How is this for a quck Wizard nerf?

[Gettles]

I know all about how many problems a wizard can cause in a campaign even by accident and I'm wondering if this would be for a nerf?

1. No wands, no staffs, no scrolls. A wizard has his spells per day list and that is it.
2. At first level the wizard selects two schools of magic, they can use any spell in those schools and nothing outside of them (except for universal)

Would this at least curb some of the worst problems a wizard can cause?

[Righteous Doggy]

I know all about how many problems a wizard can cause in a campaign even by accident and I'm wondering if this would be for a nerf?

1. No wands, no staffs, no scrolls. A wizard has his spells per day list and that is it.
2. At first level the wizard selects two schools of magic, they can use any spell in those schools and nothing outside of them (except for universal)

Would this at least curb some of the worst problems a wizard can cause?

Oh the things I could do with just transmuatation and conjuration! I don't need your silly scrolls and staves, nor your other schools. Polymorph still allowed? its all good!
Edit: yeah... Its hard to nerf wizards. I think thats very unfair, and I think I could still do some major damage with a wizard if I picked the right spells.

[Invader]

I know all about how many problems a wizard can cause in a campaign even by accident and I'm wondering if this would be for a nerf?

1. No wands, no staffs, no scrolls. A wizard has his spells per day list and that is it.
2. At first level the wizard selects two schools of magic, they can use any spell in those schools and nothing outside of them (except for universal)

Would this at least curb some of the worst problems a wizard can cause?

A better question is if you made these changes would people still want to play a wizard? If the answer is no then these aren't good changes (personally I wouldn't want to).

As a general rule I think its a better idea to buff a weaker class than to nerf a stronger one.

[Rallicus]

I have the strangest feeling that you've never experienced wizard OP firsthand, and you're just suggesting this out of fear of what could happen based on the general consensus of wizards in 3.5?

So would you do the same thing to sorcerers?

If no: then nobody would play a wizard. If yes: why?

Also, as someone has already suggested, limiting wizards to 2 schools will only encourage players to pick the best schools and render the rest of them obsolete.

[Empedocles]

A better strategy would be a nerfed spell list. Turn wizards into the utilitarian/generalist version of a beguiler or dread necromancer (two classes with specialized spell lists).

[Anxe]

It sounds like a good quick fix, but D&D isn't something you play quickly. As the others have said, if this fix only applies to wizards, then people will play sorcerer or cleric or whatever and be just as powerful.

However, if you apply it to all full casting classes it might be a pretty good quick fix. I'd certainly try that for a few sessions to see how it works in practice.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wouldn't work. If you banned conjuration and transmutation, you lose a bunch of iconic spells. If you don't, it's still at least tier 2, probably tier 1. And even if you do ban those, someone better versed in wizard building could still probably make it tier 2. In addition, banning transmutation bans Haste, THE party-friendly spell, and Slow, a good debuff to make the melee guys even better. Looking through the lists and weeding out spells is no longer "quick".

[Din Riddek]

You could ditch his bonus feats, and/or rescale his spells per day. This could mean in your campaign wizards (as well as other spellcasters) get more low levels spells quicker and less 7-9 level spells later in the game.

Or if you really want to tone them down you could just cut their spells per day, but if you went that far your players would probably starting ignoring spell casters altogether.

[Gandariel]

How about giving them maybe some more spells/day, but giving them a bard-like progression?(max spell level 6)


Or, you could leave the same progression, but eliminate ALL spells of level 7-9.
the high level slots will be usable only with metamagicked spells

Oh, and ban polimorph, shivering toucfh, and a few others

[Rogue Shadows]

Forced specialization isn't a bad idea as a quick fix, but you need to take it one step more to have any serious in-game impact.

1) Wizards have to specialize in one school of magic.
2) Wizards cannot cast from any other school of magic (except Universal) without taking a Feat that doesn't become available until 4th level.
3) Even with the feat, Wizards can never under any circumstance cast spells from a school that is forbidden to them, or which forbids them.
4) Even with the feat now granting them access to additional schools, wizards can never apply Metamagic to any spells other than the spells from their specialized school.
5) Each school bans two other schools; set these schools as the DM rather than letting players choose. At the very least, Conjuration should ban Transmutation and vice-versa.
6) Use the Pathfinder variants on the various Polymorph spells and add the following clause to Gate, planar binding, and like spells: "A called creature will never under any circumstance grant the caster access to limited wish, wish, or miracle."
7) Move read magic, the dispel magic line and antimagic field into the Universal "school."
8) Now the fun part. FIX THE SPELLS. Because all of the above is meaningless if the spells remain as-is.

(It's probably not a bad idea to eliminate 8th and 9th level spells, either. 7th Level spells, you should keep. Wizards should get new spell levels at 3rd (2nd-level), 6th (3rd-level), 9th (4th-level), 12th (5th-level), 15th (6th-level), and 18th (7th-level). You may also want to go the Pathfinder route of giving them unlimited cantrips per day, and increase all other spells per day by 2. Also, you'll want to eliminate the cleric's, druid's, and sorcerer's 8th and 9th level spells as well, and have them gain spells at the same rate as listed above, for the sake of fairness).

Funnily enough, I actually just finished doing a massive re-working of every Core spell in the game that I chose to keep. 100 pages. It was...hard...but if you're interested, I'll be posting it all soon.

[Mystral]

If you have to fix all the spells, it's not a quick fix, and if the quick fix is meaningless without fixing all the spells.. yeah..

[prufock]

A very quick limitation you can impose on wizards is as follows:

You know those 2 spells you get to add to your spellbook at every level? Yeah, that's ALL YOU GET. No adding spells from another wizard's spellbook or from scrolls for a cheap gp cost.

This brings the wizard down to a high tier 2, on par (more or less) with a sorcerer. You can still break the game 9 ways to hell, but you have less means of doing so.

There is still a significant difference between the two classes, and so there is still incentive to play a wizard over a sorcerer, but sorcerer is now a more (relatively) desirable option than it was.

- Wizard still gets more spells known, sorcerer still has more spells per day.
- Wizard has to prepare, sorcerer can do it on the fly.
- Wizards still have the metamagic edge.

There are ways to circumvent these issues (sorcerer with Rapid Metamagic or Arcane Preparation feats, knowstones, and runestaves; wizard with Spontaneous Divination or similar abilities), but they have feat/class feature cost.

EDIT: It all really depends on what you want to accomplish by nerfing the class. I mean, do you want to bring them down to the level of a sorcerer or a fighter? If you're going to mess with the wizard significantly, you're also going to have to mess with a bunch of other classes. If you make the wiz too weak, people will just play a sorcerer, cleric, druid, or psion instead.

[docnessuno]

Also this drops each and every class with UMD down a tier, if the wand/scroll band extends to divne spells too artificer is now tier 4.

In the meantime the party CoDzilla thanks the DM for being the only Tier1 remaining.

[Rogue Shadows]

Well, it wasn't quick (it's taken the better part of 2 weeks to complete), but here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13259192#post13259192) that fix I mentioned a few posts ago. As a bonus, it also includes a link to the document wherein I fixed every Core race, class, and feat! Or rather stole a lot of other people's work on such. Whatever, the effect is much the same.


If you have to fix all the spells, it's not a quick fix, and if the quick fix is meaningless without fixing all the spells.. yeah..

Well, basically the point I was trying to get across is that you can't jury-rig the Wizard. You either take the time and effort to do the job right, or there's no point.

[JoshuaZ]

The problem with just restricting schools is that some schools are much better than others. A wizard who just had say enchantment and evocation would be much weaker than a wizard with conjuration and transmutation. The first would be effectively probably T3. The second would be T2 or still T1. If you did this, you could maybe be ok if you had specific school lists that were ok. Even then you are going to run into issues- shadow type spells in illusion let you effectively do most of conjuration and evocation for example. But some specific listing together with removal of bonus feats might do it.

[Rogue Shadows]

The problem with just restricting schools is that some schools are much better than others. A wizard who just had say enchantment and evocation would be much weaker than a wizard with conjuration and transmutation. The first would be effectively probably T3. The second would be T2 or still T1. If you did this, you could maybe be ok if you had specific school lists that were ok. Even then you are going to run into issues- shadow type spells in illusion let you effectively do most of conjuration and evocation for example. But some specific listing together with removal of bonus feats might do it.

Again, this is a problem with the spells.

Also, *bleep* shadow conjuration and shadow evocation. A single spell should not be able to duplicate most of another entire school unless that spell''s name contains the words wish or miracle.

[ericgrau]

I know all about how many problems a wizard can cause in a campaign even by accident and I'm wondering if this would be for a nerf?

1. No wands, no staffs, no scrolls. A wizard has his spells per day list and that is it.
2. At first level the wizard selects two schools of magic, they can use any spell in those schools and nothing outside of them (except for universal)

Would this at least curb some of the worst problems a wizard can cause?

Too annoying for the casual player to work with and too easy to work around with high optimization. It hurts and helps exactly who you don't want to hurt and help.

The best starting point is to always have players that don't try to break the system, and to check their character sheet for anything that crosses the line a little (most people won't do anything that crosses the line a lot). From there you don't try to plan for 1,000 contingencies when an abusive player could find the 1,001st anyway, you either leave everything alone or do a minor blanket nerf to slightly discourage the class and slightly encourage others. Like a simple -1 caster level at high levels or whatever, if you don't do nothing at all. That's a quick nerf that won't ruin the class for the casual player.

In all the campaigns I've seen in person wizards play nice around other classes and the game goes just fine. Most people aren't trying to break the game. But I've heard of people playing online or using things they learned online to break the system, so you just need to politely tell them that other players aren't so knowledgeable about the system and it wouldn't be fair to use XYZ even though it might be if everyone were doing it.

What I read about 10 times as often is "Help, this campaign sucks horribly because the DM nerfed my wizard into the ground. What does he have against wizards anyway?" - clueless casual non-system breaking wizard player. It would be better to ban wizards than to lay the trap of a bad campaign for a player.

[Analytica]

Why not just require DM approval for every spell learned? You as the DM controls which spells the player has the inspiration to research at levelup, which spells are known to local wizards and thus available for transcription, which spells are found as scrolls, and which spells are found in enemy spellbooks. Disallow anything you think would change the game undesirably, or be unthematic, and leave all the weird spells in place, regardless of level or school. I.e. no-one knows glitterdust or rope tricks, only the savants of some forsaken order have teleportation spells to teach you, and so forth. I believe this would both be less work, less perceived restrictions, and less problems with spell availability in the game world.

[Feralventas]

I know all about how many problems a wizard can cause in a campaign even by accident and I'm wondering if this would be for a nerf?

1. No wands, no staffs, no scrolls. A wizard has his spells per day list and that is it.
2. At first level the wizard selects two schools of magic, they can use any spell in those schools and nothing outside of them (except for universal)

Would this at least curb some of the worst problems a wizard can cause?

Honestly, I'd cut it down to one school of magic. As long as you're not limiting them to core, there are enough splat-books available that even if they took nothing but Enchantment spells they'd still never be able to add them all to their list.

Switch Sorc's to the same spells per day as the Wizard, but lift the spell-school restriction.

Clerics get Bard's spells per day list while keeping their own system, but retain their 1 to 9 Domain slots. Archivists as well.

Druids after 5th level can't use metal of any sort. Druids after 10th level can't use artificial equipment of any sort. Druids after 15th level can't use equipment.

If you're going to debuff one of the Tier1 classes, may as well take 'em all down a notch.

[Hiro Protagonest]

less perceived restrictions,

Me: "I want to play a wizard."
DM: "Alright. But I have to approve everything"
Me: "Okay." *is thinking that everything is by DM approval anyway, so if I stick to allowed sources, I'm fine*

~later~

DM: "No Abrupt Jaunt, no Focused Specialist, and no Precocious Apprentice with Fiery Burst."
Me: "But those are all from approved sources!"
DM: "I don't allow everything from those sources, especially not in a combination like this."

~at 3rd level~

DM: "No Alter Self."
Me: "But I just want some natural armor!"
DM: "No Alter Self!"

~at 7th level~

DM: "No Polymorph."
Me: "But it's for the warblade!"
DM: "No Polymorph!"
Me: "If you had placed houserules on wizards, you should've said so from the start."
DM: "I did."
Me: "What you said was already expected. 'Everything requires my approval'. I didn't think you would force me to turn my whole build around!"
DM: "This is a tier 1 class! And you're picking its most powerful options!"
Me: "I'm trying to make my character survive and help the party! The only time I ever did anything that could stand on its own was that one time when I used a multi-summon and then Hasted up the summoned guys and my own team!"
DM: "You're still more powerful than everyone else!"
*argument escalates*

Yeah, if I was told this, instead of just straight-up being said "you can only take spells from two schools of magic, and don't gain the benefits of specialization", I would be even angrier.

[Righteous Doggy]

DM: "No Polymorph."
Me: "But it's for the warblade!"
DM: "No Polymorph!"
Me: "If you had placed houserules on wizards, you should've said so from the start."
DM: "I did."
Me: "What you said was already expected. 'Everything requires my approval'. I didn't think you would force me to turn my whole build around!"
DM: "This is a tier 1 class! And you're picking its most powerful options!"
Me: "I'm trying to make my character survive and help the party! The only time I ever did anything that could stand on its own was that one time when I used a multi-summon and then Hasted up the summoned guys and my own team!"
DM: "You were meant to lose that encounter!"
*argument escalates*

Wait a second, whats a nitpicky dm doing with a warblade? Didn't he know those have D12 hitdice and can do crazy blade magics. Not in his campaign... And a game like that would slow to a halt I think.

[Grod_The_Giant]

This brings the wizard down to a high tier 2, on par (more or less) with a sorcerer. You can still break the game 9 ways to hell, but you have less means of doing so.

There is still a significant difference between the two classes, and so there is still incentive to play a wizard over a sorcerer, but sorcerer is now a more (relatively) desirable option than it was.

Yes-- the sorcerer is now better. Not counting cantrips, he gets 34 verses 40 spells known, more slots, and he doesn't have to bother preparing spells.

If you want to go this route, I'd let his 2 spells/level be spontaneous. Give him a spellbook, and let him scribe spells in it as normal-- maybe even add a minor experience cost to the process-- but make casting a spell from the spellbook into a ritual that takes 10 times spell level minutes. It'll make it a lot harder for the wizard to always have an instant-win button for battles, but preserves the near-iconic skill with utility spells.

Other "big bad" spells... don't let casting work in a polymorphed form, make it hard to convince an outsider to help you, make spell resistance apply to any spell that directly affects another creature (coughOrbspellscough), limit metamagic reduction stacking, and impose a cap on summoned creatures.

[Yora]

Wands and scrolls are not the source of all disaster, but they certainly amplify the problem a lot. Without them, wizards still have a considerable advantage, but the scope of eventual exploding of games would be much smaller.

It depends on what the problem in the campaign is: Wizards having an ace that trumps class features once or twice every game, or wizards just steamrolling through everything. Removing wands and scrolls greatly helps with the later, but doesn't do anything against the former.
If he kills fun with casting a spell just once per day every day, it won't make a difference.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wait a second, whats a nitpicky dm doing with a warblade? Didn't he know those have D12 hitdice and can do crazy blade magics. Not in his campaign... And a game like that would slow to a halt I think.

Warblade, fighter, whatever. This is, of course, assuming the DM knows why the wizard is overpowered, which typically comes with information of tht which is often perceived to be overpowered but really isn't.

[Grundy]

What I've seen to be the biggest problem with spell casters, both in game and in discussion, is when they trash the action economy. Quickened spells, contingencies, time stop, etc. are major game breakers. The other major problem seems to be use/abuse of specific spells, like gate, polymorph, etc. as previously mentioned, DMs have direct control over spells available in their campaign and to the characters.

[Analytica]

Me: "I want to play a wizard."
DM: "Alright. But I have to approve everything"
Me: "Okay." *is thinking that everything is by DM approval anyway, so if I stick to allowed sources, I'm fine*

~later~

DM: "No Abrupt Jaunt, no Focused Specialist, and no Precocious Apprentice with Fiery Burst."
Me: "But those are all from approved sources!"
DM: "I don't allow everything from those sources, especially not in a combination like this."

~at 3rd level~

DM: "No Alter Self."
Me: "But I just want some natural armor!"
DM: "No Alter Self!"

~at 7th level~

DM: "No Polymorph."
Me: "But it's for the warblade!"
DM: "No Polymorph!"
Me: "If you had placed houserules on wizards, you should've said so from the start."
DM: "I did."
Me: "What you said was already expected. 'Everything requires my approval'. I didn't think you would force me to turn my whole build around!"
DM: "This is a tier 1 class! And you're picking its most powerful options!"
Me: "I'm trying to make my character survive and help the party! The only time I ever did anything that could stand on its own was that one time when I used a multi-summon and then Hasted up the summoned guys and my own team!"
DM: "You were meant to lose that encounter!"
*argument escalates*

Yeah, if I was told this, instead of just straight-up being said "you can only take spells from two schools of magic, and don't gain the benefits of specialization", I would be even angrier.

Ah, I see what you mean. Though the scenario you describe is kind of worst-case dynamic, particularly with "you were meant to lose that encounter". In a better scenario, there could be some kind of ongoing dialog along the lines of "this is the kind of magic I want my character to eventually learn", and a negotiation process based on that, so that you can get magic similar to what you want, but not necessarily the particular potentially broken cases.

Then again, when I play spellcasters, I choose spells depending on their theme first, and effectiveness second (e.g. would only ever take colour spray or glitterdust on something that was fey-themed). I guess that's what would bug me with two schools max; you could never have a character who could both see auras, create illusions, and project emotions, since those effects are from three different schools. I can see how there may be problems, particularly in games where people don't know each other play styles from before, and where overall focus is more on overcoming obstacles using applicable rules-legal options than on making particular flavour concepts work. (Just to be clear, I do not mean these are mutually exclusive.)

[hex0]

Things get more powerful (each school) starting at level 7, right? How about Level 7 spells are 1/day, Level 8 spells are 1/week, and Level 9 spells are 1/month?

[Misery Esquire]

Things get more powerful (each school) starting at level 7, right? How about Level 7 spells are 1/day, Level 8 spells are 1/week, and Level 9 spells are 1/month?

Ah, the 15 minute adventuring month.

...Wait...

[Hiro Protagonest]

Ah, I see what you mean. Though the scenario you describe is kind of worst-case dynamic, particularly with "you were meant to lose that encounter".

Alright, make it more like "it doesn't matter, you still showed that you were way more powerful than the others".

[EternalMelon]

Just popping in to ask if anyone has taken a good look at the title yet?
My apologies if someone pointed this out already, just a quick scan on my part.

[Calanon]

As a general rule I think its a better idea to buff a weaker class than to nerf a stronger one.

The easiest solution to that would be giving Mundane classes Maneuvers from ToB (replace Monk with Unarmed Swordsage and giving Fighter the Warblade Initiator Progression)

Shadow Hand and Tiger Claw for Rogues, Crusader Progression for Paladins (Since most of there spells suck), Diamond Mind, Stone Dragon and Desert Wind for Rangers (again, due to massive suckage on there spells) and bing bang boom! you made everyone a little better. If you like you can expand on these list. If you disagree, meh, to each there own.

[Empedocles]

The easiest solution to that would be giving Mundane classes Maneuvers from ToB (replace Monk with Unarmed Swordsage and giving Fighter the Warblade Initiator Progression)

Shadow Hand and Tiger Claw for Rogues, Crusader Progression for Paladins (Since most of there spells suck), Diamond Mind, Stone Dragon and Desert Wind for Rangers (again, due to massive suckage on there spells) and bing bang boom! you made everyone a little better. If you like you can expand on these list. If you disagree, meh, to each there own.

The issue here is that you lose the original classes and turn them into variant warblades, crusaders, or swordsages. At the very least, you need to do something like only allow barbarians to use maneuvers while raging (but let them have a lot of maneuvers), have a paladin recover all expended maneuvers with a smite or make it so that if he uses a smite with a strike he doesn't expend the strike, and so on.

