How unbalanced are my rules for scrolls?

[thom99]

OK wisebeards; I think GITP is the best forum for old-time 3.5ers like myself, and I want the benefit of your collective wisdom.

I've (painfully) gone through the 3.5 rules and spell-lists winnowing out the ridiculous and creating my homebrew set limiting Tier 1s and buffing Tier 3s. Given that the following is true:
(a) All wands require a Standard (or longer) action to use, regardless of what spell the wand contains.
(b) All scrolls require a Standard (or longer) action to use, regardless of what spell the scroll contains.

I'm considering allowing characters who are not engaged, and have the scroll in hand, to read a scroll of a swift spell as a Move action. Of course, you still can't cast more than one spell in a round. My question is, given the assumptions above, would this trend back to being too unbalanced?

As an aside, I'm in the camp that allows Potions to be consumed as a Move action if a character isn't engaged (but you can't consume more than one a round).

I would appreciate ideas if anyone else has ever done this, or considered it. Thanks!

thom

[daremetoidareyo]

Maybe have people "attune" to one wand or scroll at a time which provides the spell's casting rime, but requires a little ritual or a weeklong attunement period per 50 charges or 3 spells (as One scroll can have multiple spells) that way, players can a have a cool trick, but not all of the cool tricks.

Have you experienced non balance from these items in your game?

[Troacctid]

Honestly I don't think you need to make any changes at all to the scroll/wand rules, especially if you're trying to buff T3s and T4s, since they're the ones who benefit most from UMD. Nerfing wands is effectively a big nerf to warlocks and spellthieves, for example. I would use the spell's normal casting time in all cases.

[Xervous]

Care to list the main swift action spells you’re worried about? If they’re few in number or all problematic in their own right why not just address them directly?

Wands and scrolls don’t generally feature in high output T1 cheese. They do feature but spells per turn is not the measurement of the prowess there. Martials with wand chambers benefit proportionally more than T1.

[Doctor Despair]

I mean, if you're that worried about wizards/sorcs abusing their spells-per-day limit, you could limit the usage of magic items by characters who have the Scribe Scroll feat, I suppose.

[thom99]

Nerfing wands is effectively a big nerf to warlocks and spellthieves, for example.
Well, my homebrew doesn't have those classes (as PCs anyway) :smallamused:, but that's good to know.


Wands and scrolls don’t generally feature in high output T1 cheese...Martials with wand chambers benefit proportionally more than T1.

Hmmm, also good to know that, thanks. I haven't run 3.5 in a while so I missed that aspect of T1 vs T3. My primary concern is not letting any wizard or cleric become able to do everything better than anyone else. I've researched the various "broken spells" threads on GITP and closed down most of those loopholes. I'm concerned about swift spells in general, not any spell specifically.

What I'm getting so far is that my concerns are (probably) overblown, which is what I wanted to know...

[Doctor Despair]

Hmmm, also good to know that, thanks. I haven't run 3.5 in a while so I missed that aspect of T1 vs T3. My primary concern is not letting any wizard or cleric become able to do everything better than anyone else. I've researched the various "broken spells" threads on GITP and closed down most of those loopholes. I'm concerned about swift spells in general, not any spell specifically.

What I'm getting so far is that my concerns are (probably) overblown, which is what I wanted to know...

For wizards, limit spells known and downtime. If a wizard gets too many spells available, remember that losing their spellbook is a huge ordeal. The tradeoff for getting to know every spell is that your spells known are a physical object that can be stolen or destroyed.

For clerics and druids, there's not much you can really do without gutting their entire archetype. You can't limit their spells known, but you could limit their spells per day, I suppose...

For Clerics, make sure Nightsticks don't exist in the world. For Druids, harshly enforce the rule that they must know about every animal they want to wildshape into (successful knowledge check, or having seen it, or, most harshly, both).

That still won't stop the most abusive characters from over-running everything else, but it's a start.

The best answer though? Talk to your players about the power of their characters and have them adjust as need be. Be honest with them. Arbitrary limits and houserules can rub people the wrong way. On the other hand, an honest approach and discussion about the problem and possible solutions can foster mutual respect.

[aglondier]

I think that for someone using UMD to activate a scroll the standard action would be required, because they don't really know what they are doing. Whereas a wizard (or whatever) casting a spell they know off a scroll would just be using it as a mana source and be able to cast it as normal...

That's my take anyway...

