PDA

View Full Version : Nerfing Spellcasters



Tormsskull
2007-03-01, 07:19 AM
Everyone has been talking about improving the fighter, but I want to talk about nerfing spellcasters. I've already made a list of disallowed spells/spells that have an added expensive material component added to them. Now I want to also:

(core only)

-Make Natural Spell metamagic (increases spell slot level by 1, totally not my original idea, I've seen it countless times here).
-Limit the Druid's available wildshape forms to a list of about 6 normal animals and then allow them to add more to the list at an approximate time/cost equivalent of a wizard researching a new spell.
-Remove Dragonhide armor from the game.
-Remove heavy armor proficiency from the cleric.
-Limit Clerics/Druids to x number of spells known per level equivalent to a Wizard.
-Change any spell that says "Spell Resistance: No" to "Yes" (will require tweaking of individual spells).
-Make bonus spells for all classes based on Intelligence. Then make save DCs based on Wisdom (Wizards, Druids, Clerics) or Charisma (Sorcerors , Bards)

Now, aside from the fact that this would radically change things, can anyone see anything of the above list that would unbalance things too much?

Leush
2007-03-01, 07:41 AM
I'm all for nerf strike. Here's one more thing I'd do to put down those divine casters:
I'd also nerf druidic and clerical hit dice to d4. Now they definately won't tank.

I wouldn't bother removing dragonhide armor, but that might be because I do funky things with people's hitdice.

Also, I think that there should be some spells which don't allow resistance, partially because I think that's going a bit too far, but partially because it doesn't make that much sense for some cases (okay, it makes sense for things like acid arrows, but things like grease- "I grease the ground" "It resists" makes my mind boggle).

Other than that, looks more balanced than before. Out of interest, which spells are you making nonexistant?

ZekeArgo
2007-03-01, 08:16 AM
I'm all for nerf strike. Here's one more thing I'd do to put down those divine casters:
I'd also nerf druidic and clerical hit dice to d4. Now they definately won't tank.

I wouldn't bother removing dragonhide armor, but that might be because I do funky things with people's hitdice.

Also, I think that there should be some spells which don't allow resistance, partially because I think that's going a bit too far, but partially because it doesn't make that much sense for some cases (okay, it makes sense for things like acid arrows, but things like grease- "I grease the ground" "It resists" makes my mind boggle).

Other than that, looks more balanced than before. Out of interest, which spells are you making nonexistant?

Um... I don't believe grease is the best example of a spell that would be "odd if it resisted" that you could use. Since it would still exist but the player resists it's effects.

That and where are there patches of ground that have spell resistance?

Tormsskull
2007-03-01, 08:30 AM
I'm all for nerf strike. Here's one more thing I'd do to put down those divine casters:
I'd also nerf druidic and clerical hit dice to d4. Now they definately won't tank.


That might be a bit too severe IMO. I'm trying to reduce their tankability but not totally destroy it.



I wouldn't bother removing dragonhide armor, but that might be because I do funky things with people's hitdice.


Yeah. I don't like the idea of every druid wearing Dragonhide armor because its basically a "duh" decision.



Also, I think that there should be some spells which don't allow resistance, partially because I think that's going a bit too far, but partially because it doesn't make that much sense for some cases (okay, it makes sense for things like acid arrows, but things like grease- "I grease the ground" "It resists" makes my mind boggle).


I'll be looking into this in more detail, but the basic premise to me is that Spell Resistance is actually good.



Other than that, looks more balanced than before. Out of interest, which spells are you making nonexistant?

List of Core spells to attach expensive material components too:
Contingency
Moment of Prescience
Polymorph (and related spells)
Shapechange
Rope Trick
Mage's Magnificent Mansion
Gate
Mage's Disjunction

List of non-Core spells to attach expensive material components too:
Celerity
Greater Celerity
Shivering Touch
Wraithstrike

The idea behind this list is that a spellcaster can still use the spells if they want, but if they plan on using them a lot they are going to eat up a LOT of their material resources. Something along the lines of 25 gold * level of spell * caster level. So a 3rd level caster using "Rope Trick" would have to expend a material component worth 150 gold. Definitely not a huge expense, but it will add up over time & the availability of the material component might be rare.

This also really chips away at the idea that a high-level spellcaster should be assumed to always have certain spells active (contingency being the first that comes to mind).

Roderick_BR
2007-03-01, 08:31 AM
Nerfing spellcasters can work, but need a case-by-case analysis on spells.
Grease, for example, already offers a saving throw. Any creature entering a greased are can roll a Reflex save to don't fall (and apparently a lot of people forget that since they always use grease as an example of spell that can easily disable a fighter. If it's heightened, then it would be deadly)
d4 for druids and clerics? A bit too far, I think. The druids just need a time limit for his wildshape.

And the already mentioned higher casting time for high level spells. Doesn't make sense that a spellcaster can run, jump, slide, stop... and cast a 9th level spell. If meleers can't use all his high level prowess (4 attacks/round, for example) when moving, why should a spellcaster? That's a good example of broken rule.

Piccamo
2007-03-01, 09:05 AM
Here are some "fun" ways to totally nerf spellcasters:
Drop all their HD to d4
Remove all spells that don't do damage.
Allow spell resistance to all spells.
Remove any feats / special abilities allowing one to enhance caster level.
Make all spells touch range (even the AoEs).
All casters have all bad saves.
Make Arcane Spell Failure chance apply to all casters.
All casters get an inherent -12 to initiative by virtue of their class.
Increase the spell level of all spells by 1.
Force all casters to wear a robe and pointy hat.
Force all casters to make a Fortitude save or else be Sickened at the beginning of each encounter for the duration of the encounter.
Force all remaining spells to have a casting time equal to the spell level times 10 in minutes.
Only allow evil alignments for spell-casters, complete with strong evil aura.
Any damage taken in combat disallows the use of any spell with a somatic component until fully healed by natural healing.
Disallow defensively casting spells.You could do this to really put a hurting on those pesky spell-casters, or you could try out a new magic system that may be better balanced (like shadow magic, pact magic, incarnum, psionics, etc.).

Indon
2007-03-01, 09:08 AM
Make all spells touch range (even the AoEs).

Hmm...



All casters get an inherent -12 to initiative by virtue of their class.

If I recall, in 2nd ed, spellcasters generally went after other types; spells had a high delay.



Force all casters to wear a robe and pointy hat.

No, no. Then you'll just get people saying "I put on my robe and wizard's hat!" all the time...

Swordguy
2007-03-01, 09:11 AM
I'd make the general rule on HD as "A full caster has a d4 HD, with the exception of the Cleric, who gains a either a d6HD or a d4 HD and heavy armor prof".

ZekeArgo
2007-03-01, 09:28 AM
Here are some "fun" ways to totally nerf spellcasters:

Drop all their HD to d4

Eh, a little harsh


Remove all spells that don't do damage.Since direct damage is the worst thing a spellcaster can do, this isn't actually a nerf. It would just force them into the more effective spell selections.


Allow spell resistance to all spellsReally depends on the situation. Really doesn't seem interesting to have to roll SR against the patch of conjured grease you already get a save against.


Remove any feats / special abilities allowing one to enhance caster levelEh, these are only used with Gishes and certain buffs, not really all that crazy.


Make all spells touch range (even the AoEs)...

getting pretty far into left field are we?


All casters have all bad saves.It is still a game you know. People do enjoy being good at *some* things.


Make Arcane Spell Failure chance apply to all casters.Meh, not all that important since there are plenty of magical defenses around


All casters get an inherent -12 to initiative by virtue of their class.Since casters aren't rogues and don't need to worry about flat-footed opponents... this really isn't useful since everyone eventually gets a turn.

Nevermind just being heavy-handed


Increase the spell level of all spells by 1.And further into left field we go


Force all casters to wear a robe and pointy hat.Oh yeah, because Gandalf clones have always been so discouraging...


Force all casters to make a Fortitude save or else be Sickened at the beginning of each encounter for the duration of the encounter.Because being a spellcaster makes you... sick? easily?


Force all remaining spells to have a casting time equal to the spell level times 10 in minutes.So... they can never cast in combat?