[Invader]

You could make casting more like 2nd ed. with a lot of full round cast times and if they take damage or are otherwise interrupted, then they lose the spell. When it's so easy to spoil a spell, casters are much more defensive and careful which means they'll generally a little less effective.

[Glimbur]

The issue here is that you lose the original classes and turn them into variant warblades, crusaders, or swordsages. At the very least, you need to do something like only allow barbarians to use maneuvers while raging (but let them have a lot of maneuvers), have a paladin recover all expended maneuvers with a smite or make it so that if he uses a smite with a strike he doesn't expend the strike, and so on.

Why is it an issue to remove the original classes?

[Empedocles]

Why is it an issue to remove the original classes?

I didn't say it was. It's just that if you don't want to get rid of them entirely, but instead apply maneuvers, you're wasting your time (you should just play a warblade) unless you make the above changes.

Also, the Sovereign Stone Campaign Setting fixed spellcasting perfectly IMHO.

[sonofzeal]

My Wizard nerf:

Wizards

All Wizards must choose a school to specialize in.

A Wizard can only prepare spells of their chosen school in most of their spell slots. For non-school spells, they are limited to the spell slots of an Adept.

For example, a 5th level Evoker Wizard with 16 Int gains three 2nd level spells, among others. A 5th level Adept would only gains two. Thus, the third slot could only be filled with Evocation spells.

[Calanon]

My Wizard nerf:

Wizards

All Wizards must choose a school to specialize in.

A Wizard can only prepare spells of their chosen school in most of their spell slots. For non-school spells, they are limited to the spell slots of an Adept.

For example, a 5th level Evoker Wizard with 16 Int gains three 2nd level spells, among others. A 5th level Adept would only gains two. Thus, the third slot could only be filled with Evocation spells.

That makes Wizards undesirable... You are legitimately better off forcing all Wizards to be Focused Specialist (Or take the Red Wizard Class... either one works really...) and make it so that Divination follow the same rules for Specialization, None of that Diviner/5 RedWizard/10 Archmage/5 "lol I'm a regular Wizard now" BS :smallannoyed:


The issue here is that you lose the original classes and turn them into variant warblades, crusaders, or swordsages. At the very least, you need to do something like only allow barbarians to use maneuvers while raging (but let them have a lot of maneuvers), have a paladin recover all expended maneuvers with a smite or make it so that if he uses a smite with a strike he doesn't expend the strike, and so on.


Why is it an issue to remove the original classes?

I concur, what is wrong with removing the original class? :smallconfused: Its a commonly known fact that Warblade is what the Fighter was supposed to be so whats the problem?


I didn't say it was. It's just that if you don't want to get rid of them entirely, but instead apply maneuvers, you're wasting your time (you should just play a warblade) unless you make the above changes.

Ah, that makes sense... I concede to your superior logic kind sir :smallsmile:


Also, the Sovereign Stone Campaign Setting fixed spellcasting perfectly IMHO.

I'd like to see these fixes :smallamused:

[Hiro Protagonest]

That makes Wizards undesirable...

No, it just makes them nearly as powerful as ever, or near-useless.

[Calanon]

No, it just makes them nearly as powerful as ever, or near-useless.

Ah so it does what all Wizard "fixes" do :smallannoyed:

[Empedocles]

Ah so it does what all Wizard "fixes" do :smallannoyed:

Again...except for the Sovereign Stone Campaign Setting fix :smallwink:

[Gamer Girl]

You want the quick wizard nerf.......ok, it's very simple and 100% guaranteed to work: just say no. Yup, it's that easy. Should a player say "I zee polymorh into anti-mater and blow up the worldz!'', just say 'no' and move on.

[demigodus]

You want the quick wizard nerf.......ok, it's very simple and 100% guaranteed to work: just say no. Yup, it's that easy. Should a player say "I zee polymorh into anti-mater and blow up the worldz!'', just say 'no' and move on.

This works if you aren't interested in making sure the nerf is a good one. Just saying "no" is the wizard does something will result in knee jerk reactions that have more to do with what appears to be balanced, rather then what is balanced. It is far more likely to punish players for being clever, or doing something different/exploiting a flaw, then actually breaking the game.

Also, in some groups, a good half an hour ~ full hour of real life time gaming, as well as some possible prior planning may have depended on the wizard pulling off a shtick, that now they retroactively can no longer do. Which means, that since the characters would have known they didn't actually have that ability, a massive amount of gaming would need to be retconned into not having happened, which I would argue doesn't really qualify as moving on.


Again...except for the Sovereign Stone Campaign Setting fix :smallwink:

Do you have a link to these fixes?

[Spuddles]

Me: "I want to play a wizard."
DM: "Alright. But I have to approve everything"
Me: "Okay." *is thinking that everything is by DM approval anyway, so if I stick to allowed sources, I'm fine*

~later~

DM: "No Abrupt Jaunt, no Focused Specialist, and no Precocious Apprentice with Fiery Burst."
Me: "But those are all from approved sources!"
DM: "I don't allow everything from those sources, especially not in a combination like this."

~at 3rd level~

DM: "No Alter Self."
Me: "But I just want some natural armor!"
DM: "No Alter Self!"

~at 7th level~

DM: "No Polymorph."
Me: "But it's for the warblade!"
DM: "No Polymorph!"
Me: "If you had placed houserules on wizards, you should've said so from the start."
DM: "I did."
Me: "What you said was already expected. 'Everything requires my approval'. I didn't think you would force me to turn my whole build around!"
DM: "This is a tier 1 class! And you're picking its most powerful options!"
Me: "I'm trying to make my character survive and help the party! The only time I ever did anything that could stand on its own was that one time when I used a multi-summon and then Hasted up the summoned guys and my own team!"
DM: "You were meant to lose that encounter!"
*argument escalates*

Yeah, if I was told this, instead of just straight-up being said "you can only take spells from two schools of magic, and don't gain the benefits of specialization", I would be even angrier.

Kind of a **** move on your part, abusing abrupt jaunt, early access shenanigans, and polymorph when your DM specifically wanted to approve your stuff.


This works if you aren't interested in making sure the nerf is a good one. Just saying "no" is the wizard does something will result in knee jerk reactions that have more to do with what appears to be balanced, rather then what is balanced. It is far more likely to punish players for being clever, or doing something different/exploiting a flaw, then actually breaking the game.

Also, in some groups, a good half an hour ~ full hour of real life time gaming, as well as some possible prior planning may have depended on the wizard pulling off a shtick, that now they retroactively can no longer do. Which means, that since the characters would have known they didn't actually have that ability, a massive amount of gaming would need to be retconned into not having happened, which I would argue doesn't really qualify as moving on.

That's the whole reason the wizard is tier 1. Any fix will necessarily remove "being clever". Though I contend being a wizard doesn't require being terribly clever, as there is a spell out there to do nearly everything for you. Wizards aren't the ones that have to be clever, because they have a book full of solutions.

[candycorn]

I'd say that if I wanted to nerf the wizard, I wouldn't restrict schools. That would drop it to Tier 2 (capable of breaking the game, just in less ways).

Rescaling spell availability would help, I think.

Alternately, limit spells to level 5 or lower, with level 6+ slots only usable for metamagic spells. This wouldn't help wizard power at levels 5-9, but at level 11+, it would mitigate power considerably. Metamagic can still be powerful, but many of the top offenders in the wizard broken spell game are out.

[Calanon]

Me: "I want to play a wizard."
DM: "Alright. But I have to approve everything"
Me: "Okay." *is thinking that everything is by DM approval anyway, so if I stick to allowed sources, I'm fine*

~later~

DM: "No Abrupt Jaunt, no Focused Specialist, and no Precocious Apprentice with Fiery Burst."
Me: "But those are all from approved sources!"
DM: "I don't allow everything from those sources, especially not in a combination like this."

~at 3rd level~

DM: "No Alter Self."
Me: "But I just want some natural armor!"
DM: "No Alter Self!"

~at 7th level~

DM: "No Polymorph."
Me: "But it's for the warblade!"
DM: "No Polymorph!"
Me: "If you had placed houserules on wizards, you should've said so from the start."
DM: "I did."
Me: "What you said was already expected. 'Everything requires my approval'. I didn't think you would force me to turn my whole build around!"
DM: "This is a tier 1 class! And you're picking its most powerful options!"
Me: "I'm trying to make my character survive and help the party! The only time I ever did anything that could stand on its own was that one time when I used a multi-summon and then Hasted up the summoned guys and my own team!"
DM: "You were meant to lose that encounter!"
*argument escalates*

If I ever got into an argument like that with my DM I would punch him/her in the ****/taco :smallmad: Arguments like this are always fruitless because the DMs only defense is either (1) Its not fair to the rest of the party or (2) Because I said so

The 1st one is only valid if the rest of the group isn't having fun because of the friken Angel Summoner is outshining the BMX Bandit but other then that? Its just your DM trying to castrate the Wizard for being a Wizard... I remember one time I had a campaign where all the Wizards were Eunuchs and could only cast up to 7th level spells AND THAT was less of a castration then the DM simply giving an unexplained "No".

[Mystral]

In my humble opinion, the only thing you can do to make a wizard tier 3 starts with the following questions.

"Okay, so you want to play a wizard? What general concept should he follow? Can that be done with the warmage, dread necromancer or beguiler? If not, let's throw together a new class like those, with a few usefull abilities and a fixed spell list without to much abuse potential."

[Calanon]

In my humble opinion, the only thing you can do to make a wizard tier 3 starts with the following questions.

"Okay, so you want to play a wizard? What general concept should he follow? Can that be done with the warmage, dread necromancer or beguiler? If not, let's throw together a new class like those, with a few usefull abilities and a fixed spell list without to much abuse potential."

Your my favorite Goddess for a reason :smallsmile:
I wonder if someones ever homebrewed such things? :smallconfused: (What if you want to play a Wizard based on "Achieving magic beyond the worlds imaginations as a generalist")

[sonofzeal]

That makes Wizards undesirable... You are legitimately better off forcing all Wizards to be Focused Specialist (Or take the Red Wizard Class... either one works really...) and make it so that Divination follow the same rules for Specialization, None of that Diviner/5 RedWizard/10 Archmage/5 "lol I'm a regular Wizard now" BS :smallannoyed:
Wut?

I mean, yes, it's a step down. It's meant to be. But, newsflash, Adept by itself is T4, even without access to the Sor/Wis list. Sor/Wiz casting through Adept spell slots, and then Wiz slots for one school, is going to be hitting T3 on even the weakest schools and solidly T2 for Conj and Trans.

So... define "Undesirable"? It's still quite playable, scales them down to the T2/T3 range which is the best you can really hope for without massive homebrewing, and does so without removing any fundamental Wizardness or individually butchering dozens of spells. They still work off a spellbook. They can still learn a wide variety of spells. They can still prepare different spells each day if they want. And it makes Specialization more relevant.

It's also not alone. If you check my sig, Wizards aren't the only class that gain limits. I've played with some of them, voluntarily, and they worked well to scale the high-Tier classes down so that they played well with lesser classes, while still being flavourful and distinct as themselves.

Anyway, if T2/T3 is "undesirable", perhaps you're playing a different game than I am.

[Yahzi]

1. No wands, no staffs, no scrolls.
Actually, it would be a huge improvement to simply eliminate wands and scrolls from the game.

The only weakness casters have is limited spells-per-day. Wands and scrolls remove that limitation for a trivial cost.

This is how previous editions of D&D ran: scrolls and wands were uncreatable and unrefillable. You only found them, half-empty, and once they were used up they were gone. This caused people to hoard them and never actually use them, just in case you might need it more later.

Requiring wizards to use prep time by memorizing spells, and then giving them a way to remove their single greatest limitation by using prep time, was simply idiotic.

Also, I'll quote Emperor Tippy here:


1) Every spell, power, and ability that allows you to exceed your classes abilities is removed with a few exceptions. In core this means no Alter Self, Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object, Shapechange, Gate (the calling function and XP cost are removed), Wish, Planar Binding, Lesser Planar Binding, Simulacrum, Lesser Planar Ally, Planar Ally, Miracle or Limited Wish.

If you feel sorry for the Druids, you can let them polymorph into purely natural animals.

[Righteous Doggy]

Alternately, limit spells to level 5 or lower, with level 6+ slots only usable for metamagic spells. This wouldn't help wizard power at levels 5-9, but at level 11+, it would mitigate power considerably. Metamagic can still be powerful, but many of the top offenders in the wizard broken spell game are out.

Also would require metamagic to scale at lvl 11+ wouldn't it? I dislike metamagic, I dislike it alot... It would require more than just that I think. You almost stop scaling, but that big guy with manuevers or power attack can still scale and do plenty!(of one thing)

[Kaeso]

The issue here is that you lose the original classes and turn them into variant warblades, crusaders, or swordsages. At the very least, you need to do something like only allow barbarians to use maneuvers while raging (but let them have a lot of maneuvers)

Wait, isn't the barbarian the only core melee class that can goe toe-to-toe with ToB classes? :smallconfused: If your lion totem shock trooper leap attack raging barbarian can't kill CR appropriate foes within one full attack, you're doing something wrong.

[Dictum Mortuum]

Wait, isn't the barbarian the only core melee class that can goe toe-to-toe with ToB classes? :smallconfused: If your lion totem shock trooper leap attack raging barbarian can't kill CR appropriate foes within one full attack, you're doing something wrong.

That's saying that Power Attack and its buddies can go toe-to-toe with ToB classes (ok, ok pounce is wonderful, but you can get that just by dipping). ToB classes are powerful out-of-the-box.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Kind of a **** move on your part, abusing abrupt jaunt, early access shenanigans, and polymorph when your DM specifically wanted to approve your stuff.

I never actually said this. I've never even played a wizard. But if I did, it would be an Abrupt Jaunt Focused Conjurer, or Spell Versatility Focused Transmuter. Precocious Apprentice and Fiery Burst is so the 15-minute adventuring day doesn't happen. Polymorphing the beatstick into a giant or flying race is also a good buff.

[candycorn]

Also would require metamagic to scale at lvl 11+ wouldn't it? I dislike metamagic, I dislike it alot... It would require more than just that I think. You almost stop scaling, but that big guy with manuevers or power attack can still scale and do plenty!(of one thing)

It would not require scaling. Let's take a Specialist Wizard 15, with a 26 casting stat.

He has the following slots, which work normally:
{table=header]0|1|2|3|4|5
4+1 | 6+1 | 6+1 | 6+1 | 6+1 | 5+1[/table]

He also has the following slots at level 6, 7, and 8

{table=header]6|7|8
4+1 | 3+1 | 2+1[/table]

Now, obviously, rescaling would be needed, but Maximizing a level 5 spell (such as Cone of Cold) would fit in a level 8 slot (as would quickening a level 4 spell, such as Solid Fog), and Empowering and Maximizing a level 2 spell would fit in a level 7 slot (such as Scorching Ray).

With rescaling of spells per day, it could work.

[Mystral]

Your my favorite Goddess for a reason :smallsmile:
I wonder if someones ever homebrewed such things? :smallconfused: (What if you want to play a Wizard based on "Achieving magic beyond the worlds imaginations as a generalist")

Such a base class should be homebrewed by the DM and the wizard player as needed. And if the concept of a character is "tries to achieve omnipotence", that is a sucky character indeed, try again.

[Rogue Shadows]

I concur, what is wrong with removing the original class? :smallconfused: Its a commonly known fact that Warblade is what the Fighter was supposed to be so whats the problem?

Some of us prefer the original class for reasons that are as inscrutable as they are nonsensical. Additionally, some of us don't like using a Vancian system for anything but spells for "feel" reasons.

Case and point, I'd rather do this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210972) to the Fighter and re-build all the Core feats from the ground up, than run a Warblade.

Basically, some people are after DAT FEEL.

[Righteous Doggy]

Some of us prefer the original class for reasons that are as inscrutable as they are nonsensical. Additionally, some of us don't like using a Vancian system for anything but spells for "feel" reasons.

Case and point, I'd rather do this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210972) to the Fighter and re-build all the Core feats from the ground up, than run a Warblade.

Basically, some people are after DAT FEEL.

Martial Adepts don't use Vancian do they?

And eh, I think you can change things in a tabletop to your feel. You don't have to follow the book 100%, and you can always describe something in your own way.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Martial Adepts don't use Vancian do they?

I've argued with him over this. Twice. As have many other people in those two threads. Short version: in his view, anything that has to take time to "reload" is Vancian. He even admitted that he thinks crossbows are Vancian when we used that analogy. As for crusader, which doesn't take actions to reload, he thinks anything that doesn't have access to all its class features at any moment is Vancian. But I don't see why he doesn't have a problem with paladin just like crusader.

[Rogue Shadows]

I never actually said this. I've never even played a wizard. But if I did, it would be an Abrupt Jaunt Focused Conjurer, or Spell Versatility Focused Transmuter. Precocious Apprentice and Fiery Burst is so the 15-minute adventuring day doesn't happen. Polymorphing the beatstick into a giant or flying race is also a good buff.

I just want to make a note on one thing here. While 3rd Edition spells have many faults that can be laid firmly at the feet of the player, I've always felt that the 15-minute adventuring day is fundamentally a failure on the part of the DM (and this is me speaking as someone who DM's more often than not). Players gain access to all sorts of warding and protection spells at basically the same rate that their enemies gain access to ways to penetrate or prevent them...there shouldn't be 15-minute adventuring days.

[olentu]

I've argued with him over this. Twice. As have many other people in those two threads. Short version: in his view, anything that has to take time to "reload" is Vancian. He even admitted that he thinks crossbows are Vancian when we used that analogy. As for crusader, which doesn't take actions to reload, he thinks anything that doesn't have access to all its class features at any moment is Vancian. But I don't see why he doesn't have a problem with paladin just like crusader.

Interesting, so it would seem that in that view all characters are vancian due to only having a limited number of actions loaded per round.

[Righteous Doggy]

Interesting, so it would seem that in that view all characters are vancian due to only having a limited number of actions loaded per round.

And breathing is vancian, you have to breath in and out first. Its on cooldown after all.:smalltongue: I've never seen a good definition myself, but I'm fairly certain martial adepts are different enough aren't they? no limits to learning, can pick in battle, reloading in at least 2 different ways, and they certainly don't have a caster feel to me.

[Rogue Shadows]

I've argued with him over this. Twice. As have many other people in those two threads. Short version: in his view, anything that has to take time to "reload" is Vancian. He even admitted that he thinks crossbows are Vancian when we used that analogy. As for crusader, which doesn't take actions to reload, he thinks anything that doesn't have access to all its class features at any moment is Vancian. But I don't see why he doesn't have a problem with paladin just like crusader.

It's a tad more complicated than simply needing reloading. You also need limited, predefined effect and the need to prepare them beforehand. I've only ever seen Vancian casting actually defined once, and it went like so:


1.Magical effects are packaged into distinct spells; each spell has one fixed purpose. A spell that throws a ball of fire at an enemy just throws balls of fire, and generally cannot be "turned down" to light a cigarette, for instance.
2.Spells represent a kind of "magic-bomb" which must be prepared in advance of actual use, and each prepared spell can be used only once before needing to be prepared again. That's why it is also known as "Fire & Forget magic."
3.Magicians have a finite capacity of prepared spells which is the de facto measure of their skill and/or power as magicians. A wizard using magic for combat is thus something like a living gun: he must be "loaded" with spells beforehand and can run out of magical "ammunition".

Compare/contrast Mage: the Awakening magic. Heck, we don't even have to go outside of d20: Compare/contrast Revised Edition Star Wars' Force power system; Incarnum; the Binder; the Shadowcaster; the Truenamer; the Sorcerer; the Warlock; or the skill-based build-a-spell system of The Slayers d20 or Monte Cook's World of Darkness d20.

