Wizards as Intended?

[NeoSeraphi]

So, I have a question. How do you think it would affect gameplay if the wizard and sorcerer were restricted to WotC's idea of them to begin with, that is, that all non-DD sorcerer and wizard spells are just nonexistent?

Give the bard as many divination spells as he's missing, and just reduce the wizard and sorcerer to arcane blasters (warmage would obviously be a not-allowed class).

If a character wants to play a specialist necromancer, he can play a DN. If he wants to play a specialist enchanter/illusionist? He can play a beguiler. If he wants to play a specialist conjurer/transmuter? Too bad! Most of those spells don't even exist anymore! The hexblade class would be fine, and the duskblade class would also be okay (though I'd probably take away all of his (teleportation) spells, except maybe dimension hop).

Not only does this change the way wizards and sorcerers are able to handle encounters, it also removes the teleport spell from the game, except for Travel clerics and monsters that can use it. So no more scry-and-die, players would have to actually walk places. And wizards could no longer simply pretend they're immune to damage, they'd have to fight from a safe distance and their d4 hit dice and pathetic saving throws would actually matter.

In this system, specialist wizards would not exist (since it removes entire schools from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, like divination and illusion). The elven generalist RSL would likewise be removed, so wizards would have no ways of increasing their spells per day, other than through a high Intelligence score.


So, thoughts? If arcane magic was reduced to bright shining flashes that hurt people, the bard was the real utility caster, and the wizard had no such thing as Abrupt Jaunt or greater mirror image, how would this affect the game?

Edit: Okay, change this part up, based on the comments. Remove wizard from the game entirely. Sorcerers and warmages are the standard now. Warmages become Int-based, and lose all their non-DD spells, but keep Advanced Learning (only allowing them to choose evocation or conjuration DD spells) and sorcerers are the customizable blasters instead, with more splat support.

All of the buffs that wizards can give (enlarge person, bull's strength, fly, greater magic weapon, etc) that aren't already on the cleric spell list would go to the cleric. Anything that has a range other than Personal.

[SilverLeaf167]

It would definitely make campaign stories/plots easier to plan and handle: normally it's quite hard to think of ways to block teleportation and scrying without sounding railroady, for example. I think bards would need some more spells known, as it'd be pretty annoying to play an utility caster when you can only pick very few utility spells. Otherwise it'd be like giving people Swiss army knives and saying: "Okay, so you can have a knife, spoon, fork, can opener, bottle opener, file etc. etc. Pick any two you want."

For low OP players this obviously wouldn't be that big of a change, as they tend to focus really heavily on blasting anyway. High OP players would all just resort to Mailman. Losing even all the buffs would hurt though, and not really balance the game that much; I think they were intended to buff the party, as well. For example, let's say you send a flying creature or two against a party: normally, the Wizard could buff his friends with Fly and then proceed to blast. Without Fly, the Wizard is probably the only one to be capable of anything at all.

[NeoSeraphi]

It would definitely make campaign stories/plots easier to plan and handle: normally it's quite hard to think of ways to block teleportation and scrying without sounding railroady, for example. I think bards would need some more spells known, as it'd be pretty annoying to play an utility caster when you can only pick very few utility spells. Otherwise it'd be like giving people Swiss army knives and saying: "Okay, so you can have a knife, spoon, fork, can opener, bottle opener, file etc. etc. Pick any two you want."

This is a good point. The bard's offensive spells aren't very numerous (at least not from level to level), so I don't think it would unbalance the game too much to give bards more spells known as long as you kept them at the same progression.



For low OP players this obviously wouldn't be that big of a change, as they tend to focus really heavily on blasting anyway. High OP players would all just resort to Mailman. Losing even all the buffs would hurt though, and not really balance the game that much; I think they were intended to buff the party, as well. For example, let's say you send a flying creature or two against a party: normally, the Wizard could buff his friends with Fly and then proceed to blast. Without Fly, the Wizard is probably the only one to be capable of anything at all.

Hmm...but without true strike, arcane spellsurge, arcane fusion or greater arcane fusion, is the Mailman really feasible?

Also, I'd have to think of some other harsh penalty for entering incantatrix, since banning a school does nothing anymore...

As for the buffs, I think I'd give certain needed buff spells, like fly, to clerics, druids and bards, so that you would still have the option for other members of the party to buff you, but wizards themselves wouldn't be able to cast it and blast from aloft (they'd need a party member's help first).

[Johel]

Sooo... This would actually just be the same as deleting Wizards.
And everyone would be playing Sorcerers, then.

Also, RP problem :
Wizards are supposed to be guys with a intellect higher than most people.
Blasting means putting himself in danger.
If he can use illusion/conjuration/abjuration/transmutation to protect/hide himself, it is dangerous but reasonnably so.
But if he cannot... he would be a glorified archer, only without armor or health.
Why would anybody study for years if it is do a job that other people can do better by training less ?

[NeoSeraphi]

Sooo... This would actually just be the same as deleting Wizards.
And everyone would be playing Sorcerers, then.

Wizards still have better skills, bonus feats, more spells known, faster progression, and they can prepare metamagic without increasing the casting time. So it's a matter of choice really.



Also, RP problem :
Wizards are supposed to be guys with a intellect higher than most people.
Blasting means putting himself in danger.
If he can use illusion/conjuration/abjuration/transmutation to protect/hide himself, it is dangerous but reasonnably so.
But if he cannot... he would be a glorified archer, only without armor or health.
Why would anybody study for years if it is do a job that other people can do better by training less ?

Blasting doesn't mean putting yourself in danger. You can snipe a dragon with fireball from over 1000 feet away. As for "glorified archer", well, archery is actually terrible in 3.5, so no, other people can't do blasting better than the wizard by training less. (The druid gets some decent blasting, but he has to train as well).

[SilverLeaf167]

Hmm...but without true strike, arcane spellsurge, arcane fusion or greater arcane fusion, is the Mailman really feasible?

Also, I'd have to think of some other harsh penalty for entering incantatrix, since banning a school does nothing anymore...
The Mailman was just an example. My point was that low OP players would be happy with blasting anyway, and high OP players would complain but think of new ways to optimize. So, everybody's happy? I guess...

Sooo... This would actually just be the same as deleting Wizards.
And everyone would be playing Sorcerers, then.

Also, RP problem :
Wizards are supposed to be guys with a intellect higher than most people.
Blasting means putting himself in danger.
If he can use illusion/conjuration/abjuration/transmutation to protect/hide himself, it is dangerous but reasonnably so.
But if he cannot... he would be a glorified archer, only without armor or health.
Why would anybody study for years if it is do a job that other people can do better by training less ?
He kind of has a point. Instead of removing Warmages and replacing them with blaster Wizards... why not instead remove Wizards and replace them with Warmages, preferably with a tweaked spell list? Much simpler, easier and gets you pretty much the same net result.

[NeoSeraphi]

\
He kind of has a point. Instead of removing Warmages and replacing them with blaster Wizards... why not instead remove Wizards and replace them with Warmages, preferably with a tweaked spell list? Much simpler, easier and gets you pretty much the same net result.

Hmmm...that's true, but then you don't have any Int-based casters left (except archivist/beguiler/duskblade). Well, whatever. Sure, that seems appropriate.

[Hecuba]

Hmmm...that's true, but then you don't have any Int-based casters left (except archivist/beguiler/duskblade). Well, whatever. Sure, that seems appropriate.

You could always just make warmages int-based at the same time. A bit of a boost for skills, but nothing amazing.

[NeoSeraphi]

You could always just make warmages int-based at the same time. A bit of a boost for skills, but nothing amazing.

Hmm...yeah. Little more synergy with Warmage's Edge too. And once I cut out the annoying BC spells like stinking cloud and black tentacles, the warmage's list would be so small that it probably wouldn't make too much of a difference to give him a better casting score. Okay, why not?

[Gnaeus]

Blasting doesn't mean putting yourself in danger. You can snipe a dragon with fireball from over 1000 feet away. As for "glorified archer", well, archery is actually terrible in 3.5, so no, other people can't do blasting better than the wizard by training less. (The druid gets some decent blasting, but he has to train as well).

I hate to tell you, but I can totally outdamage that wizard's fireball at 1000 feat with an archer. There is a first level ranger spell that lets you ignore range penalties. That fireball, maximized from a 10+ level caster, does 60 damage, save for 30. Even a crummy archer can easily put out d8 (arrow)+d6 (energy damage from weapon) +d6 (energy damage from weapon crystal) +4 or so (weapon + and strength) for average of 15 per shot, with at least 4 shots per round at that level. Sure, wizard can optimize better, but so can archer. Archer has to penetrate AC, but wizard has to penetrate SR, and energy resistance, and a save. Normally, the archer has difficulties with miss chances, mirror images, wind wall, Mage Armor + Shield spells etc, but most of those are now out of play.

Yes, you can use better spells at close range, but at close range a swift hunter or flask thrower rogue will blow you out of the water with half a dozen attacks per round all doing precision damage. And the hunter or rogue actually have more utility than the blaster wizard.

[SilverLeaf167]

I hate to tell you, but I can totally outdamage that wizard's fireball at 1000 feat with an archer. There is a first level ranger spell that lets you ignore range penalties. That fireball, maximized from a 10+ level caster, does 60 damage, save for 30. Even a crummy archer can easily put out d8 (arrow)+d6 (energy damage from weapon) +d6 (energy damage from weapon crystal) +4 or so (weapon + and strength) for average of 15 per shot, with at least 4 shots per round at that level. Sure, wizard can optimize better, but so can archer. Archer has to penetrate AC, but wizard has to penetrate SR, and energy resistance, and a save. Normally, the archer has difficulties with miss chances, mirror images, wind wall, Mage Armor + Shield spells etc, but most of those are now out of play.

