How about a Crowd Control fix

[Combat Reflexes]

After ages of playing at levels 1-5, my group finally leveled up to the point where they begin to employ the mid- and high level spells. While I'm having no problem whatsoever with the occasional blasting spell, I find that most crowd control spells like stinking cloud and slow make every encounter an instant cakewalk.

Big, scary monster? Slow, Feeblemind or Baleful Polymorph it.

scary wizard? Stinking Cloud or Silence aaaaand he's gone.

crowd control solves all problems due to the extremely long durations (for instance, stinking cloud nauseates for 1 round per level, which is longer than most encounters last, and don't get me started on Solid Fog's ridiculous 5 ft/round move), and it takes a lot of fun out of climactic battles if the BBEG doesnt even get to act because he's rolling around in his own vomit (stinking cloud again), encased in a big wall of stone, or polymorphed into a cute little bunny.

I'm thinking about giving all most cc conditions (dazed, nauseated, stunned, paralyzed, confused, etc.) the Hold Person clause of 'target can make a new save vs the effect every round'. This way the effects become less game-changing, but are not nerfed into the ground.

Is this (close to) a right solution?

[JusticeZero]

Not really. It just makes encounters less tactical and more boring, with a lot more rolling involved and the save DCs get really high anyways.

[JusticeZero]

Honestly, that solution is on par with "zomg every encounter the fighter hits things with their sword and they die! nerf!" I mean, the wizard is doing *exactly what they are there to do*. They can't blast worth a damn compared to a sorcerer or a fighter. Their whole spell list from here on is dominated by spells that have the effects that you are grumping about. It's a known issue, and the problem runs far deeper than any bandaid patch can touch. The best "bandaid fix" is E6, which "fixes" the problem by banning anyone from gaining levels past level 6. (They get lots and lots of feats instead)
In the meantime, consider banning all the T1s and T2s (Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, etc..), or switching to 4th edition.

[Keneth]

Finding the right solution would suggest that there is a problem in the first place.

Stinking cloud requires a Fortitude save and there's loads of monsters immune to to the condition in the first place. What's more, it blocks your vision, so assuming an enemy saves or is immune, the PCs no longer have a line of sight to them.

Feeblemind allows a Will save and it's a mind-affecting compulsion effect. The amount of enemies flat out immune or highly resistant to those is ridiculous. And really, it's best used against creatures who are gonna have very high Will saves to begin with.

Baleful polymorph allows a Fortitude and a Will save and Spell Resistance before an enemy is completely affected.

What your post tells me is that you're not designing encounters which can appropriately challenge your players, and instead of constructing more complex encounters, you're looking for an easy way out by nerfing effects. I mean, obviously you can't just keep throwing undead shapechangers at the party, but if your wizard with genius-level intelligence doesn't have a contingency plan against effects that target his weakness, you're doing something wrong.

[limejuicepowder]

Finding the right solution would suggest that there is a problem in the first place.

Stinking cloud requires a Fortitude save and there's loads of monsters immune to to the condition in the first place. What's more, it blocks your vision, so assuming an enemy saves or is immune, the PCs no longer have a line of sight to them.

Feeblemind allows a Will save and it's a mind-affecting compulsion effect. The amount of enemies flat out immune or highly resistant to those is ridiculous. And really, it's best used against creatures who are gonna have very high Will saves to begin with.

Baleful polymorph allows a Fortitude and a Will save and Spell Resistance before an enemy is completely affected.

What your post tells me is that you're not designing encounters which can appropriately challenge your players, and instead of constructing more complex encounters, you're looking for an easy way out by nerfing effects. I mean, obviously you can't just keep throwing undead shapechangers at the party, but if your wizard with genius-level intelligence doesn't have a contingency plan against effects that target his weakness, you're doing something wrong.

Each of those spells is only the answer sometimes, it's true....but that's why a wizard will prepare all of them. It's usually fairly easy to correctly guess what the current enemy will be weak against, and cast the appropriate spell. Save-or-suck (or no save, just suck) spells make combat extremely binary, which is what the OP is complaining about.

What he's describing is a problem with challenging a class that is near the top of tier 1 that's being played as such. I'm not surprised in the slightest considering it's the first real exposure to those levels.

My suggestion to the OP: tactics. Spreading enemies out and giving them multiple attack paths goes a long way towards preventing the wizard from ending the combat with one spell. Burrowing or invisible enemies that close the distance without the party knowing will also prevent the wizard from laying down the worst AoE, as now party members will be effected.

Swarms of monsters using hit and run tactics can seriously draw battles out and make the wizard tax his slots heavily.

Illusions to make enemies look like something else can cause the wizard to lay down the wrong spell, or waste slots trying. Consider and encounter with a flesh golem and a low level wizard. The wizard casts an illusion to make himself look like the golem, and the golem look like him. The golem then gets targeted with fort-save spells, which the golem is automatically immune to. The wizard doesn't get targeted at all, or is hit with less immediately deadly spells like solid fog, because the party thinks he's a golem. Even small misdirections can not only prolong combat but make it much more memorable - make it seem like the enemies are actually real, and they've put real though in to their tactics.