If you just remove the "magic" parts of the description above, you've got an accurate description of maneuvers. You also have an accurate description of a crossbow or gun, yes, but this makes sense because that's what Vancian systems are modeled on.

[Invader]

If I ever got into an argument like that with my DM I would punch him/her in the ****/taco :smallmad: Arguments like this are always fruitless because the DMs only defense is either (1) Its not fair to the rest of the party or (2) Because I said so

The 1st one is only valid if the rest of the group isn't having fun because of the friken Angel Summoner is outshining the BMX Bandit but other then that? Its just your DM trying to castrate the Wizard for being a Wizard... I remember one time I had a campaign where all the Wizards were Eunuchs and could only cast up to 7th level spells AND THAT was less of a castration then the DM simply giving an unexplained "No".

I remember one time we switched DM's part way through a campaign and the new DM didn't like clerics. Keep in mind I was just a straight cleric with stupid feats that didn't lend themselves to optimization at all.

In our first session he tells me a large storm had gathered with odd purple clouds cutting off all access to my god and divine spells. I go to the church to see whats up and there's no one around, I go look in the basement and 50 greater shadows just happen to appear and of course I die.

All this was for no reason other than he wanted to kill me.

We ousted this DM and brought back our original one 1 session later.

[Righteous Doggy]

If you just remove the "magic" parts of the description above, you've got an accurate description of maneuvers. You also have an accurate description of a crossbow or gun, yes, but this makes sense because that's what Vancian systems are modeled on.

Erm, actually you can't run out of ammo with a manuever can you? You can learn as many as you want and you bring so many into a single battle you can reformat and reload with a fullround action and its modified by the weapon and feats, or other maneuvers... You don't even premeditate, you just pick what you want at levels and choose to train(with dms permission) new ones beyond that.

[Righteous Doggy]

If you just remove the "magic" parts of the description above, you've got an accurate description of maneuvers. You also have an accurate description of a crossbow or gun, yes, but this makes sense because that's what Vancian systems are modeled on.

Erm, actually you can't run out of ammo with a manuever can you? You can learn as many as you want and you bring so many into a single battle you can reformat and reload with a fullround action and its modified by the weapon and feats, or other maneuvers... You don't even premeditate, you just pick what you want at levels and choose to train(with dms permission) new ones beyond that.

@^ eh, thats all of my dms so far. Its always at least one book between ToM, ToB, and psionics. Its not the fluff, its just the classes... and then they're favorite class is something like wizard or druid. >.<.

[Rogue Shadows]

Erm, actually you can't run out of ammo with a manuever can you? You can learn as many as you want and you bring so many into a single battle you can reformat and reload with a fullround action and its modified by the weapon and feats, or other maneuvers... You don't even premeditate, you just pick what you want at levels and choose to train(with dms permission) new ones beyond that.

Admittedly I avoid most of ToB like the plague, so give me a moment to remind myself how it works.

Doo be doo...

...okay I'm back. No, they're all pretty much textbook examples of a Vancian system applied over the course of rounds rather than days. Each maneuver they know must be readied before use; they can have so many maneuvers readied at a given time; they can know only so many maneuvers; and once expended, a maneuver must be reloaded before it can be used again. None of the classes can, for example:

Round 1: Move, Dragon's Flame
Round 2: Move, Dragon's Flame
Round 3: Move, Dragon's Flame
Round 4: Move, Dragon's Flame
Round 5: Move, Dragon's Flame
Round 6: Move, Dragon's Flame
Round 7: Move, Dragon's Flame
Ad infinitum

Also, you have to learn them, you can only know so many at a given time; and every maneuver is a prepackaged effect that can't be "turned down" or modified in any way. You can get creative with how a given effect is applied, but you can't change the effect itself.

That's Vancian.

[olentu]

Eh still I find the vancian differentiation rather unnecessary since all characters are vancian by nature of the action system. But then again I suppose that someone who has a hatred for vancian systems would chose one system over a system and a subsystem if forced for some reason to play a game where all characters are vancian.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'm pretty sure the "per day" thing is a defining part of "Vancian". Because I'm pretty sure video games where you have self-refilling mana bars don't have Vancian casting.

[Rogue Shadows]

I'm pretty sure the "per day" thing is a defining part of "Vancian". Because I'm pretty sure video games where you have self-refilling mana bars don't have Vancian casting.

"Per day" isn't a defining part of Vancian, the defining part is that you can expend a given spell or effect at all.

Compare/contrast a mana bar system (such as the Vitality point cost of Force powers from d20 Star Wars Revised), where you never run out of "Force Choke," you just run out of the mana necessary to cast "Force Choke."

Further compare/contrast a basic melee attack, which you can't ever run out of barring some outside force specifically preventing you from doing such (even if that outside force is as simple as not being in range).

Additionally, compare/contrast Truenaming (the intent if not the actual execution), where you can perform the same Utterance over and over again, and the check just gets harder but there's no actual limit to how many you can perform as long as you keep succeeding at that check.

Finally, compare/contrast the magic system in Mage: the Ascension, where literally nothing stops you from casting the same spell over and over and over again. Except a Paradox demon, potentially, but that's not really anything to do with the spell itself.

[olentu]

"Per day" isn't a defining part of Vancian, the defining part is that you can expend a given spell or effect at all.

Compare/contrast a mana bar system (such as the Vitality point cost of Force powers from d20 Star Wars Revised), where you never run out of "Force Choke," you just run out of the mana necessary to cast "Force Choke."

Further compare/contrast a basic melee attack, which you can't ever run out of barring some outside force specifically preventing you from doing such (even if that outside force is as simple as not being in range).

Finally, compare/contrast the magic system in Mage: the Ascension, where literally nothing stops you from casting the same spell over and over and over again. Except a Paradox demon, potentially, but that's not really anything to do with the spell itself.

That just means that mana is vancian even if force choke is not.

[Rogue Shadows]

That just means that mana is vancian even if force choke is not.

It's really not, because the same Vitality points could be used on any Force power you're capable of utilizing, but that 4th level spell slot can only be used for 4th level spells (and if you're a Wizard, you even have to pre-slot it with something)

Also, you don't have to prepare or ready Force Choke. Heck, if I recall correctly, you don't even have to have skill ranks in it: as long as you're a Force-user at all you can make Force Choke checks untrained (Force powers were skills in SWRd20)

Further, while there was a cap on how much Vitality you could have at any one time (Vitality = HP in SWRd20), there was no cap on how much you could expend per day or per round or per anything other than that total, which could go up and down throughout the course of the day or round or whatever.

Basically, the difference between a Vancian system and a mana system is that a Vancian system is a gun that can run out of bullets, and a mana system is an infinite amount of bullets that might occasionally wear out the gun.

[olentu]

It's really not, because the same mana could be used on any Force power you know, but that 4th level spell slot can only be used for 4th level spells.

Also, you don't have to prepare or ready Force Choke. Heck, if I recall correctly, you don't even have to have skill ranks in it: as long as you're a Force-user at all you can make Force Choke checks untrained.

Further, while there was a cap on how much Vitality you could have at any one time (Vitality = HP in SWRd20), there was no cap on how much you could expend per day or per round or per anything other than that total, which could go up and down throughout the course of the day or round or whatever.

Ah but you see now you are bringing further distinctions into it beyond just being able to run out.

But anyway can you spend your mana on anything, space ships, potatoes, or are you similarly to fourth level slots limited to only a specific number of things.

Ah so the real distinction is not about being able to run out but about preparation. Of course that means the crusader is not vancian which you have denied and so I must conclude that you are not being clear in what you mean by vancian. Perhaps if you explain again.

Er so you can't run out of mana. Well that just makes your example completely not what you said it was. Or perhaps you are again being unclear.

[Rogue Shadows]

Ah but you see now you are bringing further distinctions into it beyond just being able to run out.

I'm...not bringing in further distinctions. I made an initial list of non-Vancian systems and I posted the three things that make Vancian, Vancian. Someone said that Vancian has to be "per day," and I countered that nowhere in the definition of a Vancian system is "per day" mentioned; rather, that something can be expended at all is the particular distinction.

Then you tried to say that mana is Vancian when it's pretty much furthest you can get from a Vancian system, and I outlined exactly why this was the case.


But anyway can you spend your mana on anything, space ships, potatoes, or are you similarly to fourth level slots limited to only a specific number of things.

No, the Vitality system in SWRd20 does in fact conform to the third rule of Vancian casting: each Force skill had a specific effect that was limited in scope, if not scale. That still leaves you with Force powers not needing to be pre-loaded (or, again, even necessarily trained in), and with no hard limit on how many can be used per anything as a direct result of the system itself (There is still a per-round limit based on available actions, but that is a distinct system, the combat system, from the Vancian system or the Vitality system). Indeed there isn't even a hard limit on how many you can have access to; as mentioned, Force powers were skills, so theoretically at 1st level you could put 1 skill point into each Force skill and be able to use them all, albeit not very well.


Ah so the real distinction is not about being able to run out but about preparation.

No, it's all three (you did read the definition, right?). The Crusader can expend maneuvers and needs to reload them; each maneuver is of limited scope (that is, each can do only one thing); and there is a hard limit on how many maneuvers he can know or have readied at any given time. At no point can the Crusader know every maneuver, let alone had them readied, whereas a 1st level Jedi Consular in SWRd20 could have been able to make a skill check with every Force skill at any time (at least in the core rulebook; later rulebooks added more skills and there just weren't enough skill points to go around, but you get the idea).


Er so you can't run out of mana. Well that just makes your example completely not what you said it was. Or perhaps you are again being unclear.

I...don't think so, I just think you're not getting it. If I have 100 Vitality Points (VP), I can spend that 100 VP on any Force powers I cam capable of using. Having used Force Choke, which let's say costs 5, I now have 95 VP. But unlike a Wizard, I could within a round recover that 5 VP. Further, the fact that I have jused used Force Choke this round is entirely irrelevant to whether or not I can use Force Choke on the next round. Unlike a Crusader, Warblade, or Swordsage, I have no "expended" Force Choke, I do not need to again "ready" Force Choke, Force Choke does not need to be "recovered," and indeed the fact that I have used Force Choke on this round is entirely irrelevant to whether or not I can use Force Choke next round. It is no more used up than me swinging with my longsword expends my longsword in some way.

[Righteous Doggy]

Sorcerers are not vancian, they can use their mana however they want?

[Rogue Shadows]

Sorcerers are not vancian, they can use their mana however they want?

They're not truely Vancian because while they're limited to level slots, they're not limited to spell slots. They don't have to pre-load or ready their spells the way Wizards and Clerics have to memorize their spells before they can be used; or the way Crusaders and the like have to ready their maneuvers before they can be used.

That's why I listed Sorcerers in my list of non-Vancian magic systems.

Reposting:

...

...oh, OOPS. I didn't post that, I guess. I thought I had; my bad. Anyway, examples of non-Vancian d20 systems include (but are not limited to):
- Incarnum
- Binding
- Shadowcasting (though this and the Sorcerer are the "most" Vancian of the non-Vancian systems)
- Truenaming
- Skill-based "build a spell" systems like The Slayers d20 or Monte Cook's World of Darkness d20.
- The variant bard from Malhavoc Press' The Complete Book of Eldritch Might
- The Force power system of Star Wars Revised d20
- Sorcerers
- Warlocks

[Righteous Doggy]

Binders have a cooldown actually. Most of their skills are 5 round cooldowns aren't they? And they ahve to choose between vestiges at the beginning of every day.

[Rogue Shadows]

Binders have a cooldown actually. Most of their skills are 5 round cooldowns aren't they? And they ahve to choose between vestiges at the beginning of every day.

But each bound vestige gives them a slew of abilities. Preparing meteor swarm lets you cast meteor swarm. You need a completely different spell if you want to teleport, and a completely different spell again if you want to control the weather.

Binding the Sovereign of the Howling Dark, on the other hand, gives you blindsense, displacement, a breath weapon, and a mail delivery system. The first one lasts for as long as Orthos is bound, and the second is an at-will ability that you can turn on and off and on and off on a whim.

Further, while your level determines the maximum level of a vestige that you can have bound, and while there is a maximum number of vestiges you can have bound, there is no actual limit on what level those bound vestiges are. You could at 20th level bind four 8th level Vestiges, or four 1st level, or any combination thereof.

It's like Vancian, but it has its distinctions. Maneuvers...don't.

[olentu]

I'm...not bringing in further distinctions. I made an initial list of non-Vancian systems and I posted the three things that make Vancian, Vancian. Someone said that Vancian has to be "per day," and I countered that nowhere in the definition of a Vancian system is "per day" mentioned; rather, that something can be expended at all is the particular distinction.

Then you tried to say that mana is Vancian when it's pretty much furthest you can get from a Vancian system, and I outlined exactly why this was the case.



No, the Vitality system in SWRd20 does in fact conform to the third rule of Vancian casting: each Force skill had a specific effect that was limited in scope, if not scale. That still leaves you with Force powers not needing to be pre-loaded (or, again, even necessarily trained in), and with no hard limit on how many can be used per anything as a direct result of the system itself (There is still a per-round limit based on available actions, but that is a distinct system, the combat system, from the Vancian system or the Vitality system). Indeed there isn't even a hard limit on how many you can have access to; as mentioned, Force powers were skills, so theoretically at 1st level you could put 1 skill point into each Force skill and be able to use them all, albeit not very well.



No, it's all three (you did read the definition, right?). The Crusader can expend maneuvers and needs to reload them; each maneuver is of limited scope (that is, each can do only one thing); and there is a hard limit on how many maneuvers he can know or have readied at any given time. At no point can the Crusader know every maneuver, whereas a 1st level Jedi Consular in SWRd20 could have been able to make a skill check with every Force skill (at least in the core rulebook; later rulebooks added more skills and there just weren't enough skill points to go around, but you get the idea).



I...don't think so, I just think you're not getting it. If I have 100 Vitality Points (VP), I can spend that 100 VP on any Force powers I cam capable of using. Having used Force Choke, which let's say costs 5, I now have 95 VP. But unlike a Wizard, I could within a round recover that 5 VP. Further, the fact that I have jused used Force Choke this round is entirely irrelevant to whether or not I can use Force Choke on the next round. Unlike a Crusader, Warblade, or Swordsage, I have no "expended" Force Choke, I do not need to again "ready" Force Choke, Force Choke does not need to be "recovered," and indeed the fact that I have used Force Choke on this round is entirely irrelevant to whether or not I can use Force Choke next round. It is no more used up than me swinging with my longsword expends my longsword in some way.

Well the problem is that the way you are defining things so broadly mana seems to be vancian.

But anyway since you said there is no hard limit on how many can be used then does that mean you can't run out of mana. I mean having a limited mana pool is a hard limit so I must assume that you misspoke when you said that you could run out of mana to cast force choke. If that is the case then I suppose that a completely unlimited mana pool is not very vancian any more than a completely unlimited pool of fourth level wizard spell slots is.

An why the arbitrary distinction. Readied maneuvers are not analogous to prepared spells and so I do not see what you mean here especially if there are not enough skill points to go into every force skill.

I didn't say force choke was vancian. Force choke is not a system and so presumably can not be a vancian system.

[Righteous Doggy]

But each bound vestige gives them a slew of abilities. Preparing meteor swarm lets you cast meteor swarm. You need a completely different spell if you want to teleport, and a completely different spell again if you want to control the weather.

Binding the Sovereign of the Howling Dark, on the other hand, gives you blindsense, displacement, a breath weapon, and a mail delivery system.

But you prepared them, you can't change the abilities, they usually don't scale even. They are very commonly on a cooldown of some sort if they are a blast and do need to recharge, and they are set in stone. Thats even more vancian than maneuvers which you can change and modify and reload at any given moment, isn't it?

[Qwertystop]

A very quick limitation you can impose on wizards is as follows:

You know those 2 spells you get to add to your spellbook at every level? Yeah, that's ALL YOU GET. No adding spells from another wizard's spellbook or from scrolls for a cheap gp cost.

This brings the wizard down to a high tier 2, on par (more or less) with a sorcerer. You can still break the game 9 ways to hell, but you have less means of doing so.

There is still a significant difference between the two classes, and so there is still incentive to play a wizard over a sorcerer, but sorcerer is now a more (relatively) desirable option than it was.

- Wizard still gets more spells known, sorcerer still has more spells per day.
- Wizard has to prepare, sorcerer can do it on the fly.
- Wizards still have the metamagic edge.

There are ways to circumvent these issues (sorcerer with Rapid Metamagic or Arcane Preparation feats, knowstones, and runestaves; wizard with Spontaneous Divination or similar abilities), but they have feat/class feature cost.

EDIT: It all really depends on what you want to accomplish by nerfing the class. I mean, do you want to bring them down to the level of a sorcerer or a fighter? If you're going to mess with the wizard significantly, you're also going to have to mess with a bunch of other classes. If you make the wiz too weak, people will just play a sorcerer, cleric, druid, or psion instead.
I'd say to make it fairer, move Sorc's slow-metamagic (and whatever ACFs and feats cancel it) to Wizard. Sorc can metamagic faster, but Wizard has bonus feats so he has more options.

[Rogue Shadows]

But anyway since you said there is no hard limit on how many can be used then does that mean you can't run out of mana. I mean having a limited mana pool is a hard limit so I must assume that you misspoke when you said that you could run out of mana to cast force choke. If that is the case then I suppose that a completely unlimited mana pool is not very vancian any more than a completely unlimited pool of fourth level spell slots is.

It's not a hard limit because even though the mana pool can be depleted, it can be replenished, too, and you don't really need a minimum amount of Vitality to use any given Force power other than whatever amount is needed to pay for the Force power. If you could find a way to gain Vitality at the same rate that you were expending it, then you could use the same Force power over and over and over again. And, again, individual Force powers do not need to be readied.

Verses a Wizard casting fireball. Once that fireball is cast, it's used up and he can't cast it again until he can ready it again.

That's why I used the gun/bullet analogy. Vancian casting is a limited number of bullets (spells) in your clip (spells per day). Eventually you run out of bullets in your clip, and the clip needs to be replaced.

A mana pool system is bullets (powers) that can each be used limitlessly per day, but eventually the gun (mana pool) might break down and need to be replaced (by replenishing the mana pool).


An why the arbitrary distinction. Readied maneuvers are not analogous to prepared spells

Can I cast fireball whenever I want, or do I have to do something special first? I do? I have to prepare it? Okay then.
Can I use Dragon's Flame whenever I want, or do I have to do something special first? I do? I have to ready it? Okay then.

They're totally analogous. The only differnce is that maneuvers can be readied faster than spells can be prepared, but that they have to be readied at all is what the definition of Vancian casting cares about.


and so I do not see what you mean here especially if there are not enough skill points to go into every force skill.

Can I use Force Choke whenever I want, or do I have to do something special first? I don't? As long as I know it I can use it whenever? Right on.
Can I make a melee attack whenever I want, or do I have to do something special first? I don't? As long as there's something to attack, I can use it whenever? Right on.

[olentu]

It's not a hard limit because even though the mana pool can be depleted, it can be replenished, too, and you don't really need a minimum amount of Vitality to use any given Force power other than whatever amount is needed to pay for the Force power. If you could find a way to gain Vitality at the same rate that you were expending it, then you could use the same Force power over and over and over again. And, again, individual Force powers do not need to be readied.

Verses a Wizard casting fireball. Once that fireball is cast, it's used up and he can't cast it again until he can ready it again.

That's why I used the gun/bullet analogy. Vancian casting is a limited number of bullets (spells) in your clip (spells per day). Eventually you run out of bullets in your clip, and the clip needs to be replaced.

A mana pool system is bullets (powers) that can each be used limitlessly per day, but eventually the gun (mana pool) might break down and need to be replaced (by replenishing the mana pool).



Can I cast fireball whenever I want, or do I have to do something special first? I do? I have to prepare it? Okay then.
Can I use Dragon's Flame whenever I want, or do I have to do something special first? I do? I have to ready it? Okay then.

