Fixing Tier 1 is pointless

[Aemoh87]

People on this forum and others talk about fixing the high tier classes and "shortening the gap" alot. This is an awful idea. Most of the time players wanna play what they see in the text, most get furious when they find out an errata hoses their new build they couldn't wait to show off. The real problem with tier one isn't that it is better than all the other players, it's that it's better than all the monsters that do not have a large amount of tier one levels.

The easiest fix to this is just use a banned list that targets power feats like divine metamagic (or instead just get persist). But bringing all the lower tiers up into the top two would just make the game ridiculous.

Another good fix is use spell components, the majority of DND games I have seen both on and offline do not do this, or only do it for a few significant spells that rarely get cast. Players ignore this part of the game, but if it is included it really throws the wizards action economy out of whack and makes him spend a whole lot more. But this isn't really a fix, it's just playing by the rules.

[Doc Roc]

People on this forum and others talk about fixing the high tier classes and "shortening the gap" alot. This is an awful idea. Most of the time players wanna play what they see in the text, most get furious when they find out an errata hoses their new build they couldn't wait to show off. The real problem with tier one isn't that it is better than all the other players, it's that it's better than all the monsters that do not have a large amount of tier one levels.

The easiest fix to this is just use a banned list that targets power feats like divine metamagic (or instead just get persist). But bringing all the lower tiers up into the top two would just make the game ridiculous.

Another good fix is use spell components, the majority of DND games I have seen both on and offline do not do this, or only do it for a few significant spells that rarely get cast. Players ignore this part of the game, but if it is included it really throws the wizards action economy out of whack and makes him spend a whole lot more. But this isn't really a fix, it's just playing by the rules.

Spell Component Pouches.
Also, I don't need a single feat to make life unpleasant as a T1 caster.

[Aemoh87]

Spell Component Pouches.

They are handy items, but they do not cover as much as some people think. I had a player get upset at our DM when he failed to cast identify since he lacked the components.

[Doc Roc]

They are handy items, but they do not cover as much as some people think.

They cover the vast majority of spells I use.

[Lord Ruby34]

Then set him on fire. It'll get a few of 'em. The Spell component pouches that is.

Note: I wouldn't actually advise doing this, it just leads to more headaches both in and out of game.

[erikun]

So the problem is that errata and houserules make changes, that players hate seeing. And the solution is to make houserules, bannings, and changes... that the players will like seeing? I fail to see how changing Fighters will make players upset while changing Wizards will make them happy.

Also, Eschew Materials (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#eschewMaterials). Or just deal with the micromanagement issues and actually carry around a list of all these insignificant materials, and stock up as needed. It's not like spider web (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/web.htm), peas (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/solidFog.htm), or iron (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enlargePerson.htm) is difficult to get ahold of anyways.

[EDIT]

I had a player get upset at our DM when he failed to cast identify since he lacked the components.
Identify (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/identify.htm) requires using 100gp of pearl, which is covered by neither Eschew Materials nor the spell component pouch. He would need to spend the 100gp on actual pearls in nearly any campaign, outside of ones where the DM prefers easy magical identification.

[Aemoh87]

They cover the vast majority of spells I use.

Yeah, alot of players start to move away from the high component spells, but it does make things slightly more interesting. I have played with esch.mat. and component pouches banned in a low magic setting and that was literally the best time I have ever had playing a wizard. Though I did get real greedy with gem drops.

[Amnestic]

Another good fix is use spell components, the majority of DND games I have seen both on and offline do not do this, or only do it for a few significant spells that rarely get cast. Players ignore this part of the game, but if it is included it really throws the wizards action economy out of whack and makes him spend a whole lot more. But this isn't really a fix, it's just playing by the rules.

Could you elaborate on this a bit more? I was under the impression that preparing a spell's components was a free action, unless said component was particularly large.

[Yora]

Except for druid, the tier 1 classes are all really harmless. It's their spell list that are the major source of problems. Any attempts to tone down tier 1 classes have to limit their spell lists, anything else has no effect.
A wizard or psion does not have any broken class features, they have just very powerful spells and powers.

[Aemoh87]

So the problem is that errata and houserules make changes, that players hate seeing. And the solution is to make houserules, bannings, and changes... that the players will like seeing? I fail to see how changing Fighters will make players upset while changing Wizards will make them happy.

Also, Eschew Materials (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#eschewMaterials). Or just deal with the micromanagement issues and actually carry around a list of all these insignificant materials, and stock up as needed. It's not like spider web (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/web.htm), peas (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/solidFog.htm), or iron (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enlargePerson.htm) is difficult to get ahold of anyways.

Don't change anything, just banned what breaks the game and hope your players can accept that their ultimate wizard build doesn't need to show up at the table. There is no fix for tier one other than players not playing it up to snuff.

[McSmack]

Or just play E6. That should solve everything.:smallsmile:

[Kojiro]

I think Yora got it, really. Some spells at higher levels (and a few at lower ones too), especially some with poor wording or concepts behind them, help to break the game over their knee. Banning or altering certain spells (for example, to help balance summons, especially by Gate, I considered a house rule where you have to make contact with a creature and work out a deal with it before you can summon it into battle, since just throwing sapients at your enemies until everything's dead is both somewhat evil and outright ridiculous) seems like it would fix most of the problems without changing anything related to the actual class mechanics. They'd still be powerful, of course, but not the monsters that turn games upside-down.

Druids, though... As mentioned, those are a bit different. Some other solution would be needed there.

[Aemoh87]

I think Yora got it, really. Some spells at higher levels (and a few at lower ones too), especially some with poor wording or concepts behind them, help to break the game over their knee. Banning or altering certain spells (for example, to help balance summons, especially by Gate, I considered a house rule where you have to make contact with a creature and work out a deal with it before you can summon it into battle, since just throwing sapients at your enemies until everything's dead is both somewhat evil and outright ridiculous) seems like it would fix most of the problems without changing anything related to the actual class mechanics. They'd still be powerful, of course, but not the monsters that turn games upside-down.

Druids, though... As mentioned, those are a bit different. Some other solution would be needed there.

With druids, my group bans natural spell. I feel that this only is possible because ever player in my group hates druid flavor with a passion, and the only time druid has been played is for Arcane Heirophant (bad ass familiar edition) or to make a squirl master. But druid is a doozy.

Another solution I use as a DM is don't let them get high level. It can be annoying but I am up front about it. I like to finish my "story" in the low teens. After that the party can rip my world piece by piece and I don't feel that bad.

Oh and ban game breaking or very poorly worded material.

[Terazul]

Could you elaborate on this a bit more? I was under the impression that preparing a spell's components was a free action, unless said component was particularly large.

Yeah, I don't get it either; The pouch is assumed to have every feasible material component for every spell ever, barring this that have an outlined GP cost. The Identify one has a 100 gp pearl in there, so yeah, different. ...Which kind of makes me want to roll a wizard and just be MacGuyver pulling things out of it.

Hungry? Well I've got a bunch of tiny tarts from my Hideous Laughter left over.
Need to trip some guy? Leftover glass beads from Globe of Lesser Invulnerability.
Someone backtalks me? Slap them with the severed hand of a good aligned cleric. Yeah, I know that spell too.

I actually have no idea if that would work, but it would be hilarious.

[Aemoh87]

Yeah, I don't get it either; The pouch is assumed to have every feasible material component for every spell ever, barring this that have an outlined GP cost. ...Which kind of makes me want to roll a wizard and just be MacGuyver pulling things out of it.

Hungry? Well I've got a bunch of tiny tarts from my Hideous Laughter left over.
Need to trip some guy? Leftover glass beads from Globe of Lesser Invulnerability.
Someone backtalks me? Slap them with the severed hand of a good aligned cleric. Yeah, I know that spell too.

I actually have no idea if that would work, but it would be hilarious.

Out of the pouch it is free. But some arcane focuses are large and clumsy. Even though most wizards can get around this by having most focuses and components readily availible. Sometimes this is difficult or not possible... or not planned for.

[Rogue Shadows]

Out of the pouch it is free. But some arcane focuses are large and clumsy. Even though most wizards can get around this by having most focuses and components readily availible. Sometimes this is difficult or not possible... or not planned for.

In my D&D games going forward, I've decided that spell component pouches get used up over time: after 20 spells (that require material components normally assumed to be in a pouch), it's empty and needs to be re-filled. Basically, SCPs are now ammunition. My players are okay with this, so I guess it's a good change.

I don't want to turn D&D into a massive bookeeping session, but at the same time...live spiders, man.

Not to mention some spell components really make me wonder. "Dirt from the grave of a ghoul" implies that someone had to find a grave with a ghoul in it and start grabbing dirt.

Ghouls usually object to this kind of thing*. You'd figure there'd be enough of a hazard involved in acquiring ghoul grave dirt that it would cost more than a pittance.

------------------------
*"this kind of thing" being living beings.

[Terazul]

Out of the pouch it is free. But some arcane focuses are large and clumsy. Even though most wizards can get around this by having most focuses and components readily availible. Sometimes this is difficult or not possible... or not planned for.

