Trying to decide on a magic system for my campaign

[sutasafaia]

Because my players may read this, I'm going to be quite vague. Something is happening in the world that causes problems with spell casters, and it makes certain things function differently. This is going to be both for story reason, and balance reason. I have a couple ideas of how to do it so far, but I'm not sure about the balance implications here, so could use some advice.

1: No primary prepared casters. Basically, if you can get 9th level spells, and they aren't spontaneous, it's a no go. Druid, Cleric, Wizard, etc is out. This will likely not change at all.

2: I may leave primary spontaneous casters alone. They can still be a huge pain to deal with but denying the players any chance of getting 9th level spells seems unfair. They also don't generally have the cheese mode superpowers that the prepared casters do, not to mention lacking the massive tool boxes. Of course scrolls/wands can still come into effect, but I can limit those a fair amount.

3: This is the big one for me. I feel that half progression casters, especially paladins/hexblades and other ones stuck in melee, are kind of...sad. Not that you can't min/max the heck out of them but my players (other than one) are not munchkins. I've been tempted to allow them to use their spells as a free action (limited to one spell per turn) so that they can really go in swinging. Paladins healing/buffing mid-combat, hexblades throwing curses, and many other classes that could benefit from it. This would give players an incentive to play these classes over the full progression ones like sorcerer and divine...something...the divine sorcerer.

Problem is, not sure if #3 will become unbalanced. It will absolutely be a power boost, but could it become game breaking? I try to never Rule 0 unless something becomes absolutely stupid, so if I give my players Houserule X, I will try to abide by it. Any help here is appreciated.

[mabriss lethe]

Concerning #3: Look up the feat Battle Blessing. It's a paladin feat that allows them to auto-quicken a large part of their spell list as swift actions. It's been a house rule at my table for a long time now that any "half-caster" class qualifies for Battle Blessing. It's never been a problem.

[sutasafaia]

Concerning #3: Look up the feat Battle Blessing. It's a paladin feat that allows them to auto-quicken a large part of their spell list as swift actions. It's been a house rule at my table for a long time now that any "half-caster" class qualifies for Battle Blessing. It's never been a problem.

That looks more or less perfect, actually. Thanks. I may even give it to any half-caster for free, since it would obviously be a "take me or you're an idiot" feat. More incentive to avoid the full progression ones.

Just need to deal with 1 and 2 now.

[Hiro Quester]

That looks more or less perfect, actually. Thanks. I may even give it to any half-caster for free, since it would obviously be a "take me or you're an idiot" feat. More incentive to avoid the full progression ones.


Does that also apply to bards? They can already milk the action economy pretty well, with lots of swift action options.

[sutasafaia]

Does that also apply to bards? They can already milk the action economy pretty well, with lots of swift action options.

If I gave it to all half progression characters, I would also give it to bards, yes. Wouldn't really be fair otherwise. That said, there's only one player in my entire group who ever even considers playing a bard and she wouldn't know how to turbo cheese it. My primary concern currently is making sure this would be balanced, and also trying to disincentivize the play of primary casters by giving the half casters a nice bonus.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding in point two.Spontaneous casters are -just- as bad as prepared casters if you're worried about cheese. Their toolbox is smaller but it has the same tools and the tools are the problem.

If you want a more nuanced approach without eliminating 9th level spells, you want the list casters and the healer. You might even get away with shuguenja without too much trouble but wu-jen and any of the classes that can draw freely from the sorc/wizard, druid, or cleric lists can become world-shakingly powerful even if you -do- know how to handle that sort of thing.

If you don't want to homebrew, just ban those classes and have a go. You'd be surprised how much that fixes all by itself. If you do, there's a whole section of the forum to sift through for ideas and someone more familiar than I may have some suggestions.

You might note that psionicists are mostly T1 and T2 classes. The psychic warrior, soulkinfe, lurk, and divine mind are probably in-line with the power level at which you're aiming but the psion (all variants), the wilder, and the ardent might be a bit much with ardent kind of straddlling the line depending on how flexible you want to be with custom mantles.