They're totally analogous. The only differnce is that maneuvers can be readied faster than spells can be prepared, but that they have to be readied at all is what the definition of Vancian casting cares about.



Can I use Force Choke whenever I want, or do I have to do something special first? I don't? As long as I know it I can use it whenever? Right on.
Can I make a melee attack whenever I want, or do I have to do something special first? I don't? As long as there's something to attack, I can use it whenever? Right on.

And maneuvers can be replenished as well. Either the need to replenish is a hard limit that applies to both mana and maneuvers or it is not.

And can you cast when out of mana. Again this goes back to the hard limit. In all cases there is something that needs to refresh before you can use your abilities again be it mana, crusader maneuvers, or spell slots. The only distinction I can see that you might make is that spell slots need an action on the part of the user while maneuvers do not necessarily and presumably mana similarly does not necessarily. But now you have mana and maneuvers on the same footing again.

No you can not because mana sets a hard limit. But this goes back to previous discussion and I don't see any reason to repeat the last two paragraphs.

[Rogue Shadows]

But now you have mana and maneuvers on the same footing again.

Which at best just means that a mana pool system (and therefore maneuvers) conform to Rules 2 and 3 of Vancian casting. We can all agree that maneuvers certainly comform to Rule 1 (each spell/maneuver does one thing). So really all you've proven is that a mana pool system is Vancian, not that maneuvers aren't.

As a refresher:

1.Magical effects are packaged into distinct spells; each spell has one fixed purpose. A spell that throws a ball of fire at an enemy just throws balls of fire, and generally cannot be "turned down" to light a cigarette, for instance.
2.Spells represent a kind of "magic-bomb" which must be prepared in advance of actual use, and each prepared spell can be used only once before needing to be prepared again. That's why it is also known as "Fire & Forget magic."
3.Magicians have a finite capacity of prepared spells which is the de facto measure of their skill and/or power as magicians. A wizard using magic for combat is thus something like a living gun: he must be "loaded" with spells beforehand and can run out of magical "ammunition".

Now, watch this:

1.Maneuvers are packaged into distinct effects; each maneuver has one fixed purpose. A maneuver that throws a ball of fire at an enemy just throws balls of fire, and generally cannot be "turned down" to light a cigarette, for instance.
2.Maneuvers represent a kind of "sword-bomb" which must be readied in advance of actual use, and each readied maneuver can be used only once before needing to be readied again. That's why it is also known as "Fire & Forget maneuvers."
3.Maneuver-users have a finite capacity of readied maneuvers which is the de facto measure of their skill and/or power as warriors. A Warblade using maneuvers for combat is thus something like a living gun: he must be "loaded" with maneuvers beforehand and can run out of maneuver "ammunition".

(Also, yes, you could use Force powers when out of Vitality points, it just dealt Wound point damage and therefore could kill you; or consumed Force points, which were sort of like the precurser to Action points; or gained you a Dark Side point. Also some Force powers had a VP cost of 0 anyway).

[olentu]

Which at best just means that a mana pool system (and therefore maneuvers) conform to Rules 2 and 3 of Vancian casting. We can all agree that maneuvers certainly comform to Rule 1 (each spell/maneuver does one thing). So really all you've proven is that a mana pool system is Vancian, not that maneuvers aren't.

As a refresher:

1.Magical effects are packaged into distinct spells; each spell has one fixed purpose. A spell that throws a ball of fire at an enemy just throws balls of fire, and generally cannot be "turned down" to light a cigarette, for instance.
2.Spells represent a kind of "magic-bomb" which must be prepared in advance of actual use, and each prepared spell can be used only once before needing to be prepared again. That's why it is also known as "Fire & Forget magic."
3.Magicians have a finite capacity of prepared spells which is the de facto measure of their skill and/or power as magicians. A wizard using magic for combat is thus something like a living gun: he must be "loaded" with spells beforehand and can run out of magical "ammunition".

Now, watch this:

1.Maneuvers are packaged into distinct effects; each maneuver has one fixed purpose. A maneuver that throws a ball of fire at an enemy just throws balls of fire, and generally cannot be "turned down" to light a cigarette, for instance.
2.Maneuvers represent a kind of "sword-bomb" which must be readied in advance of actual use, and each readied maneuver can be used only once before needing to be readied again. That's why it is also known as "Fire & Forget maneuvers."
3.Maneuver-users have a finite capacity of readied maneuvers which is the de facto measure of their skill and/or power as warriors. A Warblade using maneuvers for combat is thus something like a living gun: he must be "loaded" with maneuvers beforehand and can run out of maneuver "ammunition".

(Also, yes, you could use Force powers when out of Vitality points, it just dealt Wound point damage and therefore could kill you; or consumed Force points, which were sort of like the precurser to Action points; or gained you a Dark Side point. Also some Force powers had a VP cost of 0 anyway).

It turns out that some spells do more than one thing. Take dispel magic. But perhaps this is a scale argument and by one thing you really mean less than an arbitrary number of things (perhaps not even necessarily the same across all systems). If that is the case well then I suppose you can define said arbitrary number to include only those systems that you want but that is a rather arbitrary definition. You may as well say it is vancian because I say so.

Ah so force powers are independent of mana. Well why didn't you say so in the first place. I suppose it is because then your example wouldn't work but really you could probably just have chosen an actual mana system from the numerous ones out there instead of using one that is not for your example.

[Rogue Shadows]

Ah so force powers are independent of mana. Well why didn't you say so in the first place. I suppose it is because then your example wouldn't work but really you could probably just have chosen an actual mana system from the numerous ones out there instead of using one that is not for your example.

I didn't think I'd need to because I remain pretty sure that mana pool and powers =/= spells per whatever and powers.

But, heck, let's look at Magic: the Gathering if you want a "pure" mana system. There is no limit to how many spells you can cast per turn other than how many untapped lands you have available to produce mana and how many cards are in your hand. Whereas a D&D-type version of Magic would ditch the mana pool and have you only able to cast certain spells based on, I dunno, how many turns have passed, and give you a hard limit on how many 7th-turn spells you can cast in a given turn.

They're really, totally different. Whereas TVTropes confirms:
Many of the late 3.5e variant mechanics, from the Warlock on, were playtests for a new system to appear in 4e. The 3.5e Book of Nine Swords moved Vancian encounter powers onto non-magical characters, and at least 4e arrived which ironically both weakened and strengthened Vancian rules.

Also, when I say "limited scope," I mean turned down or modified in some way. Fireball deals damage, and that's it. You can't use it to light a candle, you can't use it to cause illumination, you can't take this one spell and apply it in a variety of ways.

Whereas, say, in Mage: the Awakening, access to the Elements sphere lets you create any number of fire effects, from lighting a candle, to heating metal, to fireballs, to doing literally anything else you can imagine fire-type spells doing.

[Hiro Protagonest]

They're really, totally different. Whereas TVTropes confirms:
Many of the late 3.5e variant mechanics, from the Warlock on, were playtests for a new system to appear in 4e. The 3.5e Book of Nine Swords moved Vancian encounter powers onto non-magical characters, and at least 4e arrived which ironically both weakened and strengthened Vancian rules.

And many of the 3.5 devs are tropers?

[Roguenewb]

Okay...this thread has gone a wierd way, but I'm gonna play the new game anyway.

Both Wizards and Swordsages (the ToB class most similar to wizard) must sit down, and prepare for a fight. For wizards, its 1 hour after resting, for Swordsages, it's 5 minutes. In fact, both events must be quiet thoughtful times, aside from having a melee weapon, a prepping wizard and a readying swordsage probably look very similar.

Then, they get into a fight. A wizard looks down his list and sees 1 magic missile, 1 grease and 1 burning hands. Each of these spells is ready and waiting, it can be used easily. However, once it is used, it is gone. The wizard casts the three spells in order. Now, he is completely out of magical options. The swordsage looks down at his list and sees manuever a, manuever b, and manuever c. Each of these manuvers is ready and waiting, it can be used easily, however, once it is used, it is gone. The swordsage initiates his three manuevers in order. Now, he is completely out of inititator options.

These two adventurers decide they need to rest and reprepare so they can fight again. The wizard sleeps for eight hours, and then meditates for an hour, and he may choose his spells again before going into the fight. The swordsage meditates for 5 minutes, and may choose his manuvers again before going into the fight.

As you can see (god, I hope you can see, I can't make it anymore painfully obvious), the systems are IDENTICAL. The only thing that makes them different, is that they are recoverable more quickly. They still have a similar recovery method, don't let the Recoveries/day fool you. If you break it into encounter size chunks, ITS THE SAME. Now, I can quite easily model both crusader and warblade with wizard variants. I can model sorcerer, wu jen, and warmage with Swordsage variants. You know why? BECAUSE THEY ARE USING THE SAME SYSTEM!

Now, to prove by opposition, let's compare a mana system to our WizardSwordsageVancianGuy, we'll use 3.5's Psionics system, which is quite clearly a mana system. When a psion looks down at his list, he has incredible flexibility. He can use a fair amount of high level, unaugmented powers, he can use a small number of somewhat augmented high level powers, he can use a couple of highly augmented low level powers, or he can use tooooooons of unaugmented low level powers. Can we model this with swordsage? Maybe, but we have to completely overhaul the class. It's very difficult (and you end up with something vaguely similar to Factotum), and the class no longer feels even a little bit like Swordsage.

Why is it so easy to model Vancian casting with Swordsage? And so hard to model Mana-based casting with Swordsage? BECAUSE SWORDSAGE AND TOB ARE VANCIAN!!!!! Stop letting the fact that they can prepare spells more than once per day confuse you. good god, this isn't that hard.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Alright, then, TELL ME how crusader works the same as Vancian casters. They never run out of their options.

[Rogue Shadows]

Alright, then, TELL ME how crusader works the same as Vancian casters. They never run out of their options.

A wizard never runs out of options, either, then.

Or if you prefer, he just told you, son. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13267972&postcount=87)

EDIT
Oh, wait, you said Crusader. Missed that part because I couldn't care less about the individual maneuver-using classes.

Roguenweb, you seem to be better than me at this, care to take this one too?

[Hiro Protagonest]

A wizard never runs out of options, either, then.

...I'm not saying "oh they never run out because they can just recover it later". Crusaders gain some of their options back, with no action, every round. They always have a tool to use on their turn. No trickity trick.

[Rogue Shadows]

...I'm not saying "oh they never run out because they can just recover it later". Crusaders gain some of their options back, with no action, every round. They always have a tool to use on their turn. No trickity trick.

At best this makes the Crusader the Sorcerer to the other two's Wizard: still close enough to Vancian that in general no one will really call you out on calling it such in casual conversation, and you can describe it as "It's the Swordsage but" rather than having to wholesale explain it to someone who's already familiar with the other two.

[Hiro Protagonest]

At best this makes the Crusader the Sorcerer to the other two's Wizard. Still close enough to Vancian that in general no one will really call you out on calling it such in casual conversation.

No. If he was like the sorc, that means he wouldn't have to choose from his selection of maneuvers, he would just have maneuver "slots" and could use any of his known ones, and would recover the same as swordsage. The maneuver mechanic crusader has is completely different.

[Rogue Shadows]

No. If he was like the sorc, that means he wouldn't have to choose from his selection of maneuvers, he would just have maneuver "slots" and could use any of his known ones, and would recover the same as swordsage. The maneuver mechanic crusader has is completely different.

It's really not, actually, it's just unnecessarily random. And stupid.

[Righteous Doggy]

It's really not, actually, it's just unnecessarily random. And stupid.

Okay, so the 2 rogues don't care for martial adepts or ToB, and argue about the vancian becuase their ideas of what it is are more open. We disagree, end of arguement? Would that be a better way to put it?

btw, ToB is one of my favorite books for dnd... regardless of whether its vancian or not.

[Hiro Protagonest]

It's really not, actually, it's just unnecessarily random. And stupid.

I... don't understand. Are you saying the sorc's mechanic is random and stupid? Or are you saying crusader isn't Vancian, because you said sorc isn't Vancian?

[Rogue Shadows]

Okay, so the 2 rogues don't care for martial adepts or ToB, and argue about the vancian becuase their ideas of what it is are more open. We disagree, end of arguement? Would that be a better way to put it?

btw, ToB is one of my favorite books for dnd... regardless of whether its vancian or not.

I raid it for ideas occasionally, but I found it...

...stupid. Really. Really. Stupid.

There are a multitude of reasons why, but two in particular stand out.
1) Why on Earth can I only swing my sword in such-and-such a way so many times per encounter without taking some kind of special action to "refresh" myself (or getting God to remind me how to use an extraordinary ability. As a reminder, this is exactly the same as needing to take a special action (or a reminder from God) on how to breathe. Well, no, that's not fair, you instinctively know how to breathe but maneuvers take learning. So instead it's the same as needing to take a special action (or recieve a reminder from God) on how to speak your native language)?

2) This book was made to replace the Fighter, the Monk, and the Paladin rather than actually taking the time to fix the problems of the beleagured Fighter, Monk, and Paladin. None of these classes needed replacement, nor a whole new system slapped on top of them. What they needed was for the existing system to be modified to work for them.

Oh, and my ideas on what is and isn't Vancian aren't "more open," they're "more informed." That is to say, what makes something Vancian and what doesn't has been defined exactly once. You will find one definition of it beyond "based off of Jack Vance's books." That one place is, sadly, TVTropes, but unless someone adds it to the English dictionary, it's currently the only actual definition and explenation on the planet and so it's the one we use.


I... don't understand. Are you saying the sorc's mechanic is random and stupid? Or are you saying crusader isn't Vancian, because you said sorc isn't Vancian?

The Crusader's system is unnecessarily random and stupid. Sorry, that was unclear and is a mea culpa on my part.

[Righteous Doggy]

1) Why on Earth can I only swing my sword in such-and-such a way so many times per encounter without taking some kind of special action to "refresh" myself (or getting God to remind me how to use an extraordinary ability. As a reminder, this is exactly the same as needing to take a special action (or a reminder from God) on how to breathe. Well, no, that's not fair, you instinctively know how to breathe but maneuvers take learning. So instead it's the same as needing to take a special action (or recieve a reminder from God) on how to speak your native language)?

2) This book was made to replace the Fighter, the Monk, and the Paladin rather than actually taking the time to fix the problems of the beleagured Fighter, Monk, and Paladin. None of these classes needed replacement, nor a whole new system slapped on top of them. What they needed was for the existing system to be modified to work for them.

OKay, so lets touch your problems. Each Martial Adept is different. Swordsages are meditative and monklike, they have to refocus themselves, Warblades hone themselves with a sword and are the only ones without supernatural influence, and Crusaders are gifted strength through ideal and faith. I can't say they're here to replace the orginals, but they do certainly do things different. Fighters and monks are both... rather fail. You can't just fix whats already made can you? And there was no really good magic ninja role, nor a really supportive melee. Suddenly a true tactical intelegent fighter option appears, and a magical ninja and a religious soldier who can actually support midcombat. They all 3 have a dozen built in playstyle options that you can mix and match, and some attempts to control their power creep. hey, thats cool. They don't overwrite your old classes, or have any of those old skills... but they do have versatility, and options and are built more for 3.5 combat. Thats nifty right? You can still play your old classes and these classes won't be them, you can even take a feat or 2 to steal from this book and have a little bit of both worlds. Thats also cool!

Hope this short explanation helps ease your feelings.
Or... Melee can't have nice things and they changed it, now its ruined

Edit: I totally misused blue text... huh... I have no idea what I should font it!

[Craft (Cheese)]

1) Why on Earth can I only swing my sword in such-and-such a way so many times per encounter without taking some kind of special action to "refresh" myself (or getting God to remind me how to use an extraordinary ability. As a reminder, this is exactly the same as needing to take a special action (or a reminder from God) on how to breathe. Well, no, that's not fair, you instinctively know how to breathe but maneuvers take learning. So instead it's the same as needing to take a special action (or recieve a reminder from God) on how to speak your native language)?

And why do characters suddenly drop dead when they hit 0 HP, but are perfectly fine at 1 HP? It's a game mechanic. Games have plenty of mechanics that don't make sense when you try to apply them to real life: That's not really a valid criticism against them.


2) This book was made to replace the Fighter, the Monk, and the Paladin rather than actually taking the time to fix the problems of the beleagured Fighter, Monk, and Paladin. None of these classes needed replacement, nor a whole new system slapped on top of them. What they needed was for the existing system to be modified to work for them.

Making such a massive modification would have basically amounted to a whole new edition (Which they eventually did, and many people were quite unhappy about it). Making a splatbook with replacements was the cleanest solution possible at the time.


The Crusader's system is unnecessarily random and stupid.

I'm not so sure about that: Card games have used the drawing mechanic since the dawn of time and everything's worked out quite well on that front. If there's a problem, it probably lies elsewhere.

[Rogue Shadows]

And why do characters suddenly drop dead when they hit 0 HP, but are perfectly fine at 1 HP? It's a game mechanic. Games have plenty of mechanics that don't make sense when you try to apply them to real life: That's not really a valid criticism against them.

I understand that it's a game mechanic, but it creates a significant dissoance between the rules printed on the book and the movie I'm seeing in my head. For example, I can assume, easily enough, that hit points equate to glancing blows and near-misses. Someone with 1 hp is covered in bruises and small cuts but hasn't taken anything lethal yet. When they get the hit that drops them to -1 HP (at 0 they can still act, remember!), they've finally taken a blow that drops them.

But it just - doesn't - work with maneuvers. If I feint-parry-riposte now, there should be nothing stopping me from doing it again on the next turn. No recovery, not breather, no divine inspiration need apply. It might not be smart to do the same move over and over again as it's predictable, but it should still be possible.

(Could have easily been represented with a Law of Sequence type deal, too. "You can use any maneuver you know any number of times per day, but you take a cumulative -2 penalty to your AC for each turn you perform a particular maneuver in a row. This penalty to AC drops as soon as a full turn passes wherein you do not perform that maneuver.")


Making such a massive modification would have basically amounted to a whole new edition (Which they eventually did, and many people were quite unhappy about it). Making a splatbook with replacements was the cleanest solution possible at the time.

I completely disagree. It would have required a 3.75 Edition. Silly? Yeah, but they'd done it once before, obsensibly to "fix" 3rd Edition. Why not do it again?


I'm not so sure about that: Card games have used the drawing mechanic since the dawn of time and everything's worked out quite well on that front. If there's a problem, it probably lies elsewhere.

It lies in the dissonance. The Crusader trains in all these awesome maneuvers just like the Warblade or Swordsage, but for some reason can only remember how to use them in a fight after using them once if God reminds her how via divine inspiration or a flash of insight?

Yes, you can change the fluff, but how do you change something like that?




[quote]Fighters and monks are both... rather fail. You can't just fix whats already made can you?

You *totally* can. Go on over to the Homebrew and look at all the fixes to things that are already made exist. Look at my signiture. I compiled, added, and tweaked ideas from across the editions, from across the 3rd party sourcebooks, from across the Internet, from Pathfinder, and with a sizeable chunk of my own modifications.

[Righteous Doggy]

It lies in the dissonance. The Crusader trains in all these awesome maneuvers just like the Warblade or Swordsage, but for some reason can only remember how to use them in a fight after using them once if God reminds her how via divine inspiration or a flash of insight.

He does not. They all train and prepare differently and get their powers from different sources. I mentioned that... This is why they all have different recoveries and readying.

Edit: why does a wizard run out of ammo, why does a psion run out of pp with no way to recover any of it and lose psionic focus over anything strenous and can recover with a magical walking pet rock and several feats, why can a monk Flurry for just about ever before he finally gets tired unless someone cast a spell to fatigue him. Nitpicking game mechanics results in this logic.

[Rogue Shadows]

He does not. They all train and prepare differently and get their powers from different sources. I mentioned that... This is why they all have different recoveries and readying.

Yes, and the Crusader's, moreso than the Warblades or the Swordsage's, is stupid and creates a significant amount of dissonance between what's mechanically going on and what those mechanics are supposed to represent going on.


