3.5 Without Casters

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Had an interesting discussion with my gaming buddies on Game Design tonight. We bounced between arguing the merits of Mutants and Masterminds, the D6 system, and 3.5. In fact, we tended to come back to our primary problem with 3.5, or rather, my own personal issue with it.

I don't like spellcasters. Well, Primary Spellcasters.

So, a question to all those in the Playground: What would happen if we just got rid of all Primary Casters? Specifically, how would that effect balance if of all the Core classes, only Ranger, Paladin and Bard remained of the spellcasters.

[Malroth]

Nobody would be able to kill any creature greater than CR 8, they just have too many abilities and immunities and since there are no magic items your mundane heroes would get TPKed every fight.

[Flickerdart]

Core would be completely unplayable with most of its content gone. With splats, I suppose you could make things work even if you axed everything with spells/powers/mysteries/what have you over level 6. Facing down the business end of the game's most iconic monsters will become very difficult, however, as a properly played dragon now packs magic unavailable to PCs in addition to being a physical powerhouse.

[Ashtagon]

Core would be completely unplayable with most of its content gone. With splats, I suppose you could make things work even if you axed everything with spells/powers/mysteries/what have you over level 6. Facing down the business end of the game's most iconic monsters will become very difficult, however, as a properly played dragon now packs magic unavailable to PCs in addition to being a physical powerhouse.

Yep, players would actually have to outsmart their foes instead of outgunning them. They are so definitely doomed. :smallbiggrin:

"Four encounters per day" doesn't have to mean you slay dragons at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, plus one more just before bedtime.

[Gavinfoxx]

The game works very well with everyone at Tier 3, as long as you assume that appropriate magic items which shouldn't exist do actually come from somewhere.

[Waker]

Characters would have to be even more reliant on gear than they are now. Without a Wizard or Cleric to do many things, they are likely to take more damage, take far longer getting from place to place, dealing with negative status effects will be far more annoying and so on. With just Core, a party will have a very difficult time trying to fight CR equivalent challenges. I expect near-death if not outright death every battle. Adding in Splat support will help a bit, especially if you allow non-vancian casters like Warlocks, Binders and Incarnum users.

[ArcturusV]

Well, with still having Bards, Paladins, and Rangers you could still make magical items. So it's not like you'd be totally sans magic. So I think the "no magic items, cannot beat greater than CR 8" bit isn't entirely founded.

It would be different, that's for sure. There'd be a lot more pressure on Bards to serve several different roles that they don't really have going for them as it stands.

So you might want to rip a Bard Like class to do the two things that Bards themselves don't really do at all as things stand. This includes Blasting and Battlefield Control. I suppose you could import the Warmage class without too much problem to serve as the usual blaster role. You might not really need Battlefield Control. It'd be nice to have. But it's not "necessary" to be honest.

It'd be a different sort of game, but hardly unplayable.

[SowZ]

Nobody would be able to kill any creature greater than CR 8, they just have too many abilities and immunities and since there are no magic items your mundane heroes would get TPKed every fight.

Tier Three parties can consistently punch above their CR and win, even at mid-high levels and without cheesy levels of optimization. Plenty of tables say no Tier 1 and the game doesn't fall apart. An all Fighter/Barbarian party is perfectly capable of tackling plenty of monsters since their damage output can be so high. It's the smart, spellcasting enemies that become extraordinarily challenging. But that isn't the majority of monsters.

Though a genius level mage played with high op should be pretty unbeatable for a party without some way to access similar magical levels, barring truly ingenious tactics or some convenient plot artifact/ally/supernatural luck.

[Tvtyrant]

Well the party would take a hit in control, buffs, debuffs and healing. You may end up fighting below the established CR a lot, but it wouldn't be unplayable.

[Malroth]

Craft magical arms and armor requires caster lv 5. Paladins and Rangers count as a caster of half their level meaning that they could take the feat at lv 12 at the earliest. This means the earliest the party has a chance of killing a single Alip is 9 levels ahead of its CR. At this point in the game The Parties AC will be 8-16 points lower that what the monster designers assumed they would have so they get hit more often and take more damage. The Party will hit for 10-30 points less damage per attack, they will not be able to affect incorporeal, flying, ranged, teleporting, spellcasting or Foes with alignment based DR, will fail every saving throw and will take from days to months to heal up after every battle.



Tier Three parties can consistently punch above their CR and win, even at mid-high levels and without cheesy levels of optimization. Plenty of tables say no Tier 1 and the game doesn't fall apart. An all Fighter/Barbarian party is perfectly capable of tackling plenty of monsters since their damage output can be so high. It's the smart, spellcasting enemies that become extraordinarily challenging. But that isn't the majority of monsters.

Tier 3 parties WITH APPROPIATE GEAR MADE BY A TIER 1 can consistently punch above their CR. If no casters exist at all those items don't exist. If there was a class with no other abilities other than to create said gear it also would be a tier 1

[ArcturusV]

Well, you forgot Bards are included. Bard CL is their Class Level. So you could still get Magical Weapons and Armor at level 6. Only one level lower than you might have with a Wizard in the Party.

And Wondrous Items is only Caster Level 3. Which is more important as a lot of items I see builds depend on are not Weapons/Armor, but actually Wondrous Items.

[dascarletm]

I had a 2 man party containing a fighter and monk only defeat a great wyrm red when they were 20. I played the dragon full force as well. They just outplanned him. What I would do is if you don't put in spellcasters let most higher level fights happen with your players either having the option to flee, plan it out, or have mass troops at their disposal.


It makes killing a lich that much more satisfying when you really earn it. :smallwink:

[Ashtagon]

Craft magical arms and armor requires caster lv 5. Paladins and Rangers count as a caster of half their level meaning that they could take the feat at lv 12 at the earliest. This means the earliest the party has a chance of killing a single Alip is 9 levels ahead of its CR. At this point in the game The Parties AC will be 8-16 points lower that what the monster designers assumed they would have so they get hit more often and take more damage. The Party will hit for 10-30 points less damage per attack, they will not be able to affect incorporeal, flying, ranged, teleporting, spellcasting or Foes with alignment based DR, will fail every saving throw and will take from days to months to heal up after every battle.


