The Casterless World

[Bobbyjackcorn]

So I've been mulling over running a 3.5 game without any full-casters. You know, no clerics, bards, sorcerers, wizards, psions, et cetera.
I'm really excited by the idea, but to keep good balance, what classes do you think I should keep available to the players, and do you think I should adjust any classes?
I like the idea of keeping Paladins, Rangers, Psychic Warriors, and all those "half-caster" types, but what about other things, like Binders, or Incarnum?

[Beheld]

So I've been mulling over running a 3.5 game without any full-casters. You know, no clerics, bards, sorcerers, wizards, psions, et cetera.
I'm really excited by the idea, but to keep good balance, what classes do you think I should keep available to the players, and do you think I should adjust any classes?
I like the idea of keeping Paladins, Rangers, Psychic Warriors, and all those "half-caster" types, but what about other things, like Binders, or Incarnum?

Well first, you ban all the monsters, because your party will die over and over and over. And then you don't care what classes they choose, because they are all terrible.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

Well first, you ban all the monsters, because your party will die over and over and over. And then you don't care what classes they choose, because they are all terrible.

Very helpful. I can see now that the problem with my idea was having it.

[Necroticplague]

I like the idea of keeping Paladins, Rangers, Psychic Warriors, and all those "half-caster" types, but what about other things, like Binders, or Incarnum?

For the most part, such things tend to be relatively balanced, so leaving them in while the full-casters leave won't effect balance too much.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

For the most part, such things tend to be relatively balanced, so leaving them in while the full-casters leave won't effect balance too much.

What do you think about Tome of Battle? I suppose I'm really worried that I'll see an emerging trend of classes that will get picked and I'll end up running a solely splat-book campaign if I don't set a good precedent for what is and isn't allowed.

[darksolitaire]

Very helpful. I can see now that the problem with my idea was having it.

He's right though. Monsters with spell like abilities would become something that party will have hard time of countering. Finding and cornering a disguised CR 7 Succubus? Good luck with that. You also couldn't have many consecutive encounters without healing magic. Arguably the game could still work, if it had more social focus and most enemies would be humanoids.

[Chronikoce]

The Nay-sayers are just not accurate from my experience. If your DM isn't tailoring challenges to the group their are leading then their are just a jerk with no interest in offering a campaign that's fun for their players.

Can you run a campaign for a party of 4 fighters? Absolutely. Should you run the exact same campaign as you would for a party with a cleric, wizard, sword sage, and warblade? Definitely not...

At the end of the day the best answer I can give is just make sure all your players are on board and on the same page. If everyone is excited and wants to play this game then absolutely go for it. Just be prepared to adjust your expectations of the parties capabilities until you get a good feel for what challenges them, what they steamroll, and what decimated them.

[the_david]

Have you considered using d20 modern (and d20 past) instead? It's possible to become a spellcaster, but you'll never have spells higher than level 5. You also won't have spells until level 4 when your players get access to Advanced Classes. I'm not sure of the balance, but it might just work for you.

[Chronikoce]

Have you alternatively considered the E6 variant rules. They may achieve what you desire while still allowing casters to exist. Personally I'd love to play in an E6 game but I've never had the pleasure.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

It's good to see some people catching onto the idea instead of espousing it as simply impossible.
As far as D20 and E6 goes, I haven't considered them, but a lot of the flavor of the 3.5 system is why we like to play. I'd like to keep with this system, just find some good classes to offer, and do some expanded thinking on the topic.
Also, as far as healing goes, it's easy enough to just ramp up the number of potions in the world and write off the explanation with Alchemy, or some such nonsense. I am the DM after all.

[Ashtagon]

Have you considered using d20 modern (and d20 past) instead? It's possible to become a spellcaster, but you'll never have spells higher than level 5. You also won't have spells until level 4 when your players get access to Advanced Classes. I'm not sure of the balance, but it might just work for you.

Specifically on this note, a lot of the monsters from the various d20 Modern books are simply D&D monsters that have been adjusted to account for a lack of full casters and magic items decorating the PCs like sets of Christmas tree lights. Those should be your primary source for actual monsters. d20m is essentially compatible with 3.5; the only real differences are in the power levels available (because modern guns and no full casters).

Also, rather than ever-higher-HD monsters, consider giving class levels to them. That's inherently balanced against such PCs.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

Specifically on this note, a lot of the monsters from the various d20 Modern books are simply D&D monsters that have been adjusted to account for a lack of full casters and magic items decorating the PCs like sets of Christmas tree lights. Those should be your primary source for actual monsters. d20m is essentially compatible with 3.5; the only real differences are in the power levels available (because modern guns and no full casters).

Also, rather than ever-higher-HD monsters, consider giving class levels to them. That's inherently balanced against such PCs.

Maybe I *should* look into d20 modern, I'm just very skeptical. I'd rather iron out what works and what doesn't in 3.5 than switch over to a separate system. Part of the fun of the idea is specifically using this edition.

[Seppo87]

As far as D20 and E6 goes, I haven't considered them, but a lot of the flavor of the 3.5 system is why we like to play. I'd like to keep with this system
E6 is a small set of homebrew created for dnd 3.5, the main one being "nobody goes above lv6"

But maybe you really want a 20 levels progression.

Okay.

Crazy idea for an house rule:

-No character can have an effective caster level in any given class that is higher than half their character level.
AND cannot cast from slots (real, virtual, theoretical, dmm-like...) that are higher than (character level:4)+1
Characters CAN take levels in a spellcasting class but some benefits will not be granted until the character level is high enough.
-No character can have an initiator level in any given class that is higher than 3/4 their character level.

As with every HR that encourages multiclassing, adopt fractionary bab and saves

[Necroticplague]

What do you think about Tome of Battle? I suppose I'm really worried that I'll see an emerging trend of classes that will get picked and I'll end up running a solely splat-book campaign if I don't set a good precedent for what is and isn't allowed.

What about it? It's fairly balanced, with the few exceptions being well-known about and easily dealt with.

[Malroth]

Most of the creatures above CR 8 or so have some sort of defense that requires a t1/2 character to bypass or an offence that requires a t1/t2 to recover from, It's a sad fact that none of the half casters really offer much to get around this. If most of your enemies are either Humanoids or leveld examples of lower Cr creatures then your no caster campaign can work but expect a full party wipe the first time a Wraith, Medusae, Golem or Vampire appears.

[Zanos]

Well first, you ban all the monsters, because your party will die over and over and over. And then you don't care what classes they choose, because they are all terrible.
This statement is...crass, but not inaccurate. The core systems of 3.5 depend heavily on both magical items and spells, and without them the game becomes vastly different. Even at low levels, there are a lot of things that become tremendously difficulty or just tiresome to deal with. Petrification, ability damage/drain, level drain, poisons, disease, etc. all become vastly more difficult for players to rid themselves of. Monsters would presumably still have their racial abilities, and running encounters is going to require you either limit yourself considerably, or hand tailor every single encounter to the parties rather limited capabilities.

As for tome of battle, Martial intiators are probably the only base classes that have a particularly good time, and you're likely to see a lot of characters build to do a lot of damage, since there isn't much else to really do. If "casting" classes are banned, the classes from tome of battle quickly become the far and away best choice, outside of niche stuff like a really optimized paladin with battle blessing and access to wizard spells.

Honestly if you're going to play in a setting where magic isn't really a thing, I highly recommend you choose a different system. It's not impossible to do in 3.5, but benefits of magical equipment and access to certain effects are basically baked into the core rules, and the game doesn't function well when you just carve it out and don't adjust other portions of the game to compensate. What components of the 3.5 system do you find specifically attractive that makes you want to do this? As others have mentioned, if you're looking for a setting where the heroes just aren't superbeings, E6 is pretty good, although I've had little trouble even past level 20 with system breaking shenanigans in groups of good players.

[nedz]

The Nay-sayers are just not accurate from my experience. If your DM isn't tailoring challenges to the group their are leading then their are just a jerk with no interest in offering a campaign that's fun for their players.

Can you run a campaign for a party of 4 fighters? Absolutely. Should you run the exact same campaign as you would for a party with a cleric, wizard, sword sage, and warblade? Definitely not...

At the end of the day the best answer I can give is just make sure all your players are on board and on the same page. If everyone is excited and wants to play this game then absolutely go for it. Just be prepared to adjust your expectations of the parties capabilities until you get a good feel for what challenges them, what they steamroll, and what decimated them.
this

The last sentence is particularly important. There will be some monsters you won't want to use, but that is true for any game. Have a party of rogues - use undead and constructs sparingly, etc.

You should probably pay more attention to terrain - just to keep things a little interesting - and allow more scope for skill usage.
Also monster tactics become more important if you do this.

It will be a different game though - so make sure every one is onboard. Some players only like playing casters after all.

[EdokTheTwitch]

I frankly believe that playing a game like that would work out great. While I haven't really played in a game exactly like that, I did DM an E6 game which was tailored to avoid the complexity of T1 and T2 casters, and these are the classes that were offered to the players:

Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, Wildshape variant Ranger - The combat oriented classes
Bard, Factotum, Rogue (with a Shadow Hand maneuver at every even level) - Skill monkeys
gestalt of Dragon Shaman and Dragonfire Adept, Warlock, Binder, Shadowcaster (Abilities changed to Per Encounter), and Truenamer (surprisingly not useless during the first 6 levels, but it might need some fiddling) - The "casters"

These classes all play nice with each other, and are usually more than capable of taking on any level appropriate or even higher challenge. However, if you are set on a 20 levels game, then I second the d20 Modern suggestion, as it really helps with the more "powered down" feel.

[Zancloufer]

Getting rid of the tier 1-2 classes and the tier 3 with 9s would not be as detrimental to balance as many say it is. Yes many creatures with spell casting and powerful Su abilities are probably worth a good 20-40% increase in their CR but it's not all hopeless. Beat stick monsters, especially grounded ones, remain relevant longer. If anything it would just make powerful magical creatures actually really scary and a thing that adventures have to train and prepare for to take down.

Half-casters and the Healer actually would be a lot more powerful and even the terrible Truenamer could step up and help a fair bit. Just make the Law of Sequence per hour/encounter instead of per day and the DC equal to CR/HD instead 2*CR/HD of it would go a long way to making them useful, especially in lieu of no full casters. The Warlock's ability to make magic items suddenly becomes a major point to the class.

Also since Healers would probably be the closest thing to a full caster than didn't get whacked healing items would be raining from the sky.

[RoamingSorcerer]

I once played a lower-level Pathfinder game with a similar premise (no arcane magic save bards, no clerics or druids). Overall, you can expect the party to be stronger at lower levels and weaker at higher levels than they otherwise would be. This is simply an effect of limiting magic users.

Having Paladins, Rangers, ToB classes, etc. allows the party to specialize (somewhat) and maintain a feeling of character uniqueness. In terms of what classes shouldn't be allowed aside from the obvious, that depends on the in-game reason for why casters aren't allowed. If there is a huge taboo against casters because they are believed to consort with demons, warlocks and binders will clearly be out. From a meta-perspective, invocation classes might be a bit too powerful with at-will abilities, but talking with players can usually solve that issue. While the differences between characters will be less pronounced than in a usual campaign, regardless of whatever class list is created, it's nothing that old fashioned roll playing can't handle. Furthermore, it's easier to create encounters that are tailored to martial-only classes than the other way around, so player-power shouldn't be an issue.

In conclusion: this idea is totally doable, can be quite fun

[Eldariel]

I once played a lower-level Pathfinder game with a similar premise (no arcane magic save bards, no clerics or druids). Overall, you can expect the party to be stronger at lower levels and weaker at higher levels than they otherwise would be. This is simply an effect of limiting magic users.

Stronger on low levels? This doesn't match my experience: many big bruisers (Shambling Mounds, Ogres, the like) are very hard to beat on low levels without access to will-save or reflex-save targeting save-or-X effects, or buffs. I've found varied parties almost inevitably perform better on low levels - some save-or-loses, some buffs, some bruiser reach DPS/control types and minions if available. When fooling around with level 1 Core challenges, 2xBarbarian + 2xWizard party was the one that seemed to most reliably be able to engage higher CR encounters and particularly strong individual monsters with good chances of victory with no losses - the Barbarians' movement speed and proficiencies gives them strategic versatility between bruising, kiting, and chasing down kiting enemies, while Rage gives them one-time stat bonuses to punch above their weight class.

Wizards bring Reflex and Will-save targeting powerful disables (Grease, Color Spray, Sleep) and Enlarge Person as a critical buff for a reach Barbarian (and Ray of Enfeeblement as a great debuff to further extend the difference). And all of them are capable of using solid ranged weapons, though on level 1 WBL is an issue with affording anything particularly powerful.

[RoamingSorcerer]

Stronger on low levels? This doesn't match my experience: many big bruisers (Shambling Mounds, Ogres, the like) are very hard to beat on low levels without access to will-save or reflex-save targeting save-or-X effects, or buffs. I've found varied parties almost inevitably perform better on low levels - some save-or-loses, some buffs, some bruiser reach DPS/control types and minions if available. When fooling around with level 1 Core challenges, 2xBarbarian + 2xWizard party was the one that seemed to most reliably be able to engage higher CR encounters and particularly strong individual monsters with good chances of victory with no losses - the Barbarians' movement speed and proficiencies gives them strategic versatility between bruising, kiting, and chasing down kiting enemies, while Rage gives them one-time stat bonuses to punch above their weight class.

Wizards bring Reflex and Will-save targeting powerful disables (Grease, Color Spray, Sleep) and Enlarge Person as a critical buff for a reach Barbarian (and Ray of Enfeeblement as a great debuff to further extend the difference). And all of them are capable of using solid ranged weapons, though on level 1 WBL is an issue with affording anything particularly powerful.

Perhaps stronger was the wrong word to use there. We started at level 1 and made it to level 4. All the characters had (relatively) high hit points and attack modifiers. Our enemies were humanoids with class levels and one very angry dire hamster, so we flanked them and ended fights fairly quickly. While certain enemies could have made our lives difficult, the DM sent reasonable challenges our way that we simply beat into submission. Given that our group isn't into major optimization, we were more powerful than we usually are at those levels.

[Troacctid]

It can be tough to design a campaign with no magic at all, but if it's only the full casters who are getting the axe, then it shouldn't be too big a deal.

My preferred way to do this, though, is to ban all spells above 6th level, rather than banning all classes that would get those spells. Wizards and clerics and druids are still fun even if they can't cast their best spells, and it opens up the door to partial-casting prestige classes that wouldn't otherwise see play.

[Jormengand]

Finding and cornering a disguised CR 7 Succubus?

Oh please. The most annoying thing she can do is become ethereal and spam suggestions until the bard remembers he can cast dispel magic and when he succeeds, the barbarian can hit the succubus for more damage than she has hit points. If she's disguised, then that's fine, because the bard can spam diplomacy on everyone in the universe until he finds her. In fact, "Bard" seems like a good answer to practically everything to which the answer isn't "Adept", "Rogue" or "Barbarian".

[zergling.exe]

Oh please. The most annoying thing she can do is become ethereal and spam suggestions until the bard remembers he can cast dispel magic and when he succeeds, the barbarian can hit the succubus for more damage than she has hit points. If she's disguised, then that's fine, because the bard can spam diplomacy on everyone in the universe until he finds her. In fact, "Bard" seems like a good answer to practically everything to which the answer isn't "Adept", "Rogue" or "Barbarian".

Bard is among the axed classes.

[Jormengand]

Bard is among the axed classes.

Oh, right. I read "Full casters" and assumed that meant "Full casters". Well fine. Use some other spells on it until it goes away instead.

[Eldariel]

Perhaps stronger was the wrong word to use there. We started at level 1 and made it to level 4. All the characters had (relatively) high hit points and attack modifiers. Our enemies were humanoids with class levels and one very angry dire hamster, so we flanked them and ended fights fairly quickly. While certain enemies could have made our lives difficult, the DM sent reasonable challenges our way that we simply beat into submission. Given that our group isn't into major optimization, we were more powerful than we usually are at those levels.