[Ashtagon]

Honestly, that solution is on par with "zomg every encounter the fighter hits things with their sword and they die! nerf!" I mean, the wizard is doing *exactly what they are there to do*. They can't blast worth a damn compared to a sorcerer or a fighter. Their whole spell list from here on is dominated by spells that have the effects that you are grumping about. It's a known issue, and the problem runs far deeper than any bandaid patch can touch. The best "bandaid fix" is E6, which "fixes" the problem by banning anyone from gaining levels past level 6. (They get lots and lots of feats instead)
In the meantime, consider banning all the T1s and T2s (Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, etc..), or switching to 4th edition.

This is that famous "wizards are overpowered" meme, isn't it.

[Keneth]

Save-or-suck (or no save, just suck) spells make combat extremely binary, which is what the OP is complaining about.

That's like complaining your king dies too quickly in chess. D&D 3.5 is all about binary combat once you get to this point. And that really goes both ways, as the PCs are just as vulnerable to these tactics as the NPCs are. Which is what strategy is for. If that's not to OP's liking, then they might be playing the wrong game.

[Darrin]

Hmm. I can think of several different strategies/tactics to counter stuff like cloudkill or solid fog (ok, well, mainly via stuff like globe of invulnerability or freedom of movement). Then there's stuff like aoa droplets and spellwarped creatures (spell reflection) that can throw the PCs a few curveballs. Also: Kythons are kinda like swiss-army eviscerators.

Maybe what we need is a "DM's Guide to Making Tier 1 Earn It", tips and tricks to counter BFC without making it look really obvious.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Opponents can and should use the same kinds of effects on the PCs. Check out the two sample encounters I posted here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=300111#7), designed for a 9th level party.

The typical strategy of a Wizard is to pick what spells to use against a target based on their naturally poor base saves (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm). Aberrations have poor Fort/Reflex and good Will saves, so use Stinking Cloud, Wall of Smoke, and Web, but not Glitterdust or Slow. Giants have good Fort but poor Reflex/Will saves, so use Grease, Web, Glitterdust, and Slow but not Stinking Cloud or Wall of Smoke on them. Many creatures that get poor base Fort saves have naturally high Con scores, so treat that as though it's a good save when fighting those. NPCs are no different, see my advice in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265594#3). A typical Wizard has a much higher Int score than anyone you've ever met, so it's very much in-character for them to be played smart. Something a player would only know via metagame knowledge, a Wizard would have been able to figure out himself through observation and/or research.

Give the enemy Wizard a Monk's Outfit and Eschew Materials, he should be using Greater/Superior Resistance every day anyway. A Mask of Sweet Air (MIC) or Necklace of Adaptation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#necklaceofAdaptation) beats cloud effects, as does flying because gravity affects clouds. There's also spells like Heart of Water (CM) for getting out of Web, Solid Fog, and Black Tentacles. Give important NPCs items from this list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187851). An enemy Wizard should have minions to protect him and help equalize the PCs' actions-per-turn advantage. You can also use environment to make a fight more difficult, see this encounter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269690#4), both my posts in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265266#2), and here's a boss fight done right (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251305#14).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yeah, uh... I'm sorry to say that this sort of thing is baked into the rules, and you're not going to be able to soften it in a meaningful way. Not without an awful lot of work (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257689), and probably a pretty substantial ban list. Not even the old standby of "play e6" will help, because there are spells like these at every level, from wall of smoke and entangle to dominate monster and wail of the banshee.

It's not so much that your players reached a new level of power; they just reached a new level of understanding in how the game functions. You've got two options: either give up the GM's chair, or take it to the next level yourself. Use tactics. Use debuff spells against the players. Break out all those monsters with nasty poisons and negative levels that you thought would be too mean to use. D&D is rocket tag for pretty much the entire game if you know what you're doing, but it does go both ways.

[atomicwaffle]

two words: Chaos Beasts

[eggynack]

I've gotta note that, aside from the issues that have been listed with your fix, it also has pretty vague parameters. How are you defining crowd control here? All I know is, baleful polymorph is not crowd control. It's a save or lose, plain and simple. That's not the kinda thing that should be saved against every round. You also talked about solid fog, and that one doesn't have a save to repeat in the first place.

In any case, as has been said, this won't work. You basically have to nerf just about every facet of wizard spells to get anywhere, because if you only nerf some of them, wizards will just cast the spells your house rules don't touch. I mentioned solid fog as a spell you mentioned that your rules don't work on, but so do spells like wall of stone, which never even touches your opponent, and spells like grease and freezing fog, which are good despite the fact that their saves already do repeat every round. So, you solve all of those problems, and then the wizards start relying on a whole new batch of spells, some of them BFCish, and some of them not, and most of those spells are going to be about as powerful as the ones you banned. Wizards have workarounds for most problems of this type. That's why they're wizards, and not not-wizards.

[Zanos]

Baleful polymorph allows a Fortitude and a Will save and Spell Resistance before an enemy is completely affected.
The will save probably won't ever be relevant, you only need to fail the fort save to lose.

On Topic: I think it's silly that others are saying that battlefield control makes the game less tactical. If anything, reshaping the battlefield is one of the most tactical things you can do. Try playing a control wizard in a party where the fighter wins initiative and charges in immediately. Not saying it's not the absolute best option for a wizard can can trivialize certain encounters, but it does require the party to work together and a decent tactical mind.

