How bad am I screwing up game balance?

[tedcahill2]

I'm starting a game in a custom setting that is influenced strongly by the dragon age games. As such I have given a boost to mundane classes (T4 and T5 classes) and applied some penalties to strong casters (T1 and T2 classes). But am I doing to much, will it throw off game balance in ways I'm not perceiving?

What I'm changing:
Any T4 or T5 class can be gestalted with a T5 class.

Full casters have their caster level reduced to 3/4 progression (they still gain additional spells know and spells per day as though they gained a level, but the caster level as it affects things like duration and damage does not increase). I want to compensate for the lower caster level by giving some additional spell slots, but I'm not sure how to handle it.

Now my group is a 0 optimization group. Are toning down casters even necessary?

I'm doing it more for story purposes (potions and blood magic can be used to increase caster level, but potions are regulated and blood magic is illegal), so the reduction to caster level is more about creating a need for these things.

[Geddy2112]

Gestalting T4 with T5 can make some strong, but nowhere close to gamebreaking combinations. The thing about lowering caster level won't matter all that much- round per level spells still last long enough for a combat, and all day buffs are still pretty close to all day. It depends on how strictly you track time in your game. A lot of spells the caster level is irrelevant, and with some it may slow their power but just having certain spells is power. It balances casters a bit against higher level monsters with SR, as overcoming it becomes a real challenge, although there are spells where spell resistance won't apply or factor in.

If your group does not optimize at all, I don't see any need to nerf anything.

[johnbragg]

At very low optimization levels, tier balance becomes a problem by accident, when players start to figure out what their dudes can do. The cleric figures out that, by spending a few spell slots, he can be as good or better at melee than the martials. The wizard figures out that polymorph and monster summoning put the abilities of most of the Monster Manual at his command.

OR sometimes someone figures out how to build a charger for ridiculous damage, and you end up with one guy so much better at melee that it's hard to run combats--anything that can go toe-to-toe with the Big Guy make mincemeat of everyone else, anything that everyone else can engage with can't touch the Big Guy.

Don't worry too much about game balance with complete noobs. Worry about the game.

[Godskook]

I'm starting a game in a custom setting that is influenced strongly by the dragon age games. As such I have given a boost to mundane classes (T4 and T5 classes) and applied some penalties to strong casters (T1 and T2 classes). But am I doing to much, will it throw off game balance in ways I'm not perceiving?

What I'm changing:
Any T4 or T5 class can be gestalted with a T5 class.

Full casters have their caster level reduced to 3/4 progression (they still gain additional spells know and spells per day as though they gained a level, but the caster level as it affects things like duration and damage does not increase). I want to compensate for the lower caster level by giving some additional spell slots, but I'm not sure how to handle it.

Now my group is a 0 optimization group. Are toning down casters even necessary?

I'm doing it more for story purposes (potions and blood magic can be used to increase caster level, but potions are regulated and blood magic is illegal), so the reduction to caster level is more about creating a need for these things.

1.You're fixing the wrong problem.

Casters are broken because of the spells base mechanics, not because of durations. Taking away CLs doesn't help against the worst offenders. It just makes Fireball bad.

2.The tier lists are a problem when there's optimizers afoot, and mostly at higher XP/GP totals. If your druids are grabbing Owls for their Animal Companions, the wizards are casting Scorching Rays into the face of things they should know have fire resistance, and the Fighters are picking up Rapid Shot and Weapon Specialization(Longsword), then the tier list is useless to you.

Fixes you could use:

1.The easiest fix, and imho, the best fix, for dealing with tier problems is to just use E6, or a variant (https://docs.google.com/document/d/16FfgVpvPDWm2DAHznP5AU4BRkI3nf_mfBOekEv4750s/edit?usp=sharing). Tier 1/2 classes aren't stupid-broken in E6, and mundanes can easily kill them. It solves most of your problems without having any of the headaches that most systemic changes have.

2.My "Great Metamagic Fix": Metamagic reducers(DMM, Arcane Thesis, basically everything except Metamagic Rods) don't "work" unless you could cast the spell, with the metamagic, without the reducer. Basically, you can only "quicken" a 1st level spell once you can start casting 5th level spells at level 9/10. This means that a lot of broken high-level shenanigans just simply don't work, and others don't come online until nigh-epic. Persistent 2nd level spells(the first broken ones, imho) wouldn't be available until level 15/16, when 8th level spells become available.

3.Pathfinder or the Giant's polymorph fixes. Either is a *BIG* step up from 3.5. Also, Shapeshift ACF for druids, from PHB2.