Yes, you can use better spells at close range, but at close range a swift hunter or flask thrower rogue will blow you out of the water with half a dozen attacks per round all doing precision damage. And the hunter or rogue actually have more utility than the blaster wizard.
Sure, but calling blasters 'glorified archers' was silly in the first place. The usual niche, the point, the very meaning of blasting tends to be area damage and either different kinds of damage or rider effects. It's the same basic matter that arises every time you compare mundane to magic:

Mundane does direct damage.
Magic does direct damage, to many targets/of different kinds/with different effects.

Sure, the changes presented by Neo would greatly narrow the "different effects" category, but the basic argument is still true.

[NeoSeraphi]

I hate to tell you, but I can totally outdamage that wizard's fireball at 1000 feat with an archer. There is a first level ranger spell that lets you ignore range penalties. That fireball, maximized from a 10+ level caster, does 60 damage, save for 30. Even a crummy archer can easily put out d8 (arrow)+d6 (energy damage from weapon) +d6 (energy damage from weapon crystal) +4 or so (weapon + and strength) for average of 15 per shot, with at least 4 shots per round at that level. Sure, wizard can optimize better, but so can archer. Archer has to penetrate AC, but wizard has to penetrate SR, and energy resistance, and a save. Normally, the archer has difficulties with miss chances, mirror images, wind wall, Mage Armor + Shield spells etc, but most of those are now out of play.


An orb of fire deals 15d6 damage with a ranged touch attack (much easier AC to hit), no save to reduce damage, Fort save or the creature is dazed for a single round. The range on that spell is Close, but that's still gives you plenty of room between you and the other creature (and you can always double the range of the spell if you need to with metamagic).

And wind wall is still on the cleric, ranger, and druid spell lists. Taking it away from sorcerers and wizards makes you about 25% less likely to run into it, but when you do, you're still gimped.


Yes, you can use better spells at close range, but at close range a swift hunter or flask thrower rogue will blow you out of the water with half a dozen attacks per round all doing precision damage. And the hunter or rogue actually have more utility than the blaster wizard.

Yes, because precision damage is the answer to your problems here. Except against undead, constructs, oozes, swarms, elementals, plants, incorporeal creatures, creatures with concealment, characters with fortified armor, or even people with high AC.

You get four attacks per round, but you take iterative penalties, and even then, each of your attacks has a 5% chance of missing. Yes, a creature has a 5% chance of automatically making a saving throw, but that's for half damage, not 0 damage.

And unlike sorcerers, archers have to actually worry about running out of ammunition. And they have to deal with DR, which is just as common, if not more so, than energy resistance.

[SilverLeaf167]

And unlike sorcerers, archers have to actually worry about running out of ammunition. And they have to deal with DR, which is just as common, if not more so, than energy resistance.
As much as I agree with almost everything else you said, this bolded part bugs me. In a practical, realistic game, even if someone actually bothered counting an archer's arrows, he'd definitely have lots of lots those or just one of the many ways to not worry about them at all (Endless Quiver etc.)
And a Sorcerer runs out of spells too, you know.
A Warlock on the other hand...

[NeoSeraphi]

As much as I agree with almost everything else you said, this bolded part bugs me. In a practical, realistic game, even if someone actually bothered counting an archer's arrows, he'd definitely have lots of lots those or just one of the many ways to not worry about them at all (Endless Quiver etc.)
And a Sorcerer runs out of spells too, you know.

Every RL game I've played in has had an archer who had to count arrows. And even though they generally got a 50% chance of finding the arrows they missed with, they still had to keep track, and they still occasionally ran out. I don't know your source material for Endless Quiver (The SRD only has Efficient, as far as I can tell), but we never had any. So there are still games where archers have to deal with running out of arrows, and I've seen it firsthand.

And the sorcerer may run out of spells, but he's only dishing out one per round, rather than 4. And he can sleep to regain them instantly, instead of having to go back to town when the party's arcane caster can no longer teleport.



A Warlock on the other hand...

True. Warlocks can dish out some decent damage at-will if they're properly optimized.

[Johel]

A Warlock on the other hand...

Yeah, might actually be closer to the concept here :

If arcane magic was reduced to bright shining flashes that hurt people

[Gnaeus]

An orb of fire deals 15d6 damage with a ranged touch attack (much easier AC to hit), no save to reduce damage, Fort save or the creature is dazed for a single round. The range on that spell is Close, but that's still gives you plenty of room between you and the other creature (and you can always double the range of the spell if you need to with metamagic).

But with doubled range you are still about 800 feet short.


And wind wall is still on the cleric, ranger, and druid spell lists. Taking it away from sorcerers and wizards makes you about 25% less likely to run into it, but when you do, you're still gimped.

Until I get the gear that beats it. Like a force bow.


Yes, because precision damage is the answer to your problems here. Except against undead, constructs, oozes, swarms, elementals, plants, incorporeal creatures, creatures with concealment, characters with fortified armor, or even people with high AC.

Swift hunter allows me to precision attack facored enemies, which will be undead, outsiders, constructs, and probably arcanists. That will fix most of that. Rogues get an acf to let them SA crit immune targets. And then there are weapon crystals, which are brutally cheap.



You get four attacks per round, but you take iterative penalties, and even then, each of your attacks has a 5% chance of missing. Yes, a creature has a 5% chance of automatically making a saving throw, but that's for half damage, not 0 damage.

Back at you. Orb of fire is a TOUCH spell. or are we back to fireball?

And 4 attacks per round is low op. I benefit from Haste. Maybe also TWF and ITWF if I am throwing. A good rogue build can easily clear 7 touch attacks per round at those levels.


And unlike sorcerers, archers have to actually worry about running out of ammunition.

I can carry a ton of arrows wrapped up in a bag of holding, and they are very cheap. Flasks slightly more expensive. Quiver of ehlonna will hold all I need for any one fight, then I refill.

And then theres Force bow, returning weapon, gloves of endless javelins, etc. If archer or thrower knows what he is doing, he will never be out of ammo.


And they have to deal with DR, which is just as common, if not more so, than energy resistance.

But also as easy to cirvumvent, if not more so. Quiver of ehlonna holds Adamantine, cold iron, and silver arrows. Bow is magic. That just leaves alignment types (and making the bow holy is often a good investment anyway). And did I mention that weapon crystals are super cheap and rock for bypassing DR?



Not only does this change the way wizards and sorcerers are able to handle encounters, it also removes the teleport spell from the game, except for Travel clerics and monsters that can use it. So no more scry-and-die, players would have to actually walk places.
Not really, no. Druids have perfectly good transport magics.

[NeoSeraphi]

Yeah, might actually be closer to the concept here :

Nah, warlocks still get Darkness, See in Darkness, The Dead Walk, and all that, and I wouldn't take that away from them.

[Vizzerdrix]

So what is left for schools? Evocation and abjuration? Minus any forms of battlefield control?

[Particle_Man]

Clearly the answer, if the archer ranger is outdamaging the damage-only wizard, is to nerf the archer ranger. Change it to the spell-less ranger in CW. Also, give everyone deflect arrows for free. :smallsmile:

Or just ban more than one attack per round from any missle weapon source. :smallsmile:

[SilverLeaf167]

Okay, as much as I hate to... interrupt someone from arguing in their own thread, I see no reason to argue about whether archers or blasters are better at damage, at least not here, not now. Let's just assume that they're approximately as good, or that blasting = AoE and archery = single target.

Let's get back to topic here.

To bring up a new perspective: if Wizards and Sorcerers were limited to blasting, CoDs, Druids and Artificers would become more powerful in relation and totally dominate the whole game. So would psionics.

[NeoSeraphi]

To bring up a new perspective: if Wizards and Sorcerers were limited to blasting, CoDs, Druids and Artificers would become more powerful in relation and totally dominate the whole game. So would psionics.

Er...If it's a choice between wizards dominating and those guys dominating, I'm happier with them. Yes, druids and clerics have some pretty broken spell lists, but wizards take the cake here. Battlefield control, save or dies, and focused specialists get way more spells per day than either clerics or druids.

Besides, clerics and druids generally have to save at least a portion of their daily spell slots for healing, otherwise the party gets mad at them. So they can't use all of their phenomenal cosmic power to break the game.

[Gnaeus]

Okay, as much as I hate to... interrupt someone from arguing in their own thread, I see no reason to argue about whether archers or blasters are better at damage, at least not here, not now. Let's just assume that they're approximately as good, or that blasting = AoE and archery = single target.


If that is true, then wizard is obsolete. The archer types get a lot more non-combat utility, along with better armor and hp.



To bring up a new perspective: if Wizards and Sorcerers were limited to blasting, CoDs, Druids and Artificers would become more powerful in relation and totally dominate the whole game. So would psionics.

This is true, although CoD usually includes Druid. That is the D part.



Besides, clerics and druids generally have to save at least a portion of their daily spell slots for healing, otherwise the party gets mad at them. So they can't use all of their phenomenal cosmic power to break the game.

WANDS. A druid has no need to save spell slots for healing. If my party members told me I had to, I would tell them to go buy a wand of CLW and I would be glad to use it for them. Their in combat healing is pretty lame.