Only allow evil alignments for spell-casters, complete with strong evil aura.Because magic is all inherently evil now?


Any damage taken in combat disallows the use of any spell with a somatic component until fully healed by natural healing.Ah, so the fighter wont be able to swing his sword until recieving the same I assume?

Heavy-handed into absurdity


Disallow defensively casting spells.A problem, but even then all a wizard needs is a 5' step


You could do this to really put a hurting on those pesky spell-casters, or you could try out a new magic system that may be better balanced (like shadow magic, pact magic, incarnum, psionics, etc.).Well yeah if your talking about "Hey now they cant do anything!" nerfing. But I believe the point is to come to a balance where all classes can feel useful without one subset entirely dominating all others.

Piccamo
2007-03-01, 09:35 AM
Some people don't get sarcasm these days :smalltongue:

Jayabalard
2007-03-01, 09:43 AM
1. Great power comes at a terrible price... except in D&D. Make it that casters have to make some sacrifices for that power. The old Conan RPG (the one that I played in the 80s, I have no idea if this is carried into the newer versions) had some fairly grisly costs that were associated with spell casting.

2. Knowledge and skill in D&D doesn't mean that you can do it flawlessly every time... except with D&D magic. Introduce a spell failure mechanic; critical failures should vary from annoying to catastrophic.

Piccamo
2007-03-01, 09:50 AM
1. Great power comes with terrible price... except in D&D. Make it that casters have to make some sacrifices for that power. The old Conan RPG (the one that I played in the 80s, I have no idea if this is carried into the newer versions) had some fairly grisly costs that were associated with spell casting.

2. Knowledge and skill in D&D doesn't mean that you can do it flawlessly every time... except with D&D magic. Introduce a spell failure mechanic; critical failures should vary from annoying to catastrophic.

Actually, with great power comes great responsibility :smallwink:
The Knowledge (specifically) and other skills can get to the point where they do it flawlessly every time. There already are spell failure mechanics: We call them saves and spell resistance; there's a 5% chance that a spell with a save will fail every time no matter what, not true with skills.There are spells that don't allow resistance or saves, but I still think you're better off just trying a new magic system.

Jayabalard
2007-03-01, 09:58 AM
Actually, with great power comes great responsibility :smallwink:
The Knowledge (specifically) and other skills can get to the point where they do it flawlessly every time. There already are spell failure mechanics: We call them saves and spell resistance; there's a 5% chance that a spell with a save will fail every time no matter what, not true with skills.There are spells that don't allow resistance or saves, but I still think you're better off just trying a new magic system.
1. Sorry that should have been "at a" not "with".

2. Resistance and saves are not the same as spell failure... they're the ability of others to resist or overcome the effects of a spell. If someone casts grease, that area is covered with grease with 0 chance of failure; if someone casts a magic missile, it appears and hits the target.

Revised with spell failure, you would have a chance to fail, even critically fail, each time you tried to cast a spell, in addition to the resistance and save.

As far as trying a new magic system... that's pretty much what I'm suggesting.

Tormsskull
2007-03-01, 09:59 AM
I understand that everyone has their own beliefs & ideas about how to balance/nerf spellcasters or whatever. And I also understand that certain threads crop up so often than you develop a general response to them. However, I was asking specifically about:

"
-Make Natural Spell metamagic (increases spell slot level by 1, totally not my original idea, I've seen it countless times here).
-Limit the Druid's available wildshape forms to a list of about 6 normal animals and then allow them to add more to the list at an approximate time/cost equivalent of a wizard researching a new spell.
-Remove Dragonhide armor from the game.
-Remove heavy armor proficiency from the cleric.
-Limit Clerics/Druids to x number of spells known per level equivalent to a Wizard.
-Change any spell that says "Spell Resistance: No" to "Yes" (will require tweaking of individual spells).
-Make bonus spells for all classes based on Intelligence. Then make save DCs based on Wisdom (Wizards, Druids, Clerics) or Charisma (Sorcerors , Bards)
"

Some of your posts have been very helpful so far in dissecting these thoughts (specifically thoughts on SR or armor proficiencies) but others of you look like you just read the title and then posted. While I obviously have no control over what you read/post, if you want to be helpful please address one of the items on the list. Even if it is something like "blah won't work because (whatever), but you might want to try (whatever).

Thanks.

Indon
2007-03-01, 10:03 AM
On a more serious note, I like the D&D spells (not neccessarily the spell-slot system, but I can live with it, I have for some time already) because they lend themselves well to dramatic fantasy. The spells and abilities found in fantasy stories are outlined in terms which, while not neccessarily good for game balance when the PC's get ahold of them, are sure workable for DM's (who I feel should be trusted not to exploit spells in their own campaigns).

Yes, the Polymorph line is powerful, when you use it to turn into a choker in conjunction with Time Stop, etc. But when you, say, use it to have your BBEG turn into a giant snake (FYI, this is just an example. Never turn into a giant snake. It never helps), it's not so unbalanced, and it's dramatically interesting to boot.

As such I feel a large number of spells should be hard to obtain in a D&D world; just going to Bob's Magic Store and buying Wish seems to be silly, even though it is in perfect keeping with the letter of the rules.

So, my suggestion to nerfing at least some spellcasters is to regulate spell selection. Most arcane spells shouldn't just be on sale, no matter how much gold you have to throw around.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-03-01, 10:09 AM
-Make Natural Spell metamagic (increases spell slot level by 1, totally not my original idea, I've seen it countless times here).
-Limit the Druid's available wildshape forms to a list of about 6 normal animals and then allow them to add more to the list at an approximate time/cost equivalent of a wizard researching a new spell.
-Remove Dragonhide armor from the game.
-Remove heavy armor proficiency from the cleric.
-Limit Clerics/Druids to x number of spells known per level equivalent to a Wizard.
-Change any spell that says "Spell Resistance: No" to "Yes" (will require tweaking of individual spells).
-Make bonus spells for all classes based on Intelligence. Then make save DCs based on Wisdom (Wizards, Druids, Clerics) or Charisma (Sorcerors , Bards)
"

1.That would make it less of a 'required feating' choice for druids, but not by too much; still, combined with other refinements to wild shape- such as your 6-animal limit- it might work.
2.As a DM, you can simply not place dragonhide in treasure or shops. It's less of an obvious/required choice if you have to kill a dragon to get it.
3.That could work; however, I'd be more inclined to downshift the power of the buffing spells that allow them to enter meelee in that armor. Heavy armor is fine if they're in the back or mid rank, healing and buffing the party, it's only a problem when they're toe-to-toe (that's when they start venturing into the territory of other classes' toes).
4.I have no input of value relative to this specific measure.
5.Okay, you can do this- but be logical about it. Some spells should be pretty reliable.
6.This may pass balance testing, but I don't think it passes logic testing if we accept the RAW descriptions of where the various classes get their powers.
The gods only give bonus spells to their smartest servants? When did Kord start valuing smarts?

Quietus
2007-03-01, 10:13 AM
One way to slow them down, as a DM, is to limit how easily Wizards learn spells; Sure, they can learn 2 spells/level, but they have to be able to justify HOW their Wizard suddenly learned to stop time. They could easily enough learn, say, the Mass version of spells already in their spellbook (that's a natural extension), or learn to go from Charm Person to Charm Monster. However, if you want to learn Time Stop, you can't just automatically put it in your book at 9th level; You don't have anything on your list that's similar thematically, so you have to go out and find someone who knows the spell, or research it.

Also, for Clerics, you can limit them similarly. "I'm sorry, but Ehlonna doesn't grant Righteous Might. You can, however, prepare Animal Growth." Druids aren't really overpowered by spell selection, AFAIK, their problems only come in with Wild Shape. Making it a metamagic feat mediates that somewhat.

Swordguy
2007-03-01, 10:16 AM
On a more serious note, I like the D&D spells (not neccessarily the spell-slot system, but I can live with it, I have for some time already) because they lend themselves well to dramatic fantasy. The spells and abilities found in fantasy stories are outlined in terms which, while not neccessarily good for game balance when the PC's get ahold of them, are sure workable for DM's (who I feel should be trusted not to exploit spells in their own campaigns).

