PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Magic Remix: The Philosopher's Stone



jiriku
2011-08-08, 03:33 AM
Balancing Magic and the Mundane: The Philosopher’s Stone


http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab24/gallopinggiraffes/philosophers_stone-1.jpg

"It brings joy in sorrow, victory in battle, light to darkness, life to the dead...
that is the power of the blood-red jewel which men honour with the name ‘the Philosopher's Stone.’"
-- Fullmetal Alchemist


We’ve all had it. The realization, somewhere along the line, that the rogue wasn’t doing anything your wizard couldn’t replicate with a wand of knock and bag of tricks. That your cleric could support the back rank better by casting summon monster to create a disposable tank than by casting cure wounds to help the fighter tank. That your druid didn’t actually need the rest of the party. Your mundane compatriots noticed that you were way more awesome than they were.

Somewhere along the line we figured out that in D&D, spellcasters got good a lot faster than martial and skill-based characters did. And if you’re the DM, you tried to figure out what to do about it. For many of you, this led to the conclusion that magic needed to be toned down. Rebalancing a game is difficult alchemy -- some people began experimenting, and created elaborate houserules or even invested years into completely rewriting the game. Others don’t want to spend years at the DM’s workbench, they just want to get on with the game. They're more interested finding the Philosopher’s Stone, a quick fix that makes the impossible, possible. But they aren’t sure exactly what to do to “fix” spellcasting. If you’re in the crowd that’s looking for a magical band-aid (or even the start to a fairly thorough solution) that’s not going to take too much time or be too hard to remember, here it is.



MAGIC, REMIXED

What this is: Philosopher's Stone is an errata for the Player’s Handbook. It recognizes that the magic-mundane power gap in D&D 3.5 exists because spellcasters have better things to do with their actions than do mundanes, and it shrinks that gap by reducing the power of spells. It’s also simple, by design. It makes magic a lot less powerful without forcing anyone to learn a lot of stuff. Instead it’s short, sweet, broad in scope, and easy on the brain. There’s little to learn, less to remember, and it’s a snap to use during play. In fact, you can fit the whole thing on a single 8 ½ x 11 sheet of paper, print it, and keep it at your gaming table for quick reference. Even “that guy” in your group (you know who I mean) shouldn’t have too much trouble figuring it out.

What this is not: Philosopher's Stone is not a perfect fix. It makes 3.5’s balance better, but it doesn’t aim for perfect balance. Philosopher's Stone doesn’t address every combo or loophole, and the DM may sometimes need to adjudicate how it impacts a particular spell or effect. Philosopher's Stone is not an overhaul of the entire game, or even a rewrite of individual spells or character classes. This is simple medicine intended to help the patient quickly feel better.

jiriku
2011-08-08, 03:34 AM
PHILOSOPHER'S STONE: A MAGIC REMIX

Apply these adjustments to your Player's Handbook.

CHAPTER 1: ABILITIES
Abilities and Spellcasters (p7): A high ability score does not grant bonus spells.

CHAPTER 3: CLASSES
Spells Per Day (p23): Any class whose table indicates that it gains 0 spells per day at a given level gains 1 additional spell per day at every level it is able to cast.

CHAPTER 5: FEATS
Metamagic feats (p88): Effects that reduce a metamagic feat’s spell level adjustment (or replace it with a different cost) do not stack with one another, and cannot reduce the spell level adjustment below +0.

CHAPTER 10: MAGIC
Choosing a Spell (p170): A creature can only cast one spell (including spells cast from scrolls) per turn, even if it would otherwise have enough actions available to cast more. Casting a spell as an immediate action counts as a use of a spell for the creature’s next turn.
Range (p174): Replace the following entries with the text below.

Close: The spell reaches as far as 20 feet away from you.
Medium: The spell reaches as far as 50 feet away from you.
Long: The spell reaches as far as 100 feet away from you.
Aiming a Spell (p175): Apply the following changes when figuring the area or targets affected by a spell.

Target or Targets: All spells that affect one or more targets, no two of which can be more than a set distance from one another, have this set distance halved.
Area: All bursts, cylinders, emanations, spheres, and spreads with a radius of 20 feet or more have their radius halved. All cones, cylinders, and lines with a length or height of 20 feet or more have their length or height halved. All shapeable spells, or spells that affect a number of squares or cubes, provide half as much shapeable area or affect half as many squares or cubes.
Duration (p176): Apply the following changes when figuring the duration of a spell effect.

Timed Durations: Durations of 1 minute/level now last 1 minute. Durations of 10 minutes/level now last 10 minutes. Durations of 1 hour/level now last 1 hour. Durations of 1 day/level now last 1 day.
Spell Resistance (p177): All spells that directly target creatures or that deal energy damage allow spell resistance, regardless of the spell’s Spell Resistance entry.

jiriku
2011-08-08, 03:38 AM
Frequently Asked Questions

1. Will Philosopher's Stone fix the problems with spell/feat/combo x?

Nope. This fix works by globally reducing the power of all spellcasting, not by rebalancing individual options. Philosopher's Stone ensures that almost every time a spellcaster spends an action to cast a spell, the character is getting less value for that action and that spell slot than before. Creative players will still be able to create optimized characters or even create broken or abusive combos. If you think your game needs a banlist to prevent this behavior, go ahead and write one, and use Philosopher's Stone with it too. There's no reason you can't have the best of both worlds.

2. Why doesn't Philosopher's Stone fix underpowered/overpowered class x?

Philosopher's Stone's scope is strictly limited to spells, in order to keep it short, lightweight and easy to use. However, it's true that a great many classes in the game don't work as well as the designers had hoped. If you're interested in boosting these classes, have a look at my class remixes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10523436&postcount=110), which present more effective alternatives to the existing class roles, in the flavor and style of the originals. You can also use your own homebrewed classes; it won't hurt my feelings.

3. Wouldn't Philosopher's Stone do its job better if it used [exotic system variant x] instead of the normal rules?

No. The goal of this supplement is not to change the game in a fundamental way, but to improve game balance while leaving the game experience fundamentally the same. That being said, however, if you want to implement some game-altering experimental rules, there's no reason you can't use Philosopher's Stone at the same time. Voids the warranty, though.

4. Hey! How can your fix work when it doesn't limit strong spell x or nerfs weak spell y?

Spells with an instantaneous duration or a personal/touch range are less affected by Philosopher's Stone than spells that have standard ranges and affect multiple creatures for a duration. This means that sometimes a strong spell may be nerfed slightly or not at all, while a weak spell may be nerfed more substantially by comparison. This does not impact the effectiveness of Philosopher's Stone -- remember, the goal is to globally reduce in the power of spellcasters, not to nerf strong spells (although you can do that on your own if you like).

However, you will find that the relative usefulness between spells has changed. Some spells that you liked may now seem not worth casting. Others that you had previously dismissed may seem more attractive by comparison. Under Philosopher's Stone, you might find yourself casting summon monster III where you previously preferred fireball, or preparing orb of fire instead of orb of force. Rest assured that there are still plenty of good spells to choose from.

Under the Hood
Generally speaking, the balance problems between spellcasting and mundane classes can be classified as too much, too many, or too often.

Spells generally do too much when compared to the options available to non-spellcasting characters. They make success too reliable, last too long, affect too many targets and do things that are too powerful to those targets. With over a thousand spells in print for D&D 3.5, it’s not possible to adjust the effects of individual spells in a one-page fix. However, it’s easy to adjust the impact all spells have by reducing range, duration, area, and the stacking of metamagic “reducers”, and by tightening the rules on spell resistance. A caster will now more often be unable to affect a target because the target is out of range or because he can’t penetrate its spell resistance. Spells that do work will affect fewer targets or influence less of the battlefield, and spells with a duration will end much sooner, providing their benefits for fewer encounters per day. The end result is that most spells will have a smaller impact on gameplay.

Spellcasters are theoretically limited by the need to hoard their daily supply of spells and by their inability to know or have prepared all the spells they might want. However, it’s commonly accepted that spellcasters have too many spells and too many options when selecting their available spells. Limiting the spells a spellcaster can know is beyond the scope of this remix. However, it’s simple to limit a spellcaster’s daily spells by reducing spell durations and eliminating the bonus spells for high ability scores (but refunding some spells to classes that needed bonus spells to function properly). Reducing duration tightens a spellcaster’s spell budget because key buff spells must be recast more often, expending valuable spell slots.

Experienced players often speak about action economy in high-level play, which is the ability to take more than one action per round. Spellcasters typically cast too often at high levels, and can often start an encounter with a “nova” of high-value actions that mundanes can’t match. Restricting spellcasting to once per round and reducing daily spells and the stacking of metamagic “reducers” chisels away at this problem; novas become more difficult to pull off, smaller and less effective, and consume more of the character’s daily resources. Reduced duration offers relief as well, because a caster who can’t “buff up” extensively before entering a dangerous area may prefer to begin combat with a defensive or buffing spell rather than an offensive combo.

Conclusion
Philosopher’s Stone is a magic remix intended to quickly and easily improve game balance. It narrows the gap between magic and the mundane by limiting the power of spells and the characters who use them. While it won’t solve every balance problem at your table, it will make your job as DM easier. I hope you enjoy it.

Ziegander
2011-08-08, 04:27 AM
I'd go a bit further with some things if I were you. For example:


CHAPTER 5: FEATS
Metamagic feats (p88): Effects that reduce a metamagic feat’s spell level adjustment (or replace it with a different cost) do not stack with one another, and cannot reduce the spell level adjustment below +0.

It would be more of a big deal if metamagic reducers couldn't reduce any given metamagic feat's spell slot adjustment below +1, meaning that a spell with two +X slot adjusting metamagic feats can never go below +2 no matter how hard a Wizard tries.


Choosing a Spell (p170):[/b] A creature can only cast one spell per turn, even if it would otherwise have enough actions available to cast more. Casting a spell as an immediate action counts as a use of a spell for the creature’s next turn.

This seems a little excessive. Clearly it is effective, but it sort of goes against the grain of a lot of the reason for many spells and effects to exist, not to mention common sense and fantasy staples.


