Are "+ mental stat" race overpowered?

[Yuukale]

This weekend, while chatting with some friends about a dnd game we'll join, someone asked for a +int race and sun elf came up.

After some non-related stuff, one of my friends stated out loud:
"If I were a dm, I'd ban +int/wis/cha races if combined with spellcasters cause the additional spells is way overpowered"

I tried to dismiss this as BS (imho) but I lack a broad optimization knowledge.

His remark is bugging me, so, I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

[Hirax]

In the grand scheme of things it really isn't a big deal. Humans, strongheart halflings, and perhaps illumians would probably be the go-to race if no mental stat boosting races existed. The +2 to int/wis/cha looks a lot shinier than it really is.

[Lord_Gareth]

Honestly, you can replicate the most devastating part of the caster increase with a feat (spell focus) - increased save DCs. In most cases getting an additional feat is going to be much more deadly, which is why humans are such a popular race choice.

[Shadowleaf]

+mental stat races aren't overpowered, but spellcasters are.

The extra spells from the additional +mental stat will only increase the spellcaster's power, making him even more powerful than the rest of the group (assuming optimization of course). However, that 1-4 extra spells won't make or break the character - the difference between an 18 and an 20 intelligence isn't *that* big a deal.

Outright banning +mental stat races would be bad, but restricting them to non-spellcasting characters would help balance the game.

However, you really need to deal with optimized spellcasters in another way - this isn't an effecient way of balancing the game.


Edit: And yea, Humans or Strongheart Halflings are just strictly better in most builds (since Feats are so hard to get without cheesing).

[Hirax]

Also, elven generalist is another reason elves are so popular.

[Black_Zawisza]

IMO, almost nothing should ever be blanket-banned. The only thing a gaming group really needs is a Gentlemen's Agreement; there are so many potentially broken things in D&D that it'd be crazy hard to ban/balance all of them, and one would be simply inconsistent if one didn't ban a LONG list of things before one ever got to + mental stat races. Banning an abusable option in D&D is like treating an illness with thousands of potential symptoms; it's stupid to deal with each individual symptom when the root cause of the problem is pretty obvious, especially in this case where treating one symptom often actively causes the onset of another symptom.

Furthermore, it's also possible that a player might not want to use an option for a broken purpose; for example, a player might want to play an Erudite because he thinks the unique powers/day mechanic is really cool (as I do), but be willing to tone down the broken stuff to maintain balance.

[Godskook]

If you're banning races for being overpowered caster options, you're going to need to start with Humans. Sure, the other races are powerful options for casters, but Humans are now, and have always been, a competitive option for casters.

Really, what's overpowered is the caster, not the race.

[Engine]

With a 20 in a caster stat instead of 18 you gain a 1st level and a 5th level bonus spells. I would hardly call this overpowered.

[Wings of Peace]

I won't say that I'm a system master like some people on this board but I do consider myself fairly proficient at character optimization. There has never been an instance for me when the deciding factor between two races has been their stat bonus. What prcs, immunities, feats, and bonus feats a race opens up access to is infinitely more valuable in the long run than a +2 X-Stat ever will be.

[Zaq]

With very, very few exceptions, penalties hurt more than bonuses help, pretty much no matter what you're looking at. That said, I do generally tend to look askance at anything that makes casters significantly better and doesn't do much for noncasters, which is why deep imaskari set my teeth ever so slightly on edge.

Anyway, yeah. As a whole, I'm not especially fond of +mental races, but as a GM, I'd be unlikely to hard-ban them. (Disclaimer: it's been years since I GMed 3.5, and I have no real plans to do so again.) Basically, they're just one more piece of the optimization puzzle. The difference between 18 CHA and 20 CHA (or even 16 and 18) isn't going to make the difference between a good Sorcerer and a great Sorcerer, but if it noticeably widens the gap between the Sorcerer and the rest of the party (which is likely to be a pretty big gap already), that might be an issue.

[erikun]

In most cases, you are looking at a change of two additional spell slots, one which is guaranteed not to be anywhere near your highest spell level. What's more, you will only get that at the higher character levels anyways; the difference between 16 INT and 18 INT won't likely be noticed until 8th level anyways.