Generally my own categorization is that on low levels, non-casters provide raw numbers while casters provide versatility and effects. Another is that (arcane) casters have the nukes while non-casters have reliability. Thus I generally expect the casters to use their spells in the big encounters while the warriors mop up the easier ones with casters mostly shooting bows or whatever contributions they can provide without investing daily resources. As a corollary, I'd expect a non-caster group to have a harder time in big encounters, particularly ones involving enemies with weaknesses martials can't really exploit (weak saves, vulnerability to stat damage mostly), but an easier time mopping up the easy encounters, and an all-caster group perhaps having some trouble reliably mopping up large numbers of the easy encounters (though it's worth noting, an all-caster group has more consumable resources overall so they won't run out quite as easily).

[Necroticplague]

Even with no casters, magic items that can deal with problems normally necessitating casters can still exist. DMG2 has Bonded Magic Items, which allow you to make magic items without being a caster (or taking the relevant item creation feat). It even calls out being able to make wands. So instead of cleric to remove curses, you just get a Wand of Remove Curse/Break Enchantment.

[Troacctid]

Even with no casters, magic items that can deal with problems normally necessitating casters can still exist. DMG2 has Bonded Magic Items, which allow you to make magic items without being a caster (or taking the relevant item creation feat). It even calls out being able to make wands. So instead of cleric to remove curses, you just get a Wand of Remove Curse/Break Enchantment.
You still have to be a caster to make a wand via bonding ritual, since only one ritual can enchant them and it requires the ability to counterspell.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I think your main "problem" will be the lack of healing magic, since D20 is really build around the idea of having that available. So I'd definitely keep paladin in, maybe expand the spell list of a few other classes if they in RAW exclude (some) healing spells or make them available only at a higher level. On top of that you could try to make the healing skill useful, and that's where D20 modern could provide some inspiration. In all other fields you'll probably work something out when needed.

As for your original question: I think if you ban most full casters for being full casters you should probably ban all of them. The binder's main thing is magic, evidenced by it getting ninth level spells. For incarnum users (warning: I have no experience with them at all) it seems the soulborn gets about half the advancement of the totemist and the incarnated, whose main thing is incarnumy magic. So I'd keep the soulborn in, but not the others.

[Jormengand]

I think your main "problem" will be the lack of healing magic, since D20 is really build around the idea of having that available.

Fortunately, this is one of the things that truenamers and even adepts are weirdly decent at.

[Necroticplague]

You still have to be a caster to make a wand via bonding ritual, since only one ritual can enchant them and it requires the ability to counterspell.

Technically, not impossible when you consider things like:
1. dispelling from a staff (which quiet a few other rituals can make, including the incredible easy ritual of purity)
2. non-casters that can dispel. I know that invocation-users can do it, and I think incarnum users can, pretty sure truenamers can.

[Troacctid]

Technically not impossible, but certainly not easy. A bonded staff doesn't really work because you can only have one bonded item. The only classes that can do it are the ones that already have access to magic.

[Eldariel]

I think your main "problem" will be the lack of healing magic, since D20 is really build around the idea of having that available. So I'd definitely keep paladin in, maybe expand the spell list of a few other classes if they in RAW exclude (some) healing spells or make them available only at a higher level. On top of that you could try to make the healing skill useful, and that's where D20 modern could provide some inspiration. In all other fields you'll probably work something out when needed.

Well, Wands of Cure Light Wounds are the de-facto healing effect in Core (Wands of Lesser Vigor outside it) and anyone with the spell on their list at any point can always use those automatically (so Rangers, Paladins, Adepts, etc.) and anyone at all can put ranks into UMD - I don't think healing beyond like level 1 (where affording a single Wand is too much for most parties without Aristocrats) is much of an issue as long as half-casters are allowed and that particular magic item exists.

[Beheld]

The problem definitely isn't HP healing, Lesser Vigor is fine, or a one level Crusader Dip to punch walls.

The problem is that starting at CR 3 you get huge fractions of monsters (that only go up as CR increases) that require other kinds of healing effects. Ability Damage (Str, Con, Dex, Wis, Cha), Ability Drain (Con, Wis), Negative Levels, Lose All Memory, Paralysis (1d8+5 Weeks), Dazed for Three Days (Also Save or Die), and Turn to Stone.

And that's just the CR 3-5 stuff that lasts for a long time or forever, to say nothing of that assorted defenses monsters use in combats that can't be bypassed.

[Ashtagon]

The problem is that starting at CR 3 you get huge fractions of monsters (that only go up as CR increases) that require other kinds of healing effects. Ability Damage (Str, Con, Dex, Wis, Cha), Ability Drain (Con, Wis), Negative Levels, Lose All Memory, Paralysis (1d8+5 Weeks), Dazed for Three Days (Also Save or Die), and Turn to Stone.

And that's just the CR 3-5 stuff that lasts for a long time or forever, to say nothing of that assorted defenses monsters use in combats that can't be bypassed.

I think we already established upthread that the selection of bad guys who have to be curated to ensure that only those the PCs can hurt and the PCs can conceivably defend against would be used.

[Troacctid]

Resurgence is actually amazing for that. 1st level paladin spell that gives the subject an additional saving throw against any ongoing spell or spell-like or supernatural ability currently affecting them. If they succeed, the effect ends immediately. Kind of an all-purpose panacea.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

The problem definitely isn't HP healing, Lesser Vigor is fine, or a one level Crusader Dip to punch walls.

The problem is that starting at CR 3 you get huge fractions of monsters (that only go up as CR increases) that require other kinds of healing effects. Ability Damage (Str, Con, Dex, Wis, Cha), Ability Drain (Con, Wis), Negative Levels, Lose All Memory, Paralysis (1d8+5 Weeks), Dazed for Three Days (Also Save or Die), and Turn to Stone.

And that's just the CR 3-5 stuff that lasts for a long time or forever, to say nothing of that assorted defenses monsters use in combats that can't be bypassed.

See, these are all things I can provide outs to though via ritual casting and magical items. I am the DM, I am not bound by the rules.

[Beheld]

I think we already established upthread that the selection of bad guys who have to be curated to ensure that only those the PCs can hurt and the PCs can conceivably defend against would be used.

Not really, since when I said that multiple people told me I was totally wrong (sometimes in the same post where they then said to do that.) But yes. The fact that like 75% of the MM can't be used is pretty important.

[Psyren]

6th level casters are fine and you usually won't have a problem with monsters either. These classes tend to be T3, and T3 classes can handle just about everything in the monster manual and bestiary.

This of course assumes you're staying at normal WBL guidelines. If you also envision this being a low-wealth campaign then they'll have a harder time without full casters.

I'd recommend porting in some of the PF classes as well like Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus and Unchained Summoner to bolster the 3.5 offerings and create more choice.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

6th level casters are fine and you usually won't have a problem with monsters either. These classes tend to be T3, and T3 classes can handle just about everything in the monster manual and bestiary.

This of course assumes you're staying at normal WBL guidelines. If you also envision this being a low-wealth campaign then they'll have a harder time without full casters.

I'd recommend porting in some of the PF classes as well like Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus and Unchained Summoner to bolster the 3.5 offerings and create more choice.

I am indeed planning on following normal wealth progressions, and I'm not planning on taking out magical items, as some people seem to assume, so you are correct, I am not in a worrisome position.

[Cosi]

Not really, since when I said that multiple people told me I was totally wrong (sometimes in the same post where they then said to do that.) But yes. The fact that like 75% of the MM can't be used is pretty important.

This is true. But I question if you want those monsters in the world at all for something like this. If you're removing Wizards for balance reasons, that's solving an out of game problem (the players are at different levels of optimization) with an in game solution (no more Wizards). If you're removing Wizards for conceptual reasons, why do you want all the monsters that are "basically a Wizard in a fursuit" regardless of how well the party can deal with them?

[Psyren]

I am indeed planning on following normal wealth progressions, and I'm not planning on taking out magical items, as some people seem to assume, so you are correct, I am not in a worrisome position.

Great. And for your second question - Binders, Incarnates and Totemists will also do fine. Binders might struggle a bit if you're starting at level 1 though, because they only have a single vestige slot until all the way at 8th level, so I'd recommend a few buffs there to help them contribute a little better.

[Chronikoce]

It's good to see some people catching onto the idea instead of espousing it as simply impossible.
As far as D20 and E6 goes, I haven't considered them, but a lot of the flavor of the 3.5 system is why we like to play. I'd like to keep with this system, just find some good classes to offer, and do some expanded thinking on the topic.
Also, as far as healing goes, it's easy enough to just ramp up the number of potions in the world and write off the explanation with Alchemy, or some such nonsense. I am the DM after all.

E6 is 3.5 d&d. It's a modification of the rules where characters stop gaining class levels after level 6 and instead advance through feats (including some specific to the E6 variant).

Basically the biggest deal is that casters don't get 4th level spells and advancement leads to more options rather than bigger guns.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

Great. And for your second question - Binders, Incarnates and Totemists will also do fine. Binders might struggle a bit if you're starting at level 1 though, because they only have a single vestige slot until all the way at 8th level, so I'd recommend a few buffs there to help them contribute a little better.

Can do! I was thinking about making some changes to classes anyway. I'm also considering making ritual magic a thing, since the whole idea is that long ago magic disappeared from the world, but it's been slowly trickling back (thus no professional caster types, but still pseudo-casters) I'm still not sure how to do ritual magic properly though.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

E6 is 3.5 d&d. It's a modification of the rules where characters stop gaining class levels after level 6 and instead advance through feats (including some specific to the E6 variant).

Basically the biggest deal is that casters don't get 4th level spells and advancement leads to more options rather than bigger guns.

Sounds neat, when you word it like that. Where can I find that?

[A_S]

Sounds neat, when you word it like that. Where can I find that?
Original thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?202109-E6-The-Game-Inside-D-amp-D-(with-PDFs!)).

Homemade website with a bunch of resources for the variant (http://esix.pbworks.com/w/page/9900109/FrontPage).

-----

As for your original question, I think a game like this will be fine, as long as you bear in mind the earlier comments about not sending "wizard-in-a-fursuit" monsters at your party, which won't have the options it needs to deal with them.

Inter-PC balance should be less of an issue than in the base game, but as always, you should still be open to talking to your players about balance concerns you have before they become a problem. For instance, if one of your players builds a low-op Fighter, and another one builds a low-op Warblade, the Fighter isn't going to take long to notice that he's doing all the same stuff as the Warblade but he's way worse at everything. This kind of problem is best headed off before it becomes a problem.


Well first, you ban all the monsters, because your party will die over and over and over. And then you don't care what classes they choose, because they are all terrible.
Gee, I wonder why it is that new users on this forum sometimes get the impression that we're hostile to game styles different from our own, and prone to attacking outsiders for having badwrongfun, when they post help threads?

[Beheld]

This is true. But I question if you want those monsters in the world at all for something like this. If you're removing Wizards for balance reasons, that's solving an out of game problem (the players are at different levels of optimization) with an in game solution (no more Wizards). If you're removing Wizards for conceptual reasons, why do you want all the monsters that are "basically a Wizard in a fursuit" regardless of how well the party can deal with them?

You can and should remove all Wizards in Fur suits, but there are a lot of monsters that are beyond that, and also can't be dealt with. Like, yeah, you probably don't want Lilliends or Nagas or Coatls, but the monsters with status issues include Centipedes, Spiders, Snakes, Cockatrices, Basilisks, Wights, Ghouls, Mummies, Vampire Spawn, Wraiths, Shadows, Allips,, Formians, Howlers, Rast, Spider Eaters, and Hags. And then of course, you have to remove all Angels, Demons, Devils, Slaads, Inevitables, MindFlayers, Beholders, and Dragons...

It just feels like you are losing a lot more flavor than people acknowledge.

[Psyren]

Gee, I wonder why it is that new users on this forum sometimes get the impression that we're hostile to game styles different from our own, and prone to attacking outsiders for having badwrongfun, when they post help threads?

What I can see in the quotes is pretty typical. It's part of the reason why I'm glad this forum has an ignore feature.


Can do! I was thinking about making some changes to classes anyway. I'm also considering making ritual magic a thing, since the whole idea is that long ago magic disappeared from the world, but it's been slowly trickling back (thus no professional caster types, but still pseudo-casters) I'm still not sure how to do ritual magic properly though.

3.5 has the Incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm) system to let you create ritual magic; Pathfinder has Occult Rituals (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/occultAdventures/occultRules.html#occult-rituals) which are basically the same thing. Between them you should be able to come up with something workable, and then shift all the powerful spells the party might need like Resurrection and Discern Location into that avenue of study, along with a quest chain to uncover the magic.

For the Binder, I'm not too sure what you need to do to accelerate it to early game usefulness. There is a third-party binding class called the Occultist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/radiance-house/occultist) that does great at low levels, but its overall power is more on par with the very 9th-level casters you're trying to avoid, especially at late levels. I'd suggest giving the Binder some bonus binding feats early on like Improved Binding and Rapid Recovery.

[Cosi]

Gee, I wonder why it is that new users on this forum sometimes get the impression that we're hostile to game styles different from our own, and prone to attacking outsiders for having badwrongfun, when they post help threads?

The dude had an idea that was flawed. People pointed out those flaws. That is 100% the point of asking people for their opinions. I mean, are we supposed to just pretend every idea someone has for a game is good? Like, should we tell someone who wants to run a game where a party of 1st level Commoners are expected to beat a Great Wyrm Gold Dragon that his game will work fine? At what point is it appropriate to call out someone's idea as not functional?


but the monsters with status issues include Centipedes, Spiders, Snakes, Cockatrices, Basilisks, Wights, Ghouls, Mummies, Vampire Spawn, Wraiths, Shadows, Allips,, Formians, Howlers, Rast, Spider Eaters, and Hags.

I don't think the stuff with ability damage belongs on that list. A group of Fighters can totally lay the smackdown on a giant snake no problem. They just have to spend the better part of a month in the hospital afterwards. Having someone to cast restoration cuts downtime massively, but even if you had a Cleric he wouldn't be casting restoration during the actual fight.

But yes, anything with ability drain, save-or-dies, or anything else that doesn't heal naturally becomes a massive problem.


And then of course, you have to remove all Angels, Demons, Devils, Slaads, Inevitables, MindFlayers, Beholders, and Dragons...

I personally view those (mostly) as Wizards in fur suits, to lesser or greater degrees. Dragons are Sorcerers, (high level) Celestials are Clerics, outsiders in general get huge piles of variously useful SLAs (with some exceptions, like Slaad or Hellcats), and the Mind Flayer and Beholder are caster monsters.


It just feels like you are losing a lot more flavor than people acknowledge.

Oh, absolutely. FFS, you're trying to play Dungeons and Dragons without dragons.

[Beheld]

I don't think the stuff with ability damage belongs on that list. A group of Fighters can totally lay the smackdown on a giant snake no problem. They just have to spend the better part of a month in the hospital afterwards. Having someone to cast restoration cuts downtime massively, but even if you had a Cleric he wouldn't be casting restoration during the actual fight.

But yes, anything with ability drain, save-or-dies, or anything else that doesn't heal naturally becomes a massive problem.

Well anything that puts them out for months, or weeks, or even multiple days seems to wreck the concept of the game. Hence why I included multiple week paralysis and even a three day daze in the list.


I personally view those (mostly) as Wizards in fur suits, to lesser or greater degrees. Dragons are Sorcerers, (high level) Celestials are Clerics, outsiders in general get huge piles of variously useful SLAs (with some exceptions, like Slaad or Hellcats), and the Mind Flayer and Beholder are caster monsters.

I think there is a huge difference between Wizards, and things that use supernatural abilities, even SLAs, in limited amounts on specific themes.

[Zanos]

I am indeed planning on following normal wealth progressions, and I'm not planning on taking out magical items, as some people seem to assume, so you are correct, I am not in a worrisome position.
I assumed your intention was to have a low-magic setting. With magic items, you can still keep a decent handle on it. Should be fine.

[Ashtagon]

For this sort of campaign, I would seriously consider replacing poison ability damage with hp-based damage.

