PDA

View Full Version : Let's take on the spellcasting system



ambu
2007-01-30, 02:06 PM
Greetings to my fellow posters. I have read and participated in many threads about the fixes needed to DnD to make it more balanced/enjoyable etc etc. Time and time again, the discussion is stuck in the magic system. Ah the re are other issues like unequal races and unequal classes but most of the other problems seem to be able to be tackled (Shapechange instead of wildshape, cloistered cleric, fighter fixes, the works). However, the spellcasting system is always a bulwark.

NOTE:IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE ABOVE, THIS IS NOT THE THREAD FOR YOU! DON'T GET AGGRAVATED OR ANYTHING!

Luckily, I believe that only small (but numerous) changes are needed for a complete fix. Mainly, ALL the spells that make the wizard the master of everything need to be addressed. To emphasize me points, I will start (edited to include ideas heard in the forums):

Level one
Charm person: The spell enables the caster to make a diplomacy check even in the middle of combat with a bonus equal to 5+level, as described by the GiantITP. The character starts as friendly
Color spray: The results are based according to the differenve between the caster and the subject of the spell

Level two
Protection from arrows: The caster imposes a -10 to all ranged non magical attacks against him
Knock: The caster gets to use the skill Open Locks even untrained and gains a +10+1/2 levels to all open locks tests. He/she cannot take 10 or 20 in the test. Stuck doors continue to be opened etc etc
Spider climb: The caster gets +10 to climbing tests
Glitterdust: The opponent is outlined a gets a -2 to his attack rolls due to the flashes in front of his eyes.
Blindness: The character sees through a misty haze. He loses his Dex to armor, gets a -3 to attack rolls and a -5 to spot checks. He can still see shapes and volumes so his opponents do not have concealment.
Fly: Has a casting time of 1 minute so as not to make it so useful in combat. Alternatively, it can be casted as a standard action but lasts 1 round per level.


Teleport: It can only work between two specific places, who have been prepared before in a 8 hour ritual. But it can teleport object.
Geas, Lesser Geas, Contingency, Forcecage: Under constuction

and so on and so on. The main idea is that there are no more automatic success and that all save-or-else spells are weakened. Combined with a better will save for fighter like classes, I believe that most problems will be gone.

What do you think?

SpiderBrigade
2007-01-30, 03:50 PM
So your plan is to...rewrite every spell that exists? I'll check in in a few years and see how you're doing. Especially since, on these boards, we can argue for 20 pages about the balance level of a single spell...

Thomas
2007-01-30, 03:59 PM
Shouldn't you just, you know, remove knock, since as you've written it, it's only useable by rogue-wizards? Open Lock is trained only.

It's too much work. People can just play a game with better balance (there's a bunch of d20 games like that, so those who feel insecure away from familiar systems don't need to go out of their way to learn a better game).

ambu
2007-01-30, 06:05 PM
*Sigh*

Well that was a nice start.
Spider: Not I do not plan to rewrite every spell in existence. In fact, the spells above are the ONLY ONES I believe need rewriting in the appropriate levels... and maybe hypnotism.

Thomas: Yes there are other RPGs. There are even other d20 which do a better job (Arcana Evolved). But, IF someone wants to make DND more fun to play, more exciting, would it be a nice start to rewrite SOME spells? That is the question. Per Raw, I believe only three or four spells need touching up, banning etc. And as for the Knock thing. I should have said it allows the skill use untrained. I will edit it know.

Emperor Tippy
2007-01-30, 08:10 PM
Who said rebalancing the magic system would make D&D more fun to play?

Show me where in fantasy a fighter type can stand up to a caster type without some serious deus ex machina and/or magic of his own. It doesn't happen/exist.

When one character can ignoring the laws of the universe they will be inherently superior to the guy who has to obey those laws (in terms of power).
The simple fact is that if the players are good then the caster will limit himself/herself and not win every fight in 1 round.

Whamme
2007-01-30, 08:40 PM
Who said rebalancing the magic system would make D&D more fun to play?

Show me where in fantasy a fighter type can stand up to a caster type without some serious deus ex machina and/or magic of his own. It doesn't happen/exist.

When one character can ignoring the laws of the universe they will be inherently superior to the guy who has to obey those laws (in terms of power).
The simple fact is that if the players are good then the caster will limit himself/herself and not win every fight in 1 round.

If magic of his own includes magical equipment, there's quite a few examples. Apparently the problem is that magical swords that make you immune to magic aren't allowed in D&D (I'm thinking of two examples here).

Actually, there's quite a few different ways. All of them are rooted in magic having it's limits. In the Soldier Son series, for example, iron breaks magic, so the country with a heavy industry and gunpowder has a combative edge against the magic using peoples - especially given that magic has a price in that setting (uses food energy, has a will of it's own). Or the same author's first three trilogies under that penname - the main character has magic (which can control minds, heal bodies, or do just about anything, really) but faces trouble because he can't just casually 'win' conflicts. Most of the time he has to use mundane means for things because using magic is risky, strenuous, and not strictly better at everything.

Heck, the way D&D magic get's novelized it's not an 'I win' button, because wizards have to conserve their magic, they are typically physically frail (often as part of the price of learning magic), and there are ways around their spells.

OOH! Conan! Versus like, EVERY evil sorceror he ever faced!

No, it is not inherent that magic just wins. It's quite, quite genre for them to fall to muscle and skill.

Thomas
2007-01-30, 08:58 PM
I'm not Matthew!

I'm not sure whether to be flattered that I would be confused for him.

Rebalancing spells is ultimately pretty dang easy. I just say to my players, "Hey, that looks pretty broken. How about we don't use it?" They say, "Sure." It's all internal gaming-group agreements anyway. Just make sure your players into the habit of consulting with you about builds and ideas and how the rules interact with them. Much easier than going over all the spells and taking them down a notch.

Wehrkind
2007-01-30, 09:12 PM
And the resounding chorus for ambu's ambitious rallying cry:

Meh... too much effort.

I know my heart stands uplifted...

ken-do-nim
2007-01-30, 09:46 PM
Rebalancing spells is ultimately pretty dang easy. I just say to my players, "Hey, that looks pretty broken. How about we don't use it?" They say, "Sure." It's all internal gaming-group agreements anyway. Just make sure your players into the habit of consulting with you about builds and ideas and how the rules interact with them. Much easier than going over all the spells and taking them down a notch.

My players aren't so easy-going. They cherish their spells! So my plan is to use these spells against them and see how they like it.

