PDA

View Full Version : [3.5 Core] Boosting the sorcerer (PEACH)



Yitzi
2011-07-20, 11:14 AM
In the comparison between sorcerers and wizards, sorcerers seem to get the short end of the stick. Short-term versatility through spontaneous casting doesn't seem to be as useful as the long-term versatility granted by an unrestricted spellbook, and the sorcerer's apparent increase in spells per day isn't really all that much when compared to a specialist wizard.

I am assuming that arcane casters overall have been weakened, such as through my wizard fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205725); this is meant to then get them back up to the level of the new wizards.

1. Sorcerers get Use Magic Device as a class skill. (Rationale: Due to the inability to specialize and having access to the biggest spell list, sorcerers will naturally be good for wand/scroll use. This takes that ability one step further, and fits well with their CHA focus.)

2. Class feature (level 1): Magical intuition (Su). Sorcerers may use Charisma, rather than Intelligence, as the key ability score for Spellcraft.

3. Class feature (level 5): Magic surge (Su). A sorcerer may cast any spell with a Magic Surge. This increases the casting time to 1 round (or increases the casting time by 1 round if it had previously been at least 1 round), but allows the sorcerer to add half his Charisma bonus to all caster level checks and dispel checks associated with the spell.

4. Class feature (level 10): Above and beyond (Su). A sorcerer may, as a free action, increase his caster level by a number up to half his charisma bonus for 1 minute per point of charisma bonus. After the bonus wears off, the sorcerer is exhausted and suffers the effect of 1 negative level per point of bonus he gained. These are not actual negative levels, however, so they are not prevented by Death Ward, cannot be removed by Restoration, cannot cause level loss, and do not cause death if they outnumber the sorcerer's hit dice. The exhaustion lasts until the sorcerer regains spell slots or until removed magically, while the negative level-like effect decreases by the equivalent of one negative level each time the sorcerer regains spell slots.
When using this ability, for every 2 levels of caster level increase the sorcerer may heighten all spells for free by 1 level, as well as increasing all caps on damage dice by 5 dice (or 10 dice if the spell does 2d6/level, or 2 dice if the spell does 1d6/2 levels).
(Rationale: This allows the sorcerer to get the occasional boost for special occasions.)

5. Class feature (level 15): Greater magic surge (Su). When using Magic surge, a sorcerer may increase the casting time by another round to add his full charisma bonus instead of only half.

6. A sorcerer gains extra spells known from a high charisma score just as he gains extra spells per day, but only ability modifiers that affect skill point gain (as per PHB p.58) affect these extra spells known.

7. A sorcerer may, as a free action, change a spell on his Spells Known list at a cost of 100 XP times the spell level. The change may be temporary (any chosen duration) or permanent, at the sorcerer's option.

8. A sorcerer can add custom spells to his Spells Known list without research (but still needs DM approval.)

9. The sorcerer's spells per day chart is moved up 1 level for spell levels 2-9 (so an 11th level sorcerer could cast 6 spells of each level from 1 to 4, 5 level 5 spells, and 3 level 6 spells), except a level 19 sorcerer can cast 5 level 9 spells per day (at level 20, that increases to 6 spells/day).
The sorcerer's spells known at the first level he can cast a given spell level (level 3 for SL 2, level 5 for SL 3, etc.) is 1, but he does not gain bonus spells known for his CHA bonus until the following level.

The result is a very volatile class, who is less versatile than the wizard in most situations but if he's willing to spend the resources can be extremely powerful and versatile. (He's also great for dispelling tough spells out of combat.)

Thoughts?

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-20, 11:20 AM
In the comparison between sorcerers and wizards, sorcerers seem to get the short end of the stick. Short-term versatility through spontaneous casting doesn't seem to be as useful as the long-term versatility granted by an unrestricted spellbook, and the sorcerer's apparent increase in spells per day isn't really all that much when compared to a specialist wizard.

I am assuming that arcane casters overall have been weakened, such as through my wizard fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205725); this is meant to then get them back up to the level of the new wizards.

1. Sorcerers get Use Magic Device as a class skill. (Rationale: Due to the inability to specialize and having access to the biggest spell list, sorcerers will naturally be good for wand/scroll use. This takes that ability one step further, and fits well with their CHA focus.)

2. Class feature (level 1): Magical intuition (Su). Sorcerers may use Charisma, rather than Intelligence, as the key ability score for Spellcraft.

3. Class feature (level 5): Magic surge (Su). A sorcerer may cast any spell with a Magic Surge. This increases the casting time to 1 round (or increases the casting time by 1 round if it had previously been at least 1 round), but allows the sorcerer to add half his Charisma bonus to all caster level checks and dispel checks associated with the spell.

4. Class feature (level 10): Above and beyond (Su). A sorcerer may, as a free action, increase his caster level by a number up to his charisma bonus for 1 minute per point of charisma bonus. This costs experience equal to 100 XP times the number of levels increase times the new caster level. (Rationale: This allows the sorcerer to get the occasional boost for special occasions, allowing him to cast from scrolls substantially beyond his level or to be an even better dispeller.)

5. Class feature (level 15): Greater magic surge (Su). When using Magic surge, a sorcerer may increase the casting time by another round to add his full charisma bonus instead of only half.

6. A sorcerer gains extra spells known from a high charisma score just as he gains extra spells per day, but only ability modifiers that affect skill point gain (as per PHB p.58) affect these extra spells known.

The result is a very volatile class, who is weaker than the wizard in most situations but if he's willing to spend the resources can be quite powerful and versatile. (He's also great for dispelling tough spells out of combat.)

Thoughts?

Right, why would sorcerers get UMD as a class skill? So they can use divine scrolls and wands? That doesn't make any sense to me. Casters don't get UMD as a class skill because they can automatically succeed UMD checks with wands and scrolls from their own spell lists and they don't need to be able to expand their spell lists to others. Unless it's your intention for a sorcerer to suddenly be able to use wands of lesser vigor and scrolls of unholy aura.

Magical Intuition should be an extraordinary ability. It affects a person's skill check because he's just more affiliated with magic through force of personality. No reason for that to be suppressed by an AMF.

All in all? The wizard knows more spells per day and gets free metamagic feats, which is still much better than what you're proposing for your sorcerer. If you really nuked the wizard's spell list to the point that the wizard is tier 3 (I haven't looked at it) then the sorcerer would be a very low tier 3, even with these edits.

Zeta Kai
2011-07-20, 11:36 AM
If you really nuked the wizard's spell list to the point that the wizard is tier 3 (I haven't looked at it) then the sorcerer would be a very low tier 3, even with these edits.

Why would the sorcerer ever be Tier 3? AFAIK, its spell list is unaffected, so if anything, it should be more powerful than it already is, which is Tier 2.

More importantly, why boost the sorcerer if the wizard is nerfed? Tier 3 seems to be the upper range of the game's "sweet spot" where player power is (roughly) in balance with the DMs need to run the game by RAW. Sorcerers already have the tools to subvert most of the DM's attempts to contain them. A more powerful sorcerer, like CoDzilla or an unaltered wizard, can make hash of any DM's challenges, unless the DM resorts to cheating or fiat. Why bother making them even more unmanageable?

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-20, 12:13 PM
The sorcerer and wizard spell list is the same spell list. If he's nerfing wizard spells, he's nerfing sorcerer spells too.

Cipher Stars
2011-07-20, 12:23 PM
Sorcerers are supposed to be naturally magic. They don't sit around and study or prepare spells.

So why can't they naturally have a gift for metamagic? Their's is a magic that should be more Free-form, and in tune to they're will.

They can apply metamagic as normal, the way they do now. with no spell level adjustments.

But they gain free metamagics as they level up which apply to all spells, with no penalty.

1- Eschew Materials
They get Eschew Materials first, representing they're innate potential and the magic coming form within. Not some obscure set of conditions that have been met.

5- Silent Spell
10- Still Spell
The Sorcerer commands magic naturally, As they grow in power this connection only gets stronger with use. by level ten they need nothing but they're thoughts to cast magic.

15- Sculpt Spell
They're control over magic is not at all limited to the copy-paste antics of a Wizard. They're magic is free, and what a to a wizard is always some bead of fire becomes a cone, cylinder, line. What ever the Sorcerer desires for the situation.

20- Quicken Spell
Now the Sorcerer gets deadly. They get Quicken spell, with no adjustments or anything and spontaneously it proves worthy of a Class Cap. Always casting a spell swift per turn.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-20, 12:37 PM
Sorcerers are supposed to be naturally magic. They don't sit around and study or prepare spells.

So why can't they naturally have a gift for metamagic? Their's is a magic that should be more Free-form, and in tune to they're will.

They can apply metamagic as normal, the way they do now. with no spell level adjustments.

But they gain free metamagics as they level up which apply to all spells, with no penalty.

1- Eschew Materials
They get Eschew Materials first, representing they're innate potential and the magic coming form within. Not some obscure set of conditions that have been met.

5- Silent Spell
10- Still Spell
The Sorcerer commands magic naturally, As they grow in power this connection only gets stronger with use. by level ten they need nothing but they're thoughts to cast magic.

15- Sculpt Spell
They're control over magic is not at all limited to the copy-paste antics of a Wizard. They're magic is free, and what a to a wizard is always some bead of fire becomes a cone, cylinder, line. What ever the Sorcerer desires for the situation.

20- Quicken Spell
Now the Sorcerer gets deadly. They get Quicken spell, with no adjustments or anything and spontaneously it proves worthy of a Class Cap. Always casting a spell swift per turn.

Sorcerers already have a sorc-only Quicken Spell, it's called arcane spellsurge, and I believe it's in Complete Mage. It allows a sorcerer to cast standard action spells as swift actions and full-round spells as standard actions for 1 rd/CL. And because applying Metamagic increases the casting time to a full-round, you can lob a normal orb of force as a swift action, and a maximized empowered repeating twin orb of force as a standard action.

Zeta Kai
2011-07-20, 01:50 PM
The sorcerer and wizard spell list is the same spell list. If he's nerfing wizard spells, he's nerfing sorcerer spells too.

Ah, gotcha. I didn't understand. Well, that is a problem, one that I don't think gets solved by giving them caster-level-boosting craziness.

Shadow Lord
2011-07-20, 02:00 PM
Sorcerers already have a sorc-only Quicken Spell, it's called arcane spellsurge, and I believe it's in Complete Mage. It allows a sorcerer to cast standard action spells as swift actions and full-round spells as standard actions for 1 rd/CL. And because applying Metamagic increases the casting time to a full-round, you can lob a normal orb of force as a swift action, and a maximized empowered repeating twin orb of force as a standard action.

You can stack that much metamagic? How much damage would that be?!

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-20, 02:06 PM
You can stack that much metamagic? How much damage would that be?!

Sounds like someone hasn't heard of The Mailman. The feat Arcane Thesis (which is incredibly broken) and the metamagic reduction class feature of the Incantatrix would allow it for something like this:

Maximize Spell becomes +1, Empower Spell becomes free, Twin Spell becomes +2 and Repeat Spell becomes +1, for a total of an 8th level spell (Orb of Force is a fourth level spell)

So, combined with the Quickened orb of force in the same round, a Sorc 6/Incantatrix 10/Full Spellcasting 4 would deal 25d6+180 force damage with no saving throw (if all four ranged touch attacks hit, and touch AC is always underpowered)

Alefiend
2011-07-20, 04:24 PM
Sounds like someone hasn't heard of The Mailman. The feat Arcane Thesis (which is incredibly broken) and the metamagic reduction class feature of the Incantatrix would allow it for something like this:

Maximize Spell becomes +1, Empower Spell becomes free, Twin Spell becomes +2 and Repeat Spell becomes +1, for a total of an 8th level spell (Orb of Force is a fourth level spell)

So, combined with the Quickened orb of force in the same round, a Sorc 6/Incantatrix 10/Full Spellcasting 4 would deal 25d6+180 force damage with no saving throw (if all four ranged touch attacks hit, and touch AC is always underpowered)

Of course, if you take a PrC, you won't get the free Quicken capstone ability.

Yitzi
2011-07-20, 04:29 PM
Right, why would sorcerers get UMD as a class skill? So they can use divine scrolls and wands? That doesn't make any sense to me. Casters don't get UMD as a class skill because they can automatically succeed UMD checks with wands and scrolls from their own spell lists and they don't need to be able to expand their spell lists to others. Unless it's your intention for a sorcerer to suddenly be able to use wands of lesser vigor and scrolls of unholy aura.

Or he might want to emulate an alignment or class ability...it is not particularly powerful, but it's something that might come in useful and definitely fits with the class theme.


Magical Intuition should be an extraordinary ability. It affects a person's skill check because he's just more affiliated with magic through force of personality.

Except that it's not just that he's more affiliated with magic, it's that he has magic in his blood. AMF means he can't use that magic in his blood, so he has to rely on his wits.

Not that Spellcraft is likely to see that much use in an AMF.


All in all? The wizard knows more spells per day and gets free metamagic feats, which is still much better than what you're proposing for your sorcerer. If you really nuked the wizard's spell list to the point that the wizard is tier 3 (I haven't looked at it) then the sorcerer would be a very low tier 3, even with these edits.

The wizard knows a few more spells per day (assuming he doesn't want to be able to cast most of them more than once); the sorcerer can cast a few more spells per day. The wizard has a slightly higher spell level, the sorcerer has better penetration and dispelling capability.

The wizard will still end up as a far better utility/contingency role, but the sorcerer should be a far more capable dispeller/blaster (which is one role that my wizard fix didn't weaken substantially.) The sorcerer is also far more versatile at magic item usage. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.



More importantly, why boost the sorcerer if the wizard is nerfed? Tier 3 seems to be the upper range of the game's "sweet spot" where player power is (roughly) in balance with the DMs need to run the game by RAW. Sorcerers already have the tools to subvert most of the DM's attempts to contain them. A more powerful sorcerer, like CoDzilla or an unaltered wizard, can make hash of any DM's challenges, unless the DM resorts to cheating or fiat. Why bother making them even more unmanageable?

As someone else pointed out, the wizard is nerfed in a way that affects the sorcerer too.


Sorcerers are supposed to be naturally magic. They don't sit around and study or prepare spells.

So why can't they naturally have a gift for metamagic? Their's is a magic that should be more Free-form, and in tune to they're will.

They can apply metamagic as normal, the way they do now. with no spell level adjustments.

But they gain free metamagics as they level up which apply to all spells, with no penalty.

1- Eschew Materials
They get Eschew Materials first, representing they're innate potential and the magic coming form within. Not some obscure set of conditions that have been met.

5- Silent Spell
10- Still Spell
The Sorcerer commands magic naturally, As they grow in power this connection only gets stronger with use. by level ten they need nothing but they're thoughts to cast magic.

15- Sculpt Spell
They're control over magic is not at all limited to the copy-paste antics of a Wizard. They're magic is free, and what a to a wizard is always some bead of fire becomes a cone, cylinder, line. What ever the Sorcerer desires for the situation.

20- Quicken Spell
Now the Sorcerer gets deadly. They get Quicken spell, with no adjustments or anything and spontaneously it proves worthy of a Class Cap. Always casting a spell swift per turn.

Interesting idea, but I see a sorcerer as someone whose intuition tells him what a wizard has to learn through years of hard study, not someone with a gift that allows them to manipulate magic in a way that other people can't. I've got a different homebrew class for that idea, and it's an interesting one (learns spells more or less like a wizard, manifests them like a psion, casting time depends on spell level as compared to max spell level, with 2 rounds for the max spell level.)

Free Quicken Spell on a full caster is also quite overpowered. :smallbiggrin:

Still, giving them Empower and/or Maximize when using "Above and Beyond" does seem appropriate. After all, if they're going to stretch the limits of their capabilities at substantial personal cost, they should be able to do it quite impressively indeed.




Part of the idea here is that the sorcerer isn't just another type of wizard. The wizard is far more versatile, but the sorcerer has more punch to him, especially when he's going all-out.

Edit: I also added an ability letting him cast spells not on his spells known for a moderate XP cost. So he's not going to be doing it often, but can if he has to. Also an ability giving him the ability to use custom spells just like the standard ones; his intuition doesn't care what other people are using.

Fizban
2011-07-21, 07:39 AM
I don't like seeing multiple class features that depend on xp expenditure. Even when they're just item creation it feels like a waste, and the costs here are measured in the 100's per level (probably at least 300-500 if you want something powerful. Sure, xp is a river, but it still sucks to be spending time paddling against the current. Addtionally, the really useful feature (casting spells you don't know) already exists, and has similar xp cost: Limited Wish. A 7th level spell that costs 300xp (still non-trivial at 13th level) and can duplicate other spells and can explicitly drop an unavoidable -7 penalty on your target's next save to really boost the effectiveness of your spells. I think you could really get all the same mileage out of simply making a "Really Limited Polite Request" at 5th level.

As for free metamagic: again, why would I want to burn xp for this? Unless you added some similar wizard mechanic that wizards are assumed to be using constantly, I don't see why I should have to spend xp to do something nice. A few simple bonus feats can give you the extra fuel needed to reduce the costs of a couple favorite metamagics and get similar effect. Unless the balance here is that no one will ever use it, in which case why have it at all? A 10th level sorcerer that wants more power can take Arcane Fusion and just throw out an extra 5d8 with his 10d6 every round, or combo Grease with other control, or whatever.

I liked magic surge when I started reading it, then saw that it sucked. A +2-4 bonus on beating SR and dispel? Unless dispel happens a lot in your campaign it's probably not going to matter hardly at all, and a dedicated dispel build always wins anyway. Beating SR is nice, but you could get the same effect without burning actions by just take Spell Penetration, or a far better effect by using Arcane Fusion with True Casting for +10 on your 4th level fused spell. So that's two class features here that are inferior to existing sorcerer "stealth" fixes, which can be bought with the bonus spells known (which are definitely a good thing). Now, if it was like Wild Surge and gave an actual bonus to caster level with all the goodies and eventually increased to a solid +4 or more, then that would be pretty awesome. The Wilder sucks, but the one thing it has going for it is that it can absolutely wreck normal caster level assumptions with a little effort. Like a barbarian in an arm wrestling match.

I may just be channeling "that guy," but with the right spells a sorcerer doesn't need fixing, just more spells known, and your bonus spells known cover that decently enough. I don't remember what you were doing from the wizard aside from nerfing spells, but assuming you weren't planning on nerfing the sorc-only spells as part of the wizard nerf, there shouldn't be any problems as long they they get a few extra spells to fight the spellbook.


Sorcerers are supposed to be naturally magic. They don't sit around and study or prepare spells.

So why can't they naturally have a gift for metamagic? Their's is a magic that should be more Free-form, and in tune to they're will.

They can apply metamagic as normal, the way they do now. with no spell level adjustments.

But they gain free metamagics as they level up which apply to all spells, with no penalty.

1- Eschew Materials
They get Eschew Materials first, representing they're innate potential and the magic coming form within. Not some obscure set of conditions that have been met.

5- Silent Spell
10- Still Spell
The Sorcerer commands magic naturally, As they grow in power this connection only gets stronger with use. by level ten they need nothing but they're thoughts to cast magic.

15- Sculpt Spell
They're control over magic is not at all limited to the copy-paste antics of a Wizard. They're magic is free, and what a to a wizard is always some bead of fire becomes a cone, cylinder, line. What ever the Sorcerer desires for the situation.