If an additional 2nd level spell slot is considered overpowered for a high-level spellcaster, then it isn't the racial options that are the problem. (Although perhaps that is known by now.)

[Necroticplague]

Not really, stats don't make the race. The main stregnth of races comes from abilities like powerful build (goliath), bonus feat (human), inherint spellcasting (phaerim), or what PRCs they can enter (shadow-illusion related gnome PRCs, elfs have a couple dozen PRCs for them).

[Person_Man]

+2 to any stat is not that big of a deal in the grand jumble of modifiers that is D&D.

Also, the desire to ban things is a normal part of the DM maturation cycle. But eventually you realize that it's impossible to achieve balance in a non-4E environment (and even then it takes work), and you move past the desire to control your friends. Trust me, you and your group will be much happier when you just let people play what they want, and do your best to give everyone a chance in the spotlight.

[Psyren]

Sun Elf? Really? Gray Elves beat them up and take their lunch money in the stat department.

[Zerter]

No. need to get 10 letters

[mikau013]

According to the 3.5 DMG physical scores are basically worth a lot more than mental scores. For example a +2 str would be balanced against a -2 cha & -2 wis. And a +2 cha & -2 str would be a weaker race that most players wouldn't play.

[Hiro Protagonest]

According to the 3.5 DMG physical scores are basically worth a lot more than mental scores. For example a +2 str would be balanced against a -2 cha & -2 wis. And a +2 cha & -2 str would be a weaker race that most players wouldn't play.

Because obviously we can trust WotC to judge power levels when 3.5 just came out.

[hobo386]

According to the 3.5 DMG physical scores are basically worth a lot more than mental scores. For example a +2 str would be balanced against a -2 cha & -2 wis. And a +2 cha & -2 str would be a weaker race that most players wouldn't play.

To be fair, they underestimated how powerful wizards are and the fact that they only care about one stat (ok, maybe Con and Dex, but that's nothing compared to a monk or pally).

[hobo386]

According to the 3.5 DMG physical scores are basically worth a lot more than mental scores. For example a +2 str would be balanced against a -2 cha & -2 wis. And a +2 cha & -2 str would be a weaker race that most players wouldn't play.

To be fair, they underestimated how powerful wizards are and the fact that they only care about one stat (ok, maybe Con and Dex, but that's nothing compared to a monk or pally).

[dspeyer]

The problem is that most casters are so SAD that there's no drawback to taking those +castingstat races. -str? So what? -con hurts a little, but you were going to be squishy anyway.

[dextercorvia]

Sun Elf? Really? Gray Elves beat them up and take their lunch money in the stat department.

Really? Compared to Gray Elves, Fire Elves have -2Cha+2Str, and Fire Resistance 5. There are a couple of other tweaks, but that seems to me like it would tip toward the Fire Elf side, unless you wanted to be the party face.

[Tyndmyr]

In the grand scheme of things it really isn't a big deal. Humans, strongheart halflings, and perhaps illumians would probably be the go-to race if no mental stat boosting races existed. The +2 to int/wis/cha looks a lot shinier than it really is.

They kind of already are.


Honestly, you can replicate the most devastating part of the caster increase with a feat (spell focus) - increased save DCs. In most cases getting an additional feat is going to be much more deadly, which is why humans are such a popular race choice.

You can replicate both parts with Spellcasting Prodigy and Spell Focus. However, neither of those feats are traditional combo/broken feats. They're...aright. Usually a feat that can be whatever you want is better.

[Psyren]

Really? Compared to Gray Elves, Fire Elves have -2Cha+2Str, and Fire Resistance 5. There are a couple of other tweaks, but that seems to me like it would tip toward the Fire Elf side, unless you wanted to be the party face.

Boosting physical stats is pointless for most casters because they (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm) are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape) so (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metamorphosis.htm) replaceable. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm) Dex is the sole exception, because it helps you go first to do the above. So no, I'd take Gray elves any day.

[dextercorvia]

Boosting physical stats is pointless for most casters because they (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm) are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape) so (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metamorphosis.htm) replaceable. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm) Dex is the sole exception, because it helps you go first to do the above. So no, I'd take Gray elves any day.