[NeoSeraphi]

So what is left for schools? Evocation and abjuration? Minus any forms of battlefield control?

Conjuration has some pretty decent DD spells as well. Necromancy has vampiric touch. Transmutation has disintegrate. Enchantment and illusion are basically dead though.

[Vizzerdrix]

Why not just flat out remove both the Sorc and Wiz? It would be more elegant than having to edit spell selection. And as you pointed out, DN/beguiler/duskblade/warmage/etc have just about everything else covered.

[Particle_Man]

Er...If it's a choice between wizards dominating and those guys dominating, I'm happier with them. Yes, druids and clerics have some pretty broken spell lists, but wizards take the cake here. Battlefield control, save or dies, and focused specialists get way more spells per day than either clerics or druids.

Besides, clerics and druids generally have to save at least a portion of their daily spell slots for healing, otherwise the party gets mad at them. So they can't use all of their phenomenal cosmic power to break the game.

You apparently haven't run a game where the Druid found the "I Win" button. :smallsmile:

The party can find alternate sets of healing - I believe there was a thread a while back saying that healing in combat is usually an inefficient use of the Cleric or Druid's spells.

I would suggest, if you replace the wizard with the warmage, you simply replace the cleric/druid with the healer and then ban the other non-specialized Tier 1/Tier 2s. Oh, and ban the Rainbow Servant prestige class and other optimizer-friendly prestige classes.

[Gnaeus]

I would suggest, if you replace the wizard with the warmage, you simply replace the cleric/druid with the healer

Theres also Divine Bard and Adept. In a world where no one else has Polymorph, Adept is neat.

[NeoSeraphi]

You apparently haven't run a game where the Druid found the "I Win" button. :smallsmile:

I have not, no. Druid actually isn't a popular class in my groups. I'm the only one who's ever played one, and I played a shapeshift variant druid with 13 Wisdom (never raised it past that, so I was capped at 3rd level spells with no Natural Spell, Wild Shape, or Animal Companion).



The party can find alternate sets of healing - I believe there was a thread a while back saying that healing in combat is usually an inefficient use of the Cleric or Druid's spells.

Oh, I agree, but not every party does find alternate sources of healing. And that means that the cleric and druid will have to use in-combat healing in order to prevent death in the party, which is much more expensive to remove. So in a low-to-mid optimized game, the druid and the cleric don't get to break the game every turn.



I would suggest, if you replace the wizard with the warmage, you simply replace the cleric/druid with the healer and then ban the other non-specialized Tier 1/Tier 2s. Oh, and ban the Rainbow Servant prestige class and other optimizer-friendly prestige classes.

Well, I don't really want to just reduce divine magic to "heal". Clerics and druids have their niches, and healers don't have any nature based fluff at all. Yes, clerics and druids can still break the game, but it takes a lot more work than a wizard does, in my opinion. Wizards have a wider variety of "I win" buttons, at lower levels. (Entangle being the obvious exception)

Besides, the healer is a much weaker class than the warmage. At least DD lets you feel like you're contributing to combat. Being a walking first aid kit would get boring for most players really fast.

[Engine]

Besides, clerics and druids generally have to save at least a portion of their daily spell slots for healing, otherwise the party gets mad at them. So they can't use all of their phenomenal cosmic power to break the game.

That's not entirely true. While could be true that in some games Druids and Clerics have to save some slots for healing it's not a necessity. As someone else already pointed out wands could cover the need for healing. And I would add that the use of buffing and battlefield control could prevent damage, so in-combat healing isn't needed.

I know it's anecdotal evidence, but I just want to say that I'm currently playing an Oracle (well, it's in my signature) and I never used Cure spells during a fight, and when the fight is over I just use a Wand of CLW. The rest of the party is happy with my performance.


Oh, I agree, but not every party does find alternate sources of healing. And that means that the cleric and druid will have to use in-combat healing in order to prevent death in the party, which is much more expensive to remove. So in a low-to-mid optimized game, the druid and the cleric don't get to break the game every turn.

In a low-op party no one breaks the game. Breaking the game needs optimization.

[Gnaeus]

Oh, I agree, but not every party does find alternate sources of healing. And that means that the cleric and druid will have to use in-combat healing in order to prevent death in the party, which is much more expensive to remove. .

Even for a low-mid op druid, it is almost NEVER more effective to drop a cure spell than it is to lock down an enemy. Taking a foe out of the fight, debuffing him, buffing an ally or summoning a meatshield are all likely to reduce incoming damage faster than the druid can cure it (after level 1-2).

The high-op druid who cares about healing (sort of an oxymoron) will either get divine metamagic and some turn attempts and persist mass lesser vigor, or get a ring of the beast and summon Unicorns, which are much more effective as heals than casting cure serious wounds, especially when summoning more than 1.

[NeoSeraphi]

That's not entirely true. While could be true that in some games Druids and Clerics have to save some slots for healing it's not a necessity. As someone else already pointed out wands could cover the need for healing. And I would add that the use of buffing and battlefield control could prevent damage, so in-combat healing isn't needed.

I know it's anecdotal evidence, but I just want to say that I'm currently playing an Oracle (well, it's in my signature) and I never used Cure spells during a fight, and when the fight is over I just use a Wand of CLW. The rest of the party is happy with my performance.

Ah true, I honestly didn't really think about wands. Well, then, how should I nerf divine casters? I mean, I want them to keep their fluff and power options, but...

I guess I could take away a cleric's domains. That's where most of the power comes from. The core cleric spell list is...pretty bad. It has some gems, but it's mostly just bad.

As for the druid, I remember someone suggesting that if you nerf a druid down to bardic spell progression they get a lot worse. Would that work?



In a low-op party no one breaks the game. Breaking the game needs optimization.

Things like fly and teleport definitely break the game. So does animate dead, plane shift, summon monster, and etc. Spells that just seem cool to a player, that don't really require "optimization" for a wizard to choose. They unbalance things because they surprise the DM. They throw him off his toes. The DM plans his storyline around a group, a specific group, and their capabilities. If you suddenly change that by saying "Hey, I'm going to jump to the other side of the continent" or "I'll just call this demon to help me" or "I'm going to raise this guy and have him fight alongside us" then suddenly the party is no longer the same as it was before.

Arcane magic is complex and annoying and really stupidly powerful. Divine magic has a lot more gravy in it, spells like shield other and barkskin and bite of the were-x are still good spells, but they don't particularly unbalance a character.

Really, finding a single uber spell at every spell level within the cleric or druid spell list requires some sifting, in my opinion. Meanwhile, with a wizard, you can dish it out pretty easily.

[Gnaeus]

Things like fly and teleport definitely break the game.

A druid gets all day flight at level 4, earlier than any other class in game, just by picking the right pet. Or at level 6 with wildshape. Transport via plants stops overland travel just like teleport. Tree stride or phantom stag are only slightly worse.



So does animate dead, plane shift, summon monster,

Clerics get all those spells. Summon natures ally is in some ways better than Summon Monster, and druids don't even have to memorize it, only realize that since they can convert to it, maybe they should look it up and figure out what it does.




Arcane magic is complex and annoying and really stupidly powerful. Divine magic has a lot more gravy in it, spells like shield other and barkskin and bite of the were-x are still good spells, but they don't particularly unbalance a character.

Look up the stats of a druid, in Dire Lion form, and his Giant Crocodile pet, when they are sharing bite of the weretiger and Greater Magic Fang. Compare this with any level 9 melee in the game.

We had a game where the DM had all bosses come in pairs. My druid and pet killed 1, rest of party killed the other. I could usually finish mine first and come help them. This requires finding the bite of the X line and deciding that turning into a superlion sounds fun. And if they find Venomfire? (shudders).

[Engine]

As for the druid, I remember someone suggesting that if you nerf a druid down to bardic spell progression they get a lot worse. Would that work?

Probably. I would say that you need to take care of Wild Shape, too.


Things like fly and teleport definitely break the game. So does animate dead, plane shift, summon monster, and etc. Spells that just seem cool to a player, that don't really require "optimization" for a wizard to choose. They unbalance things because they surprise the DM. They throw him off his toes. The DM plans his storyline around a group, a specific group, and their capabilities. If you suddenly change that by saying "Hey, I'm going to jump to the other side of the continent" or "I'll just call this demon to help me" or "I'm going to raise this guy and have him fight alongside us" then suddenly the party is no longer the same as it was before.

Just a couple of words.
Clerics are way better with animating deads than Wizards. And Summon Monster\Natural's Ally is on the Cleric\Druid spell list too.

And optimization requires to understand the game. Sure, Fly is a cool spell, but if you use it just to toss Fireballs around it's not gamebreaking. Summon Monster is good, but if you use it just to summon something to dish damage you're just using a Fireball that lasts several rounds. By the way I disagree that the Cleric\Druid spell list isn't gamebreaking as the Wizard's. Now I couldn't be more specific, I'll try later.

[Toliudar]

If we're effectively getting rid of Wizards and Sorcerers (I liked the idea of simply leaving the warmage as is, maybe with int as the casting stat), then eliminate clerics, druids, archivists and artificers as well. ou've still got bards for divinations and warlocks for crafting). The wildshape ranger is the new druid. The favoured soul becomes a a versatile powerhouse. Healing is accomplished through wands. And you've got a game more or less balanced around Tier 3.

[bloodtide]

So, thoughts? If arcane magic was reduced to bright shining flashes that hurt people, the bard was the real utility caster, and the wizard had no such thing as Abrupt Jaunt or greater mirror image, how would this affect the game?


