Help! No loot no magic :o

[Adindra]

So a friend of mine is building a campaign where hes adding a 5% spell failure chance to every single magical ability (some post apocalyptic nonsense) and hes extremly limiting the loot so i have to find a build that

1. Doesn't depend on any kindof magic that can fail
2. doesnt require loot too heavily to function


I'm at a complete loss here! :smallsigh: any help would be extremely appreciated

[Gnaeus]

What happens if it fails? Does it just not work? Or does it screw you over and not work?

[Adindra]

it either fails or screws you over :(

i also forgot to mention that he is allowing a free +1 level adjustment

[Circle of Life]

Unarmed Swordsage comes to mind, unless manuevers are considered magic.

[Gnaeus]

Yeah. Tome of battle is the way to go. Just avoid any maneuver with a SU tag.

[Daremonai]

Warlock.

If you fail 5% of the time, it's not like you can't try it again.

[Engine]

Vow of Poverty could be handy.

[Gnaeus]

Warlock.

If you fail 5% of the time, it's not like you can't try it again.

But sometimes it screws you over while failing. Otherwise I would have said Druid.

[Fouredged Sword]

Halfling VoP rogue totemist going the PRC that allows very early HIPS. You get concelemnt, enchanted weapons, silly hide checks, and the ability to HIPS working as an even better version of invisability.

By level 10 or so you are looking at something like 13ranks+3dex+8soulmeld+4size=28 hide modifier.

Stab people in the back with your bite and go bite, trip, bite, vanish then teleport away at will.

[Urpriest]

What's he doing to offset the role of gear? Whatever fix he's using will probably affect our advice.

[Adindra]

But sometimes it screws you over while failing. Otherwise I would have said Druid.

Druid was my first thought too but there would be a failure chance in wild shape which screws it over

[Gnaeus]

Halfling VoP rogue totemist going the PRC that allows very early HIPS. You get concelemnt, enchanted weapons, silly hide checks, and the ability to HIPS working as an even better version of invisability.

By level 10 or so you are looking at something like 13ranks+3dex+8soulmeld+4size=28 hide modifier.

Stab people in the back with your bite and go bite, trip, bite, vanish then teleport away at will.

I don't have my book with me, but are you sure some of those abilities arent SU? Not sure about chakra binds, but rebinding is for sure (based on web supplement)

[Adindra]

What's he doing to offset the role of gear? Whatever fix he's using will probably affect our advice.


he isnt really doing a fix. his fix from loot he was telling me is that things in shops will be cheaper as well but with us not getting any loot we wont be able to afford anything anyway. and all of the shops have limited random inventory :smallannoyed:

[candycorn]

Halfling VoP rogue totemist going the PRC that allows very early HIPS. You get concelemnt, enchanted weapons, silly hide checks, and the ability to HIPS working as an even better version of invisability.

By level 10 or so you are looking at something like 13ranks+3dex+8soulmeld+4size=28 hide modifier.

Stab people in the back with your bite and go bite, trip, bite, vanish then teleport away at will.

Whisper Gnome rogue/totemist

At level 3, assuming 2 flaws:
Expanded Meld Capacity
Midnight Dodge
Shape Soulmeld: Kruthik Claws
Stealthy

6 (ranks) + 4 (dex) + 10 (kruthik claws, expanded, totem bound, with 3 essentia) +2 (MW item) +2 (Stealthy) +4 (size) + 4 (racial) = +32 hide modifier.

And that could be pushed higher.

[Fouredged Sword]

The obvious solution is to turn bandit and rob the shops whenever they have something you want.

[The Glyphstone]

VoP Totemist. You don't need no stinkin' gear.

[Adindra]

VoP Totemist. You don't need no stinkin' gear.

are the totemist abilities considered magic? ive never actually read through incarnum :smallredface:

[Fouredged Sword]

There is a incarnum PRC that mixes with rogue that not only needs no stinkin gear, but is also always hideing.

[The Glyphstone]

are the totemist abilities considered magic? ive never actually read through incarnum :smallredface:

They're Supernatural, but if he objects about that, point out dragon's breath weapons are also SU, and ask if all dragons are extinct from their breath weapons having a 5% backfire chance.

[candycorn]

They're Supernatural, but if he objects about that, point out dragon's breath weapons are also SU, and ask if all dragons are extinct from their breath weapons having a 5% backfire chance.

Well, it IS post-apocalyptic... Would be a great way to start an apocalypse!

[Gnaeus]

They're Supernatural, but if he objects about that, point out dragon's breath weapons are also SU, and ask if all dragons are extinct from their breath weapons having a 5% backfire chance.

In that case, if you can use incarnum, you can Wildshape. If you can wildshape, druid probably comes out better, even with a 5% spell failure chance.

He says magical abilities don't work. Incarnum looks a lot like a magical ability to me. It is blocked by anti-magic, has an SU tag, and looks like magic on its face.

Go with Tome of Battle. Most of it is specifically EX, and you can easily avoid the SU parts.

[Adindra]

He's considering supernatural abilities as magical and having the 5% spell failure chance so the dragons would have the fail chance ^.^ which is bad for me but meh

[Circle of Life]

Unarmed Swordsage focused on Setting Sun, then.

No loot, no magic.

[Adindra]

is there a handbook for the unarmed swordsage?

[subject42]

Alternately, be a DMM persist cleric and load up on feats that let you re-roll that 5% chance.

[Ravens_cry]

Find some mundane way to prestige into Gnome Artificer (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Gnome_Artificer)?
"No, it's not magic, it's SCIENCE!"

[Gavinfoxx]

Is the 5% chance something that YOU roll or that the DM rolls behind the screen?

[Amphetryon]

is there a handbook for the unarmed swordsage?
There's the Tome of Battle for Dummies (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=357.0), which includes this build, in particular (all credit to DaveTheMagicWeasel, Basselope and whomever else got consulted in creating it):
If we use the Unarmed Swordsage variant to get Improved Unarmed Strike, we can get into Master of Nine before we take our Warblade and Crusader levels. This gives us two more 4th level maneuvers, and increases our IL so we can take both Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics with our Warblade and Crusader levels.

1) Swordsage 1. IL = 1.0. Feat: Improved Initiative. Bonus: Blindfight. Bonus: Improved Unarmed Strike.
2) Swordsage 2. IL = 2.0.
3) Swordsage 3. IL = 3.0. Feat: Adaptive Style.
4) Swordsage 4. IL = 4.0.
5) Swordsage 5. IL = 5.0. (Note: pay ritual cost for Least Legacy, if available)
6) Swordsage 6. IL = 6.0. Feat: Dodge/Desert Wind Dodge/Expeditious Dodge.
7) Swordsage 7. IL = 7.0.
8) Master of Nine 1. IL = 8.0.
9) Warblade 1. IL = 5.5. Feat: {Open}.
10) Crusader 1. IL = 6.0.
11) Legacy Champion 1. IL = 9.5.
12) Legacy Champion 2. IL = 11.0. Feat: {Open}.
13) Legacy Champion 3. IL = 12.5.
14) Legacy Champion 4. IL = 14.0.
15) Legacy Champion 5. IL = 15.5. Feat: {Open}.
16) Legacy Champion 6. IL = 17.0.
17) Master of Nine 2. IL = 18.0.
18) Master of Nine 3. IL = 19.0. Feat: Martial Study
19) Master of Nine 4. IL = 20.0.
20) Master of Nine 5. IL = 21.0.

Feats:
9) Snap Kick or Staggering Strike
12) Mage Slayer or Improved Critical
15) Pierce Magical Concealment or Undo Resistance

Maneuver Progression:
Swordsage 1: Burning Blade, Flame's Blessing (stance), Wind Stride, Moment of Perfect Mind, Counter Charge, Shadow Blade Technique, Wolf Fang Strike.
Swordsage 2: Island of Blades (stance), Mountain Hammer.
Swordsage 3: Cloak of Deception
Swordsage 4: Shadow Jaunt, Sudden Leap (replacing Wolf Fang Strike).
Swordsage 5: Death Mark, Assassin's Stance (stance).
Swordsage 6: Insightful Strike, Fire Riposte (replacing Wind Stride)
Swordsage 7: Comet Throw.
Master of Nine 1: Searing Blade, Death From Above.
Warblade 1: Steel Wind, Wall of Blades, Iron Heart Surge, Punishing Stance (stance).
Crusader 1: Crusader's Strike, Foehammer, Revitalizing Strike, Leading the Charge (stance), Lion's Roar, White Raven Tactics.
Swordsage 8: Scorpion Parry, Shadow Stride (replacing Shadow Jaunt).
Swordsage 9: Pouncing Charge, Shifting Defense (stance).
Swordsage 10: Raging Mongoose, Greater Insightful Strike (replacing Mountain Hammer).
Swordsage 11: Fool's Strike.
Swordsage 12: Strike of Righteous Vitality, Tornado Throw (replacing Counter Charge).
Master of Nine 2: Stance of Alacrity (stance), Time Stands Still.
Master of Nine 3: Inferno Blast, Strike of Perfect Clarity, Mountain Tombstone Strike (Martial Study).
Master of Nine 4: Press the Advantage (stance), War Master's Charge.
Master of Nine 5: Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike, Feral Death Blow.

[Adindra]

Is the 5% chance something that YOU roll or that the DM rolls behind the screen?



hopefully we get to roll it! he hasn't told us yet

[Randomguy]

Jiriku's monk fix. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150122)

You don't have any abilities that fail (unless your DM gives supernatural abilities a failure chance) and you have free weapons with free upgrades.