I consider both stats to be equally worthless, but Fire Resistance 5 lets me play in Lava. :smallamused:

[Psyren]

I consider both stats to be equally worthless, but Fire Resistance 5 lets me play in Lava. :smallamused:

That's indeed fun, but unlikely to come up unless your campaign is set on Mustafar or something :smalltongue:

[Manateee]

Are we talking Anthrobats? Because then I agree.

But no. Generally speaking, they're not overpowered. Even Lesser Aasimar (+2 Wis/Cha, no LA or penalties) aren't clear choices for something like a cleric, over a human or dwarf.

That said, I've played many games that would frown on +stat races - not because they're overpowered, but because they're not available without digging through monster lists and splatbooks. For those groups, that made the races act as big waving flags for a powergamer/munchkin/minmaxer/whatever they call it (as opposed to a more casual player who hasn't necessarily read through the PHB).

But with 3e being less mainstream these days, it's probably safer to assume that the people still playing it are the people who've spent enough time rutting around the system to be comfortable reaching beyond the PHB. So it's probably safe to say +stat is no problem.

[Amphetryon]

According to the 3.5 DMG physical scores are basically worth a lot more than mental scores. For example a +2 str would be balanced against a -2 cha & -2 wis. And a +2 cha & -2 str would be a weaker race that most players wouldn't play.

They also apparently thought a Half-Orc Barbarian was roughly equal in power to a Lesser Aasimar Sorcerer. So, there's that.

[Bard for Kicks]

I don't know what level of D&D you play, but I play a "med-low-op" campaign in which some of my characters start with +5 or more in some stat mods and it is completely acceptable. races with mental stats are not overpowered at all. in fact, i often refuse to play anything without at least a +4 or some awesome racial feature like powerful build.
Spellcasters aren't really overpowered if you pace the campaign to challenge them appropriately and a DM should be aware of the line between reasonable and unacceptable.

[Wings of Peace]

Really? Compared to Gray Elves, Fire Elves have -2Cha+2Str, and Fire Resistance 5. There are a couple of other tweaks, but that seems to me like it would tip toward the Fire Elf side, unless you wanted to be the party face.

Dragonborn Fire Elves win the stat race for int casters but I think Half-Fire Elves win the game overall. Being able to take both Elven Generalist and Halruaan Elder is pretty nice, qualification for Practical Metamagic on top of that is just gravy.

[ericgrau]

By itself, nothing is overpowered because there's nothing to compare it to. Comapred to PHB races, yes, because there simply is no better option for a caster to compare it to.

I'd only peg it at half an LA though; it wouldn't ruin a game by itself just give a small unfair advantage. Don't underestimate +1 to save DCs, that's almost like being 2 levels higher for that purpose (though not other purposes, which is why I say it's only worth half a level). It takes about 4 levels to totally stomp everything else, 2 to be ahead by a decent margin, and every little OP thing adds up. People are already suggesting other high power tricks to combine with it.

At the same time if the whole party and monsters are bumped by the same amount things remain fair; the race isn't OP compared to them. But if other players aren't using such things then lay off.

[mikau013]

The system assumes you roughly double in power every two levels.
+2 to a stat is not worth half a level imo.

[dextercorvia]

Dragonborn Fire Elves win the stat race for int casters but I think Half-Fire Elves win the game overall. Being able to take both Elven Generalist and Halruaan Elder is pretty nice, qualification for Practical Metamagic on top of that is just gravy.

What do Half-Fire Elves get that makes them better Half-Elves at doing this?

[Wings of Peace]

What do Half-Fire Elves get that makes them better Half-Elves at doing this?

Dragonblood subtype.

[Greenish]

Dragonblood subtype.You're confusing forestlord half-elves (Dragon Magic) with fire half-elves (UA).

[Wings of Peace]

You're confusing forestlord half-elves (Dragon Magic) with fire half-elves (UA).

Woops. You are correct, my bad.

[FMArthur]

So what are all the good 'caster' races without mental attribute bonuses?

Strongheart halfling, human (& silverbrow), illumian, elans (psionics only)... Elves and gnomes have their own well-loved tricks for the wizard class specifically. Not sure if dwarves count when their appeal is just being solid and sturdy without hampering casting. What else?