[SciChronic]

I'm in agreement with JusticeZero here. If you're having this much trouble with spells, knock out all tier 1 and 2 classes, run E6 or move to a new system, because spells only get more powerful as the PCs level.

I'd also say that using control spells is very tactical. You're minimizing losses.

Keneth, there is a problem with 3.5 D&D, accepting the problem as is doesn't make it go away. 3.5 was balanced poorly for mid-high levels, and they made core spellcasting way too versatile. When a caster can do a jobs of more than half the party better than they can, there's a problem. The best solution is to limit lists, which is why the tier 3 casters are nice, because their lists are already limited.

Another thing keneth, its very hard to properly balance an encounter in certain party dynamics. When you have a party consisting of a Druid, Cleric, Wizard, and a Paladin, encounters that are extremely difficult for the Paladin are child's play for the rest of the party, and any encounter that challenges the rest of the party will likely end up with the Paladin dead. The classes simply weren't balance well.

[Keneth]

The will save probably won't ever be relevant, you only need to fail the fort save to lose.

Yeh, I was thinking of the Pathfinder version which is significantly different. The point still stands though: It doesn't need fixing.

[eggynack]

Yeh, I was thinking of the Pathfinder version which is significantly different. The point still stands though: It doesn't need fixing.
What doesn't need fixing, and compared to what? Sure, Captain McNothingButBalefulPolymorph is going to be balanced against most classes, and Sir Reginald Wizardington is going to be balanced against other wizards. However, Reginald isn't going to be particularly balanced against Punchy the Unscrupulous Monk. It's not about one particular spell being too powerful. It's about the general gestalt of spells being too powerful. Baleful polymorph isn't the most powerful spell in existence, but it's powerful. Balance is relative, and a spell that doesn't need fixing in some games will need extensive fixing in others.

[John Longarrow]

Combat Reflexes,

One aspect of the game that is often overlooked is the "Multiple encounters per day" model it was based on. Old school dungeon crawls often assumed the party wouldn't be able to rest often (or at all) so a lot of the "High power" spells were balanced against the party having multiple encounters per day.

At low levels a wizard CAN win a lot of fights with the right spell or two, but most often they CAN'T prepare for all contingencies, so when they do get to shine they SHINE.

At higher levels, if the party isn't facing several encounters before the wizard can prepare spells again, they wizard just keeps shining all the time. If your game is paced so that they can't always regain spells (keeping up the pressure one way or another) then a lot of the high level "Wizard wins by XYZ" situations are mitigate because the wizard needs to keep something in reserve for the next 5 fights.

If the party needs to face multiple encounters, you'll see wizards either squandering their spells early and running out before hard fights OR the wizard does good resource management and does some battle field control while the rest of the party brings the pain.

[eggynack]

Combat Reflexes,

One aspect of the game that is often overlooked is the "Multiple encounters per day" model it was based on. Old school dungeon crawls often assumed the party wouldn't be able to rest often (or at all) so a lot of the "High power" spells were balanced against the party having multiple encounters per day.

At low levels a wizard CAN win a lot of fights with the right spell or two, but most often they CAN'T prepare for all contingencies, so when they do get to shine they SHINE.

At higher levels, if the party isn't facing several encounters before the wizard can prepare spells again, they wizard just keeps shining all the time. If your game is paced so that they can't always regain spells (keeping up the pressure one way or another) then a lot of the high level "Wizard wins by XYZ" situations are mitigate because the wizard needs to keep something in reserve for the next 5 fights.

If the party needs to face multiple encounters, you'll see wizards either squandering their spells early and running out before hard fights OR the wizard does good resource management and does some battle field control while the rest of the party brings the pain.
How many encounters is "multiple encounters"? A wizard doesn't really need to cast all that many spells to absolutely wreck an encounter, and a wizard of reasonable level gets a hell of a lot of spells. Also, more than anyone else, a wizard has a bunch of ways to ensure that the number of encounters in a given day is cut down to size. Without an absolutely constant ticking clock, getting a wizard low is some tricky business.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Not really. It just makes encounters less tactical and more boring, with a lot more rolling involved and the save DCs get really high anyways.

It doesn't make them less tactical in fact it makes them more tactical because you have to race to take advantage of momentary lapse in the enemies defense rather spending two or three rounds fighting a battle you already won when stinking cloud or glitterdust was cast.

[eggynack]

It doesn't make them less tactical in fact it makes them more tactical because you have to race to take advantage of momentary lapse in the enemies defense rather spending two or three rounds fighting a battle you already won when stinking cloud or glitterdust was cast.
I think he was saying that the BFC itself is the tactical part of the combat. Beating face doesn't have all that much to it in comparison to correctly deploying the best spell for the job in the best possible way in order to win a battle. That's my favorite aspect of the game, anyways. It makes combats into your own massively complicated game of chess, especially when you add some summoning to the mix.

[SciChronic]

i wouldn't say its any less tactical, the issue is that the best tactic is always the same one.

