Changing "self only" to "PC only" for balance

[sdream]

One of the reasons spellcasters are considered vastly more powerful than non-spellcasters is that spellcasters have such incredible tools and options that they can literally enchant themselves or a pet to be a better fighter than a fighter.

Obviously, the other differences in power (incredibly more tools and flexibility) need to be corrected as well, by toning spellcasters down, and giving non-spellcasters more options and flexibility, but for the narrow problem of keeping the fighter types as the best fighters there is a simple and constructive solution.

Among both the most powerful and also least offensive to others methods of playing a spellcaster is to focus on debuffing enemies and empowering allies. In this way, the caster contributes mightily, by enabling other players to contribute more mightily than they otherwise could, and everyone has a good time.

Many spells, however are saddled with a "self only" restriction, making them impossible to apply to others. If this restriction was uniformly transformed to "PC only", would that not help promote teamwork and balance without any real downside?

As a small example, the 2nd level spells Blur, Mirror Image, False Life, Alter Self, and See Invisibility would all probably be MORE useful to the party applied to the big strong barbarian than the slender bookish wizard.

Do you see any problem with eliminating Self Only, or is it a simple step in the right direction?

EDIT - The key part of this change is that base toughness and melee prowess (often the key ability of non-spellcasters) remains important.

If a warrior can hit for X and a mage can hit for X-5, the warrior has a special skill.

If you introduce a spell that increases hit by 6, and it is only usable on the mage, then the mage becomes better than the warrior at hitting.

If however, the spell is usable on any PC, now the warrior hits for X+6 and a mage for X+1. The warrior remains better than the mage at hitting, even with that spell.

[Toofey]

If we're talking specifically 2nd ed, (which is also my main system so he great, looking for some 2nd ed online play?) I would be wary of making it so low level casters couldn't cast things on themselves, but none of the lower level things seem like they would be game breaking, I would caution against taking this too far, that said not being able to cast friends on the character speaking for the party is also always kind of a poop.

[sdream]

I don't know anything about 2e, I was speaking from a 3.5 perspective.

Much is made on these boards of the big gap between casters and non-casters, and I think this helps address that in the circumstances that matter most often (cooperative team play with a diverse party).

In retrospect, I actually think making spells "other PC only" is definitely going too far and I'm going to strip that little parenthesis from my original suggestion.

I would agree that if the power is not broken for a wizard to use on themselves, it should be equally fine for anyone else to receive from a wizard (they could always get it from a magic item after all).

[lsfreak]

Any blanket changes are likely to cause problems - I'd recommend saying, "Most self/personal-range spells now have a range of touch, but I'm going to be picking these on a per-spell basis."

[The Cat Goddess]

The real problem is things like Mage Armor.

Mage Armor makes a Wizard survivable, but makes a Monk practically untouchable at lower levels.

Mirror Image on a guy with AC 16 is much weaker than Mirror Image on a guy with AC 21+.

[Ernir]

I don't like it.

Casters not sharing their toys isn't a systematic problem, IMO. What is a systematic problem is that the casters bring more toys to the table, and the toys they do bring tend to be better and can sometimes be played with in many ways.
And being able to cast spells on targets on which they couldn't be cast before should count as being able to play with the toys in more ways.

To put it differently, I don't think allowing the Wizard to cast Shapechange on the Fighter makes the Wizard less powerful, or the Fighter more so. If anything, it makes the Wizard more powerful in my mind, since he now has the ability to Shapechange the whole party (without expending additional build resources).

So, I only think this really works in the name of intraparty balance unless the victories assured by a (significantly) buffed character are attributed more to the character receiving the buffs than to the character granting them.

And finally, this makes some nasty spell combos easier to pull off.

[TuggyNE]

The real problem is things like Mage Armor.

Mage Armor makes a Wizard survivable, but makes a Monk practically untouchable at lower levels.

Mage armor is already a touch spell, so this can already be done.


Mirror Image on a guy with AC 16 is much weaker than Mirror Image on a guy with AC 21+.

Huh? Mirror image (and miss chances in general) are the classic example of a defense that doesn't change much based on your other defenses — it pretty much always has a significant effect on survivability.

Consider a character who can be hit on a 2. They have a 95% chance of being hit. Add mirror image at max level, and they have an 10.6% chance of being hit. Now take a character who can only be hit on a 20, with a 5% chance of being hit, and add mirror image at the same level, for a 0.6% chance of being hit.

[Urpriest]

The real problem is things like Mage Armor.

Mage Armor makes a Wizard survivable, but makes a Monk practically untouchable at lower levels.

Mirror Image on a guy with AC 16 is much weaker than Mirror Image on a guy with AC 21+.

Mage Armor already worked like that, and Mirror Images don't have scaling AC (except with Dex and size). If anything Mirror Image is better for the AC 16 guy relatively speaking.

[eggs]

If the Wizard can still cast shapechange on himself and outdo everyone else at their own jobs, the problems still exist - the Wizard's already able to make other characters fantastic at their own jobs; that's exactly the tactic plugged by the main wizard guides.