The only one I can think of off-hand is the 2x4' mirror for Scrying, which costs 1000 gp so it's out of the deal anyway. :smallconfused:

Pretty much the majority of spells use "pinches of this", "handfuls of that". Anything larger tends to have an associated GP cost anyway.

[Rogue Shadows]

As for druids...

I think it's a class that needs some serious ground-up reexamination to fix.

Core D&D gives us four main spellcasters: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard. Three of these classes, to balance out all the spells they get (in theory), get very few class features (Sorcerer and Cleric have 19 dead levels, Wizard has 15) otherwise and a small, limited skill selection.

Druid gets full casting, good skill selection, no dead levels, and an excellent selection of spells.

Of course it's too powerful! Look at it! there are other classes in the PHB that get a mixture of spells and class features: The bard, the ranger, and the paladin. But none of them get full casting! And of the classes in the PHB that get no or few dead levels, three of them can't cast spells at all! (barbarian, monk and rogue)

If you removed the druid's spellcasting entirely, you'd still have a pretty decent class, at least as compared to the other classes in the core rulebook, if a little weak at low levels prior to being able to shapeshift. It'd no longer be Tier 1 at all but I'd be immensely surprised if it dropped down to Tier 4 or lower.

Were I a part of Wizards of the Coast in 2003 when 3.0 was getting updated to 3.5, I would have totally re-designed the druid class to either

a) not be a full caster, or
b) not be a caster at all, and emphasize the shapeshifting aspect more.

[erikun]

Not to mention some spell components really make me wonder. "Dirt from the grave of a ghoul" implies that someone had to find a grave with a ghoul in it and start grabbing dirt.
If I was a spellcaster and knew I would need dirt from the grave of a ghoul for spells, then at the first grave of a ghoul I came across, I would dig up all the dirt from it. Graves are typically six feet deep, usually around six feet tall and around three feet across. That's 108 cubic feet of dirt, or around 13,000 pounds of dirt. I'm fairly sure that six tons of dirt from a single grave will be enough for my entire adventuring career, or will bring in huge amounts of money if it is worth anything in selling.

And before anyone says anything about lawkeepers, note that most ghouls don't have graves in areas very well populated... at least, not anymore.

[Amnestic]

Yeah, I don't get it either; The pouch is assumed to have every feasible material component for every spell ever, barring this that have an outlined GP cost. The Identify one has a 100 gp pearl in there, so yeah, different. ...Which kind of makes me want to roll a wizard and just be MacGuyver pulling things out of it.

Hungry? Well I've got a bunch of tiny tarts from my Hideous Laughter left over.
Need to trip some guy? Leftover glass beads from Globe of Lesser Invulnerability.
Someone backtalks me? Slap them with the severed hand of a good aligned cleric. Yeah, I know that spell too.

I actually have no idea if that would work, but it would be hilarious.

I'm no rules expert, but I don't think there's anything barring you from doing so (as I recall, abuse of the Chicken-Infested Flaw involves pulling loads of stuff from your spell component pouch). And since it's a free action, you can pull out as much stuff as you want within 6 seconds.

As for Arcane Focuses/Expensive Materials, I believe it's the size/shape/preparation - not the cost - which is relevant to the action economy. An expensive diamond can still fit in the spell component pouch, and could thus feasibly be drawn from it as a free action. Obviously you would need to go ahead and purchase said expensive diamond beforehand, but merely relating to action economy, cost is not relevant...I think?

Unless the material/focus was obnoxiously large, I doubt I'd enforce it. Material components for the most part are more fluff than anything else. I doubt enforcing them would have any real negligible effect on a spellcaster's action economy in the long run.

But that's just me :P

[Rogue Shadows]

If I was a spellcaster and knew I would need dirt from the grave of a ghoul for spells, then at the first grave of a ghoul I came across, I would dig up all the dirt from it. Graves are typically six feet deep, usually around six feet tall and around three feet across. That's 108 cubic feet of dirt, or around 13,000 pounds of dirt. I'm fairly sure that six tons of dirt from a single grave will be enough for my entire adventuring career, or will bring in huge amounts of money if it is worth anything in selling.

True enough, I suppose...


Material components for the most part are more fluff than anything else.

I agree with this for the most part, at least insofar as the "free" spell components are concerned. I'm still going to use a depeleting spell component pouch as mentioned above. This means that players will just buy more pouches, but I'm cool with this - my verisimilitude will of been restored.

I did, however, recently go through each spell in the PHB, paying attention to the spell components involved, and wrote down a list of spells that use components that cost actual money, like raise dead. I'm going to make sure to enforce that from now on.

One more thing...

Identify specifies that the 100-gp pearl material component is crushed and mixed with wine, and this admixture is drank, as part of the spell.

This tells me two things.

1) Now I know why adventurers make a beeline for the nearest tavern after every adventure;
2) The intoxication rules from the Arms & Equipment Guide are going to do work next time I run a game.

[Aemoh87]

I'm no rules expert, but I don't think there's anything barring you from doing so (as I recall, abuse of the Chicken-Infested Flaw involves pulling loads of stuff from your spell component pouch). And since it's a free action, you can pull out as much stuff as you want within 6 seconds.

As for Arcane Focuses/Expensive Materials, I believe it's the size/shape/preparation - not the cost - which is relevant to the action economy. An expensive diamond can still fit in the spell component pouch, and could thus feasibly be drawn from it as a free action. Obviously you would need to go ahead and purchase said expensive diamond beforehand, but merely relating to action economy, cost is not relevant...I think?

Unless the material/focus was obnoxiously large, I doubt I'd enforce it. Material components for the most part are more fluff than anything else. I doubt enforcing them would have any real negligible effect on a spellcaster's action economy in the long run.

But that's just me :P

More spells have large materials/focuses than people think. Obviously a diamond could be in a pouch waiting, but how many diamonds do you have? Would this make you change how you cast, I know it does to my party. Also my favorite spell, thunderlance, requires a small spear. Since my character is already small, that small spear defenatly does not fit in his pouch.

[Tyndmyr]

Another good fix is use spell components, the majority of DND games I have seen both on and offline do not do this, or only do it for a few significant spells that rarely get cast. Players ignore this part of the game, but if it is included it really throws the wizards action economy out of whack and makes him spend a whole lot more. But this isn't really a fix, it's just playing by the rules.

Not really. First off, spell component pouches negate everything about this, by the rules.

Secondly, Eschew Materials negate everything about this, by the rules.

If you ditch spell component pouches, it makes the game suck. See, now the wizard is playing inventory on hundreds of items. Once he finds them, he can typically carry ridiculous amounts of them, so the actual quantity is mostly irrelevant...but they must be tracked. And it means that for the weirder bits, you'll have the ever-so-entertaining "search for another spell component" quests. Surely those will improve your story and enthrall your players. Between removing/delaying the story and adding TONS of boring accounting, it basically just makes wizards a lot less fun, without really mucking with power significantly.

Not worth it, IMO.

[Rogue Shadows]

More spells have large materials/focuses than people think. Obviously a diamond could be in a pouch waiting, but how many diamonds do you have? Would this make you change how you cast, I know it does to my party. Also my favorite spell, thunderlance, requires a small spear. Since my character is already small, that small spear defenatly does not fit in his pouch.

Wait, a small spear, as in a Small-sized spear, or a small spear, as in a spear that is not very big?

I cast confusion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html).

[Yora]

Another solution I use as a DM is don't let them get high level. It can be annoying but I am up front about it. I like to finish my "story" in the low teens. After that the party can rip my world piece by piece and I don't feel that bad.
I let someone else reply to this. :smallbiggrin:

Or just play E6. That should solve everything.:smallsmile:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Out of the pouch it is free. But some arcane focuses are large and clumsy. Even though most wizards can get around this by having most focuses and components readily availible. Sometimes this is difficult or not possible... or not planned for.

Handy Haversack. Unless it's so big that you can't fit it in, you've got it at your fingertips.

No adventurer over level 4 leaves home without one.

But seriously, as far as 'fixing' T1 classes, at least for Wiz and Sorc, there's a simple solution: follow the same game plan as the beguiler/DN/Warmage. You have a very explicit spell list, and it's almost impossible to get outside of it. But you still have useful and fun class abilities in addition to your spells. Sure, you can't break the game multiple ways simultaneously, but you can still bring a lot to the gaming table.

[Big Fau]

Or just play E6. That should solve everything.:smallsmile:

No, because Wizard or Druid 6 is still overpowered by comparison, just less-so.

E6 doesn't fix the problems. If DnD as a whole were a pool filled with burning napalm, E6 would be the equivalent of sticking your leg in the shallow end. There's still a problem, but not as bad as swimming in it.


But that's the fun part about DnD: Everything burns.

[erikun]

Wait, a small spear, as in a Small-sized spear, or a small spear, as in a spear that is not very big?

I cast confusion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html).
Let's not forget that there is a Heavy weapon properity. As such, you can have a Heavy Heavy Mace. Or a Heavy Light Mace. Or a Large Heavy Light Mace.