[RoboEmperor]

You should never try to balance the game. Just ask the players to stay within the optimization level of the rest of the party. The End.

D&D is a very high skill cap game. Low-skill games and high-skill games are worlds apart. Low-skill games casters are unfavorable because they are just the "support" who support the mundanes, the real heroes. You won't see low-skill wizards throw web or glitterdust, only fireball and scorching ray. Clerics are pigeonholed into healbots because the mundanes need a heal every turn or they are dead. Nerfing this would hurt them even more.

I once built a starcraft marine. Arcane Gish, auto-reloading repeating heavy crossbow. I had to optimize this character to the absolute maximum to not be deadweight. Was still virtually a full caster but since most my spells were buffs and my equipment was focused on reducing ASF my damage was simply on par with the other mundanes. Nerfing casters woulda made this character unplayable.

[Godskook]

You should never try to balance the game. Just ask the players to stay within the optimization level of the rest of the party. The End.

Not only is this wrong on its face, I have witnessed how wrong it can be "in practice", with players excusing blatant optimization anyway they can.


D&D is a very high skill cap game. Low-skill games and high-skill games are worlds apart. Low-skill games casters are unfavorable because they are just the "support" who support the mundanes, the real heroes. You won't see low-skill wizards throw web or glitterdust, only fireball and scorching ray. Clerics are pigeonholed into healbots because the mundanes need a heal every turn or they are dead. Nerfing this would hurt them even more.

The only problem with this paragraph is the seeming assumption that an entire "game" is either high or low skill. That's not the case, individual players can be higher or lower optimization compared to the party.


I once built a starcraft marine. Arcane Gish, auto-reloading repeating heavy crossbow. I had to optimize this character to the absolute maximum to not be deadweight. Was still virtually a full caster but since most my spells were buffs and my equipment was focused on reducing ASF my damage was simply on par with the other mundanes. Nerfing casters woulda made this character unplayable.

So what? "This nerf makes that character unplayable" is not an argument sufficient to justify not-nerfing something. Partially, this is because it ends in the absolutely absurd position that there's never a nerf that's ok, because every nerf makes some character unplayable.

[Cosi]

I think given your circumstances (players are mostly not serious optimizers), you probably don't need any blunt mechanical changes. Any problems you encounter are likely to be accidental, with people stumbling over broken/overpowered stuff during the game, and those are very difficult to fix in advance. It's probably better to be on the lookout for people who are underperforming, and tweak things slightly to bring them up to speed. Instead of trying to fix the rules, drop in specialized items or changes to encounter composition to put the spotlight on different people.

[ATHATH]

I also recommend using E6.

[RoboEmperor]

Not only is this wrong on its face, I have witnessed how wrong it can be "in practice", with players excusing blatant optimization anyway they can.

The only problem with this paragraph is the seeming assumption that an entire "game" is either high or low skill. That's not the case, individual players can be higher or lower optimization compared to the party.

So what? "This nerf makes that character unplayable" is not an argument sufficient to justify not-nerfing something. Partially, this is because it ends in the absolutely absurd position that there's never a nerf that's ok, because every nerf makes some character unplayable.

That's a problem with the player not the game. A high skill good player uses his optimization power on stuff other than damage, such as fluff, buffs that strengthen the weaker characters, or just versatility. I have never seen a mundane get angry when a wizard incapacitates the entire opposition with sculpted stinking cloud or solves all non-combat non-social problems with their versatility.

Just like you've seen players abuse RAW, I've seen DMs kill the game with their house rules, or "balance".

I mentioned my marine build because it shows that optimizing to the max doesn't mean broken OP character. If the optimization level is low you can do other fun stuff than raw power, and this is what a good player does. I've seen Psions go full versatility instead of power and was welcomed by all, even straight 20 fighters. If the player refuses to give up his munchkiness then he is not right for the game and you get him to leave instead of imposing 999999 house rules that nerf the class he is playing.

I've been in a lot of successful games with new players who play mundanes because it's easy to keep your power level similar to the party and invest your resources on non-combat stuff where as I've never been in a successful game with a DM who is a total crybaby scrub trying to balance everything with house rules. The only players that seem to stick around with such a DM are newer players who don't know what d&d is and going along with this DM's bs because they think that's what d&d is.

Anyways, I have never seen an experienced, high skill DM balance anything in the game with nerfs. They are fully capable of adjusting their encounters to the power levels of the party, capable of handling problem players who want to break the game or make newer players feel useless, helping newer players optimize their build based on what they want to do in the game, and sometimes uses RAI instead of RAW when the RAW becomes ludicrous.

