What do you think about this "balance" rules?

[Ardul]

After many years (10 aprox) my group and me are going to play again D&D 3.5. These past months I've seen everything has changed a lot, obviously, and with this new game I want an "all-books" game. But I don't want a game too unbalanced, so I made some changes, but I'm not sure if I'm fixing or getting worse. The chars are cleric, druid, sorcerer, paladin, rogue and duskblade. Just asking help or some ideas.

Rules:

+ No multiclassing XP penalty.
+ Half-elf get +4 skills point 1st level, +1 each next level.
- No traits, no flaws, no skill tricks.
+ New exotic weapon. Great Broadsword 2d8 3d6 19-20/x2]

Spells and Casters:

+ No XP cost for spells, 5 times XP cost in gold ( Pathfinder style).
+ Sorcerer can cast metamagic without increases casting time.
- All "fly spells" ( fly, mass fly, airwalk...etc) increase his spell level +3 levels. Example: fly would be a 6th level spell.
- Enlarge person ( Lvl1 to Lvl3) and Enlarge Person, Mass ( lvl 4 to lvl 6)
- Ban Spells: Rope trick, polymorph, celerity(lvl4), baleful polymorph, polymorph any object, greater celerity, shapechange and disyunction.
- Charm Person: Target get the next bonus: +4 if he is malicious, +8 if he is hostile. If the target success the ST he becomes hostile. If not, the successive CHAR checks he gets +2.
- Alterself doesnt give fly ability.Alterself is banned.

Classes:

+ Monks, fighters, rogues, barbs, palas, rangers and similar warriors get maneuvers and stances at 10th level as Warblade table shows (Tome of Battle). Effective level will be character level x 3/4. Only one discipline is allowed (any of them). The maneuvers will be recovered as Swordsage does. For example, a 10th fighter has 8 maneuvers known, 4 maneuvers readied and 2 stances. Maneuvers max level is 4th and just one discipline.

+ Duskblade get Critical Strike (1st level) and Combust (2nd level)

= Paladin Charging Smite (PH2) ACF is compulsory.

- Druid Shape form (PH2) ACF is compulsory.

- Wizard and Sorcerer lose familiars without get anything.

And that's everything so far.

[Anxe]

I don't understand the nerfs to charm person and enlarge person. Everything else seems fine.

[RolandDeschain]

- Wizard and Sorcerer lose familiars without get anything.

.

this one has me curious, may I ask why?

[Ydaer Ca Noit]

Sounds risky, good luck.

[eggynack]

The great broadsword is kinda bad, given that it's basically just weapon specialization. You might want to up it to 2d10, or 3d6 or something. Even those things probably wouldn't justify a feat, but they would at least not be pointless.

Edit: Also, why no skill tricks? Skill tricks are sweet. I agree that enlarge person shouldn't be nerfed as well, as that's really a melee nerf when you think about it.

Double edit: Also also, baleful polymorph seems like an odd man out on a list with celerity or polymorph. It's basically just a 5th level SoL, and casters can do better than that. It's a great spell, don't get me wrong, and one of the more efficient things of its type, but it doesn't seem ban worthy until you ban a whole bunch of other stuff.

[NEO|Phyte]

this one has me curious, may I ask why?
Because 9 times out of 10 they are traded away for an ACF that is actually halfway useful.

[eggynack]

Because 9 times out of 10 they are traded away for an ACF that is actually halfway useful.
Familiars are already halfway useful. Also, it seems like you could just ban the ACF's. Banning familiars has to be justified on the merits of familiars.

Edit: As another proposed change, why not just ban alter self entirely instead of banning only flight derived from alter self? It's a ban worthy thing.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think the increase in spell level on fly spells is going to far, they are powerful spells no doubt about that, but it is too much. This is also an indirect nerf to melee classes since they usually rely on items such as wands or potions at early levels to get that mobility. Which means they are SOL when fighting nay kind of flying creature well into the mid-levels.

[claypigeons]

The changes to flight screws the players pretty hard. There are a lot of monsters with Ex flight before level 11.

The level increase on Enlarge Person is a melee nerf. Melee doesn't need a nerf. A cleric still gets Righteous Might as ca fifth and Divine Power as a fourth.

Do half-orcs get anything to make them suck less?