[Wings of Peace]

So what are all the good 'caster' races without mental attribute bonuses?

Strongheart halfling, human (& silverbrow), illumian, elans (psionics only)... Elves and gnomes have their own well-loved tricks for the wizard class specifically. Not sure if dwarves count when their appeal is just being solid and sturdy without hampering casting. What else?

Changeling for recaster and that feat that lets them qualify as another race (racial simulation?).

[Psyren]

What else?

Azurins work well; Add Synads and Kalashtar to the psionics bucket.

[JackRackham]

A bonus to a mental stat is < a bonus feat for most casters. Besides which, there are so many ways to get a permanent stat bonus and you already get so many spells at later levels. Really, unless they also get the human bonnus feat somehow, a + to a mental stat is peanuts.

[dextercorvia]

A bonus to a mental stat is < a bonus feat for most casters. Besides which, there are so many ways to get a permanent stat bonus and you already get so many spells at later levels. Really, unless they also get the human bonnus feat somehow, a + to a mental stat is peanuts.

To be fair, the +stat is usually better at very low levels, especially compared to core caster feats. If that is where someone is used to playing, they might think it is overpowered.

[Psyren]

A bonus to a mental stat is < a bonus feat for most casters.

It's equivalent to two feats, actually. Two weak feats, sure, but two feats nonetheless. Depending on the stat in question, it could even carry other benefits.


Besides which, there are so many ways to get a permanent stat bonus and you already get so many spells at later levels.

Most stat bonuses stack on top of your racial ones. If 28 Int is good, 30 Int is better, so why wouldn't you go for the latter?

Yes, humans rock. Yes, the bonus feat is very useful. But the fact that they rock is meaningless if you don't want to play one, so you may as well get some benefit from being something else.

Unless you're out to "win D&D" by basing all your choices on power, anyway.

[Tulya]

It's equivalent to two feats, actually. Two weak feats, sure, but two feats nonetheless. Depending on the stat in question, it could even carry other benefits.

3.5 Spellcasting Prodigy, all 8 Spell Focus (school) feats, and then +1 to all linked skills, and then +1 skill point modifier (int)/+1 to Will saves (wis).

Of course, none of those things are really rated as being 'worth' a feat by their own merits. Spellcasting Prodigy isn't particularly popular. Spell Focus is taken mainly as a prereq for other feats or prestige classes. Nymph's Kiss is usually valued when you're getting bonus exalted feats. Iron Will occasionally taken, but again, mainly to meet prereqs. (And/or, it's "bought" for 3000 gp.) 1/2 the Iron Will bonus doesn't come anywhere near a feat.

The first 9 feat-equivalent benefits altogether form 3.0's Spellcasting Prodigy, which actually was generally worth a feat, and probably a bit more than that.

For me, comparing races like Sun Elves to Humans is primarily about how much more than a single feat you think those benefits are worth plus the incidental elven benefits, and if that's worth permanently losing 2 constitution. Or 2 dex for Deep Imaskari.

Where the problems arise has nothing to do with the caster bonuses, and everything to do with a race getting massive bonuses without any fair tradeoff. Anthropomorphic Bat, for example. Any LA 0 HD 0 race with a large bonus to any attribute, a powerful ability like flight, and no serious drawbacks would be ridiculous.

[FMArthur]

In most cases I agree that feats and other features that expand your options are better than a small stat bonus. There are so many exceptions, though.

The most prominent is the wizard class, who gets Abrupt Jaunt and Uncanny Forethought uses with Int and has the fewest spell slots of any other fullcaster bar wu jen if he doesn't specialize (correct me if I'm wrong here) as well as specific benefits for choosing the prominent +Int race (elf subraces). I'm comfortable enough juggling feats that I try for a +Int race on wizards every single time now. They have bonus feats and their prestige classes seem to like handing them out, too.

Other classes also have specific builds that favor the stat investment past just the bonus spells and DCs as well: Wisdom-based casters can almost come up with Wisdom to everything, and Charisma somewhat less so (basic sorcadin gish). Less common others, too.

[Tulya]

The most prominent is the wizard class, who gets Abrupt Jaunt and Uncanny Forethought uses with Int and has the fewest spell slots of any other fullcaster bar wu jen if he doesn't specialize (correct me if I'm wrong here) as well as specific benefits for choosing the prominent +Int race (elf subraces).