[Endless Query]

A few thoughts I had scanning through this. Firstly, I'd take a quick peak over at what Pathfinder has for the Heal Skill (in particular Heal Unchained), as letting heal restore actual HP and potentially ability damage can take the sting out of potentially having less healing/restos/w/e on hand.

Secondly... "Wizards in fur suits"...

You know, I don't think flatly removing them is the best or most flavorful idea. Most of these creatures, your demons, your angels, your dragons, are usually the stuff of Sword and Sorcery legend, the most awesome and lethal of threats. While, obviously, you shouldn't use the spell casting access hyper maliciously, letting them have those higher end/order powers can do a lot to remind people that "Demon" or "Dragon" isn't just a subtype with particular features. Obviously you'd have to work carefully, but I'd almost encourage having the party take on some creature that has those magicks that are currently beyond the hands of most or all mortals. Is that not what legends are made of?

Granted, of course, it depends why full casters don't exist. If it's because magic, while still generally "plentiful" can't be, lets say, "gathered" or "focused" to that degree or so easily so spells or powers beyond a certain level simply do not exist, and therefore no one devotes their entire lives to trying to study to obtain things that don't exist... Wellll... Maybe Dragons at least probably shouldn't exist. Extra dimensional stuff could play by different rules, but anything else native to the plane should probably play by the same rules. A lot does hinge upon the reasoning for its absence, but still. I'd be interested to see it be made into...

Dungeons & Dragons

[digiman619]

Are you doing this because you think that casters are OP, or are you wanting to explore other options and/or a lower fantasy setting? because if you're worried about power level, I'd suggest back-porting Spheres of Power. Basically makes magic more like a tech tree/feat based instead of Vancian. It's really cool and flexible; I highly recommend it.

[Quertus]

Bard is among the axed classes.

I am the DM, I am not bound by the rules.

I winced at the idea of no full casters. I shuddered when I heard even bards got hit with the nerf bat axe. But this just goes too far.


Even with no casters, magic items that can deal with problems normally necessitating casters.


Resurgence is actually amazing for that. 1st level paladin spell that gives the subject an additional saving throw against any ongoing spell or spell-like or supernatural ability currently affecting them. If they succeed, the effect ends immediately. Kind of an all-purpose panacea.

+1 this. IIRC, it only works against things that allowed a save in the first place, but it's still gold. I usually prefer an eternal wand via Arcane Spellcaster - can a Warlock handle making that?


The problem definitely isn't HP healing, Lesser Vigor is fine, or a one level Crusader Dip to punch walls.

Do people actually allow that to work? I always at least required the crusader to drag around a troll that was paralyzed for (1d8+5 Weeks).


And that's just the CR 3-5 stuff that lasts for a long time or forever, to say nothing of that assorted defenses monsters use in combats that can't be bypassed.

Has anyone addressed this half of the equation yet? Also, can you give some examples to make addressing this easier?


I think we already established upthread that the selection of bad guys who have to be curated to ensure that only those the PCs can hurt and the PCs can conceivably defend against would be used.

Actually, I think the current plan is for the DM to be consistent, and remove monsters with the same logic used to remove casters. This may still leave some monsters that the party can't really deal with, or can't deal with outside some extreme edge case of builds. At what point does this become an issue?

To start to answer my own question, once you reach 3rd level, in your average game of D&D, if your striker doesn't have a magical weapon, it really feels like you've done something wrong. Have characters in this world lost the game if they aren't carrying a wand of resurgence at 2nd, and some one-charge wands of grease, entangle, and color spray at 1st? How much of their build becomes, "you must do this or you fail"?

To put it another way, tier 1s are defined by their versatility. It's one thing to ask the highly versatile tier 1s to adapt to the diverse challenges of the typical D&D world, but what of their more focused counterparts? The only way they can hope to keep up is with items. Happily, the OP is keeping WBL, and it appears that you can sell your soul to the devil to craft new items, so it's all good.

But at what point does every successful party look exactly the same, because of all the gear they were required to purchase in order to be versatile enough to deal with a realistic representation of a D&D world? At what point do you lose the wonderful options and diversity of 3.x to the cookie cutter requirements of survival without tier 1 support?

EDIT: alternately, can we just play in old-school meat-grinder mode, where we just keep throwing characters at the problem until we get lucky and it goes away, then loot the bodies of the last 20 TPKs it took us to get here?

[Beheld]

Has anyone addressed this half of the equation yet? Also, can you give some examples to make addressing this easier?

Well this is a problem that becomes much more so as you level. Devils and Demons with Greater Teleport at will and Regeneration can bounce around harassing PCs pretty much forever. But from CR 3 to 5 defenses are less of a problem. However between CR 3-5:

13 Dragons that have fly speeds much faster than the PCs, large piles of HP good AC, flyby attack, and a breath weapon. Unless your entire party is 100% archers, these probably punch well above CR if you can't use spells to cripple them.
Allips and Shadows are incorporeal, which means non magic can't hit, Magic weapons miss 50% of the time, and they can punch you from the floor, so you get only the readied action of one or two people at best each round.
Aranea's make webs. You won't like webs.
Hound Archons have DR 10/not going to get past this.
Arrowhawks have flying and a ranged attack.
You can only attack Basilisks with a 50% miss chance if you don't want to die.
Centaur's have 50ft speed and bows.
Earth Elementals punch you from in the ground.
Ethereal Filchers, Mauraders, and Phase Spiders all do standard action attacks before disappearing onto the ethereal plane, and so can only be hit by readied attacks.
Phantom Fungus is Greater Invised. So are pixies, and they have ranged attacks and can fly. Shadow Mastiffs are effectively invisible.
Gargoyles and Harpys and few others can fly and shoot arrows at you.
Sea Hags cause Str damage from looking at them, which is likely to reduce damage. And they live in water, so they can drown you or not be attacked or both.
Hydras have Fast Healing 15, and also the most common defense of low CRed monsters.
Mimic's have adhesive.
A Nightmare is literally an Astral Projection, so you can never kill it.
Rast's paralyze you if you look at them from within 30ft and flies.
Ravid's literally fly around animating objects that kill you and avoiding you.
Rust Monsters are Rust Monsters.
Trolls Regenerate.

But by far the most common defense you need casters to penetrate against at low CRs is: "I will mulch you if you end your turn next to me" which is Trolls, Hydra, Animated Constructs, and Monstrous Vermin, probably other things too.

I mean theoretically you could build a non caster party that can deal with a couple of these, but you can't build a party that can both shoot down a dragon with bows, and also survive against a Wheeled Animated Construct of Stone in melee, but can also deal with Pixies shooting sleep arrows from invis, but can also deal with Earth Elementals punching them out of the ground with readied actions.

[Flickerdart]

I mean theoretically you could build a non caster party that can deal with a couple of these, but you can't build a party that can both shoot down a dragon with bows, and also survive against a Wheeled Animated Construct of Stone in melee, but can also deal with Pixies shooting sleep arrows from invis, but can also deal with Earth Elementals punching them out of the ground with readied actions.

I don't see why not. It won't be easy, but for example:

Dragonborn and raptorans get flight eventually, and some low-LA races like half-fey get better flight faster. This helps immensely against the dragons, elementals, and full attack-based mulching threats. If the entire party is stealth-oriented, they will be able to pick their battles, and "punch the construct" becomes "walk around the construct." Being immune to sleep arrows is as easy as writing "elf" on your character sheet, and invisibility is solved with bags of flour. A swift hunter can fight at range and in melee fairly interchangeably, as can rogues with the appropriate ACFs.

[Beheld]

I don't see why not. It won't be easy, but for example:

Dragonborn and raptorans get flight eventually, and some low-LA races like half-fey get better flight faster. This helps immensely against the dragons, elementals, and full attack-based mulching threats. If the entire party is stealth-oriented, they will be able to pick their battles, and "punch the construct" becomes "walk around the construct." Being immune to sleep arrows is as easy as writing "elf" on your character sheet, and invisibility is solved with bags of flour. A swift hunter can fight at range and in melee fairly interchangeably, as can rogues with the appropriate ACFs.

So as long as your entire party is dragonborn or raptoran, never goes inside, has hide in plain sight somehow, are all elves too apparently, are all swift hunters and rely entirely on precision damage and never getting full attacks, and you just pretend that you can throw 6800 flour bags in a single action to find the pixie that could be anywhere within a 60ft sphere of where he attacked you from... You can totally still fly slower than dragons and therefore be subject to the same strafing techniques as before, still get pummeled to death by constructs who don't take damage.

And oh yeah, by the way, that was CR 3-5 enemies, the ones you fight before Dragonborns and Raptorans can fly at all.

[Flickerdart]

So as long as your entire party is dragonborn or raptoran, never goes inside, has hide in plain sight somehow, are all elves too apparently, are all swift hunters and rely entirely on precision damage and never getting full attacks, and you just pretend that you can throw 6800 flour bags in a single action to find the pixie that could be anywhere within a 60ft sphere of where he attacked you from... You can totally still fly slower than dragons and therefore be subject to the same strafing techniques as before, still get pummeled to death by constructs who don't take damage.

And oh yeah, by the way, that was CR 3-5 enemies, the ones you fight before Dragonborns and Raptorans can fly at all.

Why do they all need to be all of the things I listed?

[Beheld]

Why do they all need to be all of the things I listed?

If 3 members of your party die to each threat, then after approximately 2 threats, they are all dead. But it was mostly just for fun, since the entire point of the joke is that your response to CR 3-5 threats was to fly over them with your all Raptoran Elf party that can't even fly at those levels.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

These can all be handled with Roleplay and ingenuity. What if they prepared readied actions with grappling hooks to spear the dragon to the ground? What if the pixies simply aren't senselessly bloodthirsty? What if they brought mirror shields to a basilisk fight? What if the allip can be effected by the weapon which killed it in life?
You assume that I'm throwing all these challenges at my players in a void, but that's simply not the case in any campaign. The game is not only about the system, but the mark of human ingenuity which both the players and the dm impress upon the story they tell together.

[Beheld]

These can all be handled with Roleplay and ingenuity. What if they prepared readied actions with grappling hooks to spear the dragon to the ground? What if the pixies simply aren't senselessly bloodthirsty? What if they brought mirror shields to a basilisk fight? What if the allip can be effected by the weapon which killed it in life?
You assume that I'm throwing all these challenges at my players in a void, but that's simply not the case in any campaign. The game is not only about the system, but the mark of human ingenuity which both the players and the dm impress upon the story they tell together.

No, I'm assuming that the game plays according to the actual rules. I mean sure, you can make up whatever rules you want for anything you want. But that doesn't contradict my point, since the beginning of the thread, that you have to ban all the monsters that will kill your PCs.

Beating Orcus the mighty demon (who happens to have the exact same stats as a Dretch) is not beating Orcus. And beating basilisks that stone themselves despite the rules explicitly saying they can't be turned to stone by looking at a mirror image of themselves. Nor does the game say that a level 5 party is supposed to have advance notice and be given an opportunity to plan for all CR 3 fights so that they don't die.

Yes, you definitely need to ban a whole bunch of monsters, and have PCs face enemies 3-10 CR lower than they should if you do this. Yes, you need to acknowledge that. Once you acknowledge that, why waste time pretending you aren't doing that?

[digiman619]

I guess that the best way to word this is that the game is made with the assumption of some sort of magic system. It doesn't matter if it's standard Vancian, psionics, incarnum, Spheres of Power, Mad Science or whatever else. If you take away casting and don't put something else in its place, the whole structure of the game falls apart.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

No, I'm assuming that the game plays according to the actual rules. I mean sure, you can make up whatever rules you want for anything you want. But that doesn't contradict my point, since the beginning of the thread, that you have to ban all the monsters that will kill your PCs.
Yes it does contradict your point, because it makes those enemies viably killable.


Beating Orcus the mighty demon (who happens to have the exact same stats as a Dretch) is not beating Orcus.
This is just being vitriolic. Allowing players creative or alternative ways to kill things is not the same as making a demon/god into an easy creature.

And beating basilisks that stone themselves despite the rules explicitly saying they can't be turned to stone by looking at a mirror image of themselves.
I was presenting a quick example, excuse me that one of the ideas I listed happens to be inviable.

Nor does the game say that a level 5 party is supposed to have advance notice and be given an opportunity to plan for all CR 3 fights so that they don't die.
No one is saying they explicitly need advanced notice. What I am arguing though is that the game is as much about telling a story as it is about the rules, and that clever thought can trump situational advantage, as long as the dm isn't being a hardass.


Yes, you definitely need to ban a whole bunch of monsters, and have PCs face enemies 3-10 CR lower than they should if you do this. Yes, you need to acknowledge that. Once you acknowledge that, why waste time pretending you aren't doing that?
No, I do *not* need to ban a bunch of monsters or coddle my players with lower level encounters if and when I do this and although I respect your opinion and consider your caution, your lack of tact and pretentious tone leads me to ask you to please either mind your phrasing or stop responding to this thread.

[AnimeTheCat]

You know, I like this idea and to all the nay-sayers out there, I just wanna point out that the whole point of D&D is to have fun a socialize with friends. You don't need full-casters and every monster in MM to do that. Try something new with your Game lives, you may find something unique that you enjoy.

To answer the OPs original question, I don't think having psychic warriors or ToB classes is going to be breaking in any way. I also think that for balance purposes you should avoid monstrous classes with spell like abilities until they can be overcome by other means. That doesn't necessarily mean magic items, but maybe just by virtue of a greater power gap in favor of the PCs that evens out the playing field a little. Another approach is to rethink how magic items are "born" so to speak. Say there is a longsword that was used by an avatar of a deity in the past, that weapon could be magical simply due to its proximity to such a powerful force. Since you said "Casterless" and not "Magicless" that's how I interpreted it and the way that something or someone becomes magical is less a matter of rules and precision, and more a matter of story and fluff. It gives every magic item meaning and story as opposed to "I just purchased this item and I am now god".

Play the game the way you want to, just be sure you scale the opposition accordingly. I know that if it were me, I would have bands of orcs with warrior/barbarian levels. That provides plenty of a challenge to a mostly martial party without much work having to go in to it at all.

[Endarire]

How are magic items made? Can PCs make them? What rules modifications exist to account for PCs who want to do this?

[Troacctid]

How are magic items made? Can PCs make them? What rules modifications exist to account for PCs who want to do this?
They're made by casters. OP isn't actually talking about removing all casters, only the most powerful ones.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

Magic Items would be created by ritual. What that entails is something I'd have to consider a lot more.
I want to continue to offer the ability to cast any of the spells from the books via ritual as well, granted this would be a lengthy process, not something which could be combat applicable.
Still working that idea out in my head on the drives to work.

[Sapreaver]

What's wrong with running away from something.

A dragon could be something they rally a community to defeat harpoon it to the ground as it flies buy and than poisons with arrows and finally killin it is there a cost yea but there is a reward at the end. A small community of 200-300 people in battle formations with poisoned bows and harpoon could take out a dragon mundanely.

That allip that damages wisdom and is incorpreal run away after the stuff you have available doesn't work have the party learn something to defeat it like I don't know maybe through investigation they find the secrets to advance their weapons. With legacy weapons. Hey the fighter is a kensai and his weapon just hurts it.

The pixie doesn't have to just be blood thirsty could be a mischievous annoyance but not actually kill things kind of like a non evil fey.

Petrification can be fixed with stone salve and it's his world it can be something alchemical in nature. It's a 30 ft range for gaze effects.

[nedz]

D&D has more monsters than you will ever need in any game. I certainly don't run a kitchen sink world - I pick and choose which monsters exist and which don't. Also, you can change anything around - so maybe your Pit Fiends are Kung Fu Masters rather than having their usual powers: why not ?


How are magic items made? Can PCs make them? What rules modifications exist to account for PCs who want to do this?

AD&D managed to survive for many years without being entirely explicit about how items were made - for that matter just how do you make a Sphere of Annihilation in 3.5 anyway ?

[Zanos]

D&D has more monsters than you will ever need in any game. I certainly don't run a kitchen sink world - I pick and choose which monsters exist and which don't. Also, you can change anything around - so maybe your Pit Fiends are Kung Fu Masters rather than having their usual powers: why not ?
That was one of my original points, though. You certainly can do it, but it requires quite a bit of work to have monsters that the PCs can defeat without reliable access to magic. I think you would have a better experience using a system designed for less magical heroes.