[sutasafaia]

It isn't that I have a huge problem with primary casters, they're fun to play as in small bursts, it's just that they make DMing incredibly unfun. It's basically creating encounters that either overwhelm the party by accident, or get swiped aside like childs toys. It's just hard to balance the encounters, and personally, I find that they make the game a bit boring, so having to stare at them from the other side of the DM screen would likely get too tedious for me. I may go my original plan and simply say there are no primary casters left in my world. Of course this is coming from the perspective of somebody who likes DFA, Warlock, Hexblade, and other characters that are considered weaker. I think having characters that aren't gods is vastly more fun and allows you to get higher level in a campaign without too many issues since the characters can't stomp anything out of existence with the flick of a wrist. I honestly think the primary casters make great villains, but terrible PCs.

Obviously that's personal bias though.

I don't like outright banning anything though, hence why I'm working on a reason in-game for the absence of those classes that I don't want to go into detail about since...spoilers. I know my players read these forums sometimes.

[MisterKaws]

The problem is actually on D&D's spell system, really. I can do a mailman just as obnoxious as a Sorcerer out of a Bard or Warmage chassis, though admittedly, there'll be some weaknesses in the build because of the lack of the Sorcerer-only spells that make it so good, but the problem is still there, and it can still kill a Great Wyrm in two rounds.

[sutasafaia]

The problem is actually on D&D's spell system, really. I can do a mailman just as obnoxious as a Sorcerer out of a Bard or Warmage chassis, though admittedly, there'll be some weaknesses in the build because of the lack of the Sorcerer-only spells that make it so good, but the problem is still there, and it can still kill a Great Wyrm in two rounds.

Is 5.0 any better? I've been tempted to pick the books up, maybe if the system is better balanced I should consider finally taking the plunge? I don't mind 3.5, I love 3.5, but I'll be the first to admit it's completely and utterly broken in many regards. Still love it though.

Either way, I think I can avoid 95% of the cheese with the lack of primary casters. I don't think anybody at my table knows how to munchkin those classes, and if they try, I can always give them the disapproving face. I just hate limiting my players, but I also want to make a game that's actually fun for everybody.

[Mehangel]

You could also take a look at alternative spellcasting systems. Spheres of Power (http://paizo.com/products/btpy96pr/discuss&page=1?Spheres-of-Power#tabs) for example, despite being made for Pathfinder, is a favorite of mine and while not perfect, should be easily incorporated for D&D 3.5

[Kelb_Panthera]

It isn't that I have a huge problem with primary casters, they're fun to play as in small bursts, it's just that they make DMing incredibly unfun. It's basically creating encounters that either overwhelm the party by accident, or get swiped aside like childs toys. It's just hard to balance the encounters, and personally, I find that they make the game a bit boring, so having to stare at them from the other side of the DM screen would likely get too tedious for me. I may go my original plan and simply say there are no primary casters left in my world. Of course this is coming from the perspective of somebody who likes DFA, Warlock, Hexblade, and other characters that are considered weaker. I think having characters that aren't gods is vastly more fun and allows you to get higher level in a campaign without too many issues since the characters can't stomp anything out of existence with the flick of a wrist. I honestly think the primary casters make great villains, but terrible PCs.

When you plan your encounters, do you run a simulation of how it might go down? Consider the players -actual- capabilities rather than just any theoretical thing a member of their class could do? Consider their normal patterns of behavior?

It can be difficult to pin down that sweet spot between steam-roller and pavement being steam-rolled but it's there to find if you look hard enough.

[MisterKaws]

Is 5.0 any better? I've been tempted to pick the books up, maybe if the system is better balanced I should consider finally taking the plunge? I don't mind 3.5, I love 3.5, but I'll be the first to admit it's completely and utterly broken in many regards. Still love it though.

Either way, I think I can avoid 95% of the cheese with the lack of primary casters. I don't think anybody at my table knows how to munchkin those classes, and if they try, I can always give them the disapproving face. I just hate limiting my players, but I also want to make a game that's actually fun for everybody.

5.0 is quite better than 3.5, though it became so in a way that not many liked: it simply nerfed ALMOST every single potential abuse in the game, and made it so that there's no potential for even having a slightly stronger build.

[sutasafaia]

No, I don't run simulations anymore. As much as I want to give my players a fun experience, I want to have one also, and running endless simulations makes me just want to avoid doing combats in the real game itself since I eventually just get fatigued from it. Obviously DM is more or less a job but if I can't have fun doing it I would worry for the longevity of the game since it's painfully obvious when the DM isn't actually enjoying themselves and it tends to put a damper on the game.

How bad did 5.0 swing the nerf bat? I don't mind characters trying to get more powerful but I'm not sure if I would like if they took ALL your potential away. That said, not having to worry about player gods might be kind of nice also, especially if the system was improved from 3.5.