If you want a T3-T5 heavy game instead of nerfing wizards and clerics to balance them to t5 level, simply ban all T1-T2 classes and limit the game to T3-T5 classes, because that's your goal right, nerfing T1s down to T3 level. This will show exactly what kind of game you're looking for and attract the correct type of players.

[Godskook]

That's a problem with the player not the game.

When the game is demontrably unbalanced, it is, by definition, a problem with the game. The tier list is an exercise in demonstrably explaining how 3.5 is unbalanced, ergo, 3.5 has a problem.


A high skill good player uses his optimization power on stuff other than damage, such as fluff, buffs that strengthen the weaker characters, or just versatility.

This is the rule 0 fallacy, applied to player actions.


I have never seen a mundane get angry when a wizard incapacitates the entire opposition with sculpted stinking cloud or solves all non-combat non-social problems with their versatility.

I have.


Just like you've seen players abuse RAW, I've seen DMs kill the game with their house rules, or "balance".

Ok, great. Let's talk about what would make good house-rules or balance then, instead of saying something absurd, like "You should never try to balance the game.". I mean, that is the whole point of this thread, isn't it? A DM seeking ways to improve his houserules, and me, before you posted in this thread, asserting that his houserules weren't a good idea. I think I've already conceded this.


I mentioned my marine build because it shows that optimizing to the max doesn't mean broken OP character.

Except you didn't "optimize to the max". You were playing a cross-bow archer. That's not "optimized to the max".

Worse, you've set the precedent for those abilities being in the game, and the idea that someone "optimizing to the max" is ok. So when the next guy comes into your game, sees you using those ability, and hears you saying that its ok to "optimize to the max" and he *ACTUALLY* optimizes to the max, and breaks the game, what then?


If the optimization level is low you can do other fun stuff than raw power, and this is what a good player does. I've seen Psions go full versatility instead of power and was welcomed by all, even straight 20 fighters. If the player refuses to give up his munchkiness then he is not right for the game and you get him to leave instead of imposing 999999 house rules that nerf the class he is playing.

It is possible to create a set of rules within which a player cannot "break" your game, while still being enjoyable for everyone else.


where as I've never been in a successful game with a DM who is a total crybaby scrub trying to balance everything with house rules.

Why exactly are these DMs "total crybaby scrubs"??? Your not justifying that position at all, which leaves me thinking that you're projecting.


Anyways, I have never seen an experienced, high skill DM balance anything in the game with nerfs.

So? I don't care what you've "never seen", when I know that people have seen it. I've seen it. I've never seen an Elephant. That wouldn't mean much as an assertion, would it? I mean, that's pretty obvious, right?

[RoboEmperor]

@Godskook
I optimized my schtick to the max. You're right that wizard crossbow user is pathetically weak, but it's still a tier 1 class and because I chose to optimize my suboptimal schtick to the max, I was a balanced T1 character.

Total crybaby scrub is exactly what it sounds like. "Monks are so OP, they got no dead levels and their saves are too high. I'm nerfing them because no class should be that strong with no money". "Trolls and trollblooded characters must die to coup de grace by a knife, because there is no such thing as immortality and everything must die." "Fiery Burst is too OP. The only thing balancing wizards is their limited daily resources and giving them at-will no cost attack is just too OP."

My stance is firmly fixed. Gentleman's agreement > everything. I've seen a lot of Clerics and Sorcerers under perform compared to lower tier characters because of lack of skill/optimizaiton, and I've seen low tier characters break the game by optimizing too much even without ubercharging by going cloistered cleric dips on top of other damage boosters. If you want to be sure a character won't break the game ask for the full 20 build and allow/disallow it. You don't need a house rule saying "No Efreetis" because no good player would ever abuse free wishes. If you have a player using wish loops and getting angry because you won't let him do it, the problem is the player not whatever class he is playing. Look at the character not the class. A straight 20 cleric can both be a normal unimaginative healbot and the gamebreaking Clericzilla.

So my suggestion to the DM was instead of nerfing T1s and T2s, leave them be and ask the players not to ruin the game.

There are a million ways a tier1 can break the game, you can't stop em all so its better to ask the player not to break the game rather than combing through every single possible outcome and houseruling everything to the ground.

[Godskook]

@Godskook
I optimized my schtick to the max. You're right that wizard crossbow user is pathetically weak, but it's still a tier 1 class and because I chose to optimize my suboptimal schtick to the max,

You're playing word games, but you've just exposed yourself. "my suboptimal schtick" is explicitly admitting that you're not optimizing when picking your schtick. Can we not play word games?


I was a balanced T1 character.

No, you weren't, you were a poorly optimized T1 character. The word "balanced" has absolutely nothing to do with what a player does with a class.