[Ardul]

I don't understand the nerfs to charm person and enlarge person.

The Campaign starts at lvl 5th, and I want to balance melee and casters at early levels as well. Ex: a large Pala with "Great broadsword" deals 3d8 +str bonus at level 5th, a lot for me with a 1st level spell. But I could let Mass enlarge person with lvl4 or lvl5.

About charm person, the change is thought to protect NPCs. If the attempt to charm a king, seller, captain... can finish with a hostile king, the group will be careful about that.


Because 9 times out of 10 they are traded away for an ACF that is actually halfway useful.

True, but not only that. The party group is too big ( 6 members) so I think is enought. Pets are not allowed, just in case of spells, druid with handle animal or similar. And I use this rule to balance at same time. Charging Smite ACF is a good trade for Pala, Shape Form ACF is not a good trade but its better than simple ban to animal companion and I avoid Natural Spell. And banning familiar I avoid ACF.


The changes to flight screws the players pretty hard. There are a lot of monsters with Ex flight before level 11.

Yep, this worried me. But the reason of this is not only balance, its because I want a not "Dragon Ball flying" campaign. I was thinking about just nerf the spell duration but not sure.

EDIT- I Forgot it :smallredface:

The great broadsword is kinda bad, given that it's basically just weapon specialization. You might want to up it to 2d10, or 3d6 or something. Even those things probably wouldn't justify a feat, but they would at least not be pointless.

Edit: Also, why no skill tricks? Skill tricks are sweet. I agree that enlarge person shouldn't be nerfed as well, as that's really a melee nerf when you think about it.

Double edit: Also also, baleful polymorph seems like an odd man out on a list with celerity or polymorph. It's basically just a 5th level SoL, and casters can do better than that. It's a great spell, don't get me wrong, and one of the more efficient things of its type, but it doesn't seem ban worthy until you ban a whole bunch of other stuff.

2d10, 3d6? It looks too much. I could make the rest 2 handed weapons useless.

Skill tricks are sweet, Im agree, but I just want to do the things simple, with "all books" game become so dense.

About Baleful Polymorph may you are right.

[Ydaer Ca Noit]

Fly has a low duration, and flight for all day doesn't worth the spell slot if you don't really need it all day.

Do ppl spam charm person a lot?

Yeah but you can grab a greatsword with its 2d6 without needing exotic weapon proficiency. A feat for 2 more average damage doesn't look that impressive, plus if you take any str damage you are doomed

[eggynack]

2d10, 3d6? It looks too much. I could make the rest 2 handed weapons useless.
Impossible. As long as you need to spend a feat to pick up that +3.5-4 damage, it's still going to be suboptimal in comparison to just doing something else with that feat, and at the very least the 2 handed martial weapons will still have a place. Even big qualitative power increases, like from a guisarme to a spiked chain, are often not worth the feat. All I know is, were I granted the option of using a 3d6 or 2d10 exotic two handed weapon on a melee fellow, I would be unlikely to use it.

[ericgrau]

Seems mostly fine. Balance also depends on your group optimization level. If it isn't that high then sorcerer quicken spam may get a little crazy but not until 10th+ level. Likewise whether free ToB is too much or too little depends on group optimization level.

Raising the level of fly spell will only have the effect of limiting it to casters only when it is needed most. Or what happens to the cost of fly potions and flight magic items? As for the spell itself cast by a caster it is not that great; way over-hyped. It's necessary around level 12+ and then only sometimes. Likewise enlarge person potions are nice for some melee tricks and otherwise it was a pretty bad spell to begin with. Not sure why you'd raise its level.

[Cyrion]

It seems to me that you're doing a lot of work on little details that won't have quite the effect that you hope. You have picked out some of the things that can be abused, but for every one you eliminate there are seventy-eleven more.

I've always found that I can achieve balance through my adventure and encounter structuring. Granted, I've never played with people bent on breaking the system, but I have played with highly creative people who look for interesting ways to exploit their abilities. I just build encounters that will present different challenges and that sometimes make the traditional exploitation a little less desirable. The party is abusing rope trick? Introduce them to the dimension eater- a monster that roams the interdimensional spaces and has discovered that the bubbles made by a rope trick are fun nuts to crack that are usually filled with a delightfully chewy center. They don't show up every time you use rope trick, but they are attracted to repeated use in a given area.