Edit: why does a wizard run out of ammo,

Because their mind can only hold so many spells at the ready at any given time (remember that each spell cast is essentially the end of a 90%-already-cast spell).


why does a psion run out of pp with no way to recover any of it and lose psionic focus over anything strenous and can recover with a magical walking pet rock and several feats,

Because magic. I can accept "because magic" as an explanation for blatantly magical effects, but maneuvers are, by and large, extraordinary abilities. Birds flying. A T-Rex swallowing you whole. A melee attack.


why can a monk Flurry for just about ever before he finally gets tired unless someone cast a spell to fatigue him.

Because trying to properly simulate exhaustion and battle fatigue would be both difficult and detract from the enjoyment of the game. Not unlike the Crusader's stupid recovery mechanic and maneuvers in general do for my enjoyment of the game.

I can't even ignore them. The mere knowledge of their existance mades me mad.

[sonofzeal]

1) Why on Earth can I only swing my sword in such-and-such a way so many times per encounter without taking some kind of special action to "refresh" myself (or getting God to remind me how to use an extraordinary ability. As a reminder, this is exactly the same as needing to take a special action (or a reminder from God) on how to breathe. Well, no, that's not fair, you instinctively know how to breathe but maneuvers take learning. So instead it's the same as needing to take a special action (or recieve a reminder from God) on how to speak your native language)?
I do a lot of combat, both as part of various disciplines and in more freeform contexts. And, y'know, having to re-reading maneuvers doesn't really bother me.

When I spar, I have certain patterns of attacks that I know well and are effective. I know a pattern of motions with a spear that almost invariably opens up people's guard, allowing me to strike at their center. It would be well-modeled by a Standard Action Strike. However, it's only really easy to pull off if I'm controlling the pace, or more precisely if I'm at the proper distance and am in the proper position. As the fight's beginning, I can almost be guaranteed a chance to get it in as they close. But if there's multiple opponents or I don't down the first one, I can have all sorts of trouble setting it up again if they press the attack. I have to create space, settle into my stance again, and get the distance right.

In short I have a maneuver, I can almost always use it at least once effectively, but using it more often generally requires deliberately setting it up. Martial Adept recovery mechanisms model that well enough. Not precisely, no - sometimes the opponent is more obliging and I can launch the same attack repeatedly, and sometimes I never get the chance to use it at all - but as far as abstractions go, it's a reasonable one.


2) This book was made to replace the Fighter, the Monk, and the Paladin rather than actually taking the time to fix the problems of the beleagured Fighter, Monk, and Paladin. None of these classes needed replacement, nor a whole new system slapped on top of them. What they needed was for the existing system to be modified to work for them.
What you're asking is beyond the scope of any single splatbook. However, even people who use ToB still occasionally make use of those classes. Fighter dips are still great for finishing feat chains. Tashalatora PsiWar still competes well with Unarmed Swordsage. Paladins with Battle Blessing and/or Sword of the Arcane Order definitely have recommendations over Crusaders in some areas.

Nothing's been "replaced". If it were, it'd hardly be the end of the world - what matters is the archetypes those classes represent, rather than the classes themselves - but the classes still exist and haven't been hurt. Indeed, the availability of "Martial Study" as a Fighter Bonus Feat gives some options.





As to Vancianism, I agree that Martial Adepts fit the definition. I think where the disagreement comes from is whether that implies that "it feels like magic", which is usually the resulting claim. As previously stated, a Crossbow bolt does exactly one thing, it has to be loaded in advance, and there's finite ammo. Does use of a crossbow feel like magic to you?

The central magic dynamic in D&D tends to be operations-level resource management (as opposed to tactical or strategic). A Wizard gets new spells each day and saving spells one day doesn't give extra the next. But saving spells in one fight within a day does.

Martial Adepts have some tactical-level resource management, but nothing on the operations or strategic levels. They're almost invariably going to start each fight fully loaded, but might well run low in the course of a single fight)

(The crossbow, by contrast, has strategic-level resource management - it doesn't really matter within a fight, but by the end of a heavy week they might be feeling the crunch.)

So if your argument is that Martial Adepts satisfy the definition of Vancian as given by TVTropes... well, it's not magic, and the trope specifies magic, but besides that yes. But if your argument is that Martial Adepts are like mages, I have to disagree. The difference between Tactics-level management and Operations-level management is significant.

[JoshuaZ]

Yes, and the Crusader's, moreso than the Warblades or the Swordsage's, is stupid and creates a significant amount of dissonance between what's mechanically going on and what those mechanics are supposed to represent going on.



What do you think it is supposed to represent? How does the combination of divine inspiration and lucky positioning sound? That seems like one of the more common notions and it works just fine.




I can't even ignore them. The mere knowledge of their existance mades me mad.

Huh? Why? Just play a game without them. I'm not a fan of spells that shrink or enlarge a target (they break verisimilitude too much), and I really don't like the incarnum fluff, but neither makes me mad. I'm a little confused about why one would actively be mad about something that isn't in core and can be easily snipped out with no repercussions.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I understand that it's a game mechanic, but it creates a significant dissoance between the rules printed on the book and the movie I'm seeing in my head. For example, I can assume, easily enough, that hit points equate to glancing blows and near-misses. Someone with 1 hp is covered in bruises and small cuts but hasn't taken anything lethal yet. When they get the hit that drops them to -1 HP (at 0 they can still act, remember!), they've finally taken a blow that drops them.

But it just - doesn't - work with maneuvers. If I feint-parry-riposte now, there should be nothing stopping me from doing it again on the next turn. No recovery, not breather, no divine inspiration need apply. It might not be smart to do the same move over and over again as it's predictable, but it should still be possible.

(Could have easily been represented with a Law of Sequence type deal, too. "You can use any maneuver you know any number of times per day, but you take a cumulative -2 penalty to your AC for each turn you perform a particular maneuver in a row. This penalty to AC drops as soon as a full turn passes wherein you do not perform that maneuver.")

It lies in the dissonance. The Crusader trains in all these awesome maneuvers just like the Warblade or Swordsage, but for some reason can only remember how to use them in a fight after using them once if God reminds her how via divine inspiration or a flash of insight?

Yes, you can change the fluff, but how do you change something like that?

If it bothers you, refluff it. The same way you fluff hit points: They make sense because you don't take them literally as "this is how many stabs you can take to the neck before you die." You're taking the maneuver recharge mechanic too literally. My preferred way to fluff swordsage/warblade recharging is that they enforce narrative requirements: Watching the hero do the same thing over and over is boring. The recharge mechanic means there has to be a period of time before the hero will try the same trick again.

As for Crusader recharging, think of it like this: The Crusader doesn't forget how to perform White Raven Tactics, when they get that maneuver granted to them is when their god speaks to them and says "Hey, look at how the enemies are lined up near that ally. Now would be a *great* time to use White Raven Tactics on him!"


I completely disagree. It would have required a 3.75 Edition. Silly? Yeah, but they'd done it once before, obsensibly to "fix" 3rd Edition. Why not do it again?

They did. It was called 4E.

[Rogue Shadows]

What you're asking is beyond the scope of any single splatbook.

I laugh at the very idea that it is. Heck, just going on what I've tossed together, assuming that Wizards of the Coast decided to release a book entitled Let's Give Melee Nice Things, which will be an optional variant that contained re-writes of the entire combat system and re-writes of the mundane classes, the combat feats from the PHB, the entire combat system re-examined, and so on, without actually adding any new systems

Going by my own re-writes, the raw crunch of each the Fighter, the Monk, and the Paladin takes up only about 8 pages (~2.5 pages for each the Fighter and the Paladin, the Monk takes up 3); the raw crunch of the feat re-writes another 10 or 15 (call it 15). That's...33 pages. The rules for combat in the PHB are on pages 133-160, which is another 27 pages, bringing our total up to 60 pages of raw crunch assuming that most of the rules-re-writes mostly consists of consolidating the Grapple/Trip/etc mechanics, which might actually make them shorter. Still, we'll stick with 27 pages for rules re-writes, 60 pages total so far.

Assume another 2 pages for each the Ranger, the Barbarian, and the Rogue brings out rotal up to 66 pages. Add in another 2 pages each for say 10 prestige classes and we're at 76 pages. Let's toss in 15 pages of magic items; we're now at 91 pages. Now, let's add three new races just 'cause at about two pages a piece: 97 pages. 10 for monsters: 107 pages of pure crunch. We'll next pad this sucker out with some fluff and art, say 50 page's worth because I like fluff and art. We now have a 157 page book. Add table of contents and we're at 158. Now, finally, a two page introduction describing the purpose of the book. Our final count is 160 pages. But that's dull, so let's get fancy and add in the Swashbuckler, the Marshall, and the Samurai, say 5 pages each for fluff, crunch, and feat support. We now clock in at 175 pages.

Now...GO RANDOM SPLATBOOK FROM MY COLLECTION!
...the Vampire: The Masquerade 20th Anniversary Edition, a tome that clocks in at about 500 pages. Oh...kay, that didn't work.

GO RANDOM SPLATBOOK FROM MY COLLECTION AND WHICH IS D&D RELATED!
We've got...Races of Destiny. This tome clocks in at 192 pages.

...yes. I see what you mean. Totally beyond the scope of a single splat.

[Righteous Doggy]

...yes. I see what you mean. Totally beyond the scope of a single splat.

What you suggest, is that we actually comepletely rework the classes in a massive book, and maybe have a large amount of errata instead of say... add cool stuff? I dun like that idea.

[Rogue Shadows]

What you suggest, is that we actually comepletely rework the classes in a massive book, and maybe have a large amount of errata instead of say... add cool stuff? I dun like that idea.

Maybe, but I dun like Tome of Battle, so it balances, except this has the added bonus of fixing the system with the system rather than simply making a thinly veiled attempt to test the waters for 4E.

No, the reason why we didn't get Let's Give Melee Nice Things and instead got Tome of Battle is because WotC didn't actually care: 4E was on the horizon anyway and they were just using the fanbase as beta testers for some of the mechanics that were slated to appear therein, while hopefully getting a little money on the side. Which isn't wrong, WotC is still a company after all, and their first, last, and only directive is to make money.

I'm just saying, it would have been nice to get a serious re-examination of 3.5's mundane classes and an honest attempt at a fix rather than something that makes my blood boil every time I crack it open.

(Also, how is it a massive book? It's shorter than Races of Desinty and has only about 20 more pages than Tome of Battle).

[Righteous Doggy]

Okay, I think your hatred stems from more than just that book. ToB was more than just testing for 4e. And it has plenty of nice things. You insinuate alot of things in that last post, I'm not certain if all of those are facts.

[Rogue Shadows]

Okay, I think your hatred stems from more than just that book. ToB was more than just testing for 4e. And it has plenty of nice things. You insinuate alot of things in that last post, I'm not certain if all of those are facts.

No, they're not, but would you believe that I actually rather like certain portions of 4E? I like the pantheon re-write; it feels tighter, more like an actual pantheon. I like the new arrangement of the planes and I love that the Feywild is a major plane. I like the ritual magic. I'm given to understand that the skill challenges mechanically failed, but I like the concept at least. Most of my problems with 4E stem from...well, this guy (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/playtesting-4th.html) summed it up better.

Though additionally, I prefer how 3.5 has total transparency between how a player builds a class and how a DM builds a monster. That is, it's exactly the same system, just with "HD" subbed for "level" and with the DM getting to pick "class features" as he likes.

I also don't like the samey-ness of the classes of 4E...nor the amount of classes. I own every book for Star Wars Saga Edition, and I was really hoping that 4E was going to be structured like that: just five base classes (call them Warrior, Rogue, Priest, Mage, and Adventurer), NEVER more, with specialization or specific character concepts represented by multiclassing, talent trees, and prestige classes.

Finally, I don't like how 4E handles multiclassing.

EDIT
...oh, and one more thing, though this isn't strictly to do with 4E per se so much as a specific product failure. I bought the 4E basic game - you know, it has just a few basic things to get you introduced to the system - and it really did not compare to its 3rd Edition equivalent.

The 3rd Edition basic game gave you a two-sided map, one side with a generic dungeon and the other just a blank grid; a whole slew of tokens for monsters and doors and traps and treasure; some pregenerated 1st level characters; an entire mini-campaign of like 7 adventures to take you through up to 3rd level (each of which tended to lead into the next, even); a mini-PHB with items for sale and spells and so on; a mini-DMG with a monster manual attached; and basically everything you needed to make your own characters and dungeons as long as you didn't mind only running 1st and 2nd level adventures.

The 4E basic game gave you the map and the tokens, okay, but the mini-PHB didn't have any information on how to make your own characters; the mini-DMG didn't have any information on how to make your own adventures; the mini-campaign consisted of, like, 4 unrelated quests that weren't connected; but worst of all, worst of all, the quests rewarded you with gold...but nowhere in the mini-PHB were their prices for anything. In other words, you were doing pointless work for pointless pay. No, the 4E basic game was poorly made.

[Righteous Doggy]

Well... I think we went off topic there, and you mentioned nothing more of ToB nor wizardry balance. I... have no idea what to add other than like what you will and don't insult others interest I guess.

[Rogue Shadows]

Well... I think we went off topic there, and you mentioned nothing more of ToB nor wizardry balance. I... have no idea what to add other than like what you will and don't insult others interest I guess.

I go off on tangents easily. The point being that ToB is stupid, and I want you to understand this. But it's okay to like stupid things, and it doesn't make you stupid if you like stupid things. I like Battleship and Speed Racer. The movies. Both of these are stupid, stupid movies, but I love 'em. But they are stupid. And so was ToB. Stupid dissonant mechanics attached to stupid replacement classes for savvy reasons on WotC's part.

But especially the Crusader. Stupid, that is.

[Righteous Doggy]

I go off on tangents easily. The point being that ToB is stupid, and I want you to understand this. But it's okay to like stupid things, and it doesn't make you stupid if you like stupid things. I like Battleship and Speed Racer. The movies. Both of these are stupid, stupid movies, but I love 'em. But they are stupid. And so was ToB. Stupid dissonant mechanics attached to stupid replacement classes for savvy reasons on WotC's part.

But especially the Crusader. Stupid, that is.

Thank you for calling my favorite dnd splatbook stupid, and for telling me I need to understand that.

[Empedocles]

I go off on tangents easily. The point being that ToB is stupid, and I want you to understand this. But it's okay to like stupid things, and it doesn't make you stupid if you like stupid things. I like Battleship and Speed Racer. The movies. Both of these are stupid, stupid movies, but I love 'em. But they are stupid. And so was ToB. Stupid dissonant mechanics attached to stupid replacement classes for savvy reasons on WotC's part.

You're right. WotC is stupid for finally realizing that melee classes were severely underpowered and replacing them with classes that were actually competitive even among optimizers. How stupid.

Carry on.

[Zeful]

A quick fix for casters in general (no the wizard isn't the only problem) isn't quick, but if you absolutely need a set of quick fixes just add a couple of rules:

There are no absolutes defenses or attacks, any magical affect that interacts with another (Divination Spells and Mind Blank) are resolved through opposed Caster level checks. Any spell that requires a saving throw or SR and lacks the (harmless) or (object) tags is now rerolled every turn the creature is under it's effect until the spell ends, the creature makes the save, or is otherwise no longer required to make saving throws against the effect (either by leaving the area of effect, dying or becoming immune to the effect). Spells such as Gate, and Lesser Planar Binding no longer force called creatures to act as the caster dictates due to the mechanics of the spells.

[Rogue Shadows]

You're right. WotC is stupid for finally realizing that melee classes were severely underpowered and replacing them with classes that were actually competitive even among optimizers. How stupid.

Carry on.

And I gave my opinion on that...here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13268525&postcount=105).

Various ways of powering up the melee classes without turning them into martial adepts can be located here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)

And we can find my personal take on a general 3.5 fix here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242561) with supplementary material here, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243835) namely a re-write for every spell that I didn't cut entirely.

It could have been done by game designers far better than me, but it wasn't, and here we are.

[Empedocles]

And I gave my opinion on that...here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13268525&postcount=105).

Various ways of powering up the melee classes without turning them into martial adepts can be located here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)

And we can find my personal take on a general 3.5 fix here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242561) with supplementary material here, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243835) namely a re-write for every spell that I didn't cut entirely.

It could have been done by game designers far better than me, but it wasn't, and here we are.

It's great that you have that much 3.5 fix homebrew. I'm not being sarcastic. As a brewer, I admire the dedication it takes to rewrite that many spells and rebalance that many things.

But I'm sorry. You're wrong about Tome of Battle. That's as blunt as I can be. For once, WotC actually nailed the balance point right on its head. Why would you bother trying to fix it? Don't try to fix what isn't broken (anymore).

[olentu]

I didn't think I'd need to because I remain pretty sure that mana pool and powers =/= spells per whatever and powers.

But, heck, let's look at Magic: the Gathering if you want a "pure" mana system. There is no limit to how many spells you can cast per turn other than how many untapped lands you have available to produce mana and how many cards are in your hand. Whereas a D&D-type version of Magic would ditch the mana pool and have you only able to cast certain spells based on, I dunno, how many turns have passed, and give you a hard limit on how many 7th-turn spells you can cast in a given turn.

They're really, totally different. Whereas TVTropes confirms:
Many of the late 3.5e variant mechanics, from the Warlock on, were playtests for a new system to appear in 4e. The 3.5e Book of Nine Swords moved Vancian encounter powers onto non-magical characters, and at least 4e arrived which ironically both weakened and strengthened Vancian rules.

Also, when I say "limited scope," I mean turned down or modified in some way. Fireball deals damage, and that's it. You can't use it to light a candle, you can't use it to cause illumination, you can't take this one spell and apply it in a variety of ways.

Whereas, say, in Mage: the Awakening, access to the Elements sphere lets you create any number of fire effects, from lighting a candle, to heating metal, to fireballs, to doing literally anything else you can imagine fire-type spells doing.

What magic the gathering is totally vancian. I mean Spells are distinct magic packets represented by the cards. You memorize distinct spells based on the cards you have in your hand which you need to draw to refresh. When you cast them they have a very very limited effect. A more limited, specific, and regimented effect then any spell in D&D at the very least (ungluded/hinged not withstanding). Totally vancian it is just that the spell slots are the cards in your hand and not the mana.

So arguing that I should just take some random website's word for it. Perhaps you should have your argument stand on its own merits instead of hoping I trust some random people.

Anyway so I was right it is an argument of scale with arbitrary boundary that separates vancian from not vancian.

Also fireball ignites flammables in its area. Sure you will probably destroy the candle because wax has low HP but assuming it survives you can use it to light candles.

[Mystral]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_05VaN1rgby0/SlSSgPfGpVI/AAAAAAAABfU/TVDGW_yPbHA/s400/Arguing_on_the_internet.ashx

Could we please decide that rogue shadows is wrong, but will never admit to it, and get back to the real topic of this thread?

[Calanon]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_05VaN1rgby0/SlSSgPfGpVI/AAAAAAAABfU/TVDGW_yPbHA/s400/Arguing_on_the_internet.ashx

Could we please decide that rogue shadows is wrong, but will never admit to it, and get back to the real topic of this thread?

Actually I thought he had some very interesting points, I can't remember any of them right now due to text overload but I'm sure they'll come back to me after I start reading through them again :smallsigh:

The true topic of this thread is to state whether the OPs Quick Fix for Wizards is good or not. Personally? I think its horrible :smallannoyed: but, I'm incredibly biased as I actually like the current system of Magic and have seen some pretty creative mundanes find a way around a Forcecage :smallsmile: The problem is that TO kind of ruins the fun of D&D. I've never seen a Wizard Gate in infinite Solars, or create an Ice Assassin of a God, or even destroy the world with Epic Spellcasting. I believe that Theoretical Optimization is pretty much a handbook of ideas that can be used by that one douche at the table that purposely tries to "win the game" :smallannoyed: D&D was never a game meant to be won by anyone...