Tier 3 parties WITH APPROPIATE GEAR MADE BY A TIER 1 can consistently punch above their CR. If no casters exist at all those items don't exist. If there was a class with no other abilities other than to create said gear it also would be a tier 1

You've never had a fighter find a magic sword in a dungeon before?

Also, "No PCs at tier 1" may mean "NPCs can exist at that tier, both as quest/gear givers as well as foes", or it may mean "they used to exist, but no longer; they sure left a lot of magical items around after them though".

[Curmudgeon]

I've played in campaign worlds like that, and it was actually quite refreshing. A hard battle sometimes meant days or a week of recuperating if we were stuck out in the wilderness without any magical healers. Ranged combat and avoiding taking damage took on greater importance. The scout became a much more important party position.

Try it; you might like it. I know I did.

[ShurikVch]

"No PCs at tier 1" Sorcerer and Psion are Tier 2 :smallwink:

[Lycar]

So, a question to all those in the Playground: What would happen if we just got rid of all Primary Casters? Specifically, how would that effect balance if of all the Core classes, only Ranger, Paladin and Bard remained of the spellcasters.

The first thing you would have to ask yourself is if that also means getting rid of ALL spells (and spell-like abilities!) above lv. 6.

Remember that monsters in D&D at higher CRs are more collections of special abilities that require certain counters to be available to the players to defeat them.

Simply put: IF you eliminate the full casters, make sure you eliminate the monsters from the game that require full casters to counter them and you are good to go for the most part.

However this does not only mean monsters with special abilities but also melee monsters that are so powerful that they require high level debuffing and controlling to make them manageable.

Another way would be to keep the full casters but eliminate all spells above a certain level. Then the full casters can use their higher level slot to metamagic the lower level spells, something the lesser casters can't do.

That still keeps the fact that the full casters still get all the spells way earlier then partial casters though.


Short version: Wizards aren't a problem. Spells are. Likewise monsters with spell-like and supernatural abilities that absolutely require high level magic to counter. Get rid of both and you still have a balanced game.

[Dimers]

3.X without primary casters would be different, that's for sure. It would increase inventiveness, immersion and lethality, along with the range of scenarios that can challenge the party. As for balance among PHB classes? Well, the big winners would be bards (for healing magic and the Inspire abilities) and fighters built for battlefield control. Otherwise, the balance shouldn't change much. Monk, rogue and ranger would all be more attractive -- not better, but more likely to be chosen -- because nonmagical stealth could have more impact. Ranger and paladin might see a slight uptick in popularity just because they have SOME casting.

If you go this route, it'd be good to add in more options like swashbuckler, psychic warrior, scout, marshall and hexblade, just for variety.

Oh, and decide whether the NPC adept class is valid. That would get a whole lot more popular, too.

[Wookie-ranger]

I mostly agree with you.
In the higher levels I find the power of most Tier 1 and 2 a little annoying. For me it just does not have the right feel. After about level 9 -11 there are very few things that a well prepared Tier 1 cannot handle.
Mind you, It all depends on how you play your character. I have played a wizard before that did not outshine the party ranger, and right now I am playing an Artificer that is a working with and for the whole group.

If you dislike overpowered full casters you can simply ban all Tier 1 & 2 classes for PCs, This works fairly well, but is kind of draconian.
You could also try out E6 (or E8), it limits all levels to a maximum of 6 (or 8). After that you can get another feat, or a DM approved class feature every time you would level up. It stops everyone before the quadratic progress of casters overtakes the none-casters linear growth. It limits the power of casters and gives the melee types a role in the party.
If you really want to go all out, combine the two. I have played in a game or two like this and it is a lot of fun.

[Eldariel]

My experience with no-magic 3.5 has been positive. Written a campaign journal. Low-magic D&D works too; E6 has a similar idea but instead of cutting levels, this cuts the OP classes out instead. Dragons & al. can still craft items so that's no problem.

And CR system is worthless anyways; if the DM knows what he's doing the game works with any kind of party power level, even an all-Commoner game. But yeah, it of course requires an experienced DM.

[Eldan]

You would have to be very careful in your encounter design, as you'd hvae to fight with many of the often-assumed buff or disablement spells.

Also, no resurrection, ever, though I think that's probably not even a bad idea.

[ahenobarbi]

Warlocks become new artificers :smallbiggrin:

[Xefas]

Also, no resurrection, ever, though I think that's probably not even a bad idea.

Sure there is.

1) Go on an epic quest to find a planar rift.
2) Navigate your way around a universe capable of smooshing you like a tiny insect until you find a sufficiently powerful patron, like a Solar or a Pit Fiend.
3) Go on an epic quest to appease said patron, in exchange for a powerful boon.
4) Bring your fallen party member back from the bleak grasp of death itself. Who is probably a billion levels lower than the rest of the party now, because the pacing in D&D is dumb.

[Eldan]

True. I meant "no resurrection spells". That's why I think it might be a good idea, because I don't like how cheap resurrection sometimes is in D&D.

[ahenobarbi]

Also, no resurrection, ever, though I think that's probably not even a bad idea.


Sure there is.

1) Go on an epic quest to find a planar rift.
2) Navigate your way around a universe capable of smooshing you like a tiny insect until you find a sufficiently powerful patron, like a Solar or a Pit Fiend.
3) Go on an epic quest to appease said patron, in exchange for a powerful boon.
4) Bring your fallen party member back from the bleak grasp of death itself. Who is probably a billion levels lower than the rest of the party now, because the pacing in D&D is dumb.

Alternatively be or find Warlock 12, pay it to make and use scroll of resurrection on your behalf.

[Waddacku]

Craft magical arms and armor requires caster lv 5. Paladins and Rangers count as a caster of half their level meaning that they could take the feat at lv 12 at the earliest.

Or at 6th with Practiced Spellcaster.

[LordVonDerp]

Nobody would be able to kill any creature greater than CR 8, they just have too many abilities and immunities and since there are no magic items your mundane heroes would get TPKed every fight.

this is a baseless assumption. When you assume things you make an ass out of you, and only you.