Frankly, from your list, the only thing I'd run with is the no XP penalty for multiclassing.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

A Raptoran or Dragonborn or several other races, plus certain feat combinations, allow a character to fly at 6th level regardless of class. Plus a Warlock can still learn Fell Flight at 6th level. Then there's all the level-adjusted races and templates that can fly immediately (Half-Fey, Winged template, Unseelie Fey, etc.). So I'm not sure how fair/balanced that level increase to flying spells will be.

[Ardul]

Fly has a low duration, and flight for all day doesn't worth the spell slot if you don't really need it all day.

I really want a man flying is something very rare. Just how I concept the campaign. Is it so painful for chars? I think vs some flying monsters they have other tools to get them down. And I can consider it a bigger CR.


Do ppl spam charm person a lot?
Well, they could.


Yeah but you can grab a greatsword with its 2d6 without needing exotic weapon proficiency. A feat for 2 more average damage doesn't look that impressive, plus if you take any str damage you are doomed

Mmmm definitely I should change this. 2d10 could be ok.

And what about the "extra" maneuvers to warriors chars? Bosses and NPC will have the extra maneuvers as well, and I dont sure about balance. Actually is the part which I feel more unsafe. Optimized Rogue with Shadow Hand? Optimized Pala with Diamond Mind? And about duskblade, should I give her free maneuvers as well?

Or maybe not enought power to reduces the gap with spellcasters?

edit---------

A Raptoran or Dragonborn or several other races, plus certain feat combinations, allow a character to fly at 6th level regardless of class. Plus a Warlock can still learn Fell Flight at 6th level. Then there's all the level-adjusted races and templates that can fly immediately (Half-Fey, Winged template, Unseelie Fey, etc.). So I'm not sure how fair/balanced that level increase to flying spells will be.

True, but that is not a problem for me. I'm balancing game to Human Druid, Rogue and Pala, Aasimar cleric, elf sorcerer and half-elf duskblade, so no problem with other races or templates.


It seems to me that you're doing a lot of work on little details that won't have quite the effect that you hope. You have picked out some of the things that can be abused, but for every one you eliminate there are seventy-eleven more.

I'm not trying to remove everything can be exploit it. Its more than fine for me that players search the way to exploit his chars. But mostly I try to ban are "cheap tools". For example: Polymorph any object is cheap, celerity is cheap ( Nerveskitter is still there), and "Shape form" turn down a bit the power of Druid compare with wild shape and animal companion.

[ericgrau]

If your group hasn't played in 10 years you might not be that good at optimizing and may want to play the system normally first. Then add on house-rules after that. It takes skill to play a caster and you may find early on that the only power gaps are the ones you create in the other direction, plus the ones from inexperience also in the other direction.

I could see 2d10 exotic weapon, easy sorcerer quicken and ToB manuevers easily breaking a low optimization game among people who don't know what they're doing. In higher optimization they probably wouldn't hurt. Other than that most things seem too minor to matter whether good or bad. How optimized were you guys 10 years ago?

[Ardul]

If your group hasn't played in 10 years you might not be that good at optimizing and may want to play the system normally first. Then add on house-rules after that. It takes skill to play a caster and you may find early on that the only power gaps are the ones you create in the other direction, plus the ones from inexperience also in the other direction.

I could see 2d10 exotic weapon, easy sorcerer quicken and ToB manuevers easily breaking a low optimization game among people who don't know what they're doing. In higher optimization they probably wouldn't hurt. Other than that most things seem too minor to matter whether good or bad. How optimized were you guys 10 years ago?

I expect a high optimized or semi-optimized game.

[ericgrau]

Ah nevermind it's all fine. Not sure how much it will accomplish but it's fine.

I would keep fly and enlarge at the original level to help certain melee builds though. Overland flight could be raised if you want since it's personal.

[eggynack]

Mmmm definitely I should change this. 2d10 could be ok.

I would actually go with the 3d6 over the 2d10. Partially cause it thematically suits an improved greatsword, but mostly cause that would make this weapon fit on the weapon damage table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize).

[Ardul]

And about duskblade, should I give her free maneuvers as well?