Yes, the Polymorph line is powerful, when you use it to turn into a choker in conjunction with Time Stop, etc. But when you, say, use it to have your BBEG turn into a giant snake (FYI, this is just an example. Never turn into a giant snake. It never helps), it's not so unbalanced, and it's dramatically interesting to boot.

As such I feel a large number of spells should be hard to obtain in a D&D world; just going to Bob's Magic Store and buying Wish seems to be silly, even though it is in perfect keeping with the letter of the rules.

So, my suggestion to nerfing at least some spellcasters is to regulate spell selection. Most arcane spells shouldn't just be on sale, no matter how much gold you have to throw around.

The problem with this is the whole "learn 2 spells automatically every level" thing. Most GMs allow PCs to just pull any two spells the PC wants from the PHB and auto-learn them.

As a point of reference, I do not allow this. I ruled that the learning 2 spells at level means you don't have to roll to learn the spell. You still have to have a written copy of it somewhere from which to learn it. This brings up the problem of OPFOR spellcasters and PCs who steal/loot their spellbooks. This is the reason sorcerers exist, I feel. With a Sorcerer, you can throw NPC spellcasters at the party who have really cool spells (that you may not want the PCs to have yet) and never have to worry about the wizard in the party getting his grubby little hands on the NPCs spellbook.

The trick in D&D to balancing magic largely comes from keeping it a rare special thing. Unfortunately, WotC makes this difficult, as "L33t magic stuff" sells product.

Jayabalard
2007-03-01, 10:18 AM
I don't think that most of those will help balance very well;

the first 2 are really for the same purpose; if you limit wild shape to reasonable creatures, then there's no need to make natural spell metamagic. I'd go with the latter, making wild shape fairly weak so that you get the same sort of fluff but nothing that is all that useful in combat.

Sure, don't make dragonhide armor readily available; dragons aren't a dime a dozen, they don't get killed very often, and there aren't very many craftsmen who know how to work with the material, so armor made from one should be incredibly rare and nearly priceless. Anyone who wears it should be a target for the most powerful dragons around.

the rest are kind of meh, which is why I made the suggestions that I did.

Adding a general spell failure mechanic would make more sense and be easier than adding spell resistance to everything and tweaking stuff so that it made some sort of sense. Same goes for adding consequences to spell casting

Orzel
2007-03-01, 10:18 AM
Mine

1. Clerics, Druids, Paladin, Rangers, Wizards and all prepared casters can only prepare 1 spell of each spell level. (You choose Fireball... all your 3rd level spells are Fireball)
2. Bard, Sorceror, and all other spontaneous caster lose 1 known spell per level.
3. Natural Spell removes a spell of the next higher spell level.

Clementx
2007-03-01, 10:23 AM
Now, aside from the fact that this would radically change things, can anyone see anything of the above list that would unbalance things too much?

Everything.

1) Druids finally lose their magic items when wild shaping (or have to buy an entire new set and spend time changing), and as long as you aren't stupid and let them function normally as a Legendary Ape or something stupid like that, Druids need their (mediocre) spells to function. Like casting Owl's Wisdom so they don't lose their bonus spells acquired from their Amulet of Wisdom.

2) Druids don't need their wildshape limited to six animals, you as the DM has to be reasonable and state that bizarre splatbook animals don't exist. The MM animals are perfectly fine, if you want to limit them. Which they don't need.

3) Dragonhide is not the problem. Not knowing the limitations of casters is.

4) Heavy Armor is not what makes a cleric powerful. It just makes them slower. Nevermind it is pointless to remove, since all your clerics will just wear Mithril breastplates which are better.

5) The divine list is written with the assumption that you know all of it. Each spell is worse than the arcane variant, and without the selection, it is pointless to have as a cleric. The Favored Soul gets a family of bonuses to make up for its small known spelllist (even with the advantage of spontaneous casting).

6) Spell Resistance is there for a reason- it makes the spell weaker, and that is why 10d6 damage in a 30ft spread is a lvl3 spell.

7) Now you are randomly deciding things. Seriously, play a lvl15 caster and a lvl15 fighter in a REAL game and decide which is "better".

Piccamo, your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Swordguy
2007-03-01, 10:26 AM
Eh, port the Shadowrun magic drain system over to D&D. There was a mention of it as a possibility (not rules, just something for DMs to think about) in Dragon 200, IIRC.

Piccamo
2007-03-01, 10:28 AM
I understand that everyone has their own beliefs & ideas about how to balance/nerf spellcasters or whatever. And I also understand that certain threads crop up so often than you develop a general response to them. However, I was asking specifically about:

"
-Make Natural Spell metamagic (increases spell slot level by 1, totally not my original idea, I've seen it countless times here).
-Limit the Druid's available wildshape forms to a list of about 6 normal animals and then allow them to add more to the list at an approximate time/cost equivalent of a wizard researching a new spell.
-Remove Dragonhide armor from the game.
-Remove heavy armor proficiency from the cleric.
-Limit Clerics/Druids to x number of spells known per level equivalent to a Wizard.
-Change any spell that says "Spell Resistance: No" to "Yes" (will require tweaking of individual spells).
-Make bonus spells for all classes based on Intelligence. Then make save DCs based on Wisdom (Wizards, Druids, Clerics) or Charisma (Sorcerors , Bards)
"

Some of your posts have been very helpful so far in dissecting these thoughts (specifically thoughts on SR or armor proficiencies) but others of you look like you just read the title and then posted. While I obviously have no control over what you read/post, if you want to be helpful please address one of the items on the list. Even if it is something like "blah won't work because (whatever), but you might want to try (whatever).

Thanks.
Alright, here's a serious response:

I don't think it will matter if its a +1 metamagic or not.
I don't think having a hard limit on the number would be all that great, maybe just require knowledge (nature) checks to see if he knows about that animal.
Dragonhide armor isn't really a problem considering the alternatives.
Wizards have no cap on spells known.
Spell Resistance isn't a problem to get around most of the time. It just means builds will focus more on that and will cause less variety in spellcasters.
The people will use whatever stat gives them the highest DCs for their spells as their primary stat. This just means they'll have slightly less constitution, which really only affects them at low levels.I can see why you want to nerf casters, but it seems a bit unnecessary.

Tormsskull
2007-03-01, 10:47 AM
Everything.

1) Druids finally lose their magic items when wild shaping (or have to buy an entire new set and spend time changing), and as long as you aren't stupid and let them function normally as a Legendary Ape or something stupid like that, Druids need their (mediocre) spells to function. Like casting Owl's Wisdom so they don't lose their bonus spells acquired from their Amulet of Wisdom.


Snarkiness aside, that then begs the question, "Should Natural Spell should be given to every druid and not be a feat?" I think we have seen that EVERY druid takes Natural Spell, and the first rule when designing a skill/feat/magic items/whatever is that if EVERY member of a specific class would take it, it is probably poorly designed.

If you think all druids should be able to cast wildshaped (which "Druids need their (mediocre) spells to function" implies) then why not just erase the Natural Spell feat and make it a class feature?



2) Druids don't need their wildshape limited to six animals, you as the DM has to be reasonable and state that bizarre splatbook animals don't exist. The MM animals are perfectly fine, if you want to limit them. Which they don't need.


The way the rules read though, any natural animal that a druid is familiar with is a candidate. So under normal rules a DM would be hesitant to introduce any natural animal that he wouldn't want the druid later becoming. I think my rule makes it where the druid will have to pick and choose the forms he wants rather than just seeing it and then being able to become it (shortly thereafter depending on the DM's definition of "familiar with").



3) Dragonhide is not the problem. Not knowing the limitations of casters is.


I'm not sure I understand you here.



4) Heavy Armor is not what makes a cleric powerful. It just makes them slower. Nevermind it is pointless to remove, since all your clerics will just wear Mithril breastplates which are better.


So your suggesting Heavy armor is pointless to a standard cleric? I honestly haven't seen a cleric wearing anything other than heavy armor since 2nd edition.