[Maginomicon]

Another way to get around the "Tier 1 is being played like a Tier 1 OMG" problem is to take rigid control of the in-game clock. Don't have 4 APL encounters per in-game day, have 8 or more so that the casters have to be wary of expending too many of their resources. Eliminate the 15min workday entirely, as the non-Tier-1 characters in-character would never sit around for 8 hours when the clock is ticking. Design plots and encounters with strict time limits before certain very bad things happen. Hewards Fortifying Bedroll becomes useful here, as do the Lack of Sleep rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280467).

[Emperor Tippy]

D&D, with our without casters, is still rocket tag.

An enemy dying before he gets to act at all is not rare.

A party of 4 catches the BBEG by surprise. That means a surprise round where each gets a standard action (or more if you have a Factotum on your team).

That standard action should be enough to get all of the melee characters within striking range (and they don't provoke AoO's because the enemy is flatfooted). Then comes Initiative, where the party can easily be winning. A rogue like to deliver a nasty full attack with Sneak Attack damage on every hit, with Craven and a decent weapon this should (at level 10) be putting out an average of 40 or so damage a hit. AC for enemies in the CR 9-11 range tends to average in the mid 20's. An ECL 10 Rogue should have an AB of around +17/+12 or so, against a flat footed foe that will often be two hits.

That is an average of 80 or so damage. Now throw on a full attack by a fighter type for another 80 or so damage.

That right there is enough to drop a juvenile Red Dragon (some of the highest HP for the CR) right there.

And if the party has a well played and built Factotum in it at ECL 10+, well then if the party is facing a single foe at a time then that foe should die in the Surprise round pretty much every time. And if played well the enemies magic items or spell casting abilities will be mostly irrelevant (at least once the Factotum has gotten within 30 or so feet).

Combat lasting more than 3 or so rounds tends to exist only when there are a large number of hostiles or the hostiles are tricky.

[SciChronic]

Another way to get around the "Tier 1 is being played like a Tier 1 OMG" problem is to take rigid control of the in-game clock. Don't have 4 APL encounters per in-game day, have 8 or more so that the casters have to be wary of expending too many of their resources. Eliminate the 15min workday entirely, as the non-Tier-1 characters in-character would never sit around for 8 hours when the clock is ticking. Design plots and encounters with strict time limits before certain very bad things happen. Hewards Fortifying Bedroll becomes useful here, as do the Lack of Sleep rules.

that just puts them into a situation where they refuse to casts any spells at all, thinking they may need all of them in an encounter down the line. It's also punishing your players for picking the class they did, without explicitly telling them you would make it harder on them. These encounters also punish non tier 1 classes, they need resting periods as well.

[eggynack]

that just puts them into a situation where they refuse to casts any spells at all, thinking they may need all of them in an encounter down the line. It's also punishing your players for picking the class they did, without explicitly telling them you would make it harder on them. These encounters also punish non tier 1 classes, they need resting periods as well.
Getting tier one guys to not cast so many spells doesn't seem like the worst thing for the game. I mean, it's not like you can't explicitly tell your players this stuff before they choose their characters. I agree with your point that low tier characters also experience long term resource expenditure, however. It is an oft overlooked factor.

[Emperor Tippy]

Until a spell caster starts breaking the action economy (except for Psions this tends to be at least 7th level and usually around 15-17th level or later) they aren't going to be dropping more than a spell or two per encounter anyways. There simple isn't enough time once combat is joined.

With few exceptions combat is not going to last more than 3 rounds.

If the party knows about a fight far enough in advance to have time for a real buff routine then that encounter lasting more than one round is unusual.

And if the casters are playing around with day long buffs and the like than the number of encounters doesn't tend to matter so much (as no new spells need be cast).

Oh yes, and by the time the action economy is really being broken it's not unreasonable for the casters to have already come up with methods of regaining spells in between encounters.

[Maginomicon]

that just puts them into a situation where they refuse to casts any spells at all, thinking they may need all of them in an encounter down the line. It's also punishing your players for picking the class they did, without explicitly telling them you would make it harder on them. These encounters also punish non tier 1 classes, they need resting periods as well.
I disagree. I've noticed a disturbing trend in 3.5, which leads me to assert that GMs need to take their freakin' games back and not cater to the whims of infantile caster players. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with forcing a party to think about what it's doing and how fast they're expending their renewable resources. A player that refuses to use their own class features solely on the grounds that they theoretically might be needed later isn't being a synergistic team player. A player whining that their renewable resources are spreading thin when they've become accustomed to "blowing their load" in the first few hours of in-game time is moronic, as it shows exactly how entitled they feel as a player compared to the rest of the party. This is especially true for Tier 1 casters. They want to whine about it? Point them to the [reserve] feats.

Non-tier-1 classes don't need rest periods anywhere near as much as those guys.

[Emperor Tippy]

I disagree. I've noticed a disturbing trend in 3.5, which leads me to assert that GMs need to take their freakin' games back and not cater to the whims of infantile caster players.
If a DM tries to make everything time dependent then the players will just do other stuff.

Unless the downside of not doing a given adventure/quest is sufficiently high then a timed adventure will just cause the players to shrug and go plan their own adventure that isn't timed.