20- Quicken Spell
Now the Sorcerer gets deadly. They get Quicken spell, with no adjustments or anything and spontaneously it proves worthy of a Class Cap. Always casting a spell swift per turn.
Now this I like. Really like. As in, why the heck haven't I seen this before kinda like. My only argument is giving sculpt spell so late: It's basically the first thing they should learn after Eschew. I'd hesitate to make a menu of this kinda stuff, but the only problem is prioritizing silent vs. still and not having a couple other simple things. I'd try to stick to the standard 5/10/15/20, but I'd give some leeway. Allow Searing Spell or Piercing Cold instead of Sculpt, say for an elementalist. I'd actually give Still before Silent, since the "power word" effect is more powerful to me, even if it's also technically more useful and thus should come later. Or let them choose which one they want first. Maybe throw in Enlarge Spell in case someone has a hankering for quater-mile fireballs on tap. Quicken still takes the cake at epic 20th level capstone of course, and I wouldn't give away any variable increasers (empower, maximize, twin), but anything that manipulates shape or composition should be fair game.

That reminds me of a great idea: ditch those caps. Much like a psionic, a sorcerer should be able to use all his spells at full power if so desired. If you compare the Psion's powers known at 20th with a Sorcerer's spells known, the numbers are really close, the difference being that the Psion can augment his 1st level Energy Rays and whatnot up to 9th level DCs, and often upgrade 5th level effects to rival actual 9th level spells. The tradeoff is that in a game with actual psionicists, the sorcerer's "free" power points from just having a high caster level in the spell system would be rather overwhelming. But while he has increased damage on those low level spells, he still doesn't have the DC, rage, area, or extra effects that a lot of augments can provide, so I wouldn't say it would be all one sided. And giving sorcerers uncapped caster level effects for all of their spells would definitely give them a serious edge and different feel from wizards at high levels.


Sorcerers already have a sorc-only Quicken Spell, it's called arcane spellsurge, and I believe it's in Complete Mage. It allows a sorcerer to cast standard action spells as swift actions and full-round spells as standard actions for 1 rd/CL. And because applying Metamagic increases the casting time to a full-round, you can lob a normal orb of force as a swift action, and a maximized empowered repeating twin orb of force as a standard action.
Arcane Spellsurge isn't a sorcerer-only spell, wizards can use it too. It's also found in Dragon Magic, while the Arcane Fusion line is the sorcerer only set from Complete Mage. Now, something a wizard can't do (without Wyrm Wizard anyway), is use Arcane Spellsurge and Heighten Spell or a zero-cost metamagic to cast two Greater Arcane Fusions per round, churning out two 7th and two 4th level spells every turn (until they run out of 8th level slots anyway). And if you're from the char-op boards, you've probably decided that you can also apply (reduced) metamagic to those component spells, for two maximized twinned orbs and two more vanilla orbs every round (though by my reading you can't apply maximize to the inside or outside of the Fusion). Heck, even just a quickened or twinned Arcane Fusion is scary, no matter how you pull it off.

Yitzi
2011-07-21, 11:08 AM
I don't like seeing multiple class features that depend on xp expenditure. Even when they're just item creation it feels like a waste, and the costs here are measured in the 100's per level (probably at least 300-500 if you want something powerful. Sure, xp is a river, but it still sucks to be spending time paddling against the current.

It depends how often you use it. The high XP cost is meant to discourage regular use; it's for emergencies only.


Addtionally, the really useful feature (casting spells you don't know) already exists, and has similar xp cost: Limited Wish.

Of course, that's only available later on and also requires you to spend a higher-level slot. This is more for when you absolutely need that one obscure low-level spell that nobody has prepared/known and don't want to spend a 7th level slot.
Again, the XP-costing abilities are not meant for common use.


As for free metamagic: again, why would I want to burn xp for this?

Because it's a big battle and you want to go (as the ability is called) "above and beyond".


Unless you added some similar wizard mechanic that wizards are assumed to be using constantly, I don't see why I should have to spend xp to do something nice.

You don't. You can cast at your level, the best spell for the situation multiple times, without XP expenditure.


A few simple bonus feats can give you the extra fuel needed to reduce the costs of a couple favorite metamagics and get similar effect.

There is no pre-epic core feat that lets you use free metamagic.


Unless the balance here is that no one will ever use it, in which case why have it at all? A 10th level sorcerer that wants more power can take Arcane Fusion

To repeat: This is for core-only.


I liked magic surge when I started reading it, then saw that it sucked. A +2-4 bonus on beating SR and dispel? Unless dispel happens a lot in your campaign it's probably not going to matter hardly at all

It's not to beat SR and dispel...it's to beat SR and to dispel. The sorcerer's the one dispelling.


and a dedicated dispel build always wins anyway.

Not really; you're still capped in caster level to dispel (the sorcerer's boost is an additional add-on and so is applied after the cap.)


Beating SR is nice, but you could get the same effect without burning actions by just take Spell Penetration

They stack, you know.


or a far better effect by using Arcane Fusion with True Casting for +10 on your 4th level fused spell.

Not core.


I may just be channeling "that guy," but with the right spells a sorcerer doesn't need fixing, just more spells known, and your bonus spells known cover that decently enough.

That's part of the point (although even without the fix, a sorcerer can generally get one spell to target each of the 4 main defenses every other level and have plenty left for either nonoffensive spells or niche spells (since unlike the wizard, a spell not used doesn't waste spells/day, only spells known.)


I don't remember what you were doing from the wizard aside from nerfing spells

Weakened defensive options (which also weakens the sorcerer just like the wizard), granted added counters (which hurts the sorcerer less because he has more spells to burn, and now he can dispel more easily), and weakened divination a bit (which definitely doesn't affect the sorcerer as much). Oh, and made it impossible to regain spells more than 1/day (which hurts the sorcerer more due to less spells/day.)


but assuming you weren't planning on nerfing the sorc-only spells as part of the wizard nerf

There are no sorc-only spells (in core.)


That reminds me of a great idea: ditch those caps. Much like a psionic, a sorcerer should be able to use all his spells at full power if so desired. If you compare the Psion's powers known at 20th with a Sorcerer's spells known, the numbers are really close, the difference being that the Psion can augment his 1st level Energy Rays and whatnot up to 9th level DCs, and often upgrade 5th level effects to rival actual 9th level spells.

He also has to pay 9th level costs for them.


The tradeoff is that in a game with actual psionicists, the sorcerer's "free" power points from just having a high caster level in the spell system would be rather overwhelming. But while he has increased damage on those low level spells, he still doesn't have the DC, rage, area, or extra effects that a lot of augments can provide, so I wouldn't say it would be all one sided. And giving sorcerers uncapped caster level effects for all of their spells would definitely give them a serious edge and different feel from wizards at high levels.

It would still give sorcerers unreasonably high endurance.

Fizban
2011-07-24, 06:34 AM
Heh. I hadn't noticed this was assuming core-only: while it's in the title, it's not actually mentioned in the post. I don't really see the point in ignoring perfectly good non-core resources that boost the sorcerer (literally, just a few feats and spells), but if that's how you want to do things I'm not going to convince you otherwise.


It depends how often you use it. The high XP cost is meant to discourage regular use; it's for emergencies only.
Of course, that's only available later on and also requires you to spend a higher-level slot. This is more for when you absolutely need that one obscure low-level spell that nobody has prepared/known and don't want to spend a 7th level slot.
Yeah, and Limited Wish is also for emergencies only. Being able to use the ability at low levels is nice, sure, but when it's costing you literally as much xp as you're gaining from the encounter, I would basically never use it until the later levels anyway. Scrolls are cheap, so the only use would be when you're stuck in a dungeon unprepared and need the spell this round to avoid dying. At which point you're negating your own experience for then encounter to avoid death, wile the rest of the party gets full xp. Just doesn't seem fair.


Because it's a big battle and you want to go (as the ability is called) "above and beyond".

And again, you're negating a large portion of the xp you would be gaining for the encounter in order win faster. So you win, but you don't get the main reward for winning. And that's not counting the fact that free metamagic for all your spells over multiple turns is horribly broken. I see this ability being used once, during the boss fight, and completely wrecking the final encounter of the game.


You don't. You can cast at your level, the best spell for the situation multiple times, without XP expenditure.
There is no pre-epic core feat that lets you use free metamagic.
I guess I should be more specific. Other people get to go "all-out" with rage or smites or whatever, but the sorcerer (and wizard) are already on a daily limit to begin with. Then the sorcerer suddenly has a cool awesome mode ability, but it costs xp. Sure there's nothing saying you have to use it, but it just seems like bad design to me. And you're right, there is no core feat that gives you free metamagic (and there's no core epic feats either, since the Epic Level Handbook is by definition not core) [Oops, forgot they did put that in the 3.5 DMG]. However, if you actually want to start the two classes on even footing by allowing the splatbooks that worked to fix the sorcerer already, then yes, there are at least two easy feats that reduce metamagic costs. And even in core there are metamagic rods, which are pretty dang broken and yet still cost you no xp.


It's not to beat SR and dispel...it's to beat SR and to dispel. The sorcerer's the one dispelling.
Not really; you're still capped in caster level to dispel (the sorcerer's boost is an additional add-on and so is applied after the cap.)
It's still a small bonus that only matters because you keep saying core-only. You can't actually compare it to a dispelling build in that situation, because there's no such thing: all of the dispelling resources are non-core. When there's only one option then sure it can be the best by default. You're giving up at least a move action and also allowing your enemies a chance to disrupt your spell, for a 10% higher chance of beating SR or dispelling an effect. Compared to the chances of having your spells disrupted in that time, it's never a good idea in combat. In fact, one of the sorcerer's only advantages is that it can afford to burn spells beating it's head against SR walls thanks to it's extra spells per day. So it's another extremely situational ability that could be replaced by bringing the right scroll, taking a more effective feat, or using an existing non-core spell that does the job better.


Weakened defensive options (which also weakens the sorcerer just like the wizard), granted added counters (which hurts the sorcerer less because he has more spells to burn, and now he can dispel more easily), and weakened divination a bit (which definitely doesn't affect the sorcerer as much). Oh, and made it impossible to regain spells more than 1/day (which hurts the sorcerer more due to less spells/day.)
I'd actually say that the sorcerer is weakened less by nerfing defensive spells, since he can't afford to know nearly as many as the wizard. Where the wizard stacks 4 or 5 (or 6, 7, 8, etc), the sorcerer can only afford to know 2 or 3, so he's using fewer nerfed effects. I assume by added counters you mean you're giving free counterspell actions every round? Those are normally readied standard actions, so you can't use them with your Spell Surge mechanic unless you specifically say so (and I don't know how you're gonna increase the casting time on a free action while keeping it free). As for recovering spells more than 1/day, considering that the standard rules already state that you can't recover a particular slot until 8 hours have passed, I don't think that was very necessary. I don't think recovering spells multiple times per day is actually a major problem for the vast majority of groups, so it's hardly hurting or buffing anyone.


He also has to pay 9th level costs for them.
And the sorcerer wouldn't be getting 9th level effects. While a number of augmentable powers will cost a lower level power known, but augment to the equivalent of 9th level spells. The psion has the advantage here. All the sorcerer has is really big magic missiles and low DC fireballs, and a few more dice on high higher level effects. What he would gain is a mechanic with a cool effect that no one else has, with no drawbacks.


It would still give sorcerers unreasonably high endurance.
How so? They already have more spells than wizards, and it has been proven time and again that after 9th level or so (the point at which uncapping those spells would actually have a game effect), the wizard doesn't run out of spells anyway. Unless you're playing with far more encounters per day than the game is designed for, the sorcerer is never going to run out of slots. And even then, all this does is give him a bigger fireball or magic missile when he runs out of useful spells for the situation. So sure, in a marathon damage contest he'd wreck the psion under that rule, but the warlock would beat both of them. Of course, there's no contest because neither the warlock nor the psion are core.

I think I just noticed why I really object to most of your mechanics here (aside from banning all splatbooks): you claim to be boosting the sorcerer, but every single mechanic has a drawback except for the bonus spells known. That's not really boosting, not when the wizard still has free bonus feats and unlimited spells known at the mere cost of gold.

Cipher Stars
2011-07-24, 07:01 AM
this[/I] I like. Really like. As in, why the heck haven't I seen this before kinda like. My only argument is giving sculpt spell so late: It's basically the first thing they should learn after Eschew. I'd hesitate to make a menu of this kinda stuff, but the only problem is prioritizing silent vs. still and not having a couple other simple things. I'd try to stick to the standard 5/10/15/20, but I'd give some leeway. Allow Searing Spell or Piercing Cold instead of Sculpt, say for an elementalist. I'd actually give Still before Silent, since the "power word" effect is more powerful to me, even if it's also technically more useful and thus should come later. Or let them choose which one they want first. Maybe throw in Enlarge Spell in case someone has a hankering for quater-mile fireballs on tap. Quicken still takes the cake at epic 20th level capstone of course, and I wouldn't give away any variable increasers (empower, maximize, twin), but anything that manipulates shape or composition should be fair game.



Well... I did here:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201153

It was one of my first 'brews. I'm gonna go in and fix some things right now.

Fizban
2011-07-24, 07:12 AM
Ah, I remember that one now. I didn't notice the auto-metamagic cause I stopped when I got to the casting overhaul. It was easy enough to figure out, but I didn't like it and didn't feel like posting when it was basically the whole point of the class. And I'd already seen the linked Flux mechanic and really didn't like that.

My, I seem to be extremely negative today :smallfrown:

Yitzi
2011-07-24, 07:50 AM
Heh. I hadn't noticed this was assuming core-only: while it's in the title, it's not actually mentioned in the post. I don't really see the point in ignoring perfectly good non-core resources that boost the sorcerer (literally, just a few feats and spells)

I didn't ignore them; I didn't know of them. Also, I'm reluctant to include non-OGL material directly in a public houserule, and referencing it (assuming it's not core) without quoting it is right out (as then people without added resources can't be as effective.)


Yeah, and Limited Wish is also for emergencies only. Being able to use the ability at low levels is nice, sure, but when it's costing you literally as much xp as you're gaining from the encounter, I would basically never use it until the later levels anyway.

Unless it's to avoid a TPK, or a level 1 spell will win you an encounter at ECL5, etc.


Scrolls are cheap

But not so cheap it's necessarily worth getting every single low-level spell. And definitely not so cheap it's worth getting spells that don't exist.

That said, that ability is somewhat optional due to scrolls; it's more for flavor than for balance.


And again, you're negating a large portion of the xp you would be gaining for the encounter in order win faster. So you win, but you don't get the main reward for winning.

Which is why you use it only occasionally.


And that's not counting the fact that free metamagic for all your spells over multiple turns is horribly broken. I see this ability being used once, during the boss fight, and completely wrecking the final encounter of the game.

Everyone's going to be going all-out for the final boss (assuming they know it's the final boss); since Quicken isn't on the list of allowed applications, it simply means that the sorcerer's going to be hitting far harder for the key fights (it's cheap enough to be potentially worth using for sub-bosses as well.) And doesn't that make sense for someone who uses magic through intuition and instinct?


I guess I should be more specific. Other people get to go "all-out" with rage or smites or whatever, but the sorcerer (and wizard) are already on a daily limit to begin with. Then the sorcerer suddenly has a cool awesome mode ability, but it costs xp. Sure there's nothing saying you have to use it, but it just seems like bad design to me.

Part of it is for flavor, and part is for the extreme cases (like boss fights, or when you just have to fight an enemy 4 levels higher than yourself.)


However, if you actually want to start the two classes on even footing by allowing the splatbooks that worked to fix the sorcerer already, then yes, there are at least two easy feats that reduce metamagic costs.

Don't have those splatbooks.


And even in core there are metamagic rods, which are pretty dang broken and yet still cost you no xp.

But quite a bit of cash.


It's still a small bonus that only matters because you keep saying core-only.

This is meant for core-only, though; non-core means that more books=more options=more power, and that is inherently unfixable unless you assume everyone has everything.


You're giving up at least a move action and also allowing your enemies a chance to disrupt your spell, for a 10% higher chance of beating SR or dispelling an effect.

10%? At low levels it's 10%; at higher levels it could hit twice that.


Compared to the chances of having your spells disrupted in that time

Quite low if you're properly defended by allies.


I'd actually say that the sorcerer is weakened less by nerfing defensive spells, since he can't afford to know nearly as many as the wizard. Where the wizard stacks 4 or 5 (or 6, 7, 8, etc), the sorcerer can only afford to know 2 or 3, so he's using fewer nerfed effects.

Not really; if something is a critical defensive effect, you're using it every battle, or close to it. Most of the important ones have durations measured in minutes at most, so the wizard's going to have to replenish it for every battle. So (assuming resources barely sufficient for 5 battles per day) the wizard can prepare maybe 1 to 1 and a half per spell level if he spends all his spells on that...which the sorcerer can definitely spare, especially now that he gets bonus spells known for his CHA.
Of course, not every defensive spell is going to be useful for every battle (improved invisibility is limited-use when the enemy has scent or a good Listen check (actually, most monsters do), and flight is limited-use when the enemy can fly or shoot)), so assume maybe 1/3 of the battles will have any given spell. Then the wizard gets maybe 3 to 4 spells per level, still not beyond the sorcerer.

The wizard only dominates in defensive spells if there are a ton of available options (not true for core-only) or it's 1 fight between restings (which I did make unfeasible without 1 fight per day, which is easy to make unfeasible.)


I assume by added counters you mean you're giving free counterspell actions every round?

Nope; I mean spells that are total defenses against the most powerful offensive spell types.


As for recovering spells more than 1/day, considering that the standard rules already state that you can't recover a particular slot until 8 hours have passed, I don't think that was very necessary.

It does cut down on it somewhat.


I don't think recovering spells multiple times per day is actually a major problem for the vast majority of groups.

So without it, how is a wizard going to prepare anywhere near as many defensive spells as a sorcerer and not have to worry about needing the one they already used last fight?


And the sorcerer wouldn't be getting 9th level effects.

Unless he spends 9th level spell slots. (9th level spells known aren't all that necessary, as he can take metamagic to bring it up. Half of augmentation really boils down to Heighten Spell anyway.)


How so? They already have more spells than wizards

Not by all that much.


and it has been proven time and again that after 9th level or so (the point at which uncapping those spells would actually have a game effect), the wizard doesn't run out of spells anyway.

How so? And what do you mean by "run out of spells"; no spells left to cast, or few enough that he's substantially less versatile than the sorcerer?

Because that last point is the real key; a wizard can get a tremendous repertoire by preparing each spell only once, but then each spell cast uses up not only one spell/day slot but also one "spell prepared" slot.


Unless you're playing with far more encounters per day than the game is designed for

More than 4?


I think I just noticed why I really object to most of your mechanics here (aside from banning all splatbooks): you claim to be boosting the sorcerer, but every single mechanic has a drawback except for the bonus spells known.

Yes; much like a wilder's main mechanic has a substantial drawback.


That's not really boosting, not when the wizard still has free bonus feats and unlimited spells known at the mere cost of gold.

There's nothing "mere" about gold when it comes out to large amounts.

Yitzi
2011-07-24, 09:35 AM
I've thought more about it, and I think you're right about Above and Beyond needing weakening and the spell-switch-for-XP needing strengthening, so that's been done.

Ultimately, though, a key part of the balance between sorcerers and wizards is going to have to be that the wizard needs to prepare a spell twice to be able to cast it twice (unless he uses a Pearl of Power, but those can get pricey, and corresponding to it a sorcerer can use scrolls), while the sorcerer only needs one spells known slot no matter how often he needs to cast it.

Fizban
2011-07-25, 04:20 AM
Emergency! Emergency! Incoming Wall of Text! Prepare for Launch!
*Star Fox theme*


I didn't ignore them; I didn't know of them. Also, I'm reluctant to include non-OGL material directly in a public houserule, and referencing it (assuming it's not core) without quoting it is right out (as then people without added resources can't be as effective.)
It sounds like you intend this for other people online, so with this reasoning the core only restriction actually makes some sense. If want everything usable with only online resources then that's a fair point (I would assume that people in meatspace could just share their books).