Man, every one of the people I play D&D with has such a different take on game balance, ranging from "It might be broken but I don't care" to "It's not broken at all because I've never seen it abused" to "Wizards are insanely powerful!". Yes, believe it or not, I asked a friend of mine to rank the classes in power order, and he put druids at the bottom, shrugging and saying their spell list looked weak. Again the only way to prove it to him that things are otherwise is for me to play a druid and show him. Unfortunately I rarely get the chance to game with him.

Anyway, getting back to the OP, we could go through the spell list and try to tame things, but we're going to piss some people off. For instance, everyone who plays a wizard that I know LOVES Evard's black tentacles. Do we ban it? Nerf it? How about ray of enfeeblement? A 10th level spellcaster's dream spell, considering the payoff vs. the resource usage.

My vote for fixing spells is to adopt the psionics way of doing it. Use power points, and if you want a more powerful version of the same spell (like ray of enfeeblement doing 1-6+5 instead of just 1-6) you have to spend more power points. But again, that's a lot of work (unless someone has already done it?)

ambu
2007-01-31, 02:51 AM
First of all:

THOMAS I AM SORRY! That comes from posting deep in the night. I will fix it immediately.

To get back in track:Well I know some people do NOT believe that DnD needs fixing. It's OK as long as they have fun. But that is irrelevant in this thread isn't it? It is aimed at people who DO believe that it is bad for the wizard to own everything in sight after some level.
I severely dislike the fact, for example, that some spells do what a rogue does without any chance of failure. Why have a rogue for the locks when a wand of knock is available? That is bad design, in my opinion. And the save-or-else spells are also bad. That is what I am talking about.

In that light, is it really so much bother to alter thirty or so spells? I believe that the first two spell levels are OK now. I will go on now, to demonstrate what I mean:

Third level spells:
Blindness: The character sees through a misty haze. He loses his Dex to armor, gets a -3 to attack rolls and a -5 to spot checks. He can still see shapes and volumes so his opponents do not have concealment.
Glitterdust: The opponent is outlined a gets a -2 to his attack rolls due to the flashes in front of his eyes.

Rigeld2
2007-01-31, 07:56 AM
Blindness: The character sees through a misty haze. He loses his Dex to armor, gets a -3 to attack rolls and a -5 to spot checks. He can still see shapes and volumes so his opponents do not have concealment.
Losing thier dex bonus means that the rogue that is now required in the party can viscerate them. That, and being able to see shapes and volumes doesnt mean targets dont get concealment... if you dont want them to have concealment, they dont get it.

ambu
2007-01-31, 08:26 AM
That's it Rigeld. They do not get concealment and I was just trying to rationalize this.

Ikkitosen
2007-01-31, 09:10 AM
Your basic premise is good Mr. OP. One of the core concepts of 3.x was to remove flat "set to" or "succeed" spells/items and replace them with bonuses.

This was to avoid the wimpy bow using ftr/rog from putting on Gauntlets of Ogre Power and instantly becoming stronger than the meleeist. In 3.x you get a bonus to what you have, so you can't immediately surpass other regardless of initial skill/whatever.

They seemed to ignore this good idea when writing many spells though, as you say. Knock is, to many locks, an instant success, which makes Mr. +35 Open Locks look like a bit of a schmuck, considering how much effore he put into getting that skill level.

A good idea, but at this stage of the game's release I believe trying to fix all the spells may be an exercise in futility.

Rigeld2
2007-01-31, 09:36 AM
That's it Rigeld. They do not get concealment and I was just trying to rationalize this.
So youre okay with the spell still being "You Lose." simply because the now required Rogue can drop sneak attacks on the target all day long with no fear?

Yakk
2007-01-31, 09:48 AM
For Blindness-like status effects, how about a save every round for (concentration+1d6 rounds), and if you fail 3 rounds in a row it becomes Permanent.

Morty
2007-01-31, 10:00 AM
Who said rebalancing the magic system would make D&D more fun to play?

Show me where in fantasy a fighter type can stand up to a caster type without some serious deus ex machina and/or magic of his own. It doesn't happen/exist.

When one character can ignoring the laws of the universe they will be inherently superior to the guy who has to obey those laws (in terms of power).
The simple fact is that if the players are good then the caster will limit himself/herself and not win every fight in 1 round.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
First, I personally think it makes more fun if magic system isn't unbalanced and full of spells that are just plain dumb, even if not unbalanced. And I don't really think it's good if wizard can do everything he wants. Fantasy with omnipotent wizards is bad fantasy.
Second, ignoring the laws of the universe is the biggest problem of D&D magic. Wizard should break/bend laws of physic instead of ignoring them, which is difference. Not to mention many spells in D&D ingore not only laws of physic, but also logic, common sense and playability. Like MMM, Rope Trick, Greater Teleport and maaaany other.
Third, just because you can cast magic doesn't mean you should be pwning in combat. In fact, you should be weaker in battle, because you're weak, fragile and don't know how to hold a weapon.
Of course, these points don't have anything to do with high-level D&D as it looks now. But that's how it should look.
As for OP: yeah, rewriting all spells is plain too much work. Such rewriting should begin by making list of spells that are too strong- which is hard, since people can argue for five pages if spell is overpowered or not.

barawn
2007-01-31, 10:29 AM
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Fantasy with omnipotent wizards is bad fantasy.


I definitely agree there.

Not to derail the thread, but in one of the other threads, I realized that part of the problem also is that with 8 hours rest, poof, casters are essentially at full strength again, regardless of how weak they were originally. This is emphatically not the case for melee types, at all.

In that thread I suggested tweaking the amounts that you heal by per day (really: does it make sense that a first-level wizard heals up to 25% of their hit points in a day whereas a first level fighter heals as low as like, 7% or so?) but that's a different point.

One thing I thought of is: well, if preparing spells requires 8 hours of rest so they can clear and focus their mind - doesn't it make sense that this would be harder if your body was beat to utter hell? So you could imagine something like a Spellcraft (for wizards), Concentration (for sorcerers), and I have no idea (for clerics) check, with a DC of 10+number of HP below full.

I still think the OP is right that there are pretty much very few spells which need to be tweaked, but they do need to be tweaked.

Doing it in one thread might not be that smart, though. You want to be really smart? Start a Wiki for it. That way each spell could get its own page with pages and pages of notes.



Blindness: The character sees through a misty haze. He loses his Dex to armor, gets a -3 to attack rolls and a -5 to spot checks. He can still see shapes and volumes so his opponents do not have concealment.

The effects of Blindness are fine to me, but it should have a Duration of 1 round/level for Blindness, probably 2 rounds/level (or 5 rounds/level) for Deafness. I don't know what odd crack people were on when they thought it should be a Permanent duration. It's not that much different from Hold Person - if there's a rogue in the party, Blindness is an instant kill, and unlike Hold Person, Blindness doesn't get multiple saving throws. No reason it shouldn't be 1 round/level.