Total crybaby scrub is exactly what it sounds like.

Oh?


"Monks are so OP, they got no dead levels and their saves are too high. I'm nerfing them because no class should be that strong with no money".

The DM is wrong, but not a "total crybaby scrub". That's a fairly normal new-DM reaction, until they get far-better used to 3.5's ruleset.


"Trolls and trollblooded characters must die to coup de grace by a knife, because there is no such thing as immortality and everything must die."

Sounds perfectly reasonable. I've ruled this way for when PCs killed trolls several times in the past.


"Fiery Burst is too OP. The only thing balancing wizards is their limited daily resources and giving them at-will no cost attack is just too OP."

This entirely depends on the table, but reserve feats can be quite unbalancing if the DM is struggling to reign in a caster by having more frequent lower-threat combats. Its a tactic that works against a lot of casters outside reserve feats, but doesn't with reserve feats.

So yeah, no clear-cut examples of "total crybaby scrubs".

[RoboEmperor]

You're playing word games, but you've just exposed yourself. "my suboptimal schtick" is explicitly admitting that you're not optimizing when picking your schtick. Can we not play word games?

I looked up everything related to heavy crossbows, found the best feats to maximize my damage output, shifted feat acquisition order inorder to get the important things online a.s.a.p., looked up PrC dips that gave heavy armor proficiencies and picked the one with the least amount of prerequisites, stacked arcane spell failure reduction enchantments on top of ASF reducing materials and PrC dips, stacked weapon enchantments that not only bypasses heavy repeating crossbow's restrictions but also maximized my damage output, looked up other PrCs that gave full casting and full BAB, used scrying to predict how long the encounters will take and decided whether to cast my extended 1min/level buffs or not. My character was maxed out in PrCs and important dips, I was feat starved and got the DM to give me flaws, my WBL was very, very tight. I almost took leadership to get a dedicated buffing cohort but one of my party members wanted to be the main buffer so i didn't need to.

But I guess none of this is optimization to you because I didn't choose to optimize my spellcasting. I guess the usage of the word optimization is limited to magic, and it's wordplay to apply it to anything else.


The DM is wrong, but not a "total crybaby scrub". That's a fairly normal new-DM reaction, until they get far-better used to 3.5's ruleset.

You do know that the word scrub means a new player with a weak grasp in the game complaining how everything except his stuff is overpowered when it is not and changing everything to match his limited understanding of game balance right?

I said my piece and I will no longer argue with you.

[ExLibrisMortis]

You're playing word games, but you've just exposed yourself. "my suboptimal schtick" is explicitly admitting that you're not optimizing when picking your schtick. Can we not play word games?
Optimization is not limited to "doing the optimal thing in the best way". Optimization is towards some goal, and you can totally pick something suboptimal to optimize. If you're not willing to accept that that's what the word does, you're playing word games (badly).



Anyhow, @OP: I'd not reduce caster level. CL is nice, but secondary to spell slots. Instead, either give all full casters the bard spell progression, or--preferably--do what someonenoone11 recommends.

[lord_khaine]

What has worked for me was to selectively nerf the biggest outliers in the PHB spells. The ones like Glitterdust, or Evards black tentacles, that basically ends an encounter on their own.
So for those save-or suck spells under level 6 i added the Hold Person rule of being able to spend a full round action to get another save and shake the effect off. And For Evards Black tentacles i lowered the grapple bonus.


2.My "Great Metamagic Fix": Metamagic reducers(DMM, Arcane Thesis, basically everything except Metamagic Rods) don't "work" unless you could cast the spell, with the metamagic, without the reducer. Basically, you can only "quicken" a 1st level spell once you can start casting 5th level spells at level 9/10. This means that a lot of broken high-level shenanigans just simply don't work, and others don't come online until nigh-epic. Persistent 2nd level spells(the first broken ones, imho) wouldn't be available until level 15/16, when 8th level spells become available.

I also used this ruling myself, or a variant of it.

[King of Nowhere]

I think given your circumstances (players are mostly not serious optimizers), you probably don't need any blunt mechanical changes. Any problems you encounter are likely to be accidental, with people stumbling over broken/overpowered stuff during the game, and those are very difficult to fix in advance. It's probably better to be on the lookout for people who are underperforming, and tweak things slightly to bring them up to speed. Instead of trying to fix the rules, drop in specialized items or changes to encounter composition to put the spotlight on different people.