Unless it's to avoid a TPK, or a level 1 spell will win you an encounter at ECL5, etc.
While I will grant that yes, I would use it to avoid a TPK, that's true of basically any ability. If I had something like this backing me up, I'd actually spend even more time making sure I'm perfectly prepared for an area and refuse to jump into risky situations: because then the party would expect me to burn my own xp to bail them out. I'd also say that with only core spells it's very unlikely that you'll need a specific 1st level spell you don't already have and can't approximate. And 1st level scrolls are indeed cheap enough that you can carry around a bag full of all the available spells. A quick estimate gives me roughly 45 1st level spells, so it'll only cost 1,125gp to carry a copy of every single one. Second level scrolls on the other hand are much more expensive, but not so expensive I'd risk losing 200xp if I didn't have it.

Everyone's going to be going all-out for the final boss (assuming they know it's the final boss); since Quicken isn't on the list of allowed applications, it simply means that the sorcerer's going to be hitting far harder for the key fights (it's cheap enough to be potentially worth using for sub-bosses as well.) And doesn't that make sense for someone who uses magic through intuition and instinct?
It's free metamagic. That stacks with other metamagic. Including rods. So you're maximizing on top of your normal empowering and using a quicken rod. It's nothing compared to a proper mailman, but compared to most core stuff it's crazy. But I see you've changed it and gone with something more like what I'd been expecting in Magic Surge. It's definitely no longer broken, but I'd still never use it except when I new the game was almost over and I wouldn't need the xp. Xp costs are a really bad game mechanic all around actually: the only reason I support Limited Wish is because it's an existing spell that gets the job done, which happens to have an xp cost. While I think xp costs can be used as great flavor for some things, a class mechanic is not one of them, especially when no other classes have similar mechanics. It makes the ability stand out like a sore thumb.

If you'd like an alternative, how about mental exhaustion or temporary negative levels? I've seen a couple homebrews that basically just make a straight conversion of the rage mechanics, replacing physical exaustion with mental, and it works out surprisingly well. Other homebrews have replaced death penalties and magic item xp costs with negative levels and stat penalties that persist for days or even until you next level up. Even if it's actually more dangerous to take a penalty than lose an encounter's worth of xp, the player is going to accept it far more readily. Instead of an entire fight's worth of experience (or if priced in gold, 1000's of gold pieces), just a -something for a while? Easy question, easy answer.

Part of it is for flavor, and part is for the extreme cases (like boss fights, or when you just have to fight an enemy 4 levels higher than yourself.)
And? It's still an ability designed to almost never be used. If it's not supposed to be used then there's no reason to put it in the class, so why is it there? Class abilities should be designed for daily use, otherwise they wouldn't be learned by every member of the class. Maybe an individual decides that he really needs a fallback, a failsafe ability to get him out of any situation he hasn't prepared for, so he takes a prestige class, feat, or a spell that lets him burn xp to pull it off. But for most people, this isn't a normal plan. Mileage on this can vary, since some people assume that the players are the only PC classed people in the world, but the default game assumes there are a lot of other PC classed people. And most of those people just live in town, where there's no need for xp burning failsafes. So why would the common version of the class learn it? With those reasons, I don't think it fits flavor or good game design.

Don't have those splatbooks.
Fair enough. I can see why you'd jump straight to free metamagic then, and if you haven't seen those books and builds in action then you wouldn't realize how much of a bad idea it can be.

But quite a bit of cash.
And yet there is nothing else worth buying for a caster in core. At least with the splatbooks you'd have more gear options to entice people away from them.

This is meant for core-only, though; non-core means that more books=more options=more power, and that is inherently unfixable unless you assume everyone has everything.
On the contrary, I think "everything goes" is a lot more fixable than core only. Non-casters have almost no options in core, while with splatbooks they can do tons of cool stuff, and it's extremely easy to just get everyone to agree on a certain power level and check their builds (of course that does require a considerable knowledge of the system, but I would assume that if one has access to that many books then they'd have a good handle on it). I'm not sure what "unfixable unless you assume everyone has everything" means. Does your group not share books? Everyone in the group should have access to the same material, so yes, if one person has a book and won't let anyone else use it, there's gonna be some problems. Probably more with that player than anyone else.

10%? At low levels it's 10%; at higher levels it could hit twice that.
Quite low if you're properly defended by allies.
Yeah, and? A +10-20% chance on a roll that probably started with a 40% chance, and you're accepting a variable chance of losing the spell completely. Even if you're "properly" defended by allies, there could still be hidden foes, ranged attacks, or even other spells to deal with. An ally can't stop a fireball from dropping on your head, but the concentration check can definitely wreck your spell. And from what I'm reading it sounds like you have a lot more casters in your world than what I usually hear, so I'd be rather more afraid of taking a spell in the face than normal.

Not really; if something is a critical defensive effect, you're using it every battle, or close to it. Most of the important ones have durations measured in minutes at most, so the wizard's going to have to replenish it for every battle. So (assuming resources barely sufficient for 5 battles per day) the wizard can prepare maybe 1 to 1 and a half per spell level if he spends all his spells on that...which the sorcerer can definitely spare, especially now that he gets bonus spells known for his CHA.
First, duration: for damage, Resist Energy, Protection from Energy, and Stoneskin all have 10 min/level or higher durations. You've increased the duration of a couple other key defensive spells, so how's that a problem? Fly is the only spell you might have to recast often, until you get Overland Flight or a Broom of Flying at least. And Blink, but that's only a couple spells that need refreshing. Second, you're assuming that these battles are spaced far enough apart that all those minute/level spells run out... says who? That is a lot of time for a coordinated party to wreck stuff, and most adventure locations are supposed to have more than one fight in them.

Of course, not every defensive spell is going to be useful for every battle (improved invisibility is limited-use when the enemy has scent or a good Listen check (actually, most monsters do), and flight is limited-use when the enemy can fly or shoot)), so assume maybe 1/3 of the battles will have any given spell. Then the wizard gets maybe 3 to 4 spells per level, still not beyond the sorcerer.
The wizard only dominates in defensive spells if there are a ton of available options (not true for core-only) or it's 1 fight between restings (which I did make unfeasible without 1 fight per day, which is easy to make unfeasible.)
Uh, the listen check DC is +20 to pinpoint, on top of any token move silently checks. A lot of monsters have good listen checks, but not all, and certainly not all classed NPCs. The enemy still has to break off to fly after a wizard, at possibly a lower fly speed and most likely a lower maneuverability, so the wizard should have at least a few rounds of safety while that monster spends it's time chasing him down. Seems like pretty good action denial to me. Most monsters and characters don't plan on any amount of ranged attacking whatsoever, so if they even do have a ranged attack it will suck pretty hard, and still have to beat defenses like Mirror Image, Blink, and Stoneskin. The wizard dominates in defensive spells in core just fine: while there are more powerful options in splatbooks, some of the best are right there in the PHB. The durations are long enough that you can do plenty of damage with a good party, and refreshing the important spells is manageable when needed with scrolls and Pearls of Power. Maybe he'll call for a rest after 2 or 3 if he's managed them poorly or been unlucky, but the 10 minute workday is a myth.

Nope; I mean spells that are total defenses against the most powerful offensive spell types.
Yeah, I went and read that. I find it greatly amusing that your plan for reducing the power of control is to make other spells better, rather than nerf the best control spells themselves. The walls may be fairly useless, but Stinking Cloud hardly loses anything. In fact, it may be more powerful now that people can burn actions trying to ignore it, only to fail another save while they're still in the cloud. And you didn't touch Grease, or Glitterdust, etc. The spell fixes don't help non-casters at all and with core only they have precious few defenses available, especially against the spells that haven't been changed.

Again, from reading the other thread if seems like I can get more a feel of your game. It sounds like you have both divine and arcane casters in every enemy group, close to party level and packed with status removal and dispels. Previous bits indicated running a high number of encounters per day, enough that the wizard is always running low on spells, and spacing every encounter hours apart from the others such that buffs run out. If I'm right, these are not normal conditions for most games. Usually I hear that casters are rare, but higher in level than the party, and encounters are in clusters such that the party clears a building of 2 or 3 at once. Comparing to my own game (a decently optimized party going through Red Hand of Doom with modified encounters), the number of encounters swings wildly between 1 and 5, but the wizard has never run out of spells, and the module only places casters in enemy strongholds, where you fights at least 3 groups of enemies in quick succession. I don't want to say that you're doing it wrong, since even if I disagree you must be having fun and that's all that matters. But I think your game runs a little differently than both the generic low-op setting and other high-op games. Or I could be reading way to far into this, but I'm just trying to see why your fixes seem so counter-intuitive (I've seen a lot of fixes on this forum, some good, some terrible, but they always attack along the exact same lines, which yours are mostly ignoring, so something's gotta be different?)

It does cut down on it somewhat.
So without it, how is a wizard going to prepare anywhere near as many defensive spells as a sorcerer and not have to worry about needing the one they already used last fight?
As discussed above, the same way they always have. Even for groups that do allow re-preparing shenanigans, I've never heard of a group that actually did so in such a way that they managed to fight encounters with full spells every time. Spells are basically the only important daily resource, so even if they can refresh multiple times per day, that's just another 4 encounters you can throw at them. The characters get to do a lot more action in the world, which I never think is a bad thing.

Unless he spends 9th level spell slots. (9th level spells known aren't all that necessary, as he can take metamagic to bring it up. Half of augmentation really boils down to Heighten Spell anyway.)
The only thing he's gonna get with core metamagic is more damage, which is nice, but not nearly as good as changing a single target save or die into a mass target. Or completely changing the effect. Which some powers do.

Not by all that much.
Yes, yes by all that much. At full base spells, 50% more at each level. Alternatively, call it two extra slots at each level. When a wizard gets a new level of spells, he has 1+bonus. A sorcerer has 3+bonus. So on a player level, it's a huge difference. Comparing them to each other the wizard has 2+ when the sorcerer has 3+, so it's not that different, but it's still a whole spell.

How so? And what do you mean by "run out of spells"; no spells left to cast, or few enough that he's substantially less versatile than the sorcerer?
Because that last point is the real key; a wizard can get a tremendous repertoire by preparing each spell only once, but then each spell cast uses up not only one spell/day slot but also one "spell prepared" slot.
I mean run out of useful stuff to do, which is the same thing as run out of spells. And yes, the wizard generally only prepares one copy of each spell. If used properly one spell can end the fight, or put it within easy mop-up reach of the rest of the party. If you have endurance problems you'll probably buy Pearls of Power instead of Metamagic Rods, in which case every spell could be as many as 2 or 3 of the same thing. And a lot of those spells are only 2nd or 3rd level, so Pearls and scrolls are not unfeasible.

More than 4?
Yes, that's the guideline I'm referring to. A wizard should be able to handle each fight with only 1-3 spells: 1 if you're lucky, 2 most of the time, and 3 if you get blindsided. So you need about 8 offensive spells, as well as probably 2-4 defensive spells. This is doable at 5th level, though obviously at that level you'll be running down to Color Spray, Grease, and Mage Armor as your standbys, but after that things only get better. You start having more spells to spare for everything, and you start to afford Pearls and Meta-Rods to make the most of what you do prepare.

Yes; much like a wilder's main mechanic has a substantial drawback.
Yeah, except the Wilder doesn't lose hundreds of xp every time it uses Wild Surge. It has a chance (and ugly flat percentage, but still only a chance) of losing power points and actions. The Wilder goes all-out by risking a higher quantity of a daily resource and the chance that he might be unable to continue fighting this battle. Your sorcerer goes all-out by burning a resource that can only be renewed as fast as the game is played, putting it's player permanently behind the rest of the group.

There's nothing "mere" about gold when it comes out to large amounts.
Sure there is, when it's only 150gp per spell level per spell. Granted, this does cut into your Pearl, Rod, and scroll budget, but like you say, there's only so many good spells in core. Many of them are the most broken in fact. When the WBL table scales faster than the cost of new spells, you'll have them all soon enough.

Yitzi
2011-07-25, 10:56 AM
It sounds like you intend this for other people online

As well as my own games. But yes; the main idea is for online games (or for those who only have the core books.)


so with this reasoning the core only restriction actually makes some sense. If want everything usable with only online resources then that's a fair point (I would assume that people in meatspace could just share their books).


While I will grant that yes, I would use it to avoid a TPK, that's true of basically any ability. If I had something like this backing me up, I'd actually spend even more time making sure I'm perfectly prepared for an area and refuse to jump into risky situations: because then the party would expect me to burn my own xp to bail them out.

And that's different than the fighter risking death (and the associated level loss even if resurrected) or the wizard spending XP on crafting how?


I'd also say that with only core spells it's very unlikely that you'll need a specific 1st level spell you don't already have and can't approximate. And 1st level scrolls are indeed cheap enough that you can carry around a bag full of all the available spells.

That's why I changed it to semipermanently changing your spells known; so if you expect to be using Grease a lot over the next month (far more than scrolls would justify), you can spend 100 XP to put it on your list (replacing something else) for the month.


It's free metamagic. That stacks with other metamagic. Including rods. So you're maximizing on top of your normal empowering and using a quicken rod.

Maximize and Empower actually don't work too well together.
That said, it was a bit much, which is why I removed it.


It's definitely no longer broken, but I'd still never use it except when I new the game was almost over and I wouldn't need the xp.

Or when it's the boss for the adventure (even if not the campaign) and a +1 boost to caster level will give you that extra oomph (to bypass SR, or allow you to use that scroll more reliably, etc.), or you're facing an enemy with CR higher than your ECL and need the boost (and will conversely get more XP to compensate for the XP lost.)


Xp costs are a really bad game mechanic all around actually

How so? So long as they're low enough that spending 5% of your gained XP on costs, together with 5% of your gained wealth on expendables above and beyond normal, gives you enough of an advantage to complete an adventure in only 95% the time and with 95% the risk, it should balance out.

It's not like there's only a finite amount of XP available.


especially when no other classes have similar mechanics.

Item crafting could be considered a similar mechanic.


If you'd like an alternative, how about mental exhaustion or temporary negative levels?

That makes sense. Changing that one (the spell switch still should be for XP, though, as that's effectively a minor type of retraining.)


So why would the common version of the class learn it?

This argument really doesn't work for the sorcerer, as nobody learns to be a sorcerer; they just find that they naturally have the talent.


And yet there is nothing else worth buying for a caster in core.

Wands, scrolls, niche items (such as certain high-level mirrors and the like), ability score boosters (because with a d4, you can use all the CON you can get), AC boosters (to give you some chance of not being hit if your illusions and mobility are bypassed). And of course, even without anything else it still highly limits how many rods you can get.


On the contrary, I think "everything goes" is a lot more fixable than core only.

Yes it is, provided that everyone has all the resources. Generally (at least for internet games), they don't.

Plus, "anything goes" means you don't get the same sense of "class=archetype" because there are so many classes for each main archetype. Which some DMs might like; I don't.


Non-casters have almost no options in core

Depends on the non-caster. Fighters and (to an even greater extent) barbarians have very limited options, but are (supposed to be) extremely good at what they can do. Monks and paladins have a few more options. Rangers have even more, and at high levels can be downright scary. (At least See Invisibility works against a wizard.) Rogues have more options than any caster other than bard...it's just that the options aren't spelled out in the class.


I'm not sure what "unfixable unless you assume everyone has everything" means. Does your group not share books?

As I said, this is mainly for internet games; I don't have a group per se.


Yeah, and? A +10-20% chance on a roll that probably started with a 40% chance

Or 25% if you're trying to push past the SR of a high-powered enemy (or a high-level monk with my monk fix, or to dispel a spell by a powerful enemy.)


and you're accepting a variable chance of losing the spell completely. Even if you're "properly" defended by allies, there could still be hidden foes, ranged attacks, or even other spells to deal with.

Yes; it's risky. But for adding half again to your success chance, it can often be easily worth it.

And of course it really shines when you're not threatened at all but need to disable that magic trap quickly.


And from what I'm reading it sounds like you have a lot more casters in your world than what I usually hear

How so?


First, duration: for damage, Resist Energy, Protection from Energy, and Stoneskin all have 10 min/level or higher durations.

Yes; the duration issue as such is more for things like Improved Invisibility. But even 10 min/level (and none of the spells you listed are real game-changers) means you'll probably have to recast a few times.


Second, you're assuming that these battles are spaced far enough apart that all those minute/level spells run out... says who? That is a lot of time for a coordinated party to wreck stuff, and most adventure locations are supposed to have more than one fight in them.

It depends on the adventure. If it's a dungeon crawl, then yes they might be able to have several fights under a single set of spells. But if it's a question of going through enemy territory (with random encounters), or there's a lot of distance between the key encounters, or you need to keep enemies away for the whole day (either because that's the mission or because you don't want to get ambushed once you leave your Rope Trick) then it could be easily be separated.


Uh, the listen check DC is +20 to pinpoint, on top of any token move silently checks.

Casting doesn't allow a move silently check; it's a flat DC 0.


A lot of monsters have good listen checks, but not all, and certainly not all classed NPCs.

Yes; it will work against enemies without listen or scent...but the ability to avoid some enemies isn't nearly as powerful as the ability to avoid all of them (primarily because it forces you to bring other-classed allies who can't avoid any of them.)


The enemy still has to break off to fly after a wizard, at possibly a lower fly speed and most likely a lower maneuverability, so the wizard should have at least a few rounds of safety while that monster spends it's time chasing him down. Seems like pretty good action denial to me.

Nothing wrong with a wizard having effective action denial, so long as it can't work indefinitely or all the time.


Most monsters and characters don't plan on any amount of ranged attacking whatsoever, so if they even do have a ranged attack it will suck pretty hard, and still have to beat defenses like Mirror Image, Blink, and Stoneskin.

It'll give him a useful ability, but only up to a point.
Also, why would most characters not plan on any ranged attacking unless they have the mobility to go melee with a flying wizard?


The wizard dominates in defensive spells in core just fine: while there are more powerful options in splatbooks, some of the best are right there in the PHB. The durations are long enough that you can do plenty of damage with a good party, and refreshing the important spells is manageable when needed with scrolls and Pearls of Power. Maybe he'll call for a rest after 2 or 3 if he's managed them poorly or been unlucky, but the 10 minute workday is a myth.

Only by using resources and preparing important spells multiple times...which a sorcerer can do just as well.


Yeah, I went and read that. I find it greatly amusing that your plan for reducing the power of control is to make other spells better, rather than nerf the best control spells themselves.

Boosting a counter effectively nerfs the thing it counters.


The walls may be fairly useless, but Stinking Cloud hardly loses anything. In fact, it may be more powerful now that people can burn actions trying to ignore it, only to fail another save while they're still in the cloud.

They can...or they can move out of the cloud and then try to get rid of it. (It can't be more powerful now that there's more options to deal with it, unless your enemies are stupid.) It's still useful, but no longer broken.


And you didn't touch Grease, or Glitterdust, etc.

Grease has low enough area that it's really powerful only in very limited circumstances, Glitterdust's blindness isn't so hard to remove (and a fighter can probably get a similar effect by throwing sand into his enemy's eyes.)


The spell fixes don't help non-casters at all

Fighters and barbarians (which is what I assume you mean by non-casters, as paladins and monks have quite impressive saves and rangers and rogues definitely don't need the help) without caster support aren't supposed to be effective against casters. Every class has its strengths and weaknesses, and a wizard or sorcerer's strengths are unsupported non-casters. (Their weaknesses are cleric-supported enemies and monks.)
I'm also planning to add a few extra options with my upcoming fighter fix.


Again, from reading the other thread if seems like I can get more a feel of your game. It sounds like you have both divine and arcane casters in every enemy group, close to party level and packed with status removal and dispels.

Not every group, but it's assumed that any capable group at higher levels will have the ability to counter/block magic one way or another.


Previous bits indicated running a high number of encounters per day

4 encounters per day is not high; it's the recommended amount.


enough that the wizard is always running low on spells

Or at least low enough that he loses much of his versatility.


and spacing every encounter hours apart from the others such that buffs run out

Not always, but often. It depends how far apart they are physically, as well as the nature of the adventure.