Were-Sandwich
2007-01-31, 10:45 AM
Maybe use the Spell Point system from UA, which is basically the psionics rules, but with magic. However, rather than restoring all SP when resting, they are simply restored an equal number of SP as they would heal HP. Doesn't apply to magical healing.

Telonius
2007-01-31, 11:05 AM
Okay, tinkering with a couple of the more egregious spells that make casters pwn no matter what...

Glitterdust: Add "Reflex negates." It's possible to duck out of the way of the incoming dust.
Contingency: Add XP cost of 100 x level of the contingent spell.
Forcecage: Is now a level 9 spell. Same stats otherwise.

Golthur
2007-01-31, 11:17 AM
And the resounding chorus for ambu's ambitious rallying cry:

Meh... too much effort.

I know my heart stands uplifted...

Yes, very heartening. The thunderous battle cry of "meh" fills the air.

Anyway, back on topic.

Generally ambu's opinion is right on the money here. Low-level magic shouldn't replace skills - because that's bad for skill-monkeys. The only way it doesn't suck is if you live in TrapworldTM, where there are 10 or 12 traps/locks/whatever per 100' of corridor. Changing it from "it always works" to "boosts your skill and lets you use it untrained" goes at least part of the way to fixing it - if you get the numbers right. There are still spells like fly and friends, though.

The second culprit is save-or-die/save-or-lose, and my personal opinion on how to fix these is the same as ambu's - change them to be more gradual; e.g. save and you're fine, miss the save by 5 or less and a small bad thing happens, miss the save by 10 through 6 and a bigger bad things happens, and so on. This makes it so that they end up mostly being somewhat potent debuffs against equivalent-level foes, instead of "I win". Against mooks, yeah, they're "I win".

barawn
2007-01-31, 11:20 AM
Geas should have a saving throw, ditch the "remove curse must be two levels higher", and put a maximum of 1 day/level. The idiotic "open ended task" can be avoided using the stupidest wording imaginable ("travel the world for the next 20 years, staying at least 5 miles from this location" isn't open ended, nor is it a task that's not accomplishable by the geased character). Ditto with lesser geas (it already has a saving throw).

barawn
2007-01-31, 11:38 AM
The second culprit is save-or-die/save-or-lose, and my personal opinion on how to fix these is the same as ambu's - change them to be more gradual; e.g. save and you're fine, miss the save by 5 or less and a small bad thing happens, miss the save by 10 through 6 and a bigger bad things happens, and so on.

For the save-or-lose types with permanent changes, I think you're right. Just a generic change could be all Permanent effects with a save instead are 1 round/level for missing by 5 or less, 1 minute/level for missing by 6-10, 1 day/level for missing by 11-15, and permanent for missing by more.

Might need to be tweaked a bit, but that'd work for me.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-31, 11:49 AM
Someone should mention freedom of movement too, which takes several major components of the game (grappling/movement-limiting spells like solid fog & web/underwater limitations, etc.) and makes them instantly overcome, no questions asked.

ambu
2007-01-31, 01:47 PM
That's it people that's the spirit! And I do not have great experience in greater level spells so any suggestions are welcome.

And I do not believe that ALL spells are unbalanced. Only two or three per spell level, which everybody knows are 'too good'...I will have more suggestions tomorrow

Telonius
2007-01-31, 02:02 PM
Geas should have a saving throw, ditch the "remove curse must be two levels higher", and put a maximum of 1 day/level. The idiotic "open ended task" can be avoided using the stupidest wording imaginable ("travel the world for the next 20 years, staying at least 5 miles from this location" isn't open ended, nor is it a task that's not accomplishable by the geased character). Ditto with lesser geas (it already has a saving throw).

I think the casting time (ten minutes) on Geas already limits it. There's a pretty small chance that you're going to be able to pull one of those off in battle. It's basically for dealing with captured foes, paroled prisoners, things like that. At that point, the target is pretty much at your mercy anyway. I think that the wording of Geas is fine as it is, though it might be good to bump it up to a 7th-level spell.

For Lesser Geas, I'd say that, "Until discharged or 1 day/level, whichever happens first," would be a better duration.

barawn
2007-01-31, 02:29 PM
I think the casting time (ten minutes) on Geas already limits it. There's a pretty small chance that you're going to be able to pull one of those off in battle.

Unless, of course, you're hiding, and the battle never starts. It's only got a verbal component, so if it's Silent Spelled, the target might never know it was going off in the first place. No save means only Spell Resistance will save the person. Bit too much for a 7th level spell to be able to take out anyone, without a save, for an arbitrary amount of time.

And, of course, ah, Contingency. Granted, you have to be 18th level for that.

It's a bit too powerful, in my mind. At the very least, the silly "no matter how long it takes" restriction should be eliminated - cap the Geas at 1 day per caster level, period. Oh, and in addition, add "the geas ends if the caster is killed." That's a house rule of mine, and it's great for adding a bit of risk to the spell. It means using Geas on a powerful subject is really, really stupid. They'll just suck the damage for avoiding the geas, and find you and kill you, regardless of what the geas is.

Of course, you could always say "Save: Will, see text. A successful save means the geas will last only 1 day per caster level of the caster, minus the amount that the saving throw succeeded by. Failing the Will save implies the geas lasts until completed."

Telonius
2007-01-31, 02:58 PM
Well, if we bump it up to 7th level we don't have to worry about Contingency (which can only set off spells up to 6th level).

I'm not sure that a Silent Geas would work. From the wording of Lesser Geas:

The creature must have 7 or fewer Hit Dice and be able to understand you. If you're silent spelling it, the target isn't going to be able to understand you, so the spell would fail.

EDIT: Yep, it's a language-dependent spell.



A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails.

barawn
2007-01-31, 03:05 PM
Good point. 7th level also makes sense given that it's the location of the first spell that can undo it freely.

I still like the "the geas ends if the caster is killed", though. But that's just me. :D

Yakk
2007-01-31, 03:06 PM
Geas should have a saving throw, ditch the "remove curse must be two levels higher", and put a maximum of 1 day/level. The idiotic "open ended task" can be avoided using the stupidest wording imaginable ("travel the world for the next 20 years, staying at least 5 miles from this location" isn't open ended, nor is it a task that's not accomplishable by the geased character). Ditto with lesser geas (it already has a saving throw).

Casting time 10 minutes, and range is close (50 ft at L 20).

So the only real worry is that some caster casts the spell while you are sleeping.