Seriously though, just because they don't have someone in their own party to make magic items for them (a time consuming and xp draining process) does not mean they will never find/buy good magic items. Also any given npc can be a cr 8+ creature with enough levels in pc classes.

BTW: i'm currently planning a campaign in my own homebrew setting where knowledge of how to cast spells above 6th level has been all but lost following certain events that lead to the vast majority of high level spellbooks being burned. The setting will also be experiencing a sort of industrial revolution as a direct result of this (it's complicated and i don't feel like explaining it all here).

[russdm]

If you are going to go with not having casters, then find and read the details about an all-warrior campaign in Complete Warrior. It goes through the whole spiel of making effective parties and games without Casters. It is called "Warriors in the Campaign".

Magic items are still assumed to be available, but these would be primiarly found in treasure more than shops. With access to Rangers, Paladins, and Bards, the party won't be effective agaisnt most magic-needing monsters, where you need serious or unique spells to handle them, but against everything else, the party should be fine.

Rangers, Paladins, and Bards still get spellcasting. The ranger will get some druid spells and the paladin will get some cleric spells. The Bard gets a mix of wizard/cleric spells, plus the Bard gets Use Magic Device, so teh party can invest in wands for the bard to use.

The group would need to make changes in how it functioned but that group could handle challenges or encounters fairly easily. You can actually survive pretty well without casters, look at our species. We didn't have any casters of any real kind and we survived. Yeah it may be tough against some monsters instead of easier if there had been a wizard but it is still playable.

[ericgrau]

The main problem is magic items. High level game balance expects it and the system will completely fall apart without them, particularly on non-casters. As for special challenges, most foes are vulnerable to simple melee damage and others can be overcome with the right magic items. You just need to provide more potions and miscellaneous magic items, especially wondrous items, instead of making it all swords & armor.

The special challenges will still be harder, but not impossible.

[Greenish]

Pathfinder, whatever you may think of it as a system, does have lovely "medium" casters such as Inquisitor, Magus, and Summoner (though the latter is pretty close to full caster due to spell access). Combine with tier 3-4 wealth of 3.5 (sans Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Healer, Warmage, I guess) and you should be pretty well off if you're careful about not including stuff with very specific countermeasures (like Foo to Flesh, negative levels, Mummy rots, curses, etc.).

[Prince_Ornstein]

I figured I would chime in since this is something I have been thinking about a lot. My group are still relatively new but as the current DM for the group I already notice wizards doing things no one else gets to so I feel like a dirty and gritty warrior campaign would be just fantastic. I would really like to hear from people who have done it if it was a success or or they just found themselves wishing there was magic around

[ericgrau]

I figured I would chime in since this is something I have been thinking about a lot. My group are still relatively new but as the current DM for the group I already notice wizards doing things no one else gets to so I feel like a dirty and gritty warrior campaign would be just fantastic. I would really like to hear from people who have done it if it was a success or or they just found themselves wishing there was magic around

Yes and no. Whenever I play a fighter I tend to load up on magic items so I do a lot of the same things anyway and have fun like that.

Without magic items I don't think 3.5 would be as fun. If you have a great DM he can do some things with the terrain and so on, but that only works for so long.

[white lancer]

At lower levels it would work fine--you typically don't have a whole lot of magic items at that point anyway (and a +1 longsword doesn't really feel like magic). But at higher levels it might become more problematic and the DM would have to be very careful about the encounters he plans.

I personally wouldn't mind playing (or DMing) a game without playable full spellcasters. You could even still keep the Druid, if you wanted--give them the Ranger's spell list/progression and they're nowhere near as gamebreaking (though I imagine Wild Shape/Animal Companion would still keep them quite powerful--Tier 3, perhaps?). I wonder if the Paladin could be tweaked to become a lesser replacement for the Cleric--maybe give them a domain and a progression like the Bard? What tier would they wind up in then, and would it change if they had to cast spontaneously?

I don't think removing most of the magic items would be necessary. Just have them created by NPCs and such, and you can still have a slightly 'grittier' game without spells overshadowing everything.

[Snowbluff]

Try it; you might like it. I know I did.

You know now that you've said this, I'll hold you to it, right? >:D

Anyway, I am doing a survival Jurassic Park meets The Deadliest Game right now. As a Greensnake Swift Hunter, I lay on the hurt with the bow I made from some guy's intestine and a branch.

The whole thing would fall apart at higher levels, and limited options means it is not DnD 3.5. Axing classes (unless it is Monk) injures diversity. Adding ToB livens things up, but it can be pretty awful without the goodies caster can provide. Before anyone says anything: If we have less class option than we started with, diversity is lessened.
RE Not being able to outgun anything:

The PCs are dumber than Wizards, and do not have spells. There is hard, Nintendo Hard, and then unfair hard. This would be unfair in general.

[ArcturusV]

I'd rate Nintendo Hard over Unfair Hard. :smallbiggrin:

[Elric VIII]

The game in which I am playing is currently very much like this (we do have a blaster Cleric, but that doesn't really count). I am currently playing a Ranger/Rogue/Fighter that will eventually go into Chameleon (currently level 5). However, in the mean time I have been packing a nice suite of alchemical and utility items to basically replace spells. So the caster doesn't exist, but the effects still do.

I honestly think a better idea would be to simply cut out spells that cause issues. One idea that I had (and hope to try) is to slow spell level progression slightly. I will do the following:


Primary casters may learn/cast spells of a maximum base spell level that a Bard of the same level could cast (except they get 1st level spells at level 1).


Casters retain their spell slot progression as normal.


All casters may use the effects of Heighten Spell for free if they choose.


Metamagic (except Heighten Spell) applied to spells increases the DC by adjustment/2, rounded down.


Incredibly open-ended spells like Polymorph, Creation, Fabricate, Wish, etc are heavily regulated (i.e. we come to a gentleman's agreement on the extent of power and flexibility they have).


Spells like Rope Trick and other things that facilitate the 15-minute day are off the table.


Depending on the campaign, I may disallow long-range teleport. Or, I may link it to something like teleport nodes to limit access wihout completely removing it.