That would just ruin D&D, you might as well play 4E then.

The 'easy fix' is just for the DM to keep control of the game and up the power, fantasy and magic. When you have 11th level characters in a 'low magic, low power, low fantasy game (like a LotR type setting) then the spellcasters and wizards are over powered. Say Lord Doom kidnaps Princess Eve, well the characters just scry and teleport over to his castle and save her..all before lunch. But that is in a 'nitty gritty world' where Lord Doom is just a human fighter and has a stone castle about a mile from town. If Princess Eve was kidnapped by Lord Flame, an azer sorcerer who lives in an continually erupting volcano on the elemental plane of fire...well, the characters won't be done by lunch.

And don't forget to nerf the 'one roll to know all' from knowledge checks and divination spells.

[NeoSeraphi]

Probably. I would say that you need to take care of Wild Shape, too.

Hmm...maybe if I just made the player choose a single form every 5 levels, and didn't let it scale with his HD, while keeping the HD cap?




Just a couple of words.
Clerics are way better with animating deads than Wizards. And Summon Monster\Natural's Ally is on the Cleric\Druid spell list too.

Clerics are actually nowhere near as good at animating dead as wizards. Clerics must be evil to animate dead. That means they are much less likely to get access to it in a standard game. The only way the cleric is able to animate dead is if the DM tells him he can play an evil character, and that's a completely different game than the standard "heroes" game that D&D sees.


By the way I disagree that the Cleric\Druid spell list isn't gamebreaking as the Wizard's. Now I couldn't be more specific, I'll try later.

Hmmm...maybe I could just blanket dump the cleric's access to Conjuration spells that don't have the (Healing) subschool? What else would I need to tone the cleric down?

[Jeraa]

Clerics are actually nowhere near as good at animating dead as wizards. Clerics must be evil to animate dead. That means they are much less likely to get access to it in a standard game. The only way the cleric is able to animate dead is if the DM tells him he can play an evil character, and that's a completely different game than the standard "heroes" game that D&D sees.


No they don't. They can be neutral and still animate dead. They just can't be good aligned, or be a cleric of a good-aligned deity.

[killem2]

Just a question, would it be balanced to add SR bonus equipment to the enemies?

As a dm i mean.

[NeoSeraphi]

No they don't. They can be neutral and still animate dead. They just can't be good aligned, or be a cleric of a good-aligned deity.

Ah, I see. I consider "oppose" to be "anything but the one you chose", but I guess it does mean "good vs evil" there.

That laxes it a bit. Yeah, okay, hmm...maybe I should impose a 1 creature at a time limit? And require the cleric to take a feat to even cast the spell, like Leadership?

[FatR]

So, I have a question. How do you think it would affect gameplay if the wizard and sorcerer were restricted to WotC's idea of them to begin with, that is, that all non-DD sorcerer and wizard spells are just nonexistent?
That will just make them unplayably weak and reduce the core to 3-4 playable classes. Moreover, how you came to the to the thought that it was "WotC idea to begin with"? 3.0 and 3.5 direct and indirect nerfs to Evocation are clearly the result of nuclear artillery wizards that were tearing up battlefields in AD&D 2.


So no more scry-and-die,
Scry-and-die is a boogeyman of Internet forums, which only works within quite small subsets of actual games.


players would have to actually walk places.
How this is remotely good for a mid-high level game?

[Kuulvheysoon]

If we're effectively getting rid of Wizards and Sorcerers (I liked the idea of simply leaving the warmage as is, maybe with int as the casting stat), then eliminate clerics, druids, archivists and artificers as well. ou've still got bards for divinations and warlocks for crafting). The wildshape ranger is the new druid. The favoured soul becomes a a versatile powerhouse. Healing is accomplished through wands. And you've got a game more or less balanced around Tier 3.

You've forgotten one of my favorite full casters - Spirit Shaman.

As for other full casters, you still have the Wu Jen and the Shugenja.

It's pretty easy to nerf the druid's wildshape - enforce the shapeshift variant from PHB2.

[Coidzor]

Melee doesn't get any of the buffs they need or gear and so are bad without any kind of aid.

[NeoSeraphi]

That will just make them unplayably weak and reduce the core to 3-4 playable classes. Moreover, how you came to the to the thought that it was "WotC idea to begin with"? 3.0 and 3.5 direct and indirect nerfs to Evocation are clearly the result of nuclear artillery wizards that were tearing up battlefields in AD&D 2.


You already don't have to worry about that. WotC increased the hit points of enemies vastly from AD&D 2.E, without increasing the damage that blasting spells do. And I don't think blasting is a problem or that it needs to be nerfed. I think battlefield control is a serious problem and it needs to be pretty much cut out of the game entirely. Also, most utility spells should just be removed, that way the wizard can sit there and roll skill checks like the rest of the group, rather than having a spell to solve every problem. The only time the wizard should be casting is when he has initiative.

[NeoSeraphi]

Melee doesn't get any of the buffs they need or gear and so are bad without any kind of aid.

All of the buffs that wizards can give (enlarge person, bull's strength, fly, greater magic weapon, etc) that aren't already on the cleric spell list would go to the cleric. Anything that has a range other than Personal. I'll update the OP with this suggestion.

[Coidzor]

I think battlefield control is a serious problem and it needs to be pretty much cut out of the game entirely. Also, most utility spells should just be removed

So do you include the utility spells that can't be replicated by skill checks in your very, very boring conception of what the world should be like?


All of the buffs that wizards can give (enlarge person, bull's strength, fly, greater magic weapon, etc) that aren't already on the cleric spell list would go to the cleric. Anything that has a range other than Personal. I'll update the OP with this suggestion.

...Then you're just shifting the problem onto another class and would eventually decide that the cleric had to go. :smalltongue:

If it's a problem for wizards or sorcerers to be buffing the party, it's a problem for Wu Jen, Clerics, Spirit Shaman, Druids, and Beguilers.

[FatR]

Things like fly and teleport definitely break the game.
Not in the slightest. Not having them might leave you incapable of participating equally in high-level adventures, though.


So does animate dead, plane shift, summon monster, and etc.
Animade Dead and, to a lesser extent, Summon Monster are quite disappointing without carefully picking the best minions and dumpster-diving through the splatbooks for things that make them better. I can only give you Plane Shift because of certain poorly thought-out aspects of cosmology, and because you can use them offensively.


Arcane magic is complex and annoying and really stupidly powerful.
No, DnD magic is actually quite weak compared to what spellcasters in fantasy often do. It is only strong in the context of the game because of versatility, allowing spellcasters to pick the ideal tool for the job, excessive amounts of "dumb brute" monsters with glaring weaknesses, and a few poorly thought-out/open-ended spells. "Fixes" that nerf magic (arcane or divine)/caster classes can only be recommended because they are relatively easy to do, othewise it is clear, that it is the warrior classes who are the main problem.

[NeoSeraphi]

So do you include the utility spells that can't be replicated by skill checks in your very, very boring conception of what the world should be like?

Yes. Ridiculous spells like fabricate and polymorph any object and major creation would be out the door.

I suppose there's no way around allowing spells like water breathing and air walk, but of course those would be on the cleric's list.

Basically, spells that allow a wizard (or other caster) to take advantage of downtime or otherwise completely ignore a challenge a DM has set for them (such as ethereal jaunt or astral projection or teleport) wouldn't be allowed.

[Coidzor]

Yes. Ridiculous spells like fabricate and polymorph any object and major creation would be out the door.

Bye bye Plane Shift, eh?

[FatR]

You already don't have to worry about that. WotC increased the hit points of enemies vastly from AD&D 2.E, without increasing the damage that blasting spells do.
And I said that.


I think battlefield control is a serious problem and it needs to be pretty much cut out of the game entirely.
3.X-style battlefield control, except maybe for 2-3 spells that are incredibly effective because they are poorly conceived, like Grease, is the best part of the magic/combat interaction in the edition, as it easily allows party members to contribute towards the common goal without doing the same thing in slightly different ways.


Also, most utility spells should just be removed, that way the wizard can sit there and roll skill checks like the rest of the group,
This benefits the game how, considering that almost none of the non-opposed skills contribute anything that has any place in a high-fantasy plot? The skills are obsoleted by magic not because the magic is too good, but because the skills utterly fail to take needs and realities of mid-high level games into account.

[NeoSeraphi]

Bye bye Plane Shift, eh?

Exactly. If it's necessary for the players to shift planes, you can always just have them do it by means of plot. No reason to give them keys to the car when you're in the driver's seat already.

It's easy enough to try and make warriors better so they aren't as overshadowed by casters, but that doesn't change the fact that casters are breaking the game. Taking their classes and making them focused on one thing is a pretty simple fix, I admit, but I think it would be decently effective while allowing room for optimization.

Let's see...replacing the cleric with favored soul, and completely removing domains and all ways to get them from the game (including all prestige class abilities [but not the classes themselves] that grant additional domains), would be a decent start to fixing the cleric. Removing all the cleric's battlefield control and creation spells fixes the majority of the other problems.

Word of recall brings up an issue though...its usefulness is infinitely less than teleport, since you have only a specific destination, one that you have to have actually been in when you prepared the spell. Does that nerf its versatility enough to allow it to stay in the game? I'll need to think about that...