Unless I'm missing something, and I may well be without having the sources available right now...

Abrupt Jaunt requires Conjuration specialization, and if you're hurting for spell slots, you can compensate with Focused Specialization. Uncanny Forethought doesn't affect your total number of spell slots, though. You can cast the same number of spells at the same spell levels of the spell slots that you reserve.

The feats you have to spend seem like the bigger issue. You have to grab Spell Mastery at least once along with Uncanny Forethought. You may need to snag Spell Mastery multiple times to get all the spells you want mastered, especially if you're playing the character starting early on.


Edit: Don't get me wrong, though. I do like taking multiple alternate class features, prestige classes, feats, and equipment that capitalize on my best ability score, and I do like to get every bonus I possibly can in those cases.

[FMArthur]

Those are all separate points that are each a good reason to want maximum Intelligence on a wizard on their own:

If you are a specialist, you're most likely a Conjuration specialist and will appreciate +Int giving you more uses of Abrupt Jaunt. Abrupt Jaunt is good. Cherish it.

If you are any kind of wizard, Uncanny Forethought is a feat that lets you cast spells spontaneously straight out of your spellbook a number of times per day equal to your Int bonus. You do this out of your regular spell slots and don't gain any. The feat requires one Spell Mastery, but you aren't limited to your Spell Mastery spells by Uncanny Forethought. It is an amazing feat.

If you are not a specialist wizard, you have the fewest spell slots of any full caster except the Wu Jen, so the bonus spell slots will be appreciated more than they are on most. Even a single bonus slot represents a comparatively large proportion of your spells for that level compared to specialists or other full casters, so you want a high Intelligence for it.

And if you choose elf as your race (of which the Gray, Fire and Sun varieties boost intelligence), you can choose the nice elven racial substitution options in Races of the Wild, which is the best option for a generalist wizard to be taking.

[Wings of Peace]

If you are a specialist, you're most likely a Conjuration specialist and will appreciate +Int giving you more uses of Abrupt Jaunt. Abrupt Jaunt is good. Cherish it.


Unless I'm mistaken aren't Immediate Magic options technically a separate entity from the school specializations? There being separate meaning that (while unsporting in most groups) an Elven Generalist could take Abrupt Jaunt.

[Alienist]

it's impossible to achieve balance in a non-4E environment

Challenge accepted:

Spells take [spell level] rounds to cast.

Note: This makes certain currently quick spells kind of pointless, e.g. spells that grant you initiative boosts. Good. They are acceptable losses.

Hit certain tricks with the ban or semsible stick, e.g. infinite loops, polymorph not granting powers it obviously shouldn't (and limited to those things with less hit dice than you have levels if it isn't already), reign in permanent/persistent abuses.

Then there's what I call the abuses of the social contract, which is where by convention the players have access to a range of things, and always choose the most powerful option. Examples being the druid's companion animal and acceptable forms for wildshaping. If the DM chooses those instead of the player, then they are are more likely to be balanced (no more dungeon crashing uber charger bears, or war trained war dogs, and fleshraker ihs right out). I label these kinds of things as abuses of the social contract because these are areas where the playground view is commonly that it is the player's way or the highway, and thus the players are trying to wrest control of the game from the DM (which is fine in certain situations, just clearly not a good idea when the player is performing an obvious escalation of what the power was originally designed to be capable of).

Then there's everyone's favourite metamagic reducer, note that regardless of whatever drugs custserv has been partaking of this week, by RAW it (a) does not reduce the cost of metamagic, and (b) all metamagic is applied simultaneously... (unless someone can figure out how to apply the metamagics at different times, in which case I'd consider allowing it to apply twice)

The thing is that whatever people say, if things like the orb spells cause problems (whether because of an argument over anti-magic fields or because they steal evocation's mojo) feel free to ban them. The players may consider that a nasty surprise, but really it is not that big of a deal, there are plenty more 'spells in the sea' as it were.

10th level melee should be sporting Iron Heart Surge, also if it is reasonable for Wizards to spend half their WBL on learning every spell, then it is reasonable for melee to go out and buy themselves some flying, invisibility, freedom of action and mind blank items.