Usually I hear that casters are rare, but higher in level than the party, and encounters are in clusters such that the party clears a building of 2 or 3 at once. Comparing to my own game (a decently optimized party going through Red Hand of Doom with modified encounters), the number of encounters swings wildly between 1 and 5, but the wizard has never run out of spells, and the module only places casters in enemy strongholds, where you fights at least 3 groups of enemies in quick succession. I don't want to say that you're doing it wrong, since even if I disagree you must be having fun and that's all that matters. But I think your game runs a little differently than both the generic low-op setting and other high-op games.

The way I'm describing seems to be (from the Core books) the way D&D was meant to be played.


Or I could be reading way to far into this, but I'm just trying to see why your fixes seem so counter-intuitive (I've seen a lot of fixes on this forum, some good, some terrible, but they always attack along the exact same lines, which yours are mostly ignoring, so something's gotta be different?)

Yes; in short, the other fixes are trying to take the overall game as it's commonly played (heavy emphasis on nonstandard defenses as opposed to AC, action economy being more important than action power, limited encounters per day) and balance it. I, on the other hand, read the DMG, MM, etc. as indicating that that's not how it's intended to be played, and so I am trying to balance it for the way it was originally intended to be played (which will naturally involve far fewer changes) and then make it be played at least more that way (largely by creating counters to the nonstandard play, such as through my monk fix and a few upcoming bonus fighter feats, but also by doing things like weakening CoDzilla.)

In addition, I am not assuming that every class has to have a chance against every other class. A rock-paper-scissors-type system will also keep all classes equivalent in overall power, assuming NPCs overall are somewhat intelligent.


As discussed above, the same way they always have. Even for groups that do allow re-preparing shenanigans, I've never heard of a group that actually did so in such a way that they managed to fight encounters with full spells every time. Spells are basically the only important daily resource

Spells are the only important resource replenished each day, but time itself is another resource, and an extremely important one. If they replenished twice as fast, they effectively get twice as much time, which means the effects of dawdling have to be twice as strong, which causes harm on both realism and fun.


The only thing he's gonna get with core metamagic is more damage, which is nice, but not nearly as good as changing a single target save or die into a mass target. Or completely changing the effect. Which some powers do.

Most don't, though.


Yes, yes by all that much. At full base spells, 50% more at each level.

That's only at the top, though, and assumes no specialization.


Alternatively, call it two extra slots at each level. When a wizard gets a new level of spells, he has 1+bonus. A sorcerer has 3+bonus.

Actually, he has 0; the following level, when the sorcerer gets those spells at 3+bonus, the wizard has 2+bonus.


I mean run out of useful stuff to do, which is the same thing as run out of spells. And yes, the wizard generally only prepares one copy of each spell. If used properly one spell can end the fight, or put it within easy mop-up reach of the rest of the party.

My wizard fix does help with that, by weakening the most powerful spells in that regard. And preparing only one copy of each spell still won't help you if the right spell to use is the same one twice in a row.


f you have endurance problems you'll probably buy Pearls of Power instead of Metamagic Rods, in which case every spell could be as many as 2 or 3 of the same thing. And a lot of those spells are only 2nd or 3rd level, so Pearls and scrolls are not unfeasible.

And corresponding to it, the sorcerer has scrolls. So both can make up their lacks through items, but the wizard focuses more on versatility (but too much and he'd better make up a lot through items) while the sorcerer focuses more on blasting.


Yes, that's the guideline I'm referring to. A wizard should be able to handle each fight with only 1-3 spells

And that's part of what my wizard fix addresses.


Yeah, except the Wilder doesn't lose hundreds of xp every time it uses Wild Surge.

Wild Surge is really more analogous to Magic Surge than to Above and Beyond. But yeah, Above and Beyond has been fixed.


Sure there is, when it's only 150gp per spell level per spell.

At 10 spells per spell level, that's 67,500, which is a decent (though not large) percentage of your WBL by level 20. It's doable, but only if you're going to use it.

There's also the (with the wizard fix) fact that you need a very good Spellcraft score to be absolutely certain of getting that one you wanted. Most won't bother for certainty and will end up with a slightly randomized list.

Eldest
2011-07-25, 11:24 AM
Jumping in with a suggestion, would it be problematic for the burn xp abilities to instead burn other multiple spell levels? I'm gonna find the link to the sorc. fix that I lifted this from.

Yitzi
2011-07-25, 11:26 AM
What do you mean "burn other multiple spell levels"?

Eldest
2011-07-25, 11:33 AM
Dangit, can't find the link.
So if you needed to cast a level 2 spell, you could (as a full round action) use up spells equal to (2nd level spell x 3) 6 spell levels. Make sense?
I suck at explaining, so that's why I was trying to find the link instead. It was from somebody with "sorcerers at parity with the wizard? Madness" in their signature.

Yitzi
2011-07-25, 01:52 PM
Dangit, can't find the link.
So if you needed to cast a level 2 spell, you could (as a full round action) use up spells equal to (2nd level spell x 3) 6 spell levels. Make sense?
I suck at explaining, so that's why I was trying to find the link instead. It was from somebody with "sorcerers at parity with the wizard? Madness" in their signature.

Interesting idea, but it doesn't really make sense that pushing his instinct into coming up with a new spell would have a cost in his ability to cast spells...they're really two separate aspects of his talent.

Eldest
2011-07-25, 06:50 PM
It'd be explained differently fluffwise. Something similar to forcing raw power into a new shape because of the need of the sorcerer, perhaps. I was asking specificaly about the game balance of it.

Yitzi
2011-07-25, 07:46 PM
For game balance, it seems ok but not great...if something doesn't work fluffwise, though, that makes it a no-go for me.

Fizban
2011-07-25, 08:46 PM
And that's different than the fighter risking death (and the associated level loss even if resurrected) or the wizard spending XP on crafting how?
The comparison here would be the party expecting the fighter to stay behind and hold off the monsters while the rest of the party escapes and gets full xp. The xp costs of magic item creation are extremely small while giving you permanent benefits, but more to the point, you choose to do so during downtime. There is no chance of the party pressuring you into burning your xp on item creation in the middle of a dungeon.

That's why I changed it to semipermanently changing your spells known; so if you expect to be using Grease a lot over the next month (far more than scrolls would justify), you can spend 100 XP to put it on your list (replacing something else) for the month.
Much better. Still not perfect, but the fact that it lasts for more than one casting and can even be part of the big plan makes it feel less like a penalty.

Or when it's the boss for the adventure (even if not the campaign) and a +1 boost to caster level will give you that extra oomph (to bypass SR, or allow you to use that scroll more reliably, etc.), or you're facing an enemy with CR higher than your ECL and need the boost (and will conversely get more XP to compensate for the XP lost.)
And I say that no sir, I would not. When I can easily look up exactly how much xp I'm getting for each encounter and realize exactly how far behind this ability will put me, I am not going to use it unless I am going to die, or I know that the game is close enough to the end that no one will be leveling up any more.

How so? So long as they're low enough that spending 5% of your gained XP on costs, together with 5% of your gained wealth on expendables above and beyond normal, gives you enough of an advantage to complete an adventure in only 95% the time and with 95% the risk, it should balance out.

It's not like there's only a finite amount of XP available.
Because xp is a metagame construct designed to reward the player by making their character more powerful over time. Yes, as long as you're playing the game you will get more xp, but once you've spent it on something it's gone forever. The very second that you use that ability, you doom yourself to being behind on xp compared to other party members for the rest of the game (barring slingshot effects). Just looking down and seeing a smaller number, even though you're the guy that saved them by using that ability, is a sad event.

Item crafting could be considered a similar mechanic.
No, it's not. As I said, item crafting gives you permanent benefits and is used by your own choice, when there's no pressure. Burning xp in the middle of a fight to get a spell you don't know because if you don't there's gonna be a TPK is not the same at all. (But now that it's been changed to last or be permanent, at least it can leave you with something for your trouble.)

That makes sense. Changing that one (the spell switch still should be for XP, though, as that's effectively a minor type of retraining.)
There we go, that's something I'd use.

This argument really doesn't work for the sorcerer, as nobody learns to be a sorcerer; they just find that they naturally have the talent.
Says you. To me, the fact that any character can take a level of sorcerer whenever they want says that it's surprisingly easy to learn. In any case, it doesn't change the fact that most of the world's NPC sorcerers are not actually adventuring.

Wands, scrolls, niche items (such as certain high-level mirrors and the like), ability score boosters (because with a d4, you can use all the CON you can get), AC boosters (to give you some chance of not being hit if your illusions and mobility are bypassed). And of course, even without anything else it still highly limits how many rods you can get.
Ah, ability enhancments, forgot them. Still, any wizard who wastes money on an AC bonus is a chump. For the same amount of money you can get a number of 2nd level Pearls of Power, which will guard you far better.

Plus, "anything goes" means you don't get the same sense of "class=archetype" because there are so many classes for each main archetype. Which some DMs might like; I don't.
There's just no way we're going to agree there then. I think binding classes into archetypes is silly. It's just the mechanics used to show what the character can do.

Depends on the non-caster.
Really, your own parentheticals and explanations betray you here. The melee types are supposed to be good at fighting monsters (they're not). At least one of the ranger's spells can be useful sometimes. The rogue has tons of options (if he buys a bag of magic items to cast spells for him). Non-casters don't have spells, therefore they do not have as many options, period. And as you said yourself, options=power.

Or 25% if you're trying to push past the SR of a high-powered enemy (or a high-level monk with my monk fix, or to dispel a spell by a powerful enemy.)
Yes; it's risky. But for adding half again to your success chance, it can often be easily worth it.
And of course it really shines when you're not threatened at all but need to disable that magic trap quickly.
Except when your spell is interrupted and your chance of it working goes from whatever to exactly zero. Or you can just use a spell that doesn't allow spell resistance. I think I know what my plan would be. As for magic traps, they're a laugh. One of the few things a rogue can do without magic items is disable magic traps all day long.

[sounds like you have a lot more casters in your world] How so?
Your plan for fixing save or lose is not to weaken the problem spells, but to extend the duration of the spells that negate them. How would that help unless all of your NPCs have casters with them? Regarding Glitterdust, you mention that blindness is easy to get rid of. Say what? It's a rounds/level duration, while the only cure for blindness is a very specific second level spell. In order for that to actually happen there must be a cleric, of at least 3rd level, with that specific spell prepared, which has no use outside of negating a specific other spell. And so on.

Yes; the duration issue as such is more for things like Improved Invisibility. But even 10 min/level (and none of the spells you listed are real game-changers) means you'll probably have to recast a few times.
Not game-changers? Resist Energy cuts most damage by at least half, if not completely negating it, of all breath weapons and spells of the chosen type. Protection from Energy just completely stops more than 60hp of damage without letting any through. Stoneskin makes you effectively immune to arrows and cuts melee damage at least in half. Stoneskin+Fly+Mirror Image= I don't care about attack rolls. Resist Energy on top of that says no to breath weapons and staple damage spells like Scorching Ray and Fireball. No, you won't be completely invincible, but you'll be plenty well protected in ways the other party members can't duplicate. And again, you're assuming the party is fighting literally all day. Ten minutes per level is an entire hour at 6th level. One whole hour. Once you get to the fight, it shouldn't take more than 1 minute. That is more than enough time to take multiple fights.

It depends on the adventure.
Yeah, and most "adventures" tend to take place around a central area or figure, where you will show up and have a number of fights close together. The game is not meant to be a constant string of random encounters spaced extremely far apart. The RHoD encounter tables, for example, only give a 60% chance of encounter during an entire 12 hours on the road, and 30% chance camping at night. That's maybe one random encounter per day, with the rest found in certain locations. A mission of "keep the monsters away?" That's the job of an army, not a 4 man adventuring squad. Obviously the day to day encounter rates of adventuring will vary. But most of the time, the PCs are headed to a place where they know they're gonna fight some dudes, and when they get there, there's a bunch of dudes. That's the default. Making class balance assumptions based on outlier situations like fighting all your encounters an hour apart, having objectives that are spaced just far enough that you can get there today but not before your spells wear of, and so on, is wrong. The game has long duration spells for a reason, and it is assumed that yes, 10 min/level spells will be used over multiple fights, and 1 min/level spells will be pre-cast and possibly carry into other fights as well.

Casting doesn't allow a move silently check; it's a flat DC 0.
Well yeah, if you turn invisible and just stand there you're gonna get killed. Try moving around after you cast. Even with the -5 for taking your full move you still get a whole 1d20+15 that they'll have to beat. Pretty decent contested roll. And you might be surprised at the limitations on those other abilities. Scent requires a relatively short range and only gives you direction unless you're already standing in melee range. And if you're flying they get to try the ridiculous "tracking through air" penalties.

It'll give him a useful ability, but only up to a point.
Also, why would most characters not plan on any ranged attacking unless they have the mobility to go melee with a flying wizard?
Yes, up to the point where another spellcaster shows up to fight him properly. Why would most characters not plan on ranged attacking? Because they're melee builds that can't hit the broad side of a barn with a ranged weapon? Because the only marginally effective core ranged build is a ranger who only fights his biggest favored enemy? DnD is all about specialization, and when you specialize in anything but ranged combat, you're gonna suck at ranged combat. As for monsters, just go ahead and look some up. Aside from breath weapons and spell-like abilities, the most you're likely to see for ranged weapons are Ogres with javelins, who can't hit the aforementioned barn.

Only by using resources and preparing important spells multiple times...which a sorcerer can do just as well.
I think you're getting lost in the multi-quote. The point was that wizards can have good defenses without resting after every fight, not that sorcerers can't. The part where wizards are better is when they can change their defense and offense every day so they're always running the right spell, when the sorcerer might have to settle for a stopgap.

Boosting a counter effectively nerfs the thing it counters.
Bwahahaha! I'm sorry but no, no it does not. If you make a certain spell stronger, the only person it benefits is one who can use that spell. You've made clerics stronger, more able to shut down wizard spells. But you haven't made wizards weaker, or made non-casters more able to resist them, with those adjustments. It's not one sliding scale. What about all the monsters and all the NPC groups that don't have casters around to cast these improved defensive spells? They get hosed by the save-or-X just as hard as they did before.

They can...or they can move out of the cloud and then try to get rid of it. (It can't be more powerful now that there's more options to deal with it, unless your enemies are stupid.) It's still useful, but no longer broken.
It's still costing them multiple actions and forcing them out of a particular area. So maybe they make the extra move-action save after they've exited the cloud and it's the same as if they'd rolled 1 on the 1d4 for rounds of nausea after leaving. On the other hand, seeing that they have a chance of staying in the cloud and not being forced out, I will guarantee someone will try it sometime. And the spell will hose them harder than it would have if they didn't have that option. The spell may be a bit weaker, but not by much. Instead of save vs. nausea every round and then you have to exit the cloud, it's more like save vs. slow and then save again to resist nausea. Still pretty awesome.

Grease has low enough area that it's really powerful only in very limited circumstances
True, but it can still much up at least one guy. It ranges from meh to amazing, but that's still better than "I has sword."

Glitterdust's blindness isn't so hard to remove (and a fighter can probably get a similar effect by throwing sand into his enemy's eyes.)
No, no he can't! There is absolutely no way for a fighter to blind an opponent without a magic item in core! Maybe if you were allowing eggshell grenades or flashpellets from a splatbook, or homebrewed a feat, but there is absolutely no way for a fighter to do that at all with your restrictions on what's allowed. If you're making assumptions like that then there's no way you can balance the actual game rules, because you're already ignoring them.

Fighters and barbarians (which is what I assume you mean by non-casters, as paladins and monks have quite impressive saves and rangers and rogues definitely don't need the help) without caster support aren't supposed to be effective against casters. Every class has its strengths and weaknesses, and a wizard or sorcerer's strengths are unsupported non-casters. (Their weaknesses are cleric-supported enemies and monks.)
I'm also planning to add a few extra options with my upcoming fighter fix.
Now there's a viewpoint I don't think I've seen before. If that's the kind of rock/paper/scissors balance you're trying to work with then it's actually a nifty idea. It does assume an even distribution of the major class roles, which is not supported by the base game, however. Just look at the breakdown of monsters in one category or the other. The game isn't supposed to be about rock/paper/scissors, it's supposed to be a team of adventurers overcoming monsters, NPCs, and obstacles, pitting party bruiser against monster bruiser, party caster against enemy caster, and party rogue against environmental problems. That's not how it actually tends to work out, but that was the original idea. If you find that setting up the classes in a rock/paper/scissors arraignment works better for balance though, go for it. It's a pretty dang cool idea. But I still think you're going to have to do some more work on spell tweaking.

Not every group, but it's assumed that any capable group at higher levels will have the ability to counter/block magic one way or another.
A good idea if you want the game to make sense, but not the standard. Most monsters don't have any such ability other than their natural immunities, until you start running into outsiders with Greater Dispelling at will.

4 encounters per day is not high; it's the recommended amount.
Statements like "fighting all day" imply more than that.

Or at least low enough that he loses much of his versatility.
What is this "versatility?" It doesn't matter if you're low on options when all the bad guys are dead. If he's used all of the options he brought, then he should have solved all the problems. If he's only needed one option, then he's probably dipped into some other resources to cover it. I don't see how the wizard running low on spells at the end of the day is a problem when it's the whole point. The wizard runs out of spells, the fighter runs out of hit points, everyone should be running out of resources after four encounters. Just because the sorcerer has 3 options for what to cast with his last slot doesn't mean he's better off than the wizard who started with 5 different spells prepared, because he probably burned 3 slots dealing with something the wizard solved in 1.

Not always, but often. It depends how far apart they are physically, as well as the nature of the adventure.
So yes, your game is different. The default in a game called Dungeons and Dragons is going to be dungeons, which have multiple encounters close together, allowing you to get full mileage out of your long duration spells. If your game has encounters spaced far enough apart that those durations don't matter, often enough that it becomes an important part of game balance, then it's nonstandard.

The way I'm describing seems to be (from the Core books) the way D&D was meant to be played.
I can't respond to this without more detail. How, in your own words, do you think DnD was meant to be played? I see 4 man parties covering each "adventuring role", going into dungeons and clearing out monsters. Spellcasters are billed as less common than other classes (supported by DMG city creation rules), and are usually used as boss monsters. Your game seems to have encounters spaced widely apart against mixed groups of enemies including spellcasters as often as not. That is wildly different.

I, on the other hand, read the DMG, MM, etc. as indicating that that's not how it's intended to be played, and so I am trying to balance it for the way it was originally intended to be played
In addition, I am not assuming that every class has to have a chance against every other class. A rock-paper-scissors-type system will also keep all classes equivalent in overall power, assuming NPCs overall are somewhat intelligent.
This doesn't help much if no one knows how you think it was intended to be played. We'll just jump in and critique based on how we play, or how we think we play, or most likely just take the forum wide high-op assumptions that are debated often and run with that. If you think that the "common" playstyle (whatever that is) is going against the grain then hey, let us know. It'd probably make a great thread on it's own, as we all love debating the hows and whys, and then you can pull all your fixes together under the same interpretation.

Spells are the only important resource replenished each day, but time itself is another resource, and an extremely important one. If they replenished twice as fast, they effectively get twice as much time, which means the effects of dawdling have to be twice as strong, which causes harm on both realism and fun.
I'm seeing more sliding scale interpretation here where it doesn't belong. Anyway, how is it that you're seeing people replenishing spells "twice as fast?" Repreparing spells multiple times per day still takes an extra 8 hour chunk out of the day. So instead of having a good 8-12 or so hours for travel and adventuring, you only have maybe 4. You can scry n' die well enough, but other than that, you aren't getting anything else done.