Anywho! @OP your fix is bad and you should feel bad! :smalltongue:

[Rogue Shadows]

Could we please decide that rogue shadows is wrong, but will never admit to it

Well, so far we've determined that I'm definitely not wrong about at the very least the Warblade and the Swordsage being Vancian. So...take that.

Also thanks for calling me retarded. Been awhile since I got that one. Stay classy, Mystral.


, and get back to the real topic of this thread?

Dude, the thread was over on the first page. Everything since then has either been tangent, clarification, or repitition.

Short summery: No, it's not a good fix; it doesn't stop the munchkins (or even slow them down) while horribly crippling the casual builds. Then there was some general consensus that D&D's magic system is fundamentally screwed up and needs a complete re-working. Then I posted that I'd done that and provided some hopefully helpful linkies, specifically to threads where I re-built the wizard and then went beyond the impossible and re-examined every single spell and re-built 90% of them.

And now, in closing, I'm going to quote something I said in that other thread.


I'm going to be completely honest: I am disappointed something like this wasn't done already.

I'm disappointed that Wizards of the Coast never sat down and seriously re-examined every spell some time during 3rd Edition's run. I'm disappointed that Paizo didn't sit down and seriously re-examine what they were inhereting from WotC for Pathfinder. But...well, mostly, I'm disappointed in the fanbase. D&D 3rd Edition has been out for, what, eleven years now? It's print run stopped four years ago? Something like that? And yet at no point, as near as I can tell, was an enterprise like this undertaken. Everyone constantly agreed that certain spells were broken, that they needed to be fixed, and even how to fix them, but no-one ever took the effort to actually compile everything.

Even though what I've done is full of holes and not a particularly good attempt, I can at least stand up as The Guy Who Finally Tried.

D&D players. In general, we'd rather complain than fix. And even when fixing, we'd rather reinvent the wheel rather than knuckle down and do the hard work.

Note that there is a "we" in there.

[JoshuaZ]

Well, so far we've determined that I'm definitely not wrong about at the very least the Warblade and the Swordsage being Vancian. So...take that.

Um, this seems to be hinging very much one how one defines "Vancian" rather than any substantial issue. Arguing over definitions is not in general useful. Also you seem to be taking this discussion more personally than necessary. Discussions should be about trying to figure things out and exchanging information, not winning. Saying things like "take that" don't help much. (Although you aren't the only person in this discussion who is personalizing things too much).



Also thanks for calling me retarded.

I'm pretty sure that they were referring to everyone in the thread with that. And there's a simple reason that poster exists- there's an unfortunate lack of willingness for people on the internet to ever change their opinions. So the likelyhood of actually accomplishing anything is not that high. The solution to that is simple- be willing to change one's opinion when confronted with evidence.




Short summery: No, it's not a good fix; it doesn't stop the munchkins (or even slow them down) while horribly crippling the casual builds. Then there was some general consensus that D&D's magic system is fundamentally screwed up and needs a complete re-working.

There isn't any consensus on the first claim. In particular, one of the very nice things about the ToB classes is that casual builds have a higher eeffectiveness than say fighter or barbarian casual builds. And yes, adding classes can't remove the problems from pre-existing classes, and I think you are correct that some sort of general nerfdom for spells would probably help. But there are a lot of other options for magic that help matters. For example, one can use warmages, dread necromancers, beguilers as the primary spellcasters. Together with binders and shadowcasters that substantially reduces the power level of spellcasting. Put together with ToB classees everyone ends up on about the same level.

[killem2]

Do your players break tier 1 (or whatever is the highest) in half during your games?

If the answer is no, then don't change anything.

[Rogue Shadows]

Discussions should be about trying to figure things out and exchanging information, not winning. Saying things like "take that" don't help much. (Although you aren't the only person in this discussion who is personalizing things too much).

Except that the Vancian thing isn't a discussion, it's a debate/argument, which is about winning.


The solution to that is simple- be willing to change one's opinion when confronted with evidence.

So far all the evidence points to the Warblade and Swordsage being Vancian. Again, what exactly constitutes a Vancian system, beyond "based on Jack Vance's work," is defined in only one place on the internet. Until such time as a more official definition is produced from either Jack Vance or Monte Cook or Gary Gygax's decaying corpse or whatever, that's the only definition we have for whether or not a given system is Vancian in construction or not.

I'd love to cast true ressurection on Gygax and get him to tell us what really makes a system Vancian, but unfortuantely I'm, like, a 1st level Commoner at best. I can't.

Also, regardless of the intent of the poster, it still called me retarded. Fortuitously I don't particularly care and won't be reporting or anything, but...well, like I said: Stay classy, Mystral.


There isn't any consensus on the first claim. In particular, one of the very nice things about the ToB classes is that casual builds have a higher eeffectiveness than say fighter or barbarian casual builds. And yes, adding classes can't remove the problems from pre-existing classes, and I think you are correct that some sort of general nerfdom for spells would probably help. But there are a lot of other options for magic that help matters. For example, one can use warmages, dread necromancers, beguilers as the primary spellcasters. Together with binders and shadowcasters that substantially reduces the power level of spellcasting. Put together with ToB classees everyone ends up on about the same level.

If there is one thing I hate, more than anything else, it is the following exchange.

Original Post: So my DM is running a kind of east asian feeling campaign, and I want to play a monk. Any advice on a good build?
Post 1: Monk sucks, play a swordsage
Post 2: What he said
Post 3: [long diatribe about the suckage of a monk, closing with play swordsage]
Post 4: Guys, he wants to play a monk, let him. [Provide link to good monk resources]. But, really, you should play a swordsage.
Post 5: [Launch into diatribe confirming that monk sucks, closing with play swordsage again]
Post 6: ToB is manna from Heaven for melee. Play swordsage.

If I wanted to play a swordsage, the OP probably would have been something to the effect of "...and I want to play a swordsage. Any advice on a good build?"

I should not have to specify "and I don't want to play ToB classes" (and even if I do qualify that, I shouldn't have to defend the choice, which I inevitably will have to). That should be implicit in the post when asking about the monk. Every time I see a thread to that effect it makes me want to go into a thread asking about Beguilers or Swordsages or any other T3 class and respond with "X sucks, play a [this build] Wizard, it does the same thing but now you're a Wizard and so are better."

[Mystral]

Sadly, people on the internet view discussions as they view battles in war. The side who throws their arms up in surrender or retreats from the field of battle is the loser, the one who prevails, even against impossible odds, the winner.

[Righteous Doggy]

I should not have to specify "and I don't want to play ToB classes" (and even if I do qualify that, I shouldn't have to defend the choice, which I inevitably will have to). That should be implicit in the post when asking about the monk. Every time I see a thread to that effect it makes me want to go into a thread asking about Beguilers or Swordsages or any other T3 class and respond with "X sucks, play a [this build] Wizard, it does the same thing but now you're a Wizard and so are better."

I came to bear a gift... A simple statement to help your mood. You can play a swordsage, or a monk, or a fighter, and I will support those decisions and help you with them. I've said this before, but no ones against you playing your class... unless its a wizard. then you get nerfs.:smalltongue:

[Rogue Shadows]

Sadly, people on the internet view discussions as they view battles in war. The side who throws their arms up in surrender or retreats from the field of battle is the loser, the one who prevails, even against impossible odds, the winner.

Pretty much this.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Sadly, people on the internet view discussions as they view battles in war. The side who throws their arms up in surrender or retreats from the field of battle is the loser, the one who prevails, even against impossible odds, the winner.

Yep. Just because I'm not arguing any more doesn't mean my opinion's changed. It means I've already seen two threads heavily derailed by this one guy, and just decided to stop and put him on my Ignore list.

[Mystral]

In contrast, in the real world, when both sides come to a logical, mutual agreement and advance their personal development, they both are the winner, while both are the loser when they disagree and turn on each others throat because of mere semanthics.

[Tyndmyr]

Honestly, any time you think you have a "quick nerf" that solves all the problems of something that's bedeviled thousands of people for a decade or so....you probably don't.

Let's ignore the whole vancian thing, and just agree that the problems with wizard balance are not trivial, and are not going to be solved by two quick sentences. If it were that simple, it would already have happened.

We can discuss possible ways to fix balance...but the one thing all those ways share is that they are complicated, and require significantly more analysis of the wizard class, spells, and the D&D metagame as a whole.

[Rogue Shadows]

In contrast, in the real world, when both sides come to a logical, mutual agreement and advance their personal development, they both are the winner, while both are the loser when they disagree and turn on each others throat because of mere semanthics.

I wish I lived in that "real" world of yours, because I don't think I've ever seen a meaningful example of the former in my life. Mostly what ends up happening is one side stops caring enough to argue. Humans are not logical creatures by nature.


Let's ignore the whole vancian thing, and just agree that the problems with wizard balance are not trivial, and are not going to be solved by two quick sentences. If it were that simple, it would already have happened.

Like I said, this was basically near-universally agreed upon by the end of the first page. Everything since then has been tangent, clarification, or repatition.


We can discuss possible ways to fix balance...but the one thing all those ways share is that they are complicated, and require significantly more analysis of the wizard class, spells, and the D&D metagame as a whole.

...alright, I'll be the one to say it.

So?

We've got, what, 11 years worth of material to serve as inspiration? 11 years of analysis by countless thousands (millions, even!) of D&D players? All the stuff is right here

[Mystral]

Oh, we live in the same world. Most of the time, arguments have only losers. Just like wars most of the time only have the carrion birds as winners, and the only way to win the game is not to play, and all that.

[Righteous Doggy]

We've got, what, 11 years worth of material to serve as inspiration? 11 years of analysis by countless thousands (millions, even!) of D&D players? All the stuff is right here

Good luck making that then~

[Rogue Shadows]

Good luck making that then~

SIGNITURE, ...

...damn I can't complete that.

SIGNITURE, dawg.

...

...doesn't have the same zing to it...

[Mystral]

Sadly, every point of your fix can be debated for a decade, so we're back to square one. (not to say that it's good or bad)

[olentu]

Eh considering that I like spirited discussion I find that I am often disappointed when the opposing view falters. Perhaps I have "won" in the sense that I have displayed more perseverance but it is not like I necessarily care about that. But of course as in situations like this I am accommodating and so generally willing to stop when asked.

[Rogue Shadows]

Sadly, every point of your fix can be debated for a decade, so we're back to square one. (not to say that it's good or bad)

It's still considerably more of an attempt and so therefore probably as step in the right direction, than a two-sentance blanket fix.

It's also more of an effort than either WotC or Paizo ever put forward. Or even the majority of posters on this or any other board who seem more content to complain than compile, and glance over rather than seriously examine.

Like I said, even if I failed, I hold the distinction of at least being The Guy Who Finally Tried.

[Righteous Doggy]

It's still considerably more of an attempt and so therefore probably as step in the right direction, than a two-sentance blanket fix.

It's also more of an effort than either WotC or Paizo ever put forward. Or even the majority of posters on this or any other board who seem more content to complain than compile, and glance over rather than seriously examine.

Like I said, even if I failed, I hold the distinction of at least being The Guy Who Finally Tried.

Statements like that and "What you like is stupid and your stupid too" are not nice things to say. How would you feel if I said things like that to you?

[Mystral]

Propably nothing because, in contrast to rogue shadow, you are obviously wrong.

[Tyndmyr]

...alright, I'll be the one to say it.

So?

We've got, what, 11 years worth of material to serve as inspiration? 11 years of analysis by countless thousands (millions, even!) of D&D players? All the stuff is right here

So, if you want to, you can overhaul and rewrite all the broken parts of the 30+ rulebooks that involve wizard.

That sounds really tiring. I'll pass.

[Rogue Shadows]

Statements like that and "What you like is stupid and your stupid too" are not nice things to say. How would you feel if I said things like that to you?

Remember the part where I admitted to liking the movies Battleship and Speed Racer even though they're stupid, stupid movies?

Other stupid movies I like:
- XXX
- Wing Commander
- The Raven
- Batman & Robin

When I like something stupid, I fully admit to it being stupid.

Also, on the spells, this is actually backed up by evidence - or, rather, a lack of evidence. I didn't want to read 424 spells individually and re-work them after first eliminating about 75 outright after reading them over. I wanted someone to have already done the work for me and just steal their work (with full credit). But for the life of me, I couldn't find it on the Internet. The closest I ever found was an EN World thread where some guy listed out quick fixes to each of the Major Problem Spells, but even he admitted that most of them wouldn't hold up (and half of them ended up being irrelevant since I cut 8th and 9th level spells entirely anyway).

So that one isn't arrogant presumption, it is, near as I can tell, a fact.

Please, please, please prove me wrong: I'm not a very good homebrewer and would much rather steal from someone who is.


So, if you want to, you can overhaul and rewrite all the broken parts of the 30+ rulebooks that involve wizard.

That sounds really tiring. I'll pass

Unbelievably, and all I did was the Player's Handbook!

(My design philosophy is to fix Core first, and then move outwards, rather than trying to fix everything all at once. In other words, get Core to balance with just Core. Everything else should fall into place fairly easily following that).

[Tyndmyr]

Unbelievably, and all I did was the Player's Handbook!

(My design philosophy is to fix Core first, and then move outwards, rather than trying to fix everything all at once. In other words, get Core to balance with just Core. Everything else should fall into place fairly easily following that).

Well, Core may have a lot of broken things in it, but certainly not all of them.

That said, the fact that you entirely cut all 8th and 9th level spells makes me entirely not care about your "fix". It means that it's not going to work well with some basic assumptions about the game. It also indicates that you've not differentiate well between spells, as there is a HUGE gap in power level between spells in those levels.

So...no, I don't see how splatbooks fall into place with your fix. In fact, splatbooks would seem to be based on very different assumptions from your fix, and would, by default, not be inter-compatible. This alone means that it would never be seriously considered anywhere that I play.

[JoshuaZ]

Pretty much this.

Just because other people are acting that way doesn't mean you should or others should. One of the nice things about the general attitude of D&D people is that, especially on this forum, they are generally pretty decent about this. You really see it a lot in the homebrew forum where people will put something out there, it will get criticized to death, and then the original person will take that feedback and make something that is better for it. And the result is that there's a lot of high quality homebrew. There's no reason to not take that sort of attitude everywhere. And we all benefit from it.


I should not have to specify "and I don't want to play ToB classes" (and even if I do qualify that, I shouldn't have to defend the choice, which I inevitably will have to). That should be implicit in the post when asking about the monk. Every time I see a thread to that effect it makes me want to go into a thread asking about Beguilers or Swordsages or any other T3 class and respond with "X sucks, play a [this build] Wizard, it does the same thing but now you're a Wizard and so are better."

There's a clear difference though- a warblade or swordsage can easily do some things that a wizard cannot- it is much easier to refluff a swordsage as a monk. It is pretty hard to refluff a wizard in the same way. But I agree that this isn't a great response if someone did say they wanted to play a monk. But in this context we're actually talking directly about nerfing wizards. In a definite sense, a beguiler or a dread necromancer is a wizard nerf.


So far all the evidence points to the Warblade and Swordsage being Vancian. Again, what exactly constitutes a Vancian system, beyond "based on Jack Vance's work," is defined in only one place on the internet. Until such time as a more official definition is produced from either Jack Vance or Monte Cook or Gary Gygax's decaying corpse or whatever, that's the only definition we have for whether or not a given system is Vancian in construction or not.

I'd love to cast true ressurection on Gygax and get him to tell us what really makes a system Vancian, but unfortuantely I'm, like, a 1st level Commoner at best. I can't.

This is a bad attitude about language. Official definitions don't matter. Language is important for communicating and effectively capturing intuition. If we need to make multiple definitions of a word and keep track of each one that's fine. There's nothing wrong with having Vancian_1, Vancian_2, etc. and then keeping track of which meaning we are using in any given context. There's nothing about it being "Vancian" that creates problems or gives it good things- we could just as well use term arblegarble for it. What matters is that certain notions of "Vancian" do have certain consequences in terms of balance, game mechanics and flavor. The key issue is not whether a system fits a specific definition or not, but whether it triggers those issues.

[Rogue Shadows]

Well, Core may have a lot of broken things in it, but certainly not all of them.

This is true, but Core is, well, Core. It's the default assumption of D&D that every game will in some way make use of the PHB, DMG, and MM. So if these things don't play well with themselves, who even cares if the splats make things worse?


That said, the fact that you entirely cut all 8th and 9th level spells makes me entirely not care about your "fix". It means that it's not going to work well with some basic assumptions about the game. It also indicates that you've not differentiate well between spells, as there is a HUGE gap in power level between spells in those levels.

Well, I should qualify this. For levels 1-20, I have cut 8th and 9th level spells. I plan on introducing them as things that epic level spellcasters can get.

The reason 8th and 9th level spells were cut was because I changed the way full spellcasters advance. All full spellcasters (which here means the Cleric, the Sorcerer, and the Wizard; the Druid now gains spells like a Ranger) gain new spell levels at 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter, capping at 7th level spells at 18th level. This follows a much more fluid and, bluntly, prettier model than 3.5, wherein you gain new spells every two levels (except Sorcerers) until 19th level, where the pattern suggests that you should be getting 10th level spells. But there are no 10th level spells.

Certain 8th level spells, like create greater undead, dimensional lock, and demand, are slated to become 7th level spells, but at the moment the game lost nothing by having them blanket cut since the new spell progression for full spellcasters wouldn't have included them anyway.

This also fits in nicely with a blanket tone-down of power for the T1 and T2 classes and was merely one part of a larger enterprise to brng them down to T3, or at best low T2.

(Note that while I did do a blanket fix, I then afterwards went in and examined the effect of the fix on each individual thing that was fixed, a step that most blanket fixes don't take).


So...no, I don't see how splatbooks fall into place with your fix. In fact, splatbooks would seem to be based on very different assumptions from your fix, and would, by default, not be inter-compatible. This alone means that it would never be seriously considered anywhere that I play.

Most splats should remain fully compatible, needing only minor tweaking at best: that is the cost of balancing Core, one that I am more than willing to pay if it means that the Fighter is now high Tier 4 and the Wizard is now low Tier 2 (the design goal was to make every class Tier 3, or close enough to it anyway). Once my total Core fix is done, I intend to just call it a day overall and only deal with splats as my players desire on a case-by-case basis.

That is, I won't start fixing Complete Warrior right off the bat, but if a player comes up to me and says he wants to play a Swashbuckler, I'll get to work on it.

[Righteous Doggy]

This is true, but Core is, well, Core. It's the default assumption of D&D that every game will in some way make use of the PHB, DMG, and MM. So if these things don't play well with themselves, who even cares if the splats make things worse?

Splats can make things better?

[JoshuaZ]

I've played a few games where much of core was just not allowed (in particular, no T1 or T2 classes which meant no wizards, no sorcerers, no clerics and no druids). It works surprisingly well when one just cuts out those classes, and in many respects is less of a headache for DMs. I agree that more often than not there is a default presumption that one generally has at least core though.

[Tyndmyr]

This is true, but Core is, well, Core. It's the default assumption of D&D that every game will in some way make use of the PHB, DMG, and MM. So if these things don't play well with themselves, who even cares if the splats make things worse?

They play well enough with themselves and splatbooks to run games. Many people do.



This also fits in nicely with a blanket tone-down of power for the T1 and T2 classes and was merely one part of a larger enterprise to brng them down to T3, or at best low T2.

(Note that while I did do a blanket fix, I then afterwards went in and examined the effect of the fix on each individual thing that was fixed, a step that most blanket fixes don't take).

A tier 2 or 3 who no longer has access to 8th and 9th level spells, because they no longer exist, may no longer be the same tier. Hell, warmage might well drop a tier if it loses 8ths, 9ths, and has a slowed progression.

The point is, this isn't a balancing thing by default. It's a wild bunch of changes that takes away a great deal of legitimate ability(like using splats) that the core game had. Kind of a problem.

[Rogue Shadows]

Splats can make things better?