5) The divine list is written with the assumption that you know all of it. Each spell is worse than the arcane variant, and without the selection, it is pointless to have as a cleric. The Favored Soul gets a family of bonuses to make up for its small known spelllist (even with the advantage of spontaneous casting).


Yeah, I had thought of this as well. I was thinking of perhaps building in some bonuses to various spells & or add in a few minor support type abilities.



6) Spell Resistance is there for a reason- it makes the spell weaker, and that is why 10d6 damage in a 30ft spread is a lvl3 spell.


I'm not sure how this applies to what I said.



7) Now you are randomly deciding things. Seriously, play a lvl15 caster and a lvl15 fighter in a REAL game and decide which is "better".


Again, not sure what you mean.



Alright, here's a serious response:

I don't think it will matter if its a +1 metamagic or not.


Really? As I said that isn't my original idea and it seemed to be well received.



I don't think having a hard limit on the number would be all that great, maybe just require knowledge (nature) checks to see if he knows about that animal.


Just a difference of opinion here. I think Wildshape is very powerful as is and too versatile. I think it would make more sense if there were a few caps on it.



Dragonhide armor isn't really a problem considering the alternatives.


Could you explain?



Wizards have no cap on spells known.


Yeah, I worded that poorly. What I meant was that a divine caster wouldn't simply know all of the spells for a given level. He would get a starting number of spells like that of a wizard, and perhaps get the same number for each spell level. Then he'd be able to add new spells when he finds divine scrolls.



Spell Resistance isn't a problem to get around most of the time. It just means builds will focus more on that and will cause less variety in spellcasters.


The most common tactic to getting around SR in my experience is using spells that don't allow SR. Is your experience different?



The people will use whatever stat gives them the highest DCs for their spells as their primary stat. This just means they'll have slightly less constitution, which really only affects them at low levels.


Well, take you typical Wizard. If a Wizard can spend all of his point-buy points (or put his best roll) into Intelligence and that's all he really needs, then he's almost always going to have a very high Intelligence. This change would make the Wizard have to pick between very high spell DC, a lot of bonus spells, or somewhere in-between.



I can see why you want to nerf casters, but it seems a bit unnecessary.


Nerfing spellcasters seems unnecessary or you think my changes won't really impact them in any significant way?

Person_Man
2007-03-01, 11:03 AM
The easiest and best way to nerf casters is to simply talk to the players who play them. If they avoid the most abusive feats and spells and generally play maturely, there's usually not that big of a problem.

Olethros
2007-03-01, 11:06 AM
OOh I know.

Lets make the casting time for all spells atleast 10min/level of spell. That way casters can't cast in combat at all.

Or not let anybody play a caster at all to begin with.

If you think something is so broken that you need to re-write nearly ALL the rules, then don't play with them. If your fighter-types are pissy because they cant do what casters do, than play a different game without casters.

As an asside, I think there are some fun varient ideas out there for D&D without the classic combat casting. I've been thinking of putting together a world where no one is capable of casting spells except as part of item creation feats, but those feats no longer cost xp to use. Lots of hard hitting fights with waky item mojo.

Casters arn't broken classes, there just not fighters, and require a DM that is willing to look at his munchikinized ubermage player and say "You never faught a choker, never researched a monster like it, and I never said one existed on this plain of reality. So NO." It doesn't need complex re-writting of rules.

Telonius
2007-03-01, 11:35 AM
I honestly don't see a problem with dragonhide armor. Some armor is just better than others (Mithral fullplate for a typical fighter), and some weapons are just superior to others (Greatsword wielded 2-handed). In fact, Dragonhide is even a little worse than Mithral. It doesn't bump up the maximum dex (which is why Mithral Fullplate beats others), so a high-dex druid would still be better off wearing padded and getting items to increase dex. If dex is sufficiently high, switch off the armor entirely and get some Bracers.

cupkeyk
2007-03-01, 11:36 AM
I dunno: remove Divine Metamagic and Natural Spell.

Suzaku
2007-03-01, 11:57 AM
Ok so now we have to make spell resistance check for Dispel Magic?

selfcritical
2007-03-01, 11:59 AM
Use the Arcana Evolved casting classes, because the spelllists are edited to remove retarded effects.

Tormsskull
2007-03-01, 12:06 PM
*reads all posts, looks for one to respond to*


I honestly don't see a problem with dragonhide armor. Some armor is just better than others (Mithral fullplate for a typical fighter), and some weapons are just superior to others (Greatsword wielded 2-handed). In fact, Dragonhide is even a little worse than Mithral. It doesn't bump up the maximum dex (which is why Mithral Fullplate beats others), so a high-dex druid would still be better off wearing padded and getting items to increase dex. If dex is sufficiently high, switch off the armor entirely and get some Bracers.

I was going under the assumption that most Druids aren't going to have a really high Dex because:

1.) When they get wildshape they don't need physical scores as much anymore.
2.) If they are going to need Intelligence & Wisdom for spellcasting, that leaves even less points to spend on Dex.

So in my mind it was like comparing Hide to Dragonhide. I'd say the Dragonhide is far and a way better. Maybe a better way of handling this would be to just increase the cost of Dragonhide, that would probably work to the effect that I am after.

Quietus
2007-03-01, 12:17 PM
You also have to keep in mind that druids aren't naturally proficient with heavy armor, if memory serves. So what if they want to wear dragonhide mediums? They still aren't going to get uber AC with that.

Draz74
2007-03-01, 12:40 PM
Everyone has been talking about improving the fighter, but I want to talk about nerfing spellcasters. I've already made a list of disallowed spells/spells that have an added expensive material component added to them.

Yeah, good. Here are specific suggestions for how to nerf the worst spells:
Get rid of Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object, and Shapechange completely. Replace with PHBII spells that are meant to replace them. (Hopefully PHBII also lets you replace Alter Self.)
Make Teleport and Mage's Magnificent Mansion have casting times of 5 minutes.
Give expensive material components to Gate, Mage's Magnificent Mansion, Contingency, and especially Rope Trick and Divine Power.
Any spells that still seem to "dominate," like (IMHO) Solid Fog or (apparently in your games) Grease can be slightly nerfed just by increasing their casting time to 1 full round.



-Make Natural Spell metamagic (increases spell slot level by 1, totally not my original idea, I've seen it countless times here).
-Limit the Druid's available wildshape forms to a list of about 6 normal animals and then allow them to add more to the list at an approximate time/cost equivalent of a wizard researching a new spell.

Just use the PHBII Shapechange variant, it is by far the easiest fix to both of these problems.


-Remove Dragonhide armor from the game.
This isn't a balance issue, but I have to say I don't like the flavor of dragon-clad druids, so no argument here.


-Remove heavy armor proficiency from the cleric.
Good. Maybe even remove medium proficiency too.


-Limit Clerics/Druids to x number of spells known per level equivalent to a Wizard.
Prepared Divine casters never made sense to me anyway. Make Clerics and Druids spontaneous casters. You can either limit them to the Spells Known table of a Favored Soul, or the one in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/spontaneousDivineCasters.htm).


-Change any spell that says "Spell Resistance: No" to "Yes" (will require tweaking of individual spells).
Maybe. At least there's probably a few spells that could use this. Although some medium-power spells would turn into useless spells with this nerf (Irresistable Dance).


-Make bonus spells for all classes based on Intelligence. Then make save DCs based on Wisdom (Wizards, Druids, Clerics) or Charisma (Sorcerors , Bards)
No! bad flavor, bad mechanics, and doesn't do anything to the Wizard, who needs it! Try this instead:

Wizard: Bonus spells from Intelligence, DCs from Wisdom (his willpower and the "steadiness" of his spells)

Cleric: Bonus spells from Wisdom, DCs from Charisma

Bard: Bonus spells from Intelligence, DCs from Charisma.

I guess I'm not sure how to extend these to the Sorcerer (who really does seem like his casting is based just on CHA) or the Druid (who seems completely Wisdom-based).

JellyPooga
2007-03-01, 01:57 PM
I have to say to the OP that I don't really like your ideas about nerfing spellcasting/druids.

Wild Shape is only stupidly powerful if it is used stupidly.