There's nothing intrinsically wrong with forcing a party to think about what it's doing and how fast they're expending their renewable resources. A player that refuses to use their own class features solely on the grounds that they theoretically might be needed later isn't being a synergistic team player.
Um yeah he is. You seem to think that the party and players should only be planning for that encounter, they should be planning for the entire day. So can the fighter types carry *this* given encounter and still be in good enough health to contribute in the later encounters in the day? If so then the wizard should plink away with his bow and save his spells for a future encounter because that encounter might actually require those spells.


A player whining that their renewable resources are spreading thin when they've become accustomed to "blowing their load" in the first few hours of in-game time is moronic, as it shows exactly how entitled they feel as a player compared to the rest of the party. This is especially true for Tier 1 casters. They want to whine about it? Point them to the [reserve] feats.

Non-tier-1 classes don't need rest periods anywhere near as much as those guys.
1) The game is balanced on the assumption of 4 equal CR encounters in an adventuring day. If the adventuring day consistently has more than 4 equal CR encounters in it than the players have the right to complain as their choices become either not using their class features and basically standing around whenever it's possible or using their abilities and class features in those first four encounters and accepting the fact that they will likely die when the party is at its weakest (in the days later encounters).

2) No, tier 1 classes don't need to rest any more often than other tiers. The HP damage piles up fast when melee classes don't benefit from buffs or healing, or the gold disappears quickly when it ends up spent on buffs and healing items.

Run a party of four non casters through 6 or more equal CR encounters in a row and they will end up with at least some of them dead more often than not. There are a few classes where this doesn't apply so much but it is generally the case.

Oh, and the class with the greatest native endurance in the game is the Psion. A Tier 2 (really more borderline Tier 1) caster class. And one that is able to nova every single encounter one right after the other so long as they have a couple of minutes of downtime between the fights. And can do this from level 3 or so onwards. Oh yes, and can do this while also breaking the action economy into little pieces better than anyone but a level 8+ Factotum.

[Keneth]

Balance is relative, and a spell that doesn't need fixing in some games will need extensive fixing in others.

That makes zero sense. To further my chess analogy, it's like trying to "fix" the queen because she's tearing apart your pawns. There's a difference between strong and broken, and none of the listed elements fall in the latter category.

[eggynack]

That makes zero sense. To further my chess analogy, it's like trying to "fix" the queen because she's tearing apart your pawns. There's a difference between strong and broken, and none of the listed elements fall in the latter category.
Actually, it's a lot more like trying to "fix" the queen, because one guy is playing with all queens, and the other guy is playing with all pawns. Players aren't passionless chess pieces being moved around by a distant god. They're people who often like to have a contribution to the game state, and fighters often end up acting more like a wizard's disposable minion than like a character in their own right.

Unless something in a book actually makes no sense within the rules of the game, all concept of balance, or what needs to be fixed, are determined in relative terms. Name me any class or spell that you consider "broken", and I'll tell you that it's not, because all the other players and the DM could also use that class or spell and there would be no imbalance. What is the difference between strong and broken in your eyes, and how do you draw that distinction? Stinking cloud might seem perfectly fair and balanced, and then it turns out that we're talking about a game with three commoners and one wizard, and it's not fair and balanced at all. It's a matter of scale and degree, and those things can not be understood in a vacuum.

[Andezzar]

They're people who often like to have a contribution to the game state, and fighters often end up acting more like a wizard's disposable minion than like a character in their own right. That is a problem with the concept of magic. Magic is supposed to reshape reality at the whims of the user. Mundane characters are only expected to hit stuff hard and maybe run fast or jump high. Now if you have a character who is a) more powerful (i.e. has more options to contribute) and b) more intelligent than the other characters and c) has a goal, it is very rare that he would not employ the other characters as his (disposable) minions.

[Randomocity132]

Constructs and undead will be difficult targets to crowd control with the spells your wizard has, seeing as they are immune to mind affecting and constitution based spells.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Constructs and undead will be difficult targets to crowd control with the spells your wizard has, seeing as they are immune to mind affecting and constitution based spells.

Web, Glitterdust, and Solid Fog still work. Mindless opponents aren't the brightest, if they get put in a cloud or behind a wall and can't see any opponents they're liable to just stand there doing nothing until they see someone.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Another way to get around the "Tier 1 is being played like a Tier 1 OMG" problem is to take rigid control of the in-game clock. Don't have 4 APL encounters per in-game day, have 8 or more so that the casters have to be wary of expending too many of their resources. Eliminate the 15min workday entirely, as the non-Tier-1 characters in-character would never sit around for 8 hours when the clock is ticking. Design plots and encounters with strict time limits before certain very bad things happen. Hewards Fortifying Bedroll becomes useful here, as do the Lack of Sleep rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280467).
This is only a sometimes solution, though, and one that tends to be extremely dependent on GM fiat. You can use a tight clock on the occasional adventure, but it'll break verisimilitude into a thousand pieces if suddenly every freaking adventure is on a strict time limit.

Plus, as Tippy mentioned, combats do only last a few rounds, and mid-level casters can pump out a spell a turn and have more left over, without doing anything but putting a good score into their primary casting ability.

[John Longarrow]

How many encounters is "multiple encounters"? A wizard doesn't really need to cast all that many spells to absolutely wreck an encounter, and a wizard of reasonable level gets a hell of a lot of spells. Also, more than anyone else, a wizard has a bunch of ways to ensure that the number of encounters in a given day is cut down to size. Without an absolutely constant ticking clock, getting a wizard low is some tricky business.