I have not had a chance to test this, but the idea behind this is that it regulates the power of the effects that casters can get. However, the fact that primary casters retain their spell slots gives them the advantage of better metamagic use, compared to Bard, etc.

[Snowbluff]

I'd rate Nintendo Hard over Unfair Hard. :smallbiggrin:
No, you wouldn't. Unfair Hard implies something that you do not have a reasonable chance of succeeding at. Nintendo at least plays fair when it's being... Nintendo...

You are right. Motion controls are inferior to actual controls awful to the point I would consider unfair. The Wii uses them. The Wii is made by Nintendo. :smalltongue:

[ArcturusV]

I was thinking of playing back in the day. Unfair hard would be things like... in 2D fighting games where enemies could use moves they shouldn't be able to use.

Like Street Fighter II, and how Bison could pull off moves that require charging backwards even while walking forwards. THAT is unfair. But hardly insurmountable and can be dealt with fairly easy once you know they can do that sort of thing.

Nintendo Hard however requires you be at the top of your game. You get one shot to do something right, and that's it. Compare like Street Fighter 2010, or Ninja Gaiden, or Double Dragon III.

[Wings of Peace]

Yep, players would actually have to outsmart their foes instead of outgunning them. They are so definitely doomed. :smallbiggrin:


My issue with this sentiment is that since primary casters tend to be the most versatile classes they're also the classes that reward strong planning and tactics the most.

Alternatively if everyone in the party is only good at one or two things problem solving becomes more like picking the right key on a key ring since unless there's overlap in the party's abilities each PC will probably be designated to dealing with a specific kind of challenge.

I'm not commenting on whether there's anything good or bad with everyone in the party having their own niche (though it certainly makes the DMs job of planning adventures that make everyone useful much easier). But, the idea that removing primary casters increases the requisite amount of tactical planning is flawed. It affects the distribution of labor more than the actual amount of planning is my perspective on the matter.

[Snowbluff]

Nintendo Hard however requires you be at the top of your game. You get one shot to do something right, and that's it. Compare like Street Fighter 2010, or Ninja Gaiden, or Double Dragon III.

Yeah, come to think about it, NES was full of awful game development decisions and obnoxious expectations. How the hell were kids supposed to beat Ghosts and Goblins?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

>_>
I don't get it.

I mean, don't get me wrong, casters are massively more powerful than non-casters, but... so what? It's not like people don't get to choose the class they play. If casters are overpowered, let the people who really want a powerful character play a caster; it's not like there isn't fun to be had in a less crucial role as well.

Personally, I think the imbalance is actually a good thing, because it isn't just about power - it's about the mechanical complexity of the character. Not all players are equally obsessive, or have equal energy to invest in a game; this imbalance means there's a place for everyone.

[Ashtagon]

My issue with this sentiment is that since primary casters tend to be the most versatile classes they're also the classes that reward strong planning and tactics the most.


Ehh. Back in my day, the party fighter would bring along a spare 10-foot pole, 50 feet of rope, a bag full of iron spikes for sealing doors open (or closed), caltrops, holy water (not just for clerics!), wolvesbane, blindfolds, garotte, and sundry other "batman" items. The idea that only wizards can pull out a "bag of tricks" is based on the idea that players who can plan ahead choose to play wizards.

Of course, equally, the monsters were typically balanced against fighters, not TO wizards.

[Wings of Peace]

The idea that only wizards can pull out a "bag of tricks" is based on the idea that players who can plan ahead choose to play wizards.

Actually I think it's based around the notion that wbl as prescribed in the books is universal and equal among player characters of the same level thus their only mechanical difference is the class chasis. And in terms of chasis the primary casters tend to have the most versatility.

[ArcturusV]

Well... the thing is few people tend to do the "golfbag" idea. You tell someone they get WBL, what you find is Magic Equipment with the best bonuses they can get, and a bunch of it. That's it.

I mean... I rolled up a character for a level 5 game, WBL. Compared to the other players in the game, I was "loaded for bear", comparatively. I was the guy who remembered things that none of them got. Crowbar alone has come in handy already and we're still on day 1 of the campaign. But it's gotten A LOT of use. Ropes, poles, tents, etc. I mean most of them remembered things like Masterwork Tools for Skill Checks. Magic Weapons, Magic Armor, Wondrous Items.

I was the only guy with a Horse, Wagon, and containers like chests, barrels, and bags to actually carry our future loot. And myriad other uses that my DnD experiences tell me can and will come up.

And in no way do I feel less capable because I didn't get a +X stat item or +X saving throw item instead of getting say, my Alchemist Lab.

[Ashtagon]

Actually I think it's based around the notion that wbl as prescribed in the books is universal and equal among player characters of the same level thus their only mechanical difference is the class chasis. And in terms of chasis the primary casters tend to have the most versatility.


Well... the thing is few people tend to do the "golfbag" idea. You tell someone they get WBL, what you find is Magic Equipment with the best bonuses they can get, and a bunch of it. That's it.

I mean... I rolled up a character for a level 5 game, WBL. Compared to the other players in the game, I was "loaded for bear", comparatively. I was the guy who remembered things that none of them got. Crowbar alone has come in handy already and we're still on day 1 of the campaign. But it's gotten A LOT of use. Ropes, poles, tents, etc. I mean most of them remembered things like Masterwork Tools for Skill Checks. Magic Weapons, Magic Armor, Wondrous Items.

I was the only guy with a Horse, Wagon, and containers like chests, barrels, and bags to actually carry our future loot. And myriad other uses that my DnD experiences tell me can and will come up.

And in no way do I feel less capable because I didn't get a +X stat item or +X saving throw item instead of getting say, my Alchemist Lab.

Two posts that illustrate my point beautifully.

Most people who play fighters tend to play them as beatsticks - best weapon, best armour, and a single light source as an afterthought. But play him as an explorer (which, pragmatically speaking, he is), and he'll have more than enough gear to survive things.

Basic example - you're going on an overland trip. How many parties bring a wagon and a team of mules? There's a wonderful chapter in Heinlein's Time Enough for Love in which he outlines everything that an explorer should be carrying, plus how to pare it down to what you can carry.