+1 on that. If your players don't know optimization, then it may be the tier 1 casters who will need buffing to keep on par with the martials. After trying some houseruling to balance the game a bit better (which I still maintain is a perfectly viable option; just don't expect that the game will be actually balanced afterwards), and accidentally nerfing the people who were less good at using their tier 1 characters, I ended up convinced that there are 2 ways to keep balance:

1) make sure everyone has a role.
Sure, a character may be stronger than another, but as long as the weaker character can make himself useful on a regular base, everything is fine. A common example would be the wizard with debuffs and the fighter with damage. The wizard holds the monsters while the fighter beats them. Even though the wizard is stronger than the fighter, having the figther to deal all the damage saves him a lot of spell slots and makes his life easier, so there's no need to balance the party.

2) If someone is lagging behind, drop some specific loot for him to get back on track, or show her some trick.
For example, I had an archer that was underperforming compared to the barbarian, so I gave her spell storing arrows (normally way above the level of optimization we're playing) and taught her to use them. This goes especially well with the first principle, where you have to make sure that everyone stays best at their role.

But those are for generally balancing a party. You are doing it for story purposes (you mentioned stuff about blood magic and potions), which is another matter entirely. Yes, you can try pretty much every houserule if you have a good story reason for it; and if it is needed for a plot, you can screw up balance iin a pinch. After alll, it's not like balance isn't screwed up already.

[Godskook]

You do know that the word scrub means a new player with a weak grasp in the game complaining how everything except his stuff is overpowered when it is not and changing everything to match his limited understanding of game balance right?

I really don't care how you define things. You're using perfectly reasonable(even if "wrong) DM decisions to call DMs "total crybaby scrubs". I don't care that your definition of an insult is suitably broad to apply to reasonable people doing reasonable things. If an insult is broad enough to apply to reasonable people doing reasonable things, the insult has a ****ty definition. Duh.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A bit, maybe? It really all depends. In a new/low-op group, you probably don't have to worry about high optimization ceilings on things like the Wizard. Making a Wizard or Cleric overshadow the party tends to take work and intent. I would be more concerned with optimization floors-- things which are exceptionally weak (if you don't build them right) or strong (no matter how you build them).

The first category includes... a lot of T5s, mostly, but also the occasional T4. Off the top of my head...
Anything with 2+Int skill points could use a bit more, just so the player can chime in more often.
The Warlock. You can build a Warlock who keeps up alright, but by default the damage is real low. Like, "below an archer Ranger" low, even with touch attacks. I had a friend retire his Warlock because of it.You might look at buffing it a bit-- add +Cha to damage and allow iterative attacks, perhaps.
The Marshal. It's just boring, and the effective strategies are not immediately obvious. You might bump them up to a full BAB.
Monks. We all know the problems with Monks. I suggest giving them Dex or Wis to attack-and-damage with unarmed strikes and Monk weapons and a full BAB.
The Soulknife. It's pretty much just utter crap. Bump the BAB up to full and turn Psychic Strike into a swift-action to charge and you should be good.
The Samurai. It shouldn't exist.
The Swashbuckler. They're only a three-level class, but the Arcane Stunt ACF from Complete Mage helps a bit. Tossing a minor Sneak Attack or Skirmish progression on might be nice too.
The Divine Mind. They're indecisive. Give them a full BAB and increased aura range.
The Dragon Shaman. They don't get enough of anything to be really effective. I suggest buffing their breath weapon damage to 1d6/level so it's worth using.


As for the second category...

Druids, we all know, can bust things purely by accident. Make everyone use the Shapeshift ACF from PHB 2 to replace Wild Shape and the animal companion. Balance and simplicity are drastically improved, and your players will probably enjoy the at-will part of Shapeshift more than the overwhelming complexity of Wild Shape.
The Warblade and Crusader are... honestly, they're just too good to exist side-by-side with conventional mundanes. The Swordsage does okay, but those two will look broken next to anything but high-op Fighter and Barbarian types. I honestly suggest removing them.

[CharonsHelper]

If you want to keep casters from overshadowing and your players aren't high-end optimizers, you can just ban a few spells.

1. Ban all polymorphing of the caster on himself.

2. Ban Summon Monster spells (and equivalent such as Summon Nature's Ally)

3. Ban save vs death/suck spells from working on foes of equal or higher HD to the caster.

Those are generally the worst offenders, and the main ones you run into without crazy optimizing. (In Pathfinder - it got rid of and/or nerfed some of the other worst offenders.)

And if that doesn't cut it.