This is a sweeping change that will have unintended consequences; off my head, Mental Pinnacle gets silly on a psion and spells like Schism and Arcane Spellsurge are far better action economy if they start quickening other spells immediately.

[Gavinfoxx]

Sure, I would do this. While it does technically increase the Wizard's power, it makes him much, much, much more of a party friendly character. A GM is doing something similar with an archivist of mine -- giving him DMM Reach spell (a modified version of it) for buffing allies...

[jackattack]

As a compromise, lift the restriction that doesn't allow self-only spells to be made into potions.

[Gamer Girl]

In retrospect, I actually think making spells "other PC only" is definitely going too far and I'm going to strip that little parenthesis from my original suggestion.

I would agree that if the power is not broken for a wizard to use on themselves, it should be equally fine for anyone else to receive from a wizard (they could always get it from a magic item after all).


You mean, of course, making spells ''touch only''. And it's it's not going very far at all. It would only effect about two dozen spells, and you would almost not notice the change. The Old Idea that ''this one spell is too powerful for non-casters and would unbalance the game'' is very outdated. In most cases other spells or abilities exist anyway that do what the ''self only'' core spells do.

It would even not be too far to say: "this spell can only be cast on a willing friendly target. So the spell could only be used on some else. And to make it even ''better'', have the spellcaster as an anchor who can still change and manipulate the spell a bit. Take ''False Life Others'' as an example: say two warriors both got 20 hit points, but on round 3 warrior number 1 is in deep battle but warrior two is not, so the spellcaster can take the other 20 hit points from warrior two and transfer them to warrior one.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Sure, I would do this. While it does technically increase the Wizard's power, it makes him much, much, much more of a party friendly character. A GM is doing something similar with an archivist of mine -- giving him DMM Reach spell (a modified version of it) for buffing allies...

A better way to do it might be to make custom versions of spells as "_____ other" and then leave a few scrolls or spellbooks of them as treasure. That will let everyone in the party know the option is there.

[sdream]

A better way to do it might be to make custom versions of spells as "_____ other" and then leave a few scrolls or spellbooks of them as treasure. That will let everyone in the party know the option is there.

Announcing that every buff spell is castable on any PC (but not summons or NPCs) seems like it would let everyone know the option is there... and make that option more universal, so the wizard can't accidentally pick just the self only version of the spell.

Yes, the ability to put true strike on the power attacking guy with 18str and a 2h weapon lets the wizard contribute to the party more than he would otherwise... but it lets the guy with 18str ALSO contribute, and utilizes everybody's strengths. This sounds like ideal synergy to me.

Just making potions available won't cut it. The rules would still be forcing the wizard to be selfish with some of his best daily spells, rather than opening them up to be applied where they best help everyone succeed.

[ericgrau]

Battlefield control or "batman", is already nothing more than an overglorified support caster. He's full of dividing barriers and disables to make it easier for the party to handle foes. I was amused to see one DM make a lone batman wizard villain only to find that he couldn't actually hurt the PCs, only slow them down temporarily.



As a small example, the 2nd level spells Blur, Mirror Image, False Life, Alter Self, and See Invisibility would all probably be MORE useful to the party applied to the big strong barbarian than the slender bookish wizard.

Ability tax is never ever the way to fix supposed balance issues. You force people to take certain options and penalize those who don't because they miss out on the "fix". This limits character variety. Whatever fix you supposedly need the only correct way to handle it is to give it for free. There are higher level ways to buff the party and I don't see the need to lower the spell level of party friendly spells when party friendly is already the most effective way to cast.


blur - not self only
mirror image - displacement
alter self - polymorph
false life - ~stoneskin. Also dangerous to make non-personal hour/level at level 2 because every class benefits from hp. Automatic choices are the same problem that's behind ability tax.
see invisibility - would dilute more interesting options like listen + blindfight if everyone had this. See the invisibility rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#invisibility) to see what I mean. Best to restrict this spell to the person who's worst at single targets. That way he can do support things like telling his team or casting glitterdust, without making an interesting tactical mechanic obsolete. I just wish more people knew those rules rather than giving up the moment they can't see someone.

[Kol Korran]

We've played with the "self spells are from now on touch spells" for over 1.5 years and it has proven quite nice. We found the change very agreeable with our playing style. No special problems.

[sdream]

@Kol Korran - Thanks! If it works for you, I'm sure it would work for me too.

@ericgrau - Yes, specializing always makes you more powerful in the circumstance you specialize for and weaker in other circumstances. This is true regardless of whether you specialize in blasting spells or support spells.

I have no idea what you mean by ability tax, as I am proposing to simply open up options to use wizard abilities with less restriction. As for your list of higher level spells similar to lower level ones, you'll note they are all also more powerful, not just castable on others.

False life is hardly an automatic choice. I know I wouldn't blow all MY 2nd level slots on giving everyone a dozen temp hp for a few hours.

Furthermore, don't make the mistake of thinking that a wizard in the party solves any need for blindfight or listen. The wizard does not have infinite spell slots or turns to pre-apply them (nor are invisible foes the only use of those abilities).