Splats don't make things better. They take useless classes with useless options and give them more useless options; or they take useful classes with useful options and give them more useful options; or they take middling classes with middling options and give them more middling options. With only one or two notable exceptions (Zhentarum and Dungeon Crasher for Fighter, for example), they never close the gap much. Even Zhentarum and Dungeon Crasher make the fighter only *barely* playable alongside a party that consists of a Sorcerer, a Beguiler, and a Binder.

Further, in general, splats were actually more balanced than Core anyway.

It is my view, basically, that every class should be able to be played alongside every other class with only minimal impact on the overall power of the party and the ability of each class to contribute. A 20th level Fighter should be able to meet a 20th level Warblade on equal terms, and a 20th level Wizard, and a 20th level Erudite, and so on. They should each have their own way of doing things - I do not want 4E up in the hizzouse - but none of them should be considering each other a non-issue or in any way inferior to themselves overall, if not necessarily in specific instances.

Or in other terms, if I made a thread that said "I want to build a 15th level Monk, any suggestions?" No one should arrive and say "HURR DURR, PLAY A 15TH LEVEL SWORDSAGE INSTEAD." Because the Monk and the Swordsage should both be legitimate, equally good options, regardless of what else is in the party.

The Tier system shouldn't need to exist.

EDIT
I should add that another problem with splats is that many options presented to power up lower tier classes can be taken by higher tier classes as well. For example, my major problem with the Warblade is that they have that "I'm a fighter -2" ability, which essentially means that a Warblade is always going to be a Fighter+, and anything introduced to power up the Fighter will also power up the Warblade - thereby keeping the distance between them essentially the same.

[Dictum Mortuum]

Finally, compare/contrast the magic system in Mage: the Ascension, where literally nothing stops you from casting the same spell over and over and over again. Except a Paradox demon, potentially, but that's not really anything to do with the spell itself.

Actually, there is a thing called domino effect.

[Zarrgon]

Also, on the spells, this is actually backed up by evidence - or, rather, a lack of evidence. I didn't want to read 424 spells individually and re-work them after first eliminating about 75 outright after reading them over. I wanted someone to have already done the work for me and just steal their work (with full credit). But for the life of me, I couldn't find it on the Internet. The closest I ever found was an EN World thread where some guy listed out quick fixes to each of the Major Problem Spells, but even he admitted that most of them wouldn't hold up (and half of them ended up being irrelevant since I cut 8th and 9th level spells entirely anyway).

Sounds like fun. I've 'fixed' all the 3X spells in my game. It was not so hard, you just start with the 'top 20' and adjust things. And the top 20 alone give you some general rules to adopt(''a spellcaster can't believe their own illusion spell'') then we just went through each spell as it came up in the game.

For example, the Gate fix is easy: The called creature(s) get a will save to negate and are not controlled by the gate spell.

What spells do you see that need fixing?

[Rogue Shadows]

For example, the Gate fix is easy: The called creature(s) get a will save to negate and are not controlled by the gate spell.

That...doesn't really seem to fix the problem. Who cares if I now need to succeed on a Diplomacy check in order to convince the Celestial Gold Wyrm to help me take out this 20th level Fighter? The end result is that I've, with 1 spell and 1 check that I've probably built my character to not be able to fail at, created a scenario that ends with me needing to clean up the remains of a 20th level Fighter.

[Keithicus]

The wizard nerf: I agree with most others and say that there isn't a 'quick' wizard fix outside of 'no wizards allowed'

Vancian: I typically define cast as Vancian when it consists of spell slots that are filled with abilities that are fired, regardless of recharge time or when you decide which spell goes in which slot. I consider the casting in Final Fantasy (the original) to be Vancian as you can lose access to your level 1 spells but keep your higher spells (I cannot cast fire anymore but I can cast fir2). Each spell costs it's spell slot (along with any other costs such as diamonds for resurrections). Whereas the other major system I encounter is mana-based, each spell has differing costs based on it's relative power, with the cost being extracted from the same pool of mana (e.g. cure minor wounds costs 1 mana, cure major wounds costs 20)

The main difference between the Vancian and Mana systems is that Vancian is locked into a number of 'spells per day' whereas a mana system is a daily allowance of mana to spend on spells that are (hopefully) tuned in cost based on their power. (Note: Despite not being 'spells' in the traditional sense I'd argue that ToB is Vancian)

Balance as a whole: I like Tomb of Battle personally, While I have not used it myself I find the mechanics of it to be entertaining and provide alternate mechanics to melee. These alternate mechanics give rise to different tactical options based on what maneuvers are available and how you recharge your maneuvers. However, I do understand the argument against tomb of battle as many optimizers default to "play ToB class or uber-charger for melee". And I do agree that ToB balance fix should never have been needed and, ideally, 3.0 (and 3.5 by extension) would have been balanced better out of the box.

Homebrew fixes as a whole: I don't like using homebrew myself, simply because it feels like I'm just tossing modifications into the game or cheating. This is also why I'll do my best at the table to clarify rules even if it may hurt my character. However, even though I do not like homebrew personally and would not want it included in my games I thoroughly enjoy looking at it and seeing what others make, and I like seeing how homebrewers make their mechanics work and attempt to (hopefully) balance their creations appropriately.

[Qwertystop]

If there is one thing I hate, more than anything else, it is the following exchange.

Original Post: So my DM is running a kind of east asian feeling campaign, and I want to play a monk. Any advice on a good build?
Post 1: Monk sucks, play a swordsage
Post 2: What he said
Post 3: [long diatribe about the suckage of a monk, closing with play swordsage]
Post 4: Guys, he wants to play a monk, let him. [Provide link to good monk resources]. But, really, you should play a swordsage.
Post 5: [Launch into diatribe confirming that monk sucks, closing with play swordsage again]
Post 6: ToB is manna from Heaven for melee. Play swordsage.

If I wanted to play a swordsage, the OP probably would have been something to the effect of "...and I want to play a swordsage. Any advice on a good build?"

This seems to be said quite a lot. However, nobody can ever give many specific examples. People don't tend to force other people to do things certain ways, at least not on this forum.

Generally, in my experience, what happens is that someone starts off with basically your first post-example. Then, at some point, someone will kindly explain that (such-and-such class) does (originally-mentioned-class's role) better. The fact is that many people who are looking for builds simply don't know that, for example, there is such a thing as a Warblade or that Fighter tends to be ineffective. If you don't give a reason for not using a specific alternative that is better in rules and either identical or easily refluffable in flavor, the idea that you might not have heard of it is an understandable assumption.

[Zarrgon]

That...doesn't really seem to fix the problem. Who cares if I now need to succeed on a Diplomacy check in order to convince the Celestial Gold Wyrm to help me take out this 20th level Fighter? The end result is that I've, with 1 spell and 1 check that I've probably built my character to not be able to fail at, created a scenario that ends with me needing to clean up the remains of a 20th level Fighter.

Well, first off the will save to negate gives a good chance the spell will fail vs lots of powerful targets. That Celestial Gold Wyrm has a will save of +33 just by the book. But even if it shows up, the diplomacy check will be hard even if your a good person to start with. And even with just diplomacy you can't turn a Celestial Gold Wyrm into your personal attack pet. Even if the creature was 'very friendly' to you, it won't obliterate a foe for you automatically.

(And this does not even count the simple diplomacy skill check of: ''The target makes an opposed roll using the following formula: 1d20 + target's HD + target's Wisdom modifier + current attitude modifier = result '')

And needless to say it's hard to charm or otherwise magical control a Celestial Gold Wyrm.

[Tyndmyr]

That...doesn't really seem to fix the problem. Who cares if I now need to succeed on a Diplomacy check in order to convince the Celestial Gold Wyrm to help me take out this 20th level Fighter? The end result is that I've, with 1 spell and 1 check that I've probably built my character to not be able to fail at, created a scenario that ends with me needing to clean up the remains of a 20th level Fighter.

The better question is why you need help to clean up a 20th level fighter.

[Rogue Shadows]

The better question is why you need help to clean up a 20th level fighter.

You probably shouldn't. I'm just demonstrating that the proposed gate fix...doesn't.


And even with just diplomacy you can't turn a Celestial Gold Wyrm into your personal attack pet. Even if the creature was 'very friendly' to you, it won't obliterate a foe for you automatically.

But it will "be willing to take risks to help you," and a good Diplomancer build by level 20 has a Diplomacy score that's positiviely through the roof without needing to cast an additional spell.

Besides which, even if the celestial gold wyrm isn't willing to kill the fighter, he could still shut it down one way or another, which means it defeats it, which means you get XP, the same way you'd get XP if your Summon Monster IX's outsider or elemental took down the fighter.

It really isn't even all that hard to pull off...Half-elf sorcerer (+2) with 11 cross-class ranks (+11) plus 5 ranks in Bluff (+2) plus a 15 starting Charisma (+2) plus a circlet of persuasion (+3) plus five increases to starting Charisma over 20 levels (+3) plus five wishes (+2) plus a cloak of Charisma +6 (+3) plus Skill Focus (Diplomacy) +3 plus Negotiator (+2) nets you a +36 bonus to Diplomacy checks. This is just in Core and what I could find from a casual perusal of the DMG; I can't help but feel there's some Core things I'm missing, though. Synergy bonuses don't stack, right?

Anyway, assuming the Celestial Gold Wyrm is indifferent (DC 30 to make Helpful) and the sorcerer is rushing (-10), the sorcerer still succeeds on his Diplomacy check on a roll of 4 or better on the d20 (80% of the time).

And that's with Diplomacy as a cross-classed skill, which everyone agrees is a Bad Idea for Sorcerers. If we took the common Sorcerer fix of giving it a better skill spread (read: Diplomacy) and used your Gate fix, the Sorcerer would have an additional 12 ranks, for a total skill check modifier of +48. Even with his -10 for rushing, he literally can't fail the check to convince the dragon that it'd be a good idea to stop the 20th level fighter.


1d20 + target's HD + target's Wisdom modifier + current attitude = result

Where are you getting this from? It's not listed under the Diplomacy rules in my PHB, I can tell you that much.

[olentu]

You probably shouldn't. I'm just demonstrating that the proposed gate fix...doesn't.



But it will "be willing to take risks to help you," and a good Diplomancer build by level 20 has a Diplomacy score that's positiviely through the roof without needing to cast an additional spell.

Besides which, even if the celestial gold wyrm isn't willing to kill the fighter, he could still shut it down one way or another, which means it defeats it, which means you get XP, the same way you'd get XP if your Summon Monster IX's outsider or elemental took down the fighter.

It really isn't even all that hard to pull off...Half-elf sorcerer (+2) with 11 cross-class ranks (+11) plus 5 ranks in Bluff (+2) plus a 15 starting Charisma (+2) plus a circlet of persuasion (+3) plus five increases to starting Charisma over 20 levels (+3) plus five wishes (+2) plus a cloak of Charisma +6 (+3) plus Skill Focus (Diplomacy) +3 plus Negotiator (+2) nets you a +36 bonus to Diplomacy checks. This is just in Core and what I could find from a casual perusal of the DMG; I can't help but feel there's some Core things I'm missing, though. Synergy bonuses don't stack, right?

Anyway, assuming the Celestial Gold Wyrm is indifferent (DC 30 to make Helpful) and the sorcerer is rushing (-10), the sorcerer still succeeds on his Diplomacy check on a roll of 4 or better on the d20 (80% of the time).

And that's with Diplomacy as a cross-classed skill, which everyone agrees is a Bad Idea for Sorcerers. If we took the common Sorcerer fix of giving it a better skill spread (read: Diplomacy) and used your Gate fix, the Sorcerer would have an additional 12 ranks, for a total skill check modifier of +48. Even with his -10 for rushing, he literally can't fail the check to convince the dragon that it'd be a good idea to stop the 20th level fighter.



Where are you getting this from? It's not listed under the Diplomacy rules in my PHB, I can tell you that much.

So what you are saying is the the diplomacy rules are stupid and that anyone with such a diplomacy score would have no reason to bother gating in a creature to fight the enemy because they could just use diplomacy instead.

[Rogue Shadows]

So what you are saying is the the diplomacy rules are stupid and that anyone with such a diplomacy score would have no reason to bother gating in a creature to fight the enemy because they could just use diplomacy instead.

As a quick aside, if what you're quoting is going to end up being longer than your actual post, you should probably trim the quote down rather than posting the entire thing. Otherwise your post ends up being top-heavy.

Yes, the Diplomacy rules are stupid. But because they're stupid, the gate fix doesn't work.

(though it's worth noting that Diplomacy won't work on mindless enemies, so you can't really build a "nothing but diplomacy" character if you're running into mindless golems or oozes or undead or plants and animals. Of course, that's why you're gating in celestial gold dragons).

[olentu]

As a quick aside, if what you're quoting is going to end up being longer than your actual post, you should probably trim the quote down rather than posting the entire thing. Otherwise your post ends up being top-heavy.

Yes, the Diplomacy rules are stupid. But because they're stupid, the gate fix doesn't work.

(though it's worth noting that Diplomacy won't work on mindless enemies, so you can't really build a "nothing but diplomacy" character if you're running into mindless golems or oozes or undead or plants and animals. Of course, that's why you're gating in celestial gold dragons).

Eh it seems rather silly to complain about a spell fix not working because of another completely broken part of the game that the spell does not make significantly more broken. But I suppose if you are going by that measure then any fix for anything at all that does not also fix diplomacy is obviously not a good one because diplomacy is broken.



Also even assuming that diplomacy does not work on mindless enemies since we are fighting a mindless creature (meaning no stuff like good tactics that we need to worry about) just use some spells. I mean you apparently have ninths so I am sure you can come up with something.

[Rogue Shadows]

Also even assuming that diplomacy does not work on mindless enemies since we are fighting a mindless creature (meaning no stuff like good tactics that we need to worry about) just use some spells. I mean you apparently have ninths so I am sure you can come up with something.

Exactly - like I said, that's why you're gating in dragons in the first place.


Eh it seems rather silly to complain about a spell fix not working because of another completely broken part of the game that the spell does not make significantly more broken. But I suppose if you are going by that measure then any fix for anything at all that does not also fix diplomacy is obviously not a good one because diplomacy is broken.

No, the trouble is that 3.5 D&D is so thoroughly broken throughout its entirety that even fixing every spell isn't enough. Because as soon as you're done with the spells, you need to move on to the feats and the skills.

That's what I'm doing. It is hard, and that's with me 90% just ripping off other people's work.

[Tyndmyr]

You probably shouldn't. I'm just demonstrating that the proposed gate fix...doesn't.

Can't argue with that.

I would agree that reaching "be willing to take risks to help you" is ridiculously easy for anyone capable of casting gate to reach.

Incidentally, for the cross class skill issue, there's a number of ways to fix that. My particular favorite is combining Human Paragon with Able Learner, which effectively makes all skills class skills forever. That's probably overkill, but it's an easily doable method that makes all synergy bonuses inexpensively available while not hampering access to 9ths.

That said, diplomacy being broken is a general problem. Even if Gate is unavailable, you can diplomance basically anyone you can access and isn't mindless into helping you kill the few things that are. Diplomacy is among the more broken things in existence in 3.5.

[Rogue Shadows]

That said, diplomacy being broken is a general problem. Even if Gate is unavailable, you can diplomance basically anyone you can access and isn't mindless into helping you kill the few things that are. Diplomacy is among the more broken things in existence in 3.5.

Like I said, there's problems everywhere that need fixing. It is a long, hard haul and I am disappointed that neither WotC nor Paizo (but kind of especially Paizo) ever took the effort to fix 3rd Edition while still principally keeping it as recognizeably 3rd Edition.

[Zarrgon]

It really isn't even all that hard to pull off...Half-elf sorcerer (+2) with 11 cross-class ranks (+11) plus 5 ranks in Bluff (+2) plus a 15 starting Charisma (+2) plus a circlet of persuasion (+3) plus five increases to starting Charisma over 20 levels (+3) plus five wishes (+2) plus a cloak of Charisma +6 (+3) plus Skill Focus (Diplomacy) +3 plus Negotiator (+2) nets you a +36 bonus to Diplomacy checks. This is just in Core and what I could find from a casual perusal of the DMG; I can't help but feel there's some Core things I'm missing, though. Synergy bonuses don't stack, right?

Stop for a second and look at your paragraph. Just to get a creature on your side you'd need a lot of stuff to get your skill up to +30. Including things like feats that you can't change. Your half elf sorcerer only gets seven feats, is it really worth two feats to get a plus to diplomacy? The magic items work fine, except you can't have another item in that slot, so you'd have to remove the headband of intellect and the cloak of resistance(or whatever). And adding all five of your ability increases to one score is fine, and works great if your a sorcerer...however a wizard or cleric might want to add them to another ability.

And there is no reason that a Celestial Gold Wyrm could not have a 'cloak' of charisma or resistance or such too.

But the point is not to say ''this is impossible''. If you want that sort of 'fix', then you just want to ban stuff from the game. Just say ''gate does not exist''. My fix is more along the lines of making gate more balanced. So sure you can make a diplomacy based build for a character and get up to 20th level and then use gate to bring in creatures and get them to do stuff for you. But that is fine. If you do want to ''put all your eggs in one basket'' then I don't have a problem with that. But I doubt more then one in a hundred spellscasters would take that route. So yes, my fix for gate would only stop 99% of the spellcasters...




Where are you getting this from? It's not listed under the Diplomacy rules in my PHB, I can tell you that much.

Oh, sorry...that was like one of my first houserules from like back in 2000. I fixed diplomacy to make it an opposed check and not an automatic roll. I've used that houserule so long I sometimes forget what it says in core. But this is another good example of how you do need to fix other game mechanics as well as spells.

[olentu]

Exactly - like I said, that's why you're gating in dragons in the first place.



No, the trouble is that 3.5 D&D is so thoroughly broken throughout its entirety that even fixing every spell isn't enough. Because as soon as you're done with the spells, you need to move on to the feats and the skills.

That's what I'm doing. It is hard, and that's with me 90% just ripping off other people's work.

So your complaint is that assuming that a diplomancer with no allies they could use is fighting a mindless creature that is so difficult that it is worth spending 1000XP to defeat rather then using any free spell of ninth level or lower then the gate fix is broken.

Eh that scenario is overly specific. But I suppose I can get behind your measure that any fix to any part of D&D is a complete failure if it does not completely fix all problems that any group could have that could possibly come up through any combination of circumstances. Of course that means that all fixes are complete failures but you know it is good to keep your standards high.

[Rogue Shadows]

Your half elf sorcerer only gets seven feats, is it really worth two feats to get a plus to diplomacy?

For the ability to instantly charm (in the sense of getting the creature to like you) anything you drag through a gate? Yes.

My point is that you seem to be missing the actual flaw with gate. It's the same flaw as a druid's animal companion: it replaces a party member (why have a defender when you can have a dragon?), but it goes one step beyond: it allows them with one spell to instantly summon up a creature that can one-shot entire encounters without the sorcerer needing to do anything else for the rest of the encounter.


And there is no reason that a Celestial Gold Wyrm could not have a 'cloak' of charisma or resistance or such too.

None of which modify the Diplomacy check at all, but having said that I'm acting under the assumption that most DMs, to save themselves headaches, just use monsters taken straight from the MM rather than individually stat each one out.


So your complaint is that assuming that a diplomancer with no allies they could use is fighting a mindless creature that is so difficult that it is worth spending 1000XP to defeat rather then using any free spell of ninth level or lower then the gate fix is broken.

N...no, not even a little. Please read the above starting with "my point is that"


Eh that scenario is overly specific. But I suppose I can get behind your measure that any fix to any part of D&D is a complete failure if it does not completely fix all problems that any group could have that could possibly come up through any combination of circumstances. Of course that means that all fixes are complete failures but you know it is good to keep your standards high.

Not quite. Rather, any limited fix to D&D (such as changing a single spell) has to take into account the fact that there are parts of D&D that are broken. A real gate fix would have taken the problems with Diplomacy into account. Probably by first fixing Diplomacy, which as it turns out Zarrgon had done (but wasn't clear about).

