Inexperienced DM - Homebrew Rule Feedback

[Menteith]

Hey everyone. Earlier today, I learned that a campaign run by a friend fell through, and I had agreed a few months back to run 3.5 D&D for him and a few friends when it ended. I've got what I feel is a strong story laid out for them, and all of the players have been cooperating really well. There's one unfortunate sticking point - due to everyone's relative inexperience with the game, we're sticking to just PHB, DMG, and various flavors of monster manuals for character creation. All but one of the characters is going to be on a similar tier, with a Paladin, non-opt Bard, semi-opted Monk, and a Wizard (one of these is not like the others).

I've talked to the Wizard player, and they're willing to change, but would really like to run a straight caster. I want to let them run the class they want, and have tried to think of a way to lower them on the tier a bit. My plan right now is to remove the Wizard's ability to learn new spells on a level up, and to require them to copy a spell from a Spellbook (or ancient carvings in a tomb, or something similar) to learn it. The world they're in is fairly magic light, without specific institutions in place that would allow them to overcome this disadvantage easily. My question is whether or not this nerf would work, and if not, how should I handle the situation? Thanks for any help.

[Aegis013]

How well do you know the player? Because even playing a t1 caster, especially filling in the "god" role for the group, it's not too difficult to keep yourself from overshadowing anybody else. Especially in that group, which seem to be DPS and a social character.

[Menteith]

I know them fairly well. I've run alongside them, but haven't DMed for them before, and they've certainly expressed willingness to work with the group to make sure everyone's happy. I don't think they're going to intentionally do anything "cheesy", or even make a serious effort at build optimization. Should I just let them run with Wizard as written?

[JoeYounger]

I'd not change a thing. Let it play out. If he starts to be billy badass of the group, then you can burn his spell book and start limiting stuff a bit more, but I dont think it's that bad of a thing in a low op party.

[Menteith]

Alright, thanks for the feedback!

[gbprime]

Just remember, the wizard can have any 2 spells he wants when he levels up. Its when you give him access to 8 more by looting spellbooks plus allowing him to buy scrolls with his loot that you start getting in trouble. A wizard with a small to medium spellbook isn't going to change up all his tactics against every scenario you throw at them.

So make sure his ability to loot spellbooks and buy scrolls is limited, and you'll be fine. (This is what sorcerers are for. They leave no spellbook behind when they die. :smallwink: )

Oh, and let him find scrolls of buff spells like Bull's Strength, Haste, Mass Fire Shield, Mass Resist Energy (if using those books). That's him using his spells to let his friends have more fun rather than handling everything for them.

[Menteith]

There are very, very few other Arcane casters in this setting, and more are Sorcerers than Wizards. I was just worried about unintended overshadowing (which I've seen with Druids especially) during the few other times I've played in the system.

[Douglas]

The thing about Wizards is that while they can be absurdly powerful it is also very easy to play them absurdly weak - just pick different spells. If the player says he's willing to tone it down, stand back and let him do so. If he's sincere and actually knows what he's doing, player self restraint should be quite sufficient.

[Malachei]

If you're an inexperienced DM, you should probably take your time before you houserule central class features. Not that your result would necessarily be worse than that of a more experienced DM. But you might want to see the game develop before you come to conclusions.

One question is the power level. What level do you play? Has the caster really been dominating the game to the extent that the others miss out on showtime? Or is the caster's player more adept? Players who prefer casters often spend more time with the system and therefore may have more expertise in using rules to their advantage.

If you're still low-level, I'd just sit and wait for some time.

Also, I think the advice to let the wizard find buff spells was very good. You control the part of spell acquisition that actually makes the wizard really powerful -- if you don't have a market for spells (no scrolls, no wizards to share spells, etc.), that should be enough. Actually, a setting in which there is no market for magic items and wizards are unwilling to share might make more sense than vice versa.

[Campbellk8105]

From personal experience, my friend, playing a spellcaster for the first time was nothing to be truly afraid of. He had played in multiple campaigns buy never played a magic user. For not knowing everything they can do power wise, he was mainly a buffer and would throw some powerful nukes here or there but wasn't a big issue. Our basic fighter types weren't being out powered or anything .

Point is I'd say just let them play and have fun. As mentioned previously, you could always burn or steal his spellbook. If he's not an experienced magic user, there shouldn't be too much to worry about.

[ericgrau]

How magic light is the world? If the non-casters aren't getting their full wealth, then that's a MASSIVE debuff. Even setting them back the equivalent of multiple levels later on. Consider that when adjusting casters. At lower levels when the PCs are poor, this matters less. So at level 5 he might not be behind at all, but at level 12 he might already be quite a bit behind to keep it fair assuming is comrades still fight mostly with mundane gear.

Then on top of that you have the versatility considerations that I think are being discussed. Both of these, not one of the two instead of the other.