Emperor Tippy
2007-01-31, 03:12 PM
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
First, I personally think it makes more fun if magic system isn't unbalanced and full of spells that are just plain dumb, even if not unbalanced. And I don't really think it's good if wizard can do everything he wants. Fantasy with omnipotent wizards is bad fantasy.
LoTR is bad fantasy? Raymond E. Feist writes bad fantasy? Robert Jordan? Terry Goodkind? Every one of those has at least 1 magic user who is nigh omnipotent and is basically a demigod. Gandalf, Pug (and a good number of other people), The Aes'Sedai? Richard Rahl or most casters in the sword of truth series.


Second, ignoring the laws of the universe is the biggest problem of D&D magic. Wizard should break/bend laws of physic instead of ignoring them, which is difference.
Ignoring and breaking are not different. And I can justify any D&D spell under the guise of physics. If I wanted to kill catgirls.


Not to mention many spells in D&D ingore not only laws of physic, but also logic, common sense and playability. Like MMM, Rope Trick, Greater Teleport and maaaany other.
MMM? How exactly does it ignore logic, common sense, or playability? It just creates a portal to a small, easily mutable demiplane and mutates it into a mansion in the layout the caster wants. Yes it makes wizards untouchable whenever they feel like it but it is a 7th level spell. Above about level 10-11 dungeon crawls should be very rare. You are dealing with more important things and long term quests. The fact that you can sleep safely isn't broken.

Rope Trick is a bit on the low level side for what it does but not by much. Again, how does it break logic or common sense. Maybe playability but even then it doesn't mess it up to much.

Greater Teleport? Teleportation is one of fantasy's most common spells. How is it not logical or ignores common sense? And as with MMM, its a high level spell. At those levels you should not be giving your parties quests/missions in which they have to get to x location quickly. The higher the level in D&D the more roleplay is required. The players aren't the scouts for an army any more, they are the generals and the planners. The mage isn't dealing with goblins, he is dealing with inter-planar problems.



Third, just because you can cast magic doesn't mean you should be pwning in combat. In fact, you should be weaker in battle, because you're weak, fragile and don't know how to hold a weapon.Reread your fantasy. When non casters kill a caster it is almost always due to one of the following; the caster is out of magic, the caster is distracted, the caster did something incredibly stupid, or the caster was asleep.

Throughout fantasy wizards destroy whole armies at once (if not opposed by other mages). Yes, the wizard can't and shouldn't be able to cross swords with the fighter but that doesn't mean that he can't or shouldn't ba able to kill the fighter 50 different ways with a thought.



Of course, these points don't have anything to do with high-level D&D as it looks now. But that's how it should look.
Not if you are looking at high fantasy that involves magic.

/sorry for going off on a tangent
//back to your regularly scheduled thread

barawn
2007-01-31, 03:23 PM
Every one of those has at least 1 magic user who is nigh omnipotent and is basically a demigod.

They also happen to be the hero, typically (see previous reverse examples). Calling them a demigod is a bit much. Unsurprisingly, the heroes tend to look powerful. Gasp.



So the only real worry is that some caster casts the spell while you are sleeping.

At which point you're already in pretty bad shape anyway. Anyway, making it level 7 eliminates the Contingency "I win over everything without spell resistance!" cheese, so that's perfectly fine.

Telonius
2007-01-31, 03:26 PM
Robert Jordan?



Yes.

The others, I'm with you. :smallbiggrin:

Morty
2007-01-31, 04:02 PM
Alright, sorry for offtopic, but:

LoTR is bad fantasy? Raymond E. Feist writes bad fantasy? Robert Jordan? Terry Goodkind? Every one of those has at least 1 magic user who is nigh omnipotent and is basically a demigod. Gandalf, Pug (and a good number of other people), The Aes'Sedai? Richard Rahl or most casters in the sword of truth series.
Gandalf isn't even human. And he rarely uses any 'magic' in D&D meaning of this world. And you answered your own question- they're demigods. In D&D wizards are still humans (or elves or whatever).

MMM? How exactly does it ignore logic, common sense, or playability? It just creates a portal to a small, easily mutable demiplane and mutates it into a mansion in the layout the caster wants. Yes it makes wizards untouchable whenever they feel like it but it is a 7th level spell. Above about level 10-11 dungeon crawls should be very rare. You are dealing with more important things and long term quests. The fact that you can sleep safely isn't broken.

Rope Trick is a bit on the low level side for what it does but not by much. Again, how does it break logic or common sense. Maybe playability but even then it doesn't mess it up to much.
Call it what you like, I still consider it dumb. Rope trick and MMM allows whole party, not only wizard, rest when they're in the middle of demon-infested territory. Even in non-dungeon crawl it's wrong. If I'm talking about shelter for high-level wizard, I mean tower, not some extraplanar crap. And I completely don't know how to describe or roleplay such spells without sounding foolish. That's and that I'm basically against any creation spells even in high magic settings- one of the reasons I no longer grieve banning Conjuration with my current wizard character.

Greater Teleport? Teleportation is one of fantasy's most common spells. How is it not logical or ignores common sense? And as with MMM, its a high level spell. At those levels you should not be giving your parties quests/missions in which they have to get to x location quickly. The higher the level in D&D the more roleplay is required. The players aren't the scouts for an army any more, they are the generals and the planners. The mage isn't dealing with goblins, he is dealing with inter-planar problems.
Higher the level, harder RPing, if you ask me. Sure, I admit, teleporting is what powerful wizards in high magic worlds do. But it should take something more that one standard action and wheee we're on the other side of the planet. High levels =!= doing everything with ease via magic.

Reread your fantasy. When non casters kill a caster it is almost always due to one of the following; the caster is out of magic, the caster is distracted, the caster did something incredibly stupid, or the caster was asleep.
Or fighter has wizard in range of his flail and it'll take him much shorter time to split wizard's head in quarters that for wizard to cast any spell. That's a quote from the book. Not exactly, because I translated it on the fly, but main point remains.
And finally, these are books. In books, wizards are awesome, but they're elite. In D&D, you can make wizard as easily as fighter.

Not if you are looking at high fantasy that involves magic.
I disagree. Wizards should be able to do amazing things no fighter can dream about- that's they're freakin' here for- but they shouldn't be untouchable in combat. That's my whole point. Wizard can eliminate fighter by his magic without even starting a fight, but in face-to-face duel wizard should have less chances, not to mention much lesser survivablility in combat as whole, not only duels. It's not really that hard.
On topic: I'm personally in favor of giving ceratin non-combat spells like teleportation, scrying etc. longer casting time, focuses and material components.