[Necroticplague]

AD&D managed to survive for many years without being entirely explicit about how items were made - for that matter just how do you make a Sphere of Annihilation in 3.5 anyway ?

You don't. It's an artifact.

[Illven]

You don't need full-casters and every monster in MM to do that.

I do actually. That or I'll settle for ToB, but I need one of the two to have fun.

If you don't, that's great. If you find low-magic fantasy fun, awesome. I'm not going to begrudge you your fun.

But please don't tell me that because I need options I'm not trying hard enough.

[Beheld]

What's wrong with running away from something.

A dragon could be something they rally a community to defeat harpoon it to the ground as it flies buy and than poisons with arrows and finally killin it is there a cost yea but there is a reward at the end. A small community of 200-300 people in battle formations with poisoned bows and harpoon could take out a dragon mundanely.

That allip that damages wisdom and is incorpreal run away after the stuff you have available doesn't work have the party learn something to defeat it like I don't know maybe through investigation they find the secrets to advance their weapons. With legacy weapons. Hey the fighter is a kensai and his weapon just hurts it.

The pixie doesn't have to just be blood thirsty could be a mischievous annoyance but not actually kill things kind of like a non evil fey.

Petrification can be fixed with stone salve and it's his world it can be something alchemical in nature. It's a 30 ft range for gaze effects.

30ft Gaze Range doesn't matter if you are inside, in a location where that covers everything, like say, in a burrow. Once again, you are proposing a PrC that you can't even qualify for to solve a problem it won't even solve until level 8 against CR 3 enemy.

Also, no, if your entire community needs battle formations to deal with CR 3 dragons, then your entire community is pathetic, and so are you. It's CR 3. The rules say that you can kill 8 of those in a day without dying, and your solution is to get an EL 8 encounter to help you deal with it because you can't handle it, then you are in fact, definitely, not living up to your CR at all.

[Sapreaver]

30ft Gaze Range doesn't matter if you are inside, in a location where that covers everything, like say, in a burrow. Once again, you are proposing a PrC that you can't even qualify for to solve a problem it won't even solve until level 8 against CR 3 enemy.

Also, no, if your entire community needs battle formations to deal with CR 3 dragons, then your entire community is pathetic, and so are you. It's CR 3. The rules say that you can kill 8 of those in a day without dying, and your solution is to get an EL 8 encounter to help you deal with it because you can't handle it, then you are in fact, definitely, not living up to your CR at all.

Monstrous crab is cr 3 too. Have fun beating 8 of those in a day with an at level part.

Maybe your faith in the cr system is to much. I also think you are forgetting the most important rule. 0.

You're one salty mofo, and all I did was provide magicless ways for overcoming your examples. Is it late in El sure does that matter not at all in a world with out powerful magics. Those creatures CRs would be higher in such a world.

Also he said the would still be magic.

[Troacctid]

Monstrous crab is cr 3 too. Have fun beating 8 of those in a day with an at level part.
Medium monstrous crabs are kind of a pushover. They only hit for 1d6+2 damage, their grapple mod is only +8 (which is decent for the level, but hardly unbeatable), and they have a paltry 19 HP and 16 AC. They're significantly less scary than large monstrous scorpions at the same CR.

[Flickerdart]

Medium crabs are the significantly-less-threatening Stormwrack crabs, where even the larger ones are pushovers. You want the Monsters of the Tides Monstrous Crab.

[Troacctid]

That version was superseded by the more recent Stormwrack version.

[Beheld]

Monstrous crab is cr 3 too. Have fun beating 8 of those in a day with an at level part.

Maybe your faith in the cr system is to much. I also think you are forgetting the most important rule. 0.

You're one salty mofo, and all I did was provide magicless ways for overcoming your examples. Is it late in El sure does that matter not at all in a world with out powerful magics. Those creatures CRs would be higher in such a world.

Also he said the would still be magic.

1) The CR system has specific notable outliers. Monstrous Crabs from a web supplement or whatever, were one of them. They were also nerfed later. But the shear fact that you point to one monster instead of 14, out of the hundreds of CR 3 monsters, is proof that my faith in the CR system is not misplaced.

2) FYI, 8 a day is for a level 5 party, not a level 3 party.

3) Rule zero is not "the most important rule" it is "literally agreeing that Beheld is correct." Since the entire point I made was that if you don't have a caster party, you can't handle the actual monsters that the rules actually say a party can, so you need to change what monsters you face, or send monsters significantly under CR against the PCs. (Caveat from repeated comments: Yes, or "not change the monsters" and just change everything about the monsters, or send monsters that should be a brisk fight and give advance notice and treat them like Party level +4 Bosses, thus effectively sending under CR monsters.)

4) Yes the fact that you could propose methods that requiring being overleveled just means "agreeing that Beheld is correct."

[Quertus]

Yes it does contradict your point, because it makes those enemies viably killable.


This is just being vitriolic. Allowing players creative or alternative ways to kill things is not the same as making a demon/god into an easy creature.

I was presenting a quick example, excuse me that one of the ideas I listed happens to be inviable.

No one is saying they explicitly need advanced notice. What I am arguing though is that the game is as much about telling a story as it is about the rules, and that clever thought can trump situational advantage, as long as the dm isn't being a hardass.


No, I do *not* need to ban a bunch of monsters or coddle my players with lower level encounters if and when I do this and although I respect your opinion and consider your caution, your lack of tact and pretentious tone leads me to ask you to please either mind your phrasing or stop responding to this thread.

If I were to play in a game like this... well, my earlier post expressed my concern that multiple runthroughs would feel similar. But let's ignore that for the moment, and just look at a single pass through the world.

I can have the fun, novel experience of puzzling through how to survive D&D without tier 1 support. That sounds cool. Or the DM can put in a lot of effort to change everything to make it survivable. That sounds lame, sounds like it makes our characters feel lame, and sounds like a lot of effort for negative gain.

If no one can come up with a "real", RAW solution to a problem, the DM can be liberal in the creative solutions he allows. That sounds cool. Or he can hand out the McGuffin of the week, to overcome the challenge the characters were too lame to solve. That not only sounds lame, it sounds like, "I don't like tier 1s because I don't like the players being able to solve problems by themselves".

I like the idea of a world where warlocks - those who have sold their souls to the devil - are pretty much the only ones who can gather enough power to craft the really good items. It could lead to some really interesting stories if you / the party decide to investigate this aspect of the world (if the party is even aware of it).

And, back to the idea of reuse... ,if the DM were exceptionally lenient in what he allowed the players to do, while still following RAW (not letting mirrored shields stone basilisks if RAW says that's not how their gaze works, for example), I'd probably want to play in the world again. But if I've already made all the solutions, the DM makes all the solutions, or blatantly non-solutions work, then it wouldn't be worth a second pass IMO.

But... that's me. How do your players feel about the idea? Are they creative enough to come up with their own solutions? Savvy enough to build successful parties even without caster support? Independent enough to care how much the DM railroads them with McGuffins and kiddie gloves? The answer to these questions, more than any advice we give you, should determine what direction you take the game.

[NichG]

You can absolutely do this, and it won't fall apart or break down or any of those things because of hyper-difficulty if you do it right. In some places, that extra difficulty will actually enable you to make use of threats and turn them into serious antagonists, where they would otherwise have been trivially neutralized with a single action.

The key thing is that information and preparation become much, much more important. If a monster with a special ability is present, the PCs should always be able to get advance notice of that before they roll initiative, and preferably before they even enter the area in which the creature lives. You will probably have to help your PCs along with this and provide the information until they get the idea that they really need it before doing anything. Standard D&D can end up running like 'we enter the next room, roll initiative. Oh right, what are we fighting?', so many players will be indoctrinated into that style and will take time to come out of it. (You can still run like that in a casterless game if you really want to, but then you have to be careful about not assuming that your players are more creative than they actually are).

For the succubus, if the PCs are informed ahead of time that there's a succubus somewhere among the courtiers, they could spend an entire game session figuring out who she is, setting traps for her, spying, trying to expose her plans, etc. That sounds to me like actually playing a game, whereas stepping into the throne room and casting Forbiddance or True Sight or Dictum or the like feels short of that. For monsters with petrification gaze, again, if the PCs are informed ahead of time, they can make a plan to lure the creature to an ambush site and strike from >30ft range; or they can try to set up a distraction that holds the creature's gaze; or they can drop a ton of smokesticks around so that the gaze is limited to 5ft and attack with spears from 10ft; or they can fight blindfolded. None of that would work if they just walked into a room and, oh, by the way, medusa! But if they know 'this game we're hunting a medusa, if she looks at you then you die, here's the terrain, how do we deal with this?' it could be interesting.

The other thing is to adjust expectations. You should think of the medusa game as a particular rare session that's higher risk (and higher reward) than normal - this is a session where there's a high chance even with planning that someone permanently loses their character. It shouldn't be every session, every time, or just randomly 'this time medusa!', but something with a buildup. Take the fact that some people on this thread seem to be afraid of dealing with some kinds of encounter without caster support, and use that fear to intentionally inject tension into your campaign at climactic points. Similarly, you should realize that people playing your game will need to adjust their own threat estimations, so give them plenty of popcorn fights and other things that let them get a feel for their abilities and limits before the really serious stuff hits the fan.

Now, all of that gets around this pernicious 'its impossible because monsters would be hard' thing. But there still is a major problem with a casterless game that probably needs to be addressed.

That is to say, a large portion of the content of the game that makes it feel like a rich experience is actually tied up in casters or caster-related things. This is one of the major problems with d20 Modern, especially when it first came out - they basically took 3.5ed and stripped out the magical stuff, and the result is an extremely bland and boring system. All of the game mechanical things in d20 Modern feel like little micro-bonuses and minor adjustments in rare situations that may or may not matter. A spell is basically a big chunk of new ability - here, in a package, is a new thing you can do that is impossible for other people. So without that, the system can feel sort of unrewarding and its easy for things to kind of blur into each-other. That means you weaken one of the sources of player investment in the game - a feeling of ownership and uniqueness in their character.

So my strong recommendation would be that you really have to seriously fill this gap with homebrew, on-the-spot rulings, and other things that exist in your campaign to make characters feel unique and empowered. There are lots of ways you could do this. For example, one way would be to make organizations much more center-stage - characters each belong to different organizations, and as they advance they can call on their organization (in a mechanically defined way) for larger-scale benefits than personal action would normally have access to. You could have favor and influence mechanics, where a character could 'spend' their fame to buy influence in different cities or facilities across the land, allowing them to take special actions relating to those facilities. Whatever you do though, you have to make sure that its relevant and central to the campaign. Having a bunch of cool social powers and then dungeon diving in a traditional 4-member group isn't going to do much.

[Quertus]

-snip-

The above post really hit the nail on the head. In a game like this, you've got to have answers to the questions, "How are the PCs going to overcome challenges?", and, "How do you keep the same level of 'rich experience'?"

There's a third one, "How are you going to explain this world / how are you going to make it internally consistent?" that has largely been addressed: reduced magic, no casters in fur suits.

Now, the above poster gave some perfectly valid answers to the questions they raised; allow me to present / compile some alternate solutions.

How are the PCs going to overcome challenges?

The PCs need intel; they get it through their own efforts. This solution, presented above, is probably the best answer. But what if the players don't realize this, don't know how, or don't have characters suited to this style of play? (Or, heaven forbid, don't enjoy this style of play?)

The DM spoon-feeds the intel to the PCs. This can make some sense for people who are new to the world; the issue is when to stop, and how to transition in such a was that the players know that they need to deal with this on their own / that a lack of information is not a survivable option.

The PCs die from lack of information. This is what I referred to as "olde school meat grinder mode" - you keep killing off PCs until the players learn how to make and run competent adventurers. This is the easiest and most realistic solution, but if you're going that route, I'd suggest a system with an easier, faster character creation minigame.

An NPC/DMPC does their scouting for them. This permanent hand-holding method is probably best for when the PCs recognize the need, but don't care for the scouting minigame.

Helpful shopkeeps / other adventurers. "Having even that single charge of grease really saved my bacon." "I wouldn't go out there without a wand of resurgence if I were you." "Wow, that's a nice haul. Allow me to suggest..."

Ban all the monsters. This works, too, I suppose, but really hurts our "rich environment" aesthetic.

How do you keep the same level of 'rich experience'?

I'm sad so say, most every possible answer here is a matter of addition.

Organizations. As the above post warned, don't make the organization's give all the social advantages if the PCs are going to spend all their time exploring dungeons.

Mutations. Somewhere (d20 future?), there is a list of mutations with a point cost for each. Giving each character a certain number of mutation points to work with could be interesting, and could help solve some of the "no tier 1" issues.

Alchemy. If magic has been gone / weak for a long time, what has stepped up to take its place? Perhaps every adventuring party does carry 99 copies of "soft" to undo petrification.

Items. Perhaps when magic started to fail, powerful individuals developed rituals to bind magic items directly to their essence / life force / fame / whatever. Now, powerful families have arisen around those objects. Whether they mechanically resemble weapons of legacy, true believer items, or something original and unique to this setting, giving something extra beyond WBL could be both simple and cool.

Luck. Perhaps the loss of magic was a great boon to evolution. Only the lucky survived. Let the players start the game with a certain number of luck / fate / hero points, giving them x rerolls per session.

Skill. Perhaps evolution took a different path. Increased stats, free psionics, bonus feats / skill points, or even gestalt could help even the odds, and maybe give the world a little more depth.

Combination. Assign players a certain number of points, to mix and match in the above solutions as they see fit.

[EldritchWeaver]

Are you doing this because you think that casters are OP, or are you wanting to explore other options and/or a lower fantasy setting? because if you're worried about power level, I'd suggest back-porting Spheres of Power. Basically makes magic more like a tech tree/feat based instead of Vancian. It's really cool and flexible; I highly recommend it.


I guess that the best way to word this is that the game is made with the assumption of some sort of magic system. It doesn't matter if it's standard Vancian, psionics, incarnum, Spheres of Power, Mad Science or whatever else. If you take away casting and don't put something else in its place, the whole structure of the game falls apart.

I'd like to expand on this. The big problem core magic poses is that you get a lot package deals. Access to a certain spell level grants you access to all the spells of that level. It's difficult to remove only part of things without getting other things too lopsided to work. Spheres of Power has for the proposed scenario a number of advantages.

The first one is that the system itself produces casting characters of lower Tiers than the equivalents of core. Tier 2 is only manageable if you choose particular combinations. The provided classes don't extend to Tier 1, which means that inherently a number of problems are solved. Going further, the magic talents (which are basically the spells) are divided into basic ones and advanced ones. Basic ones are always accessible to all characters (unless setting-specific restrictions come into play). Advanced ones are those which have the potential to change or break campaigns and needs explicit GM permission to be used. So don't like scry-and-teleport tactics? Deny the Warp talent equivalents to Greater Teleport and Gate. Need resurrection? Add the Life sphere (partially) to the roster.

Still too much caster influence? Stipulate that at most talents equal half to your character level from a single sphere can be taken. This prevents extreme specialization. Don't like that characters have a CL equal to their character level? Stipulate multiclassing. Thanks to handling CL similarly to BAB, CL stacks between several classes and can be advanced on three tracks (low, medium and high casters). That way no pure high casters are left. If that is not enough, ban the high-caster classes completely. And with the exception of really high level advanced talents, you can still get somehow access to the effects you need, in order to prevent long downtimes for your characters.

[NichG]

Question here: why are long downtimes for characters a bad thing? A long IC downtime doesn't have to take a long time OOC to resolve.

[EldritchWeaver]

Question here: why are long downtimes for characters a bad thing? A long IC downtime doesn't have to take a long time OOC to resolve.

True, but the campaign world doesn't stand still in the meantime. If the heroes are down and the BBEG conquers the world in the meantime, it doesn't make a satisfying ending. If you truly want to keep that part and still tell similar stories like there is no long downtime, then one needs replacement characters. Make the PCs part of a bigger group. If some (temporarily) go down, simply use others as (temporary) replacement.