When people make fun of schrodinger wizards, I think they are referring to them claiming to have the exact spell needed prepared, not to having cast an unlimited number of spells beforehand.

@Gamergirl and Gavinfoxx - Thanks, I'm glad you like it, try to get your DM to try it and let me know if it works out OK.

@eggs - Yes wizards can still polymorph themselves to be tougher than a fighter... unless they polymorph the fighter too... which makes for a creature significantly tougher than themselves polymorphed. That's the entire point of this part of the change, there is no buff X where 2+X is greater than 4+X, so a tough fighter is always relevant and useful.

There are spells which are very potent when used on others... as they should be if you are cooperating the specialties and powers of two players. That should be encouraged.

[dspeyer]

I think my crusader will take leadership just to have a sorcerer cohort cast True Strike on him every round.

[Reluctance]

Mundanes can already get some truly sick combat numbers. This change is nice and not overpowering, but it does absolutely nothing about the real problem. Spells can still control the battlefield, affect enemies in ways other than raw damage, and countless things other than upping your to hit and damage.

Look at the tier system again. Someone who can reliably do more damage than a god has HP is still only a T4. Being able to create your own pet copy of a god, after creating your own personal pocket universe, is still an exclusively caster toy.

[Killer Angel]

False life is hardly an automatic choice. I know I wouldn't blow all MY 2nd level slots on giving everyone a dozen temp hp for a few hours.


Me neither. But once I played a Spellguard of Silverymoon, and the other players were happy to invest in some low level pearls of power, and have me casting on them that empowered false life...

[sdream]

@dspeyer - Leadership has always been ridiculously overpowered, but if your DM has no problem giving you a baby PC (with their own feat and ability array) for one feat, using that baby PC to help you do your job sounds very reasonable to me.

@Reluctance - I'm glad you agree that "this change is nice and not over overpowering". For the record I also agree with you it is not even close to a complete solution to the godlike tier 1 problem. The second sentance in my OP was:


Obviously, the other differences in power (incredibly more tools and flexibility) need to be corrected as well, by toning spellcasters down, and giving non-spellcasters more options and flexibility, but for the narrow problem of keeping the fighter types as the best fighters there is a simple and constructive solution.

The other steps involved in solving the tier problem of 3.5 vary (everyone agrees high level spells need to go, and mundane types need to be able to change their abilities at closer to the same time frame spellcasters can change theirs) but are beyond the scope of this tiny adjustment to party cooperation.


Me neither. But once I played a Spellguard of Silverymoon, and the other players were happy to invest in some low level pearls of power, and have me casting on them that empowered false life...

If your DM allows you to use an unlimited number of pearls of power, using them to buff other players seems like a reasonable way to spread that power around.

[ericgrau]

I have no idea what you mean by ability tax, as I am proposing to simply open up options to use wizard abilities with less restriction. As for your list of higher level spells similar to lower level ones, you'll note they are all also more powerful, not just castable on others.

False life is hardly an automatic choice. I know I wouldn't blow all MY 2nd level slots on giving everyone a dozen temp hp for a few hours.

Furthermore, don't make the mistake of thinking that a wizard in the party solves any need for blindfight or listen. The wizard does not have infinite spell slots or turns to pre-apply them (nor are invisible foes the only use of those abilities).

When people make fun of schrodinger wizards, I think they are referring to them claiming to have the exact spell needed prepared, not to having cast an unlimited number of spells beforehand.

"Ability tax" is based on "feat tax" and is a class balance "fix" involving the use of abilities. That turns those particular abilities into automatic choices since they are intentionally better than others. That eats options which limits build variety and is a horrible way to fix things. Real class balance fixes are free instead.

False life is not an automatic choice at level 3. It is an automatic choice at level 10 since everyone benefits and you don't have much else to do with your level 2 slots. Sure you could prepare glitterdust and feel like you have something great, but chances are you'll never cast it that day when you have 14 better spells to cast. That leaves casting level 2 hour/levels in the morning like false life and... um, false life. Level 2 is particularly lacking in hour/levels. Effectively almost getting +2 con vs. probably nothing is a no brainer.

Since see invisibilty is 10 min/level not hour/level you might not get the chance to cast it a lot ahead of time, true. You might be able to tag people 1/3 of the time maybe, like at dungeon entrances. But the moment an invisible foe pops up you'll immediately start casting it on your allies so they won't have the 50% miss chance since doubling the usefulness of an ally is a good use of your time. Even if it's uncommon I'd carry a scroll or three so it doesn't matter if I prepare it or not. Bam, listen becomes temporary and minor. Actually paying significant resources like a feat is a joke.

Schrodinger wizards are a fallacy when they supposedly prepared a spell to negate an extremely specific tactic, not one of the most common problems in all of D&D. Even without any changes to see invisibility I already tend to carry at least 1 scroll, if not more, even before the first invisible foe. And when we have a repeated problem I already prepare it with no rules changes, or as a sorcerer I learn it. With unaltered rules it also wouldn't be wise to take blind fight unless it was a repeated problem, btw.