Druid: "I'm going to Wild Shape into a [insert powerful, yet uncommon animal (e.g. Legendary Ape)]"
DM: "Have you ever seen one or heard of one?"
Druid: "yeah, we fought one two days ago"
DM: "Did you study it after mercilessly killing it?"
Druid: "No"
DM: "Did you take particular note of it's features and behaviour"
Druid: "No, not really, I was too busy trying to kill it"
DM: "Well then, would you really say that you were familiar with it?"
Druid: "ummm..."

If a Druid really does have a good reason for being 'familiar' with an animal (Like living with a colony (is that the right plural for apes?) of Legendary Apes for a year) then by all means, allow them to Wild Shape into one. If not, don't. That's the only limitation on Wild Shape you really need, 'cos most animals aren't really all that good. As for Natural Spell, If you're Wild shaped into a bear (or whatever) what are you doing wasting time casting spells when you could be tearing people limb-from-limb? I see no problem with it myself (though I wouldn't be averse to making it Metamagic, I have to say)

On the subject of spells I have only one thing to say. Material Components. Instead of allowing that a Spell Component pouch automatically has all the material components you'll ever need in it (which is just a totally ridiculous concept), make your spellcasters keep track of what they do and don't have. It's not every day you come across piles of sulphur conveniently placed next to some bat guano...

Fighter: "Oh no! hordes of goblins, it'll take us ages to get through here!"
Wizard: "Don't worry, I'll give them a taste of some firey death!"
[Wizard searches his erson muttering "sulphur, sulphur"]
Fighter: "Well? Come on then, where's this firey death?"
Wizard: "Uh, well...hmm. I think I have a problem there...you don't happen to have some bat guano, do you?"

Another advantage to this is that when said Wizard has run out of a certain component and comes across it in some way, it gives a little extra to casting that spell when you know where the component came from. For Example, the material component for Spikes (druid spell that enhances a wooden weapon) is a thorn form a bush or tree.

"The party are wandering through some temperate forest and are ambushed by brigands. The fighter draws his sword and adopts an offensive stance, the rogue draws a dagger and blends into the undergrowth and the ranger draws her bow and nocks an arrow. the druid glances round the clearing they're in and leans over to a nearby bush, pulling a single thorn from a slender branch. the brigands look on in bewilderment as the druid merely smiles and touches the thorn to his heavy oak cudgel, muttering to himself under his breath. The brigands eyes bulge with wonder as, almost lesuirely, a series of viscious looking spikes emerge from the surface of the club."

How much better is that than "I cast Spikes"?

In my experience, people tend to ignore most of the components side of spellcasting (mostly because they can). If you enforce the components, then spellcasters have to actually think about what spells they can and can't cast at any particular time.

Anyway, I've ranted a bit, so I'll stop.

Truwar
2007-03-01, 02:09 PM
Make Natural Spell metamagic (increases spell slot level by 1, totally not my original idea, I've seen it countless times here).

I actually really like this one. It allows the druid to cast while in wildshape, forces them to make a sacrifice to do so. Heck this metamagic feat might appeal to polymorph-happy wizards and sorcerers as well.


-Limit the Druid's available wildshape forms to a list of about 6 normal animals and then allow them to add more to the list at an approximate time/cost equivalent of a wizard researching a new spell.

I have no problem with this, most druids only pick a few animals anyway. I do not really think it needs a rule however, maybe just say something about “appropriate animal shapes” and leave it up to the DM to decide if that form makes sense.


-Remove Dragonhide armor from the game.

While I find the idea of dragonhide plate mail wearing druid a bit goofy, their dependence on wildshape makes the dragonhide armor less important.


-Remove heavy armor proficiency from the cleric.

I like this, it gives the non-spellcasters a bit of an edge in the AC deptartment.


-Limit Clerics/Druids to x number of spells known per level equivalent to a Wizard.

I have no problem with this, the idea of the cleric and druid knowing all of the spells on their list is a relic from the days when they had a much worse spell list than the wizards.


-Change any spell that says "Spell Resistance: No" to "Yes" (will require tweaking of individual spells).

Just make all of the really nasty spells (ala save or suck) require a ranged touch attack. This gives folks a credible defense against them without nerfing the less powerful spells.


-Make bonus spells for all classes based on Intelligence. Then make save DCs based on Wisdom (Wizards, Druids, Clerics) or Charisma (Sorcerors , Bards)

This sounds reasonable enough and also seems to be a path WotC is heading down.

Subotei
2007-03-01, 02:26 PM
1. Great power comes at a terrible price... except in D&D. Make it that casters have to make some sacrifices for that power. The old Conan RPG (the one that I played in the 80s, I have no idea if this is carried into the newer versions) had some fairly grisly costs that were associated with spell casting.

2. Knowledge and skill in D&D doesn't mean that you can do it flawlessly every time... except with D&D magic. Introduce a spell failure mechanic; critical failures should vary from annoying to catastrophic.

Amen to point 2. Then again I like Runequest III so I love fumbles.

I think I'd like to see more concentration checks - perhaps each time a spell is cast under stressfull conditions (eg when in a fight, not necessarily just when actually attacked).

Also when spells with duration are cast, perhaps for each duration spell 'active' there is a cumulative penalty to the concentration check to cast additional spells? Eg you have Mage Armour active, so to cast Magic Missile make your concentration check with a minus 2 penalty.

Olethros
2007-03-01, 03:07 PM
I have question in order to understand where this is comming from.

So in the games of the people who are all for "nerfing" there casters...

Are Casters breaking your game (destroying plots, ruinning the fun for non-casters, burning cities that should not be burned)? If so, how are they doing this? So far all I've heard is that they are tougher to kill/stop in an encounter than some think they should be.

Are the parties comprised of nothing but a cleric and druid for tanking/healing and wizard and sorcerer for explosions and annoyance?

Why are DM's letting there players continually build this party dinamic if it annoyes them?

Why arn't more of these players dying off at low levels before they are too powerfull? Or are these games starting at low level at all? (I've played a good deal of lvl 1 wizards, many didn't make it to lvl 5, those that did made it because of a good fighter type keeping them alive.)

Swordguy
2007-03-01, 03:17 PM
I have question in order to understand where this is comming from.

So in the games of the people who are all for "nerfing" there casters...

Are Casters breaking your game (destroying plots, ruinning the fun for non-casters, burning cities that should not be burned)?


Yes.



If so, how are they doing this? So far all I've heard is that they are tougher to kill/stop in an encounter than some think they should be.


Poorly balanced spells and/or class features that work together in unintended ways, combined with the ease of penetrating magical defenses and/or saving throws (and contrary to what some might thing, you can't have everything protected by antimagic fields all the time).




Are the parties comprised of nothing but a cleric and druid for tanking/healing and wizard and sorcerer for explosions and annoyance?


If I don't stop the player, yes. The game is based on giving rewards for defeating adversaries. In terms of "bang for your buck", there are no better classes than Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Bards (for diplomacy cheese). Therefore, players seeking to get the most bang for their buck gravitate towards those classes, and whine a lot if I don't let them take them.



Why are DM's letting there players continually build this party dinamic if it annoyes them?


A DM who imposes a lot of blanket limitations swiftly becomes a DM without a group.



Why arn't more of these players dying off at low levels before they are too powerfull? Or are these games starting at low level at all? (I've played a good deal of lvl 1 wizards, many didn't make it to lvl 5, those that did made it because of a good fighter type keeping them alive.)

A DM that kills a lot of PCs swiftly becomes a DM without a group. You can't kill off your PCs every time they do something stupid or annoy you, even though yo may have the power to do so. It's a collaborative game, so they should get say in how things happen and derive enjoyment from it as well. The problem comes from players deriving enjoyment only from the ability to defeat situations with minimal effort (akin to computer cheat codes). The classes listed earlier are the most prone to this sort of thing.

Look at it this way, roleplaying aside, and ONLY taking mechanics and class abilities into account, most people who want to play a "powerful" PC seem to take a spellcasting class. This is indicative that spellcasters are significantly more powerful than non-spellcasters, or else more people would choose non-casters.