Most don't, though.
That's irrelevant? They're some of the best powers at those levels, precisely because they augment so well. That's like saying "most sorcerer spells suck, so therefore sorcerers don't have good spells." An adventuring Psion is going to have at least one or two powers that can augment into effectively 9th level spells, while the sorcerer only has the 3 that he learns. So the psion has an advantage. Not something that will let him match the damage over time output of an uncapped sorcerer, but something the sorcerer can't do (have a bunch of high level effects).

Actually, he has 0; the following level, when the sorcerer gets those spells at 3+bonus, the wizard has 2+bonus.
And thank you for not reading my very next sentence, where I said the exact same thing. And speaking of which: so why the big to-do about boosting the sorcerer without addressing that issue? You could also get rid of those specializations you mentioned, which would do a lot to protect the sorcerer's main shtick.

And preparing only one copy of each spell still won't help you if the right spell to use is the same one twice in a row.
Which is why you have Pearls of Power, or scrolls, or just make like a sorcerer and use the next best spell available. And there's nothing stopping you from preparing 2 copies if you know you're really going to need extra. The wizard has enough spells for the day at 5th level, and only has more after that. You seem to be assuming that once he's used half that he falls below some magical "versatility" meter that make him useless, but that's not how it works.

Consider that this point has grown from the suggestion that sorcerers ignore the normal level caps on their spells. That doesn't change that they're still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, likely having to burn multiple spells to get the same effect as a wizard that brought the right one. Even with a versatile spell loadout, at least one or two of the sorcerer's staple spells are going to be underleveled and probably require multiple castings to get the same effect. The sorcerer trades what extra endurance they have in order to make up for their lack of versatility. Uncapping their spell damage would... give them some brute force to use when they don't have an appropriate spell. Seems fine to me. It was just a throwaway suggestion for a unique mechanic.

And that's part of what my wizard fix addresses.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do then. The wizard doesn't necessarily end the entire fight with those two spells. He just debuffs the enemies enough that his allies can take them, or knocks out half of them, or splits them up (or at high levels, kills some of them). Is the plan to try and make the spells so weak that the wizard won't have room for defenses because he needs to cast 4 spells a fight to control the enemies?

Wild Surge is really more analogous to Magic Surge than to Above and Beyond. But yeah, Above and Beyond has been fixed.
Not in intent. Magic Surge doesn't let you go all-out on a boss or difficult encounter: it lets you gamble on losing the whole spell versus beating SR or making a dispel check, which isn't anything like wild surge. The original Above and Beyond was meant to give you more power, the same kind of thing as Wild Surge or Rage, but it cost xp when the others didn't. The new version is much better though, I'm glad you took my suggestion.

At 10 spells per spell level, that's 67,500, which is a decent (though not large) percentage of your WBL by level 20. It's doable, but only if you're going to use it.
Who said anything about buying 10 spells per level? You get 4 for free at each level, and maybe want 4 more. That's 27,000gp, if you want to lump it all together like that.

There's also the (with the wizard fix) fact that you need a very good Spellcraft score to be absolutely certain of getting that one you wanted. Most won't bother for certainty and will end up with a slightly randomized list.
You say that like wizards don't have very good spellcraft scores already. It's only DC 15+spell level. Maybe you'll get them to spend a feat on Skill Focus, but there aren't many good low level feats anyway and there's always items, magic and otherwise. All you did was prohibit the taking 10 mechanic (which I also think is a bit funny: shouldn't the body of information you can get by taking 10 when undistracted be a better gauge of what you already know than a random roll?) Any wizard worth the name is going to make sure they learn the spells they need, and I'd be insulted if I was told I should make do with random spells.

Yitzi
2011-07-25, 11:33 PM
The comparison here would be the party expecting the fighter to stay behind and hold off the monsters while the rest of the party escapes and gets full xp.

No, it's expecting the fighter to be in the front lines, with the highest risk of death, while the rest of the party also helps in the fight.


The xp costs of magic item creation are extremely small while giving you permanent benefits

Or giving another party member permanent benefits. Also, permanent vs. temporary is a smaller difference than it seems, since as power grows any given benefit will shrink in value, approaching 0.


but more to the point, you choose to do so during downtime. There is no chance of the party pressuring you into burning your xp on item creation in the middle of a dungeon.

If party pressure is such a major issue, the game has more problems than imbalanced classes.


And I say that no sir, I would not. When I can easily look up exactly how much xp I'm getting for each encounter and realize exactly how far behind this ability will put me, I am not going to use it unless I am going to die, or I know that the game is close enough to the end that no one will be leveling up any more.

Now that I think of it, it probably was a bit much (being more than the XP gained for the encounter unless it's an over-ECL encounter; even +1 to level for many purposes doesn't justify that). It's changed now, though.


Because xp is a metagame construct designed to reward the player by making their character more powerful over time.

It also represents life force, one's "self", etc. That's why you have to spend it for particularly powerful magic and when putting something of yourself into an item.


Yes, as long as you're playing the game you will get more xp, but once you've spent it on something it's gone forever. The very second that you use that ability, you doom yourself to being behind on xp compared to other party members for the rest of the game (barring slingshot effects).

Not if everyone has ways to lose XP.


But now that it's been changed to last or be permanent, at least it can leave you with something for your trouble.

More importantly, it'll be used substantially less commonly (since it's really for use when you're using something often enough that scrolls aren't worth it, and it's 1 payment for as long as you want the change), so it should be on par with item crafting or the slightly higher risk of death front-line classes face.


Says you. To me, the fact that any character can take a level of sorcerer whenever they want says that it's surprisingly easy to learn.

And yet the DMG indicates that being a sorcerer is a matter of talent; any character being able to take a level of sorcerer is similar to being able to assign your ability scores (or even use point-buy): A departure from realism in order to allow for a more fun gaming experience through the ability to customize your character.


In any case, it doesn't change the fact that most of the world's NPC sorcerers are not actually adventuring.

But it does mean that they don't need a reason to gain an ability.


Ah, ability enhancments, forgot them. Still, any wizard who wastes money on an AC bonus is a chump. For the same amount of money you can get a number of 2nd level Pearls of Power, which will guard you far better.

How so (assuming an enemy with blind-fight or one of the other many ways to counter invisibility)?


There's just no way we're going to agree there then. I think binding classes into archetypes is silly.

It looks then like we have fundamentally different understandings of D&D. Because according to my understanding, where D&D is a system for modelling fantasy adventures with the intention of playability, the primary purpose of classes is to indicate which archetype your character is an example of (and therefore what his skillset is), with the mechanics merely in order to make it playable.


Really, your own parentheticals and explanations betray you here. The melee types are supposed to be good at fighting monsters (they're not).

Barbarians are ok, but yes fighters definitely need a boost. But this thread isn't the place for that.


At least one of the ranger's spells can be useful sometimes.

Yeah, his spells are ok, but not great.

I was referring more to the fact that in a natural environment at high levels he's a total killer against anything without a good spot check.


The rogue has tons of options (if he buys a bag of magic items to cast spells for him).

Nah, magic items are nice, but the rogue's real options arise from his other CHA-based checks.

Who needs magic items when you can win without seeing combat, or even letting your enemy be aware of your existence?


Non-casters don't have spells, therefore they do not have as many options, period.

Not true; some skills can grant just as many options as spells, if not more. It's just implicit in the skill description rather than explicit.


And as you said yourself, options=power.

Well, options are one source of power, not the only one.


Except when your spell is interrupted and your chance of it working goes from whatever to exactly zero.

Yes; it's a risk, but can sometimes be worth it. This isn't meant to be used all the time, but (especially with allies to protect you/disrupt enemy casters trying to disrupt you/etc.) can be useful.


Or you can just use a spell that doesn't allow spell resistance.

Those are somewhat rare and tend to be weaker.


I think I know what my plan would be. As for magic traps, they're a laugh. One of the few things a rogue can do without magic items is disable magic traps all day long.

Yes...but not when speed is needed.
And from the fact that you think that's one of the few things a rogue can do without magic items, it's clear you've never seen a well-played rogue. (Neither have I, admittedly, although outside D&D some extremely impressive characters are of that sort, most notably Lord Vetinari from Discworld. But I can at least see how it would be done.)


Your plan for fixing save or lose is not to weaken the problem spells, but to extend the duration of the spells that negate them. How would that help unless all of your NPCs have casters with them?

Casters, or UMD (such as the Balor, he has UMD), or just good saves (which won't totally negate them, but will make the spells less effective.) It's not necessary (or desirable) that the spells be useless, just that they be limited enough that they don't dominate the game.


Regarding Glitterdust, you mention that blindness is easy to get rid of. Say what? It's a rounds/level duration, while the only cure for blindness is a very specific second level spell. In order for that to actually happen there must be a cleric, of at least 3rd level, with that specific spell prepared, which has no use outside of negating a specific other spell. And so on.

So it's somewhat limited. Throw in a low area, so it's unlikely to hit a whole enemy group if there's a substantial number of them, and it's roughly the equivalent of throwing sand in your enemy's eyes; a trick that might work or might not, but if it does work it's extremely useful though not an automatic win.


Not game-changers? Resist Energy cuts most damage by at least half, if not completely negating it, of all breath weapons and spells of the chosen type.

"Breath weapons and spells" is a pretty limited group to defend against, though.


Protection from Energy just completely stops more than 60hp of damage without letting any through.

Again, for a very limited selection.


Stoneskin makes you effectively immune to arrows and cuts melee damage at least in half.

Well, barring power attack. And barring adamantine-tipped arrows; they're not cheap, but a few should be affordable by level 7, much less by the levels where stoneskin is a viable tactic on a regular basis.


Stoneskin+Fly+Mirror Image= I don't care about attack rolls.

Unless your enemy has flying and power attack, or adamantine-tipped arrows, etc.


Resist Energy on top of that says no to breath weapons and staple damage spells like Scorching Ray and Fireball.

And then you get whacked with a lightning bolt, because you specified Fire.


No, you won't be completely invincible, but you'll be plenty well protected in ways the other party members can't duplicate.

And they'll be protected in ways you can't duplicate, like high AC (which is a lot harder to bypass than simply using adamantine arrows).


And again, you're assuming the party is fighting literally all day. Ten minutes per level is an entire hour at 6th level. One whole hour. Once you get to the fight, it shouldn't take more than 1 minute. That is more than enough time to take multiple fights.

That's true if you're fighting on your schedule. Of course, that tends to only happen in dungeons, where there might not be enough room to fly up out of reach...


Yeah, and most "adventures" tend to take place around a central area or figure, where you will show up and have a number of fights close together. The game is not meant to be a constant string of random encounters spaced extremely far apart. The RHoD encounter tables, for example, only give a 60% chance of encounter during an entire 12 hours on the road, and 30% chance camping at night. That's maybe one random encounter per day, with the rest found in certain locations.

That central area could be pretty large...but ok, I see your point. So the wizard can be pretty well protected for the main fights, requiring it to either be bypassed (a different energy type than he specified, adamantine arrows, flight plus power attack, etc), brought down via dispel magic (here's where that "Magic Surge" ability can really come in handy if the party can keep the sorcerer from being interrupted), or simply overwhelmed (i.e. maxed out.)

The result is that wizard is a more defensive class (but vulnerable to those with the proper tools to bypass his defenses), while sorcerer is a more offensive class...which actually seems pretty good to me.


A mission of "keep the monsters away?" That's the job of an army, not a 4 man adventuring squad.

Unless it's "keep the monsters away from the caravan" (a guard job), or "keep the monsters away from the breach" (as part of an army), etc.


Well yeah, if you turn invisible and just stand there you're gonna get killed. Try moving around after you cast.

Won't help if they ready.


And you might be surprised at the limitations on those other abilities. Scent requires a relatively short range and only gives you direction unless you're already standing in melee range. And if you're flying they get to try the ridiculous "tracking through air" penalties.

Point.


Yes, up to the point where another spellcaster shows up to fight him properly.

Or a monk shows up to totally destroy him...part of my idea is that wizards will in fact have an advantage against fighters, but a disadvantage against monks. Since fighters beat monks, that should lead to balance.


Why would most characters not plan on ranged attacking? Because they're melee builds that can't hit the broad side of a barn with a ranged weapon?

Even a melee build should have good BAB and at least enough DEX to get an AC bonus, meaning a pretty decent ranged attack.


DnD is all about specialization

How so?


I think you're getting lost in the multi-quote. The point was that wizards can have good defenses without resting after every fight, not that sorcerers can't.

Ah, ok. So yes, they can, although still nothing that can't be dealt with by someone who's prepared (and with wizards having those options, it can be assumed that anyone who expects to possibly have to fight wizards will be prepared at least to some extent.)


Bwahahaha! I'm sorry but no, no it does not. If you make a certain spell stronger, the only person it benefits is one who can use that spell.

No, it also benefits their party members.


What about all the monsters and all the NPC groups that don't have casters around to cast these improved defensive spells?

Then if they're at all intelligent they'll make sure to get access to it some other way. It's not so hard to find a cleric (or a rogue with UMD) for your group at higher levels.


It's still costing them multiple actions and forcing them out of a particular area. So maybe they make the extra move-action save after they've exited the cloud and it's the same as if they'd rolled 1 on the 1d4 for rounds of nausea after leaving. On the other hand, seeing that they have a chance of staying in the cloud and not being forced out, I will guarantee someone will try it sometime. And the spell will hose them harder than it would have if they didn't have that option. The spell may be a bit weaker, but not by much. Instead of save vs. nausea every round and then you have to exit the cloud, it's more like save vs. slow and then save again to resist nausea. Still pretty awesome.

It's pretty nice...but if they make their save you've done next to nothing, and it can be countered by protection from poison, and it'll probably only put them out of commission for a few rounds at best (still pretty nice)...

In short, it's a classic debuff spell: Can be resisted, can be defended against by magic, but if it isn't it's going to cause you some problems.


True, but it can still much up at least one guy. It ranges from meh to amazing, but that's still better than "I has sword."

A fighter's supposed to be quite a bit beyond "I has sword".


No, no he can't! There is absolutely no way for a fighter to blind an opponent without a magic item in core!

Of course there is. He says "I grab some sand and throw it into my opponent's eyes", and the DM ad-hocs a mechanic for the purpose. Which, based on realism, will presumably involve at least a chance of temporary blindness.

DM ad-hoc mechanics are in Core...


Now there's a viewpoint I don't think I've seen before. If that's the kind of rock/paper/scissors balance you're trying to work with then it's actually a nifty idea. It does assume an even distribution of the major class roles, which is not supported by the base game, however.

The beauty of a rock/paper/scissors balance is that realism will demand a distribution (not necessarily even) that makes all choices equivalent.


Just look at the breakdown of monsters in one category or the other. The game isn't supposed to be about rock/paper/scissors

No, it's not supposed to be about power comparisons at all. But insofar as power comparisons exist, a rock/paper/scissors approach will keep things balanced and realistic.


But I still think you're going to have to do some more work on spell tweaking.

Thing is, it seems that a wizard should be able to completely change the rules of combat, just not to something that other classes can't win under.


A good idea if you want the game to make sense, but not the standard. Most monsters don't have any such ability other than their natural immunities, until you start running into outsiders with Greater Dispelling at will.

Or monsters with spellcasting levels (such as dragons), or NPCs (who can easily have casters in the group). Guess how many high-level monsters don't fall into one of those 3 categories?


Statements like "fighting all day" imply more than that.

Depends what you mean by "all day"; the term could mean continuously, or a more even distribution (perhaps due to having to keep the area safe until it's time to set up camp for the night.)


What is this "versatility?" It doesn't matter if you're low on options when all the bad guys are dead. If he's used all of the options he brought, then he should have solved all the problems. If he's only needed one option, then he's probably dipped into some other resources to cover it.

And if he's used up half of the options he brought, and then what he needs for the next fight is part of what he used up?


because he probably burned 3 slots dealing with something the wizard solved in 1.

There should be few if any problems a wizard can solve with a single spell.


So yes, your game is different. The default in a game called Dungeons and Dragons is going to be dungeons, which have multiple encounters close together, allowing you to get full mileage out of your long duration spells.

Point. Of course, fly and mirror image will still probably need renewing, as of course will Improved Invisibility.


I can't respond to this without more detail. How, in your own words, do you think DnD was meant to be played?

Where hitting with a given attack (in the most general form) is primarily a question of probability rather than of evasive effects, thereby making defenses like AC important and numerous weak actions no more valuable than fewer strong actions.


Spellcasters are billed as less common than other classes (supported by DMG city creation rules)

But not necessarily less common among adventurers.


against mixed groups of enemies including spellcasters as often as not.

At least against PC-class enemies at higher levels. Essentially, PC-class enemies should have a makeup just like PC parties do.


It'd probably make a great thread on it's own, as we all love debating the hows and whys

Probably a good idea...not now, but later. Thanks.


I'm seeing more sliding scale interpretation here where it doesn't belong. Anyway, how is it that you're seeing people replenishing spells "twice as fast?" Repreparing spells multiple times per day still takes an extra 8 hour chunk out of the day. So instead of having a good 8-12 or so hours for travel and adventuring, you only have maybe 4. You can scry n' die well enough, but other than that, you aren't getting anything else done.

Well, unless you have to spend several days fighting through the enemies, but yes, twice as fast might be an exaggeration.

Still, keep in mind that the travel time at least tends to be during those portions where time is not of the essence (e.g. the enemy doesn't know you're headed to them or you've defeated them already.)


That's irrelevant? They're some of the best powers at those levels, precisely because they augment so well. That's like saying "most sorcerer spells suck, so therefore sorcerers don't have good spells." An adventuring Psion is going to have at least one or two powers that can augment into effectively 9th level spells, while the sorcerer only has the 3 that he learns. So the psion has an advantage.

In versatility, probably. Although of course he's more similar to the wizard; a wilder is probably a better comparison for a sorcerer.


but something the sorcerer can't do (have a bunch of high level effects).

Unless the sorcerer is willing to settle for some lower-level effects boosted by metamagic.


And speaking of which: so why the big to-do about boosting the sorcerer without addressing that issue?

I considered it, but I figured that there wasn't enough room between "so many it's not worth adding more" and "too few to be at all useful", so instead I'm reducing the wizard's advantages and giving the sorcerer a few other useful abilities.


You could also get rid of those specializations you mentioned, which would do a lot to protect the sorcerer's main shtick.

I like the idea of school specialization, though, and don't want to get rid of it.


You seem to be assuming that once he's used half that he falls below some magical "versatility" meter that make him useless, but that's not how it works.

No, just that once he's used enough (or spent them by preparing two spells) he's no longer better than the sorcerer.


Consider that this point has grown from the suggestion that sorcerers ignore the normal level caps on their spells. That doesn't change that they're still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, likely having to burn multiple spells to get the same effect as a wizard that brought the right one.

What would be a (not extraordinary) example of a wizard's "right one" that can do with one spell what takes a sorcerer several?




1 or 2 levels under isn't such a big deal (and the wizard faces the same issue, as he only has a few spells from his top levels.)

Basically, the real question is how much having the "right one" is worth. Most monsters don't have some particular spell they're extraordinarily weak against, so I don't think it'd be that much.

[quote]I'm not sure what you're trying to do then. The wizard doesn't necessarily end the entire fight with those two spells. He just debuffs the enemies enough that his allies can take them, or knocks out half of them, or splits them up (or at high levels, kills some of them).

And why can't the sorcerer do that just as effectively?


Is the plan to try and make the spells so weak that the wizard won't have room for defenses because he needs to cast 4 spells a fight to control the enemies?

Well, not 4 high-level spells a fight, probably more like 1 high-level and a few lower-level spells.
But yes, making it so that he has to spend a substantial portion of his spell slots on offense if he wants to be effective is a major part of it.


Not in intent. Magic Surge doesn't let you go all-out on a boss or difficult encounter: it lets you gamble on losing the whole spell versus beating SR or making a dispel check, which isn't anything like wild surge.

Yes; Above and Beyond is for going all-out, Magic Surge is more like a big, vulnerable, and extremely powerful cannon.