Target or Targets: All spells that affect one or more targets, no two of which can be more than a set distance from one another, have this set distance halved.

Easier and more effective to add the blanket ruling, "no two of which can be more than 15ft apart from one another," to all spells with more than one target (but not area spells), which could then be modified by metamagic feats, etc.


Area: All bursts, cylinders, emanations, spheres, and spreads with a radius of 20 feet or more have their radius halved. All cones, cylinders, and lines with a length or height of 20 feet or more have their length or height halved. All shapeable spells, or spells that affect a number of squares or cubes, provide half as much shapeable area or affect half as many squares or cubes.

Best to simply halve the affected areas of all spells. As written this leaves 20ft areas alone (often much larger than a warrior could hope to affect) but reduces 30ft areas to 15ft. Makes more sense to hit all spells equally.


Spell Resistance (p177): All spells that directly target creatures or that deal energy damage allow spell resistance, regardless of the spell’s Spell Resistance entry.

I definitely think it's much better to rule that all spells are subject to spell resistance. In the case of spells that do not target or deal damage to creatures, a spell penetration check is required when the creature "interacts" with the spell effect (similarly to how a Will Disbelief save is entitled to a creature that interacts with an illusion), failure of which indicates that the creature with SR ignores the spell effect entirely (including total immunity to attacks by summoned creatures and freedom from other conjured substances like grease or web).

Otherwise, your adjustments work well enough.

Shadow Lord
2011-08-08, 09:42 AM
Huh... you do realize that when it comes down to it, this ' Nerf ' really only hurts blasting casters. So congratulations, you've done nothing to fix the problem spells, and made one archetype practically even worse. Good job.

byaku rai
2011-08-08, 10:57 AM
The only potential problems I see are the spells like the polymorphs and wish, or similar cheesey spells. They're not really effected. :smallfrown:

Fiery Diamond
2011-08-08, 11:24 AM
Huh... you do realize that when it comes down to it, this ' Nerf ' really only hurts blasting casters. So congratulations, you've done nothing to fix the problem spells, and made one archetype practically even worse. Good job.

Ignoring divination for the moment (which is a bit of an issue, I admit), I'm not sure why you say this. Buff spells are dramatically affected, as are a large number of utility spells. How is this not nerfing non-blasters?

Realms of Chaos
2011-08-08, 02:29 PM
Huh... you do realize that when it comes down to it, this ' Nerf ' really only hurts blasting casters. So congratulations, you've done nothing to fix the problem spells, and made one archetype practically even worse. Good job.

Actually, this fix does a bit more than that (quite a bit more):

In order to rain arcane/divine death from above while flying about, this alternate forces casters to be within range of most ranged/thrown weapons (instead of letting loose save-or-dies from 1000+ feet in the air).
The spell/round restriction nerfs quicken spell and the entire series of celerity spells (and, depending on how you define rounds, timestop).
The series of tried-and-true buffs that currently let a wizard remain invisible, flying, stoneskinned, energy resistant, and so forth now have crippled durations (although no ban to persistant spell may make it all for naught...)


This fix doesn't fix the innately broken things that magic can be used to accomplish (ruining economies, infinite wish loops, polymorph madness, ruining all mystery through divination) but what it does do is soften what casters are capable of actually doing on the battlefield.

Although I appreciate the benefit of brevity, there are 2 points that I'd like to make, however:
1. As Ziegander said, I'd reduce the minimum bonus of a metamagic feat to +1 unless already lower. Although I'm glad that metamagic reducers can't stack, people are still bound to find hideous abuses if there isn't some more solid cap on the number that can be applied.
2. Where to spell-activation and spell-completion items fit into your one-spell-per-round model? What about contingent spells and contingency effects? From what I've heard, a rather large part of being a tippy-verse wizard involves using your 21 contingent effects (20 contingent spells + 1 contingency casting) to prepare for literally anything.

Shadow Lord
2011-08-08, 04:46 PM
I agree with you that it does affect those, it hurts the weakest part of casting the most. That's what I see as the main problem with this. It may harm other parts of a Spell caster's arsenal, but it still hurts Blasting the most. That's the problem that I see very commonly in Magic fixes.

jiriku
2011-08-08, 06:12 PM
It would be more of a big deal if metamagic reducers couldn't reduce any given metamagic feat's spell slot adjustment below +1, meaning that a spell with two +X slot adjusting metamagic feats can never go below +2 no matter how hard a Wizard tries.


As Ziegander said, I'd reduce the minimum bonus of a metamagic feat to +1 unless already lower. Although I'm glad that metamagic reducers can't stack, people are still bound to find hideous abuses if there isn't some more solid cap on the number that can be applied.

I'm open too this idea, but imposing a +1 minimum would mean that any +1 metamagic could never be reduced. Since most of the +1 metamagics are quite weak (only extend and sculpt are really all that good), I'm reluctant to do that. What sort of abuses are you expecting that would justify the loss of the ability to reduce a +1 adjustment to +0?

As an aside, bumping Extend to a +2 adjustment could even be called-for when using Philosopher's Stone, but I omitted that because the design intent was to modify the rules as a whole, rather than spot-weld individual classes, feats, or spells.


Best to simply halve the affected areas of all spells. As written this leaves 20ft areas alone (often much larger than a warrior could hope to affect) but reduces 30ft areas to 15ft. Makes more sense to hit all spells equally.

This affects 20 ft areas. I set that as the lower limit because halving a 15-ft dimension on a grid of 5-ft squares produces a 5-ft dimension (15/2=7.5, rounded down to the nearest 5ft increment), which effectively reduces cone and line areas to single-target touch spells. That didn't feel right to me.


The only potential problems I see are the spells like the polymorphs and wish, or similar cheesey spells. They're not really effected. :smallfrown:


This fix doesn't fix the innately broken things that magic can be used to accomplish (ruining economies, infinite wish loops, polymorph madness, ruining all mystery through divination) but what it does do is soften what casters are capable of actually doing on the battlefield.

This is true to an extent. But I think it's inevitably the nature of the beast. I wanted Philosopher's Stone to be an offering that the whole community could appreciate and use, and the community doesn't agree on which spells are broken, let alone how they should all be fixed. Thus, I had to avoid the temptation to modify individual spells.

I'll mention, however, that Philosopher's Stone does limit a number of abuse-prone spells. A wizard casting shapechange, for example, now turns into an ungodly encounter-wrecking monstrosity for 10 minutes, rather than three hours (and can no longer cast two spells per round by turning into a choker). You can still drop a dragon with a spectral hand and a shivering touch, but now you can't cast both of these spells in the same round by quickening one of them.

Another aside: some DMs might consider Quicken Spell to be worth only a +3 metamagic adjustment when used with Philosopher's Stone.


...although no ban to persistant spell may make it all for naught...

Philosopher's Stone is compatible with any and all banlists that a DM might wish to employ.


Where to spell-activation and spell-completion items fit into your one-spell-per-round model?

PH142 under Activating a Magic Item, "Activating a spell completion item, such as a scroll, is the equivalent of casting a spell." Spell trigger, command word, and use-activated items are considered as separate, distinct actions. Thus, spell completion items would fit into the one-spell-per-round model, but other sorts of items would not. Good catch. I'll update the OP accordingly. This would certainly increase the relative value of potions, staves, and wands in combat. I'd tentatively say that's a good thing, as such items tend to be underused and spellcasters tend to have extra WBL lying around that needs to be drained off anyhow.


What about contingent spells and contingency effects? From what I've heard, a rather large part of being a tippy-verse wizard involves using your 21 contingent effects (20 contingent spells + 1 contingency casting) to prepare for literally anything.

The triggering of a contingency spell or an effect created by Craft Contingent Item would not count as the casting of a spell, because the 1-per-round hurdle was already met when the contingency was first cast). A DM is of course free to nerf or ban Craft Contingent Spell as he wishes. Philosopher's Stone is generalized enough to play nice with almost any sort of banlist or feat nerf.

I want to underline again what Philosopher's Stone does and does not do. It reduces the power gap between spellcasters and nonspellcasters by globally reducing the power of spells. It is not a series of spot fixes. Spot fixes are dependent on the tastes and needs of individual DMs and campaigns, so I leave them to the individual DM.


It still hurts Blasting the most.

I'm unsure where you're getting this impression. Since most blasting spells have durations of instantaneous or 1 round/level, they almost completely dodge the duration nerf. The range nerf doesn't reduce damage. And while the area nerf hits AoE blasting hard, it hits battlefield control even harder, and it doesn't affect single-target blasting at all. Broader spell resistance hurts blasting, but also hurts debuffing and enchant/domination strategies. The restriction on spells per round, and metamagic cost reduction affects all casting styles equally, and RoC has already observed that spell trigger items and contingent spells can be used to mitigate the impact.

I would agree that blasting is usually one of the weakest casting styles available to spellcasters, and Philosopher's Stone does nothing to correct this, but every casting style faces significant limitations under this adaptation.

Temotei
2011-08-08, 07:17 PM
Ignore this post.

You can delete posts by going into edit and selecting the delete post option above the post.

This seems viable enough. Personally, I prefer the craziness that is spellcasting right now to what this offers, but I can see a lot of people using this for an easy fix.

Ziegander
2011-08-09, 12:19 AM
@Jiriku: What's your stance on my "spell resistance always applies" idea?

Cieyrin
2011-08-09, 12:51 PM
To me, removing the bonus spells from high ability scores seems enough on the 'too much magic' front, to the point where you don't necessarily need the 1 spell per turn clause. If you don't have spells to burn, you're going to think more carefully about novaing then you did when you had so many.

It kinda makes Quicken the territory of gishes, particularly Swiftblades, too, as normal full casters now have no reason to really use their swift actions unless they really need their full round action for something (running away, probably). I suppose having it so you can use expendable items may be in and it is kinda nice to give reason for casters to go back to picking up staffs and wands. Arcane Fusion is still open as well, though I'm actually fine with that, as Sorcerers having nice things over Wizards does bring a bit of a smile to my face. "Where's your Quickened spells now, Library Hauler?! :smallamused:"

jiriku
2011-08-09, 05:03 PM
@Jiriku: What's your stance on my "spell resistance always applies" idea?