Other than that, unarmed swordsage seems like the best bet.

[Gavinfoxx]

l (unless your DM gives supernatural abilities a failure chance)

The DM is giving ALL supernatural abilities a failure chance AND a 'this blows up in a bad way' chance.

[NNescio]

So a friend of mine is building a campaign where hes adding a 5% spell failure chance to every single magical ability (some post apocalyptic nonsense) and hes extremly limiting the loot so i have to find a build that

Does Psionics count? Or magic items via Artificer (who get a free crafting pool of sorts)?

Edit:

The DM is giving ALL supernatural abilities a failure chance AND a 'this blows up in a bad way' chance.
Hmm, this sort of reminds me of playing a Psyker in Dark Heresy... where they are still extremely strong classes despite suffering from Perils of the Warp (random really BAD stuff happening).

[subject42]

The DM is giving ALL supernatural abilities a failure chance AND a 'this blows up in a bad way' chance.

If that's the case, maybe the best thing to do is just horribly abuse leadership and have a bunch of Adept followers acting as Bob-ombs. Only the cohort death penalty is cumulative.

[Gnaeus]

Alternately, be a DMM persist cleric and load up on feats that let you re-roll that 5% chance.

Yeah, I thought of that also. Biggest concern is that those feats are also SU IIRC. 1-in-400 is good odds, until you think about making the roll several times a day for entire campaign. I can only imagine that if DM is this anti-magic that trying to make a build like this, if you fail on the reroll check, is going to be really bad!

[NNescio]

Warblade, Factotum (Just uh... be careful with the Sp and Su abilities), and Unarmed Swordsage, I guess.

Crusaders for healing if your DM doesn't houserule their Ex healing maneuvers to be Su as well.

[subject42]

Yeah, I thought of that also. Biggest concern is that those feats are also SU IIRC. 1-in-400 is good odds, until you think about making the roll several times a day for entire campaign. I can only imagine that if DM is this anti-magic that trying to make a build like this, if you fail on the reroll check, is going to be really bad!

Crap. I had forgotten that those feats are supernatural.

You know, depending on how you feel about this, it would be possible to get extremely spiteful. The Dragon Shaman's Draconic Aura is a supernatural ability. Technically, it would impact everyone who receives the benefit.

Combine that with my Leadership Bomb idea earlier. Since the DS can dismiss and activate the aura as a free action, get a whole mess of DS 1 followers and have run into a crowd of enemies, but make sure that the DS considers them "allies".

Once one of them is in place, have him toggle the aura. Since he can do so as a free action, sooner or later he will trigger the effect, impacting him and all of his allies.

[NNescio]

Crap. I had forgotten that those feats are supernatural.

You know, depending on how you feel about this, it would be possible to get extremely spiteful. The Dragon Shaman's Draconic Aura is a supernatural ability. Technically, it would impact everyone who receives the benefit.

Combine that with my Leadership Bomb idea earlier. Since the DS can dismiss and activate the aura as a free action, get a whole mess of DS 1 followers and have run into a crowd of enemies, but make sure that the DS considers them "allies".

Once one of them is in place, have him toggle the aura. Since he can do so as a free action, sooner or later he will trigger the effect, impacting him and all of his allies.

I so love things that make a DM's inane houserules blow up in their faces.

[Coidzor]

What's he doing to offset the role of gear? Whatever fix he's using will probably affect our advice.

If, indeed, he's doing anything to offset the role of gear at all.

Too often this turns out to not be the case at all.

As far as LA+1 templates go, Feral's got a bucket of benefits that improve with your HD, IIRC... Mineral Warrior (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031003e) has some DR that's nifty at low levels and a burrow speed... Quasilycanthrope (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20040721a)gives disguise self at will and DR silver.

[Person_Man]

You can basically play anything that you want to, and just focus on passive "always on" magic an equipment. Wildshape lasts for hours. Spells with long durations can be cast before combat. Magic armor and weapons are always on. Soulmelds (Magic of Incarnum) are mostly always on, and are supernatural. Vestiges (Binder, Tome of Magic) are mostly always on, and are supernatural. And so on. A 5% failure rate is basically just an annoyance.

[Gnaeus]

You can basically play anything that you want to, and just focus on passive "always on" magic an equipment. Wildshape lasts for hours. Spells with long durations can be cast before combat. Magic armor and weapons are always on. Soulmelds (Magic of Incarnum) are mostly always on, and are supernatural. Vestiges (Binder, Tome of Magic) are mostly always on, and are supernatural. And so on. A 5% failure rate is basically just an annoyance.

Yes, but as mentioned previously in thread, the 5% failure includes a chance for catastrophic malfunction. So ignoring it seems likely to give lots of rolls on the DM's table of unhappiness.

[Adindra]

i was considering an unarmed swordsage and using the anthropamorthic lion as my level adjust race. i was also going to choose vow of poverty for my first level feat as well ^.^

anyone have any input on this?

ive never played a swordsage before but it seemed like a good choice especially after everything you all have said!

[SlashRunner]

Just deal with it. Think of it as a critical fumble that applies to magic. Yes, critical fumble rules are a pain in the ass, and yes, no one likes them. But if you were in a game with fumble rules for attack rolls, would you make a character that doesn't make any attack rolls? It seems like too much fuss over a relatively minor thing.
Also, I actually sort of like the concept. Magic is supposed to be dangerous. If he wants to attach a risk to magic, that's fine. There are plenty of non-magical classes out there that are fun to play and effective. However, there are two problems I see here.

One is that he counts SU abilities as "magic". As an example of how this is stupid, a Paladin's Aura of Courage is SU. Does that mean that every round, the Paladin has a 5% chance to summon a warp-spawned demon from some mad dimension to slay the party? Does a Bard using Inspire Courage have a 5% chance to cause a magical explosion in the radius of his singing? It's illogical to do so. You should try to convince him to limit the failure chance to actual spells and spell-like abilities.

The other is the thing about equipment. If done right, expensive, rare equipment can feel cool, like they're fighting for their survival. Most of the time, it just involves the equipment-dependent classes being shafted and sitting, bored, as the classes that are blessed with a relative independence from equipment solve every problem.

[Gnaeus]

i was considering an unarmed swordsage and using the anthropamorthic lion as my level adjust race. i was also going to choose vow of poverty for my first level feat as well ^.^

anyone have any input on this?

ive never played a swordsage before but it seemed like a good choice especially after everything you all have said!

Unarmed swordsage should work well. Warblade would also. It depends on whether you want more of a skills-based light fighter, or a big melee beast.

VoP should be good in this setting UNLESS the SU tag on many exalted feats makes you blow up.


Just deal with it. Think of it as a critical fumble that applies to magic. Yes, critical fumble rules are a pain in the ass, and yes, no one likes them. But if you were in a game with fumble rules for attack rolls, would you make a character that doesn't make any attack rolls?.

Generally, yes. That is exactly what I do. How much I do it depends on how bad the fumble table is. Fumbles like "you drop your weapon", "you fall down" or "you miss the rest of your turn" will result in me making a character that makes fewer, more powerful attacks. Fumbles like "You trip and cut your own head off" will result in a diplomancer, sneak, or other character who rolls on that table as rarely as possible.

We don't really know what the table is like, so I am assuming that it is closer to the second than the first.

[Drachasor]

i was considering an unarmed swordsage and using the anthropamorthic lion as my level adjust race. i was also going to choose vow of poverty for my first level feat as well ^.^

anyone have any input on this?

ive never played a swordsage before but it seemed like a good choice especially after everything you all have said!

No, you must play a Warblade as an athropamorthic lion, and request that your DM give you ONE magic sword that's an heirloom that will grow in power as you do. It lets you scry on important events (DM picks what you see), and it essentially Gate in members of your clan to aid you in combat.

Other players will need to play an athropomorphic panther, tiger, and cheetah. These are the surviving members of your clan, btw.

This all fits perfectly into a post-apocalyptic setting.

All that aside, I don't think your DM has really thought any of this through.

Edit: Maybe your DM should get on this forum and we can help him figure out sensible rules if he wants to play an essentially low-magic world like this.

[Fouredged Sword]

The feat of choice is Anceteral Weapon (sp?).

masterwork item becomes more awsome as you level.

[Hiro Protagonest]

No, you must play a Warblade as an athropamorthic lion, and request that your DM give you ONE magic sword that's an heirloom that will grow in power as you do. It lets you scry on important events (DM picks what you see), and it essentialyl Gate in members of your clan to aid you in combat.

Other players will need to play an athropomorphic panther, tiger, and cheetah.

This all fits perfectly into a post-apocalyptic setting.

...Thundercats?

[Drachasor]

The feat of choice is Anceteral Weapon (sp?).

masterwork item becomes more awsome as you level.

Yeah, but I figure if the DM is running the game as side, he should toss the player a bone like this for free. Then again, he might well be totally against such an idea. This sort of thing has a high chance of blowing up in the DM's face if he isn't careful about it, and it doesn't sound like he is.


...Thundercats?

You have to ask?

Obviously they have some sort of Construct that everyone can ride in, and the athropomorphic panther can repair it if it gets damaged. Some minor magical abilities would ideally be allowed.

Really a more sensible rule might be that casting a spell of a level beyond...say, a quarter of the Character Level/Hit Dice of the caster is dangerous. I think. A bit of carefully controlled magic is allowed then. Of course healing would need to be available in some form given how D&D works -- grabbing Healing Surges from 4th should do the trick if you add in some ways to activate them.

Or he could say "nothing above Tier 3" and that would limit magic a lot. I don't know, it depends on what he's going for.

Edit: I edited this a lot.