Stacking the odds shamelessly in your favour doesn't have to mean "play a wizard", not does it have to mean magic item Christmas tree. Mundane item Christmas tree is often good enough if the GM isn't out to kill you for the lulz.

Now yes, the wizard does have the most versatile chassis, and it's also a chassis that encourages planning ahead by design. That's why players who plan ahead play wizards - because the game mechanics of that class specifically reward those players. Players who don't plan ahead are effectively nerfed by the mechanics of the wizard, but neither rewarded nor penalised by the mechanics of the fighter. Which is why those players play fighters. This self-sorting of planners and non-planners into fighter and wizard is why wizard characters get seen as batmen while fighters get seen as beatsticks.

[Wings of Peace]

Two posts that illustrate my point beautifully.

Most people who play fighters tend to play them as beatsticks - best weapon, best armour, and a single light source as an afterthought. But play him as an explorer (which, pragmatically speaking, he is), and he'll have more than enough gear to survive things.

Basic example - you're going on an overland trip. How many parties bring a wagon and a team of mules? There's a wonderful chapter in Heinlein's Time Enough for Love in which he outlines everything that an explorer should be carrying, plus how to pare it down to what you can carry.

Stacking the odds shamelessly in your favour doesn't have to mean "play a wizard", not does it have to mean magic item Christmas tree. Mundane item Christmas tree is often good enough if the GM isn't out to kill you for the lulz.

I don't disagree but I don't see how this counters my point unless you were just using me for an example.

My point was that it's not really correct to say eliminating primary casters will increase the need for the players to use tactics. Rather, removing primary casters would arguably reduce the total tactics available to the party because you've taken away a very versatile set of tools without adding anything new to option pool. Sure the players might end up using tactics they normally wouldn't, but those tactics were always available just not optimal till now.

[Ashtagon]

I don't disagree but I don't see how this counters my point unless you were just using me for an example.

My point was that it's not really correct to say eliminating primary casters will increase the need for the players to use tactics. Rather, removing primary casters would arguably reduce the total tactics available to the party because you've taken away a very versatile set of tools without adding anything new to option pool. Sure the players might end up using tactics they normally wouldn't, but those tactics were always available just not optimal till now.

Okay, let's say you're playing a fighter. Why is going out "loaded for bear" suboptimal?

[Wings of Peace]

Okay, let's say you're playing a fighter. Why is going out "loaded for bear" suboptimal?

I don't actually know what loaded for bear means...

[ArcturusV]

In this case it's slang for always being prepared. It means that if someone goes "Gee, I wish we had some marbles" you're the guy with marbles. Need to carry some coinage? Why look, you're the guy with extra sacks. Need to open a chest but the party Rogue already died to a trap earlier? Crowbar is right here, grip and rip.

That sort of ideal.

So rather than building a fighter as: I have a Greatsword, a Greatclub (Because damage types), and a Polearm (Need Piercing too), a Composite Longbow (Need Range), best Plate Armor I can get, then start throwing on things like Cloaks of Resistance, etc, to boost saves, stats, etc.

You have: I have my perfectly normal, maybe slightly less than optimal gear because I didn't have the gold to make my sword Shocking or my Armor Spiked Defensive Armor. But unlike the above fighter I have a means of mundane transportation, extra food, tools, and handy items.

[ahenobarbi]

Of course you could just get some marvelous pigments and not have to worry that you forgot about something (or carry around tons of stuff you never use) :smallwink:

[Ashtagon]

Of course you could just get some marvelous pigments and not have to worry that you forgot about something (or carry around tons of stuff you never use) :smallwink:

That can easily cost 100 times what the actual item you needed cost, and assume magic item shop economics, and assumes a suitable flat surface for drawing on (not a sure thing in the wilderness).

[ahenobarbi]

That can easily cost 100 times what the actual item you needed cost, and assume magic item shop economics, and assumes a suitable flat surface for drawing on (not a sure thing in the wilderness).

Pigments are mere 4000 gp. I don't think you can get all the mundane stuff you should have for 1/100 of it (that is 40 gp). It's easy to find something to paint on (walls, stones, wood). Of course if you are worried you can carry around some parchment and paint on it.

[Ashtagon]

Pigments are mere 4000 gp. I don't think you can get all the mundane stuff you should have for 1/100 of it (that is 40 gp). It's easy to find something to paint on (walls, stones, wood). Of course if you are worried you can carry around some parchment and paint on it.

And the magic item shop economics?

[ahenobarbi]

And the magic item shop economics?

Do you mean the item may not be accessible? If that's the case then sadly you have to look through all the books and purchase all the mundane gear. Or let someone else in your group do it :smallwink:

[Ashtagon]

Do you mean the item may not be accessible? If that's the case then sadly you have to look through all the books and purchase all the mundane gear. Or let someone else in your group do it :smallwink:

So what it boils down to is your recommendation for fighters is that they do one of:

* Let someone else in the party do the planning while they play beatstick
* Buy an expensive one-shot magic item that removes the need for planning ahead one time.

Yep, we now see why fighters have a reputation for being useless outside combat.

[ahenobarbi]

So what it boils down to is your recommendation for fighters is that they do one of:

* Let someone else in the party do the planning while they play beatstick
* Buy an expensive one-shot magic item that removes the need for planning ahead one time.

Yep, we now see why fighters have a reputation for being useless outside combat.

Nope.

1. Buy not-so-expansive, multiple use magic item that let's you solve many non-combat situations with a bit of creativity.
2. If the item is not available and you don't mind do source-diving and buy a lot of mundane stuff.
3. If you can't do 1. and don't like 2. (I don't) just play beat stick. Or pick another class.

[Ashtagon]

Nope.

1. Buy not-so-expansive, multiple use magic item that let's you solve many non-combat situations with a bit of creativity.
2. If the item is not available and you don't mind do source-diving and buy a lot of mundane stuff.
3. If you can't do 1. and don't like 2. (I don't) just play beat stick. Or pick another class.

Those pigments in full...

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Marvelous_Pigments

4000 gp gives enough to make 100 square feet of object projected into a cube totally 1000 cubic feet.

10 minutes to use, so, not something that you'll have instantly if you need it in a hurry.