Who said anything about buying 10 spells per level? You get 4 for free at each level, and maybe want 4 more. That's 27,000gp, if you want to lump it all together like that.

Ok, point.


You say that like wizards don't have very good spellcraft scores already. It's only DC 15+spell level.

Enough that they'll often get it...but not always.


which I also think is a bit funny: shouldn't the body of information you can get by taking 10 when undistracted be a better gauge of what you already know than a random roll?

No, as knowledge is partially random; one person might know fact A but not fact B, while another knows fact B but not fact A.


Any wizard worth the name is going to make sure they learn the spells they need

A wizard shouldn't be absolutely reliant on any one spell (or if they are, they should take it as one of their free spells.)

Fizban
2011-07-26, 03:46 AM
Not if everyone has ways to lose XP.
But they don't: only the sorcerer in this example has a way to lose xp that fast, aside from death. Which is why the comparison is made to another character sacrificing themselves.

And yet the DMG indicates that being a sorcerer is a matter of talent; any character being able to take a level of sorcerer is similar to being able to assign your ability scores (or even use point-buy): A departure from realism in order to allow for a more fun gaming experience through the ability to customize your character.
I'll admit it's been ages since I last read the proper PHB and DMG fluff for the classes, so you're probably right on what's written there. I'm pretty sure there's at least one book that suggests drawing power from magical locations as an alternate origin though, so that's not the only fluff they give. Personally I like the approach of wanting it hard enough and being so awesome that it works. There's no skill that one man has a talent with that another man can't learn. He may not go as far as the natural, but both require practice to become truly good. Mechanically: someone who multiclasses into sorcerer will never be as good as one who started in it, but both need to keep taking sorcerer levels to get better.

How so (assuming an enemy with blind-fight or one of the other many ways to counter invisibility)?
Mirror Image is the big one you've left there. Spider Climb depending on environment, possibly with Protection from arrows. Blur would be on there except you've already assumed that your NPC has the perfect feat.

I was referring more to the fact that in a natural environment at high levels he's a total killer against anything without a good spot check.
So when he's in the perfect setup then he's good, yeah. And he'd better be facing a favored enemy or his damage will still be lame.

Who needs magic items when you can win without seeing combat, or even letting your enemy be aware of your existence?
Diplomancy? Ok, if you want that to fly, go right ahead. Not in my game though. You're gonna need more than one sneak attack to drop a guy though, so you're really not likely to kill them before they know you're there. Unless you mean sneaking past to fulfill an objective, which I'll agree is great thing to do. But then it's just the rogue playing by himself while the party waits for him to get back.

Not true; some skills can grant just as many options as spells, if not more. It's just implicit in the skill description rather than explicit.
You'll have to be more specific then, because the hard rules say no. Almost every skill has a spell that completely trumps it by 3rd level. Jump, Spider Climb, Fly, Knock, Invisibility, Silence, Charm Person, heck most spells are designed around doing something perfectly that would normally take a DC 30+ skill check.

And from the fact that you think that's one of the few things a rogue can do without magic items, it's clear you've never seen a well-played rogue. (Neither have I, admittedly, although outside D&D some extremely impressive characters are of that sort, most notably Lord Vetinari from Discworld. But I can at least see how it would be done.)
I've read plenty of anecdotes that have rogues doing cool stuff, but they invariably involve the DM letting the rogue do things that aren't actually in the rules. The kinds of things you have suggested above, such as using skills in ways that make them better than spells and throwing dirt in people's eyes to blind them. Now sure, a rogue can fight a spellcaster just as well as any other non-caster can, and better in a lot of ways if they can manage to hide and stay hidden (very few spells improve spot checks), but once detected he doesn't have any more ways of resisting a wizard's ticks than anyone else.

Casters, or UMD (such as the Balor, he has UMD), or just good saves (which won't totally negate them, but will make the spells less effective.) It's not necessary (or desirable) that the spells be useless, just that they be limited enough that they don't dominate the game.
So you're saying yes, you have lots of casters and regularly equip your NPCs with items that nullify spells. That's different from the standard "here's a monster/monsters in a room." If it's happening often enough that it affects game balance then it's nonstandard.

"Breath weapons and spells" is a pretty limited group to defend against, though.
Again, for a very limited selection.
Well, barring power attack. And barring adamantine-tipped arrows; they're not cheap, but a few should be affordable by level 7, much less by the levels where stoneskin is a viable tactic on a regular basis.
Unless your enemy has flying and power attack, or adamantine-tipped arrows, etc.
And then you get whacked with a lightning bolt, because you specified Fire.
And they'll be protected in ways you can't duplicate, like high AC (which is a lot harder to bypass than simply using adamantine arrows).
That's true if you're fighting on your schedule. Of course, that tends to only happen in dungeons, where there might not be enough room to fly up out of reach...
Breath weapons and spells are the only things not covered by mirror image, miss chances, and damage reduction, so yes it matters. It doesn't have to fully negate the attack to make it less effective: if you're cutting the damage in half, or the accuracy in half because of their power attack, you're still a heck of a lot harder to kill. Yes AC is easier to bypass, since all melee character get higher attack bonuses, especially beefy monsters. If they fly up and attack you in melee then you fly away and they have to chase you: if you're gaining altitude then they can't charge and you're safe. If you're in a narrow enough dungeon that you can't fly out of reach then you stay back in the hall where they have to get through your party's line first. And obviously, if you're fighting enemies that flying and adamantine arrows and this and that and something else then you're going to have trouble: apparently you run every NPC group as another well equipped adventuring party.

Won't help if they ready.
They don't know your exactly location: only a last known point, after which you moved a distance up to your speed in any direction. Sweeping the whole possible area will take their entire action, at which point you get to move again. And if you're in such a tight space that they can still find you, you use something else instead of invisibility.

Or a monk shows up to totally destroy him...part of my idea is that wizards will in fact have an advantage against fighters, but a disadvantage against monks. Since fighters beat monks, that should lead to balance.
I'll be waiting to see your monk adjustments for this. Like I said, I haven't seen a rock/paper/scissors method before, but one of the only suggestions people have come up with for the monk is the caster killer you're suggesting. Rebuilding the class to support that and making similar checks across all the classes should be neat.

Even a melee build should have good BAB and at least enough DEX to get an AC bonus, meaning a pretty decent ranged attack.
Just like every wizard should have Mage Armor up and have at least enough dex to get an AC bonus. Except con is usually better. Assuming they've got the same dex from prioritizing it second, that's an AC of 14ish (or 18ish with Shield) versus attack roll of +5 to +10ish (at say, 5th-8th level). That's an okay chance but it's nothing compared to their main focus, it's pretty poor damage, and it's still got the other defenses to beat.

How so?
The whole point of an adventuring party is to bring together different specialists. Combat specialist, stealth specialist, arcane specialist, divine specialist. Have you tried making a character that can do everything? In core? Basically all you've got is the bard. Bards can vary from amazing to failtacular, but there's no way you can tell me you'd want him replacing any of those roles. Supplementary fifth wheel, sure, but not replacing the wizard, or cleric, or fighter, and only maybe the rogue.

Ah, ok. So yes, they can, although still nothing that can't be dealt with by someone who's prepared (and with wizards having those options, it can be assumed that anyone who expects to possibly have to fight wizards will be prepared at least to some extent.)
This is another style thing, but once again I bring up the dungeon aspect. The default mode has the PCs barging into places unexpected, so the enemies shouldn't be prepared. It's only once they've crossed someone one too many times that someone does the research and prepares for them, at which point they get hosed. The PCs are prepared because they're going out and ruining someone's day, while their foes aren't prepared because they were just chillin. Depending on where you start the game, by the time you reach the point where the PCs are expected, they should have a lot more options and resources available, enough that they can deal even with people who are prepared for them.

I'd also want to point out here that the game isn't supposed to be fair: the PCs aren't the underdogs, they're the home team. Standard CR assumptions have the PCs outnumbering people of their skill level 4 to 1, or facing multiple foes that are so weak they could never take a PC one on one. It's not a bad thing that wizards are awesome, because the party is supposed to be awesome. It's only bad when the wizard is making it less fun for the others, usually stealing the spotlight by beating non-casters without any help, but even that's not necessarily how it goes every time.

No, it also benefits their party members.
Then if they're at all intelligent they'll make sure to get access to it some other way. It's not so hard to find a cleric (or a rogue with UMD) for your group at higher levels.
Except monsters and NPCs don't have parties. They have their broodmates and standing armies of generic warriors and whatnot. It may work as a balancing factor when everything is an adventuring party, and in character that makes quite a bit of sense, but it's not the default assumption. I don't think I've ever seen a DnD product where almost every encounter sported a caster or two and a UMD rogue.

A fighter's supposed to be quite a bit beyond "I has sword".
Praytell what then? In core they have no options outside of fighting things with weapons. They might try tripping or grappling, but they can only go so far with those without non-core resources. Outside of core they still don't have many options, but at least they can turn those options up to 11 and make them as effective as spells (killing foes in one blow, trip locking the entire room, or pinning a T-Rex to the ground). Or there's a couple feats like Kiai Shout, Goad, or the Intimidating Rage/Imperious Command build that can let you mess with their heads. In core they have sword.

Of course there is. He says "I grab some sand and throw it into my opponent's eyes", and the DM ad-hocs a mechanic for the purpose. Which, based on realism, will presumably involve at least a chance of temporary blindness.
The mechanic is "nothing happens," and the realism is "you think a trained fighter is gonna be blinded by a little dust he saw coming a mile away?"

DM ad-hoc mechanics are in Core...
And have absolutely nothing to do with balancing existing game mechanics. You absolutely cannot assume that DM ad-hoc is balancing some part of the game when you're writing rules to balance the game. The original book writers can get away with this because they knew their rules could only go so far, so they said "Hey DM's, make up something if it doesn't work right." When you write a fix for something, you can't assume that someone has already made up some mechanic that balances something else. That's your job, as the fix writer.

Or monsters with spellcasting levels (such as dragons), or NPCs (who can easily have casters in the group). Guess how many high-level monsters don't fall into one of those 3 categories?
I laugh at draconic spellcasting, as should everyone. Go check the effective sorcerer level compared to the CR of the dragon. It's completely useless for anything but low level buffs. You keep saying group when I'm saying monsters. If they party is constantly fighting other high level groups of mixed class NPCs, usually termed adventuring parties, then that's going to change how the game works.

Depends what you mean by "all day"; the term could mean continuously, or a more even distribution (perhaps due to having to keep the area safe until it's time to set up camp for the night.)
I don't even see how this is an effective scenario. You're camping in an area so dangerous you have to remain stationary in full combat mode to survive it? What? Again, these are outlier situations that make for special challenges if you bring them up, not a default balancing mechanic.

And if he's used up half of the options he brought, and then what he needs for the next fight is part of what he used up?
Then he does the same thing I've been saying: he uses other resources or he makes like a sorcerer and uses the second best option. It's the same as when a sorcerer doesn't know the right spell for the situation. The difference is that the wizard can change those "spells known" every day.

There should be few if any problems a wizard can solve with a single spell.
Funny, because that's exactly what most spells are designed to do. Spider Climb lets you climb across one impassable barrier, with one spell. Knock opens a locked door, solving the problem in one spell. Stinking Cloud locks down enemies over a wide range, dividing and wrecking the action of an entire group of enemies so that the party can kill them easily, with a single spell. Charm Person/Monster makes one enemy into a friend, altering the battle or gaining information/access you didn't have before, in one spell. Every spell is like that. That may not be good game design, but that's what they're meant to do, so if you want to change that then you'll have to rewrite a lot of spells.

Point. Of course, fly and mirror image will still probably need renewing, as of course will Improved Invisibility.
Maybe, depending on how large/small the area is. Five minutes is a long time in combat rounds. I also wanted to throw in that I've never recommended Improved Invisibility. Personally, I stick to min/level buffs unless I can get them from a swift action item. Rounds/level is far too unreliable for daily spells (items for emergency use might be worth it though).

Where hitting with a given attack (in the most general form) is primarily a question of probability rather than of evasive effects, thereby making defenses like AC important and numerous weak actions no more valuable than fewer strong actions.
That's... not the topic I was looking for, but okay. If you want to do that then might I recommend getting rid of the evasive effects? AC is never going to beat miss chance until you get rid of miss chance (or hugely alter/buff the AC mechanics).

But not necessarily less common among adventurers.
At least against PC-class enemies at higher levels. Essentially, PC-class enemies should have a makeup just like PC parties do.

So why are the adventurers fighting them all the time? Again, because you assume that all NPC antagonists are basically adventuring parties. Heck, the fact that they're bad people should mean that they rarely, if ever, have anyone helping them that's strong enough they weren't bullied into it! And that's not counting monsters, which don't usually form adventuring groups either. It makes sense when applying the rules to the world, but not with the established defaults.

Probably a good idea...not now, but later. Thanks.
Ah, but it was needed before you started. That way we could have avoided a considerable amount of unneeded confusion :smallwink:

Still, keep in mind that the travel time at least tends to be during those portions where time is not of the essence (e.g. the enemy doesn't know you're headed to them or you've defeated them already.)
So what is it keeping the two encounters hours apart via distance but doesn't count as travel time? I could see, say, fighting a guardian, then spending several hours opening an ancient door, then fighting another guardian, but that's about it. I would expect the only times that travel time is tracked would be when time is of the essence.

In versatility, probably. Although of course he's more similar to the wizard; a wilder is probably a better comparison for a sorcerer.
Unless the sorcerer is willing to settle for some lower-level effects boosted by metamagic.
Actually the psion is indeed the comparison to the sorcerer. If you count up their spells known and disregard cantrips, they come out almost even. The wilder only has 12 powers known, so few that it is practically unplayable. The psionic wizard analogue is the Eruidite (should be available online I think). In any case, you're missing my point about the augmenting versus metamagic. Look at the core metamagic feats (minus quicken of course). Those effects do not turn 5th and 6th level spells into the equivalent of 9th level spells. Several psionic powers do in fact augment to the equivalent of 9th level spells. The psion can learn powers using 5th or 6th level known slots that become 9th level effects. The sorcerer cannot.

I considered it, but I figured that there wasn't enough room between "so many it's not worth adding more" and "too few to be at all useful", so instead I'm reducing the wizard's advantages and giving the sorcerer a few other useful abilities.
Huh? Not sure what you're referring to here. I was suggesting that the sorcerer should gain access to new spells at the same level as the wizard. That delay is really the biggest problem, since it reduces the sorcerer's extra spells per day over the wizard, and forces the player to wait longer to do nice things.

What would be a (not extraordinary) example of a wizard's "right one" that can do with one spell what takes a sorcerer several?
1 or 2 levels under isn't such a big deal (and the wizard faces the same issue, as he only has a few spells from his top levels.)
A wizard uses Web to hit a group of enemies with a reflex save effect. A sorcerer brought Grease to target reflex saves, but can't afford to learn Web. He is forced to use 2-3 Greases to get the same effect as one web. Wizard uses Slow, but the sorcerer still only has Glitterdust, so he can't hit the same area and has to recast to hit all the enemies. Basically, at any time the wizard has access to the best spells of his highest level (that the socerer can't even cast yet), while the sorcerer only has 1. He can make do with lower level effects, but they frequently hit fewer targets or inflict less lethal status effects. He can make sure he has a good spread of effects so that he can always target the weak save and such, but the spell he uses won't be as effective as that of the wizard. This is an area where splatbooks really, really help. The simple +1 metamagic feat Sculpt Spell allows a sorcerer to take those awesome low level effects such as Grease and Glitterdust, and make them far larger and/or shape them around allies.

And why can't the sorcerer do that just as effectively?
Because the wizard has access multiple spells, half the time of level the sorcerer can't even cast yet, and can pick those that target both the vulnerable save and have a large area and more sever penalty, while the sorcerer must make do with lower level spells that often don't hit all the targets without Sculpt Spell.

Well, not 4 high-level spells a fight, probably more like 1 high-level and a few lower-level spells.
After 9th level or so though, the wizard has enough spells that he can defend himself, contribute a couple spells to each fight, and still have some left over. Those spells then either make them even harder to kill, crush enemies into gobs of jelly that are no fun to fight, or solve non-combat encounters meant for the skillmonkies.

Enough that they'll often get it...but not always.
From 5th level again, assuming a non-perfect individual: 8 ranks, 3 int, 2 synergy, 2 masterwork item, +15 bonus total. Only needs a 3 to hit a 3rd level spell. Skill focus is another +3, and if you're really desperate you could try making a +5 skill item (homebrew, but a simple formula just like weapon bonuses off the table).

No, as knowledge is partially random; one person might know fact A but not fact B, while another knows fact B but not fact A.
But this isn't trivia, this is a studied skill. This is a college course. These are the founding principles of magic, and you need to know a certain amount just to get where you are now. And you're literally working off a copy of the spell, right in front of you. Even if you didn't pay much attention to the lesson in class, you can still try to reverse engineer the method out of the starting equation and the answer sheet in front of you. This is 8 hours of work, not a free action check during combat.

A wizard shouldn't be absolutely reliant on any one spell (or if they are, they should take it as one of their free spells.)
Ah, but when you're stuck in core and there's only one spell at that level that does the job you need it to do, you make sure you get that spell.

Yitzi
2011-07-26, 10:32 AM
But they don't: only the sorcerer in this example has a way to lose xp that fast, aside from death.

Now that it's been changed, the sorcerer won't be losing XP fast at all.


I'll admit it's been ages since I last read the proper PHB and DMG fluff for the classes, so you're probably right on what's written there. I'm pretty sure there's at least one book that suggests drawing power from magical locations as an alternate origin though

Actually, in the distant backstory of a campaign I've written (and am writing these fixes primarily for), the very first sorcerers (at least among the humanoids) were due to a magical location; it wasn't that they drew power from there, however (although one did, totally draining it for a truly epic spell), but rather that it transformed them into being able to instinctively use magic.


Mirror Image is the big one you've left there. Spider Climb depending on environment, possibly with Protection from arrows. Blur would be on there except you've already assumed that your NPC has the perfect feat.

Protection from Arrows isn't so relevant, as anyone who wants to be able to fight a wizard is going to have magic arrows or a magic bow. Spider Climb is highly enviroment-dependent as you said, and can be countered much as Fly can. Mirror Image could be an issue, but it can be dealt with by just shooting down the images (once wizards can't deal with a powerful enemy reliably with a single spell, attrition becomes an option against them), plus I plan to add a feat that will help against that for those fighters who want to minimize their vulnerability to wizards. And even without Blind-Fight, Blur is only a 20% miss chance, not so much.


So when he's in the perfect setup then he's good, yeah.

Yes, rangers are somewhat situational...but in the ideal situation (which is not at all uncommon; anything from a cave complex to an open plain to a forest qualifies) they're extremely good.


And he'd better be facing a favored enemy or his damage will still be lame.

Magic weapons and decent STR can help with that...more to the point, when your enemy can't see you you can afford to take a large number of shots.


Diplomancy? Ok, if you want that to fly, go right ahead.

Diplomacy, bluff, etc. There'd be enough circumstance penalties when appropriate to make it take skill to pull off, but if done intelligently there's no reason it should be less effective than in the real world.


You're gonna need more than one sneak attack to drop a guy though, so you're really not likely to kill them before they know you're there.

You don't need to kill them at all. Manipulating others into killing them, that's the rogue way.


But then it's just the rogue playing by himself while the party waits for him to get back.

Yes, rogues (and rangers) tend to be have trouble using teamwork effectively.
But so do defensively-oriented wizards; if they put too much on defense the enemies can ignore them while attacking their allies.


You'll have to be more specific then, because the hard rules say no. Almost every skill has a spell that completely trumps it by 3rd level. Jump, Spider Climb, Fly, Knock, Invisibility, Silence, Charm Person, heck most spells are designed around doing something perfectly that would normally take a DC 30+ skill check.