[Fouredged Sword]

Thundercats!
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[subject42]

Just deal with it. Think of it as a critical fumble that applies to magic. Yes, critical fumble rules are a pain in the ass, and yes, no one likes them. But if you were in a game with fumble rules for attack rolls, would you make a character that doesn't make any attack rolls? It seems like too much fuss over a relatively minor thing.

It's largely going to depend on the severity of the fumble. If the severity is "you lose your spell" it's not that big a deal. If the severity is "Evan's Spiked Tentacles of forced intrusion materialize in a 20 foot radius spread, centered on the caster", then it's a very big deal indeed.

Enough people on this board have had DM's who "didn't like magic" and went out of their way to wreck anything vaguely magical that it's easy for people to get skittish.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You have to ask?

I got it right! I actually don't know anything about it aside from the name and the fact that there's a sword called the sword of omens.

[Coidzor]

Just deal with it. Think of it as a critical fumble that applies to magic. Yes, critical fumble rules are a pain in the ass, and yes, no one likes them.

Alternatively, get together with the rest of the group and force him to stop being anti-fun. DMs are not kings, after all, if they're not running something their group wants, they can and should feel free to inform him of such rather than be expected to feel thankful that the DM is willing to DM for them at all.


However, there are two problems I see here.

Neither of which are solved by "just dealing with it."

[Hiro Protagonest]

If the DM says that the 5% failure applies to swinging around a magic sword, hit him with all your D&D books.

[blackjack217]

If that's the case, maybe the best thing to do is just horribly abuse leadership and have a bunch of Adept followers acting as Bob-ombs. Only the cohort death penalty is cumulative.

I can't believe you would suggest such deceitful trickery! Use a Thrallherd :smallamused:

[subject42]

I can't believe you would suggest such deceitful trickery! Use a Thrallherd :smallamused:

I thought about that, but you need manifesting (and thus failure chance) to get into Thrallherd. Leadership doesn't have that restriction.

[faceroll]

Race optimization:

Incarnate Construct Warforged gives you -2 LA and +2 con -2 wis -2 cha.

Pick up the following templates:
+1 half minotaur +12 str -2 dex +6 con -2 int +2 wis +4 NA larg size
+0 half ogre +4 str +2 con -2 int +2 NA
+1 feral +4 str -2 dex +2 con -4 int +2 wis +7 NA
+1 lolth touched +6 str +6 con

Final stat modifiers:
+26 str
+16 con
-4 dex
-8 int
+2 wis
-2 cha

Due to incarnate construct, you unfortunately lose a number of your special abilities, like scent, the track feat, etc.

But who needs magic or equipment when you can just cast "Hit very hard"?

[Fouredged Sword]

+2 wis!

You should totaly play a cleric!:smallbiggrin:

[Yuki Akuma]

The obvious solution is not to play at all, because seriously, this sounds awful.

[Alaris]

All of the games I currently play in (In real Life) function under the rule of "Roll a D20 when casting a spell. If you roll a 1, the spell fumbles."

In only ONE of those games can that actually have a negative impact. Otherwise, the spell simply dissipates harmlessly, and you lose the spell slot. I think it is a fair choice by the DM, as it makes Magic Users not infallible.

Just like a Fighter can roll a Nat1 on his attack roll, a Wizard can roll a Nat1 on his Fireball. Since spellcasters are generally considered the "Most Powerful" of the classes in 3.5, I would say that this goes a ways towards balancing the system as a whole.

I can understand it's not for everyone. Hell, one of my players is arguing vehemently against it, stating that there SHOULDN'T be a 5% chance of failing any spell he casts.

I politely disagree with him.

[Drachasor]

All of the games I currently play in (In real Life) function under the rule of "Roll a D20 when casting a spell. If you roll a 1, the spell fumbles."

In only ONE of those games can that actually have a negative impact. Otherwise, the spell simply dissipates harmlessly, and you lose the spell slot. I think it is a fair choice by the DM, as it makes Magic Users not infallible.

Just like a Fighter can roll a Nat1 on his attack roll, a Wizard can roll a Nat1 on his Fireball. Since spellcasters are generally considered the "Most Powerful" of the classes in 3.5, I would say that this goes a ways towards balancing the system as a whole.

I can understand it's not for everyone. Hell, one of my players is arguing vehemently against it, stating that there SHOULDN'T be a 5% chance of failing any spell he casts.

I politely disagree with him.

Spells that matter already HAVE a chance of not working right. Saving throws. Seems a bit odd and unfair to do this twice.

Here's the thing. Doing this doesn't really hurt caster power THAT much. A lot of the stuff that is hurt, are the reasonable direct damage spells. A lot of the stuff that isn't are things that can be done outside of combat, so a failure is just a very minor setback. Save Or Dies are affected a bit, but they are still going to generally be really overpowered.

All in all, I don't see the point of such a rule. It does NOTHING useful.

[faceroll]

All of the games I currently play in (In real Life) function under the rule of "Roll a D20 when casting a spell. If you roll a 1, the spell fumbles."

In only ONE of those games can that actually have a negative impact. Otherwise, the spell simply dissipates harmlessly, and you lose the spell slot. I think it is a fair choice by the DM, as it makes Magic Users not infallible.

Just like a Fighter can roll a Nat1 on his attack roll, a Wizard can roll a Nat1 on his Fireball. Since spellcasters are generally considered the "Most Powerful" of the classes in 3.5, I would say that this goes a ways towards balancing the system as a whole.

I can understand it's not for everyone. Hell, one of my players is arguing vehemently against it, stating that there SHOULDN'T be a 5% chance of failing any spell he casts.

I politely disagree with him.

Do you have to roll twice then for spells like enervate or scorching ray? A fighter also gets to make attacks all day long. A wizard does not. Such a rule seems to encourage picking only the worst sorts of spells, like solid fog, etc.

[Alaris]

Do you have to roll twice then for spells like enervate or scorching ray? A fighter also gets to make attacks all day long. A wizard does not. Such a rule seems to encourage picking only the worst sorts of spells, like solid fog, etc.

Hmm, like I said, this rule is not for everyone. I think it helps. Considering casting types are TIERS above the non-casting types.

This makes casters have to decide more CAREFULLY when casting their spells. It's not like they're risking blowing themselves up or anything like that.

In addition, even though a Fighter can attack all day long, his "Thwacks" with his sword will generally not compare well with the Wizard's well-placed ENERVATION spells. (And to answer your direct question, yes, there are two rolls when there is a separate attack roll from the spell).

It is my belief that there needs to be a little risk in casting spells, but not so much that people don't want to play casters at all.

So far, it has worked for my game, but again, I understand if it doesn't work for others.

[darksolitaire]

he isnt really doing a fix. his fix from loot he was telling me is that things in shops will be cheaper as well but with us not getting any loot we wont be able to afford anything anyway. and all of the shops have limited random inventory :smallannoyed:

Tell him not to have random inventory, because it's possible that it screws you over. He sounds like he is using random loot tables as well. Which can also screw you over. And random encounters. When they go random, they cause TPK. Really, the more random anything is, the worse. Don't believe me? Here, have a DoMT.

The DM also lumps all supernatural abilities together. I wonder, why must he nerf monk? Seems bit lazy to me. Well, it probably doesn't translate all that well to internet.

My advice is to play the game trough the first session and see if it works.



Just like a Fighter can roll a Nat1 on his attack roll, a Wizard can roll a Nat1 on his Fireball. Since spellcasters are generally considered the "Most Powerful" of the classes in 3.5, I would say that this goes a ways towards balancing the system as a whole.

Wizards can already rolls natural ones on to hit-rolls and spell penetration, and opponents can roll natural twenties on saves, so your example isn't that good. Last thing this game need is more ways to fail.


I'm being swordsage'd while I'm writing this, but at least the preview post button let's me see that.

[Drachasor]

Hmm, like I said, this rule is not for everyone. I think it helps. Considering casting types are TIERS above the non-casting types.

This makes casters have to decide more CAREFULLY when casting their spells. It's not like they're risking blowing themselves up or anything like that.

In addition, even though a Fighter can attack all day long, his "Thwacks" with his sword will generally not compare well with the Wizard's well-placed ENERVATION spells. (And to answer your direct question, yes, there are two rolls when there is a separate attack roll from the spell).

It is my belief that there needs to be a little risk in casting spells, but not so much that people don't want to play casters at all.

So far, it has worked for my game, but again, I understand if it doesn't work for others.

To be frank, if it is working in your game, it is most likely because your casters wouldn't be a problem anyhow. A 95% success rate on that initial roll doesn't not significantly impact the viability of any tactic unless you have to chain together 3 or more spells and they all have to work the first time.

All in all, it's just a misguided way to try to "fix" casters. Plus, it affects classes like the Bard that are already balanced.

[Gnaeus]

All of the games I currently play in (In real Life) function under the rule of "Roll a D20 when casting a spell. If you roll a 1, the spell fumbles."

In only ONE of those games can that actually have a negative impact. Otherwise, the spell simply dissipates harmlessly, and you lose the spell slot. I think it is a fair choice by the DM, as it makes Magic Users not infallible.

I wouldn't have a problem with the 5% spell failure. I don't think it adds much, but it doesn't hurt. It is the negative impact chance that would worry me. If it is little things (like a point of stat damage, minor status effects, etc) it would still be ok imo. If it is a chance of significant spell malfunction, though, I would strongly object as a player.

I mean, if it really bothers you, you could always invest some feats into luck rerolls and still dominate the game plenty. That example isn't nearly as bad as the all SU abilities have failure chance.