4. Make a caster's highest two spell levels all take a full round action to cast.

[Menzath]

I looked up everything related to heavy crossbows, found the best feats to maximize my damage output, shifted feat acquisition order inorder to get the important things online a.s.a.p., looked up PrC dips that gave heavy armor proficiencies and picked the one with the least amount of prerequisites, stacked arcane spell failure reduction enchantments on top of ASF reducing materials and PrC dips, stacked weapon enchantments that not only bypasses heavy repeating crossbow's restrictions but also maximized my damage output, looked up other PrCs that gave full casting and full BAB.

Sorry I lol'd at the heavy armor prof.
A bard or warlock dip(or just being one) with 1 feat lets you wear medium armor with no asf. Make that mithral heavy and you are good to go.(or prestige bard works too.)

In fact if you went bard, with 3 prc's in the right order you can hit at least 16BaB and have 9th lvl spells, although your singing would take a hit.

[GrayDeath]

How deeply goes the Dragon Age Inspiration?

if every Magic User is per definition either "under the boot" of the chantry and constant watch of Templars or an Apostate who cannot risk casting anything outside well hidden areas, and additionally in danger of being possessed if he delves too deeply into the fade, the casters are already being balanced quite well.

If its only some fluff/Feeling of DA and mechanically normal D&D otherwise, I`d suggest banning any and all divine Casters, and limiting Arcane Casters to Sorcerers.
That will balance them OKish inr egards to gestalted Mundanes, given your Group does not really optimize.

[Talakeal]

@Godskook
I optimized my schtick to the max. You're right that wizard crossbow user is pathetically weak, but it's still a tier 1 class and because I chose to optimize my suboptimal schtick to the max, I was a balanced T1 character.

Total crybaby scrub is exactly what it sounds like. "Monks are so OP, they got no dead levels and their saves are too high. I'm nerfing them because no class should be that strong with no money". "Trolls and trollblooded characters must die to coup de grace by a knife, because there is no such thing as immortality and everything must die." "Fiery Burst is too OP. The only thing balancing wizards is their limited daily resources and giving them at-will no cost attack is just too OP."

My stance is firmly fixed. Gentleman's agreement > everything. I've seen a lot of Clerics and Sorcerers under perform compared to lower tier characters because of lack of skill/optimizaiton, and I've seen low tier characters break the game by optimizing too much even without ubercharging by going cloistered cleric dips on top of other damage boosters. If you want to be sure a character won't break the game ask for the full 20 build and allow/disallow it. You don't need a house rule saying "No Efreetis" because no good player would ever abuse free wishes. If you have a player using wish loops and getting angry because you won't let him do it, the problem is the player not whatever class he is playing. Look at the character not the class. A straight 20 cleric can both be a normal unimaginative healbot and the gamebreaking Clericzilla.

So my suggestion to the DM was instead of nerfing T1s and T2s, leave them be and ask the players not to ruin the game.

There are a million ways a tier1 can break the game, you can't stop em all so its better to ask the player not to break the game rather than combing through every single possible outcome and houseruling everything to the ground.

Don't you think saying that anyone who attempts to change the rules is a "total crybaby scrub" is essentially saying that the game designers got it perfect the first time? IMO with 10+ years of reflection on the game, the community as a whole understands the game a lot better than the play testers and designers did when it was being written, and I think there are a lot of changes you could make to the game that would be almost universally agreed upon to be positive additions to the game, at least in theory if not in practice.

The main problem with a "gentleman's agreement" is that everyone has a different idea of what "ruining the game," is, and you will spend a lot of time arguing (and generating ill will) every time there is a conflict between what two people think is appropriate.

You will also get into situations where people are inconsistent in their own feelings on the manner; sometimes self imposed limitations are very hard to stick to. It is easy for me to imagine a situation where someone is backed into a corner, facing a TPK, and is tired and stressed out from a long day and says "screw it, I don't feel like dealing with this poop right now, I am just gonna summon a legion of solars and let them sort it out." And how do the other players react in that situation? Do they proceed to stop the game and chew the guy out? Veto his action? Kick him out of the group?

Would it not have been easier to just have a written house rule in the first place?


To use some personal examples, when I was playing Mage I tried to limit myself to magical effects within my paradigm despite the rules saying I could do all sorts of stuff that wasn't appropriate for the character. It was really, really hard to stick to this self imposed limitation when it would have been really cool / useful to violate it, and the temptation was really annoying, especially when I gave in. I would much have preferred to have a hard rule about what you can and cannot do.

I also had a player once who wanted to be a phoenix in human form as part of a character concept. He insisted that he would only revert to his true form as a very last resort at a dramatic moment. Well, first session the party was attacked by bandits and things started to go bad (not like a TPK or anything, just the party was taking a bit more damage than they were comfortable with) and, well, out comes the PHOENIX FORM to incinerate them all. It is really hard to have a nice shiny I-Win button and not press it after all.