[MisterKaws]

How bad did 5.0 swing the nerf bat? I don't mind characters trying to get more powerful but I'm not sure if I would like if they took ALL your potential away. That said, not having to worry about player gods might be kind of nice also, especially if the system was improved from 3.5.

It made mundanes playable, that bad.

[Cosi]

5.0 is quite better than 3.5, though it became so in a way that not many liked: it simply nerfed every single potential abuse in the game, and made it so that there's no potential for even having a slightly stronger build.

No, it didn't. You can still break 5e. Bounded accuracy means getting a bunch of chump-level minions makes you win everything forever. magic jar lets you steal monster abilities. The path to real ultimate power in that game is to be a Necromancer.

If you want a game where casters don't dominate mundanes and you don't want to write any new content, play E6 or something (you can probably go up to E12 if you're running ToB classes and tweak a few things).

[MisterKaws]

5.0 is quite better than 3.5, though it became so in a way that not many liked: it simply nerfed ALMOST every single potential abuse in the game, and made it so that there's no potential for even having a slightly stronger build.

Better now?

[Cosi]

Better now?

"Have minions" and "dumpster dive through the MM for abilities" represented the largest (and most broken) categories of broken things in 3e, and those are the things that are broken in 5e, so not really.

[MisterKaws]

"Have minions" and "dumpster dive through the MM for abilities" represented the largest (and most broken) categories of broken things in 3e, and those are the things that are broken in 5e, so not really.

Not really. Minions are usually easy to cripple, but someone who's broken by themselves is not. I agree with the MM abuse though, but that's been in all D&D games.

[sutasafaia]

I suppose it comes down to this: Do you think 3.5 or 5.0 is more fun? Obviously vastly subjective, and 5.0 is going to be missing a ton of flexibility since I doubt 5.0 comes even close to the 50 or so 3.5 books I have, but how fun is it? I would certainly miss my DFA if I moved to 5.0.

Also, big question for 3.5 vs 5.0, do casters still reign supreme or do melee chars (especially fighters) actually have a use now that doesn't require you to min/max from half a dozen books just to become viable? Not counting that book of swords of whatever it was called...just turned melee chars into mages because they couldn't find a way to fix melee characters :P

[Cosi]

Not really. Minions are usually easy to cripple, but someone who's broken by themselves is not. I agree with the MM abuse though, but that's been in all D&D games.

I mean, it depends. Leadership or animate dead (on a Cleric or Dread Necromancer) is pretty effective, and with planar binding for creatures with wish you can get a constantly increasing army of minions.


I suppose it comes down to this: Do you think 3.5 or 5.0 is more fun? Obviously vastly subjective, and 5.0 is going to be missing a ton of flexibility since I doubt 5.0 comes even close to the 50 or so 3.5 books I have, but how fun is it? I would certainly miss my DFA if I moved to 5.0.

3e is vastly superior. It has every option 5e has and more, and exponentially more support.


Also, big question for 3.5 vs 5.0, do casters still reign supreme or do melee chars (especially fighters) actually have a use now that doesn't require you to min/max from half a dozen books just to become viable?

Melee is relatively better, but still not as good as casting. But no character, regardless of class, is really competitive with fifty or so 1st level dudes with bows. It's like playing E6, except you can't be a Binder or an Incarnate, and levels go up to 20.


Not counting that book of swords of whatever it was called...just turned melee chars into mages because they couldn't find a way to fix melee characters :P

I disagree with that assessment (the various ToB classes play pretty differently from casters), but high level 3e demands that you have some freakin' magic. You are fighting people who are magic, use magic to fight, and live in a place that is magic which you got to by using magic. It's like demanding to land on the moon or fight the US military without technology.

[sutasafaia]

So, followup question that one of my players brought up, and it seemed fair to me. If I'm giving half casters a free feat to make them feel more fun to play, what about non-casters? Fighter, barb, rogue, etc. What free feat could I offer them as well? I agree with my player that it's kind of unfair to give the non-casters nothing when I'm giving the half-casters a free feat. Not sure what to offer them though. Anything on the equivalent level to Battle Blessing for a non-caster?

[Gildedragon]

Thoughts for noncasters: fractional BAB and saves, +2 skillpoints per level (+8 at level 1), non initiator classes use their BAB (not half their level) to determine their initiator level, make UMD checks easier/make it a class skill, +1 free LA