[faceroll]

Hmm, like I said, this rule is not for everyone. I think it helps. Considering casting types are TIERS above the non-casting types.

This makes casters have to decide more CAREFULLY when casting their spells. It's not like they're risking blowing themselves up or anything like that.

In addition, even though a Fighter can attack all day long, his "Thwacks" with his sword will generally not compare well with the Wizard's well-placed ENERVATION spells. (And to answer your direct question, yes, there are two rolls when there is a separate attack roll from the spell).

It is my belief that there needs to be a little risk in casting spells, but not so much that people don't want to play casters at all.

So far, it has worked for my game, but again, I understand if it doesn't work for others.

Eh, I'd rather work with the problematic spells than just encourage players to pick even more powerful stuff. GITP greatly undervalues the contribution of primary damage dealers, too. Most of a wizard's best tricks are just delaying combat for a couple rounds or casting teleport. Neither of those actually kills the Tarrasque or whatever.



Enervate's a pretty crappy debuff, imo. People talk a lot about it, but 1d4 negative levels for a 4th level slot is pretty lame. On things that you won't miss 30% of the time, the 2.5 neg levels won't be noticeable. On things that it will be noticeable, you'd be better dropping a black tentacles.

Sure, you could cast 3 of them, but then I could also cast 3 fireballs and get the same results.

With metamagic mitigation, enervate gets better, but then, so does fireball, and everything else for that matter.

[Hiro Protagonest]

All of the games I currently play in (In real Life) function under the rule of "Roll a D20 when casting a spell. If you roll a 1, the spell fumbles."

In only ONE of those games can that actually have a negative impact. Otherwise, the spell simply dissipates harmlessly, and you lose the spell slot. I think it is a fair choice by the DM, as it makes Magic Users not infallible.

Just like a Fighter can roll a Nat1 on his attack roll, a Wizard can roll a Nat1 on his Fireball. Since spellcasters are generally considered the "Most Powerful" of the classes in 3.5, I would say that this goes a ways towards balancing the system as a whole.

I can understand it's not for everyone. Hell, one of my players is arguing vehemently against it, stating that there SHOULDN'T be a 5% chance of failing any spell he casts.

I politely disagree with him.

But! It hurts rangers, paladins, and bards. And this guy's rule is even worse, because now bardic music, incarnum, supernatural maneuvers, etc, have a 5% chance of failure, and possibly backfire (would you like it if 1/40 Inspire Courage uses, Wild Shapes, and Eldritch Blasts opened a gaping rift to the Abyss?).

[subject42]

But! It hurts rangers, paladins, and bards. And this guy's rule is even worse, because now bardic music, incarnum, supernatural maneuvers, etc, have a 5% chance of failure, and possibly backfire (would you like it if 1/40 Inspire Courage uses, Wild Shapes, and Eldritch Blasts opened a gaping rift to the Abyss?).

Given my experiences with Paladins and Bards, I think I would welcome that.

[faceroll]

(would you like it if 1/40 Inspire Courage uses, Wild Shapes, and Eldritch Blasts opened a gaping rift to the Abyss?).

...........yes :smallamused:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Given my experiences with Paladins and Bards, I think I would welcome that.

What's wrong with Bards?

[Drachasor]

Enervate's a pretty crappy debuff, imo. People talk a lot about it, but 1d4 negative levels for a 4th level slot is pretty lame. On things that you won't miss 30% of the time, the 2.5 neg levels won't be noticeable. On things that it will be noticeable, you'd be better dropping a black tentacles.

Sure, you could cast 3 of them, but then I could also cast 3 fireballs and get the same results.

With metamagic mitigation, enervate gets better, but then, so does fireball, and everything else for that matter.

To be fair, Enervate scales a lot better with metamagic than fireball. The stuff that gets talked up a lot with metamagic generally is scales up great. Generally they won't have any save allowed, making the low save of a hopped-up fireball look pretty awful.


Given my experiences with Paladins and Bards, I think I would welcome that.

Eh...what sort of games are you playing where those classes are problematic? I mean...the paladin? And how are they problematic in a way that this could possibly fix? I mean, it's an idiotic and poorly designed rule that doesn't fix anything it should and hurts things that are fine.

[Trinoya]

I've been operating for nearly a decade in all games I play in or run, that spell casters fail and loose the spell on a 1. This can happen any time, anywhere, regardless of if they are in combat or not. At the end of the day it's only going to work at balancing casters better, while giving fighter types and spell casters who have more spells per day a unique advantage.

It's worked out largely in the parties favor, allowing for the opportunity for a fireball to fail, a touch of idiocy (one of the single most broken spells in history) to just puff itself out. Furthermore, it actually makes my players consider playing things that aren't casters (or at least dedicated casters) on occasion.

[faceroll]

I've been operating for nearly a decade in all games I play in or run, that spell casters fail and loose the spell on a 1. This can happen any time, anywhere, regardless of if they are in combat or not. At the end of the day it's only going to work at balancing casters better, while giving fighter types and spell casters who have more spells per day a unique advantage.

It's worked out largely in the parties favor, allowing for the opportunity for a fireball to fail, a touch of idiocy (one of the single most broken spells in history) to just puff itself out. Furthermore, it actually makes my players consider playing things that aren't casters (or at least dedicated casters) on occasion.

You know touch of idiocy doesn't stack, right?

[Drachasor]

I've been operating for nearly a decade in all games I play in or run, that spell casters fail and loose the spell on a 1. This can happen any time, anywhere, regardless of if they are in combat or not. At the end of the day it's only going to work at balancing casters better, while giving fighter types and spell casters who have more spells per day a unique advantage.

It's worked out largely in the parties favor, allowing for the opportunity for a fireball to fail, a touch of idiocy (one of the single most broken spells in history) to just puff itself out. Furthermore, it actually makes my players consider playing things that aren't casters (or at least dedicated casters) on occasion.

Or you could come up with a good fix rather than a lousy, misguided hack. There are even easy ones out there like "all tier 3" games and the like.

[Big Fau]

He's considering supernatural abilities as magical and having the 5% spell failure chance so the dragons would have the fail chance ^.^ which is bad for me but meh

Which means you just avoid the Soulmelds that require an activation. He said the chance happens when you cast something, so preparing them (Shaping Soulmelds) would remain unaffected. And moving Essentia around isn't the same as activating them, so you are almost completely unaffected.


Totemist is the way to go for this one. That, or suggest a different game system (3.5 doesn't handle No Magic very well for a number of reasons).

[Alaris]

You know touch of idiocy doesn't stack, right?

Indeed, doesn't stack in the least with itself.

Of course, the fact that it's 2nd level, has NO SAVE, and applies a stat penalty to THREE STATS, up to 6 points (9 if you empower, or Sudden Empower) is what makes it extremely powerful.

Wizard walks up to any other caster type, hits them with that, and if he rolls well, they lose access to all of their spells. If he rolls "not so well," they lose access to their higher-tier spells quite fast.

I'd say it's fairly overpowered.



Or you could come up with a good fix rather than a lousy, misguided hack. There are even easy ones out there like "all tier 3" games and the like.

Well, no need to call people's ideas "lousy misguided hacks." That's a bit rude, if you ask me.

Barring classes is not something I agree with. At least, not the core classes. Making spells have a failure chance, however minute (5%) is something that makes sense realistically, and within the rules.

From a roleplay perspective, there is ALWAYS that off-chance of you fumbling up the elaborate hand gestures, or getting tongue-tied with the verbal components, and the spell doesn't go off. It happens... accidentally or otherwise.

In-game, it's a blanket thing for ALL spellcasters. Though another relevant rule in my game is that there are LUCK POINTS, which you can spend 1 to reroll a roll. They are not infinite, but you can earn new ones when you've spent all of yours, and they allow you to not fumble your spell if you so choose, by rerolling.

[Trinoya]

Or you could come up with a good fix rather than a lousy, misguided hack. There are even easy ones out there like "all tier 3" games and the like.

Or it's a perfectly fine fix and you just don't like it. Prove to me it doesn't work out well or offer up something better and maybe I'll take it what you say somewhat seriously.

[Drachasor]

Indeed, doesn't stack in the least with itself.

Of course, the fact that it's 2nd level, has NO SAVE, and applies a stat penalty to THREE STATS, up to 6 points (9 if you empower, or Sudden Empower) is what makes it extremely powerful.

Wizard walks up to any other caster type, hits them with that, and if he rolls well, they lose access to all of their spells. If he rolls "not so well," they lose access to their higher-tier spells quite fast.

I'd say it's fairly overpowered.

Agreed, it is overpowered. Giving it a 5% fail chance does not change that. Overpowered 95% of the time is still overpowered.

There, proof your fix doesn't work. Also, I offered a better fix. You even quoted it.

[faceroll]

Indeed, doesn't stack in the least with itself.

Of course, the fact that it's 2nd level, has NO SAVE, and applies a stat penalty to THREE STATS, up to 6 points (9 if you empower, or Sudden Empower) is what makes it extremely powerful.

Wizard walks up to any other caster type, hits them with that, and if he rolls well, they lose access to all of their spells. If he rolls "not so well," they lose access to their higher-tier spells quite fast.

I'd say it's fairly overpowered.

A fighter walks up to any other caster type, hits them with Sword, they lose access to everything.

[Trinoya]

A fix that had no context given, all you did was say, "Make a tier 3 only game."



Furthermore: Your evidence is lousy. You're quoting mathmatical principles here like it plays into why it balances out.

Having a chance of failure for casting effects all decisions. If you use a scroll or a full spell, if you went wizard or ranger, if you prepared one fireball or two. It changes the entire caster outlook and requires them to be somewhat more mindful and thoughtful.