As for the druid, swapping the animal companion class feature with the familiar class feature would be a good start (since the familiar is no longer an animal and therefore can't receive the majority of the druid's animal-only buff spells). When you get Wild Shape at 5th, and every 5 levels after that, choose a single animal form you qualify for, and you can assume that form the number of times per day you get Wild Shape. You get Large at 10th, Huge at 15th, and Elemental at 20th. Spellcasting is reduced to the bard's progression and all battlefield control spells are removed.

I think that's a good start. What do you guys think? Any other suggestions? My goal is to strip the three primary casters of most of their versatility, while leaving their power somewhat intact.

[Gnaeus]

Basically, spells that allow a wizard (or other caster) to take advantage of downtime or otherwise completely ignore a challenge a DM has set for them (such as ethereal jaunt or astral projection or teleport) wouldn't be allowed.

You know, if you spent as much time trying to make these work in your games as you are spending trying to figure out stuff to ban, they really wouldn't be a problem.

My DM, for example, has divination and teleport magic blocked by lead. So Scry and die on prepared targets is useless. He often sends us on quests that require ground travel (the book says we go 4 days following the dragon star, then 7 days following the eagle star! Teleport does not help! or another quest where we set a captured golem to return home, then had to track it.)

I can still Teleport (and plane shift, transport via plant, etc) but they don't win the game. Most of these other "problems" have similar solutions. I really recommend this approach. It doesn't feel as heavy-handed as a ban, it makes sense in his plot arc, it just takes some creativity.

[Coidzor]

I think that's a good start. What do you guys think? Any other suggestions? My goal is to strip the three primary casters of most of their versatility, while leaving their power somewhat intact.

I think your goal is the wrong one, that's what I think. You should be trying to pare the magic system of phenomenal power, not the enjoyability of playing as a fullcaster.

Which, as evidenced time and again, is a huge project.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I think your goal is the wrong one, that's what I think. You should be trying to pare the magic system of phenomenal power, not the enjoyability of playing as a fullcaster.

Which, as evidenced time and again, is a huge project.

Clearly, NeoSeraphi is an undercover WotC employee scouting out what we want for 5th edition.

:smallbiggrin:

...wait, that'd actually be a godsend. Please tell us that it's true.

[NeoSeraphi]

I think your goal is the wrong one, that's what I think. You should be trying to pare the magic system of phenomenal power, not the enjoyability of playing as a fullcaster.

Which, as evidenced time and again, is a huge project.

Exactly, and I don't have the time or the patience to do something like that. It's much easier to simply blanket ban things, in order to prevent your players from surprising you.

The other two solutions are to hold the player's hand (each one) and carefully examine their character sheets after each level-up, or let them do what they please, and then suddenly they're busting out stupid crap like glitterdust or stinking cloud or teleport or polymorph and completely wrecking your encounters. And then what are you left to do? Roll a bunch of saves and sigh as the players mop up your creatures without a challenge. It takes all the fun out of being a DM when you're dealing with people who have auto-win buttons.

[killem2]

Uh oh, the world is going to implode.

DM here with a wizard, and *shocker* I don't pick spells to make myself a one man show.

If you are a DM and your player is ruining the group you need to address it, if your dm is allowing it, kill the wizard in his sleep.

[FatR]

I think your goal is the wrong one, that's what I think. You should be trying to pare the magic system of phenomenal power, not the enjoyability of playing as a fullcaster.

Which, as evidenced time and again, is a huge project.
Why? There are no more than a dozen spells, a couple prestiges, and a handful of magic items, that actually give you phenomenal power. They are pretty well known and it's easy to ban them. Most aren't even available before the game starts falling apart under its own weight anyway. Otherwise it is just matter of many classes being too weak for the supposed genre, rather than magic being too strong.

[Engine]

Hmm...maybe if I just made the player choose a single form every 5 levels, and didn't let it scale with his HD, while keeping the HD cap?

Could work. The Pathfinder's nerf to Wild Shape could work, too. In Pathfinder if you want to be good at wildshaping you need to invest in physical stats, so no more Druids with 8 Str that wildshape into bears and lay waste of everything.


Hmmm...maybe I could just blanket dump the cleric's access to Conjuration spells that don't have the (Healing) subschool? What else would I need to tone the cleric down?

Well, let's see.
Desecrate (Necromancy)
Animate Dead (Necromancy)
Air Walk (Transmutation) (on the account you find Fly gamebreaking)
Divine Power (Evocation) (hello obsolete Fighter!)
Divination (well, duh, Divination)
Commune (Divination)
Righteous Might (Transmutation) (to add insult to injury)
Scrying (Divination)
Animate Objects (Transmutation)
Find the Path (Divination)
Wind Walk (Transmutation)
Control Weather (Transmutation)
Ethereal Jaunt (Transmutation)
Antimagic Field (Abjuration)
Create Greater Undead (Necromancy)
Miracle (Evocation)

A brief list of spells that could be truly powerful, just in core. Some of them could be game-breaking (I do not feel that Fly or Air Walk could be gamebreaking) and with good utility. Sure, the Cleric list is someway worse than the Wizard, but it's still a good list. A note, there's no Conjuration spell on the list, so you could see by yourself what a Cleric could do even without that school. And there are a lot of truly good spells just in core for divine classes outside of Conjuration.


The best way to fix casters isn't, IMHO, ban one or more schools. The best way to fix them is to sit down and write off some spells, change others, give half-casters and non-casters more utility. A lot of work.

[Gnaeus]

Exactly, and I don't have the time or the patience to do something like that. It's much easier to simply blanket ban things, in order to prevent your players from surprising you.

I always thought that if players were surprising me, they were doing their job as players.


The other two solutions are to hold the player's hand (each one) and carefully examine their character sheets after each level-up, or let them do what they please

You don't do that anyway? How do you balance encounters???


and then suddenly they're busting out stupid crap like glitterdust or stinking cloud or teleport or polymorph and completely wrecking your encounters. And then what are you left to do? Roll a bunch of saves and sigh as the players mop up your creatures without a challenge. It takes all the fun out of being a DM when you're dealing with people who have auto-win buttons.

If you put thought into them, they aren't I win buttons. Yes, if you are playing a pregen dungeon, you might have to make some changes. You probably should anyway.

Take some pride in your work! Just by being here, you probably know more about optimization than most of your players. Drop some class levels on the bad guys. Use enemies that are immune to different stuff. And if occasionally they steamroll a fight, smile, congratulate them, and resolve to do better next time! Its ok, all they get is some imaginary gold and some imaginary experience! Try to make your houserules make the game more interesting. Yes, Tier 1s are too strong, I agree. So split them up into tier 3 equivalents! Give players tools that they can use to be creative! Saying "I cast fireball again" is as boring as "I swing my sword at it again". Try it! It can be fun.

/RANT

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Exactly. If it's necessary for the players to shift planes, you can always just have them do it by means of plot. No reason to give them keys to the car when you're in the driver's seat already.

[...]

The other two solutions are to hold the player's hand (each one) and carefully examine their character sheets after each level-up, or let them do what they please, and then suddenly they're busting out stupid crap like glitterdust or stinking cloud or teleport or polymorph and completely wrecking your encounters. And then what are you left to do? Roll a bunch of saves and sigh as the players mop up your creatures without a challenge. It takes all the fun out of being a DM when you're dealing with people who have auto-win buttons.

Any solution that suggests that the DM remove the players' ability to accomplish something and instead fiat things into being by plot if he feels like it reeks of railroading. Divination, illusions, creation, teleportation, and the like are ways for the PCs to interact with the world without having to follow whatever plot hooks the DM spoon-feeds them. The problem with spellcaster balance is not that PC casters can do all of these things, but that noncasters can't do anything without the DM explicitly letting them.

No, stripping away everything but the boring spells and then doling out plot rituals to casters the same way high-level martial types often need DM-pity artifact swords to keep up is not the right solution at all. As Coidzor and Gnaeus noted, versatility or power isn't the problem, that's what makes playing a caster fun, it's having versatility and power that breaks things. T1 casters are better than T2 casters because they add unreasonable versatility to unreasonable power, while T3 classes can be plenty versatile without breaking the game. As Coidzor and FatR noted, the problem is that nonmagical things (classes, skills, whatever) need to keep up with the demands of high-level play, not that the fun, useful things magic can do need to be nerfed into the ground, and things like crowd control and rapid transportation are desirable things to have in one's toolkit.

It's one thing to say that it's easier to just ban things rather than fixing them, as that's plainly true, but it's another thing to say that it's better for the game if those effects didn't exist, which is not in the slightest. It also seems that this stems from an unfamiliarity with higher-level play or with what magic can do; if by the time PCs can teleport you as a DM can't handle PCs teleporting and it's wrecking your encounters, well, that's an issue with throwing low-level encounters at mid-to-high level PCs. Lord of the Rings is not a high-level plot, and while things like polymorph and knock are certainly broken in the sense that they overshadow other PCs, but they're not game-breaking in the sense that they're win buttons and you can't challenge them as a DM.

If you feel like the PCs are steamrolling the encounters, I respectfully suggest that you try mixing up the encounters and seeing what you can do when you take those abilities into account instead of being surprised with what the PCs can do. I routinely run high-level high-op games, and because I know what my PCs can do and what high-level play is like, I can challenge them just fine. Again, the problem isn't that magic is broken in a PCs vs. world sense, it's that it's broken in a PCs vs. PCs sense--polymorph and teleport aren't a problem, it's turning into something that's a better beatstick than the fighter or scry-n-die-ing someone who really should have known better and taken the precautions that anyone with access to casting (either personally or through items/minions) should take.