Spiryt
2007-01-31, 04:58 PM
Gandalf? Gandalf is LOOSER according to D&D system.:smalltongue:
What was he doing? :
- calling some lightings
- burn wolves
- Hold one portal
Damage dealer caster, maybe 5th level. Completly mediocre if not weak:smallamused:

And magic is fantastically written in LOTR, because it was already SOMETHING. Also he was struggling with Balrog and Nazguls. With his will power, and because he was equal to them with majesty. Not with wall of iron, force cage and other crap. :smalltongue: And he had to travel through land on Shadowfax not with "Greater Teleport"

The mage isn't dealing with goblins, he is dealing with inter-planar problems.
Sorry, if you want guy who is dealing "inter-planar" problem, give him level adjustment or something. He can't gain such arcane mastery by killing stuff with silly spells. There's nothing arcane in this. Let's think logicaly, if every schmuck with some magic potential could quickly become so powerful, mages will rule all Faerun (and every other setting).But I can see only Khelben Blackstaff (extremly powerful), who have lot to say, but is far from rulling all world.

And the fact that one player is 5 times more powerful than others, because he has other class is ridiculous. It's a game, after all.

Reread: Gandalf was using his magic for great deeds. But most of his foes he slain with glamdring. It's like it's supposed to look- wizard makes hard or impossible things easier or even possible- by teleporting, scrying and so on- but he has a hard time in face-to-face combat.

Serenity
2007-01-31, 05:23 PM
Yeah, Gandalf's magic is nowhere near omnipotent. Wizards in Middle Earth don't throw around time stops or meteor swarms. Even Saruman didn't go summoning hordes of demons. Magic in Middle Earth is subtle, and exhausting to use often. When Gandalf was in battle, he mostly either swinging his sword or 'rallying the troops.'

Yakk
2007-01-31, 05:52 PM
Just restrict contingency to spells that can be cast in one standard action or less.

Matthew
2007-01-31, 06:05 PM
Yeah, Gandalf's magic is nowhere near omnipotent. Wizards in Middle Earth don't throw around time stops or meteor swarms. Even Saruman didn't go summoning hordes of demons. Magic in Middle Earth is subtle, and exhausting to use often. When Gandalf was in battle, he mostly either swinging his sword or 'rallying the troops.'

Or driving off Nazgul with his Magic Ring, or shooting Lightning Bolts at Goblins.

Spiryt
2007-01-31, 06:09 PM
and so on and so on. The main idea is that there are no more automatic success and that all save-or-else spells are weakened. Combined with a better will save for fighter like classes, I believe that most problems will be gone.

What do you think?

It's good idea but I think that other thing should be also changed.
Casting time. Almost every single spell have 1 standard action cast. time.
Many powerful stuff necessarily should require longer time to cast. I mean those which do really ''live non casters behind" thing's. Teleport? After all why not, but not in 3 second, damn it.

Some spell should require at least 24 seconds to cast. Give your suggestions.
(All seconds durations should be six divisible in cause of combat use)
Quickened spell could reduce duration to half for example.
Fly is of course one of first candidates. With longer cast time it will be still awesome spell for all party for crossing chasms, rivers, scouting and 1000 other things. But it won't make you inviolable instantly.


The subject floats downward 60 feet per round for 1d6 rounds. If it reaches the ground in that amount of time, it lands safely. If not, it falls the rest of the distance, taking 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet of fall
It should be also possibly changed or even removed.
Fly? Sure. You are mage after all. But fly carefully
What do you think about that?

ambu
2007-02-01, 02:47 AM
A lot of nice suggestions.
Spiryt: Nice idea about fly, to have a casting time of 1 minute so as not to make it so useful in combat. But maybe there should be an in combat use, like 'fly for 1/round' would be nice.
Yakk and Telonius: Could you make your Geas more specific?

Another suggestion:
Teleport: It can only work between two specific places, who have been prepared before in a 8 hour ritual. But it can teleport object.

Morty
2007-02-01, 09:56 AM
Well, we have Fly, swift already, so if we change fly so it takes longer time to cast, just edit its swift version to take one standard action but last short. It'll need changing Flying Boots and other items, too.

Iron_Mouse
2007-02-01, 10:21 AM
Here is a good variant for Knock that should be made standard imho: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/variantfewerabsolutes1.html

Yakk
2007-02-01, 10:53 AM
Save or lose/suck spells in general:
Targets must make a SAVE for (concentration+1d4 rounds), or the spell duration, whichever is less. Each round reevaluate their status. If they fail for 3 rounds in a row the spell takes effect for the standard duration.

Against targets with low saves, they work well. Against targets with middling saves, they work intermittently. Against targets with high saves, they work extremely unreliably.

Some spells need to be reworded -- ie, finger of death. They take the damage regardless. On a failed save, they are helpless for that round, and if they fail 3 saves in a row they are dead.

Ranged Touch status spells:
Change them to Ranged Touch(will) or Ranged Touch(fortitude). The targets of a Ranged Touch gain a bonus equal to their will and/or fortitude to their touch AC, representing the chance that they shrug off/overcome the effect.

Gaes:
Geas may not contain any references to any time beyond 1 day per level of the caster. The Geas must (theoretically) be completeable within that time, even if issues of transportation might get in the way.

During the casting of the Gaes spell, the target(s) must be touched by the caster. If the targets are unwilling, this is a touch attack.

Golthur
2007-02-01, 10:59 AM
Ranged Touch status spells:
Change them to Ranged Touch(will) or Ranged Touch(fortitude). The targets of a Ranged Touch gain a bonus equal to their will and/or fortitude to their touch AC, representing the chance that they shrug off/overcome the effect.

This is very, very interesting. I don't know if the exact numbers would work out, off the top of my head, but it's definitely an interesting solution to the "two points of failure" problem. I might play with this one for a bit.

Telonius
2007-02-01, 10:59 AM
Ranged Touch status spells:
Change them to Ranged Touch(will) or Ranged Touch(fortitude). The targets of a Ranged Touch gain a bonus equal to their will and/or fortitude to their touch AC, representing the chance that they shrug off/overcome the effect.

Wouldn't that make the Monk nearly unhittable with a ranged touch spell? The Monk would be double-dipping from Will saves, since they already get their Wisdom bonus to AC applying to touch attacks. (I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, just pointing it out).

Spiryt
2007-02-01, 11:22 AM
Ranged Touch status spells:
Change them to Ranged Touch(will) or Ranged Touch(fortitude). The targets of a Ranged Touch gain a bonus equal to their will and/or fortitude to their touch AC, representing the chance that they shrug off/overcome the effect.



Sounds good to me, too, but why not Ranged Touch( reflex) too?
I think that it should also be Melee Touch(reflex), representing your chace to avoid being touched.
But anyway i think that is good solution. Fighter at 14 level and Const 14, Dex 13 will have 22 AC against ranged attack. Sure, mage can still use cat's grace or something, but he indeed doesn't anymore win by rolling 4 on att. throw...