And then you cast shrink item, giving you a small Large Heavy Light Mace.

[Rogue Shadows]

Let's not forget that there is a Heavy weapon properity. As such, you can have a Heavy Heavy Mace. Or a Heavy Light Mace. Or a Large Heavy Light Mace.

And then you cast shrink item, giving you a small Large Heavy Light Mace.

Or a smal Large heavy heavy mace. It's also possible to grow items, giving you a large large heavy heavy mace, or a large large heavy light mace...

I think we're drifting into another sketch.

[OracleofWuffing]

More spells have large materials/focuses than people think. Obviously a diamond could be in a pouch waiting, but how many diamonds do you have?
Assuming that the diamond has no specific cost, as many as I need. :smalltongue:

[Tyndmyr]

No, because Wizard or Druid 6 is still overpowered by comparison, just less-so.

E6 doesn't fix the problems. If DnD as a whole were a pool filled with burning napalm, E6 would be the equivalent of sticking your leg in the shallow end. There's still a problem, but not as bad as swimming in it.


But that's the fun part about DnD: Everything burns.

Wizard 6 isn't particularly overpowered, though Druid 6 is pretty solid indeed. Artificer 6 breaks the game into tiny pieces while laughing.

Here's the thing...I don't need power discrepancies to cease existing...I merely need players to accurately know about them in advance(solved by existance of tier system), and to reduce discrepancies to a playable level.

The latter, I can do by nerfing the top classes or boosting the bottom ones. Balancing by boosting seems infinitely more popular among players. Since it's the same end result...it tends to be the path I take.

[Seerow]

As for druids...

I think it's a class that needs some serious ground-up reexamination to fix.

Core D&D gives us four main spellcasters: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard. Three of these classes, to balance out all the spells they get (in theory), get very few class features (Sorcerer and Cleric have 19 dead levels, Wizard has 15) otherwise and a small, limited skill selection.

Druid gets full casting, good skill selection, no dead levels, and an excellent selection of spells.

Of course it's too powerful! Look it! there are other classes in the PHB that get a mixture of spells and class features: The bard, the ranger, and the paladin. But none of them get full casting! And of the classes in the PHB that get no or few dead levels, two of them can't cast spells at all! (barbarian, monk and rogue)

If you removed the druid's spellcasting entirely, you'd still have a pretty decent class, at least as compared to the other classes in the core rulebook, if a little weak at low levels prior to being able to shapeshift. It'd no longer be Tier 1 at all but I'd be immensely surprised if it dropped down to Tier 4 or lower.

Were I a part of Wizards of the Coast in 2003 when 3.0 was getting updated to 3.5, I would have totally re-designed the druid class to either

a) not be a full caster, or
b) not be a caster at all, and emphasize the shapeshifting aspect more.

Agreed, the Druid is like 2-3 separate classes gestalted together due to legacy.

Personally I'd go the other way from what you suggest though, Druid maintains full casting, but the shapeshifting is toned way down, to the point where it is useless in combat and is more for scouting/hiding, and remove natural spell as well for good measure. I'd then switch the Ranger and Druid animal companions, again making the Druid's companion effectively useless in combat, and more of a flavor thing. Finally, the Druids' skills would get knocked down to a 2+int mod, and possibly lose a few class skills.

The other stuff like trackless step, woodland stride, a thousand faces, etc, are all removed, and made into spells if there isn't already a spell equivalent for those abilities.


The idea would be to make spellcasting the primary druid feature, with the other features eliminated or powered down to the point where they aren't prominent. The Druid would still be on par with a Wizard or Cleric, but no longer "Hey look at me, I have single class features stronger than your entire class!"

For those who want a Wildshape focused character, I'd leave the Wildshape variant ranger with the current wildshape progression rather than a nerfed wildshape, which should be enough to make that concept remain viable.

[Big Fau]

Wizard 6 isn't particularly overpowered, though Druid 6 is pretty solid indeed. Artificer 6 breaks the game into tiny pieces while laughing.

Here's the thing...I don't need power discrepancies to cease existing...I merely need players to accurately know about them in advance(solved by existance of tier system), and to reduce discrepancies to a playable level.

The latter, I can do by nerfing the top classes or boosting the bottom ones. Balancing by boosting seems infinitely more popular among players. Since it's the same end result...it tends to be the path I take.

Wizard 6 is still very capable of ending 90% of the encounters in E6 (he's just not as crazy-prepared), but I do agree.





One thing I've been thinking about: Divine Crusader-style spellcasting for the Cleric instead of normal casting. Basically going Ardent on their spellcasting (minus the whole lightning progression with CL boosters).

Another thing: Removing Bonus Spells from the Tier 2s and up (I don't know if I'd leave Bonus PP for the psionic ones though, I guess it depends on what PP recharge mechanics I would tolerate).

[Seerow]

One thing I've been thinking about: Divine Crusader-style spellcasting for the Cleric instead of normal casting. Basically going Ardent on their spellcasting (minus the whole lightning progression with CL boosters).


You really think the crusader mechanic would work well for a full caster?

I've been thinking about taking several various houserules/ideas I have and making a new system where every power source (Divine, Arcane, Martial, possibly Ki/Psionic) has its own unique resource mechanic, but I've been stuck wondering what the hell to do with Divine given that it's always been "Just like arcane magic, but with healing!"

[Rogue Shadows]

I've been thinking about taking several various houserules/ideas I have and making a new system where every power source (Divine, Arcane, Martial, possibly Ki/Psionic) has its own unique resource mechanic, but I've been stuck wondering what the hell to do with Divine given that it's always been "Just like arcane magic, but with healing!"

...what do you mean, exactly? Like, Ki is power points, Arcane is Vancian casting, etc?

'Cause if that's the case: Seek ye out the Binder class, look hard at the Cleric domains, and ponder how to combine the two. That might work.

[Seerow]

...what do you mean, exactly? Like, Ki is power points, Arcane is Vancian casting, etc?

Basically, yes.


'Cause if that's the case: Seek ye out the Binder class, look hard at the Cleric domains, and ponder how to combine the two. That might work.

Binder is in Tome of Magic, right? I never picked it up after hearing how terrible most of the stuff in there was, but I'll see if I can find someone with a copy I can look through. Thanks for the tip.

[Rogue Shadows]

Binder is in Tome of Magic, right? I never picked it up after hearing how terrible most of the stuff in there was, but I'll see if I can find someone with a copy I can look through. Thanks for the tip.

Truenaming is...well, broken. As in it doesn't work right. But Binding and Shadowcasting are both all kinds of awesome both mechanically and fluff-wise. Truenaming too, if you can find a way to fix it.

Binders especially are terrible only because Tier 1 classes exist; Binders are considered to be in Tier 2 or 3.

I can't find what tier Shadowcasters are in...

[Amnestic]

Binder is in Tome of Magic, right? I never picked it up after hearing how terrible most of the stuff in there was, but I'll see if I can find someone with a copy I can look through. Thanks for the tip.

Truenaming is terrible, but Binders are decent (Tier 3/2) and Shadowcasters are no slouches themselves. Fluff is great, it's just the Truenaming mechanics which hold the book back, I think.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Truenaming is...well, broken. As in it doesn't work right. But Binding and Shadowcasting are both all kinds of awesome both mechanically and fluff-wise. Truenaming too, if you can find a way to fix it.

Binders especially are terrible only because Tier 1 classes exist; Binders are considered to be in Tier 2 or 3.

I can't find what tier Shadowcasters are in...

Shadowcasters are tier 4. They scale linearly, but WotC messed up when they made the abilities per day, instead of per encounter or at-will or rechargeable.

[Rogue Shadows]

Shadowcasters are tier 4. They scale linearly, but WotC messed up when they made the abilities per day, instead of per encounter or at-will or rechargeable.

Really? I've seen argued (thanks to a Google search a few minutes ago - what I meant was I didn't see Shadowcaster on the "official" Tier list, apparently I can find its Tier if I just get up off of my lazy bum...) that they might be 2 or 3 thanks to Shadow Evocation shennaniganry.

[Andorax]

Don't change anything, just banned what breaks the game and hope your players can accept that their ultimate wizard build doesn't need to show up at the table. There is no fix for tier one other than players not playing it up to snuff.

Am I missing the whole entire Tier boat here? This seems to be the solution for when things get out of hand, and with my group, things very rarely get out of hand.

I didn't even know a tier system existed until I started reading this forum regularly, just the general vague "Spellcasters outclass mundane at teens levels". Even then, nobody ever balked at playing the horridly T5 fighter, because the T5 fighter had a job to do in the party, did it well, and everyone had a good time.


It seems like there's a ton of RAW, even marginally RAI abuses that account for the vast majority of the T1/T2 designations, and that it's the intentional effort on the part of some players to "win at D&D" that account for the power discrepancy.

Open spell list (Wizard, Cleric, Druid) coupled with years and thousands of printed spells = potential for abuse. Realized abuse is where the problem lies.