DC 15 Craft (painting) check. When was the last time you sunk skill points into that one?

[ahenobarbi]

4000 gp gives enough to make 100 square feet of object projected into a cube totally 1000 cubic feet.

1000 cubic feet (that's 28 316.8466 l for us metric-system users) is easily enough for whole campaign.


10 minutes to use, so, not something that you'll have instantly if you need it in a hurry.

That's the only problem with pigments. It depends on the game if it's relevant (situation in which you can solve a problem with a mundane item but you have to do it quickly is pretty rare in my games).


DC 15 Craft (painting) check. When was the last time you sunk skill points into that one?

Last time I leveled :smalltongue: And it's totally worth it. Marvelous pigments can do a lot o things mundane gear can't.

[Gwendol]

3.5 without full casters works just fine. It takes more teamwork and planning to cover the bases, but it's well within the realm of possibilities.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I mean, don't get me wrong, casters are massively more powerful than non-casters, but... so what? It's not like people don't get to choose the class they play. If casters are overpowered, let the people who really want a powerful character play a caster; it's not like there isn't fun to be had in a less crucial role as well.

Two things: People don't necessarily get to pick the class they want. I like playing fighter, but if my party has a wizard and a druid, I cannot pick him and be relevant. At all. Not being allowed to pick something I would enjoy would make the game not fun for me (and thus rather pointless).

The second, on the part I emphasized, is that this is simply untrue. Have you ever been in the situation where you are not needed for half the game? When I can crack out my laptop, play League of Legends, and have the EXACT SAME mechanical effect for over half the game, that is not fun. Full casters can do that to anyone if their players so wish it (and can still do it if their players do not go out of their way to prevent it).

[Dimers]

Basic example - you're going on an overland trip. How many parties bring a wagon and a team of mules? There's a wonderful chapter in Heinlein's Time Enough for Love in which he outlines everything that an explorer should be carrying, plus how to pare it down to what you can carry.

I enjoyed that section, too. Nice dose of realism for a character who seems to be able to do everything without difficulty. HOWEVER, 90% of the non-living equipment would be obviated and improved upon by access to the spells Create Food And Water and Fabricate. And boy, wouldn't it be great to be able to Teleport back home in case of trouble? Or to make a path clear enough for the mules and wagons at the trouble spots, with Stone Shape? Et cetera, so on and so forth.

*shrug* When you can do the impossible, several times per day, with no cost ... yeah, magic is a lot more versatile and potent than mundane abilities can hope to be.

Now, I'm one of the people arguing that 3.5 is quite playable without big spellcasting. With the right DM/players/setting, you can go completely nonmagical and still have it work. But if magic options exist in the game in the forms presented in 3.5, there will be many times when the mundane character just isn't going to seem mechanically valuable.

I think it's mostly the lack of cost, really. Using spells has no downside in this game system.

[Lans]

Or at 6th with Practiced Spellcaster.

Or be a race that can use spell like abilities, like kobolds and drow.

Theres also the Ancesteral Relic feat and 3.0 samurai

[Gavinfoxx]

Or be a race that can use spell like abilities, like kobolds and drow.

Theres also the Ancesteral Relic feat and 3.0 samurai

Oriental Adventures was updated to 3.5e in Dragon Magazine 318...

[Lans]

Oriental Adventures was updated to 3.5e in Dragon Magazine 318...

I mostly used 3.0 to distinguish it from CWs, as long as they can enchant there daisho that's what matters

[Feralventas]

Barbarians remain a very HP-heavy power-attacking strength beast. They will still be lacking in most social skills, but they can have a measure of mobility available.

Bards, being able to reach 6th level spells become penultimate spellcasters of their time. Music become associated with magic, and culture is either diminished by the number of mundane musicians strung up for caster-hatred and other presumptions of unlawful, unsanctioned magic, or flourishes in appreciation as magic and art are suddenly one in the same, both cherished for their uses.

Clerics and druids are out.

Fighters are still fighters. They can fight. They do little else. Some classes weren't out-classed simply by comparison to the T1casters, but rather are poorly built to have any more than one role. Fighters are one such case; not bad, but still better replaced by a Warblade.

Monks are still likely to lack a lot of utility, though their class features lend some measure of mysticism, they will still need to be worked on to stand up to the power of the Bard or Barbarian.

Paladins, being one of the best healing options now available via Lay on Hands, may take on more of a support role, using their spells to heal and buff the other party members as much if not more than themselves. They also do quite nicely as a party face.

Rogues are still sneaky little bastards that are better than Monks as skill monkeys. Their plethora of skill points gives them a lot more non-combat ways of getting things done, as does their UMD skill potential.

Sorcerer and Wizard are out.



Of course, this is just taking Core into account. If you banned any class with 9th level spell capacity (and expand the ban to PrC's that also grant them) you have a much lower-powered game.



Personally, what I'd advise is that you ban the Core and Complete-X spell-casters that gain actual spells, and replace them with the Warlock, PHB2 full-casters, Tome of Magic casters, and Heroes of Horror's dread necromancer. This gives you spellcasters that are Good at their job, but not so potent as to invalidate the material, mundane classes like Rogues or Barbarians.

Additionally, consider making the Tome of Battle maneuvers available to your mundane PC's, either via automatic acquisition of the Martial Study feat at 4th level and every 4 after that, or encouraging multi-class dips into Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage.

[Greenish]

Ehh. Back in my day, the party fighter would bring along a spare 10-foot pole, 50 feet of rope, a bag full of iron spikes for sealing doors open (or closed), caltrops, holy water (not just for clerics!), wolvesbane, blindfolds, garotte, and sundry other "batman" items.People do that all the time. That's why we have Shax's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148101), Bunko's (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=350.0), Utility Belt (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4400.0)… So, put that into "your days", roll it up, and smoke it.

[russdm]

There is a way to make casters less troublesome, just make all arcane magic work via hit-points. For spells of level 0-5/6, you take subdual damage. On spells of levels 6/7-9+, you take lethal damage. The idea was originally in the dragonlance books, but never got game implemented which in my humble opinion should have. Since each spell would do equal to its level in damage, it limits what casters can do, plus it really hurts to use metamagic since it burns you more.