Glittersamas
2007-02-01, 11:33 AM
A request ambu. Could you edit your OP to include all spells altered? Makes it easier to give feedback. :D

Yakk
2007-02-01, 11:52 AM
Dex is already applied to your ranged touch AC -- it is already a kind of reflex attack.

A ranged touch(reflex) might be a spell that is a ray that, after it hits, encases you in a cocoon. With the right reflexes, you can dodge out of the cocoon.

But there aren't all that many of those spells. :)

barawn
2007-02-01, 12:04 PM
representing the chance that they shrug off/overcome the effect.

That's what the save is supposed to be, though. Justifying adding Will or Fort to the attack roll AC would be slightly different - that in order for a spell to take hold against a person with a high Fort/Will save requires a more accurate touch attack. I don't know of a simpler way to word it, though. Still makes sense, in my mind: for a Will save, you had to hit them when their attention was elsewhere, and for a Fort save, you had to hit them in a tighter location (hitting them in, say, their arm doesn't do anything - their resistance is high enough that you need a direct strike in order to have a chance for the effect to work).

ambu
2007-02-01, 01:56 PM
Once again thanks for the input guys... and girls

Glittersamas: Done.

Spiryt:Actually, I believe most touch spells are allready OK as they have a fail safe already built, especially with the new feat that let you add your shield bonus to your touch AC. But that's just my opinion.


Iron mouse: Glad to know that even some of the Core game designers agree with me! Or I agree with them....whatever.

ken-do-nim
2007-02-01, 02:18 PM
Once again thanks for the input guys... and girls

Glittersamas: Done.

Spiryt:Actually, I believe most touch spells are allready OK as they have a fail safe already built, especially with the new feat that let you add your shield bonus to your touch AC. But that's just my opinion.


Iron mouse: Glad to know that even some of the Core game designers agree with me! Or I agree with them....whatever.

I believe some of the problems with ray spells can be cured by adding ranges to ranged touch. Someone already did this out many threads ago. Let me see if I can find it...

Edit: I can't find it. It was probably posted in December, in one of the many class balancing threads. But it basically had 3 range categories depending upon the whether the ray spell has a range of short, medium, or long, and compared those to similar missile weapons. I'll spend more time trying to find it tonight.

Draz74
2007-02-01, 02:35 PM
One thing you're all missing as far as Geas goes ...

It does 3d6 damage and has a chance to make you sickened (which you get to save against). Per day.

Anyone who is friends with a Cleric and is over Level 7 or so can live for years with a Geas spell on them and not pay much attention to it. And that level requirement isn't too bad, considering the character is up against something of at least 11th level if it can have Geas cast on it.

I actually prefer Lesser Geas over Greater -- Will save and all -- because at least it deals meaningful punishment if you don't obey it.

barawn
2007-02-01, 03:32 PM
Anyone who is friends with a Cleric and is over Level 7 or so can live for years with a Geas spell on them and not pay much attention to it.


Eh, good point. But bumping it to level 7 makes sense. In my mind, spells that cause effects should be basically the same level as spells that remove them (Poison/Neutralize Poison). The first spell that can remove it is level 7 (remove curse doesn't really count - the two levels higher bit means that in all likelihood, if it's a wizard, they could've cast limited wish anyway).


considering the character is up against something of at least 11th level if it can have Geas cast on it.

What about scrolls, with a bit of a failure possibility? (Although that eliminates Contingency, so...) A rogue with a bunch of ranks in UMD could reliably cast Geas as early as 7th level, maybe earlier (10 ranks+4(cha)+4(synergy)+3 (skill focus))

Also, requiring the creature to "know Clerics" kindof implies that it's human, which it definitely doesn't need to be.

I still think level 7 sounds about right. The damage could be bumped up as well, if needed.

jdrich
2007-02-01, 05:11 PM
There is one easy fix to the spellcaster/non-spellcaster balance that makes everything work:

Make the spellcasters pay. Out the rear. I don't mean punish them for playing spellcasters, but if a +3 sword costs several thousand gold, why shouldn't the knowledge of a powerful spell that only a few on the continent might possess be free every level? Just because they 'researched' it between levels?

Take away the free spells at each level. Make spellbooks plentiful enough so that they have one or two spells per level, and definitely allow for spell research, but only if they're paying for it - materials, access to tomes, etc. The wizard in my current game is no more powerful than the rest of the group - he's perfectly happy with letting the ogre take a few hits for him.

There are a lot more ways to 'fix' magic, but there really isn't anything wrong with magic itself. Magic hasn't gotten more powerful in 3rd edition, it's just that it's easier to get your hands on.

Sorcerors would get random spells at each level, but they'd also get a few extra spells known so they don't get shafted. As the DM, you can fudge things a little and if your sorcerors are based on Dragons you can use that theme to direct the spells the way you think they ought to be. I also see no reason why a sorceror shouldn't be able to learn magic from other sources as lain out in the DMG II (or maybe the PHB II?).

Druids and Clerics are tough to reign in, of course. Fewer spell components and an 'unlimited' spell list. The easiest way to rationalize things is to just limit the spells offered as a DM. Don't micromanage your PCs, but be rational.

barawn
2007-02-01, 07:16 PM
Druids and Clerics are tough to reign in, of course.

Get rid of the ability of a cleric to completely choose their own spells.

Each day, a Cleric prays for certain spells (we'll make the Cleric female). The character hands the DM the spells they want. The DM decides whether or not she gets them, or what spells she does get. Depending on how the DM believes the Cleric's relationship is with her deity, she may or may not get the spells she wants. ("Oh, god, she's asking for spells again. I can't stand that hypocrite. What's she asking for? Greater Magic Weapon? Whatever. Give her 'Discern Lies', and maybe she'll use it on her own belief system.") Of course, if the Cleric's relationship is really good, the DM can be clever ("why did I get 'Control Water'? hey, what's this deep pool in this dungeon for?") - which requires the cleric to actually trust her deity as well.

You could easily make up a special skill-like stat (Faith, or something like that) which determines how good the cleric's standing is. Make getting spells a private Faith check roll, and make the check dependent upon the maximum spell level requested. That way you can essentially set it up so that in order to be a "standard" high-level cleric, you would've basically had to spent your entire adventuring career with a devotion that would've made a Paladin say "dude, you need to lighten up."

Something similar has worked in games I've been in.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-01, 07:21 PM
That's a hot idea, barawn. It would only work in games with a lot of mutual trust, though. Otherwise the cleric is going to be complaining. Especially if, god forbid, they don't get the spells they wanted, and an encounter goes bad...

barawn
2007-02-01, 08:03 PM
Especially if, god forbid, they don't get the spells they wanted, and an encounter goes bad...