More importantly it empowers greatly weaker casters that have more spells per day. The effects are across the board, period, right down to if the cleric is gonna succeed on his heal spell or not.

[Alaris]

Agreed, it is overpowered. Giving it a 5% fail chance does not change that. Overpowered 95% of the time is still overpowered.

There, proof your fix doesn't work. Also, I offered a better fix. You even quoted it.

Yuck, restricting classes to all Tier 3 may be some kind of fix... but honestly, it's not a good one in my opinion. But I suppose this is ALL ABOUT OPINIONS, now isn't it? You believe your fix is better, while I believe mine is better.

5% fail chance isn't going to ruin a game, and you know it. It rarely comes up. But it's always there, lurking in the shadows, giving the players the doubt, and making them think twice when casting a spell.

Honestly, how do you know it won't work to SOME effect if you haven't used it?

EDIT: To help those who don't understand what tier 3 only means... this is the tier 3 class list, yanked from a thread I recently found:

-Beguiler
-Dread Necromancer
-Crusader
-Bard
-Swordsage
-Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige),
-Wildshape Variant Ranger
-Duskblade
-Factotum
-Warblade
-Psychic Warrior
-Ardent
-Psychic Rogue
-Shugenja
-Wilder
-Shadowcaster

[Circle of Life]

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/iobqtirt.jpeg

Somehow I don't think discussing the finer points of individual houserules regarding spell fumbles is going to help the OP make his character.

[Trinoya]

A fighter walks up to any other caster type, hits them with Sword, they lose access to everything.

This has far more grains of truth in it than most other things spoken in this thread. Nonetheless: Also equipment and feat dependent (though if you are under a good DM that will matter little).

At least until they get craft contingent spell. ^_- Then it's fun times for all.

[Big Fau]

A fighter walks up to any other caster type, hits them with Sword, they lose access to everything.

You say this like it happens. I've personally never had a problem with melees trying to hit my casters, seeing as they've never been successful (not lying here: My Bard/Sublime Chord was the only character in my group to go unharmed throughout the entire campaign).


Noncasters are not a threat to Full Casters that are in Tier 2 or higher. It takes magic to actually fight those classes.

[Trinoya]

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/iobqtirt.jpeg

Somehow I don't think discussing the finer points of individual houserules regarding spell fumbles is going to help the OP make his character.


And here I thought no one liked being rail-roaded :smalltongue:

Nonetheless, also a valid point.

[faceroll]

This has far more grains of truth in it than most other things spoken in this thread. Nonetheless: Also equipment and feat dependent (though if you are under a good DM that will matter little).

At least until they get craft contingent spell. ^_- Then it's fun times for all.

Bro, my point is, if your wizard can get up and touch the enemy, then anyone can. And if anyone can, the typically over 9000 damage coming from the fighter type will be of much greater concern.


You say this like it happens. I've personally never had a problem with melees trying to hit my casters, seeing as they've never been successful (not lying here: My Bard/Sublime Chord was the only character in my group to go unharmed throughout the entire campaign).


Noncasters are not a threat to Full Casters that are in Tier 2 or higher. It takes magic to actually fight those classes.

Bro, try and follow the conversation. We're discussing the utility of Touch of Idiocy. If you can land a hit with it, then I bet you I can land a hit with my axe. And that axe is going to deal something much more permanent than int drain.

[Trinoya]

I agreed with the initial point of the ability of the fighter to do the damage, however I disagree that just anyone can get up and touch someone.

On a pure side note: There are numerous ways deliver touch spells to the target, and most wizards use those rather than literally walking up and shaking hands (although the latter is my personal favorite way to deliver a sudden still, silent, maximized and empowered touch of idiocy to the target wizard).

[Coidzor]

Furthermore, it actually makes my players consider playing things that aren't casters (or at least dedicated casters) on occasion.

If that's what they want to play, why do you feel the need to try to discourage them?


Furthermore: Your evidence is lousy. You're quoting mathmatical principles here like it plays into why it balances out.

...Math is lousy evidence in a discussion about math? :smallconfused:

Do you mean that it's not about the chance of failure but that there is a chance of failure and you can play headgames with the other players in the game using that to manipulate them into playing the game that you want to play rather than the game that, say, you've all agreed to play then?

[faceroll]

I agreed with the initial point of the ability of the fighter to do the damage, however I disagree that just anyone can get up and touch someone.

On a pure side note: There are numerous ways deliver touch spells to the target, and most wizards use those rather than literally walking up and shaking hands (although the latter is my personal favorite way to deliver a sudden still, silent, maximized and empowered touch of idiocy to the target wizard).

In which case, why not deliver something else? Preparing a single spell that only works on casters without protection to mind affecting compulsion effects seems silly, when a scorching ray or something would be even more effective, as then they would die outright.

Furthermore, you're still investing resources in a poor strategy, since you need to pick up reach spell or take a round to cast spectral hand (immediately informing the enemy caster of what you're about to do).

[TurtleKing]

Ok since everyone is either taking this in another direction or trying to steer it back on course I'll give a suggestion. If you want to play a support character who has no magic or supernatural abilities try the Marshal from Miniatures Handbook. The main ability are the auras that enhance many aspects of the character with out magic. The only gear you have to worry about to make them work is armor and weapons. Considering everything shouldn't be hard to scavenge if need be. They are capable of being the tank, skill monkey, party face, suppporter, and more. This will largely be based on what auras you pick.

So instead of being spiteful or whining just roll with it and fun.

[Coidzor]

Ok since everyone is either taking this in another direction or trying to steer it back on course I'll give a suggestion. If you want to play a support character who has no magic or supernatural abilities try the Marshal from Miniatures Handbook. The main ability are the auras that enhance many aspects of the character with out magic.

Well that's interesting, those auras are Extraordinary, even.


So instead of being spiteful or whining just roll with it and fun.

Considering it's a game that hinges upon people coming together around the same table, automatically capitulating to a DM's autocracy is ruling out the possibility that, y'know, human beings can talk to one another and work out compromises.

Hell, if he wants something like D&D but that doesn't really have magic, I believe there's materials out there that are actually made with that premise in mind rather than neutering D&D. Like, say, Iron Kingdoms. Or was it Iron Heroes?

[Drachasor]

A fix that had no context given, all you did was say, "Make a tier 3 only game."

Then ask next time instead of acting like I did nothing.

Class Tiers. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=671vm96st1q2057jha0vvqvtu0&topic=5293.0)

It even has some house rule options.

Or you could do something more constructive like banning OP spells or adjusting their casting time. Such as Save or Die/Lose spells all gain a casting time of 10 minutes. You'll want to tweak some other sorts of spells like some divinations, possibly teleporting and flying, and a few more things. Hmm, I made a list somewhere once. I'll go scrounge it up if you want.



Furthermore: Your evidence is lousy. You're quoting mathmatical principles here like it plays into why it balances out.

That's exactly how it works. 5% fail chance means it is quite likely a caster doesn't roll a 1 ever in a given session. No reason to make excessive plans around it. That said...


Having a chance of failure for casting effects all decisions. If you use a scroll or a full spell, if you went wizard or ranger, if you prepared one fireball or two. It changes the entire caster outlook and requires them to be somewhat more mindful and thoughtful.

If anything this does encourage casters to go for the most broken spells, that way if something inexplicably fails, they have high-powered backups. Overall it isn't going to impact thought much, anymore than people rolling a 1 on an attack changes their actions much.


More importantly it empowers greatly weaker casters that have more spells per day. The effects are across the board, period, right down to if the cleric is gonna succeed on his heal spell or not.

Weaker casters have FEWER spells per day. Bards have fewer spells than full-casters. Paladins and Rangers? Even less.


To the OP, I again urge you to get your DM to make a thread on here about what he wants to achieve so we can help him go about it in an effective way that will be fun.

[Trinoya]

In which case, why not deliver something else? Preparing a single spell that only works on casters without protection to mind affecting compulsion effects seems silly, when a scorching ray or something would be even more effective, as then they would die outright.


You do realize that touch of idiocy is just as devastating to non casters who have stats at or below 10, right? It's hard to wield a sword when you have an int lower than some trees, and don't even think of firing a bow.

Granted not every DM in the world is gonna be that hard on the me fighter smashy smashy mentality, but if you start having an intelligence lower than that of common street animals I highly doubt you're going to remain an effective combatant. This is to say nothing of your force of personality taking heavy damage to boot.

[Amphetryon]

You do realize that touch of idiocy is just as devastating to non casters who have stats at or below 10, right? It's hard to wield a sword when you have an int lower than some trees, and don't even think of firing a bow.

Granted not every DM in the world is gonna be that hard on the me fighter smashy smashy mentality, but if you start having an intelligence lower than that of common street animals I highly doubt you're going to remain an effective combatant. This is to say nothing of your force of personality taking heavy damage to boot.

By RAW, you'll have to point me to the passage where a lower mental stat impedes Hulk Smash, aside from things like Combat Expertise. That said, Grok the Half-Orc Barbarian with the 6 INT, hit with 7 points damage to all mental stats, is in no position to fight, defend himself, or anything but beg OOC not to be targeted with Coup de Grace.

[Circle of Life]

That said, Grok the Half-Orc Barbarian with the 6 INT, hit with 7 points damage to all mental stats, is in no position to fight, defend himself, or anything but beg OOC not to be targeted with Coup de Grace.

Touch of Idiocy is a mental penalty that can't drop below 1. He should still be able to swing his sword just fine, though his decision making might leave something to be desired at that point.