In light of this new information, Zarrgon's probably on to something, though I personally would still rather excise 8th and 9th levels spells entirely to begin with and then re-insert them in as 7th level spells on a case-by-case basis. But that's me.

(My general fix to Diplomacy is that creatures that are Hostile to you can't be Diplomanced, which helps solve the "that orc horde is now MY orc horde" problem, at least).

[olentu]

N...no, not even a little. Please read the above starting with "my point is that"



Not quite. Rather, any limited fix to D&D (such as changing a single spell) has to take into account the fact that there are parts of D&D that are broken. A real gate fix would have taken the problems with Diplomacy into account. Probably by first fixing Diplomacy, which as it turns out Zarrgon had done (but wasn't clear about).

In light of this new information, Zarrgon's probably on to something, though I personally would still rather excise 8th and 9th levels spells entirely to begin with and then re-insert them in as 7th level spells on a case-by-case basis. But that's me.

(My general fix to Diplomacy is that creatures that are Hostile to you can't be Diplomanced, which helps solve the "that orc horde is now MY orc horde" problem, at least).

Eh that is what I got when I read it. I mean the enemy must be diplomacy immune or you would just use diplomacy. You have ninth level spells and so could choose from them instead of gate and thus gate must be worth the 1000 XP cost over the other spells presumably due to the difficulty of the enemy. I mean if I accept your contention that replacing a party member (and by that you seem to mean infringing on the niche of the melee damage dealer) is so bad as to warrant removal then I must conclude that all summoning spells are bad thus removing the summoner concept from the game. Also the undead master, the construct maker, gishes, or any such thing. To consider that such class concepts are completely unworkable by their very basic nature is unquestionably at odds with a game system that has the malconvoker, the dread necromancer, and so forth.


So like I said any fix that does not fix everything in all circumstances (as some things are only undesirable or unworkable in specific circumstances) is a failure.

Nice diplomacy fix by the way. I like how you can't use diplomacy in say talking with a diplomat of an allied nation or the like. But perhaps you did not explain it thoroughly.

[Zarrgon]

My point is that you seem to be missing the actual flaw with gate. It's the same flaw as a druid's animal companion: it replaces a party member (why have a defender when you can have a dragon?), but it goes one step beyond: it allows them with one spell to instantly summon up a creature that can one-shot entire encounters without the sorcerer needing to do anything else for the rest of the encounter.



Well, what you call a flaw with Gate is fine by me. We are not looking at the same thing then. The only problem I see with Gate is: you can automatically call anything to you and you have absolute control over it. So my fixes address that: The creatures get a save, and the caster does not get automatic control.

I don't see Gate as ''replacing'' a party member, just adding another to the party.

[Rogue Shadows]

So like I said any fix that does not fix everything in all circumstances (as some things are only undesirable or unworkable in specific circumstances) is a failure.

You aren't getting it, and so I'm going to stop trying, except for this:


Nice diplomacy fix by the way. I like how you can't use diplomacy in say talking with a diplomat of an allied nation or the like. But perhaps you did not explain it thoroughly.

What, mine? "Hostile" means "will take risks to cause you harm." The diplomat of an allied nation would not be hostile to you upon meeting him (assuming you aren't charging him with spells blazing, anyway). He'd be, at worst, Unfriendly.

Hostile means that someone is drawing a weapon and trying to murderize you, or at the very least is trying to arrange for someone else to do so.

Diplomacy is defined on Page 71-72 of the PHB, or here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) if you don't have a physical copy. I suspect you may need a remedial course in how it works.

[Qwertystop]

I mean if I accept your contention that replacing a party member (and by that you seem to mean infringing on the niche of the melee damage dealer) is so bad as to warrant removal then I must conclude that all summoning spells are bad thus removing the summoner concept from the game. Also the undead master, the construct maker, gishes, or any such thing. To consider that such class concepts are completely unworkable by their very basic nature is unquestionably at odds with a game system that has the malconvoker, the dread necromancer, and so forth.

That's stretching it. Many summons, constructs, etcetera cannot effectively replace a party member. They are typically weaker than the party at whatever level they become obtainable. However, Gate allows the summoning and control of basically anything, or mobs of smaller things. Since there are many creatures which are completely unbalanced when used by the players, and probably several "balanced" by having lower HD, and also templates which lower HD while leaving many abilities intact, Gate allows you to summon creatures which, on their own, could probably annihilate your party twice in a row while sipping a martini with a spare appendage.

The Planar Ally set is similar, but on a slightly smaller scale.

[Rogue Shadows]

The Planar Ally set is similar, but on a slightly smaller scale.

Planar ally is at least balanced by the fact that the servant sent to you by God is at least God's choice - in this case, God = DM. You can request a specific being or a kind of servant, but ultimately the deity (DM) has final say. So, among other things, planar ally can explicitly not start an ally/wish loop if the DM doesn't want it to.

Whereas planar binding theoretically balances things out by allowing you to get any creature, but that creature hates you and wants you gone. Unfortunately, pretty much all the checks involved are stupendously easy for the caster to succeed at.

I pulled some inspiration from the Truenamer (!) for my fix:

Planar Binding, Lesser
Conjuration (Calling) [see text]
Level: Sor 5, Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: Close (10 ft. +5 ft./3 levels); see text
Target: One elemental or outsider with 6 HD or less
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: No and Yes; see text

Casting this spell attempts a dangerous act: to lure a creature from another plane to a specifically prepared trap, which must lie within the spell’s range. The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom.

In order to call a creature, you must know its name. One cannot simply send out a call for any random outsider. The name must be discovered by the caster, although the names of some outsiders are, to a greater or lesser extent, common knowledge. Researching the name of a creature to be summoned requires a Knowledge (arcana) check and access to a library of arcane knowledge. The DC is equal to 15 + (2 x the creature’s CR). If you have the bardic knowledge class feature, you can substitute bardic knowledge checks for the Knowledge (arcana) check. Just one success is rarely enough to discover a creature’s name – you need a number of successes equal to ½ the creature’s Hit Dice (minimum 1).

Next, you must create the trap in which you intend to bind the target creature. To create the trap, you must use a magic circle spell, focused inward.

The target creature is allowed a Will saving throw. If the saving throw succeeds, the creature resists the spell. If the saving throw fails, the creature is immediately drawn to the trap. If the creature has spell resistance, it is applied, but the creature’s spell resistance is treated as being 10 points lower than it actually is The creature can escape from the trap with by successfully pitting its spell resistance against your caster level check (in this case, using its normal spell resistance), by dimensional travel, or with a successful Charisma check (DC 10 + ½ your caster level + your Cha modifier). It can try each method once per day. If it breaks loose, it can flee or attack you. A dimensional anchor cast on the creature prevents its escape via dimensional travel. You can also employ a calling diagram (see magic circle against evil) to make the trap more secure; if you do not, the creature receives a +5 bonus on its Charisma check attempts to escape.

If the creature does not break free of the trap, you can keep it bound for as long as you dare. You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. You receive a variable penalty to the Charisma check, from -1 to -5, based on the nature of the service and its difficulty for the creature (very easy, easy, moderate, difficult, very difficult). You can, however, also receive a bonus to the Charisma check by offering some kind of reward to the creature, from +1 to +5 (nominal, minor, moderate, generous, lavish). If no reward is offered, the caster gets no bonus in his Charisma check. The specific reward the creature desires is dependent on the creature summoned and is up to the DM; some creatures are content with simple offers of gold or magic items, while others may desire more esoteric rewards, such as favors, knowledge, or the like.

If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service. New offers, bribes, and the like can be made or the old ones reoffered every 24 hours. This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell. Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. If you roll a 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the binding and can escape or attack you.

No matter the reward offered, a summoned creature will never grant the caster a limited wish or divine intervention through any means, although it may use such powers at its own discretion when attempting to complete the agreed-upon service.

Once the requested service is completed, the creature need only so inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came. The creature might later seek revenge. If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free. Called creatures almost always resent the interruption to their lives, and will tend to follow the letter of any agreement exactly, exploiting any loopholes to the best of their ability.

When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.

[olentu]

You aren't getting it, and so I'm going to stop trying, except for this:



What, mine? "Hostile" means "will take risks to cause you harm." The diplomat of an allied nation would not be hostile to you upon meeting him (assuming you aren't charging him with spells blazing, anyway). He'd be, at worst, Unfriendly.

Hostile means that someone is drawing a weapon and trying to murderize you, or at the very least is trying to arrange for someone else to do so.

Diplomacy is defined on Page 71-72 of the PHB, or here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) if you don't have a physical copy. I suspect you may need a remedial course in how it works.

Eh whatever. If you don't want to try and explain that is fine. I still don't understand what you mean but I can't force you to explain.

Ah a miss reading on my part reversing hostile and non-hostile. Of course now I wonder what system you have implemented to use when handling any sort of negotiations between hostile parties. And of course unless you have actually changed more than just that diplomacy is still completely broken beyond belief. Also let's hope that the ork horde is very good at seeing through disguises.


That's stretching it. Many summons, constructs, etcetera cannot effectively replace a party member. They are typically weaker than the party at whatever level they become obtainable. However, Gate allows the summoning and control of basically anything, or mobs of smaller things. Since there are many creatures which are completely unbalanced when used by the players, and probably several "balanced" by having lower HD, and also templates which lower HD while leaving many abilities intact, Gate allows you to summon creatures which, on their own, could probably annihilate your party twice in a row while sipping a martini with a spare appendage.

The Planar Ally set is similar, but on a slightly smaller scale.

Oh of course not every case is a viable replacement however some of them are.

While you or I or whoever may think that the problem with gate is a matter of the scale of things you can call and control Rogue Shadows claimed, in what as far as I can tell are no uncertain terms, that the actual flaw with gate is that it replaces a party member. Those other things can also do similarly and so I must assume that they would be considered to have the same fundamental flaw as gate.

[Qwertystop]

Oh of course not every case is a viable replacement however some of them are.

While you or I or whoever may think that the problem with gate is a matter of the scale of things you can call and control Rogue Shadows claimed, in what as far as I can tell are no uncertain terms, that the actual flaw with gate is that it replaces a party member. Those other things can also do similarly and so I must assume that they would be considered to have the same fundamental flaw as gate.

Not quite. The problem was the ability to summon creatures that could replace a party member. I cannot think of any fixed-list summon spell (Summon Monster, SNA, etc) which can do that (barring exceptional circumstances such as environments that severely favor a particular summon). However, these spells can still support the summoner or undead-master archetype by way of creating huge mobs of creatures.

[Zarrgon]

Not quite. The problem was the ability to summon creatures that could replace a party member. I cannot think of any fixed-list summon spell (Summon Monster, SNA, etc) which can do that (barring exceptional circumstances such as environments that severely favor a particular summon). However, these spells can still support the summoner or undead-master archetype by way of creating huge mobs of creatures.


How does one 'replace' a party member with gate? I've never heard of this 'flaw' with gate before.

Are we talking like Bob, who is playing a 20th level fighter that is dominating combat, decides to switch his character to a Solar that the wizard summons by a gate?

[Qwertystop]

How does one 'replace' a party member with gate? I've never heard of this 'flaw' with gate before.

Are we talking like Bob, who is playing a 20th level fighter that is dominating combat, decides to switch his character to a Solar that the wizard summons by a gate?

No. More like "the Wizard summons an (insert tough outsider here). It, on account of being able to do everything Bob does, but better, makes Bob completely redundant whenever the Wizard decides to summon one of its race. As this means that Bob has no part in the ensuing combat, he gains no XP, and the additional XP the Wizard gains from the smaller division of XP earns him a net gain beyond the 1000 XP cost of Gate."

This problem is magnified if the Wizard decides to gate in something capable of eclipsing more than one party member, quite likely in the "standard" party of fighter-rogue-cleric-wizard, as the rogue is quite easy to eclipse whenever an enemy is immune to critting.

[Tyndmyr]

Stop for a second and look at your paragraph. Just to get a creature on your side you'd need a lot of stuff to get your skill up to +30. Including things like feats that you can't change. Your half elf sorcerer only gets seven feats, is it really worth two feats to get a plus to diplomacy? The magic items work fine, except you can't have another item in that slot, so you'd have to remove the headband of intellect and the cloak of resistance(or whatever). And adding all five of your ability increases to one score is fine, and works great if your a sorcerer...however a wizard or cleric might want to add them to another ability.

That's only because he's unfamiliar with skill boosting. A wand of Guidance of the Avatar gives you +20. That, a decent cha mod(a sorc without a good cha mod, what?), and you're basically there. I'd probably slap on a masterwork tool, just for the amusement of hitting +30 with basically no investment.

Additionally, both int and resistance are upgradable items per SpC, so no, he need not remove them.


And there is no reason that a Celestial Gold Wyrm could not have a 'cloak' of charisma or resistance or such too.

Oh, god yes. Give me access to gear by calling creatures. There's no way I could break that.

No, leave Gate be. The real cost is the xp. Using gate non-stop is a poor tactic because it's costly, not because it's ineffective.

Also, if the wizard wanted to replace the melee fellow, that's possible long, long before 9ths. I've done it at level 5.

[Rogue Shadows]

That's only because he's unfamiliar with skill boosting.

To be fair, I was deliberately going both Core-only and assuming the default array of abilities (y'know, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8).

Just to sort of drive the point home.

But yeah, I know nothing of optimization.

Which really, just drives the point home more.

[Tyndmyr]

To be fair, I was deliberately going both Core-only and assuming the default array of abilities (y'know, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8).

Just to sort of drive the point home.

But yeah, I know nothing of optimization.

Which really, just drives the point home more.

I actually initially wrote something along those lines, then realized you'd missed synergy bonuses(which do stack) and masterwork tools, then changed it to unfamiliarity...even in strictly core only, you don't need to expend that sort of resources to hit +30. Diplomacy is easily one of the more pumpable skills, and if I'm trying I can easily pull out +50-+70 in any skill at about level six or seven.

So, attempting to balance based on skills penalizes people like me not at all, but decreases the power of people without optimization skill. And they were already behind me, so this only increases the power spread.

[Zarrgon]

No. More like "the Wizard summons an (insert tough outsider here). It, on account of being able to do everything Bob does, but better, makes Bob completely redundant whenever the Wizard decides to summon one of its race. As this means that Bob has no part in the ensuing combat, he gains no XP, and the additional XP the Wizard gains from the smaller division of XP earns him a net gain beyond the 1000 XP cost of Gate."


XP does not work like that? If Bob and sue kill four orcs each, but Joe only kills one and Sally kills none, everyone gets the same group XP. Sally does not get zero XP just as she did not kill any orcs.

Sounds more like the this redundant thing is just part of the ''fighters must have spells exactly like wizards to be cool and fun'' crowd. And, OK, I get that a lot of players are caught up in the awe of spells and think that swinging a weapon is boring. Kind like in most video games where the fighter type has all sorts of pyrotechnics when they swing their sword. But to the flashy folks, a fighter in D&D is more like hitting a rock with a stick.



This problem is magnified if the Wizard decides to gate in something capable of eclipsing more than one party member, quite likely in the "standard" party of fighter-rogue-cleric-wizard, as the rogue is quite easy to eclipse whenever an enemy is immune to critting.

Well, that rogue thing only works if your of that mindset that 'rogue's are strikers'.


Lets see, Gate Fix: Will save to negate, no auto control, and diplomacy fix to make it an opposed check. Maybe add in 'the creature is hostile as they don't like being called'....that makes gate dangerous to use. You could summon something powerful, but there is a good chance it will turn and attack the caster. Sounds like a good addition to my fix.

[Zarrgon]

No. More like "the Wizard summons an (insert tough outsider here). It, on account of being able to do everything Bob does, but better, makes Bob completely redundant whenever the Wizard decides to summon one of its race. As this means that Bob has no part in the ensuing combat, he gains no XP, and the additional XP the Wizard gains from the smaller division of XP earns him a net gain beyond the 1000 XP cost of Gate."


XP does not work like that? If Bob and sue kill four orcs each, but Joe only kills one and Sally kills none, everyone gets the same group XP. Sally does not get zero XP just as she did not kill any orcs.

Sounds more like the this redundant thing is just part of the ''fighters must have spells exactly like wizards to be cool and fun'' crowd. And, OK, I get that a lot of players are caught up in the awe of spells and think that swinging a weapon is boring. Kind like in most video games where the fighter type has all sorts of pyrotechnics when they swing their sword. But to the flashy folks, a fighter in D&D is more like hitting a rock with a stick.



This problem is magnified if the Wizard decides to gate in something capable of eclipsing more than one party member, quite likely in the "standard" party of fighter-rogue-cleric-wizard, as the rogue is quite easy to eclipse whenever an enemy is immune to critting.

Well, that rogue thing only works if your of that mindset that 'rogue's are strikers'.


Lets see, Gate Fix: Will save to negate, no auto control, and diplomacy fix to make it an opposed check. Maybe add in 'the creature is hostile as they don't like being called'....that makes gate dangerous to use. You could summon something powerful, but there is a good chance it will turn and attack the caster. Sounds like a good addition to my fix.

[Rogue Shadows]

XP does not work like that? If Bob and sue kill four orcs each, but Joe only kills one and Sally kills none, everyone gets the same group XP. Sally does not get zero XP just as she did not kill any orcs.

Note he said "contribute," not "kill." Even if part of a party, you don't get XP just for standing in the room or avoiding battle. You have to do something. But a gate'd celestial gold wyrm ensures that only the celestial gold wyrm is likely doing anything to contribute, but since it is a summoned/called creature, the rules stipulate that the wizard gets the XP.

But really, that wasn't what I was going for. What I was going for instead was: there is now a Celestial gold wyrm fighting for you. What can the fighter meaningfully contribute to the party that the wyrm can't, and probably better? The fighter becomes redundant. Worse: he becomes unnecessary.


Well, that rogue thing only works if your of that mindset that 'rogue's are strikers'.

Pick something that rogues do and I'll find you an outsider or elemental that can do it better.

[Calanon]

Pick something that rouges do and I'll find you an outsider or elemental that can do it better.

I sincerely doubt you can find an outsider or elemental that can make something anything redder then red :smallconfused:

[sonofzeal]

I sincerely doubt you can find an outsider or elemental that can make something anything redder then red :smallconfused:
Actually, most of them can. Rouge is just trying to simulate the look of a blush, which is blood running to the cheeks. I'm willing to bet most summoned monsters can make a whole lot of blood run to the cheeks. Very very quickly.

[Calanon]

Actually, most of them can. Rouge is just trying to simulate the look of a blush, which is blood running to the cheeks. I'm willing to bet most summoned monsters can make a whole lot of blood run to the cheeks. Very very quickly.

I challenge you to find a color that is redder then red :smallamused:

[Tyndmyr]

I challenge you to find a color that is redder then red :smallamused:

Well, if Ultramarine is a color, then Ultrared should be as well!

[Calanon]

Well, if Ultramarine is a color, then Ultrared should be as well!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WweL08Ch14g/S-oJFHzdZtI/AAAAAAAAACI/OVuyNYI-xRA/s1600/Ultrared.jpg

Hmm... I don't think so :smallwink:

[Qwertystop]

I'm sure that a lot of the more distant aberrations could manage to make things redder than red. After all:

Statting Far Realms entities is easy. They have Purple HP, and their initiative bonus is Fish. Their attack bonus is the last digit of Pi, and they do sqrt(-1) damage per hit. Their armor class is the smell of boiling uranium, and they add Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to all saving throws.
Look farther in that thread for more information on THEM.

[olentu]

Not quite. The problem was the ability to summon creatures that could replace a party member. I cannot think of any fixed-list summon spell (Summon Monster, SNA, etc) which can do that (barring exceptional circumstances such as environments that severely favor a particular summon). However, these spells can still support the summoner or undead-master archetype by way of creating huge mobs of creatures.

Eh if the animal companion can replace a party member (as was claimed) then the same job can probably be done with summons, undead, etc.