This would reduce the power of spellcasting. How would it work in practice? For example, let's say I'm a cleric with divine power and righteous might, protected by freedom of movement. If spell resistance applies to every spell, does that mean I need a spell penetration check to apply my strength enhancement to damage? Do I need to check to use my temporary hit points to absorb an attack from a spell-resistant creature? Can this creature (but no others) grapple me if its spell resistance breaks my freedom of movement? Can entangle me with a tanglefoot bag? If I'm grappling it, would I need to check spell resistance to claim my size bonus to grapple checks? Say I have 15 personal buffs on me, and am facing a group of spell-resistant creatures. Do I need to check spell resistance for every spell x every creature as each one interacts with me in turn?

Philosopher's Stone is useful because it's highly streamlined and lightweight. I could add your suggestion in, but only if we can find a way to implement it that's easy to use and remember.

As an additional concern, say I'm a wizard facing a magic-immune creature like a golem. How will I contribute to the combat?


To me, removing the bonus spells from high ability scores seems enough on the 'too much magic' front, to the point where you don't necessarily need the 1 spell per turn clause. If you don't have spells to burn, you're going to think more carefully about novaing then you did when you had so many.

If you use Philosopher's Stone and you think that approach is best for your campaign, go ahead! :smallsmile: Bear in mind though, that the one-per-round limit isn't just to limit novas. It makes all sorts of combos more challenging to build, and globally reduces the value of immediate- and swift-action spells, even for spellcasters who aren't interested in a spell nova. It also strengthens the paradigm that one spell is the equivalent of one full attack. And it makes staves, which are usually considered overpriced, much more attractive.


"Where's your Quickened spells now, Library Hauler?! :smallamused:"

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

eftexar
2011-08-09, 08:18 PM
I think this works very well and is much easier than the fix I am attempting (and need to get back to working on) in the form of my Magus class. There will always be spells such as wish that are overpowered, but once a DM pulls out a ban-list to add to this, this is probably the best way to nerf spellcasters without using homebrew classes.
Limiting spellcasters to one spell per round is an interesting way of doing things, but also eliminates some spell combinations. May I suggest that instead of limiting spells cast to one per turn, that maybe if you cast two spells in a round you must expend an additional spell slot (or additional spell points if you use that system) as the price.

Ziegander
2011-08-09, 09:12 PM
This would reduce the power of spellcasting. How would it work in practice? For example, let's say I'm a cleric with divine power and righteous might, protected by freedom of movement. If spell resistance applies to every spell, does that mean I need a spell penetration check to apply my strength enhancement to damage? Do I need to check to use my temporary hit points to absorb an attack from a spell-resistant creature? Can this creature (but no others) grapple me if its spell resistance breaks my freedom of movement? Can entangle me with a tanglefoot bag? If I'm grappling it, would I need to check spell resistance to claim my size bonus to grapple checks? Say I have 15 personal buffs on me, and am facing a group of spell-resistant creatures. Do I need to check spell resistance for every spell x every creature as each one interacts with me in turn?

Self buffs wouldn't ever require spell penetration checks unless you have spell resistance. The idea would be something along the lines of,

"A creature with spell resistance is sometimes able to ignore spell effects that it interacts with. To interact with a spell the creature must either be targeted by it, be within its area of effect, or touch the spell's effect in some way. Conjured creatures and objects are considered spell effects. When a creature with SR interacts with a spell the caster must succeed on a spell penetration check against the creature's SR. If this check fails the spell effect is unable to influence the creature in any way."

A bit wordy. Anyway, the caster only makes spell penetration checks when the creature interacts with a spell effect. Since a creature cannot interact with a buff spell (it can touch you but it can't touch the magic affecting you) self buffs would never need to penetrate a creature's SR.


As an additional concern, say I'm a wizard facing a magic-immune creature like a golem. How will I contribute to the combat?

Arguably, you'd contribute the same way the designers intended for you to contribute: buff your allies and pray. Yes, this makes those encounters more challenging, but it's better than the Wizard casting Grease and calling it a day.

jiriku
2011-08-09, 11:54 PM
Since a creature cannot interact with a buff spell (it can touch you but it can't touch the magic affecting you) self buffs would never need to penetrate a creature's SR.

How would that work with buffs like fire shield that have an offensive component? And how do you classify what is and is not "interaction"? When considering illusions, making an attack against an illusion or touching it has usually been considered interaction. I am loathe to create two competing definitions of a term that the designers themselves didn't define clearly.

Ziegander
2011-08-10, 12:28 AM
How would that work with buffs like fire shield that have an offensive component? And how do you classify what is and is not "interaction"? When considering illusions, making an attack against an illusion or touching it has usually been considered interaction. I am loathe to create two competing definitions of a term that the designers themselves didn't define clearly.


To interact with a spell the creature must either be targeted by it, be within its area of effect, or touch the spell's effect in some way. Conjured creatures and objects are considered spell effects.

1) There's how I already classified exactly what is interaction. Anything not called out there isn't interaction.

2) Fire Shield specifically calls out that SR applies to it, so it's special. Moreover, the spell effect is a wreath of flames, which are described as either warm or cold to the touch, so even if it didn't specify that SR applied it still would apply to creatures that touch the flames (AKA creatures that strike you with non-reach melee attacks).

EDIT: What this means is that to deal the energy damage to a creature you must overcome its SR with a spell penetration check. It also means that you do not need to overcome a creature's SR when they attempt to deal energy damage to you from which Fire Shield is protecting you unless they're dealing that energy damage to you as part of a non-reach melee attack.

3) My definition of interaction encompasses the illusion definition of interaction, as well as including more aspects. I don't understand your confusion.

jiriku
2011-08-10, 05:12 AM
I guess the source of my uneasiness is that your suggestion exceeds the design intent of spell resistance. P299 in the DMG goes to great lengths to limit the applicability to spell resistance against spells that work on the environment or on a third party, especially those that have instantaneous effects. The Law of Unintended Consequences (A.K.A. the Law of Murphy Laughing At Me) makes it likely that changing a fundamental assumption of the game will destabilize other mechanics, like a house of cards that's had a component removed.

For example, if spell resistance is universally applicable, then a PC wearing armor of spell resistance must check SR before he can climb atop a wall of stone, see in the light cast by a daylight spell, or pick up an item created through minor creation. It seems possible that this might raise many questions where the player will have to ask the DM "do I have to check SR when I do this?" I don't want to include anything in Philosopher's Stone that might give the DM a headache or force a flurry of ad-hoc decisions that might come back to haunt the poor DM later.

Does that make sense?

Ziegander
2011-08-10, 05:31 AM
For example, if spell resistance is universally applicable, then a PC wearing armor of spell resistance must check SR before he can climb atop a wall of stone, see in the light cast by a daylight spell, or pick up an item created through minor creation. It seems possible that this might raise many questions where the player will have to ask the DM "do I have to check SR when I do this?" I don't want to include anything in Philosopher's Stone that might give the DM a headache or force a flurry of ad-hoc decisions that might come back to haunt the poor DM later.

All true and good points.


Does that make sense?

Yeah, makes sense.

Since SR is a pretty clunky mechanic in the first place, it's actually worth (not for The Philosopher's Stone) rewriting it altogether in many ways. Simply being able to voluntarily turn SR on or off as a free action and for as long as a creature wished would solve many issues, and making sure it always applied as outlined above would solve many more. Then making SR more widespread, more easily obtainable, and more easily buffed would help tremendously.

jiriku
2011-08-11, 05:07 AM
Since SR is a pretty clunky mechanic in the first place, it's actually worth (not for The Philosopher's Stone) rewriting it altogether in many ways. Simply being able to voluntarily turn SR on or off as a free action and for as long as a creature wished would solve many issues, and making sure it always applied as outlined above would solve many more. Then making SR more widespread, more easily obtainable, and more easily buffed would help tremendously.

Absolutely. When I write SR into a homebrew class, I always add a caveat to it to eliminate all those "gotcha" issues. And the DMG's prices for adding SR to armor are... very silly.

Mulletmanalive
2011-08-11, 06:28 AM
I'd argue that armour bonuses and stuff probably should be cancelled or ignored by creatures with SR. It just kind of makes sense that things that are resistant to magic would be harder to low down with fields of force

Perhaps active effects simply "Take 10" meaning that they work as long as you're not facing something that's outclassing you?

jiriku
2011-08-11, 09:08 AM
Intuitively, that makes sense. I get a nice visual in my head of the mage's face twisting in dismay when a spell-resistant demon bypasses his armor to strike him. But there are, like, four spells in the whole game that offer an armor bonus, and they're all named either "mage armor" or "luminous armor". Is it really worth creating a blanket rule for every player to remember, just to nerf four spells that really don't have much impact to begin with?

What I was really tempted to do was to make a small banlist of all the spells that reduce spell resistance, so that when facing a spell-resistant creature, the caster is force to deal with it rather than flicking out assay spell resistance as a swift action and then going about his business. However, that led me down the rabbit hole of having to list every spell that reduced SR, including some that did other interesting things, and then having to consider magic items and feats that reduced SR... ultimately I felt that it didn't pass the litmus test of "improved gameplay" exceeding "increased rules burden". The one-spell-per-round limit also came to the rescue by forcing a caster who casts assay spell resistance to wait until the following round to cast another spell. A lot can happen in a round.

Mulletmanalive
2011-08-11, 09:47 AM
perhaps just add a proviso on "Pierce Magical Protections" that allows those with SR to use it as a conventional attack rather than a Standard action would do the same job

jiriku
2011-08-11, 09:55 AM
That could work quite well. Attaching it to an offensive feat places the burden of understanding and remembering the rule on the player (or DM!) who's receiving the benefit of the rule -- someone who won't mind memorizing it because they're directly receiving the benefit.