[Rubik]

You know, if you spent as much time trying to make these work in your games as you are spending trying to figure out stuff to ban, they really wouldn't be a problem.

My DM, for example, has divination and teleport magic blocked by lead. So Scry and die on prepared targets is useless. He often sends us on quests that require ground travel (the book says we go 4 days following the dragon star, then 7 days following the eagle star! Teleport does not help! or another quest where we set a captured golem to return home, then had to track it.)

I can still Teleport (and plane shift, transport via plant, etc) but they don't win the game. Most of these other "problems" have similar solutions. I really recommend this approach. It doesn't feel as heavy-handed as a ban, it makes sense in his plot arc, it just takes some creativity.I agree with this wholeheartedly. There are some things in the game that are worth being banned, but I'll tell you, it's a heck of a lot more fun for most players to use their potential if you play Tucker's DM than if you remove everything that makes their class interesting.

[nedz]

A druid gets all day flight at level 4, earlier than any other class in game, just by picking the right pet. Or at level 6 with wildshape. Transport via plants stops overland travel just like teleport. Tree stride or phantom stag are only slightly worse.

Level 2 Half Fey Racial Class flies past.

[Calanon]

Exactly, and I don't have the time or the patience to do something like that. It's much easier to simply blanket ban things, in order to prevent your players from surprising you.

a Wizard can completely wreck an encounter at level 1 if minimal effort is applied :smallannoyed:

There was a thread that got closed due to 50 page limit that was all about how people can balance Casters with Mundane, but ultimately they couldn't nerf Casters without completely making them unplayable so they started discussing how they could improve Mundanes to be able to stand up to casters, but then they realized they couldn't improve Mundanes to much because then they can just roll in and completely shut down Casters, then they started talk about Nerfing casters and that is how it got to 50 pages... literally happened atleast once on each page...


The other two solutions are to hold the player's hand (each one) and carefully examine their character sheets after each level-up, or let them do what they please, and then suddenly they're busting out stupid crap like glitterdust or stinking cloud or teleport or polymorph and completely wrecking your encounters. And then what are you left to do? Roll a bunch of saves and sigh as the players mop up your creatures without a challenge. It takes all the fun out of being a DM when you're dealing with people who have auto-win buttons.

You forgot Color Spray, Grease, Sleep, Ray of Enfeeblement, Cause Fear just to name a few... Why not just ban these spells (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=31962) or improve upon that list?


My goal is to strip the three primary casters of most of their versatility, while leaving their power somewhat intact.

Like moving a mountain... without "Proctiv's Move Mountain"

EDIT: After reading this back to myself I realized how... "rude" to say the least this comment was, No disrespect intended :smallredface:

[Rubik]

Level 2 Half Fey Racial Class flies past.
Dragonborn (wings) warforged. Level 1.

[Engine]

Exactly, and I don't have the time or the patience to do something like that. It's much easier to simply blanket ban things, in order to prevent your players from surprising you.

Well, if you do not like being surprised by your players how could the game be fun for you?


The other two solutions are to hold the player's hand (each one) and carefully examine their character sheets after each level-up, or let them do what they please, and then suddenly they're busting out stupid crap like glitterdust or stinking cloud or teleport or polymorph and completely wrecking your encounters. And then what are you left to do? Roll a bunch of saves and sigh as the players mop up your creatures without a challenge. It takes all the fun out of being a DM when you're dealing with people who have auto-win buttons.

Ok, Polymorph could be gamebreaking.
But Stinking Cloud? Glitterdust? Hardly so. Yes, they're powerful spells, but you should acknowledge that those spells couldn't be "I win" button without a party. Sure, the Wizard used Glitterdust on the enemies. But without her party, how she could kill them all?
By the way those spells allow a save. There are creatures outright immune to them. Sure, the players could surprise you. But if the players use always the same spells, *surprise* them.

[Rubik]

Sure, the Wizard used glitterdust on the enemies. But without her party, how she could kill them all?8 gp mules.

[Engine]

8 gp mules.

A trick useful at low-levels, but at higher levels I doubt a mule could pack enough punch to kill the Wizard's enemies. And stay alive against the enemies that made their save.

[ahenobarbi]

OP I got impression what you really want is to railroad your players.

Well you keep complaining that players can do unexpected things, take controll of the game etc.


And you think the problem is that there are not-damage dealing, not-buffing spells.
Well, you want to remove them.

So you came to conclusion that if you remove troublesome spells problems will go away.

I think it is wrong way to handle the problem. Firstly you should talk with your group about what you (and the rest) expect from the game. If you want them to kill things by simply dealing a lot of damage and players want to sit in their private demiplane sending minions to do fighting game might not workout very well.

Secondly in D&D PCs are supposed to acquire extreme power levels. If you don't want that you might want to play some other system.

[unundindur]

I found that the E6 mod did what I wanted for D&D, and casters in particular. At the lower levels the difference between casters and others is smaller, and the Hp difference matters.

If you want to keep the LV20 approach I would suggest to roll all spellcasting into the sorcerer (and thus expand their spelllist to include all spells, divine and arcane). That way you have one set of rules to deal with (and they have less hp).

Once that is done, its all about tweaking small things here and there, such as making teleporting and scrying into timeconsuming rituals (a bit like 4ed), and disallow divine metamagic and other tricks.

Last of all, its important to remember how fame works. If character X turns out to be a near invincible machine that can plow through stuff in seconds, chances are that epic Leshay and his older brother Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon and Cyric will make sure to kill off this little **** before he becomes too much of an issue. The CR system is a guideline for what is a fair contest, if the players break it, the GM is in his full right to start applying real-world politics as a basis for encounters instead :)

Keeping the game as it was intended is the golden rule of GMing in my opinion.

[Calanon]

Last of all, its important to remember how fame works. If character X turns out to be a near invincible machine that can plow through stuff in seconds, chances are that epic Leshay and his older brother Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon and Cyric will make sure to kill off this little **** before he becomes too much of an issue. The CR system is a guideline for what is a fair contest, if the players break it, the GM is in his full right to start applying real-world politics as a basis for encounters instead :)

I remember in one game I played a character that was so "powerful" that Cousin Paragon Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon w/Divine Rank 0 wanted to kill me before I became a problem for him. I literally stood up at the table stared the DM in the eye and demanded an exact justification for him dropping such a thing on me Unfortunately he could not think of a reason and 3 days later just told me to leave the group... I left and never looked back. :smallannoyed:

[Engine]

Last of all, its important to remember how fame works. If character X turns out to be a near invincible machine that can plow through stuff in seconds, chances are that epic Leshay and his older brother Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon and Cyric will make sure to kill off this little **** before he becomes too much of an issue. The CR system is a guideline for what is a fair contest, if the players break it, the GM is in his full right to start applying real-world politics as a basis for encounters instead :)

So instead of talking to the player and politely asking to tone down the way she plays you drop at her feet something nasty and being confrontational. IMHO it's a good way to lose a player.

[Rubik]

So instead of talking to the player and politely asking to tone down the way she plays you drop at her feet something nasty and being confrontational. IMHO it's a good way to lose a player.And depending on level, it might be entirely possible to take them out for massive XP bonuses, as well.

With some setup time I believe I could do it as...

...a level 1 wizard.

[Doug Lampert]

A trick useful at low-levels, but at higher levels I doubt a mule could pack enough punch to kill the Wizard's enemies. And stay alive against the enemies that made their save.

It's a level 2 spell. If it's an "I WIN" at level 3 then it broken (I win is bad), if it's an "I WIN" at level 7 then it's broken beyond belief rather than mearly seriously broken.

I WIN is bad at any level. When you claim a level 2 spell + a cheap resource won't let a wizard SOLO encounters at high level this does not prove that the spell is not game-breaking. Quite the contrary, it is a concession that that spell DOES break the game at low levels. Which is the only time level two spells are expected to be really good.

[Zale]

Well, I don't really want to just reduce divine magic to "heal". Clerics and druids have their niches, and healers don't have any nature based fluff at all. Yes, clerics and druids can still break the game, but it takes a lot more work than a wizard does, in my opinion. Wizards have a wider variety of "I win" buttons, at lower levels. (Entangle being the obvious exception)

Besides, the healer is a much weaker class than the warmage. At least DD lets you feel like you're contributing to combat. Being a walking first aid kit would get boring for most players really fast.

Well.. You've kinda reduced Wizards and Sorcerers to just "Blowing things up pretty".

Why not gimp the Clerics to being "Heals the fighter" and the the Druids to "Turns into a bear"?

[Engine]

It's a level 2 spell. If it's an "I WIN" at level 3 then it broken (I win is bad), if it's an "I WIN" at level 7 then it's broken beyond belief rather than mearly seriously broken.

I WIN is bad at any level. When you claim a level 2 spell + a cheap resource won't let a wizard SOLO encounters at high level this does not prove that the spell is not game-breaking. Quite the contrary, it is a concession that that spell DOES break the game at low levels. Which is the only time level two spells are expected to be really good.

We have different opinions about "gamebreaking".

[Kerrin]

Fortunately I don't have players who go out of their way to break the game, but I guess if I did and I couldn't get them to dial it back, then I'd try out these two rather basic adjustments...

1. Remove the few most egregious spells from the game (e.g. polymorph any object, gate, etc)

2. Make all spell casters have a limited, themed list of spells they can choose from - a la the Beguiler and such - so that all spell casters have a goodly themed set of choices and can't just cherry pick all the best spells.