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think that for someone using UMD to activate a scroll the standard action would be required, because they don't really know what they are doing.
On the other hand, having UMD ranks probably means you do know what you're doing--you just can't produce magical effects by yourself, only hijack magic someone else has already placed outside themselves (into a magic device).


In general, I don't think the scroll/wand rules are a big problem. They're pretty straightforward gp-for-spell rules, so they won't be any less balanced than spellcasting already is. If you've fixed all the broken spells, scrolls and wands should be fine, too. If you have problems with players using tons and tons of scrolls to trivialize encounters, keep in mind that about 10% of all treasure they gain is expected to be spent on consumables. If they're spending much more than that, it makes sense to reflect that in their WBL.

One thing you might address is the flat DC 20 UMD check for wands and staves. It's a check that becomes quite easy to hit at high levels, even for characters that haven't invested much in UMD or Charisma. You could separate activation into a "proper" activation with a fairly high DC (maybe 20 + 2 * spell level), or a "slow" activation, with a significantly lower DC (maybe 15 + spell level) but also a much longer casting time. Essentially, the first check is accessible only to dedicated UMD-users, and allows you to use scrolls and wands in combat; the second check is for UMD dabblers, and allows them to use utility items out of combat, like using a scroll of break enchantment to un-petrify the cleric.

[Yael]

Care to list the main swift action spells you’re worried about? If they’re few in number or all problematic in their own right why not just address them directly?

Wands and scrolls don’t generally feature in high output T1 cheese. They do feature but spells per turn is not the measurement of the prowess there. Martials with wand chambers benefit proportionally more than T1.

Wings of Cover, the Celerity line, Neverskitter and other immediate buff spells come to mind.

[Zerryzerry]

I think it is a bad homerules addition, at least given your stated objective.
As other people said, your modification hits T3 and T4's a LOT more then T1's.

Many Fighter/gish/rogue types rely heavily on UMD, Wand Chambers and "spell consumables" to stay on par with full casting classes. This means that you will nerf these kind of archetypes instead of the ones you are actually trying to.

If you want to really hit them, take away the rule "Spells from scrolls are cast at the CL of the caster, if it is higher then the one of the scroll", limiting heavily the real advantage full casting classes have over other archetypes when using scrolls.



Well, my homebrew doesn't have those classes (as PCs anyway) :smallamused:, but that's good to know.


Bad idea. Everything the PCs are not allowed to have should not be permitted to baddies too. BBEG is excluded since he has his separate role, but these classes are not fit for a BBEG anyway

[sleepyphoenixx]

Scrolls taking the same action to cast as the spell they mimic is standard as of Rules Compendium.
That's how i've always played it and i've never had any trouble. Sure, they can be useful, but that's intended, not broken.

As others have mentioned the people who usually benefit the most from scrolls and wands are UMD users, not full casters. So if anything it improves balance instead of making it worse.


If you want to really hit them, take away the rule "Spells from scrolls are cast at the CL of the caster, if it is higher then the one of the scroll", limiting heavily the real advantage full casting classes have over other archetypes when using scrolls.

That's not a rule in the first place. Only staffs let you use your CL.

[NigelWalmsley]

My primary concern is not letting any wizard or cleric become able to do everything better than anyone else.

The easiest way to do this is not to line-item veto every awesome thing casters might do, but to give non-casters things they can do that are awesome. Nerfing things tends to piss people off, particularly when there's splash damage to something they wanted to do that wouldn't have been problematic (which is pretty common).


They're pretty straightforward gp-for-spell rules, so they won't be any less balanced than spellcasting already is.

Depends what you mean. It's true that a Rogue who periodically UMDs Wands of Grave Strike or Scrolls of Knock is not really any more of a problem than a Wizard who casts those spells. But it's not true that there are no balance problems caused by charged items. The treasure you get from encounters is enough to allow you to keep buying scrolls that are high enough level to win those encounters, which destroys the game. Charged magic items are one of the biggest balance problems in D&D, it's just that people often don't notice because players tend to be extremely irrational about using them.

[blackwindbears]

Of course, you still can't cast more than one spell in a round.


Do you mean that it counts toward the old "quickened spell" limit? I'm unfamiliar with a 3.X rule limiting the number of spells per round. My understanding is that you are limited only by your number of actions

[sleepyphoenixx]

Do you mean that it counts toward the old "quickened spell" limit? I'm unfamiliar with a 3.X rule limiting the number of spells per round. My understanding is that you are limited only by your number of actions

The limit of 1 quickened spell per round still exists. It's right there in the feat description of Quicken Spell.