Old school dungeons tended to have random encounters up to hourly while in the dungeon. These would generally be considered "Lower CR" than the party, but having a random troll come across your 7th level party while it is trying to rest can often throw a spell caster off their game.

Note: This is based off of D&D, going back to the roots of most of the most abused spells. This is also back when wizards couldn't just make expendable items like potions and scrolls, so most wizards didn't run around with lots of expendable magic.

In 3.5, having a variety of encounters that roam a dungeon, along with parties that are trying to get through without having the adventure take weeks, and you will see casters that are much more willing to conserve their spells.

[eggynack]

Old school dungeons tended to have random encounters up to hourly while in the dungeon. These would generally be considered "Lower CR" than the party, but having a random troll come across your 7th level party while it is trying to rest can often throw a spell caster off their game.

Note: This is based off of D&D, going back to the roots of most of the most abused spells. This is also back when wizards couldn't just make expendable items like potions and scrolls, so most wizards didn't run around with lots of expendable magic.

In 3.5, having a variety of encounters that roam a dungeon, along with parties that are trying to get through without having the adventure take weeks, and you will see casters that are much more willing to conserve their spells.
It's notable, however, that 3.5 is balanced around four encounters over the course of a day. If you're fighting a larger quantity of weak encounters, you can generally cast fewer spells, or even a small amount of weak spells, and make an encounter generally nonthreatening. A wizard who makes efficient use of his spell slots is going to be able to last through quite a few encounters over the course of the day. Still, I'd probably pick up a reserve feat at some point, or maybe run a druid instead of a wizard. Druids don't have that thing where they become useless when they run out of spells, and they can crowd control with around the same efficiency as a wizard.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

This talk of random encounters while resting is moot thanks to Rope Trick, as early as level 5 with (Lesser Rod of) Extend Spell it lasts long enough for them to rest 8 hours and prepare spells for an hour, with another hour to spare.

[Maginomicon]

If a DM tries to make everything time dependent then the players will just do other stuff.

Unless the downside of not doing a given adventure/quest is sufficiently high then a timed adventure will just cause the players to shrug and go plan their own adventure that isn't timed.
Are you trying to say that the players will abandon the campaign rather than do things that are time-dependent? That's rather cynical. If they would do that nonsense why do they even show up to the table? It's impractical to throw up your arms and answer with "if you do this your group will leave your game". Further, I wasn't saying that everything should be time-dependent anyway.

Um yeah he is. You seem to think that the party and players should only be planning for that encounter, they should be planning for the entire day. So can the fighter types carry *this* given encounter and still be in good enough health to contribute in the later encounters in the day? If so then the wizard should plink away with his bow and save his spells for a future encounter because that encounter might actually require those spells.
No, I don't presume that. I presume that the non-casters shouldn't take any **** from the casters that have been blowing their load too soon. There are more reasons to not cast a spell than "we might need it later". Earlier editions of D&D made this painfully clear (http://youtu.be/9G5PjlCMlGw?t=11m44s).

1) The game is balanced on the assumption of 4 equal CR encounters in an adventuring day. If the adventuring day consistently has more than 4 equal CR encounters in it than the players have the right to complain as their choices become either not using their class features and basically standing around whenever it's possible or using their abilities and class features in those first four encounters and accepting the fact that they will likely die when the party is at its weakest (in the days later encounters).
This is a ridiculous assumption. The game may have been "balanced" on that, but you know better than most anyone that 3.5 is balanced poorly. A GM should build encounters that make the players feel validated in making their class feature choices, sure, but that doesn't stretch as far as letting them steamroll all of your encounters. The OPs actual problem is that the every encounter of a similar type is resolved in the same way. That means they're picking out a limited set from their myriad of options that they feel covers every type of encounter you can throw at them. There is thus nothing wrong with changing the nature of your encounters so that that strategy doesn't necessarily work (although beware of escalation as seen in the tale of the Squirt Gun Wars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPM7I49fj8)). There is nothing wrong with challenging their assumptions.

2) No, tier 1 classes don't need to rest any more often than other tiers. The HP damage piles up fast when melee classes don't benefit from buffs or healing, or the gold disappears quickly when it ends up spent on buffs and healing items.
If tier 1 classes (casters/manifesters specifically) didn't need to rest more often than the other tiers, then the 15 minute workday would not be a thing.

Run a party of four non casters through 6 or more equal CR encounters in a row and they will end up with at least some of them dead more often than not. There are a few classes where this doesn't apply so much but it is generally the case.
If you're running a party of four non-casters, you know what you're getting yourself into, and you should know (or learn pretty quick) that you should design encounters that wouldn't utterly slaughter them. You can build a campaign to suit your party's capabilities without going so far as catering to their every issue. Likewise, you can build a campaign to challenge your party's assumptions without going so far as putting them 6-feet under.