[Alaris]

RAW, be at 1 Int/Wis/Cha does absolutely nothing for your ability to thwack a sword.

Now any DM worth his salt should definitely intervene on that. At those levels... a character should barely understand what it means to hit someone with a sword, let alone how to swing it. Hell, how do you determine who is friend and foe?

But, I have come to the conclusion that the games people on these forums play are generally "RAW and NOTHING ELSE." So... I am in the minority.

[TurtleKing]

From what the OP has said the DM isn't neutering D&D by removing magic just adjusting it. D&D is made so it can fit many people. I have played in games where there was little or no magic available to the players and still had fun. So if he wants a versatile class the Marshal helps with that.

Edit: I think your right. Besides when has a restriction on how spellcasting works in a setting kept you from having fun? Must you play a caster to have fun? Must you be able to faceroll everything to the point no one else is having fun to have fun? Since the setting has an inherent danger in using magic then you could do one of two things. Play a character that can use magic that is risky, or play a non-magical character. Point is find a way to have fun as well as everyone else. If one isn't having fun then no one is having fun. So compromise so everyone can have fun.

[Wings of Peace]

Take a few levels in Spellsword since it lowers your spell failure chance by a %.

[NNescio]

RAW, be at 1 Int/Wis/Cha does absolutely nothing for your ability to thwack a sword.

Now any DM worth his salt should definitely intervene on that. At those levels... a character should barely understand what it means to hit someone with a sword, let alone how to swing it. Hell, how do you determine who is friend and foe?

But, I have come to the conclusion that the games people on these forums play are generally "RAW and NOTHING ELSE." So... I am in the minority.

Interestingly, RAW says the Fighter would be susceptible to Handle Animal checks once his INT drops to 2 or lower.

[Trinoya]

Then ask next time instead of acting like I did nothing.


You did do nothing, you gave a response without context, furthermore THEN I ASKED FOR IT. You have since provided it, of course uprooting my entire game system because 'you' think something hasn't provided balance doesn't exactly strike me as a 'balanced option'




It even has some house rule options.

Or you could do something more constructive like banning OP spells or adjusting their casting time. Such as Save or Die/Lose spells all gain a casting time of 10 minutes. You'll want to tweak some other sorts of spells like some divinations, possibly teleporting and flying, and a few more things. Hmm, I made a list somewhere once. I'll go scrounge it up if you want.

Yup, I COULD do all of that and complicate things and so on... or I could give casters the same chance to fail as everyone else in the world. Which seems like a much easier and time saving choice and has been in practice and working out wonderfully in my game to balance things.



That's exactly how it works. 5% fail chance means it is quite likely a caster doesn't roll a 1 ever in a given session. No reason to make excessive plans around it. That said...


The caster has a chance on every roll to roll a 1, if he rolls 20 times for 20 things (including spells) he should, by probability roll a 1.

Furthermore, that in no way negates the concept of failure as a balancing factor, period. All you've said is, "it's not likely on any given roll that they will roll a 1, so it doesn't help you at all."

Which isn't true if you take in the big picture.



If anything this does encourage casters to go for the most broken spells, that way if something inexplicably fails, they have high-powered backups. Overall it isn't going to impact thought much, anymore than people rolling a 1 on an attack changes their actions much.


And what discouraged them prior? The fact that they would AUTO SUCCEED on it? Bad argument is bad.



Weaker casters have FEWER spells per day. Bards have fewer spells than full-casters. Paladins and Rangers? Even less.


You're going to honestly tell me the Sorcerer isn't a weaker caster than a wizard? Yes, some spell casting classes won't, but they also gain other abilities to make up for it as well, such as higher hit dies, saves, and base attack.

I'm still waiting on some true evidence that this doesn't do anything at all and therefore shouldn't be implemented.



To Amphetryon: By RAW a lack of mental stats only impacts ones capability to cast spells, however, by the very intention and concepts of having the statistics measured and applied to other creatures we can conclude that your subsequent statement, in regards to the Coup De Grace, is the logical outcome.:smallwink:

[Drachasor]

RAW, be at 1 Int/Wis/Cha does absolutely nothing for your ability to thwack a sword.

Now any DM worth his salt should definitely intervene on that. At those levels... a character should barely understand what it means to hit someone with a sword, let alone how to swing it. Hell, how do you determine who is friend and foe?

Eh, insects can determine friend from foe. Sure, they might use olfactory cues, but we're visual creatures, so why can't someone with an int of 1 use visual cues?

It isn't like this interferes with their memory either. No attribute determines what you remember. Nor does any attribute determine how cunning you are.

[Circle of Life]

But, I have come to the conclusion that the games people on these forums play are generally "RAW and NOTHING ELSE." So... I am in the minority.

That's a pretty jaded view. The only person I can think of on the forums who plays strictly RAW is Curmudgeon, and I'm reasonably certain even he has made a concession somewhere along to line to avoid the game imploding upon itself.

[Amphetryon]

Now any DM worth his salt should definitely intervene on that.That's an interesting assertion against those of us who play it differently.


To Amphetryon: By RAW a lack of mental stats only impacts ones capability to cast spells, however, by the very intention and concepts of having the statistics measured and applied to other creatures we can conclude that your subsequent statement, in regards to the Coup De Grace, is the logical outcome.My statement about Coup de Grace was the logical outcome of me failing my Spot check to recognize ToE inflicts a penalty and thereby cannot induce the 0 INT Coma of Idiocy I originally implied. Thanks to CoL for the reminder. No more, no less.

[Trinoya]

Interestingly, RAW says the Fighter would be susceptible to Handle Animal checks once his INT drops to 2 or lower.

Whoa... now to make a duskblade druid and turn the tables. ^_-

[Drachasor]

You did do nothing, you gave a response without context, furthermore THEN I ASKED FOR IT. You have since provided it, of course uprooting my entire game system because 'you' think something hasn't provided balance doesn't exactly strike me as a 'balanced option'

It hardly "uproots your entire game system."


Yup, I COULD do all of that and complicate things and so on... or I could give casters the same chance to fail as everyone else in the world. Which seems like a much easier and time saving choice and has been in practice and working out wonderfully in my game to balance things.

If you find any of that actually that complicated , you probably shouldn't allow casters in your games at all.



The caster has a chance on every roll to roll a 1, if he rolls 20 times for 20 things (including spells) he should, by probability roll a 1.

Furthermore, that in no way negates the concept of failure as a balancing factor, period. All you've said is, "it's not likely on any given roll that they will roll a 1, so it doesn't help you at all."

Which isn't true if you take in the big picture.

Big picture is that this hardly impacts the effects of one's decisions. Big picture is that nothing can be done to stop it. Big picture is that this does almost nothing.

Though maybe your players are ignorant of the math and so this intimidates them beyond all reason. I suppose that could be the case. Some people are irrationally risk-adverse.


And what discouraged them prior? The fact that they would AUTO SUCCEED on it? Bad argument is bad.

It's pretty simple, there's less pressure normally on optimizing the end-result. You can afford to prepare some spells that aren't the best, since you know they'll work and can stack them up. You start tossing in random chances of failure, then the higher the chance, the more optimization it encourages.

Granted, at a 5% fail rate this shouldn't have a big impact, because that fail rate is almost ignorable.


You're going to honestly tell me the Sorcerer isn't a weaker caster than a wizard? Yes, some spell casting classes won't, but they also gain other abilities to make up for it as well, such as higher hit dies, saves, and base attack.

The Sorcerer half the time doesn't have appreciably more spells than the wizard.

Again, I was more talking about the Bard, Paladin, Ranger, and such. You hurt them for no reason. Granted, I don't think this hurts anyone much, but nerfing classes that don't need nerfing is a bad way to house rule.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Take a few levels in Spellsword since it lowers your spell failure chance by a %.

You honestly think that will work? This is something very different from ASF.

[Drachasor]

Hmm, the idea for house rules for casters went something like this:

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).

I'm not saying this is perfect or covers everything (DMM for instance). But you could definitely make less than a page of house rules to adequately address all major problems with magic in this manner. As a side bonus, non-full casters wouldn't be hurt, because they don't ever get access to the problematic spells to begin with.

You could go with a slightly more complicated system using a Condition Track like Star Wars SAGA. I'd say only use it for conditions though and not for normal attacks. This way save-or-die/lose spells and the like don't ever take people out in one shot. You could modify the system so people have smaller tracks at low levels and bigger ones at high levels as well (with corresponding spells that grow in power), or something like that.

Edit: Once again for the OP, sorry about all this somewhat tangential talk.

[Alaris]

That's an interesting assertion against those of use who play it differently.

My statement about Coup de Grace was the logical outcome of me failing my Spot check to recognize ToE inflicts a penalty and thereby cannot induce the 0 INT Coma of Idiocy I originally implied. Thanks to CoL for the reminder. No more, no less.

Indeed, that is quite rude, and I apologize. It depends on how Roleplay-centric people want their game. In a game where roleplay is high, I would say that having your Int/Wis/Cha suddenly decimated would be a major problem.

-Your Wisdom (Common Sense) would be minimal, so making decisions with any competency would be very difficult.
-Your Intelligence (Cunning (IE, Fox's Cunning), as well as other things) would also be decimated.
-Your Charisma (Force of Personality)... well, let's just say you aren't going to talk to people. Or at least, very little... and even when you can, with very little GRACE.

Again, I apologize, that kind of thing is not for everyone's game, and I understand that. It's simply how I play.