[lsfreak]

The appropriate response to charm person isn't to nerf it, but provide proper defenses. Anyone who can afford to be selling magic items with some regularity can afford to pay for some defenses against mind control, pay a bodyguard who can tell when spells are being cast and do something about it, or keep a high-level group of adventurers or two on the payroll to take care of anyone who messes with the shop. Kings will have the same but more. Also keep in mind charm person just makes you friends, not loyal subjects who will do anything for you. I would be reluctant to give a friend $20 without a good reason, would a king or merchant really be all that different? Suggestion could do it short-term, and dominate could, but it's going to be hard to make those stick to anyone important; even ignoring the myriad possible defenses, dominate is extremely easy to see, and in any civilized society is likely to get you imprisoned, executed, or enslaved if you're using it on important people.

On top of that, it doesn't exactly make sense to me. If I cast charm person on someone who doesn't realize I'm there while he's talking to a bitter enemy of mine, and the spell fails, does he become irrationally angry at the person in front of him? Or does he become angry at me despite having no idea who I am?

[Ardul]

On top of that, it doesn't exactly make sense to me. If I cast charm person on someone who doesn't realize I'm there while he's talking to a bitter enemy of mine, and the spell fails, does he become irrationally angry at the person in front of him? Or does he become angry at me despite having no idea who I am?

Well, I shouldnt say "target become hostile" as a rule. The point is the guy knows that something was wrong, had the sensation someone tries to charm him. He cant becomes hostile with you if doesnt know you were the charmer. And with Charm Person you can try someone does something he doesnt use to do with Char check. Not suicide cases, but...
And I agree with provide defenses, but king and seller were extreme examples, I mean NPCs in general, not all of them have proper defenses.
Anyway I did to protect a bit to NPCs from Charm Person abuse. I didnt think a better way to do it.

[ericgrau]

Charm and dominate are all poor enchantment has going for it though, so I wouldn't take it too far. Enslaving an army might be abuse unless they're all weak. Getting a couple new friends to help you out is par for the course.

[Anxe]

The thing about charm person is that your fix doesn't actually address those situations. The king is giving the characters a quest, right? He's not malicious or hostile to them. He's probably friendly. Having him charmed doesn't do much there. Your change also doesn't influence combat that much as hostile creatures already get a +5 bonus. I'm just confused as to why you're changing it at all. I do use the "becomes hostile" rule though, so I'd stick with that.

For that situation of the charmed target talking to someone else and making their save, I'd treat that kind of like a gunshot that only the target heard. He might say something like, "Stop. Did you feel that? Someone was trying to get into my head. FIND HIM!"

If you've had Enlarge Person abuse in the past I can understand upping the spell level. I find it perfectly fine for 1st level, but 3rd seems really harsh. You've nerfed it to the point where people probably won't be casting it at all. I rarely have people casting it at 1st level in my own campaign. 2nd level might work, but I still wouldn't make that change.

I totally get you on the flying issue though. It keeps flying monsters as a much more serious threat at mid levels.

[bekeleven]

Continuous Protection From X items protect against charms and cost only 4K using item creation rules. (CL 1 x SL 1 x Continuous 2000 x M/L 2)

Also, as an orthogonal fix to Charm Person, consider Rich's Diplomacy Fix (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html).

[NEO|Phyte]

For that situation of the charmed target talking to someone else and making their save, I'd treat that kind of like a gunshot that only the target heard. He might say something like, "Stop. Did you feel that? Someone was trying to get into my head. FIND HIM!"
The thing is, this is already a rule (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow).


Succeeding on a Saving Throw

A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

[Ardul]

The thing about charm person is that your fix doesn't actually address those situations. The king is giving the characters a quest, right? He's not malicious or hostile to them. He's probably friendly. Having him charmed doesn't do much there. Your change also doesn't influence combat that much as hostile creatures already get a +5 bonus. I'm just confused as to why you're changing it at all. I do use the "becomes hostile" rule though, so I'd stick with that.

For that situation of the charmed target talking to someone else and making their save, I'd treat that kind of like a gunshot that only the target heard. He might say something like, "Stop. Did you feel that? Someone was trying to get into my head. FIND HIM!"