[prufock]

So I've been mulling over running a 3.5 game without any full-casters. You know, no clerics, bards, sorcerers, wizards, psions, et cetera.
I'm really excited by the idea, but to keep good balance, what classes do you think I should keep available to the players, and do you think I should adjust any classes?
I like the idea of keeping Paladins, Rangers, Psychic Warriors, and all those "half-caster" types, but what about other things, like Binders, or Incarnum?

Regardless of the hyperbole from some of the respondents in this thread, it's fully doable within the rules. People run low-magic settings already, and it isn't that difficult, nor is it as much extra work as some would have you believe. The main thing you need to watch out for is inserting challenges that would require spells to which only full casters would have access. Most campaigns don't use every available monster and challenge anyway, so it's mostly just a matter of being more choosy in which ones you pick. If your party has no way to deal with, say, a beholder, you just don't use a beholder. If planar travel isn't something they can do, don't create a plot thread that requires planar travel.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I've never understood people's desire to force this type of game to work in this system. It's very clearly designed for high magic high fantasy and starts to fall apart when you remove crucial elements. Sure, you can make it work, but wouldn't you be better off playing a different system that better emulates what you're going for?

Personally 5e is my go to for low magic settings.

[Psyren]

OP, I recommend looking at the PF versions of monsters for this. Many save or die abilities in PF have been nerfed to just do damage instead, and many abilities that once only had magical solutions have been adjusted as well. For example, a PF basilisk's stone gaze can be undone by dousing the victim(s) in its blood, no spells required - even a level 5 party can manage this.



I like the idea of a world where warlocks - those who have sold their souls to the devil - are pretty much the only ones who can gather enough power to craft the really good items. It could lead to some really interesting stories if you / the party decide to investigate this aspect of the world (if the party is even aware of it).


FYI, Warlocks can get their power from fey and eladrins too. The former can be only slightly less dangerous to work with than devils but outright willingness to surrender to evil does not HAVE to be a factor.


Regardless of the hyperbole from some of the respondents in this thread, it's fully doable within the rules. People run low-magic settings already, and it isn't that difficult, nor is it as much extra work as some would have you believe. The main thing you need to watch out for is inserting challenges that would require spells to which only full casters would have access. Most campaigns don't use every available monster and challenge anyway, so it's mostly just a matter of being more choosy in which ones you pick. If your party has no way to deal with, say, a beholder, you just don't use a beholder. If planar travel isn't something they can do, don't create a plot thread that requires planar travel.

Or make planar travel an incantation, or require finding an ancient portal and reactivating it, or befriending a monster that can be the party taxi. You can even have an entire planar travel plotline or campaign with nobody in the party knowing Plane Shift - it's quite possible.

[NichG]

True, but the campaign world doesn't stand still in the meantime. If the heroes are down and the BBEG conquers the world in the meantime, it doesn't make a satisfying ending. If you truly want to keep that part and still tell similar stories like there is no long downtime, then one needs replacement characters. Make the PCs part of a bigger group. If some (temporarily) go down, simply use others as (temporary) replacement.

I don't think you need this at all. It's perfectly fine to run a campaign where it's okay to take the time and rest. Not everything has to be a rush to stop the end of the world. With the timescales of normal campaigns, you can't actually see much in the way of lasting change from PCs' actions - its too short, so there's only the instantaneous alterations. But on a longer-timescale campaign, PCs can have disciples, grow businesses, make families, etc much more naturally. The expectation to change is the idea that 'any moment that we can, we must be adventuring at full tilt' - that's totally artificial.

Or, you make the time remaining that it would take for the BBEG to conquer the world into an actual meaningful resource for the players. If you can't just rush through fights and dungeons, instantly heal, teleport to the next, etc its possible to make time management a much more interesting element of the strategy of the campaign. For example, in a normal D&D game if I made the BBEG have a 5 year timeline, he'd be dead by the end of the first month if not sooner. But if you have to take a few weeks to rest every time, then you can start to think about 'are we going too slowly? Or too quickly/recklessly? How do we reduce the amount of time we're recovering?' etc.

[Beheld]

Since the entire point I made was that if you don't have a caster party, you can't handle the actual monsters that the rules actually say a party can, so you need to change what monsters you face, or send monsters significantly under CR against the PCs. (Caveat from repeated comments: Yes, or "not change the monsters" and just change everything about the monsters, or send monsters that should be a brisk fight and give advance notice and treat them like Party level +4 Bosses, thus effectively sending under CR monsters.)


Regardless of the hyperbole from some of the respondents in this thread, it's fully doable within the rules. People run low-magic settings already, and it isn't that difficult, nor is it as much extra work as some would have you believe. The main thing you need to watch out for is inserting challenges that would require spells to which only full casters would have access. Most campaigns don't use every available monster and challenge anyway, so it's mostly just a matter of being more choosy in which ones you pick. If your party has no way to deal with, say, a beholder, you just don't use a beholder.

I wish people would stop agreeing with me while claiming to disagree with me. I really do.

[prufock]

I wish people would stop agreeing with me while claiming to disagree with me. I really do.
We don't agree.


Well first, you ban all the monsters, because your party will die over and over and over. And then you don't care what classes they choose, because they are all terrible.
Hyperbole. You don't need to ban all monsters, you just need to be selective about which you use. All noncasters are not terrible.


The problem is that starting at CR 3 you get huge fractions of monsters (that only go up as CR increases) that require other kinds of healing effects. Ability Damage (Str, Con, Dex, Wis, Cha), Ability Drain (Con, Wis), Negative Levels, Lose All Memory, Paralysis (1d8+5 Weeks), Dazed for Three Days (Also Save or Die), and Turn to Stone.
Paladin can deal with 90% of this. They may come at a later level, but it also means scrolls/potions should be available for the same effects, for the most part affordable at appropriate CR. Likewise, there are ways to deal with 90% of the specific monsters you mentioned.

[Waazraath]

So I've been mulling over running a 3.5 game without any full-casters. You know, no clerics, bards, sorcerers, wizards, psions, et cetera.
I'm really excited by the idea, but to keep good balance, what classes do you think I should keep available to the players, and do you think I should adjust any classes?
I like the idea of keeping Paladins, Rangers, Psychic Warriors, and all those "half-caster" types, but what about other things, like Binders, or Incarnum?

My advice: just ignore the negativity. I've played in several campaigns without full casters, it's totally possible, also against standard MM enemies.

A few points though, probably overlapping with a lot that has been said already:
1) spellcasting gives a lot of options. Without full casters, a lot of options are still accessible, but less easily (not as easy as "sleep a night and memorize a few other spells").
2) a lot of those options are needed in most campaigns, and from a certain level. Quite early, you can meet challenges that require the ability to attack incorporals, see invisible foes, deal with swarms, or fly. When making the characters / creating the party, players should actively think about how they deal with these obstacles.
3) here is a guide on how martial characters (non casters) can get flying, see invisibility, invisibility, teleport, plane shift, heal, or manipule the action economy: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=11381 Allowing half casters, binders, duskblades, Tome of battle classes, psychic warriors, etc., only makes it easier to create a party that can deal with all types of challenges. It asks for some careful planning though.
4) you might spend more time on planning and researching foes, and maybe have to run away a few times more then in other campaigns, and spend more time finding the right items that are complementary to what your party can do already. No worries, that can be fun as well.
5) Maybe there are few creatures that are more difficult to tackle with this party setup (though that highly depends on composition and optimization level). But remember, the number of challenges a DM can create, RAW, is beyond count. Because several weak creatures create an encounter of a higher encounter level. And a level 20 orc wizard is a CR 20, a level 20 orc fighter just as well, as is an orc level 3 monk 13 rogue cleric 4. Because you can also include traps in this. You can create an infinite variety in CR's, for any campaign. And for versimilitude I'd never use all creatures in all MM's anyway, but to create a real world I'd either focus on abberations, or dragons, or giants, or one or two races of monstrous humanoids as the antagonists. As long as you don't have a DM that wants to 'punish the players for not having a caster' and actively looks to hurt the players in a niche they have badly covered, it shouldn't work out too differently than in other campaigns.

Just do it, and have fun.

[Beheld]

Hyperbole. You don't need to ban all monsters, you just need to be selective about which you use. All noncasters are not terrible.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Yes, my first post was hyperbole. Yes, you do not have to ban Kobolds. I think we can all agree on that point. You can totally kill 1hd CR 1/4 tiny lizard men with no HP. So now that we've established that the first post is hyperbole, we can ask what my actual point is, you know, the one you claim to disagree with while agreeing with.

Perhaps something like this:


Since the entire point I made was that if you don't have a caster party, you can't handle the actual monsters that the rules actually say a party can, so you need to change what monsters you face, or send monsters significantly under CR against the PCs. (Caveat from repeated comments: Yes, or "not change the monsters" and just change everything about the monsters, or send monsters that should be a brisk fight and give advance notice and treat them like Party level +4 Bosses, thus effectively sending under CR monsters.)


Paladin can deal with 90% of this. They may come at a later level, but it also means scrolls/potions should be available for the same effects, for the most part affordable at appropriate CR.

Form the exact post you just quoted and claimed to disagree with:


Since the entire point I made was that if you don't have a caster party, you can't handle the actual monsters that the rules actually say a party can, so you need to change what monsters you face, or send monsters significantly under CR against the PCs. (Caveat from repeated comments: Yes, or "not change the monsters" and just change everything about the monsters, or send monsters that should be a brisk fight and give advance notice and treat them like Party level +4 Bosses, thus effectively sending under CR monsters.)

As for your plan to spend 500% WBL on consumable cures for status conditions, sure you do that, and I'm sure you will totally have enough money, because you asserted that you will.


Likewise, there are ways to deal with 90% of the specific monsters you mentioned.

I would hope so, since they are CR 3-5. If there weren't ways to deal with CR 3-5 monsters by higher level parties, that would be really sad.

[prufock]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
No, it's apt, and applies to more than one of your posts, including this one.


As for your plan to spend 500% WBL on consumable cures for status conditions, sure you do that, and I'm sure you will totally have enough money, because you asserted that you will.
See?


I would hope so, since they are CR 3-5. If there weren't ways to deal with CR 3-5 monsters by higher level parties, that would be really sad.
See?

[Beheld]

No, it's apt, and applies to more than one of your posts, including this one.

Let me try an analogy. I'm sure this will backfire for the same reason, but let's see if I can make this work:

Person 1: "Man it's like the surface of the sun out here!"
Person 2: "HYPERBOLE! You are absolutely wrong in every way, it is not hot out here, it is only 100 degrees, not the surface of the sun! So that's why you are wrong about it being hot. It isn't hot, it's just hot."

The point is not that any specific statement is or isn't hyperbole. The point is that disagreeing with someone you agree with because the other person used hyperbole demonstrates a failure to understand what hyperbole is, rather than a failure to identify it where it occurs. Although, you are about to make a damn good case that you aren't very good at identifying it either.



As for your plan to spend 500% WBL on consumable cures for status conditions, sure you do that, and I'm sure you will totally have enough money, because you asserted that you will.
See?

I get that you disagree and think potions fall like mana from heaven, but do you see how you have no actual evidence for your claim that you can afford a potion of restoration for every time you face a monster with negative levels or ability drain (not least because the game specifically defines that potions are capped at 3rd level spells, and restoration is a 4th level spell). So your assertion that they can totally afford those is not any more grounded than mind that it would require more than 500% of your WBL to buy enough status heals to carry around and use them every time you faced such a monster. It's not hyperbole just because you disagree based on no evidence.



I would hope so, since they are CR 3-5. If there weren't ways to deal with CR 3-5 monsters by higher level parties, that would be really sad.
See?

This one is even weirder. I mean, at least I know why you think the last one is hyperbole, but I got nothing here. Yes, Allips and Sea Hags and Spider Eaters are CR 3-5 monsters. Do you dispute this? If it's true, then how on earth is this hyperbole?

[Galacktic]

Let me try an analogy. I'm sure this will backfire for the same reason, but let's see if I can make this work:

Person 1: "Man it's like the surface of the sun out here!"
Person 2: "HYPERBOLE! You are absolutely wrong in every way, it is not hot out here, it is only 100 degrees, not the surface of the sun! So that's why you are wrong about it being hot. It isn't hot, it's just hot."

The point is not that any specific statement is or isn't hyperbole. The point is that disagreeing with someone you agree with because the other person used hyperbole demonstrates a failure to understand what hyperbole is, rather than a failure to identify it where it occurs. Although, you are about to make a damn good case that you aren't very good at identifying it either.



I get that you disagree and think potions fall like mana from heaven, but do you see how you have no actual evidence for your claim that you can afford a potion of restoration for every time you face a monster with negative levels or ability drain (not least because the game specifically defines that potions are capped at 3rd level spells, and restoration is a 4th level spell). So your assertion that they can totally afford those is not any more grounded than mind that it would require more than 500% of your WBL to buy enough status heals to carry around and use them every time you faced such a monster. It's not hyperbole just because you disagree based on no evidence.



This one is even weirder. I mean, at least I know why you think the last one is hyperbole, but I got nothing here. Yes, Allips and Sea Hags and Spider Eaters are CR 3-5 monsters. Do you dispute this? If it's true, then how on earth is this hyperbole?

Please read your own posts back to yourself and imagine how you could sound less like a ****, please. It's not hard.

[prufock]

The point is not that any specific statement is or isn't hyperbole. The point is that disagreeing with someone you agree with because the other person used hyperbole demonstrates a failure to understand what hyperbole is, rather than a failure to identify it where it occurs. Although, you are about to make a damn good case that you aren't very good at identifying it either.
Poorly representing your argument, whether by intent or incompetence, and then complaining that people disagree with it is both poor etiquette and ineffective. Continuing to harp on the issue indicates a need for attention. Focusing on irrelevant parts of an argument while ignoring relevant parts displays bias.


I get that you disagree and think potions fall like mana from heaven
See?


you have no actual evidence for your claim that you can afford a potion of restoration for every time you face a monster with negative levels or ability drain
Do math. Based off the SRD, about 8% of CR3 monsters have ability damage. About 2% of CR3 monsters have ability drain or energy drain. If each level contains approximately 13 even-CR encounters, that means 1 with ability damage, <1 with ability drain or energy drain. Another 1% or less with paralysis (not counting dex damage) or daze for <1 encounter. After that number of encounters, your wealth and options should increase.

A party of four has a total expected wealth of 10800 gp at level 3.
Scroll of Restoration just in case: 700 gp.
Wand of Lesser Restoration: 1500 gp.
Scroll of Break Enchantment: 700 gp.
Potion of Remove Paralysis: 400 gp.
= 30% of your wealth, some of which won't be necessary and will spill over into higher levels. Even if you add another 20% for "other stuff," that's a whole order of magnitude less than you estimate.

Each of these items can last beyond level 3. Buy a Rod of Bodily Restoration and it lasts forever. Ability damage heals naturally with time. Energy drain can be overcome with a fort save. Class abilities and feats can negate or mitigate some of these issues.

Feel free to calculate expected costs for other levels. Have fun without me.

[Beheld]

Poorly representing your argument, whether by intent or incompetence, and then complaining that people disagree with it is both poor etiquette and ineffective. Continuing to harp on the issue indicates a need for attention. Focusing on irrelevant parts of an argument while ignoring relevant parts displays bias.

Your complaint that you can't possibly be expected to understand my argument because I used hyperbole once weeks ago would be a lot more believable if you hadn't posted after my no hyperbole lay out of my point that you consistently refuse to address and pretend doesn't exist and omit from posts that you quote.


Do math. Based off the SRD, about 8% of CR3 monsters have ability damage. About 2% of CR3 monsters have ability drain or energy drain. If each level contains approximately 13 even-CR encounters, that means 1 with ability damage, <1 with ability drain or energy drain. Another 1% or less with paralysis (not counting dex damage) or daze for <1 encounter. After that number of encounters, your wealth and options should increase.