Truwar
2007-03-01, 04:36 PM
Are Casters breaking your game (destroying plots, ruinning the fun for non-casters, burning cities that should not be burned)? If so, how are they doing this? So far all I've heard is that they are tougher to kill/stop in an encounter than some think they should be.

Are the parties comprised of nothing but a cleric and druid for tanking/healing and wizard and sorcerer for explosions and annoyance?

Why are DM's letting there players continually build this party dinamic if it annoyes them?

Why arn't more of these players dying off at low levels before they are too powerfull? Or are these games starting at low level at all? (I've played a good deal of lvl 1 wizards, many didn't make it to lvl 5, those that did made it because of a good fighter type keeping them alive.)

First of all, killing players off is a terrible way to balance classes. The idea of one class is weak at low levels and the other is weak at high levels is an awful dynamic that always insures that one person is not going to have all that much to do. Granting casters extra spells and lower levels and giving non-casters more special abilities and access to feats was an attempt to address this.

The reason I would like to see balance between the classes (and this does not just mean balance in combat, in my opinion a fighter should absolutely DESTROY a wizard of similar level in a fight) is so the rules fade more easily into the background. If constant exceptions and plot twists are needed to keep everyone involved (you can only wander into so many anti-magic zones) things start to feel forced and artificial.

Each class should do SOMETHING better than any other class (or be able to do several things nearly as well). This allows the classes to contribute and gives them their time in the spotlight.

It is not the dynamic of the pure caster party that annoys people, it is the way that the non-casters are gradually shunted off to the side as parties go up in levels. When the rogues skills are no longer really needed and the fighter is no longer the lead in combats it creates a situation where more and the more of the focus of the game is on less and less of the players.

Olethros
2007-03-01, 04:43 PM
Poorly balanced spells and/or class features that work together in unintended ways, combined with the ease of penetrating magical defenses and/or saving throws (and contrary to what some might thing, you can't have everything protected by antimagic fields all the time).


So this sounds like atleast part of the problem is that there arn't addaquet deffences against magic. Do monster saves need to be higher? Greater Spell Resistance? More immunities? etc.

Also, can somebody give me some specific examples of how these uber casters broke there game. What did they do to make the game unplayable/un-runable.



If I don't stop the player, yes. The game is based on giving rewards for defeating adversaries. In terms of "bang for your buck", there are no better classes than Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Bards (for diplomacy cheese). Therefore, players seeking to get the most bang for their buck gravitate towards those classes, and whine a lot if I don't let them take them.

A DM who imposes a lot of blanket limitations swiftly becomes a DM without a group.


Im not talking blanket statments, Im talking discussions with players amounting to, the last X characters you rolled were primary casters, how's about trying this other thing.



A DM that kills a lot of PCs swiftly becomes a DM without a group. You can't kill off your PCs every time they do something stupid or annoy you, even though yo may have the power to do so. It's a collaborative game, so they should get say in how things happen and derive enjoyment from it as well. The problem comes from players deriving enjoyment only from the ability to defeat situations with minimal effort (akin to computer cheat codes). The classes listed earlier are the most prone to this sort of thing.


Again, I'm not talking the omnipotent hand of the DM Squishes the helpless PC, all the time laughing with viscious delight. Im not even talking about retibutory strikes because a player is annoying/being stupid. Im talking about the phenomenon known as "Im the lvl 1 wis/sorcerer with 1-8hp and almost no AC, got stabbed by a goblin and now I'm dead." Low lvl casters should have a low rate of survivability without support.



Look at it this way, roleplaying aside, and ONLY taking mechanics and class abilities into account, most people who want to play a "powerful" PC seem to take a spellcasting class. This is indicative that spellcasters are significantly more powerful than non-spellcasters, or else more people would choose non-casters.

I must call your logic into question here. This is a classic case of "post-hoc ergo proctor-hoc" (spelled phoneticaly, I don't have my latin dictionary around). Because people who like to play powerfull characters play casters, does not logically mean that casters are powerfull characters. It means that most people who like to play powerfull characters percieve casters as being powerfull. All Im saying is that a twink build is a twink build. And if I apply all the options from every splatbook, I can make a melee type that is as game breaking as a caster. I argue that it is simply more difficult to do so for most players because it requiers more non-linear thinking in what is normaly percieved as a linear class set.

Khizan
2007-03-01, 05:00 PM
All Im saying is that a twink build is a twink build. And if I apply all the options from every splatbook, I can make a melee type that is as game breaking as a caster. I argue that it is simply more difficult to do so for most players because it requiers more non-linear thinking in what is normaly percieved as a linear class set.

While, at low levels, you can build a heavily optimized fighter or other melee type that's gamebreaking and powerful, they quickly fall by the wayside in favor of casters as the levels increase and the mobility of the monsters outstrips the fighter's movement capability at the same time as the Wizard's power grows exponentially. Even if you bring out all the splatbooks you can, you're going to be hardpressed to meet the power of even a Core optimized Wizard.

Piccamo
2007-03-01, 05:56 PM
Just so you other posters are aware, the reason Divine Casters are so overpowered now is because in 2nd Ed no one would play them because they were boring. If you don't like divine casters in your campaign, feel free to remove everything except the ability to buff and heal.

Matthew
2007-03-01, 06:02 PM
No, that is just a supposition. The reason Divine Casters are so powerful now, is because Magic in general is more powerful.

DO NOT remove Heavy Armour Proficiency from Clerics. Mithral Armour will simply render this pointless; it's cheap and easy.

Make minimum Spell Casting Time a Standard Action, outlaw any Feats that say otherwise.
Use a Spell Point System, make Spell Point recovery *VERY* gradual.

NullAshton
2007-03-01, 06:11 PM
No, that is just a supposition. The reason Divine Casters are so powerful now, is because Magic in general is more powerful.

DO NOT remove Heavy Armour Proficiency from Clerics. Mithral Armour will simply render this pointless; it's cheap and easy.

Make minimum Spell Casting Time a Standard Action, outlaw any Feats that say otherwise.
Use a Spell Point System, make Spell Point recovery *VERY* gradual.

Wheeee, everyone goes splat now that the wizard can't use feather fall!

Matthew
2007-03-01, 06:15 PM
Only if they are stupid enough to fall off things...

Indon
2007-03-01, 06:18 PM
On the subject of spells I have only one thing to say. Material Components. Instead of allowing that a Spell Component pouch automatically has all the material components you'll ever need in it (which is just a totally ridiculous concept), make your spellcasters keep track of what they do and don't have. It's not every day you come across piles of sulphur conveniently placed next to some bat guano...

Fighter: "Oh no! hordes of goblins, it'll take us ages to get through here!"
Wizard: "Don't worry, I'll give them a taste of some firey death!"
[Wizard searches his erson muttering "sulphur, sulphur"]
Fighter: "Well? Come on then, where's this firey death?"
Wizard: "Uh, well...hmm. I think I have a problem there...you don't happen to have some bat guano, do you?"


In 2'nd edition campaigns, I have both utilized and enforced such a system... and really, it was very distracting. So much paperwork... I honestly wouldn't make my players track each and every component unless the campaign were very magic-oriented (and, I would provide a CL or metamagic bonus for using specific exotic components; for instance, +2D6 fire damage for a Fireball cast using properly prepared volcanic ash; the carrot at the end of the stick, if you will).

Indon
2007-03-01, 06:21 PM
Wheeee, everyone goes splat now that the wizard can't use feather fall!

A Feather Fall effect costs 3,750 GP when added to a custom magic ring, I do believe.

Caster or no, my characters often have those, they just plain come in handy.

elliott20
2007-03-01, 06:30 PM
1. Great power comes at a terrible price... except in D&D. Make it that casters have to make some sacrifices for that power. The old Conan RPG (the one that I played in the 80s, I have no idea if this is carried into the newer versions) had some fairly grisly costs that were associated with spell casting.

2. Knowledge and skill in D&D doesn't mean that you can do it flawlessly every time... except with D&D magic. Introduce a spell failure mechanic; critical failures should vary from annoying to catastrophic.
this is actually my favorite solution to the problem.