[Menzath]

That's a good point graydeath. How much of a role do demons and the fade play for mages.

And If it was me I might let Templars be divine casters, but would limit it to lyrium use.

And as far as house rules go, he is trying to put it in a setting that because of story elements necessitates the use of new rules, or changing existing rules to fit to the setting.
I see nothing wrong with that.

[King of Nowhere]

If you want to keep casters from overshadowing and your players aren't high-end optimizers, you can just ban a few spells.

1. Ban all polymorphing of the caster on himself.

2. Ban Summon Monster spells (and equivalent such as Summon Nature's Ally)

3. Ban save vs death/suck spells from working on foes of equal or higher HD to the caster.

Those are generally the worst offenders, and the main ones you run into without crazy optimizing. (In Pathfinder - it got rid of and/or nerfed some of the other worst offenders.)

And if that doesn't cut it.

4. Make a caster's highest two spell levels all take a full round action to cast.

If you are playing low optimization, my take is to not bother with any of it.
I am playing a bit above low optimization (still pretty low, but I am well above a new player trying to figure things out), and I've never been able to use decently any polimorphing spells (there's nothing I can become that the party fighter can't smash in one level; I know there are tricks and abuses, but I never figured them), or summon spells (any monster I can summon is pitifully weak for my level. Again, i never figured out how to abuse it).

save or die could work, but if one isn't optimizing well to increase the DC, chances are those spells will be a wasted action unless the monster rolls 3 or less.

[Gnaeus]

I'd see what they want to play before major changes. Balance needs a balance point, and there's no point about worrying about monks or Druids if no one is interested in playing them.

[Cosi]

Anyhow, @OP: I'd not reduce caster level. CL is nice, but secondary to spell slots. Instead, either give all full casters the bard spell progression, or--preferably--do what someonenoone11 recommends.

If you are going to give people the Bard progression, at least bump it foward a level. Under no circumstances should people have exclusively 0th level spells to stand on. Also, if you're nerfing casting that much I'd make sure to give people class features to compensate. Even simply giving people a bunch of bonus feats would be fine, if unexciting.


Anything with 2+Int skill points could use a bit more, just so the player can chime in more often.

Also often better skill lists. Also note that this is going to fall behind utility spells at later levels. You may or may not care.


The Warlock. You can build a Warlock who keeps up alright, but by default the damage is real low. Like, "below an archer Ranger" low, even with touch attacks. I had a friend retire his Warlock because of it.You might look at buffing it a bit-- add +Cha to damage and allow iterative attacks, perhaps.

The Warlock's fundamental problem is that there's no real reason to be a Warlock. It has a bunch of stuff that is nice to have, but nothing to justify picking the class. If you gave it a single solid mainstay, be that "better eldritch blast", "demon minion", or "better Invocations", the rest of the stuff would be a fine backup. But without that it kind of flounders.


The Marshal. It's just boring, and the effective strategies are not immediately obvious. You might bump them up to a full BAB.

You could also give them two to five Warrior minions of some level to emphasize the "leader of men" vibe. Warriors are simple enough not to take too much effort, but make decent roadblocks (particularly in a low-OP game).


Druids, we all know, can bust things purely by accident. Make everyone use the Shapeshift ACF from PHB 2 to replace Wild Shape and the animal companion. Balance and simplicity are drastically improved, and your players will probably enjoy the at-will part of Shapeshift more than the overwhelming complexity of Wild Shape.

The Druid's problem is not that it is terribly impressively powerful as it stands. Honestly, it might be the weakest of the big three on raw power. The Druid's problem is that it is really, really good at being better than mundanes at the things mundanes are supposed to be good at. Just make Wild Shape its own class and maybe nerf animal companion somehow (make it a single summon nature's ally of the highest level they can cast?).


The Warblade and Crusader are... honestly, they're just too good to exist side-by-side with conventional mundanes. The Swordsage does okay, but those two will look broken next to anything but high-op Fighter and Barbarian types. I honestly suggest removing them.

Alternatively, you could make all martial characters gestalts of one ToB class and one non-ToB class. So Marshall // Warblade or Swordsage // Monk (probably give Swordsage full BAB). That lets you get most of the stuff the weaker classes have to offer without worrying about how to buff them -- getting ToB options will do that all on it's own.


Sure, a character may be stronger than another, but as long as the weaker character can make himself useful on a regular base, everything is fine. A common example would be the wizard with debuffs and the fighter with damage. The wizard holds the monsters while the fighter beats them. Even though the wizard is stronger than the fighter, having the figther to deal all the damage saves him a lot of spell slots and makes his life easier, so there's no need to balance the party.