Well, you can structure it completely if you wanted, making it predictable so that the Cleric knows exactly what his/her chances are of getting her spells in a day, and making the random spells come from a die roll rather than the DM. If the cleric doesn't want to feel "hosed" by it being watered down, you could say that, say, for each 5 points the Faith check exceeds the required value, the cleric gains an "divinely inspired" slot, from which he/she can cast any spell in her repertoire.

You'd need to tweak things to get a structure for it, but you could do it. I tend to like the "DM fiat" mode a little more, though.

Glittersamas
2007-02-01, 10:04 PM
Off the top of my head, I'd like to see magic missile as a ray.

Arbitrarity
2007-02-01, 10:11 PM
Isn't the entire point of magic missile it not needing a touch attack?

Maybe change it to some element damage, or bludgeoning, but it's supposed to not need a roll. That's what it's about!

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-01, 10:16 PM
Yah, Magic Missile would be subpar as a ray. Like, really subpar. At 11th level when both are maxed out, Scorching Ray can do 12d6. Magic Missile? 5d4+5. If it didn't have the autohit, no one would use it.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 01:06 PM
I'm not Matthew!

I'm not sure whether to be flattered that I would be confused for him.

Rebalancing spells is ultimately pretty dang easy. I just say to my players, "Hey, that looks pretty broken. How about we don't use it?" They say, "Sure." It's all internal gaming-group agreements anyway. Just make sure your players into the habit of consulting with you about builds and ideas and how the rules interact with them. Much easier than going over all the spells and taking them down a notch.

*laughs* Hmmn. Me niether. Funnily enough, when I first saw this thread I was going to post pretty much what Thomas posted before I thought better of it.

As Thomas indicates, it is a lot easier to deal with problem spells on a case by case basis than revise every spell altogether. On the other hand, I have also tried my hand at rewriting the spell lists, mainly updating (A)D&D 2.x spells to fit better with my House Ruled (A)D&D game, using 3.x spells as references. It is a lot of fun and allows you to really tailor the rules to a given campaign, but it is a *lot* of work and when you change one aspect of the game, you have to be vigilant towards how it affects other aspects.

In general, rather than change the power of spells, I would be inclined to reduce the number of Spell Slots for Spell Casters at higher levels. Using Spell / Magic / Mana Points makes this a lot easier.

barawn
2007-02-02, 01:15 PM
In general, rather than change the power of spells, I would be inclined to reduce the number of Spell Slots for Spell Casters at higher levels. Using Spell / Magic / Mana Points makes this a lot easier.

I don't think that necessarily fixes anything, though, other than slowing down the game for non-combat spells. (For combat, spells, sure). Otherwise the wizard just casts the spell he needs, or scribes the spell he needs, waits, etc. etc. and then poof.


As Thomas indicates, it is a lot easier to deal with problem spells on a case by case basis than revise every spell altogether.

Well, there are advantages in trying to identify the most broken spells in a public forum is that you're leveraging other people's knowledge of the situation.

Just saying "yeah, let's not use that" is kinda boring if there's a better solution. Hence the reason I was suggesting a wiki for it.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 01:21 PM
Sure, Scrolls, Rods, Wands and the like are always going to be available to screw with this sort of thing. However, at least there is an associated cost with these items. Reducing Spell Slots limits 'free' power.

The problem with looking for a consensus about spells in general, rather than case by case, is that you won't find one. People tend to have different views of what is and is not appropriate. I am not saying don't do it, but I am explaining what I think the potential problems are.

barawn
2007-02-02, 01:54 PM
Reducing Spell Slots limits 'free' power.

Per day. In that case, wouldn't the party just tend to rest more frequently? Like I said - all I think it does is pace the game slightly differently. If the party knows they can "definitely" win if they only fight one battle per day, they'll only fight one battle per day.



The problem with looking for a consensus about spells in general, rather than case by case, is that you won't find one.

Eh. Vote on it. Get a large enough community, and you can just make it semidemocratic. You don't need a unanimous consensus. You're just looking for a pooled source of knowledge. If someone doesn't want to go with the majority, they could always look at the Talk page on the wiki for the other suggestions.

Yakk
2007-02-02, 01:59 PM
Really, if you want to 'fix' D&D, you should first change it to mostly a per-battle system, with a small amount of 'per-day' or 'per-week' and 'per-level' extra resources.

D&D is in a strange spot where you are expected to have 3 or 4 encounters per day, but not much less and not much more. That is a pretty small range of violence scales in which D&D is balanced.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 02:00 PM
Per day. In that case, wouldn't the party just tend to rest more frequently? Like I said - all I think it does is pace the game slightly differently. If the party knows they can "definitely" win if they only fight one battle per day, they'll only fight one battle per day.

Well, no, I don't think so (at least that hasn't been my experience of it). Reducing Spell Casting Slots per day wouldn't likely cause the party to rest any more than ordinary, especially since Clerics can only rest once per 24 Hours to regain spells. Wizards, maybe, but they are going to be doing that anyway, if they have the option. The point is to reduce what they are capable of relative to the other classes without resting.


Eh. Vote on it. Get a large enough community, and you can just make it semidemocratic. You don't need a unanimous consensus. You're just looking for a pooled source of knowledge. If someone doesn't want to go with the majority, they could always look at the Talk page on the wiki for the other suggestions.

As I said, I have nothing against a project of this nature, but the amount of work involved is more than I would personally be willing to invest in 3.x, since the alternative (dealing case by case) is much easier and just as effective.


Really, if you want to 'fix' D&D, you should first change it to mostly a per-battle system, with a small amount of 'per-day' or 'per-week' and 'per-level' extra resources.

D&D is in a strange spot where you are expected to have 3 or 4 encounters per day, but not much less and not much more. That is a pretty small range of violence scales in which D&D is balanced.

I wouldn't be inclined to agree. The default system is just a bit unbalanced, but it is just a guide anyway. It seems to me that per battle would just make everything more powerful.

ambu
2007-02-02, 02:01 PM
Matthew (not Thomas, Matthew), this is what I believe we are doing here: Tackling spells one by one. I am not suggesting we streamline every spell with every other in order to create a fictional balance. I DO believe that some changes to some spells will make the game much more interesting. In every thread about game balance someone always goes on to say:
"Well the wizard casts Time Stop and Forcecage and due to the Contingency .................. he Teleports and then he Shapechanges...................."

Isn't that a clear indication that Time Stop, Forcecage, Shapechange (redundant now), Contingency and Teleport must be rewritten?

Maybe even create some spells that specifically pierce magical barriers now vulnerable only to Dispel Magic? Something only cast on a weapon perhaps, which enables it to pierce on a successful hit?

barawn
2007-02-02, 02:05 PM
Reducing Spell Casting Slots per day wouldn't likely cause the party to rest any more than ordinary, especially since Clerics can only rest once per 24 Hours to regain spells.