Of course, that being said, i expect alot of pro-spellcasties will say that this is unfair or mean. Maybe, but in other stories and what have you employing magic tends to be dangerous to the caster. In D&D, casters take no punishment and the "no armor and low hit-points" deal at lower levels is not game balancing since you get lots of hit points and a better ac than is almost the rogue's to start.

To wit an example, both Shield and Mage Armor stack since they are providing different bonuses. Shield provides a shield bonus, while Mage Armor provides an armor bonus. Thats plus 8 to which you add 10 plus whatever dex you have and other stuff. So a wizard with a Dex of 16 ends up with an AC of 21 as long as they can keep both spells on. Toughness and a high con nets you bonus hitpoints. So a wizard with a con of 18 plus toughness will have 11 hit points at first level and has usually an AC of 21.

How are wizards sucky again, especially since their playstyle is about hiding behind the fighter or avoiding getting hit at all?

[Lord Ruby34]

I'm of the opinion that low/no magic should be able to work quite easily. My group's going to start a ToB/homebrew wuxia style campaign this month, and I expect it to work out well. As long encounters are developed with the party in mind there should never be challenges they can't overcome.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I'm homebrewing a setting for my players using a lot of these suggestions, so thank you all for the wonderful advice so far! Reading through everyone's thoughts has got me thinking, and I want to pose two quick questions on top of the thread's original:

1. Are Fighters still *&^%$ with there being no 9th-level Spellcasters?

2. If we include all non-Core classes in the hypothesis, how does the game function if the Warlock is the only primary caster in existence?

I'm homebrewing a setting for my players using a lot of these suggestions, so thank you all for the wonderful advice so far!

[Feralventas]

I'm homebrewing a setting for my players using a lot of these suggestions, so thank you all for the wonderful advice so far! Reading through everyone's thoughts has got me thinking, and I want to pose two quick questions on top of the thread's original:

1. Are Fighters still *&^%$ with there being no 9th-level Spellcasters?

2. If we include all non-Core classes in the hypothesis, how does the game function if the Warlock is the only primary caster in existence?

I'm homebrewing a setting for my players using a lot of these suggestions, so thank you all for the wonderful advice so far!

1: Fighter's problem is lack of utility. Taking a lot of the complexity out of the game is one way to make them easier to make use of, but still leaves them behind in terms of ability to do anything but Fight other Fighter things. A Warlock turns invisible, floats into the air by 15 feet, and essentially invalidates the fighter in a confrontation. Make Tome of Battle content available, or grant Fighter things like 1/2 Fighter Level to skills associated with their background, maybe they'll be a bit better. Maybe diminish Armor Check Penalty by 1/3 their BAB.

2: Warlocks still Craft just fine, so the broken aspects of the magic item crafting options are available. It also takes away the day-to-day limitation on the party, as a Warlock never runs out of ammunition the way most T1 casters can. It also sheds a poor light on the kind of spellcasters available; can't get magic without selling something important to get access to it.

Suggest making Tome of Magic casters available, or at least Binders, as they tend to work quite nicely in combination with decently built mundane characters too, while likewise not having the per-day restrictions to be able to keep up.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

1: Fighter's problem is lack of utility. Taking a lot of the complexity out of the game is one way to make them easier to make use of, but still leaves them behind in terms of ability to do anything but Fight other Fighter things. A Warlock turns invisible, floats into the air by 15 feet, and essentially invalidates the fighter in a confrontation. Make Tome of Battle content available, or grant Fighter things like 1/2 Fighter Level to skills associated with their background, maybe they'll be a bit better. Maybe diminish Armor Check Penalty by 1/3 their BAB.

There's lots of Fighter fixes as well. Lots. Loads and loads. Millions...*stares into the void for an uncomfortably long time*

I'll check with my friend/co-DM who has the "Tome" books and see what's what.


2: Warlocks still Craft just fine, so the broken aspects of the magic item crafting options are available. It also takes away the day-to-day limitation on the party, as a Warlock never runs out of ammunition the way most T1 casters can. It also sheds a poor light on the kind of spellcasters available; can't get magic without selling something important to get access to it.

Suggest making Tome of Magic casters available, or at least Binders, as they tend to work quite nicely in combination with decently built mundane characters too, while likewise not having the per-day restrictions to be able to keep up.

I've seen the Binder before, and I loooooove the flavor and style! It's not too powerful though? I'd hate to try to make a Low-Magic campaign and accidentally leave in one of the God-Tier Casters. Same with Shadowcasters, though they do look fancy!

Truenamers...heh. Hehehehe. You're a funny guy! I like you.

[Waker]

I've seen the Binder before, and I loooooove the flavor and style! It's not too powerful though? I'd hate to try to make a Low-Magic campaign and accidentally leave in one of the God-Tier Casters. Same with Shadowcasters, though they do look fancy!

Truenamers...heh. Hehehehe. You're a funny guy! I like you.

The Binder is normally a T3 class, though it is bumped to T2 if access to vestiges on the Wizards site is allowed.
I have heard very little about Shadowcasters. Can't comment about them.
Truenamers are not too much of a worry. There have been some decent fixes for the class though. I'm rather fond of the one by Kellus, "How Words Work."

[Feralventas]

Shadow caster's Cantrips are 3/day Supernatural Abilities, and are a fairly small list. At 13th level, they can use them infinitely. Arrow of Dusk is technically potent for a cantrip at 2d4 non-lethal damage per shot, but doesn't scale at all.

However.

Shadowcaster also learns 1 Mystery per level. It is usable 1/day. At 2nd level they can learn either another 1st level Mystery, or gain a second use per day of the one they already had. At 3rd level, they can either learn another 1st level Mystery, or one 2nd level Mystery, but only the 2nd level ones associated with the one or two they picked at 1st level (Mysteries come in sets of 3, and you must take the lower-level part of the set before you can take a higher level part of it.).

So, you only get 6 Mysteries per day at 6th level, while a Sorcerer has 6 1st level spells, 5 2nd level spells and three 3rd level spells per day off a wider list at the same level. The shadowcaster Also doesn't benefit from bonuses for having higher casting ability scores. It's also dependent on INT for the ability to cast mysteries but CHA for DC's, making it MAD as heck.