According to the SRD, 25% of all CR 3 monsters are Dragons and Mephits. I'm guessing that's not representative of actual encounters. It's almost like by confining CR to CR 3 you can inflate the percentage of a niche encounter type that doesn't have to do with ability damage. I mean, CR 2 has 15% of monsters with ability damage. And CR 4 has 15% of monsters that need Lesser Restoration, Remove Curse, Restoration, or Heal. So maybe a single level is subject to sampling bias and you might want to use a level range, like CR 3-5 instead.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

I'd just like to say that I'm still very thankful for all the great advice I've been getting from this forum. Is there any way that I can save this somewhere? Do the threads disappear after awhile? I've never had one I've wanted to keep around before.
As for Beheld, seriously dude, it doesn't matter how valid your points are, if you present everything in a rude and abrasive tone and do nothing but nay say in a game primarily based around *imagination* no one is going to want to hear it.

[Beheld]

I'd just like to say that I'm still very thankful for all the great advice I've been getting from this forum. Is there any way that I can save this somewhere? Do the threads disappear after awhile? I've never had one I've wanted to keep around before.

The threads stay around, but obviously, fall off the front page if not posted to. You can find a list of threads you have subscribed to from your profile, or you can bookmark the thread, and come back to it.


As for Beheld, seriously dude, it doesn't matter how valid your points are, if you present everything in a rude and abrasive tone and do nothing but nay say in a game primarily based around *imagination* no one is going to want to hear it.

Odd that you find no problem at all with rude and abrasive tone when it's people who agree with you... Almost like the main issue is that you don't want anyone to tell you that your idea is a lot of work for no actual gain. Oh wait, then you explicitly said that anyone who tells you no is automatically someone you don't want to hear from.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V works pretty well as well.

[Chronikoce]

Magic Items would be created by ritual. What that entails is something I'd have to consider a lot more.
I want to continue to offer the ability to cast any of the spells from the books via ritual as well, granted this would be a lengthy process, not something which could be combat applicable.
Still working that idea out in my head on the drives to work.

Spheres of power has some nice ritual casting rules. I'd give that a peak if it is available to you.

[prufock]

my point that you consistently refuse to address and pretend doesn't exist and omit from posts that you quote.
I don't dispute that you said it. I dispute the degree to which it is true. You don't need to use CRs 3 to 10 under the party level. You don't need to eliminate the majority of monsters. A (full-)casterless party CAN still deal with MOST encounters at the appropriate level through the use of items, class abilities, spells (from slower-progression classes), and feats. Some of the encounters that a (full-)casterless party have trouble handling are those that are already powerful for their listed CR, and even a party WITH full casters can have trouble with them. Stirges come to mind, since you make a point of including ability damage in your argument. Stirges have CON damage, at CR 1/2, before even clerics get lesser restoration. You admit that the CR system has outliers, what this does is increase the number of outliers.


According to the SRD, 25% of all CR 3 monsters are Dragons and Mephits.
Approximately 3 out of 13 encounters, and all you really need is flight and/or ranged attacks. Easily affordable, and something a prepared party should have anyway, even if only as a secondary option. The breath weapons are short range, damage is reasonable, spells and spell-likes are limited. A party without casters using decent tactics shouldn't have a lot of trouble with this.


It's almost like by confining CR to CR 3 you can inflate the percentage of a niche encounter type that doesn't have to do with ability damage. I mean, CR 2 has 15% of monsters with ability damage. And CR 4 has 15% of monsters that need Lesser Restoration, Remove Curse, Restoration, or Heal. So maybe a single level is subject to sampling bias and you might want to use a level range, like CR 3-5 instead.
I chose CR 3 because it was the low end, and thus presumably the least capable, of the range you referenced. At CR 2, as I said above, even a cleric doesn't have lesser restoration as an option. By level 4, paladins and rangers can access lesser restoration and healing lorecall respectively, mitigating the need to spend wealth on ability healing. At level 4, you have more wealth, so the percentage of it that you need to spend on items to deal with condition effects keeps pace.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

I see little evidence of other people being rude or abrasive in this thread.
Aside from that, thanks I will bookmark the thread for use.

As far as Spheres of Power goes, I'll look into it. The name has certainly come up enough that it seems pretty cool, and if it's got decent rules for ritual casting, I'm in.

[digiman619]

As far as Spheres of Power goes, I'll look into it. The name has certainly come up enough that it seems pretty cool, and if it's got decent rules for ritual casting, I'm in.

Then my job here is done.

[AnachroNinja]

Whether he's abrasive or not, I have to agree with Beheld. I've played in this kind of campaign and it is very difficult for the DM to make it seem as though he's not pulling punches to keep us alive. While I get that there is a certain willing suspension of disbelief necessary in D&D anyway, it just became to difficult to believe that the game world would be the way it was. Things like shadows that spawn endlessly really should have overwhelmed the world in the absence of strong spell casters, why haven't demons taken over, Dragons, etc. There's a lot of questions that come up and not all of them are easy to hand wave away. Good luck with it, you'll need it.

[Belzyk]

What I did was magical monsters are legendary fights. Like the one time my group fought a dragon. I gave them ballista and cannons to use against her. Also they had hiding areas for magic attacks. And I made spells take a round or 2 to cast so my players had time to take cover from it.

[prufock]

Whether he's abrasive or not, I have to agree with Beheld. I've played in this kind of campaign and it is very difficult for the DM to make it seem as though he's not pulling punches to keep us alive.
Anecdotal evidence usually isn't very powerful, but experiences do matter. My experience has been the other side of this coin. I've both run and played in games with no full casters in the party (one group of factotum, marshal, barbarian, and ranger; one group of knight, warlock, rogue, and scout) without feeling the need for kid gloves.

On the other hand, when I've played in parties with two full casters, I've felt the DM struggle to appropriately challenge us. From the DM chair, having a wizard and druid in the party makes challenging the party quite difficult, especially as you get to higher levels. Encounters at appropriate level get steamrolled.

[Psyren]

Whether he's abrasive or not, I have to agree with Beheld. I've played in this kind of campaign and it is very difficult for the DM to make it seem as though he's not pulling punches to keep us alive. While I get that there is a certain willing suspension of disbelief necessary in D&D anyway, it just became to difficult to believe that the game world would be the way it was. Things like shadows that spawn endlessly really should have overwhelmed the world in the absence of strong spell casters, why haven't demons taken over, Dragons, etc. There's a lot of questions that come up and not all of them are easy to hand wave away. Good luck with it, you'll need it.

Most 6th-level casters are T3, especially if you allow the PF ones like Magus, Inquisitor and Alchemist as well. So it's worth pointing out that the entire definition of T3 is that you don't have to "pull punches," unless of course your definition of not doing so is actively trying to wipe the party.

[AnachroNinja]

I can understand differences in subjective opinion. I have tended to play in groups of mixed optimization levels. For some it's relatively easy to make a competent factotem or paladin. Others struggle when reduced 2-3 tiers out the gate. Druid is a newbie friendly class for exactly that reason.

I also understand your point Psyren, though it's worth noting that at least one 6th level caster (bard) is already banned so I don't know his stance on Magus and such. I personally feel like bard spell progression is an excellent middle ground that makes for a fun game. It's when rangers have the best casting on the game that I feel things drop off noticeably.

[Psyren]

I also understand your point Psyren, though it's worth noting that at least one 6th level caster (bard) is already banned so I don't know his stance on Magus and such. I personally feel like bard spell progression is an excellent middle ground that makes for a fun game. It's when rangers have the best casting on the game that I feel things drop off noticeably.

But Psychic Warriors (which have better casting than Rangers) and Totemists appear to be allowed in this campaign. So I think it's worth asking the question as far as what exactly is banned and what is allowed before passing judgement over the idea as a whole. (And for the allowed classes, what ACFs and other such modifications may also be allowed; a Mystic Ranger with SotAO can get some pretty powerful spellcasting for instance.)

I would indeed agree with you on that key point, and say to the OP that Bards are fine, without resorting to the tactics of certain other posters vis-à-vis hyperbolic exhortations that the OP is engendering badwrongfun.

[Conacar]

So I've been mulling over running a 3.5 game without any full-casters. You know, no clerics, bards, sorcerers, wizards, psions, et cetera.
I'm really excited by the idea, but to keep good balance, what classes do you think I should keep available to the players, and do you think I should adjust any classes?
I like the idea of keeping Paladins, Rangers, Psychic Warriors, and all those "half-caster" types, but what about other things, like Binders, or Incarnum?

The best campaign I'd ever been apart of was mostly casterless.

We had Paladins, Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, and then a ton of custom classes. Gave the Paladin and Ranger non-magical descriptions for certain abilities which wouldn't have fit in the world otherwise.

You might want to rework shield combat to create a more varied martial approach.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

I would indeed agree with you on that key point, and say to the OP that Bards are fine, without resorting to the tactics of certain other posters vis-à-vis hyperbolic exhortations that the OP is engendering badwrongfun.

Just a note here, I'm pretty sure I mentioned it prior, but all "full casters" so to speak, are banned not because of power level, but simply as an interesting form of play. Bard is only banned because no one is a full caster, everyone is at most only a partial caster.
I'm leaning towards going with one of the previous suggestions and only keeping the Soulborn from Incarnum, since the others *are* pretty much full casters and I'd like to keep to the fluff.

[prufock]

Just a note here, I'm pretty sure I mentioned it prior, but all "full casters" so to speak, are banned not because of power level, but simply as an interesting form of play. Bard is only banned because no one is a full caster, everyone is at most only a partial caster.
I think you may be defining "full caster" differently. Usually it means a class that gets spell levels 0-9 over 20 levels, with spells at every level. Bard spells only go up to spell level 6, though they do get spells at every level.

[Necroticplague]

I think you may be defining "full caster" differently. Usually it means a class that gets spell levels 0-9 over 20 levels, with spells at every level. Bard spells only go up to spell level 6, though they do get spells at every level.

I think this definition is based on caster level. A level 20 bard has caster level 20, a level 20 paladin or ranger has caster level 10.

[AnachroNinja]

That would also ban off beat classes like duskblade if he defined it that way. Plus it's just good form to stick to the already in common use definitions. I assume it's the high level spells that he wants gone, otherwise I don't see much change in the overall world. Plenty of partial casting prestiges can access spells still though. Things like trapsmith and ur-priest definitely have to go as well.

[Troacctid]

I've never heard the term used that way. That would make Assassins full casters, and Green Star Adept a full casting progression prestige class. Which definitely can't be right.

[Jay R]

You need to re-think all assumptions of the game system.

1. People have already pointed out that CR is no longer accurate. Your next question is what to do about WBL, which is also related to the amount of magic in the world. If there are far fewer magic items (because there are no casters to make them), then WBL is ridiculously high. BUt if the items are there, then a casterless party might need more of then, and WBL might be too low.

2. A competent DM can create legitimate encounters for any party. Don't mindlessly follow CR. This is not "pulling punches to keep the party alive"; it's DMing the game correctly by sending appropriate encounters.

3. Until you get experienced at determining what a fair encounter is, encounters should be slavers, army recruiters, bandits, and the like, who don't want to kill them. This way, your first mistake in encounter design doesn't end in a TPK.

4. Either you need to increase the amount of healing available (by having healing potions be cheaper), or you need to reduce the number of encounters.

5. Re-think the monster list. There are monsters that are similar to full casters. Perhaps they don't exist either, or maybe they just don't have spells. A dragon without spells is a good encounter for a fairly high casterless party.

But the essential fact is this: You need to re-think all assumptions of the game system.

[Psyren]

Just a note here, I'm pretty sure I mentioned it prior, but all "full casters" so to speak, are banned not because of power level, but simply as an interesting form of play. Bard is only banned because no one is a full caster, everyone is at most only a partial caster.
I'm leaning towards going with one of the previous suggestions and only keeping the Soulborn from Incarnum, since the others *are* pretty much full casters and I'd like to keep to the fluff.


I think you may be defining "full caster" differently. Usually it means a class that gets spell levels 0-9 over 20 levels, with spells at every level. Bard spells only go up to spell level 6, though they do get spells at every level.


I think this definition is based on caster level. A level 20 bard has caster level 20, a level 20 paladin or ranger has caster level 10.

If that's the case then consider me thoroughly confused, because a Psychic Warrior has ML 20 and a Totemist/Incarnate has MSL 20.

I can find no justification for banning bard but allowing these that isn't completely arbitrary.

[Jay R]

I can find no justification for banning bard but allowing these that isn't completely arbitrary.

So? Most unique DM decisions are arbitrary. Banning casters in general is an arbitrary decision. He has decided to make an arbitrary change to the rules for his unique campaign. Our job is to help him do so, not to question his arbitrary approach.

[AnachroNinja]

The issue is that banning bards is an arbitrary decision that does not really fall within the rationale given for the more general arbitrary decision to ban full casters. That makes it very difficult to have a good idea if what the OPs broad goals are for these changes and provide useful advice. I can provide help and ideas for running a game with no full casters, or a game with no partial casters with spells higher then 4th level. It is much more difficult to do that with an arbitrary mix of all of the above classes. At that point he is just removing classes for no discernable reason and I can't really do anything with that.

Edit: And to clarify, our "job" is not a @8%# thing. When someone asks questions, people volunteer to help or weigh in. No one has a job or obligation to say only what you or anyone else wants to hear.

[Psyren]

So? Most unique DM decisions are arbitrary. Banning casters in general is an arbitrary decision. He has decided to make an arbitrary change to the rules for his unique campaign. Our job is to help him do so, not to question his arbitrary approach.


So I've been mulling over running a 3.5 game without any full-casters. You know, no clerics, bards, sorcerers, wizards, psions, et cetera.
I'm really excited by the idea, but to keep good balance, what classes do you think I should keep available to the players, and do you think I should adjust any classes?
I like the idea of keeping Paladins, Rangers, Psychic Warriors, and all those "half-caster" types, but what about other things, like Binders, or Incarnum?

I suggest you re-read the opening post. Our "job", such as it is, is the part in bold. In particular, I'm addressing the underlined portion.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

So I should ban Psychic Warrior then, problem solved.

[Psyren]

If you're truly dumping all 6th-level casters, then I change my answer - you will have balance issues with monsters unless you select opponents carefully. The only T3 4th-level caster (without archetypes/ACFs) that I know of is the Bloodrager.

[Seppo87]

Psychic Warrior doesn't have many notable utility powers. It's a very powerful melee, very very powerful, but it won't tale control of mundane and social situations like a bard would.
I don't really see Psywar as a caster, his entire list is basically buffs.

[AnachroNinja]

And if psychic warrior goes then duskblade and hexblade need to go.

[Mehangel]

Psychic Warrior doesn't have many notable utility powers. It's a very powerful melee, very very powerful, but it won't tale control of mundane and social situations like a bard would.
I don't really see Psywar as a caster, his entire list is basically buffs.

I disagree with your assessment that the Psychic Warriors not having powers that take control of social or mundane encounters. The Psychic Warrior has quite a few powers that are useful. In addition, psychic warriors, like other manifestoes can spend a feat to expand their power list from the Psion's.

[illyahr]

PsyWars should stay as most of their abilities are self-buff. They are barbarians that manifest instead of rage. Most of their powerful combos stem from high-op shenanigans that should be encouraged in a setting like this.

OP stated upthread that he is banning Totemists and Incarnates but keeping Soulborns. This seems like it fits his worldstate and seems like a good idea.

I'd keep Binders and Truenamers but drop Shadowcasters. Binders have a slow progression that makes them difficult to play at low levels but they balance out to be extremely versatile at higher levels. Truenamers get full-caster power, but their abilities are tempered by the amount of optimization you'd need to make them work at high levels, and they aren't as versatile as other full casters.

Shadowcasters basically get full caster power and versatility, especially if you use the semi-official errata (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?184955-Shadowcaster-fixes-by-Mouseferatu).

ToB is difficult to judge. Crusader has a slew of healing effects, Warblade has massive damage potential, and Swordsage receives a ridiculous amount of utility powers that make it difficult to combat. All the things that we are cautioning you not to use against the party, the Swordsage picks up as once-per-encounter abilities.