Oh, and the class with the greatest native endurance in the game is the Psion. A Tier 2 (really more borderline Tier 1) caster class. And one that is able to nova every single encounter one right after the other so long as they have a couple of minutes of downtime between the fights. And can do this from level 3 or so onwards. Oh yes, and can do this while also breaking the action economy into little pieces better than anyone but a level 8+ Factotum.
So what? If a particular caster class has in PO the ability to nova every encounter, then the GM should account for that possibility in future encounters. Further, if a GM is having issues with people breaking the action economy, he should take some time putting thought into determining RAI for the nature of the action economy as a whole. 3.5 is far from perfect in that regard, and GMs have every prerogative to fix it. Case-in-point, here's one of my house rules that addresses psions and breaking the action economy:

Linked Power

The Linked Power feat was badly written. Here are some clarifications on it:

“Intend to manifest” means that you must still wait until your next round before you manifest what you intend to manifest. It’s essentially saying “it’s linked, but there’s a 6-second delay before the linked power goes off”. Since those 6 seconds are fluid, you can choose to have the [latter] linked power manifest (or choose to not manifest it at all) at any time during your next turn (even though it does not expend any power points or actions to manifest it). To think of it another way, append the following to the Linked Power feat: “On your next turn, you may manifest the linked power once as a free action for no power points, which still provokes an attack of opportunity like manifesting a power would and follows the limitations described above.”

“Not altered in any way” means you cannot augment either power affected by the linked power feat or apply feats like Metapower.

Linked Power Loops

You can’t use the Linked Power feat to form a loop. This includes single loops, cross-loops, or any other convoluted loops. An act that would complete a loop and set it in motion always fails. This is similar to the weirdness for how a bag of holding and a portable hole interact.

Keep in mind, every use of the Linked Power feat requires expending a psionic focus anyway, and the only known way to get around this problem is to use the “meditation hustle” trick or the “dominant ideal” ardent ACF.
Synchronicity, Anticipatory Strike, etc. have similar clarifications in place.

[molten_dragon]

After ages of playing at levels 1-5, my group finally leveled up to the point where they begin to employ the mid- and high level spells. While I'm having no problem whatsoever with the occasional blasting spell, I find that most crowd control spells like stinking cloud and slow make every encounter an instant cakewalk.

Big, scary monster? Slow, Feeblemind or Baleful Polymorph it.

scary wizard? Stinking Cloud or Silence aaaaand he's gone.

crowd control solves all problems due to the extremely long durations (for instance, stinking cloud nauseates for 1 round per level, which is longer than most encounters last, and don't get me started on Solid Fog's ridiculous 5 ft/round move), and it takes a lot of fun out of climactic battles if the BBEG doesnt even get to act because he's rolling around in his own vomit (stinking cloud again), encased in a big wall of stone, or polymorphed into a cute little bunny.

I'm thinking about giving all most cc conditions (dazed, nauseated, stunned, paralyzed, confused, etc.) the Hold Person clause of 'target can make a new save vs the effect every round'. This way the effects become less game-changing, but are not nerfed into the ground.

Is this (close to) a right solution?

Not really, no. The right solution is designing encounters that can't be ended in one shot with crowd control spells. This is easier said than done in some cases, but not that difficult in others. When the party is fighting spellcasters it should be particularly easy to avoid this kind of stuff, since there isn't much crowd control magic that other magic can't counter.

If they use slow on the wizard, counter with haste.
If they hit him with solid fog, use freedom of movement (or even better, heart of water)
If they like mind-affecting stuff, use mind blank (or that armor/shield crystal that gives you the save bonus vs. mind affecting.)
If they use silence, use spells with no verbal component (or just counterspell it)

[Emperor Tippy]

Are you trying to say that the players will abandon the campaign rather than do things that are time-dependent? That's rather cynical. If they would do that nonsense why do they even show up to the table? It's impractical to throw up your arms and answer with "if you do this your group will leave your game". Further, I wasn't saying that everything should be time-dependent anyway.

Smart players who actually roleplay their characters, yes. Any given action an adventurer takes is weighed against the downsides of taking it. Going off to find another adventure or quest because the current one is too risky is perfectly fine.

And a quest that involves 8 equal CR encounters in a 24 hour period qualifies as "highly risky, death of some of at least some of the party virtually certain, failure chances high, only undertake if necessary to prevent Apocalypse or the like".


No, I don't presume that. I presume that the non-casters shouldn't take any **** from the casters that have been blowing their load too soon.
IC why in the world would any intelligent and rational individual undertake an adventure with partners who are unwilling to minimize risks? Absent a compelling reason to do otherwise no adventurer will enter a fight at anything less than full resources of all kinds (including spell slots).


This is a ridiculous assumption. The game may have been "balanced" on that, but you know better than most anyone that 3.5 is balanced poorly. A GM should build encounters that make the players feel validated in making their class feature choices, sure, but that doesn't stretch as far as letting them steamroll all of your encounters. The OPs actual problem is that the every encounter of a similar type is resolved in the same way. That means they're picking out a limited set from their myriad of options that they feel covers every type of encounter you can throw at them. There is thus nothing wrong with changing the nature of your encounters so that that strategy doesn't necessarily work (although beware of escalation as seen in the tale of the Squirt Gun Wars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPM7I49fj8)). There is nothing wrong with challenging their assumptions.
Then it's the DM's fault. There is no combination of spells that can't be shut down (at least until you get to the more extreme cheese options). There are plenty of ways to punish a wizard for always using the same tactics and spells and plenty of ways to justify that punishment IC, as the DM you should be using them.