[Drachasor]

-Your Wisdom (Common Sense) would be minimal, so making decisions with any competency would be very difficult.
-Your Intelligence (Cunning (IE, Fox's Cunning), as well as other things) would also be decimated.
-Your Charisma (Force of Personality)... well, let's just say you aren't going to talk to people. Or at least, very little... and even when you can, with very little GRACE.

Just because the spell is called "Fox's Cunning" doesn't mean that Intelligence determines how cunning someone is. Fox's have an Int of 2, btw.

One can make competent decisions without "common sense" which is a pretty vague term to begin with.

Well, you could communicate as much as a snake that was being talked to by a druid using Speak with Animals. Seems that works pretty well.

[Trinoya]

It hardly "uproots your entire game system."



If you find any of that actually that complicated , you probably shouldn't allow casters in your games at all.



Yes, because the established world and system wouldn't be completely obliterated and have to be redone.

I call that complicated, at best I could start running a new game.

Furthermore, it's still MORE complicated than, "casters fail on a 1."



Big picture is that this hardly impacts the effects of one's decisions. Big picture is that nothing can be done to stop it. Big picture is that this does almost nothing.


Since you've apparently not played in the system you have no basis to support this.




Though maybe your players are ignorant of the math and so this intimidates them beyond all reason. I suppose that could be the case. Some people are irrationally risk-adverse.

That's right, insult my players, I think maybe you're just ignorant of the concept and are resorting to repeating the same argument I dismantled, while throwing in some insults for good measure... but that's just my opinion of course.



It's pretty simple, there's less pressure normally on optimizing the end-result. You can afford to prepare some spells that aren't the best, since you know they'll work and can stack them up. You start tossing in random chances of failure, then the higher the chance, the more optimization it encourages.

Or you would still pick the best spells available because they are the best spells available. You're really not quite getting that the impact on selection is to make duplicates of spells you otherwise would have only chosen one of.




Granted, at a 5% fail rate this shouldn't have a big impact, because that fail rate is almost ignorable.


Until it happens.




The Sorcerer half the time doesn't have appreciably more spells than the wizard.

We are reading different game systems then.




Again, I was more talking about the Bard, Paladin, Ranger, and such. You hurt them for no reason. Granted, I don't think this hurts anyone much, but nerfing classes that don't need nerfing is a bad way to house rule.


Who have other items to balance out their own limited spell set, such as higher base attack, more hit points, and better saves...

Gah, now I'm just repeating myself to you. Present something of substance, till then you're ignored to help save time.

[Coidzor]

Edit: I think your right. Besides when has a restriction on how spellcasting works in a setting kept you from having fun?

When it's been coupled by the kinds of attitudes that lead DMs to make such choices, I've found ample opportunity for anti-fun philosophies to be showcased, yes.


Must you be able to faceroll everything to the point no one else is having fun to have fun?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You mean to tell me that faceroll is a verb now and not just a user?


Since the setting has an inherent danger in using magic then you could do one of two things. Play a character that can use magic that is risky, or play a non-magical character.

Or be a gnome. Get eaten by demons because you tried to talk to your pet mole. Or a monk, be eaten by demons for attacking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#kiStrike).

[TurtleKing]

@Adindra: Sorry about the derailment. It looks like I can't steer people back on. In your first post you asked for a character that doesn't rely on magic as well doesn't require much gear. The Marshal, Knight, and Rogue are three that come to mind with. Each one requires gear to a degree though the Marshal is the most versatile since can adapt to availability of certain types of armor and weapons.

Edit: @Coidzor: I am just trying to help based on the guidelines. Not trying to add anymore dissension to the thread.

[Coidzor]

Interestingly, RAW says the Fighter would be susceptible to Handle Animal checks once his INT drops to 2 or lower.

Where? :smallconfused: Only thing I've seen is a feat grandfathered in from 3.0's Arms and Equipment Guide that would let one use handle animal on humanoids of int 4 or lower.


You did do nothing, you gave a response without context, furthermore THEN I ASKED FOR IT. You have since provided it, of course uprooting my entire game system because 'you' think something hasn't provided balance doesn't exactly strike me as a 'balanced option'

Ow. Parsing this sentence actually hurt with the implication that simply knowing about the tiers at all destroyed your game system.


Yes, because the established world and system wouldn't be completely obliterated and have to be redone.

I call that complicated, at best I could start running a new game.

Furthermore, it's still MORE complicated than, "casters fail on a 1."

Sure, but it actually addresses the issues somewhat rather than being as slapdash as something that encourages casters to even further outclass their inferiors.

The thing itself is more of a quick summation of the options and potential power available to the classes anyway.

[Drachasor]

Yes, because the established world and system wouldn't be completely obliterated and have to be redone.

I call that complicated, at best I could start running a new game.

Furthermore, it's still MORE complicated than, "casters fail on a 1."

Do you let your players play a Tarrasque? Not letting them play a wizard, since it is overpowered, is not that different. No reason it has to upset your campaign world at all, really.


Since you've apparently not played in the system you have no basis to support this.

I am functionally competent in probability. That's all one needs.


That's right, insult my players, I think maybe you're just ignorant of the concept and are resorting to repeating the same argument I dismantled, while throwing in some insults for good measure... but that's just my opinion of course.

You are the one saying that don't understand basic probability. You say it works in your games. Either you are wrong and it wouldn't be a problem, or your players are overreacting.

Saying something along the lines of "math doesn't work" doesn't dismantle my argument, btw.


Or you would still pick the best spells available because they are the best spells available. You're really not quite getting that the impact on selection is to make duplicates of spells you otherwise would have only chosen one of.

Duplicates only of spells you NEED to get off. Hence more combat-killers and the like. Out of combat stuff just delays the game, but won't kill you. Overall, this makes the game worse, I'd say.

Even then, that assumes you are paranoid about rolling a 1 for a particular spell. It's not very likely to happen. Stacking up on multiples of every spell because of it IS overreacting. Unless, perhaps, that one spell ends the combat as soon as it begins. Having multiple ones of those never hurts -- you might do that anyway.

All of this does nothing to make overpowered spells less overpowered. Why would this system make it so you wouldn't stack up on multiple overpowered spells? Most of the time this won't impact those spells, when it does, you'll have another next round.

[Adindra]

@Adindra: Sorry about the derailment. It looks like I can't steer people back on. In your first post you asked for a character that doesn't rely on magic as well doesn't require much gear. The Marshal, Knight, and Rogue are three that come to mind with. Each one requires gear to a degree though the Marshal is the most versatile since can adapt to availability of certain types of armor and weapons.


Thanks ^.^ i may in the end go vow of poverty unarmed swordsage because from what i understand we are starting the game with premade starting packages and 3gp total so i have to be able to defend myself right out of the box. To be honest this thread did help me out quite a bit and im really thankful for that i was at a complete loss :smallsmile:

[Circle of Life]

...

Your DM is starting you with THREE GOLD?

Take Vow of Poverty. I know you said you were thinking about it. Don't think. Jump. Jump off that cliff of poverty and never look back.

[Drachasor]

Hey, Adindra, any chance of getting your DM to start a thread on here talking about what he wants to get out of this system? We can probably help him come up with a better way for it to work.

Or VoP Swordsage, whichever. :)

[Coidzor]

The DM even refuses to tell you what those starting packages might be? :smallconfused:

If so... Drop him. Drop him like he's hot. Anyone that paranoid and autocratic is just going to get worse as the game goes on. :smallyuk:

[Trinoya]

Thanks ^.^ i may in the end go vow of poverty unarmed swordsage because from what i understand we are starting the game with premade starting packages and 3gp total so i have to be able to defend myself right out of the box. To be honest this thread did help me out quite a bit and im really thankful for that i was at a complete loss :smallsmile:

Now I might have something to help you with (the gold), I'll be back in a bit, ^_^

[Hanuman]

Well, ozodrin would work.
Personally I'd just play whatever personality you want, create a character around that, and just deal with the ASF as it happens.

[Drachasor]

Well, ozodrin would work.
Personally I'd just play whatever personality you want, create a character around that, and just deal with the ASF as it happens.

The problem is that there's apparently going to be some sort of critical fumble/effect chart.

[Circle of Life]

The problem is that there's apparently going to be some sort of critical fumble/effect chart.

Which has been theorized to bring about Eldritch Horrors that eat the user's sanity as a midafternoon repast.

Personally, I'm doubting the severity of the fumble effects. That does nothing to lessen the atrocity that is critical fumbles (and critical spell fumbles to boot), but even so.

[NNescio]

Where? :smallconfused: Only thing I've seen is a feat grandfathered in from 3.0's Arms and Equipment Guide that would let one use handle animal on humanoids of int 4 or lower.

Relevant line:


Special

You can use this skill on a creature with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 that is not an animal, but the DC of any such check increases by 5. Such creatures have the same limit on tricks known as animals do.

Edit: Same line is also present in PHB Pg. 75.

[Adindra]

the main problem i have with his critical magical fumble thing is that hes going to come up with it on the fly hes not rolling on a chart as far as i know. The person in question inst a bad guy so he shouldn't make it too hard but i know hes had problems scaling the power to the pcs in the past (hes the one who taught me how to play...by murdering my level one wizard with a troupe of monkeys)

unfortunately while he used to read the comic he doesn't visit this site at all anymore so getting him to post a thread here is a nogo (we also live in the northeast of the usa so the hurricane knocked out all but my power out of our gaming group and it will be down for a week at least)

however im hoping for the best and i apologize for the wall of text!

[Circle of Life]

Wait.

DM Fiat penalties for failing a spell.