I personally don't have problems with spellcasters being able to do fantastic things that are earth shattering. I mean, a 20th level wizard is supposed to be the penacle of human's achievement through the arcane. 9th level spells SHOULD be all powerful and what not.

The problem is when they do so without impunity without worry about the consequences. Fact is, spells, being the primary resource of casters, are TOO easy to replenish. If a level 9 spell took the caster 2 months to prepare, you can be your ass that he's not going to throw that spell away careless at the first tantrum the wizard throws. Like V has said, his/her magic doesn't come without it's price and it shouldn't be squandered.

The current system actually encourages people to squander their magical powers because hey, all you gotta do to replenish your "armageddon" spell is just an 8 hour sit. That's it.

now, I'm hesitant to make magic make you pay a "terrible" price. Cuz that might be a bit much. but I think something akin to long prep time or some such would be good or maybe having to burn xp to prep spells would be good. this way, the casters can still have their cosmos bending powers, but if they use it, it'll be quite an effort getting it back.

marjan
2007-03-01, 06:30 PM
On the subject of spells I have only one thing to say. Material Components. Instead of allowing that a Spell Component pouch automatically has all the material components you'll ever need in it (which is just a totally ridiculous concept), make your spellcasters keep track of what they do and don't have. It's not every day you come across piles of sulphur conveniently placed next to some bat guano...

Eschew Materials would be the answer.

Indon
2007-03-01, 06:31 PM
Eschew Materials would be the answer.

I suspect that any DM that actually wants to run material components in their campaign would eschew that feat. :P

marjan
2007-03-01, 06:42 PM
I guess, but since that wasn't mentioned in the post I just thought to point it out.

JellyPooga
2007-03-01, 06:44 PM
Eschew Materials would be the answer.

Sorcerers and Favoured Souls only...they're the only ones who I think it makes sense for them to have Eschew Materials. Either that or


I suspect that any DM that actually wants to run material components in their campaign would eschew that feat. :P

marjan
2007-03-01, 06:51 PM
Sorcerers and Favoured Souls only...they're the only ones who I think it makes sense for them to have Eschew Materials.

Yes and as far as I am concerned they should get this for free at 1st level.

jayphonic
2007-03-01, 07:45 PM
Honestly, the only times this seems to be an issue is either with abusive players or poor DMs. Anytime I have played in a campaign with a competent DM. There weren't any problems with spellcasters being overpowered.

It seems like a lot of work, for little reward.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-03-01, 08:10 PM
-Make Natural Spell metamagic (increases spell slot level by 1, totally not my original idea, I've seen it countless times here).
-Limit the Druid's available wildshape forms to a list of about 6 normal animals and then allow them to add more to the list at an approximate time/cost equivalent of a wizard researching a new spell.


How about this: make Natural Spell a class feature (I see that's already been suggested) but limit the available wildshape forms to those normal animals that can normally be found in the area the Druid is currently in.... It makes sense flavor-wise, and limits the "dire ape/bear/lion" cheese...

It also gives a Druid a fluff-appropiate reason to stay in the forest:
"What options do I have to Wildshape here?"
"Well, you are in a major city... choose from sparrows, pigeons, stray dogs, feral cats, rats, big rats, really big rats and dire rats"



-Remove Dragonhide armor from the game.
-Remove heavy armor proficiency from the cleric.


Don't really see the point... The D&D Cleric fluff involves heavy armor since time immemorial... Instead of that, ban all the insane "self-only" buff spells that make the Fighters cry for mamma (everybody knows which spells Im talking about).

About Dragonhide armor... just make it really hard to get, as it should be!

The rest of your suggestions seem a bit too much... While I agree that there are too many "save-or-die" spells and too many spells that don't even give a saving throw, I think that in the case of the Wiz/Sorc, every spell has to be evaluated in a case by case basis.

Jorkens
2007-03-01, 08:34 PM
now, I'm hesitant to make magic make you pay a "terrible" price. Cuz that might be a bit much. but I think something akin to long prep time or some such would be good or maybe having to burn xp to prep spells would be good. this way, the casters can still have their cosmos bending powers, but if they use it, it'll be quite an effort getting it back.
Long prep time or casting time for high level spells seems sensible. If you want to fundamentally alter the structure of reality, spending a week burning candles and meditating seems like a small price to pay. If you want to do something in a hurry - like because you're being attacked by a dragon - you might have to settle for something a bit more rough and ready. It gets you a bit closer to the wizard in fiction who frequently lights a fire by waving his hands if his tinderbox gets wet but only does really spectacular things once in a blue moon. And when he does do them they're that much cooler because you know he's not going to be able to do them again as soon as he's had a good night's sleep.

That said, introducing some sort of cost to your sanity is also a fun idea - every time you cast a high level spell there's a small chance that you'll get a little bit madder or a very small chance that you'll flip out entirely and start gibbering.

NullAshton
2007-03-01, 08:41 PM
Long prep time or casting time for high level spells seems sensible. If you want to fundamentally alter the structure of reality, spending a week burning candles and meditating seems like a small price to pay. If you want to do something in a hurry - like because you're being attacked by a dragon - you might have to settle for something a bit more rough and ready. It gets you a bit closer to the wizard in fiction who frequently lights a fire by waving his hands if his tinderbox gets wet but only does really spectacular things once in a blue moon. And when he does do them they're that much cooler because you know he's not going to be able to do them again as soon as he's had a good night's sleep.

That said, introducing some sort of cost to your sanity is also a fun idea - every time you cast a high level spell there's a small chance that you'll get a little bit madder or a very small chance that you'll flip out entirely and start gibbering.

Perhaps increasing spell slot regeneration times to one day per level of the spell? 0 level spells you could use at will, 1st level spell slots you could use once a day, 9th level spell slots you could use once every 9 days...

Raum
2007-03-01, 09:20 PM
-Make Natural Spell metamagic (increases spell slot level by 1, totally not my original idea, I've seen it countless times here).
-Limit the Druid's available wildshape forms to a list of about 6 normal animals and then allow them to add more to the list at an approximate time/cost equivalent of a wizard researching a new spell.Natural Spell as metamagic is a good idea, and yes, I've seen it several times also. :) It may also work to simply use Still Spell for casting when not in your natural shape and discard Natural Spell as a separate feat. Wildshape does need to change, but limiting to 6 animals may be a bit much. I'd just limit it to all natural animals and give stat or ability bonuses based on animal type at later levels. I've never really understood why nature worshipers should be able to change into elementals.


-Remove Dragonhide armor from the game.
-Remove heavy armor proficiency from the cleric.I'm not sure either of these are really necessary. Armor types seldom have much impact past the lower levels. And, as others have pointed out, other armor materials like mithril will negate reducing availability.


-Limit Clerics/Druids to x number of spells known per level equivalent to a Wizard.Yes, please! Though I'd go a bit farther and say clerics, druids, and wizards should all have a hard limit on the number of spells known not just a limit based on cost and certainly not unlimited access. Two times the number a sorcerer knows might be appropriate. Or maybe twice their casting stat bonus per level. Though to make this really effective you also need to raise the cost of scrolls, potions, and wands.


-Change any spell that says "Spell Resistance: No" to "Yes" (will require tweaking of individual spells).This is a bit too much for me. It has the potential of severely hampering the effectiveness of classes with a limited number of spells such as the sorcerer. Besides, I don't think it accomplishes all that much, the most abusive spells typically either have an SR or it wouldn't matter if you added one (Shapechange, Time Stop, Dominate, Wail of the Banshee, etc) only a few such as Forcecage would be significantly changed by adding SR.

I do think many (possibly most) spells should be rewritten and toned down. But it's not a project I'm going to volunteer for anytime soon. :)


-Make bonus spells for all classes based on Intelligence. Then make save DCs based on Wisdom (Wizards, Druids, Clerics) or Charisma (Sorcerors , Bards)Eh, forcing MAD on casters would definitely be a nerf, but I don't really like it. It's nerfing the class without really addressing the biggest problems (overly powerful / abusable spells).

