbers, since a house costs 900 GP and most people have to live somewhere it's OBVIOUS that most commoners make more than 1 sp per day. You starve on 1 sp per day based on the prices given, a single poor meal costs 1 sp!

Do you seriously think they spend 100% of their income from working EVERY SINGLE DAY for over 24 years to buy a house? Or does it make more sense to actually USE THE RULES in the DMG and the PHB to tell you how much money people make, and while those rules tell you what unskilled laborers make, they nowhere say that unskilled laborers are at all common.

DougL

[Callista]

I think it definitely depends on the world you build; but yeah, the standard DMG stuff doesn't describe a true medieval society so much as it describes a magic-based society with a heavily medieval flavor. You can, if you like, make magic vanishingly rare and special; but in the way the DMG sets it up, it actually isn't. I'm too lazy to do the math at the moment, but the sample 200-person hamlet (DMG 139) has seven magic-users living in it, and larger cities obviously have more. Being able to use divine or arcane magic in that setting is like being a doctor or an engineer in the real world--probably somewhat prestigious but not really remarkable.

[Incanur]

But it doesn't.

As the quotation from the FRCS unambiguously demonstrates, D&D designer at least think they're approximating medieval society.


1% of settlements makes for much more than 1% of the population when these places are 1000 times as large as a hamlet and hamlets count as settlements.

:smallmad: Read that whole page in the DMG. 9/10s to 14/15s of the population typically lives in villages, hamlets, thorps, and in even smaller communities.


The wages given by the rules in the PHB, and based on the NPC classes in the DMG, result in commoners getting over 500 GP/year, EASILY!

The FRCS reiterates the 1 sp/day wage and says commoners are lucky to have 40-50 sp saved up. See page 81.

[Psyren]

As the quotation from the FRCS unambiguously demonstrates, D&D designer at least think they're approximating medieval society.

FR is neither the only D&D setting, nor the default one. :smallconfused:

[Incanur]

Yeah, it's generally considered a high-magic setting more fantastic than others. :smallwink:

The DMG at least describes a poor agricultural society with strong medieval elements.

[Fiery Diamond]

ToB are solid T3. They're fairly balanced against the semi-casters like PsyWarriors, Duskblades, Beguilers, and such.

Uh....

Okay, maybe in terms of versatility, but a blaster-caster is actually weaker than most ToB (if only by virtue of limited number of attacks versus unlimited number). So you basically now have ToB as your damage dealers, since they outmatch most everything else in that arena that you haven't already banned.

[Eloel]

Uh....

Okay, maybe in terms of versatility, but a blaster-caster is actually weaker than most ToB (if only by virtue of limited number of attacks versus unlimited number). So you basically now have ToB as your damage dealers, since they outmatch most everything else in that arena that you haven't already banned.

We've already established that if you're concerned with damage only, a Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker deals alot more damage than Warblade and co. It's the various non-damage maneuvers that make a ToB class better than Barbarian. Stuff that can't be mirrored by the non-ToB melee, like teleporting, a 2nd full attack, preventing 5ft step, healing yourself and allies, buffing yourself and allies, moving when it's not your turn, blocking attacks, completely ignoring spell effects (IHS!).....

[umbrapolaris]

in old ad&d , full magic users has a slowest progression than melee ones; in addtion, remove some broken spells, that reproduce the roles/ skills/abilities of other classes. readjust some "invincible" spells, making them less efficient.

all these are some example that can be done easily.

honestly, so with those adjustments, did you still think that fullcasters are still broken?

if the fighter or any other classes were considered broken i will think the same.

[Dralnu]

I'd ban the Big Five if my players knew how to optimize, but they don't so it's not necessary. The sorcerers blast, clerics heal, and nobody plays a wizard for some reason. The only caster that regularly hogs the spotlight are the druids and they're still manageable anyway. I just mercilessly slaughter their animal companions and then beat them with it as an improvised weapon. Muahahahaha!!!

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, it's generally considered a high-magic setting more fantastic than others. :smallwink:

The DMG at least describes a poor agricultural society with strong medieval elements.

Due to the epic casters, not the general population. Agricultural aspects of society are barely mentioned anywhere. Only kalamar really is as you depicted it. Medieval elements, sure....but still much more high fantasy by default.

[Killer Angel]

in old ad&d , full magic users has a slowest progression than melee ones; in addtion, remove some broken spells, that reproduce the roles/ skills/abilities of other classes. readjust some "invincible" spells, making them less efficient.

all these are some example that can be done easily.


With AD&D, the time to cast spells of higher levels, was longer then the lower ones, so the caster was more open to attacks. And many spells comes with nasty consequences (the recipient of haste lose one year of life, etc).

Yep, in some aspects, AD&D was more equilibrated.