Comment: this change basically makes melee the kings (and queens) of ... melee. But it doesn't stop the magic types from all their cool tinkering with reality, just not during combat. Fluffwise it also explains why Gandalf dips Warblade :-p And runs around bashing orcs with a sword.

#2 balancing skill monkeys vs magic

Skill monkeys are the ones who IMHO really get shafted by the tier-1-ness of casting. Try simply banning all spells that increase skills. No more making the thief cry because you're a cleric and thus slapping him around with your massive +20 bonus.

This I think restores a degree of the "melee vs miracle worker vs monkey" balance which I think the designers were shooting for in third ed.

[dextercorvia]

Unless I'm mistaken aren't Immediate Magic options technically a separate entity from the school specializations? There being separate meaning that (while unsporting in most groups) an Elven Generalist could take Abrupt Jaunt.

I've heard this before, but:


To select this ability, you must also choose to specialize in a school of magic. The spell-like ability gained depends on your specialty (see below).

[Dr_S]

to address the OP's DM's remark about bonus spells.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores

using the bonus spell grid on there, the difference of +2 to the casting stat at most brings a person up to 20 which means 1 5th level spell and 1 1st level spell, or only 1 4th level if their highest stat was a 16-17. At lower levels 1 extra 1st level isn't game breaking, and until you hit high enough to cast 4th and 5th level spells, there are no extra spells. (even then 1 spell at that level is not game breaking)

As for the +1 to the modifier, raising the DC on a spell by 1 increases it's chance to hit by exactly 5% which means 19 times out of 20 it won't actually matter.

[Andion Isurand]

As far as elven subraces go, don't forget that sun elves are longer lived, if that matters.

Also, I would point to the Aleithian Dwarves (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psb/20030926a) as a good Int-based caster race.

...As well as the Arcane Gnome from Dragon 291
which is like a regular 3.0 gnome, except
* add +2 Int and -2 Wis
* lose speak with animals
* gain UMD as class skill
* favored class: wizard

There is also the Arctic template in Dragon 306 which, among other things, grants: [ +2 con, -2 cha, +0 LA ]

[Wings of Peace]

Challenge accepted:

Spells take [spell level] rounds to cast.

Note: This makes certain currently quick spells kind of pointless, e.g. spells that grant you initiative boosts. Good. They are acceptable losses.


So the first phase of your plan is to make casting spells in combat a terrible idea?



Then there's what I call the abuses of the social contract, which is where by convention the players have access to a range of things, and always choose the most powerful option. Examples being the druid's companion animal and acceptable forms for wildshaping. If the DM chooses those instead of the player, then they are are more likely to be balanced (no more dungeon crashing uber charger bears, or war trained war dogs, and fleshraker ihs right out). I label these kinds of things as abuses of the social contract because these are areas where the playground view is commonly that it is the player's way or the highway, and thus the players are trying to wrest control of the game from the DM.

Second fix, tell the players they're being munchkins. Got it.


Then there's everyone's favourite metamagic reducer, note that regardless of whatever drugs custserv has been partaking of this week, by RAW it (a) does not reduce the cost of metamagic, and (b) all metamagic is applied simultaneously... (unless someone can figure out how to apply the metamagics at different times, in which case I'd consider allowing it to apply twice)



When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal.

RAW stands for read as written. As written I am applying X feats to the spell therefore its level is reduced by X. I don't understand how them being applied simultaneously matters.



The thing is that whatever people say, if things like the orb spells cause problems (whether because of an argument over anti-magic fields or because they steal evocation's mojo) feel free to ban them. The players may consider that a nasty surprise, but really it is not that big of a deal, there are plenty more 'spells in the sea' as it were.

Except they all suck now because you've made casting most of them take longer than the combat.


10th level melee should be sporting Iron Heart Surge, also if it is reasonable for Wizards to spend half their WBL on learning every spell, then it is reasonable for melee to go out and buy themselves some flying, invisibility, freedom of action and mind blank items.

This... is already a rule? Magic Item creation rules and a WBL table already exist.