[liquidformat]

For Clerics, make sure Nightsticks don't exist in the world. For Druids, harshly enforce the rule that they must know about every animal they want to wildshape into (successful knowledge check, or having seen it, or, most harshly, both).

Having nightsticks in and of themselves really isn't abusive it is unlimited nightsticks that is a problem, keeping nightsticks but limiting it to only being able to use one or two nightsticks per day per character actually works just fine. If you really have an issue the culprit is DMM and not the nightsticks themselves...

For Druids changing Nature Spell to a Meta Magic Feat actually does a lot to limit their power and the spell level increase can be adjusted as needed to get their power level where you want it. In general you're probably good at +2 Spell levels. I also require Nature Spell at +2 for anyone who wishes to cast spells while polymorphed or shapechanged into a creature type different from their own.

[sleepyphoenixx]

For Druids changing Nature Spell to a Meta Magic Feat actually does a lot to limit their power and the spell level increase can be adjusted as needed to get their power level where you want it. In general you're probably good at +2 Spell levels. I also require Nature Spell at +2 for anyone who wishes to cast spells while polymorphed or shapechanged into a creature type different from their own.
Druids would still be T1 just by virtue of their spellcasting alone, but as a player i'd probably hate the nerf enough to not play a druid at all...
I think i'd almost prefer druids being banned tbh. :smalltongue:

Edit: in the interest of being constructive, i think it'd be preferable to limit druids to the UA deadly hunter variant and leave wild shape as the domain of rangers via the ACF/MoMF route.
Yes, i realize that it's objectively a worse nerf, but it feels better than being told "you can still do it, but it sucks now compared to its original form". That's just adding insult to injury.

I think that's a factor DM's often disregard when trying to "rebalance" the game with houserules.
After all it doesn't matter how balanced your houserules are if your players aren't having fun because they're feeling unfairly restricted (no matter how accurate those feelings are).

[blackwindbears]

The limit of 1 quickened spell per round still exists. It's right there in the feat description of Quicken Spell.

Whoops, I'm crazy there. But is there any one spell per round rule? Given that quicken spell seems to explicitly state otherwise I'm uncertain what OP is referring to?

[thom99]

Hmmm...sometime I must start a thread on whether anyone's actually DMing a 3.5 rules game at present. I didn't want to waste the group's time with my background before asking my question but, in short: I've been DMing D&D on and off since 1975, which almost by definition makes me "old school", to wit:


Bad idea. Everything the PCs are not allowed to have should not be permitted to baddies too.

I have zero problem with the "PCs can't do it, but the baddies can" (see old-school, above), and:


...Nerfing things tends to piss people off, particularly when there's splash damage to something they wanted to do that wouldn't have been problematic (which is pretty common).

Perhaps, but the advantage of being the only person who's willing to DM a 3.5 game does come in handy.:smallamused: My gaming group is so desperate to play anything that's not 5E (which we loathe) that I could probably make them wear tinfoil hats and chant "the DM is great!" every hour and they'd still want to play! However, where I live may be unusual in that respect...and I'm not that big of a d*ck.

Anyway, thanks for all the advice, especially about the non-T1 classes using wands & scrolls more. Again, that wasn't my experience when I ran my last 3.5 game back in 2005 - 2010. So I'm leaning towards letting the swift casting as a Move action stand.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Whoops, I'm crazy there. But is there any one spell per round rule? Given that quicken spell seems to explicitly state otherwise I'm uncertain what OP is referring to?

Afaik that's the only explicit limit on spells per round in the rules.

[liquidformat]

Druids would still be T1 just by virtue of their spellcasting alone, but as a player i'd probably hate the nerf enough to not play a druid at all...
I think i'd almost prefer druids being banned tbh. :smalltongue:

Edit: in the interest of being constructive, i think it'd be preferable to limit druids to the UA deadly hunter variant and leave wild shape as the domain of rangers via the ACF/MoMF route.
Yes, i realize that it's objectively a worse nerf, but it feels better than being told "you can still do it, but it sucks now compared to its original form". That's just adding insult to injury.

I think that's a factor DM's often disregard when trying to "rebalance" the game with houserules.
After all it doesn't matter how balanced your houserules are if your players aren't having fun because they're feeling unfairly restricted (no matter how accurate those feelings are).

goes to show you a lot of homerules depend on the table I have a group that plays with pretty much entirely homebrew 3.5 and they had no issue with this and still have druids but that might also be interactions of all the entire brew we use...