[digiman619]

I'd keep Binders and Truenamers but drop Shadowcasters. Binders have a slow progression that makes them difficult to play at low levels but they balance out to be extremely versatile at higher levels. Truenamers get full-caster power, but their abilities are tempered by the amount of optimization you'd need to make them work at high levels, and they aren't as versatile as other full casters.

Is there a fix for the truenamer in this scenario? Because even if we aren't comparing it the the wizard, it's still horrible and poorly worded; it's the only member of Tier 6 for a reason.

[illyahr]

Is there a fix for the truenamer in this scenario? Because even if we aren't comparing it the the wizard, it's still horrible and poorly worded; it's the only member of Tier 6 for a reason.

As written, it shares Tier 6 with the CW Samurai. That being said, the only big issues with the class are the Truespeak DC progression, the stupid laws that make each utterance harder to use each time, and that you really don't get level-appropriate effects with some of them. Two of these are easily houseruled: change the DC's to 10 + HD/CR (+ appropriate bonuses/penalties, if you so choose) and change the repetition law to be count by encounter instead of by day.

These two changes make the Truenamer playable, possibly up to Tier 3 or so. That's my 2 cp worth, though, so take it as you will.

[trikkydik]

It seems to me that if you want to get rid of magic, yet still keep the 3.5 mechanics. You're going to have to substitute magic for an equally functioning feat system.

You can declassify them from magic to "special" feats, or skills, abilities. or something that can add the magic to the world without full casters.

You could use magic weapons and arms, but put a different flavor besides magic on them. (not sure off the top of my head, but youll figure it out.)

It's either that or change the way magic works when casted by NPC's. A way for a fighter to fight a fireball/lightning/enchantment/death/telekinesis spell, without using magic.


Good luck

[EldritchWeaver]

It seems to me that if you want to get rid of magic, yet still keep the 3.5 mechanics. You're going to have to substitute magic for an equally functioning feat system.

You can declassify them from magic to "special" feats, or skills, abilities. or something that can add the magic to the world without full casters.

Sounds like he would need to invent a completely new system, which is unlikely to be balanced (and depending on the game designer qualities of the OP, might never be). Overall, it seems to be a lot effort for just a single game. So using 3rd party stuff is an easier approach to get these rules. Luckily, Spheres of Power is exactly such a system, just calling those feats magic talents instead, providing casters a number of bonus magic talents and a way for non-casters to be actually spend still feats to gain magic use in some limited way.

[ekarney]

You may want to look into Iron Heroes as it's designed to use the d20 system, and was partially designed by Mike Mearls who was hired by WotC in 2005.

Iirc he was also heavily involved in ToB, so that may be a good starting point.


Alternatively, E6/E8 if you're not willing to dabble with other systems (I know I'm not too keen on the idea, 3.X and Mechaspirit for this guy)

[digiman619]

You may want to look into Iron Heroes as it's designed to use the d20 system, and was partially designed by Mike Mearls who was hired by WotC in 2005.

Iirc he was also heavily involved in ToB, so that may be a good starting point.


Alternatively, E6/E8 if you're not willing to dabble with other systems (I know I'm not too keen on the idea, 3.X and Mechaspirit for this guy)

I remember that! I got a copy in a bargain bin for less than $5. I never got around to running a game with it, but I did nab a bunch of the feats for Phoenix, a fan-made d20 superhero "add-on" for d20 Modern.

[atemu1234]

Eh, most campaigns nowadays don't even have a dedicated healer, just make sure they have plenty of potions or something and they'll be good.

[AnachroNinja]

What does a dedicated healer have to do with it?

[atemu1234]

What does a dedicated healer have to do with it?

Healing is usually the most major issue with a noncasting world; assuming, of course, that you give as good as you get and have monsters lack spellcasting abilities as well.

Of course, if it were up to me, most of my campaigns would only have psionics (excluding StP erudites) and tome of battle.

[Pugwampy]

Half the fun of DND / PF is magic . Ban on magic just makes it more boring in my opinion .

I have no problem with 4 fighter players thats their choice . Very very few players can use magic properly enough to make it OP. Your average game has fighters being the OP guys .

[Flickerdart]

Of course, if it were up to me, most of my campaigns would only have psionics (excluding StP erudites) and tome of battle.
The issue with psionics is that it's much more selfish than magic. The party wizard can slather his party members with heaps of touch-range buffs from bear's endurance to polymorph, but the equivalent animal affinity and metamorphosis are personal range only. One can argue that buffing the team is less important in a game where the team consists of warblade, crusader, and swordsage, but even iron heart surge only goes so far.

[Florian]

This is somehow getting absurd. The issue we talk about here is counters. So countering a Curse, countering Ability Damge/Drain, Level Drain, Force Multipliers like Summons by a Magic Circle against X.

Most 6th level casters can do it, some 4th level casters, too (Notably PF Paladins). So the whole issue seems to boil down to victory conditions and what is acceptable...

[Jormengand]

As written, it shares Tier 6 with the CW Samurai.

Neither of these is correct: the truenamer has its own place in the tier list because it can swing anywhere from 4 to 6 (I quote: "Highly optimized (to the point of being able to spam their abilities) a Truenamer would be around Tier 4, but with lower optimization it rapidly drops to Tier 6."). Tier 6 includes the CW samurai but only without Imperious Command available (when it increases to Tier 5), as well as the aristocrat, the warrior, and the commoner.

Plus, I would consider a truenamer to be a fundamentally full-caster-ish kind of fellow, on par with the cleric for casterishness (you can buff yourself and wade into melee, but you have better things to do with your time). Then again, no-one's quite sure what kind of classes are being banned, so YMMV...

(Source (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0))

[Beheld]

This is somehow getting absurd. The issue we talk about here is counters. So countering a Curse, countering Ability Damge/Drain, Level Drain, Force Multipliers like Summons by a Magic Circle against X.

Most 6th level casters can do it, some 4th level casters, too (Notably PF Paladins). So the whole issue seems to boil down to victory conditions and what is acceptable...

Paladin's can't cast Restoration at all until level 14. I'm going to file Wights and Allips and other CR 3 enemies as "not counterable." Negative levels and ability damage aren't a joy for anyone, and D&D seems to like giving out the disease a few levels before the cure, but there's a huge difference between getting something at level 14 versus getting it at level 7. It's the difference between getting it when it becomes mandatory, and getting it 7 levels after that.

[illyahr]

Neither of these is correct: the truenamer has its own place in the tier list because it can swing anywhere from 4 to 6 (I quote: "Highly optimized (to the point of being able to spam their abilities) a Truenamer would be around Tier 4, but with lower optimization it rapidly drops to Tier 6."). Tier 6 includes the CW samurai but only without Imperious Command available (when it increases to Tier 5), as well as the aristocrat, the warrior, and the commoner.

Plus, I would consider a truenamer to be a fundamentally full-caster-ish kind of fellow, on par with the cleric for casterishness (you can buff yourself and wade into melee, but you have better things to do with your time). Then again, no-one's quite sure what kind of classes are being banned, so YMMV...

(Source (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0))

Most of us don't share your innate talents with the Truenamer, Jorm. :smallbiggrin:

Yes, for those with Jormengand's ability to minmax the Truenamer, it can be a Tier 4 class. I can't do it. Also, for the record, what is Imperious Command? I don't think I've heard of it.

[Troacctid]

Imperious Command is a feat from Drow of the Underdark.

Low-op Truenamer is still T5, because they do still function. It doesn't take an optimization genius to make the class functional—16 Int (with level-appropriate headband of intellect), Skill Focus, and a level-appropriate amulet of the silver tongue gives you better-than-even chances to succeed with your utterances of the evolving mind at every level, while utterances of the crafted tool and perfected map have fairly easy static DCs. Yeah, you can't use them a lot of times per day, boo hoo, go cry to the Shadowcasters. :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

The problem with utterances is not that you can't use them, it's that most of them are not very good.

[Jormengand]

Most of us don't share your innate talents with the Truenamer, Jorm. :smallbiggrin:

Yes, for those with Jormengand's ability to minmax the Truenamer, it can be a Tier 4 class. I can't do it. Also, for the record, what is Imperious Command? I don't think I've heard of it.

I can get it to tier 3 if I try. Tier 4 is honestly easy mode. Tier 5 is new player mode, and Tier 6 is "What if I dumped INT?" mode. Many of the utterances can be hilariously powerful if used right.

Imperious Command causes enemies to cower when demoralised using the intimidate skill. The samurai's Improved Staredown allows you to lock down enemies from level 14 and still fight them, while Mass Staredown allows him to lock down all enemies but not fight them from level 10.

[Florian]

It's the difference between getting it when it becomes mandatory, and getting it 7 levels after that.

It´s simply your personal view on what "mandatory" seems to mean and how to incorporate that into the actual game.

[Beheld]

It´s simply your personal view on what "mandatory" seems to mean and how to incorporate that into the actual game.

No, it's the view of the people who use the Monster Manuals and CR rules, and apparently the people who wrote them. Because not having the ability to deal with Negative levels or ability damage when fighting things with Enervation at will and/or a gaze attack that does negative levels no save is in fact, not being able to meet the mandatory standard when they come online as regular every day threats you fight have 8 a day of at level 9.

Again and still, if you just write of 70% of the monster manual, you can do whatever you want, but claiming your characters can go from level 1-13 without any access to restoration "just fine" is just wrong without preemptively declaring that you mean "except for all the things that will totally murder me or cripple my characters for months even though they are supposed to be speed bumbs."

[dascarletm]

"except for all the things that will totally murder me or cripple my characters for months even though they are supposed to be speed bumbs."

I get your point on selective monster manual grabbing, but where in the DMG does it say that these things are supposed to be speed bumps? Is this just an assumption based on what casters can do on your part?

I never really understand the strong aversion to long downtimes. Both of these take the same game time from the player's perspective:
1. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a couple days. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."
2. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a few weeks. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."

The common counter to this is... "Well, what about campaigns have a time limit?" or some similar argument. This never holds water because:
A: The NPCs in this world are under the same rules and will probably need similar downtime
B: The DM is in charge of the world, and tailors campaigns to suit them. Unless you do premade adventures, in which case the only I know of with hard fast timing is RHoD.

[EldritchWeaver]

I get your point on selective monster manual grabbing, but where in the DMG does it say that these things are supposed to be speed bumps? Is this just an assumption based on what casters can do on your part?

I can answer that: A CR 3 monster should be killable by a party with a level of 9+ without breaking into a sweat. Just check the rules about which challenge ratings are appropriate. The lowest entry calls CR equal to "APL –1" an "Easy" encounter. A CR of "APL -6" is then so easy that a PC only needs to sneeze to kill any monster, assuming access to the appropriate counters.


I never really understand the strong aversion to long downtimes. Both of these take the same game time from the player's perspective:
1. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a couple days. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."
2. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a few weeks. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."

The common counter to this is... "Well, what about campaigns have a time limit?" or some similar argument. This never holds water because:
A: The NPCs in this world are under the same rules and will probably need similar downtime
B: The DM is in charge of the world, and tailors campaigns to suit them. Unless you do premade adventures, in which case the only I know of with hard fast timing is RHoD.

A: So the NPCs suffer a downtime exactly as long and at the same time as the PCs every time? If not, wouldn't a clever villain attack the PCs while they are weak? Or the PCs the villain?
B: So basically the DM may never homebrew an adventure with hard time limits?

[dascarletm]

A: So the NPCs suffer a downtime exactly as long and at the same time as the PCs every time? If not, wouldn't a clever villain attack the PCs while they are weak? Or the PCs the villain?
B: So basically the DM may never homebrew an adventure with hard time limits?

A: This argument can be made in any campaign with any amount of downtime. Secondly I did not say it is exactly as long. It may be more, it may be less. My point which you seem to be missing is that if players have a longer time to rest the villains of the story will also have increased downtimes. They are similar. Thus if it takes players 3x as long to reach level 20, it should roughly take 3x as long for the BBEG to enact his master plan that you stop at that level for example.

B: I also was not implying that. Let me make my point clear, the DM creates the campaign world. Thus if they want a time limit they will make it work for their party. This is not unique to long downtime campaigns. If I made a game in regular magic DnD that starts at level 3 and has a final fight that is CR 16, then a campaign time limit of 3 days will not work for that.

I don't think I'm writing in such a way to convey my points as you saw them, but I hope this clears it up.

[Beheld]

I get your point on selective monster manual grabbing, but where in the DMG does it say that these things are supposed to be speed bumps? Is this just an assumption based on what casters can do on your part?

As already stated, the DMG has rules for how many encounters you are supposed to face (or be able to face) in a day of different CRs relative to your level. It in fact says things like "Four EL=Party level encounters a day" and "two creatures of CR X equals and EL X+2 encounter." So if you describe to me the story of your level 12 party running into a pair of Lamia, and then having someone knocked unconscious with Wisdom Drain, and then giving up for the day (and possibly a lot longer, based on distance) and retreating to a town to beg, borrow, or steal a casting of Restoration. Or worse, declared your intent to level two more levels to 14 so that your Paladin can wake them up. What I hear is: "My level 12 party of four people, which according to the rules is supposed to be able to beat four EL 12 encounters in a day faced a single EL 8 encounter, and then we ran away with our tails between our legs." Or alternatively, "This is a party that is not playing up to the CR and EL rules spelled out in the DMG."


I never really understand the strong aversion to long downtimes. Both of these take the same game time from the player's perspective:
1. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a couple days. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."
2. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a few weeks. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."

The common counter to this is... "Well, what about campaigns have a time limit?" or some similar argument. This never holds water because:
A: The NPCs in this world are under the same rules and will probably need similar downtime
B: The DM is in charge of the world, and tailors campaigns to suit them. Unless you do premade adventures, in which case the only I know of with hard fast timing is RHoD.

Downtime isn't bad. I like to give my PCs downtime. I like to design games so there is downtime, and they can pursue their own objectives. But there's a difference between giving downtime and forced downtime from PC failure. One is the PCs getting a chance to direct the story, the other is the PCs failing. And yes, you can declare "Don't worry guys, it doesn't matter if you **** up, I promise no matter how many times you fail and have to sit around, it will never have any effect on anything" that is not the way I or any of the people I play with want to game. Part of knowing that your decisions matter is having there be actual differences depending on how you do, and that means that forced downtime inflicted on the PCs is only ever going to be bad for the PCs.

[EldritchWeaver]

A: This argument can be made in any campaign with any amount of downtime. Secondly I did not say it is exactly as long. It may be more, it may be less. My point which you seem to be missing is that if players have a longer time to rest the villains of the story will also have increased downtimes. They are similar. Thus if it takes players 3x as long to reach level 20, it should roughly take 3x as long for the BBEG to enact his master plan that you stop at that level for example.

That still means that there won't be adventures where there is a fixed deadline. Let's say the BBEG is only one step from enacting the plan, and for drama reasons the PCs know that. Then they encounter the very last challenge before they can confront the BBEG, which is of course relatively difficult. So they confront monsters with abilities for they have no counters, so they end up having downtime of weeks. Which leaves the GM with two options. Either he lets the BBEG win, or he postpones the last act until the PCs are ready again. Neither seems to be fun for the PCs. Compare to the group which has access to the appropriate items to heal themselves and then storm the last bastion.

Granted, you can avoid that situation if you plan accordingly, but that only proves my point.


B: I also was not implying that. Let me make my point clear, the DM creates the campaign world. Thus if they want a time limit they will make it work for their party. This is not unique to long downtime campaigns. If I made a game in regular magic DnD that starts at level 3 and has a final fight that is CR 16, then a campaign time limit of 3 days will not work for that.

I don't think I'm writing in such a way to convey my points as you saw them, but I hope this clears it up.

I don't think we have the same understanding of a time limit. For me, a BBEG has to fulfill several steps to succeed with his plan. The soft time limit is that he needs to succeeds with all previous steps, before the final one can be taken. That means one needs to roughly decide how long each step takes. Add those up and you have your hard time limit. The PCs need to foil him before the apocalypse starts. That means that if the PCs take vacation, things will happen and the BBEG wins by default. You on the other hand seem to say that any downtime - maybe because some unrelated undead caused some level drain and the PCs need to relevel in the meantime - is reflected in some way on the BBEG side as well. Which means that the BBEG travels with the speed of plot.