Draz74
2007-03-01, 10:00 PM
Eh, forcing MAD on casters would definitely be a nerf, but I don't really like it. It's nerfing the class without really addressing the biggest problems (overly powerful / abusable spells).

Except that a lot of the best spells are good because they are save-or-die spells. And save-or-die spells aren't nearly as intimidating when their Save DCs aren't as high. And Save DCs won't be as high if the spellcasters can't focus all of their resources on the stat that increases Save DCs for their spells.

Raum
2007-03-01, 10:46 PM
A point or two difference on the DC isn't going to matter too much as long as casters can choose to target the victim's weak save. It's an easy change, but it still doesn't really address the issue of spell effects being too powerful. The only way to do that is to rewrite the spells...or switch to a different system.

Olethros
2007-03-01, 11:21 PM
So Swordguy pointed out in an earlier post that a DM who imposses hardline restrictions on what a charactercan play may well result in a lack of players. I agree, but am forced to ask, if you have to hand a potntial player a veritable packet of rules changes in order for him to build his beloved world-breaker, these rules of corse denying the aformentioned loved world-breaking ability, isnt he jst going to say, "Nevermind I don't think I need to play in your game?" If he doesn't, than he probably would have been open to some simple discussion about what the DM is comfortable about allowing.

elliott20
2007-03-02, 12:34 AM
Perhaps increasing spell slot regeneration times to one day per level of the spell? 0 level spells you could use at will, 1st level spell slots you could use once a day, 9th level spell slots you could use once every 9 days...
well, sanity score, while lots of fun to play with when available, would introduce even more mechanics to an already fairly complex system. Unless we're playing cthulu game where sanity score already has other applications, I think it's probably best to leave it out.

But I like the idea that preparing for a spell is not just a matter of just resting, but spending time casting.

Best way to handle it is to make the resting time or prep time an exponential equal. This way, preparing level 1s will take you very little time but preparing level 9's can take you a long time.

If we're talking about other casters, the same concept can apply but just flip the fluff text. i.e. instead of studying spells, you're gathering magical energy within yourself that you're storing for later usage.

I just can't think of a good formula as to how this will be done off the top of my head.

Matthew
2007-03-02, 08:46 AM
So Swordguy pointed out in an earlier post that a DM who imposses hardline restrictions on what a charactercan play may well result in a lack of players. I agree, but am forced to ask, if you have to hand a potntial player a veritable packet of rules changes in order for him to build his beloved world-breaker, these rules of corse denying the aformentioned loved world-breaking ability, isnt he jst going to say, "Nevermind I don't think I need to play in your game?" If he doesn't, than he probably would have been open to some simple discussion about what the DM is comfortable about allowing.

It depends entirely on the situation. Long established groups often develop House Rules to suit the group, so rules changes aren't likely going to cause people to 'walk' from the table. Of course, with (A)D&D the veritable packet of rules was often standard and led in part to the necessity of D&D 3.x (which could be said to be, after all, a standardised and published House Ruled version of (A)D&D).
The key is really to reach an agreement with the group as to what rules changes are and are not appropriate. A group that concedes that Wizards or Spell Casters are too powerful, will no doubt be open to House Rules that limit their power. Players who want to play Wizards because they are the most powerful class, probably won't be a great loss.

Titanium Dragon
2007-03-02, 10:36 AM
Well, the “ideal” way to fix the magic system is to completely rework it. However, this is a TON of work.

In terms of “quick fixes”, I’d go with something along the lines of:

All spells (with a small number of exceptions, such as Feather Fall and similar) have a casting time of at least one round, giving foes a whole round to whack the spellcaster
Problematic spells are fixed in some manner (a few continuous effect spells could allow SR, for instance)

Honestly, the first part (all spells are full round actions) would really go a long ways towards balancing them, as they are much more easily disrupted and this gives foes an opportunity to respond.

There’s always the other “simple” alternatives:

1) Primary spellcasters don’t exist. Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards are not playable classes. You want to be a primary spellcaster? Hello Bard! This works out surprisingly well, though certain enemies become far more dangerous.
2) Low magic world. Clerics and Druids have heavy restrictions on where/when they can cast spells; Wizards have a very hard time finding spells. Sorcerers don’t exist/have other restrictions.

In respect to druids, simply remove the Natural Spell feat entirely. It is far from necessary, and just makes them all the more powerful. It also puts more of a limit on their wild shape ability – they have to ration it out more as they cannot just stay in bear form all the time. Or, if they REALLY want to be able to cast spells in animal form, taking Still Spell and Silent Spell.


While, at low levels, you can build a heavily optimized fighter or other melee type that's gamebreaking and powerful, they quickly fall by the wayside in favor of casters as the levels increase and the mobility of the monsters outstrips the fighter's movement capability at the same time as the Wizard's power grows exponentially. Even if you bring out all the splatbooks you can, you're going to be hardpressed to meet the power of even a Core optimized Wizard.

Sort of. It actually is dependent on what magic items you can use, what kind of twinking you’re looking at, ect. It is possible to build a hideously broken creature that is good at whacking stuff, but…

1) It flies.
2) It takes lots of twinking.
3) It doesn’t make you more powerful, more on par.
4) It doesn’t let you arbitrarily end some encounters.

NullAshton
2007-03-02, 10:59 AM
well, sanity score, while lots of fun to play with when available, would introduce even more mechanics to an already fairly complex system. Unless we're playing cthulu game where sanity score already has other applications, I think it's probably best to leave it out.

But I like the idea that preparing for a spell is not just a matter of just resting, but spending time casting.

Best way to handle it is to make the resting time or prep time an exponential equal. This way, preparing level 1s will take you very little time but preparing level 9's can take you a long time.

If we're talking about other casters, the same concept can apply but just flip the fluff text. i.e. instead of studying spells, you're gathering magical energy within yourself that you're storing for later usage.

I just can't think of a good formula as to how this will be done off the top of my head.

Spell level squared? Level 9 spells would take a whopping 49 days to regenerate. This would only work in a campaign that you don't mind a lot of downtime, however. Or long travel times, or time spent preparing. And the powerful spells would literally be once in a blue moon.

Or perhaps level squared minus your caster level to recharge spell slots. If the time goes below 1 day, you instead get one more slot of that level(0 level cantrips automatically gets 2 bonus slots at level 1 in this system.) At level 20, you can cast 5 9th level spells per month, which is a little more than a 9th level spell a week. While the caster can use nearly limitless fireballs(17 or so 3rd level slots). It would also provide for nice scaling into epic levels, enough scaling that you could increase the difficulty of creating and using epic spells if you so wish, or even remove them completely.

EDIT: Hmmm, a few of my calculations are wrong... with editing it could work, though.

Yahzi
2007-03-03, 02:35 AM
Is this idea too strange?

At first level, a caster gets 100 spell points for life. A first level spell costs 1 point. He's still limited to spells per day, of course, but after he's cast 100 spells... he's done. He can never cast again.

Unless he goes up to 2nd level. Then he gets 200 additional spell points. At third level he gets another 300 points (and a 2nd lvl spell costs 2 pts). And so on. But when he runs out... he can't cast until he gets more spell points (by going up a level).

Would this make casters husband their power, doling it out only when absolutely needed? Because that's what we want - we don't want the wizzies to be weaker, we just want them to only cast when they absolutely have to. We want them to agonize over the decision while the fighter grapples with the BBEG until the very last minute, when the fighter is about to lose, and the wizard busts out with a Magic Missile because its just enough damage to win the fight.

I never got to run a game with these rules, but I always thought it sounded pretty cool.

ambu
2007-03-03, 03:02 AM
Some tome ago I had started a thread about how spellcasters could be nerfed by just changing some spells:

http://http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33280 (http://http//www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33280)

I still believe that with the nerfing of some SPELLS and the addition of only one or two game mechanics, DnD spell syste, will be fine. Examples:
1) Changes to some spells we all know (from 'automatic skill success' spells like Comprehend languages to Time stop
2) Higher level spells take a full round to cast
3) More spells requiring a touch attack

As for the other casters, the Druid variant of Shapechange found in PHII and the Cloistered Cleric from UA can do wonders.

Just my 2c.