[tyckspoon]

Identify specifies that the 100-gp pearl material component is crushed and mixed with wine, and this admixture is drank, as part of the spell.

This tells me two things.

1) Now I know why adventurers make a beeline for the nearest tavern after every adventure;
2) The intoxication rules from the Arms & Equipment Guide are going to do work next time I run a game.

There's also about a dozen ways to ID stuff without resorting to the arcane version of Identify. The most common/rules-accessible would probably be, spiraling out from Core: Magic domain spell, level 2; Cloistered Clerics get it as an addition to their lists at level 1; Artificer's Monocle (MIC) lets you turn Detect Magic into an Identify if you have enough Know: Arcana; MIC also has rules for identifying an object with just Detect Magic + a high enough Spellcraft check; Dragonfire Adepts can select Identify as one of their Invocations, which ignore components as a spell-like ability. Probably most efficient to hunt down a Cloistered Cleric and pay him to spend a morning ID'ing your stuff.

Also, I'd note that Identify takes an hour to cast. Unless you decide that it takes an entire bottle/skin's worth of wine to cast Identify, 1 cup of wine/hour is not significantly like to make anybody drunk.

[Hiro Protagonest]

It seems like there's a ton of RAW, even marginally RAI abuses that account for the vast majority of the T1/T2 designations, and that it's the intentional effort on the part of some players to "win at D&D" that account for the power discrepancy.

No, it's obvious what wild shape and time stop and shapechange were meant to do. The problem is that WotC didn't playtest anything.

In an article I saw on the WotC website, the guy who wrote it, who works for WotC, said:

So I thought I'd get a group together and see how 3.5 actually played.
Which means they didn't playtest a single thing.

[Rogue Shadows]

Also, I'd note that Identify takes an hour to cast. Unless you decide that it takes an entire bottle/skin's worth of wine to cast Identify, 1 cup of wine/hour is not significantly like to make anybody drunk.

Actually it is essentially impossible according to those selfsame intoxication rules to get drunk if it's limited to 1/hour...

*sigh*

Stupid casting time ruining all our fun. I say "our" fun because when I pointed this out to my players they thought it was hilarious and were looking forward to what would happen...

...I might house-rule reduce the casting time of identify.

On second though, no, that's just contrived.

*sigh...*


No, it's obvious what wild shape and time stop and shapechange were meant to do. The problem is that WotC didn't playtest anything.

Actually they playtested a lot for the Core...just not anything past 12th level, as I understand it. And a lot of later stuff wasn't playtested at all...

Either that or they did playtest everything, but they don't understand that "playtesting" doesn't mean "playing a game of D&D," it means "take these rules that we have made for D&D and try to break them in half. If we can do this easily, it needs to be refined."

[Hiro Protagonest]

Actually they playtested a lot...just not anything past 12th level, as I understand it.

No, I think that's Paizo.

[MeeposFire]

No, it's obvious what wild shape and time stop and shapechange were meant to do. The problem is that WotC didn't playtest anything.

In an article I saw on the WotC website, the guy who wrote it, who works for WotC, said:

Which means they didn't playtest a single thing.

They essentially thought that things were going to be the same as AD&D and it wasn't. Also there was limited play testing but once again they played like they did in AD&D (blasting wizards and healing clerics).

[Rogue Shadows]

No, I think that's Paizo.

Oh. Well, see my edited-in second point, then.

[Larpus]

One thing that occurred to me once to bring the high Tiers down a bit (or rather Wizards, which were the ones I was thinking about) is to mess with the spell schools:

Properly divide them in what they do, possibly even creating/changing some schools and then make every Wizard choose 3 or so (they get the extra spell slot of specialist for any of the given schools) and be locked out of the other ones, having to spend a feat to have access to them (and possibly gain one or 2 as class features).

Not sure if it wouldn't make Wizards too underpowered, but it aims to fix their main issue of being able to do everything at once without heavy stat or feat investment, which is the main issue since a Fighter can't be a god with, board+sword, 2H weapons, archery and combat maneuvers all at the same time, while the Wizard 'can'.

The Sorcerer (and similar casters) does not have such issues seeing as they're already closer to balance due to limited spell list.

It can be made to work with Clerics by dividing their spells by type too, so only a Cleric with access to War Domain can actually cause damage with their spells or something...I really only thought about the Wizard, so this Cleric mention is just a spur of the moment and can be quite imbalanced.

[Rogue Shadows]

It can be made to work with Clerics by dividing their spells by type too, so only a Cleric with access to War Domain can actually cause damage with their spells or something...I really only thought about the Wizard, so this Cleric mention is just a spur of the moment and can be quite imbalanced.

One thought I had with the Cleric was making them able to choose more Domains as they levelled up, eventually capping out at, say, five Domains...and that's it. No other sources of spells.

Of course, they get more uses of Domain spells per day.

This seemed too harsh, though. Still. There's something to that.

As for your school suggestion...I like it. The first time: move Read Magic into the "Universal" school so that Divination can function like a proper school again.

[OracleofWuffing]

Actually it is essentially impossible according to those selfsame intoxication rules to get drunk if it's limited to 1/hour...
Actually... Since the relevant rule is based on glasses per hour, you just need to make sure you bring a really small glass and require large amounts of wine. And remember, the spell won't get any worse if you use too much wine.

"...Hey, um, you've been at this spell for quite a while, do you need any help?"
"BE QUIET I NEEDSH MY FULL HOUR! IT TAKES A CONCENTRATION TO CAST!"
"Could... Could you spare some of that for the rest of us while we wait?"
"SHADDUP I NEEDSH EVERY DROP -hic-"
"...Dude, I think you have a problem."
"DO YOU WANT TO KNOW IF THIS IS AN AMINALATED SHIELD OR NOT!?"
"That's not a shield. That's a door. All of the shields have been doors. We're getting worried about you. Seriously."

[Zale]

One thing that occurred to me once to bring the high Tiers down a bit (or rather Wizards, which were the ones I was thinking about) is to mess with the spell schools:

Properly divide them in what they do, possibly even creating/changing some schools and then make every Wizard choose 3 or so (they get the extra spell slot of specialist for any of the given schools) and be locked out of the other ones, having to spend a feat to have access to them (and possibly gain one or 2 as class features).

Not sure if it wouldn't make Wizards too underpowered, but it aims to fix their main issue of being able to do everything at once without heavy stat or feat investment, which is the main issue since a Fighter can't be a god with, board+sword, 2H weapons, archery and combat maneuvers all at the same time, while the Wizard 'can'.


That's a nice idea. Wizards can still be wizards without automatically rolfstomping everything.

However, some people will still pick schools that are really potent. Transmutation for Shape-change, Conjuration for summons and gate.

[Big Fau]

You really think the crusader mechanic would work well for a full caster?

I've been thinking about taking several various houserules/ideas I have and making a new system where every power source (Divine, Arcane, Martial, possibly Ki/Psionic) has its own unique resource mechanic, but I've been stuck wondering what the hell to do with Divine given that it's always been "Just like arcane magic, but with healing!"

Not the ToB Crusader, the CD PRC. Basically they would get just domain spells/day. Then modify the domains so they are more balanced.

[tyckspoon]

However, some people will still pick schools that are really potent. Transmutation for Shape-change, Conjuration for summons and gate.

That would be solvable either by carefully shuffling the schools of spells, possibly make things like Conjuration (summoning/calling) a separate subschool that has to be chosen on its own, or potentially by reviving the idea of opposed schools but with an eye to game balance instead of trying to make sense of a fluff reason these schools are opposed- if you choose to know Conjuration, you cannot also select Transmutation and vice-versa. Relatively simple solution, but it's a pretty inelegant hack from an in-world view and in the rules; none of the other schools really need to be balanced that way.

[Larpus]

That's a nice idea. Wizards can still be wizards without automatically rolfstomping everything.

However, some people will still pick schools that are really potent. Transmutation for Shape-change, Conjuration for summons and gate.
Yeah, I thought about that too.

Maybe a fix is to separate the schools also into 'tiers' per say, and make it so you cannot have more than 1 'tier 1' as your starting schools ('tier 1' would be the powerful schools).

Alternatively, break such schools further since they have many different subschools and make such subschools schools themselves, so a Wizard can still be the king of transmutation, but that's all he's gonna be without spending more.

[Rogue Shadows]

Yeah, I thought about that too.

Maybe a fix is to separate the schools also into 'tiers' per say, and make it so you cannot have more than 1 'tier 1' as your starting schools ('tier 1' would be the powerful schools).

Alternatively, break such schools further since they have many different subschools and make such subschools schools themselves, so a Wizard can still be the king of transmutation, but that's all he's gonna be without spending more.

Hmm...

I can't help but think about Shadowcastes right now for some reason. Not sure why, or how to implement it...but they're on my mind.

[FMArthur]

Using Bard progression on T1 and T2 casters is a pretty easy and effective fix to make, expanding it slightly to give 1st level spells at 1st level. I'd increase the number of spells they get by 1 for all entries, just because they wouldn't have enough interesting things to do for a far too large span of their career with a truer Bard progression.