Diplomacy has no spell to trump it. Charm person can sometimes imitate it, but between Will saves, the tendency for the target to get angry once it wears off, and the fact that cities and countries tend to make that sort of magic illegal to use on their citizens, Diplomacy has a clear advantage in many cases.
Bluff has no spell to trump it; the closest it comes is Glibness to improve it.
Hide is trumped in many ways by Invisibility...but has fewer magical counters.


I've read plenty of anecdotes that have rogues doing cool stuff, but they invariably involve the DM letting the rogue do things that aren't actually in the rules. The kinds of things you have suggested above, such as using skills in ways that make them better than spells and throwing dirt in people's eyes to blind them.

Naturally; if something should logically be possible but isn't in the rules, that doesn't mean it's not possible, just that it wasn't felt necessary to say that it's possible (usually because it's not magical so one can extrapolate from the real world) and if necessary the DM should make ad hoc mechanics, as per DMG p.25.


So you're saying yes, you have lots of casters and regularly equip your NPCs with items that nullify spells.

Well, for the intelligent NPCs. Unintelligent or stupid monsters would be different, and a wizard can be quite effective against them (well, at least defensively; they tend to be tough enough that he's no stronger offensively than any other character). Of course, so could intelligently played noncasters.


Breath weapons and spells are the only things not covered by mirror image, miss chances, and damage reduction, so yes it matters.

All those other things can be bypassed or are of limited use, though.


It doesn't have to fully negate the attack to make it less effective: if you're cutting the damage in half, or the accuracy in half because of their power attack, you're still a heck of a lot harder to kill.

Yes, harder. But that's compensated for by low AC and HP...and of course you have to balance your defensive capabilities with offensive.


Yes AC is easier to bypass, since all melee character get higher attack bonuses, especially beefy monsters.

But unlike the other things, AC can be sent up to extremely high levels; a classic sword-and-board can hit the low 40s by level 20 with minimal optimization, and a character optimized for AC with a high-power point buy can reach the low 70s in melee when fighting defensively.


If they fly up and attack you in melee then you fly away and they have to chase you: if you're gaining altitude then they can't charge and you're safe.

Point. (Although some monsters can handle that just by keeping up with you until your spell wears off.) The real counter to Fly is probably Dispel.

(Or for real fun, if you have an arcane archer with a high CL in the party, antimagic field with Imbue Arrow. Hit the flying wizard with it, and he's dead.)


If you're in a narrow enough dungeon that you can't fly out of reach then you stay back in the hall where they have to get through your party's line first.

Yes; thus, wizards work better with noncaster support. Which is the whole point.


And obviously, if you're fighting enemies that flying and adamantine arrows and this and that and something else then you're going to have trouble: apparently you run every NPC group as another well equipped adventuring party.

Well, the intelligent ones with PC classes, anyway.
After all, doesn't it make sense that they'd try to cut down on their vulnerabilities as well?


They don't know your exactly location: only a last known point, after which you moved a distance up to your speed in any direction.

If they ready to shoot on casting+pinpoint, and they pinpoint when you cast, they're going to shoot before you move (and if they hit, likely disrupt the spell as well.)


I'll be waiting to see your monk adjustments for this.

It's here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208452).


Just like every wizard should have Mage Armor up and have at least enough dex to get an AC bonus.

Well, the wizard can't max out DEX-to-AC since it's uncapped...even with Mage Armor and a decent DEX, though, the wizard will have far less AC than the fighter.


That's an okay chance but it's nothing compared to their main focus, it's pretty poor damage, and it's still got the other defenses to beat.

Yes; making a wizard more than marginally vulnerable to a class optimized for standard combat is both futile and undesirable; part of the point of wizards is that they completely change the rules, so beating a wizard will require a somewhat specialized build (or appropriate monsters; past CR 8 monsters tend to be somewhat more versatile and capable of at least putting up some challenge to the wizard.)
But so long as the wizard isn't always able to deal with things, the party system is necessary.


The whole point of an adventuring party is to bring together different specialists. Combat specialist, stealth specialist, arcane specialist, divine specialist.

Yes, but even that's not total specialization; if you have only one combat specialist, he's not going to specialize purely in melee and neglect range. (If you have a 6-member party, which I personally favor, then a melee person and a ranged person might work.)


Have you tried making a character that can do everything? In core? Basically all you've got is the bard.

And maybe the druid (who also can't do it as well as the specialists.)


This is another style thing, but once again I bring up the dungeon aspect. The default mode has the PCs barging into places unexpected, so the enemies shouldn't be prepared.

For those PCs, no. For some adventurers or heroes coming in to mess things up? That they often will be, especially if they're making trouble.


I'd also want to point out here that the game isn't supposed to be fair

True; it is, however, supposed to be realistic. It's also supposed to be close enough to fair to be a challenge.


It's only bad when the wizard is making it less fun for the others, usually stealing the spotlight by beating non-casters without any help

Exactly. Which the wizard fix is meant to prevent.
Or when the wizard is so powerful that playing a non-wizard is a suboptimal choice. Which these fixes and boosts are also meant to prevent.
Or when it's so imbalanced that there's no challenge and therefore no fun, but that also shouldn't happen too often.


Except monsters and NPCs don't have parties. They have their broodmates and standing armies of generic warriors and whatnot. It may work as a balancing factor when everything is an adventuring party, and in character that makes quite a bit of sense, but it's not the default assumption.

In-character sense is more important to me than default assumptions. Dump monsters probably don't have parties, smart NPCs would.


I don't think I've ever seen a DnD product where almost every encounter sported a caster or two and a UMD rogue.

Not every encounter, just those against enemies who should know better.


Praytell what then? In core they have no options outside of fighting things with weapons.

There's a big difference between "fighting things extremely competently with weapons" and "I has sword".


They might try tripping or grappling, but they can only go so far with those without non-core resources.

Well, I do plan to add a few boosts to that approach with my fighter fix.


Outside of core they still don't have many options, but at least they can turn those options up to 11 and make them as effective as spells

And I do plan to boost the fighter to that level (although that's more effective than spells are under the fix.)


The mechanic is "nothing happens," and the realism is "you think a trained fighter is gonna be blinded by a little dust he saw coming a mile away?"

Well, a trained fighter would likely make his reflex save to avoid it. Just like a trained fighter would make the will save against glitterdust.


And have absolutely nothing to do with balancing existing game mechanics. You absolutely cannot assume that DM ad-hoc is balancing some part of the game when you're writing rules to balance the game.

I can assume that anything that works in real life works in D&D, though.

That said, I've thought about it and it does seem Glitterdust is a bit too much, so I'll be fixing it shortly (changing it to a Reflex save, and allowing a free Fort save DC 10 each round to remove the blindness.)


I laugh at draconic spellcasting, as should everyone. Go check the effective sorcerer level compared to the CR of the dragon. It's completely useless for anything but low level buffs.

Like the low level buffs which can negate some of the wizard's options.


You keep saying group when I'm saying monsters. If they party is constantly fighting other high level groups of mixed class NPCs, usually termed adventuring parties, then that's going to change how the game works.

I see it as being a mix; when trekking through a forest the random encounters won't be adventuring parties, but when storming a temple of Nerull things will be a lot more party-like.


I don't even see how this is an effective scenario. You're camping in an area so dangerous you have to remain stationary in full combat mode to survive it? What?

Not necessarily stationary, but in enemy territory with the resulting necessary readiness.


Then he does the same thing I've been saying: he uses other resources or he makes like a sorcerer and uses the second best option.

And similarly the sorcerer sometimes has the best option (when it's one of the more common ones) and sometimes not.


Funny, because that's exactly what most spells are designed to do. Spider Climb lets you climb across one impassable barrier, with one spell. Knock opens a locked door, solving the problem in one spell.

Both of those are wastes of spells when the party rogue can do it, and cases where he can't are rare enough that the sorcerer can use scrolls.


Stinking Cloud locks down enemies over a wide range, dividing and wrecking the action of an entire group of enemies so that the party can kill them easily, with a single spell.

Well, unless they make their saves or those who aren't affected manage to last long enough for the rest to recover. With the fix, it doesn't last long enough to make for easy killing. (Also, that's a common enough situation that the sorcerer can put the spells on "spells known".)


Charm Person/Monster makes one enemy into a friend, altering the battle or gaining information/access you didn't have before, in one spell.

It alters the battle in one spell, but doesn't win it outright.
Just like what a sorcerer can do.

A wizard can have an effect with one spell, but rarely is one spell alone sufficient to win the battle.


Maybe, depending on how large/small the area is. Five minutes is a long time in combat rounds.

Yes, but not so long for between combats.


That's... not the topic I was looking for, but okay. If you want to do that then might I recommend getting rid of the evasive effects? AC is never going to beat miss chance until you get rid of miss chance (or hugely alter/buff the AC mechanics).

Why not? Assuming it takes a 10 to hit (which should be pretty reasonable), a 20% miss chance is equivalent to only +2 AC (and generally far harder to get and easier to bypass), and even a 50% miss chance (which you can't really get for more than 1 round/level) is only equivalent to +5 AC. Miss chances don't stack (a 20% miss chance and a 50% miss chance just mean two rolls), and if both come from concealment (most do) they don't even call for separate rolls.


So why are the adventurers fighting them all the time?

Not all the time. Just enough to make the wizards not invulnerable.


Heck, the fact that they're bad people should mean that they rarely, if ever, have anyone helping them that's strong enough they weren't bullied into it!

Actually, that doesn't follow; they also might be in it from shared greed, or all belong to the same organization; an evil rogue-type might even trick decent people into working for him.


So what is it keeping the two encounters hours apart via distance but doesn't count as travel time?

They wouldn't be kept apart by distance; the time issue would be more due to having to rest to regain spells after progressing a certain amount. (But not too often, as then the enemy will have time to react). And yes, that does mean 10 min/level spells can be used for multiple fights, but most of those are relatively easy to bypass or get around (there is no combination of 10 min/level spells that will protect you well against a power-attacking enemy, or against 3 separate energy types.)


Actually the psion is indeed the comparison to the sorcerer. If you count up their spells known and disregard cantrips, they come out almost even. The wilder only has 12 powers known, so few that it is practically unplayable.

Except for the fact that, as you pointed out, they have augmentation to make low-level powers usable as higher-level ones.

You can't have it both ways; if the psion compares well to the sorcerer in spells known, he can't also be far stronger in the same issue.


The psionic wizard analogue is the Eruidite (should be available online I think).

That's a closer equivalent...the psion's more in between, I suppose.


In any case, you're missing my point about the augmenting versus metamagic. Look at the core metamagic feats (minus quicken of course). Those effects do not turn 5th and 6th level spells into the equivalent of 9th level spells.

Heighten comes pretty close, and Maximize/Empower can actually make evocation spells better than the equivalent-level unmetamagicked spells.


Huh? Not sure what you're referring to here. I was suggesting that the sorcerer should gain access to new spells at the same level as the wizard.

Probably a good idea; I'll add it in.


He can make do with lower level effects, but they frequently hit fewer targets or inflict less lethal status effects.

Except at the lowest levels (where spells/day is a major limiting factor for the wizard), a slightly lower-level effect won't be that much inferior. Especially if he goes for blasting and killing spells rather than debuffs (which is what he's better at anyway.)


Because the wizard has access multiple spells, half the time of level the sorcerer can't even cast yet, and can pick those that target both the vulnerable save and have a large area and more sever penalty

Large area and severe penalty are constant, though, so the sorcerer can get that too (and after the first few levels, they don't increase that much with level.)


After 9th level or so though, the wizard has enough spells that he can defend himself, contribute a couple spells to each fight, and still have some left over.

A large part of the idea of my wizard fix was that contributing a couple spells to each fight should often not be sufficient. (Saves will also help here.)


From 5th level again, assuming a non-perfect individual: 8 ranks, 3 int, 2 synergy, 2 masterwork item, +15 bonus total. Only needs a 3 to hit a 3rd level spell.

There is no such thing as a spellcraft item, so it can't be masterwork. But yes, it will not be all that hard, it's a minor point rather than a major one.


But this isn't trivia, this is a studied skill. This is a college course. These are the founding principles of magic, and you need to know a certain amount just to get where you are now.

And those are the things with DC less than your bonus (or equal, or more by 1.)


And you're literally working off a copy of the spell, right in front of you.

A copy that's written in a style somewhat different than your own.


Ah, but when you're stuck in core and there's only one spell at that level that does the job you need it to do, you make sure you get that spell.

The only spell that's really essential is Dispel Magic, and you can get that as one of your 2 free spells at level 5.

Oh, also another couple of notes about defensive buffs and wizard vs. sorcerer:
1. Even if you can fight multiple fights before they run out, a dispel can seriously wreck your day if you only have one of everything.
2. Most of the buffs aren't self-only, so while the wizard can be better protected, the sorcerer can protect the whole party (to a somewhat lesser extent.)

Fizban
2011-07-29, 03:44 AM
I'm getting tired of multiquoting, so I'm gonna be skipping less major details and stacking blocks together now.

Magic weapons and decent STR can help with that...more to the point, when your enemy can't see you you can afford to take a large number of shots.
You don't need to kill them at all. Manipulating others into killing them, that's the rogue way.
Naturally; if something should logically be possible but isn't in the rules, that doesn't mean it's not possible, just that it wasn't felt necessary to say that it's possible (usually because it's not magical so one can extrapolate from the real world) and if necessary the DM should make ad hoc mechanics, as per DMG p.25.
Archers have two attributes to worry about instead of one and have no ranged version of power attack for easy extra damage. If you're used to just base weapon+str+magic then sure, they can do good damage, but nothing compared to an optimized melee build. It's enough to be worth stacking another spell, but it's not nearly as bad as dealing with anyone in melee. I think you're really underestimating how good mirror image is: it'll usually give you at least 4 images, so that's four attacks soaked, not counting any that miss due to iterative penalties and botched rolls (it happens). Regarding social sklills: they just aren't that useful short-term without serious optimization. I'll give you that over time you can be as magnificent of a bastard as you can imagine, but in the course of one day there's not much room. It takes time to use those skills, and they give you very little influence below epic.

Finally, and most important for this block: just because it can be done in the real world doesn't mean it can be done in dnd. Sure, you can try to do something, and the DM can choose to make up some mechanics for it on the spot, but he is not required to do so. Many DMs don't like dealing with anything that's not in the rules and default to a simple "no" whenever faced with such questions. It doesn't matter what you personally think a class can do and would allow: unless the class (skill, spell, etc) explicitly says that you can do it, then it probably doesn't matter for game balance.

All those other things can be bypassed or are of limited use, though.
But unlike the other things, AC can be sent up to extremely high levels; a classic sword-and-board can hit the low 40s by level 20 with minimal optimization, and a character optimized for AC with a high-power point buy can reach the low 70s in melee when fighting defensively.
I almost want to start shouting, "schrodenger's gear! schrodenger's feats!" but that's a bit extreme. Still, the reason wizard advocates get away with saying they always have the answer is because they can literally change their entire spell loadout every day. Not so much with magic items and feats. And limited use doesn't matter as long as it lasts long enough. As for AC: go check the attack bonus on a couple CR 20 creatures. Red Dragon +36, Pit Fiend +30, Nightwalker +24 (and can destroy magic items). AC 40 isn't going to save you, and furthermore, it will cost a lot of your WBL that could have been spent on killing things better (which protects the whole party instead of just yourself). I'd love to see this AC70 core only build by the way.

Like the low level buffs which can negate some of the wizard's options.
Yes, but not so long for between combats.
It is very rare for a low level spell to negate a higher one. A wizard has far more options than a sorcerer of the same level, and a dragon is a sorcerer of a far lower level. Dragon casting is generally best used for things like Mage Armor and Shield to enhance their already hard enough to beat AC, then adding spells that were designed for dragons like Scintillating Scales and Blood Wind, and swift action spells like Wraithstrike. None of these really invalidate a wizard (except Scintillating Scales, which jacks up touch AC), but they do make it an even more lethal combat machine.

Why not? Assuming it takes a 10 to hit (which should be pretty reasonable), a 20% miss chance is equivalent to only +2 AC (and generally far harder to get and easier to bypass), and even a 50% miss chance (which you can't really get for more than 1 round/level) is only equivalent to +5 AC. Miss chances don't stack (a 20% miss chance and a 50% miss chance just mean two rolls), and if both come from concealment (most do) they don't even call for separate rolls.
And why are you assuming it would take a 10 to hit? The Shock Trooper dumps all his AC into power attack, the wizard doesn't bother aside from cheap 1st level spells, neither has nearly enough AC to make a competent fighter need a 10 to hit. And yet, 20% miss chance is still 20% miss chance. It doesn't matter how low your AC is when Displacement cuts all the attacks in half. In fact, your argument works against you: unless you can make your AC consistently 10 or more points higher than your opponents attack rolls, for less cash than getting a 50% miss chance, the AC is never going to be worth it. And the miss chance also works against touch/ranged touch spells, which are some of the nastiest.

Not all the time. Just enough to make the wizards not invulnerable.And yes, that does mean 10 min/level spells can be used for multiple fights, but most of those are relatively easy to bypass or get around (there is no combination of 10 min/level spells that will protect you well against a power-attacking enemy, or against 3 separate energy types.)
If I sounded like I thought wizards were invulnerable, I apologize, as that was not my intent. Just better defended than anyone else in the party, including the sorcerer who has fewer defensive spells available. The spells you're looking for are Overland Flight and Stoneskin, and Resist Energy three different times. Unless you're counting your fighter as prebuffed and attacking from above in an ambush, that's enough to give you the time to respond (and if it's a successful ambush then duh, he wins, that's how ambushes work). Resist energy is only 2nd level, so if you're really going somewhere you're likely to run into that much energy damage then just layer it on there.

Except for the fact that, as you pointed out, they have augmentation to make low-level powers usable as higher-level ones.
You can't have it both ways; if the psion compares well to the sorcerer in spells known, he can't also be far stronger in the same issue.
What? I don't even. . . How am I trying to have it both ways? Yes, the psion has about the same number of powers known a sorcerer does spells. Yes, the psion is actually a bit better because it can augment some powers into effectively having more 9th level powers than the sorcerer. And yes, they are the psionic/magic equivalents of each other, both casting spontaneously off a spell list they cannot expand past what they learn on level up. None of these statements contradict each other.

Heighten comes pretty close, and Maximize/Empower can actually make evocation spells better than the equivalent-level unmetamagicked spells.
No, heighten does not come close. It increases spell DC. It does somehow make a lower level spells into a drastically different (and better) effect. Empowering the right spell for your level will usually get you about +50% damage. Maximize runs into die caps and won't give you much more than that. A sorcerer can blast better than a psion, I've already agreed to that, but metamagic does not equal actual higher level spell effects. Augmenting sometimes does. And you can't really blast well in core either: you're missing both the spells and the metamagic reducers needed to make it truly powerful. It's still just a fallback when you can't do something better.

Large area and severe penalty are constant, though, so the sorcerer can get that too (and after the first few levels, they don't increase that much with level.)
Have you compared the spells? There is a big difference between a 10' radius and a 20' radius, or targeting individual foes while avoiding allies, and there are always more severe effects. I don't mean to sound insulting, but have you tried building a sorcerer, especially with an organic spell list from a low level? You absolutely will get stuck using far lower level spells than you want to, with small areas or insufficient severity. A wizard can change this the next morning. Now, with extra spells known at each level a boosted sorcerer won't be as bad off as before, but he will still eventually fall behind. It takes incredible scores to get high level bonus slots, which means at high levels the boosted sorcerer will fall back while the wizard can afford more and more.