Building off of this, keep in mind the specific strengths and weaknesses of characters. If you understand how people's characters work, and how monsters work, it's fairly easy to tweak encounters to let less effective characters contribute more.


2) If someone is lagging behind, drop some specific loot for him to get back on track, or show her some trick.

Very much this. I'm not a huge fan of "give people overpowered magic gear" as a design direction, but as an at the table fix it's hard to beat.


But those are for generally balancing a party. You are doing it for story purposes (you mentioned stuff about blood magic and potions), which is another matter entirely. Yes, you can try pretty much every houserule if you have a good story reason for it; and if it is needed for a plot, you can screw up balance iin a pinch. After alll, it's not like balance isn't screwed up already.

Vaguely related: in general, I think any attempted quick and dirty fix will leave the game worse than it found it. This is not to say the game can't or shouldn't be fixed, just that if you are not going to put the thought into systematizing the solution you will generally be better off adjusting things at the table and on the fly. Small house-rule adjustments should be aimed at achieving the kind of setting or play environment you want, not setting power levels.


2. Ban Summon Monster spells (and equivalent such as Summon Nature's Ally)

Why would you ever do this? If your goal is to get Wizards to be less dangerous, why would ever want to stop them from, for example, summoning a Vrock instead of casting mass charm monster at 15th level?


3. Ban save vs death/suck spells from working on foes of equal or higher HD to the caster.

CR, not HD. Now spells never effect Undead or Animals for no reason. Also, if you want to mitigate save-or-dies/save-or-sucks I think it is probably better to add a rule like "creatures over 1/2 HP automatically get 10/15/20 on saving throws", which allows you to use your finger of death on chaff (because they still fail even at +5) and allows you to use it as a finishing move without making all fights rocket tag.

[RoboEmperor]

Don't you think saying that anyone who attempts to change the rules is a "total crybaby scrub" is essentially saying that the game designers got it perfect the first time? IMO with 10+ years of reflection on the game, the community as a whole understands the game a lot better than the play testers and designers did when it was being written, and I think there are a lot of changes you could make to the game that would be almost universally agreed upon to be positive additions to the game, at least in theory if not in practice.

The main problem with a "gentleman's agreement" is that everyone has a different idea of what "ruining the game," is, and you will spend a lot of time arguing (and generating ill will) every time there is a conflict between what two people think is appropriate.

You will also get into situations where people are inconsistent in their own feelings on the manner; sometimes self imposed limitations are very hard to stick to. It is easy for me to imagine a situation where someone is backed into a corner, facing a TPK, and is tired and stressed out from a long day and says "screw it, I don't feel like dealing with this poop right now, I am just gonna summon a legion of solars and let them sort it out." And how do the other players react in that situation? Do they proceed to stop the game and chew the guy out? Veto his action? Kick him out of the group?

Would it not have been easier to just have a written house rule in the first place?


To use some personal examples, when I was playing Mage I tried to limit myself to magical effects within my paradigm despite the rules saying I could do all sorts of stuff that wasn't appropriate for the character. It was really, really hard to stick to this self imposed limitation when it would have been really cool / useful to violate it, and the temptation was really annoying, especially when I gave in. I would much have preferred to have a hard rule about what you can and cannot do.

I also had a player once who wanted to be a phoenix in human form as part of a character concept. He insisted that he would only revert to his true form as a very last resort at a dramatic moment. Well, first session the party was attacked by bandits and things started to go bad (not like a TPK or anything, just the party was taking a bit more damage than they were comfortable with) and, well, out comes the PHOENIX FORM to incinerate them all. It is really hard to have a nice shiny I-Win button and not press it after all.

Well it depends. Chain-gating solars is a TO move, and a DM who asks don't bring TO material to the table is not gonna allow it even without explicitly written house rules. This combined with RAI ruling was usually enough for all the games I was in. So in your case, the DM would say "Don't do that, that's a TO move, gate in something else, or don't chain-gate solars".

When I say self imposed limitations, I didn't mean intentionally play your character in a suboptimal way. I meant building your character in a suboptimal way. You should play your character to its fullest power.

For example, a cleric going Surge of Fortune + Vorpal Weapon + Moment of Prescience = Instant Kill virtually everything right? If you can do this I'm sure the temptation to do this is overwhelming, which is why you go a build that doesn't give you Moment of Prescience, and you use your money on other stuff than a Vorpal Weapon.

Crybaby scrub might've been a tad too offensive, but it was my experience when I played with 3 noob DMs in a row on roll20.