Drachasor
2011-08-11, 01:36 PM
I truly feel this does more to hurt a lot of balanced options than what's actually problematic. Heck, most of the overpowered bits are still there, and without bonus spells there's even a greater incentive to use them. This also encourages parties to have shorter workdays, since spells are rarer.

You could literally double or triple the amount of spells a caster can cast per day if you got rid of the spells that were actually problematic. Outside of that there's no quick fix.

Another way to go about it would be to buff the Tier 4 or 5 classes -- honestly that should be part of any fix. A Fighter is still a terrible class with these changes.

T.G. Oskar
2011-08-11, 02:55 PM
Although the limitation on metamagic feat reducers makes some combos less effective (such as a Maximized, Empowered, Twinned, Split Ray Enervation through Arcane Thesis and Incantatrix), it still allows those metamagic combos to exist. Psionics hit it right, to an extent, by limiting the amount of metamagic feats through the psionic focus requirement. Thus, while a power could be Maximized OR Empowered, it can't be Maximized AND Empowered unless you really go ahead on feat choices. The fact that I can still, to an extent, keep that combo but require a much higher spell slot, really doesn't do more than delay the accessibility of the improved spell.

The problem spells are really there (Gate, Wish, Miracle, Shapechange), although a bit of progress has been dealt regarding their duration. Still, there should be some spells that last for a while and some spells with a reduced duration (Mage Armor, for example, only adds a +4 to AC, so making it last only an hour will reduce its potential at higher levels; then again, you really don't need Mage Armor that much on later levels, so having a +4 armor bonus to AC for more than an hour really doesn't do much).

I find it hurts gishes a bit more than spellcasters (including partial spellcasters) because while the latter can get enough spell slots, the former need the bonus spells to be worthwhile. Certainly, a wizard with about 2 1st level spells at 1st level plus all 0-level spells might not seem like a challenge at first, but a 9th level one with the cascading amount of spells they have might (since they'd get about 5 extra spells total, perhaps 6 because of the second 1st level slot); however, a paladin limited to a single 1st level spell slot until 13th level really hurts a lot. Sure, you can use the remixed Knight-Paladin, but for those who don't, it'll hurt. It'll hurt more to know that you'll have very few spell slots available until you reach around 15th level, in which you'll suddenly have a bigger amount of spell slots as they gain 1 or 2 extra slots per level. That should be one thing to consider, because it also applies to those characters who get a delayed amount of spells. The Bard really gonna get hurt because of this, for example, because it's gonna make their Charisma less useful, and they are essentially 2/3rd partial spellcasters but not to the extent Tier 1 classes are, even with their bonus spell slots. Someone with Charisma 16 will get the same slots as one with Charisma 22, save for 2 less slots at 1st and 2nd level. Bonus spell slots exist for a reason, one beyond legacy; to provide more power to the specified spell slot.

Third...I dunno, but this sounds far too much like a pitch for your remixes. One thing is true; there is no consensus over which spells have to be fixed, so a community effort to fix spellcasting is beyond the grasp of any single 'brewer. Still, you could really try to do it in a way that has a degree of compatibility that doesn't depend so much on other particular brands of homebrewing, because there will be something lost if the system is taken by bits instead of as a whole (which is why going with something like fixing magic is like making a new system; you and I should strongly consider giving a defined name to the accumulation of 'brews because that's exactly what we're going into, just in case). No fix for magic is simple, but regardless of whether it's simple or not, suggesting other parts of your homebrew should be a footnote rather than a selling point. Between the sig and the two links right at the end (which are more of a conclusion rather than a footnote), that'd be three pitches, and the tone of the discussion is like "this is good, not enough, but if you want the complete thing go get this". Perhaps it's me, but if I were someone interested in using this fix and other bits of homebrew, I'd like to have the poster know that it can exist as a stand-alone product. An addendum on how the product can co-exist with your other homebrew products would be a better way to pitch your stuff without making it seem like a crucial point of the fix, for otherwise you'd be selling an incomplete product, catch my drift?

jiriku
2011-08-11, 09:49 PM
I truly feel this does more to hurt a lot of balanced options than what's actually problematic. Heck, most of the overpowered bits are still there, and without bonus spells there's even a greater incentive to use them.

Could you give some specific examples of this? From my perspective, it couldn't be less true, so you're obviously seeing something I'm not.


Another way to go about it would be to buff the Tier 4 or 5 classes -- honestly that should be part of any fix. A Fighter is still a terrible class with these changes.

I probably seem like a broken record, but there's really no reason why someone couldn't use both Philosopher's Stone and a set of homebrew class fixes for martial and skill monkey classes. One does not preclude the other.


stuff

There's some good criticism here. I think part of the problem here is that I'm just not being clear enough about what this fix is and what it isn't, and I'm not directly addressing how it can be used in conjunction with other types of fixes. I've added an F.A.Q. to address some of these concerns more directly. I'm thinking about how to address the different types of homebrew. I see what you mean about how the different types aren't clear in people's minds, and we're in need of some convenient terms and labels to show people how different tools are for different purposes, and how the tools all fit together.


however, a paladin limited to a single 1st level spell slot until 13th level really hurts a lot.

This would be true if correct. However, a paladin receives one bonus spell at each level he can cast under this system, and is not limited as you describe. Ditto for bard, ranger, and similar casters.

Fizban
2011-08-12, 07:01 AM
Dang, that is a pretty simple fix list. I like that you basically sai, "so bards, paladins, and rangers (and similar classes) all get more spells per day because screw wizards, other people should have nice things too." Combined with the loss of bonus spells, it really narrows the gap, for Bards at least. I suddenly want to go book diving to see what other classes it would apply to.

Shortened and static ranges will really hurt, and are basically the biggest part of this fix. It's a heck of a lot harder to control the battlefield from perfect safety when you're within charging range and you can only hit half the targets. They'll also make Enlarge and Extend spell matter a heck of a lot more, which is nice. Good stuff.

Regarding metamagic reduction: I've always thought the problem with metamagic reduction was that it's interpreted in the most advantageous way possible. If you just change it so that all metamagic reducers are applied after the total, rather than multiplying them through every single feat (and keeping a minimum +1 adjustment), it shouldn't get that bad. Metamagic stacking is cool and I like having it around, and think this method would make it work.

As for spells per turn: it's harsh, draconian, cuts out a ton of staple game elements, and is basically the only way to make sure something can't be abused, So it's probably a good idea. Quicken Spell is an an element that just screams "DnD" to me and I don't think it's nearly as good as some people do, but if you have those people at your table then it's got to go. Since I'm a sorcerer fan I'd leave Arcane Fusion alone though. It's technically one spell even if it's creating two effects, and no matter what general fixes are in play, the sorcerer starts out below the wizard.

Drachasor
2011-08-12, 08:05 AM
Could you give some specific examples of this? From my perspective, it couldn't be less true, so you're obviously seeing something I'm not.

Like the other guy said, this hurts gishes or any partial casters (bards, paladins, etc). All those classes are fine (or even weak).

It does basically nothing for a ton of overpowered spells. Ray of Stupidity can end combat for anything that's stupid in one round, no save (like Purple Worms). That's still here. Other spells that ignore hit points and just take guys out are still here.

Powerful divinations, and other options to decide the terms of engagement, one of the most powerful abilities of casters, are still perfectly fine.

Further, this really hurt a TON of legitimate spells. Fireball is decidedly NOT overpowered, but it gets the nerf hammer. Mage Armor is fine, but it gets the nerf hammer. Buffing allies with Haste or the like, one of the most friendly ways for a caster to play? NERFED. Anyone wanting to use casters in the ways that were fine before, gets nerfed.

There's a ton of friendly fire with this "fix" and not a lot of things that are problematic really get addressed.

jiriku
2011-08-12, 09:44 PM
You seem to come from a school of thought advocating that the best way to correct game balance is to rebalance or ban dozens or hundreds of individual spells. If that works for your gaming group, then it's the right choice for you, but with over a thousand spells to review and change, there are a lot of DMs on the forum who don't want to invest that much time and effort, and a lot of players who don't want to "mod" the game that extensively.

Under Philosopher's Stone, spellcasting as a whole is made weaker. Ray of stupidity has less range. Fireball has a smaller area. Mage armor has a shorter duration. Ray of stupidity is still "better" than mage armor which is "better" than fireball... just like before. But I don't really care that one option is better than another -- I give all the spells a haircut so that no matter which one a spellcaster chooses to cast, he's getting less for each spell slot and each standard action than he used to. About the only spells that slip through the net are those with a personal or touch range, instantaneous duration, and no combat utility. I think I can trust individual DMs to handle the stragglers.

Drachasor
2011-08-12, 10:19 PM
You're rules do a huge amount to hurt spells that ARE balanced, instead making them too weak. That's by far the largest impact of your "Philosopher's Stone." On top of that, the stuff that is broken gets off more lightly, generally speaking -- some of it is essentially not affected at all. Overall, it's a pretty poorly aimed fix.

If anything, it encourages casters to focus on overpowered spell mechanics, since the ones that were balanced now suck.

For instance, the problem wasn't people casting Fireballs and other direct damage spells, and yet you've really hurt people who do that.

Fizban
2011-08-13, 05:10 AM
Counter: can you really say that all spells are balanced? Fact is, if you're comparing to anyone who can't cast spells themselves, magic is always broken. You're playing a different game than the mortals, with different rules that are always tipped in your favor since you're the one that made them. Magic Missile may not deal much damage, but it is completely impossible to stop without your own magic or spell resistance, which is only found on magical creatures. Completely impossible to stop, and with a minimum 100' range. This fix cuts that down to 50', within problem solving distance even if you don't have a weapon, so at least you can force them to obey some of your own rules. It's a different school of thought in some ways, but I think it's valid.

Drachasor
2011-08-13, 08:36 AM
Counter: can you really say that all spells are balanced? Fact is, if you're comparing to anyone who can't cast spells themselves, magic is always broken. You're playing a different game than the mortals, with different rules that are always tipped in your favor since you're the one that made them. Magic Missile may not deal much damage, but it is completely impossible to stop without your own magic or spell resistance, which is only found on magical creatures. Completely impossible to stop, and with a minimum 100' range. This fix cuts that down to 50', within problem solving distance even if you don't have a weapon, so at least you can force them to obey some of your own rules. It's a different school of thought in some ways, but I think it's valid.