A large part of the idea of my wizard fix was that contributing a couple spells to each fight should often not be sufficient. (Saves will also help here.)
Except that by my reckoning (and most of the thread, from what I read), it did not accomplish this. Several of the most powerful spells were untouched, and others were only "countered" by increasing the duration of cleric spells that negated them. Especially without any sort of preface stating that the fix assumed a world were there would be frequent encounters with "adventuring parties", for lack of a better term, it was insufficient.

There is no such thing as a spellcraft item, so it can't be masterwork. But yes, it will not be all that hard, it's a minor point rather than a major one.
Right under Tools and Skill Kits there's an entry for Masterwork Tool, which confers a +2 bonus on it's skill. Are you telling me you can't think of anything that could possibly give a bonus on spellcraft checks, currently being compared to knowledge skills :smalltongue:? Furthermore, in some of those splatbooks we're ignoring, there are stats for various libraries, books, laboratories, and magic items that can give circumstance or competence bonuses. My point being, that if it's easy enough to succeed on the check that it becomes only a minor point, why is it considered a fix?

And those are the things with DC less than your bonus (or equal, or more by 1.)
A copy that's written in a style somewhat different than your own.
Counters I anticipated when I wrote that /Mr. House. I figure that's a fine way to do it, but it makes me afraid for everyone's sudden lack of ability to cook basic food :smalleek:

The only spell that's really essential is Dispel Magic, and you can get that as one of your 2 free spells at level 5.
Oh, also another couple of notes about defensive buffs and wizard vs. sorcerer:
1. Even if you can fight multiple fights before they run out, a dispel can seriously wreck your day if you only have one of everything.
2. Most of the buffs aren't self-only, so while the wizard can be better protected, the sorcerer can protect the whole party (to a somewhat lesser extent.)
I've never seen Dispel Magic as all that essential. I've read some campaign journals where it definitely was, so I understand why, but those where very high op, high power campaigns with highly skilled players and a DM that threw them against full casters in a disturbing number of fights (note that one problem with this is that the enemy caster gets to use an entire day's worth of spells in one fight). My own game is mix new/old and no-op/research machines. The wizard is new but he'd already done his research before I could make any suggestions, but then he also get's KO'd in almost every fight. The only time they've used a dispel was when they were all about to die from a Confusion, and since no one remembered what the Cleric had prepared, I let them burn some of their oft-forgotten action points to have Dispel Magic ready. It did save their butts though.

As for buffing, hehe, I've taken that even farther. I've got a crackpot theory that the wizard's 4 spells per day at each level are supposed to be divided between the 4 party members, since everyone should be sharing their resources (casters share magic, tanks share hp, skills share movement). No one else seemed to give it the barest consideration last I posted it, but there it is.

Yitzi
2011-07-29, 03:08 PM
I'm getting tired of multiquoting, so I'm gonna be skipping less major details and stacking blocks together now.

Archers have two attributes to worry about instead of one and have no ranged version of power attack for easy extra damage. If you're used to just base weapon+str+magic then sure, they can do good damage, but nothing compared to an optimized melee build. It's enough to be worth stacking another spell, but it's not nearly as bad as dealing with anyone in melee.

Yes, it's not as bad...on the flip side, wizards tend to have low hit points anyway, so it's going to be an issue (though to really beat fly, you want either flying of your own or else dispel.)


I think you're really underestimating how good mirror image is: it'll usually give you at least 4 images, so that's four attacks soaked, not counting any that miss due to iterative penalties and botched rolls (it happens).

4 attacks soaked doesn't really sound all that bad unless wizards also have the means to win quickly.


Regarding social sklills: they just aren't that useful short-term without serious optimization.

Indeed; short-term they aren't so great.
More to the point, they can't be used effectively with access to only the books; you also need sufficient understanding of the in-character situation to find the way to get the best circumstance bonuses and have the effects you want.

But in the long-term, with proper in-character planning...they're incredible.


Finally, and most important for this block: just because it can be done in the real world doesn't mean it can be done in dnd.

So then why not? If D&D is simulating a "real" fantasy world, rather than just being a game with somewhat unusual rules (the approach that I am taking, and frankly am not even interested in balancing D&D without), then there's no reason to ban something possible just because the simulation needs fixing in order to allow it.


I almost want to start shouting, "schrodenger's gear! schrodenger's feats!" but that's a bit extreme. Still, the reason wizard advocates get away with saying they always have the answer is because they can literally change their entire spell loadout every day.

Doesn't help if you don't know exactly what you'll face today.


Not so much with magic items and feats. And limited use doesn't matter as long as it lasts long enough. As for AC: go check the attack bonus on a couple CR 20 creatures. Red Dragon +36, Pit Fiend +30, Nightwalker +24 (and can destroy magic items). AC 40 isn't going to save you

Low 40s will give you a decent chance to be missed, and more for secondary attacks. It won't protect you absolutely, but neither will spells even if not countered.


and furthermore, it will cost a lot of your WBL that could have been spent on killing things better (which protects the whole party instead of just yourself).

It can be done with 160k or so (less if you use stuff like a potion of barkskin CL 15 instead of an amulet of natural armor +5), pretty manageable by level 20. And yes, it does come at the cost of some offensive ability...but so does spending your spell list on defenses.


I'd love to see this AC70 core only build by the way.

Ok...this is the most extreme form of the build (which actually hits nearly 80): Put 10 points (for a score of 16) in DEX and 6 each (for a score of 14) in INT and WIS; for a high-powered point buy, that'll generally give you enough to put a decent amount in CON and maybe STR (CHA is dump.) Take grey elf (or if playing Core+SRD fire elf) for another +2 DEX and INT. So so far that's 18 DEX, 16 INT, 14 WIS.
For classes, make sure to take at least 1 wizard (more is better, as you're going to be partially relying on Shield), at least 1 monk (although this can be replaced by a monk's belt; you still need a source of Tumble, though, unless you want to go cross-class), and 10 duelist. 2 barbarian is also advised, as a substantial part of that AC is lost when flatfooted.

For equipment, get +6 items to DEX, INT, and WIS (cost 108k, or 126k if using a custom item slot for the WIS bonus), and +5 inherent bonuses (from tomes and manuals) (cost 412.5k) to each. Advancement points go 1 in INT, 1 in WIS, and 3 in DEX, for a total of 32 DEX (+11 bonus), 28 INT (+9 bonus), and 26 WIS (+8 bonus). You get to add all three to your AC, so that's 10+11+9+8=38 already.
Now add +5 deflection (ring of protection costs 50k), +5 natural enhancement (amulet of natural armor costs 50k and requires a custom slot for the WIS bonus, or else just use potions of barkskin), and +8 armor bonus (bracers of armor cost 64k) to bring it up to 56.
Now add in shield, and if you took the necessary wizard levels (or have a scroll) alter self: Troglodyte for another 10, up to 66. When fighting defensively, you get not only +3 for fighting defensively with 5 ranks in tumble, but also +10 against melee from Elaborate Parry, for a total of 79. (You get deflect arrows too, so the fact that your ranged defense is 10 points lower shouldn't be too much of an issue.)
Oh, and the touch AC is 46 against ranged or 56 against melee.

(I made the basic build for the Core Coliseum (http://community.wizards.com/coco/go/forum/viewboard).)


It is very rare for a low level spell to negate a higher one.

Death ward (which many dragons can get) negates quite a number of high-level spells, though.


A wizard has far more options than a sorcerer of the same level, and a dragon is a sorcerer of a far lower level.

The point of defensive casting isn't to block everything your opponent might use, it's to block the most powerful options. (Weaker options, such as evocation, tend to be harder to totally block than stuff like death effects anyway.)


Dragon casting is generally best used for things like Mage Armor and Shield to enhance their already hard enough to beat AC, then adding spells that were designed for dragons like Scintillating Scales and Blood Wind, and swift action spells like Wraithstrike.

And stuff like deathward and freedom of movement to totally block (no caster level checks, no "reduces X damage", no "lasts for a certain number of attacks and then is used up") most of the wizard's save-or-die and save-or-lose spells.


And why are you assuming it would take a 10 to hit?

Because that's what's generally considered balanced (varying a lot, of course.) Naturally miss chance will be more useful for low-AC builds, but when you can't really get substantially better than 50% total miss chance (blink plus displacement is worth 60%, but that's pretty much the limit, and they're both short-term spells) it's not all that incredibly powerful except against a build that utterly relies on hitting with the first blow (such as an alpha strike build) or in combination with the ability to end the fight quickly (which is the main point in which I weakened wizards.)


It doesn't matter how low your AC is when Displacement cuts all the attacks in half. In fact, your argument works against you: unless you can make your AC consistently 10 or more points higher than your opponents attack rolls, for less cash than getting a 50% miss chance, the AC is never going to be worth it.

Yes it will, as you can get both the AC and the miss chance.


If I sounded like I thought wizards were invulnerable, I apologize, as that was not my intent. Just better defended than anyone else in the party

Now this is definitely not true in a well-functioning party, as most of the defensive spells can be cast on others.


The spells you're looking for are Overland Flight and Stoneskin

Overland flight is going to be used on everyone (and at that level, enemies who can meet you in the air are not uncommon), stoneskin has a material cost and also could be used on everyone (and at that level, enemies who can do substantial damage even with 10 DR, even against aerial targets are not uncommon)


and Resist Energy three different times.

Nope, only the last one has an effect. Straight RAW.


Unless you're counting your fighter as prebuffed and attacking from above in an ambush, that's enough to give you the time to respond

Yes, time to respond. But "respond" does not mean "win".


What? I don't even. . . How am I trying to have it both ways? Yes, the psion has about the same number of powers known a sorcerer does spells. Yes, the psion is actually a bit better because it can augment some powers into effectively having more 9th level powers than the sorcerer. And yes, they are the psionic/magic equivalents of each other, both casting spontaneously off a spell list they cannot expand past what they learn on level up. None of these statements contradict each other.

And yet the psion seems more equivalent to the wizard, in that he's got a discipline (just like wizards can have specialist schools), has INT as his main ability score, and gets bonus feats. The wilder is a far better match thematically for a sorcerer, so that's the proper comparison.


No, heighten does not come close. It increases spell DC. It does somehow make a lower level spells into a drastically different (and better) effect.

There aren't that many powers that can be augmented so drastically.


And you can't really blast well in core either: you're missing both the spells and the metamagic reducers needed to make it truly powerful. It's still just a fallback when you can't do something better.

Which should be a substantial portion of the time.


Have you compared the spells? There is a big difference between a 10' radius and a 20' radius, or targeting individual foes while avoiding allies, and there are always more severe effects.

By the point the distinction is between level 6 and level 7 spells, you should be able to get the 20' radius even with level 6. You won't always have quite the right tool, but you can get pretty good...while a wizard who's used up half his spells already can't necessarily even get second-best, he might have to settle for third- or fourth-best.


A wizard can change this the next morning.

What can he change it to that a sorcerer couldn't get in the first place?


Now, with extra spells known at each level a boosted sorcerer won't be as bad off as before, but he will still eventually fall behind.

Behind in spell selection, higher in ability to cast the same spell multiple times.


Except that by my reckoning (and most of the thread, from what I read), it did not accomplish this. Several of the most powerful spells were untouched

Such as? Defensive spells that buy a bit of time are indirectly affected by offensive spells being insufficient to win in that time.


and others were only "countered" by increasing the duration of cleric spells that negated them.

And giving them the ability to be far harder to dispel.


Especially without any sort of preface stating that the fix assumed a world were there would be frequent encounters with "adventuring parties"

Well, it's adventuring parties, less-intelligent monsters (who tend to have low CR), or monsters designed to be able to handle a lot of roles.


Right under Tools and Skill Kits there's an entry for Masterwork Tool, which confers a +2 bonus on it's skill. Are you telling me you can't think of anything that could possibly give a bonus on spellcraft checks, currently being compared to knowledge skills

There's no masterwork tools for knowledge skills either.


Furthermore, in some of those splatbooks we're ignoring

There's a reason we're ignoring them; while competence bonuses make sense (being magical), circumstance bonuses for knowledge, spellcraft, etc. make no sense.


My point being, that if it's easy enough to succeed on the check that it becomes only a minor point, why is it considered a fix?

It's not; it's a minor point within the fix.


I figure that's a fine way to do it, but it makes me afraid for everyone's sudden lack of ability to cook basic food :smalleek:

Nah, basic tasks don't need skill checks. Doesn't everyone know that?


I've never seen Dispel Magic as all that essential.

You can manage without it, but it's definitely important, especially when fighting a buffed-up enemy (whether a caster or simply someone with a lot of potions.)


As for buffing, hehe, I've taken that even farther. I've got a crackpot theory that the wizard's 4 spells per day at each level are supposed to be divided between the 4 party members

The buffs definitely are (Not literally 4 for 4, as most wizards are assumed to be doing some offense as well). A wizard hoarding all his spells for himself, but relying on the help of party members when he needs it, will of course look overly impressive. The best counter to that is simply to make sure that he does need the other party members (e.g. make at least some encounters able to beat wizards easily), and then the party will have the ground to argue that he should be sharing his abilities just like everyone else does.

Fizban
2011-07-29, 05:39 PM
So then why not? If D&D is simulating a "real" fantasy world, rather than just being a game with somewhat unusual rules (the approach that I am taking, and frankly am not even interested in balancing D&D without), then there's no reason to ban something possible just because the simulation needs fixing in order to allow it.
And that's great for you. All the other DMs that don't feel like dealing with it will ban it, or look to your fix to fix it, and then ban it when they see it wasn't fixed.

Doesn't help if you don't know exactly what you'll face today.
And Mr. Schrodenger doesn't know what he's facing either.

Ok...this is the most extreme form of the build
Ok, so it's possible, but the character will still be almost completely useless.

And stuff like deathward and freedom of movement to totally block (no caster level checks, no "reduces X damage", no "lasts for a certain number of attacks and then is used up") most of the wizard's save-or-die and save-or-lose spells.
You need a CR 18 dragon in order to have access to 4th level spells, with caster level 9. Considering you're the one advocating dispelling, I'd expect you to realize how long those would last against a real 18th level caster.

Now this is definitely not true in a well-functioning party, as most of the defensive spells can be cast on others.
Can does not mean will. The classic wizard problem is that there's no reason to help the party when you can just crush everything into jelly and wait for them to clean it up. No, I won't be casting Overland Flight and Stoneskin over the whole party, because then the party would not be functioning well at all. Oh yay, everyone's flying, and we have no magical support now!

Nope, only the last one has an effect. Straight RAW.
There was a whole thread on this. Suffice to say, I think that viewpoint is ridiculous and I'm not arguing it here. I'd give you the proper thread title to look it up, but I don't have it.

Yes, time to respond. But "respond" does not mean "win".
In normal DnD, yes it does. With your mods? Maybe a little less so, but unless this fighter also somehow has all the immunity buffs up, then he's got a very good chance of going down to something, if he doesn't just get hit with a no-save.

And yet the psion seems more equivalent to the wizard, in that he's got a discipline (just like wizards can have specialist schools), has INT as his main ability score, and gets bonus feats. The wilder is a far better match thematically for a sorcerer, so that's the proper comparison.
Wow, okay, so just ignore the actual mechanics of the class then. Primary casting stat is one word in one line, discipline focuses can be found in almost any class, and pre-written fluff isn't everything. I've already told you why they're the same, if you don't want to accept it then I can't make you.

There's no masterwork tools for knowledge skills either.
There don't need to be, that's the whole point! They give examples of specialized fancy tools like Thieve's Tools and Alchemy Labs, and then for everything else they just say "eh, it's 50gp and gives a +2 if it applies to the skill." And as I already said, there are plenty of other books that give precedent to "expensive book= masterwork bonus." The only way you can say that there's no masterwork tool for something is if you use the same logic I have been, where you don't feel like making something up. You're the one who says the DM has to make up stuff whenever his players improvise, so hey, now I wanna buy a reference book to make it easier to do spell work. Guess what entry that uses. Masterwork tool. And it's a heck of a lot easier than making up some brand new mechanic in the middle of combat for something a character can't actually do.

Nah, basic tasks don't need skill checks. Doesn't everyone know that?
And if you take a quick glance at the rules it's easy to see why. Most tasks have a DC of 10 or less (sometimes 5, sometimes even 1 or 0), which means anyone not threatened, and thus taking 10, will succeed every time.

Anyway, I don't think I've got anything else to say. I'm glad that you took some of my advice, but I don't think any more is going to matter at this point (after a whole page of multiquote wars :smallbiggrin:). Maybe your game really does work out like all that, but in my, and a lot of the rest of the board's experience, many of your assumptions are just wrong. I really do recommend putting up a preface with your campaign assumptions/style/etc if you're writing a fix that depends so heavily on them for balancing factors not present in the game mechanics. Remember that when you post a mechanical fix, it will be evaluated based on the mechanics of the game in a vaccuum, unless you've gone through great lengths to establish some world in place of said vaccuum.

Yitzi
2011-07-30, 09:52 PM
And that's great for you. All the other DMs that don't feel like dealing with it will ban it, or look to your fix to fix it, and then ban it when they see it wasn't fixed.

None of my fixes are meant to address the "rules don't cover everything" issue, as that can only be dealt with case-by-case.


And Mr. Schrodenger doesn't know what he's facing either.

So then he's going to run into the fact that sometimes he won't have the optimal choice prepared. In fact, that shouldn't happen all that less often than for a well-built sorcerer.


Ok, so it's possible, but the character will still be almost completely useless.

Yes; that's why it's the most extreme form rather than the standard form. The standard form would give up a bit of that AC for a substantially better attack...it's still a defensive build, but could possibly be enough of a threat (especially with FoB and possibly grappling grapple-vulnerable enemies) to be worth something. Or he could just try to bluff enemies (duelist has Bluff as a class skill) into thinking he's a threat and wasting their attacks on him.


You need a CR 18 dragon in order to have access to 4th level spells, with caster level 9. Considering you're the one advocating dispelling, I'd expect you to realize how long those would last against a real 18th level caster.

Together with Reinforce Ward, long enough to make evocations worth considering as an alternative.


Can does not mean will. The classic wizard problem is that there's no reason to help the party when you can just crush everything into jelly and wait for them to clean it up.

Which is why I weakened his ability to crush everything into jelly.


In normal DnD, yes it does. With your mods? Maybe a little less so, but unless this fighter also somehow has all the immunity buffs up, then he's got a very good chance of going down to something

Yes, after several tries to find which of the important immunity buffs aren't up (assuming they aren't all up, which they very well could be at higher levels). During which time the wizard's protections can be eroded.


if he doesn't just get hit with a no-save.

Those are the most vulnerable to immunity buffs, the ones most likely for him to make sure to get immunity buffs against, and many of them have HP caps anyway.


Wow, okay, so just ignore the actual mechanics of the class then. Primary casting stat is one word in one line, discipline focuses can be found in almost any class, and pre-written fluff isn't everything.

But together (plus the more comparable effective spells known) they make a pretty compelling argument that psion is more analogous to wizard, and wilder to sorcerer. They aren't identical, of course, because psionics does have differences from magic, but it looks to me like it's a far closer match that way.


There don't need to be, that's the whole point! They give examples of specialized fancy tools like Thieve's Tools and Alchemy Labs, and then for everything else they just say "eh, it's 50gp and gives a +2 if it applies to the skill."

Only applies when there is such a thing as tools for the skill.


And as I already said, there are plenty of other books that give precedent to "expensive book= masterwork bonus." The only way you can say that there's no masterwork tool for something is if you use the same logic I have been, where you don't feel like making something up.

No, it can also be when you're going to make something up if and only if it makes in-character sense. Which is definitely the way to go, since in-character thinking is fundamental to D&D.


Remember that when you post a mechanical fix, it will be evaluated based on the mechanics of the game in a vaccuum, unless you've gone through great lengths to establish some world in place of said vaccuum.

Point; for the summary (once I post all the class fixes, I plan to post a summary about how they interact, as no class can really be taken in a vacuum) I'll have to note some of my assumptions.