This sounds really heavy-handed, but the powerful spells are surprisingly appropriate for the levels you'd get them at. The versatility - and yes, the power - that a T1/T2 spellcaster would still retain over others would still generally keep at least the T1s a cut above the rest despite it all, but not nearly to the degree where it becomes a problem. Obviously psionic T1/T2 classes take the same reduction in the maximum level of power they can know, but they might also need a loss of PP progression (roughly to a psion of 2/3 your level, but it would need work).

Bards and other pseudo-casters with low progressions might at first glance need reduction to account for the full-casters coming down to their level, but the reality of it is that they don't have nearly as awesome spell lists as their big brothers, who remain the focused masters of magic by the power of their spells rather than the numbers on their chart.

Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, Warmages and others might pose a bit of a problem afterward with their progression to 9ths, with things like Evard's Black Tentacles still on their lists coming early and strong. It's probably not that bad though, and makes them appealing as 'strong specialist' options, less versatile but more powerful (which was their raison d'être all along anyway).

Wierd as this sounds, as a caster I would probably have more fun because you could finally take off the white gloves and break out cool overpowered non-spell caster options like DMM, Abrupt Jaunt and Uncanny Forethought without reservation.

[Rogue Shadows]

Using Bard progression on T1 and T2 casters is a pretty easy and effective fix to make, expanding it slightly to give 1st level spells at 1st level. I'd increase the number of spells they get by 1 for all entries, just because they wouldn't have enough interesting things to do for a far too large span of their career with a truer Bard progression.

I did something like this, though the way I accomplished it was by increasing the rate they gain spell levels from every 2 levels to every 3 levels - So 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, and 19th, for a total of 8 total spell levels (0-7).

The Sorcerer doesn't notice the difference at first, because Sorcerers don't get 2nd-level spells until level 4 anyway...

[Autopsibiofeeder]

In all honesty, and I do understand it may be a bit besides the point here, I feel compelled to point out that players break the game, not classes. I have dm-ed high level T1 casters that would rip my game apart, but I also dm-ed those that were as 'harmless' as an optimized ranger or barbarian as well as those that would use their powers to enhance the group.

DnD is a team sport. If you have a team and a wizard/druid/etc., then you have a problem. But if you have a team of which a druid/wizard/etc is part of, then there is no real problem. My point being: if a players intends to play a T1 caster talk to him/her. Make clear you have a spotlight to shine on each member. Make clear that if he/she wants to go around and ninja every sparkle of spotlight-light and deform your intentions and campaign through his abilities, there is no place for him/her in the campaign.

That solves the issue for me pretty much allways and calls for banning/adjusting of only the most obvious few things.

[Rogue Shadows]

DnD is a team sport. If you have a team and a wizard/druid/etc., then you have a problem. But if you have a team of which a druid/wizard/etc is part of, then there is no real problem. My point being: if a players intends to play a T1 caster talk to him/her. Make clear you have a spotlight to shine on each member. Make clear that if he/she wants to go around and ninja every sparkle of spotlight-light and deform your intentions and campaign through his abilities, there is no place for him/her in the campaign.

You know what's weird?

You don't really ever have to worry about this happening with Warmages and Healers.

Just sayin'.

[FMArthur]

In all honesty, and I do understand it may be a bit besides the point here, I feel compelled to point out that players break the game, not classes. I have dm-ed high level T1 casters that would rip my game apart, but I also dm-ed those that were as 'harmless' as an optimized ranger or barbarian as well as those that would use their powers to enhance the group.

DnD is a team sport. If you have a team and a wizard/druid/etc., then you have a problem. But if you have a team of which a druid/wizard/etc is part of, then there is no real problem. My point being: if a players intends to play a T1 caster talk to him/her. Make clear you have a spotlight to shine on each member. Make clear that if he/she wants to go around and ninja every sparkle of spotlight-light and deform your intentions and campaign through his abilities, there is no place for him/her in the campaign.

That solves the issue for me pretty much allways and calls for banning/adjusting of only the most obvious few things.

Sure, but the idea behind fixing it is that there would not be that chance that things go horribly wrong, and the players don't feel like they need to hold back to keep the game in line. Groups that already manage just fine wouldn't stop doing so if you implemented a fix, it just means the ground on which they tread would feel sturdier, and character changes/new players are not so much a gamble.

This is, of course, assuming the fix was good. I can see that it might seem risky to try some, or arduous for the really inelegant ones.

[ImperatorK]

What if we limit the Wizard only to one school and make it so wannabe generalist Wizards have to invest quite a bunch of feats to learn spells from other schools? Something like Spell Reprieve, Item Reprieve, Arcane Transfiguration chain?

[NNescio]

What if we limit the Wizard only to one school and make it so wannabe generalist Wizards have to invest quite a bunch of feats to learn spells from other schools? Something like Spell Reprieve, Item Reprieve, Arcane Transfiguration chain?

Straight conjurers and transmuters are still very good.

[erikun]

What if we limit the Wizard only to one school and make it so wannabe generalist Wizards have to invest quite a bunch of feats to learn spells from other schools?
Conjuration, Transmutation, and Illusion are still just as broken, and now even more important. Heaven help the poor wizard attempting Abjuration, Necromancy, or *shudder* Divination.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

What if we limit the Wizard only to one school and make it so wannabe generalist Wizards have to invest quite a bunch of feats to learn spells from other schools? Something like Spell Reprieve, Item Reprieve, Arcane Transfiguration chain?

This is something that I'm trying to do, actually. I'm taking the concept from classes like the Beguiler and Dread Necro, and applying them to other caster archetypes, hopefully making a set of about four or five interesting and useful classes without handing out any 'win' buttons.

I was wanting to do a 'summoner' for the Conjuration/transmutation class, similar in concept to the Pathfinder class of the same name, but having set elementals that they pact with to summon, as they get more powerful. Various elemental pacts grant various abilities to both the elemental in question and the caster.

So basically, he's got a lot of buffing ability, and has strong summons, but he's going to have to expend a large portion of his 'Advanced Learning' abilities to also be good at battlefield control, and his advanced learning explicitly prohibits Instantaneous Conjuration effects, so no Orbs...

Then I was wanting to do an 'oracle' type character for Divination/Abjuration..

[stainboy]

One thought I had with the Cleric was making them able to choose more Domains as they levelled up, eventually capping out at, say, five Domains...and that's it. No other sources of spells.


I really like the idea that clerics use narrow customized spell lists. The 3e cleric class is trying to cover everything from hardass battlepriest to necromancer cultist. Whenever one cleric needs something, every other cleric gets it too. If the battlepriest needs to swing a mace harder, the necromancer gets Divine Power. If the necromancer needs some zombies the battlepriest gets Animate Dead.

There's no such thing as a "generalist cleric," so there's not even a character concept that's served by all that versatility. If you pick a priest of Bacchus you probably want to be forced to look for uses for Rage and Confusion and Charm Monster rather than just preparing whatever works best.

I say cut the cleric spell list down to the bare minimum (probably just Cure Wounds, Restoration, and fluffy stuff like Atonement), scrap domains, and bring back divine spell spheres from AD&D.



What if we limit the Wizard only to one school and make it so wannabe generalist Wizards have to invest quite a bunch of feats to learn spells from other schools? Something like Spell Reprieve, Item Reprieve, Arcane Transfiguration chain?

I like the idea, but we'd need a new way of categorizing spells that made some actual sense. For one thing, it would have to be legal for a spell to be in multiple categories. For another, spells would have to be grouped based on "what kind of wizard casts this" not "how does this fit into my arbitrary rules for how magic works that I never bothered to write down."

There have been three separate attempts at a single-school arcane class (Warmage, Beguiler, Dread Necro) and not one of them stuck to their school. Warmage leans at least as hard on Conjuration as Evocation, Dread Necro uses Conjuration and Transmutation, Beguiler is all over the place. No single school does a good job of reflecting any character concept.

[ImperatorK]

Conjuration, Transmutation, and Illusion are still just as broken, and now even more important. Heaven help the poor wizard attempting Abjuration, Necromancy, or *shudder* Divination.
Of course it would need some tweaking of individual spell placements (school-wise and level-wise), but the basic idea isn't that bad, right?

On Clerics: I would just restrict them to spells that are themed to the god/concept they're worshiping. It would be more like Rule 0'ing or DM fiat'ing it, but meh, whatever works. :smalltongue:

[erikun]

Of course it would need some tweaking of individual spell placements (school-wise and level-wise), but the basic idea isn't that bad, right?
We could, but by the time we're done re-writing spells and making new ones, we've probably solved the issue for generalist Wizards as well.

[Rogue Shadows]

On Clerics: I would just restrict them to spells that are themed to the god/concept they're worshiping. It would be more like Rule 0'ing or DM fiat'ing it, but meh, whatever works. :smalltongue:

Hmm. Deities become super-domains, kinda'?


Of course it would need some tweaking of individual spell placements (school-wise and level-wise), but the basic idea isn't that bad, right?

Hmm.

Bear with me for a moment.