If you think magic missile needs to be nerfed or is even remotely overpowered compared to what non-casters can do, then you have no idea what the actual problems with magic are. There's not one damage spell that needs to be nerfed to bring casters down to an extremely reasonable level.

Beyond that, what's the exact reasoning behind a caster shouldn't be able to hit anything at a distance? It isn't like any other class can. Now, on the other hand, I could see it as pretty reasonable to go with a 1d20 + Spell Level + Int as an attack roll for spells, then have all saves be static (10+save bonuses). You could then add range penalties to spells like ranged weapons (this makes it easier to save, obviously). I guess you could do it without the roll, but I like going with the roll as it makes the system more consistent. Anyhow, spells would then have a Range Increment. Of course, that only makes sense with some spells, but then again should short-range teleporting really be nerfed down to a distance you could run in a round or two? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Anyhow, that's the thing. This "fix" largely hits stuff that is balanced, and fails to do anything meaningful to the vast majority of stuff that aren't balanced. I also disagree with the idea this can't be done. For instance, you could easily say "Save or Die spells don't exist" or figure out a way to modify them so that they largely ARE reasonable with some simple rules. That's no more complicated that what we have here, but far more effective.

Imho, a bad fix is worse than doing nothing.

T.G. Oskar
2011-08-13, 09:28 AM
I think something important to consider is exactly what should a caster do.

As a starter, it shouldn't overlap that which a Fighter or a Rogue can do (also casters shouldn't overlap into what the other type of caster can do, so a Cleric shouldn't overlap on what a Wizard should and viceversa). Now, magic could provide an alternative way to access the skills of other classes, but never outclass them in their own turf; furthermore, if that is to be so, the other classes should be capable of duplicating in some extent what a caster should. The rogue can pull this off with Use Magic Device; the fighter needs magic items to do so that don't depend on UMD. How strict you are on that lack of overlapping (from absolutely none to just minor overlapping) should define what you do with the other spells.

Then, you should figure, from what a caster should do, what needs a boost and what needs a nerf. Fireball is formidable at taking multiple targets, and generally to serve as artillery; reducing its maximum distance from 400-8,400 ft. to a mere 100 ft. really hammers down on potential uses of the spell. For starters; how to deal damage to vehicles? Looking at the rules of Stormwrack, they pretty much enforce the use of Fireball for drowning vehicles, since the alternatives aren't so inspiring (unless you enchant a ballista so that it deals fire damage OR holds a massive amount of alchemist's fire); reducing the distance to 100 ft. makes the caster's Fireball a one-shot event because eventually the ships will get into ramming distance and then close combat happens, where the caster may become useless because it didn't prepare ship-friendly spells. To strike an enemy from 400 ft. you need a Spot check equal to the result to see the creature plus 1 for every 10 feet of distance. Believe it or not, that's a -40 to the skill check, hence why you need an insanely brutal Spot check. No wizard has the chance to pull that off, but they still have the chance to check on their mirrors while Scrying or use Prying Eyes to reach that distance...except the eyes have all sorts of limitations, so you still need to get close. While a boon to martial casters who probably can't reach that distance, it is a pain for tactics because you can't work at long distance. Not that it matters on a dungeon, but that delivers a tactical problem when the distance of most medium range spells gets shafted; it kills the tactical capabilities of mages but doesn't deal with the problem spells at all.

Durations are something to be taken with a grain of salt. Many spells are done or busted based on their duration; believe it or not, Magic Weapon lasts only for minutes per level while Greater Magic Weapon lasts for hours. Sadly enough, that is one spell that nerfs any potential that a fighter could have, if only because a wizard would be quite a bit mad to use it on its own weapon. It hurts gishes more because that was a way they could reduce the cost of magic weapons and armor for themselves, by having a semi-reliable way to get a +5 to their weaponry; no matter how good their spellcasting is, they chose to be physical combatants as well, and that hurts their physical traits. What's worse, it makes pretty much every single spell (except those that last for one hour or one day) last for a single battle; it would have been easier to say "lasts until the end of the combat encounter or X rounds, whichever comes faster". That's...well, that's 4e design right there; all spells are suddenly worthwhile based on their combat application.

I find stuff like Find Traps, albeit a bit abusive, an example of good spell design. Instead of automatically detecting magical traps, it serves mostly as a bonus to Search checks. The bonus (an insight bonus) is equal to half the caster's level. The class that actually has it (the Cleric) doesn't have Search as a class skill, so the result will be actually worse than a Rogue with Search. Now, if Find Traps was allowed as a touch spell (unless there's already such a variant), the Rogue would suddenly have a boost on its job, and perhaps Rangers would have quite the benefit as they'd have the same searching skill as the Rogue but spell-based. Now, the looming idea that you wouldn't have done this without magic would be there, but at first the bonus is basically a +1~+3, which is something you could get from other items; in fact, the first two levels you could get a masterwork item that grants a competence bonus to Search checks, which is a perfectly mundane way to improve your checks. That it doesn't improve from a +1 competence bonus is what hurts.

That leads to a third point in any magic rehashing: how do magic items count? If magic items count as boosts to mundane classes, then they shouldn't be nerfed. If magic items count as ways in which casters show their supremacy, then you need to consider how magic items work. I (personal opinion) believe that the current way to create items, both magical and mundane, is horribly wrong. Elrond DID fix Narsil and made it Anduril, but that's a stray case. What about Biggoron, the towering Goron that forged the Biggoron's Sword (a weapon that is far more powerful than the Master Sword except where the Master Sword's magic is more important)? The case of mythological dwarves is borderline, since they are fey rather than humanoids, but their skill at forging is unparalleled. Hephaestus is a god, so you could make a claim for magic there, but he required very unusual methods of forging. Yet, it doesn't allow for mundanes to find rare and unusual items to forge items that could be claimed as magical, but from a mundane perspective; the closest thing to a dedicated crafter is the Artificer, and the class is intrinsically magical on its own right (more Magitek than pure magic, tho). /end opinion

After considering all that, you may figure what is wrong and what is right with the fix. Some spells (those that represent what the caster should be a master at) shouldn't have to be touched at all; other spells that don't really represent what the caster SHOULD do are to be nerfed or revamped. Then, you should consider whether the mundanes or the martial characters really need their own way to fight against magic. I mean, you could allow mundanes to build properly working firearms, which would eventually grant them some leverage against the caster's magics; improvements to mundane items that bypass the capability of magic items (I recall seeing somewhere an advancement to masterwork items that basically provided an increased bonus to mundane items based on mundane traits; probably on Dragonlance). Those are better ways to handle mundane.

Drachasor has issues with how magic got a wide pass that left some of the stuff the same and affected others that shouldn't have. At least, that's what I perceive. It's not magic per se that's the problem; its what can be done with it that is, and that requires (sadly) a more extensive fix that deals with each spell separately. As I mentioned jiriku; there is no easy fix, and doing one is tantamount to create a new system because it goes far away from magic as perceived on D&D. At best, one could call this a "patch", which is semantically closer.

jiriku
2011-08-14, 08:09 AM
...what's the exact reasoning behind [why] a caster shouldn't be able to hit anything at a distance? It isn't like any other class can.

Yes, that is the reason.


Now, on the other hand, I could see it as pretty reasonable to go with a 1d20 + Spell Level + Int as an attack roll for spells, then have all saves be static (10+save bonuses). You could then add range penalties to spells like ranged weapons (this makes it easier to save, obviously). I guess you could do it without the roll, but I like going with the roll as it makes the system more consistent. Anyhow, spells would then have a Range Increment. Of course, that only makes sense with some spells, but then again should short-range teleporting really be nerfed down to a distance you could run in a round or two? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Refer to FAQ #3.


Anyhow, that's the thing. This "fix" largely hits stuff that is balanced, and fails to do anything meaningful to the vast majority of stuff that aren't balanced.

This is true only if one considers most spells to be "balanced" despite being orders of magnitude better than the options available to non-spellcasting classes, and ignores the very real nerfs that Philosopher's Stone applies to most of your "unbalanced" spells.


I also disagree with the idea this can't be done. For instance, you could easily say "Save or Die spells don't exist" or figure out a way to modify them so that they largely ARE reasonable with some simple rules. That's no more complicated that what we have here, but far more effective.

Refer to FAQ #1.


I think something important to consider is exactly what should a caster do.

This is important only if one seeks to redefine the role of the various spellcasting classes. You are free to do this in another thread, but the OP expressly refrains from doing so. Refer to FAQ #2.


how to deal damage to vehicles [at non-tactical ranges without spells]?

Siege weaponry says hi. But really, my answer would be that we don't care. If wizard PCs are now unable to solve problems at ranges that render other characters irrelevant, the game is made stronger, not weaker. This is also known as "working as intended".


[Nerfing spell range] kills the tactical capabilities of mages but doesn't deal with the problem spells at all.

Ignoring your hyperbole for the moment, I'll refer you to FAQ #1. Addressing your hyperbole, ranges of 0-100 feet are generally considered "tactical", which makes your assertion that tactical capabilities have been "killed" rather difficult to understand.


Sadly enough, [nerfing the duration of weapon-enhancing spells] nerfs any potential that a fighter could have. It hurts gishes more because that was a way they could...[have] a semi-reliable way to get a +5 to their weaponry.

There is a contradiction here between Drachasor's position that most spells are balanced, and your position that spells are currently the only way that that martially inclined characters can acquire free 200,000gp weapons. TGO, with all tact and humility, I would advise you to reconsider the strength of your position. The fact that one all-day spell can increase a character's WBL by 20% or more, and that nonspellcasters haven't got any tricks that are even remotely comparable, is a poster child for the cancer that we're all trying to fix.


I find stuff like Find Traps, albeit a bit abusive, an example of good spell design.