PC's at level 10 are nationally recognized. Think of the PC party as the X-Men, the Avengers, or the Fantastic Four. Does anyone who bothers to do a google search know the real mechanics and more esoteric powers and abilities that those individuals have, no. Does that Google Search tell you that Cyclops shoots beams of death from his eyes, that the Hulk is super strong but quite stupid, and that Johnny Storm can become living flame? Of course.

So should anyone be surprised when enemies (BBEG's) go and take special care to neutralize the hero's more standard and common abilities and tactics? No.


If tier 1 classes (casters/manifesters specifically) didn't need to rest more often than the other tiers, then the 15 minute workday would not be a thing.
Yeah it would be. Absent a compelling reason you never enter a fight at less than full strength. That you are at 95% strength is irrelevant, if you can you wait for 100%.


If you're running a party of four non-casters, you know what you're getting yourself into, and you should know (or learn pretty quick) that you should design encounters that wouldn't utterly slaughter them. You can build a campaign to suit your party's capabilities without going so far as catering to their every issue. Likewise, you can build a campaign to challenge your party's assumptions without going so far as putting them 6-feet under.
Your job as the DM is to run the world, not to cater to your players. If a party of non casters is stupid enough to pick a fight with the local archmage who will slaughter them, then the PC's get slaughtered.

The DM should run the same world whether the PC's are level 20 wizards or level 1 fighters. All that should change is what parts of that world are focused on and that should, by and large, be at the discretion of the PC's. If the PC's are stupid enough to get themselves into situations beyond their power level then kill them.


So what? If a particular caster class has in PO the ability to nova every encounter, then the GM should account for that possibility in future encounters.
Again, you shouldn't be balancing your encounters based on your PC's. You should be balancing your encounters based on the world and the encounters stats.


Further, if a GM is having issues with people breaking the action economy, he should take some time putting thought into determining RAI for the nature of the action economy as a whole. 3.5 is far from perfect in that regard, and GMs have every prerogative to fix it. Case-in-point, here's one of my house rules that addresses psions and breaking the action economy:
House rules are an irrelevance in regards to this thread or the topics under discussion.

In some ways it goes back to a disagreement on the basic philosophy of the game. As a DM it is not my job to coddle the players, it's my job to run the world. If the PC's actions interfere with the plans of a high level wizard or entity with access to high level magic then they can expect to find a Rudimentary Intelligence Shadesteel Golem with 8 levels of Factotum and Permanent Emanation: Selective Anti-magic Field arrive next to them in the middle of the night via Wish and fully buffed to kill them. That is a CR 15 "random" encounter. Dropping one of those onto an ECL 11 party is perfectly acceptable.

I would drop that threat on a party made up of a Wizard/Incantatrix, Druid/Planar Shepard, PO Psion, and Wizard/Psion/Ur-Priest/Mystic Theuge/Cerebremancer, I would also drop that same encounter on a party made up of a Fighter, Monk, Healer, and Ninja.

You want to live to reach level 5? Then you better play smart because bad luck can and will strike and you are too squishy to survive more than a bit of bad luck; and death is pretty permanent at this level.

You want to live to reach level 10? Then you better play smart, be paranoid, choose your enemies carefully, and no when to cut your losses because you have distinguished yourself from the dross and have come to the attention of those with real power, many of whom have been playing the great game for hundreds and even thousands of years.

You want to live to reach level 15? Then do what you were doing before only more-so. Death might have become, at worst, a moderate inconvenience to you but there are far worse things than death and they are common at this level.

You want to live to reach level 20? Then you better have mastered the lessons of the earlier levels because there are no more second chances, if you mess up your mind will be erased and your soul will be irrevocably destroyed. You are surrounded by foes known and unknown who are looking for but a single weakness or chink in your defenses to defeat you, this means that your defenses must be perfect. Do you want to defeat your foes? Then you must study them in great depth and find holes in their defenses before slaughtering them with no warning and no mercy.

If the PC's let an enemy act in a fight at level 15 or above then that means that the PC's messed up.

If a BBEG doesn't drop challenges tailored to exploit the PC's skills and abilities and neutralize said PC's as thoroughly as possible then the BBEG has messed up.

[JusticeZero]

If tier 1 classes (casters/manifesters specifically) didn't need to rest more often than the other tiers, then the 15 minute workday would not be a thing..
The last time I played a T1 caster to 13, the GM threw six or seven encounters in a row at us right before throwing his hands up in defeat. My caster was still ready to keep going, and the melee was "ugh, please, we need to rest, heal, and recharge.." The number of spells you have available balloons up pretty massively after awhile, and encounters don't get longer.

[John Longarrow]

Is this (close to) a right solution?

A question that may be very important for your decision, how have the encounters changes since levels 1-5?

Low level party VS Big Bad Monster is generally pretty straight forward. Mid to High level party VS Big Bad Monster is generally what you are facing. I've found that changing the fight dynamics by either increasing the number of effective combatants facing the party or changing what constitutes "Success" as being very important.

Against a 15th level party, facing a dragon head on fight shouldn't be that big of a challenge unless the dragon is very high CR. Take the same dragon and have it raiding an area and it doesn't WANT to fight the party becomes a very different fight.