What if each school has two "allied" and one "enemy" school?

http://i53.tinypic.com/xmlteo.png

In the above, "allied" schools are schools that are close to each other (Evocation is allied to Transmutation and Conjuration), and the "enemy" school is directly opposite (Evocation is enemies with Abjuration).

Here's how this would work:
- You specialize in one school. You learn a bonus spell of that school each time you level up, and you can cast one extra spell per day as long as the extra spell is from that school.
- You can learn and cast spells freely from your focused school and any allied schools.
- You cannot learn spells from non-allied, non-enemy schools without taking a special feat, once for each school. An Evoker, for example, has to take a feat to learn Necromancy spells, another feat to learn Enchantment spells, and so on (or more likely, the same feat multiple times)
- You can never learn spells from your enemy school.

Combine this with, say, the specialist wizard variant from Unearthed Arcana, and a complete overhaul of the spell system to re-balance it...

And, of course, you could always choose to remain a Universalist, in which case you can learn any spell, but get somewhat less spells per day, and don't get the nifty UA benefits for specializing.

[RPGuru1331]

Conjuration, Transmutation, and Illusion are still just as broken, and now even more important. Heaven help the poor wizard attempting Abjuration, Necromancy, or *shudder* Divination.

Out of curiosity, since I know you'll have more knowledge of the rules than me, what happens when you kill the spells that mimic other schools (Melf's Acid Arrow, Shadow Evocation or whatever it's called)?

I'm aware Conjuration will remain powerful, as it will retain versatility and Gate, but I'm curious about Transmutation and Illusion. The former should remain strong, but...

[erikun]

Out of curiosity, since I know you'll have more knowledge of the rules than me, what happens when you kill the spells that mimic other schools (Melf's Acid Arrow, Shadow Evocation or whatever it's called)?

I'm aware Conjuration will remain powerful, as it will retain versatility and Gate, but I'm curious about Transmutation and Illusion. The former should remain strong, but...
Well, you kill the Shadow Conjuration/Shadow Evocation line, which means Illusion takes a pretty major hit. It can still be useful with imagination, but only a little DM fiat can ruin absolutely anything the Illusionist can cast.

Conjuration loses its ability to act as super-Evocation, which kills the most damaging builds. Beyond that, not much. You can still summon walls, you can still summon Web/Black Tentacles/Solid Fog, you can still summon/gate in creatures and use their SLAs.

Transmutation's strongest spells are the Polymorph line, which are completely unchanged. Fly and teleportation are strong as ever. I don't think Transmutation even loses anything.

I think Necromancy might even take a hit, as you'd be removing the Summon Undead, Speak with Dead, Hide from Undead, and so on. Some of those might already be in another school, though, but Necromancy would be pretty bad off from the exchange.

[NNescio]

Well, you kill the Shadow Conjuration/Shadow Evocation line, which means Illusion takes a pretty major hit. It can still be useful with imagination, but only a little DM fiat can ruin absolutely anything the Illusionist can cast.

Conjuration loses its ability to act as super-Evocation, which kills the most damaging builds. Beyond that, not much. You can still summon walls, you can still summon Web/Black Tentacles/Solid Fog, you can still summon/gate in creatures and use their SLAs.

Transmutation's strongest spells are the Polymorph line, which are completely unchanged. Fly and teleportation are strong as ever. I don't think Transmutation even loses anything.

I think Necromancy might even take a hit, as you'd be removing the Summon Undead, Speak with Dead, Hide from Undead, and so on. Some of those might already be in another school, though, but Necromancy would be pretty bad off from the exchange.

Summon Undead is normally Conjuration.

[erikun]

Summon Undead is normally Conjuration.
Figured. I knew one of those wasn't Necromancy anyways. (Yet another reason why solo-Necro is a bad idea!)

The same idea also heavily nerfs Evocation. Wall of Force? Nope, walls are a Conjuration effect. Forcecage? Resilient Sphere? Nope again, single-target monster restraints are a Conjuration effect as well. That takes most of the point of Evocation right out of the school, unless you are ignoring that part and keeping them around. (For that matter, give Evo the orbs and give Necro the Summon Undead line.)

[ImperatorK]

Hm...
Then maybe we could leave the less powerful schools, but disallow the rest and make the Wizard pick just one? For example every Wizard has Evocation, Abjuration and Divination + pick one more.

[Rogue Shadows]

Hm...
Then maybe we could leave the less powerful schools, but disallow the rest and make the Wizard pick just one? For example every Wizard has Evocation, Abjuration and Divination + pick one more.

That seems...arbitrary, though.

[Hiro Protagonest]

What if every specialist wizard can pick two schools other than the one they specialize in, and a generalist could pick five schools? That gives specialist three schools, compared to seven, and generalists five schools, compared to eight.

[stainboy]

That seems...arbitrary, though.

Divination and Abjuration give you Read Magic and Dispel Magic, and part of Conjuration doesn't function without Circle of Protection.

[Rogue Shadows]

What if every specialist wizard can pick two schools other than the one they specialize in, and a generalist could pick five schools? That gives specialist three schools, compared to seven, and generalists five schools, compared to eight.

As a generalist, I pick Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Illusion, Transmutation

[The Glyphstone]

All three of those schools include general non-thematic spells, or spells other schools expect you to have:

Divination - Read Magic
Evocation - Mage Armor, Contingency
Abjuration - Dispel Magic, Circle of Protection

It doesn't make sense for any wizard not to have at least some access to those three schools. I guess you could cut Evocation if you put Mage Armor in Abjuration where it belongs.

Mage Armor is Conjuration, actually.

[stainboy]

Bah, you're right, caught me editing.

[Rogue Shadows]

Divination and Abjuration give you Read Magic and Dispel Magic, and part of Conjuration doesn't function without Circle of Protection.

I've always felt Read Magic should be Universal, personally.

[ImperatorK]

All three of those schools include general non-thematic spells, or spells other schools expect you to have:

Divination - Read Magic
Evocation - Mage Armor, Contingency
Abjuration - Dispel Magic, Circle of Protection

It doesn't make sense for any wizard not to have at least some access to those three schools. I guess you could cut Evocation if you put Mage Armor in Abjuration where it belongs.
I was thinking more like something straightforward for: attack (Evocation), defense (Abjuration) and knowledge/learning (Divination).

[Larpus]

Well, since we're messing around with the very ink that describes a class, why don't we go ahead and change some spells' schools (Mage Armor never really made sense as Conjuration, especially when Shield is not and both are basically the same).

And/or introduce multi-school spells, for example Summon Undead is clearly Conjuration, since you're summoning an already existing undead, however it also finds a warm nest in Necromancy, since while it's not straight-up necro, it's obviously more than related (fluff-wise you can say that you can summon undeads due to your knowledge of the energies that command them, but you're unable to summon any other thing).

[Gnaeus]

Druid gets full casting, good skill selection, no dead levels, and an excellent selection of spells.

Of course it's too powerful! Look at it! there are other classes in the PHB that get a mixture of spells and class features: The bard, the ranger, and the paladin. But none of them get full casting! And of the classes in the PHB that get no or few dead levels, three of them can't cast spells at all! (barbarian, monk and rogue)

:smallsigh: Yes, Druid is more powerful than those classes. So is Cleric. So is Wizard. A druid with Natural Spell is not clearly stronger than a DMM Cleric. It is not clearly stronger than an Artificer, or an Archivist, or a Wizard. Most people believe that Wizards have the strongest spell lists of the big 3, and are therefore the most powerful. Clerics don't get to summon a pet, but they can animate any giant monster they fight and have armies of undead that are stronger than any AC, and they can walk around with persisted buffs that make them comparable to a WS druid in a fight. Archivists also get good class features, and the best spell list in the game (assuming scroll availability). Artificers can pull off most of the brokenness of the other T1s 2 levels earlier. There are individual levels where druids top out the big 3/big 5, but there are also levels (17+) where they are the weakest of the T1s.



If you removed the druid's spellcasting entirely, you'd still have a pretty decent class, at least as compared to the other classes in the core rulebook, if a little weak at low levels prior to being able to shapeshift. It'd no longer be Tier 1 at all but I'd be immensely surprised if it dropped down to Tier 4 or lower..

Druid without wildshape is still tier 1. The defining feature of tier 1 is an open ended versatile spell list from which the caster can pick the best spells for any given day. Druids still have that. A druid without wildshape is simply...much weaker than a cleric, which can be done while still being in tier 1. Spirit Shaman is a modified druid with selectable spont casting, without WS OR AC, and it is the bottom of T1/top of T2.


You know what's weird?

You don't really ever have to worry about this happening with Warmages and Healers.

Just sayin'.

Sure, because the spotlight will never actually reach the Healer, who spends most of his time off stage, in the bathroom, crying.

[Erloas]

Make clear you have a spotlight to shine on each member. Make clear that if he/she wants to go around and ninja every sparkle of spotlight-light and deform your intentions and campaign through his abilities, there is no place for him/her in the campaign.