[dextercorvia]

A trick useful at low-levels, but at higher levels I doubt a mule could pack enough punch to kill the Wizard's enemies. And stay alive against the enemies that made their save.

I beat a level 3 party with a level 1 wizard and his riding dog animal companion, twice. The first time, the party didn't even get an action. Wizards are powerful. They appreciate having a party, but it is surprising what you can do without one.

Here is the link. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229753&page=5)

[Ziegander]

I think battlefield control is a serious problem and it needs to be pretty much cut out of the game entirely. Also, most utility spells should just be removed, that way the wizard can sit there and roll skill checks like the rest of the group, rather than having a spell to solve every problem. The only time the wizard should be casting is when he has initiative.

Wow, man, this is just some of the most ridiculous stuff I've ever heard concentrated into a single post. Making the Wizard/Sorcerer only capable of casting direct damage spells and removing everything else from their lists, and then moving that other stuff to other classes is outrageous. I understand that they are Tier 1 and you want to limit their power, but what you're suggesting would lower them to Tier 5 or so. It's repeatedly taking a sledgehammer to a problem that requires study and a scalpel.

You also clearly have no idea how or why Clerics and Druids are Tier 1, which, as shown by some of your more recent posts in this topic, has sort of warped this thread from nerfing Wizards and Sorcerer to "How do I make a Tier 3 only game?" Beating the tar out of the Wizard and Sorcerer until they're Tier 5s and calling it a day does not magically fix the game.

If you want to cut entire types of spells and entire schools of spells from the game, that's fine, but actually cut them from the game. Don't just cut them from the Wiz/Sorc list but leave them on Clerics' lists. Don't cut them from spell lists, but allow monsters to use them as spell-like abilities. Cut them completely out of the game so that they no longer exist.

If you want no utility spells to exist, don't let the Bard have them either. If you have a problem with Wizards not rolling skill checks, or with them casting spells outside of combat (which is, frankly, a pathetic problem to have), then you will have the same problem when Bards no longer roll skill checks and start casting tons of spells outside of combat. If you don't want utility spells to exist, then remove them entirely from the game so that they no longer exist.

But if you want a Tier 3 game, then this is not at all the correct approach. Tier 3 characters have utility. Tier 3 characters are not mindless damage machines. In a game of Warmage, minus any spell that does not deal direct damage, and Warblade, the Warblade makes that Warmage look like a weakling fool. Of course, judging by your tone, you sound like you may actually want to turn the existing paradigm on its head and punish caster players so that they just suck. I have to urge you not to go down that road.

I want to hit each point in your above quoted post separately:


I think battlefield control is a serious problem and it needs to be pretty much cut out of the game entirely.

Wow, okay, so I guess by this you mean Grease, Solid Fog, Black Tentacles and other usual suspects, but a blanket ban on battlefield control hits a lot more than maybe you realize. Is grappling thrown out of the game now? Tripping? Bull Rush? Is Obscuring Mist gone? Also, the Druid has lots of great battlefield control spells that you're probably overlooking in your zeal to kill off Wizards and Sorcerers. Entangle is a beautiful little spell, but the Druid has a lot more than that up their sleeve. Remember, if you're blanket banning something, you can't just blanket ban it for the Wizard only. You have to actually remove it entirely from the game so that it no longer exists.


Also, most utility spells should just be removed, that way the wizard can sit there and roll skill checks like the rest of the group, rather than having a spell to solve every problem.

Okay. Just realize that this category accounts for at least half the spells that currently exist. Probably a crap load more than that actually.


The only time the wizard should be casting is when he has initiative.

This is probably the most ridiculous thing you've said in this thread. Definitely one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read, and one of the most ridiculous things you've ever written. So, outside of combat, the only utility a Wizard have is from his pretty crappy skill list, limiting him, ostensibly, to Knowledge checks. Wow. This is so far from any sort of established lore about what a Wizard is outside of D&D it's painful. Even the Fighter has better out of combat utility than the Wizard because he can Climb, Jump, and Swim. Not to mention his powerful Handle Animal skill. But no, Wizards are now supposed to be even more one dimensional than Fighters? Come on, man, you've got to realize how absurd that is.

[Circle of Life]

{{scrubbed}}

[unundindur]

So instead of talking to the player and politely asking to tone down the way she plays you drop at her feet something nasty and being confrontational. IMHO it's a good way to lose a player.

That was not how it was intended to be read :)

Of course I talk to the players, all the time, thus in my games this is not a problem. I am talking about how you handle things if talking doesn't work out (and you as a GM want to follow the rules, and not just say no.

As a GM I usualy follow RAW, with a few exceptions. Within that framework it is totally possible to create overpowered stuff that makes the game less fun for everyone (as opposed to well optimized builds, which I encourage). I would tell people "please don't try to do this, it is obviously not how the game was intended to be", but if they insist I would tell them that is ok, but that the world will respond to what they do.

If an overpowered character doesn't use his powers, chances are high that none will notice, so its not being overpowers as such that is the problem. The problem is when character X makes the game less interesting for the rest (inc. the GM) by making encounters too hard for the rest of the group, or too easy for that one player.

I have had great games where people play at vastly different powerlevels, but where the games are great for everyone. This is because the players are sensible people, who won't use their powers to break the game. Divine metamagic can be a fair feat if people use it on regular metamagic feats, and Shapechange can be unproblematic if used to become a simple dragon. Orb spells are fine if you don't twin blabla them and yea. My players understand this, and thus it is no problem if we have a Incantatrix and a Fighter in the same group (though I recommend fighters to take a look at Warblade...).

All that said though, losing a player is not a bad thing by default. If the group as a whole dislike one players style, that is the best reason to exclude someone.

I hope that make slightly more sense :)

[unundindur]

I remember in one game I played a character that was so "powerful" that Cousin Paragon Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon w/Divine Rank 0 wanted to kill me before I became a problem for him. I literally stood up at the table stared the DM in the eye and demanded an exact justification for him dropping such a thing on me Unfortunately he could not think of a reason and 3 days later just told me to leave the group... I left and never looked back. :smallannoyed:

I have a question: Did he somehow warn you in advance (out of game)?

I have had similar experiences when I was really young, and the GM grew tired of the campaign. Instead of saying "I am tired", he basically had my aprentice teleport me with no save into a vulcano...). We were young back then, and it made no sense and broke the fun for everyone.

If you had no idea people thought you were trully breaking the fun, and the GM ambushed you with a Prismatic Dragon that is just bad, plain and simple.

[Calanon]

I have a question: Did he somehow warn you in advance (out of game)?

I was given no warning, no heads up, nothing. just a simple "GET OUT" :smallannoyed:

[unundindur]

I was given no warning, no heads up, nothing. just a simple "GET OUT" :smallannoyed:

Which we both think is pretty bad social play, unless you were so totally far out that you should obviously have seen your crime. Given that you are here, i doubt that :smallwink:

[Calanon]

Which we both think is pretty bad social play, unless you were so totally far out that you should obviously have seen your crime. Given that you are here, i doubt that :smallwink:

WELL I have some infractions... I'm never intentionally rude, Its just that when I get into things I often disregard human feelings :smallfrown:

[unundindur]

WELL I have some infractions... I'm never intentionally rude, Its just that when I get into things I often disregard human feelings :smallfrown:

Oh my, lol.

[NeoSeraphi]

Wow, man, this is just some of the most ridiculous stuff I've ever heard concentrated into a single post. Making the Wizard/Sorcerer only capable of casting direct damage spells and removing everything else from their lists, and then moving that other stuff to other classes is outrageous. I understand that they are Tier 1 and you want to limit their power, but what you're suggesting would lower them to Tier 5 or so. It's repeatedly taking a sledgehammer to a problem that requires study and a scalpel.

I have had really bad experiences with arcane casters at tables that I play at. Pretty much every spell chosen by the caster, pretty much every spell cast by the caster, was designed to simply end the encounter or solve the problem. Lots of BC, lots of utility, completely wrecked the DMs encounters. We killed a great wyrm black dragon at level 9, with a 3 person party. It's disgusting how easily an arcane caster can rip the game in half and spit on balance. So I might have been a little harsh to jump on them like that. Which is why I reached out for suggestions instead of just tearing it open without asking advice.



You also clearly have no idea how or why Clerics and Druids are Tier 1, which, as shown by some of your more recent posts in this topic, has sort of warped this thread from nerfing Wizards and Sorcerer to "How do I make a Tier 3 only game?" Beating the tar out of the Wizard and Sorcerer until they're Tier 5s and calling it a day does not magically fix the game.

I really don't. I've never seen a cleric or a druid played to any meaningful effect. The only cleric I've ever seen played was mostly content to play a healbot and used righteous might occasionally, when he had the spare action. He cast slay living once. That was cool. Mostly he was just support, though I do remember him shelling out the XP for an augury back at 7th level or so.

I confess that I lack the direct experience to know how to nerf a cleric. The cleric spell list just looks terrible to me. So many buffs, often situational, healing (again, most of it situational, like remove paralysis), practically no enchantments or illusions, very little DD...it's just kind of a boring list to me. I wouldn't know where to start (probably just hack miracle, planar ally, and gate out of there, to start).

I'm not saying the cleric has a bad spell list, I'm saying that I'm not impressed with the list on the SRD and what I've seen in splats hasn't really grabbed my attention for a cleric.