Ok. I'll just add the "becomes hostile" rule and the +2 bonus to CHAR checks. But I will keep the change to enlarge person to see how works at 3th. Early levels I see how a big improvement for 1st level


Also, as an orthogonal fix to Charm Person, consider Rich's Diplomacy Fix (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html).

Thanks, it looks suit me.

[herrhauptmann]

I really want a man flying is something very rare. Just how I concept the campaign. Is it so painful for chars?
You might want to just make an agreement with the players then.
They don't abuse fly spells, you don't throw fights at them taht'll be fixed by flight.


Regarding optimization.
It really is a matter of perception. For some tables a wizard chucking fireballs with searing spell is moderately optimized. For others, a wizard better be able to win encounters in 12 seconds or less or he's underoptimized.

Your players haven't played in 10 years. Unless they've been frequenting forums and reading the books on their own, they're probably going to be not highly optimized (on an absolute scale), not when you consider how many things they can play with that came out while they weren't playing.
If they're going to forums for build help, or copying builds by other people, they're not going to be as much of a threat as you think.
You'll see it a lot if you frequent the pbp games here. Someone shows up with an established build as their character, but then can never remember which feats to draw on, or forgets how to use the math (PA multipliers for instance). He forgets when his items should be activating on their own. Prepares teh wrong spells or casts them in the wrong order. Forgets to augment his powers at the right time.

[ericgrau]

Flying monsters and such are why PCs need fly. You can also delay those monsters until much higher level, like 15. Dungeon encounters that can be beaten by fly can also be beaten by spider climb or levitate.

The other thing is at level 15 the non-casters better have some kind of affordable flight.

[AuraTwilight]

What's wrong with Skill Tricks?

[Anxe]

The thing is, this is already a rule (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow).

Ah! Excellent!

As for skill tricks. I feel they gave about as much as a feat gives for a fraction of the cost. That's probably why.

[AuraTwilight]

To be fair, though, most feats are total garbage and not worth what they cost.

[eggynack]

As for skill tricks. I feel they gave about as much as a feat gives for a fraction of the cost. That's probably why.
They do not do that. I mean, sure, if you pair together a high power skill trick and a really low power feat, the skill trick has a chance of coming out on top, but for the really big feats, the ones that people take to make their builds come together, there's really no comparison. Also, there aren't many skill tricks, so it's pretty easy to understand everything they can do and figure out where they fit into a game's power structure, and plan around them. Anyways, the OP's already said their reason is too much complexity. I don't really agree with that either, because as I mentioned it's a pretty small scale mechanic, but there ya go.

[Coidzor]

And about duskblade, should I give her free maneuvers as well?

Well, they can't stack things that aren't boosts or stances with their arcane channeling, IIRC, so strikes are going to be worth much less to them than to other melee characters. Given that arcane channeling and strikes are competing with one another, it's probably not going to create too many issues to allow them that same level (or even a further reduced access) to maneuvers.

[SowZ]

No flaws and no skill tricks definitely nerfs mundanes more than casters. Also: Every time a balance fix doesn't at least give Monks full BAB and d10 HD a tapir dies. http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/51bf1624eab8ea4078000010-480/tapir.jpg

[Ardul]

Swift Concentration helps casters, specially Druid. Anyway with skill tricks is not coz of balance, just it's ok without them.
Monks get free maneuvers as well, not bad.

[Stux]

No flaws and no skill tricks definitely nerfs mundanes more than casters. Also: Every time a balance fix doesn't at least give Monks full BAB and d10 HD a tapir dies.[/IMG]

I also give them the ability to flurry as a standard attack (without iterative attacks of course). That goes down pretty well.

[ericgrau]

Hey now no need to make this a monk thread. They can just play without them in high optimization. But okay I'll bite.

If you do want to keep monks, I die a little inside whenever someone suggests "fixing" them by making them more similar to other melee. Monks do special attack spamming. If you want to bring them into high optimization then give them a bonus to special attacks, maybe ToB maneuvers, maybe another attack and/or maybe pounce (if it's common in your group). Assuming medium BAB +1 per 2 levels to special attacks would keep up with psychic warriors. Assuming full BAB, +1 per 4 levels. I think the extra attack should come online about halfway to the existing one at 11. Or just ditch monks; better than copying other classes when you have 40 other similar options in high optimization.