It has 1 book's worth of mysteries, while sorcerer has material from almost every D&D 3.5 book ever. There are 3 more sets of Mysteries (one of each level, 1 to 9) on the online supplement.

It has more class skills, but no extra skill points per level, making their skills even more divided.


Shadowcaster's only Bonus, compared to the sorcerer, is that it gains bonus feats every time it gains access to two more paths, but these are from a very limited list (mostly Shadow or Meta-Shadow feats to apply to its mysteries.). It also reduces the character's need to Eat, Sleep, Breath, and removes vulnerabilities to Poison and Disease, and some Darkvision that scales with its level Very Slowly.


Now, when the Shadowcaster gets to 7th level, the 1st through 3rd level Mysteries become Spell Like Abilities that they can use 2/day, and their 4th through 6th level mysteries that they can now learn are their spells. They now still have fewer spells per day than a sorcerer of their level, and will continue to only gain 1 more Mystery Known, or additional set of uses of an existing one, each level. This happens again at 13th level, when they get access to 7th to 9th level sets, which makes 1st to 3rd 3/day Supernatural Abilities, their 4 to 6th 2/day Spell-Likes, and their 7 to 9s function as spells.

So, at 20th level, while the Sorcerer has 6 or 7 spells per day per spell level plus bonus spell slots from Charisma, it's spells Known will be more plentiful than the Shadowcaster's spell effects Per day.


I love the fluff to death but it's not hard to see why it's a weak spellcaster. T4ish if you power-house it with crafting feats and meta-shadow use. T5 naturally.

[Gwendol]

The "fix" addresses some of the weaknesses, making for a more versatile class.

[Venger]

I'm homebrewing a setting for my players using a lot of these suggestions, so thank you all for the wonderful advice so far! Reading through everyone's thoughts has got me thinking, and I want to pose two quick questions on top of the thread's original:

1. Are Fighters still *&^%$ with there being no 9th-level Spellcasters?

2. If we include all non-Core classes in the hypothesis, how does the game function if the Warlock is the only primary caster in existence?

I'm homebrewing a setting for my players using a lot of these suggestions, so thank you all for the wonderful advice so far!

1. Yes. Fighters are actually much more crap without spellcasters to prop them up.

All characters drain some resources from the party. That's perfectly normal. Your wizard will, for example, probably have a few all-day buffs, such as overland flight or the like up all the time. In a boss fight, the wizard may go ahead and turn the fighter into a monster since he has more HP and BA

at lower levels, fighter needs stuff like magic weapon in order to affect shadows (don't throw shadows at the party in a no-magic game) and the like. at higher levels, he'll need something to fly, boost str, give natural attacks, etc.

Fighters are magic sinks. they, like wizard or cleric or someone else, require magic from the party's pool, but unlike those classes, have no magic to contribute to the pool.

in a situation where fighter is in a party with less magic to prop him up, his shortcomings are much more evident and his drain represents a larger part of the whole of a party's resources. If a wizard had, say, 50 spells/day and fighter needed 5 of them in a fight to contribute, and a bard has say, 35 at the same level, then the party is worse off as a result and combats will be much more difficult

2. warlock is an ok t3/t4 class, but its primary contribution is spell/item emulation, not so much in-combat contribution (though this may be mitigated depending on invocation selection)

[Invader]

Sales of all the psionics splat books would soar :smallamused:

[Hendel]

It seems like many people out there have no idea of the true nature and flexibility of the game.

I played in a Black Company based game where the magic using beings were semi-god like in our eyes. We were just slogging around in the mud. Now we fought creatures and casters, we just did not have those spells ourselves.

I played in a campaign where there were no arcane casters at all. Magic items items still made it into the dungeons and such.

I played in a game where every character had to be a multi-classed caster and the other class was limited and prestige classes were limited. Again, we all overcame and adapted to the struggles.

I have played in Hyboria and Middle-Earth settings where we all knew there were great wizards and priests, but they just were not on every corner of the city. It makes for a more physical and gritty type of adventure.

Basically, the game will adapt to whatever rules are put on it. Sometimes it is fun to try that out and see. I probably wouldn't run every game like that as we all enjoy playing a caster from time to time.

Besides, I do not wholly subscribe to the Tiers that some hold so dearly to and act like they are sacred. Bring a wizard into my game and you will have just as much fun as the rogue or the monk. It is about game play not munchkins running around with uber-builds. A good DM should be able to maintain a nice balance even with players of different ability level and characters of different class types.

In short to the OP, go with it, it sounds like fun. Maybe magic items won't just be a commodity that players expect to be able to buy and sell at their whim and you can actually have a challenging dungeon that can't be teleported through or dimension doored around, etc.

[Needle]

What if primary spellcasters can't reach high spell levels at all? Something like everyone of them progresses at "Bard" speed, maybe granting them 7th level spells at level 20 as a capstone. I guess this idea was used somewhere, if not already mentioned :smallredface:

[ArcturusV]

Dragonlance I think did something like that. Where if you got 9th level spells the Gods of Krynn said "Screw you!" and threw you off the plane. So you never had mages or clerics in the setting who had access to 9th level magic. Not that you need 9th level magic to be ungodly powerful or anything. But it's usually 9th level that provides the "No, I win. Not even if you do that. Nope. You never stood a chance. Doesn't matter, I had that." spells. So rather than slowing down your progression just... you didn't get 9th level magic on Krynn.

Not that lower level magics couldn't let you still break stuff, after all. So it wasn't that much of a hard cap.

[Needle]

Exactly that :smalltongue:

Level 6 or 7 spells are strong and breaks stuff, heck, True Seeing is as "low" as 5 for the Cleric and pierces any magical concealment, but as you say, it's the final level the one that screams Nope at most things :smalltongue: And earlier too, True Seeing, Mind Blank, Limited Wish, Harm/Heal, Control Weather, Commune lets you speak with gods ffs, etc. (I love spellcasting :smallbiggrin: ), but those are, umm, less breaking I guess :smallredface:

Gotta check Dragonlance then~