If you want to cut entire types of spells and entire schools of spells from the game, that's fine, but actually cut them from the game. Don't just cut them from the Wiz/Sorc list but leave them on Clerics' lists. Don't cut them from spell lists, but allow monsters to use them as spell-like abilities. Cut them completely out of the game so that they no longer exist.

Fair point. Ripping spells out is a good idea, the only problem is that certain monsters, such as demons and devils, are supposed to have Summoning and Plane Shifting and Teleporting. How do you keep creatures like that in the game without those SLAs? Other than that, your suggestion is sound.



If you want no utility spells to exist, don't let the Bard have them either. If you have a problem with Wizards not rolling skill checks, or with them casting spells outside of combat (which is, frankly, a pathetic problem to have), then you will have the same problem when Bards no longer roll skill checks and start casting tons of spells outside of combat. If you don't want utility spells to exist, then remove them entirely from the game so that they no longer exist.

Well, the bard's list isn't that bad, I don't think. I mean, he has enchantment and illusion, and some summoning and healing, but most of that is pretty thematically appropriate. Like a gish beguiler, kind of. I guess I should remove the summoning spells from the bard, but I think utility spells should be his niche. Combined with the enchantment/illusion of course.



But if you want a Tier 3 game, then this is not at all the correct approach. Tier 3 characters have utility. Tier 3 characters are not mindless damage machines. In a game of Warmage, minus any spell that does not deal direct damage, and Warblade, the Warblade makes that Warmage look like a weakling fool. Of course, judging by your tone, you sound like you may actually want to turn the existing paradigm on its head and punish caster players so that they just suck. I have to urge you not to go down that road.


I don't want a tier 3 game. I want to cut the Tier 1 and 2 casters up so they don't break the freaking game anymore. I could care less what everyone else plays. Conjuration is just a ridiculous school that basically lets the player do whatever he wants because it's magic.




Wow, okay, so I guess by this you mean Grease, Solid Fog, Black Tentacles and other usual suspects, but a blanket ban on battlefield control hits a lot more than maybe you realize. Is grappling thrown out of the game now? Tripping? Bull Rush? Is Obscuring Mist gone? Also, the Druid has lots of great battlefield control spells that you're probably overlooking in your zeal to kill off Wizards and Sorcerers. Entangle is a beautiful little spell, but the Druid has a lot more than that up their sleeve. Remember, if you're blanket banning something, you can't just blanket ban it for the Wizard only. You have to actually remove it entirely from the game so that it no longer exists.


I have no problem blanket-banning BC. One standard action to completely inhibit 6 or 7 creatures is unfair. Damage, sure, why not, but not take their actions away.

As for mundane BC, no that's fine. Because it only deals with one creature at a time. That's control, it's not battlefield control. Tripping builds, whatever, they have limited reach and they're predictable.



Okay. Just realize that this category accounts for at least half the spells that currently exist. Probably a crap load more than that actually.


I understand that. This is where I would probably take the advice of the other posters and carefully go through the spell lists and pick and choose annoying spells like major creation and plane shift and overland flight based on their effects, rather than just blanket-banning the whole thing.



This is probably the most ridiculous thing you've said in this thread. Definitely one of the more ridiculous things I've ever read, and one of the most ridiculous things you've ever written. So, outside of combat, the only utility a Wizard have is from his pretty crappy skill list, limiting him, ostensibly, to Knowledge checks. Wow. This is so far from any sort of established lore about what a Wizard is outside of D&D it's painful. Even the Fighter has better out of combat utility than the Wizard because he can Climb, Jump, and Swim. Not to mention his powerful Handle Animal skill. But no, Wizards are now supposed to be even more one dimensional than Fighters? Come on, man, you've got to realize how absurd that is.

True. Most enchantment and illusion spells are primarily useful out of combat anyway. I admit that statement was poorly thought-out. Still, I mean, at 17th level, when barbarians are finally no longer fatigued after raging and rangers are getting to Hide in Plain Sight, the wizard should not be able to cast genesis. That is a gap in power and versatility that is just disturbing.

I guess I need to find some kind of balance here. Definitely don't want any multi-target spells unless they're buffs or DD, but I guess there's a lot more utility spells that are balanced than I thought.

[Zale]

I don't want a tier 3 game. I want to cut the Tier 1 and 2 casters up so they don't break the freaking game anymore. I could care less what everyone else plays. Conjuration is just a ridiculous school that basically lets the player do whatever he wants because it's magic.

Then why does your idea do nothing to nerf Clerics or Druids?

Sure, your groups may not use the two to break the game in half but I doubt everyone else is so lucky.

Just wondering.

[NeoSeraphi]

Then why does your idea do nothing to nerf Clerics or Druids?

Sure, your groups may not use the two to break the game in half but I doubt everyone else is so lucky.

Just wondering.

At the moment, I'm considering how to go about nerfing clerics and druids. (I haven't updated the OP with that info yet). I'm not really sure what the best approach is.

[Toliudar]

I don't want a tier 3 game. I want to cut the Tier 1 and 2 casters up so they don't break the freaking game anymore. I could care less what everyone else plays. Conjuration is just a ridiculous school that basically lets the player do whatever he wants because it's magic.

You do understand that the thing that MAKES casters tier 1 and tier 2 is exactly the versatility and wide range of options that you are trying to limit? A wizard with only DD spells is probably worse than the warmage, a tier 4ish class. Maybe you could articulate what you'd like a tier 1 or 2 character to be able to do, if you don't in fact want to balance around Tier 3 ("Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area.").

[Suddo]

Why not just flat out remove both the Sorc and Wiz? It would be more elegant than having to edit spell selection. And as you pointed out, DN/beguiler/duskblade/warmage/etc have just about everything else covered.

Why not just play only Tier 3 characters. That's what I try and do.

As for balancing around Tier 3... Well that becomes a slightly larger challenge.
The major thing is you'd have to go through all the books and nerf every good spell. Then make all casters spontaneous (basically Cleric, Druids and Wizards all play Sorc/Favored Soul versions). This may drop them to Tier 3.

If you want to keep the flavor of the Tier 1s then after nerfing all the annoying spells make the Wizard choose 1 (maybe 2) schools. They can only cast from those schools no bonus spells due to this focus. Clerics and druids are a little hard but if you divide up their spells (I forget if they are mostly even between the different schools or not) then you should be able to do the same thing too. Thus a Sorc will either have to be like a wizard or be so far spread he can't do most things well. Also it should be noted you should test play the Archivist to see if he is still to powerful after nerfing the best Cleric spells (also don't allow him access to Bard spell list). Artificiers and Erudites (StP varient) should be out-right banned.

[*.*.*.*]

Clerics are actually nowhere near as good at animating dead as wizards.


You realize that Clerics are the best necromancers in the game, right? Access to the Deathbound domain, earliest(barring Death Master) access to the animate dead spell, and the desecrate spell makes them unholy beasts at raising the dead.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

True. Most enchantment and illusion spells are primarily useful out of combat anyway. I admit that statement was poorly thought-out. Still, I mean, at 17th level, when barbarians are finally no longer fatigued after raging and rangers are getting to Hide in Plain Sight, the wizard should not be able to cast genesis. That is a gap in power and versatility that is just disturbing.

I guess I need to find some kind of balance here. Definitely don't want any multi-target spells unless they're buffs or DD, but I guess there's a lot more utility spells that are balanced than I thought.

Have you considered that perhaps the casters are doing just fine with their exponential power scale and it is instead the rangers and barbarians who should be getting meaningful class features at higher levels? Everything points to the casters being on par with the monsters (getting certain spells right around the levels they're needed e.g. fly when you start facing lots of flying monsters and break enchantment when you start running into SoS monsters, passing the Same Game Test about where they should be, etc.) and the martial types falling behind, not the game being balanced to the martial types and the casters zooming ahead.

The problem with martial scaling, as with many things in the game, is that casters are allowed to scale as they should (average person -> best average person -> mythical hero -> superhero -> god) while the martial types are firmly stuck in Conan and Arthur territory even at 20th level instead of going from Arthur to Conan to Hercules to Cú Chulainn to Ares. Instead of taking all of the fun things about playing a caster away, compress all of the martial classes' abilities into 5 levels instead of 20 and then give them useful features for the next 15 levels. HiPS and Tireless Rage won't break anything at 5th level...and that's a sign than they're not high-level abilities.

[Engine]

I beat a level 3 party with a level 1 wizard and his riding dog animal companion, twice. The first time, the party didn't even get an action. Wizards are powerful. They appreciate having a party, but it is surprising what you can do without one.

Here is the link. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229753&page=5)

Never said Wizards aren't powerful. What I said is that Glitterdust isn't so broken that you could pull out that trick even at higher levels with well, 8 gp mules.

[dextercorvia]

Never said Wizards aren't powerful. What I said is that Glitterdust isn't so broken that you could pull out that trick even at higher levels with well, 8 gp mules.

No, but Glitterdust isn't a SoL, either. It is a solid debuff at the level you get it, that maintains usefulness over its life. Contrast it with Color Spray, which is insta-gib an encounter at 1st level, make it a cake walk at 3rd, and worthless at 5th. No, it isn't your first line of offense, but I've seen it play a critical role in a 15th level high-op gestalt arena match.

[Coidzor]

So I've been hearing about this here Spellshaping (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=hudt5t0vckve52of7ppmeurj20&topic=889.0)homebrew project that might be of interest for toning down and blasty-focusing things.

Didn't seem to have already been mentioned.

[Tr011]

I think they would be bull**** to play.