That solves the issue for me pretty much allways and calls for banning/adjusting of only the most obvious few things.
The problem with these sorts of agreements with players is that everyone has their own idea of what is stealing the spot light and what is trying to break the game.
The party ranger might not even care that they aren't getting to track the enemy because the wizard can just divine the location, but they might go through a good portion of the game before they realize their "time to shine" was given to someone else and at that point its a little hard to say "lets go back to my slower and less effective means of doing the same thing."
Then there is the question of how much of the spotlight is it ok to have, they might only take it for 10% of each session which leaves 90% for the other 3 players, but if they take the key 10% every time and fix all of the big problems and leave everyone else with the trivial ones they are still doing what you asked and kind of messing up things at the same time.

And obviously as a DM you have complete control over what spells some classes can learn. If the player never finds a place to learn Spell X, no scrolls, no enemy spellbooks with it, no mage center in town that can teach them, then they don't have access to that spell and can't break the game with it. But the problem with a lot of those solutions is that they pretty much seem completely arbitrarily picked by the DM.
And both as a player and as a DM its much easier to go into a game knowing what to expect, from the stated rules of the game, rather then having to find out or make it up as you go.

[Rogue Shadows]

Druid without wildshape is still tier 1. The defining feature of tier 1 is an open ended versatile spell list from which the caster can pick the best spells for any given day. Druids still have that. A druid without wildshape is simply...much weaker than a cleric, which can be done while still being in tier 1. Spirit Shaman is a modified druid with selectable spont casting, without WS OR AC, and it is the bottom of T1/top of T2.

If you'll notice, in that responce I was saying how if you removed a druid's spellcasting, the resultant class would still be good - not a druid's wildshape.


Sure, because the spotlight will never actually reach the Healer, who spends most of his time off stage, in the bathroom, crying.

Kind of my point.


If the player never finds a place to learn Spell X, no scrolls, no enemy spellbooks with it, no mage center in town that can teach them, then they don't have access to that spell and can't break the game with it. But the problem with a lot of those solutions is that they pretty much seem completely arbitrarily picked by the DM.

Also there's the problem that this solution doesnt work with Clerics, Druids, or Sorcerers.

[Tyndmyr]

And obviously as a DM you have complete control over what spells some classes can learn. If the player never finds a place to learn Spell X, no scrolls, no enemy spellbooks with it, no mage center in town that can teach them, then they don't have access to that spell and can't break the game with it.

Really? Because the divine casters automatically know their whole spellbook, spont casters have no such restriction, and wizards automatically get free spells on level up.

I don't see how this is complete control at all.

[Erloas]

Really? Because the divine casters automatically know their whole spellbook, spont casters have no such restriction, and wizards automatically get free spells on level up.
Well in the end the DM always has complete control, and if they simply want to say Spell X doesn't exist in their world then thats up to them.
And if you are going to homebrew a complete rework of spell lists and class mechanics anyway you are essentially doing the same thing.

And it doesn't seem to be too uncommon of a house rule that someone has to have a place to learn the spells from, even the "free" ones per level, so you can learn them without the spellcraft checks, the time and the gold costs, but you still have to have had some method of learning said spell.

[stainboy]

Well, since we're messing around with the very ink that describes a class, why don't we go ahead and change some spells' schools (Mage Armor never really made sense as Conjuration, especially when Shield is not and both are basically the same).

And/or introduce multi-school spells, for example Summon Undead is clearly Conjuration, since you're summoning an already existing undead, however it also finds a warm nest in Necromancy, since while it's not straight-up necro, it's obviously more than related (fluff-wise you can say that you can summon undeads due to your knowledge of the energies that command them, but you're unable to summon any other thing).

I think this would just as much work as just coming up with an entire new categorization system.

If you write out a one-sentence description of a spell in verb-noun form:

I create an explosion!
I summon a wight!
I change my appearance!

...it's easy to see how most spells belong in two schools. Conjuration, Transmutation, Enchantment, and Abjuration refer to the verb part of the sentence. Illusion, Evocation, and Necromancy refer to the noun.
And then we get problems because there's a school for every verb, but not for every noun. "I summon a vrock!" is Conj and only Conj because there's no school specific to cover vulture demons. Conj and Trans would still be the best schools. They'd each include half of Illusion, Evoc, and Necro, plus a bunch more stuff.

You'd have to recategorize almost every spell in the game. And even after all this work, you'd still have problems like Illusion and Enchantment each being half of a character concept, and summoners who can't draw their own binding circles.

[Gnaeus]

I think this would just as much work as just coming up with an entire new categorization system.

If you write out a one-sentence description of a spell in verb-noun form:

I create an explosion!
I summon a wight!
I change my appearance!

...it's easy to see how most spells belong in two schools. Conjuration, Transmutation, Enchantment, and Abjuration refer to the verb part of the sentence. Illusion, Evocation, and Necromancy refer to the noun.
And then we get problems because there's a school for every verb, but not for every noun. "I summon a vrock!" is Conj and only Conj because there's no school specific to cover vulture demons. Conj and Trans would still be the best schools. They'd each include half of Illusion, Evoc, and Necro, plus a bunch more stuff.

You'd have to recategorize almost every spell in the game. And even after all this work, you'd still have problems like Illusion and Enchantment each being half of a character concept, and summoners who can't draw their own binding circles.

That is essentially the Ars Magica spell system. You buy ranks in verbs (in latin for flavor, but basically, I create, I learn about, I destroy, I control, or I change) and nouns (Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Body, Mind, Animal, Plant, Image, Magic).

[stainboy]

That is essentially the Ars Magica spell system. You buy ranks in verbs (in latin for flavor, but basically, I create, I learn about, I destroy, I control, or I change) and nouns (Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Body, Mind, Animal, Plant, Image, Magic).

I was hoping someone would bring up Ars Magica. Changeling: the Dreaming also uses verb-noun magic, if anyone wants another example.

As proposed in this thread though every wizard would get either one set of verbs or one set of nouns though, so not quite the same thing. (And that's good. The whole point of verb-noun magic is that your options grow quadratically. If we're trying to nerf D&D wizards that's the last thing we want.)

[Gnaeus]

I was hoping someone would bring up Ars Magica. Changeling: the Dreaming also uses verb-noun magic, if anyone wants another example.

Yes, it does, although I think it is much less thematically appropriate to D&D than Ars Magica.


As proposed in this thread though every wizard would get either one set of verbs or one set of nouns though, so not quite the same thing. (And that's good. The whole point of verb-noun magic is that your options grow quadratically. If we're trying to nerf D&D wizards that's the last thing we want.)

Well, your options do grow quadratically, but only until they reach the limits of the available magic system. Currently, wizards have access to ALL wizard spells. Limiting them to Most wizard spells would still be a nerf. If you gave (for example) one rank in verb and 2 in noun per level, and then prohibited them from casting spells unless they had both appropriate noun and verb equal to the spell's level, it would be a huge nerf. There are lots of ways that system could be set up (although they would be better discussed in homebrew.)

[Tyndmyr]

Well in the end the DM always has complete control, and if they simply want to say Spell X doesn't exist in their world then thats up to them.
And if you are going to homebrew a complete rework of spell lists and class mechanics anyway you are essentially doing the same thing.

You can...but it's not trivial. There's a sufficiently large list of spells that fixing tier 1 in this way is a bit crazy. Hell, even for core, it's no small task.


And it doesn't seem to be too uncommon of a house rule that someone has to have a place to learn the spells from, even the "free" ones per level, so you can learn them without the spellcraft checks, the time and the gold costs, but you still have to have had some method of learning said spell.

That stops only the wizard. And then, only until they flip the page to the research mechanics, which allow them to automatically research any existing spell without prior character knowledge of it.

[stainboy]

Banning spells also isn't a very satisfying solution. A lot of the big offenders have strong roots in fantasy literature. Every time a DM has to ban Polymorph and Planar Binding they essentially say "wizards in my world don't change shape or bind demons."

[Doug Lampert]

Am I missing the whole entire Tier boat here? This seems to be the solution for when things get out of hand, and with my group, things very rarely get out of hand.

I didn't even know a tier system existed until I started reading this forum regularly, just the general vague "Spellcasters outclass mundane at teens levels". Even then, nobody ever balked at playing the horridly T5 fighter, because the T5 fighter had a job to do in the party, did it well, and everyone had a good time.

What job is that? Because there's NOTHING he can do that in core that can't be done better, straight out of the box and doing nothing abusive, with a cleric or a druid.

A monster that particularly wants to can walk right past him. A monster with a decent grapple can mug him. A cleric can, at level 5, using core only and assuming he can somehow get the corpse to animate, create a 20 HD undead minion (with 40 bonus HP) who does his job FAR better than he'll do it for many levels thereafter.


It seems like there's a ton of RAW, even marginally RAI abuses that account for the vast majority of the T1/T2 designations, and that it's the intentional effort on the part of some players to "win at D&D" that account for the power discrepancy.

Open spell list (Wizard, Cleric, Druid) coupled with years and thousands of printed spells = potential for abuse. Realized abuse is where the problem lies.