Normally I'd agree that taking away toys in a game serves to lessen fun and should be avoided. But if you already did that for others then you have to do it equally or it gets even worse. My sig has a possible solution for low magic items.

[BobVosh]

The forums GREATLY exaggerate how big the difference between the tiers are. Yes the top tiers are frankly better, but unless the player is trying it really won't be that noticeable.

[Campbellk8105]

The forums GREATLY exaggerate how big the difference between the tiers are. Yes the top tiers are frankly better, but unless the player is trying it really won't be that noticeable.

Exactly. I've played a straight monk before, and according to the forums, monks just pretty much suck. Sure it wasn't an amazing character, but I had fun doing it. Up til the last couple weeks when I joined the forum, the strongest classes I though was just sorc/wizard and that's because of who I've played with. I've played with a Druid in the party while I was a monk, and I was more useful. Depends on what players do and personal preference for what your going for.

Again, just let the players have fun and cut them down a bit if necessary.

[Bhaakon]

The forums GREATLY exaggerate how big the difference between the tiers are. Yes the top tiers are frankly better, but unless the player is trying it really won't be that noticeable.

Agreed, particularly since the tendency is to focus on 20th level builds here. Full casters (except the druid and its animal companion) are much closer to the pack in the lower levels where most people play. Though it's worth noting that the tiers are a measure of versatility rather than raw power (though being versatile tends to make a character powerful).

[Menteith]

The game is working out fairly well. It's looking like we'll finish the game by level 9 or so, and at this point everyone seems to be on a fairly even keel (although Grease is silly good). I'll agree that the limited amount of magic items is going to make it worse - Paladins and Monks don't really scale with level very well (Stunning Fist's save DC starts out really low and scales slightly better than a commoner's Fort Save, after Divine Grace Paladins really don't have anything going for them). I'm definitely looking at ericgrau's variant for handling low fantasy loot distribution. Thanks for all the feedback everyone!

[Godskook]

The forums GREATLY exaggerate how big the difference between the tiers are. Yes the top tiers are frankly better, but unless the player is trying it really won't be that noticeable.

No, we don't, honestly. The difference between tiers is huge, but not as big as optimization or houserules. The only high tier class I've ever heard of getting over-exaggerated was the Druid, cause honestly, its actually hard to mess one of them up. Doable for newcomers, but hard.

---------------------------------

@OP, here's my suggestions:

1.Use E6. While higher tiers, especially with splat, get absurd at high levels, at low-levels, the difference between them and the low tiers is quite marginal. And in a core game, a level 1 wizard could easily meet his end at the edge of a housecat's claw. What E6 does is 'freeze' leveling before casters can get too far out of hand compared to their compatriots, and from then on, only offer feats. Stick to core for feats and you won't have to worry about casters in your game.

2.Enforce *VERY* strict concepts of timeline. Sure, a wizard with spells is godlike, but he's got a finite amount of them. If the day has more normal encounters than he has slots of his highest level spells, the other players in the group now have a chance to shine. Now, you do this by giving the players reasons to push-on regardless of the wizard's potence or lack there of, such as having to chase down an enemy wizard before *he* has had a chance to recover spells, defending a city, or stopping a evil ritual from completing.

3.Encourage that player to play a god-wizard. While wizards are powerful, players don't normally mind that fact if the powerful wizard is playing with the team instead showboating in front of them. God-wizards accomplish this, by allowing the other members of the team to do their job while the wizard is still moving all the mountains. For this choice, I suggest you and he read this: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19873034/Treantmonks_guide_to_Wizards:_Being_a_God

[chadmeister]

Just let them play without house rules. Wait until you get actual complaints that the wizard is too powerful before you do anything. I've played in plenty of games with wizards and druids and clerics in the party and no one complained that they were outshining everyone. (The DM complained that I derailed an adventure subplot by teleporting the party across the continent, but he admitted that was his own fault for deliberately never looking at our character sheets)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

My two cents:

It's not that Wizards are so powerful, it's that their spells are, and there are so many ways to completely break the game using them.

So here's what I'd do:

1) If he is inexperienced, but wants to play a caster, re-direct him to the Sorcerer. All the 'arcane magic' vibe, with 10 times less paperwork on the part of the player.

2) Specifically limit or prohibit certain spells. For example, you're probably going to want to kill Rope Trick and MMM, since they're both campaign breakers right from the get-go. Maybe make Teleport only work to places you've physically been to. Make DimDoor Line of Sight only. Ban Polycheese entirely (except maybe Baleful Polymorph). That kind of thing.

The point is... wizard can be broken, but what mostly breaks it are prestige classes and either metamagic shenanigans or spell abuse. Without that, he can contribute without being 'god mode'.

Don't panic, just have a nice conversation with the player about what he wants to do.