Emphasis mine. Again, I'd like to cordially encourage you to review the integrity of your arguments. However, your recommendation to extensively modify the find traps spell can be answered with FAQ #1.


I (personal opinion) believe that the current way to create items, both magical and mundane, is horribly wrong.

Refer to FAQ #3.


Yet, [the current rules don't] allow for mundanes to... forge items that could be claimed as magical

You may be interested in the rules for bonded magical items (DMG2 231), which do this.


Some spells (those that represent what the caster should be a master at) shouldn't have to be touched at all; other spells that don't really represent what the caster SHOULD do are to be nerfed or revamped.

Refer to FAQ #1.


Then, you should consider whether the mundanes or the martial characters really need their own way to fight against magic.

I did. They do...


I mean, you could allow mundanes to build properly working firearms, which would eventually grant them some leverage against the caster's magics; improvements to mundane items that bypass the capability of magic items (I recall seeing somewhere an advancement to masterwork items that basically provided an increased bonus to mundane items based on mundane traits; probably on Dragonlance). Those are better ways to handle mundane.

...it is, however, beyond the scope of the OP. Refer to FAQ #2.


It's not magic per se that's the problem; its what can be done with it that is.

Once more, in a spirit of respect and encouragement, I'd encourage you to review the internal logical consistency of your position.

Drachasor
2011-08-14, 10:05 AM
Yes, that is the reason.

I left out a negation there. Pretty much every class has ranged options (like bows).



This is true only if one considers most spells to be "balanced" despite being orders of magnitude better than the options available to non-spellcasting classes, and ignores the very real nerfs that Philosopher's Stone applies to most of your "unbalanced" spells.

Most spells ARE balanced and are NOT orders of magnitude better than what non-casters can do. A fireball at level 5 will average 17.5 damage, half that on a save (and posssibly nothing). A non-caster can certainly match that damage to a single target at level 5, and the area effect damage is not something a caster can maintain round after round.

However, a spell like Finger of Death can do the equivalent of a couple hundred or more damage in one round quite easily. Your "nerfs" do nothing to stop spells like that. Contact Outer Plane allows questions to get answered that other classes have no good way to copy. Your nerfs do nothing about that. Teleport spells? Nothing. Wish? Nothing. Gate? Nothing. Planar Binding? Nothing. When one goes through the long list of problematic spells, your fix does what amounts to nothing to them (a ranged reduced where it does not matter, etc).

It largely hurts perfectly fine spells. You simply don't see people complaining that Fireball is overpowered, or even Meteor Swarm. You don't see others saying Invisibility needs a nerf or Mage Armor. Does Mount need to be nerfed? You apparently think so, but I've never, ever heard anyone else say that. I mean, heck, are there even 10 problematic spells that get fixed by this? If you somehow managed that, was it worth hurting hundreds of non-problematic ones?

jiriku
2011-08-14, 11:20 AM
I left out a negation there. Pretty much every class has ranged options (like bows).

Ah. Ok, I see what you mean. But is the disparity really that large? Even a bow-user suffers a significant penalty for engaging at a distance of multiple range increments -- most archers I've seen try to engage within their 1st or 2nd increment (no more than about a 220' range). Engaging at that range usually requires significant build investment. A spellcaster who makes a modest build investment in Enlarge Spell and an appropriate metamagic reducer can engage with Long-range spells out to 200'. This seems comparable to me. Would you disagree? I could see that perhaps Long range should be increased to 110 feet, to compete more favorably with the composite longbow.


Most spells ARE balanced and are NOT orders of magnitude better than what non-casters can do.... I mean, heck, are there even 10 problematic spells that get fixed by this?

You're cherry-picking the spell list really hard, man. :smallsmile: But I'll accept your challenge.

List:
evard's black tentacles, solid fog, alter self, shapechange, polymorph, polymorph any object, mordenkainen's disjunction, silent image, suggestion, scrying, greater scrying, flesh to stone, lesser geas, charm person, charm monster, mass charm monster, dominate person, dominate monster, magic jar, haste, hold person, hold monster, mass hold person, mass hold monster, fly, overland flight, bigby's grasping hand, bigby's crushing hand, baleful polymorph, wind wall, repulsion, dismissal, banishment, disguise self, contingency, command undead, destruction, knock, detect thoughts, sleep, heroes' feast, gaseous form, protection from chaos/evil/good/law, magic circle against chaos/evil/good/law, maze, implosion, insanity.

With some DM adjudication (which in the OP, I advised would be necessary), Philosopher's Stone also applies to the durations of service listed in various calling spells, which restricts lesser planar ally, planar ally, greater planar ally, lesser planar binding, planar binding, and greater planar binding. I mention this because these spells seemed to be of special interest to you.

This is over 50 spells, rather than the 10 you requested. There are hundreds more; I didn't even touch splatbooks. SoD, SoL, SoS, form alteration, information-gathering, battlefield control, skill replacement, monster conscription, blanket immunities, these abilities run the gamut. Every one of them offers a capability that is completely beyond the scope of anything that the level-appropriate martial or skill monkey classes could manage, and the ability to call on these spells by the double fistful places full spellcasters head and shoulders above martial initiators, incarnum users, and limited-list casters.

It astonishes me that you consider this obscene mass of phenomenal cosmic power to be "perfectly fine spells" when compared with trinkets like Improved Trip, Whirlwind Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Uncanny Dodge, Rage, Climb, Jump, Ride, and the rest of the completely insignificant baubles that non-spellcasters receive. I get that you're focused on "abusive" spells like wish and gate, and those spells are in fact a (small) part of the problem. But frankly, spellcasters don't need to abuse overpowered spells or exploit loopholes to completely dominate the game -- the "normal" ordinary bread-and-butter spells are themselves the heart of the problem.

I mean, seriously, at level 17, a focused specialist transmuter gains the ability to become a friggin gold dragon -- and nearly every other monster in the game, according to his whim -- for 12 hours per day just by using his new slots on one 9th level spell. His buddy the enchanter can turn four powerful monsters into his close personal friends for a duration of two and a half weeks. The rogue, by contrast, gains an extra 3.5 damage per sneak attack and +1 on a few skill checks. The fighter gets +1 to hit and 3 extra hit points. You can bet your shiny little gold pieces I'm willing to run mount and sepia snake sigil into the grave if by doing so I can also present a simple way to scale that 12 hours of draconic insanity down to 30 minutes, or force the wiz to make do with only three new friends for 1 day, so that the he has to at least carefully ration his godlike power and lean on his party a little.


Edit: I think this is a significant conversation that's likely to be of concern to many. Adding it to the FAQ now.


2nd Edit: To address your concern about Philosopher's Stone's impact on certain instantaneous personal-range spells, I'd like to point out that while not directly nerfed, these spells become more costly and may open up fewer gameplay options. This makes the spell slightly weaker even though it mechanically appears unchanged. For example:
A 7th level cleric with Wisdom 20 is now expending 50% of his daily 5th level spell resources to cast divination, instead of 33%. Divination doesn't work any better or worse, but it's more "expensive" to cast because it is a greater drain on his more-limited resources. Thus, if he needs to raise a dead comrade and ask for advice during a day of downtime, he has to get by with one casting of divination instead of two. He's still got God on speed-dial, but he can't call as often.
A 10th-level wizard who casts scrying and teleport to drop his party on the enemy BBEG has only one minute to observe the BBEG instead of ten, and can't cast a quickened spell during the round he teleports in. Thus, he's leaping into combat with more uncertainty about the situation (increased risk), and the teleport has forced him to give up the quickened grease he would have liked to cast on the BBEG's bodyguard during the first round (a new opportunity cost). The scry'n'die tactic that teleport enables is slightly less potent now, even though teleport itself hasn't been directly affected.

Drachasor
2011-08-14, 02:51 PM
You seemed to think that "if anything is diminished, then the spell is meaningfully nerfed." That's decidedly NOT what I was saying. The nerfs you have to spells largely don't affect the problematic aspects of the spell you listed.


evard's black tentacles, solid fog,

These are meaningfully reduced in power.


alter self, shapechange, polymorph, polymorph any object

The broken nature of the polymorph line of spells is NOT fundamentally altered. They can still be used in largely the same theaters they were before and certainly to the same effect. The duration is a very minor part of their power.



mordenkainen's disjunction

Seriously? This spell was totally broken before and is still totally broken. In fact it is still broken to the extent it is unusable as a practical spell by anyone (DM or Player). No meaningful fix.


silent image

And just how do you think this spell is broken? Further, how does changing the range to a flat amount fix it?


suggestion

Eh, how is the duration at related to any problematic uses of the spell? Further, how exactly is the spell problematic? There are some pretty stringent limitations on what it can do.



scrying, greater scrying

These are affected in a minor way. Uses for scrying that don't find the information in one minute are unlikely to find it in 10. Greater Scrying is affected a little bit more, but not particularly significant (worst case, you use a Contact Other Plane or the like to get a good idea on when to use Greater Scrying). The maintain the vast majority of their power still.



flesh to stone

Eh? You are counting the range as the big factor wrong with this spell? Seriously? It is NOT meaningfully impacted when it still has a range of 100 ft.


lesser geas

Ok, your changes make this spell worthless, I grant. That's the third spell with a meaningful change. Whether or not Lesser Geas was so broken given its large limitations (even most commoners could ignore it if it was important) that it needed to be rendered useless is a question for another time.


charm person, charm monster, mass charm monster

I wouldn't exactly call these broken spells. They just make something treat you as a friend and have significant limitations. Heck, the diplomacy skill is far, far more powerful by RAW.


dominate person, dominate monster

I don't see how a reduction in the time to ONE DAY meaningfully alters these spells the vast majority of the time given that any order against its nature gives it a new save with a +2 bonus.


magic jar

Again, the vast majority of the time, an hour is quite sufficient. This does nothing to change what is actually wrong with the spell.


haste

I didn't realize that buffing non-casters is something we considered broken now. How exactly does this spell merit a mention?


hold person, hold monster, mass hold person, mass hold monster

Again, range reductions don't fix these spells. The mass spells are harder hit, reduced to effectively a 15 foot diameter range. While I agree this makes them less effective in some situations, it still doesn't change the fundamental problem with spells that can take out people in one blow.



fly, overland flight

Fly is another example of a spell that if you can't do it in a minute, then you probably can't do it in 10 minutes. Most of the problematic aspects of the spell are getting over/around barriers that would normally stop a party OR fighting with it on. 1 minute is sufficient for both.