Comment: this change basically makes melee the kings (and queens) of ... melee. But it doesn't stop the magic types from all their cool tinkering with reality, just not during combat. Fluffwise it also explains why Gandalf dips Warblade :-p And runs around bashing orcs with a sword.

So your goal was to make casters useless in combat from the start?




#2 balancing skill monkeys vs magic

Skill monkeys are the ones who IMHO really get shafted by the tier-1-ness of casting. Try simply banning all spells that increase skills. No more making the thief cry because you're a cleric and thus slapping him around with your massive +20 bonus.

This isn't the problem of casters vs. skillmonkeys. The problem is that there's no reason to pick a lock when you can cast a spell that either removes the door or puts you on the other side of it. Similarly, there's no reason to disable a trap if you can send a summon to trigger them all.

Really all that these fixes will do is make using magic in combat stupid. It doesn't raise the tiers of any of the classes that actually need it and it doesn't do anything to account for classes like Binders, Incarnum users, etc. that can be perfectly serviceable combatants while also having a slew of options to use outside of battle.

The problem isn't that casters are out-damaging meleers either, usually dealing damage isn't a good idea for a caster in combat. The problem is that once combat ends there's nothing for the melee guys to do because all they're good at is hitting things where as the casters can be good at fighting, infiltration, diplomacy, being a travel agent, and just about anything else depending mostly on their own cleverness.

[JackRackham]

It's equivalent to two feats, actually. Two weak feats, sure, but two feats nonetheless. Depending on the stat in question, it could even carry other benefits.



Most stat bonuses stack on top of your racial ones. If 28 Int is good, 30 Int is better, so why wouldn't you go for the latter?

Yes, humans rock. Yes, the bonus feat is very useful. But the fact that they rock is meaningless if you don't want to play one, so you may as well get some benefit from being something else.

Unless you're out to "win D&D" by basing all your choices on power, anyway.

That's not the point. The point is, it is better. so, would I only play a human,because they're better? Hell no. But, is it unreasonable to give an alternative race something useful to make taking a non-human race (for flavor reasons) less bittersweet. nope.

As to whether the feat or the +2 is better, it obviously depends on the build and what levels the campaign covers. That bonus feat can help one's build come online much sooner and, in some cases, be much stronger over 20 levels (DMM cleric, for example - one more extra turning). Really, though, the +2 is almost never THAT good. The difference is simply that some builds, more or less, have some feats to waster anyway - in which case, why not take a +2?

[Snowbluff]

Also, elven generalist is another reason elves are so popular.

They get all of the best classes and PrCs. Damn elves!

[Alienist]

RAW stands for read as written. As written I am applying X feats to the spell therefore its level is reduced by X. I don't understand how them being applied simultaneously matters.


Actually, RAW stands for Rules As Written. As Written, there is no X, X is an artificial construct which you (and others) have invented. X would make sense (as in, it would be a convenient shortcut) if it was the metamagic cost which was being reduced, but it isn't. Per RAW it does not change the metamagic cost, it simply reduces the cost of the spell.

Hence it doesn't matter if you add one metamagic or one hundred, the cost of the spell is still only reduced by one.

But this is a perfect example of abuse of the social contract. Pretty much every other metamagic reducer only reduces the cost by one... why should this one be any different? Oh but this one has restrictions you might say. Well big deal, the others have restrictions too, e.g. restricted to certain schools or only one particular metamagic feat.

But, lets ignore RAW for the moment, and say that both interpretations are "equally valid". Which one should we choose to use? The one that fits with the way the rest of the game works, or the one that gives us maximum power? Accidentally picking the one that is the most abusable once or twice can happen to anyone. But to consistently pick interpretations that give the most powerful classes even more power demonstrates that some other principle is involved.

Hence^2 my comment about WBL. It needs to be stated, because 99 times out of 100 when wizards and fighters are mentioned in the same thread someone will take it upon themselves to say "fighters are teh sux because they cannot fly derp derp derp".

I posit that the same principle that leads people to choose the "most beneficial" interpretation for tier 1 classes is exactly the same principle that leads to people (effectively) arguing that fighters aren't allowed WBL.

Though I could be wrong, it could be two entirely different principles.

(edit) In retrospect, this is unfair, there are lots of reasons to hate fighters in 3.5, but the margin is too small to contain them.