Yeah - but unless there's a time constraint on them, why wouldn't the Wizard just be able to convince the party to rest for the entire rest of the day?

Golthur
2007-02-02, 02:07 PM
Really, if you want to 'fix' D&D, you should first change it to mostly a per-battle system, with a small amount of 'per-day' or 'per-week' and 'per-level' extra resources.

D&D is in a strange spot where you are expected to have 3 or 4 encounters per day, but not much less and not much more. That is a pretty small range of violence scales in which D&D is balanced.

This is actually more or less what I ended up doing. Fighters have a vitality pool that they burn through in combat, but refreshes quickly outside of combat. Wizards have the same thing with their mana pool.

Both classes' per-combat output is capped and fairly low, yet they have "staying power" for quite a few combats before they're done.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 02:07 PM
Matthew (not Thomas, Matthew), this is what I believe we are doing here: Tackling spells one by one. I am not suggesting we streamline every spell with every other in order to create a fictional balance. I DO believe that some changes to some spells will make the game much more interesting. In every thread about game balance someone always goes on to say:
"Well the wizard casts Time Stop and Forcecage and due to the Contingency .................. he Teleports and then he Shapechanges...................."

Isn't that a clear indication that Time Stop, Forcecage, Shapechange (redundant now), Contingency and Teleport must be rewritten?

Maybe even create some spells that specifically pierce magical barriers now vulnerable only to Dispel Magic? Something only cast on a weapon perhaps, which enables it to pierce on a successful hit?

Believe me, I have nothing against changing spells (or rules). I'm not even suggesting you don't. My opinion, though, is that reducing free available power per day goes a long way towards reducing Spell Casting power.


Yeah - but unless there's a time constraint on them, why wouldn't the Wizard just be able to convince the party to rest for the entire rest of the day?

Why wouldn't he do that anyway, after every encounter? Reducing the amount of free Spell Casting power available narrows a Spell Caster's options and reduces his power relative to the other characters inbetween rest periods (or rather with regard to the X Encounters per Y ideal). Of course, you could always make it so all Spell Casters can only rest once every twenty four hours.

Yakk
2007-02-02, 02:18 PM
No, you don't change all "per day" values to "per battle" values. @_@ That is why it takes work.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 02:22 PM
It would take quite a lot of work and I'm not sure how it would be too different from what is already available. My main problem with it would be that you could have 4-8 small encounters, 3-4 medium encounters or 1 big encounter, but when using 'a per battle system' the caster's strength is going to change relative to how many battles, rather than by the difficulty of an encounter. The proportions would be out of whack.

barawn
2007-02-02, 02:34 PM
Of course, you could always make it so all Spell Casters can only rest once every twenty four hours.

Nono - I'm not suggesting they rest 8 hours. I'm suggesting after a fight, the Wizard's drained, he says, "I can't keep going. Let's rest for the rest of the day." i.e. till next morning. It might be morning when the battle's over. So what? Unless there's a time constraint, or the party doesn't have food or something, there's no reason for them to risk their health by pointlessly rushing things.

Yes, the fighter and maybe the other classes get little benefit from the rest, but big deal. There's little downside to resting, especially if they're high enough level that they can guarantee safe rest.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 02:44 PM
Sure, but that is a problem regardless. In between rest periods a party is supposed to face 3-4 Encounters relative to their Level or more lower powered ones or less higher powered ones. It's up to the Dungeon Master how he chooses to enforce this ratio (i.e. preventing resting, only using 1 big encounter, etc...). There's nothing stopping Fighters resting until healed after every encounter either.

barawn
2007-02-02, 02:49 PM
Sure, but that is a problem regardless. In between rest periods a party is supposed to face 3-4 Encounters relative to their Level or more lower powered ones or less higher powered ones. It's up to the Dungeon Master how he chooses to enforce this ratio (i.e. preventing resting, only using 1 big encounter, etc...).

Yes, I know the rules. But it just looks like you're replacing one problem with another one - now there's a natural desire for a party to rest for the day after every encounter.

Matthew
2007-02-02, 02:51 PM
I'm not suggesting you don't. Of course, those are guidelines, rather than rules. There's already a natural desire for the party to rest after every encounter. All this changes is the amount of resources available between rests. So, for instance, in the case of one big encounter a Spell Caster has less resources. It doesn't create any 'new' problems.

Glittersamas
2007-02-02, 06:00 PM
Yah, Magic Missile would be subpar as a ray. Like, really subpar. At 11th level when both are maxed out, Scorching Ray can do 12d6. Magic Missile? 5d4+5. If it didn't have the autohit, no one would use it.

But Scorching Ray is 2nd level? Isn't it supposed to be better? Also, mm would still be useful vs. ghosts and such. I was going by the OP- nothing automatic.

EDIT: Reading the above reminds me that Rope trick needs some work.

Rigeld2
2007-02-03, 11:57 AM
But Scorching Ray is 2nd level? Isn't it supposed to be better? Also, mm would still be useful vs. ghosts and such. I was going by the OP- nothing automatic.

EDIT: Reading the above reminds me that Rope trick needs some work.
Theres "better because its 1 level higher" and "average damage of 42 for scorching ray vs average damage of 17.5 for magic missle better". Magic Missle would be completely useless - especially since all spells work against incorporeal targets.

Glittersamas
2007-02-03, 12:56 PM
Theres "better because its 1 level higher" and "average damage of 42 for scorching ray vs average damage of 17.5 for magic missle better".
I'll give you that. But really, how many 1st level spells are there that do fair to good direct damage? I guess you could say shocking grasp is ok but the range is not so good.


Magic Missle would be completely useless - especially since all spells work against incorporeal targets.
I'm not so sure about that. Check out Transdimensional spell in the complete arcane (page 84). It specifically states that only force spells and affects can affect ethereal creatures and that any spell other than a force affect has a 50% fail chance against an incorporeal creature.
Even so, there are a lot of creatures that are immune/resistant to scorching ray. Fire resistance is pretty common. The damage is good though.
Also, magic missile has a much better range.

The spell I was comparing magic missile to was burning hands. BH has an area affect which is nice but only has a range of 15'. When Iím playing a wiz, I never want to be that close. (I'm always flying by 5th) I don't know why anybody would cast BH when they could cast Expeditious Retreat and then mm. Honestly, I think range is huge.

Anyway, agree to disagree. :smallbiggrin:

Glittersamas
2007-02-08, 06:44 PM
this thread seems to be missing a page or 2 no?
EDIT: ok, now I'm really confused!!!!!!