[dascarletm]

@ Beheld

I agree mostly but disagree on some of your game assumptions. I don't care enough to argue it though so I'll leave it at that. :smalltongue:

@ EldritchWeaver

I think we fundamentally disagree on what is good game design. I'm not convinced these problems are unique to low magic games. More prevalent? Maybe. All in all, you trade having to design around access to high level magical effects (such as astral projection, binding, etc.) and instead have to design around lack of magic. I don't personally think one is better than the other, they are just different tastes.

[Necroticplague]

Everyone apposing seems to be ignoring that while caster's are out, magic items aren't. So it's not a case of "enountered something, need to wait the forever to heal this off" it's "encountered something, need to blow some charges from the runestaff of healing effects"

[Beheld]

Everyone apposing seems to be ignoring that while caster's are out, magic items aren't. So it's not a case of "enountered something, need to wait the forever to heal this off" it's "encountered something, need to blow some charges from the runestaff of healing effects"

Runestaff... Do you mean wands? Do you mean Staves? Because Runestaves only let you cast spells with spell slots you already have. The reason Paladin's can't cast restoration until level 14 isn't because they just have all these 4th level slots sitting around and restoration is a 5th level spell on their list, it's because they don't even get 4th level spells until that point.

Now I mean, it totally sucks to have to play a Paladin or Ranger at all, but the problem isn't that they don't have access to the spell list at the right spell levels, it's that they don't have access to the spell levels at the right character levels.

[Troacctid]

The problem with utterances is not that you can't use them, it's that most of them are not very good.
Yeah, that's why they're T5 instead of T4.

The reason given for their omission from the tier list is that they supposedly are broken as in they do not actually function as intended. But that's not true—they do function. They just aren't good.

[AnachroNinja]

A reliance on items means the party must devote a significant portion of wealth to being able to deal with all these status effects which makes them less capable of fighting other opponents. So this is all just designed to punish the players?

[dascarletm]

A reliance on items means the party must devote a significant portion of wealth to being able to deal with all these status effects which makes them less capable of fighting other opponents. So this is all just designed to punish the players?

Quite the leap in thoughts there. Let's be intellectually honest. You know that's not the case.

[AnachroNinja]

So you are not debating that this reliance on items will force the players to expend resources they otherwise would have had for more standard purposes, you just object to it being considered a punishment?

How would you refer to requiring the players to use weaker, less versatile classes, while being forced to use their limited resources simply to get back to the baseline expectation of the game so they can survive against standard encounters which they are already ill prepared for due to the aforementioned limitations?

[Beheld]

So you are not debating that this reliance on items will force the players to expend resources they otherwise would have had for more standard purposes, you just object to it being considered a punishment?

How would you refer to requiring the players to use weaker, less versatile classes, while being forced to use their limited resources simply to get back to the baseline expectation of the game so they can survive against standard encounters which they are already ill prepared for due to the aforementioned limitations?

People who ban casters love fighters so much. Chances are much better that they will give out infinite free healing and restoration items that never cost against other wealth gain, and then also some artifacts, and then also mentally substitute all monsters that might challenge a normal party with goblins with class levels in fighter and an occasional big bruiser as a boss.

[NichG]

So you are not debating that this reliance on items will force the players to expend resources they otherwise would have had for more standard purposes, you just object to it being considered a punishment?

How would you refer to requiring the players to use weaker, less versatile classes, while being forced to use their limited resources simply to get back to the baseline expectation of the game so they can survive against standard encounters which they are already ill prepared for due to the aforementioned limitations?

"Playing a different game"

If I run a Nobilis campaign where starter characters can punch out the sun or create a sandwich whose existence makes sadness create rainfall, and then the next campaign we all play is D&D where you have to wait a few levels before doing that stuff, the players haven't been 'punished'. It's a mistake to import assumptions and expectations from one game into another.

Casterless D&D is, necessarily, a different game than D&D. It should neither be shocking nor alarming that other things would change.

[EldritchWeaver]

"Playing a different game"

If I run a Nobilis campaign where starter characters can punch out the sun or create a sandwich whose existence makes sadness create rainfall, and then the next campaign we all play is D&D where you have to wait a few levels before doing that stuff, the players haven't been 'punished'.

I'm curious: At which level can D&D characters imitate Nobilis characters? I wouldn't know how to rule that outside of GM fiat.


It's a mistake to import assumptions and expectations from one game into another.

Casterless D&D is, necessarily, a different game than D&D. It should neither be shocking nor alarming that other things would change.

One of the points of discussion was exactly that some people argued that you can not use casters, without having to change other things as well. They still might believe that. At least I can't recall any post where an opponent admitted his switch.

[NichG]

I'm curious: At which level can D&D characters imitate Nobilis characters? I wouldn't know how to rule that outside of GM fiat.

It was mostly tongue in cheek, but...

There was a discussion on these forums awhile back as to a concept similar to Turing Universality for game systems - basically, at what point does a game system contain enough loopholes that its possible for a character to effectively do anything that could be done in any game system in it, even if it wasn't initially written in. In principle it just takes one or two open-ended abilities to get the ability to write your own rules in-character, and then everything becomes equivalent to everything. Pun-Pun is the canonical example, but even something like 'Polymorph Any Object' and 'Wish' are quite open-ended without being infinite like Pun-Pun.

Once you have Wish and the Save Game trick online, I think you're basically a Nobilis character. You can Wish off of the safe list, see if you like what happens, and if not try again ad infinitum until the universe looks the way you want it to. You can conceivably do the same with Travel Through Time, or if you manage to snag a high enough divine rank and grab that ability that lets you invent new spells as a free action, or for that matter if you just get epic spellcasting.

Some of the stuff D&D characters can do goes beyond Nobilis, because its unanswerable - there isn't a bigger fish that can just say 'no', whereas in Nobilis your imperator can just retrieve his soul fragment if he gets pissed off, and you're done.


One of the points of discussion was exactly that some people argued that you can not use casters, without having to change other things as well. They still might believe that. At least I can't recall any post where an opponent admitted his switch.

I don't recall anyone arguing that you should do it without changing other things as well. On the first page, its only a few posts before someone said 'of course you have to tailor encounters'.

[AnachroNinja]

I feel like the point of contention was that some of us were making exactly that point, that this version of the game would be nigh unrecognizable as 3.5 D&D due to the many changes necessary, while others were essentially claiming that the needed changes were minor and small. There were people who's essential position was that a non-caster party was fine, they would be able to fight almost anything with no trouble, and if they do have trouble due to lack of spell casters, just let them sleep it off for a month.

Honestly my opinion mostly came down to: "Hey this is gonna be a lot of work because you can't just throw normal encounters around, here's why."

[NichG]

I feel like the point of contention was that some of us were making exactly that point, that this version of the game would be nigh unrecognizable as 3.5 D&D due to the many changes necessary, while others were essentially claiming that the needed changes were minor and small. There were people who's essential position was that a non-caster party was fine, they would be able to fight almost anything with no trouble, and if they do have trouble due to lack of spell casters, just let them sleep it off for a month.

Honestly my opinion mostly came down to: "Hey this is gonna be a lot of work because you can't just throw normal encounters around, here's why."

I guess from my point of view, you don't even think about doing something like this unless your goal is actually to make something that is 'nigh unrecognizable as 3.5 D&D'. Hopefully because you proactively want to explore something different and you have some idea in mind on how to create that difference, but (unfortunately) in most cases just because there are some things about 3.5 D&D that they find unsatisfying, limiting, or frustrating.

There's also a difference between a change that requires a lot of work, versus a change which creates a big distance in feel. Something like shifting CRs around to be appropriate for a group with more limited abilities is so close to what a good DM has to do anyhow that it shouldn't really be much if any extra work, but of course it can create a huge difference in feel since in one campaign you'd end up fighting balors and solars, and in another you're fighting giants and golems.

The one change which will require a lot of work, that you can't really get around, is that you need something 'else' to make the game feel rich and interesting in place of magic. The rest - balance adjustments, taking into account healing time, etc - I think you can mostly just learn by doing. Both can create a big difference in feel.

[Psyren]

Honestly my opinion mostly came down to: "Hey this is gonna be a lot of work because you can't just throw normal encounters around, here's why."

With T3 classes/6th-level casters, you can - but it looks like he's decided to ban those too. With T4 and lower only, yep, this is going to be a lot of work.

[Jay R]

...I never really understand the strong aversion to long downtimes. Both of these take the same game time from the player's perspective:
1. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a couple days. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."
2. "Alright you guys rest/heal/buy supplies for a few weeks. Let me know if you do anything noteworthy in that time."

The common counter to this is... "Well, what about campaigns have a time limit?" or some similar argument. This never holds water because:
A: The NPCs in this world are under the same rules and will probably need similar downtime
B: The DM is in charge of the world, and tailors campaigns to suit them. Unless you do premade adventures, in which case the only I know of with hard fast timing is RHoD.

A. Same rules, yes, but you're using the same PCs, while the DM is using a different set of NPCs. There are a lot more NPCs than PCs in the world, and in a vast majority of encounters, you aren't re-using the same NPCs. Those goblins are dead; you are now facing some hobgoblins, that don't need any rest or downtime after you killed the goblins.

B. The DM is in charge of the world in the sense that he is creating it. That does not mean that aspects can be arbitrarily changed to suit the PCs' vacation plans. If the land is in the middle of a war or revolution, or the long predicted volcano eruption will soon sink Atlantis, then just deciding that nothing important happens for the next few months is bad world design.

Suppose an earthquake opens up an entrance to a long-lost dungeon, and the PCs go into once, coming out with major injuries and the first level's worth of loot. If they spend six weeks recovering, then by the time they get back to it, other adventurers will have stripped it clean.

[dascarletm]

B. The DM is in charge of the world in the sense that he is creating it. That does not mean that aspects can be arbitrarily changed to suit the PCs' vacation plans. If the land is in the middle of a war or revolution, or the long predicted volcano eruption will soon sink Atlantis, then just deciding that nothing important happens for the next few months is bad world design.

Suppose an earthquake opens up an entrance to a long-lost dungeon, and the PCs go into once, coming out with major injuries and the first level's worth of loot. If they spend six weeks recovering, then by the time they get back to it, other adventurers will have stripped it clean.

Actually that is exactly what that means. If you are creating a game with a timeline of events, you make it to suit the parties capabilities. If it was an equation it would just be a different static factor on how long it should be. You make the revolution take 3 years instead of 3 months. The volcano is going to erupt in a month instead of a week, and dungeon crawls are so very boring that I don't even care if they are affected.

This isn't mind boggling ideas, but I doubt anything I say will change peoples minds. It has been made up that this type of game is no good. However I have on multiple occasions made campaigns for such characters, and it has never been a problem. Maybe I'm a prodigy of game design, or perhaps my games are terrible and I should feel bad. Perhaps it isn't as difficult as everyone is claiming.:smallwink:


So you are not debating that this reliance on items will force the players to expend resources they otherwise would have had for more standard purposes, you just object to it being considered a punishment?

How would you refer to requiring the players to use weaker, less versatile classes, while being forced to use their limited resources simply to get back to the baseline expectation of the game so they can survive against standard encounters which they are already ill prepared for due to the aforementioned limitations?

I'm not punishing them for anything. If I normally give people $10 christmas gifts, and then decide to give a $7 gift this year I'm not punishing them. They are not entitled to anything.
This is some typical new generation way of thinking.
"Everything that is less than something else is a punishment. My character's are entitled to a certain standard of living."

If normal games are power level X fighting threats of X/2 then playing a game of level Y fighting threats of Y/2 is not inherently worse. You may not like this style of game and that is perfectly fine, I would never have you as a player. However if I run a game like that it isn't.... (shall I say the word? Okay I will). badwrongfun.

[EldritchWeaver]

Actually that is exactly what that means. If you are creating a game with a timeline of events, you make it to suit the parties capabilities. If it was an equation it would just be a different static factor on how long it should be. You make the revolution take 3 years instead of 3 months. The volcano is going to erupt in a month instead of a week, and dungeon crawls are so very boring that I don't even care if they are affected.

This isn't mind boggling ideas, but I doubt anything I say will change peoples minds. It has been made up that this type of game is no good. However I have on multiple occasions made campaigns for such characters, and it has never been a problem. Maybe I'm a prodigy of game design, or perhaps my games are terrible and I should feel bad. Perhaps it isn't as difficult as everyone is claiming.:smallwink:

The point is not that adventures with timelines are impossible. The point is that only a subset of the previously working timeline adventures remain viable. That's not inherently bad, but has to be acknowledged in some way.


I'm not punishing them for anything. If I normally give people $10 christmas gifts, and then decide to give a $7 gift this year I'm not punishing them. They are not entitled to anything.
This is some typical new generation way of thinking.
"Everything that is less than something else is a punishment. My character's are entitled to a certain standard of living."

If normal games are power level X fighting threats of X/2 then playing a game of level Y fighting threats of Y/2 is not inherently worse. You may not like this style of game and that is perfectly fine, I would never have you as a player. However if I run a game like that it isn't.... (shall I say the word? Okay I will). badwrongfun.

No, the point is that the $3 were used to buy an air conditioner. But since you banned them, you shortened the amount of money to cover expenses. Now the party still needs to go into the desert, but has no AC. So they need to get large ice blocks and other cooling equipment. This additional equipment they have to pay from the $7 you still give them. This results in having them not invest as much in the normal equipment as usual. So effectively you expect them to pay from $7 the same amount of equipment (or rather, equipment capable of dealing with the same effects) as before, where you previously provided $10. That is what the punishment is referring to.

[dascarletm]

The point is not that adventures with timelines are impossible. The point is that only a subset of the previously working timeline adventures remain viable. That's not inherently bad, but has to be acknowledged in some way.

Well no, a different set of timeline adventures now work. An infinite theoretical amount of durations could possibly exist. Due to the character's abilities you then narrow it to a range. If their abilities shift so does that range. It is effectively the same as before, the DM still has to do the same thing he/she did before.


No, the point is that the $3 were used to buy an air conditioner. But since you banned them, you shortened the amount of money to cover expenses. Now the party still needs to go into the desert, but has no AC. So they need to get large ice blocks and other cooling equipment. This additional equipment they have to pay from the $7 you still give them. This results in having them not invest as much in the normal equipment as usual. So effectively you expect them to pay from $7 the same amount of equipment (or rather, equipment capable of dealing with the same effects) as before, where you previously provided $10. That is what the punishment is referring to.
I never once said that I would throw the same challenges at them. However your world-view on what is or is not punishment is not compatible with mine. You see the $10 as inherent. If it is not given then I am taking away from you. Instead, I see it as not inherent. I don't see the point of debating this. We fundamentally view the world differently.

EDIT: This translates to game assumptions. I don't believe I'm entitled to anything going into a game.

[EldritchWeaver]

Well no, a different set of timeline adventures now work. An infinite theoretical amount of durations could possibly exist. Due to the character's abilities you then narrow it to a range. If their abilities shift so does that range. It is effectively the same as before, the DM still has to do the same thing he/she did before.

If that different set is a subset or merely overlaps or has no overlap at all to the original set, does not matter. It only matters that the new set != original set. And there we agree.


I never once said that I would throw the same challenges at them. However your world-view on what is or is not punishment is not compatible with mine. You see the $10 as inherent. If it is not given then I am taking away from you. Instead, I see it as not inherent. I don't see the point of debating this. We fundamentally view the world differently.

EDIT: This translates to game assumptions. I don't believe I'm entitled to anything going into a game.

Actually, if you say "Let's play D&D!", then this translates into certain expectations. One of them are the $10 to spend. If you say "My D&D has no casters and you get only $7!", then people still compare the game to the original game and can rightly complain about the missing $3. If you instead say "I'm only using base mechanics, because that's what we are familiar with, but I've completely rebalanced it to make it work without casters!", then it is understandable that this a work of its own and merely getting $7 is exactly the amount a player needs.

So if you are giving not enough value, depends on what the hypothetical player's point of view is - yours or mine.