As for Overland Flight, I think it is a bit debatable whether it even needs a fix. Certainly by 9th level they should be facing enemies that can handle fliers. At this point there are many ways that anyone in the party could be flying. An individual flying by himself at this level is not really what I'd label as anything close to the big problems with the spell system.

And so on and so forth.



With some DM adjudication (which in the OP, I advised would be necessary), Philosopher's Stone also applies to the durations of service listed in various calling spells, which restricts lesser planar ally, planar ally, greater planar ally, lesser planar binding, planar binding, and greater planar binding. I mention this because these spells seemed to be of special interest to you.

Yeah, the problem with those spells isn't the duration of service.


I mean, seriously, at level 17, a focused specialist transmuter gains the ability to become a friggin gold dragon -- and nearly every other monster in the game, according to his whim -- for 12 hours per day just by using his new slots on one 9th level spell. His buddy the enchanter can turn four powerful monsters into his close personal friends for a duration of two and a half weeks. The rogue, by contrast, gains an extra 3.5 damage per sneak attack and +1 on a few skill checks. The fighter gets +1 to hit and 3 extra hit points. You can bet your shiny little gold pieces I'm willing to run mount and sepia snake sigil into the grave if by doing so I can also present a simple way to scale that 12 hours of draconic insanity down to 30 minutes, or force the wiz to make do with only three new friends for 1 day, so that the he has to at least carefully ration his godlike power and lean on his party a little.

It astonishes me that you think making him able to be a dragon for JUST one hour somehow fixes the problem. It's laughable.

A more reasonable fix might take the following form:

Any spell the temporarily makes an opponent unable to perform a standard action or greater for more than one round has a casting time of 1 minute.

Any spell that uses the grapple mechanics similarly has its casting time increased to one minute.

Any spell that permanently makes an opponent unable to perform a standard action or greater has a casting time of One Hour.

The above applies to spells that work if there is a failed save or spells that have no failed save. Killing a creature counts for the above purposes, as do spells that cause the target(s) actions to be under the control (direct or indirect) of the caster. The target(s) must be in Line of Sight throughout the casting time.

Any spell that can induce a creature to serve the caster that has a CR of one half the caster's Character Level or greater, requires a sacrifice of a value equal to the service performed as determined by the DM and there is no way to circumvent this (e.g. no getting easy wishes from Efreets or high level casters from Solars -- summoning creatures like this should generally be a significant plot point or perhaps to guard something). Ignore this rule if the spells effect on that particular target has already been addressed elsewhere.

Alter Self, Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object, and Shapechange, as well as any spell that references those are banned. Alternatively, a the DM may provide a fix from elsewhere specifically for those spells.

The DM may decide to ban spells that grant flight or simply increase their spell level by 1. Similarly, the DM may decide to ban spans that allow teleportation at a range greater than 1 mile. Such DMs might want to consider the use of an travel in another plane to speed up trips (and provide CR-appropriate encounters).

Any spell that grants an ability identical to one of the above mention effects has that ability similarly limited (e.g. magic jar requires 1 minute to successfully switch souls, during which time the target must stay within line of sight of the jar).


Ok, that handles the vast, vast majority of things without screwing over the spells that are fine. It's really no more complicated than what you have proposed. Granted, I need to think of an appropriate fix for divination spells.

jiriku
2011-08-14, 10:26 PM
17-point rebuttal of spell choices and suggestion to increase the casting time of combat-oriented spells such that they cannot be used in combat

Drachasor, without meaning any disrespect to your enjoyment of D&D or your preferred approach to the game, I don't think that there are any points of compatibility between your vision for what the game could be and my vision of the same. I'll quote something Fizban said, which I think really gets to the heart of the matter.


Counter: can you really say that all spells are balanced? Fact is, if you're comparing to anyone who can't cast spells themselves, magic is always broken. You're playing a different game than the mortals, with different rules that are always tipped in your favor since you're the one that made them.

Anyone who disagrees with this statement is fundamentally not on the same page with me, and views the game in a fundamentally different way. It's fine if that's you; I don't own the keys to the game or claim to have perfect awareness of anything. There's room for difference of opinion. To continue with Fizban's observation:


Magic Missile may not deal much damage, but it is completely impossible to stop without your own magic or spell resistance, which is only found on magical creatures. Completely impossible to stop, and with a minimum 100' range. This fix cuts that down to 50', within problem solving distance even if you don't have a weapon, so at least you can force them to obey some of your own rules. It's a different school of thought in some ways, but I think it's valid.

Some people will look at this and not grok what he's talking about, perhaps because they disagree with that different school of thought he mentions. But for those who get what I'm doing and why I'm doing it, Philosopher's Stone represents a radically more thorough and radically less complex approach to "fixing" magic than others proposals that I've seen on this forum. I believe that it has value.

I think you and I understand each other's positions quite well and will just have to agree to disagree on this subject. I hope you find that to be a satisfactory conclusion to the discussion.

Fitz10019
2011-09-16, 02:55 PM
Thinking how these rules will change player behavior, I see some wands surging in popularity. The monk will not buy a Pearl of Power for his wizard buddy. He will buy a wand of Mage Armor, because the duration of the wand casting is the same as the 8th-level wizard's casting, and he'll get more mileage out of the wand than the pearl (unlike the normal rules).

The Big Orc
2011-09-16, 04:35 PM
For metamagic: what if abilities/feats that modified the metamagic spell modifiers could only apply to one modifier at a time (keeping the +0 as lowest possible modifier). Say you had an ability that reduced the modifier on all metamagic spells by 2, and you were empowering and maximizing a spell under the current rules to give a total modifier of +1 (2-2+3-1=+1), it would instead be a modifier of +3 (2+3-2=+3) which would still improve metamagic such as silent or still spell. Just a thought, let me know what you think.

Hazzardevil
2011-10-27, 02:22 AM
This is just within 6 weeks of the last post, so I thought I'd post my comments.

This severely nerfs any invocation classes if they take their standard invocations by nerfing their durations and preventing them from quickening SLA's

jiriku
2011-10-27, 09:18 AM
Thinking how these rules will change player behavior, I see some wands surging in popularity. The monk will not buy a Pearl of Power for his wizard buddy. He will buy a wand of Mage Armor, because the duration of the wand casting is the same as the 8th-level wizard's casting, and he'll get more mileage out of the wand than the pearl (unlike the normal rules).

As I've tested bits and pieces of these rules, I see that wands do in fact become much more popular, especially as a means of breaking the one-spell-per-round limit. This is all to the good, IMO, as a given benefit costs more than it formerly did, and is thus imposing a higher opportunity cost in other gear that could not be purchased.


For metamagic: what if abilities/feats that modified the metamagic spell modifiers could only apply to one modifier at a time (keeping the +0 as lowest possible modifier). Say you had an ability that reduced the modifier on all metamagic spells by 2, and you were empowering and maximizing a spell under the current rules to give a total modifier of +1 (2-2+3-1=+1), it would instead be a modifier of +3 (2+3-2=+3) which would still improve metamagic such as silent or still spell. Just a thought, let me know what you think.

It seems slightly more powerful and slightly more complicated.


This is just within 6 weeks of the last post, so I thought I'd post my comments.

This severely nerfs any invocation classes if they take their standard invocations by nerfing their durations and preventing them from quickening SLA's

That's true. I suppose it would be up to the DM to decide if the reduction in spell durations applies to invocations that state "as spell x, but with perk y". Myself, I think that the warlock and DFA aren't in need of the nerf and could be left as-is. The extra duration relative to spellcasters would in fact go further to enhance the invocation-users' role as all-day alternatives to traditional spellcasting.

Deepbluediver
2011-11-09, 10:27 AM
I feel like the nerfs to range and duration are quite neccessary; 400ft+40ft/level is targeting things practically out of sight.
The part of this that has the most appeal to me though, is giving every enemy in the game some level of spell resistance.
I always thought of magic as messing with the natural order of the universe, so that matter and energy naturally resist changes or attempts to control them.

I realize of course, that applying something like this rapidly gets very complicated, and may be beyond the scope of your "1 page" fix, but this is how I would probably go about it.
A creature's (or contruct's, whatever) base spell resistance is dependent upon thier Hit Dice, because larger and more powerful creatures are more difficult to affect. You could probably also base it on class levels if you felt that was better for balance. (please excuse the poor formatting, I'm still learning how to use the forums)
HD-----SR
1------10
2------10
3------10
4------11
5------11
6------12
7------12
8------13
9------13
10-----14
11-----15
12-----16
13-----18
14-----20
15-----22
16-----23
17-----24
18-----25
19-----25
20-----26
21-----26
22-----27
23-----27
24-----28
25-----28
26-----29
27-----29
28-----29
29-----30
30-----30
etc.
It follows a basic "S" curve pattern, slow at first, fast in the middle, and tapering off at the end.
Thematically, I think of it like this: If you start off at level 1, you're are just learning the basics of spell castings, and your spells sometimes go awry. As you progress a few levels, your spellcasting gets more focused. A few more levels, and you are starting to face more powerful enemies, who can better shrug off your spells. Once you get to level 20 and above, you might be facing off against creatures with 40 or 50 HD, and the d20 portion of your spellcraft check becomes increasingly irrelevent.

When it comes to spell resistance for buffing/healing, its easy enough to do something like this: Your body recognizes your own brand of magic; there is never a SR check for any spell you want to cast on yourself. For casting on other friendly players, any sentient creature that's aware of what the caster is doing can reduce their SR by half at will. Even buff spells can be fumbled.