I take back everything I said about it not being so bad. I strongly recommend you get your DM to make a thread here ("doesn't visit the site anymore" is no excuse, it's the same site and it's not like his computer magically won't load it anymore because he stopped reading the comic) so we can try to figure out what he's trying to accomplish and help him go about it in a less game-imploding way.

[Drachasor]

I take back everything I said about it not being so bad. I strongly recommend you get your DM to make a thread here so we can try to figure out what he's trying to accomplish and help him go about it in a less game-imploding way.

Alternative: Don't worry so much about your character. ToB anything will be fine. Don't do VoP -- might make the DM think it is overpowered. Let the game implode on its own.

[Coidzor]

the main problem i have with his critical magical fumble thing is that hes going to come up with it on the fly hes not rolling on a chart as far as i know.

For the lulz, is generally a big red warning sign when it comes to DMing philosophies.


The person in question inst a bad guy so he shouldn't make it too hard but i know hes had problems scaling the power to the pcs in the past (hes the one who taught me how to play...by murdering my level one wizard with a troupe of monkeys)

That... seems to be contradictory. His way of introducing you to D&D was to have you play a wizard with no prior experience and get ganked by a troupe of monkeys. Either he doesn't understand how bad of an introduction that must be or he was trying to get you to not want to play. :smalleek:


Relevant line:



Edit: Same line is also present in PHB Pg. 75.

Ah, thank you. My evil race of feline overlords is going to have a field day with this information. :smallbiggrin:

[opticalshadow]

psionics are techincally not magic, pending on how willing to admit defeat your dm is theres no reason a psion of anykind would be effected by magic issues (enough forgotten realms and ebberon lore supports this)

[Adindra]

That... seems to be contradictory. His way of introducing you to D&D was to have you play a wizard with no prior experience and get ganked by a troupe of monkeys. Either he doesn't understand how bad of an introduction that must be or he was trying to get you to not want to play. :smalleek:


well unfortunately it colored my original play style as players against the dm, luckily ive grown up past that and actually enjoy playing the game for the games sake but without this guy i never would have played it to begin with (its fair to mention that he also plays in the game i run on Tuesday so im hoping my very slight weak dming skills with shine in on him and it wont crash and burn.)

[Trinoya]

the main problem i have with his critical magical fumble thing is that hes going to come up with it on the fly hes not rolling on a chart as far as i know. The person in question inst a bad guy so he shouldn't make it too hard but i know hes had problems scaling the power to the pcs in the past (hes the one who taught me how to play...by murdering my level one wizard with a troupe of monkeys)

unfortunately while he used to read the comic he doesn't visit this site at all anymore so getting him to post a thread here is a nogo (we also live in the northeast of the usa so the hurricane knocked out all but my power out of our gaming group and it will be down for a week at least)

however im hoping for the best and i apologize for the wall of text!

Whoa... doing critical fumbles for magic can actually KILL party members... I recommend before walking into this you ask him to actually present the table to you and the other players and sit down and talk about it.

That said: As for your three gold problem: Is he giving you a list of starting packages or do you get to pick any from the PHB?

[Adindra]

That said: As for your three gold problem: Is he giving you a list of starting packages or do you get to pick any from the PHB?

because his internet and power is down other than the short amount of time i actually got to talk to him when he stopped by today i cant even call him but from what i understand hes just giving us the option of 3-5 starting packages and those will be lean only survival items and plonking us in a desert to start the game off

[subject42]

Thanks ^.^ i may in the end go vow of poverty unarmed swordsage because from what i understand we are starting the game with premade starting packages and 3gp total so i have to be able to defend myself right out of the box. To be honest this thread did help me out quite a bit and im really thankful for that i was at a complete loss :smallsmile:

You know, a Factotum has mostly extraordinary abilities (other than Opportunistic Piety, Casting SLAs, and one or two others). Factotum 8 / Tome of Battle Class X would work pretty well, since you could get extra (extraordinary) standard actions as well as Maneuvers.

[Circle of Life]

It's... like watching a train wreck in slow motion...

I want to unsubscribe so I stop reading such painful things, but I just... can't...

Edit: Not directed at the above poster, obviously.

[Trinoya]

A desert huh? How many members will be in your party? (and ouch on the 3 gold still. Even a monk gets five starting minimum)

[Yuki Akuma]

psionics are techincally not magic, pending on how willing to admit defeat your dm is theres no reason a psion of anykind would be effected by magic issues (enough forgotten realms and ebberon lore supports this)

Psionic powers are spell-like abilities - which are very explicitly magical.

[Big Fau]

Whoa... doing critical fumbles for magic can actually KILL party members...

How is that different from Crit Fumbles in general? DO you know how many stories there are that follow the lines of "Party's fighter crit fails at fighting, ends up killing himself and the party's rogue because his damage output is obscene"?

The only major difference is the number of characters getting killed because of a magefail.


That said, I do not support fumbles in any form. They hurt the players far more than they add to the campaign.

[subject42]

His way of introducing you to D&D was to have you play a wizard with no prior experience and get ganked by a troupe of monkeys. Either he doesn't understand how bad of an introduction that must be or he was trying to get you to not want to play. :smalleek:

Hey! Some of us call that "First Edition".

[Coidzor]

Hey! Some of us call that "First Edition".

And being an ass as your way of teaching the system was still being an ass back in the days before the internet and CD-ROMs.

[Adindra]

A desert huh? How many members will be in your party? (and ouch on the 3 gold still. Even a monk gets five starting minimum)


right now we know four.

im going to play a unarmed swordsage and another friend is going to play a totemist inspired from what you guys were saying earlier

the rest are complete unknowns unfortunately, ive only really had time to sit down and talk with one of them

[Alaris]

How is that different from Crit Fumbles in general? DO you know how many stories there are that follow the lines of "Party's fighter crit fails at fighting, ends up killing himself and the party's rogue because his damage output is obscene"?

The only major difference is the number of characters getting killed because of a magefail.


That said, I do not support fumbles in any form. They hurt the players far more than they add to the campaign.

Yeesh, nitpick why don't you?

Standardly, there isn't a Critical Fumbles table.

Magic-wise, if you insert one, many different things can happen on a fumble. The spell could go off one a party member, of you could turn into a toad. I've seen fumble tables like that before, and it isn't pretty.

Trinoya isn't saying that a normal fumble-table for weapons can't kill people. He's saying a magic-fumble-table has a more varied effect, and a different way of killing people, which includes possibly killing MORE people because those fumble effects can be CRAZY!

[Gavinfoxx]

EDIT: To help those who don't understand what tier 3 only means... this is the tier 3 class list, yanked from a thread I recently found:

-Beguiler
-Dread Necromancer
-Crusader
-Bard
-Swordsage
-Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige),
-Wildshape Variant Ranger
-Duskblade
-Factotum
-Warblade
-Psychic Warrior

Add Ardent, Psychic Rogue, Shugenja, Wilder, Shadowcaster to that list.

[faceroll]

Psionic powers are spell-like abilities - which are very explicitly magical.

Hello, Supernatural Transformation.

[subject42]

Hello, Supernatural Transformation.

Supernatural abilities still have a botch chance according to the OP. Is there any way to transform them into extraordinary abilities?

[Yuki Akuma]

Hello, Supernatural Transformation.

Supernatural abilities are magic too.

[NNescio]

Supernatural abilities still have a botch chance according to the OP. Is there any way to transform them into extraordinary abilities?

With a very skewed reading of the Emancipated Spawn's class abilities, maybe?

[faceroll]

Supernatural abilities are magic too.

Yeah but they're better than Sp abilities.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yeah but they're better than Sp abilities.

How? It's subject to exactly the same thing.

[Coidzor]

How? It's subject to exactly the same thing.

That they are not dispelable is, I believe, the biggest selling point, but that's more in general than in this specific case.

[faceroll]

They also do not cost you XP, GP (cheesing it up with StP Erudite), and ignore SR. They also don't provoke AoOs.

[opticalshadow]

Psionic powers are spell-like abilities - which are very explicitly magical.

alls i know is in terms of lore written by wotc and third party authors alike, whenever magic was specifically weakened or otherwise effected in past catastrophes psionic powers were still working perfectly fine.

more to that effect i myself dont see anythign that explicitly states they are spell liek abilities, ive found more suggesting if anything they are supernatrual, being they are created from within a body and not externally such as magic. i dont have every book but it seems heavily implied by what i have that magic and psionics while similure are drastically diffrent.

for my own personal curiosity where does it say explicity that psionics are spell like?

[SlashRunner]

Alternatively, get together with the rest of the group and force him to stop being anti-fun. DMs are not kings, after all, if they're not running something their group wants, they can and should feel free to inform him of such rather than be expected to feel thankful that the DM is willing to DM for them at all.



Neither of which are solved by "just dealing with it."

I'm sorry if I came across the wrong way, so let me phrase this a different way. There ARE definite problems in your DM's ideas. However, coming to the Playground to make a totally non-magical character is not a very good idea. A lot of what will be suggested is going to be rather highly-optimized, or at least not something very commonplace, and the fact that your DM doesn't know well enough to not try a low-magic, low-money campaign in 3.5 suggests to me that a lot of this wouldn't fly with him. That being said, I'd suggest just playing as you normally would. Maybe play a mundane character, yes, maybe try to reduce your reliance on magic. But don't make any drastic changes to your playstyle thanks to this.

Also: I never suggested that they should be "thankful that the DM is willing to DM for them at all." I also suggested that he try to convince the DM to discount Su abilities from the spell-failure thing. Furthermore, when I told him to deal with it, the context implied heavily that I was referring to the spell failure chance, rather than to the lack of gear, which I never implied could be solved by "just dealing with it".