Others have already hit this, but:

How do you read Gate so it doesn't break the game? Seriously, what do you think the RAI was that makes this a reasonable spell in a game with Planetars?

How do your read Shapechange so it doesn't break the game? Seriously, what do you think RAI was that makes this a reasonable spell in a game with multiple creatures with Wish as a SLA?

How do you read Wildshape and Animal Companions so they don't make the fighter obsolete? What do you think the RAI were when they gave a single class full spellcasting and two additional distinct class features that are BOTH far more powerful than most classes are? And then added a feat so it can use all three of these at once?

How do you read fly and wall of arrows and not have the fighter totally unable to hit enemy arcane casters at a rather modest level?

Stuff like Glitterdust and Web and Grease used EXACTLY as written is the core of the Batman wizard, and Batman + cleric is able to kill just about anything Batman + cleric + fighter can. So what's the fighter there for? His massive social skills and tactical knowledge? (Oh, wait, he doesn't have any skills useable for either of those, and he's starved for skillpoints to boot!)

Most of the seriously broken stuff is being used EXACTLY as intended. Stuff like Wall of Iron for infinite money is simply icing on the cake. But it also isn't using a dubious reading, it's using what the rules say the spell does.

[Gavinfoxx]

Doesn't another of the OWoD games use Verb/Noun? The old Mage game? Do any of the NWoD games use Verb/Noun?

Also, in addition to Ars Magica, World Tree uses a Verb/Noun system. World Tree, IMO, extrapolates magic's effect on a setting a bit better than than Ars Magica -- the setting almost reminds me of a Tippyverse setting. Almost.

[stainboy]

oWoD Mage didn't. It sometimes expected you to have one Sphere for what you do and another Sphere for the target, but it wasn't a formal rule or applied consistently.

I want to say you're right, but all I can think of is Changeling.

[KingofMadCows]

You could split the overpowered spells into multiple spells like what Pathfinder did with Polymorph. You could require feats to utilize all the powers of certain lines of spells or require feats to cast certain spells like the necrotic cyst line of spells.

[Rogue Shadows]

You could split the overpowered spells into multiple spells like what Pathfinder did with Polymorph. You could require feats to utilize all the powers of certain lines of spells or require feats to cast certain spells like the necrotic cyst line of spells.

Not certain what I'd do with Polymorph, but with Gate I'd up the casting time to 1 hour, at least. When I think of fantasy sorcerers or wizards or whatnot breaking apart the very fabric of reality to cross planes and summon the primal entities of Creation, I don't think of it as a spell that can be cast in less than six seconds.

Summon monster is more than adequate for the "combat summoning" idea.

[Dragonsoul]

The first thing would be to but every spell (Except maybe a handful of blaster spells) at a least a full round action, more for the more powerful spells
-Every spell should be able to save against, melee doesn't get free damage why should wizards?
-Neuter the polymorph, alter self etc spells ala Pathfinder
-Contingency can go f* right off.
-Make Concentration checks relevant(Like in Pathfinder)
-Take away Spells' free ticket against DR

[KingofMadCows]

Not certain what I'd do with Polymorph, but with Gate I'd up the casting time to 1 hour, at least. When I think of fantasy sorcerers or wizards or whatnot breaking apart the very fabric of reality to cross planes and summon the primal entities of Creation, I don't think of it as a spell that can be cast in less than six seconds.

Summon monster is more than adequate for the "combat summoning" idea.

Require feats to gain all the benefits from polymorph/shapechange. Make it so that you can only take the form of an animal, humanoid, or monstrous humanoid with only the physical stats and no extraordinary special attacks. Require feats for additional shapes and a feat to gain extraordinary special attacks of the shape. Require a feat for size changes too if you want.

If you want, you could also add penalties to spells. Make it so that the caster becomes fatigued or exhausted when certain spell end. Make it so that the caster takes constitution damage if polymorph/shapechange is dispelled while their shape is altered. Magic is supposed to be volatile and dangerous so there should some severe penalties when it's disrupted or not used properly.

[ImperatorK]

Or maybe use Giants homebrewed polymorph rules? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9606712&postcount=3)

[Rogue Shadows]

The first thing would be to but every spell (Except maybe a handful of blaster spells) at a least a full round action, more for the more powerful spell

Mmn...not just the blaster spells, but otherwise I agree (I'd like to keep certain utility spells like feather fall at under 6 seconds to cast)


-Every spell should be able to save against, melee doesn't get free damage why should wizards?

Agreed, with the exception of magic missile (though the missile can still be protected against via shield and the like. Otherwise, no save).

Magic missile doesn't miss! That was essentially my slogan during Wizard's lead-up to 4E.

[OracleofWuffing]

Magic missile doesn't miss! That was essentially my slogan during Wizard's lead-up to 4E.
What was your slogan after they changed it to an automatic hit? :smallbiggrin:

[Rogue Shadows]

What was your slogan after they changed it to an automatic hit? :smallbiggrin:

I have honestly been avoiding 4E like the plague after I spent an afternoon reading through the 4E PHB at my local book store. The DMG and MM didn't do much to improve my mood.

So, I didn't know that 4E magic missile doesn't miss. It is nice to know, though.

[stainboy]

What was your slogan after they changed it to an automatic hit? :smallbiggrin:

Technically it neither hits nor misses.

[KingofMadCows]

Or maybe use Giants homebrewed polymorph rules? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9606712&postcount=3)

If fighters have take a bunch of feats just to effectively swing a certain type of weapon, casters should have to take feats to effectively cast a certain type of spell.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I've currently got a homebrew campaign I am creating (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207273) which is at least partially my attempt at making a balanced 3.5 set of classes to use. Feel free to pop over and add in your own two cents.

[BinaryMage]

If fighters have take a bunch of feats just to effectively swing a certain type of weapon, casters should have to take feats to effectively cast a certain type of spell.

No, weapons and spells are different in this respect. The fighter doesn't come prepared with forty different weapons for the fight, but the wizard comes prepared with forty different spells. Additionally, the fighter doesn't need feats to use a certain weapon, he just needs them to use it better. A mage doesn't need feats for a certain spell, but if he/she wants his/her skill with that spell to be better than normal, they need feats.

[Erloas]

No, weapons and spells are different in this respect. The fighter doesn't come prepared with forty different weapons for the fight, but the wizard comes prepared with forty different spells. Additionally, the fighter doesn't need feats to use a certain weapon, he just needs them to use it better. A mage doesn't need feats for a certain spell, but if he/she wants his/her skill with that spell to be better than normal, they need feats.

Obviously that is how it works, the question is: what is the justification for that?
A fighter without their preferred weapon is much weaker then with it. The fighters effectiveness is also directly tied to that weapon, and if that weapon doesn't have what it needs to be effective in a situation (such as overcoming DR) they are SOL. If the weapon is so key to a fighters ability to be even his mediocre self then why isn't it part of the class feature to be able to change from cold iron to adamantium to flaming as needed? These weapons also don't scale with level, get one at a lower level and it looses its relative effectiveness as the character levels, but spells scale themselves usually just fine on their own (at least most of the combat ones which is where it comes into play).

But the wizards/druids/clerics advancement with levels comes free and automatic. They don't even have to visit a magicmart and spend all of their money on a new weapon to be effective in combat, they get increased combat effectiveness for free.
Why does a wizard get access to almost all of the schools of magic with little to no drawback in using one school or another when a fighter can't even do the same with a simple sword and hammer? How is it that a the shape of a lump of steel is more complex then a completely different school of magic? Raising the dead and shooting a fireball seem to have more in common then hitting someone with a hammer versus hitting them with a smaller hammer or a larger hammer. How does that make any sense?
For that matter how are these spells less complex then figuring out how to grab someone or trip someone in a safe and effective manor?

It would seem to me to make things a bit more fair a caster should have to take a feat to cast spells from more then one school with any great effect. To the point where your primary school advances like normal and your other schools are no more then 4-5 levels below that without a feat for each school. Of course divine casting would need to be broken into schools for that sort of idea to work for them.

Why is it ok for casters to have everything they need to be effective in many situations handed to them where as a fighter has to heavily specialize to even be somewhat effective in a single specific situation?

[Jack_Simth]

Material components for the most part are more fluff than anything else.For the most part, they're actually jokes ... and not very good ones. "Penny for your thoughts?" - Detect Thoughts has a copper piece as a focus. Fireball is magical gunpowder (Bat Guano: Potassium Nitrate and Carbon. Carbon -> Coal. So you've got Sulfur, Potassium Nitrate, and Coal... which is what goes into gunpowder). Sending is a telegram (sending things by wire - the other portion of the joke is the word limit).

Now, sure, some of them (the expensive ones) are intended as part of game balance. For the most part, though, they're jokes.

[NNescio]

Locate Object uses a dowsing rod (forked twig), Tongues needs a miniature Tower of Babel (ziggurat), Scrying uses a miniature TV set (Mirror + Eyeball + Copper + Copper/Zinc Battery), and Lightning Bolt is basically static electricity (Amber/Glass rod + Fur)