For magic items with spell resistance, I would say it should be universaly applied. If the party's Fighter has chosen to wear SR armor, then he acknowledges that the party's Wizard might be less able to help him. If he wants, let him take off the armor, then interact with the spell.

Thats my feeling on it, lemme know if you disagree with any part of it.



Also, maybe some day I might just take a stab at fixing all 1000+ spells one by one; it sounds like an EPIC undertaking. I don't suppose there's a list anywhere that is up to date? (Including splatbooks)

jiriku
2011-11-09, 01:12 PM
Granting spell resistance more broadly can be done pretty easily. Basically, just create a simple template and slap it on every monster you ever use. I'd suggest, however, that your SR should be based on a creature's challenge rating, rather than its hit dice.

On the whole, I'd be against universal spell resistance, for three reasons:
Spells that offer spell resistance are generally the most inoffensive, balance-wise.
A rise in spell-resistant opponents would likely drive players toward spells that don't check spell resistance; these are generally the more imbalanced spells.
The "all-or-nothing" nature of spell resistance means that a failure rate is likely to be either so small as to not affect game balance in a signficant way, or so large as to be frustrating for the player. Consistently hitting the "sweet spot" in the middle might be quite difficult. Check-based casting is much more successful in systems that allow for degrees of success, so that rather than simply have pass/fail, you can have fail/pass/better result/awesome result.

I don't know of any universal spell list that's worth using. My approach has always been to just brute-force my way through every book and pdf that I own. :smallbiggrin:

Deepbluediver
2011-11-09, 09:01 PM
Spells that offer spell resistance are generally the most inoffensive, balance-wise.
Melee characters always need to make attack rolls, I felt this might balance out a caster's power even when it comes to something as simple as dealing damage. But having never widely tested it, I can't swear to that.
Also, I figured we where trying to keep this simple. The spells that ARE most offensive probably require wither banning or individual fixes anyway. The way I'm thinking of this, even something like an Entangle spell (that doesn't deal direct damage) would be subject to a SR check before it grants its effect (slowing down the enemy).


A rise in spell-resistant opponents would likely drive players toward spells that don't check spell resistance; these are generally the more imbalanced spells.
Ok, thats a good point. Maybe there needs more things that dispell or disrupt magic to encourage players to return to the instant-effect side of things, but thats hitting the "very complicated" level of a fix again. I don't really have a counter-argument.


The "all-or-nothing" nature of spell resistance means that a failure rate is likely to be either so small as to not affect game balance in a signficant way, or so large as to be frustrating for the player. Consistently hitting the "sweet spot" in the middle might be quite difficult. Check-based casting is much more successful in systems that allow for degrees of success, so that rather than simply have pass/fail, you can have fail/pass/better result/awesome result.
One fix I read about (but have never tried) was that damage from spells isn't subject to SR, ever, but any other effects on an enemy are subject to it. So if your sorcerer wants to be a simple blaster then no problem, but you can't get a 3rd level wizard mind-controlling a dragon.

Perhaps theres a way to tweek the spellcraft skill so that casters make a check for every spell they cast, and there can be effects like a crit on a natural 20 (more damage, longer duration, raises more skeletons from the grave, etc) but you can also end up with spell "fumbles" (the Fireball blows up in your face, your Feather Fall spell ends abruptly, the Skeletons turn against you, etc). But again, thats something that would probably need to be applied on a case-by case basis.

I'll think on it a bit more; maybe I can come up with a short chart of automatic penalties that you can use with any messed-up spell.



I don't know of any universal spell list that's worth using. My approach has always been to just brute-force my way through every book and pdf that I own. :smallbiggrin:
But thats so....disorganized! My OCD won't be able to handle it! :smalltongue:

jiriku
2011-11-09, 10:22 PM
I'll think on it a bit more; maybe I can come up with a short chart of automatic penalties that you can use with any messed-up spell.

but thats so....disorganized! My OCD won't be able to handle it! :smalltongue:

Yep. Chaos... we won't push you around! The test of spite banlist is a good place to start if you're looking for spells that are worth being concerned over.

A guideline I'd recommend:
House rules should be used sparingly, and only when necessary to fix something broken or add new functionality to the system. Never houserule something just for the sake of making it different. When used, they should be short, simple, and involve as few extra rolls or calculations as possible.

Deepbluediver
2011-12-06, 12:32 PM
CHAPTER 5: FEATS
Metamagic feats (p88):[/b] Effects that reduce a metamagic feat’s spell level adjustment (or replace it with a different cost) do not stack with one another, and cannot reduce the spell level adjustment below +0.


Is there any chance you could provide a few examples of feats or other things that provide this effect? Or simply point me in the right direction of where I might find some?
Most of my experience with arcane casters is from Core, but I'm interested in learning more about this quirk, either to fix it or use it. :P

jiriku
2011-12-06, 04:36 PM
Sure. A number of feats allow you to situationally reduce a metamagic feat's spell level adjustment by 1, including Metamagic School Focus (Complete Mage), Arcane Thesis (Player's Handbook 2), Practical Metamagic (Races of the Dragon), Improved Metamagic (Epic-Level Handbook) and Easy Metamagic (some Dragon magazine). The incantatrix and dweomerkeeper prestige classes offer a class feature at 10th level called Improved Metamagic, which works just like the epic feat of the same name. By RAW, these effects all stack with one another, and can be used in combination to reduce most any metamagic feat's adjustment down to +0. Arcane Thesis is especially powerful, as errata has clarified that it can reduce a feat with an adjustment of +0 down to -1, provided that you add some other metamagic on top to bring the total back up to at least +0. This is commonly exploited in builds like Cindy (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=5890) and the Mailman (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19868534/The_Mailman:_A_Direct_Damage_Sorcerer?pg=5) to create spells that are many times more powerful than what is anticipated by the rules, in some cases more powerful than anything that could be cast at all by even an epic caster.

Certain feats and class features allow you to substitute a different cost in place of a spell level adjustment when applying metamagic, commonly turn undead uses, bardic music uses, spell slots, or even a skill check. The most famous is Divine Metamagic (Complete Divine), but there's also Metamagic Song (Races of Stone), and classes like Incantatrix, Spelldancer and Ultimate Magus also offer options. By RAW, these effects can be combined with metamagic reducers, so you can convert a large cost into a smaller cost, then pay that cost with an entirely different currency. This is valuable chiefly because it allows you to spend a resources that is cheap and plentiful instead of one that is expensive and scarce. Most metamagic substitutions also allow you to produce effects that would be completely impossible otherwise, such as spells that would normally occupy spell slots of 10th level or higher once all their metamagic was piled on.

I don't believer the designers ever properly considered what might happen if a series of metamagic reducers were stacked with one another. Philospher's Stone acknowledges that some metamagic is overpriced by leaving these various reducers in the game. However, by forbidding stacking, it allow you to merely make metamagic practical, not make it ridiculously good.

Just to Browse
2011-12-07, 02:08 AM
I'm trying to find a spell that gives something like "10' cone per level" for an area, so that I can make a character and laugh when his spell area changes each level from 10' cone, 20' cone to 15' cone, 20' cone, 25' cone. Hilarious.

VisitingDaGulag
2018-03-13, 12:38 PM
I respect the attempt. I'd be fine playing under these. But today I'd like to play devil's advocate. Mostly this is because these core-only nerfs wreck havoc with the broader 95% of 3.5 outside core.


Abilities and Spellcasters (p7): A high ability score does not grant bonus spells.This make casters feel less like casters. Now everyone is a gish. Although this does move RAW towards balance, it makes players make choices that aren't very D&D-like. This tends to leave people with a bad taste in their mouth. Why be a smart wizard or wise cleric? It doesn't help them anymore if they are team-oriented utility or buffers. I guess its time to start taking the lime-light from the fighter...

I'm aware clerics or wizards could do this before, but they rarely do. And it wasn't all for reasons of power. After all, they actually want to play a caster. Not just be another fighter. I think you start off with the single most dangerous fix, because it comes close to throwing the baby out with the bath water.


Spells Per Day (p23): Any class whose table indicates that it gains 0 spells per day at a given level gains 1 additional spell per day at every level it is able to cast.D&D is bigger than core. Ur-priests rejoice.


Metamagic feats (p88): Effects that reduce a metamagic feat’s spell level adjustment (or replace it with a different cost) do not stack with one another, and cannot reduce the spell level adjustment below +0.This just tells casters to go after single, large sources of MM reducers. These are often the most imbalanced ones (incantatrix, spell dancer, etc). Sigh.


Choosing a Spell (p170): A creature can only cast one spell (including spells cast from scrolls) per turn, even if it would otherwise have enough actions available to cast more. Casting a spell as an immediate action counts as a use of a spell for the creature’s next turn.Spells aren't broken because you can do it more than once a turn. They are broken because of what they do. Note that this actually is different from mundane abilities like attacks. That's why the very few times that mundane abilities get out of control (shadowpouncing, etc), its very easy to fix and casters tend to do these things better anyway.


Range (p174): Replace the following entries with the text below.Half ranges and AOEs are fine, but they seem like an extra step to trip people up rather than a eureka moment where a certain spell will suddenly become balanced. In fact, I can't think of any spells that will go from 'broken' to 'fixed'. I can however think of detractors. For instance, RAW world-building just got a lot harder for a DM who wants to play be the rules. I don't give DMs a pass on how their campaigns are constructed (unless they are merely following something like an adventure book) and I don't think other players should either.


Duration (p176): Apply the following changes when figuring the duration of a spell effect.CL1 durations rob mundanes of much needed buffs outside core when their caster allies are stingy. Le sigh.


Spell Resistance (p177): All spells that directly target creatures or that deal energy damage allow spell resistance, regardless of the spell’s Spell Resistance entry.Casters can get around this for anything powerful enough to justify the use. Normal, balanced pew pew that didn't allow SR, however will just be left in the dust. Actually this is a really good way to end up with none of the good and all of the bad. :smallyuk:

None of these are obviously 'wrong' but they might not be as deserving of attention as other more broken parts of D&D. For instance, none of the above stops a wizard and druid from using Shapechange to win all the encounters per day they are expected to overcome.